Pages 19439±19684 Vol. 64 4±21±99 eDt 3MR9 71 p 0 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M2AW.X fm3PsN:21APWS pfrm03 E:\FR\FM\21APWS.XXX Sfmt4710 Fmt4710 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 17:16Apr20, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 No. 76 federal register April 21,1999 Wednesday 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 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.
.
2
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\21APWS.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APWS III
Contents Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 76
Wednesday, April 21, 1999
Agriculture Department Energy Department See Forest Service See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Air Force Department Meetings: NOTICES Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Meetings: Board— Scientific Advisory Board, 19518, 19519 Rocky Flats, CO, 19520 Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, 19520–19522 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Environmental Protection Agency Meetings: RULES Advisory Committee to Director, 19542 Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw Hanford Thyroid Morbidity Study Advisory Committee, agricultural commodities: 19542–19543 Dimethyl phosphate of 3-hydroxy-N-methyl-cis- National Center for Environmental Health— crotonamide (monocrotophos), 19489–19493 Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report; Fludioxonil, 19484–19489 update, 19543 Mepiquat chloride; correction, 19493–19494 Solid wastes: Coast Guard Municipal solid waste landfill permit programs; adequacy NOTICES determinations— Oil Pollution Act of 1990; implementation: Texas, 19494–19496 Single hull tank vessels; phase-out requirements, 19575– NOTICES 19578 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: PrintSTEP project pilots program, 19526–19527 Commerce Department Pesticide data submitters list; availability, 19527–19528 See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Toxic and hazardous substances control: NOTICES Lead-based paint activities in target housing and child- Agency information collection activities: occupied facilities; State and Indian Tribe Submission for OMB review; comment request, 19514– authorization applications— 19515 Alabama, 19528–19530 Commodity Futures Trading Commission Executive Office of the President NOTICES See Presidential Documents Meetings: Financial Products Advisory Committee, 19518 Federal Aviation Administration Corporation for National and Community Service RULES NOTICES Commercial space transportation: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Licensing regulations, 19585–19624 AmeriCorps programs— Hazardous materials transportation by air; penalty North Dakota and South Dakota, 19518 guidelines; policy statement, 19443–19450 PROPOSED RULES Customs Service Commercial space transportation: PROPOSED RULES Reusable launch vehicle and reentry licensing Vessels in foreign and domestic trades: regulations, 19625–19666 Foreign repairs to U.S. vessels, 19508–19512 NOTICES NOTICES Advisory circulars; availability, etc.: Meetings: Reusable launch vehicle system safety process and International Trade Prototype; expansion; public briefing, expected casualty calculations for commercial space 19583 launch and reentry missions, 19667 Exemption petitions; summary and disposition, 19578– Defense Department 19579 See Air Force Department Meetings: RTCA, Inc., 19579 Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Federal Communications Commission Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: RULES Reaves, Leonard E., III, M.D., 19552 Radio broadcasting: Radio technical rules; streamlining; biennial regulatory Education Department review, 19498–19503 NOTICES NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Agency information collection activities: Community Technology Centers Program, 19519–19520 Proposed collection; comment request, 19530
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:17 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\21APCN.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Contents
Common carrier services: Health and Human Services Department Wireless telecommunications services— See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Phase II 220 MHz service spectrum auction; minimum See Food and Drug Administration opening bids and other procedural issues, 19530– See Health Care Financing Administration 19540 See National Institutes of Health Rulemaking proceedings; petitions filed, granted, denied, etc., 19540 Health Care Financing Administration NOTICES Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Submission for OMB review; comment request, 19544– Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19540–19541 19545 Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Interior Department Disaster assistance: See Fish and Wildlife Service Declaration process; cost-share adjustment, 19496–19498 See Geological Survey See Land Management Bureau Federal Energy Regulatory Commission See National Park Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities: International Trade Commission Proposed collection; comment request, 19522–19524 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Agency information collection activities: Independence Pipeline Co. et al., 19524–19526 Submission for OMB review; comment request, 19549– Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: 19550 Sabine Pipe Line Co., 19524 Import investigations: Aperture masks from— Federal Maritime Commission Japan and Korea, 19550 NOTICES Steel wire rod from— Freight forwarder licenses: Various countries, 19550–19551 Gava International Freight Consolidators (U.S.A.), Inc., 19541 Justice Department Federal Railroad Administration See Drug Enforcement Administration See Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office PROPOSED RULES RULES Railroad consolidations, mergers, and acquisitions of Grants: control: Juvenile accountability incentive block grants program, Safety integration plans, 19512 19673–19677 Federal Reserve System NOTICES Pollution control; consent judgments: NOTICES Albion, MI, et al., 19551 Banks and bank holding companies: Chem-Pak Corp., 19552 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 19541
Fish and Wildlife Service Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office NOTICES NOTICES Endangered and threatened species permit applications, Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: 19547–19548 Labor Department’s education and training for youth offenders initiative; evaluation, 19669–19672 Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Land Management Bureau Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: NOTICES Phase 2 and 3 drug studies; investigational new drug Closure of public lands: applications, 19543–19544 Idaho; correction, 19548 Oil and gas leases: Forest Service New Mexico, 19548 NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: National Credit Union Administration Black Hills National Forest, SD, 19513–19514 RULES General Services Administration Credit unions: NOTICES Organization and operations— Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Charitiable contributions and donations; incorporation Agency for International Development, 19541 of agency policy, 19441–19443
Geological Survey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES NOTICES Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially Motor vehicle safety standards: exclusive: Nonconforming vehicles— Systems Management, Inc., 19548 Eligibility for importation, 19580–19582
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:17 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\21APCN.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCN Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Contents V
National Institutes of Health Securities: NOTICES Exchanges and alternative trading systems, 19450–19469 Meetings: NOTICES National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: 19545 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 19573– National Institute on Aging, 19545–19546 19575 Scientific Review Center, 19546–19547 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: American Capital Strategies, Ltd., 19570–19572 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration K-V Pharmaceutical Co., 19572 RULES PolyMedica Corp., 19572 Fishery conservation and management: Unocal Corp., 19572–19573 Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Viacom, Inc., 19573 Pacific cod, 19507 Northeastern United States fisheries— State Department Northeast multispecies, Atlantic sea scallop, and NOTICES Atlantic salmon, 19503–19507 Meetings: NOTICES International Telecommunications Advisory Committee, Meetings: 19575 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 19515 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 19515 Surface Transportation Board Permits: PROPOSED RULES Endangered and threatened species, 19515–19518 Railroad consolidations, mergers, and acquisitions of control: National Park Service Safety integration plans, 19512 RULES Special regulations: Transportation Department Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, HI; public See Coast Guard nudity prohibition, 19480–19483 See Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES See Federal Railroad Administration Meetings: See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission, See Surface Transportation Board 19548–19549 See Transportation Statistics Bureau Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail Advisory Council, 19549 Transportation Statistics Bureau Northeast Dairy Compact Commission NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Meetings, 19552–19553 Transportation Statistics Advisory Council, 19582
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Treasury Department NOTICES See Customs Service Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Submission for OMB review; comment request, 19553 Agency information collection activities: Meetings: Submission for OMB review; comment request, 19582– Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee et al., 19553– 19583 19554 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19554 Operating licenses, amendments; no significant hazards Separate Parts In This Issue considerations; biweekly notices, 19554–19570 Part II Presidential Documents Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation PROCLAMATIONS Administration, 19585–19624 Special observances: Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, National Part III (Proc. 7185), 19679–19682 Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Park Week, National (Proc. 7184), 19439–19440 Administrationn, 19625–19667 Volunteer Week, National (Proc. 7186), 19683–19684 Part IV Public Health Service Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Prevention Office, 19669–19672 See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health Part V Securities and Exchange Commission Department of Justice, 19673–19677 RULES Investment companies: Part VI Deregistration of registered investment companies; The President, 19679–19684 electronic filing requirements, 19469–19479
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:17 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\21APCN.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Contents
Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:17 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\21APCN.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCN Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 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 Proclamations: 7184...... 19439 7185...... 19681 7186...... 19683 12 CFR 701...... 19441 14 CFR 13...... 19443 401...... 19586 411...... 19586 413...... 19586 415...... 19586 417...... 19586 Proposed Rules: 400...... 19626 401...... 19626 404...... 19626 405...... 19626 406...... 19626 413...... 19626 415...... 19626 431...... 19626 433...... 19626 435...... 19626 17 CFR 202...... 19450 232...... 19469 240...... 19450 242...... 19450 249...... 19450 270...... 19469 274...... 19469 19 CFR Proposed Rules: 4...... 19508 159...... 19508 28 CFR 31...... 19674 36 CFR 7...... 19480 40 CFR 180 (3 documents) ...... 19484, 19489, 19493 185...... 19489 186...... 19493 257...... 19494 44 CFR 206...... 19496 47 CFR 73...... 19498 74...... 19498 49 CFR Proposed Rules: 244...... 19512 1106...... 19512 50 CFR 648...... 19503 679...... 19507
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:18 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\21APLS.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APLS 19439
Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 64, No. 76
Wednesday, April 21, 1999
Title 3— Proclamation 7184 of April 15, 1999
The President National Park Week, 1999
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation America’s national parks are truly America’s national treasures. Within their borders lie much of what is most precious to us: the breathtaking beauty of mountains, rivers, forests, and valleys; the extraordinary richness and variety of plants and animals; the places and artifacts of the special people and events that have shaped both our history and our destiny. This week we remember with gratitude one of those special people who played a pivotal role in the creation of our country’s National Park System. Conservationist John Muir emigrated to the United States as a child 150 years ago this year. As a young man, he experienced for the first time the high country of California’s Sierra Nevada and Yosemite, and for the rest of his life he championed America’s wild places. ‘‘Everybody needs beauty as well as bread,’’ he wrote, ‘‘places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike.’’ He became the driving force behind the creation of such national parks as Yosemite, Sequoia, Mount Rainier, Petrified Forest, and Grand Canyon, and was an early advocate of an agency to manage them in a consistent manner. Although he died two years before the establishment of the National Park Service in 1916, many still regard John Muir as the ‘‘Father of our National Park System.’’ Visitors to our Nation’s wondrous national treasures can still experience the scenic grandeur that so inspired John Muir. In Washington State’s Mount Rainier National Park, glaciers radiate from the summit and slopes of an ancient volcano, rising above dense green forests and brilliantly flowered meadows. This year, we celebrate the centennial anniversary of this cherished national park, preserved because of the vision and efforts of a coalition of mountaineers, geologists, and conservationists, including John Muir. Today, the National Park System has grown to 378 sites visited by more than 285 million people each year. Each of these sites is interwoven with America’s richly diverse natural and cultural heritage to make up the pattern of our past, the fabric of our present, and the promise of our future. The two newest additions to our park system reflect this grand tradition. Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site in Arkansas pays tribute to the courage and quiet dignity of nine young African Americans who crossed the color line and changed American society forever. Alabama’s Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site celebrates the World War II exploits of the all-black Army Air Corps unit whose members prevailed over prejudice and discrimination in the U.S. Armed Forces to compile a distinguished combat record in defense of freedom. At these and so many other parks and historic sites across the country, the dedicated men and women of the National Park Service preserve Amer- ica’s heritage and teach a new generation the importance of informed and careful stewardship of our Nation’s treasured places. During National Park Week, let us give thanks for the wisdom of all those who established our national parks and for the hard work and generous spirit of all those who continue to preserve them for our benefit. Because of their efforts, Americans
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:29 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\21APD0.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APD0 19440 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Presidential Documents
will always find in our national parks the beauty, inspiration, knowledge, and renewal of spirit that have blessed our national journey for so long. NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 19 through April 25, 1999, as National Park Week. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-third. œ–
[FR Doc. 99–10128 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–01–P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:29 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\21APD0.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APD0 19441
Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 76
Wednesday, April 21, 1999
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 501(c)(3) organization that operates IRPS 79–6 broadened an FCU’s ability to contains regulatory documents having general primarily to promote and develop credit make contributions by permitting applicability and legal effect, most of which unions. Finally, the proposed rule contributions for ‘‘diverse, charitable, are keyed to and codified in the Code of provided that an FCU’s board of recreational and educational needs of Federal Regulations, which is published under directors must approve charitable the public,’’ it limited permissible 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. contributions based on a determination donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by that the contributions are in the best The discussion accompanying IRPS 79– the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of interests of the credit union and are 6 specifically prohibited contributions new books are listed in the first FEDERAL reasonable given the financial condition for candidates to league or trade REGISTER issue of each week. of the credit union. association positions or for political Summary of Comments office and cautioned FCUs about the applicability of the conflict of interest NATIONAL CREDIT UNION The NCUA Board received thirty-four provisions of the FCU bylaws. ADMINISTRATION comment letters regarding the proposal: The range of organizations that three from national trade associations; qualify as 501(c)(3) organizations is very 12 CFR Part 701 seven from credit union leagues; broad, permitting donations to twenty-three from FCUs; and one from community chests and religious, Organization and Operations of a state-chartered credit union. Federal Credit Unions charitable, scientific, and educational Comments on Proposed Section organizations, institutions and AGENCY: National Credit Union 701.25(a) foundations. In addition, the 501(c)(3) Administration (NCUA). designation insures a degree of Twenty-six commenters stated that ACTION: Final rule. limiting donation recipients to 501(c)(3) credibility and independence in the exercise of the board of directors’ SUMMARY: NCUA is issuing a final rule organizations is too restrictive and could exclude organizations and causes decision as fiduciaries for member that incorporates into its regulations the funds. These factors are important given agency’s longstanding interpretation that are otherwise worthy of receiving donations from FCUs. One commenter that the funds an FCU will use for that federal credit unions (FCUs) are contributions would otherwise be authorized, within limits, to make suggested broadening the 501(c)(3) restriction by defining eligible available for dividends to members charitable contributions and donations. who, in turn, could use their dividends NCUA seeks to increase regulatory recipients as ‘‘organizations that primarily serve either a charitable, to make their own decisions about effectiveness by making it easier for charitable giving. FCUs to locate applicable rules social, welfare, or educational purpose, or are exempt from taxation pursuant to NCUA acknowledges that there may regarding the making of charitable be cases where an FCU may want to contributions and donations. section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code.’’ Revised Code of Washington contribute to a worthy cause or activity DATES: This rule is effective May 21, 31.12.402(20). We note that, while that is not part of or sponsored by a 1999. Washington state law does not require 501(c)(3) organization and that boards of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: that recipients are tax exempt directors should have the discretion to Frank S. Kressman, Staff Attorney, organizations under 501(c)(3), it do so. Examples that appear appropriate Division of Operations, Office of requires credit unions to work with would be good will, scholarships, not General Counsel, (703) 518–6540. community leaders and limits donations for profit projects as contributing to a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to ‘‘efforts to improve areas where their community sports team, local clean-up projects, or community festivals or fairs. Background [credit union] members reside.’’ Since issuance of IRPS 79–6, the Accordingly, the final rule permits On October 29, 1998, the NCUA NCUA has viewed the legal authority for FCUs to make donations to recipients Board requested comments on a FCUs to make contributions as ‘‘an without regard to their status as proposed rule to incorporate into NCUA activity incidental to an FCU’s 501(c)(3) organizations. The regulations the requirements of business’’ under the provision of the reasonableness of a donation will Interpretive Ruling and Policy FCU Act that authorizes FCUs ‘‘to depend on the size and financial Statement 79–6, Donations/ exercise such incidental powers as shall condition of the FCU. Finally, FCUs Contributions (IRPS 79–6). 63 FR 57942, be necessary or requisite to enable it to should be aware that, while the final October 29, 1998. Tracking IRPS 79–6, carry on effectively the business for regulation does not require that the proposed rule permitted an FCU to which it is incorporated.’’ 44 FR 56691 recipients be 501(c)(3) organizations, the make charitable contributions to a (Oct. 2 1979); 12 U.S.C. 1757(17). An regulation is not authority for recipient that is a tax exempt FCU’s purpose, as a nonpropfit contributions to candidates for a trade organization under Section 501(c)(3) of cooperative, is to benefit its members by association or credit union league office the Internal Revenue Code (501(c)(3) ‘‘promoting thrift among its members or for other political contributions organization) and located in or and creating a source of credit for which, as noted in the preamble to the conducting its activities in a community provident or productive purposes.’’ 12 proposed regulation, are governed by in which the FCU has a principal place U.S.C. 1752(1). Prior to issuance of IRPS the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 of business. 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) (1998). 79–6, the NCUA had permitted FCUs to U.S.C. 441b). The proposed rule also permitted FCUs make donations only where the FCU Twenty-one commenters stated that to make charitable contributions to a would derive a direct benefit. While limiting donation recipients to
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19442 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations organizations that are located in or recipients in areas where relatively few contributions or donations. IRPS 79–6 conduct their activities in a community members are located, however, would was a formal ruling by the NCUA Board in which the FCU has a principal place not serve the needs of the FCU’s regarding the incidental power of FCUs of business is too restrictive and could community. NCUA believes that that has permitted them to make exclude organizations and causes that limiting donation recipients to donations and contributions. As noted are otherwise worthy of receiving organizations located in or conducting in the preamble to the proposed rule, donations from FCUs. The typical activities in a community in which the NCUA’s foremost intention in examples noted by commenters were FCU has a place of business helps to incorporating IRPS 79–6 into its organizations serving victims of distant ensure that the FCU’s charitable regulations is to increase regulatory natural disasters such as hurricanes or donations will be used to serve the effectiveness by making it easier for earthquakes and well-known national needs of communities where its FCUs to locate applicable rules organizations that may not have a local members are located. regarding the making of charitable office near the FCU. Most of these Finally, without regard to the location contributions and donations. commenters favored removing the of the organization, NCUA has restriction from the regulation while maintained in the final regulation the The NCUA notes that this final rule others only suggested that it be provision from the proposed rule that provides broad discretion and flexibility broadened to include donation permits FCUs to make charitable for FCUs in determining the amount, the recipients located or conducting donations to organizations that operate administration, and recipients for activities anywhere the FCU has primarily to promote and develop credit contributions but the incidental power members. The final rule, consistent with unions even if the organization is not to make contributions is not unlimited. IRPS 79–6 and the proposed rule, located or does not conduct activities in The NCUA believes that contributions permits contributions to national a community where the FCU has a place and donations may raise safety and charitable organizations such as the Red of business. For these contributions to soundness concerns and deserve Cross which, as needed, conduct be permissible, the final rule retains the regulatory oversight. The limitations activities in the community where the requirement that these organizations be and requirements in the final rule credit union is located and, therefore, 501(c)(3) organizations. balance the interests of FCU members would qualify as permissible recipients. Comments on Proposed Section with the responsibility of FCU boards of One commenter noted that the 701.25(b) directors to exercise their fiduciary proximity requirement is particularly responsibility to make independent and restrictive for some community Twelve commenters suggested that an prudent decisions about contributions chartered credit unions, especially those FCU’s board of directors should be and donations. in rural areas. NCUA believes that any permitted to approve a budget for organization located or conducting charitable donations and delegate Regulatory Procedures activities within the geographic authority to other FCU officials to boundaries of a community chartered allocate these funds. The preamble to Regulatory Flexibility Act credit union is, by definition, located in the proposed rule stated that this would The Regulatory Flexibility Act the community in which the FCU has a be an appropriate approach. Some requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to principal place of business and would commenters suggested including this in describe any significant economic be eligible to receive contributions the regulation and the final rule under the final regulation. To provide incorporates this provision. Seven other impact any proposed regulation may additional flexibility and avoid commenters suggested that an FCU’s have on a substantial number of small questions that could arise about whether board of directors should be permitted entities (primarily those under $1 a particular office or branch of an FCU to delegate authority to make charitable million in assets). The NCUA has is a ‘‘principal’’ place of business, the donations to other FCU officials, determined and certifies that the final Board has decided to delete the word including complete discretion to rule will not have a significant ‘‘principal’’ from this description in the determine donation amounts without economic impact on a substantial final rule. By stating in the final the board approving a budget for this number of small credit unions. regulation that a recipient be located or purpose. While delegation of the Accordingly, the NCUA has determined conduct activities in a community approval of the recipients of charitable that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is where the FCU has a place of business, donations within an FCU board- not required. the Board means a branch or office of approved budget category is permitted, Paperwork Reduction Act the FCU. Place of business would not, the NCUA Board has rejected complete however, include an ATM location. delegation without a budget item being NCUA has determined that the final Another commenter noted that approved by the FCU’s board because it rule does not increase paperwork members of some multiple group FCUs believes that an FCU’s decision as to the requirements under the Paperwork are spread over large geographic areas amount of donations is a significant one Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations and contended that there may be that warrants the consideration of its of the Office of Management and members located far from any of the board of directors. Budget. FCU’s principal places of business. Other Comments Credit unions generally locate their Executive Order 12612 places of business where a relatively Ten commenters stated that NCUA significant number of their members oversight of contributions and donations Executive Order 12612 requires will have access to services. NCUA is more appropriately accomplished NCUA to consider the effect of its recognizes an FCU’s interest in serving through guidelines, as opposed to actions on state interests. The final rule communities where its members reside regulations. Four commenters stated only applies to federal credit unions. or carry on their activities through that charitable giving should not be the NCUA has determined that the charitable donations and believes there subject of NCUA oversight at all. The proposed amendment does not should be flexibility in construing the NCUA Board notes that FCUs do not constitute a significant regulatory action term ‘‘community.’’ Donating to have the express authority to make for purposes of Executive Order 12612.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.064 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19443
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement authorize appropriate officials of the enforcement of the HMTA required Fairness Act federal credit union to select recipients more severe action, and enacted the The Small Business Regulatory and disburse budgeted funds among Hazardous Materials Transportation Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. those recipients. Uniform Safety Act of 1990, Public Law L. 104–121) provides generally for [FR Doc. 99–9931 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] No. 101–615, 1990 U.S. Code Congress. & Admin. News 104 Stat. 4605. The congressional review of agency rules. A BILLING CODE 7535±01±P reporting requirement is triggered in primary effect of this 1990 revision of instances where NCUA issues a final the HMTA was to raise the maximum civil penalty for violation of any rule as defined by Section 551 of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Administrative Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. regulation enacted under the HMTA to 551. The Office of Management and Federal Aviation Administration $25,000, and, for the first time, to Budget has determined that this rule require a $250 minimum penalty for any does not constitute a major rule for 14 CFR Part 13 such violation. The HMTA was purposes of the Small Business recodified in 1994 and is now referred Federal Aviation Administration Policy Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of to as the ‘‘Federal hazardous material on Enforcement of the Hazardous 1996. transportation law,’’ 1994 U.S. Code Materials Regulations: Penalty Congress. & Admin. News 108 Stat. 759, List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701 Guidelines codified at 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127. In the 1994 recodification, Congress Charitable contributions, Credit AGENCY: Federal Aviation unions. specifically stated that the Administration (FAA), DOT. recodification created no substantive By the National Credit Union ACTION: General statement of policy. change to the earlier form of the statute. Administration Board on April 15, 1999. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation SUMMARY: This document states that Becky Baker, Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 Secretary of the Board. FAA policy on determining the sanction amounts in FAA enforcement actions (note), as amended by the Debt For the reasons set forth above, NCUA addressing violations of the Department Collection Improvement Act of 1996, amends 12 CFR part 701 as follows: Public Law 104–134, April 26, 1996, of Transportation Hazardous Material provides a mechanism for adjustments Regulations (HMR). This policy PART 701ÐORGANIZATION AND for monetary civil penalties for inflation statement provides guidance for agency OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT in order to maintain the deterrent effect personnel in the exercise of the FAA’s UNIONS of monetary civil penalties and promote prosecutorial discretion in enforcement compliance with the law. Under the 1. The authority citation for part 701 cases concerning transportation of statute, the new civil penalty continues to read as follows: hazardous materials by air. The maximums cannot be applied unless guidance should aid in analysis of the Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, they are implemented by regulation. On 1757, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, facts and circumstances of each case so December 20, 1996, the FAA published 1784, 1787, and 1789. Section 701.6 is also as to arrive at an appropriate sanction in authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 a final rule (61 FR 6744), implementing light of the statutorily defined penalty the statute for each civil penalty subject is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., considerations. The analytical 42 U.S.C. 1861 and 42 U.S.C. 3601–3610. to the FAA’s jurisdiction. On January Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 framework should also promote a 21, 1997, the FAA published a U.S.C. 4311–4312. relative consistency in determining civil correction to the final rule (62 FR 4134). penalties for violations of the HMR. 2. Part 701 is amended by adding The final rule is codified at 14 CFR Part EFFECTIVE DATE: § 701.25 to read as follows: April 14, 1999. 13, Subpart H. Pursuant to 14 CFR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 13.305(d), the maximum civil penalty § 701.25 Charitable contributions and Bill Wilkening, Office of Civil Aviation that may be assessed for a violation of donations. Security, Dangerous Goods and Cargo the Federal hazardous material law or a (a) A federal credit union may make Security Division, telephone: (202) 267– hazardous material regulation is now charitable contributions and/or donate 9864, facsimile (202) 267–5760, email: $27,500. funds to recipients not organized for [email protected], mailing Congress assigned the responsibility profit that are located in or conduct address: ACO–800, 800 Independence for the enforcement of the Federal activities in a community in which the Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, hazardous material transportation law to federal credit union has a place of or Allan H. Horowitz, Enforcement the Secretary of Transportation. Within business or to organizations that are tax Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, the Department of Transportation, the exempt organizations under Section telephone (202) 267–3137, facsimile Research and Special Programs 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (202) 267–5106, email: Administration (RSPA) adopts the and operate primarily to promote and [email protected], mailing Hazardous Materials Regulations develop credit unions. address: AGC–300, 800 Independence (HMR), 49 CFR parts 171 through 178, (b) The board of directors must Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591. which govern the transportation of approve charitable contributions and/or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hazardous materials (Hazmat). Although donations, and the approval must be RSPA has some enforcement based on a determination by the board Background responsibilities, the responsibility for of directors that the contributions and/ Congress determined that the enforcing the HMR with respect to civil or donations are in the best interests of unregulated transportation of hazardous aviation is delegated by the Secretary of the federal credit union and are materials constitutes a threat to public Transportation to the FAA. 49 CFR reasonable given the size and financial safety in all forms of transportation. 1.47(k). condition of the federal credit union. Congress addressed that threat in 1974 The HMR set forth regulations for the The board of directors, if it chooses, by enacting the Hazardous Materials transportation of Hazmat. A knowing may establish a budget for charitable Transportation Act (HMTA). By 1990, violation of the statute or of the HMR contributions and/or donations and Congress determined that effective can support the assessment of a civil
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19444 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations penalty between $250 and $27,500. A the facts and circumstances of a case within (e.g., business entity that person acts knowingly when the person support either a greater or lesser regularly offers, accepts, or transports has actual knowledge of the facts giving penalty. When a special agent believes Hazmat) and the offense category (e.g., rise to the violation; or a reasonable that a penalty should exceed the Matrix undeclared shipment within Hazmat person acting in the circumstances and ranges, the agent should consult with quantity limitations). The sanction exercising reasonable care would have legal counsel before further processing ranges under the various violator that knowledge. 49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(1)(A). of the Enforcement Investigative Report categories take into account the relative The civil penalties authorized under the (EIR). This consultation is not necessary culpability of the violator. Similarly, the statute apply to EACH violation of any in the case of a recommended penalty offense categories address the nature, regulation set forth in the HMR. that is less than that provided in the circumstances, and gravity of the Moreover, under the statute, each Matrix. In either situation, the basis for particular offense. After determining the continuing violation of the HMR can the decision to go outside the ranges appropriate categories and intersecting constitute a separate violation for each should be explained in detail. box of the Matrix, agency personnel day a violation continues. In section Violations of Part 175 of the HMR, then determine which subcategories of 5124 of the statute, Congress prescribed which establish particular requirements offenses (e.g., shipping papers) are criminal penalties for a willful violation for air carriers and other aircraft alleged to have been violated. Based on of the Federal hazardous material operators, are contained in a separate the weighting analysis performed in transportation law or the HMR; willful matrix. However, such operators often Section I, an appropriate penalty is violations require evidence of both offer hazardous materials for air assigned for each of the applicable knowledge of the laws and regulations transportation, as well as accept and violation groups. The penalty amount and intent to violate them. transport them. For this reason, such for each relevant violation group is Part 13 of the Federal Aviation operators may be liable for violations added together to reach the Regulations—Investigative and both as a business entity within the recommended sanction. Enforcement Procedures (14 CFR Part Hazardous Materials Sanction Guidance Under Section III of the Guidance, the 13) governs the procedures applicable to Matrix, as well as specific air carrier special agent then considers other enforcement of the HMR by the FAA. violations. relevant factors, including evidence of Hazmat violations occurring on or after corrective action. A recommended Use of the Sanction Guidance August 2, 1990, may be dismissed by an sanction may be reduced prior to the administrative law judge (ALJ) if a This guidance provides agency issuance of a Notice of Proposed Civil Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty has not personnel with a systematic way to Penalty when there is adequate reliable been issued within 2 years of the evaluate a case and arrive at an information concerning the corrective violation, unless good cause for delay appropriate penalty, considering all the actions taken by a respondent. has been shown. 14 CFR 13.208(d). relevant statutory criteria including any Corrective actions that justify reduction mitigating and aggravating Consideration of Statutory Criteria of the recommended penalty must circumstances. Statutory considerations exceed the minimum legal In determining the sanction to be have been factored into the various requirements. The special agent also assessed, penalty criteria set forth in 49 ranges within the Sanction Guidance attempts to provide information U.S.C. 5123 must be considered. These Matrix. Determination of where a concerning the alleged violator’s size, criteria are the nature, circumstances, sanction lies within these ranges is financial condition, and ability to pay a extent, and gravity of the violation, the aided by a series of weighting questions recommended sanction. degree of culpability of the violator, any that probe the various aggravating and When an EIR is forwarded to legal history of past violations, the ability to mitigating factors that may exist in a counsel for enforcement action, counsel pay, any effect on the ability to continue case. with give appropriate consideration to to do business, and other matters as First, the weighting analysis is the recommended sanction. FAA legal justice requires. Some of these performed. Agency personnel respond counsel will also review the factors, considerations already are factored to to a series of questions to determine the analysis, and determinations under the some extent into the categories in the aggregate weight of the case. The Hazardous Materials Sanction Hazardous Material Sanction Guidance aggregate weight of the case helps Guidance. Any basis for deviating from Matrix. The statutory factors are further determine the sanction amount of each the recommend sanction is ordinarily considered under the weighting analysis violation group within the established explained to, and discussed with, the that is performed to indicate the amount ranges of the Matrix. investigating special agent. Final of civil penalty within the appropriate It is important to note that determination of the sanction amount range, i.e., at the minimum, moderate, determination of where the sanction lies proposed in the Notice of Proposed or maximum portion of the sanction within the Matrix is not the result of a Civil Penalty is ordinarily a product of range. To comply with the underlying mathematical computation. Evaluation joint decisonmaking and approval of the purposes of the Federal hazardous of the case is based on the totality of the investigating agent and the legal office. material transportation law and HMR, a facts and circumstances. Generally, if sanction should be imposed that is the answer to a particular question Federal Aviation Administration sufficiently deterrent but not excessive. represents a more significant aspect of a Hazardous Materials Sanction The Hazardous Materials Sanction case, greater consideration should be Guidance Guidance is designed to promote better given to that answer. For example, This Sanction Guidance is divided consistency so that similar penalties are violations involving an extremely into three sections: imposed in similar cases. The Matrix dangerous substance, even in minute I. Case Analysis, ranges are intended to reflect the nature, quantities, might warrant a penalty at II. Utilization of the Sanction Guidance circumstances, extent, and gravity of the the maximum end of the range or even Matrix (Matrix), and case as compared with other types of a penalty exceeding the Matrix ranges. III. Consideration of other Statutory Factors. cases. Each case, however, must be Under the Sanction Guidance Matrix, The Sanction Guidance Matrix is contained evaluated on its own facts. A sanction agency personnel determine the in Figure 1 and the Risk Categories are may differ from the Matrix ranges when category of violator the person falls contained in Figure 2.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.044 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19445
I. Case Analysis (Evaluation of each applicable violation group on the overpack. Multiple packages often represent Statutory Assessment Factors) Sanction Guidance Matrix (Fig. 1). multiple violations. Under the Sanction Guidance, this fact is considered an This section contains a series of A. The Nature, Circumstances, Extent, aggravating circumstance rather than a direct questions designed to assist special and Gravity of the Violation multiplier of the sanction for each violation. Each case, however, must be evaluated on its agents and attorneys in evaluating a (Factors Concerning the Shipment) particular case. The question review particular facts. A very large number of 1. What Material(s) Was Offered, packages may result in such an egregious factors involving the nature, case that the overall weight of the case is so circumstances, extent and gravity of the Transported, or Accepted for Air Transportation? high that a penalty beyond the maximum violation, the violator’s degree of point in the range is warranted. culpability, and the violator’s history of (Figure 2 divides hazardous materials of An investigation will occasionally reveal prior violations. Some of these factors particular classes, divisions, and several shipments from the same offeror over are already considered to some extent packing groups into three risk a period of several days, all of which involve within the various categories of the categories: Category A, Category B, and violations of the HMR. These independent Sanction Guidance Matrix. The Category C. Find the material(s) at issue acts of offering usually are consolidated into questions in this section provide in Figure 2 and answer the questions one EIR and addressed in one Note of additional consideration of the statutory below.) Proposed Civil Penalty. However, for purposes of determining the appropriate factors and examine the existence of a. Is the material(s) offered, sanction, each separate shipment with a aggravating and mitigating factors in a transported, or accepted in Category A? separate air waybill or shipping papers, case. If yes, assign a Maximum weight. separate destination, and/or any other The agent/attorney answers each b. Is the material(s) offered, evidence establishing it as a separate question in Section I and determines if transported, or accepted in Category B? shipment is ordinarily considered as a If yes, assign a Moderate weight. separate incident for purposes of applying a relative weight of minimum, c. Is the material(s) offered, the sanction guidance analysis. It is moderate, or maximum should be transported, or accepted in Category C? suggested that the separate shipments be assigned based on the response to the If yes, assign a Minimum weight. treated as individual counts in the EIR and question. With the exception of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, with Question A.1., not all questions will Guidance Note: The categories in Figure 2 each count having its own sanction derived apply to a given fact situation. Question represent the inherent risk of danger to air from application of this guidance. Note, there transportation posed by the material. If there A.1., which addresses the nature of the must be sufficient evidence to support each is more than one type of hazardous material count. hazardous material(s) involved, is the involved in the shipment, answer this only question that always receives a question using the hazardous material in the 3. Did the Shipment Cause Damage or ‘‘yes’’ answer to one of its subquestions highest risk category. Harm to Persons or Property, or Interfere and is considered in every case. The With Commerce? aggravating or mitigating factors 2. What Quantity of the Material(s) Was If yes, consider a Moderate or addressed in the questions only apply to Offered, Transported, or Accepted for Maximum weight. the case when the question receives a Air Transportation? ‘‘yes’’ response. Questions receiving a a. Did the package(s) exceed the Guidance Note: The fact that no damage ‘‘no’’ response do not affect the authorized quantity limitations by a occurred as a result of the shipment is not a mitigating factor. However, damage or harm weighting of the case and are not significant amount? If yes, consider a Moderate or may aggravate the nature, circumstances, considered. For example, if the violation extent, and gravity of the violation. resulted in harm to persons or property, Maximum weight depending on the Depending on the degree of damage caused that may be an aggravating factor in the degree to which the limitation was by the shipment and/or the existence of other case. However, the fact that the exceeded. aggravating factors, departure from the ranges violation did not result in injury or Guidance Note: The Matrix, discussed in may be justified. damage, is not a mitigating factor and Section III, takes into account the factual B. Violator’s Degree of Culpability should not result in penalty mitigation. situations where the quantity limitations for In many instances, the answers to most the material are exceeded. This part of the (The Matrix, Figure 1, considers the or all of the questions will be ‘‘no’’ and analysis is intended to determine whether relative culpability of the violator. This the only relevant weighting factor in further aggravating circumstances exist section of the analysis further evaluates this section will be the risk category of where quantity limitations are exceeded by a the degree of culpability of the violator.) significant amount. Whether this factor is the material identified in Question A.1. assigned a moderate or maximum weight will 1. Is the Violator the Manufacturer of In determining the final aggregate depend on the degree by which the quantity the Hazardous Material? weight of the case, the responses to each limitation was exceeded. If yes, consider a Maximum weight. of the questions do not have to be Example: The quantity limitation for equally considered. Determination of gasoline on a passenger plane is 5 liters per Guidance Note: A manufacturer of a package. If a violator offers 30 liters in a hazardous material is expected to have whether the overall case should have a complete knowledge of the nature of the minimum, moderate, or maximum single package on a passenger plane, this may result in a maximum weight for this factor. hazardous material and thus, a high degree weight cannot be determined with of culpability will ordinarily be imputed to mathematical certainty. Generally, if the b. Were there multiple packages in the it. answer to a question demonstrates that shipment? the factor at issue represents a more If yes, consider a Moderate or 2. Did Someone Other Than the Violator significant aspect of the case, greater Maximum weight, depending on the Prepare the Shipment for consideration is given to that factor. The number of packages and total amount of Transportation? final aggregate weight is based on the hazardous material being transported in If yes, consider a Minimum or totality of the facts and circumstances of violation. Moderate weight. the case. Once determined, the final Guidance Note: A package means a Guidance Note: Facts supporting an aggregate weight is then utilized to packaging plus its contents. There may be affirmative answer to this question may be arrive at the recommended sanction for multiple packages in one shipment or cause to mitigate culpability and/or pursue a
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19446 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations separate enforcement action against other quantity of material or an amount that would the Matrix in Figure 1 for guidance. Go responsible parties who handled the have qualified under the small quantity to the intersecting box and identify the shipment. A shipper that reships materials exception of § 173.4 may present a mitigating applicable sanction range for each received from another person in the same factor if as a result there was a reduced risk violation group. packaging is independently responsible for to safety in transportation. 2. Apply the conclusion reached in ensuring the shipment complies with the HMR. Nevertheless, the reshipper is D. Determine the Final Aggregate the Section I weighting analysis to generally considered to have a lesser degree Weight of the Case assign a sanction amount within the of culpability for compliance of the package All the responses/weights are minimum, moderate, or maximum as received. However, if the reshipper evaluated to determine a final aggregate portion of the sanction range for each unpacks and/or repackages the shipment, the weight of the case (Minimum, Moderate, relevant violation group. The reshipper remains as culpable as the original and Maximum). Questions receiving a recommended civil penalty at this stage shipper and generally is not accorded ‘‘no’’ response will not be included in is the sum of the sanctions for each of mitigation under this weighting factor. (For the applicable violation groups. A purposes of this section, a ‘‘reshipper’’ refers this evaluation. To determine the final aggregate weight, the agent/attorney sanction should not be assessed for a to a person, other than the original offeror, violation group if there have been no who offers a shipment of hazardous material must exercise his/her discretion in light for transportation.) of the statutory factors and knowledge violations of that part or subpart of the of the particular facts of the case. The HMR. The sanction amount for each 3. Did the Violator Reasonably Rely on facts of the particular case will dictate violation group need not be identical Incorrect Information From Another the relative importance of each of the but ordinarily is within the portion of Source? weighting factors in reaching a final the particular sanction range that If yes, consider a Minimum weight. aggregate weight. The final aggregate represents the overall weight of the case. 3. Departure from the Matrix ranges— Guidance Note: Detrimental or reasonable weight should be decided as a result of careful analysis, not a mathematical The Matrix is designed to cover the reliance on another party may be a mitigating majority of cases involving violations of factor when considering the violator’s degree averaging. It is possible that a single the HMR. The facts and circumstances of culpability. For example, reliance on an weighting factor may outweigh all inaccurate Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) others. The agent/attorney’s analysis of a particular case, however, may may be mitigating. should always be explained in this justify either an upward or downward regard. departure from the Matrix ranges. This 4. Does the Violator Have a History of sanction guidance anticipates and Previous HMR Violations? Example: A case involving a hazardous encourages departure from the Matrix material in the lowest risk category may be ranges when justified. A case involving If yes, consider a Moderate or evaluated to have a maximum weight Maximum weight. because of the large quantity shipped or the violations in which the nature, Guidance Note: To establish a violation damage resulting from the shipment. circumstances, extent, and gravity of the incident are particularly severe or history, a prior violation must be an actual II. Utilize the Matrix (Figure 1) finding of violation pursuant to a legal egregious, may justify upward departure enforcement action. Special agents should The sanction ranges under the offeror from the Matrix. If the investigating attempt to determine the corporate structure and offense categories of the Sanction agent believes, based upon the facts of of the violator and whether other business Guidance Matrix reflect the relative a case, that a penalty should exceed the entities or names are or have been used by culpability of the violator and the Matrix ranges, the agent should consult the entity in order to obtain a complete nature, circumstances, extent, and with legal counsel before further violation history. The number and age of gravity of the case. Consideration of processing of the EIR. Conversely, the violations should be considered. Ordinarily, investigating agent may believe that findings of violation more than 5 years old these particular statutory factors under carry less weight, unless a continuing pattern the Federal hazardous material mitigating factors justify a downward of violation exists. transportation law is built into the departure from the Matrix range. Matrix. Further analysis of the statutory Consultation with legal counsel is not C. Other Factors factors is required to determine the necessary in the case of a recommended Each case must be evaluated on its appropriate sanction within the ranges penalty that is less than that provided particular facts. As such, many cases established under the Matrix. This in the Matrix. In either situation, may present unique scenarios and analysis is performed in Section 1. After however, the agent is to provide a aggravating or mitigating factors that are determining the final aggregate weight detailed explanation of the basis for the not routinely seen. If an aggravating or of the case under the Section 1 analysis, decision to go outside the ranges. mitigating circumstance exists that is that weight is applied to the appropriate 4. Violations of Part 175 regulations, not adequately addressed elsewhere in matrix range to identify the which establish particular requirements the sanction guidance, it may be recommended sanction amount for each for air carriers and other aircraft included and assigned a weight under of the relevant violation groups and for operators, are contained in a separate this section. The factor should be clearly the case as a whole. Although the Notice matrix. However, such operators often identified and explained in the analysis of Proposed Civil Penalty may cite offer Hazmat for air transportation as portion of the EIR and carefully numerous violations of a particular part well as accept and transport it. As such, scrutinized by legal counsel. or subpart of the HMR, unless upward the operator may be liable for violations departure is justified, a single penalty as a business entity within the main Guidance Note: For example, a shipment of a single package containing several amount for each violation group is Matrix as well as for the specific Part different hazardous materials may present an ordinarily used to reach the full 175 violations. sanction. aggravating factor. The degree of seriousness III. Impact of Other Statutory Factors of this factor will increase if the hazardous A. Instructions materials are incompatible with each other The Federal hazardous material and, therefore, create an increased risk. 1. Identify the appropriate category transportation law also requires Mitigating factors may also exist that have for the type of entity and the nature of consideration of a violator’s ability to not been adequately considered. For the offense involved in the case. Refer pay a civil penalty, the impact of the example, a shipment containing a de minimis to the Definitions Section that follows civil penalty on the violator’s ability to
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19447 continue to do business, and other 1. The investigating agent will attempt consideration of a respondent’s matters that justice requires. to include financial information as an financial claims after issuance of the Consideration of these factors may exhibit in the EIR. It is anticipated that Notice. result in adjustment of the this information, if available, will be 4. If legal counsel determines that a recommended civil penalty calculated obtained from reliable financial data respondent qualifies as a small business in Section II. In situations where the bases. Financial documentation should entity, counsel may consider that status agent or attorney is in possession of include, but need not be limited to, under the Small Business Regulatory mitigating information, such as inability information concerning the violator’s Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to pay the recommended civil penalty or corporate structure, business address, with respect to the appropriateness of corrective action taken, reduction of the officers, number of employees, and the recommended civil penalty. A recommended penalty may be gross revenues. respondent’s status as a small business appropriate. Mitigating information 2. The investigating agent provides a entity may be considered in conjunction should be sufficiently reliable, statement or comment with respect to with analysis of the statutory factors. uncontroverted, and documented in the financial information obtained but order to support reduction of the ordinarily does not evaluate the B. Corrective Action recommended civil penalty prior to financial condition of a respondent with The most common ‘‘other matter’’ that issuing the Notice of Proposed Civil respect to its ability to pay a proposed Penalty. civil penalty. The investigating agent’s the FAA takes into consideration is statement should encompass areas such corrective action. Corrective action that A. Ability To Pay/Continue in Business as the number of employees, gross results in mitigation is remedial action Historically, the FAA has considered revenues, and nature of business of the that exceeds the minimum legal these factors after the issuance of the violator. requirements. The primary factors in Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty due to 3. FAA legal counsel reviews the determining the appropriate amount of the absence of reliable financial financial information provided in the penalty reduction are the extent and information on which to base a EIR and evaluates its sufficiency and timing of the corrective action. In other reduction prior to the issuance of a relevance to the recommended civil words, mitigation is determined on the Notice. This Sanction Guidance penalty. Legal counsel may determine if basis of how much corrective action was recommends that the special agent make more current information exists taken and how quickly the action was efforts to obtain reliable information concerning the financial condition of a taken. Systemic change intended to regarding the violator’s size and respondent and if that information prevent future violations should be financial condition for review prior to substantially differs from the given greater consideration. Similarly, the issuance of a Notice. This information available at the time of corrective action that commences upon information will be transmitted to the preparation of the EIR. If there is a basis the violator’s first notice of the violation legal office for consideration. It is for determining that the recommended ordinarily is given greater credit than recognized that it may not always be sanction is inappropriate based upon corrective action that commences only possible for the special agent and/or the financial information provided in after the Notice of Proposed Civil attorney to obtain reliable financial the EIR, the recommended sanction is Penalty has been issued. information on a particular respondent, adjusted prior to issuance of the Notice Mitigation of a recommended civil that financial circumstances change and of Proposed Civil Penalty. This is a penalty based upon corrective action that information may be provided after preliminary consideration of a should be referenced in the Notice of the issuance of the Notice that may company’s ability to pay. As such, pre- Proposed Civil Penalty so that the warrant further consideration of a Notice adjustment of a recommended respondent is on notice that credit respondent’s ability to pay. civil penalty does not preclude further already has been given for said action.
MATRIX AND DEFINITIONS [Figure 1]
C. Business entity D. Business entity that uses or han- that regularly of- Offense categories A. Individual B. Business entity dles Hazmat in the course of busi- fers, accepts, or ness transports Hazmat
I. Declared Shipment: 1. Shipping Papers ...... 250±500 250±1,000 500±2,000 1,000±5,000 2. Labels ...... 250±500 250±1,000 500±2,000 1,000±5,000 3. Markings ...... 250±500 250±1,000 500±2,000 1,000±5,000 4. Packaging ...... 250±500 250±1,000 500±2,000 1,000±5,000 5. Training ...... 250±1,000 500±2,000 1,000±5,000 6. Emerg. Response ...... 250±500 250±1,000 500±2,000 1,000±5,000 7. Release into Environ ...... 250±500 250±1,000 500±2,000 1,000±5,000 8. Other ...... 250±500 250±1,000 500±2,000 1,000±5,000 II. Undeclared Shipment Within Hazmat Quantity Limitations: 1. Shipping Papers ...... 250±1,000 1,500±7,500 2,500±10,000 5,000±12,000 2. Labels ...... 250±1,000 1,500±7,500 2,500±10,000 5,000±12,000 3. Markings ...... 250±1,000 1,500±7,500 2,500±10,000 5,000±12,000 4. Packaging ...... 250±1,000 1,500±7,500 2,500±10,000 5,000±12,000 5. Training ...... 1,500±7,500 2,500±10,000 5,000±12,000 6. Emerg. Response ...... 250±1,000 1,500±7,500 2,500±10,000 5,000±12,000 7. Release into Environ ...... 250±1,000 1,500±7,500 2,500±10,000 5,000±12,000 8. Other ...... 250±1,000 1,500±7,500 2,500±10,000 5,000±12,000
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.050 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19448 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
MATRIX AND DEFINITIONSÐContinued [Figure 1]
C. Business entity that uses or han- D. Business entity Offense categories A. Individual B. Business entity dles Hazmat in that regularly of- the course of busi- fers, accepts, or ness transports Hazmat
III. Undeclared Shipment Hazmat Forbidden on, or exceeds qty limits for, Passenger Aircraft: 1. Shipping Papers ...... 500±5,000 5,000±15,000 7,500±20,000 10,000±27,500 2. Labels ...... 500±5,000 5,000±15,000 7,500±20,000 10,000±27,500 3. Markings ...... 500±5,000 5,000±15,000 7,500±20,000 10,000±27,500 4. Packaging ...... 500±5,000 5,000±15,000 7,500±20,000 10,000±27,500 5. Training ...... 5,000±15,000 7,500±20,000 10,000±27,500 6. Emerg. Response ...... 500±5,000 5,000±15,000 7,500±20,000 10,000±27,500 7. Release into Environ ...... 500±5,000 5,000±15,000 7,500±20,000 10,000±27,500 8. Other ...... 500±5,000 5,000±15,000 7,500±20,000 10,000±27,500 IV. Undeclared Shipment Forbidden on, or exceeds qty limits for, All Aircraft: 1. Shipping Papers ...... 500±27,500 7,500±27,500 10,000±27,500 15,000±27,500 2. Labels ...... 500±27,500 7,500±27,500 10,000±27,500 15,000±27,500 3. Markings ...... 500±27,500 7,500±27,500 10,000±27,500 15,000±27,500 4. Packaging ...... 500±27,500 7,500±27,500 10,000±27,500 15,000±27,500 5. Training ...... 7,500±27,500 10,000±27,500 15,000±27,500 6. Emerg. Response ...... 500±27,500 7,500±27,500 10,000±27,500 15,000±27,500 7. Release into Environ ...... 500±27,500 7,500±27,500 10,000±27,500 15,000±27,500 8. Other ...... 500±27,500 7,500±27,500 10,000±27,500 15,000±27,500 V. Intentional or Deliberate Violation ...... Consult Legal Consult Legal Consult Legal Consult Legal
F. Group III & IV E. Group I & II air air carriers and Air carrier and other aircraft operator violations carriers and other other aircraft oper- aircraft operators ators
Failure to comply with Parts 171, 172, or 173 requirements of the HMR as an offeror of Hazmat ...... (1)(1) Improper acceptance of Hazmat for air transportation (i.e., quantity, labeling, marking, packaging, and shipping papers) See 49 CFR 175.30(a) (1)±(4) ...... 5,000±27,500 2,500±15,000 Failure to inspect Hazmat shipment properly. See 49 CFR 175.30 (b), (c), (d), (e) ...... 10,000±27,500 5,000±15,000 Improper storage/securing of Hazmat aboard aircraft ...... 10,000±27,500 5,000±15,000 Failure to provide Hazmat training, maintain records of training, or meet minimum requirements for Hazmat training ...... 10,000±27,500 5,000±15,000 Failure to notify FAA properly of incident/discrepancies in Hazmat shipment ...... 5,000±15,000 1,000±5,000 Failure to provide notice to the pilot-in-command ...... 5,000±15,000 1,000±5,000 Other Part 175 violations ...... 5,000±15,000 1,000±5,000 1 Use main Matrix.
Definitions operating revenue of less than Hazardous Materials in the Course of its (a) Air Carrier and Other Aircraft $100,000,000. Group III is comprised of Business.—A manufacturer or Operator Groups (I, II, III, IV)—Air air carriers and other aircraft operators distributor of Hazmat falls into this carriers and other aircraft operators are that do not meet the criteria for Group category. A freight forwarder would also divided into two categories for purposes II with (1) 6 to 49 pilots, or (2) 6 to 24 fall into this category. The aspect of of determining an appropriate sanction. aircraft. Group IV is comprised of all ‘‘regularly’’ offering covers a business These categories track the air carrier other air carriers or aircraft operators entity that offers Hazmat with some groups established in FAA Order No. not meeting the criteria for Groups I, II, anticipated frequency or purports to do 2150.3A, Appendix 1, Compliance/ or III. so, e.g., a catalogue company that offers Enforcement Bulletin 92–1, but also (b) Business Entity—The violator is a hazardous material to its customers includes any operator of an aircraft that business, corporation, partnership, Sub- would fall into this category, even is operated ‘‘in commerce’’ as defined in S Corporation, sole proprietor, though its actual sale or transportation the Federal hazardous materials law, association, or any type of commercial of the Hazmat is infrequent or limited. including Part 129 Foreign Air Carriers, entity. An individual who offers a (d) Business Entity that Uses, Handles Part 125 Operators, and Part 91 hazmat shipment in air transportation in Hazmat in the Course of Its Business— Operators. Group I is comprised of air the course of his/her self-owned This category encompasses the business carriers and other aircraft operators with business falls into this category. that utilizes Hazmat in its business but annual operating revenue of Includes all entities defined under the does not offer it for transportation on a $100,000,000 or more. Group II is HMR’s definition of ‘‘person,’’ (49 CFR regular basis, as described above. For comprised of air carriers and other 171.8) with the exception of an example, a manufacturer of a non- aircraft operators that hold Part 121 individual as defined herein. Hazmat product that uses Hazmat in the certificates or have 50 or more pilots or (c) Business Entity that Regularly manufacturing process could fall into operate 25 or more aircraft, with annual Offers, Accepts, or Transports this category. It must be established that
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19449 the company ordinarily does not offer shipment falls into this category if the circumvent those requirements. For the Hazmat it utilizes for transportation, quantity of Hazmat per package exceeds example, an offeror who places a and the shipment in this instance the quantity limitations for passenger- properly marked and labeled Hazmat represents an isolated incident. This carrying aircraft or if the particular shipment along with properly type of business is held to a higher hazardous material is forbidden in air completed shipping papers, into an standard than the business entity that transportation on passenger aircraft. overpack marked as ‘‘printed material,’’ has no regular involvement with (g) Forbidden on or Exceeds Quantity has committed an intentional or Hazmat. The described business entity Limits for All Aircraft—A shipment will deliberate violation. In this type of case, receives the subject hazardous material fall into this category if the quantity of the investigating agent shall consult in transportation and uses it in its hazardous material per package exceeds with FAA legal counsel and follow business; thus, it is clearly on notice of the allowable amount for both passenger agency guidance for potential criminal the hazardous nature of the material and and cargo aircraft or the Hazmat is violations of the HMR. the regulatory requirements to which absolutely forbidden in air (k) Undeclared Shipment—This is a the Hazmat is subject. transportation. shipment that has no indication of its (e) Declared Shipment—A declared (h) Hazmat—A ‘‘hazardous material,’’ hazardous material contents and/or no shipment, for purposes of this matrix as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, includes indication that the offeror only, is one that complies with one or and is interchangeable with the term communicated the hazardous nature of more of the communicative ‘‘dangerous goods, ’’ as used in the the shipment’s contents to persons who requirements of the HMR, i.e., it has International Civil Aviation accept or transport. markings, labels, and/or partially- Organization (ICAO) Technical (l) Within Hazmat Quantity correct shipping papers. A package that Instructions. Limitations—The amount of hazardous has shipping papers that declare the (i) Individual—An individual who material is within the quantity contents as hazardous material but is offers a shipment of hazardous material limitations per package as established in otherwise not marked or labeled falls in his/her personal capacity without any the § 172.101 Table (49 CFR 172.101) for into this category. Similarly, a properly business purpose or as part of a the type of aircraft on which the marked and labeled package that lacks commercial enterprise on the part of the shipment traveled. For example, if the shipping papers also falls into this individual. shipment was offered for transportation category. A case falls into this category (i) Intentional or Deliberate on a passenger aircraft, the quantity of where there is clear indication that the Violation—A shipment falls into this hazardous material was within the offeror made some attempt to give category when there is evidence that the established limit for transportation by notice of the hazardous nature of the offeror, acceptor, air carrier, or aircraft passenger aircraft. If the shipment was shipment. operator had knowledge of the offered for transportation on a cargo (f) Forbidden or Exceeds Quantity requirements of the HMR and willfully aircraft, the quantity limitations for Limits for Passenger Aircraft—A circumvented or attempted to cargo aircraft apply.
RISK CATEGORIES [Figure 2]
Category ``A'' (Maximum Weight)
Category ``A'' materials are materials that when released in the confines of an aircraft can potentially have a catastrophic effect on an air- craft's ability to continue safe flight, resulting in a crash or emergency landing causing injury or death to passengers and flightcrew, as well as persons on the ground. Class 1 ...... Explosives: Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. Class 2 ...... Compressed Gases All 2.1, 2.2 with Subsidiary Risk 5.1 and All 2.3 PIH Zones A±D. Class 3 ...... Flammable Liquids PG I, II, and (PIH). Class 4 ...... Division 4.1 Flammable Solids PG I, & (Matches). Division 4.2 Spontaneously Combustible Materials PG I (Pyrophoric). Division 4.3 Dangerous When Wet PG I. Class 5 ...... Division 5.1 Oxidizing Liquids and Solids PG I, II, e.g., ``Chemical Oxygen Generators''. Division 5.2 Organic Peroxides PG II (Type A, B, C, or D). Class 6 ...... Division 6.1 Poisonous Liquids PG I (PIH). Class 7 ...... Cargo Aircraft Only Quantities on Passenger Aircraft. Class 8 ...... Corrosive Material Liquid PG I and (PIH). Forbidden Materials (See 49 CFR 173.21 & ICAO Technical Instructions). Forbidden Hazmat listed in Dangerous Goods Table 49 CFR 172.101. Category ``B'' (Moderate Weight)
The materials listed in Category ``B'' are materials that may not pose an immediate threat to the safety of a flight, but can cause death or in- jury to persons due to unintended releases in aircraft cabin areas, and potential damage to aircraft structures over a longer period of time due to undiscovered releases on aircraft structural components. Class 1 ...... Division 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, All Compatibility Groups. Class 3 ...... PG III Flammable Liquids. Class 4 ...... Division 4.1 Flammable Solids PG II, III. Division 4.2 Spontaneously Combustible Materials PG III. Division 4.3 Dangerous When Wet PG II, III. Class 5 ...... Division 5.1 Oxidizing Liquids or Solids PG III. Division 5.2 Organic Peroxides (Type E, F, G). Class 6 ...... Division 6.1 Poisonous Liquids PG I, II (NON±PIH). Division 6.2 Infectious Substances.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19450 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
RISK CATEGORIESÐContinued [Figure 2] Class 7 ...... Radioactive Materials, yellow label III, yellow label II, and white label I. Class 8 ...... Liquids PG II, III Solids PG I, II, III.
Category ``C'' (Minimum Weight)
The materials listed in Category ``C'' are materials that present the least amount of risk to the transportation system. Class 2 ...... 2.2 Nonflammable Gas. Class 6 ...... Division 6.1 Packing Group III. Class 7 ...... All other RAM (LSA, LTD QTY, Instruments and Articles). Class 9 ...... Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods (ORM±D and Consumer Commodity). Note: This guidance is not intended to replace the experienced judgment to a special agent who is convinced, based on the evidence and facts of a case, that the failure of an air carrier, shipper, freight forwarder, or passenger to follow established regulations has posed a risk to aviation safety.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 14, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: II. Delay of the Compliance Dates for 1999. Elizabeth King, Senior Special Counsel, Rule 301(b)(3) Jane F. Garvey, at (202) 942–0140, Constance Kiggins, One major alternative trading system Administrator. Special Counsel, at (202) 942–0059, and Kevin Ehrlich, Attorney, at (202) 942– has indicated that it will be unable to [FR Doc. 99–9983 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] comply with the requirements of Rule BILLING CODE 4910±13±M 0778, Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 301(b)(3) by the original compliance 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. dates without putting the operation of 20549–1001. its system at serious risk of failure. The SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE operational failure of a major alternative COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: trading system could interfere with the markets as a whole. Accordingly, the 17 CFR Parts 202, 240, 242 and 249 I. Background Commission believes it necessary to [Release No. 34±41297; File No. S7±12±98] On December 8, 1998, the Securities adjust the compliance dates for Rule and Exchange Commission RIN 3235±AH41 301(b)(3) as follows: (‘‘Commission’’) adopted new rules and August 23, 1999: Compliance with Regulation of Alternative Trading rule amendments to allow alternative Rule 301(b)(3) with respect to the 50 Systems; Technical Amendment trading systems to choose whether to Nasdaq securities listed on Schedule A, register as national securities exchanges, attached in the appendix. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange or to register as broker-dealers and September 28, 1999: Compliance with Commission. comply with additional requirements Rule 301(b)(3) for the 50% of Nasdaq ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment under Regulation ATS, depending on securities listed on Schedules A and B, 1 and revised compliance date. their activities and trading volume. The attached in the appendix. effective date for most of these new April 25, 2000: Compliance with Rule SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange rules and rule amendments is April 21, 301(b)(3) for the 75% of Nasdaq Commission is modifying the 1999. The Commission stated in the securities listed on Schedules A, B, and compliance dates for Rule 301(b)(3) and adopting release that, prior to April 21, C, attached in the appendix. making a technical change to Rule 1999, it would publish a list of those 202.3. These and other rules and rule securities with respect to which June 20, 2000: Compliance with Rule amendments relate to the regulation of alternative trading systems must comply 301(b)(3) for all Nasdaq securities. alternative trading systems and with Rule 301(b)(3) on April 21, 1999 Schedules A, B, and C were created exchanges and were published on and those securities with respect to by ranking all covered securities traded December 22, 1998 (63 FR 70844). The which alternative trading systems must on Nasdaq by their January 1999 effective date for the other rules and comply with Rule 301(b)(3) on August volume, and including an equal number amendments published in 63 FR 70844 30, 1999. Rule 301(b)(3) requires an of securities from each decile. Some remains April 21, 1999, except for the alternative trading system to provide to securities that were not traded on effective date for §§ 242.301(b)(5)(i)(D) a national securities exchange or Nasdaq in January 1999 may commence and (E) and §§ 242.301(b)(6)(i)(D) and national securities association, for trading on Nasdaq subsequently. (E), which remains April 1, 2000. inclusion in the public quotation Alternative trading systems may wait DATES: Effective Date: April 21, 1999 for system, the prices and sizes of its best until June 20, 2000 to comply with Rule amendment to § 202.3. priced buy and sell orders, that are 301(b)(3) with respect to these Compliance Date: Alternative trading displayed to more than one person, in securities. systems must comply with each covered security in which the All other compliance dates for the § 242.301(b)(3) with respect to the 50 alternative trading system represents rules and rule amendments adopted last securities listed in Schedule A by 5% or more of the total trading volume.2 December remain the same. The August 23, 1999; with respect to the Commission encourages those securities listed on Schedules A and B 1 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40760 alternative trading systems that are able by September 28, 1999; with respect to (Dec. 8, 1998), 63 FR 70844 (Dec. 22, 1998). to comply with Rule 301(b)(3) on April the securities listed on Schedules A, B 2 17 CFR 242.301(b)(3). For purposes of 21, 1999 to do so. Regulations ATS, a ‘‘covered security’’ includes all and C by April 25, 2000; and with exchange-listed, Nasdaq NM securities, and Nasdaq respect to all securities by June 20, Small Cap securities, other than debt and CFR 240.11Ac1–1(a)(6); Rule 300(g), 17 CFR 2000. convertible securities. See Rule 11Ac1–1(a)(6), 17 242.300(g).
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19451
Alternative trading systems are solely to agency organization, § 202.3 Processing of filings. reminded that Rule 301(b)(3) only procedures, or practice, and does not * * * * * requires alternative trading systems to relate to a substantive rule. Accordingly, (b) * * * ‘‘provide to a national securities notice and opportunity for public (2) * * * Within 90 days of the date exchange or national securities comment are unnecessary, and of publication of a notice of the filing of association’’ their best priced orders in publication of the amendment 30 days an application for registration as a covered securities in which they before its effective date of April 21, 1999 national securities exchange, or represent 5% or more of all trading is also unnecessary. exemption from registration by reason of volume.3 Accordingly, in the absence of such exchanges’ limited volume of a mechanism for publicly displaying IV. Findings transactions (or within such longer those alternative trading systems’ orders Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act 6 period as to which the applicant in exchange-listed securities, alternative requires the Commission to consider the consents), the Commission shall by trading systems will not be violating anti-competitive effects of any rules it order grant registration, or institute Rule 301(b)(3) if alternative trading adopts, and to balance these effects proceedings to determine whether systems’ best priced orders in those against the benefits that further the registration should be denied as securities in which they trade 5% or purposes of the Exchange Act. Further, provided in § 240.19(a)(1) of this more of the volume are not publicly Section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933 7 chapter. displayed. When a mechanism is and Section 3 of the Exchange Act,8 as Dated: April 16, 1999. developed to display alternative trading amended by the recently enacted By the Commission. systems’ orders in exchange-listed National Securities Markets Jonathan G. Katz, securities, Rule 301(b)(3) requires them 9 Improvements Act of 1996, provide Secretary. to cooperate in linking with the market that whenever the Commission is or markets providing that mechanism. engaged in rulemaking and is required Note: The appendix will not appear in the Under Section 553(d) of the to consider or determine whether an Code of Federal Regulations. Administrative Procedure Act,4 action is necessary or appropriate in the Appendix publication of a substantive rule not less public interest, the Commission also than 30 days before its effective date is shall consider, in addition to the Schedule A required except as otherwise provided protection of investors, whether the act AERTA by the agency for good cause. Because will promote efficiency, competition, AMXX the change extends compliance dates, ASFI and capital formation. Because the ATEST the Commission finds that there is good amendments take steps to assure the fair cause for doing so. BARZ and orderly activities of the national BCGI III. Rule of Practice 202.3 securities markets and make a BGMR On December 8, 1998, the conforming correction to a procedural BJCT rule, they do not have any anti- BPTM Commission adopted changes to Rule of BRIOF Practice 202.3(b)(2) regarding the competitive effects and they serve to promote efficiency, competition, and BWCF processing of exchanges’ applications CFFC for registration as national securities capital formation, and are therefore in CINRF exchanges or exemption from the public interest. CLHB registration based on such exchanges’ List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 202 CRTQ limited volume of transactions. These EXAR amendments require the Commission to Administrative practice and FRSH grant registration or institute procedure, Securities. FSFT FUJIY proceedings to determine whether Text of Amendment GBNK registration should be denied within 90 GCTY days of the date of filing of an For the reasons set out in the GILD application. Section 19(a)(1) of the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the IMNX Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Code of Federal Regulations is amended INTC (‘‘Exchange Act’’), however, requires the as follows: JAGI Commission to grant an exchange’s JBOH application for registration as a national PART 202ÐINFORMAL AND OTHER JXSB securities exchange, or institute PROCEDURES KASP LAKE proceedings to determine whether 1. The authority citation for Part 202 LCAV registration should be denied, within 90 continues to read in part as follows: LVEN days of the date of publishing notice of LVMHY the exchange’s filing of such Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77s, 77t, 78d–1, 78u, MCSC application. Consequently, the 78w, 78ll(d), 79r, 79t, 77sss, 77uuu, 80a–37, MILB Commission is making a technical 80a–41, 80b–9, and 80b–11, unless otherwise MPTBS correction to Rule 202.3(b)(2) to noted. NETTW conform to the time periods in the * * * * * PAWN statute. The Commission finds, in 2. The last sentence of paragraph PCBC PIXR accordance with Section 553(b)(3)(A) of (b)(2) of § 202.3 is revised to read as POSIF 5 the Administrative Procedure Act, that follows: PRTK the amendment to Rule 202.3 relates SBGI 6 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2). SPCH 3 17 CFR 272.301(b)(3). 7 15 U.S.C. 77b. SSRIF 4 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 8 15 U.S.C. 78c. STNRF 5 5 U.S.C. 553(B)(3)(A). 9 Pub. L. No. 104–290, 106, 110 Stat. 3416 (1996). TBCC
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.068 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19452 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
TRID AERN AMPI UHCO AERS AMRN VRLN AESPW AMSC WNMP AFBC AMSGB AFCO AMSO Schedule B AFCX AMTA AAABB AFIC AMTD AABC AFLX AMVP AACE AFSC AMVPW AALA AFTXZ AMWD AAON AFWY AMXI AASI AGAI AMZN AATT AGAM ANCO ABAG AGBGC ANDB ABAN AGCH ANDW ABAX AGNU ANGN ABBBY AGRPA ANIK ABCO AGRPB ANLG ABCW AHAA ANSR ABDR AHEPZ ANSS ABERF AHWYW ANST ABFI AICX ANTC ABOV AIFC ANTP ABPCA AIND AORGB ABRI AINN APAC ABRX AIPN APAGF ABSC AIRT APAT ABTC AKLM APCC ABTE AKSY APCFY ABTI AKZOY APFC ABTX ALCO APGR ACAI ALDA APLX ACAM ALDNF APMC ACAS ALDV APOG ACCOB ALFA APOL ACEC ALGSF APPB ACEI ALGX APQCF ACEIW ALHY AQCR ACEL ALHYC ARCAF ACEP ALIF ARGAC ACES ALLB ARGCD ACHI ALLC ARIAW ACLNF ALLIF ARLCF ACLY ALLP ARMHY ACMI ALLR ARMXF ACNAF ALNT AROW ACRG ALOG ARSD ACRN ALPH ARTE ACRO ALRC ARTI ACSEF ALREF ARTNA ACTM ALSC ARTT ACTN ALTIF ARTW ACTU ALTR ARVX ACVC ALXN ASAI ACYT ALYD ASAM ADACE AMAC ASBC ADAM AMAR ASBI ADAX AMBC ASBP ADBE AMBI ASDG ADCCW AMCN ASGR ADDM AMCRY ASHA ADECY AMCT ASHEW ADMS AMCV ASHW ADPT AMEN ASIGF ADRN AMENW ASII ADSK AMEP ASIPY ADTK AMEPW ASMLF ADTN AMES ASND ADVH AMESW ASNT ADVNA AMFM ASPCE ADVS AMLJ ASPT AEGGF AMLN ASPX AEHR AMMB ASTE AEOS AMPBB ASTI AEPI AMPD ASTM AERL AMPDW ASTNW
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.069 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19453
ASTSF BEXP BSTC ASTX BEYE BTEK ASVI BFAM BTHS ASYCF BFCI BTRN ASYM BFEN BTSR ASYS BFSC BTUI ASYT BGEN BTWS ATAC BGRH BULL ATCI BHIKF BURMY ATEC BHQU BUTI ATEN BHWK BVAS ATGI BIAC BVCC ATLC BIGC BVEW ATLCW BIKR BVRSF ATLRS BIMEC BVSN ATMI BINC BWINA ATMS BIORY BYFC ATPX BIPRY BYND ATRO BITI BZET ATSI BITS CACC ATYTF BKSC CACS AVCO BKUNA CADA AVDO BKUNZ CAFE AVEC BLCA CAFEW AVGN BLDPF CAII AVIIW BLOCA CAKE AVIR BLPG CALC AVND BLSC CALM AVTM BLSI CALY AWRE BLUE CAMP AWWC BMCC CANI AXAS BMCS CANRC AXLE BMLS CARL AXLEW BMTC CARS AXNT BNCM CARY AXPH BNGO CASCW AXSI BNHN CASH AXTI BNHNA CASL AZIC BNSOF CASS AZPN BNSWF CAST AZUR BNTT CATY AZURW BOBE CBBI BAGL BOBS CBBO BANC BOBSW CBCL BANF BOGN CBES BASEA BOGNW CBEV BASI BOKF CBEVW BATS BOLD CBIN BAYB BONT CBKN BBHF BOOL CBLI BBIOY BOOM CBMI BBTK BORAY CBRNA BBUC BOSA CBRNB BBUCU BOSWF CBRYA BBUCW BOTX CBSH BCICF BOYL CBSI BCORY BPAO CBSS BCRX BPFH CBTE BCSB BPLX CBTSY BCST BPMI CBXC BCTI BPOP CCAR BDCO BRCOA CCBG BDJI BRCP CCBL BDMS BREL CCBT BDRY BREW CCCIW BDRYW BRGP CCEE BEAR BRID CCEL BEAS BRKL CCHE BEAV BRKT CCHM BEBE BRLI CCLNF BEEF BRTL CCON BEERF BRTLW CCOW BERW BSBN CCPRZ BESIF BSET CCRD BEST BSNX CCSE BETM BSRTS CCSI
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.069 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19454 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
CCUUY CMPC CRDT CDEN CMPD CREAF CDIS CMPL CRESY CDLI CMPS CRFT CDSI CMPX CRGN CDSIU CMRN CRNSF CDWC CMSS CROS CDWN CMST CRRB CECE CMSVD CRRS CELG CMSX CRUS CELL CMTI CRXA CELS CMTID CRZO CEMX CMTIW CRZY CENB CMTL CSBF CENI CMVT CSBI CEPH CMWLW CSGI CERB CNBA CSLI CERG CNBF CSNRW CEXP CNBT CSON CFAC CNCX CSPI CFBC CNDO CSPLF CFFI CNDR CSRE CFIC CNDS CSTL CFKY CNEBF CTAS CFMT CNET CTBC CFON CNFL CTBP CFSB CNKT CTCOB CFTP CNNG CTEA CFWC CNQR CTEC CFWY CNRMF CTEKW CGCA CNSI CTEL CGCOC CNSO CTHR CGEN CNTO CTIB CGGI CNYF CTLG CGII CODY CTSH CGRM CODYU CTSI CHANF CODYW CTWO CHCO COFI CTWS CHDX COGE CUBA CHERA COGIF CUCO CHEX COHB CULS CHFC COHO CUNO CHGO COHR CVAL CHIR COHT CVAN CHKE COHTW CVAS CHKR COHU CVTX CHMD COKE CVUS CHMP COLB CWCOF CHNG COLM CWST CHRW COLTY CXIL CHRX COMMF CXIM CHRZ CONW CXIPY CHUX COOK CXSNF CIBN CORE CYBGE CICI CORR CYCH CINS CORS CYCL CITC COSI CYCLD CITI COST CYLK CITZ COTTF CYOE CKEYF COVR CYPH CLCDF COYT CYPHZ CLNTF CPBI CYTC CLRP CPCI CYTO CLTX CPCL CYTR CLWTF CPDN DAIEY CLWY CPIA DALY CLZR CPLY DATC CLZRW CPSS DATM CMCO CPTL DAYR CMCSA CPTS DBCC CMCSK CPWM DBII CMGT CPWR DBLEW CMIN CRAI DBRN CMIV CRAN DCAI CMLS CRBO DCBK CMMD CRDN DCRNW
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.070 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19455
DCTI DSTR EPIE DDIM DTAGY EPLTF DDRX DTII EPTG DECAF DTPI EQNX DECC DTSI EQUI DECK DUCK EQUUS DEFI DUSA ERIE DEPO DVID EROX DESI DVIDW EROXC DETC DVIDZ ERTH DEVC DWSN ESCA DFCO DWTI ESCI DFIN DYNT ESFT DGAS DZTK ESLTF DGIC EASI ESMCL DGIT EBSC ESNJZ DGTC EBSI ESOL DHMS ECGOF ESREF DHULZ ECHO ESRX DIALY ECILF ESSF DIAN ECIN ESSI DIEG ECLP ESST DIGE ECOL ETEC DIIBF ECSGY ETHCY DIMD EDAC ETRC DINEW EDAPY EUFA DIPL EDBR EUPH DIPLE EDBRW EVAN DISH EDFY EVMD DISK EDGE EVOL DISS EDMC EVSNF DIST EDUSF EVTC DIYS EDUT EWEB DJCO EFBC EXAP DKWD EFBI EXDS DLPH EFIC EXGN DLTDF EFTC EXPO DLTK EGEO EYES DLTR EGGS EZPW DLVRY EGLE FAHC DMRK EGLS FAMCK DNAP EGRP FAME DNCC EIDSY FARC DNKY EILLD FATS DOBQ EISI FAUX DOCI EKFG FAUXW DOCSF ELET FAVS DOCU ELMG FBAYF DOCX ELMS FBBC DOMZ ELNK FBCG DORL ELRC FBCI DOSE ELTKF FBHC DOTX ELUXY FBKP DPAC ELXS FBNW DPMI EMCI FBRK DPRC EMCO FCAP DPTR EMIS FCBIB DRAI EMITF FCFS DRFNY EMLTF FCGI DRIV EMMS FCME DRKN EMON FCNB DROV EMPI FCPY DRRA ENBRF FCTR DRTE ENBX FCWI DSCI ENDG FDCC DSCO ENET FDHG DSCOU ENGL FDJA DSCOW ENMD FDLNA DSCP ENML FDLNB DSCS ENPT FDPC DSCSW ENSI FEIC DSET ENSW FERO DSGR ENTS FFCH DSGRW ENVG FFED DSLGF ENVY FFHS DSPT ENZN FFIC
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.070 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19456 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
FFIN GALTF GSFC FFKY GALXC GSII FFLC GASS GSLA FFOH GBBK GSLC FFSL GBCB GSLMD FFSX GBCI GSMI FFWC GBCOB GSNX FFYF GBCS GSPT FIBR GBIX GSTD FIIF GBLX GSTRF FILMW GBSE GTAX FINL GBSEW GTIM FLBK GCFC GTIMZ FLCIW GCHI GTIS FLEX GCLI GTSG FLFC GCOM GTSI FLGS GCTI GUAR FLMK GDCOF GUCO FLMLY GDYS GULF FLSHF GECM GUMM FLWR GEEK GUSH FLXI GEER GWBK FLYT GEHL GWRX FMBN GELX GYMB FMCO GENBB GYRO FMDAY GEND GZTC FMFC GENE HABC FMSB GENS HAHO FMXI GENSW HAKI FNBF GFCO HARB FNBN GFLS HARL FNBP GGEN HARS FNBR GGUY HAVA FNCE GIBG HAWK FNDTF GICOF HBAN FNGB GIFH HBCCA FNIN GIFI HBCO FOBBA GIGA HBCOW FONE GIII HBFW FOOT GILTF HBIX FORL GKSRA HBNK FORSF GLAR HCBC FOSL GLBE HCIA FPGP GLBK HCOW FPIC GLDC HCSG FRDM GLGC HCTLF FRIZ GLYT HDIE FRME GMAI HDII FRTZ GMCC HDLD FSACF GMED HDNG FSBI GMTI HDSK FSCR GNCI HDSN FSLA GNCNF HDVS FSNM GNET HDWY FSPT GNSA HEAT FSTC GNSM HEII FSTH GNSSF HELX FSTW GNTA HENL FSVB GNTX HERBA FSVP GOAL HFGI FTFC GOLF HFIT FTHR GOSB HFSA FTIC GOTH HFWA FTSB GOTHZ HGFN FTUS GPSI HGIC FUEL GPTX HGSI FUELW GRAN HHGP FULT GRCO HIBB FUNC GRDL HIBWF FUND GRDN HIBZF FVCX GREY HIFN FVNB GRIL HKID FWBN GRIN HLFC FWRD GSBI HLGCF FWRX GSCI HLIT GADZ GSES HLMD
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.071 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19457
HLRT IINT ITEQ HLYW IISLF ITGI HMGC IIVI ITGR HMGN ILABY ITIG HMLK ILCO ITII HMPS ILDCY ITLA HMSC ILFO ITRC HMSY ILOGY ITSW HNBC IMAG ITVU HNCS IMAL IUBC HOEN IMCC IVAC HOMEF IMCI IVISF HOMF IMCL IVTC HOWT IMCO IWHM HPAC IMCX JACO HPBC IMGN JADWF HPII IMON JANNF HPWR IMPH JAPNY HRBC IMPX JASN HRLYW IMPXD JBHT HRSH IMSI JCBS HSKL IMTKA JCORZ HTBK IMTN JDAS HTCH IMUL JDEC HTCO INAI JEAN HTEI INBI JEFF HTHR INCC JJSF HTLD INDB JKHY HUBC INDGF JLMI HUBG INEI JLNY HUMP INFM JLNYW HURC INFR JMED HWLD INFU JNKN HWYM INIS JOSB HYBD INLD JPSP IATA INLK JSBA IATV INLN JTFX IBCA INMD JTWO IBCO INMRY JUNI IBCP INRB JUNO IBHVF INSGY JWAIA IBOC INSI JXVL IBSDF INSP KARE IBSX INSS KARR ICCSA INTD KBALB ICED INTF KELL ICGX INTO KENT ICOC INTS KESI ICOS INTT KEST ICST INTU KIDQ ICUB INTXA KILN IDEA IOMT KING IDGB IONAY KITS IDPH IPCRF KLAC IDTC IPIC KLIC IDTI IPLY KLLM IDXC IPSW KLOC IDXX IQIQ KNAP IEIB IQIQW KNDL IFCI IQST KNGT IFIN IREG KNIC IFIT IRETS KNTK IFITU ISCO KOFX IFITZ ISCX KOGC IFLO ISFC KOOL IFNY ISIP KOSS IFSB ISKO KREN IFSCD ISNR KRHC IFSIA ISNS KROG IFTI ISWI KRSC IGCA ISWIW KSBK IGLC ITCC KSWS IHHI ITCD KTCO IHIIZ ITDS KTIE IHOP ITEC KTTY IHSC ITELD KWIC
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.071 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19458 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
KYZN MAGSF MFCV LABH MAHI MFLR LABL MAME MFNX LACO MANA MFRI LADF MANC MGAMZ LAIX MANS MGAS LANC MANU MGCC LANPF MARC MGCX LANV MASB MGMA LAYN MASK MGRC LCBM MATE MHMY LCRY MATH MICCF LDII MATK MICN LDSH MATR MICTF LEAS MATVY MIKE LEBC MATW MIKL LECE MAVK MIKR LECT MAXC MILK LEPI MAXF MIMS LEXI MAYS MINIZ LFCO MAZL MINT LFUS MBBC MIPS LFUSW MBFC MISI LGAM MBIA MKAU LGND MBJI MKIE LGTO MBLA MKTAY LHSG MBNK MKTW LHSPF MBNY MLAB LIBB MBRS MLCH LICB MBTA MLHR LIFF MCAR MMACW LIND MCBI MMAN LINK MCBN MMCN LION MCCL MMWW LIPO MCFR MNBB LITE MCHM MNMD LJLB MCOM MNRTA LJPC MCON MNTX LKST MCRE MOCO LLTC MCRS MODM LMLAF MCSX MOIL LMTR MCTL MOLX LNCR MDBK MOLXA LNDL MDCC MOND LOCK MDCD MORP LODE MDEA MOSX LODG MDERF MOVA LOEH MDEWF MOVI LOGC MDII MOYC LOJN MDKI MRBK LPAC MDMD MRCM LPGLY MDPA MRCY LPTHA MDSIF MRET LSCC MDSLF MRGE LSKIC MDWV MRGO LSON MEAD MRII LSTR MECN MRIS LTCH MEDJD MRRW LTEK MEDP MRSA LTRE MEDQ MRTN LUCK MEDS MRVC LUCY MELI MRVT LUFK MEMCF MSBF LUNR MENT MSBK LUTH MEOHF MSCA LUXY MERB MSDX LWAY MESA MSFT LXBK META MSGI LXMO METB MSIX LYTS METHA MSON LZRC METNF MSPT MACE METRW MSSI MACR METZ MSTR MADB MFAC MTEC MADGF MFCB MTIC MAGN MFCO MTIN
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.072 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19459
MTIX NITE OFLDF MTLG NKID OFLUF MTLM NLCI OGGI MTNT NLCS OHSL MTRA NMBT OLGR MTRO NMPC OLOG MTRX NMPS OLSAY MTST NMRX OLSYD MTWKF NMSS OMED MTXC NMTI OMGA MUZEW NMTX OMQP MVII NMTXZ ONCO MVISW NNBR ONCOZ MVSN NOBE ONDI MWAR NOGWF ONHN MWAV NOLD ONPR MWHX NOOF ONSSU MWRK NOPT ONST MXBIF NORPF ONSTW MXICY NORT ONTC MXWL NOVB OPEN MYLX NOVL OPHDW MYST NOVN OPMRF MZON NOVT OPSI NABI NPCI OPTS NADX NPIX OPTT NAIG NPRO ORBKF NAMC NPSI ORBT NAMCW NPSP ORLY NANX NPTH OROA NARA NRES ORTCZ NASI NRGN ORTH NATK NRIM ORTHW NATS NRMI OSBC NAUT NRTI OSFT NAVR NRTY OSIP NBCP NSBC OSIS NBOC NSCC OSIX NBTB NSCF OSSI NBTY NSDB OSTE NCBC NSFC OTRKB NCBE NSIT OTTR NCBH NSPR OUSA NCBM NSSI OVBC NCSS NSTA OWLD NDSN NSYS OWOS NECB NTEC OWWI NECSY NTLI OXGN NEIB NTOL OXGNW NEIC NTRL OXIS NEMA NTRS OZEMY NEOM NUTR OZRK NEON NVGNY PACK NEOP NVLS PAGE NEOT NVUE PAMM NERX NWEQ PANL NESC NWFI PANLW NESI NWFL PANRA NETA NWLIA PARL NETE NWRE PATI NETS NWSB PATK NETT NWST PAYX NEWC NXLK PAZZF NEWP NXTR PBCI NEWRZ OAKF PBCT NFLI OAKT PBHC NFLIW OBCI PBIOW NGASF OBIE PBIX NGPSF OBJS PBKS NHCH OCCF PBMIW NHMCF OCLI PBNK NHTB OCOM PBOC NHTCC ODSI PBSF NICEY ODWA PBSID NICH OFCP PBSIW NINE OFIXF PBTC
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.072 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19460 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
PBTX PMTC PWRH PBYP PMTI PXXI PCCG PMWI PYTV PCFC PNBC PZZA PCFR PNBK PZZI PCFRW PNDR QADI PCHM PNRG QCSB PCLE PNTE QDRMY PCMS POCC QEDC PCRV POCI QEKG PCSNC POOL QEPC PCSS POSO QFAB PCTH POVT QHGI PCTHW POWR QKTN PCTY PPAR QLGC PDII PPCO QLTIF PDKL PPDI QRSI PDLI PPLS QSNDF PDSEW PPOD QSYS PDSF PPRT QTRN PEBK PPTI QUAL PEBO PQUE QUES PECX PRAC QUIP PEEK PRACW QUIZ PEGA PRAN QUST PEGAE PRBC QWST PENC PRBZ RACN PENCW PRCT RADS PESC PRCY RADX PETD PRED RAGS PFCB PREN RAIN PFCO PRFM RAND PFDC PRFN RANGY PFNC PRGN RAWA PFSL PRGO RBCAA PGEI PRGX RBIN PGEOF PRIA RBNC PGEX PRKR RBOT PGLD PRLS RBOW PGNX PRMA RCBK PHBK PROA RCCC PHCC PROG RCHI PHEL PROV RCHY PHLI PROX RCII PHLYZ PRRR RCMT PHOC PRTL RCOM PHON PRTW RCOMW PHSE PRVT RDCMF PHTN PRWW RDGE PHXX PRXL RDOC PICM PSBI RDUS PICO PSCO REAL PIFIE PSDI REBC PIHCU PSFC RECY PILT PSFI REFR PIONA PSFT REGN PIOS PSON RELI PLAB PSQL RELV PLAY PSRC RELY PLCE PSTFY REMX PLDI PSUN RENEF PLFC PSYS RENWF PLLL PTEC REPT PLNR PTIX RESM PLPT PTNX RESR PLSIZ PTSI RESY PLSK PTUSE RFGI PLTN PUBO RFHIW PLUS PUMA RGEN PLXS PUREW RGFC PMCO PURW RGLD PMCP PVII RGNT PMRP PVSA RHCS PMRT PVSW RHPS PMRTZ PWCC RICAD PMRY PWER RIFL
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.073 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19461
RIGS SBUX SKYEY RIGX SCAI SKYF RIMS SCCB SKYM RINO SCCO SLAM RIPE SCES SLFI RIVR SCFS SLHN RKNG SCHI SLIC RLAXY SCHR SLMD RLLYW SCIO SLNK RMBS SCIXF SLVN RMCI SCMM SLVR RMHT SCNG SMBC RMOC SCNI SMCC RMTR SCNYA SMCH RNETW SCNYB SMCHW RNIC SCOC SMCX RNTK SCOT SMEDF ROAC SCSC SMGS ROAD SCSWF SMIN ROCK SCTLF SMIT ROCLF SCTT SMOD ROCM SCUR SMPS ROHN SCVL SMSC ROIL SDTI SMSI ROIX SEAC SMTC ROMC SECAY SMTS ROMN SEGU SNAP ROSDF SEIC SNDCF ROSE SELAY SNDK ROSI SELB SNDSC ROSWF SEMD SNFCA RPII SENEA SNPS RRRR SENEB SNRS RSBI SERO SNSTA RSFC SESI SNTC RSGI SFEF SNTO RSIS SFFC SNUS RSLN SFIN SOAPW RSPN SFSK SOCR RSTI SFSW SOCT RTEL SFUN SODK RTRK SFXE SOFT RTRSY SGAI SOLP RURL SGDE SOLPU RUSH SGNL SONE RUSMF SGNS SONO RVEE SGOLY SOPN RWAV SGPH SPAN RWDT SGVB SPAZC RYFL SHBK SPCO RZYM SHLL SPCOC SACM SHLR SPEC SAESY SHOE SPFO SAFC SHOO SPGLA SAFT SHPGY SPIR SALT SHRP SPLI SANM SHUF SPOR SANYY SHVA SPPR SAPE SIAL SPPTY SASR SIDY SPTR SATC SIGYY SPWY SATH SIHS SPZN SAVLY SIII SQNT SBAS SILCF SRCL SBCM SILI SRDX SBEI SIMA SRGEW SBHC SIMC SSFC SBIB SIMS SSII SBIG SIRC SSLI SBIO SIRN SSYS SBIT SIVB STAC SBLI SIZL STAF SBNK SKCB STBC SBSE SKFRY STBF SBSI SKRI STCL SBTK SKYC STFC
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.073 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19462 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
STFR TELEW TRUC STGC TELU TRUCW STHLY TELV TRUV STMT TENT TRVS STOSY TERA TSBS STRA TESI TSCC STRC TESOF TSCN STRD TESTA TSFW STRT TESTB TSIC STRZ TEXM TSII STSA TEXP TSMAF STTZF TFCO TSSS STVI TFRC TSST SUBK TGAL TSSW SUGN TGCI TTEC SUMT TGEN TTELF SUMX TGIS TTILF SUNH TGNT TUNE SUNQ TGSI TUTR SUPC THNK TVGTF SUPR THRD TVGWF SUPVU THRT TVLI SUPX TIII TWFC SVBF TISAF TWHH SVECF TISWF TWLB SVRN TKGFA TWMC SWBT TKGFW TWRI SWKOY TKOCF TWSTY SXNB TLAB TXCC SYBS TLCM TXCO SYGR TLDT TXHI SYKE TLGD UACA SYMC TLTN UBAN SYMX TLXAF UBCD SYNC TMAN UBID SYNT TMAX UBIX SYNX TMBR UBMT SYPR TMCS UBSC SYSF TMEIW UBSH TACO TMOT UCBH TACT TMSR UCMP TAIT TMSTB UCOR TALX TMXI UDYN TANK TNSU UEIC TAROF TOGA UFBS TARR TOPS UFCS TASA TOYOY UFPT TATTF TPARY UGLY TAVI TPEG UHCI TAYD TPOA UHCP TBAEW TQNT UICI TBCOA TRAK UIHIA TBCOL TRBO ULTI TBFC TRBR UMED TBUS TRBS UMPQ TBUSW TRCD UNAM TCCO TRCI UNBC TCDN TRCR UNBJ TCDNW TRDT UNFY TCIVA TRDX UNII TCIX TREV UNIT TCLN TREVW UNSRW TCMS TRGNY UNTD TCNOF TRIZF UNTY TCOMB TRKA UNVC TCPI TRMB UNVCW TCPS TRMK UPUP TCSI TRMM URBN TCTV TRND URGI TCXXF TRNI UROQ TDEO TRNS USAD TDEOW TRON USAK TECH TROW USAM TECUB TRSEF USAP TELE TRSM USBCE TELEU TRST USDL
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.074 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19463
USEY VTCH XMCM USEYW VTEK XMIT USFC VTEX XOSY USFS VTNAF XRAY USHG VTSS XRIT USPH VVUS XTEL USPN VVVI XTON USTC WALB XTRM USWB WALK XYBR UTBI WALL XYBRW UTCI WANG YANB UTCIW WARPF YELL UTEK WATFZ YFED UTOG WATR YHOO UTVI WAVO YORK UVEW WAXS YSII UVSGA WAYN ZAPS UVSLW WBCO ZEUS VADO WBPR ZHOM VAIL WBST ZILA VALN WCII ZING VALU WCMC ZION VCAP WCNX ZITL VCLL WCOM ZMAX VCLLW WCSTF ZMTX VCSI WDFC ZNDTY VDAT WDRY ZNRG VDATW WEFC ZOMX VDNX WERN ZOOM VECO WFDS ZYSBB VENGF WFSG VENT WGBC Schedule C VERP WGOV AAGIY VFLX WHGB AAHS VFSC WILWF AAIR VGCO WIND AAME VGHN WIRE AASIU VIAS WLDA AASIW VICL WLFC AASP VICR WLHN AATI VIDE WLPT ABBK VIFL WLRF ABCB VINT WMCO ABCL VION WNUT ABCR VIONU WPEC ABGX VIONW WPIC ABMC VIRS WPNE ACAT VISG WPSN ACET VITK WRDP ACIT VITL WRKS ACLR VLAB WRKSW ACNUF VLGEA WRLD ACRI VLNC WRLSD ACSC VMRX WRNB ACSY VNTV WSBI ACTL VNWK WSBK ACTT VOCLF WSCC ADCC VONE WSCI ADLI VOXW WSFS ADLRF VPUR WSTL ADSP VRES WSTNA ADVNB VRGN WTEC AEIS VRIO WTHG AESP VRLK WTLK AFFI VRSN WVFC AFFX VRTX WWCA AFIS VRTY WWES AGIS VSCI WWLIW AGPH VSEIF WWTR AHPI VSIN WYNT AHWY VSIND XATA AILP VSIO XEIKY AIRB VSLF XETA AKRN VSNT XIOX ALAB VSTN XLNX ALEX VSVR XLSW ALGI
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.074 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19464 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
ALGO BCII CDTS ALKS BCIS CDWI ALLE BCOM CEBC ALNC BDLS CECO ALNK BDOG CEDC ALOT BEIQ CEDR ALSI BELFB CEFT ALTA BERK CELT ALTM BFOH CENT ALYN BGALY CERS AMCC BHAG CETV AMCE BHQUC CFBXL AMFC BIGX CFBXZ AMHC BIKE CFCM AMRSW BILL CFCP AMSFF BIMCD CFGI AMSGA BIOI CFNC AMSWA BIPL CGCP AMSY BIRM CHAR AMVC BJICA CHERB ANAD BKFR CHGOW ANAT BLCI CHRB ANDE BLMT CHTT ANET BLUD CIEN ANIC BMAN CINF ANLT BMED CIRQF APOS BMRA CISC AQLA BMTR CKFR AREA BNBGA CLAS ARGX BNKU CLBK ARIA BNRX CLCP ARINA BONSQ CLFY ARIS BONZ CLKB ARKR BOSCF CLRS ARMF BOSS CLRT ARNX BOYD CLST ARQL BPLS CLTK ARRO BRAI CLTR ARSC BRBI CLTY ARTC BRBK CLYS ARTL BRYO CMCI ASCT BSMT CMDL ASEC BSYS CMED ASFT BTBTY CMND ASHE BTGC CMOS ASMIF BTGI CMRO ASYSW BUKSC CMSB ATLB BUNZ CMSV ATLCU BWFC CMTO ATML BYBI CMWL ATPC CACB CNAF ATRI CADE CNBC ATRM CAFI CNGR AURA CAMD CNIT AVAN CAND CNRD AVCC CARD CNRS AVDL CARN CNSP AVGE CASA CNTL AVID CATH CNTR AVII CAVB CNXT AVRT CBAN COBH AVTR CBCI COBZ AVXT CBMD CODI AXIM CBNJ COLL AXYS CBNY COMS AZTC CBRL COOP BAANF CBSA COPI BAMM CCCFF COPY BARR CCLR CORX BATSW CCRO COSC BBBY CDIC COSE BBDC CDIR CPMNY BBII CDMS CPRT BBRC CDNW CPTI BBSI CDRD CPWY BCHE CDSC CRCL
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.075 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19465
CRDM DMMC ETEK CRED DMSC EUSA CREE DNEX EVBS CREN DNFC EVER CRGO DRCO EWST CRHCY DRMD EXAC CRLS DRTK EXCA CRRC DRYR EXCO CRRR DSGIF EXEC CRYSF DSIT FACO CSAR DTEK FACT CSBK DTLN FARL CSCO DTMC FARM CSCQ DVIDU FARO CSCQW DVNTF FASI CSNR DWCH FAST CSWC DWYR FAXX CSYI DXPE FBAN CTBI DXYN FBER CTCO DYHM FBNC CTCQ DYII FBSI CTEK DYMTF FCBF CTEN DYMX FCBK CTGI DYNX FCCN CTIC DYOLF FCFC CTII DYPR FDTR CTND EAII FEET CTRX EASTW FESX CTRY EBAY FFBC CTSC ECBE FFBZ CTWOW ECSI FFDB CTXS EDCO FFDF CTYA EDUC FFES CVBK EEFT FFHH CVCLF EFCX FFKT CVLY EFII FFTI CVTI EGASW FHCC CWBC EGHT FHRI CWEI EGLO FIBC CXILW EILL FIFS CYAN ELAMF FILM CYGN ELCO FIRM CYPB ELIX FISB CYPBZ ELON FISV CYPHW ELSE FKFS CYSP ELSI FLCHF DAIO EMAK FLCI DAKT EMCC FLDR DAOU EMKR FLIC DAVL EMLD FLOW DAVX ENCD FLPB DAWK ENDO FLSC DBLE ENER FMAX DBRSY ENGEF FMBI DCAIW ENGSY FMBK DCLK ENMC FNCLY DCPI ENSO FNCO DCRN ENSR FNFI DEAR EPEX FNLY DECO EPIQ FONX DECTF EQSB FORMF DEMP EQTX FORTY DENT ERCI FOUR DGII ERGO FRAG DGJLF ERICZ FRBK DGSI ESBF FRES DHBT ESBK FRGB DHSM ESCMF FRND DIAGF ESCO FRNT DIGL ESIO FRPP DIIG ESMCW FSAWF DINE ESON FSNJ DKEY ESPI FSON DLIA ESPRY FSRV DLNK ESTI FSTR DMDS ETCIA FTBK
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.075 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19466 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
FTCG HELE INMT FTEC HELO INNO FTEKF HERBB INOC FTFN HFBC INPR FTSP HHCA INPT FULL HHHH INSO FUSE HICKA INST FUTR HIHOF INSUA FWBI HILI INTAF FWWB HIPC INTG FYII HISS INTL GABC HITK INTXL GABS HMAR INTXZ GAEO HMII INVN GASSD HMLD INVX GATT HMSI IPEC GBCOA HMSIU IRIDF GBFE HMSIW IRSN GBND HNWC ISAC GBOT HNWCW ISBF GBTB HORT ISEE GDCUF HRDG ISGTF GDCWF HRVE ISIG GENSZ HSIC ISIS GENZ HSTD ISLE GEOC HTEC ITRI GEOI HTECC ITWO GGGO HWCC IUSAA GIGX HWKN IZZI GISH HYPT JADEF GLCBY HYSL JAMS GLDB IAAC JEVC GLDR IACP JMAR GLIA IART JMCG GLMA IBIS JSTN GLUX ICCC JUDG GMCR ICHR KAMNA GMGC ICII KAYE GNCMA ICIX KERA GNLB ICLRY KEYS GNRL ICMI KFBI GNTIY ICOCZ KIDD GNTL ICOGF KIDS GNTY ICOR KINN GPFI ICTSF KLOCZ GRDG ICUI KMET GRIF IDBEF KOPN GRLL IELSF KPLNF GRTS IFLYW KPLWF GSBNW IFMX KRON GSLM IGPFF KRSL GSOF IHIIL KTEC GSTX IKOS KTIC GTCMY ILNK KTII GTIMW IMAA KTWO GTNR IMAT KTWOW GTRC IMAXF KVCO GUPB IMGK KVHI GZEA IMKE KYZNW GZMO IMMU LABN HACH IMNR LABS HACHA IMONW LACI HAIN IMSC LAND HALL IMSG LARL HAMP INCY LASE HANS INDYY LAWS HARY INFD LBTYB HAST INFO LCCI HAUS INFS LCCO HAVN INGR LCOS HBHC INHL LCSI HBOC INHM LEASW HCAP INHO LECH HCORC INKP LFED HCRI INKT LGCB HEAL INLQ LGSAF
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.076 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19467
LIFE MIKN NSIX LIQB MILT NSPK LJPCW MITSY NTAIF LKFN MLOG NTAP LMAR MMAC NTBK LMIA MMGR NTEG LNCB MMSI NTFYW LNCE MNES NTKI LNET MNRCY NTMG LOGIY MNYC NTPA LOGLF MNYCW NTPL LOGN MODI NTSC LONDY MOKA NTSTW LPTHW MONM NUHC LQMD MONT NURTF LSBX MOTO NVDA LSCP MOTR NVDC LTCW MPSI NVDCW LUCR MPVIF NWCA LUND MRLL NWCMW LVCI MRYP NWNG LVLT MSEL NWPX LVSB MSEX NWREW MABXA MSPTD NWSS MAII MSTG NWSW MAIL MTLC NYHC MAIN MTMC NZYM MAIR MTRN OCAD MALL MTRS OCAL MAPS MTSC OCAS MARN MTSLF ODETA MARPS MUEI ODFL MARY MUEL ODIS MAST MUSE OFIS MAXI MVAC OGLE MAXS MVCOW OHRI MBHI MWDS OICO MBLF MWGP OLAB MBRW MWHS OLCWF MCCRK MWSI OLGC MCHP MXIM OMPT MCLD MYGN ONFC MCRI MYSW ONTR MCRL NAII ONTRW MDCAF NATI ONYX MDCI NATL OPHD MDCL NATLW OPTLF MDLK NATR OPTN MDSN NATW ORAL MDST NAVG ORCI MECH NBAK ORCL MEDA NBSC OREX MEDI NBSI ORFR MEDJ NCEB ORNGY MEDM NCES ORTL MEDY NCOMC ORYX MEGO NCTI OSFTW MERCS NERIF OSHSF MERK NETG OSII MERQ NETM OTCM MERX NEXT OTRX METF NFLD OUTL METG NGEN OVRL METHB NHAN OYOG METLF NHCI PAASF MFBC NHHC PACC MFIC NICKF PAIR MFUN NMGC PALX MGAM NMSB PANA MGAMW NMSCA PAPA MGASW NOBH PARA MHCO NOEL PARS MICA NOIZ PATH MIFC NOOFW PAUH MIFGY NPBC PBFI MIGI NRRD PBMI
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.076 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19468 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
PCIG QDIN SEQU PCOP QGENF SEVN PDSE QGLY SEWY PDSFW QMDC SFAM PEAKF QSRI SFBC PEDE QTEL SFGD PEGI QUIX SHCR PERI QUSTW SHDN PERLF RACE SHFL PESI RADAF SHLM PETC RADIF SHLO PETM RAIL SIEB PFGI RANKY SIGC PFINA RARE SIGI PFSB RAVE SIGM PGLAF RAVN SILVZ PGTZ RAWL SIMN PHFC RAZR SIMWF PHLY RBPAA SIND PHRX RCNC SIPX PHSB RDRT SISGF PHSYB REHB SIXR PHYC REIN SJNB PHYN RENG SKAN PIAM RENO SKBO PIHCW RENX SKFB PILL RESC SKYT PIOG RESP SKYW PJTVC REXI SLFC PLAN REXL SLICW PLCM REXMY SLPT PLFE RFIL SLTID PLMD RFMD SMAN PLSIA RFMI SMCS PLUSW RGBK SMMT PMCS RGCO SMTR PMEDW RGIS SMTRF PMFG RIBI SNBC PMID RICA SNBJ PMOR RICK SNBS PMORW RIDE SNHY PMRTW RIDG SNIC PNTK RIVL SNSR POLY RLLY SNTKY POWI RMCF SOBI PPTV RMII SOCC PRCC RNET SONC PRCM ROBV SORC PRGS ROYL SOTR PRHC RPCLF SPAB PRMS RSCR SPAR PRRC RTEX SPDE PRSP RTRO SPLK PRZM RTSTD SPLN PSCOW RXSD SPNSF PSWT RYOU SPOT PTCH SABB SPRI PTEK SAFE SPRX PTEN SAFS SPSI PTHW SANG SRGE PTII SASOY SRSL PTIS SAVB SSAX PTRO SAWS SSCC PTVL SBAN SSIIW PUBSF SBCO SSPE PULB SCBHF SSSS PULBD SCBS SSTI PUTT SCHK STAR PVAT SCITY STBI PVATW SCLN STER PVCC SCOR STIM PVFC SDCOZ STIZ PWAV SECM STKLF QCBC SECX STKR QCOM SEMI STLTF QDELW SEMX STRO
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.077 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19469
STRX TTRIF WINS STTX TUBY WKGP SUIT TUSC WNNB SUMM TUTS WOFC SUND TWIN WORK SUNW TWRS WPPGY SUPI TWTR WSII SUSCD UBCP WSTF SUSQ UBSI WSTR SVGI UCFC WTBK SVIN UFAB WTFC SWFT UFMG WTNY SWLDY UHLD WTRS SWMAY ULGX WTSC SWWC UNDG WVVI SXTN UNFI WWESW SYBBF UNIQ WWIN SYCM UNPH WWVY SYMBA UNSRA XCED SYNL UPFC YBTVA SYXI URSI YILD TAMR USBN ZBRA TANT USEC ZICAF TBAC USEG ZIGO TCAM USHP ZNRGW TCCC USPL ZOLT TCHC USPTS ZONA TCIVB USTX ZSEV TDRP USVI ZVXI TDSC UVSL ZYSDD TECUA VARL ZYSKK TERN VCAI TEST VCAM [FR Doc. 99–10008 Filed 4–16–99; 4:48 pm] TEVIY VCFC BILLING CODE 8010±01±P TFCE VDRY TFONY VELCF TFSM VERD SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE TGIC VESC COMMISSION THDO VFND THOR VIAX 17 CFR Parts 232, 270 and 274 THTL VIONZ TIMBZ VITX [Release No. IC±23786; File No. S7±31±98] TKIOY VLSI RIN 3235±AG29 TKLC VMRXW TKTL VMSI Deregistration of Certain Registered TLNOF VPHM Investment Companies TLSP VRBA TLXN VRTL AGENCY: Securities and Exchange TMAR VSAT Commission. TMBS VTEL ACTION: TMPW VVID Final rule. TMTV WABC SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting TMTX WACLY amendments to the rule and form under TNTX WAIN TNZRY WANGW the Investment Company Act of 1940 TOFF WAVE that govern the deregistration of TPEGW WAVEW registered investment companies. The TRAV WAVT Commission also is adopting TRBD WBKC amendments that require investment TREN WCBO companies to file the form electronically TRES WCCI through the Commission’s Electronic TRFDF WCFB Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval TRGA WCLX (‘‘EDGAR’’) system. The amendments TRGI WDHD TRGIW WEBB are designed to expedite the process for TRGL WEBC deregistering investment companies. TRGPW WEBK EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule amendments TRIC WEYS will become effective June 1, 1999. TRMS WFMI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TRVL WFSL Robin Gross Lehv, Staff Attorney, or TSAI WGNR TSATA WHIT Penelope Saltzman, Senior Counsel, at TSCP WHJI (202) 942–0690, Office of Regulatory TSEMF WIDFC Policy, Division of Investment TSFT WIKS Management, Securities and Exchange TSRI WILM Commission, 450 5th Street, N.W.,
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.077 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19470 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
Washington, D.C. 20549–0506. For electronically through the Commission’s specific estimates of any costs or additional information, including EDGAR system. benefits of the amendments. questions about filing Form N–8F, The Commission received one III. Paperwork Reduction Act contact the Office of Investment comment letter, which supported the Company Regulation, Division of proposed amendments and urged their Certain provisions of the amendments Investment Management, at (202) 942– prompt adoption.5 The commenter to rule 8f–1 and Form N–8F constitute 0564, Securities and Exchange agreed that the amendments would a ‘‘collection of information’’ Commission, 450 5th Street, N.W., facilitate completion of the form and requirement within the meaning of the Washington, D.C. 20549–0506. expedite the deregistration process. We Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 are adopting the amendments U.S.C. 3501–3520]. The Commission SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substantially as proposed, with minor solicited, but did not receive, comments Commission is adopting amendments to technical modifications 6 in response to on the collection of information rule 8f–1 [17 CFR 270.8f–1] and Form issues raised by the commenter.7 requirements in the Proposing Release. N–8F [17 CFR 274.218] under the The Commission submitted the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 II. Cost-Benefit Analysis proposed amendments to the Office of U.S.C. 80a] (the ‘‘Investment Company The Commission is sensitive to the Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’), and to rule 101 of the costs and benefits that result from its pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and Commission’s Regulation S–T [17 CFR rules. The rule and form amendments received approval of the amendments’’ 232.101]. are designed to decrease the regulatory collection of information requirements (OMB control number 3235–0157).9 An I. Discussion burdens for funds that apply for a deregistration order. The amendments agency may not conduct or sponsor, and Under section 8(f) of the Investment (i) revise the content and format of Form a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it Company Act, the Commission may N–8F, making it easier to understand displays a currently valid control deregister a registered investment and complete, (ii) expand the circumstances under which funds may number. company (‘‘fund’’) if it determines the The collection of information is not use the form to apply to deregister, and fund is no longer an ‘‘investment mandatory but is recommended for all 1 (iii) require the form to be filed company. In order to expedite the funds that seek to deregister under the electronically. deregistration process and assist funds circumstances described in rule 8f–1. in preparing their applications, in 1978 As explained in greater detail in the The amended rule does not require that the Commission adopted rule 8f–1 and cost-benefit analysis of the Proposing the collection of information be made Form N–8F.2 Rule 8f–1 describes the Release, the Commission believes these public or kept confidential by the circumstances in which funds may use changes will result in cost and time parties. Form N–8F to apply for a deregistration savings for registered investment order, and Form N–8F specifies the companies. Specifically, we estimated IV. Summary of Final Regulatory information that a fund must provide. that the amendments will reduce the Flexibility Analysis average time that it takes to complete In December 1998, the Commission A Final Regulatory Flexibility the form by about 50 percent, and will proposed to revise Form N–8F to Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) concerning rule 8f– similarly reduce the number of simplify the form, eliminate 1 and Form N–8F has been prepared in applications that require the applicant unnecessary items, and refocus the accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604. An Initial to provide additional or clarifying questions to better elicit the information Regulatory Flexibility Analysis information.8 The one comment letter we need to make the finding under (‘‘IRFA’’) was prepared in accordance we received agreed that the proposed section 8(f) to deregister a fund.3 We with 5 U.S.C. 603, and a summary of the amendments would expedite the also proposed to amend rule 8f–1 to IRFA was included in the Proposing registration process, but did not provide expand the types of circumstances in Release. The Commission received no which a fund may use Form N–8F to comments on the IRFA. 5 apply for a deregistration order.4 See Letter from Investment Company Institute The FRFA notes that the amendments (Feb. 5, 1999) (placed in File No. S7–31–98). are intended to improve the quality of Finally, we proposed to require that 6 Among other technical changes, we deleted the information provided on the form and to Form N–8F, like most other documents question requesting the date that the fund filed a reduce the time and effort required to filed by funds, be submitted notice of registration, because that information is not necessary to our determination under section complete the form. The amendments do 8(f) if the fund provides its registration number, as not impose new burdens on respondents 1 15 U.S.C. 80a–8(f). requested by the form. See Proposed Form N–8F, other than the requirement that the form 2 See Deregistration of Certain Investment item 10; Amended Form N–8F, item 3. Companies and Quarterly Reports of Management 7 Form N–8F contains a reminder, but not a be filed through the EDGAR system. The Investment Companies, Investment Company Act requirement, that a deregistering fund must file a amendments will not impose any new Release No. 10237 (May 11, 1978) [43 FR 21664 final Form N–SAR [17 CFR 274.101] in accordance reporting or recordkeeping (May 19, 1978)]. with other rules under the Act. See Amended Form requirements. 3 See Deregistration of Certain Registered N–8F, instruction 6. The commenter suggested that As discussed more fully in the FRFA, Investment Companies, Investment Company Act the Commission eliminate the obligation to file a Release No. 23588 (Dec. 4, 1998) [63 FR 69236 (Dec. final Form N–SAR in certain circumstances. We are the amendments will affect small 16, 1998)] (‘‘Proposing Release’’). considering amendments to Form N–SAR, and will 4 Under the proposed amendments, a fund could consider the commenter’s suggestion in the context 9 As stated in the Proposing Release, the use the form if it (i) has sold substantially all of its of that rulemaking. Commission estimates that the amendments will assets to another fund or merged into or 8 The Commission believes the form typically is reduce the reporting and recordkeeping burden of consolidated with another fund, (ii) has distributed completed by support staff. Based on an estimated the rule and form to 3 hours per respondent. Based substantially all of its assets to its shareholders and cost of $15 per hour for a clerical worker to on past experience, we estimate that each year completed, or is in the process of, winding up its complete Form N–8F and an estimate of 130 approximately 130 funds will apply to deregister, affairs, (iii) qualifies for an exclusion from the applications filed each year, the Commission and that each applicant will apply only once. definition of investment company under section estimates the current total annual cost of filing the Therefore, we estimate that the annual reporting 3(c)(1) or section 3(c)(7) of the Act, or (iv) has form is $11,700 (130 × $15 x 6 hrs.), while the total and recordkeeping burden for the amended form decided to become a business development annual cost of filing the amended form would be will be 3 hours per applicant, and 390 hours total company. $5,850 (130 × $15 × 3 hrs.). for all applicants.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.090 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19471 businesses or small organizations List of Subjects (b) Has distributed substantially all of (collectively, ‘‘small entities’’), as its assets to its shareholders and has 17 CFR Part 232 defined by the Commission’s rules, in completed, or is in the process of, the same manner as all other entities Reporting and recordkeeping winding up its affairs; who use Form N–8F to deregister. The requirements. (c) Qualifies for an exclusion from the Commission believes the amendments 17 CFR Part 270 definition of ‘‘investment company’’ will decrease burdens on all funds by under section 3(c)(1) (15 U.S.C. 80a– facilitating and expediting the Investment companies, Securities. 3(c)(1)) or section 3(c)(7) (15 U.S.C. 80a– deregistration process, saving them time 17 CFR Part 274 3(c)(7)) of the Act; or and money. (d) Has become a business The FRFA states that for purposes of Investment companies, Reporting and development company. the Investment Company Act and the recordkeeping requirements. Regulatory Flexibility Act, a small entity Text of Rule and Form Amendments Note to § 270.8f–1: Applicants who are not is a fund that, together with other funds eligible to use Form N–8F to file an in the same group of related funds, has For the reasons set out in the application to deregister may follow the net assets of $50 million or less as of the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the general guidance for filing applications under end of its most recent fiscal year.10 Of Code of Federal Regulations is amended rule 0–2 (17 CFR 270.0–2) of this chapter. as follows: approximately 3900 active funds PART 274ÐFORMS PRESCRIBED (including business development PART 232ÐREGULATION S±TÐ UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY companies), 339 funds are small GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS ACT OF 1940 entities. Any of these 339 funds that FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS applies to deregister under 6. The authority citation for part 274 circumstances described in amended 1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read as follows: rule 8f–1 could use Form N–8F. continues to read as follows: Finally, the FRFA notes that the Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 80a–8, 80a–24, Commission considered various 77s(a), 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), and 80a–29, unless otherwise noted. alternatives that might minimize the 78w(a), 78ll(d), 79t(a), 80a–8, 80a–29, 80–30 economic impact of the amendments on and 80a–37. 7. Section 274.218 and Form N–8F are small entities. These include: (i) The revised to read as follows: establishment of differing compliance § 232.101 [Amended] requirements that take into account the § 274.218 Form N±8F, application for 2. Section 232.101 is amended in deregistration of certain registered resources available to small entities; (ii) paragraph (a)(1)(iv) by removing the investment companies. the clarification, consolidation, or phrase ‘‘, 8(f)’’ and by removing the simplification of compliance phrase ‘‘, 80a–8(f)’’. This form must be used as the requirements under the rule for small 3. Section 232.101 is amended in application for an order of the entities; (iii) the use of performance paragraph (c)(11) by removing the Commission in cases in which the rather than design standards; and (iv) an phrase ‘‘8(f),’’ and by removing the applicant is a registered investment exemption from coverage of the rule, or phrase ‘‘80a–8(f),’’. company that: any part thereof, for small entities. The (a) Has sold substantially all of its FRFA concludes that alternative PART 270ÐRULES AND assets to another registered investment requirements or simplification or REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT company or merged into or consolidated consolidation of the requirements is COMPANY ACT OF 1940 with another registered investment unnecessary because the amendments company; 4. The authority citation for part 270 are designed to reduce the compliance continues to read, in part, as follows: (b) Has distributed substantially all of burdens for all funds, including small its assets to its shareholders and has entities. In addition, an exemption from Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq., 80a– completed, or is in the process of, 34(d), 80a–37, 80a–39 unless otherwise any of the requirements for small winding up its affairs; noted; entities would increase their regulatory (c) Qualifies for an exclusion from the * * * * * burden rather than decrease it. definition of ‘‘investment company’’ A copy of the FRFA may be obtained 5. Section 270.8f–1 is revised to read under section 3(c)(1) (15 U.S.C. 80a– by contacting Robin Gross Lehv, as follows: 3(c)(1)) or section 3(c)(7) (15 U.S.C. 80a– Division of Investment Management, § 270.8f±1 Deregistration of certain 3(c)(7)) of the Act; or Securities and Exchange Commission, registered investment companies. 450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (d) Has become a business 20549–0506. A registered investment company that development company. seeks a Commission order declaring that Note: Form N–8F does not, and the V. Statutory Authority it is no longer an investment company amendments will not, appear in the Code of The Commission is amending rule 8f– may file an application with the Federal Regulations. A copy of Form N–8F is 1 and Form N–8F pursuant to the Commission on Form N–8F (17 CFR attached as an Appendix to this document. authority set forth in section 38(a) [15 274.218) if the investment company: Dated: April 15, 1999. U.S.C. 80a–37(a)] of the Investment (a) Has sold substantially all of its By the Commission. assets to another registered investment Company Act. Jonathan G. Katz, company or merged into or consolidated Secretary. 10 Rule 0–10 under the Investment Company Act with another registered investment [17 CFR 270.0–10]. company; BILLING CODE 5010±01±P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19472 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.092 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19473
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.092 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19474 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.092 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19475
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.092 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19476 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.092 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19477
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.092 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19478 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.092 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19479
[FR Doc. 99–9942 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010±01±C
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.092 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19480 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR was considered pupule (crazy) from opposing the proposed rule, 47 were grief. (Kamakau 1919–20:2–45; from the State of Hawaii and 375 were National Park Service Campbell 1967:101; Pukui, Haertig, and from out-of-state. Twenty-eight of the 47 Lee, 1972 Vol. I: 124,133; 1972 Vol. Hawaii addresses were from the island 36 CFR Part 7 II:183; Valeri 1985:261, 308). of Hawaii where this national historical RIN 1024±AC66 Sorcery: As nudity is excused during park is located. The addresses of origin mourning, nudity in the ceremony of of 46 of the letters opposing the rule Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical anewanewa, was excused due to fear of could not be determined. Park, Hawaii; Public Nudity sorcery. These two circumstances were A total of 887 letters and the five probably the only time Hawaiians of petitions, containing a total of 74 AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. both sexes were ever nude in public. signatures, were in support of the ACTION: Final rule. Exposure of the genitals was not proposed rule and against public nudity SUMMARY: The National Park Service approved. (Pukui, Haertig, and Lee, at Kaloko-Honokohau. Of the 887 letters (NPS) is issuing this final rule to 1972:124). supporting the rule, 849 had addresses Nudity, general: Hawaiian tradition, prohibit public nudity within the from the State of Hawaii and eight had for those following the kapu exposing boundaries of Kaloko-Honokohau out-of-state addresses. A total of 815 of the buttocks (hoopohopoho) was a National Historical Park, Hawaii. Public the 887 Hawaii addresses were from the gesture of complete contempt * * * and nudity is in conflict with the enabling island of Hawaii where this national a grave insult to the beholder and for legislation of the park and the historical park is located. The addresses this reason even the slit-in-the-back of origin of 30 letters could not be traditional values of native Hawaiian hospital gown thus becomes a threat to determined. culture, which the park was created to ordinary courtesy. (Pukui, Haertig, and More than three hundred letters of perpetuate and preserve. Lee, 1972:91). comment opposing the rule appeared to EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes Today, the reaction of Hawaiian come from members of the Naturist effective on May 21, 1999. cultural experts to public nudity echoes Society and the American Association FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the past pre-missionary view towards for Nude Recreation (AANR). These Bryan Harry, Superintendent, National nakedness (personal communication letters contained statements similar to Park Service, Pacific Islands Support with Pat Bacon, who is Mary Kawena those found in advisory alerts forwarded Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 6– Pukui’s daughter). Specifically, she was to members by the Naturist Action 226, P.O. Box 50165, Honolulu, Hawaii asked as to what circumstances in the Committee and contained in the 96850. Telephone 808–541–2693. Hawaiian culture would nudity be AANR’s monthly publication, The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: acceptable. Ms. Bacon stated that Bulletin. Members were asked to submit Background traditionally, children were allowed to individual letters and were provided go naked until they were about 10 years with the following suggested points to Public Law 95–625 (16 U.S.C. 396d) old, and that adult, female or male, make in those letters: established Kaloko-Honokohau National nudity was not acceptable, and that men 1. State that you are a federal taxpayer Historical Park on November 10, 1978 were nude only for rituals. objecting to the proposed rule against ‘‘to provide a center for the The park initially attempted to Nudity at Honokohau National Park. preservation, interpretation and encourage voluntary compliance to 2. You can also mention: That, as a perpetuation of traditional native prohibit public nudity. When this federal taxpayer, you believe national Hawaiian activities and culture, and to failed, the park enacted a temporary parks are for everyone; that, with the demonstrate historic land use patterns restriction of public nudity through the right planning, nude recreation and as well as to provide needed resources Superintendent’s Compendium (36 CFR other uses such as educational tours of for the education, enjoyment and 1.5(a)(2)). This temporary prohibition is the historic park can be accommodated; appreciation of such traditional native currently in place. and that the availability of nude beaches Hawaiian activities and culture by local A proposed rule was published in the is a factor in your decision-making residents and visitors * * *’’ Public Federal Register April 20, 1998 (63 FR about where you and your family nudity, an activity that can be construed 19436). The public comment period for choose to spend vacation dollars. as contemptuous and insulting in the proposed rule was open for 60 days. A total of 317 letters opposing the traditional native Hawaiian culture, is proposed rule contained references to in conflict with the above stated Summary of Comments the above points. purpose for which this park was We received a total of 1,355 letters A total of 173 of the letters opposing established. Continued use of the park and five petitions with comments on the the proposed rule disputed or disagreed in this manner derogates resources that proposed rule during the public that public nudity could be construed as are used traditionally and creates a comment period ending June 19, 1998. contemptuous and insulting in condition that is in conflict with related We have carefully considered all traditional native Hawaiian culture and traditional native Hawaiian practices. comments received. The legitimate in conflict with the stated purpose of In traditional Hawaiian culture, concerns of both Hawaiian residents the Kaloko-Honokohau National public nudity had strong social and of individuals from areas outside Historical Park. These letters contained connotations. The following excerpts, Hawaii were given consideration in the statements that native Hawaiians swam pertaining to nudity, document the review process. In addition, we nude at Honokohau beach for centuries traditional viewpoint of Hawaiians. completed a critical review of the and that nude use was not in conflict Nudity and public display of genitals content and format of the final with traditional practices by native was very strictly regulated within a regulation. A summary of comments Hawaiians, and that nude use of defined traditional social context. and our response to these comments Honokohau beach is not offensive to Mourning: * * * displaying genitals follows. native Hawaiians. was neither common nor approved, Mrs. A total of 468 letters opposed the Letters were received from members Pukui explains. Such actions were proposed rule to ban public nudity at of Hawaii’s Congressional Delegation, a excusable only because the mourner Kaloko-Honokohau. Of the 468 letters member of the State Legislature, the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.093 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19481
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Kaloko- position that nudity at the park be coexisted with other beach users for Honokohau Advisory Commission, the prohibited. many years. The association has over Naturist Society, the Naturist Action The Founder and President of the Naturist 8,000 members and is affiliated with the Committee, the American Association of Society (TNS) requested that the proposed Kona Sun Club. rule be discarded and in its place a Special The chairperson of Na Kokua Kaloko- Nude Recreation, the Western Regulation be formulated to provide for the Sunbathing Association, and management of nude recreation at Honokohau, a non-profit organization organizations and foundations Honokohau Beach. TNS has been actively established to assist NPS at Kaloko- representing Native Hawaiians. The engaged for nearly two decades in promoting Honokohau, wrote in opposition to content of these letters is summarized nude recreation on appropriate public lands. nude sunbathing in Kaloko-Honokohau below. The American Association of Nude National Historical Park and in support Recreation (AANR), on behalf of its more of the proposed rule. Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Inouye stated he than 50,000 members wrote to request that was pleased to learn that a proposed rule had A letter and a petition containing 25 the proposed rule be delayed and ultimately appeared in the April 20, 1998 Federal signatures were received from the rescinded. The AANR based its request on Register to prohibit nude sunbathing at Waimea Hawaiian Civic Club. These Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. pending cases related to the current ban on civic organizations were formed Senator Inouye requested that the proposed nudity at Kaloko-Honokohau and their throughout the State of Hawaii to rule be approved and ratified. The letter awareness of a forthcoming lawsuit challenging both the current ban and the promote the interests of native closed with the following: ‘‘I am convinced Hawaiians. The purpose of the Waimea that this rule is essential to the proper proposed rule. Further, AANR’s letter presented the view that informational signs Hawaiian Civic Club’s letter was to management of the national park, and as a inform NPS of their stand banning means of demonstrating federal sensitivity to could be posted in the park to manage native Hawaiian cultural practices and conflicting uses. nudity in public places in Hawaii, historic sites.’’ The Naturist Action Committee (NAC), particularly at Kaloko-Honokohau. Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka expressed affiliated with the Naturist Society, expressed None of the letters of comment full support for the proposed rule to prohibit opposition to the proposal to prohibit public supporting the proposed rule included public nudity within the boundaries of nudity at Honokohau Beach. The letter asked suggestions or recommendations for any Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. that the proposed rule be abandoned and a modification in content or format. Special Regulation be established to express The senator added that ‘‘[p]ublic nudity was Therefore, we have not prepared never intended to be permitted on park a more positive attitude toward nude recreation at Kaloko-Honokohau. NAC’s responses to comment letters supporting premises when Congress considered the the proposed rule. establishment of the park.’’ stated objectives focus on perpetuating nude U.S. Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink, within recreational activities that have existed on The following are responses to whose district the national historical park is federal and state-managed recreational lands statements and suggestions made in located, wrote, ‘‘to urge the adoption of the for many generations. several hundred comment letters proposed rule to prohibit nude sunbathing at A letter was received from Ms. opposing the proposed rule: Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Mililani Trask on behalf of Ka Lahui Comment: With the right planning, Park.’’ Congresswoman Mink further stated nude recreation can be accommodated that as the sponsor of legislation to establish Hawaii, a native Hawaiian organization claiming membership of 23,000 at the park. Kaloko-Honokohau as a national park, ‘‘it Response: The practice of nude individuals of Hawaiian heritage. The was not my intention nor the intention of sunbathing at Kaloko-Honokohau is a letter, in part, states: Congress to allow public nudity at this recreational activity that has been the significant Native Hawaiian site.’’ Nudity in our Hawaiian culture was not cause of many complaints over the past State of Hawaii Representative Paul and is not culturally appropriate. In our Whalen, whose legislative district contains decade from visitors and is therefore culture, public nudity was considered considered to be disruptive to orderly Kaloko-Honokohau, supported including the insulting and contemptuous and where it proposed rule in the Code of Federal occurred in relation to sacred sites (wahi management of the park. Restricting this Regulations. Representative Whalen’s letter pana), it was considered an act of activity to certain locations within the stated ‘‘[g]iven the stated purpose of the park desecration. The only exceptions to this rule park and/or to certain times has been and the native Hawaiian view of public are religious ritual and mourning. These eliminated as a management option nudity, nude sunbathing at the park site is exceptions do not apply to Pu’uoina Heiau [a because Honokohau beach is a small both inappropriate for such a learning center sacred Hawaiian temple near Honokohau and culturally insensitive.’’ area and cultural practices take place beach]. Our cultural practices regarding The Hawaii Island Trustee of the Office of throughout the park at different times. nudity have been well documented by Ms. Hawaiian Affairs supported the proposed More important, nude sunbathing is a Mary Kawena Pukui, a renowned and often regulation prohibiting public nudity at recreational activity that is in conflict cited cultural expert. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. with the purpose for which this national The Trustee stated that public nudity runs The Edith Kanaka’ole Foundation, a historical park was established. counter to the purpose of the park which is private non-profit organization Therefore, anything less than a for reorientation to things Hawaiian. The established to uphold and practice the prohibition of public nudity at Kaloko- Office of Hawaiian Affairs was established by indigenous Hawaiian culture, opposed the Hawaii Legislature as a self-governing, Honokohau is judged to be not feasible. corporate body whose purpose is the naked sunbathing in the National Park Comment: Public nudity is consistent betterment of conditions for all Hawaiians. of Kaloko-Honokohau. The letter states with native Hawaiian culture and the A letter was received from the Chairman of why nudity in general and naked stated purpose of the park and is not the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokohau, the sunbathing in particular was not and is offensive to the native Hawaiians. Advisory Commission established by not a traditional Hawaiian cultural Response: The published cultural and Congress to advise NPS ‘‘with respect to the practice. historical record and the views of historical, archeological, cultural, and The President of the Western contemporary cultural experts, interpretive programs of the park.’’ The letter Sunbathing Association, an affiliate of including native Hawaiians, do not stated that at the Commission’s December 13, AANR, wrote to oppose the proposed support this view. Historically, in 1997 meeting the members present voted unanimously in favor of an amended motion ban on nudity at Honokohau Beach. The Hawaii, nudity has a wide range of to ban all nudity in the park. The letter letter stated that until the enactment of strong social connotations from further stated that at their March 28, 1998 the temporary ban on nudity effective submission to spiritual ties to the aina, meeting, the Commission reiterated its January 1, 1997, nudists had peacefully or earth. When done without purpose,
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.094 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19482 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations the exposure of the buttocks and anal inhibits the preservation and the subjects of the complaint. In area could be construed as a supreme perpetuation of the traditional Hawaiian addition, attempts were made to apply gesture of contempt. Displaying genitals culture. State or county laws that prohibit public was neither common nor approved. Comment: Until the enactment of the nudity. None of these attempts Such actions were excusable during temporary ban on nudity effective succeeded in resolving the situation and mourning only because the mourner January 1, 1997, nudists had peacefully the Superintendent subsequently chose was considered pupule (crazy) from coexisted with other beach users for to propose park specific rulemaking to grief. In general, adult nudity, outside of many years. address this problem. the family and without a reason for it, Response: Since acquiring the Comment: Naturist individuals and was disapproved. Today, the reaction of property on which nude sunbathing is organizations in Hawaii were unable to contemporary cultural experts to public occurring, NPS has regularly received gain a place at the table in the nudity is consistent with the Hawaiian complaints from visitors—cultural discussion of management options at pre-missionary view of nakedness. education groups, the native Hawaiian Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical The stated purpose of the park is to community, school groups, and Park. ‘‘provide a center for the preservation, segments of the general public— Response: The proponents of interpretation, and perpetuation of the regarding the presence of nude recreational nudity, including naturists, traditional native Hawaiian activities sunbathers in the park. Park rangers, in stated their views in substantial and culture* * *’’ Public nudity, an a lengthy series of case incident reports, numbers at the public scoping meetings activity that can be construed as document all these complaints. Some held in 1991 on the proposed general contemptuous and insulting to visitors stated they would choose to stay management plan. At these meetings traditional native Hawaiian culture, is away rather than to visit the park where and during the open public comment in direct conflict with the above stated this kind of recreational activity was period that followed, the NPS was asked purpose. taking place. to designate Honokohau beach as Letters of comment received from Comment: Nude recreation is a legal clothing optional. In 1992, during the contemporary native Hawaiian activity on federal property, a point well public meetings on the draft general individuals and organizations established by NPS’s own Special management plan and during the open consistently maintain that they regard Directive 91–3 (Information on Public public comment period that followed, public nudity is regarded by them to be Nudity) dated May 29, 1991. proponents of public nudity at offensive. Response: This Special Directive, Honokohau beach again asked that Comment: Rescind the proposed rule which Kaloko-Honokohau has followed, Honokohau beach be designated because of the pending criminal case provides the following information on clothing optional. The NPS carefully involving the nudity prohibition in the NPS policy regarding recreational weighed the feasibility of these requests superintendent’s compendium. Because activities: against the park’s enabling legislation and other public comments received the case raises several Constitutional The National Park Service will encourage issues, its outcome could well conflict recreational activities that are consistent with during the development of the general with the proposed rule. applicable legislation, and that are management plan. Approved in 1994, Response: The defendants in that case compatible with other visitor uses. the plan, while recognizing the use of withdrew their constitutional challenge Unless the activity is mandated by statute, Honokohau beach by nude sunbathers, to the compendium closure. Therefore, the National Park Service will not allow a states that this use will be prohibited in the ruling on this case will not conflict recreational activity in a park or in certain the future as the park is developed. locations within a park if it would involve or Moreover, during the 60-day comment with this rulemaking. result in * * * unacceptable impacts on Comment: The proposed rule should period on the proposed rule, naturists visitor enjoyment due to interference with or were able to express their views be rescinded because the AANR is conflict with other visitor use activities, aware of a civil lawsuit about to be filed among other things. regarding recreational nudity at Kaloko- in federal court, which poses similar When unacceptable visitor conflicts occur, Honokohau. Over the past several years, concerns. as a result of public nudity, a resolution of there have been many opportunities for Response: The possibility of future the situation should be attempted informally, naturists to discuss the future of lawsuits is not a sufficient basis for NPS if appropriate, with the persons who are the recreational nudity at Kaloko- to rescind this rulemaking. subjects of the complaint. If informal Honokohau with the NPS. Comment: A preferable way to attempts fail to resolve the conflict and After careful review and analysis of prevent conflict among users of enforcement action becomes necessary, the the comments received during the option may exist of either applying NPS public review period, NPS finds that the Honokohau is with informational signs regulations, or State or local laws that providing notice of areas where clothes- specifically prohibit public nudity. The latter proposed rule is in accord with the free swimming and sunbathing occur. method has the advantage of providing congressionally established purpose of Response: Informational signs would consistency in enforcement on both Federal this national historical park. not prevent the conflicts between users lands and adjacent areas. Specifically, the NPS judges the engaged in public nudity and the Park areas experiencing a particularly proposed rule to be consistent with traditional Hawaiian cultural purposes difficult situation that cannot be solved by Section 505(a) of Public Law 95–625 for which the park was established. the above methods may wish to propose park which states the purpose of Kaloko- Comment: Formulate a new Special specific rulemaking that will address these Honokohau National Historical Park to Regulation that provides FOR the problems. be ‘‘the preservation, interpretation, and management of nude recreation. Notwithstanding that nude perpetuation of traditional native Response: Such a rule would be sunbathing is inconsistent with the Hawaiian activities and culture.* * *’’ inconsistent with the park’s enabling park’s enabling legislation and that the Further, the NPS finds the proposed legislation and would derogate the park received many complaints from rule to be consistent with what past and values and purposes for which the park visitors about this recreational activity, contemporary cultural experts inform was established. The purpose of the the NPS, over a period of several years, the Park Superintendent is Hawaiian proposed rule is to create an ambience attempted to resolve the situation tradition. Finally, the letters of comment and setting that fosters rather than informally with the persons who were contained no information that would
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.096 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19483 cause the NPS to modify either the b. Does not represent a major increase (d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent content or format of the proposed rule. in costs or prices for consumers, owners or occupants. Drafting information. The principal individual industries, Federal, State, or Based upon this determination, this authors of this final rule are James local government agencies, or rulemaking is categorically excluded Martin, Superintendent, Hawaii geographic regions. from the procedural requirements of the Volcanoes National Park; Bryan Harry, c. Does not have a significant adverse National Environmental Policy Act Superintendent, National Park Service, effect on competition, employment, (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in Pacific Islands Support Office; Laura investment, productivity, innovation, or 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such, Carter-Schuster, Resource Manager, the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to neither an Environmental Assessment Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical compete with foreign-based enterprises. nor an Environmental Impact Statement Park; Dennis Burnett and Chip Davis, has been prepared specifically for this Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Washington Office of Ranger Activities, regulation. However, a Final EIS and National Park Service. This rule does not impose an Record of Decision were issued in 1994 unfunded mandate on State, local, or along with the General Management Compliance With Other Laws tribal governments or the private sector Plan for the management and Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. of more than $100 million per year. The development of Kaloko-Honokohau 12866) rule does not have a significant or National Historical Park under the unique effect on State local or tribal provisions of NEPA. This document is not a significant governments or the private sector. rule and has been reviewed by the List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 Office of Management and Budget under Takings (E.O. 12630) District of Columbia, National parks, Executive Order 12866. In accordance with Executive Order Reporting and recordkeeping This rule will not have an effect of 12630, the rule does not have significant requirements. $100 million or more on the economy. takings implications. No property In consideration of the foregoing, 36 It will not adversely affect in a material acquisition or impacts on private CFR Chapter I is amended as follows: way the economy, productivity, property owners are expected due to the competition, jobs, the environment, administrative nature of the rule. PART 7ÐSPECIAL REGULATIONS, public health or safety, or State, local, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK or tribal governments or communities. Federalism (E.O. 12612) SYSTEM This rule will not create a serious In accordance with Executive Order 1. The authority citation for part 7 inconsistency or otherwise interfere 12612, the rule does not have sufficient continues to read as follows: with an action taken or planned by federalism implications to warrant the another agency. The rule is local in preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), nature and only impacts visitors to the 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code State Representatives and organizations 8–137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical expressed support for the rule. Park. Visitor conflicts will be reduced, 2. New § 7.87 is added to read as enhancing the enjoyment of the area for Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) follows: the vast majority of visitors, who were In accordance with Executive Order § 7.87 Kaloko-Honokohau National previously offended by public nudity. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has Historical Park. This rule does not alter the budgetary determined that this rule does not (a) Is public nudity prohibited at effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, unduly burden the judicial system and Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical or loan programs or the rights or meets the requirements of sections 3(a) Park? Yes. Public nudity, including obligations of their recipients. The rule and 3(b)(2) of the Order. nude bathing, by any person on Federal will not adversely impact public Paperwork Reduction Act land or water within the boundaries of visitation or perpetuation and Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical This regulation does not require an observance of traditional Native Park is prohibited. This section does not information collection from 10 or more Hawaiian cultural practices for which apply to a person under 10 years of age. the park was established. parties and submissions under the (b) What is public nudity? Public This rule does raise novel legal or Paperwork Reduction Act or OMB form nudity is a person’s failure, when in a policy issues. 83–I are not required. The visitor use public place, to cover with a fully management aspect of this rule does not Regulatory Flexibility Act opaque covering that person’s genitals, require information collection. pubic areas, rectal area or female breast The Department of the Interior below a point immediately above the certifies that this document will not National Environmental Policy Act top of the areola. have a significant economic effect on a The NPS has determined that this (c) What is a public place? A public substantial number of small entities rulemaking will not have a significant place is any area of Federal land or under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 effect on the quality of the human water subject to Federal jurisdiction U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic effects environment, health and safety because within the boundaries of Kaloko- of this rulemaking are local in nature it is not expected to: Honokohau National Historical Park, and negligible in scope. (a) Increase public use to the extent of except the enclosed portions of compromising the nature and character Small Business Regulatory Enforcement restrooms or other structures designed of the area or causing physical damage for privacy or similar purposes. Fairness Act (SBREFA) to it; This rule is not a major rule under 5 (b) Introduce incompatible uses that Dated: April 7, 1999. U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business compromise the nature and Donald J. Barry, Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. characteristics of the area or cause Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and This rule: physical damage to it; Parks. a. Does not have an annual effect on (c) Conflict with adjacent ownership [FR Doc. 99–9958 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] the economy of $100 million or more. or land uses; or BILLING CODE 4310±70±P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.097 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19484 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a AGENCY use of special characters and any form reasonable certainty that no harm will of encryption. Copies of objections and result from aggregate exposure to the 40 CFR Part 180 hearing requests will also be accepted pesticide chemical residue, including [OPP±300832; FRL±6073±1] on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 or all anticipated dietary exposures and all ASCII file format. All copies of other exposures for which there is RIN 2070±AB78 electronic objections and hearing reliable information.’’ This includes requests must be identified by the exposure through drinking water and in Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerance for docket control number [OPP–300832]. residential settings, but does not include Emergency Exemption No Confidential Business Information occupational exposure. Section AGENCY: Environmental Protection (CBI) should be submitted through e- 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special Agency (EPA). mail. Copies of electronic objections and consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical ACTION: Final rule. hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository residue in establishing a tolerance and SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a Libraries. to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable time-limited tolerance for residues of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By certainty that no harm will result to fludioxonil in or on strawberries. This mail: Stephen Schaible, Registration infants and children from aggregate action is in response to EPA’s granting Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide exposure to the pesticide chemical of an emergency exemption under Programs, Environmental Protection residue. . . .’’ section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act DC 20460. Office location, telephone to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA authorizing use of the pesticide on number, and e-mail address: Rm. 271, determines that ‘‘emergency conditions strawberries. This regulation establishes CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., exist which require such exemption.’’ a maximum permissible level for Arlington, VA, (703) 308–9362, This provision was not amended by residues of fludioxonil in this food [email protected]. commodity pursuant to section 408(l)(6) FQPA. EPA has established regulations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on governing such emergency exemptions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic its own initiative, pursuant to sections Act, as amended by the Food Quality in 40 CFR part 166. 408 and (l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA Protection Act of 1996. The tolerance and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. requires EPA to establish a time-limited will expire and is revoked on May 31, 346a and (l)(6), is establishing a tolerance or exemption from the 2000. tolerance for residues of the fungicide requirement for a tolerance for pesticide DATES: This regulation is effective April fludioxonil, in or on strawberries at 2.0 chemical residues in food that will 21, 1999. Objections and requests for part per million (ppm). This tolerance result from the use of a pesticide under hearings must be received by EPA on or will expire and is revoked on May 31, an emergency exemption granted by before June 21, 1999. 2000. EPA will publish a document in EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such ADDRESSES: Written objections and the Federal Register to remove the tolerances can be established without hearing requests, identified by the revoked tolerance from the Code of providing notice or period for public docket control number [OPP–300832], Federal Regulations. comment. must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk I. Background and Statutory Findings Because decisions on section 18- (1900), Environmental Protection related tolerances must proceed before Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., The Food Quality Protection Act of EPA reaches closure on several policy Washington, DC 20460. Fees 1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104–170) was issues relating to interpretation and accompanying objections and hearing signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA implementation of the FQPA, EPA does requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance amends both the Federal Food, Drug, not intend for its actions on such Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. tolerances to set binding precedents for Headquarters Accounting Operations 301 et seq., and the Federal Insecticide, the application of section 408 and the Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act new safety standard to other tolerances 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. The FQPA and exemptions. of any objections and hearing requests amendments went into effect filed with the Hearing Clerk identified immediately. Among other things, II. Emergency Exemption for by the docket control number, [OPP– FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA Fludioxonil on Strawberries and 300832], must also be submitted to: pesticide tolerance-setting activities FFDCA Tolerances Public Information and Records under a new section 408 with a new According to the Applicant, gray Integrity Branch, Information Resources safety standard and new procedures. mold caused by Botrytis cinerea is one and Services Division (7502C), Office of These activities are described in this of the most severe problems limiting Pesticide Programs, Environmental preeamble and discussed in greater strawberry production in Florida. Gray Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., detail in the final rule establishing the mold affects both flowers and fruit, Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring time-limited tolerance associated with resulting in marketable yield losses. a copy of objections and hearing the emergency exemption for use of Historically, gray mold has been requests to Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2 (CM propiconazole on sorghum (61 FR controlled with bloom sprays of Rovral #2), 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 58135, November 13, 1996) (FRL–5572– (iprodione) then weekly applications of Arlington, VA. 9). captan until harvest. This schedule has A copy of objections and hearing New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the provided good control of gray mold, requests filed with the Hearing Clerk FFDCA allows EPA to establish a especially for relatively resistant may also be submitted electronically by tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide varieties, such as Oso Grande. sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp- chemical residue in or on a food) only However, a shift toward the usage of [email protected]. Copies of electronic if EPA determines that the tolerance is certain varieties of strawberries which objections and hearing requests must be ‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines have specific desirable attributes (i.e.,
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.042 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19485 production, pest resistance or tolerance, provisions of EPA’s regulations uncertainty factor of 100. The effect etc.) but are more susceptible to gray implementing section 18 as identified in observed at the lowest effect level (LEL) mold, the development of gray mold 40 CFR part 166. For additional of 35.5 mg/kg/day was decreased body strains with resistance to iprodione, and information regarding the emergency weight gain in females. limitation of iprodione use on exemption for fludioxonil, contact the 4. Carcinogenicity. Fludioxonil has strawberries recently instituted as part Agency’s Registration Division at the been classified as a Group D- not of the iprodione reregistration has address provided under the classifiable as to human carcinogenicity- resulted in a situation where growers ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section. chemical by the Cancer Peer Review expect heavy losses without the Committee. The Group D classification requested product, Switch (which III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety was based on the statistically significant contains the active ingredients increase in liver tumors in female rats cyprodinil and fludioxonil). EPA has EPA performs a number of analyses to for combined adenoma/carcinoma only, authorized under FIFRA section 18 the determine the risks from aggregate the lack of a tumorigenic response in use of fludioxonil on strawberries for exposure to pesticide residues. For male rats or in either sex of the mouse, control of gray mold in Florida. After further discussion of the regulatory and the need for additional having reviewed the submission, EPA requirements of section 408 and a mutagenicity studies. concurs that emergency conditions exist complete description of the risk for this state. assessment process, see the final rule on C. Exposures and Risks As part of its assessment of this Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 1. From food and feed uses. A emergency exemption, EPA assessed the 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754– tolerance has been established (40 CFR potential risks presented by residues of 7). 180.516) for the residues of fludioxonil, fludioxonil in or on strawberries. In Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), in or on potatoes at 0.02 ppm. doing so, EPA considered the safety EPA has reviewed the available Fludioxonil is currently registered for standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), scientific data and other relevant use as a seed treatment on potatoes, and EPA decided that the necessary information in support of this action. popcorn, field and sweet corn, and tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) EPA has sufficient data to assess the sorghum, as well as for use in would be consistent with the safety hazards of fludioxonil and to make a greenhouses on nonfood crops. standard and with FIFRA section 18. determination on aggregate exposure, Additionally, time-limited tolerances Consistent with the need to move consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a have been established for residues of quickly on the emergency exemption in time-limited tolerance for residues of fludioxonil on apricots, nectarines, order to address an urgent non-routine fludioxonil on strawberries at 2.0 ppm. peaches and plums. Risk assessments situation and to ensure that the resulting EPA’s assessment of the dietary were conducted by EPA to assess food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing exposures and risks associated with dietary exposures and risks from this tolerance without notice and establishing the tolerance follows. fludioxonil as follows: opportunity for public comment under i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute section 408(e), as provided in section A. Toxicological Profile dietary risk assessments are performed 408(l)(6). Although this tolerance will EPA has evaluated the available for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological expire and is revoked on May 31, 2000, toxicity data and considered its validity, study has indicated the possibility of an under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues completeness, and reliability as well as effect of concern occurring as a result of of the pesticide not in excess of the the relationship of the results of the a 1–day or single exposure. In reviewing amounts specified in the tolerance studies to human risk. EPA has also the toxicity data base, no toxicological remaining in or on strawberries after considered available information endpoints were identified which could that date will not be unlawful, provided concerning the variability of the be attributable to a single dietary the pesticide is applied at a time and in sensitivities of major identifiable exposure. Therefore a risk assessment a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, subgroups of consumers, including for this exposure scenario is not and the residues do not exceed a level infants and children. The nature of the required. that was authorized by this tolerance at toxic effects caused by fludioxonil are the time of that application. EPA will discussed in this unit. ii. Chronic exposure and risk. take action to revoke this tolerance Tolerance level residues and 100% crop earlier if any experience with, scientific B. Toxicological Endpoint treated were assumed to calculate data on, or other relevant information 1. Acute toxicity. No endpoint was theoretical maximum residue on this pesticide indicate that the identified for acute dietary exposure. contribution (TMRCs) for the United residues are not safe. The Agency has concluded that the States (U.S.) population and population Because this tolerance is being toxicology database does not suggest the subgroups from residues on published approved under emergency conditions need for this assessment. and proposed uses. Chronic exposure EPA has not made any decisions about 2. Short- and intermediate-term from food uses of fludioxonil represents whether fludioxonil meets EPA’s toxicity. No toxicological endpoints of 4% of the RfD for the U.S. population registration requirements for use on concern were identified for acute oral and 22% of the RfD for non-nursing strawberries or whether a permanent exposure, short-term dermal exposure or infants (<1yr), the subgroup most highly tolerance for this use would be inhalation exposure for all time periods. exposed. appropriate. Under these circumstances, Risk assessments for these exposure 2. From drinking water. Fludioxonil is EPA does not believe that this tolerance scenarios were not conducted. not expected to impact ground or serves as a basis for registration of 3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has surface water resources. Available data fludioxonil by a State for special local established the Reference Dose (RfD) for suggest fludioxonil has a relatively low needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor fludioxonil at 0.03 milligrams/kilogram/ potential to leach to groundwater and does this tolerance serve as the basis for day (mg/kg/day). This RfD is based on move in runoff to aquatic environments. any State other than Florida to use this a no observed adverse effects level There is no established Maximum pesticide on this crop under section 18 (NOAEL) of 3.3 mg/kg/day, taken from Contaminant Level (MCL) for residues of FIFRA without following all a chronic feeding study in dogs, and an of fludioxonil in drinking water. No
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.042 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19486 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations health advisory levels for fludioxonil in for use on non-food sites that would 3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. drinking water have been established. result in non-occupational, non-dietary Short- and intermediate-term aggregate The Agency has calculated drinking exposure; therefore, no such exposure is exposure takes into account chronic water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) expected. dietary food and water (considered to be for chronic exposure to fludioxonil in 4. Cumulative exposure to substances a background exposure level) plus surface and groundwater. The DWLOCs with common mechanism of toxicity. indoor and outdoor residential are calculated by subtracting from the Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, exposure. RfD the respective chronic dietary when considering whether to establish, No toxicological endpoints of concern exposure attributable to food to obtain modify, or revoke a tolerance, the were identified for acute oral exposure, the acceptable exposure to fludioxonil Agency consider ‘‘available short-term dermal exposure or in drinking water. Default body weight information’’ concerning the cumulative inhalation exposure for all time periods. (70 kg for males, 60 kg for females, and effects of a particular pesticide’s Risk assessments for these exposure 10 kg for non-nursing infants < 1 year residues and ‘‘other substances that scenarios were not conducted. old) and default drinking water have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. consumption estimates (2 L/day for EPA does not have, at this time, population. Fludioxonil has been classified as a Group D- not classifiable adults, 1 L/day for non-nursing infants) available data to determine whether as to human carcinogenicity- chemical are then used to calculate the actual fludioxonil has a common mechanism by the Cancer Peer Review Committee. DWLOCs. The DWLOC represents the of toxicity with other substances or how The Group D classification was based on concentration level in surface water or to include this pesticide in a cumulative the statistically significant increase in groundwater at which aggregate risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides liver tumors in female rats for combined exposure to the chemical is not of for which EPA has followed a adenoma/carcinoma only, the lack of a concern. cumulative risk approach based on a Using Generic expected tumorigenic response in male rats or in common mechanism of toxicity, environmental concentration (GENEEC) either sex of the mouse, and the need for fludioxonil does not appear to produce (surface water) and Screening additional mutagenicity studies. a toxic metabolite produced by other Concentration in GROund Water(SCI- 5. Determination of safety. Based on GROW) (groundwater) models, the substances. For the purposes of this these risk assessments, EPA concludes Agency has calculated chronic Tier I tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not that there is a reasonable certainty that Estimated Environmental assumed that fludioxonil has a common no harm will result from aggregate Concentrations (EECs) for fludioxonil mechanism of toxicity with other exposure to fludioxonil residues. for use in human health risk substances. For more information regarding EPA’s efforts to determine E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of assessments. These values represent the Safety for Infants and Children upper bound estimates of the which chemicals have a common concentrations of fludioxonil that might mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate 1. Safety factor for infants and be found in surface and ground water the cumulative effects of such children —i. In general. In assessing the assuming the maximum application rate chemicals, see the final rule for potential for additional sensitivity of allowed on the label of the highest use Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR infants and children to residues of pattern. The EECs from these models are 62961, November 26, 1997). fludioxonil, EPA considered data from compared to the DWLOCs to make the D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of developmental toxicity studies in the rat safety determination. Safety for U.S. Population and rabbit and a 2-generation i. Acute exposure and risk. In reproduction study in the rat. The reviewing the toxicity data base, no 1. Acute risk. In reviewing the toxicity developmental toxicity studies are toxicological endpoints were identified data base, no toxicological endpoints designed to evaluate adverse effects on which could be attributable to a single were identified which could be the developing organism resulting from dietary exposure. Therefore a risk attributable to a single dietary exposure. maternal pesticide exposure during assessment for this exposure scenario Therefore a risk assessment for this gestation. Reproduction studies provide was not conducted. exposure scenario was not conducted. information relating to effects from ii. Chronic exposure and risk. Using 2. Chronic risk. Using the TMRC exposure to the pesticide on the the SCI-GROW model, the maximum exposure assumptions described in this reproductive capability of mating long-term estimated concentration in unit, EPA has concluded that aggregate animals and data on systemic toxicity. groundwater is not expected to exceed exposure to fludioxonil from food will FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA 0.08 parts per billion (ppb). The chronic utilize 4% of the RfD for the U.S. shall apply an additional tenfold margin estimated concentration in surface population. The major identifiable of safety for infants and children in the water, using the GENEEC model, is 7.8 subgroup with the highest aggregate case of threshold effects to account for ppb. The DWLOC for the most sensitive exposure is non-nursing infants less pre- and post-natal toxicity and the adult subgroup, non-Hispanic females than 1 year in age (discussed below). completeness of the database unless other than black or white was calculated EPA generally has no concern for EPA determines that a different margin to be 850 ppb; DWLOCs for all other exposures below 100% of the RfD of safety will be safe for infants and adult population groups are even because the RfD represents the level at children. Margins of safety are higher. As even the upper bound or below which daily aggregate dietary incorporated into EPA risk assessments concentrations of fludioxonil in exposure over a lifetime will not pose either directly through use of a margin groundwater and surface water are not appreciable risks to human health. of exposure (MOE) analysis or through expected to exceed the calculated Estimated chronic environmental using uncertainty (safety) factors in DWLOC, the Agency concludes with concentrations of fludioxonil in surface calculating a dose level that poses no reasonable certainty that chronic water and groundwater do not exceed appreciable risk to humans. EPA exposure to fludioxonil in drinking chronic DWLOCs calculated by the believes that reliable data support using water is not of concern. Agency. EPA does not expect the the standard MOE and uncertainty 3. From non-dietary exposure. aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of factor (usually 100 for combined inter- Fludioxonil is currently not registered the RfD. and intra-species variability) and not the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.042 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19487 additional tenfold MOE/uncertainty less than one, the subgroups most D. International Residue Limits factor when EPA has a complete data highly exposed. EPA generally has no There are no Codex residue limits base under existing guidelines and concern for exposures below 100% of established for fludioxonil, and no when the severity of the effect in infants the RfD because the RfD represents the Canadian or Mexican residue limits for or children or the potency or unusual level at or below which daily aggregate fludioxonil use on strawberries. toxic properties of a compound do not dietary exposure over a lifetime will not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of pose appreciable risks to human health. E. Rotational Crop Restrictions the standard MOE/safety factor. Because the chronic DWLOCs are not No crops may be planted for at least ii. Developmental toxicity studies. In exceeded by estimated chronic 30 days following the last application of the rat developmental study, the environmental concentrations in fludioxonil. The crop rotation maternal (systemic) NOAEL was 100 groundwater or surface water, EPA does restriction for cyprodinil, the other mg/kg/day, based on reduction in mean not expect the aggregate exposure to active ingredient in Switch 62.5 WG, body weight gain in dams during exceed 100% of the RfD. prohibits planting any crop other than gestation period at the lowest observed 4. Short- and intermediate-term risk. strawberries. effects level (LOEL) of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate V. Conclusion The developmental (fetal) NOAEL was exposure takes into account chronic 100 mg/kg/day, based on increased fetal dietary food and water (considered to be Therefore, the tolerance is established and litter incidence of dilated renal a background exposure level) plus for residues of fludioxonil in pelvis and dilated ureter at the LOEL of indoor and outdoor residential strawberries at 2.0 ppm. 1,000 mg/kg/day. In the rabbit exposure. VI. Objections and Hearing Requests developmental toxicity study, the No toxicological endpoints of concern maternal (systemic) NOAEL was 10 mg/ were identified for acute oral exposure, The new FFDCA section 408(g) kg/day, based on decreased body weight short-term dermal exposure or provides essentially the same process gains and food efficiency at the LOEL of inhalation exposure for all time periods. for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a tolerance 100 mg/kg/day. The developmental Risk assessments for these exposure regulation as was provided in the old (pup) NOAEL was 300 mg/kg/day, the scenarios were not conducted. section 408 and in section 409. highest dose tested. 5. Determination of safety. Based on However, the period for filing objections is 60 days, rather than 30 days. EPA iii. Reproductive toxicity study. In the these risk assessments, EPA concludes currently has procedural regulations 2–generation reproductive toxicity that there is a reasonable certainty that which govern the submission of study in rats, the parental (systemic) no harm will result to infants and objections and hearing requests. These NOAEL was 22.13 mg/kg/day (males) children from aggregate exposure to regulations will require some and 24.24 mg/kg/day (females), based fludioxonil residues. on clinical signs and decreased body modification to reflect the new law. weight, body weight gain and food IV. Other Considerations However, until those modifications can consumption at the LOEL of 221.6 mg/ be made, EPA will continue to use those A. Metabolism In Plants and Animals kg/day (males) and 249.7 mg/kg/day procedural regulations with appropriate (females). The reproductive/ The nature of the residue in plants is adjustments to reflect the new law. developmental (pup) NOAEL was 22.13 adequately understood based on a Any person may, by June 21, 1999, mg/kg/day (males) and 24.24 mg/kg/day metabolism study submitted for seed file written objections to any aspect of (females), based on reduced pup treatment use on potatoes. The residue this regulation and may also request a weights at the LOEL of 221.6 mg/kg/day of concern is the parent compound, hearing on those objections. Objections (males) and 249.7 mg/kg/day (females). fludioxonil, only. There are no livestock and hearing requests must be filed with iv. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity. The feed items associated with the proposed the Hearing Clerk, at the address given toxicological data base for evaluating use on strawberries. Therefore, the under the ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section (40 pre- and post-natal toxicity for nature of the residue in animals is not CFR 178.20). A copy of the objections fludioxonil is complete with respect to germane to these section 18 requests or and/or hearing requests filed with the current data requirements. There are no to the establishment of this tolerance. Hearing Clerk should be submitted to pre- or post-natal toxicity concerns for the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology infants and children, based on the objections submitted must specify the results of the rat and rabbit Adequate enforcement methodology provisions of the regulation deemed developmental toxicity studies and the (GC/NPD) is available to enforce the objectionable and the grounds for the 2–generation rat reproductive toxicity tolerance expression. The method may objections (40 CFR 178.25). Each study. be requested from: Calvin Furlow, objection must be accompanied by the v. Conclusion. There is a complete PRRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i). EPA toxicity database for fludioxonil and Programs, Environmental Protection is authorized to waive any fee exposure data is complete or is Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, requirement ‘‘when in the judgement of estimated based on data that reasonably DC 20460. Office location and telephone the Administrator such a waiver or accounts for potential exposures. number: Rm 101FF, CM #2, 1921 refund is equitable and not contrary to 2. Acute risk. In reviewing the toxicity Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, the purpose of this subsection.’’ For data base, no toxicological endpoints (703) 305–5229. additional information regarding were identified which could be tolerance objection fee waivers, contact C. Magnitude of Residues attributable to a single dietary exposure. James Tompkins, Registration Division Therefore a risk assessment for this Residues of fludioxonil are not (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, exposure scenario was not conducted. expected to exceed 2.0 ppm in/on Environmental Protection Agency, 401 3. Chronic risk. Using the exposure strawberries as a result of the proposed M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. assumptions described in this unit, EPA section 18 use. Secondary residues are Office location, telephone number, and has concluded that aggregate exposure not expected in animal commodities as e-mail address: Rm. 239, CM #2, 1921 to fludioxonil from food will utilize there are no feed items associated with Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, 22% of the RfD for non-nursing infants the strawberry use. (703) 305–5697, [email protected].
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.042 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19488 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
Requests for waiver of tolerance file avoiding the use of special B. Executive Order 12875 objection fees should be sent to James characters and any form of encryption. Under Executive Order 12875, Hollins, Information Resources and The official record for this regulation, entitled Enhancing the Services Division (7502C), Office of as well as the public version, as Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR Pesticide Programs, Environmental described in this unit will be kept in 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may not Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., paper form. Accordingly, EPA will issue a regulation that is not required by Washington, DC 20460. transfer any copies of objections and statute and that creates a mandate upon If a hearing is requested, the hearing requests received electronically a State, local or tribal government, objections must include a statement of into printed, paper form as they are unless the Federal government provides the factual issues on which a hearing is received and will place the paper copies the funds necessary to pay the direct requested, the requestor’s contentions in the official record which will also compliance costs incurred by those on such issues, and a summary of any include all comments submitted directly governments. If the mandate is evidence relied upon by the requestor in writing. The official record is the unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB a (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing paper record maintained at the Virginia description of the extent of EPA’s prior will be granted if the Administrator address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the consultation with representatives of determines that the material submitted beginning of this document. affected State, local, and tribal shows the following: There is genuine VIII. Regulatory Assessment governments, the nature of their and substantial issue of fact; there is a Requirements concerns, copies of any written reasonable possibility that available communications from the governments, evidence identified by the requestor A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders and a statement supporting the need to would, if established, resolve one or This final rule establishes a tolerance issue the regulation. In addition, more of such issues in favor of the under section 408 of the FFDCA. The Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to requestor, taking into account Office of Management and Budget develop an effective process permitting uncontested claims or facts to the (OMB) has exempted these types of elected officials and other contrary; and resolution of the factual actions from review under Executive representatives of State, local, and tribal issues in the manner sought by the Order 12866, entitled Regulatory governments ‘‘to provide meaningful requestor would be adequate to justify Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, and timely input in the development of the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). October 4, 1993). This final rule does regulatory proposals containing Information submitted in connection not contain any information collections significant unfunded mandates.’’ with an objection or hearing request subject to OMB approval under the Today’s rule does not create an may be claimed confidential by marking Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 unfunded Federal mandate on State, any part or all of that information as U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any local, or tribal governments. The rule CBI. Information so marked will not be enforceable duty or contain any does not impose any enforceable duties disclosed except in accordance with unfunded mandate as described under on these entities. Accordingly, the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates requirements of section 1(a) of A copy of the information that does not Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. Executive Order 12875 do not apply to contain CBI must be submitted for 104–4). Nor does it require any special this rule. inclusion in the public record. considerations as required by Executive Information not marked confidential Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to C. Executive Order 13084 may be disclosed publicly by EPA Address Environmental Justice in Under Executive Order 13084, without prior notice. Minority Populations and Low-Income entitled Consultation and Coordination VII. Public Record and Electronic Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR Submissions 1994), or require OMB review in 27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not accordance with Executive Order 13045, issue a regulation that is not required by EPA has established a record for this entitled Protection of Children from statute, that significantly or uniquely regulation under docket control number Environmental Health Risks and Safety affects the communities of Indian tribal [OPP–300832] (including any comments Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). governments, and that imposes and data submitted electronically). A In addition, since tolerances and substantial direct compliance costs on public version of this record, including exemptions that are established on the those communities, unless the Federal printed, paper versions of electronic basis of a petition under FFDCA section government provides the funds comments, which does not include any 408(l)(6), such as the tolerance in this necessary to pay the direct compliance information claimed as CBI, is available final rule, do not require the issuance of costs incurred by the tribal for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., a proposed rule, the requirements of the governments. If the mandate is Monday through Friday, excluding legal Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in holidays. The public record is located in U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. a separately identified section of the Rm. 119 of the Public Information and Nevertheless, the Agency previously preamble to the rule, a description of Records Integrity Branch, Information assessed whether establishing the extent of EPA’s prior consultation Resources and Services Division tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, with representatives of affected tribal (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, raising tolerance levels or expanding governments, a summary of the nature Environmental Protection Agency, CM exemptions might adversely impact of their concerns, and a statement #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., small entities and concluded, as a supporting the need to issue the Arlington, VA. generic matter, that there is no adverse regulation. In addition, Executive Order Objections and hearing requests may economic impact. The factual basis for 13084 requires EPA to develop an be sent by e-mail directly to EPA at: the Agency’s generic certification for effective process permitting elected [email protected]. tolerance actions published on May 4, officials and other representatives of 1981 (46 FR 24950), and was provided Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide E-mailed objections and hearing to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the meaningful and timely input in the requests must be submitted as an ASCII Small Business Administration. development of regulatory policies on
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.042 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19489 matters that significantly or uniquely FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For affect their communities.’’ technical information contact: Jamil Expiration/ Mixon, Reregistration Branch I, mail Today’s rule does not significantly or Commodity Parts per revocation uniquely affect the communities of million date code (7508C), Special Review and Indian tribal governments. This action Reregistration Division, Office of does not involve or impose any Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental requirements that affect Indian tribes. ***** Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Strawberry ...... 2.0 5/31/00 Accordingly, the requirements of Washington, DC 20460. Office location: Reregistration Branch I, CM #2, 6th section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 * * * * * do not apply to this rule. floor, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., [FR Doc. 99–9709 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Arlington, VA. Telephone: (703) 308– IX. Submission to Congress and the BILLING CODE 6560±50±F 8032; e-mail: mixon.jamil @epa.gov. Comptroller General SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Congressional Review Act, 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION I. Does this Notice Apply to Me? U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small AGENCY Business Regulatory Enforcement You may be affected by this notice if Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 40 CFR Parts 180 and 185 you sell, distribute, manufacture, or use that before a rule may take effect, the [OPP±300836; FRL±6074±4] pesticides for agricultural applications, Agency promulgating the rule must process food, distribute or sell food, or submit a rule report, which includes a RIN 2070±AB78 implement governmental pesticide copy of the rule, to each House of the Dimethyl phosphate of 3-hydroxy-N- regulations. Pesticide reregistration and Congress and the Comptroller General of methyl-cis-crotonamide other actions [see FIFRA section 4(g)(2)] the United States. EPA will submit a (monocrotophos) Final rule; Tolerance include tolerance and exemption report containing this rule and other Revocations reassessment under FFDCA section 408. required information to the U.S. Senate, In this notice, the tolerance actions are the U.S. House of Representatives and AGENCY: Environmental Protection proposed in coordination with the the Comptroller General of the United Agency (EPA). cancellation of associated registrations. ACTION: States prior to publication of the rule in Final rule. Potentially affected categories and the Federal Register. This rule is not a SUMMARY: This final rule announces the entities may include, but are not limited ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. revocation of tolerances for Dimethyl to: 804(2). phosphate of 3-hydroxy-N-methyl-cis- crotonamide (monocrotophos) for Category Examples of Potentially Af- List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 residues of sugarcane, potatoes, cotton fected Entities seed, peanuts, peanut hulls, and Agricultural Growers/Agricultural Work- Environmental protection, tomatoes. The regulatory actions in this Administrative practice and procedure, Stakeholders. ers document are part of the Agency’s Contractors [Certified/ Agricultural commodities, Pesticides reregistration program under the Federal Commercial Applicators, and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Handlers, Advisors, etc.] requirements. Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance Commercial Processors Dated: April 2, 1999. reassessment requirements of the Pesticide Manufacturers Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act User Groups Donald Stubbs, (FFDCA). Food Consumers Acting Director, Registration Division, Office By law, EPA is required to reassess Food Distributors Wholesale Contractors of Pesticide Programs. 33% of the tolerances in existence on Retail Vendors August 2, 1996, by August 1999, or Commercial Traders/Im- Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is about 3,200 tolerances. The regulatory porters amended as follows: actions indicated in this document Intergovern- State, Local, and/or Tribal pertain to the final revocation of mental Stake- Government Agencies PART 180Ð[AMENDED] tolerances and/or exemptions, which holders. count toward the August, 1999, review Foreign Entities Governments, Growers, 1. The authority citation for part 180 deadline of FFDCA section 408(q), as Trade Groups continues to read as follows: amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. This table is not intended to be Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a), and DATES: This regulation becomes 371. exhaustive, but rather provides a guide effective April 21, 1999. Objections and for readers regarding entities likely to be requests for hearings must be received affected by this action. Other types of 2. Section 180.516, is amended by on or before July 20, 1999. entities not listed in this table could alphabetically adding the following ADDRESSES: Comments may be also be affected. If you have any commodity to the table in paragraph (b) submitted by mail, electronically, or in questions regarding the applicability of person. Please follow the detailed to read as follows: this action to a particular entity, you can instructions for each method as provided in Unit IV of the consult with the technical person listed § 180.516 Fludioxonil; tolerances for in the ‘‘FOR FURTHER INFORMATION residues. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION CONTACT’’ section. * * * * * section of this notice. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket number [OPP– (b) * * * 300836], which is an addendum to a previous docket.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.042 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19490 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
II. How Can I Get Additional Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW., producer of monocrotophos, EPA Information or Copies of this or Other Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring believes that there is no one else who Support Documents? a copy of objections and hearing will support tolerances for requests to room 119, CM #2, 1921 monocrotophos for import commodities. A. Electronically Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA Therefore, EPA is revoking these You may obtain electronic copies of 22202. tolerances for monocrotophos in or on this document and various support B. Electronically peanuts, peanut hulls, tomatoes, documents from the EPA Internet Home cottonseed, potatoes and sugarcane Page at http://www.epa.gov/. On the A copy of objections and hearing (§ 180.296) and in concentrated tomato Home Page select ‘‘Laws and requests filed with the Hearing Clerk products (§ 185.2250). Regulations’’ and then look up the entry may also be submitted electronically by for this document under ‘‘Federal sending e-mail to opp- V. What Action Is Being Taken? Register - Environmental Documents.’’ [email protected], per the This final rule revokes the FFDCA You can also go directly to the ‘‘Federal instructions given in ‘‘By Paper’’ above. tolerances for residues of certain Register’’ listings at http:// Electronic copies of objections and specified pesticides in or on certain www.epa.gov/homepage/fedrgstr/. hearing requests must be submitted as specified commodities. EPA is revoking an ASCII file avoiding the use of special B. In Person or by Phone these tolerances because they are not characters and any form of encryption. necessary to cover residues of the If you have any questions or need Copies of objections and hearing relevant pesticides in or on domestically additional information about this action, requests will also be accepted on disks treated commodities or commodities please contact the technical person in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 file format or treated outside but imported into the identified in the ‘‘FOR FURTHER ASCII file format. All copies of United States. These pesticides are no INFORMATION CONTACT’’ section. In objections and hearing requests in longer used on commodities within the addition, the official record for this electronic form must be identified by United States and no person has notice, including the public version, has the docket number [OPP–300836]. Do provided comment identifying a need been established under docket control not submit CBI through e-mail. for EPA to retain the tolerances to cover number [OPP–300836], (including Electronic copies of objections and residues in or on imported foods. EPA comments and data submitted hearing requests on this rule may be has historically expressed a concern that electronically as described below). A filed online at many Federal Depository retention of tolerances that are not libraries. public version of this record, including necessary to cover residues in or on printed, paper versions of any electronic IV. Why Is EPA Revoking the legally treated foods has the potential to comments, which does not include any Tolerances Discussed below? encourage misuse of pesticides within information claimed as Confidential On June 13, 1988, the producer of the United States. Thus it is EPA’s Business Information (CBI), is available policy to issue a final rule revoking for inspection in Room 119, Crystal Mall monocrotophos requested voluntary cancellation of all registrations with a those tolerances for residues of pesticide #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., chemicals for which there are no active Arlington VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., recall of all products in the channels of trade that would not be used by registrations under FIFRA, unless any Monday through Friday, excluding legal person in comments on the proposal holidays. The Public Information and September 30, 1989. The last registered uses for monocrotophos were cancelled demonstrates a need for the tolerance to Records Integrity Branch telephone cover residues in or on imported number is 703–305–5805. on January 22, 1991, for nonpayment of the March 1, 1990, maintenance fees. commodities or domestic commodities III. Can I Challenge the Agency’s Final On June 9, 1993, the Agency’s proposed legally treated. Decision Presented in this Document? revocation of tolerances for EPA is not issuing today a final rule Yes. You can file a written objection monocrotophos was published in the to revoke those tolerances for which or request a hearing by June 21, 1999 in Federal Register (FRL–4183–6). EPA received comments demonstrating the following manner: Comments were received from Ciba- a need for the tolerance to be retained. Geigy Corporation, now Novartis Crop Generally, EPA will proceed with the A. By Paper Protection, Inc. and Biologic Research & revocation of these tolerances on the Written objections and hearing Development Inc., a U.S. regulatory grounds discussed above only if, prior requests, identified by the document consultant for the Shell International to EPA’s issuance of a section 408(f) control number [OPP–300836], may be Chemical Company, expressing strong order requesting additional data or submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900), interest in maintaining tolerance on issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) order Environmental Protection Agency, room commodities imported into the United revoking the tolerances on other M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC States. As a result, the Agency allowed grounds, commenters retract the 20460. Fees accompanying objections tolerances to remain on peanut hulls, comment identifying a need for the and hearing requests shall be labeled cottonseed, potatoes, sugarcane, and tolerance to be retained or EPA ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees’’ and tomatoes. independently verifies that the tolerance forwarded to: EPA Headquarters On January 22, 1999, Novartis Crop is no longer needed. Accounting Operations Branch, OPP Protection Inc. the sole producer of In the Federal Register of June 9, (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, monocrotophos, informed EPA that it no 1993, (OPP–300836) (FRL 4183–6), EPA Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any longer intended to support issued a proposed rule for specific objections and hearing requests filed monocrotophos tolerances for import pesticides announcing the proposed with the Hearing Clerk should be purposes. Novartis indicates that sale of revocation of tolerances for canceled identified by the document control monocrotophos will end in 1999, and food uses and inviting public comment number and submitted to the Public has requested that tolerances for import for consideration and for support of Information and Records Integrity purposes be retained until December 31, tolerance retention under FFDCA Branch, Information Resources and 2000, in order to fully utilize their standards. The following comments Services Division (7502C), Office of existing stock. As Novartis is the sole were received by the agency in response
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.078 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19491 to the document published in the Agency Response. The Agency Agency Response. The Agency Federal Register: allowed tolerances to remain on peanut allowed tolerances to remain on 1. Comments from a letter received hulls, tomatoes, cottonseed, potatoes peanuts, peanut hulls, tomatoes, from Ciba-Geigy Corporation July 27, and sugarcane (§ 180.296) and in cottonseed, potatoes and sugarcane 1993, stated that, ‘‘ Monocrotophos is concentrated tomato products (§ 180.296) and in concentrated tomato used extensively in many countries (§ 185.2250). products (§ 185.2250). around the world. The major uses in these countries are on crops such as 2. Comments from correspondence VI. When do These Actions become sugarcane, potatoes and cottonseed.’’ In received August 4, 1993, from Biologic Effective? addition Ciba-Geigy requested that, ‘‘the Research & Development Inc., than a Agency withhold preceding to revoke U.S. regulatory consultant for the Shell Tolerance revocation for residue tolerances for monocrotophos International Chemical Company, monocrotophos becomes effective on cottonseed, potatoes and sugarcane requested that EPA reconsider its December 31, 2000, per the at this time. Revoking these tolerances proposal to revoke the existing U.S. manufacturer’s request to fully utilize could create a non tariff trade barrier tolerances for monocrotophos, but its remaining existing stock. If you have and should therefore be avoided to the rather allow for a review of those comments regarding existing stocks, extent possible. Ciba’s proposal is to tolerances in recognition of on going please submit comments as described in convert these domestic tolerances ‘‘ to international uses of this compound and Unit IV of the SUPPLEMENTARY import tolerances which will help those residues likely to occur in INFORMATION section of this notice. facilitate free trade.’’ commodities imported into the U.S.
Section Commodity Parts per Expiration/Rev- million ocation Date
180.296 ...... Peanuts hulls 0.5 12/31/2000 ...... Tomatoes 0.5 12/31/2000 ...... Cottonseed 0.1 12/31/2000 ...... Potatoes 0.1 12/31/2000 ...... Sugarcane 0.1 12/31/2000 ...... Peanuts 0.05 12/31/2000 185.2250 ...... Tomato concentrated products 2.0 12/31/2000
Any commodities listed in the general, are not ‘‘significant’’ unless the ‘‘unfunded mandates’’ as described in regulatory text of this document that are action involves the revocation of a Title II of the Unfunded Mandates treated with the pesticides subject to tolerance that may result in a substantial Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). this notice, and that are in the channels adverse and material affect on the D. Do Executive Orders 12875 and of trade following the tolerance economy. In addition, this action is not 13084 Require EPA to Consult with revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA subject to Executive Order 13045, States and Indian Tribal Governments section 408(1)(5), as established by the entitled Protection of Children from Prior to Taking the Action in this Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Environmental Health Risks and Safety Document? Under this section, any residue of these Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), pesticides in or on such food shall not because this action is not an No. Under Executive Order 12875, render the food adulterated so long as it economically significant regulatory entitled Enhancing the is shown to the satisfaction of FDA that, action as defined by Executive Order Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR (1) the residue is present as the result of 12866. Nonetheless, environmental 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may not an application or use of the pesticide at health and safety risks to children are issue a regulation that is not required by a time and in a manner that was lawful considered by the Agency when statute and that creates a mandate upon under FIFRA, and (2) the residue does determining appropriate tolerances. a State, local or tribal government, not exceed the level that was authorized Under FQPA, EPA is required to apply unless the Federal government provides at the time of the application or use to an additional 10-fold safety factor to risk the funds necessary to pay the direct be present on the food under a tolerance assessments in order to ensure the compliance costs incurred by those or exemption from tolerance. Evidence protection of infants and children governments. If the mandate is to show that food was lawfully treated unless reliable data supports a different unfunded, EPA must provide to the may include records that verify the safety factor. Office of Management and Budget dates that the pesticide was applied to B. Does this Action Contain Any (OMB) a description of the extent of such food. Reporting or Recordkeeping EPA’s prior consultation with VII. How do the regulatory assessment Requirements? representatives of affected State, local requirements apply to this action? and tribal governments, the nature of No. This action does not impose any their concerns, copies of any written A. Is this a ‘‘Significant Regulatory information collection requirements communications from the governments, Action’’? subject to OMB review or approval and a statement supporting the need to No. Under Executive Order 12866, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction issue the regulation. In addition, entitled Regulatory Planning and Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), C. Does this Action Involve Any develop an effective process permitting this action is not a ‘‘significant ‘‘Unfunded Mandates’’? elected officials and other regulatory action.’’ The Office of representatives of State, local and tribal Management and Budget (OMB) has No. This action does not impose any governments ‘‘to provide meaningful determined that tolerance actions, in enforceable duty, or contain any and timely input in the development of
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.078 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19492 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations regulatory proposals containing adverse economic impact on a support. This guidance will be made significant unfunded mandates.’’ substantial number of small entities. available to interested stakeholders. Today’s rule does not create an The factual basis for the Agency’s I. Is this Action Subject to Review under unfunded Federal mandate on State, determination, along with its generic the Congressional Review Act? local or tribal governments. The rule certification under section 605(b) of the does not impose any enforceable duties Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 Yes. The Congressional Review Act, 5 on these entities. Accordingly, the U.S.C. 601 et seq.), appears at 63 FR U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as amended by requirements of section 1(a) of 55565, October 16, 1998 (FRL–6035–7). the Small Business Regulatory Executive Order 12875 do not apply to This generic certification has been Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, this rule. provided to the Chief Counsel for generally provides that before a rule Under Executive Order 13084, Advocacy of the Small Business may take effect, the agency entitled Consultation and Coordination Administration. promulgating the rule must submit a with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR rule report, which includes a copy of 27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not G. Does this Action Involve Technical the rule, to each House of the Congress issue a regulation that is not required by Standards? and to the Comptroller General of the statute, that significantly or uniquely No. This tolerance action does not United States. EPA will submit a report affects the communities of Indian tribal involve any technical standards that containing this rule and other required governments, and that imposes would require Agency consideration of information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. substantial direct compliance costs on voluntary consensus standards pursuant House of Representatives, and the those communities, unless the Federal to section 12(d) of the National Comptroller General of the United government provides the funds Technology Transfer and Advancement States prior to publication of the rule in necessary to pay the direct compliance Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104–113, the Federal Register. This action is not costs incurred by the tribal section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. governments. If the mandate is Section 12(d) directs EPA to use 804(2). unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in voluntary consensus standards in its List of Subjects a separately identified section of the regulatory activities unless to do so preamble to the rule, a description of would be inconsistent with applicable 40 CFR Part 180 the extent of EPA’s prior consultation law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary Environmental protection, with representatives of affected tribal consensus standards are technical governments, a summary of the nature Administrative practice and procedure, standards (e.g., materials specifications, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides of their concerns, and a statement test methods, sampling procedures, supporting the need to issue the and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping business practices, etc.) that are requirements. regulation. In addition, Executive Order developed or adopted by voluntary 13084 requires EPA to develop an consensus standards bodies. The 40 CFR Part 185 effective process permitting elected and NTTAA requires EPA to provide other representatives of Indian tribal Environmental protection, Food Congress, through OMB, explanations additive, Pesticides and pest. governments ‘‘to provide meaningful when the Agency decides not to use and timely input in the development of available and applicable voluntary Dated: April 12, 1999. regulatory policies on matters that consensus standards. Lois Rossi, significantly or uniquely affect their Director, Special Review and Reregistration communities.’’ H. Are There Any International Trade Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Today’s rule does not significantly or Issues Raised by this Action? Therefore, 40 CFR parts 180 and 185 uniquely affect the communities of are amended as follows: Indian tribal governments. This action EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. does not involve or impose any tolerance reassessment program under PART 180Ð[AMENDED] requirements that affect Indian Tribes. FQPA does not disrupt international Accordingly, the requirements of trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum 1. In part 180: section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S. a. The authority citation for part 180 do not apply to this rule. tolerances and in reassessing them. is amended to read as follows: MRLs are established by the Codex Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and E. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to Committee on Pesticide Residues, a 374. this Action? committee within the Codex b. By revising § 180.296 to read as No. This final rule does not involve Alimentarius Commission, an follows: special considerations of international organization formed to environmental-justice related issues promote the coordination of § 180.296 Dimethyl phosphate of 3- international food standards. When hydroxy-N-methyl-cis-crotonamide; pursuant to Executive Order 12898, tolerance for residues. entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address possible, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. Environmental Justice in Minority tolerances with Codex MRLs. EPA may (a) General. Tolerances are Populations and Low-Income establish a tolerance that is different established for residues of the Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA insecticide Dimethyl phosphate of 3- 1994). section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA hydroxy-N-methyl-cis-crotonamide in or explain in a Federal Register document on the following raw agricultural F. Does this Action Have a Potentially the reasons for departing from the commodities: Significant Impact on a Substantial Codex level. EPA’s effort to harmonize Number of Small Entities? with Codex MRLs is summarized in the Expiration/ Commodity Parts per Revocation No. The Agency has certified that tolerance reassessment section of million date tolerance actions, including the individual REDs. The U.S. EPA is tolerance actions in this document, are developing a guidance concerning Cottonseed ...... 0.1 12/31/00 not likely to result in a significant submissions for import tolerance Peanuts ...... 0.05 12/31/00
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:37 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.078 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19493
Expiration/ I. What Action is EPA Taking? U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or Executive Order Commodity Parts per Revocation 13045, entitled Protection of Children million date EPA is making a minor correction to a tolerance regulation that it issued in from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, Potatoes ...... 0.1 12/31/00 the Federal Register on September 29, 1997). This action does not impose any Sugarcane ...... 0.1 12/31/00 1998 (63 FR 51841; FRL–6032–6). The enforceable duty, contain any unfunded Tomato ...... 0.5 12/31/00 tolerance regulation established time- mandate, or impose any significant or Tomato, con- limited tolerances for residues of unique impact on small governments as centrated prod- mepiquat chloride (N,N- described in the Unfunded Mandates ucts ...... 2.0 12/31/00 dimethylpiperidinium chloride) in or on Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. grapes at 1.0 part per million (ppm) and 104-4). Nor does it require prior (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. raisins at 6.0 ppm. The regulation consultation with State, local, and tribal [Reserved] amended 40 CFR 180.384 and 186.2275. government officials as specified by (c) Tolerances with regional EPA established this time-limited Executive Order 12875, entitled registrations. [Reserved] tolerance on its own initiative pursuant (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Enhancing the Intergovernmental to sections 408(e) and (l)(6) of the Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, [Reserved] Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 2. In part 185: 1993) and Executive Order 13084, (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6). entitled Consultation and Coordination PART 185Ð [AMENDED] This document corrects the with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR amendatory instructions that were 27655, May 19,1998), or special a. The authority citation for part 185 provided for § 186.2275 in the consideration of environmental justice is revised to read as follows: September 29, 1998 Federal Register related issues under Executive Order Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346(a) and 348. document. Specifically, on page 51848, 12898, entitled Federal Actions to in the first column, under part 186, the § 185.2250 [Removed] Address Environmental Justice in amendatory instruction ‘‘b’’ is corrected Minority Populations and Low-Income b. By removing § 185.2250 Dimethyl to read as follows: Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, phosphate of 3-hydroxy-N-methyl-cis- ‘‘b. In § 186.2275, by transferring the 1994). This action does not involve any crotonamide; tolerance for residues. entry for ‘cottonseed meal’ from the technical standards that would require table and adding it alphabetically to the [FR Doc. 99–10006 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Agency consideration of voluntary table in newly designated paragraph (a) consensus standards pursuant to section BILLING CODE 6560±50±F of § 180.384, and by removing the 12(d) of the National Technology remainder of § 186.2275.’’ Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION II. Why Is this Technical Correction (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) AGENCY Issued as a Final Rule? (15 U.S.C. 272 note). In addition, since this action is not subject to notice-and- EPA is publishing this action as a 40 CFR Parts 180 and 186 comment requirements under the final rule without prior notice and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or opportunity to comment because the [OPP±300719A; FRL±6075±7] any other statute, it is not subject to the Agency believes that providing notice regulatory flexibility provisions of the and an opportunity to comment is Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 RIN 2070±AB78 unnecessary and would be contrary to U.S.C. 601 et seq.). the public interest. As explained above, EPA’s compliance with these statutes Mepiquat Chloride; Pesticide the corrections contained in this action and Executive Orders for the issuance of Tolerances for Emergency will simply correct the erroneous the underlying rule is discussed in the Exemptions, Correction instructions for amending § 186.2275 preamble for that rule (63 FR 51841, AGENCY: Environmental Protection contained in the September 29, 1998 September 29, 1998). Agency (EPA). Federal Register document. These instructions do not in any way impact IV. Will EPA Submit this Final Rule to ACTION: Final rule, correction. the action presented in the September Congress and the Comptroller General? SUMMARY: This document corrects a 29, 1998 Federal Register document. Yes. The Congressional Review Act, 5 tolerance regulation which established EPA therefore finds that there is ‘‘good U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small time-limited tolerances for residues of cause’’ under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Business Regulatory Enforcement mepiquat chloride, (N,N- Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides dimethylpiperidinium chloride) in or on 553(b)(3)(B)) to make this amendment that before a rule may take effect, the grapes and raisins. without prior notice and comment. agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a DATES: This correction is effective III. Do Any of the Regulatory copy of the rule, to each House of the September 29, 1998. Assessment Requirements Apply to this Congress and to the Comptroller General FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By Action? of the United States. Section 808 allows mail: Andrew Ertman, Registration No. This final rule does not impose the issuing agency to make a good cause Division 7505C, Office of Pesticide any new requirements. It only finding that notice and public procedure Programs, Environmental Protection implements a technical correction to the is impracticable, unnecessary or Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). As contrary to the public interest. This DC 20460. Office location, telephone such, this action does not require review determination must be supported by a number, and e-mail address: Crystal by the Office of Management and brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Budget (OMB) under Executive Order made such a good cause finding for this Arlington, VA, (703) 308–9367, e-mail: 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and final rule, and established an effective [email protected]. Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), date of September 29, 1998. Pursuant to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 5 U.S.C 808(2), this determination is
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19494 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations supported by the brief statement in Unit CFR part 258). Section 4005(c)(1)(C) of (Backcountry Against Dumps versus II. of this preamble. EPA will submit a RCRA requires the EPA to determine EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (DC Cir. 1996)), tribes report containing this rule and other whether States have ‘‘adequate’’ permit are viewed as municipalities rather than required information to the U.S. Senate, programs for MSWLFs, but does not as states under RCRA and therefore, the the U.S. House of Representatives, and mandate issuance of a rule for such Agency cannot approve tribal landfill the Comptroller General of the United determinations. permitting programs. To reflect the States prior to publication of the rule in Texas applied for a determination of court decision, references to tribes have the Federal Register. This is not a adequacy under section 4005 of RCRA. been deleted from the final rule. Thus, ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. The EPA reviewed Texas’ application although the proposed rule was titled 804(2). and made a tentative determination that STIR we refer to the final rule as the Texas’ MSWLF permit program is State Implementation Rule (SIR). On V. Correction adequate to ensure compliance with the October 23, 1998, EPA published SIR In FR Doc. 98–25984, in the revised MSWLF criteria. After allowing (63 FR 57025) that provides procedures September 29, 1998 issue of the Federal for public comment, EPA today is by which EPA will approve, partially Register, on page 51848, in the first granting final approval to Texas’ full approve, or disapprove State landfill column, under part 186, correct solid waste program. permit programs. amendatory instruction ‘‘b.’’ to read as EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of Part 40 CFR 239 (63 FR 57040) follows: the adequacy of the Texas program shall outlines several minimum requirements ‘‘b. In § 186.2275 by transferring the be effective on April 21, 1999. for ‘‘adequate’’ permit programs. These entry for ‘cottonseed meal’ from the requirements include that states must FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: table and adding it alphabetically to the have enforceable standards for new and Sherry Fuerst, UST/Solid Waste Section table in newly designated paragraph (a) existing MSWLFs that are technically (6PD–U), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave, of § 180.384, and by removing the comparable to EPA’s revised MSWLF Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, phone 214/ remainder of § 186.2275.’’ criteria. Additionally, the State must 665–6454. have the authority to issue a permit or List of Subjects 40 CFR Parts 180 and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON: other notice of prior approval to all new 186 A. Background and existing MSWLFs in its jurisdiction. Environmental protection, The State also must provide for public Administrative practice and procedure, On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated participation in permit issuance and Agricultural commodities, Pesticides revised criteria for MSWLFs (40 CFR enforcement as required in section and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping part 258). Subtitle D of RCRA, as 7004(b) of RCRA. Finally, the State must requirements. amended by the HSWA of 1984, show it has sufficient compliance requires States to develop permitting Dated: April 2, 1999. monitoring and enforcement authorities programs to ensure that facilities to take specific action against any owner Donald R. Stubbs, comply with the Federal criteria in 40 or operator that fails to comply with an CFR part 258. Subtitle D also requires, approved MSWLF program. Acting Director, Registration Division, Office in section 4005, that EPA determine the of Pesticide Programs. The EPA Regions will determine adequacy of State municipal solid waste whether a State has submitted an [FR Doc. 99–10005 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] landfill permit programs to ensure that ‘‘adequate’’ program based on the BILLING CODE 6560±50±F facilities comply with the revised interpretation outlined above. The EPA Federal criteria at 40 CFR part 258. As has provided specific criteria for this the first step to fulfill this requirement, evaluation in the SIR. The EPA expects ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the Agency drafted a State/Tribal AGENCY States to meet all of these requirements Implementation Rule (STIR), in 1991, for all elements of an MSWLF program and published in 1996 (61 FR 2584, Jan. 40 CFR Part 257 before it gives full approval to an 26, 1996), which States used to apply MSWLF program. [SW±FRL±6319±5] for a determination of program On September 27, 1993, the EPA adequacy and which EPA would use to Administrator signed the final rule Texas; Final Full Program Adequacy approve, partially approve, or extending the effective date of the Determination of State Municipal Solid disapprove State landfill permit landfill criteria for certain Waste Permit Program programs. Since 1992, the Agency has classifications of landfills (proposed AGENCY: Environmental Protection approved adequate State MSWLF permit rule 58 FR 40568, July 28, 1993). Thus, Agency (EPA). programs as applications are submitted. for certain small landfills that fit the ACTION: Notice of final determination of Approved State permit programs small landfill exemption as defined in full program adequacy for the State of provide interaction between the State 40 CFR part 258.1(f), the Federal criteria Texas. and the owner/operator regarding site- were effective on October 9, 1995, rather specific permit conditions. Only those than on October 9, 1993. The final rule SUMMARY: Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of the owners/operators located in States with on the effective date extension was Resource Conservation and Recovery approved permit programs can use the published in the Federal Register Act (RCRA), as amended by the site-specific flexibility provided by part October 1, 1993 (58 FR 51536). Hazardous and Solid Waste 258 to the extent the State permit On August 10, 1995, the EPA Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires program allows such flexibility. The published a proposed rule to solicit States to develop and implement permit EPA notes that regardless of the comments on a two-year delay, until programs to ensure that municipal solid approval status of a State and the permit October 9, 1997, of the general waste landfills (MSWLFs) which may status of any facility, the Federal criteria compliance date of the MSWLF criteria receive household hazardous waste or will apply to all permitted and for qualifying small MSWLFs (60 FR conditionally exempt small quantity unpermitted MSWLFs. Due to a recent 40799). This allowed EPA time to generator waste, comply with the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals finalize the proposed alternatives. The revised Federal MSWLF Criteria (40 for the District of Columbia Circuit final rule granting the delay of the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.079 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19495 compliance date was published in the portions of the State’s application are Children’s Health Protection Federal Register on October 6, 1995 (60 consistent with the revised Federal Under Executive Order (E.O.) 13045, FR 52337). criteria. In its application, Texas for all significant regulatory actions as B. State of Texas demonstrated that the State’s permit defined by E.O.13045, EPA must program adequately meets the location provide an evaluation of the On August 4, 1993, Texas submitted restrictions, operating criteria, design environmental health or safety effect of an application for a full adequacy criteria, groundwater monitoring and a proposed rule on children and an determination for the State’s MSWLF corrective action requirements, closure explanation of why the proposed rule is permit program. On December 17, 1993, and post-closure care requirements, and preferable to other potentially effective EPA published a final determination of financial assurance criteria in the and reasonably feasible alternatives partial program adequacy for Texas’ revised Federal criteria. In addition, the considered by EPA. This is not a program. Further background on the State of Texas also demonstrated that its significant regulatory action and is final determination of partial program MSWLF permit program contains exempt from E.O. 13045. adequacy appears in 58 FR 65986 specific provisions for public (December 17, 1993) and in 58 FR 44821 Compliance With Executive Order participation, compliance monitoring, (August 25, 1993). In those actions, EPA 12866 and enforcement. approved all portions of the State’s The Office of Management and Budget MSWLF permit program except Texas’ C. Public Comments (OMB) has exempted this rule from the regulations exempting certain small requirements of Section 6 of E.O. 12866. landfills in arid regions from ground The public comment period on EPA’s water monitoring requirements. On May tentative determination began on Enhancing Intergovernmental 7, 1993 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the September 16, 1998, and closed on Partnerships District of Columbia Circuit Court October 16, 1998. No public comments Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue (Sierra Club v. EPA, 992F.2d 337 were received. a regulation that is not required by (D.C.Cir. 1993)) directed EPA to Texas does not claim jurisdiction over statute and that creates a mandate upon eliminate an exemption from ground Indian lands. a State, local or tribal government, water monitoring for small landfills in unless the Federal government provides Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that arid and remote locations (40 CFR 258.1 the funds necessary to pay the direct citizens may use the citizen suit (f)(1)). compliance costs incurred by those provisions of section 7002 of RCRA to The court held that ‘‘* * * the governments. If the mandate is Agency must revise its final rule to enforce the Federal MSWLF criteria in unfunded, EPA must provide to the require groundwater monitoring, as 40 CFR part 258 independent of any OMB a description of the extent of necessary to detect contamination, at all state enforcement program. As EPA EPA’s prior consultation with landfills. While such factors as size, explained in the preamble to the representatives of the affected State, location and climate may affect the MSWLF criteria, EPA expects that any local and tribal governments, the nature extent or kind of monitoring necessary owner or operator complying with of their concerns, copies of any written to detect contamination at a specific provisions in a State program approved communications from the governments, facility, they cannot justify exemption by EPA to be in compliance with the and a statement supporting the need to from the statutory monitoring Federal criteria. See 56 FR 50978, 50995 issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. requirement.’’ Thus, the Court vacated (October 9, 1991). 12875 requires EPA to develop an the small landfill exemption as it D. Decision effective process permitting elected pertains to ground water monitoring, officials and other representatives of directing the Agency to ‘‘* * * revise After allowing for the public State, local and tribal governments ‘‘to its rule to require groundwater comment, EPA concludes that Texas’ provide meaningful and timely input in monitoring at all landfills.’’ For that application for a full program adequacy the development of regulatory proposals reason, EPA directed Texas to remove determination meets all of the statutory containing significant unfunded the exemption for certain small landfills and regulatory requirements established mandates.’’ Today’s action implements in arid regions from ground water by RCRA. Accordingly, Texas is granted requirements specifically set forth by monitoring. However, with EPA’s a determination of full program the Congress in sections 4005(c)(1)(B) concurrence, Texas deferred repealing adequacy for all areas of its municipal and (c)(1)(C) of Subtitle D of RCRA, as the exemption until EPA adopted a new solid waste permit program. amended, without the exercise of any standard. discretion by EPA. Accordingly, the On March 26, 1996, the Land Disposal This action takes effect on the date of requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. Program Flexibility Act of 1996 was publication. The EPA believes it has 12875 do not apply to today’s action. passed (P.L. 104–119, March 26, 1996) good cause under section 553(d) of the providing explicit authority for the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Compliance With Executive Order ground water monitoring exemption, 553(d), to put this action into effect less 13084 whereupon EPA reestablished the than 30 days after publication in the Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and ground water monitoring exemption (61 Federal Register. All of the Coordination with Indian Tribal FR 50410 September 25, 1996) that had requirements and obligations in the Governments, EPA may not issue a been vacated by the Court. Therefore, on State’s program are already in effect as regulation that is not required by September 23, 1997, Texas applied for a matter of State law. The EPA’s action statute, that significantly or uniquely a determination of full program today does not impose any new affects the communities of Indian tribal adequacy, since it had retained the requirements that the regulated governments, and that imposes ground water monitoring exemption in community must begin to comply with. substantial direct compliance costs on its rules and was now in conformity Nor do these requirements become those communities, unless the Federal with the revised Federal criteria. enforceable by EPA as Federal law. government provides the funds The EPA has reviewed Texas’ Consequently, EPA finds that it does not necessary to pay the direct compliance application and has determined that all need to delay the effective date. costs incurred by the tribal
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.102 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19496 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations governments. If the mandate is Submission to Congress and the General FEDERAL EMERGENCY unfunded, EPA must provide to the Accounting Office MANAGEMENT AGENCY OMB, in a separately identified section Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the of the preamble to today’s action, a Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as 44 CFR Part 206 description of the extent of EPA’s prior amended by the Small Business RIN 3067±AC72 consultation with representatives of Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of affected tribal governments, a summary 1996, EPA submitted a report containing Disaster Assistance; Cost-share of the nature of their concerns, and a today’s document and other required Adjustment statement supporting the need to issue information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. AGENCY: Federal Emergency the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 House of Representatives and the Management Agency (FEMA). requires EPA to develop an effective Comptroller General of the General process permitting elected and other Accounting Office prior to publication ACTION: Final rule. of today’s action in the Federal Register. representatives of Indian tribal SUMMARY: This rule accomplishes three Today’s action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as governments ‘‘to provide meaningful objectives. First, it establishes the defined by section 804(2) of the APA as and timely input in the development of financial criteria under which we, amended. regulatory policies on matters that FEMA, recommend to the President a significantly or uniquely affect their Unfunded Mandates Reform Act cost-share adjustment for permanent communities.’’ Today’s action Title II of the Unfunded Mandates restorative work and for emergency implements requirements specifically Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public work under the Robert T. Stafford set forth by the Congress in sections Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Disaster Relief and Emergency 4005(c)(1)(B) and (c)(1)(C) of Subtitle D Federal agencies to assess the effects of Assistance Act (the Stafford Act). of RCRA, as amended, without the their regulatory actions on State, local Second, the rule states that we exercise of any discretion by EPA. and tribal governments and the private recommend capping the Federal share Accordingly, the requirements of sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, of assistance at ninety percent (90%.) section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply the EPA must prepare a written Third, we raise the $64 statewide per to today’s action. statement, including a cost benefit capita threshold that we have used since 1985 for recommending cost-share Certification Under the Regulatory analysis, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may result adjustments to current dollars, and will Flexibility Act in expenditures to State, local, and adjust that threshold annually in future The EPA has determined that this tribal governments, in the aggregate, or years. The new threshold is phased in authorization will not have a significant to the private sector of $100 million or over a gradual period. The rule in no adverse economic impact on a more in any one year. way affects the current process under which the President sometimes grants substantial number of small entities. By Today’s action contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory one hundred percent (100%) Federal approving State municipal solid waste provisions of Title of the UMRA) for funding for emergency work, including permitting programs, owners and State, local, or tribal governments or the direct Federal assistance, for limited operators of municipal solid waste private sector. Today’s action would periods following disaster declarations landfills who are also small entities will merely acknowledge the adequacy of a when the emergency needs warrant it. be eligible to use the site-specific portion of an existing State program. EFFECTIVE DATE: flexibility provided by part 258 to the This rule is effective The EPA has determined that this action May 21, 1999. extent the State permit program allows would not contain any Federal mandate FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: such flexibility. However, since such that may result in expenditures of $100 small entities which own and/or operate Patricia Stahlschmidt, Response and million or more for state, local, and Recovery Directorate, Federal municipal solid waste landfills are tribal governments, in the aggregate or already subject to the requirements in Emergency Management Agency, 500 C the private sector in any one year. Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202– 40 CFR part 258 or are exempted from Therefore, today’s action is not subject certain of these requirements, such as 646–4066, (facsimile) 202–646–4060, or to the requirements of section 202 of the (email) [email protected]. the groundwater monitoring and design UMRA. provisions, this approval does not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Certification Under the Regulatory impose any additional burdens on these Background small entities. Flexibility Act On March 5, 1998, we published a Therefore, EPA provides the following Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this proposed rule on cost-share adjustment certification under the Regulatory under the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 Flexibility Act, as amended by the approval will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial et seq. in the Federal Register at 63 FR Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 10816. We invited comments for 60 Fairness Act. Pursuant to the provision number of small entities. It does not impose any new burdens on small days ending on May 4, 1998. We at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that entities. This rule, therefore, does not received nine sets of comments: two this approval will not have a significant require a regulatory flexibility analysis. from State and local government adverse economic impact on a organizations; six from States; and one substantial number of small entities. It Authority: This action is issued under the from a local government. Three does not impose any new burdens on authority of section 4005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6946. commenters generally supported small entities; rather this approval placing the criteria in regulation and creates flexibility for small entities in Dated: March 10, 1999. annually adjusting the threshold for complying with the 40 CFR part 258 Myron O. Knudson, inflation, and one commenter agreed requirements. Today’s action, therefore, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. with the ninety percent (90%) cap on does not require a regulatory flexibility [FR Doc. 99–8337 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] the Federal share of assistance. Most analysis. BILLING CODE 6560±50±P commenters objected to various aspects
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.103 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19497 of the rule. Following is a summary of that, irrespective of the economic course of the disaster. In order to be the comments and our responses. threshold established here, the consistent in our method of measuring President may continue the practice of Evaluation of Cost-share Adjustments the per capita impact we will also granting up to one hundred percent continue our practice of measuring One of the most frequent comments (100%) Federal funding for emergency Stafford Act obligations only. State was that there was no evaluation or work when he believes such action is administrative costs have been and will analysis of the original threshold for warranted in the early days of the continue to be considered when we recommending cost-share adjustments, disaster. measure per capita costs though we do and therefore there is no basis for raising this threshold to current dollars. Multiple Disasters not include our administrative costs in Further comments along this line argued Several commenters noted that the the calculation. that the proposed threshold fails to rule contains no provision for multiple Limitation on Use of Sliding Scales consider State capability and does not disasters within a State. We agree, and provide an incentive for mitigation. We have revised the rule to state that we Three commenters noted that § 320 of acknowledge that there was no analysis will consider the effect of major disaster the Stafford Act precludes any of the original $64 per capita threshold declarations in a State within the geographic area from receiving for recommending cost-share preceding twelve months. The final rule assistance under the Act solely by virtue adjustments. However, that threshold is does not specifically indicate how we of an arithmetic formula or sliding scale widely recognized and we have used it will consider multiple disasters because based on income or population. We are consistently since 1985 when we that would depend on the well aware of this provision of the Act recommended the first cost-share circumstances. We need to consider the but do not violate it because the rule adjustment. We do not intend, and timing of the disasters, the size, and the does not prohibit any geographic area never intended, to measure State location when we review the impact of from receiving assistance under the Act. capability or to provide an incentive for multiple disasters. For example, two The rule merely determines when a mitigation through this rule. Rather, the very large disasters that strike the same more favorable cost-share adjustment $64 threshold is simply a yardstick to area of a State might have a much may be recommended. determine when the economic impact of greater economic impact than widely a disaster is of such severity that it disbursed small disasters in the State Gross Domestic Product as a Measure warrants recommendation for a cost- even though the cumulative per capita of Impact share adjustment. We are quite willing impact might be similar. to work with our State partners to One commenter noted that in the identify capability or mitigation Statewide Population Factors 1993 floods that affected nine measures that might justify A number of other commenters noted Midwestern States the President used consideration of a cost-share that the per capita threshold should 0.1 percent of the gross domestic adjustment. However, we view that as a consider the relative densities within a product (GDP) as the measure to longer-term effort separate from this State, or should be based on the county determine that a cost-share adjustment rule. With respect to measuring and not on statewide population. We would be recommended for all nine economic impact, no commenters will continue to base the threshold on States. That GDP measurement was not offered alternatives to the use of a per the statewide population to reflect the mentioned in the proposed rule because capita impact although two did suggest supplemental nature of Federal disaster it has come to be a one-time-only that we lower the threshold to $50 per assistance and the State’s preeminent measurement. In more recent multi-state capita. We believe instead that the 1985 role in this partnership. The declaration flood disasters in the Upper Midwest threshold should be brought up to process itself analyzes the localized current dollars and adjusted annually impacts of the disaster when we and Ohio River basins we considered using the Consumer Price Index for All recommend which counties should be only the per capita threshold as the Urban Consumers, since that is the granted Federal disaster assistance. If a basis for recommending a cost-share legislative basis for annually adjusting State wishes to adjust the nonfederal adjustment. the small project grants under the Public cost-share burden in certain areas of the Timeframe for Implementation Assistance Program and grants under State it can do so through the State/ the Individual and Family Grant applicant split of the nonfederal cost- One commenter noted that the Program. share. proposed timeframe for implementation Presidential Discretion for Cost-share Actual Stafford Act Obligations To is no longer relevant. We recognize that Adjustments Measure per Capita Impact it is no longer relevant. Due to the length of time for publication, comment Several commenters noted that the Several commenters noted that the and review of comments, the timeframe threshold for granting cost-share nonfederal share and State for implementation of the new threshold adjustments unwisely limits administrative costs should be included will now begin in calendar year 1999 on Presidential discretion, and fails to in the calculation of statewide per May 21, 1999 and not in fiscal year account for the unique circumstances of capita impact, and that the threshold 1998. The phase-in period to bring the a disaster. We believe that the rule should be based on estimates. We adequately allows for Presidential currently consider only actual threshold up to current dollars has also discretion. First, the wording of the rule obligations when determining the per been extended to address concerns has been revised to state that we would capita impact of a disaster and will about the increase in the threshold. recommend to the President when a continue that practice. Actual National Environmental Policy Act cost-share adjustment is warranted in obligations provide a better and more recognition of the fact that the President consistent measure of the impact of a 44 CFR part 10 categorically excludes retains the authority for actually disaster than do estimates, which can this rule from its requirements. We have granting cost-share adjustments. vary widely from disaster to disaster not prepared an environmental Secondly, the rule clearly recognizes and can change dramatically over the assessment.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.080 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19498 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory any enforceable duties are imposed as a declarations in the State during the Planning and Review condition of Federal assistance or a duty preceding twelve-month period. This rule is not a significant arising from participation in a voluntary (d) If warranted by the needs of the regulatory action within the meaning of Federal program. disaster, we recommend up to one hundred percent (100%) Federal section 2(f) of E.O. 12866 of September List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206 30, 1993, 58 FR 51735, but attempts to funding for emergency work under adhere to the regulatory principles set Administrative practice and section 403 and section 407, including forth in E.O. 12866. The Office of procedure, Disaster assistance, direct Federal assistance, for a limited Management and Budget has not Intergovernmental relations, Reporting period in the initial days of the disaster reviewed this rule under E.O. 12866. and recordkeeping requirements. irrespective of the per capita impact. Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 206 is Paperwork Reduction Act Dated: April 14, 1999. amended as follows: James L. Witt, This rule does not contain a collection Director. of information and therefore is not PART 206 SUBPART BÐTHE subject to the provisions of the DECLARATION PROCESS [FR Doc. 99–9934 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. BILLING CODE 6718±02±P 1. The authority citation for part 206 Executive Order 12612, Federalism continues to read as follows: This rule involves no policies that Authority: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS have federalism implications under E.O. Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 COMMISSION 12612, Federalism, dated October 16, U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 1987. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3 [MM Docket No. 98±93; FCC 99±55] Reform CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54 FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214. 1998 Biennial Regulatory ReviewÐ This rule meets the applicable Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules standards of section 2(b)(2) of E.O. 2. We are adding § 206.47 to read as 12778. follows. AGENCY: Federal Communications Congressional Review of Agency § 206.47 Cost-share adjustments. Commission. Rulemaking (a) We pay seventy-five percent (75%) ACTION: Final rule. We have sent this final rule to the of the eligible cost of permanent SUMMARY: In this Report and Order, the Congress and to the General Accounting restorative work under section 406 of Commission modifies its rules to extend Office under the Congressional Review the Stafford Act and for emergency work first come/first served processing to of Agency Rulemaking Act, Pub. L. 104– under section 403 and section 407 of the applications for minor changes to AM, 121. The rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ Stafford Act, unless the Federal share is reserved frequency noncommercial within the meaning of that Act. It is an increased under this section. educational FM (‘‘NCE FM’’) and FM administrative action in support of (b) We recommend an increase in the translator facilities. The Commission normal day-to-day activities. It Federal cost share from seventy-five also expands the definition of ‘‘minor establishes the financial criteria under percent (75%) to not more than ninety change’’ in these services to conform which we would recommend a cost- percent (90%) of the eligible cost of more closely to the commercial FM share adjustment for permanent permanent work under section 406 and definition, which includes all changes restorative work and for emergency of emergency work under section 403 except changes in community of license work, and recommends capping the and section 407 whenever a disaster is and certain changes in frequency and/or Federal cost-share for permanent so extraordinary that actual Federal class. Finally, we amend the contingent restorative work at ninety percent obligations under the Stafford Act, application rule to permit the filing of (90%). The rule does not result in nor excluding FEMA administrative cost, up to four related and simultaneously- is it likely to result in an annual effect meet or exceed a qualifying threshold filed minor change FM station on the economy of $100,000,000 or of: construction permit applications. These more. It will not result in a major (1) Beginning in 1999 and effective for modifications were proposed as part of increase in costs or prices for disasters declared on or after May 21, a broad-based initiative, undertaken in consumers, individual industries, 1999, $75 per capita of State population; conjunction with the Commission’s Federal, State, or local government (2) Effective for disasters declared 1998 biennial regulatory review, to agencies, or geographic regions. It will after January 1, 2000, and through streamline Mass Media Bureau radio not have ‘‘significant adverse effects’’ on December 31, 2000, $85 per capita of technical rules. competition, employment, investment, State population; EFFECTIVE DATE: May 21, 1999. productivity, innovation, or on the (3) Effective for disasters declared ability of United States-based after January 1, 2001, $100 per capita of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: enterprises to compete with foreign- State population; and, Peter H. Doyle, Audio Services Division, based enterprises. (4) Effective for disasters declared Mass Media Bureau (202) 418–2700 or This final rule is exempt (1) from the after January 1, 2002 and for later years, William J. Scher, Audio Services requirements of the Regulatory $100 per capita of State population, Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) Flexibility Act, and (2) from the adjusted annually for inflation using the 418–2700. Paperwork Reduction Act. The rule is Consumer Price Index for All Urban SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a not an unfunded Federal mandate Consumers published annually by the summary of the Commission’s First within the meaning of the Unfunded Department of Labor. Report and Order in MM Docket 98–93, Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. (c) When we determine whether to adopted March 23, 1999, and released 104–4. It does not meet the recommend a cost-share adjustment we March 30, 1999. The complete text of $100,000,000 threshold of that Act, and consider the impact of major disaster this Report and Order is available for
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19499 inspection and copying during normal both NCE FM and FM translator stations B. Agreements Involving Applications business hours in the FCC Reference proposing facility modifications. Unlike for Coordinated FM Station Changes Center, and may also be purchased from commercial AM and FM stations, our 5. Section 73.3517 of the the Commission’s copy contractor, rules have not required NCE FM and FM Commission’s rules prohibits the filing International Transcription Service translator stations to provide any level of contingent new station and (ITS), (202) 857–3800 (phone), (202) of service to their communities of modification applications in the 857–3805 (facsimile), 1231 20th Street, license. Our approach here provides broadcast services. The Commission N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. NCE FM and FM translator stations with first announced this policy in a 1961 Synopsis of Report and Order maximum flexibility in proposing Public Notice and subsequently codified facility changes, while preventing such the restriction. It was adopted to bring I. Introduction stations from completely abandoning greater administrative orderliness to the 1. With this Report and Order, we their present service areas. We note that broadcast licensing process. The extend first come/first served processing our proposal in the 1998 Biennial Commission found that it was to AM, NCE FM and FM translator Regulatory Review—Streamlining of frequently holding applications in minor change applications. Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and pending status that were contingent on Furthermore, we expand the definition 74 of the Commission’s Rules, Notice of the grant of other applications involved of ‘‘minor change’’ for these services to Proposed Rule Making (‘‘Notice’’) to in lengthy hearings. An application is conform more closely to the commercial require NCE FM stations to maintain 1 ‘‘contingent’’ when it cannot be granted FM definition. Under these modified mV/m contours over at least a portion unless and until a second application, rules, non-expanded band AM, NCE FM of their communities of license would also pending before the Commission, is and FM translator licensees and impose an additional restriction on NCE granted. In the FM service, Section permittees may propose frequency FM station antenna location changes. As 73.208 requires an applicant to protect changes to adjacent channels, and, in an interim measure until the all outstanding construction permits addition, FM translators may propose Commission acts on that proposal, we and licenses. Thus, when an FM such changes to intermediate shall process proposed NCE FM antenna application is contingent on the effectuation of a second station’s facility frequencies (‘‘IF’’), by filing minor location changes as minor changes only change applications. Proposed changes modification application, in most if the proposed changes do not diminish in power, antenna height and/or instances the first station must wait for the stations’ present 1 mV/m service to antenna location for stations in these the grant of the second station’s their communities of license. services also are classified as minor covering license application before changes, provided that NCE FM and FM AM and NCE FM Community of License filing a construction permit application. translator stations proposing antenna Changes This rule effectively requires stations to location changes would continue to undertake ‘‘coordinated’’ facility provide 1 mV/m service to some portion 3. We decline to adopt the suggestion improvements through a series of of their authorized 1 mV/m service of several commenters that we treat application and construction cycles, a areas. In addition, AM stations may community of license changes in the risky, lengthy and sometimes infeasible propose changes in authorized hours of AM and NCE FM services as minor procedure, particularly where a station operation by filing minor change changes. Unlike the proposed technical downgrade or facility relocation is applications. Proposed AM and NCE FM facility changes that we are reclassifying required to permit expanded service by facility changes that would result in as minor changes, proposed AM or NCE a second station. station class changes are classified as FM community of license changes are 6. Based on the record developed in minor changes provided that they meet not fundamentally technical in nature; this proceeding, we adopt rule changes the standards. Amendments to rather, they raise important statutory to permit applicants to file up to four applications also will be classified as and policy issues under Section 307(b) related, simultaneously-filed and cross- minor in accordance with these of the Communications Act, issues that referenced minor change FM station standards. The measures that we are require substantive legal analysis. construction permit applications. We adopting make the commercial FM believe that it is prudent to limit the application process simpler, faster and ‘‘Warehousing’’ Concerns scope of these new procedures, both to more efficient, without undermining the limit the potential for significant service 4. With regard to the spectrum administration of any Commission rule losses and/or disruptions and to ensure or policy. We anticipate that they will ‘‘warehousing’’ concerns expressed by that there is sufficient staff to complete prove to be similarly beneficial in the some commenters, we are not persuaded review of interrelated proposals AM, NCE FM and FM translator that additional safeguards are necessary. expeditiously. Thus, we exclude major services, thereby encouraging potential Mechanisms for preventing abuse will change applications. Proposals may applicants to file for improved facilities continue to exist under the new rules, include one-step upgrade and and speeding the introduction of in the form of careful staff review of downgrade applications. Applicants improved services to the public. applications, the opportunity to file will be required to submit a copy of the informal objections and seek agreement to undertake the coordinated II. Discussion reconsideration and review of staff facility changes with each application. A. Extending First Come/First Served actions, and strict time limits on Applications will be processed together Processing to AM, NCE FM and FM authorized construction periods. In and, if grantable, will be granted Translator Minor Change Applications; addition, the enhancements that an simultaneously. Granted applications Revising the Definition of ‘‘Minor’’ applicant may request are necessarily will contain conditions, as necessary, to Change in These Services limited by the operation of stations on prevent interference during the adjacent and co-channel frequencies in construction period leading to full Continuity of Service Requirement neighboring communities and the implementation of all related facility 2. We believe it is necessary to impose applicant’s city grade coverage modifications. If one or more a continuity of service requirement on requirements. applications is unacceptable, all related
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19500 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations applications will be dismissed. Thus, date; and (2) no petition to deny was Need For and Objectives of Action the staff will dismiss an otherwise filed against them in accordance with grantable non-contingent ‘‘lead’’ the requirements of Section 309(d) of 13. Specifically, this Order (1) amends application if a related contingent the Communications Act prior to the the Commission’s rules to extend first application is found to be unacceptable. effective date. Applications that fail to come/first served processing to 7. We believe a strict dismissal policy satisfy these two conditions will be applications for minor changes to is warranted. The plain quid pro quo for handled under our existing application existing AM, NCE FM, and FM creating this greater technical flexibility processing procedures. AM and FM translator facilities; (2) expands the for broadcasters is that applicants bear translator applicants with major change definition of minor change in these sole responsibility for developing applications on file that seek waiver of services to conform more closely to the proposals that fully comply with the the Commission’s interim policy commercial FM definition of ‘‘minor Commission’s rules. However, we wish concerning processing of such change;’’ and (3) amends the contingent to correct a commenter’s erroneous applications may request dismissal of application rule to permit the filing of assumption that applicants would be their applications and resubmit minor up to four related and simultaneously- prohibited from filing curative change applications as of the effective filed FM station construction permit amendments. Our current commercial date of the Order. Finally, applications applications. By this Order, the and NCE FM amendment procedures pending as of the adoption date of the Commission eliminates the present inconsistent treatment of certain will apply to contingent applications. Order and seeking waivers of section proposed facilities changes for AM, NCE The one processing policy change is that 73.3517 will be considered on a case-by- FM and FM translator services, and the staff will dismiss all related case basis. Contingent applications filed applications if one application remains provides greater flexibility for between the adoption and effective unacceptable after the opportunity for permittees and licensees to propose dates of the Order shall be returned. filing curative amendments has closed. service improvements. 8. Finally, with regard to contingent III. Administrative Matters NCE FM applications, we permit Significant Issues Raised by Public proposals that include station 10. The complete text of this Report Comments in Response to the IRFAs cancellations except those that would and Order is available for inspection 14. No comments were received create gray or white areas, i.e., areas that and copying during normal business specifically in response to the IRFA in receive service from one or no NCE FM hours in the FCC Reference Center, and MM Docket No. 98–93. However, four stations, respectively. Although we may also be purchased from the commenters expressed concern about an decline to establish other full-time NCE Commission’s copy contractor, issue that may affect, but is not limited FM service floor guidelines, any International Transcription Service to, small business issues. These proposal to cancel a community’s sole (ITS), (202) 857–3800 (phone), (202) commenters were concerned that the NCE FM station license, i.e., its sole 857–3805 (facsimile), 1231 20th Street, new procedures could facilitate abuses transmission service, will be treated as N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. by applicants resulting in the prima facie inconsistent with the public 11. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 warehousing of spectrum. interest and must include a public Analysis. The action contained herein interest justification. We will consider a has been analyzed with respect to the Description and Estimate of the Number commenter’s proposal to permit Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and of Small Entities to Which Rules Will alternative signal propagation found to impose new or modified Apply methodologies to measure NCE FM reporting and recordkeeping 15. Under the RFA, small entities may service levels in a subsequent order in requirements or burdens on the public. this proceeding in connection with our include small organizations, small Implementation of these new or evaluation of the supplemental point-to- businesses, and small governmental modified reporting and recordkeeping point (‘‘PTP’’) signal propagation model. jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The RFA, requirements will be subject to approval 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the C. Procedural Matters by the Office of Management and term ‘‘small business’’ as having the 9. In order to ensure a smooth Budget as prescribed by the Act. The same meaning as the term ‘‘small transition to the new procedures, we new or modified paperwork business concern’’ under the Small wish to clarify our procedures for requirements contained in this Report Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small processing applications filed prior to the and Order (which are subject to business concern is one which: (1) is effective date that are subject to this approval by the Office of Management independently owned and operated; (2) Order. First, with regard to applications and Budget) will go into effect upon is not dominant in its field of operation; originally filed as minor changes, as of OMB approval. and (3) satisfies any additional criteria the effective date they will be accorded Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis established by the Small Business cut-off protection based on their actual (FRFA) Administration (‘‘SBA’’). Pursuant to 5 filing dates, provided that they are not U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of mutually exclusive with any other 12. As required by the Regulatory a small business applies ‘‘unless an applications filed prior to the effective Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C 603, an agency after consultation with the Office date. Mutually exclusive applications Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of Advocacy of the SBA and after will be handled under our existing (‘‘IRFA’’) was incorporated in the Notice opportunity for public comment, procedures. Second, with regard to of Proposed Rulemaking for the docket establishes one or more definitions of major change applications subject to in this proceeding. The Commission such term that are appropriate to the reclassification as minor changes, as of sought written public comments on the activities of the agency and publishes the effective date such applications will proposals set forth in the Notice, such definition(s) in the Federal be reclassified automatically as minor including comment on the IRFA. The Register. We received no comment in changes, provided that: (1) They are not Commission’s Final Regulatory response to either IRFA on how to mutually exclusive with any other Flexibility Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) in this define radio and television broadcast applications filed prior to the effective Report and Order conforms to the RFA. ‘‘small businesses.’’ Therefore, we will
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19501 continue to utilize SBA’s definitions for application processing changes that are List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73 and the purpose of this FRFA. intended to eliminate unnecessary 74 16. The SBA defines a radio administrative burdens and shorten Auxiliary broadcasting, Radio broadcasting station that has no more processing time frames for certain broadcasting. than $5 million in annual receipts as a applications. All significant alternatives small business. A radio broadcasting presented in the comments were Federal Communications Commission. station is an establishment primarily considered. As noted in the Order, we Magalie Roman Salas, engaged in broadcasting aural programs extend the application of first come/first by radio to the public. Included in this Secretary. served processing to AM, NCE FM, and industry are commercial religious, FM translator stations. These processing Rule Changes educational, and other radio stations. Radio broadcasting stations that changes will remedy the uncertainty Parts 73 and 74 of Chapter 1 of Title primarily are engaged in radio and delay previously associated with 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations broadcasting and that produce radio AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor are amended as follows: program materials are similarly change applications. We also expand included. As of November 30, 1998, the definition of minor change for these PART 73ÐRADIO BROADCAST Commission records indicate that services to conform more closely to the SERVICES 12,458 radio stations were operating, of commercial FM ‘‘minor change’’ 1. The authority citation for Part 73 which 11,960 were small businesses. definition. This change will eliminate continues to read as follows: The rules adopted herein are limited to the inconsistent treatment of proposed AM, NCE FM and FM translator facility increases for different radio Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. facilities. Thus, the measures adopted services without undermining the 2. Section 73.3517 is amended by here will affect 9957 such entities, 9559 administration of any Commission rule adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: of which are considered small or policy. Finally, this Order adopts rule § 73.3517 Contingent applications. businesses. changes to permit applicants to file up to four related, simultaneously-filed and * * * * * Description of Projected Reporting, (e) The Commission will accept up to cross-referenced minor change Recordkeeping and Other Compliance four contingently related applications construction permit applications. This Requirements filed by FM licensees and/or permittees 17. The measures adopted in the change will encourage licensees and for minor modification of facilities. Two Order are anticipated to reduce the permittees to propose service applications are related if the grant of overall administrative burden of the improvements by making the process one is necessary to permit the grant of Commission’s application processes on more efficient. the second application. Each applicants and the Commission. Report to Congress application must state that it is filed as Extending first come/first served part of a related group of applications to processing to AM, NCE FM and FM 19. The Commission will send a copy make changes in facilities, must cross- translator minor change applications of the 1998 Biennial Regulatory reference each of the related will eliminate the uncertainty, delay Review—Streamlining of Radio applications, and must include a copy and expense associated with the Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of of the agreement to undertake the indefinite exposure to competing the Commission’s Rules, including this coordinated facility modifications. All applications that occurs under the FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress applications must be filed on the same current processing system. Expansion of pursuant to the Small Business date. Any coordinated facility the minor change definition in these Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of modification filing that proposes the services to conform more closely to the 1996. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In cancellation of a community’s sole commercial FM definition will addition, the Commission will send a noncommercial educational FM station eliminate unnecessarily burdensome copy of this Order, including this FRFA, license also must include a public administrative procedures, as well as to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the interest justification. Dismissal of any minimizing the resources expended by one of the related applications as Small Business Administration. A copy applicants and the Commission in unacceptable will result in the dismissal of the Order, including this FRFA, (or resolving conflicts between minor of all the related applications. summaries thereof) will also be change applications. Permitting 3. Section 73.3571 is amended by applications for coordinated FM station published in the Federal Register. See revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (f) to read changes will eliminate the need to 5 U.S.C. 604(b). In addition, the as follows: undertake coordinated improvements Commission’s Office of Public Affairs, through a series of application and Reference Operations Division, shall § 73.3571 Processing of AM broadcast construction cycles, a risky, lengthy and send a copy of this Order, including station applications. sometimes infeasible procedure. No FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for (a) * * * additional professional services are Advocacy of the Small Business (1) In the first group are applications required by applicants filing minor Administration. for new stations or for major changes in the facilities of authorized stations. A change applications under these revised 20. Authority for issuance of the major change for an AM station processing rules. Further, the cost of Report and Order is contained in authorized under this part is any change compliance will not vary between large sections 4, 301, 303, 307, 308 and 309 and small entities. in community of license or in of the Communications Act of 1934, as frequency, except frequency changes to Steps Taken to Minimize Significant amended, 47 U.S.C 154, 301, 303, 307, non-expanded band first, second or Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 308 and 309. Sections 73.3517, 73.3571, third adjacent channels. A major change Significant Alternatives Considered 73.3573 and 74.1233. in ownership is a situation where the 18. This Order sets forth the 21. It is ordered that the proceeding original party or parties to the Commission’s new streamlined in MM Docket 98–93 is terminated. application do not retain more than
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.085 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19502 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
50% ownership interest in the or lower class adjacent channel, determined by the date of filing, but the application as originally filed. All other intermediate frequency or co-channel. filing date for subsequent, conflicting changes will be considered minor. For reserved frequency noncommercial applicants only reserves a place in the * * * * * educational and Class D FM stations, a queue. The rights of an applicant in a (f) Applications for minor major change is any change in queue ripen only upon a final modifications for AM broadcast stations, community of license, any change in determination that the lead applicant is as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this frequency except changes to first, unacceptable and if the queue member section, may be filed at any time, unless second or third adjacent channels, and is reached and found acceptable. The restricted by the FCC, and will be any change in antenna location where queue will remain behind the lead processed on a ‘‘first come/first served’’ the station would not continue to applicant until a construction permit is basis, with the first acceptable provide 1 mV/m service to some portion finally granted, at which time the queue application cutting off the filing rights of its previously authorized 1 mV/m dissolves. of subsequent, conflicting applicants. service area. A major change in * * * * * The FCC will periodically release a ownership is a situation where the Public Notice listing those applications original party or parties to the PART 74ÐEXPERIMENTAL RADIO, accepted for filing. Applications application do not retain more than AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST received on the same day will be treated 50% ownership interest in the AND OTHER PROGRAM as simultaneously filed and, if they are application as originally filed. DISTRIBUTION SERVICES found to be mutually exclusive, must be * * * * * resolved through settlement or technical 5. The authority citation for Part 74 (e) Applications for new reserved continues to read as follows: amendment. Conflicting applications frequency noncommercial educational received after the filing of a first FM stations and for major modifications Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307 and 554. acceptable application will be grouped, in the facilities of authorized reserved 6. Section 74.1233 is amended by according to filing date, behind the lead frequency noncommercial educational revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b) and (d)(1) application in a queue. The priority and Class D FM broadcast stations will to read as follows: rights of the lead applicant, against all be processed as nearly as possible in the other applicants, are determined by the order in which they are filed. Such § 74.1233 Processing FM translator and date of filing, but the filing date for applications will be placed in the booster station applications. subsequent, conflicting applicants only processing line in numerical sequence, (a) * * * reserves a place in the queue. The rights and will be drawn by the staff for study, (1) In the first group are applications of an applicant in a queue ripen only the lowest file number first. In order for new stations or for major changes in upon a final determination that the lead that those applications which are the facilities of authorized stations. For applicant is unacceptable and if the entitled to be grouped for processing FM translator stations, a major change is queue member is reached and found may be fixed prior to the time any change in frequency (output acceptable. The queue will remain processing of the earliest filed channel) except changes to first, second behind the lead applicant until a application is begun, the FCC will or third adjacent channels, or construction permit is finally granted, at periodically release a Public Notice intermediate frequency channels, and which time the queue dissolves. listing applications which have been any change in antenna location where * * * * * accepted for filing and announcing a the station would not continue to 4. Section 73.3573 is amended by date (not less than 30 days after provide 1 mV/m service to some portion revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (e) to read publication) on which the listed of its previously authorized 1 mV/m as follows: applications will be considered service area. All other changes will be § 73.3573 Processing FM broadcast available and ready for processing and considered minor. All major changes are station applications. by which all mutually exclusive subject to the provisions of §§ 73.3580 (a) * * * applications and/or petitions to deny and 1.1104 of this chapter pertaining to (1) In the first group are applications the listed applications must be filed. major changes. for new stations or for major changes in Applications for minor modifications * * * * * the facilities of authorized stations. A for reserved frequency noncommercial (b) Processing booster and reserved major change for an FM station educational and Class D FM broadcast band FM translator applications. authorized under this part is any change stations, as defined in paragraph (a)(2) (1) Applications for minor in frequency or community of license of this section, may be filed at any time, modifications for reserved band FM which is in accord with a present unless restricted by the FCC, and will be translator stations, as defined in allotment contained in the Table of processed on a ‘‘first come/first served’’ paragraph (a)(2) of this section, may be Allotments (§ 73.202(b)) of this part. A basis, with the first acceptable filed at any time, unless restricted by licensee or permittee may seek the application cutting off the filing rights the FCC, and will be processed on a higher or lower class adjacent channel, of subsequent, competing applicants. ‘‘first come/first served’’ basis, with the intermediate frequency or co-channel or The FCC will periodically release a first acceptable application cutting off the same class adjacent channel of its Public Notice listing those applications the filing rights of subsequent, existing FM broadcast station accepted for filing. Conflicting conflicting applicants. The FCC will authorization by filing a minor change applications received on the same day periodically release a Public Notice application. Other requests for change will be treated as simultaneously filed listing those applications accepted for in frequency or community of license and mutually exclusive. Conflicting filing. Conflicting applications received for FM stations must first be submitted applications received after the filing of on the same day will be treated as in the form of a petition for rule making a first acceptable application will be simultaneously filed and mutually to amend the Table of Allotments. Long- grouped, according to filing date, exclusive. Conflicting applications form applications submitted pursuant to behind the lead application in a queue. received after the filing of a first § 73.5005 of this part for a new FM The priority rights of the lead applicant, acceptable application will be grouped, broadcast service may propose a higher against all other applicants, are according to filing date, behind the lead
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.087 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19503 application in a queue. The priority upon a final determination that the lead monkfish FMP amendment is being rights of the lead applicant, against all applicant is unacceptable and if the considered for Secretarial approval in a other applicants, are determined by the queue member is reached and found separate action. Finally, the omnibus date of filing, but the filing date for acceptable. The queue will remain amendment includes the EFH subsequent, conflicting applicants only behind the lead applicant until a components of the Atlantic Herring reserves a place in the queue. The rights construction permit is finally granted, at FMP that are being developed by the of an applicant in a queue ripen only which time the queue dissolves. NEFMC. The EFH information for upon a final determination that the lead * * * * * Atlantic Herring will be incorporated by applicant is unacceptable and if the [FR Doc. 99–9951 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] reference into the Atlantic Herring FMP queue member is reached and found BILLING CODE 6712±01±P when that FMP is submitted for acceptable. The queue will remain Secretarial approval. behind the lead applicant until a DATES: The amendments were approved construction permit is finally granted, at DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE on March 3, 1999. which time the queue dissolves. ADDRESSES: Copies of the amendments (2) All other applications for booster 50 CFR Part 648 and the Environmental Assessment (EA) stations and reserved band FM are available from the Executive translator stations will be processed as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Director, New England Fishery nearly as possible in the order in which Administration Management Council, 5 Broadway, they are filed. Such applications will be [I.D. 111998B] Saugus, MA 01906–1036. placed in the processing line in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: numerical sequence, and will be drawn Fisheries of the Northeastern United Jonathan M. Kurland, Assistant Habitat by the staff for study, the lowest file States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery, Program Coordinator, 978–281–9204 or number first. In order that those Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery, and [email protected]. applications which are entitled to be Atlantic Salmon Fishery; Fishery SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: grouped for processing may be fixed Management Plan (FMP) Amendments prior to the time processing of the to Designate Essential Fish Habitat Background earliest filed application is begun, the (EFH), Atlantic Salmon Overfishing The omnibus EFH amendment was FCC will periodically release a Public Definition, and Aquaculture Framework prepared by NEFMC to satisfy the EFH Notice listing reserved band Specification Process mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. applications that have been accepted for AGENCY: The omnibus amendment includes an filing and announcing a date (not less National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Environmental Assessment (EA), which than 30 days after publication) on which describes the background, purpose and the listed applications will be Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. need for the action, the management considered available and ready for action alternatives, and the processing and by which all mutually ACTION: Approval of amendments to FMPs. environmental, social and economic exclusive applications and/or petitions impacts of the alternatives. A copy of to deny the listed applications must be SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the the EA can be obtained from the NEFMC filed. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has (see ADDRESSES). * * * * * approved Amendment 11 to the A notice of availability (NOA) for (d) * * * Northeast Multispecies FMP, Amendment 11 to the Northeast (1) Applications for minor Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Sea Multispecies FMP, Amendment 9 to the modifications for non-reserved band FM Scallop FMP, and Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, and translator stations, as defined in Atlantic Salmon FMP. These Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Salmon paragraph (a)(2) of this section, may be amendments were prepared by the New FMP was published on December 1, filed at any time, unless restricted by England Fishery Management Council 1998 (63 FR 66110). The comment the FCC, and will be processed on a (NEFMC) to implement the period ended on February 1, 1999. An ‘‘first come/first served’’ basis, with the requirements of section 303(a)(7) of the amendment to the NOA was issued on first acceptable application cutting off Magnuson-Stevens Fishery December 7, 1998 (63 FR 67450) to the filing rights of subsequent, Conservation and Management Act clarify that Atlantic Salmon conflicting applicants. The FCC will (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Amendment 1 also discusses an periodically release a Public Notice amendments describe and identify EFH overfishing definition and establishes a listing those applications accepted for for the specified fisheries, discuss framework process to add or adjust filing. Applications received on the measures to address the effects of Atlantic salmon aquaculture same day will be treated as fishing on EFH, and identify other management measures, if necessary, to simultaneously filed and, if they are actions for the conservation and meet the goals and objectives of the found to be mutually exclusive, must be enhancement of EFH. Atlantic Salmon Atlantic Salmon FMP. A second resolved through settlement or technical Amendment 1 also discusses a amendment to the NOA, issued January amendment. Conflicting applications definition for overfishing and 6, 1999 (64 FR 823), clarified that there received after the filing of a first establishes an aquaculture framework would be implementing regulations to acceptable application will be grouped, adjustment process for Atlantic salmon. allow for Atlantic salmon aquaculture according to filing date, behind the lead The amendments are included in an through a framework adjustment application in a queue. The priority omnibus amendment that also includes process. The proposed rule for these rights of the lead applicant, against all Amendment 1 to the Monkfish FMP regulations was published on February other applicants, are determined by the prepared jointly by NEFMC and the 5, 1999 (64 FR 5754). The comment date of filing, but the filing date for Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management period closed on March 22, 1999. subsequent, conflicting applicants only Council (MAFMC). Because of The omnibus EFH amendment reserves a place in the queue. The rights additional time required for designates EFH in waters of the United of an applicant in a queue ripen only coordination with MAFMC, the States for 14 species of groundfish, as
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.088 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19504 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations well as Atlantic sea scallops and habitat and may offer solutions to commenters noted that the Council had Atlantic salmon. The omnibus enhance Atlantic salmon spawning done a good job at using the amendment designates Habitat Areas of habitat. precautionary approach to EFH Particular Concern (HAPC) for Atlantic Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Salmon identification. salmon and juvenile Atlantic cod in FMP also contains an aquaculture Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act accordance with 50 CFR 600.815(a)(9). framework process to allow the Council defines EFH as those waters and Although no new management measures to initiate action to implement, add or substrate necessary to fish for spawning, are proposed for these HAPC, the adjust Atlantic salmon management breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Atlantic cod HAPC would be protected measures, provided that such an action Therefore, the geographic scope of EFH from potential adverse effects from is consistent with the goals and may be sufficiently broad to encompass fishing by maintaining the existing objectives of the Atlantic Salmon FMP. the biological requirements of the restrictions on fishing for the region The proposed rule to implement the species. The information that the known as Closed Area II on Georges aquaculture framework process was Council used for EFH designation was Bank, pursuant to 50 CFR 648.81(b). In published on February 5, 1999 (64 FR primarily species distribution and addition to the original rationale for 5754). NMFS anticipates that a final rule relative abundance data, which would implementing Closed Area II in 1994 will be published within the next few be classified as ‘‘level 2’’ information (reducing overfishing of severely weeks. under the EFH regulations (50 CFR depleted groundfish stocks, as noted in NMFS determined that Amendment 600.815). Since the information the preamble to the emergency interim 11 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, available was not more specific (e.g., did rule published in the Federal Register Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Sea not show species production by habitat 59 FR 63926, December 12, 1994), under Scallop FMP, and Amendment 1 to the type), the precautionary approach the omnibus amendment these Atlantic Salmon FMP are consistent prescribed by the regulations led to management measures would be with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and fairly broad EFH designations. The EFH retained for habitat protection reasons. other applicable laws, and approved regulations at 50 CFR 600.10 interpret In addition to the amendments for the these amendments on March 3, 1999. the definition of EFH to include aquatic Northeast Multispecies, Atlantic Sea Additional information on this action is areas that are used by fish, including Scallops, and Atlantic Salmon FMPs, contained in the NOA published on historically used areas, where the omnibus amendment also includes December 1, 1998 (63 FR 66110). appropriate, to support a sustainable Amendment 1 to the Monkfish FMP and Upon initial consideration, it fishery and the managed species’ the EFH components of the Atlantic appeared that regulations to implement contribution to a healthy ecosystem, Herring FMP that is being developed by the EFH provisions of the amendments provided that restoration is NEFMC. Monkfish Amendment 1 was were not required. However, NMFS technologically and economically submitted for Secretarial review under subsequently determined that feasible. The Council’s EFH designation separate action on January 22, 1999 (64 implementing regulations are required for Atlantic salmon is consistent with FR 3480), and the comment period to add the framework specification these requirements. closed on March 23, 1999. The EFH process for designating EFH and HAPC Comment: An environmental information for herring will be to existing regulations for the Northeast organization commented that biological incorporated by reference into the Multispecies FMP, the Atlantic Sea attributes such as epiflora and epifauna Atlantic Herring FMP when that FMP is Scallop FMP, and the Atlantic Salmon should have been included in the EFH submitted for Secretarial review, and an FMP. NMFS will initiate these text descriptions. NOA will be published in the Federal rulemaking actions in the near future. Response: The information that was Register. available for EFH designation by the Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Salmon Comments and Responses Council consisted primarily of regional FMP also includes an aquaculture Eight letters were received during the species abundance and distribution. framework process and information on comment period, including four from Although some species- specific an overfishing definition for Atlantic environmental organizations (two from information exists that indicates species salmon. The overfishing definition is the American Oceans Campaign and one associations with more complex habitat based on the assumption that the each from Marine Fish Conservation such as that including epiflora and/or number of spawning salmon Network and Conservation Law epifauna, it is unclear whether or to corresponding to maximum sustainable Foundation), two from the fishing what degree these habitat attributes are yield is 54,000 (a proxy for Bmsy) and industry (Cape Cod Commercial Hook actually essential. that fishing mortality on the current Fisherman’s Association and Fisheries Comment: One environmental stock of 200 fish should be zero. No Survival Fund), one from the U.S. organization commended the Council’s biomass threshold is given that Department of State, and a joint letter designating the HAPC for juvenile cod describes when fishing mortality can be from Maine Pulp and Paper Association and its adding protection of EFH as a greater than zero. However, overfishing and Maine Forest Products Council. reason for the basis of the current is not occurring in this fishery since closure to fishing in the area. Another fishing mortality in the exclusive Comments on Identification and environmental organization stated that economic zone has been reduced to zero Description of EFH HAPCs should be designated for all and is expected to stay at zero for the Comment: One commenter stated that species under management. foreseeable future. NMFS informed the the EFH designations were overly broad Response: The EFH regulations (50 Council that should the status of the and exceeded the intent of Congress. CFR 600.815(a)(9)) suggest the resource change, it would need to revisit The commenter cited specific concerns designation of HAPCs, which are the overfishing definition to clarify what about the designation for Atlantic defined as areas that are ecologically level of fishing mortality is appropriate salmon extending into state waters, important, sensitive to human-induced to rebuild the resource to a sustainable including inland rivers upstream of degradation, impacted by development level. In the interim, the omnibus manmade barriers, which will affect activities, or rare. It is conceivable that amendment is providing maximum non-fishing interests and activities in many areas of Council-designated EFH protection to conserve Atlantic salmon adjacent upland areas. Other could satisfy these criteria. The Council
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.089 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19505 has designated HAPCs for both juvenile would have addressed the comment Langton (1998), which describes the cod and Atlantic salmon based on regarding the need for a thorough impacts of such bottom tending mobile readily available information and has discussion of the Council’s deliberations fishing gears on different habitat types committed in its strategic plan to on fishing gear impacts, which is duly in general. Auster and Langton state that continue to evaluate further HAPC noted. However, based on the the direction and type of impact of these designations. information available, the Council gears can be determined; however, satisfied the requirements of the EFH Comments on Impacts to EFH from information that is required for a regulations (50 CFR 600.815(a)(3)) Fishing Gear complete analysis of impacts is regarding the assessment of fishing gear currently unavailable. The impact rate The majority of comments from the impacts. in relationship to the effort for each gear environmental organizations and one The Council was not required to type is required in order to evaluate the fishing industry association addressed implement the recommendations of the effects of fishing on different habitat the section of the amendments that draft NMFS EFH Technical Guidance types. In order to determine these evaluated the impacts of fishing gears (NMFS 1998); nor was it required to relationships, effort- specific rates of on EFH, and measures to minimize any address cumulative impacts, absent impacts for different gear types would such impacts. adequate information. need to be determined experimentally. Comment: Two commenters stated Comment: The majority of Auster and Langton also found that that the amendments did not adequately environmental organizations and one information on distribution of fishing evaluate the impacts of fishing gear on fishing industry association stated that effort is lacking. Additionally, a detailed EFH. The commenters found that the the amendments did not satisfy the review of the habitat types and their evaluation of impacts in the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to locations is necessary. These amendments was cursory and did not minimize impacts from fishing gears to information needs are identified in the specifically evaluate the impacts of each EFH, to the extent practicable, and the amendments under the section of fishing gear on each type of EFH. One commenters thought that the research needs. Without this of the commenters pointed out that the amendments should be disapproved, or information, the Council is unable to Council did not follow the section 4 of the document should be perform a complete analysis of fishing recommendations of the NMFS EFH disapproved. One commenter requested gear impacts. technical guidance in addressing this that the amendments be disapproved, topic and stated that a lack of sufficient and/or that the Secretary prepare a In considering whether further detail in the discussion of fishing gear separate EFH amendment, or management measures were practicable impacts was an impediment to public promulgate emergency regulations, or based on impacts to the fishery and its involvement, since it was difficult for pursue negotiated conservation and EFH, the Council, first, reviewed current the public to ascertain the reasoning management measures. One of the and proposed fishery management behind the conclusions. The commenter commenters suggested that the legal measures that could protect EFH and also identified that cumulative impacts basis for existing management measures had already been established as from fishing gears were not assessed. should be changed to include protection ‘‘practicable’’ under the Magnuson- Response: The Council approached of EFH, since the Council relied on Stevens Act. The Council found that the evaluation of impacts from fishing these measures to provide such many potential adverse effects to EFH gears methodically. It identified the protection. One commenter stated that from fishing are already minimized major gears used in the region based on the Council did not request public input because of some of the current fishery landings; described the major gears; on this issue. management measures under the FMPs identified that otter trawls and scallop Response: The EFH regulations at 50 for the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery and dredges were the most likely to have CFR 600.815(a)(3)(iv) require that the the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. adverse impacts on habitat; appended a Council consider a number of factors Such measures include Closed Areas I summary of the literature on fishing when evaluating whether it is and II on Georges Bank (4,150 sq. gear impacts to habitat; and described practicable to minimize an adverse nautical miles), which prohibits all gear other impacts from fishing activities effect from fishing. These factors capable of taking groundfish (including such as the impacts of fishing-related include (1) whether and to what extent groundfish bottom trawls and scallop marine debris and lost gear, impacts of the fishing activity is adversely dredge gear), and the Hudson Canyon aquaculture, and impacts of at-sea fish impacting EFH including the fishery; (2) South and Virginia Beach closed areas processing. The Council also evaluated the nature and extent of the adverse (2,300 sq. nautical miles), which fisheries management measures effect on EFH; (3) whether management prohibit the use of scallop dredges. The currently in place, and determined their measures are practicable, taking into Council also found that other effort impact on EFH. Finally, the Council consideration the long and short-term reduction measures, such as days-at-sea identified a number of areas that costs and benefits to the fishery and its allocations and vessel size/power limits, required further research in order to EFH; and (4) any other appropriate limit impacts to EFH as well. Second, provide a better basis for determining factors. the Council determined that some fishing gear impacts, such as the spatial In the amendments, the Council management measures contained in distribution and extent of fishing effort concludes and NMFS concurs that no Amendment 7 to the Atlantic Sea for gear types; the effects of specific gear additional fishing restrictions to protect Scallop FMP and Amendment 9 to the types along a gradient of effort on EFH are practicable at this time. It bases Northeast Multispecies FMP, designed specific habitat types; and recovery rates this conclusion on a number of findings to fulfill requirements of the Sustainable of various habitat types following relative to the factors outlined in the Fisheries Act, other than EFH, will also fishing activity. The information in the EFH regulations. The Council has reduce adverse impacts to EFH. These document could have been presented in determined that otter trawls and scallop new measures include the prohibition of a more convenient manner (e.g., rather dredges are the New England fishery streetsweeper gear and, beginning in than the fishing impacts summary being gear types most likely to have an impact year 2 of the Atlantic sea scallop appended it could have been on EFH. The amendments cite an rebuilding plan, a reduction in sea synthesized into the document). This appended document by Auster and scallop fishing effort by more than 50
VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:53 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.089 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19506 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations percent. Third, the Council approved will serve to protect habitat, the identified the designation of additional the designation of a HAPC for juvenile economically depressed status of the HAPCs as one of its objectives in the Atlantic cod, and stated that the current fisheries, and the Council’s expressed strategic plan portion of the Closed Area II restrictions, pursuant to intent to continue to move forward on amendments. 50 CFR 648.81(b) will be maintained in EFH conservation, the amendments Comments on Framework Provisions the HAPC portion, for habitat protection meet the requirement of the Act to reasons. All of these current and minimize fishing gear impacts on EFH Comment: A fishing industry proposed measures are consistent with to the extent practicable. organization opposed the framework those identified in the EFH regulations The Council added habitat protection provision for designation of EFH, and for controlling fishing gear impacts to as one of the reasons for the current stated that permanent closures should EFH. The EFH regulations at 50 CFR closure to the juvenile cod HAPC in be subjected to the process of an 600.815(a)(4) specifically list fishing Closed Area II; however, the reasons for amendment. implementation of the other fishery equipment restrictions, time/area Response: The framework adjustment closures, and harvest limits as methods management measures that the Council found to protect EFH were not modified process for EFH designation will allow to control fishing gear impacts to EFH. the Council to respond quickly when In addition, the measures currently in to include habitat. Although this issue does not affect approvability of the additional information becomes place and under review for other available regarding important habitats amendments under development have amendments, NMFS agrees with the comment that the Council should that should be classified as EFH while been determined to be practicable for still allowing the opportunity for public New England fisheries, have addressed identify habitat protection as a reason for any management measures it has participation. Nevertheless, the Council socio-economic impacts, including long could decide to invoke the full and short-term benefits to the fishery, identified as providing for the protection of EFH. Council amendment process if circumstances and are consistent with the national warranted. Moreover, the issue of area standards. Neither the Magnuson- acknowledgment of its intent to protect EFH with the fishery management closures as adjustments that may be Stevens Act, nor the EFH regulations, made under the framework procedures require that fishing impacts be measures currently in place would clarify that the habitat benefits of has already been addressed, and area controlled by newly proposed closures have been approved under the management measures. measures originally developed for other purposes should be considered Multispecies FMP and Sea Scallop FMP The Council found that further as fishery management measures that information is necessary before it can expressly whenever future management actions are contemplated. It is noted may be implemented under the responsibly determine what additional framework procedures. practicable measures may be necessary that, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, specifically for the protection of EFH fishery management councils are Comments on EFH Consultations from fishing impacts. For example, required to evaluate the impact of Comment: A commenter suggested information on the net effects of using management measures on EFH, that the consultation and conservation one particular gear design over another, regardless of the management measure’s recommendation provisions of the Act as well as the effects of effort purpose. will be burdensome and unworkable, displacement that may be associated The Council provided opportunity for citing that every Federal and state with additional closed areas or public input on these amendments as action, including all permitting actions reductions to days-at-sea, is needed. To required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Comment: One fishing industry group that occur near coastal or inland waters, illustrate this point, the Council opposed the permanent closure of any would trigger an EFH consultation. The considers that reductions to scallop or areas to scallop gear. One environmental commenter also indicated concern that groundfish days-at-sea programs may organization opposed access of scallop the process would add little in the way have the unintended effect of forcing dredges or otter trawls to currently of environmental benefit to fish or EFH. fisheries to be concentrated in small closed areas. Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act areas near shore, which may also be Response: Since the Council retains EFH. The Council points out that any requires Federal action agencies to the ability to re-open any closed area, consult with NMFS on activities that additional measures that might be any future closures could be imposed would likely be similar to may adversely impact EFH. The EFH reconsidered by the Council, and would consultation requirements will be those measures currently in place to not in fact be ‘‘permanent.’’ Potential control fishing effort. In FMP consolidated with other existing scallop fishery access to existing closed consultation and environmental review amendments and framework actions to areas is the subject of proposed address overfishing in the New England procedures wherever appropriate. This Framework Adjustment 11 to the approach will ensure that EFH region, fishing has already been Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP and substantially reduced. Any additional consultations do not duplicate other Framework Adjustment 29 to the environmental reviews, yet still fulfill EFH protection measures would impose Northeast Multispecies FMP, and will additional socio-economic impacts to an the statutory requirement for Federal be addressed during the review of those actions to consider potential effects on already stressed industry. In the actions. amendments, the Council determines Comment: One commenter suggested EFH. that the uncertainty associated with the that all complex cobble-bottom should Comments on Atlantic Salmon actual benefits predicted from be protected. Amendment 1 additional management measures Response: Further research is needed designed to mitigate habitat impacts to identify all areas of this habitat type. Comment: The commenter is impedes it from concluding that the Adoption of additional HAPCs in areas concerned with how EFH and HAPC additional short- and long-term costs to of cobble-bottom through the framework designations will impact ongoing the fishing industry associated with adjustment provision is a vehicle for salmon conservation efforts being those measures would be justifiable. identifying complex cobble-bottoms implemented by Maine. Based on the fisheries management and/or other habitat types as Response: NMFS is committed to measures proposed and in place that particularly important. The Council has ensure that EFH consultations and EFH
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19507 conservation recommendations in areas DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), designated as EFH for Atlantic salmon the Administrator, Alaska Region, will complement the goals set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric NMFS (Regional Administrator), has Maine Atlantic Salmon Conservation Administration determined that the first seasonal allowance of the TAC of Pacific cod Plan. NMFS will be working closely 50 CFR Part 679 with the State of Maine and other allocated to vessels using hook-and-line interested parties on this issue. [Docket No. 990304063±9063±01; I.D. and pot gear in the BSAI has been 041599A] reached. Therefore, the Regional Comments on Other Issues Administrator is establishing a directed Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic fishing allowance of 59,900 mt, and is Comment: One fishing industry group Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod for setting aside the remaining 100 mt as commented that continued closure of Vessels Using Hook-and-line and Pot bycatch to support other anticipated HAPC will be a significant impact under Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian groundfish fisheries. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Islands § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Response: NMFS does not believe that AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Administrator finds that this directed supplementing the basis for the current Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and fishing allowance has been reached. closure as a measure to protect juvenile Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Consequently, NMFS is closing directed cod HAPC and continuing this closure Commerce. fishing for Pacific cod for vessels using as a part of Closed Area II have any ACTION: Closure. hook-and-line and pot gear in the BSAI. bearing on the Regulatory Flexibility Maximum retainable bycatch amounts Act because no additional regulatory SUMMARY: NMFS is closing directed may be found in the regulations at impacts occur. fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using § 679.20(e) and (f). hook-and-line and pot gear in the Bering Comment: A commenter suggested Sea and Aleutian Islands management Classification that the Council establish and area (BSAI). This action is necessary to This action responds to the best implement a plan for satisfying prevent exceeding the first seasonal available information recently obtained information needs with specific time allowance of the 1999 total allowable from the fishery. It must be frames for when objectives will be met catch (TAC) of Pacific cod allocated for implemented immediately in order to and when notice will be provided to the vessels using hook-and-line and pot gear prevent overharvesting the first seasonal public. in this area. allowance of the 1999 TAC of Pacific Response: The Council included a DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local cod allocated to vessels using hook-and- strategic plan in the amendments that time (A.l.t.), April 17, 1999, until 1200 line and pot gear in the BSAI. A delay addresses the refinement of EFH hrs, A.l.t., May 1, 1999. in the effective date is impracticable and designations, designation of additional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: contrary to the public interest. The HAPCs, and improving understanding Mary Furuness, 907–586-7228. Pacific cod directed fishing first of fishing gear impacts, among other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS seasonal allowance established for things. Since the Council is not a manages the groundfish fishery in the vessels using hook-and-line and pot gear research body, it cannot schedule BSAI according to the Fishery has been reached. Further delay would research activities to complement EFH Management Plan for the Groundfish only result in overharvest which would disrupt the FMP’s objective of providing conservation efforts. However, in its Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian sufficient Pacific cod to support bycatch plan, the Council has committed to Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management needs in other anticipated groundfish annual reviews of its EFH conservation Council under authority of the fisheries throughout the year. NMFS program, which specifically includes Magnuson-Stevens Fishery finds for good cause that the identification and incorporation of Conservation and Management Act. implementation of this action can not be ongoing and future studies as the results Regulations governing fishing by U.S. delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under become available. Information on these vessels in accordance with the FMP 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective efforts will be available to the public appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 date is hereby waived. through the Council process. and 50 CFR part 679. This action is required by § 679.20 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The Final 1999 Harvest Specifications and is exempt from review under E.O. of Groundfish for the BSAI (64 FR 12866. Dated: April 14, 1999. 12103, March 11, 1999) established the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Gary C. Matlock, first seasonal allowance of the TAC of Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Pacific cod allocated to vessels using Dated: April 15, 1999. National Marine Fisheries Service. hook-and-line and pot gear in the BSAI Bruce C. Morehead, [FR Doc. 99–9990 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] during the time period January 1 to Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. BILLING CODE 3510±22±F April 30 as 60,000 metric tons (mt). See § 679.20(c)(3)(iii) and [FR Doc. 99–9960 Filed 4–16–99; 4:30 pm] § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(A). BILLING CODE 3510±22±F
VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:51 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APR1 19508
Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 76
Wednesday, April 21, 1999
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Pacific Coast trade with Canada). The a repair has taken place within the contains notices to the public of the proposed statute also provided for remission or meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1466(a). Courts issuance of rules and regulations. The refund of duties where it was have ruled extensively on the ‘‘repair’’ purpose of these notices is to give interested established by sufficient evidence that cost issue and the result is a continually persons an opportunity to participate in the the vessel had been compelled to seek narrowing field of dutiable repair. One rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. foreign repairs due to a weather-related early case (United States v. George Hall or other casualty. The statute was Coal Co., 134 F. 1003 (1905)), was the recodified in the Revised Statutes of the first to find any of various types of DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY United States in 1874 (R.S. 3114 and expenses associated with repairs to be 3115), but was left largely unamended classifiable as not subject to the Customs Service until the Act of September 21, 1922, at assessment of vessel repair duties. The which time the area of consideration for case established that the expense of 19 CFR Parts 4 and 159 dutiable repairs was expanded to drydocking a vessel (regardless of the RIN 1515±AC30 include repairs to all vessels underlying need to drydock) is not an documented under U.S. law to engage in element of dutiable value in foreign Foreign Repairs to American Vessels the foreign or coastwise trade, as well as repair costs. Drydocking is a major, but those intended to be so employed. not isolated, expense in general ship AGENCY: Customs Service, Department The statute has undergone repair operations. Many other associated of the Treasury. amendment several times since 1922 expenses and services are necessary ACTION: Proposed rule. and has been the subject of considerable adjuncts to drydocking and are logically judicial interpretation over the years as inseparable from the drydocking rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes to well. Recently, however, the statute has These include such items as drydock revise the Customs Regulations been amended in significant ways and block arrangement, sea water supply (for regarding the declaration, entry, a court case with broad impact on the firefighting equipment), hose hook-up assessment of duty and processing of administration of the law has also been and disconnection charges, fire watch petitions for relief from duty for vessels decided. services, the services of a crane for of the United States which undergo On August 20, 1990, the President drydocking-related operations, the foreign shipyard operations. It is signed into law the Customs and Trade provision of compressed air, cleaning of intended that the Customs Regulations Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–382), section the drydock following repairs, among regarding this subject accurately reflect 484E of which amended the vessel numerous others. These necessary the amended underlying statutory repair statute by adding a new services are costly, are supplied at authority, as well as legal and policy subsection (h). Subsection (h), which by nearly each drydocking, and had until determinations made as a result of its terms expired on December 31, 1992, recently been considered to be judicial decisions and administrative included two elements. These classifiable as duty-free. enforcement experience. concerned the exclusion from vessel On December 29, 1994, the United DATES: Comments must be received on repair duty of Lighter Aboard Ship States Court of Appeals for the Federal or before June 21, 1999. (LASH) barges, and of spare parts and Circuit decided the case of Texaco ADDRESSES: Written comments may be materials for use in vessel repairs Marine Services, Inc., and Texaco addressed to and inspected at the abroad which had previously been Refining and Marketing, Inc. v. United Regulations Branch, U.S. Customs imported and duty paid at the States, 44 F.3d 1539. While this case Service, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, appropriate rate under the Harmonized was submitted on appeal regarding the NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20229. Tariff Schedule of the United States dutiability of specific foreign shipyard FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (HTSUS). Two years after the expiration operations, the Court went much further Operational aspects: Glenn Seale, of that legislation the Congress enacted by considering the propriety of several Supervisory Customs Liquidator, 504– section 112 of Pub. L. 103–465 which long-standing court cases, including the 670–2137. Legal aspects: Larry L. became effective on January 1, 1995. opinion in George Hall, supra. In so Burton, Office of Regulations and That provision permanently reenacted doing, a whole range of charges are Rulings, 202–927–1287. the previously expired 19 U.S.C. subjected to duty consideration which SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1466(h) (1) and (2), as discussed above, had been insulated from such treatment and also added a new subsection (h)(3) since 1905. Background which, as administered by Customs, The recent upheaval in terms of both The genesis of the modern vessel provides that vessel repair duties will be statutory amendment and judicial repair statute, 19 U.S.C. 1466, is found assessed at the applicable HTSUS rate interpretation has resulted in the need in the Act of July 18, 1866, Chapter 24, for spare parts which are necessarily to update the regulatory provisions section 23 (14 Stat. 183). A 50 percent installed on vessels overseas prior to which implement the vessel repair ad valorem duty was imposed on the those spare parts ever having been statute. This has led to the proposed foreign cost of repairs to United States entered into the United States for entry revisions contained within this vessels documented to engage in the and consumption, such as is necessary document, which are presented in a foreign or coastwise trade on the under the (h)(2) provision. more streamlined and simpler format, northern, northeastern, and The most basic issue to be determined all in conformance with the recent northwestern frontiers (practically in applying the vessel repair statute to changes. Most significantly in this speaking, Great Lakes, Atlantic, and a factual situation is, of course, whether connection, the proposed amendments
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:14 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.062 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19509 eliminate the Petition for Review amendments will not have a significant Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. process, currently the second of two economic impact on a substantial 1466), purchases for or repairs made to pre-protest appeals for relief from duty, number of small entities. Accordingly, certain vessels while they are outside and vest in the Vessel Repair Units full they are not subject to the regulatory the United States, including repairs authority to process and decide analysis or other requirements of 5 made while those vessels are on the Applications for Relief without U.S.C. 603 and 604. Nor does this high seas, are subject to declaration, restrictions as to the amount of potential document meet the criteria for a entry and payment of ad valorem duty. duty refund or remission. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as These requirements are effective upon Additionally, it is proposed that the specified in E.O. 12866. the first arrival of affected vessels in the Customs Regulations in part 159 be United States or Puerto Rico. The amended to recognize that vessel repair Paperwork Reduction Act vessels subject to these requirements entries are not considered to be subject The collection of information include those documented under U.S. to liquidation, and that any duties paid contained in this notice of proposed law for the foreign or coastwise trades, pursuant to a vessel repair entry will rulemaking has previously been as well as those which, although not henceforth be considered to be charges reviewed and approved by the Office of documented under U.S. law, exhibit an or exactions within the meaning of Management and Budget (OMB) under intent to engage in those trades under subsection (a)(3) of section 514, Tariff OMB control number 1515–0082. This Customs interpretations. Duty is based Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. rule does not propose any substantive on actual foreign cost. This includes the 1514), the statute under which decisions changes to the existing approved original foreign purchase price of of the Customs Service are protested. As information collection. articles which have been imported into such, duty determinations on vessel An agency may not conduct or the United States and are later sent repair entries will be protestable but sponsor, and a person is not required to abroad for use. For the purposes of this will not be subject to voluntary respond to, a collection of information section, expenditures made in American reliquidation or deemed liquidation unless the collection of information Samoa, the Guantanamo Bay Naval procedures. This distinction will serve displays a valid control number. Station, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. to recognize elements which are unique Drafting Information. The principal Virgin Islands are considered to have to the vessel repair entry process such author of this document was Larry L. been made in the United States, and are as potential protracted delays in Burton, Office of Regulations and not subject to declaration, entry or duty. supplying cost information due to Rulings, U.S. Customs Service. Under separate provisions of law, the difficulty in obtaining proof of foreign However, personnel from other offices cost of labor performed, and of parts and expenses from shipyards in a timely participated in its development. materials produced and purchased in fashion. Israel are not subject to duty under the List of Subjects Comments vessel repair statute. Additionally, 19 CFR Part 4 expenditures made in Canada or in Before adopting this proposal, Mexico are no longer subject to any consideration will be given to any Customs duties and inspection, Declarations, Entry, Repairs, Reporting vessel repair duties. Even in the absence written comments which are timely of any liability for duty, it is still and recordkeeping requirements, submitted to Customs. Comments required that all repairs and purchases, Vessels. submitted will be available for public including those made in Canada, inspection in accordance with the 19 CFR Part 159 Mexico, and Israel, be declared and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. entered. 552), § 1.4, Treasury Department Customs duties and inspection, Entry procedures. (b) Applicability to specific types of Regulations (31 CFR 1.4), and vessels.—(1) Fishing vessels. As § 103.11(b), Customs Regulations (19 Proposed Amendments to the provided in § 4.15, vessels documented CFR 103.11(b)), on regular business days Regulations under U.S. law with a fishery between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 It is proposed to amend parts 4 and endorsement are subject to vessel repair p.m. at the Regulations Branch, U.S. 159, Customs Regulations (19 CFR parts duties and must file a declaration and Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania 4 and 159), as set forth below. entry, or their electronic equivalent, for Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, covered foreign expenditures upon their D.C. PART 4ÐVESSELS IN FOREIGN AND first post-expenditure arrival in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and DOMESTIC TRADES United States. Undocumented American fishing vessels which are repaired, or for Executive Order 12866 1. The general authority citation for which parts, nets or equipment are The proposed amendments would part 4, and the specific authority purchased outside the U.S., must also revise the Customs Regulations citation for § 4.14, would continue to file and pay duty. concerning the declaration, entry, read as follows: (2) Government-owned or chartered assessment of duty and processing of Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, vessels. Vessels normally subject to the petitions for relief from duty, for subject 1431, 1433, 1434, 1624; 46 U.S.C. App. 3, 91; vessel repair statute because of vessels under the vessel repair statute. * * * * * documentation or intended use are not The proposed amendments are intended Section 4.14 also issued under 19 U.S.C. excused from duty liability merely to accurately reflect the existing 1466, 1498; because they are either owned or statutory authority, as well as legal and * * * * * chartered by the U.S. Government. policy determinations made in this 2. It is proposed to revise § 4.14 to (3) Vessels away continuously for two regard as the result of judicial decisions read as follows: years or longer. Vessels normally subject and administrative enforcement to the vessel repair statute, which experience. As such, pursuant to the § 4.14 Equipment purchases by, and remain continuously outside the U.S. provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility repairs to, American vessels. for two years or longer, are liable for Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is certified (a) General provisions and duty on any fish nets and netting that, if adopted, the proposed applicability. Under section 466, Tariff purchased at any time during the entire
VerDate 20-APR-99 15:50 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP1.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP1 19510 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules absence. Other than for nets and netting, expenses were incurred, that fact must Procedures and Carriers Branch, such vessels are liable for duty only on be reported either on the declaration Customs Headquarters. In the event that those expenditures which are made form or by approved electronic means. all cost evidence is not furnished within during the first six months of a The Customs port of arrival receiving the specified time limit, or is of doubtful continuous absence of two years or either a positive or negative vessel authenticity, the VRU may refer the more from the United States. The single repair declaration or electronic matter to the Customs Office of exception to this rule applies to vessels equivalent shall immediately forward it Investigations to begin procedures to designed and used primarily for to the appropriate VRU port of entry. obtain the needed evidence. That office transporting passengers and (e) Entry required. The owner, master, may also investigate the reason for a merchandise which specifically depart or authorized representative of the failure to file or for an untimely the United States in order to obtain owner of any vessel subject to this submission. Unexplained or unjustified repairs or to purchase equipment. These section for which a positive declaration delays in providing Customs with vessels remain fully liable for duty has been filed must submit a vessel sufficient information to properly regardless of the duration of their repair entry on Customs Form 226 or determine duty may result in penalty absence from the United States. Even transmit its electronic equivalent. The action as specified in paragraph (j) of though some costs may not be dutiable, entry must show all foreign voyage this section. all repairs, materials, parts and expenditures for equipment, parts of (g) Location and jurisdiction of vessel equipment-related expenditures must be equipment, repair parts, materials and repair unit ports of entry. Vessel Repair declared and entered. labor. The entry submission must Units (VRUs) are considered to be the (c) Estimated duty deposit and bond indicate whether it provides a complete ports of entry for vessel repair requirements. Generally, the person or incomplete account of covered declarations and entries, and are located authorized to submit a vessel repair expenditures. The entry must be in New York, New York; New Orleans, declaration and entry must either presented or electronically transmitted Louisiana; and San Francisco, deposit or transmit estimated duties or by the vessel operator to the appropriate California. The New York unit processes file a bond on Customs Form 301 at the VRU port of entry as identified in vessel repair entries received from ports first United States port of arrival before paragraph (g) of this section, so that it of arrival on the Great Lakes and the the vessel will be permitted to depart is received within ten calendar days Atlantic Coast of the United States, from that port. A bond of sufficient after arrival of the vessel. Duty refund north of, but not including, Norfolk, value to cover all potential duty on the or remission claims should be made Virginia. The New Orleans unit foreign repairs and purchases which generally as part of the initial processes vessel repair entries received must be submitted at the port of arrival submission, and evidence must later be from ports of arrival on the Atlantic shall be forwarded by Customs at that provided to support those claims. Coast from Norfolk, Virginia, port to the appropriate VRU port of Failure to submit full supporting southward, and from all United States entry, as defined in paragraph (g) of this evidence of cost within stated time ports of arrival on the Gulf of Mexico section. The amount of the bond is limits, including any extensions granted including ports in Puerto Rico. The San within the discretion of Customs at the under this section, is considered to be Francisco unit processes vessel repair port of arrival since claims for reduction a failure to enter. entries received from all ports of entry in duty liability are subject to the (f) Time limit for submitting evidence on the Pacific Coast including those in consideration of evidence by Customs. of cost. A complete vessel repair entry Alaska and Hawaii. Customs officials at the port of arrival must be supported by evidence showing (h) Justifications for refund or may consult the appropriate VRU port the cost of each item entered. If the remission of duty. Vessel repair duties of entry or the staff of the Entry entry is incomplete when submitted, may be refunded or remitted. Refunds Procedures and Carriers Branch in evidence to make it complete must be relate to claims made under paragraph Customs Headquarters in setting received by the appropriate VRU port of (a) of the vessel repair statute (19 U.S.C. sufficient bond amounts. These duty, entry within 90 calendar days from the 1466(a)), and remissions relate to claims deposit, and bond requirements do not date of vessel arrival. That evidence made under paragraphs (d), (e) and (h) apply to vessels which are owned or must include either the final cost of of the vessel repair statute (19 U.S.C. chartered by the United States repairs or, if the operator submits 1466(d), (e) and (h)). Government and are actually being acceptable evidence that final cost (1) Refund of duty. Duty is refunded operated by employees of an agency of information is not yet available, initial when it is determined that a foreign the Government. If operated by a private or interim cost estimates given prior to shipyard operation or expenditure is not party for a Federal agency under terms or after the work was authorized by the considered to be a repair or purchase whereby the agency remains liable operator. The proper VRU port of entry within the terms of the vessel repair under the contract for payment of the may grant one 30-day extension of time statute, or as determined under judicial duty, there must be a deposit or a bond to submit final cost evidence if a or administrative interpretations. filed in an amount adequate to cover the satisfactory written explanation of the (2) Remission of duty. Duty is estimated duty. need for an extension is received before remitted under paragraph (d) of the (d) Declaration required. When a the expiration of the original 90-day vessel repair statute (19 U.S.C. 1466(d)) vessel subject to this section first arrives submission period. All extensions will when it is determined that a foreign in the United States following a foreign be issued in writing. Inadequate, vague, shipyard operation or expenditure voyage, the owner, master, or authorized or open-ended requests will not be involves any of the following: agent must submit a vessel repair granted. Questions as to whether an (i) Stress of weather or other casualty. declaration on Customs Form 226, a extension should be granted may be Duty will be remitted if good and dual-use form used both for declaration referred to the Entry Procedures and sufficient evidence supports a finding and entry purposes, or must transmit its Carriers Branch in Customs that the vessel, while in the regular electronic equivalent. The declaration Headquarters by the VRU ports of entry. course of its voyage, was forced by must be ready for presentation in the Any request for an extension beyond a stress of weather or other casualty, event that a Customs officer boards the 30-day grant issued by a VRU must be while outside the United States, to vessel. If no foreign repair-related submitted through that unit to the Entry purchase equipment or make repairs
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:14 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.064 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19511 necessary to secure the safety and item or issue which has not been filed in connection with vessel repair seaworthiness of the vessel in order to addressed by clear precedent. If no entries are the same as those provided enable it to reach its port of destination Application is filed or if a submission in part 174 of this chapter. in the United States. Only duty on the which does not meet the minimal (j) Penalties.—(1) Failure to report, cost of the minimal repairs needed for standards of an Application for Relief is enter, or pay duty. It is a violation of the safety and seaworthiness is subject to received, the duty amount will be vessel repair statute if the owner or remission. For the purposes of this determined without regard to issues of section, a ‘‘casualty’’ does not include refund or remission. Each Application master of a vessel subject to this section any purchase or repair made necessary for Relief must include copies of: willfully or knowingly neglects or fails by ordinary wear and tear, but does (i) Itemized bills, receipts, and to report, make entry, and pay duties as include the failure of a part to function invoices for items shown in paragraph required; makes any false statements if it is proven that the specific part was (e) of this section. The cost of items for regarding purchases or repairs described repaired, serviced, or replaced in the which refund or remission is being in this section without reasonable cause United States immediately before the sought must be segregated from the cost to believe the truth of the statements; or start of the voyage in question, and then of the other items listed in the vessel aids or procures any false statements failed within six months of that date. repair entry; regarding any material matter without (ii) U.S. parts installed by regular (ii) Photocopies of relevant parts of reasonable cause to believe the truth of crew or residents. Duty will be remitted vessel logs, as well as of any the statement. If a violation occurs, the if equipment, parts of equipment, repair classification society reports which vessel, its tackle, apparel, and furniture, parts, or materials used on a vessel were detail damage and remedies; or a monetary amount up to their value manufactured or produced domestically (iii) A certification by the senior as determined by Customs, is subject to officer with personal knowledge of all and were purchased in the United States seizure and forfeiture and is recoverable relevant circumstances relating to by the owner of the vessel. It is also from the owner (see § 162.72 of this required under the statute that residents casualty damage (time, place, cause, and chapter). of the United States or members of the nature of damage); regular crew of the vessel perform any (iv) A certification by the senior (2) False declaration. If any person necessary labor in connection with such officer with personal knowledge of all required to file a vessel repair installation. relevant circumstances relating to declaration or entry under this section, (iii) Dunnage. Duty will be remitted if foreign repair expenditures (time, place, knowingly and willfully falsifies, any equipment, equipment parts, and nature of purchases and work conceals or covers up by any trick, materials, or labor were used for the performed); scheme, or device a material fact, or purpose of providing dunnage for the (v) A certification by the master that makes any materially false, fictitious or packing or shoring of cargo, for erecting casualty-related expenditures were the fraudulent statement or representation, temporary bulkheads or other similar minimum necessary to ensure the safety or makes or uses any false writing or devices for the control of bulk cargo, or and seaworthiness of the vessel in document knowing the same to contain for temporarily preparing tanks for reaching its United States port of any materially false, fictitious or destination; and carrying liquid cargoes. fraudulent statement, that person shall (i) General procedures for seeking (vi) Any permits or other documents refund or remission.—(1) Applications filed with or issued by any other United be subject to the criminal penalties for relief. Vessel repair duty will not be States Government Agency regarding provided for in 18 U.S.C. 1001. refunded or remitted unless an the operation of the vessel. PART 159ÐLIQUIDATION OF DUTIES Application for Relief is filed with (2) Additional evidence. In addition, copies of any other evidence and Customs; duty will not be refunded or 1. The authority citation for part 159 remitted based merely on a duty refund documents the applicant may wish to is revised to read as follows: or remission claim made at time of entry provide as evidentiary support may be pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section. submitted. Elements of applications Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1500, 1504, 1624. An Application for Relief is not required which are not supported by required Subpart C also issued under 31 U.S.C. 5151. to be presented in any particular format, evidentiary elements will be considered Sections 159.4, 159.5, and 159.21 also but if filed it must clearly present fully dutiable. All documents submitted issued under 19 U.S.C. 1315; justification for granting relief. An must be certified by the master, owner, Section 159.6 also issued under 19 U.S.C. Application must also state that all or authorized corporate officer to be 1321, 1505; repair operations performed aboard a originals or copies of originals, and if in Section 159.7 also issued under 19 U.S.C. vessel during the one-year period prior a foreign language they must be 1557; to the current submission have been accompanied by an English translation, Section 159.22 also issued under 19 U.S.C. declared and entered. A valid certified by the translator to be accurate. 1507; Application is required to be supported Upon receipt of an Application for Section 159.44 also issued under 15 U.S.C. by complete evidence as detailed in this Relief by the VRU within the prescribed 73, 74; section. The deadline for receipt of an time limits, a determination of duties Section 159.46 also issued under 19 U.S.C. Application and supporting evidence is owed will be made. After a decision is 1304; 90 days from the date that the vessel made on an Application for Relief by a Section 159.55 also issued under 19 U.S.C. first arrived in the United States VRU, the Applicant will be notified of 1558; following foreign operations. the right to protest any perceived Section 159.57 also issued under 19 U.S.C. Applications must be addressed and excessive charge or exaction. 1516. submitted by the vessel operator to the (3) Administrative protest. Following § 159.11 [Amended] appropriate VRU port of entry and will the determination of duty owing on a be decided in that unit. The VRUs may vessel repair entry, a protest may be 2. It is proposed to amend § 159.11(b) seek the advice of the Entry Procedures filed as the only and final by removing the phrase, ‘‘vessel repair and Carriers Branch in Customs administrative appeal. The procedures entries or’’. Headquarters with regard to any specific and time limits applicable to protests
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:14 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.066 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP1 19512 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
Approved: March 12, 1999. they did not intend to convene a public and on the Internet at http:// Raymond W. Kelly, hearing on the rulemaking action, but dms.dot.gov. (Docket hours at the Nassif Commissioner of Customs. invited interested persons to request a Building are Monday-Friday, 10 a.m. to John P. Simpson, public hearing to enable them to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.) Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. comment on issues addressed in the (2) The STB Secretary: Send an NPRM. One commenter timely filed a [FR Doc. 99–9946 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] original and 10 paper copies referring to request for a public hearing, and BILLING CODE 4820±02±P STB Ex Parte No. 574 to Office of the pursuant to that request, FRA and the Secretary, Case Control Unit, Surface Board have agreed to convene a public Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, hearing as an opportunity for oral NW, Washington DC 20423. In addition DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION comment. Consistent with this decision, to paper copies, each party must also FRA and the STB also will extend the Federal Railroad Administration submit its respective notification and comment period to the date of the pleadings to the Board on a 3.5-inch 49 CFR Part 244 public hearing to solicit additional diskette formatted for WordPerfect 7.0 written comments on the respective (or in a format readily convertible into [FRA Docket No. 1999±4985, Notice No. 3] proposed rules. The agencies request WordPerfect 7.0). All such pleadings interested persons not to re-submit Surface Transportation Board will be posted on the Board’s website comments or arguments advanced (http://www.stb.dot.gov). during the first comment period. 49 CFR Part 1106 (3) Public Hearing: The venue for the DATES: Comments: Submit written public hearing scheduled for May 4, [STB Ex Parte No. 574] comments on or before May 4, 1999. 1999, will be at the Nassif Building, 400 Public Hearing: The public hearing Seventh Street, S.W., Room 2230, in RIN 2130±AB24 will be held on Tuesday, May 4, 1999, Washington DC. beginning at 9:00 a.m., in Washington, Regulations on Safety Integration DC Any person wishing to participate in (4) Written Comments: The Plans Governing Railroad the public hearing should notify both procedures for filing written comments Consolidations, Mergers, Acquisitions the FRA Docket Clerk ((202) 493–6030 with FRA and the Board are the same as of Control, and Start Up Operations; or by mail) and the STB Secretary ((202) provided in the NPRM published on and Procedures for Surface 565–1650 or by mail) at least five December 31, 1998. 63 FR 72225 Transportation Board Consideration of working days before the date of the (December 31, 1998). Safety Integration Plans in Cases hearing, and submit 10 copies of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Involving Railroad Consolidations, Jon oral statement that he or she intends to Mergers, and Acquisitions of Control Kaplan, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief make at the hearing. The notification Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, AGENCIES: Federal Railroad should identify the party the person Mailstop 10, Washington, DC 20590 Administration, DOT, Surface represents and the particular subject(s) (telephone: (202) 493–6053); or Evelyn Transportation Board. the person plans to address. The G. Kitay, Office of the General Counsel, ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; notification should also provide the STB, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, date and location of public hearing; FRA Docket Clerk and the STB DC 20423 (telephone: (202) 565–1563) extension of comment period. Secretary with the participant’s mailing [TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) address. FRA and the Board reserve the 565–1695.]. SUMMARY: By notice of proposed right to limit participation in the Issued in Washington, DC, on April 12, rulemaking (NPRM) published on hearing by persons who fail to provide 1999. December 31, 1998 (63 FR 72225), the such notification. Jolene Molitoris, ADDRESSES: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (1) FRA Docket Clerk: Federal Railroad Administrator. and the Surface Transportation Board Submit one copy of the notification (STB or Board) proposed a joint rule identifying the docket number to the Decided: April 7, 1999. establishing procedures for developing Department of Transportation Central By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice and implementing safety integration Docket Management Facility located in Chairman Clyburn, and Commissioner plans by railroads proposing to engage room PL–401 at the Plaza level of the Burkes. in certain specified merger, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, Vernon A. Williams, consolidation, or acquisition of control S.W., Washington, DC 20590. All docket Secretary. transactions with another railroad. In material on the FRA rule will be [FR Doc. 99–9798 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] that notice, the agencies announced that available for inspection at this address BILLING CODE 4910±06±P
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:12 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP1.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP1 19513
Notices Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 76
Wednesday, April 21, 1999
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER describes alternatives for timber harvest Decision. The proposed supplement to contains documents other than rules or and associated activities with the the FEIS would analyze additional proposed rules that are applicable to the Veteran/Boulder Project Area (27,463 treatments within this area in order to public. Notices of hearings and investigations, acres) on the Black Hills National slow further spread of the beetles, committee meetings, agency decisions and Forest. The Project Area contains the reduce damage to wildlife habitat and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency majority of the 5,109 acre Beaver Park green trees, and reduce wildfire risk. statements of organization and functions are RARE II inventoried roadless area. On The proposed action is to salvage examples of documents appearing in this September 30, 1998 a Record of approximately 400 to 600 thousand section. Decision was signed by Forest board feet of trees either infested with Supervisor John C. Twiss allowing mountain pine beetles or severely timber harvest and associated activities damaged in the October 1998 storm, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE within the Veteran/Boulder project area, from a total of approximately 200 to 300 except for the roadless area, on which acres within Management Areas 4.1 and Forest Service a separate decision was to be made. On 5.4 (Forbes Gulch) of Beaver Park. March 1, 1999, Supervisor Twiss signed Treatments would consist of small (one Analysis of Veteran/Boulder Project a second Record of Decision allowing quarter of an acre to 20 acres) clearcuts Area; Black Hills National Forest; timber harvest and associated activities, to remove beetle-infested trees as well Spearfish/Nemo Ranger District; except road construction, within the as removal of downed and snapped off Lawrence and Meade Counties, SD Beaver Park roadless area. trees killed by the storm. NO new roads AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. Significant issues described in the would be constructed and no additional ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare draft FEIS include wildlife habitat and road work would be needed on existing supplement to final environmental vegetative diversity, the Beaver Park roads. Access would be from existing impact statement. roadless area, mountain pine beetle roads with forwarder machines and infestation and forest health, timber skidders. Sufficient dead and down SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10(g), harvest, roads and travel management, trees would be left to meet Forest Plan the District Ranger of the Spearfish/ and prescribed burns and fuels. These standards for wildlife habitat and soil Nemo Ranger District, Black Hills issues were addressed through conditions (snags and down woody National Forest, gives notice of the development of alternatives and/or material). agency’s intent to prepare a draft mitigation, or through the disclosure of Alternatives to the proposed action supplement to the Veteran/Boulder environmental effects. being considered at this time include no Project Area Final Environmental Since the FEIS was published, the action, helicopter removal of infested Impact Statement. The responsible Forest has acquired new information trees, and removal of green wood in official for this project is John C. Twiss, concerning Forest health in the Beaver addition to beetle-infested trees. Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Park area, relating to the existing The decision to be made is whether or Forest. infestation of mountain pine beetles. not to remove infested and storm- ADDRESSES: Send written comments to The FEIS analyzed mountain pine beetle damaged trees from the southern District Ranger, Spearfish/Nemo Ranger data and field reconnaissance portion of Beaver Park (Forbes Gulch) in District, Black Hills National Forest, information in the project area from order to slow the mountain pine beetle 2014 N. Main Street, Spearfish, SD 1997 to early 1998. Since that time, an epidemic, reduce wildfire risk, and 57783. aerial flight and related report from the protect wildlife habitat and other forest DATES: This project schedule is as Forest Service’s Forest Health resources. follows: File Draft Supplement to Final Management unit has indicated the The comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement—June beetles have spread beyond the areas supplement to the FEIS will be a 1999. File Final Supplement to Final analyzed in the FEIS and are minimum of 45 days from the date the Environmental Impact Statement and approaching epidemic levels in the Environmental Protection Agency Record of Decision signature— Beaver Park Area. publishes the notice of availability in September 1999. In addition to the increased insect the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy activity, an early winter storm in In addition to the proposed Trowbridge, Project Interdisciplinary October 1998 resulted in several areas of supplement to the FEIS, the Forest is Team Leader, 605–642–4622. severely damaged and blown down trees also planning to do a wider analysis of Additional information, such as maps, within the southern third of Beaver the mountain pine beetle epidemic over can be obtained by written request to Park. a larger area, including the northern half the Spearfish Ranger District office, or Given this new information, the of Beaver Park. Therefore, this by phone at the above address and Forest has decided to further analyze supplement will only address the phone number. the potential consequences of continued southern portion of Beaver Park, in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The beetle activity within the southern half order to more expediently address the Veteran/Boulder Project Area Final of Beaver Park (Management Areas 4.1, beetle situation in this area. Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Limited Motorized Use and Forest The Forest Service believes, at this was completed in September 1998 and Products; and 5.4, Big Game Winter early stage, it is important to give a Notice of Availability was published Range). Timer management has already reviewers notice of several court rulings in the Federal Register on October 16, been approved in this portion of Beaver related to public participation in the 1998 (EIS number 980410). The FEIS Park under the March 1, 1999 Record of environmental review process. First,
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.099 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19514 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices reviewers of draft environmental impact provisions of the Paperwork Reduction DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE statements (or draft supplements to an Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Submission for OMB Review; EIS) must structure their participation Agency: National Oceanic and Comment Request in the environmental review of the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer’s Title: Coastal Services Center Coastal The Department of Commerce (DOC) position and contentions. Vermont Management Survey. has submitted to the Office of Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, Agency Form Number(s): N/A. Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, OMB Approval Number: 0648–0308. environmental objections that could be collection of information under raised at the draft environmental impact Type of Request: Revision of a provisions of the Paperwork Reduction statement (or draft supplement to an currently approved collection. Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). EIS) stage but that are not raised until Burden: 27 hours. Agency: Bureau of Export after completion of the final Number of Respondents: Administration (BXA). environmental impact statement (or Approximately 80. Title: India and Pakistan Sanctions. final supplement to an EIS) may be Agency Form Number: BXA 748–P. waived or dismissed by the courts. City Avg. Hours Per Response: 30 minutes. of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, Needs and Uses: The mission of the OMB Approval Number: 0694–0111. 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin NOAA Coastal Services Center is to Type of Request: Extension of a Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. foster and sustain the environmental currently approved collection of 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of and economic well being of the coast by information. these court rulings, it is very important linking people, information, and Burden: 52 hours. that those interested in this proposed technology. NOAA is seeking approval Average Time Per Response: 40 to 45 action participate by the close of the 45 to conduct a customer survey. The minutes per response. day comment period so that substantive purpose of the survey is to assess the comments and objections are made coastal resource management Number of Respondents: 57 available to the Forest Service at a time community’s information needs. The respondents. when it can meaningfully consider them results will allow the Center to Needs and Uses: Consistent with the and respond to them in the final determine the kinds of services its President’s directive, the Bureau of environmental impact statement. customers want, to understand the Export Administration (BXA) is To assist the Forest Service in customer’s level of technical expertise, imposing certain sanctions, as well as identifying and considering issues and and to document priority issues most certain supplementary measures to concerns on the proposed action, relevant to the missions. This enhance the sanctions. This section comments on the draft environmental information will be used to guide the includes a new license review policy of impact statement (or draft supplement development of future products and denial for the export and reexport of to an EIS) should be as specific as services in the formats and software most items controlled for nuclear possible. It is also helpful if comments commonly used by customers. proliferation (NP) reasons or missile technology (MT) reasons to all end-users refer to specific pages or chapters of the Affected Public: State, local or tribal in India and Pakistan. Items controlled draft statement. Comments may also government, federal government. address the adequacy of the draft on the Commerce Control List for environmental impact statement (or Frequency: One-time. nuclear and missile technology reasons draft supplement to an EIS) or the Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. have been made subject to this sanction policy because of their significance for merits of the alternatives formulated OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, nuclear explosive purposes and for and discussed in the statement. (202) 395–3897. Reviewers may wish to refer to the delivery of nuclear devices. Council on Environmental Quality Copies of the above information Affected Public: Individuals, Regulations for implementing the collection proposal can be obtained by businesses or other for-profit procedural provisions of the National calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, institutions. DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202) Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 1503.3 in addressing these points. 482–3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5033, 14th and Constitution OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker Dated: April 8, 1999. Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or (202)395–3897. John Twiss, via Internet at [email protected]). Copies of the above information Forest Supervisor. Written comments and collection proposal can be obtained by [FR Doc. 99–9964 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] recommendations for the proposed calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, BILLING CODE 3410±11±M information collection should be sent DOC Forms Clearance Officer, Office of within 30 days of publication of this the Chief Information Officer, (202) notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk 482–3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5033, 14th and Constitution DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW, Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via Internet at [email protected]). Submission for OMB Review; Washington, DC 20503. Written comments and Comment Request Dated: April 15, 1999. recommendations for the proposed The Department of Commerce (DOC) Madeleine Clayton, information collection should be sent has submitted to the Office of Management Analyst, Office of the Chief within 30 days of publication of this Management and Budget (OMB) for Information Officer. notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk clearance the following proposal for [FR Doc. 99–9932 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Officer, Room 10202, New Executive collection of information under the BILLING CODE 3510±08±P Office Building, Washington, DC 20230.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.100 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19515
Dated: April 15, 1999. Dated: April 15, 1999. with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Madeleine Clayton, Bruce C. Morehead, Conservation and Management Act, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Acting Director, Office of Sustainable those issues will not be the subject of Information Officer. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. formal committee action during this [FR Doc. 99–9933 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 99–9988 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] meeting. Committee action will be BILLING CODE 3510±33±P BILLING CODE 3510±22±F restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice. Special Accommodations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The meeting is physically accessible National Oceanic and Atmospheric National Oceanic and Atmospheric to people with disabilities. Requests for Administration Administration sign language interpretation or other [I.D. 041399A] [I.D. 041399C] auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. John Rhoton at (503) 326–6352 at least Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Pacific Fishery Management Council; 5 days prior to the meeting date. Council (MAFMC); Meeting Public Meeting Dated: April 15, 1999. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Gary C. Matlock, Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce. Commerce. [FR Doc. 99–9989 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice of public meeting. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. BILLING CODE 3510±22±F
SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Tilefish Management Council’s (Council) Ad- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Committee, Tilefish Technical Hoc Marine Reserve Committee will National Oceanic and Atmospheric Committee, and Industry Advisory hold a meeting which is open to the Administration Panel will hold a public meeting. public. DATES: The meeting will be held on DATES: The meeting will begin on [I.D. 041499E] Thursday, May 6, 1999, from 10:00 a.m. Tuesday, May 11 at 8 a.m. and will until 4:00 p.m. continue through 5 p.m. Wednesday, Endangered Species; Permits May 12. The Tuesday session may go ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at AGENCY: into the evening until business for the National Marine Fisheries the Radisson Hotel Philadelphia Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Airport, 500 Stevens Drive, day is completed. The Thursday session will begin at 8 a.m. An opportunity for Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Philadelphia, PA; telephone: 610–521– Commerce. 5900. public comment will be provided on ACTION: Receipt of applications to Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Wednesday. modify scientific research/enhancement Management Council, 300 S. New ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in permits (895, 900, 946, 1094, 1114, Street, Dover, DE 19904. the Multnomah Falls Room of the 1193); issuance of permits (1187, 1197); FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doubletree Hotel Downtown, 310 SW Lincoln Avenue, Portland OR 97201. and modifications to existing permits Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, (1115, 1116). Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council address: Pacific Fishery Council; telephone: 302–674–2331, ext. Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 19. Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201. following actions regarding permits for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim takes of endangered and threatened purpose of this meeting is to discuss Seger, Economic Analysis Coordinator; species for the purposes of scientific and recommend management option telephone: (503) 326–6352. research and/or enhancement: alternatives for the public hearing draft SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NMFS has received applications for of the Tilefish Fishery Management purpose of the meeting is to identify modifications to existing permits from: Plan. objectives for marine reserve options to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Walla Although other issues not contained be presented to the Council. Based on Walla, WA (Corps) (895), Fish Ecology in this agenda may come before the the objectives, the committee may begin Division, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Committees for discussion, in work on design characteristics. The first Science Center, in Seattle, WA (NWFSC) accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens day of the meeting will be taken up (900, 946), Washington Department of Fishery Conservation and Management largely by technical presentations. This Fish and Wildlife in Olympia, WA Act, those issues may not be the subject meeting is an early step in the first (WDFW) (1094, 1114), and Fish Passage of formal action during this meeting. phase of a two-phase process for Center in Portland, OR (FPC) (1193); Action will be restricted to those issues Council consideration of marine NMFS has issued permits to Mr. specifically identified in this notice. reserves. The first phase involves the Stephen M. H. Connett, of St. George’s conceptual evaluation of marine School (SC-SGS) (1187) and Mr. John Special Accommodations reserves as a tool for Council Crutchfield, of Harris Energy & This meeting is physically accessible management and will culminate with a Environmental Center (JH-HEEC) (1197); to people with disabilities. Requests for Council decision on whether or not to and NMFS has issued modifications to sign language interpretation or other develop site-specific fully specified scientific research permits to Chelan auxiliary aids should be directed to proposals for marine reserves. County Public Utility District No. 1 Joanna Davis at the Council (see Although other issues not contained (PUD-CC) (1115) and Public Utility ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the in this agenda may come before the District No. 1 of Douglas County (PUD- meeting date. committee for discussion, in accordance DC) (1116).
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.009 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19516 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
DATES: Written comments or requests for and do not necessarily reflect the views summer chinook salmon; and juvenile, a public hearing on any of the new of NMFS. endangered, naturally produced and applications or modification requests artificially propagated, UCR steelhead Species Covered in this Notice must be received on or before May 21, associated with studies designed to 1999. The following species and determine the relative survival of ADDRESSES: The applications and evolutionarily significant units (ESU’s) migrating juvenile salmonids at related documents are available for are covered in this notice: hydropower dams and reservoirs on the review in the following offices, by Sea Turtles Snake and Columbia Rivers in the appointment: Pacific Northwest. For modification 7, Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), For permits 895, 900, 946, 1094, 1114, NWFSC proposes an increase in the Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys 1115, 1116, 1193: Protected Resources annual take of ESA-listed juvenile fish imbricata), Kemp’s ridley turtle Division, F/NWO3, 525 NE Oregon associated with The Dalles Dam survival (Lepidochelys kempii), Loggerhead Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232– study. An increased annual take of ESA- turtle (Caretta caretta). 4169 (503–230–5400). listed juvenile fish is requested to For permits 1187, 1197: Office of Fish validate previously collected survival data at 64 percent and 30 percent spill Protected Resources, Endangered Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus Species Division, F/PR3, 1315 East-West volume scenarios at The Dalles Dam. tshawytscha): Snake River (SnR) fall, ESA-listed juvenile fish are proposed to Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 SnR spring/summer, Upper Columbia (301–713–1401). be captured at John Day Dam on the River (UCR) spring Columbia River. The fish are proposed All documents may also be reviewed Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus to be handled and released or tagged by appointment in the Office of nerka): SnR with passive integrated transponders, Protected Resources, F/PR3, NMFS, Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus transported to The Dalles Dam, held for 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, mykiss): UCR MD 20910–3226 (301–713–1401). Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser up to 24 hours, and released. Also for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: brevirostrum). modification 7, NWFSC requests annual For permits 895, 900, 946, 1193: takes of juvenile, endangered, naturally Leslie Schaeffer, Portland, OR (503– Modification Requests Received produced and artificially propagated 230–5433). The Corps requests modification 6 to UCR spring chinook salmon associated For permit 1094: Robert Koch, enhancement permit 895. Permit 895 with the research. An associated Portland, OR (503–230–5424). authorizes the Corps annual direct takes increase in ESA-listed juvenile fish For permits 1114, 1115, 1116: Tom of juvenile, endangered, SnR sockeye indirect mortalities is also requested. Lichatowich, Portland, OR (503–230– salmon; juvenile, threatened, naturally Modification 7 is requested to be valid 5438). produced and artificially propagated, for the duration of the permit, which For permits 1187, 1197: Terri Jordan, SnR spring/summer chinook salmon; expires on December 31, 1999. Silver Spring, MD (301–713–1401). juvenile, threatened, SnR fall chinook NWFSC requests modification 6 to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: salmon; and juvenile, endangered, scientific research permit 946. Permit naturally produced and artificially 946 authorizes NWFSC annual direct Authority propagated, UCR steelhead associated takes of juvenile, endangered, SnR with the operation of the juvenile fish sockeye salmon; adult and juvenile, Issuance of permits and permit transportation program at four threatened, naturally produced and modifications, as required by the ESA, hydroelectric projects on the Snake and artificially propagated, SnR spring/ is based on a finding that such permits/ Columbia Rivers in the Pacific summer chinook salmon; juvenile, modifications: (1) are applied for in Northwest. Permit 895 also authorizes threatened, SnR fall chinook salmon; good faith; (2) would not operate to the the Corps annual incidental takes of and juvenile, endangered, naturally disadvantage of the listed species which ESA-listed adult salmonids associated produced and artificially propagated, are the subject of the permits; and (3) with fallbacks through the juvenile fish UCR steelhead associated with a study are consistent with the purposes and bypass systems at the four dams. For designed to assess the migration timing policies set forth in section 2 of the modification 6, the Corps requests and relative survival of transported and ESA. Authority to take listed species is annual direct takes of juvenile, inriver juvenile chinook salmon subject to conditions set forth in the endangered, naturally produced and migrating volitionally from Bonneville permits. Permits and modifications are artificially propagated, UCR spring Dam to the mouth of the Columbia issued in accordance with and are chinook salmon. ESA-listed juvenile River. For modification 6, NWFSC subject to the Endangered Species Act of fish are proposed to be captured, requests an increase in the take of ESA- 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543) and transported past the dams, and released listed juvenile fish due to improvements NMFS regulations governing listed fish to aid their outmigration to the Pacific in sampling equipment that are and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 217– Ocean. ESA-listed juvenile fish indirect designed to speed passage of fish 227). mortalities are also requested. through a passive PIT tag detection Those individuals requesting a Modification 6 is requested to be valid system and reduce potential impacts hearing on an application listed in this for the duration of the permit, which from passage through the apparatus. notice should set out the specific expires on December 31, 1999. Increased take is also requested due to reasons why a hearing on that NWFSC requests modification 7 to the revised estimate for the number of application would be appropriate (see scientific research permit 900. Permit fish thought to be available in the ADDRESSES). The holding of such 900 authorizes NWFSC annual direct estuary in 1999. Also for modification 6, hearing is at the discretion of the takes of juvenile, endangered, SnR NWFSC requests annual takes of Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, sockeye salmon; juvenile, threatened, juvenile, endangered, naturally NOAA. All statements and opinions SnR fall chinook salmon; juvenile, produced and artificially propagated contained in the permit action threatened, naturally produced and UCR spring chinook salmon associated summaries are those of the applicant artificially propagated, SnR spring/ with the research. An associated
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.134 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19517 increase in ESA-listed juvenile fish collected with seines, sampled for duration of the permit, which expires on indirect mortalities is also requested. biological data, fin clipped to obtain December 31, 2002. Modification 6 is requested to be valid tissue samples, and released. ESA-listed Notice was published on February 4, for the duration of the permit, which juvenile steelhead indirect mortalities 1999 (64 FR 5640), that an application expires on December 31, 1999. are also requested. Modification 3 is had been filed by PUD-DC for WDFW requests modification 2 to requested to be valid for the duration of Modification 2 to permit 1116. Permit research/enhancement permit 1094. the permit, which expires on 1116 authorizes annual takes of Permit 1094 authorizes WDFW annual December 31, 2002. direct takes of adult and juvenile, juvenile, endangered, naturally FPC requests modification 1 to produced and artificially propagated, endangered, naturally produced and scientific research permit 1193. Permit UCR steelhead associated with research artificially propagated, UCR steelhead 1193 authorizes FPC annual direct takes studies. For Modification 2 PUD-DC is associated with a hatchery of juvenile, endangered, SnR sockeye supplementation program in the mid- to salmon, juvenile, threatened, SnR fall authorized an increase in takes of upper Columbia River Basin. Incidental chinook salmon, juvenile, threatened, juvenile, endangered, naturally takes of ESA-listed species resulting naturally produced and artificially produced and artificially propagated, from WDFW hatchery operations and propagated, SnR spring/summer UCR steelhead for two new research hatchery produced fish releases are also chinook salmon, and juvenile, studies. PUD-DC will use passive authorized by the permit. For endangered, naturally produced and integrated transponder (PIT) tag modification 2, WDFW requests annual artificially propagated, UCR steelhead technology to assess the survival of takes of ESA-listed adult steelhead associated with FPC’s Smolt Monitoring juvenile salmonids and will evaluate the associated with a radio tagging study. Program at the hydropower dams on the relative benefits of PIT and radio tag The purpose of the study is to evaluate Snake and Columbia Rivers in the technology. Modification 2 was issued the ladder passage and fallback rates of Pacific Northwest. For modification 1, on April 12, 1999, and is valid for the adult steelhead at Priest Rapids, FPC requests an increase in the annual duration of the permit, which expires on Wanapum, Rock Island, Rocky Reach, take of juvenile, threatened, naturally December 31, 2002. and Wells Dams on the mid-Columbia produced and artificially propagated, River. The goal of the study is to assure Notice was published on December 1, SnR spring/summer chinook salmon. that safe passage conditions are being 1998 (63 FR 66125), that SC-SGS had An increased annual take is requested provided for returning ESA-listed adult applied for a 5-year scientific research because a larger than anticipated fish at the dams. ESA-listed adult permit (1187) to take up to 200 outmigration run of this ESA-listed steelhead are proposed to be captured at loggerhead, 300 green, 200 hawksbill, 5 species is estimated in 1999. ESA-listed Priest Rapids Dam, tagged with juvenile fish are proposed to be leatherback, and 5 Kemp’s ridley sea radiotransmitters, released, and tracked captured, handled (examined and/or turtles annually from the Northwest electronically as they migrate upstream. Atlantic Ocean. The purpose of this Grant Public Utility District (PUD), tagged with passive integrated transponders), and released. An research is to obtain life history data on Chelan PUD, and Douglas PUD are all turtles captured, and to determine requested to act as agents of WDFW in associated increase in ESA-listed juvenile fish indirect mortalities is also migratory behavior and habitat tracking the ESA-listed adult fish utilization of juvenile turtles captured upstream. ESA-listed adult fish indirect requested. Modification 1 is requested on foraging grounds. Turtles will be mortalities are also requested. to be valid for the duration of the captured by hand and/or dip net, Modification 2 is requested to be valid permit, which expires on for the duration of the permit, which December 31, 2003. weighed, measured, flipper tagged, tissue sampled and released at the site expires on May 31, 2003. Permits and Modifications Issued WDFW requests modification 3 to of capture. This is a continuation of scientific research permit 1114. Permit Notice was published on February 4, work permitted under scientific 1114 authorizes WDFW annual direct 1999 (64 FR 5640), that an application research permit 886 which expired on takes of adult and juvenile, endangered, had been filed by PUD-CC, for December 31, 1998. Permit 1187 was naturally produced and artificially Modification 2 to permit 1115. Permit issued on April 2, 1999, and expires on propagated, UCR steelhead associated 1115 authorizes a take of adult and December 31, 2003. juvenile, endangered, naturally with a smolt monitoring program at Notice was published on February 4, produced and artificially propagated, Rock Island Dam on the Columbia River 1999 (64 FR 5030), that JC-HEEC had UCR steelhead associated with research. in WA. For modification 3, WDFW applied for a 3-year research permit For Modification 2, PUD-CC is requests an increase in the annual take (1197) to take endangered shortnose of ESA-listed adult and juvenile authorized an increase in annual takes sturgeon while conducting original steelhead associated with a new study of adult and juvenile, endangered, research regarding the population of to be conducted in the Hanford Reach naturally produced and artificially fishes in the Pee Dee River, NC. The Pee of the Columbia River. Information from propagated, UCR steelhead associated the study will be used to verify the with three new proposed studies. PUD- Dee River has been historically included spawning regime and exact stock of CC will: (1) use new acoustic tagging in the shortnose sturgeon’s native range. steelhead in the Hanford Reach to aid in technology to monitor the behavior of The applicant will be performing a developing future recovery plans for juvenile salmonids, (2) Use PIT and baseline assessments of the resident and that section of the Columbia River. radio tagging technology to study the migratory fish species inhabiting the Adult steelhead are proposed to be survival of juvenile salmonids, and (3) river below the Blewett Hydroelectric captured by angling, sampled for determine the number of adult Plant. To ensure compliance with the biological data, fin clipped, and salmonids that may be present in the ESA, the applicant requests a permit to released. Eggs and alevin steelhead are Lake Chelan bypass reach after spill at capture, handle and release shortnose proposed to be collected by excavating the Lake Chelan hydroelectric project is sturgeon that may be taken during this redds and sacrificed for genetic analysis. curtailed. Modification 2 was issued on study. Permit 1197 was issued on April Steelhead fry are proposed to be April 14, 1999, and is valid for the 5, 1999, and expires January 31, 2002.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.134 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19518 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
Dated: April 15, 1999. Issued in Washington, DC on April 15, education, public or private nonprofit Kevin Collins, 1999, by the Commission. organizations, and Indian Tribes in Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office Jean A. Webb, North Dakota and South Dakota are of Protected Resources, National Marine Secretary of the Commission. eligible entities. An organization Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 99–9941 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] described in section 501(c)(4) of the [FR Doc. 99–9987 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351±01±M Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 BILLING CODE 3510±22±F U.S.C. 501(c)(4), that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible for CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND these funds. COMMUNITY SERVICE Requirements relating to this COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING assistance are published at 45 CFR Parts COMMISSION AmeriCorps State Formula Program 2510 et seq. and are further described in Grants: North Dakota and South Financial Products Advisory the application guidelines. The Dakota Committee; Seventh Renewal Corporation will also provide Principles AGENCY: Corporation for National and for High Quality National Service The Commodity Futures Trading Community Service. Programs, which includes program Commission has determined to renew examples, upon request. for a period of two years its advisory ACTION: Notice of availability of funds for new and renewal grants; notice of Organizations interested in applying committee designated as the for these program funds may participate ‘‘Commodity Futures Trading availability of 1999 application guidelines. in one of two conference calls to be held Commission Financial Products on April 29, 1999 and May 20, 1999, Advisory Committee.’’ As required by SUMMARY: The Corporation for National respectively, during which Corporation Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal and Community Service (Corporation) staff will provide technical assistance to Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. announces the availability of potential applicants. The calls will 2 § 14(a)(2)(A), and 41 CFR 101–6.1007 approximately $500,000 to support new begin at 1:00 p.m. and conclude at 3:00 and 101–6.1029, the Commission has and continuing national service p.m. (E.D.T.). To register for either call, consulted with the Committee programs in North Dakota and please contact Rosa Harrison, at (202) Management Secretariat of the General approximately $500,000 to support new 606–5000, ext. 433. Upon registration, Services Administration, and the and continuing national service you will be apprised of the applicable Commission certifies that the renewal of programs in South Dakota. (CFDA 800 number needed for participation. the advisory committee is in the public #94.004). interest in connection with duties The provision of these grants is DATES: To be considered, applications imposed on the Commission by the subject to the availability of must be received by 3:30 p.m., Eastern Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1, et appropriated funds. Standard Time, Wednesday, June 30, seq., as amended. Dated: April 15, 1999. 1999. The objectives and scope of activities Thomas L. Bryant, ADDRESSES: Applications must be of the Financial Products Advisory Acting General Counsel. Committee are to conduct public submitted to the Corporation for National Service, 1201 New York [FR Doc. 99–9992 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] meetings and submit reports and BILLING CODE 6050±28±U recommendations on issues concerning Avenue NW, Box SND, Washington, individuals and industries interested in D.C. 20525. Facsimiles will not be or affected by financial markets accepted. regulated by the Commission. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Chairperson Brooksley Born serves as information contact James Cooper, Chairperson and Designated Federal Corporation for National Service, 1201 Department of the Air Force Official of the Financial Products New York Avenue, NW, Washington, Advisory Committee. The committee’s D.C. 20525, phone (202) 606–5000, ext. HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board membership will represent a cross- 149, TDD (202) 565–2799. Meeting section of interested and affected SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: persons and groups including Application guidelines may be obtained The Low Observable Strategic Vision representatives of newer institutional by calling Rosa Harrison, Corporation Assessment Panel will meet in Rosslyn, market participants, such as broker- for National Service, (202) 606–5000, VA on July 27–29, 1999 from 8:00 a.m. dealers, pension sponsors, and ext. 433. to 5:00 p.m. investment companies; traditional These funds are authorized under the The purpose of the meeting is to market participants, such as futures National and Community Service Act of gather information and receive briefings. commission merchants, commodity 1990, as amended, and represent the The meeting will be closed to the pool operators, and commodity trading statute’s population-based provision of public in accordance with Section advisors; federal financial markets program assistance formula funds that, 552b(c) of Title 5, United States Code, oversight agencies; futures exchanges; in most cases, flow through approved specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) the academic, legal and accounting state commissions on national and thereof. communities; and other appropriate community service. Because neither public participants. North Dakota nor South Dakota For further information, contact the Interested persons may obtain currently maintains an approved state HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board information or make comments by commission or alternative Secretariat at (703) 697–8404. writing to the Commodity Futures administrative entity, eligible entities Carolyn A. Lunsford, Trading Commission, Three Lafayette may apply directly to the Corporation Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, for formula funds. Local government [FR Doc. 99–9972 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20581. agencies, institutions of higher BILLING CODE 5001±05±P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19519
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION thereof. Department of the Air Force Notice Inviting Applicants To Serve as For further information, contact the Field Readers for the Community HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board Technology Centers Program Meeting Secretariat at (703) 697–8404. Carolyn A. Lunsford, SUMMARY: The Office of Vocational and The Low Observable Strategic Vision Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. Adult Education (OVAE) invites Assessment Panel will meet in Rosslyn, [FR Doc. 99–9975 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] interested individuals to apply to serve VA on August 10–12, 1999 from 8:00 BILLING CODE 5001±05±P as field readers evaluating grant a.m. to 5:00 p.m. applications for the Community The purpose of the meeting is to Technology Centers Program. The gather information and receive briefings. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Community Technology Centers The meeting will be closed to the Program is intended to increase access public in accordance with Section 552b Department of the Air Force to information technology and related (c) of Title 5, United States Code, services for adults and children in HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) economically distressed low-income Meeting thereof. urban and rural communities through For further information, contact the grants to establish or expand The Low Observable Strategic Vision HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board community technology centers. Secretariat at (703) 697–8404. Assessment Panel will meet in Rosslyn, Duties and Compensation of Field Carolyn A. Lunsford, VA on August 24–26, 1999 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Readers: Field readers will review Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. applications according to the applicable [FR Doc. 99–9973 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] The purpose of the meeting is to selection criteria. Each field reader will BILLING CODE 5001±05±P gather information and receive briefings. serve for a period of approximately 5 The meeting will be closed to the days. Each field reader who is selected public in accordance with Section will receive compensation for certain DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 552b(c) of Title 5, United States Code, travel expenses and an honorarium. specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) Department of the Air Force Field Reader Qualifications: The thereof. Department is seeking experienced and HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board For further information, contact the knowledgeable professionals who are Meeting HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board current with issues regarding the Secretariat at (703) 697–8404. provision of computers and technology The Low Observable Strategic Vision Carolyn A. Lunsford, to residents of low-income urban and Assessment Panel will meet in Rosslyn, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. rural communities. These professionals VA on September 8–10, 1999 from 8:00 [FR Doc. 99–9976 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] should be familiar with issues dealing a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with the start-up and expansion of BILLING CODE 5001±05±P The purpose of the meeting is to community technology centers; use of gather information and receive briefings. technology in adult, elementary or The meeting will be closed to the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE secondary education programs; public in accordance with Section 552b technology and technology (c) of Title 5, United States Code, Department of the Air Force management; or community specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) development and outreach to residents thereof. HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board of low-income communities. For further information, contact the Meeting Prospective field readers may include HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board technology providers, administrators, Secretariat at (703) 697–8404. The Low Observable Strategic Vision and experts; individuals with Carolyn A. Lunsford, Assessment Panel in support of the HQ experience in use of technology in Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. USAF Scientific Advisory Board will elementary, secondary or adult [FR Doc. 99–9974 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] meet in Rosslyn, VA on September 28– education; individuals from State BILLING CODE 5001±05±U 30, 1999 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. agencies, elementary and secondary The purpose of the meeting is to education, institutions of higher gather information and receive briefings education, and community-based DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE in support of the Scientific Advisory organizations and agencies; and Board. individuals with experience in Department of the Air Force providing access to technology in low- The meeting will be closed to the income communities. Each field reader HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board public in accordance with Section 552b must have the expertise necessary to Meeting (c) of Title 5, United States Code, accurately assess an applicant’s showing specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) on the applicable selection criteria. The Low Observable Strategic Vision thereof. Assessment Panel will meet in Rosslyn, Application Process: Any individual VA on July 7–9, 1999 from 8:00 a.m. to For further information, contact the interested in serving as a field reader 5:00 p.m. HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board should mail or fax two copies of his or The purpose of the meeting is to Secretariat at (703) 697–8404. her resume to the address listed below gather information and receive briefings. Carolyn A. Lunsford, indicating the program in which they The meeting will be closed to the Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. are interested in serving as a field public in accordance with Section [FR Doc. 99–9977 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] reader. Resumes should not exceed two 552b(c) of Title 5, United States Code, BILLING CODE 5001±05±P pages and should include a Social
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.101 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19520 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
Security Number and an e-mail address, DATES: Thursday, May 6, 1999, 6:00 operation for the Public Reading Room if available. p.m.–9:30 p.m. are 9:00 am and 4:00 pm on Monday FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ADDRESSES: College Hill Library (Front through Friday. Minutes will also be Community Technology Centers Range Community College), 3705 West made available by writing or calling Deb Program, Division of Adult Education 112th Avenue, Westminster, CO. Thompson at the Board’s office address and Literacy, Office of Vocational and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken or telephone number listed above. Adult Education, U.S. Department of Korkia, Board/Staff Coordinator, EM Issued at Washington, DC on April 15, Education, Washington, DC 20202– SSAB-Rocky Flats, 9035 North 1999. 7240. Inquiries may be sent by e-mail to Wadsworth Parkway, Suite 2250, Rachel M. Samuel, l frances [email protected] or by Fax to: Westminster, CO 80021, phone: (303) Deputy Advisory Committee Management (202) 205–8973. Individuals who use a 420–7855, fax: (303) 420–7579. Officer. telecommunication device for the deaf SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 99–9952 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] (TDD) may call the Federal Information BILLING CODE 6450±01±P Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– Purpose of the Board 8339, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., The purpose of the Board is to make Eastern time, Monday through Friday. recommendations to DOE and its DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Individuals with disabilities may regulators in the areas of environmental obtain this document in an alternative restoration, waste management, and Secretary of Energy Advisory Board; format (e.g., Braille, large print, audio related activities. Notice of Open Teleconference tape, or computer diskette) on request to Meeting the contact person listed in the Tentative Agenda AGENCY: Department of Energy. preceding paragraph. 1. Presentation on sampling protocols SUMMARY: This notice announces a Electronic Access to This Document and quality assurance audit of the teleconference of the Secretary of program. Anyone may view this document, as Energy Advisory Board. The Federal 2. Final approval of the Request for Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– well as all other Department of Proposals for technical services— Education documents published in the 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public Community Radiation (COMRAD) notice of these meetings be announced Federal Register, in text or portable Monitoring Program. document format (pdf) on the World in the Federal Register. 3. Continued discussion on low-level The purpose of the teleconference is Wide Web at either of the following waste disposition issues. sites: for members of two of the Board’s 4. Other Board business may be subcommittees (the Openness Advisory http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm conducted as necessary. http://www.ed.gov/news.html Panel and the External Members of the Laboratory Operations Board) to discuss To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Public Participation their review of the Department’s Acrobat Reader program with search, The meeting is open to the public. policies and practices related to foreign which is available free at either of the Written statements may be filed with visitors. previous sites. If you have questions the Committee either before or after the about using the pdf, call the U.S. meeting. Individuals who wish to make DATES AND TIME: Thursday, April 29, Government Printing Office toll free at oral statements pertaining to agenda 1999, 11:00 AM–12:30 PM, EST. 1–888–293–6498. items should contact Ken Korkia at the ADDRESSES: Members of the public may participate by dialing 1–301–903–6495. Note: The official version of this document address or telephone number listed is the document published in the Federal above. Requests must be received 5 days Public participation is welcomed, Register. prior to the meeting and reasonable however, the number of teleconference Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6832. provision will be made to include the lines is limited and available on a first come basis. Dated: April 16, 1999. presentation in the agenda. The Deputy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. McNeil, Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a Bruce Bornfleth, Secretary of Energy Assistant Secretary, Vocational and Adult Advisory Board (AB–1), U.S. Education. fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual Department of Energy, 1000 [FR Doc. 99–9979 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] wishing to make public comment will Independence Avenue, SW, BILLING CODE 4000±01±U be provided a maximum of 5 minutes to Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–4040 present their comments at the beginning or (202) 586–6279 (fax). of the meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Minutes Purpose of the Board Environmental Management Site- The minutes of this meeting will be The Secretary of Energy Advisory Specific Advisory Board, Rocky Flats available for public review and copying Board (Board) reports directly to the AGENCY: Department of Energy. at the Freedom of Information Public Secretary of Energy and is chartered ACTION: Notice of open meeting. Reading Room, 1E–190, Forrestal under the Federal Advisory Committee Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, Act. The Board provides the Secretary of SUMMARY: This notice announces a SW., Washington, DC 20585, between Energy with essential independent meeting of the Environmental 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday–Friday, advice and recommendations on issues Management Site-Specific Advisory except Federal holidays. Minutes will of national importance. On April 29, Board (EM SSAB), Rocky Flats. The also be available at the Public Reading members from two of the Board’s Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Room located at the Board’s office at subcommittees will conduct a Law 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 9035 North Wadsworth Parkway, Suite teleconference to discuss the public notice of these meetings be 2250, Westminster, CO 80021; Department’s policies and practices announced in the Federal Register. telephone (303) 420–7855. Hours of related to foreign visitors.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19521
Purpose of the SEAB Review of the Issued at Washington, DC, on April 15, provide advice, information, and Foreign Visitors Program 1999. recommendations on the Department’s Rachel M. Samuel, policies and practices related to foreign In March 1999, the Secretary of Deputy Advisory Committee Management visitors. Energy directed the Board to review and Officer. Tentative Agenda provide advice, information, and [FR Doc. 99–9955 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] recommendations on the Department’s BILLING CODE 6450±01±P Tuesday, May 4, 1999 policies and practices related to foreign visitors. 8:30 AM–9:00 AM Welcome and Opening Remarks— Tentative Agenda DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SEAB Chairman Andrew Athy Thursday, April 29, 1999 Secretary of Energy Advisory Board; 9:00 AM–12:00 PM Notice of Open Meeting 11:00 AM–11:10 AM Presentations and Discussions of Program Offices’ Laboratory Foreign Welcome and Opening Remarks— AGENCY: Department of Energy. Visitors Programs—TBD SEAB Chairman Andrew Athy SUMMARY: This notice announces a 12:00 PM–1:00 PM 11:10 AM–11:30 AM teleconference of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The Federal Lunch Break Overview of DOE’s Foreign Visitors Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 1:00 PM–4:00 PM Program 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public Board Review, Comments and 11:30 PM–12:00 PM Public Comment notice of these meetings be announced Actions—SEAB Chairman Andrew Period in the Federal Register. The purpose of Athy 12:00 AM–12:30 PM the teleconference is for members of two 4:00 PM–4:30 PM Board Comments and Action Plan— of the Board’s subcommittees (the Public Comment Period Openness Advisory Panel and the SEAB Chairman Andrew Athy 4:30 PM External Members of the Laboratory 12:30 PM Adjourn Adjourn Operations Board) to discuss their review of the Department’s policies and This tentative agenda is subject to This tentative agenda is subject to practices related to foreign visitors. change. The final agenda will be change. DATES: Tuesday, May 4, 1999, 8:30 available at the meeting. Public Participation AM—4:30 PM, EST. Public Participation ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Energy, The Chairman of the Secretary of Program Review Center (Rm 8E–089), The Chairman of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board is empowered to Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Energy Advisory Board is empowered to conduct the teleconference in a way that Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. conduct the meeting in a fashion that will, in the Chairman’s judgment, will, in the Chairman’s judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of Note: Members of the public are requested facilitate the orderly conduct of to contact the Office of the Secretary of business. During its teleconference, the Energy Advisory Board at (202) 586–7092 in business. During its meeting, the Board Board welcomes public comment. advance of the meeting (if possible) to welcomes public comment. Members of Members of the public will be heard expedite their entry to the Forrestal Building the public will be heard in the order in during the public comment period. The on the day of the meeting. which they sign up at the beginning of Board will make every effort to hear the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the meeting. The Board will make every views of all interested parties. Written Bruce Bornfleth, Secretary of Energy effort to hear the views of all interested comments may be submitted to Skila Advisory Board (AB–1), U.S. parties. Written comments may be Harris, Executive Director, Secretary of Department of Energy, 1000 submitted to Skila Harris, Executive Energy Advisory Board, AB–1, U.S. Independence Avenue, SW, Director, Secretary of Energy Advisory Department of Energy, 1000 Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–4040 Board, AB–1, U.S. Department of Independence Avenue, SW, or (202) 586–6279 (fax). Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue Washington, DC 20585. This notice is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SW, Washington, DC 20585. This notice being published less than 15 days before is being published less than 15 days the date of the meeting due to Purpose of the Board before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues that had to be The Secretary of Energy Advisory programmatic issues that had to be resolved prior to publication. Board (Board) reports directly to the resolved prior to publication. Minutes Secretary of Energy and is chartered Minutes under the Federal Advisory Committee Minutes and a transcript of the Act. The Board provides the Secretary of Minutes and a transcript of the teleconference will be available for Energy with essential independent teleconference will be available for public review and copying advice and recommendations on issues public review and copying approximately 30 days following the of national importance. On May 4, approximately 30 days following the meeting at the Freedom of Information selected members from two of the meeting at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E–190 Forrestal Board’s subcommittees will conduct a Public Reading Room, 1E–190 Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, second and final meeting to discuss the Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, between 9:00 AM Department’s policies and practices SW, Washington, DC, between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday related to foreign visitors. and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. Information on except Federal holidays. Information on the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Purpose of the SEAB Review of the the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board may also be found at the Board’s web Foreign Visitors Program may also be found at the Board’s web site, located at http://www.hr.doe.gov/ In March 1999, the Secretary of site, located at http://www.hr.doe.gov/ seab. Energy directed the Board to review and seab.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 19522 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
Issued at Washington, DC, on April 15, Tentative Agenda DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 1999. Rachel M. Samuel, Wednesday, May 12, 1999 Federal Energy Regulatory Deputy Advisory Committee Management 11:00 AM–11:10 AM Commission Officer. [Docket No. IC99±582±000; FERC±582] [FR Doc. 99–9956 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Welcome and Opening Remarks— SEAB Chairman Andrew Athy BILLING CODE 6450±01±P Proposed Information Collection and 11:10 AM–11:30 AM Request for Comments Overview of findings and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY April 15, 1999. recommendations—Dr. John AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Secretary of Energy Advisory Board; McTague Commission. Notice of Open Teleconference 11:30 AM–12:00 PM ACTION: Notice of proposed information Meeting Public Comment Period collection and request for comments. AGENCY: Department of Energy. 12:00 PM–12:30 PM SUMMARY: In compliance with the SUMMARY: This notice announces a Board review, comments and action— requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(a) of teleconference of the Secretary of SEAB Chairman Andrew Athy the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Energy Advisory Board. The Federal 12:30 PM (Pub. L. No. 104–13), the Federal Energy Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public Adjourn soliciting public comment on the notice of these meetings be announced This tentative agenda is subject to specific aspects of the information in the Federal Register. The purpose of change. collection described below. the teleconference is for the Board to DATES: Consideration will be given to discuss their findings and Public Participation comments submitted by June 21, 1999. recommendations related to the The Chairman of the Secretary of ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed Department’s policies and practices for collection of information can be foreign visitors. Energy Advisory Board is empowered to conduct the teleconference in a way that obtained from and written comments DATES: Wednesday, May 12, 1999, 11:00 may be submitted to the Federal Energy AM–12:30 PM, EST. will, in the Chairman’s judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael ADDRESSES: Members of the public can business. During its teleconference, the Miller, Office of the Chief Information participate by dialing 1–301–903–7073. Officer, CI–1, 888 First Street, NE., Board welcomes public comment. Public participation is welcomed, Washington, DC 20426. Members of the public will be heard however, the number of teleconference during the public comment period. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: lines is limited and available on a first Michael Miller may be reached by Board will make every effort to hear the come basis. telephone at (202) 208–1415, by fax at views of all interested parties. Written FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (202) 208–2425, and by e-mail at comments may be submitted to Skila Bruce Bornfleth, Secretary of Energy [email protected]. Harris, Executive Director, Secretary of Advisory Board (AB–1), U.S. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Energy Advisory Board, AB–1, US Department of Energy, 1000 Abstract: The information collected Independence Avenue, SW., Department of Energy, 1000 under the requirements of FERC–582 Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–4040 Independence Avenue, SW., ‘‘Electric Annual Charges’’ (OMB No. or (202) 586–6279 (fax). Washington, DC 20585. 1902–0132) is used by the Commission SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minutes to implement the statutory provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Purpose of the Board Minutes and a transcript of the of 1986, (Pub. L. 99–509) Title III, The Secretary of Energy Advisory teleconference will be available for Subtitle E, Section 3401. Congress Board (Board) reports directly to the public review and copying directed the Commission ‘‘to assess and Secretary of Energy and is chartered approximately 30 days following the collect fees and annual charges in any under the Federal Advisory Committee meeting at the Freedom of Information fiscal year in amount equal to all of the Act. The Board provides the Secretary of Public Reading Room, 1E–190 Forrestal costs incurred by the Commission in Energy with essential independent Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, that fiscal year.’’ The Commission advice and recommendations on issues SW., Washington, DC, between 9:00 AM implements a program of annual charges of national importance. On May 12, the and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday to be assessed against power marketing Board will conduct a teleconference to except Federal holidays. Information on agencies, electric utilities and electric discuss the Board’s findings and the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board cooperatives. The Commission recommendations on the Department’s may also be found at the Board’s web computes annual charges based on policies and practices related to foreign site, located at http://www.hr.doe.gov/ information of adjusted sales for resale and adjusted coordination of sales data. visitors. seab. In calculating annual charges, the Purpose of the SEAB Review of the Issued at Washington, DC, on April 15, Commission first determines the total Foreign Visitors Program 1999. costs of its electric regulatory program In March 1999, the Secretary of Rachel M. Samuel, and subtracts all electric regulatory Energy directed the Board to review and Deputy Advisory Committee Management filing fee collections to determine total provide advice, information, and Officer. collectible electric regulatory program recommendations on the Department’s [FR Doc. 99–9957 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] costs. The Commission then uses the policies and practices related to foreign data submitted under FERC–582 to visitors. BILLING CODE 6450±01±P determine the total volume of long-term
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.060 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19523 firm sales and transmission, and short- megawatt-hour to determine the annual Part 381 Sections 381.108 and 381.302 term sales and transmission and charges for public utilities, including and Part 382 Section 382.201(b). exchanges for all public utilities, power marketers. In addition the Action: The Commission is requesting including power marketers. The Commission uses company financial a three-year extension of the current Commission divides these volumes into information filed under the waiver expiration date, with no changes to the its collectible program costs to provisions to evaluate a company’s existing collection of data. determine the unit charge per megawatt- request for a waiver, or exemption, of hour for each category of sales. Finally, the obligation to pay a fee for an annual Burden Statement: Public reporting the Commission multiplies the sales charge. The Commission implements burden for this collection is estimated volume in each category for each public these filing requirements in the Code of as: utility by the relevant unit charge per Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR
Average Number of burden hours Total annual Number of respondents annually responses per per response burden hours respondent hours
(1) (2) (3) (1)×(2)×(3)
242 ...... 1 2 484
Estimated cost burden to respondents: ways to enhance the quality, utility and Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael 484 hours / 2,080 hours per year × clarity of the information to be Miller, Office of the Chief Information $109,889 per year = $25,570. The cost collected; and (4) ways to minimize the Officer, CI–1, 888 First Street NE, per respondent = $106. burden of the collection of information Washington, DC 20426. on those who are to respond, including The reporting burden includes the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: total time, effort, or financial resources the use of appropriate automated, Micheal Miller may be reached by expended to generate, maintain, retain, electronic, mechanical, or other telephone at (202) 208–1415, by fax at disclose, or provide the information technologies collection techniques or (202) 208–2425, and by e-mail at including: (1) reviewing instructions; (2) other forms of information technology [email protected]. developing, acquiring, installing, and e.g. permitting electronic submission of utilizing technology and systems for the responses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: purposes of collecting, validating, Linwood A. Watson, Jr. Abstract: The information collected verifying, processing, maintaining, Acting Secretary. under the requirements of FERC–583 disclosing and providing information; [FR Doc. 99–9917 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] ‘‘Annual Kilowatt Generating Report (3) adjusting the existing ways to BILLING CODE 6717±01±M (Annual Charges)’’ (OMB No. 1902– comply with any previously applicable 0136) is used by the Commission to instructions and requirements; (4) implement the statutory provisions of training personnel to respond to a DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Section 10(e) of the Federal Power Act collection of information; (5) searching (FPA), Part I, 16 USC 803(e) which data sources; (6) completing and Federal Energy Regulatory requires the Commission to collect reviewing the collection of information; Commission annual charges from hydropower and (7) transmitting, or otherwise [Docket No. IC99±583±000; FERC±583] licensees for, among other things, the disclosing the information. cost of administering Part I of the FPA The estimate of cost for respondents Proposed Information Collection and and for the use of United States dams. is based upon salaries for professional Request for Comments In addition, the Omnibus Budget and clerical support, as well as direct Reconciliation Act of 1986 (OBRA) and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs April 15, 1999. authorizes the Commission to ‘‘assess include all costs directly attributable to AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory and collect fees and annual charges in providing this information, such as Commission, DOE. any fiscal year in amounts equal to all administrative costs and the cost of ACTION: Notice of proposed information of the costs incurred by the Commission information technology. Indirect or collection and request for comments. in that fiscal year.’’ The information is overhead costs are costs incurred by an collected annually and used to organization in support of its mission. SUMMARY: In compliance with the determine the amount of annual charges These costs apply to activities which requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of to be assessed licensees for reimbursable benefit the whole organization rather the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 government administrative costs and for than any one particular function or (Pub. L. No. 104–13), the Federal Energy use of government dams. The activity. Regulatory Commission (Commission) is Commission implements these filing Comments are invited on: (1) Whether soliciting public comment on the requirements in the Code of Federal the proposed collection of information specific aspects of the information Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR is necessary for the proper performance collection described below. sections Part 11. Action The of the functions of the Commission, DATES: Consideration will be given to Commission is requesting a three-year including whether the information will comments submitted within 60 days of extension of the current expiration date, have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the publication of this notice. with no changes to the existing the agency’s estimate of the burden of ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed collection of data. the proposed collection of information, collection of information can be Burden Statement: Public reporting including the validity of the obtained from and written comments burden for this collection is estimated methodology and assumptions used; (3) may be submitted to the Federal Energy as:
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:37 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APN1 19524 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
Number of re- Average bur- Total annual Number of respondents annually sponses per den hours per burden hours (1) respondent response × × (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)
660 ...... 1 2 1,320
Estimated cost burden to respondents: e.g. permitting electronic submission of rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for 1,320 hours/2,080 hours per year × responses. assistance). $109,889 per year = $69,737. The cost Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Linwood A. Watson, Jr., per respondent = $106. Acting Secretary. Acting Secretary. The reporting burden includes the [FR Doc. 99–9918 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 99–9916 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] total time, effort, or financial resources BILLING CODE 6717±01±M BILLING CODE 6717±01±M expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory utilizing technology and systems for the Commission purposes of collection, validating, Commission verifying, processing, maintaining, [Docket Nos. CP97±315±000 et al., CP97± [Docket No. RP99±283±000] disclosing and providing information; 319±000, CP98±200±00, CP98±540±000] (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable Sabine Pipe Line Company; Notice of Independent Pipeline Company, ANR instructions and requirements; (4) Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff Pipeline Company, National Fuel Gas training personnel to respond to a April 15, 1999. Supply Corporation, Transcontinental collection of information; (5) searching Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of data sources; (6) completing and Take notice that on April 12, 1999, Availability of the Draft Environmental reviewing the collection of information; Sabine Pipe Line Company (Sabine) Impact Statement for the Proposed and (7) transmitting, or otherwise tendered for filing as part of its FERC Independence Pipeline and Market disclosing the information. Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. Link Expansion Projects 1, First Revised Sheet No. 248A, to The estimate of cost for respondents become effective May 15, 1999. April 15, 1999. is based upon salaries for professional The staff of the Federal Energy Sabine states that the purpose of this and clerical support, as well as direct Regulatory Commission (FERC or and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs filing is to modify the provisions of its Commission) has prepared this draft include all costs directly attributable to FERC Gas Tariff to specify the types of environmental impact statement (draft providing this information, such as discounts that are permissible and EIS) on natural gas pipeline facilities administrative costs and the cost for would not constitute a ‘‘material proposed by ANR Pipeline Company information technology. Indirect or deviation’’ requiring individual (ANR), Independence Pipeline overhead costs are costs incurred by an agreements to be filed with FERC. Company (Independence), National Fuel organization in support of its mission. Sabine states that copies of this filing Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), These costs apply to activities which are being mailed to its customers, state and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line benefit the whole organization rather commissions and other interested Corporation (Transco) in the above- than any one particular function or parties. referenced dockets. activity. Any person desiring to be heard or to The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National protest said filing should file a motion Comments are invited on: (1) Whether Environmental Policy Act. The staff to intervene or a protest with the the proposed collection of information concludes that approval of the proposed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is necessary for the proper performance projects, with appropriate mitigating of the functions of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC measures as recommended, would have including whether the information will 20426, in accordance with Sections limited adverse environmental impact. have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s The draft EIS also evaluates alternatives the agency’s estimate of the burden of Rules and Regulations. All such motions to the proposal, including system the proposed collection of information, or protests must be filed in accordance alternatives. including the validity of the with Section 154.210 of the The draft EIS assesses the potential methodology and assumptions used; (3) Commission’s Regulations. Protests will environmental effects of the ways to enhance the quality, utility and be considered by the Commission in construction and operation of the clarity of the information to be determining the appropriate action to be following facilities in Illinois, Indiana, collected; and (4) ways to minimize the taken, but will not serve to make Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New burden of the collection of information protestants parties to the proceedings. Jersey: Any person wishing to become a party on those who are to respond, including ANR the use of appropriate automated, must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the • electronic, mechanical, or other About 72.3 miles of high pressure Commission and are available for public technological collection techniques of pipeline looping in three segments, inspection in the Public Reference consisting of about 42.4 miles of 42- other forms of information technology Room. This filing may be viewed on the inch-diameter pipeline, and about 29.9 web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline;
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19525
• 15,000 horsepower (hp) of • Label one copy for the attention of investigated, and modifications are additional compression at one existing the Environmental Review and made to the draft EIS as necessary, a compressor station, and minor Compliance Branch I, PR–11.1. final EIS will be published and modifications to two existing stations; • Mail your comments so that they distributed by the staff. The final EIS and will be received in Washington, DC on will contain the staff’s responses to • Six new internal tool or ‘‘pig’’ or before June 4, 1999. timely comments received on the draft launchers along the new pipeline loops. In addition to written copies, we will EIS. hold ten public meetings in the project Comments will be considered by the Independence area to receive comments on the draft Commission but will not serve to make • About 397.4 miles of 36-inch- EIS. All meetings will begin at 7:00 pm, the commenter a party to the diameter high pressure pipeline; and are scheduled as follows: proceeding. Any person seeking to • become a party to the proceeding must 60,000 hp of compression at three Crown Point, Indiana: May 24, 1999 new compressor stations; file a motion to intervene pursuant to • Three new meter stations; Marion Education Center, St. Anthony’s Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of • Six taps to local distribution Hospital, 1201 South Main Street, Practice and Procedure (18 CFR companies; and Crown Point, Indiana, (219) 757–6398 385.214). Anyone may intervene in this • 28 mainline valves along the Buchanan, Michigan: May 25, 1999 proceeding based on this draft EIS. You pipeline. Buchanan High School Auditorium, 401 must file your request to intervene as National Fuel West Chicago Street, Buchanan, specified above. You do not need Michigan, (616) 695–8403 • Abandon, primarily by removal, intervenor status to have your various segments of three existing Tiffin, Ohio: May 24, 1999 comments considered. All intervenors and anyone providing pipelines within about 39.3 miles of Tiffin Columbian High School written comments on the draft EIS will right-of-way; and Auditorium, 300 South Monroe • receive a copy of the final EIS. If you do Minor modifications to remaining Street, Tiffin, OH, (419) 447–6331 not wish to comment on the draft EIS facilities along that section of right-of- Wooster, Ohio: May 25, 1999 but wish to receive a copy of the final way to maintain service to existing EIS, you must write to the Secretary of customers. Ohio Agriculture Research Development the Commission indicating this request. Center (Ohio State University), Fisher Transco Individuals who do not indicate their Auditorium, 1680 Madison Avenue, desire to receive the final EIS will • About 154.3 miles of high-pressure Wooster, Ohio, (330) 263–3738 receive an Executive Summary. pipeline looping, consisting of four Agencies, elected officials, local segments totaling 63.2 miles of 36- and North Canton, Ohio: May 24, 1999 governments, special interest groups, 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Hoover High School, Hoover Hall, 575 libraries, and media will receive a final Pennsylvania, six segments totaling 84.8 7th St., NE, North Canton, Ohio, (330) EIS. miles of 36- and 42-inch-diameter 497–5600 The draft EIS has been placed in the pipeline in New Jersey, and 6.3 miles of Butler, Pennsylvania: May 25, 1999 public files of the FERC and is available 36-inch-diameter replacement in New Intermediate High School, Auditorium, for public inspection at: Federal Energy Jersey; Regulatory Commission, Public • 62,400 hp of additional 110 Campus Lane, Butler, Pennsylvania, (724) 287–8721 Reference and Files Maintenance compression at three existing Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, compressor stations, and replace Ridgeway, Pennsylvania: May 24, 1999 Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–1371. impeller at one existing compressor A limited number of copies are station; Royal Inn, Boot Jack Road, Route 219 (South of Ridgeway), Ridgeway, available from the Public Reference and • Modification to three regulator Pennsylvania, (814) 773–3153 Files Maintenance Branch identified stations; and above. In addition, the draft EIS has • One new pig launcher. Williamsport, Pennsylvania: May 25, been mailed to Federal, state, and local The purpose of the proposed projects 1999 agencies; public interest groups; would be to transport natural gas Sheraton Inn, 100 Pine Street, individuals who requested a copy of the principally from expansion projects Williamsport, PA, (717) 327–8231 draft EIS; affected landowners; libraries; destined for the Chicago, Illinois area, to newspapers; and parties to this Leidy, Pennsylvania, and to markets in Phillipsburg, New Jersey: May 24, 1999 proceeding. the eastern United States. Holiday Inn, 1314 US Highway 22, Additional information about the Comment Procedures and Public Phillipsburg, New Jersey, (908) 454– proposed projects is available from Paul Meetings 9771 McKee in the Commission’s Office of External Affairs, at (202) 208–1088 or on Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey: May 25, Any person wishing to comment on the FERC website (www.ferc.fed.us) 1999 the draft EIS may do so. Please carefully using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link to information in follow these instructions to ensure that Holiday Inn, 283 Route 17 South, these docket numbers. Click on the your comments are received in time and Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, (202) ‘‘RIMS’’ link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ from the are properly recorded: 462–9600 RIMS menu, and follow the • Reference Docket No. CP97–315– Interested groups and individuals are instructions. For assistance with access 000 et al.; encouraged to attend and present oral to RIMS, the RIMS helpline can be • Send two copies of your comments comments on the environmental impact reached at (202) 208–2222. to: David Boergers, Secretary, Federal described in the draft EIS. Transcripts of Similarly, the ‘‘CIPS’’ link on the Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 the meetings will be prepared. FERC Internet website provides access First St., N.E., Room 1A, Washington, After these comments are reviewed, to the texts of formal documents issued DC 20426; and any significant new issues are by the Commission, such as orders,
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.063 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19526 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices notices, and rulemakings. From the streams all at once. The PrintSTEP operation of programs to prevent or FERC Internet website, click on the design does not change the existing eliminate unreasonable risks within the ‘‘CIPS’’ link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ from the environmental emissions or release States to health or the environment CIPS menu, and follow the instructions. standards for the printing industry. which are associated with a chemical For assistance with access the CIPS, the Instead, it changes the process of substance or mixture and with respect CIPS helpline can be reached at (202) implementing those standards to to which the Administrator is unable or 208–2474. improve efficiency, simplify is not likely to take action under this Lonwood A. Watson, Jr., requirements, and improve chapter for their prevention and Acting Secretary. environmental performance. Under the elimination.’’ This initiative addresses [FR Doc. 99–9912 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] EPA budget, funds are available to chemicals covered under TSCA and support States wishing to pilot test an BILLING CODE 6717±01±M complements, but does not duplicate, alternative system for regulating the Administrator’s actions under printing facilities. TSCA. These funds are being made PrintSTEP has been design to benefit available to States for priority needs not ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION State regulatory agencies, printers, and currently addressed by the AGENCY the community. The combined features Administrator under TSCA due to [OPPTS±00267; FRL±6066±8] of PrintSTEP create a system which resource constraints. integrates multiple interests and Notice of Availability of Grants and concerns, including a process that is III. Matching Requirements Selection Criteria for PrintSTEP Pilots transparent, business flexible, and States receiving TSCA section 28 reduces environmental impacts. Some grant funding are required to contribute AGENCY: Environmental Protection of the PrintSTEP benefits to be a minimum of 25% of the project cost. Agency (EPA). evaluated under the State PrintSTEP The State may utilize in-kind services to ACTION: Notice of availability of pilot projects include: Reducing the satisfy this requirement consistent with PrintSTEP grants. time and resources spent on the 40 CFR 31.24. administrative components of SUMMARY: To support States environmental regulation, providing a IV. Eligibility implementing PrintSTEP project pilots, multimedia plain language approach to In accordance with TSCA, eligible EPA plans to award three to five simplifying environmental applicants for purposes of funding cooperative agreements of requirements, providing early and under this grant program include the 50 approximately $100K each. To be meaningful public participation, States, the District of Columbia, the U.S. eligible for PrintSTEP grants, all projects enhancing environmental protection, Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of should have an impact on regulating and providing operational flexibility for Puerto Rico, Guam, the Canal Zone, simultaneous air, water and hazardous printing facilities. American Samoa, the Northern Mariana waste releases of chemicals or mixtures To assist in the implementation of Islands, or any territory or possession of covered by Toxic Substances Control PrintSTEP, three documents have been the United States. For convenience, the Act (TSCA) from printing facilities. developed. The first is a State Guide to term ‘‘State’’ in this notice refers to all DATES: The application must be PrintSTEP which provides the States eligible applicants. Local governments, submitted to EPA by close of business with what they need to know to tribes, private universities, private July 20, 1999. EPA anticipates awarding implement a PrintSTEP pilot program nonprofit entities, private businesses, the cooperative agreements no later than for their printers. The second, the Plain and individuals are not eligible. September 30, 1999. Language Workbook provides printers with simplified tools to allow them to V. Pre-Proposal Submission ADDRESSES: One original and four copies of the application must be identify their regulatory requirements. A. Scope The Workbook also includes pollution submitted to: Gina Bushong (2224A), The funding authority provides an Office of Compliance, Environmental prevention information specific to the printing sector to help printers reduce avenue for supporting cross-media Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., environmental projects such as Washington, DC 20460. their emissions. Finally, the Community Handbook, provides citizens an PrintSTEP. Applicants for PrintSTEP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina overview of environmental issues, pilot funding, should propose an Bushong (2224A), Office of Compliance, background on the printing industry, approach addressing the significant Environmental Protection Agency, 401 and suggestions for working with components to be evaluated under the M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; printers as part of PrintSTEP. PrintSTEP pilot project. Potential telephone: (202) 564–2242; e-mail It is strongly recommended that States applicants are strongly encouraged to address: [email protected]. requesting funding to pilot a PrintSTEP obtain and review copies of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: program become familiar with the three materials, discussed in Unit I. of this document, which have been developed I. Background documents described above prior to submitting an application. Copies of for printers, communities and State The Printers Simplified Total these documents may be obtained from regulators as part of the development of Environmental Partnership (PrintSTEP) Gina Bushong at the address under PrintSTEP prior to developing a pre- model program was developed by a ‘‘FOR FURTHER INFORMATION proposal. These materials may be diverse group of stakeholders as part of CONTACT.’’ obtained from the person listed under EPA’s Common Sense Initiative (CSI). ‘‘FOR FURTHER INFORMATION The PrintSTEP program, which States II. Statutory Authority CONTACT.’’ EPA will evaluate each will pilot, is designed to result in a The funding authority for making application with regard to its single-enforceable agreement that these cooperative agreements is section applicability to the key principles in the regulates a printing facility’s releases of 28 of TSCA. The authority provides that PrintSTEP design. These key elements chemicals or mixtures covered by TSCA ‘‘the Administrator may make grants to are outlined in the selection criteria to the air, water, and hazardous waste States for the establishment and section of this notice. Pre-proposals
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.065 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19527 should be no more than 15 pages in ii. Discussion of approaches to which are competitively awarded on the length. Pre-proposals should be as providing actual notice of printing basis of selection criteria, are considered complete as possible since EPA may facility permitting to the public. rules for the purpose of the make selections for funding based on iii. A proposed method for identifying Congressional Review Act (CRA). (The the pre-proposals without further the relevant community affected by a PrintSTEP program itself is not consultations with the applicants. printing facility. considered a rule.) The CRA, 5 U.S.C. iv. Identification and discussion of 801 et seq., as added by the Small B. Selection Criteria any environmental justice concerns Business Regulatory Enforcement Include: within the geographic area proposed for Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 1. Delegation of program authority. the pilot. generally provides that before a rule The pre-proposal should include a v. A method for providing technical may take effect, the agency statement confirming that the applicant assistance to the community. promulgating the rule must submit a has the legal authority to implement the 5. Printing facility support. rule report, which includes a copy of Federal program for each environmental Information should include: the rule, to each House of the Congress media covered by their proposed i. A discussion of technical assistance and to the Comptroller General of the PrintSTEP project. In the case where all available to businesses seeking United States. EPA will submit a report media are not covered in the pre- information about source reduction/ containing this rule and other required proposal, an explanation should be pollution prevention opportunities. information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. provided for any omissions. ii. Efforts to provide compliance House of Representatives, and the 2. Stakeholder involvement. A plan assistance targeted to small businesses. Comptroller General of the United for involvement of all stakeholder 6. Evaluation. The applicant must States prior to publication of the rule in groups (industry, environmental and agree to work cooperatively with EPA, the Federal Register. This rule is not a environmental justice groups, labor, the PrintSTEP development team, and ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. regulators, etc.) in the design of the the other grantees to develop a final 804(2). State PrintSTEP program should be strategy for evaluating the PrintSTEP submitted. If possible, letters of support pilots. This will require participation in List of Subjects from stakeholder groups should be at least one meeting of all awardees and Environmental protection, Business included. the PrintSTEP development team to be and industry, Grants—environmental 3. Regulatory components/ held in Washington, DC. A copy of the protection, Printing. coordination. A proposed design draft evaluation strategy template providing a modular, multimedia should be requested from the person Dated: April 9, 1999. regulatory system for printers who listed under ‘‘FOR FURTHER Elaine Stanley, volunteer for this pilot, including a INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ process for coordination among various 7. Administrative components—i. A Director, Office of Compliance. levels of government should be proposed staffing plan for project. provided. The design should include: ii. Compliance and enforcement [FR Doc. 99–10004 Filed 4–21–99; 8:45 am] i. Description of the regulatory program including a description of BILLING CODE 6560±50±F program and requirements covered by resources. the State’s PrintSTEP program, iii. A proposed schedule for including a discussion of which media implementing the pilot. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION programs are included and a discussion iv. A breakdown of costs should be AGENCY of how the level of regulatory provided (Note: States must provide a requirements is directly related to the minimum of 25% of the total project [OPP±00594; FRL 6075±8] level of wastes generated. costs). ii. Description of how the program v. Completed grant application forms. Notice of Availability of Pesticide Data will cover new and/or existing printing The Federal application forms may be Submitters List facilities, including a process for obtained from the person listed under AGENCY: Environmental Protection printing facility modifications. ‘‘FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Agency (EPA). iii. Discussion of the type of printing CONTACT.’’ facilities expected to be included in the ACTION: Notice. State’s PrintSTEP pilot program (facility VI. Application Process size, printing process type etc.). The One original and four copies of the SUMMARY: This notice announces the PrintSTEP pilots should only include application must be submitted to EPA at availability of an updated version of the printing facilities that wish to volunteer the address under ‘‘FOR FURTHER Pesticide Data Submitters List which to be part of the project. INFORMATION CONTACT,’’ by close supersedes and replaces all previous iv. Geographic location of proposed of business July 20, 1999. EPA versions. PrintSTEP pilot (targeting a pilot to a anticipates awarding the cooperative FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By location where investigations are agreements no later than September 30, mail: John Jamula, Office of Pesticide already underway to evaluate a 1999. All non-awarded applicants will Programs (7502C), Environmental community’s cumulative pollution be notified at that time. This solicitation Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, exposure will be judged favorably). is authorized under the information Washington, DC 20460. Office location 4. Public involvement. The key collection request, Office of for commercial courier delivery, aspects of the program design to Management and Budget (OMB) control telephone number, and e-mail address: enhance public involvement should be number 2030–0020. Rm. 226, Crystal Mall No. 2, 1921 described including: i. A description of the proposed VII. Congressional Review Act Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA information repository for making Under the Agency’s current 22202, (703) 305–6426; e-mail: printing facility information available to interpretation of the definition of a [email protected]. the public. ‘‘rule,’’ grant solicitations such as this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 19528 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
I. Introduction ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency, Region IV, Atlanta Federal AGENCY Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW., Atlanta, GA The Pesticide Data Submitters List is 30303–3104. Telephone: (404) 562– a compilation of names and addresses of [PB±402404±AL; FRL±6072±1] 9171, e-mail address: beldin- registrants who wish to be notified and Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target [email protected]. offered compensation for use of their Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: data. It was developed to assist pesticide State of Alabama's Authorization I. Background applicants in fulfilling their obligation Application as required by sections 3(c)(1)(f) and On October 28, 1992, the Housing and 3(c)(2)(D) of the Federal Insecticide, AGENCY: Environmental Protection Community Development Act of 1992, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Agency (EPA). Pub. L. 102-550, became law. Title X of and 40 CFR part 152 subpart E regarding ACTION: Notice; request for comments that statute was the Residential Lead- ownership of data used to support and opportunity for public hearing. Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of registration. This notice announces the 1992. That Act amended TSCA (15 availability of an updated version of the SUMMARY: On October 5, 1998, the State U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) by adding Title IV Pesticide Data Submitters List which of Alabama submitted an application for (15 U.S.C. 2681-92), entitled ‘‘Lead supersedes and replaces all previous EPA approval to administer and enforce Exposure Reduction.’’ versions. training and certification requirements, Section 402 of TSCA authorizes and training program accreditation directs EPA to promulgate final II. Ordering Information requirements, and work practice regulations governing lead-based paint standards for lead-based paint activities activities in target housing, public and Microfiche copies of the document are in target housing and child-occupied commercial buildings, bridges and other available from the National Technical facilities under section 402 of the Toxic structures. Those regulations are to Information Service (NTIS) ATTN: Substances Control Act (TSCA). This ensure that individuals engaged in such Order Desk 5285 Port Royal Road notice announces the receipt of activities are properly trained, that Springfield, VA 22161. Telephone: 1– Alabama’s application, provides a 45– training programs are accredited, and 800–553–6847. When requesting a day public comment period, and that individuals engaged in these document from NTIS, please provide its provides an opportunity to request a activities are certified and follow name and NTIS Publication Number public hearing on the application. documented work practice standards. (PB). The NTIS Publication for this Alabama has provided a certification Under section 404, a State may seek version of the Pesticide Data Submitters that its program meets the requirements authorization from EPA to administer List is PB 99–131963. for approval of a State program under and enforce its own lead-based paint activities program. III. Electronic Access section 404 of TSCA. Therefore, pursuant to section 404, the program is On August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45777) (FRL–5389–9), EPA promulgated final The Pesticide Data Submitters List is deemed authorized as of the date of TSCA section 402/404 regulations available on EPA’s World Wide Web submission. If EPA finds that the governing lead-based paint activities in (WWW) site on the Internet. The program does not meet the requirements for approval of a State program, EPA target housing and child-occupied Internet address of EPA’s web site is facilities (a subset of public buildings). www.epa.gov. will disapprove the program, at which time a notice will be issued in the Those regulations are codified at 40 CFR To Access the Data Submitters List Federal Register and the Federal part 745, and allow both States and from the EPA Home Page, select program will take effect in Alabama. Indian Tribes to apply for program ‘‘Databases and Software.’’ From the authorization. Pursuant to section next page, select ‘‘Media Specific.’’ DATES: Comments on the authorization 404(h) of TSCA, EPA is to establish the application must be received on or The Pesticide Data Submitters List Federal program in any State or Tribal before June 7, 1999. Public hearing Nation without its own authorized may be found by searching for the requests must be received on or before keywords ‘‘datasubmitterslist’’ from the program in place by August 31, 1998. May 5, 1999. States and Tribes that choose to apply EPA Home Page, or may be accessed ADDRESSES: Submit all written for program authorization must submit directly on the EPA web site, by going comments and/or requests for a public a complete application to the directly to the address listed below. hearing identified by docket number appropriate Regional EPA Office for Note that this address is case sensitive. ‘‘PB–402404–AL’’ (in duplicate) to: review. Those applications will be http://www.epa.gov./opppmsd1/ Environmental Protection Agency, reviewed by EPA within 180 days of datasubmitterslist/index.html Region IV, Air, Pesticides and Toxics receipt of the complete application. To Management Division, Atlanta Federal receive EPA approval, a State or Tribe List of Subjects Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW., Atlanta, GA must demonstrate that its program is at 30303–3104. Environmental protection, least as protective of human health and Comments, data, and requests for a Administrative practice and procedure, the environment as the Federal program, public hearing may also be submitted and provides for adequate enforcement Pesticides and pests, Reporting and electronically to: beldin- recordkeeping requirements. (section 404(b) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. [email protected]. Follow the 2684(b)). EPA’s regulations (40 CFR part Dated: April 8, 1999. instructions under Unit IV. of this 745, subpart Q) provide the detailed document. No information claimed to be Richard D. Schmitt, requirements a State or Tribal program Confidential Business Information (CBI) must meet in order to obtain EPA Acting Director, Information Resources and should be submitted through e-mail. Services Division, Office of Pesticide approval. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Programs. John A State may choose to certify that its A. Beldin-Quinones, Project Officer, Air, lead-based paint activities program [FR Doc. 99–10002 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Pesticides and Toxics Management meets the requirements for EPA BILLING CODE 6560±50±F Division, Environmental Protection approval, by submitting a letter signed
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.136 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19529 by the Governor or Attorney General equivalent to standards in the Federal Comments and information not stating that the program meets the regulations, but also include filing a claimed as CBI at the time of submission requirements of section 404(b) of TSCA. project notification in writing, with fees, will be placed in the public record. Upon submission of such certification prior to commencement of any lead- Electronic comments can be sent letter, the program is deemed based paint abatement activity. directly to EPA at: authorized. This authorization becomes The State program provides for [email protected] ineffective, however, if EPA disapproves establishing reciprocity arrangements Electronic comments must be the application. with other states and/or Indian Tribes submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the Pursuant to section 404(b) of TSCA, with authorized programs, and provides use of special characters and any form EPA provides notice and an opportunity for outreach activities to educate the of encryption. Comments and data will for a public hearing on a State or Tribal public and the regulated community. also be accepted on disks in program application before authorizing Costs are supported by Federal grants as WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file the program. Therefore, by this notice well as fees assessed for the certification format. All comments and data in EPA is soliciting public comment on of firms, accreditation of training electronic form must be identified by whether Alabama’s application meets programs and individuals, and the the docket control number ‘‘PB– the requirements for EPA approval. This notification of projects. 402404–AL.’’ Electronic comments on notice also provides an opportunity to Alabama’s rules provide for the this document may be filed online at request a public hearing on the suspension and revocation or many Federal Depository Libraries. application. If a hearing is requested modification of training provider Information claimed as CBI should not and granted, EPA will issue a Federal accreditations, training course be submitted electronically. Register notice announcing the date, accreditation, and firm and individual V. Regulatory Assessment time, and place of the hearing. EPA’s certifications. final decision on the application will be Requirements published in the Federal Register. III. Federal Overfiling A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders II. State Program Description Summary TSCA section 404(b) (15 U.S.C. EPA’s actions on State or Tribal lead- The following summary of Alabama’s 2684(b)) makes it unlawful for any based paint activities program proposed program has been provided by person to violate, or fail or refuse to applications are informal adjudications, the applicant: comply with, any requirement of an not rules. Therefore, the requirements of The State of Alabama, through the approved State or Tribal program. the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 Alabama Department of Public Health Therefore, EPA reserves the right to U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Congressional (ADPH) and Safe State of the University exercise its enforcement authority under Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), of Alabama, will implement and TSCA against a violation of, or a failure Executive Order 12866 (‘‘Regulatory administer the lead-based paint training, or refusal to comply with, any Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735, accreditation, and certification program, requirement of an authorized State or October 4, 1993), and Executive Order based on authority provided by the Tribal program. 13045 (‘‘Protection of Children from Alabama Legislature during ratification IV. Public Record and Electronic Environmental Health Risks and Safety of ‘‘The Alabama Lead Reduction Act of Submissions Risks,’’ 62 FR 1985, April 23, 1997), do 1997.’’ not apply to this action. This action The Alabama regulations are The official record for this action, as does not contain any Federal mandates, applicable to all persons engaged in well as the public version, has been and therefore is not subject to the lead-based paint activities in target established under docket control requirements of the Unfunded Mandates housing and child-occupied facilities. number ‘‘PB-402404-AL.’’ Copies of this Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). In The State certification program notice, the State of Alabama’s addition, this action does not contain requirements include: accreditation of authorization application, and all any information collection requirements lead-based paint activities training comments received on the application and therefore does not require review or providers and training courses; are available for inspection in the approval by the Office of Management certification of firms and individuals Region IV office, from 8 a.m. to 4:45 and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork (inspectors, risk assessors, supervisors, p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). project designers, and abatement legal holidays. The docket is located at B. Executive Order 12875 workers) conducting lead-based paint EPA Region IV Library, Environmental inspections, risk assessments, or Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Under Executive Order 12875, abatement in target housing and child- Center, 9th Floor, 61 Forsyth St., SW., entitled ‘‘Enhancing Intergovernmental occupied facilities; and required work Atlanta, GA. Partnerships’’ (58 FR 58093, October 28, practice standards for lead-based paint Commenters are encouraged to 1993), EPA may not issue a regulation activities. structure their comments so as not to that is not required by statute and that Additional requirements include: (1) contain information for which creates a mandate upon a State, local, or Principal instructors and guest Confidential Business Information (CBI) Tribal government, unless the Federal instructors teaching hands-on or work claims would be made. However, any government provides the funds practice standards to successfully information claimed as CBI must be necessary to pay the direct compliance complete the training course to be marked ‘‘confidential,’’ ‘‘CBI,’’ or with costs incurred by those governments. If taught; (2) training programs to notify some other appropriate designation, and the mandate is unfunded, EPA must Safe State of the University of Alabama a commenter submitting such provide to OMB a description of the prior to conducting a training course; information must also prepare a extent of EPA’s prior consultation with and (3) training course accreditation to nonconfidential version (in duplicate) representatives of affected State, local, be contingent on completion of a that can be placed in the public record. and Tribal governments, the nature of satisfactory course audit. Any information so marked will be their concerns, copies of any written Work practice standards required for handled in accordance with the communications from the governments, lead-based paint activities are procedures contained in 40 CFR part 2. and a statement supporting the need to
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.124 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19530 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices issue the regulation. In addition, Dated: April 7, 1999, Title: Suggested Guidelines for Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to A. Stanley Meiburg, Petitions for Ruling Under Section 253 develop an effective process permitting Regional Administrator, Region IV. of the Communications Act. Form Number: N/A. elected officials and other [FR Doc. 99–10003 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] representatives of State, local, and Type of Review: Extension of a BILLING CODE 6560±50±F Tribal governments ‘‘to provide currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other for- meaningful and timely input in the profit entities; and State, local or tribal development of regulatory proposals FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS government. containing significant unfunded COMMISSION Number of Respondents: 80. mandates.’’ Today’s action does not Estimated Time per Response: 78.5 create an unfunded Federal mandate on Notice of Public Information hours (avg). State, local, or Tribal governments. This Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Frequency of Response: On occasion action does not impose any enforceable Federal Communications Commission reporting requirement. duties on these entities. Accordingly, Total Annual Burden: 6,280 hours. the requirements of section 1(a) of April 14, 1999. Total Annual Costs: None. Executive Order 12875 do not apply to SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Needs and Uses: Section 253 of the this action. Commissions, as part of its continuing Communications Act of 1934, as effort to reduce paperwork burden amended requires the Commission, with C. Executive Order 13084 invites the general public and other certain important exceptions, to Federal agencies to take this preempt the enforcement of any state or Under Executive Order 13084, opportunity to comment on the local statute or regulation, or other state entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination following information collection, as or local legal requirement (to the extent with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (63 FR required by the Paperwork Reduction necessary) that prohibits or has the 27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An effect of prohibiting the ability of any issue a regulation that is not required by agency may not conduct or sponsor a entity to provide any interstate or statute, that significantly or uniquely collection of information unless it intrastate telecommunications service. affects the communities of Indian tribal displays a currently valid control The Commission’s consideration of governments, and that imposes number. No person shall be subject to preemption begins with the filing of a substantial direct compliance costs on any penalty for failing to comply with petition by an aggrieved party. The those communities, unless the Federal a collection of information subject to the petition is placed on public notice and government provides the funds Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that commented on by others. The necessary to pay the direct compliance does not display a valid control number. Commission issued a Public Notice that costs incurred by the Tribal Comments are requested concerning (a) establishes guidelines relating to its governments. If the mandate is whether the proposed collection of consideration of preemption petitions. unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in information is necessary for the proper The Commission expects petitioners a separately identified section of the performance of the functions of the and commenters to provide it with preamble to the rule, a description of Commission, including whether the relevant information sufficient to the extent of EPA’s prior consultation information shall have practical utility; describe the legal regime involved in the with representatives of affected Tribal (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s controversy and to establish the factual governments, a summary of the nature burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance basis necessary for decision. The of their concerns, and a statement the quality, utility, and clarity of the Commission will use the information to supporting the need to issue the information collected; and (d) ways to discharge its statutory mandate relating to the preemption of state or local regulation. In addition, Executive Order minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, statutes or other state or local legal 13084 requires EPA to develop an including the use of automated requirements. effective process permitting elected and collection techniques or other forms of other representatives of Indian tribal Federal Communications Commission. information technology. governments ‘‘to provide meaningful Magalie Roman Salas, DATES: and timely input in the development of Written comments should be Secretary. submitted on or before June 21, 1999. If regulatory policies on matters that [FR Doc. 99–9900 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] you anticipate that you will be significantly or uniquely affect their BILLING CODE 6712±01±P submitting comments, but find it communities.’’ Today’s action does not difficult to do so within the period of significantly or uniquely affect the time allowed by this notice, you should communities of Indian tribal FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS advise the contact listed below as soon COMMISSION governments. This action does not as possible. involve or impose any requirements that [DA 99±474; Report No. AUC±99±24±B ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Les affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the (Auction No. 24)] Smith, Federal Communications requirements of section 3(b) of Commission, Room 1–A804, 445 12th Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Executive Order 13084 do not apply to Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554 or Auction; Notice and Filing this action. via the Internet to [email protected]. Requirements for Auction of Phase II Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2682, 2684. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 220 MHz Service Spectrum Scheduled for June 8, 1999; Minimum Opening List of Subjects additional information or copies of the information collections contact Les Bids and Other Procedural Issues Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the Environmental protection, Hazardous AGENCY: Federal Communications Internet at [email protected]. substances, Lead, Reporting and Commission. recordkeeping requirements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACTION: Notice. OMB Control Number: 3060–0859.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.124 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19531
SUMMARY: This is a summary of a Public Attachment H (Summary Listing of Commission restructured the licensing Notice (DA 99–474) released on March Documents from the Commission and framework that governs the 220 MHz 8, 1999, establishing minimum opening the Wireless Telecommunications Service. Site-specific licensing, used in bids and procedures for the upcoming Bureau Addressing Application of the the Phase I 220 MHz Service, was auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Anti-Collusion Rules); and Attachment I replaced with a geographic-based Spectrum (Auction No. 24), in (Auction Seminar Registration Form). system in the Phase II 220 MHz Service, accordance with the Balanced Budget which is the subject of the upcoming Synopsis Act of 1997. auction. This geographic-based DATES: Auction No. 24 is scheduled to I. Introduction licensing methodology is similar to that begin on June 8, 1999. 1. The Federal Communications used in other commercial mobile radio ADDRESSES: See the text of the Public Commission (‘‘FCC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) services (‘‘CMRS’’). The Commission Notice and attachments for information will hold an auction of 225 licenses to developed three types of geographic regarding important addresses. operate in the 220–222 MHz band. This area licenses for the Phase II 220 MHz FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: auction offers 216 100-kHz licenses in Service. The first type of license was Media Contact: Meribeth McCarrick, 87 Economic Areas (EAs), and nine 150- based upon Economic Areas (EAs), (202) 418–0654. kHz licenses in four Economic Area developed by the Bureau of Economic Auctions Division: Ruby Hough, Groups (EAGs) designated for the Phase Analysis of the U.S. Department of Operations; Bob Reagle, Auctions II 220 MHz auction. The number of 100- Commerce (60 FR 13114, March 10, Analysis; or Anne Napoli, Legal, (202) kHz licenses available in each EA varies 1995). In addition, the Commission 418–0660. from one to five, while the number of created three EA-type license areas to Commercial Wireless Division: Scott 150-kHz licenses available in each EAG cover the following United States Mackoul, (202) 418–0620. varies from two to three. No nationwide territories: American Samoa; the U.S. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The licenses are available in this auction. A Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico; and complete text of this Public Notice, list of each license that will be available Guam and the Northern Mariana including nine attachments that do not in Auction No. 24, along with its Islands. The second type of license, appear in this summary, is available for upfront payment and minimum opening known as Economic Area Groupings inspection and copying Monday bid, is included in the full text of this (EAGs), included 6 groups of EAs, through Thursday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Public Notice as Attachment A (see which collectively encompassed all of and Friday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., in the ‘‘Supplementary Information,’’ supra, the EA and EA-type licenses. Finally, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s for further details). the Commission designed three Public Reference Room (Room 5608), 2. Auction Date: The auction will nationwide licenses, each of which 2025 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. commence on June 8, 1999. The initial encompassed all six EAGs. Service and 20554, and on the Commission’s World schedule for bidding will be announced operational requirements for the Phase Wide Web page, located at: http:// by Public Notice at least one week II 220 MHz Service are contained in Part www.fcc.gov/wtb/auctions/auc24/ before the start of the auction. Unless 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR auc24.html. Please note that the otherwise announced, bidding will be Part 90. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s conducted on each business day until Pursuant to the rules adopted in the Public Reference Room will cease bidding has stopped on all licenses. 220 MHz Third Report and Order (62 FR operations at the M Street location on 3. Bidding Methodology: 15978, April 3, 1997) and the 220 MHz Monday, April 26, 1999, and will Simultaneous multiple round bidding. Memorandum Opinion and Order on reopen on Monday, May 3, 1999 at the Bidding will be permitted only from Reconsideration (63 FR 306611, June 12, Commission’s new headquarters, remote locations, either electronically 1998), the Commission commenced the located at 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., (by computer) or telephonically. Pre- auction of 908 Phase II 220 MHz Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. Auction Dates and Deadlines: licenses on September 15, 1998. This • Auction Seminar: April 21, 1999. auction closed on October 22, 1998. 20554. Copies also may be purchased • from the Commission’s copy contractor, Short Form Application (FCC Form Forty-four winning bidders won a total 175): May 10, 1999; 5:30 p.m. ET. International Transcription Services, • of 693 licenses. On November 24, 1998, Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th Street, N.W., Upfront Payments (via wire the Bureau released a Public Notice (DA Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 857– transfer): May 24, 1999; 6:00 p.m. ET. 98–2386) (63 FR 67685, December 12, • Orders for Remote Bidding 3800. The nine attachments that do not 1998) (‘‘Phase II 220 MHz Service Public Software: May 25, 1999. Notice’’), announcing that 225 licenses appear in this summary, but are • Mock Auction June 4, 1999. available as described above, are: Telephone Contacts: now available for auction will be Attachment A (Summary of Licenses to • FCC National Call Center: (888) included in Auction No. 24. be Auctioned, Upfront Payments, CALL–FCC ((888) 225–5322) or (717) B. Due Diligence Minimum Opening Bids); Attachment B 338–2888 (direct dial). For general (List of Cases Pending Before the auction information and seminar 5. Potential bidders are reminded that Commission Involving Non-Nationwide registration, press option #2 at the there are a number of incumbent Phase Phase I 220 MHz Licensees); prompt. Hours: 8 a.m.–5:30 p.m. ET, I 220 MHz licensees already licensed Attachment C (Guidelines for Monday through Friday. and operating on frequencies that will Completing FCC Forms 175 and 159 and • FCC Technical Support Hotline: be subject to the upcoming auction. Exhibits); Attachment D (Auction- (202) 414–1250 (voice), (202) 414–1255 Such incumbents must be protected Specific Instructions for FCC (text telephone (TTY)). Hours of service: from harmful interference by Phase II Remittance Advice (FCC Form 159)); 8 a.m.–6 p.m. ET, Monday through 220 MHz licensees in accordance with Attachment E (Electronic Filing and Friday. the Commission’s Rules. See 47 CFR Review of FCC Form 175); Attachment 90.763. These limitations may restrict F (Accessing the FCC Network Using A. Background the ability of such geographic area Windows 95/98); Attachment G (FCC 4. In the 220 MHz Third Report and licensees to use certain portions of the Remote Bidding Software Order Form); Order (62 FR 15978, April 3, 1997), the electromagnetic spectrum or provide
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.013 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19532 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices service to certain areas in their Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th C. Participation geographic license areas. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 15. Those wishing to participate in 6. In addition, potential bidders while an additional courtesy copy the auction must: seeking licenses for geographic areas should be sent to Scott A. Mackoul, • Electronically submit a short form that are near the Canadian border Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial application (FCC Form 175) by May 10, should be aware that the use of some or Wireless Division, Wireless 1999. all of the channels they acquire in the Telecommunications Bureau, Federal • auction could be restricted as a result of Submit a sufficient upfront Communications Commission, 445 12th payment and an FCC Remittance Advice a future agreement with Canada on the Street, S.W., Room 4–A230, use of 220–222 MHz spectrum in the Form (FCC Form 159) by May 24, 1999. Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties filing • Comply with all provisions border area. additions or corrections should include 7. Potential bidders should also be outlined in the Bidder Information the internal reference number of this Package. aware that certain applications Public Notice (DA 99–474) on their (including those for modification), submissions. Parties are also reminded D. Prohibition of Collusion waiver requests, petitions for that some of the proceedings are 16. To ensure the competitiveness and reconsideration and applications for restricted proceedings governed by the integrity of the auction process, the review are pending before the Commission’s ex parte rules. Commission’s Rules prohibit applicants Commission that relate to particular Accordingly, any submission filed for the same geographic license area incumbent non-nationwide 220 MHz pursuant to this Public Notice that is from communicating with each other licensees. In addition, the decisions directed to the merits or outcome of any during the auction about bids, bidding reached in the 220 MHz proceeding are restricted proceeding must be served on strategies, or settlements. This the subject of a judicial appeal and may all parties to that restricted proceeding. prohibition begins with the filing of be the subject of additional See generally 47 CFR 1.1200–1.1216. reconsideration or appeal. See, e.g., short-form applications, and ends on the 12. Additional information regarding down payment due date. Bidders PLMRS Narrowband Corp., et al. v. matters identified in Attachment B is Federal Communications Commission, competing for the same license(s) are available to the public. Licensing No. 92–1432, (D.C. Cir., filed September encouraged not to use the same information is contained in the 18, 1992). We note that resolution of individual as an authorized bidder. A Commission’s licensing database, which these matters could have an impact on violation of the anti-collusion rule could is available for inspection in the the availability of spectrum for EA and occur if an individual acts as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s EAG licensees. In addition, while the authorized bidder for two or more Public Reference Rooms, located at 2025 Commission will continue to act on competing applicants, and conveys M Street, N.W., Room 5608, pending applications, requests and information concerning the substance of Washington, D.C. 20554, and 1270 petitions, some of these matters may not bids or bidding strategies between the Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325. In be resolved by the time of the auction. bidders he/she is authorized to 8. Potential bidders are solely a future Public Notice, the Bureau will represent in the auction. Also, if the responsible for investigating and provide the new location of the authorized bidders are different evaluating the degree to which such Commission’s licensing database in the individuals employed by the same pending matters may affect spectrum Portals building. In addition, copies of organization (e.g., law firm or consulting availability in areas where they seek EA the pleadings are available for public firm), a violation could similarly occur. or EAG licenses. inspection only in the Gettysburg Public At a minimum, in such a case, 9. To aid potential bidders, Reference Room. applicants should certify that Attachment B to this Public Notice lists 13. In addition, potential bidders may precautionary steps have been taken to matters pending before the Commission search for information (but not the prevent communication between that relate to licenses or applications for pleadings) regarding incumbent 220 authorized bidders and that applicants the 220 MHz service. The Commission MHz licensees on the World Wide Web and their bidding agents will comply makes no representations or guarantees at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb. In with the anti-collusion rule. The that the listed matters are the only particular, information can be accessed Bureau, however, cautions that merely pending matters that could affect by downloading databases by selecting filing a certifying statement as part of an spectrum availability in the 220–222 ‘‘WTB Database Files’’ (http:// application will not outweigh specific MHz band. www.fcc.gov/wtb/databases.html), or evidence that collusive behavior has 10. Parties may submit additions or searching on-line by selecting ‘‘Search occurred nor will it preclude the corrections to the list, provided such WTB Databases’’ (http:// initiation of an investigation when additions or corrections are filed with gullfoss.fcc.gov:8080/cgi-bin/ws.exe/ warranted. In Auction No. 24, for the Commission within ten (10) beta/genmen/index.hts). Any telephone example, the rule would apply to any business days from release of this Public inquires regarding these matters should applicants bidding for the same EA or Notice. Such submissions should be be directed to the Technical Support EAG. Therefore, applicants that apply to limited to identifying pleadings or Hotline at (202) 414–1250 (V) or (202) bid for ‘‘all markets’’ would be papers previously filed with the 414–1255 (text telephone (TTY)). precluded from communicating with all Commission. No new pleadings or 14. The Commission makes no other applicants after filing the FCC arguments on the merits will be representations or guarantees regarding Form 175. However, applicants may accepted as explicitly provided by the accuracy or completeness of enter into bidding agreements before Commission Rules. information that has been provided by filing their FCC Form 175 short-form 11. Corrections and additions must be incumbent licensees and incorporated applications, as long as they disclose the filed with the Office of the Secretary, into the database. Potential bidders are existence of the agreement(s) in their Federal Communications Commission, strongly encouraged to physically Form 175 short-form applications. By 445 12th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. inspect any sites located in or near the signing their FCC Form 175 short-form 20554. One copy of each submission geographic area for which they plan to applications, applicants are certifying should also be sent to International bid. their compliance with Section 1.2105(c).
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.014 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19533
In addition, Section 1.65 of the also be thoroughly familiar with the investors. Common warning signals of Commission’s Rules requires an procedures, terms and conditions fraud include the following: applicant to maintain the accuracy and contained in the 220 MHz Third Report • The first contact is a ‘‘cold call’’ completeness of information furnished and Order (62 FR 15978, April 3, 1997); from a telemarketer, or is made in in its pending application and to notify 220 MHz Memorandum Opinion and response to an inquiry prompted by a the Commission within 30 days of any Order on Reconsideration (63 FR radio or television infomercial. substantial change that may be of 306611, June 12, 1998); 220 MHz Fourth • The offering materials used to decisional significance to that Report and Order (62 FR 46211, invest in the venture appear to be application. Thus, Section 1.65 requires September 2, 1997); and 220 MHz Fifth targeted at IRA funds, for example by an auction applicant to notify the Report and Order (63 FR 49291, including all documents and papers Commission of any violation of the anti- September 15, 1998). Potential bidders needed for the transfer of funds maintained in IRA accounts. collusion rules upon learning of such must also familiarize themselves with • violation. Bidders are therefore required Part 1, Subpart Q of the Commission’s The amount of the minimum investment is less than $25,000. to make such notification to the Rules concerning Competitive Bidding • Commission immediately upon Proceedings. The sales representative makes verbal representations that: (a) the discovery. 19. The terms contained in the Internal Revenue Service (‘‘IRS’’), Commission’s Rules, relevant orders, E. Bidder Information Package Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’), Public Notices and bidder information Securities and Exchange Commission 17. No Bidder Information Package package are not negotiable. The will be provided for Auction No. 24. (‘‘SEC’’), FCC, or other government Commission may amend or supplement agency has approved the investment; (b) The Commission provided a Bidder the information contained in our Public Information Package for Auction No. 18, the investment is not subject to state or Notices or the bidder information federal securities laws; or (c) the the initial auction of Phase II 220 MHz package at any time, and will issue Service spectrum. Although the majority investment will yield unrealistically Public Notices to convey any new or high short-term profits. In addition, the of the specific software and technical supplemental information to bidders. It information contained therein is no offering materials often include copies is the responsibility of all prospective of actual FCC releases, or quotes from longer applicable (e.g., Tabs A through bidders to remain current with all D), other information, including the FCC personnel, giving the appearance of Commission Rules and with all Public FCC knowledge or approval of the auction rules and some (but not all) of Notices pertaining to this auction. the relevant rulemakings, can be found solicitation. Copies of most Commission documents, 22. Information about deceptive in Tab E of the Auction No. 18 Bidder including Public Notices, can be telemarketing investment schemes is Information Package. Upon request, the retrieved from the FCC Internet node via available from the FTC at (202) 326– Commission will provide one free copy anonymous ftp @ftp.fcc.gov or the FCC 2222 and from the SEC at (202) 942– of that Bidder Information Package to World Wide Web site at http:// 7040. Complaints about specific each Auction No. 24 applicant. www.fcc.gov/wtb/auctions. deceptive telemarketing investment Additional copies may be ordered at a Additionally, documents may be schemes should be directed to the FTC, cost of $16.00 each, including postage, obtained for a fee by calling the the SEC, or the National Fraud payable by Visa or Master Card, or by Commission’s copy contractor, Information Center at (800) 876–7060. check payable to ‘‘Federal International Transcription Service, Inc. Consumers who have concerns about Communications Commission’’ or (ITS), at (202) 857–3800. When ordering specific proposals regarding Auction ‘‘FCC.’’ To place an order, contact the documents from ITS, please provide the No. 22 may also call the FCC National FCC National Call Center at (888) appropriate FCC number (e.g., FCC 98– Call Center at (888) CALL–FCC ((888) CALL–FCC ((888) 225–5322, press 93 for the Memorandum Opinion and 225–5322). option #2 at the prompt). Prospective Order on Reconsideration and FCC 97– bidders that have already contacted the 57 for the 220 MHz Second Report and G. National Environmental Policy Act FCC at this number expressing an Order). (NEPA) Requirements interest in Auction No. 24 will receive 20. Bidder Alerts: The FCC makes no 23. Licensees must comply with the a Bidder Information Package in representations or warranties about the Commission’s rules regarding the approximately four weeks, and need not use of this spectrum for particular National Environmental Policy Act call again unless they wish to order services. Applicants should be aware (NEPA). The construction of a wireless additional copies. In addition, that an FCC auction represents an antenna facility is a federal action and applicants may access updated opportunity to become an FCC licensee licensees must comply with the information about Auction No. 24 at the in this service, subject to certain Commission’s NEPA rules for each following address on the Bureau’s web conditions and regulations. An FCC wireless facility. See 47 CFR 1.1305– site: auction does not constitute an 1.1319. These rules require that, among http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/auctions/ endorsement by the FCC of any other things, licensees consult with auc24/auc24.html particular services, technologies or expert agencies having NEPA Applicants are strongly encouraged to products, nor does an FCC license responsibilities including the U.S. Fish check this site regularly for complete constitute a guarantee of business and Wildlife Service, the State Historic information regarding Auction No. 24. success. Applicants should perform Preservation Office, the Army Corp of their individual due diligence before Engineers and the Federal Emergency F. Relevant Authority proceeding, as they would with any new Management Agency (through the local 18. Prospective bidders must business venture. authority with jurisdiction over familiarize themselves thoroughly with 21. As is the case with many business floodplains). Licensees must prepare the Commission’s Rules relating to the investment opportunities, some environmental assessments for wireless Phase II 220 MHz Service, contained in unscrupulous entrepreneurs may facilities that may have a significant Title 47, Part 90 of the Code of Federal attempt to use Auction No. 22 to impact in or on wilderness areas, Regulations. Prospective bidders must deceive and defraud unsuspecting wildlife preserves, threatened or
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.015 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19534 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices endangered species or designated affiliates. We note that although the for the preceding three years receives a critical habitats, historical or gross revenues of the consortium 25 percent discount on its winning bids archaeologic sites, Indian religious sites, members will not be aggregated for for Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses; floodplains, and surface features. purposes of determining eligibility for and, Licensees must also prepare very small or small business credits, this • A bidder with average gross environmental assessments for wireless information must be provided to ensure revenues of not more than $3 million for facilities that include high intensity that each individual consortium the preceding three years receives a 35 white lights in residential member qualifies for any bidding credit percent discount on its winning bids for neighborhoods or excessive awarded to the consortium. Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses. radiofrequency emission. (3) Application Showing 29. Bidding credits are not cumulative: qualifying applicants II. Eligibility 27. Applicants should note that they receive either the 25 percent or the 35 A. General Eligibility Criteria will be required to file supporting percent bidding credit, but not both. documentation as Exhibit C to their FCC Guidance on calculating gross revenues 24. For the Phase II 220 MHz Service, Form 175 short form applications to the Commission adopted small business is contained in 47 CFR 90.1021(c). establish that they satisfy the eligibility 30. Phase II 220 MHz Service bidders provisions to promote and facilitate the requirements to qualify as a very small should note that unjust enrichment participation of small businesses in the business or small business (or consortia provisions apply to winning bidders auction, and in the provision of this and of very small or small businesses) for that use bidding credits and other commercial mobile radio services. this auction. Specifically, for the Phase subsequently assign or transfer control (1) Determination of Revenues II 220 MHz Service auction, applicants of their licenses to an entity not applying to bid as very small or small qualifying for the same level of bidding 25. For purposes of determining businesses (or consortia of very small or which entities qualify as very small credit. Finally, Phase II 220 MHz small businesses) will be required to file Service bidders should also note that businesses or small businesses, the all information required under Sections Commission will consider the gross there are no installment payment plans 1.2105(a) and 1.2112(a) of the in the Phase II 220 MHz Service auction. revenues of the applicant, its controlling Commission’s Rules. See 47 CFR principals, and the affiliates of the 90.1009. In addition, these applicants III. Pre-Auction Procedures applicant and its controlling principals. must disclose, separately and in the Therefore, the gross revenues of all of A. Short-Form Application (FCC Form aggregate, the gross revenues for the 175)—Due May 10, 1999, 5:30 p.m. ET the above entities must be disclosed preceding three years of each of the separately and in the aggregate as following: (1) the applicant; (2) the 31. In order to be eligible to bid in this Exhibit C to an applicant’s FCC Form applicant’s affiliates; (3) the applicant’s auction, applicants must first submit an 175. The Commission does not impose controlling principals; and (4) the FCC Form 175 application. This specific equity requirements on affiliates of the applicant’s controlling application must be received at the controlling principals. The term principals. Certification that the average Commission by 5:30 p.m. ET on May 10, ‘‘controlling principal’’ includes both de gross revenues for the preceding three 1999. Late applications will not be facto and de jure control of the years do not exceed the applicable limit accepted. There is no application fee applicant. Typically, de jure control is is not sufficient. A statement of the total required when filing an FCC Form 175. evidenced by ownership of at least 50.1 gross revenues for the preceding three However, to be eligible to bid, an percent of an entity’s voting stock. De years is also insufficient. The applicant applicant must submit an upfront facto control is determined on a case-by- must provide separately for itself, its payment. See Part III.C., infra. case basis. The following are some affiliates, and its controlling principals, (1) Electronic Filing common indicia of control: a schedule of gross revenues for each of • The person/entity constitutes or the preceding three years, as well as a 32. As of January 1, 1999, applications appoints more than 50 percent of the statement of total average gross revenues to participate in FCC auctions must be board of directors or management for the three-year period. If the filed electronically, unless it is not committee; applicant is applying to bid as a operationally feasible. Applicants will • The person/entity has authority to consortium of very small or small be permitted to file their FCC Form 175 appoint, promote, demote, and fire businesses, this information must be applications in hard copy form only in senior executives that control the day- provided for each consortium member. the event the FCC experiences technical to-day activities of the licensee; or difficulties with its electronic systems. • The person/entity plays an integral B. Bidding Credits In such an event, the FCC will announce role in management decisions. 28. Applicants that qualify under the the procedure for submitting manual definitions of very small business and applications. (2) Very Small or Small Business small business (or consortia of very 33. For Auction No. 24, applicants Consortia small or small businesses), as set forth may file applications electronically 26. A consortium of small businesses in 47 CFR 90.1021(b), are eligible for a beginning April 16, 1999. The system or very small businesses is a bidding credit that represents the will generally be open for filing on a 24- conglomerate organization formed as a amount by which a bidder’s winning hour basis. The filing window will joint venture between or among bids are discounted. The size of a Phase remain open until 5:30 p.m. ET on May mutually independent business firms, II 220 MHz Service bidding credit 10, 1999. Applicants are strongly each of which individually satisfies the depends on the average gross revenues encouraged to file early, and applicants definition of small or very small for the preceding three years of the are responsible for allowing adequate business in Section 90.1021(b) (1) or (2). bidder, its controlling principals, and time for filing their applications. Thus, each consortium member must the affiliates of both the bidder and its Applicants may update or amend their disclose its gross revenues along with controlling principals: electronic applications multiple times those of its affiliates, controlling • A bidder with average gross until the filing deadline of May 10, principals, and controlling principals’ revenues of not more than $15 million 1999. Information about installing and
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.017 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19535 running the FCC Form 175 application C. Upfront Payments—Due May 24, of the fax, write ‘‘Wire Transfer— software will be included in a future 1999 Auction Payment for Auction Event No. Public Notice. Technical support is In order to be eligible to bid in the 24.’’ Bidders may confirm receipt of available at (202) 414–1250 (voice) or auction, applicants must submit an their upfront payment at Mellon Bank (202) 414–1255 (text telephone (TTY)); upfront payment accompanied by an by contacting their sending financial the hours of service are 8 a.m.–6 p.m. FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC institution. ET, Monday–Friday. Form 159). Applicants will have access (2) FCC Form 159 to an electronic version of the FCC Form (2) Completion of the FCC Form 175 41. Each upfront payment must be 159 (July 1997 version) after completing accompanied by a completed FCC 34. Applicants should carefully the electronic FCC Form 175. Earlier Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form review 47 CFR 1.2105, and must versions of this form will not be 159). Proper completion of FCC Form complete all items on the FCC Form accepted. All upfront payments must be 159 is critical to ensuring correct credit 175. Instructions for completing the FCC received at Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, of upfront payments. Detailed Form 175 are in Attachment B of this PA, by 6 p.m. ET on May 24, 1999. Public Notice. Applicants should not Please note that: instructions for completion of FCC Form consider their form submitted to the • All payments must be made in U.S. 159 will be included in a future Public FCC until they press the ‘‘Submit Form dollars. Notice. 175’’ button on the ‘‘Submit’’ page and • All payments must be made by wire (3) Amount of Upfront Payment receive confirmation from the filing transfer. system that the form has been received • Upfront payments for Auction No. 42. As proposed in the Phase II 220 by the Commission. 24 go to a lockbox number different MHz Service Public Notice, the following upfront payments will apply (3) Electronic Review of FCC Form 175 from the ones used in previous FCC auctions, and different from the lockbox in Auction No. 24: 35. The FCC Form 175 review number to be used for post-auction (1) EAG Licenses: $0.01 * 0.15 MHz * software may be used to review and payments. License Population (the result print applicants’ FCC Form 175 • Failure to deliver the upfront rounded up to the next dollar). applications. Applicants may also view payment by the May 24, 1999 deadline (2) EA Licenses: $500 per license. other applicants’ completed FCC Form will result in dismissal of the The upfront payment amount for each 175s after the filing deadline has passed application and disqualification from license has been calculated and is listed and the FCC has issued a Public Notice participation in the auction. in Attachment A. Please note that explaining the status of the applications. upfront payments are not attributed to (1) Making Auction Payments by Wire For this reason, it is important that specific licenses, but instead will be Transfer applicants do not include their translated to bidding units to define a Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) 39. Wire transfer payments must be bidder’s maximum bidding eligibility. on any Exhibits to their FCC Form 175 received by 6:00 p.m. ET on May 24, For Auction No. 24, the amount of the applications. There is a fee of $2.30 per 1999. To avoid untimely payments, upfront payment will be translated into minute for accessing this system. For applicants should discuss arrangements bidding units on a one-to-one basis, e.g., details, see Attachment E of the full text (including bank closing schedules) with a $25,000 upfront payment provides the of the Public Notice (see SUPPLEMENTARY their banker several days before they bidder with 25,000 bidding units. The INFORMATION above). plan to make the wire transfer, and total upfront payment defines the allow sufficient time for the transfer to B. Application Processing and Minor maximum amount of bidding units on be initiated and completed before the Corrections which the applicant will be permitted to deadline. Applicants will need the bid (including standing high bids) in 36. After the deadline for filing the following information: any single round of bidding. Thus, an FCC Form 175 applications has passed, ABA Routing Number: 043000261 applicant does not have to make an the FCC will process all timely Receiving Bank: Mellon Pittsburgh upfront payment to cover all licenses for submitted applications to determine BNF: FCC/AC 9100180 which the applicant has selected on which are acceptable for filing, and OBI Field: (Skip one space between FCC Form 175, but rather to cover the subsequently will issue a Public Notice each information item). maximum number of bidding units identifying: (1) those applications ‘‘AUCTIONPAY’’ associated with licenses on which the accepted for filing (including FCC bidder wishes to place bids and hold account numbers and the licenses for Taxpayer Identification No.: (same as high bids on at any given time. which they applied); (2) those FCC Form 159, block 26) 43. To be able to place a bid on a applications rejected; and (3) those Payment Type Code: (enter ‘‘A24U’’) license, in addition to having specified applications that have minor defects FCC Code: 1 (same as FCC Form 159, that license on the FCC Form 175, a that may be corrected, and the deadline block 23A: ‘‘24’’) bidder must have an eligibility level that for filing such corrected applications. Payer Name: (same as FCC Form 159, meets or exceeds the number of bidding block 2) 37. As described more fully in the # units assigned to that license. At a Commission’s Rules, after the May 10, Lockbox No.: 358420. minimum, an applicant’s total upfront 1999, short form filing deadline, Note: The BNF and Lockbox number are payment must be enough to establish applicants may make only minor specific to the upfront payments for this eligibility to bid on at least one of the corrections to their FCC Form 175 auction; do not use BNF or Lockbox numbers licenses applied for on the FCC Form applications. Applicants will not be from previous auctions. 175, or else the applicant will not be permitted to make major modifications Applicants must fax a completed FCC eligible to participate in the auction. to their applications (e.g., change their Form 159 to Mellon Bank at (412) 236– 44. In calculating the upfront payment license selections, change the certifying 5702 at least one hour before placing the amount, an applicant should determine official or change control of the order for the wire transfer (but on the the maximum number of bidding units applicant). See 47 CFR 1.2105. same business day). On the cover sheet it may wish to bid on in any single
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.018 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19536 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices round, and submit an upfront payment able to submit bids. Therefore, any IV. Auction Event covering that number of bidding units. qualified applicant that has not received 55. The first round of the auction will Bidders should check their calculations both mailings by noon on June 3, 1999 begin on June 8, 1999. The initial round carefully as there is no provision for should contact the FCC National Call schedule will be announced in a Public increasing a bidder’s maximum Center at (888) CALL–FCC ((888) 225– Notice listing the qualified bidders, to # eligibility after the upfront payment 5322, press option 2 at the prompt). be released approximately 10 days deadline. Receipt of both registration mailings is before the start of the auction. 45. Note: An applicant may, on its critical to participating in the auction FCC Form 175, apply for every license and each applicant is responsible for A. Auction Structure being offered, but its actual bidding in ensuring it has received all of the (1) Simultaneous Multiple Round any round will be limited by the registration material. Auction bidding units reflected in its upfront 50. Qualified bidders should note that payment. 56. As proposed in the Phase II 220 lost login codes, passwords or bidder MHz Service Public Notice, the 225 (4) Applicant’s Wire Transfer identification numbers can be replaced Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses will Information for Purposes of Refunds only by appearing in person at the FCC be awarded through a single, 46. Because experience with prior Auction Headquarters located at 2 simultaneous multiple round auction. auctions has shown that in most cases Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Unless otherwise announced, bids will wire transfers provide quicker and more Washington, D.C. 20002. Only an be accepted on all licenses in each efficient refunds than paper checks, the authorized representative or certifying round of the auction. This approach, we Commission will use wire transfers for official, as designated on an applicant’s believe, allows bidders to take all Auction No. 24 refunds. To avoid FCC Form 175, may appear in person advantage of any synergies that exist delays in processing refunds, applicants with two forms of identification (one of among licenses and is most should include wire transfer which must be a photo identification) in administratively efficient. order to receive replacement codes. instructions with any refund request (2) Maximum Eligibility and Activity they file; they may also provide this E. Remote Electronic Bidding Software Rules information in advance by faxing it to the FCC Billings and Collections 51. Qualified bidders must purchase 57. For Auction No. 24, the amount of Branch, ATTN: Linwood Jenkins or remote electronic bidding software for the upfront payment submitted by a Geoffrey Idika, at (202) 418–2843. Please $175.00 by May 25, 1999. (Auction bidder will determine the initial include the following information: software is tailored to a specific auction, maximum eligibility (as measured in bidding units) for each bidder. Upfront Name of Bank so software from prior auctions will not ABA Number work for Auction No. 24.) A software payments are not attributed to specific Account Number to Credit order form is included in this Public licenses, but instead will be translated Correspondent Bank (if applicable) Notice. into bidding units to define a bidder’s ABA Number initial maximum eligibility. The total F. Auction Seminar Account Number upfront payment defines the maximum Contact and Phone Number 52. On April 21, 1999, the FCC will number of bidding units on which the (Applicants should also note that sponsor a seminar for the Phase II 220 applicant will initially be permitted to implementation of the Debt Collection MHz Service auction at the Park Hyatt bid. There is no provision for increasing Improvement Act of 1996 requires the Washington, 1201 24th Street, N.W., a bidder’s maximum eligibility during FCC to obtain an applicant’s Taxpayer Washington, D.C. 20037. The seminar the course of an auction, as discussed Identification Number (TIN) before it will provide attendees with information under ‘‘Auction Stages’’ in Part IV.A.(2), can disburse refunds.) Eligibility for about pre-auction procedures, conduct infra. refunds is discussed in Part V.D., infra. of the auction, FCC remote bidding 58. To ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an D. Auction Registration software, and the Phase II 220 MHz Service service and auction rules. activity rule requires bidders to bid 47. Approximately ten days before the actively throughout the auction, rather auction, the FCC will issue a Public 53. To register, complete the than wait until the end before Notice announcing all qualified bidders registration form included as participating. Bidders are required to be for Auction No. 24. Qualified bidders Attachment I to this Public Notice. The active on a specific percentage of their are those applicants whose FCC Form registration form includes details about maximum eligibility during each round 175 applications have been accepted for the time and location of the seminar. of the auction. filing and that have timely submitted Registrations are accepted on a first- 59. A bidder is considered active on upfront payments sufficient to make come, first-served basis. a license in the current round if it is them eligible to bid on at least one of G. Mock Auction either the high bidder at the end of the the licenses for which they applied. previous bidding round and does not 48. All qualified bidders are 54. All applicants whose FCC Form withdraw the high bid in the current automatically registered for the auction. 175 and 175–S have been accepted for round, or if it submits an acceptable bid Registration materials will be filing will be eligible to participate in a in the current round (see ‘‘Minimum distributed prior to the auction by two mock auction on June 4, 1999. The Accepted Bids’’ in Part IV.B.(3), infra). separate overnight mailings, each mock auction will enable applicants to A bidder’s activity level in a round is containing part of the confidential become familiar with the electronic the sum of the bidding units associated identification codes required to place software prior to the auction. Free with licenses on which the bidder is bids. These mailings will be sent only demonstration software will be available active. The minimum required activity to the contact person at the applicant for use in the mock auction. level is expressed as a percentage of the address listed in the FCC Form 175. Participation by all bidders is strongly bidder’s maximum bidding eligibility, 49. Applicants that do not receive recommended. Details will be and increases as the auction progresses. both registration mailings will not be announced by Public Notice. These procedures have proven
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.020 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19537 successful in maintaining the pace of waiver, or withdraws a previous high auction starting from the beginning of previous auctions, as discussed in Parts bid. In addition, however, the Bureau the current round; resume the auction IV.A.(4) and (5), infra. retains the discretion to close the starting from some previous round; or auction for all licenses after the first cancel the auction in its entirety. (3) Activity Rule Waivers and Reducing round in which no bidder submits a Network interruption may cause the Eligibility proactive waiver, a withdrawal, or a Bureau to delay or suspend the auction. 60. Each bidder will be provided five new bid on any license on which it is This approach has proven effective in activity rule waivers that may be used not the standing high bidder. Thus, resolving exigent circumstances in in any round during the course of the absent any other bidding activity, a previous auctions. We emphasize that auction. Use of an activity rule waiver bidder placing a new bid on a license exercise of this authority is solely preserves the bidder’s current bidding for which it is the standing high bidder within the discretion of the Bureau, and eligibility despite the bidder’s activity would not keep the auction open under its use is not intended to be a substitute in the current round being below the this modified stopping rule. for situations in which bidders may required minimum level. An activity 65. The Bureau retains the discretion, wish to apply their activity rule waivers. rule waiver applies to an entire round however, to keep an auction open even of bidding and not to a particular if no new acceptable bids or proactive B. Bidding Procedures license. waivers are submitted, and no previous (1) Round Structure 61. The FCC auction system assumes high bids are withdrawn. In this event, 68. The initial bidding schedule will that bidders with insufficient activity the effect will be the same as if a bidder would prefer to use an activity rule had submitted a proactive waiver. Thus, be announced by Public Notice at least waiver (if available) rather than lose the activity rule will apply as usual, and one week before the start of the auction, bidding eligibility. Therefore, the a bidder with insufficient activity will and will be included in the registration system will automatically apply a either lose bidding eligibility or use an mailings. The round structure for each waiver (known as an ‘‘automatic activity rule waiver (if it has any left). bidding round contains a single bidding waiver’’) at the end of any round where 66. Further, in its discretion, the round followed by the release of the a bidder’s activity level is below the Bureau reserves the right to declare that round results. minimum required unless: (1) There are the auction will end after a specified 69. The FCC has discretion to change no activity rule waivers available; or (2) number of additional rounds (‘‘special the bidding schedule in order to foster the bidder overrides the automatic stopping rule’’). If the FCC invokes this an auction pace that reasonably application of a waiver by reducing special stopping rule, it will accept bids balances speed with the bidders’ need to eligibility, thereby meeting the in the final round(s) only for licenses on study round results and adjust their minimum requirements. which the high bid increased in at least bidding strategies. The FCC may 62. A bidder with insufficient activity one of the preceding specified number increase or decrease the amount of time that wants to reduce its bidding of rounds. The FCC intends to exercise for the bidding rounds and review eligibility rather than use an activity this option only in extreme periods, or the number of rounds per rule waiver must affirmatively override circumstances, such as where the day, depending upon the bidding the automatic waiver mechanism during auction is proceeding very slowly, activity level and other factors. the round by using the reduce eligibility where there is minimal overall bidding (2) Reserve Price or Minimum Opening function in the software. In this case, activity, or where it appears likely that Bid the bidder’s eligibility is permanently the auction will not close within a reduced to bring the bidder into reasonable period of time. Before 70. As proposed in the Phase II 220 compliance with the activity rules. Once exercising this option, the FCC is likely MHz Service Public Notice, the eligibility has been reduced, a bidder to attempt to increase the pace of the following formulae will be used for will not be permitted to regain its lost auction by, for example, moving the calculating minimum opening bids on a bidding eligibility. auction into the next stage (where license-by-license basis in Auction No. 63. Finally, a bidder may proactively bidders would be required to maintain 24: use an activity rule waiver as a means a higher level of bidding activity), (1) EAG Licenses: $0.01 * 0.15 MHz * to keep the auction open without increasing the number of bidding License Population (the result placing a bid. If a bidder submits a rounds per day, and/or increasing the rounded up to the next dollar) proactive waiver (using the proactive amount of the minimum bid increments (2) EA Licenses: $500 per license. waiver function in the bidding software) for the limited number of licenses where These amounts are reducible at the during a round in which no bids are there is still a high level of bidding discretion of the Bureau. This will allow submitted, the auction will remain open activity. the Bureau flexibility to adjust the and the bidder’s eligibility will be minimum opening bids if circumstances (5) Auction Delay, Suspension, or preserved. An automatic waiver invoked warrant. Such discretion will be Cancellation in a round in which there are no new exercised, if at all, sparingly and early valid bids or withdrawals will not keep 67. As proposed in the Phase II 220 in the auction, i.e., before bidders lose the auction open. MHz Service Public Notice, by Public all waivers and begin to lose substantial Notice or by announcement during the eligibility. During the course of the (4) Auction Stopping Rules auction, the Bureau may delay, suspend auction, the Bureau will not entertain 64. As proposed in the Phase II 220 or cancel the auction in the event of any bidder requests to reduce the MHz Service Public Notice, barring natural disaster, technical obstacle, minimum opening bids on specific extraordinary circumstances, bidding evidence of an auction security breach, licenses. Based on our experience in will remain open on all licenses until unlawful bidding activity, prior auctions, the Commission believes bidding stops on every license. Thus, administrative or weather necessity, or that minimum opening bids speed the the auction will close for all licenses for any other reason that affects the fair course of the auction and ensure that when one round passes during which and competitive conduct of competitive valuable assets are not sold for nominal no bidder submits a new acceptable bid bidding. In such cases, the Bureau, in its prices, without unduly interfering with on any license, applies a proactive sole discretion, may elect to: resume the the efficient assignment of licenses.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.021 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19538 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
(3) Minimum Accepted Bids and Bid Ii∂1 = percentage bid increment for the 3. Minimum acceptable bid for round Increments next round (round i+1) 4 = 2,880,000 N = minimum percentage increment or 71. As proposed in the Phase II 220 (4) High Bids bid increment floor MHz Service Public Notice (63 FR M = maximum percentage increment or 74. Each bid will be date- and time- 67685, December 8, 1998), once there is bid increment ceiling stamped when it is entered into the FCC a standing high bid on a license, there Under the exponential smoothing computer system. In the event of tie will be a bid increment associated with bids, the Commission will identify the that bid indicating the minimum methodology, once a bid has been received on a license, the minimum high bidder on the basis of the order in amount by which the bid on that license which bids are received by the can be raised. For the Phase II 220 MHz acceptable bid for that license in the following round will be the new high Commission, starting with the earliest auction, we will use a standard bid. The bidding software allows exponential smoothing methodology to bid plus the dollar amount associated with the percentage increment (variable bidders to make multiple submissions calculate minimum bid increments. The in a round. As each bid is individually Ii 1 from above times the high bid). This Bureau retains the discretion to ∂ date and time-stamped according to compute the minimum bid increment result will be rounded to the nearest thousand if it is over ten thousand or to when it was submitted, bids submitted through other methodologies if it by a bidder earlier in a round will have determines that circumstance so dictate. the nearest hundred if it is under ten thousand. an earlier date- and time-stamp than 72. The exponential smoothing bids submitted later in a round. formula calculates the bid increment for Examples each license based on a weighted (5) Bidding average of the activity received on each License 1 75. During a bidding round, a bidder license in all previous rounds. This C = 0.5, N = 0.1, M = 0.2 may submit bids for as many licenses as methodology will tailor the bid Round 1 (2 new bids, high bid = it wishes (subject to its eligibility), as increment for each license based on $1,000,000) well as withdraw high bids from activity, rather than setting a global 1. Calculation of percentage previous bidding rounds, remove bids increment for all licenses. For every increment for round 2 using exponential placed in the same bidding round, or license that receives a bid, the bid smoothing: permanently reduce eligibility. Bidders increment for the next round for that also have the option of making multiple A1 = (0.5 * 2) + (0.5 * 0) = 1 license will be established using the submissions and withdrawals in each The smaller of I2 = (1 + 1) * 0.1 = 0.2 exponential smoothing formula. or 0.2 (the maximum percentage bidding round. If a bidder submits 73. The calculation of the percentage increment) multiple bids for a single license in the bid increment for each license in a given same round, the system takes the last 2. Minimum bid increment for round round is made at the end of the previous bid entered as that bidder’s bid for the 2 using the percentage increment (I2 round. The computation is based on an round, and the date- and time-stamp of from above). activity index, which is calculated as that bid reflects the latest time the bid the weighted average of the activity in 0.2 * $1,000,000 = $200,000 was submitted. that round and the activity index from 3. Minimum acceptable bid for round 76. Please note that all bidding will the prior round. The activity index at 2 = 1,200,000 take place either through the automated the start of the auction (round 0) will be Round 2 (3 new bids, high bid = bidding software or by telephonic set at 0. The current activity index is 2,000,000) bidding. (Telephonic bid assistants are equal to a weighting factor times the 1. Calculation of percentage required to use a script when handling number of new bids received on the increment for round 3 using exponential bids placed by telephone. Telephonic license in the most recent bidding round smoothing: bidders are therefore reminded to allow plus one minus the weighting factor sufficient time to bid, by placing their A2 = (0.5 * 3) + (0.5 * 1) = 2 times the activity index from the prior calls well in advance of the close of a The smaller of I3 = (1 + 2) * 0.1 = 0.3 round, because four to five minutes are round. The activity index is then used or 0.2 (the maximum percentage necessary to complete a bid to calculate a percentage increment by increment) multiplying a minimum percentage submission.) There will be no on-site 2. Minimum bid increment for round increment by one plus the activity index bidding during Auction No. 24. 3 using the percentage increment (I with that result being subject to a 3 77. A bidder’s ability to bid on from above) maximum percentage increment. The specific licenses in the first round of the Commission will initially set the 0.2 * $2,000,000 = $400,000 auction is determined by two factors: (1) weighting factor at 0.5, the minimum 3. Minimum acceptable bid for round the licenses applied for on FCC Form percentage increment at 0.1, and the 3 = 2,400,000 175; and (2) the upfront payment maximum percentage increment at 0.2. Round 3 (1 new bid, high bid = amount deposited. The bid submission 2,400,000) screens will be tailored for each bidder Equations 1. Calculation of percentage to include only those licenses for which the bidder applied on its FCC Form 175. Ai = (C * Bi) + ( (1 ¥ C) * Ai¥1) increment for round 4 using exponential A bidder also has the option to further Ii∂1 = smaller of ( (1 ∂ Ai) * N) and M smoothing: tailor its bid submission screens to call where, A3 = (0.5 * 1) + (0.5 * 2) = 1.5 up specified groups of licenses. Ai = activity index for the current round The smaller of I4 = (1 + 1.5) * 0.1 = 0.25 78. The bidding software requires (round i) or 0.2 (the maximum percentage each bidder to login to the FCC auction C = activity weight factor increment) system during the bidding round using Bi = number of bids in the current round 2. Minimum bid increment for round the FCC account number, bidder (round i) 4 using the percentage increment (I4 identification number, and the Ai¥1 = activity index from previous from above) confidential security codes provided in round (round i¥1), A0 is 0 0.2 * $2,400,000 = $480,000 the registration materials. Bidders are
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19539 strongly encouraged to download and payments. Removing a bid will affect a an auction will be subject to a payment print bid confirmations after they bidder’s activity for the round in which equal to the lower of: (1) the difference submit their bids. it is removed. This procedure will between the net withdrawn bid and the 79. The bid entry screen of the enhance bidder flexibility and, we subsequent net winning bid; or (2) the Automated Auction System software for believe, may serve to expedite the difference between the gross withdrawn the Phase II 220 MHz Service auction course of the auction. bid and the subsequent gross winning allows bidders to place multiple 83. Once a round closes, a bidder may bid for that license. See 47 CFR increment bids which will let bidders no longer remove a bid. However, in the 1.2104(g) and 1.2109. No withdrawal increase high bids from one to nine bid next round, a bidder may withdraw payment will be assessed if the increments. A single bid increment is standing high bids from previous subsequent winning bid exceeds the defined as the difference between the rounds using the ‘‘withdraw bid’’ withdrawn bid. standing high bid and the minimum function (assuming that the bidder has acceptable bid for a license. not exhausted its withdrawal (7) Round Results 80. To place a bid on a license, the allowance). A high bidder that 87. The bids placed during a round bidder must enter a whole number withdraws its standing high bid from a are not published until the conclusion between 1 and 9 in the bid increment previous round is subject to the bid of that bidding period. After a round multiplier (Bid Mult) field. This value withdrawal payments specified in 47 closes, the FCC will compile reports of will determine the amount of the bid CFR 1.2104(g) and 1.2109. The all bids placed, bids withdrawn, current (Amount Bid) by multiplying the bid procedure for withdrawing a bid and high bids, new minimum accepted bids, increment multiplier by the bid receiving a withdrawal confirmation is and bidder eligibility status (bidding increment and adding the result to the essentially the same as the bidding eligibility and activity rule waivers), high bid amount according to the procedure described in ‘‘High Bids,’’ and post the reports for public access. following formula: Part IV.B.(4). 88. Reports reflecting bidders’ Amount Bid = High Bid + (Bid Mult * Bid 84. In previous auctions, we have identities and bidder identification Increment) detected bidder conduct that, arguably, numbers for Auction No. 24 will be may have constituted strategic bidding available before and during the auction. Thus, bidders may place a bid that through the use of bid withdrawals. Thus, bidders will know in advance of exceeds the standing high bid by While we continue to recognize the this auction the identities of the bidders between one and nine times the bid important role that bid withdrawals against which they are bidding. increment. For example, to bid the play in an auction, i.e., reducing risk minimum acceptable bid, which is (8) Auction Announcements associated with efforts to secure various equal to one bid increment, a bidder geographic area licenses in combination, 89. The FCC will use auction will enter ‘‘1’’ in the bid increment we conclude that, for the Phase II 220 announcements to announce items such multiplier column and press submit. MHz Service auction, adoption of a as schedule changes and stage 81. For any license on which the FCC limit on their use to two rounds is the transitions. All FCC auction is designated as the high bidder (i.e., a most appropriate outcome. These announcements will be available on the license that has not yet received a bid rounds will be at the bidder’s discretion FCC remote electronic bidding system, in the auction or where the high bid was and there will be no limit on the as well as the Internet and the FCC withdrawn and a new bid has not yet number of bids that may be withdrawn Bulletin Board System. been placed), bidders will be limited to in either of these rounds. Our decision bidding only the minimum acceptable (9) Other Matters on this issue is based upon our bid. In both of these cases no increment experience in prior auctions, a. Inclusion of the Gulf of Mexico in exists for the licenses, and bidders particularly the PCS D, E and F block Auction No. 24 should enter ‘‘1’’ in the Bid Mult field. auction, 800 MHz SMR auction, and 90. The Commission will not Note that in this case, any whole LMDS auction, and is in no way a designate the Gulf of Mexico as the number between 1 and 9 entered in the reflection of our view regarding the seventh EAG and the 176th EA in the multiplier column will result in a bid likelihood of any speculation or Phase II 220 MHz Service auction. This value at the minimum acceptable bid ‘‘gaming’’ in the Phase II 220 MHz issue cannot be addressed in the context amount. Finally, bidders are cautioned Service auction. Withdrawals will still of this Public Notice, which, consistent in entering numbers in the Bid Mult be subject to the bid withdrawal with the Bureau’s delegated authority, field because, as explained in the payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g) implements the Commission’s rules following section, a high bidder that and 1.2109. Bidders should note that pertaining to auctions procedures. The withdraws its standing high bid from a abuse of the Commission’s bid licensing regions for the 220 MHz previous round, even if mistakenly or withdrawal procedures could result in Service were adopted by the erroneously made, is subject to bid the denial of the ability to bid on a Commission in the 220 Third Report withdrawal payments. market. and Order, 62 FR 15978, April 3, 1997, (6) Bid Removal and Bid Withdrawal 85. If a high bid is withdrawn, the and subsequently codified. license will be offered in the next round a. Procedure b. Minor Modifications to FCC Form 175 at the second highest bid price, which Applications 82. As proposed in the Phase II 220 may be less than, or equal to, in the case MHz Service Public Notice, before the of tie bids, the amount of the withdrawn 91. As noted in Section III.B., supra, close of a bidding round, a bidder has bid, without any bid increment. The after the short-form filing deadline, the option of removing any bids placed FCC will serve as a ‘‘place holder’’ on applicants may make only minor in that round. By using the ‘‘remove the license until a new acceptable bid is changes to their FCC Form 175 bid’’ function in the software, a bidder submitted on that license. applications. For example, permissible may effectively ‘‘unsubmit’’ any bid minor changes include deletion and placed within that round. A bidder b. Calculation addition of authorized bidders (to a removing a bid placed in the same 86. Generally, a bidder that withdraws maximum of three) and revision of round is not subject to withdrawal a standing high bid during the course of exhibits. Filers should make these
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.025 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19540 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices changes on-line, and submit a letter the license to the next highest bidders FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS (and a courtesy copy to Anne Napoli at (in descending order) at their final bids, COMMISSION the same address) to Amy Zoslov, Chief, or reauction the spectrum. See 47 CFR Auctions and Industry Analysis 1.2109(b) and (c). In addition, if a [Report No. 2326] Division, Wireless Telecommunications default or disqualification involves Bureau, Federal Communications gross misconduct, misrepresentation, or Petitions for Reconsideration and Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., bad faith by an applicant, the Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Suite 4–A760 Washington, D.C. 20554, Commission may declare the applicant Proceedings briefly summarizing the changes. and its principals ineligible to bid in Questions about other changes should future auctions, and may take any other April 15, 1999. be directed to Anne Napoli of the FCC action that it deems necessary, Petitions for Reconsideration have Auctions and Industry Analysis including institution of proceedings to been filed in the Commission’s Division at (202) 418–0660. revoke any existing licenses held by the rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to V. Post-Auction Procedures applicant. See 47 CFR 1.2109(d). 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of A. Down Payments and Withdrawn Bid D. Refund of Remaining Upfront these documents are available for Payments Payment Balance viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 After bidding has ended, the All applicants that submitted upfront M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. or Commission will issue a Public Notice payments but were not winning bidders may be purchased from the declaring the auction closed, identifying for a Phase II 220 MHz Service license Commission’s copy contractor, ITS, Inc. the winning bids and bidders for each may be entitled to a refund of their (202) 857–3800. Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by May 6, 1999. license, and listing withdrawn bid remaining upfront payment balance See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the payments due. after the conclusion of the auction. No Commission’s rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1). Within ten business days after release refund will be made unless there are Replies to an opposition must be filed of the auction closing notice, each excess funds on deposit from that within 10 days after the time for filing winning bidder must submit sufficient applicant after any applicable bid oppositions has expired. funds (in addition to its upfront withdrawal payments have been paid. Subject: Implementation of Section 25 payment) to bring its total amount of Bidders that drop out of the auction money on deposit with the Government of the Cable Television Consumer and completely may be eligible for a refund to 20 percent of its net winning bids Competition Act of 1992, DBS Service of their upfront payments before the (actual bids less any applicable bidding Obligations (MM Docket No. 93–25). close of the auction. However, bidders credits). See 47 CFR 1.2107(b). In Number of Petitions Filed: 9. that reduce their eligibility and remain addition, by the same deadline all in the auction are not eligible for partial Federal Communications Commission. bidders must pay any withdrawn bid refunds of upfront payments until the Magalie Roman Salas, amounts due under 47 CFR 1.2104(g), as close of the auction. Qualified bidders Secretary. discussed in ‘‘Bid Removal and Bid that have exhausted all of their activity Withdrawal,’’ Part IV.B.(6), supra. [FR Doc. 99–9901 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] rule waivers, have no remaining bidding (Upfront payments are applied first to BILLING CODE 6712±01±M eligibility, and have not withdrawn a satisfy any withdrawn bid liability, before being applied toward down high bid during the auction must submit payments.) a written refund request including wire transfer instructions, a Taxpayer FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE B. Long-Form Application Identification Number (‘‘TIN’’), and a CORPORATION copy of their bidding eligibility screen Within ten business days after release Notice of Agency Meeting of the auction closing notice, winning print, to: Federal Communications bidders must submit a properly Commission, Billings and Collections Branch, Attn: Regina Dorsey or Linwood Pursuant to the provisions of the completed long-form application and ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 required exhibits for each Phase II 220 Jenkins, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1– A824, Washington, D.C. 20554. U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that MHz Service license won through the at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 20, auction. Winning bidders that are small Bidders can also fax their request to 1999, the Federal Deposit Insurance businesses or very small businesses the Billings and Collections Branch at Corporation’s Board of Directors will must include an exhibit demonstrating (202) 418–2843. Once the request has meet in closed session, pursuant to their eligibility for bidding credits. See been approved, a refund will be sent to sections 552b(c)(2), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9) 47 CFR 1.2112(b). Further filing the address provided on the FCC Form (A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of Title 5, United instructions will be provided to auction 159. States Code, to consider matters relating winners at the close of the auction. Note: Refund processing generally takes up to the Corporation’s corporate C. Default and Disqualification to two weeks to complete. Bidders with supervisory, and resolution activities. questions about refunds should contact The meeting will be held in the Board Any high bidder that defaults or is Linwood Jenkins or Geoffrey Idika at (202) Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC disqualified after the close of the 418–1995. Building located at 550 – 17th Street, auction (i.e., fails to remit the required N.W., Washington, D.C. down payment within the prescribed Federal Communications Commission. period of time, fails to submit a timely Amy J. Zoslov, Requests for further information long-form application, fails to make full Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis concerning the meeting may be directed payment, or is otherwise disqualified) Division, Wireless Telecommunications to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive will be subject to the payments Bureau. Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) described in 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). In [FR Doc. 99–9765 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] 898–6757. such event the Commission may offer BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Dated: April 16, 1999.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.027 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19541
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. writing on the standards enumerated in 2. Wells Fargo & Company, San Robert E. Feldman, the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the Francisco, California; to acquire 100 Executive Secretary. proposal also involves the acquisition of percent of the voting shares of Eastern [FR Doc. 99–10026 Filed 4–16–99; 4:57 pm] a nonbanking company, the review also Heights Bank, Maplewood, Minnesota. BILLING CODE 6714±01±M includes whether the acquisition of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve nonbanking company complies with the System, April 15, 1999. standards in section 4 of the BHC Act. Robert deV. Frierson, Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Associate Secretary of the Board. activities will be conducted throughout [FR Doc. 99–9898 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Ocean Freight Forwarder License the United States. BILLING CODE 6210±01±F Applicants Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications Notice is hereby given that the must be received at the Reserve Bank following applicants have filed with the indicated or the offices of the Board of Federal Maritime Commission Governors not later than May 14, 1999. GENERAL SERVICES applications for licenses as ocean freight A. Federal Reserve Bank of ADMINISTRATION forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Richmond (A. Linwood Gill III, Federal Supply Service Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd 1718 and 46 CFR 510). Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: Prepayment Audit Authority Granted to Persons knowing of any reason why 1. FCNB Corp, Frederick, Maryland; to the Agency for International any of the following applicants should merge with First Frederick Financial Development not receive a license are requested to Corporation, Frederick, Maryland, and contact the Office of Freight Forwarders, thereby indirectly acquire First Bank of AGENCY: Federal Supply Service, GSA. Federal Maritime Commission, Frederick, Frederick, Maryland. ACTION: Notification of prepayment Washington, DC 20573. In connection with this application, audit authority. Gava International Freight Applicant also has applied to engage in Consolidators, (U.S.A.), Inc., 1525 owning and operating cash dispensing SUMMARY: The General Services Elmhurst Road, Elk Grove Village, IL machines in locations owned or leased 60007. Administration has determined that it is by unaffiliated third parties and thereby cost-effective and in the public interest Officers: Pino Gazzetta, President, engage in data processing activities, Pabio Vannucci, Director. to grant prepayment audit authority to through First Frederick Financial the U.S. Agency for International Dated: April 16, 1999. Corporation, pursuant to § Development. Bryant L. VanBrakle, 225.218(b)(14) of Regulation Y. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Secretary. B. Federal Reserve Bank of James Fitzgerald, Director, Audit [FR Doc. 99–9924 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Division, FSS/GSA, 202–501–3000. BILLING CODE 6730±01±M Avenue, P.O. Box 291, Minneapolis, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Minnesota 55480-0291: to the authority vested in me by Section 1. Commercial Bancshares, Inc., 3726 of Title 31, U.S.C., I have FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Minnetonka, Minnesota; to become a determined that it is both cost-effective bank holding company by acquire 100 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and and in the public interest to delegate percent of the voting shares of First Mergers of Bank Holding Companies authority to the U.S. Agency for Commerce Bank, Bloomington, International Development (USAID) to The companies listed in this notice Minnesota, a de novo bank. conduct a prepayment audit of its have applied to the Board for approval, C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas foreign and domestic household goods pursuant to the Bank Holding Company City (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice and transportation bills, subject to the Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas Federal Property Management (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part City, Missouri 64198-0001: Regulations, 41 CFR 101–41, and 225), and all other applicable statutes 1. Poteau Bancshares, Inc., Poteau, amendments thereto. These prepayment and regulations to become a bank Oklahoma, and First Poteau audits will be conducted by a General holding company and/or to acquire the Corporation, Poteau, Oklahoma; to Services Administration (GSA) assets or the ownership of, control of, or acquire 100 percent of the voting shares contractor, at the contractor’s site. the power to vote shares of a bank or of The First State Bank, Wister, USAID may re-delegate this authority to bank holding company and all of the Oklahoma. any officer, official, or employee of banks and nonbanking companies D. Federal Reserve Bank of San USAID. owned by the bank holding company, Francisco (Maria Villanueva, Manager The Administrator of USAID shall including the companies listed below. of Analytical Support, Consumer notify GSA in writing of additional The applications listed below, as well Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, delegations. as other related filings required by the San Francisco, California 94105-1579: Board, are available for immediate 1. Wells Fargo & Company, San Dated: April 16,1999. inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank Francisco, California; to acquire 100 Allan J. Zaic, indicated. The application also will be percent of the voting shares of Mustang Assistant Commissioner, Office of available for inspection at the offices of Financial Corp., Rio Vista, Texas, and Transportation and Property Management. the Board of Governors. Interested thereby indirectly acquire First State [FR Doc. 99–9991 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] persons may express their views in Bank, Rio Vista, Texas. BILLING CODE 6820±24±M
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 19542 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND The Director, Management Analysis Background HUMAN SERVICES and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register In 1986, Freedom of Information Act Centers for Disease Control and notices pertaining to announcements of requests led the Department of Energy to Prevention meetings and other committee make public thousands of pages of management activities, for both CDC documentation indicating that large The National Center for Environmental and the Agency for Toxic Substances quantities of radioactive materials were Health (NCEH) of the Centers for and Disease Registry. released into the atmosphere from the Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hanford Nuclear Site. The radioactivity Announces the Following Meeting Dated: April 15, 1999. Carolyn J. Russell, was a byproduct of nuclear weapons production from December 1944 Name: Advisory Committee to the Director, Management Analysis and Services Director, National Center for Office, Centers for Disease Control and through 1957. Most of the radioactivity Environmental Health. Prevention (CDC). was released in the form of I–131, which Times and Dates: 10 a.m.–5:15 p.m., [FR Doc. 99–9925 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] concentrates in the thyroid glands of May 3, 1999. 8:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m., May BILLING CODE 4163±18±P those who eat food contaminated by it. 4, 1999. The amount of I–131 released during Place: Swissotel, 3391 Peachtree this period was more than half a million Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30326 (next DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND curies, prompting concern regarding to Lenox Square), in the ‘‘Zermatt’’ HUMAN SERVICES thyroid health effects. The government room, telephone 404/365–0065. convened a special Hanford Health Status: Open to the public, limited Centers for Disease Control and Effects Review Panel to review the only by the space available. The meeting Prevention documents and recommend steps to room will accommodate approximately evaluate possible health consequences 20 committee members and presenters, Hanford Thyroid Morbidity Study Advisory Committee: Meeting among those who live near the Hanford plus 20 observers. Site. Matters to be Discussed In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Two studies were undertaken as a The Committee will provide advice the Federal Advisory Committee Act result of these recommendations. The on the following: environmental public (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease first was the Hanford Environmental health problems that potentially pose Control and Prevention (CDC) Dose Reconstruction Project which the greatest risks to human health and announces the following meeting. estimated potential radiation doses to may not be receiving adequate attention; Name: Hanford Thyroid Morbidity Study the thyroid among persons exposed to the primary prevention of birth defects Advisory Committee. Hanford I–131 releases. The second was and developmental and other Times and Date: 1 p.m.–5 p.m., May 6, the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study. disabilities; the prevention of secondary 1999; 7 p.m.–9 p.m., May 6, 1999. This study was designed to determine Place: Doubletree Hotel Seattle Airport, conditions in persons with a primary 18740 Pacific Highway South, Seattle, whether the exposures from Hanford disability; and the research agenda Washington 98188, telephone 206/246–8600, resulted in an increased risk of thyroid needed to improve the science base fax 206/431–8687. disease in a randomly selected study relative to human health effects and Status: Open to the public, limited only by population. In late 1989, a contract to environmental exposures and that will the space available. The meeting room will perform this study was awarded to the ultimately provide sound human health accommodate approximately 200 people. FHCRC. data for policy and decision-making. Purpose Particular attention will be paid to the CONTACT PERSONS FOR ADDITIONAL matters of NCEH surveillance systems The CDC and investigators from INFORMATION: General information may and the relationship between genetics Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer be obtained from Mr. Mike Donnelly, and public health. Research Center (FHCRC) will present Project Officer, Radiation Studies Persons wishing to make written or and discuss findings of the Hanford Branch (RSB), Division of oral comments at the meeting should Thyroid Disease Study and appropriate Environmental Hazards and Health notify the contact person in writing or activities to follow-up study results to Effects (DEHHE), National Center for by telephone no later than close of the Hanford Thyroid Morbidity Study Environmental Health (NCEH), CDC, business April 26, 1999. Advisory Committee. The Committee 4770 Buford Highway, NE, (F–35), Requests to make oral comments will continue in evening session at 7 Atlanta, Georgia 30341–3724, telephone should contain the name, address, p.m., with a presentation by CDC, and/ 770–488–7040, fax 770–488–7044. telephone number, and organizational or its contractor, on the findings of the Technical information may be obtained affiliation of the presenter. Depending Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft from Dr. Paul Garbe, RSB, DEHHE, on the time available and the number of Final Report and to allow more time for NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, requests to make oral comments, it may public input and comment. The purpose (F–35), Atlanta, Georgia 30341–3724, be necessary to limit the time of each of the study was to determine if there telephone 770–488–7040, fax 770–488– presenter. was an increased risk for thyroid disease 7044. Agenda items are subject to change as among a randomly selected study priorities dictate. population exposed to atmospheric The Director, Management Analysis Contact Person for More Information: releases of radioactive iodine-131 (I– and Services Office, has been delegated Anne Wilson, Program Analyst, Office 131) from the Hanford Nuclear Site in the authority to sign Federal Register of the Director, NCEH, CDC, 4770 eastern Washington State during the notices pertaining to announcements of Buford Highway, NE, M/S F49, Atlanta, 1940s and 1950s. The study, mandated meetings and other committee Georgia 30341–3724, telephone 770/ by Congress, was conducted by a team management activities, for both CDC 488–7321, fax 770/488–7024, e-mail: of scientists at the FHCRC under and the Agency for Toxic Substances [email protected] contract from the CDC. and Disease Registry.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.114 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19543
Dated: April 15, 1999. The amount of I–131 released during DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Carolyn J. Russell, this period was more than half a million HUMAN SERVICES Director, Management Analysis and Services curies, prompting concern regarding Office, Centers for Disease Control and thyroid health effects. The government Food and Drug Administration Prevention (CDC). convened a special Hanford Health [Docket No. 99D±0674] [FR Doc. 99–9927 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Effects Review Panel to review the BILLING CODE 4163±18±P documents and recommend steps to Draft Guidance for Industry on IND's evaluate possible health consequences for Phase 2 and 3 Studies of Drugs, among those who live near the Hanford Including Specified Therapeutic DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Site. Biotechnology-Derived Products; HUMAN SERVICES Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Two studies were undertaken as a Controls Content and Format; Centers for Disease Control and result of these recommendations. The Availability Prevention first was the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project which AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, The National Center for Environmental estimated potential radiation doses to HHS. Health (NCEH) of the Centers for the thyroid among persons exposed to ACTION: Notice. Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hanford I–131 releases. The second was Announces the Following Public the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Meetings This study was designed to determine Administration (FDA) is announcing the Name: Update on Hanford Thyroid whether the exposures from Hanford availability of a draft guidance for Disease Study Draft Final Report. resulted in an increased risk of thyroid industry entitled ‘‘INDs for Phase 2 and 3 Studies of Drugs, Including Specified Dates: Wednesday, May 5, 1999, disease in a randomly selected study Therapeutic Biotechnology-Derived Thursday, May 6, 1999 population. In late 1989, a contract to Products; Chemistry, Manufacturing, Times: 7 p.m.–9 p.m., 7 p.m.–9 p.m. perform this study was awarded to the Place: WestCoast Ridpath Hotel, West and Controls Content and Format.’’ This FHCRC. 515 Spraque, Spokane, Washington draft guidance is intended to provide 99201, CONTACT PERSONS FOR ADDITIONAL recommendations to sponsors of Tel: (509) 838–2711, Doubletree Hotel INFORMATION: General information may investigational new drug applications Seattle Airport, 18740 Pacific Highway be obtained from Mr. Mike Donnelly, (IND’s) on the chemistry, South, Seattle, Washington 98188, (206) Project Officer, Radiation Studies manufacturing, and controls 246–8600. Branch (RSB), Division of documentation (CMC), including Status: Open to the public, limited Environmental Hazards and Health microbiology documentation, that only by the space available. The meeting Effects (DEHHE), NCEH, CDC, 4770 should be submitted for phase 2 and 3 room will accommodate approximately Buford Highway, NE, M/S (F–35), of IND’s. This draft guidance applies to 200 people. Atlanta, Georgia 30341–3724, telephone human drugs and specified- biotechnology derived products. Purpose 770–488–7040, fax 770–488–7044. Technical information may be obtained DATES: Written comments on the draft The CDC and investigators from guidance document may be submitted Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer from Dr. Paul Garbe, RSB, DEHHE, NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, by July 20, 1999. General comments on Research Center (FHCRC) will discuss agency guidance documents are (F–35), Atlanta, Georgia 30341–3724, findings on the Hanford Thyroid welcome at any time. Disease Study Draft Final Report. The telephone 770–488–7040, fax 770–488– purpose of the study was to determine 7044. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for if there was an increased risk for thyroid single copies of the draft guidance for The Director, Management Analysis industry to the Drug Information Branch disease among a randomly selected and Services Office, has been delegated study population exposed to (HFD–210), Center for Drug Evaluation the authority to sign Federal Register and Research, Food and Drug atmospheric releases of radioactive notices pertaining to announcements of iodine-131 (I–131) from the Hanford Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, meetings and other committee Nuclear Site in eastern Washington Rockville, MD 20857, or the Office of management activities, for both CDC State during the 1940s and 1950s. The Communication, Training, and and the Agency for Toxic Substances study, mandated by Congress, was Manufacturers Assistance (HFM–40), conducted by a team of scientists at the and Disease Registry. Center for Biologics Evaluation and FHCRC under contract from the CDC. Dated: April 15, 1999. Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Carolyn J. Russell, Background Rockville, MD 20852–1448. Send one Director, Management Analysis and Services In 1986, Freedom of Information Act self-addressed adhesive label to assist Office Centers for Disease Control and the office in processing your requests. requests led the Department of Energy to Prevention (CDC). make public thousands of pages of See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION [FR Doc. 99–9926 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] documentation indicating that large section for electronic access to the draft. quantities of radioactive materials were BILLING CODE 4163±18±P Submit written comments on the draft released into the atmosphere from the guidance to the Dockets Management Hanford Nuclear Site. The radioactivity Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug was a byproduct of nuclear weapons Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. production from December 1944 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. through 1957. Most of the radioactivity FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: was released in the form of I–131, which Charles P. Hoiberg, Center for Drug concentrates in the thyroid glands of Evaluation and Research (HFD– those who eat food contaminated by it. 810), Food and Drug
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.127 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19544 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND package announces the Federal share of Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594– HUMAN SERVICES disproportionate share hospital (DSH) 2570, or allotments for Federal fiscal years Robert A. Yetter, Center for Biologics Health Care Financing Administration (FFYs) 1998 through 2002. It also Evaluation and Research (HFM–10), [Document Identifier: HCFA±1728 and describes the methodology for Food and Drug Administration, HCFA±R±0266] calculating the Federal share DSH 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD allotments for FFY 2003 and thereafter, 20852, 301–827–0373. Agency Information Collection and announces the FFY 1998 and FFY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Activities: Submission for OMB 1999 limitations on aggregate DSH Review; Comment Request payments States may make to I. Background institutions for mental disease (IMD) AGENCY: FDA is announcing the availability of Health Care Financing and other mental health facilities.; a draft guidance for industry entitled Administration; HHS. Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: In compliance with the requirement ‘‘INDs for Phase 2 and 3 Studies of State, Local, or Tribal Government; of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Drugs, Including Specified Therapeutic Number of Respondents: 54; Total Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Biotechnology-Derived Products; Annual Responses: 54; Total Annual Health Care Financing Administration Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Hours: 2,160. (HCFA), Department of Health and Content and Format.’’ This draft To obtain copies of the supporting Human Services, is publishing the guidance is intended to: (1) Facilitate statement and any related forms for the following summary of proposed drug discovery and development, (2) proposed paperwork collections collections for public comment. ensure that sufficient data will be referenced above, access HCFA’s Web Interested persons are invited to send submitted for the agency to assess the Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/ comments regarding this burden safety as well as the quality of the regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your estimate or any other aspect of this proposed clinical studies from the CMC request, including your address, phone collection of information, including any and microbiology perspectives, and (3) number, OMB number, and HCFA of the following subjects: (1) The expedite the entry of new drugs into the document identifier, to necessity and utility of the proposed marketplace. [email protected], or call the Reports information collection for the proper This level 1 draft guidance is being Clearance Office on (410) 786–1326. performance of the agency’s functions; issued consistent with FDA’s good Written comments and (2) the accuracy of the estimated guidance practices (62 FR 8961, recommendations for the proposed burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, February 27, 1997). This draft guidance information collections must be mailed utility, and clarity of the information to represents the agency’s current thinking within 30 days of this notice directly to be collected; and (4) the use of on CMC content and format of IND’s for the OMB desk officer: OMB Human automated collection techniques or phase 2 and 3 studies of drugs, Resources and Housing Branch, other forms of information technology to including specified therapeutic Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive minimize the information collection biotechnology-derived products. It does Office Building, Room 10235, burden. not create or confer any rights for or on Washington, D.C. 20503. 1. Type of Information Collection any person and does not operate to bind Request: Revision of a currently Dated: April 13, 1999. FDA or the public. An alternative approved collection; Title of John P. Burke III, approach may be used if such approach Information Collection: Home Health HCFA Reports Clearance Officer, HCFA Office satisfies the requirements of the Agency Cost Report and Supporting of Information Services, Security and applicable statute, regulations, or both. Standards Group, Division of HCFA Regulations in 42 CFR 413.20, 413.24 Enterprise Standards. II. Comments and 413.106; Form No.: HCFA–1728 [FR Doc. 99–9969 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] (OMB No. 0938–0022); Use: Interested persons may submit written BILLING CODE 4120±03±P comments on the draft guidance to the Participating providers are required to Dockets Management Branch (address submit annual information to HCFA in above). Two copies of any comments are order to achieve settlement of costs for DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND to be submitted, except that individuals health care services rendered to HUMAN SERVICES may submit one copy. Comments are to Medicare beneficiaries. The HCFA–1728 be identified with the docket number is the form used by Home Health Health Care Financing Administration found in brackets in the heading of this Agencies to report their health care costs to determine the amount [Document Identifier: HCFA±R±0268, R± document. The draft guidance and 0271, and R±0274] received comments may be seen in the reimbursable for services furnished to office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Medicare beneficiaries. Frequency: Agency Information Collection Monday through Friday. Annually; Affected Public: Business or Activities: Submission for OMB other for profit, Not for profit Review; Comment Request III. Electronic Access institutions, and State, Local or Tribal AGENCY: Copies of this draft guidance are Gov.; Number of Respondents: 8,950; Health Care Financing available on the Internet at ‘‘http:// Total Annual Responses: 8,950; Total Administration, HHS. www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/ Annual Hours Requested: 1,575,200. In compliance with the requirement index.htm’’ or ‘‘http://www.fda.gov/ 2. Type of Information Collection of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the cber/guidelines.htm’’. Request: Extension of a currently Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the approved collection; Title of Health Care Financing Administration Dated: April 13, 1999. Information Collection: Medicaid (HCFA), Department of Health and William K. Hubbard, Disproportionate Share Hospital Human Services, is publishing the Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy. Payments—Institutions for Mental following summary of proposed [FR Doc. 99–9769 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Disease; Form No.: HCFA–R–0266 collections for public comment. BILLING CODE 4160±01±F (OMB# 0938–0746); Use: This PRA Interested persons are invited to send
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.004 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19545 comments regarding this burden future versions of the publication; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND estimate or any other aspect of this Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: HUMAN SERVICES collection of information, including any Federal Government, Business or other of the following subjects: (1) The for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, National Institutes of Health necessity and utility of the proposed and State, Local, or Tribal Government; information collection for the proper Number of Respondents: 20,000; Total National Institute of Neurological performance of the agency’s functions; Annual Responses: 2,000; Total Annual Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed (2) the accuracy of the estimated Hours: 500. Meeting burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 3. Type of Information Collection Pursuant to section 10(d) of the utility, and clarity of the information to Request: New collection; Title of Federal Advisory Committee Act, as be collected; and (4) the use of Information Collection: Evaluation of amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice automated collection techniques or Medicare+Choice (M+C) Medical is hereby given of the following other forms of information technology to Savings Account (MSA) Demonstration, meeting. minimize the information collection Insurer Survey Component; Form No.: The meeting will be closed to the burden. HCFA–R–0274 (OMB# 0938-new); Use: public in accordance with the 1. Type of Information Collection This survey instrument is designed for provisions set forth in sections Request: Extension of a currently insurers to determine their marketing 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., approved collection; Title of as amended. The contract proposals and Information Collection: Collection of plans regarding high deductible health insurance plans for Medicare the discussions could disclose Assessment Information on Three confidential trade secrets or commercial Federal Government Web Sites: beneficiaries to be used in conjunction with MSA. The Insurer Survey is part of property such as patentable material, www.medicare.gov, www.4woman.gov, and personal information concerning and www.healthfinder.gov; Form Nos.: a larger evaluation of the M+C MSA demonstration mandated by the individuals associated with the contract HCFA–R–268 (OMB No. 0938–0756); proposals, the disclosure of which Use: The purpose of the bounceback Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The overall evaluation plan includes would constitute a clearly unwarranted forms is to provide feedback to the invasion of personal privacy. government agencies that provide the collecting data on use of and payment web sites. The information collected for medical services from Medicare Name of Committee: National Institute of through the bounceback forms will be MSA enrollees through an addition to Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special used with other information collected the Medicare Current Beneficiary Emphasis Panel. Survey sample, collecting data from Date: April 27, 1999. about the web sites through focus Time: 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM. groups, interviews, and expert beneficiaries who disenroll from M+C MSA plans, and collecting data from Agenda: To review and evaluate contract evaluations. The combined information proposals. will guide future improvements to the insurers about their reactions to the Place: Neuroscience Center, National web sites. Currently, there is no plan to M+C MSA demonstration; Frequency: Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., distribute the information, other than Annually; Affected Public: Business or Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference through public health, medical, or other other for-profit, and Not-for-profit Call). professional journals, in which we may institutions.; Number of Respondents: Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, report the results.; Frequency: Users will 350; Total Annual Responses: 350; Total Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Annual Hours: 155. Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, have the opportunity to complete the Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, bounceback form whenever they exit the To obtain copies of the supporting Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892– web site. Affected Public: Individuals or statement and any related forms for the 9529, 301–496–9223. Households, Business or other for-profit, proposed paperwork collections This notice is being published less than 15 and Not-for-profit institutions; Number referenced above, access HCFA’s Web days prior to the meeting due to the timing of Respondents: 636,555; Total Annual Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/ limitations imposed by the review and Responses: 212,185; Total Annual regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your funding cycle. Hours: 21,221. request, including your address, phone (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 2. Type of Information Collection number, OMB number, and HCFA Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Request: New collection; Title of document identifier, to Information Collection: Publication Biological Basis Research in the [email protected], or call the Reports Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, Information Sheet Reorder Form Clearance Office on (410) 786–1326. HHS) Feedback Questionnaire; Form No.: Written comments and # Dated: April 14, 1999. HCFA–R–0271 (OMB 0938-new); Use: recommendations for the proposed The Educational and Health Promotion LaVerne Y. Stringfield, information collections must be mailed Committee Management Officer, NIH. Group (EHPG) develops materials for within 30 days of this notice directly to [FR Doc. 99–9902 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] beneficiary-centered education, and the OMB desk officer: OMB Human makes efforts to improve beneficiary Resources and Housing Branch, BILLING CODE 4140±01±M ability to make informed health Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive decisions. The purpose of this collection Office Building, Room 10235, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND is post-distribution testing. One Washington, D.C. 20503. Feedback Questionnaire will be placed HUMAN SERVICES in each box of bulk mailings, on the Dated: April 13, 1999. back of a publication information sheet, John P. Burke III, National Institutes of Health and reorder forms. The distributor is HCFA Reports Clearance Officer, HCFA Office National Institute on Aging; Notice of of Information Services, Security and given the option of completing the Closed Meeting questionnaire. Those who choose to Standards Group, Division of HCFA complete the questionnaire will be Enterprise Standards. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the providing EHPG with valuable [FR Doc. 99–9970 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Federal Advisory Committee Act, as information that will assist in improving BILLING CODE 4120±03±P amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.066 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19546 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices is hereby given of the following Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM. meeting. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant The meeting will be closed to the Date: April 21, 1999. applications. Time: 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, Md public in accordance with the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). provisions set forth in sections applications. Contact Person: Jarold M. Davidson, PHD, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Scientific Review Administrator, Center for as amended. The contract proposals and 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Scientific Review, National Institutes of the discussions could disclose Contact Person: Timothy J. Henry, PHD, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4216, confidential trade secrets or commercial Scientific Review Administrator, Center for MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– property such as patentable material, Scientific Review, National Institutes of 1776. This notice is being published less than 15 and personal information concerning Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4180, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– days prior to the meeting due to the timing individuals associated with the contract 1147. limitations imposed by the review and proposals, the disclosure of which This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. would constitute a clearly unwarranted days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Center for Scientific invasion of personal privacy. limitations imposed by the review and Review Special Emphasis Panel IFCN 6. Name of Committee: National Institute on funding cycle. Date: April 28, 1999. Aging Special Emphasis Panel Development Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. and Maintenance of a Cryopreserved Embryo Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Bank. Date: April 28, 1999. applications. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Date: April 30, 1999. Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Time: 1:00 p.m. to Adjournment. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Contact Person: Joseph Kimm, PHD, Agenda: To review and evaluate contract applications. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for proposals. Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Scientific Review, National Institutes of Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Place: 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD Contact Person: Joe Marwah, PHD, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). 20892, (301) 435–1249. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Arthur Schaerdel, DVM, This notice is being published less than 15 Scientific Review, National Institutes of The Bethesda Gateway Building, 7201 days prior to the meeting due to the timing Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5188, Wisconsin Avenue/Suite 2C212, Bethesda, limitations imposed by the review and MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MD 20892, (301) 496–9666. funding cycle. This notice is being published less than 15 1253. days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 Name of Committee: Center for Scientific limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing Review Special Emphasis Panel. funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and Date: April 28, 1999. funding cycle. Time: 3:00 PM to 3:30 PM. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific applications. National Institutes of Health, HHS) Review Special Emphasis Panel. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Dated: April 14, 1999. Date: April 28, 1999. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Time: 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM. LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Contact Person: Harold M. Davidson, PHD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Director, Office of Federal Advisory applications. Committee Policy, NIH. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, Md Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4216, [FR Doc. 99–9904 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– BILLING CODE 4140±01±M Contact Person: David J. Remondini, PHD, 1776. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for This notice is being published less than 15 Scientific Review, National Institutes of days prior to the meeting due to the timing DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6154, limitations imposed by the review and HUMAN SERVICES MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– funding cycle. 1038. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific This notice is being published less than 15 National Institutes of Health Review Special Emphasis Panel. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Date: April 28, 1999. limitations imposed by the review and Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Time: 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. funding cycle. Closed Meetings Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Center for Scientific applications. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Review Special Emphasis Panel. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Date: April 28, 1999. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Time: 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM. Contact Person: Marcia Litwack, PHD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review Administrator, Center for is hereby given of the following applications. meetings. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, Md Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4150, The meetings will be closed to the 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– public in accordance with the Contact Person: Larry Pinkus, PHD, 1719. provisions set forth in sections Scientific Review Administrator, Center for This notice is being published less than 15 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Scientific Review, National Institutes of days prior to the meeting due to the timing as amended. The grant applications and Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4132, limitations imposed by the review and the discussions could disclose MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– funding cycle. 1214. confidential trade secrets or commercial Name of Committee: Center for Scientific This notice is being published less than 15 Review Special Emphasis Panel. property such as patentable material, days prior to the meeting due to the timing and personal information concerning Date: April 28, 1999. limitations imposed by the review and Time: 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. individuals associated with the grant funding cycle. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications, the disclosure of which Name of Committee: Center for Scientific applications. would constitute a clearly unwarranted Review Special Emphasis Panel. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD invasion of personal privacy. Date: April 28, 1999. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.035 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19547
Contact Person: Jo Pelham, BA, Scientific Applicant request authorization to Permit No. TE—800900 Review Administrator, Center for Scientific conduct presence/absence surveys for Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 southwestern willow flycatcher Applicant: Lower Colorado River Rockledge Drive, Room 4106, MSC 7814, (Empidonax traillii extimus) in various Authority, Austin, Texas Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1786. This notice is being published less than 15 counties in Arizona and New Mexico. Applicant requests authority to days prior to the meeting due to the timing Permit No. TE—0005923–0 conduct presence/absence surveys for limitations imposed by the review and black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus), funding cycle. Applicant: National Park Service, golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Saguaro National Park, Tucson, chrysoparia), Houston toad (Bufo Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, Arizona houstonensis), and fountain darter 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, Applicant requests authorization to (Etheostoma fonticola) on Lower 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, conduct presence/absence surveys for Colorado River counties within Texas. 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls Institutes of Health, HHS) (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) Permit No. TE—820022 Dated: April 14, 1999. within lands administered by the Applicant: PBS&J, Austin, Texas LaVerne Y. Stringfield, National Park Service, Saguaro National Committee Management Officer, NIH. Park. Applicant requests authorization to conduct presence/absence surveys for [FR Doc. 99–9903 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Permit No. TE—10037–0 BILLING CODE 4140±01±M the Concho water snake (Nerodia harteri Applicant: Colorado River Indian paucimaculata) and fountain darter Tribes, Parker, Arizona (Etheostoma fonticola) in Concho and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Applicant requests authorization to Comal Counties, Texas. conduct presence/absence surveys for Permit No. TE—010472–0 Fish and Wildlife Service southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and Yuma Applicant: Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano, Endangered and Threatened Species clapper rail (Rallus longirostris Texas Permit Applications yumanensis) in Arizona and California. Applicant requests authorization to ACTION: Notice of Receipt of Permit No. TE—10440–0 conduct presence/absence surveys for Applications. Applicant: David N. Stokely, Billings, the northern aplomado falcon (Falco Missouri femoralis septentrionalis), peregrine SUMMARY: The following applicants have Applicant requests authorization to falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum/ applied for a permit to conduct certain conduct presence/absence surveys for tundrius), Sneed pincushion cactus activities with endangered species. This the American burying beetle (Coryphantha sneedii sneedii) in notice is provided pursuant to section (Nicrophorus americanus) in southeastern New Mexico and west 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act of northeastern Oklahoma. Texas. 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.). Permit No. TE—006141–1 DATES: Written comments on these permit applications must be received on Permit No. TE—798107 Applicant: Bruce D. Wilcox, Phoenix, or before May 21, 1999. Arizona Applicant: SWCA, Inc., Tucson, Arizona Applicant requests authorization to ADDRESSES: Written data or comments Applicant requests authorization to conduct presence/absence surveys for should be submitted to the Legal conduct presence/absence surveys for the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica Instruments Examiner, Division of Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsis chrysoparia) and black-capped vireo Endangered Species/Permits, Ecological occidentalis sonoriensis) within (Vireo atricapillus) in Texas and Services, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, Arizona. Oklahoma. New Mexico 87103. Permit No. TE—009543 Permit No. TE—010441 Please refer to the respective permit Applicant: Mary E. Richardson, Mesa number for each application when Arizona Applicant: Jones & Stokes Associates, submitting comments. All comments Applicant requests authorization to Inc., Phoenix, Arizona received, including names and conduct presence/absence surveys for Applicant requests authorization to addresses, will become part of the the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl conduct presence/absence surveys for official administrative record and may (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) on Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris be made available to the public. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, yumanensis), cactus ferruginous pygmy- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arizona. owl (Glaucidium brasilianum The cactorum), southwestern willow U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Permit No. TE—009926–0 flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), Ecological Services, Division of Applicant: Gulf South Research and northern aplomado falcon (Falco Endangered Species/Permits, P.O. Box Corporation, Baton Rouge, femoralis septentrionalis) in California, 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. Louisiana Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when Applicant requests authorization to Permit No. TE—828642 conduct presence/absence surveys for requesting copies of documents. interior least tern (Sterna antillarum Applicant: Darling Environmental & Documents and other information athalassos) along the Red River in Texas Surveying, Ltd., Tucson, Arizona submitted with these applications are and Oklahoma. Applicant requests authorization to available for review, subject to the conduct presence/absence surveys for requirements of the Privacy Act and Permit No. TE—009900–0 Gila topminnow (including Yaqui) Freedom of Information Act, by any Applicant: Biozone, Inc., Prescott, (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) in various party who submits a written request for Arizona counties in Arizona. a copy of such documents within 30
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.033 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19548 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices days of the date of publication of this A copy of the cited patent application agreed to new lease terms for rentals notice, to the address above. is available, for those with a licensing and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre Bryan Arroyo, interest, from the USGS Technology or fraction thereof and 16–2/3 percent, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Enterprise Office. It may be requested by respectively. The lessee has paid the Services, Region 2, Albuquerque, New phone at (703) 648–4450 or by e-mail at required $500 administrative fee and Mexico. [email protected]. has reimbursed the Bureau of Land [FR Doc. 99–9928 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Inquiries, comments and other Management for the cost of this Federal BILLING CODE 4510±01±P materials relating to the contemplated Register notice. license must be submitted by regular The Lessee has met all the mail to Neil L. Mark, Technology requirements for reinstatement of the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Enterprise Office, U.S. Geological lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) Survey, 211 National Center, Reston, VA of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 United States Geological Survey 20192 or by email at [email protected]. USC 188), and the Bureau of Land Properly filed competing applications Management is proposing to reinstate Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent received by the USGS in response to the lease effective December 1, 1998, License this notice will be treated as objections subject to the original terms and This is notice in accordance with 35 to the grant of the contemplated license. conditions of the lease and the U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR Anton L. Inderbitzen, increased rental and royalty rates cited 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the U.S. Geological Director, Technology Enterprise Office. above. Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the [FR Doc. 99–9968 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interior, is contemplating the grant of an BILLING CODE 4310±Y7±M Lourdes B. Ortiz, Bureau of Land exclusive license in the United States to Management, New Mexico State Office, practice the invention embodied in U.S. (505) 438–7586. Patent Application Serial Number 9– DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Dated: April 13, 1999. 015,214 entitled ‘‘Automated Lourdes B. Ortiz, Bureau of Land Management Groundwater Monitoring System and Land Law Examiner. Method,’’ to Systems Management, Inc. [ID±065±1220±00] [FR Doc. 99–9965 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] of Hunt Valley, MD 21031. BILLING CODE 4310±FB±M The prospective exclusive license will Notice of Closure and Restriction be royalty-bearing and will comply with Order for BLM Lands in Fiddle Creek the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. Area, Order No. ID±060±14; Correction DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, exclusive license may be granted unless, Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater National Park Service within 60 days from the grant of this Districts, Idaho; DOI. published notice, USGS receives written Cape Cod National Seashore; South ACTION: Correction. evidence and argument which Wellfleet, MA; Cape Cod National establishes that the grant of a license SUMMARY: In notice document 99–8956 Seashore Advisory Commission; would not be consistent with the on page 17676 in the FR issue of Notice of Meeting requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 Monday, April 12, 1999, make the Notice is hereby given in accordance CFR 404.7. following correction: with the Federal Advisory Committee The present invention is a method of Under item (2) of the Summary add: Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 monitoring the quality of water at a (3) Area is closed to all use from 8 p.m. U.S.C. App 1, section 10), that a meeting ground water sampling site without to 6 a.m. of the Cape Cod National Seashore human intervention. Waste at the Dated: April 13, 1999. Advisory Commission will be held on sampling site is purged until at least one Ted Graf, Friday, April 30, 1999. preselected purge criterion is satisfied. Acting District Manager. The Commission was reestablished At least one water quality attribute is [FR Doc. 99–9920 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] pursuant to Public Law 87–126 as automatically measured at the sampling amended by Public Law 105–280. The BILLING CODE 4310±GG±M site, and quality of water at the site is purpose of the Commission is to consult determined based on the measured with the Secretary of the Interior, or his water quality attribute. The method is DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR designee, with respect to matters performed by a system including a relating to the development of the Cape control unit which, in accordance with Bureau of Land Management Cod National Seashore, and with respect a computer program, controls the taking to carrying out the provisions of [(NM±930±1310±01); (NMNM 96062)] of water quality attribute measurements sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishing at the sampling site. The control unit New Mexico: Proposed Reinstatement the Seashore. may be equipped with a port for of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease The Commission members will meet downloading data to a technician on site at 1:00 p.m. at Headquarters, Marconi and with a transceiver for Under the provisions of Public Law Station, Wellfleet, Massachusetts for the communicating data to a base station via 97–451, a petition for reinstatement of regular business meeting to discuss the a communications network. oil and gas lease NMNM 96062 for lands following: The availability of the invention for in Lea County, New Mexico, was timely 1. Adoption of Agenda licensing has been announced on the filed and was accompanied by all 2. Approval of Minutes of Previous USGS’ website (www.usgs.gov/tech- required rentals and royalties accruing Meeting 03/24/99 transfer), on a inventor’s website from December 1, 1998, the date of 3. Report of Officers (http://ma.water.usgs.gov/automo/), and termination. 4. Report of Nickerson Subcommittee at industry exhibits appearing more No valid lease has been issued 5. Superintendent’s Report than a year ago. affecting the lands. The lessee has Highlands Center trip report
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19549
Cellular transmission facilities accommodating members of the public Budget, New Executive Office Building, Turkey hunting are limited and persons will be Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Dog run in Provincetown accommodated on first come, first David Rossker, Desk Officer for U.S. Compendium update served basis. Any member of the public International Trade Commission. Copies 6. Old Business may file a written statement concerning of any comments should be provided to PWC Subcommittee the matters to be discussed with Lee Robert Rogowsky (United States ORV Subcommittee Commission handbook Edwards, Trail Manager. International Trade Commission, 500 E Jack’s Gas certificate of suspension Persons wishing further information Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20436). 7. New Business concerning this meeting, or who wish to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 8. Agenda for next meeting submit written statements may contact Copies of the proposed collection of 9. Date for next meeting Lee Edwards, Trail Manager, Selma to information and supporting 10. Adjournment Montgomery National Historic Trail, documentation may be obtained from The meeting is open to the public. It P.O. Box 5690, Montgomery, AL 36103, Debra Baker (USITC, tel. no. 202–205– is expected that 15 persons will be able telephone 334–353–3744 or 334–727– 3180). Hearing-impaired persons can to attend the meeting in addition to 6390. obtain information on this matter by Commission members. Lee Edwards, contacting the Commission’s TDD Interested persons may make oral/ Trail Manager. terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons written presentations to the Commission [FR Doc. 99–9923 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] with mobility impairments who will during the business meeting or file BILLING CODE 4310±70±M need special assistance in gaining access written statements. Such requests to the Commission should contact the should be made to the park Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. superintendent at least seven days prior INTERNATIONAL TRADE General information concerning the to the meeting. Further information COMMISSION Commission may also be obtained by concerning the meeting may be obtained accessing its internet server (http:// from the Superintendent, Cape Cod Submission for OMB Review; www.usitc.gov). National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Comment Request SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Road, Wellfleet, MA 02667. (1) The proposed information AGENCY: Dated: April 9, 1999. United States International collection consists of five forms, namely Trade Commission. Maria Burks, the Sample Producers’, Sample Superintendent. ACTION: Agency proposal for the Importers’, Sample Purchasers’, and [FR Doc. 99–9921 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] collection of information submitted to Sample Foreign Producers’ the Office of Management and Budget BILLING CODE 4310±70±P questionnaires (separate forms are (OMB) for review; comment request. provided for questionnaires issued for the five-year reviews) and Sample SUMMARY: In accordance with the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Notice of Institution for Five-Year provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Reviews. National Park Service Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–13), the (2) The types of items contained Commission has submitted a proposal within the sample questionnaires and Selma to Montgomery National Historic for the collection of information to OMB institution notice are largely determined Trail Advisory Council; Notice of for approval. The proposed information by statute. Actual questions formulated Meeting collection is a 3-year extension of the for use in a specific investigation current ‘‘generic clearance’’ (approved Notice is hereby given in accordance depend upon such factors as the nature by the Office of Management and of the industry, the relevant issues, the with the Federal Advisory Committee Budget under control No. 3117–0016) Act, Pub. L. 92–463, that a meeting of ability of respondents to supply the under which the Commission can issue data, and the availability of data from the Selma to Montgomery National information collections (specifically, Historic Trail Advisory Council will be secondary sources. producer, importer, purchaser, and (3) The information collected through held May 13, 1999, at 9:00 am, at the foreign producer questionnaires and town hall in Whitehall, Alabama. questionnaires issued under the generic certain institution notices) for the clearance for import injury The Selma to Montgomery National following types of import injury Historic Trail Advisory Council was investigations are consolidated by investigations: countervailing duty, Commission staff and form much of the established pursuant to Pub. L. 100–192 antidumping, escape clause, market establishing the Selma to Montgomery statistical base for the Commission’s disruption, NAFTA safeguard, and determinations. Affirmative National Historic Trail. This law was ‘‘interference with programs of the put in place to advise the National Park Commission determinations in USDA.’’ Any comments submitted to countervailing duty and antidumping Service on such issues as preservation OMB on the proposed information of trail routes and features, public use, investigations result in the imposition of collection should be specific, indicating additional duties on imports entering standards for posting and maintaining which part of the questionnaires or trail markers, and administrative the United States. If the Commission study plan are objectionable, describing makes an affirmative determination in a matters. the problem in detail, and including The matters to be discussed include: five-year review, the existing specific revisions or language changes. • Cooperative Agreements antidumping or countervailing duty • Federal Advisory Council Act DATES: To be assured of consideration, order will remain in place. The data • Interpretive Themes comments should be submitted to OMB developed in escape-clause, market • Interpretive and Visitor Center on or before May 21, 1999. disruption, and interference-with- locations ADDRESSES: Comments about the USDA-program investigations (if the • Historic route treatment proposal should be directed to the Commission finds affirmatively) are The meeting will be open to the Office of Information and Regulatory used by the President/U.S. Trade public. However, facilities and space for Affairs, Office of Management and Representative to determine the type of
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.037 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19550 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices relief, if any, to be provided to domestic determination whether a full or investigation. Estimated total annual industries. The submissions made to the expedited review should be conducted. reporting burden for the period July Commission in response to the notices (4) Likely respondents consist of 1999–June 2002 that will result from the of institution of five-year reviews form businesses (including foreign collection of information is presented the basis for the Commission’s businesses) or farms that produce, below. import, or purchase products under
TABLE 1ÐPROJECTED ANNUAL BURDEN DATA, BY TYPE OF INFORMATION COLLECTION, JULY 1999±JUNE 2002
Institution Producer Importer Purchaser Foreign pro- notices for Item question- question- question- ducer ques- 5-year re- Total naires naires naires tionnaires views
Estimated burden hours imposed annually for July 1999±June 2002 Number of respondents ...... 890 871 575 208 86 2,630 Frequency of response ...... 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total annual responses ...... 890 871 575 208 86 2,630 Hours per response ...... 52.6 44.1 23.2 28.0 7.4 39.9 Total hours ...... 46,825 38,426 13,335 5,832 636 105,054
No recordkeeping burden is known to States International Trade Commission Trade Commission, Washington, DC, result from the proposed collection of determines, pursuant to section 733(a) and by publishing the notice in the information. of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Federal Register of March 3, 1999 (64 Issued: April 15, 1999. § 1673b(a)), that there is no reasonable FR 10316). The conference was held in By order of the Commission. indication that an industry in the Washington, DC, on March 17, 1999, and all persons who requested the Donna R. Koehnke, United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that opportunity were permitted to appear in Secretary. the establishment of an industry in the person or by counsel. [FR Doc. 99–9995 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] United States is materially retarded, by The Commission transmitted its BILLING CODE 7020±02±P reason of imports from Japan of certain determinations in these investigations to aperture masks, provided for in the Secretary of Commerce on April 12, subheading 8540.91.50 of the 1999. The views of the Commission are INTERNATIONAL TRADE contained in USITC Publication 3185 COMMISSION Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold (April 1999), entitled Certain Aperture [Investigations Nos. 731±TA±823±824 in the United States at less than fair Masks from Japan and Korea: (Preliminary)] value (LTFV).3 Investigations Nos. 731–TA–823–824 Also, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. (Preliminary). Certain Aperture Masks From Japan 1677(24)(A), the Commission Issued: April 15, 1999. and Korea 1 determines that the subject imports from By order of the Commission. Determinations Korea that are alleged to be sold at LTFV Donna R. Koehnke, are negligible. The Commission’s On the basis of the record 2 developed Secretary. investigation with respect to Korea is in the subject investigations, the United [FR Doc. 99–9994 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] thereby terminated pursuant to 19 BILLING CODE 7020±02±P U.S.C. 1673b(a)(1). 1 The products covered by these investigations are all aperture masks (also known as ‘‘shadow masks’’) Background made from aluminum-killed, open-coil annealed INTERNATIONAL TRADE steel (decarburized) (known generally as ‘‘AK On February 24, 1999, petitions were COMMISSION steel’’) for color picture tubes (‘‘CPTs’’) used in filed with the Commission and the television sets. AK steel includes the following [Investigation No. TA±201±69] types of steel: low carbon, AF (annealing-free) steel, Department of Commerce by BMC Industries, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, AK type A steel (commonly referred to as AKM In the Matter of Certain Steel Wire Rod; steel), AK type B steel, and general AK steel. The alleging that an industry in the United Notice of Commission Determination aperture masks covered by the scope generally have States is materially injured and a vertical pitch (distance between the centers of two Not To Conduct a Portion of the threatened with material injury by apertures) of greater than 0.28 mm. Specifically Hearing In Camera excluded from the scope are the following products: reason of LTFV imports of certain (1) aperture masks made from FeNi 36 alloy aperture masks from Japan and Korea. AGENCY: U.S. International Trade (whether sold under the brand names Invar, Inovar Accordingly, effective February 24, Commission. or LLTE); (2) aperture masks that have a vertical pitch of less than 0.28 mm that are generally used 1999, the Commission instituted ACTION: Commission determination not for color display tubes (‘‘CDTs’’) used in computer antidumping investigations Nos. 731– to close any part of the hearing to the monitors; and (3) grille masks (a grille mask TA–823–824 (Preliminary). public. replaces the slots in an aperture mask with an array Notice of the institution of the of finely tensioned vertical wires). The merchandise SUMMARY: The Commission has subject to these investigations is provided for in Commission’s investigations and of a subheading 8540.91.50 of the Harmonized Tariff public conference to be held in determined to deny the requests of Schedule of the United States (HTS). Although the connection therewith was given by petitioners and Respondents Group HTS subheading is provided for convenience and posting copies of the notice in the Office (foreign producers in Japan, Trinidad & customs purposes, the written description of the Tobago, Turkey, Germany, France, merchandise is dispositive. of the Secretary, U.S. International 2 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 3 Commissioners Carol T. Crawford and Stephen Venezuela, Brazil, and the American CFR § 207.2(f)). Koplan dissenting. Wire Producers Association) to conduct
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19551 a portion of its hearing in the above- Under the proposed consent decree, decree between the United States and captioned investigation scheduled for Cooper Industries, Inc. (‘‘Cooper’’) and Decker lodged with the Court on May April 15, 1999, in camera. See Corning Incorporated (‘‘Corning’’) 27, 1998. 63 FR 29752 (June 1, 1998). Commission rules 201.13 and (collectively, the ‘‘Settling RA Also, under the proposed consent 201.35(b)(3) (19 CFR 201.13 and Defendants’’) would be obligated to decree, the U.S. Environmental 201.35(b)(3)). finance and perform the remedial action Protection Agency agrees to withdraw a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: at the Site as specified in EPA’s Record unilateral administrative order issued to William Gearhart, Office of General of Decision, at an estimated cost of $2.6 the City, Decker, Cooper and Corning on Counsel, U.S. International Trade million. The City and Decker October 11, 1995, within fourteen days Manufacturing Co. (‘‘Decker’’) Commission, telephone 202–205–3091, after entry of the proposed consent (collectively, the ‘‘Settling O&M e-mail [email protected]. Hearing- decree by the Court. impaired individuals are advised that Defendants’’) would be obligated to The Department of Justice will information on this matter may be finance and perform the operation and obtained by contacting the maintenance of the remedial action at receive, for a period of thirty (30) days Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– the Site as specified in the Record of from the date of this publication, 205–1810. Decision, at an estimated cost of $0.538 comments relating to the proposed million. The Settling O&M Defendants consent decree. Comments should be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The would be required to reimburse EPA’s addressed to the Assistant Attorney Commission believes it should conduct future response costs at the Site in the General, Environment and Natural its business in public in all but the most amount of $200,000. In addition, the unusual circumstances. The Resource Division, United States City would be required to reimburse the Department of Justice, Washington, DC Commission has determined that, in Superfund $400,000, and Decker would light of the nature of this investigation, 20530, and should refer to United States be required to reimburse the Superfund v. City of Albion, Michigan, et al., Civil it will be able to assess adequately all $250,000, in separate obligations, arguments raised by the parties without No. 1:97–CV–1037 (W.D. Mich.), and toward the United States’ past costs at DOJ Reference No. 90–11–2–1109. resorting to the extraordinary measure the Site. of an in camera hearing. Accordingly, The Site is an inactive municipal Commenters may request an the Commission has determined that the landfill located approximately one mile opportunity for a public meeting in the public interest would be best served by east of the City of Albion in Sheridan affected area, in accordance with a hearing that is entirely open to the Township, Calhoun County, Michigan. Section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. public. See 19 CFR 201.36(c)(1). The Site, which covers approximately § 6973(d). Authority: This notice is provided 18 acres, was widely used for both The proposed consent decree may be pursuant to Commission Rule 201.35(b) (19 municipal and industrial waste disposal examined at: (1) The Office of the CFR 201.35(b)). from approximately 1966 to 1981. In the United States Attorney for the Western Issued: April 15, 1999. early 1970s, the landfill accepted metal District of Michigan, The Law Building, By order of the Commission. plating sludges, including insoluble 330 Ionio Avenue, NW, 5th Floor, Grand hydroxides and carbonates. Other Donna R. Koehnke, Rapids, Michigan 49503, (616–456– materials, such as paint wastes and 2404); (2) the United States Secretary. thinners, oil and grease, dust, sand and Environmental Protection Agency [FR Doc. 99–9993 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] dirt containing flyash and casting sand, (Region 5), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, BILLING CODE 7020±02±P also have been disposed of at the Site. Site activities resulted in contamination Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590 (contact of soil and groundwater with hazardous Connie Puchalski (312–886–6719)); and (3) the U.S. Department of Justice, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE substances. The Site will be remediated under the proposed consent decree. The Environment and Natural Resources Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree remedial action to be implemented by Division Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Pursuant to the Comprehensive the Settling RA Defendants consists of Street, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC Environmental Response, the following actions: (1) Removal and 20005 (202–624–0892). A copy of the Compensation and Liability Act off-Site treatment of surface wastes; (2) proposed consent decree may be construction of a landfill cap; (3) obtained in person or by mail from the In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7 and installation of passive gas collection Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, section 122 of the Comprehensive system; (4) installation of groundwater NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20005. Response, Compensation and Liability monitoring wells; (5) institutional In requesting a copy, please refer to the Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622, the controls, including Site Security, on- referenced case and DOJ Reference Department of Justice gives notice that and off-Site; and (6) construction of Number and enclose a check in the a proposed consent decree in United stormwater/infiltration retention basins. amount of $22.50 for the consent decree States v. City of Albion, MI, et al., Civil The operation and maintenance to be only (90 pages at 25 cents per page No. 1:97–CF–1037 (W.D. Mich.), was implemented by the Settling O&M reproduction costs), or $408.50 for the lodged with the United States District Defendants consists of the following consent decree and all appendices Court for the Western District of actions: (1) Operation and maintenance (1,634 pages), made payable to the Michigan on March 22, 1999, pertaining of the cap and other remedy Consent Decree Library. to the Albion Sheridan Township components installed; (2) long-term (30 Landfill Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’), years) monitoring of groundwater; (3) Joel M. Gross, Calhoun County, Michigan. The institutional controls on certain adjacent Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, proposed consent decree would resolve parcels of land; and (4) maintenance of Environment and Natural Resources Division. the United States’ civil claims against Site security. [FR Doc. 99–9967 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] the City of Albion, Michigan (the Under the proposed consent decree, BILLING CODE 4410±15±M ‘‘City’’) and three third-party defendants the United States agrees to move the named in this action. Court for leave to withdraw the consent
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.137 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19552 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE per page reproduction costs), payable to the order indicated that the Deputy the Consent Decree Library. Administrator had not received a Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Bruce Gelber, request from Respondent to modify his Pursuant to the Resource Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement 1995 renewal application. As a result, Conservation and Recovery Act Section, Environment and Natural Resources the Deputy Administrator ordered that Division. effective May 10, 1999, the stay would In accordance with Departmental [FR Doc. 99–9966 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] be removed and Respondent’s DEA policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby BILLING CODE 4410±15±M Certificate of Registration would be given that a proposed Consent Decree in revoked. United States v. Chem-Pak Corporation, It has recently come to the Deputy Civ. No. CA–99–152 (ML), was lodged DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Administrator’s attention that while on March 26, 1999 with the United Respondent did not submit the required Drug Enforcement Administration States District Court for the District of information to the Deputy Rhode Island. The complaint in this [Docket No. 97±8] Administrator as directed by the August action seeks to recover civil penalties 13, 1998 final order, he did submit such Leonard E. Reaves III, M.D.; for Chem-Pak Corporation’s (‘‘Chem- information to other offices within DEA Reinstatement of Registration Pak’s’’) violations of the Resource in a timely manner. Therefore, the Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 On August 13, 1998, the then-Acting Deputy Administrator concludes that Respondent has in fact met the U.S.C. 6921, et seq., at its hazardous Deputy Administrator of the Drug conditions set forth in the August 13, waste storage and treatment facility in Enforcement Administration (DA) 1908 final order, and as a result the Cranston, Rhode Island. issued a final order revoking DEA Certificate of Registration AR2127377 April 1, 1999 final order removing the The proposed Consent Decree issued to Leonard E. Reaves III, M.D. stay and revoking Respondent’s DEA embodies an agreement providing for (Respondent), effective September 18, Certificate of Registration effective May Chem-Pak to pay a civil penalty of 1998. See 63 FR 44,471 (August 19, 10, 1999 is rescinded. The Deputy $75,000 in settlement of the United 1998). The then-Acting Deputy Administrator further concludes that States’ claims. The proposed Consent Administrator further ordered that the DEA Certificate of Registration Decree also will require Chem-Pak to revocation be stayed for six months AR2127377 shall be reinstated and purchase a new computerized record from the effective date of the order renewed in Schedules, II, IIN, III, IIIN, keeping system and to employ a full ‘‘during which time Respondent must IV and V. Respondent is reminded that time environmental engineer at its present evidence to the Acting Deputy he is required to indicate that there has facility. Administrator of his completion of a been taken against his DEA Certificate of Registration in response to the liability The Department of Justice will training course regarding controlled substances, and of his ongoing treatment question on any future applications. receive, for a period of thirty (30) days Accordingly, the Deputy from the date of this publication, for his codependency problems [and] must request modification, if necessary, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement comments relating to the proposed Administration, pursuant to the Consent Decree. of his 1995 renewal application to accurately reflect what schedules he authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823 Comments should be addressed to the wishes to be registered in to effectively and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, Assistant Attorney General for the treat his patient population.’’ Id. hereby orders that the April 1, 1999 Environment and Natural Resources The then-Acting Deputy final order found at 64 FR 17,416 (April Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Administrator noted that should 9, 1999), be and it hereby is rescinded. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Respondent submit this information in The Deputy Administrator further Washington, DC 20044, and should refer a timely fashion, a subsequent order orders that DEA Certificate of to United States v. Chem-Pak would be issued indicating that the Registration AR2127377, issued to Corporation, DOJ Ref. No. 90–7–1–905. conditions have been met, and Leonard E. Reaves III, M.D., be, and it hereby is, reinstated and renewed in The proposed Consent Decree may be reinstating and renewing Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration. The Schedules II, IIN, III, IIIN, IV and V. examined at the Office of the United This order is effective April 21, 1999. States Attorney, Fleet Center, Eighth then-Acting Deputy Administrator further noted that should Respondent Dated: April 15, 1999. Floor, 50 Kennedy Plaza, Providence, RI fail to provide this information in a 02903; the Region I Office of the Donnie R. Marshall, timely manner, the stay would be Environmental Protection Agency, Deputy Administrator. removed and Respondent’s DEA [FR Doc. 99–9980 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Region I Records Center, 90 Canal Certificate of Registration would be BILLING CODE 4410±09±M Street, Fourth Floor, Boston, MA 02203; revoked and any pending applications and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 for renewal would be denied. G Street, NW., Third Floor, Washington, By order dated April 1, 1999, the DC 20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of Deputy Administrator found that more NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT the proposed consent decree may be than six months had passed since the COMMISSION obtained in person or by mail from the effective date of the final order Notice of Meeting Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, regarding Respondent’s DEA Certificate Third Floor, NW., Washington, DC of Registration, and Respondent had not AGENCY: Northeast Dairy Compact 20005. In requesting a copy, please refer presented any evidence to the Deputy Commission. to the referenced case and enclose a Administrator of his completion of a ACTION: Notice of meeting. check in the amount of $4.00 (25 cents training course regarding controlled substances or of his ongoing treatment SUMMARY: The Compact Commission for his codependency problems. See 64 will hold its monthly meeting to FR 17,416 (April 9, 1999). In addition, consider matters relating to
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.117 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19553 administration and enforcement of the 5. Who will be required or asked to NUCLEAR REGULATORY price regulation, including the reports report: Licensees of facilities on the U.S. COMMISSION and recommendations of the eligible list who have been notified in Commission’s standing Committees. writing by the Commission to submit Advisory Committee on Reactor The Commission will also hold its the form. Safeguards and Advisory Committee deliberative meeting to consider on Nuclear Waste Working Group 6. An estimate of the number of whether to extend the exemption for Meeting; Notice of Meeting responses: One. certain milk sold in eight-ounce The ACRS and ACNW Working Group containers by school food authorities 7. The number of annual respondents: will hold a joint meeting on May 11, through the operation of the Compact One. 1999, Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Over-order Price Regulation. 8. An estimate of the total number of Pike, Rockville, Maryland. DATES: The meeting is scheduled for hours needed annually to complete the The meeting will be open to public Wednesday, May 5, 1999 to commence requirement or request: 360. attendance. at the close of the public hearing for a 9. An indication of whether Section The agenda for the subject meeting proposed rule beginning at 9:00 a.m. as 3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not shall be as follows: previously noticed at 64 FR 19084 applicable. (April 19, 1999). Tuesday, May 11, 1999—8:30 a.m. until 12:00 Noon ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 10. Abstract: Licensees of facilities the Wayfarer Inn, 121 S. River Road, that appear on the U.S. eligible list, The Joint Working Group will discuss U.S. Route 3, Bedford, New Hampshire. pursuant to the US/IAEA Safeguards the staff’s proposed framework for risk- Agreement, and who have been notified FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: informed regulation in the Office of Kenneth M. Becker, Executive Director, in writing by the Commission, are Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, required to complete and submit a The purpose of this meeting is to gather 34 Barre Street, Suite 2, Montpelier, VT Design Information Questionnaire, IAEA information, analyze relevant issues and 05602. Telephone (802) 229–1941. Form N–71 (and the appropriate facts, and formulate proposed positions associated IAEA Form), to provide and actions, as appropriate, for Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256. information concerning their deliberation by the full Committees. Dated: April 15, 1999. installation for use of the International Oral statements may be presented by Kenneth M. Becker, Atomic Energy Agency. members of the public with the Executive Director. concurrence of the Working Group; A copy of the final supporting [FR Doc. 99–9929 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] written statements will be accepted and statement may be viewed free of charge BILLING CODE 1650±01±P made available to the Working Group. at the NRC Public Document Room, Electronic recordings will be permitted 2120 L Street, NW (lower level), only during those portions of the Washington, DC. OMB clearance meeting that are open to the public, and NUCLEAR REGULATORY requests are available at the NRC questions may be asked only by COMMISSION worldwide web site (http:// members of the Working Group, their www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/OMB/ Agency Information Collection consultants, and staff. Persons desiring index.html). The document will be Activities: Submission for OMB to make oral statements should notify available on the NRC home page site for Review; Comment Request the cognizant ACRS/ACNW staff 60 days after the signature date of this member named below five days prior to AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory notice. the meeting, if possible, so that Commission (NRC). Comments and questions should be appropriate arrangements can be made. ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of directed to the OMB reviewer by May During the initial portion of the information collection and solicitation 21, 1999. Comments received after this meeting, the Working Group, along with of public comment. date will be considered if it is practical any consultants who may be present, to do so, but assurance of consideration may exchange preliminary views SUMMARY: The NRC has recently regarding matters to be considered cannot be given to comments received submitted to OMB for review the during the balance of the meeting. after this date. following proposal for the collection of The Working Group will then hear information under the provisions of the Erik Godwin, Office of Information presentations by and hold discussions Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 and Regulatory Affairs (3150–0056), with representatives of the NRC staff, U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby NEOB–10202, Office of Management their consultants, and other interested informs potential respondents that an and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. persons regarding these matters. agency may not conduct or sponsor, and Comments can also be submitted by Further information regarding topics that a person is not required to respond telephone at (202) 395–3084. to be discussed, whether the meeting to, a collection of information unless it has been canceled or rescheduled, the displays a currently valid OMB control The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Working Group’s ruling on requests for number. Jo. Shelton, 301–415–7233. the opportunity to present oral 1. Type of submission, new, revision, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd statements and the time allotted therefor or extension: Extension. day of March 1999. can be obtained by contacting the Senior 2. The title of the information For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Fellow, John N. Sorensen (telephone collection: Design Information 301/415–7372) between 8:00 a.m. and Brenda Jo. Shelton, Questionnaire. 5:45 p.m. (EDT) or by e-mail 3. The form number if applicable: NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief [email protected]. Persons planning to IAEA Form N–71. Information Officer. attend this meeting are urged to contact 4. How often the collection is [FR Doc. 99–9938 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] the above-named individual one to two required: Once. BILLING CODE 7590±01±P working days prior to the meeting to be
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.140 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19554 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices advised of any potential changes in the notice. To verify the status of meetings Commission that such amendment proposed agenda, etc., that may have call (RECORDING)—(301) 415–1292. involves no significant hazards occurred. Contact person for more information: consideration, notwithstanding the Dated: April 15, 1999. Bill Hill (301) 415–1661. pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. Richard P. Savio, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: By a vote of 5– 0 on April 15, the Commission This biweekly notice includes all Associate Director for Technical Support, notices of amendments issued, or ACRS/ACNW. determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission’s rules proposed to be issued from March 27 [FR Doc. 99–9937 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] that ‘‘Affirmation of (a) Private Fuel through April 9, 1999. The last biweekly BILLING CODE 7590±01±P Storage, LLC (PFS) Review of Board’s notice was published on April 7, 1999 Decision Granting Late-Filed (64 FR 17021). NUCLEAR REGULATORY Intervention Petition of Southern Utah Notice of Consideration of Issuance of COMMISSION Wilderness Alliance (LBP–99–3) Amendments to Facility Operating (February 3, 1999) and (b) Duke Energy Licenses, Proposed No Significant Sunshine Act Meeting Corporation—Commission Review of Hazards Consideration Determination, LBP 98–33’’ (PUBLIC MEETING) be and Opportunity for a Hearing AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear held on April 15, and on less than one Regulatory Commission. week’s notice to the public. The Commission has made a DATE: Weeks of April 19, 26, May 3 and The NRC Commission Meeting proposed determination that the 10, 1999. Schedule can be found on the Internet following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference at: Under the Commission’s regulations in Room, 11555, Rockville Pike, Rockville, http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/ 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation Maryland. schedule.htm of the facility in accordance with the STATUS: Public and Closed. This notice is distributed by mail to proposed amendment would not (1) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: several hundred subscribers; if you no involve a significant increase in the longer wish to receive it, or would like Week of April 19 probability or consequences of an to be added to it, please contact the accident previously evaluated; or (2) There are no meetings scheduled for Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations create the possibility of a new or the Week of April 19. Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301– different kind of accident from any 415–1661). In addition, distribution of Week of April 26—Tentative accident previously evaluated; or (3) this meeting notice over the Internet involve a significant reduction in a Monday, April 26 system is available. If you are interested margin of safety. The basis for this 2:00 p.m.—Affirmation Section (Public in receiving this Commission meeting proposed determination for each Meeting) (if needed) schedule electronically, please send an amendment request is shown below. electronic message to [email protected] or The Commission is seeking public Week of May 3—Tentative [email protected]. comments on this proposed Tuesday, May 4 Dated: April 16, 1999. determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 9:00 a.m.—Meeting on NRC Response to William M. Hill, Jr., publication of this notice will be Stakeholders’ Concerns (Public SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the considered in making any final Meeting) Location: (NRC Auditorium, Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–10124 Filed 4–19–99; 8:45 am] determination. Two White Flint North) Normally, the Commission will not 2:00 p.m.—Meeting on Planning, BILLING CODE 7590±01±M issue the amendment until the Budgeting and Performance expiration of the 30-day notice period. Management Process (PBPM) And However, should circumstances change Institutionalizing Change (Public NUCLEAR REGULATORY during the notice period such that Meeting) COMMISSION failure to act in a timely way would Wednesday, May 5 Biweekly Notice; Applications and result, for example, in derating or 9:00 a.m.—Discussion of Amendments to Facility Operating shutdown of the facility, the Intragovernmental Issues (Closed-Ex. Licenses Involving No Significant Commission may issue the license 9b) Hazards Considerations amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its 10:00 a.m.—Briefing on Safeguards I. Background Performance Assessment (Public final determination is that the Meeting) Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the amendment involves no significant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hazards consideration. The final Thursday, May 6 (the Commission or NRC staff) is determination will consider all public 9:30 a.m.—Briefing on Operating publishing this regular biweekly notice. and State comments received before Reactors and Fuel Facilities (Public Public Law 97–415 revised section 189 action is taken. Should the Commission Meeting) (Contact: Glenn Tracy, 301– of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as take this action, it will publish in the 415–1725) amended (the Act), to require the Federal Register a notice of issuance 11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public Commission to publish notice of any and provide for opportunity for a Meeting) (if needed) amendments issued, or proposed to be hearing after issuance. The Commission issued, under a new provision of section expects that the need to take this action Week of May 10—Tentative 189 of the Act. This provision grants the will occur very infrequently. There are no meetings scheduled for Commission the authority to issue and Written comments may be submitted the Week of May 10. make immediately effective any by mail to the Chief, Rules and *The schedule for Commission amendment to an operating license Directives Branch, Division of meetings is subject to change on short upon a determination by the Administration Services, Office of
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.039 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19555
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory which petitioner wishes to intervene. significant hazards consideration, any Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Any person who has filed a petition for hearing held would take place before 0001, and should cite the publication leave to intervene or who has been the issuance of any amendment. date and page number of this Federal admitted as a party may amend the A request for a hearing or a petition Register notice. Written comments may petition without requesting leave of the for leave to intervene must be filed with also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two Board up to 15 days prior to the first the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. White Flint North, 11545 Rockville prehearing conference scheduled in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Pike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 proceeding, but such an amended Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. petition must satisfy the specificity Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or Copies of written comments received requirements described above. may be delivered to the Commission’s may be examined at the NRC Public Not later than 15 days prior to the first Public Document Room, the Gelman Document Room, the Gelman Building, prehearing conference scheduled in the Building, 2120 L Street, NW, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. proceeding, a petitioner shall file a Washington DC, by the above date. A The filing of requests for a hearing and supplement to the petition to intervene copy of the petition should also be sent petitions for leave to intervene is which must include a list of the to the Office of the General Counsel, discussed below. contentions which are sought to be U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, By May 21, 1999, the licensee may file litigated in the matter. Each contention Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to the a request for a hearing with respect to must consist of a specific statement of attorney for the licensee. issuance of the amendment to the the issue of law or fact to be raised or Nontimely filings of petitions for subject facility operating license and controverted. In addition, the petitioner leave to intervene, amended petitions, any person whose interest may be shall provide a brief explanation of the supplemental petitions and/or requests affected by this proceeding and who bases of the contention and a concise for a hearing will not be entertained wishes to participate as a party in the statement of the alleged facts or expert absent a determination by the proceeding must file a written request opinion which support the contention Commission, the presiding officer or the for a hearing and a petition for leave to and on which the petitioner intends to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that intervene. Requests for a hearing and a rely in proving the contention at the the petition and/or request should be petition for leave to intervene shall be hearing. The petitioner must also granted based upon a balancing of filed in accordance with the provide references to those specific factors specified in 10 CFR Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for sources and documents of which the 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d). Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 petitioner is aware and on which the For further details with respect to this CFR Part 2. Interested persons should petitioner intends to rely to establish action, see the application for consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner amendment which is available for which is available at the Commission’s must provide sufficient information to public inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room, the Gelman show that a genuine dispute exists with Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., the applicant on a material issue of law Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and at the local public or fact. Contentions shall be limited to Washington, DC, and at the local public document room for the particular matters within the scope of the document room for the particular facility involved. If a request for a amendment under consideration. The facility involved. hearing or petition for leave to intervene contention must be one which, if is filed by the above date, the proven, would entitle the petitioner to Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. Commission or an Atomic Safety and relief. A petitioner who fails to file such 50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Licensing Board, designated by the a supplement which satisfies these Michigan Commission or by the Chairman of the requirements with respect to at least one Date of amendment request: March Atomic Safety and Licensing Board contention will not be permitted to 23, 1999. Panel, will rule on the request and/or participate as a party. Description of amendment request: petition; and the Secretary or the Those permitted to intervene become The proposed amendment would designated Atomic Safety and Licensing parties to the proceeding, subject to any modify Technical Specification Board will issue a notice of a hearing or limitations in the order granting leave to Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1.1.1 to an appropriate order. intervene, and have the opportunity to require each recirculation pump As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a participate fully in the conduct of the discharge valve to be demonstrated petition for leave to intervene shall set hearing, including the opportunity to OPERABLE at least once every 18 forth with particularity the interest of present evidence and cross-examine months and will delete footnote * that the petitioner in the proceeding, and witnesses. applies to Technical Specification how that interest may be affected by the If a hearing is requested, the 4.4.1.1.1. results of the proceeding. The petition Commission will make a final Basis for proposed no significant should specifically explain the reasons determination on the issue of no hazards consideration determination: why intervention should be permitted significant hazards consideration. The As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the with particular reference to the final determination will serve to decide licensee has provided its analysis of the following factors: (1) the nature of the when the hearing is held. issue of no significant hazards petitioner’s right under the Act to be If the final determination is that the consideration, which is presented made a party to the proceeding; (2) the amendment request involves no below: nature and extent of the petitioner’s significant hazards consideration, the property, financial, or other interest in Commission may issue the amendment 1. The change does not involve a the proceeding; and (3) the possible significant increase in the probability or and make it immediately effective, consequences of an accident previously effect of any order which may be notwithstanding the request for a evaluated. entered in the proceeding on the hearing. Any hearing held would take The proposed changes to the Technical petitioner’s interest. The petition should place after issuance of the amendment. Specifications (TS) would modify the also identify the specific aspect(s) of the If the final determination is that the frequency of cycling the recirculation pump subject matter of the proceeding as to amendment request involves a discharge valves from ‘‘each STARTUP*
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 19556 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices prior to THERMAL POWER exceeding 25% has no safety consequence. Therefore, the 1. Does the change involve a significant of RATED THERMAL POWER’’ to ‘‘at least proposed changes do not involve a increase in the probability or consequences once per 18 months;’’ and replace the significant reduction in a margin of safety. of an accident previously evaluated? footnote applicable to TS 4.4.1.1, ‘‘*If not The NRC staff has reviewed the The proposed changes are administrative performed in the previous 31 days’’ with in nature. The revised requirements for who ‘‘*Not Used.’’ The change in testing licensee’s analysis and, based on this must hold a current senior reactor operator frequency does not affect the probability of review, it appears that the three (SRO) License does not involve any change an accident since the valve testing is not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are to the configuration or method of operation related to accident initiation sequences. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff of any plant equipment that is used to Consequences of accidents are not proposes to determine that the mitigate the consequences of an accident nor significantly increased because the proposed amendment request involves no alter the conditions or assumptions in any of testing interval provides reasonable significant hazards consideration. the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report assurance that the valves will function. Local Public Document Room [UFSAR] accident analyses. The requirement Testing of the valves will still be performed location: Monroe County Library that the operations manager hold or have on a frequency that is allowed by TS if no System, Ellis Reference and Information held an SRO License is included in the events occur that require entry into Mode 3 Center, 3700 South Custer Road, revised Position Qualifications in the Unit 2 or Mode 4. Therefore, the change will not UFSAR, Table 13.1–2, sheet 30 of 35. The involve a significant increase in the Monroe, Michigan 48161. title changes are being made, consistent with probability or consequences of an accident Attorney for licensee: John Flynn, TSTF–65, Rev 1 and help avoid the need for previously evaluated. Testing the valves in Esq., Detroit Edison Company, 2000 future Technical Specification changes. accordance with the inservice testing (IST) Second Avenue, Detroit, Michigan Therefore, it can be concluded that the program on the same testing frequency as 48226. proposed changes do not involve any testing performed for the low pressure NRC Section Chief: George F. Dick, increase in the probability or consequences coolant injection system, provides adequate Acting. of an accident previously evaluated. assurance that the valves can perform their 2. Does the change create the possibility of safety function and will not increase the Duquesne Light Company, et al., Docket a new or different kind of accident from any consequences of an accident previously Nos. 50–334 and 50–412, Beaver Valley accident previously evaluated? evaluated. The change to the footnote is Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, No new failure modes are defined for any administrative in nature and will have no Shippingport, Pennsylvania plant system or component important to effect on the probability of an accident and Date of amendment request: March 3, safety nor has any new limiting failure been will not increase any safety consequences. identified as a result of the proposed 2. The change does not create the 1999. changes. Therefore, it can be concluded that possibility of a new or different kind of Description of amendment request: the proposed change does not create the accident from any accident previously The proposed amendments would possibility of a new or different kind of evaluated. change the required qualifications for accident from those previously evaluated. The proposed changes revise performing operations management specified in the 3. Does the change involve a significant the testing of the recirculation pump Technical Specifications (TSs) for the reduction in a margin of safety? discharge valves from ‘‘prior to Startup* not Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 The proposed changes are administrative to exceed 25% of rated thermal power.’’ to and 2 (BVPS–1 and BVPS–2). The in nature. One of the proposed changes ‘‘at least once per 18 months’’ and replace the requires that the manager who directly footnote applicable to TS 4.4.1.1’’ *If not requirement that the operations manager hold a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) supervises the licensed operators at each unit performed in the previous 31 days’’ with be the holder of a current SRO license. The ‘‘*Not Used’’ does not result in a new license at the time of appointment other change modifies personnel titles. accident precursor since the test only verifies would be changed in the TSs to require Therefore, it can be concluded that the that the valve can close which is its safety that the assistant operations managers, proposed changes do not involve any function. Deleting the information contained one for each unit, hold an SRO license reduction in a margin of safety. in footnote ‘‘*’’ that applies to TS 4.4.1.1.1 on their assigned unit. The TSs would and designating it as ‘‘* Not Used.’’ is The NRC staff has reviewed the not then require the operations manager licensee’s analysis and, based on this administrative in nature with no safety hold an SRO license. Additionally, the significance. Therefore, no different type of review, it appears that the three Updated Final Safety Analysis Report accident from any previously evaluated is standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are introduced. (UFSAR) for each unit would be satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 3. The change does not involve a changed to require the operations proposes to determine that the significant reduction in the margin of safety. manager to hold, or have held, an SRO amendment request involves no The proposed changes revise the frequency license rather than presently hold a significant hazards consideration. of cycling the recirculation pump discharge license. The UFSAR would require the Local Public Document Room valves from ‘‘each STARTUP* prior to same as the TS; that the assistant THERMAL POWER exceeding 25% of location: B.F. Jones Memorial Library, operations managers hold an SRO 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, PA RATED THERMAL POWER’’ to ‘‘at least once license on the unit to which they are per 18 months’’ and replace the footnote 15001. applicable to TS 4.4.1.1 ‘‘*If not performed assigned. Finally, the proposed Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, in the previous 31 days’’ with ‘‘*Not Used.’’ amendments would substitute generic Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Altering the test frequency does not change personnel titles for plant-specific Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, valve stroke time or other performance or personnel titles in the BVPS–1 and Washington, DC 20037. design characteristics related to the safety BVPS–2 TSs. The correlation between NRC Section Chief: Singh Bajwa. function of the valves. The potential for generic titles and plant-specific titles failure of the valve to close is not changed would be provided in the BVPS–2 Duquesne Light Company, et al., Docket as a result of the proposed change since the UFSAR. No. 50–412, Beaver Valley Power same frequency is allowed by the current TS Basis for proposed no significant Station, Unit No. 2, Shippingport, if no events occur that require entry into hazards consideration determination: Pennsylvania Mode 3 or Mode 4. Performing stroke time testing on a refueling outage basis and MOV As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Date of amendment request: March testing on a periodic basis does not decrease licensee has provided its analysis of the 16, 1999. the margin of safety associated with the valve issue of no significant hazards Description of amendment request: performing its safety function. Revising consideration, which is presented The proposed amendment would revise footnote * is an administrative change and below: Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.1.3
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.071 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19557 and associated Bases for the Primary the water volume not being within the limit. is administrative in nature and does not Plant Demineralized Water (PPDW) The LCO clearly states the value for the affect plant safety. The remaining change, System to clarify that the minimum minimum required volume in the PPDW which consists of the addition of plant specified volume of water in the PPDW storage tank. Therefore, the proposed operating license number, is editorial in modification to the Action statements is nature and does not affect plant safety. Storage Tank is a usable volume. administrative in nature and does not affect Therefore, the proposed amendment does Additionally, the minimum usable plant safety. The additional Bases wording not involve a significant reduction in a volume of water in the PPDW Storage pertaining to reactor coolant pump operation margin of safety. tank is increased, and a clarifying is administrative in nature and does not footnote that the specified value is an affect plant safety. The remaining change, The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis value is added. Finally, several which consists of the addition of plant licensee’s analysis and, based on this editorial and administrative changes, operating license number, is editorial in review, it appears that the three such as revision of action statement nature and does not affect plant safety. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Therefore, operation of the facility in satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff wording, addition of license number to accordance with the proposed amendment the TS page, and addition of clarifying proposes to determine that the does not involve a significant increase in the amendment request involves no information to the TS Bases regarding probability or consequence of an accident analysis assumptions are made. previously evaluated. significant hazards consideration. Basis for proposed no significant 2. Does the change create the possibility of Local Public Document Room hazards consideration determination: a new or different kind of accident from any location: B.F. Jones Memorial Library, As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the accident previously evaluated? 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, PA licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed amendment will not change 15001. issue of no significant hazards the physical plant or the modes of plant Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, operation defined in the operating license. consideration, which is presented This change does not involve the addition or Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & below: modification of plant equipment nor does it Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., 1. Does the change involve a significant alter the design or operation of plant systems. Washington, DC 20037. increase in the probability or consequences The proposed amendment will require that NRC Section Chief: S. Singh Bajwa. of an accident previously evaluated? the minimum volume in the PPDW storage The failure of the primary plant tank be maintained consistent with analysis Florida Power Corporation, et al., demineralized water (PPDW) storage tank to assumptions. Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River provide a sufficient source of water to the Therefore, operation of the facility in Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 3, Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System is not an accordance with the proposed amendment Citrus County, Florida accident initiating event. Therefore, the will not create the possibility of a new or probability of an accident previously different kind of accident from any accident Date of amendment request: August evaluated is not increased by this proposed previously evaluated. 31, 1998, and revised March 18, 1999. amendment. 3. Does the change involve a significant Description of amendment request: Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) reduction in a margin of safety? The proposed amendment would revise 3.7.1.3 titled ‘‘Primary Plant Demineralized The minimum required volume in the Improved Technical Specification (ITS) Water (PPDW)’’ will be revised to specify the PPDW storage tank would be slightly 5.6.2.10, ‘‘Steam Generator (OTSG required value for PPDW storage tank volume increased over the currently required value. [once-through steam generator]) Tube as a usable volume. To reflect the value This increase in the required volume will currently assumed in the analysis, the value ensure that an adequate volume of water is Surveillance Program,’’ to include a new stated in the LCO, for minimum required maintained in the PPDW storage tank. The repair process, called a ‘‘repair roll’’ or PPDW storage tank volume, would be slightly proposed addition of the term ‘‘usable,’’ ‘‘re-roll.’’ The process would be used to increased. The addition of proposed Footnote along with the addition of Footnote (1), will repair steam generator tubes with (1) to LCO 3.7.1.3 will ensure that plant ensure that the water volume specified in defects within the upper tubesheet. operators recognize that the specified volume LCO 3.7.1.3 is appropriately increased in Changes to inservice inspection and is an analysis value and that the value does plant procedures to account for unusable reporting requirements are proposed for not include measurement uncertainties. This volume in the tank and for measurement tubes which are repaired using this footnote will require plant procedures to uncertainties. A sufficient volume of water process. In addition, several format and specify an increased required volume in the will continue to be maintained in the PPDW PPDW storage tank to account for storage tank to satisfy the Safe Shutdown editorial changes are proposed to ITS measurement uncertainties. The proposed evaluation. 5.6.2.10 and to ITS 5.7.2, ‘‘Special revisions to LCO 3.7.1.3 will assure that the The PPDW storage tank will continue to Reports,’’ for clarification purposes. The PPDW storage tank minimum usable volume provide a sufficient source of water to the March 18, 1999 revision superceded the is maintained consistent with the design AFW pumps to ensure that the AFW System August 31, 1998 request, and includes basis for the PPDW storage tank. The PPDW is capable of mitigating the consequences of the results of recent accident analyses storage tank will continue to provide a DBAs that could result in overpressurization conducted to identify the maximum sufficient source of water to the AFW pumps. of the RCS pressure boundary. The AFW OTSG tube tensile loads. As a result of Maintaining a sufficient source of water will system will continue to be capable of the increased tube tensile loads, some ensure that the AFW System is capable of providing an emergency source of feedwater mitigating the consequences of Design Basis to the steam generators to act as heat sinks tubes will require a double repair roll. Accidents (DBAs) that could result in for sensible and decay heat removal from the The double repair roll methodology was overpressurization of the RCS pressure reactor core. not included in the original amendment boundary. The AFW system will continue to The proposed changes to the Action request. Therefore, this notice revises be capable of providing an emergency source statements will remove the required water the previous Notice of Consideration of of feedwater to the steam generators to act as volume value and add wording pertaining to Issuance of Amendment (63 FR 56249). heat sinks for sensible and decay heat the water volume not being within the limit. Basis for proposed no significant removal from the reactor core. A sufficient The LCO clearly states the value for the hazards consideration determination: volume of water will continue to be minimum required volume in the PPDW maintained in the PPDW storage tank to storage tank. Therefore, the proposed As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the satisfy the Safe Shutdown evaluation. modification to the Action statements is licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed changes to the Action administrative in nature and does not affect issue of no significant hazards statements will remove the required water plant safety. The additional Bases wording consideration, which is presented volume value and add wording pertaining to pertaining to reactor coolant pump operation below.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.073 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19558 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
(1) Involve a significant increase in the characteristics of the OTSGs. In the unlikely Topical Report, ‘‘Tornado Missile Risk probability or consequences of an accident event that a tube with a repair roll should fail Evaluation Methodology, (EPRI NP–2005),’’ previously evaluated? and sever completely at the transition of the Volumes I and II. This methodology has been The repair roll process is a method to repair roll region, the tube would remain reviewed, accepted and documented in an create a new primary-to-secondary pressure engaged in the tubesheet bore, preventing NRC Safety Evaluation dated October 26, boundary joint in the upper tubesheet of interaction with other surrounding tubes. In 1983. The NRC concluded that: ‘‘the EPRI Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Once Through this case, leakage is bounded by the steam methodology can be utilized when assessing Steam Generators (OTSGs) manufactured generator tube rupture (SGTR) accident the need for positive tornado missile with Inconel Alloy 600 tubes. The repair roll analysis. Therefore, this change does not protection for specific safety-related plant process creates a new roll joint in the OTSG create the possibility of a new or different features in accordance with the criteria of tubes at a point closer to the secondary face kind of accident from any previously SRP Section 3.5.1.4.’’ of the tubesheet than the existing roll joint. evaluated. The EPRI methodology has been previously The new pressure boundary is established by (3) Involve a significant reduction in a applied at CPS to resolve previously the repair roll to remove degradation of the margin of safety? identified missile protection issues during existing roll joint from pressure boundary The repair roll process effectively removes the initial licensing of the plant. The NRC service. The repair roll process has been the defective/degraded area of the tube from documented their acceptance of this qualified as an acceptable repair service. The repair roll interface created with methodology in Supplement 6 to the CPS methodology for use in the upper tubesheet the tubesheet satisfies the necessary Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG–0853, July of the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR–3) OTSGs. structural, leakage and heat transfer 1986). The proposed License Amendment Request requirements. The mechanical joint is As permitted in the Standard Review Plan (LAR) proposes to implement the qualified constrained within the tubesheet bore; thus, (NUREG–0800), the total probability of OTSG tube repair roll process, and also there is no additional risk associated with damage to plant systems or components addresses several editorial and format tube rupture. The accident leakage is shown initiated from tornado missiles leading to changes which do not impact the current CR– to be less than one gallon per minute consequences in excess of 10 CFR Part 100 3 accident analyses. primary-to-secondary leakage. Therefore, the guidelines will be maintained below an The qualification of the OTSG tube repair FSAR analyzed accident scenarios remain acceptable level. The results of the current roll methodology is based on establishing a bounding, and the use of the repair roll tornado missile hazards analysis are such mechanical joint length that will carry all process does not reduce the margin of safety. that the calculated total tornado missile structural loads imposed on the OTSG tubes hazard probability is approximately 3.4 × 10– while maintaining the required margins The NRC staff has reviewed the 7 per year. This is lower than the value during normal and accident conditions. A licensee’s analysis and, based on this determined to be acceptable, i.e., 1 × 10–6 series of tests and analyses were performed review, it appears that the three per year. to establish the minimum acceptable length standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Although it has been calculated that these of the OTSG tube repair roll. Tests performed Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to targets have a higher total probability of included leak, tensile, fatigue, ultimate load determine that the amendment request being exposed to tornado missiles than that and eddy-current measurement uncertainty. involves no significant hazards described to be acceptable in SER The analyses evaluated plant operating and Supplement 6, Section 3.5.1.3, the revised faulted load conditions, in addition to OTSG consideration. tornado missile hazards analysis for CPS has tubesheet bow effects. OTSG tube leakage Local Public Document Room determined that this probability is acceptably remains bounded by the evaluation presented location: Coastal Region Library, 8619 low. in the CR–3 Final Safety Analysis Report W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida With respect to the probability of (FSAR) for a main steam line break (MSLB). 34428. occurrence or the consequences of an The proposed change also includes a Attorney for licensee: R. Alexander accident previously analyzed in the USAR, description of the required inspection Glenn, General Counsel, Florida Power the possibility of a tornado reaching CPS and program for the OTSG tube repair rolls. The Corporation, MAC–A5A, P. O. Box causing damage to plant systems, structures additional inspection requirements do not 14042, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733– and components is a design basis event change any accident initiators. The proposed 4042. considered in the USAR. The changes being inspections following OTSG tube repair roll proposed herein do not affect the probability installation, and during future inservice NRC Section Chief: Sheri R. Peterson. that a tornado will reach the plant, but they inspections, assure continuous monitoring of Illinois Power Company, Docket No. 50– do, from a licensing basis perspective, reflect these tubes such that inservice degradation of 461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, a slightly increased, calculated probability tubes repaired by the repair roll process will DeWitt County, Illinois that missiles generated by the winds of a be detected. Based on the qualification tornado might strike certain plant systems or testing and analyses performed, as well as the Date of amendment request: March 1, components. The tornado missile analysis industry experience with the use of OTSG 1999. determined that there are a limited number tube repair roll processes, there are no new Description of amendment request: of safety-related components that safety issues associated with the use of repair The proposed amendment would theoretically could be struck. The probability roll methodology. Therefore, this change approve changes to the Updated Safety of tornado-generated missile strikes on does not involve a significant increase in the important systems and components (as probability or consequences of any accident Analysis Report (USAR) concerning discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.117) was previously evaluated. design requirements for physical analyzed using the probability methods (2) Create the possibility of a new or protection from tornado missiles for described above. Based on the low, different kind of accident from previously safety-related equipment. calculated probability, the total (cumulative) evaluated accidents? Basis for proposed no significant probability of strikes will be maintained The repair roll creates no new failure hazards consideration determination: below an adequately low acceptance criterion modes or accident scenarios. The new As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the to ensure overall plant safety. On this basis, pressure boundary joint created by the repair licensee has provided its analysis of the the proposed change is not considered to roll process has been demonstrated, by issue of no significant hazards constitute a significant increase in the testing and analysis, to provide structural probability of occurrence or the and leakage integrity equivalent to the consideration which is presented below: consequences of an accident, due to the low original design and construction for all (1) The proposed activity does not involve probability of a tornado missile striking normal operating and accident conditions. a significant increase in the probability or safety-related systems or components. Furthermore, the testing and analysis consequences of any accident previously Therefore, the proposed changes do not demonstrate the repair roll process creates no evaluated. involve a significant increase in the new adverse effects for the repaired tube and The associated USAR changes reflect use of probability or consequences of previously does not change the design or operating the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) evaluated accidents.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.074 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19559
(2) The proposed activity does not create Northeast Nuclear Energy Company discharge piping of the SDC pumps, is the possibility of a new or different kind of (NNECO), et al., Docket No. 50–336, required to be left in a throttled position after accident from any accident previously Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit SDC has been secured to ensure sufficient evaluated. No. 2, New London County, Connecticut low pressure safety injection (LPSI) flow will The proposed changes involve evaluation be available. This proposed change will not of whether any physical protection of safety- Date of amendment request: March result in any modification to ECCS alignment or operation. related equipment from tornado missiles is 17, 1999. The change in the valve nomenclature used required relative to the probability of such Description of amendment request: The licensee is proposing to change in SR 4.5.2.e and Table 4.5–1 from throttle damage without physical protection. A valve to injection valve will eliminate any tornado at CPS is a design basis event Technical Specifications 3.5.2, ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling Systems— confusion between valve description and considered in the USAR, however, a tornado valve operation. This proposed change will is not postulated to act as an initiator for any ECCS Subsystems—Tavg greater than or ° not result in any modification to ECCS new or different kind of accident, or to occur equal to 300 F;’’ 3.7.1.7, ‘‘Plant alignment or operation. coincident with any of the design basis Systems—Atmospheric Steam Dump The addition of the License Amendment accidents in the USAR. The low probability Valves;’’ and 3.7.6.1, ‘‘Plant Systems— Number to the bottom of Page 3/4 5–6a will threshold established for missile damage to Control Room Emergency Ventilation not result in a technical change to this plant systems is consistent with these System.’’ The proposed Technical Technical Specification. assumptions. Specification changes will revise (1) Technical Specification 3.7.1.7 Therefore, the proposed changes do not surveillance requirements for The proposed changes will expand the create the possibility of a new or different Emergency Core Cooling System valves, scope of Technical Specification 3.7.1.7 to kind of accident. (2) the atmospheric steam dump valve include the steam release path, instead of just (3) The proposed activity does not involve requirements to focus on the steam the individual atmospheric dump valves a significant reduction in a margin of safety. release path instead of the individual (ADVs). The allowed outage times will be Under the proposed change, physical valves, and (3) the allowed outage times modified to address inoperable ADV lines protection of safety-related equipment from and the impact inoperable ADV lines will for the atmospheric steam dump valves have on the ability of Millstone Unit No. 2 tornado missiles must be considered if it has and Control Room Emergency been determined that the calculated total to mitigate a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). Ventilation System. tornado missile hazard probability is greater If one ADV line is inoperable, a plant Basis for proposed no significant than 1 × 10–6 per year. The proposed change shutdown will be required if the ADV line is to the USAR to specifically identify this hazards consideration determination: not restored to operable status within 48 hours. An allowed outage time of 48 hours threshold may slightly increase the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the to restore the ADV line to operable status is probability of a malfunction of equipment licensee has provided its analysis of the acceptable based on the low probability of a important to safety previously evaluated in issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented LOCA occurring during this time period, and the safety analysis report (i.e., changing the the subsequent loss of offsite power and the requirements from protecting all safety- below: failure of one train of high pressure safety related systems and components to not In accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, NNECO injection (HPSI). This is also consistent with requiring protection if there is an extremely has reviewed the proposed changes and has the allowed outage time for one ECCS train low probability that a tornado missile could concluded that they do not involve a (Technical Specification 3.5.2). strike portions of safety related systems and Significant Hazards Consideration (SHC). If two ADV lines are inoperable, a plant components). However, the changes are The basis for this conclusion is that the three shutdown will be required if at least one consistent with the minimum acceptable criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are not ADV line is not restored to operable status requirements as documented in the NRC’s compromised. The proposed changes do not within one hour. The plant will be required Safety Evaluation Report dated October 23, involve an SHC because the changes would to be in Mode 3 within the following 6 hours. 1983. Therefore, there will be no significant not: These time requirements are based on reduction to the margin of safety that may be 1. Involve a significant increase in the Technical Specification 3.0.3. However, the probability or consequences of an accident time to reach Mode 4 will remain at the associated with the potential for safety- previously evaluated. ‘‘following 24 hours’’ to reflect the impact related equipment to be damaged from Technical Specification 3.5.2 inoperable ADV lines may have on the time tornado-generated missiles. to cool down the plant. Therefore, the proposed changes do not The removal of 2–CH–434, a manual valve, The proposed change to the surveillance involve a significant reduction in a margin of from the list of valves to be checked every requirement will ensure operation of the safety. 31 days by Surveillance Requirement (SR) ADV lines, consistent with the accident 4.5.2.a.10 will not change the requirement for analysis, is verified. The NRC staff has reviewed the this containment isolation valve to be locked The proposed change in component licensee’s analysis and, based on this closed. The position of valve 2–CH–434, and nomenclature is consistent with current review, it appears that the three the associated locking device, will be verified Millstone Unit No. 2 terminology. This is not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are by SR 4.6.1.1.a. Although this change will a technical change. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff result in the position of 2–CH–434 being The proposed changes to the Bases of checked less often, there are sufficient proposes to determine that the Technical Specification 3.7.1.7 are consistent Technical Specification and administrative with the changes just described. amendment request involves no requirements to ensure that 2–CH–434 will significant hazards consideration. be maintained in the proper position. An Technical Specification 3.7.6.1 Local Public Document Room additional benefit of this proposed change The action requirements for the Control location: Vespasian Warner Public will be a reduction in personnel exposure Room Emergency Ventilation System will be Library, 120 West Johnson Street, since 2–CH–434 is located inside modified to address the situation when both containment. This proposed change will not Control Room Emergency Ventilation Trains Clinton, IL 61727. result in any modification to Emergency Core are inoperable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. This Attorney for licensee: Leah Manning Cooling System (ECCS) alignment or situation is expected to occur during normal Stetzner, Vice President, General operation. plant operation when the air filters in the Counsel, and Corporate Secretary, 500 The addition of the footnote to SR common supply header to both trains are South 27th Street, Decatur, IL 62525. 4.5.2.a.10 will clarify that 2–SI–306 is pinned cleaned/replaced. Since this is a common and locked open to the required throttle supply header, both trains are affected and NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. position. 2–SI–306, which is the Shutdown would be inoperable. The proposed action Mendiola. Cooling (SDC) System throttle valve in the requirements will address this situation so
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.076 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19560 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices that Technical Specification 3.0.3 will not be Northeast Utilities Service Company, power distribution assumptions used in the entered as a result of an expected plant P.O. Box 270, Hartford, Connecticut. accident analysis. Therefore, this change will activity. However, since the proposed action NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford. not significantly increase the probability or requirements are the same as the consequences of an accident previously requirements of Technical Specification Northeast Nuclear Energy Company evaluated. 3.0.3, the time the plant is allowed to operate (NNECO), et al., Docket No. 50–336, Technical Specification 3.3.3.3, in this situation will not change. Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Instrumentation, ‘‘Seismic Instrumentation,’’ The proposed changes to the Technical No. 2, New London County, Connecticut is proposed to be relocated to the TRM where Specifications and associated Bases will have future changes will be controlled in no adverse effect on plant operation or Date of amendment request: March accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. Relocation of accident mitigation equipment. The proposed 19, 1999. Technical Specification 3.3.3.3 to the TRM changes will ensure that the necessary Description of amendment request: does not imply any reduction in its equipment to mitigate the design basis The proposed changes will relocate importance in determining the response of accidents will be available, or a plant Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.3.3.2, those nuclear power plant features important shutdown will be required. In addition, the ‘‘Instrumentation, Incore Detectors,’’ to safety in the event of an earthquake. proposed changes can not cause an accident, Seismic instrumentation does not actuate any 3.3.3.3, ‘‘Instrumentation, protective equipment or serve any direct role and they will ensure the accident mitigation Meteorological Instrumentation,’’ to the equipment will continue to operate as in the mitigation of an accident. The assumed in the analyses to mitigate the Millstone, Unit No. 2 Technical Review capability of the plant to withstand a seismic design basis accidents. Therefore, there will Manual (TRM). Index Page V will be event or other design basis accident is be no significant increase in the probability revised by eliminating the sections determined by the initial design and or consequences of an accident previously corresponding to incore detectors (Page construction of systems, structures, and evaluated. 3⁄4 3–0), seismic instrumentation (Page components. The instrumentation is used to alert operators to the seismic event and 2. Create the possibility of a new or 3⁄4 3–32), and meteorological evaluate the plant response. The seismic different kind of accident from any accident instrumentation (Page 3⁄4 3–36). These previously evaluated. instrumentation does not serve as a sections, as well as changes to the protective design feature or part of a primary The proposed changes to the Technical associated Bases, will be relocated to the Specifications and associated Bases will have success path for events which challenge no adverse effect on plant operation or TRM. fission product barriers. The proposed accident mitigation equipment. The proposed Basis for proposed no significant change will not alter the way these changes will ensure that the necessary hazards consideration determination: instruments are used in determining the equipment to mitigate the design basis As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the response of those nuclear power plant accidents will be available, or a plant licensee has provided its analysis of the features important to safety in the event of an shutdown will be required. Therefore, the issue of no significant hazards earthquake, nor will it alter the capability of proposed changes will not create the consideration, which is presented the plant to withstand a seismic event. Therefore, this change will not significantly possibility of a new or different kind of below: accident from any accident previously increase the probability or consequences of evaluated. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, NNECO an accident previously evaluated. 3. Involve a significant reduction in a has reviewed the proposed changes and has Technical Specification 3.3.3.4, margin of safety. concluded that they do not involve a Instrumentation, ‘‘Meteorological The proposed changes to the Technical Significant Hazards Consideration (SHC). Instrumentation,’’ is proposed to be relocated Specifications and associated Bases will The basis for this conclusion is that the three to the TRM where future changes will be ensure that the necessary equipment to criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are not controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. mitigate the design basis accidents will be compromised. The proposed changes do not Relocation of Technical Specification 3.3.3.4 available, or a plant shutdown will be involve an SHC because the changes would to the TRM does not imply any reduction in required. The proposed changes will not not: its importance in providing a basis for result in any plant configuration changes. 1. Involve a significant increase in the estimating annual radiation doses resulting There will be no adverse effect on plant probability or consequences of an accident from radioactive materials released in operation or accident mitigation equipment. previously evaluated. airborne effluents. The instrumentation does The plant response to the design basis Technical Specification 3.3.3.2, not serve to ensure that the plant is operated accidents will not change. Therefore, there Instrumentation, ‘‘Incore Detectors,’’ is within the bounds of initial conditions will be no significant reduction in the margin proposed to be relocated to the TRM where assumed in design basis accident and of safety as defined in the Bases for the future changes will be controlled in transient analyses or that the plant will be Technical Specifications affected by these accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. Relocation of operated to preclude transients or accidents. proposed changes. this Technical Specification to the TRM does Likewise, the meteorological instrumentation not imply any reduction in its importance in does not serve as part of the primary success The NRC staff has reviewed the confirming that core power distribution are path of a safety sequence analysis used to licensee’s analysis and, based on this bounded by safety analysis limits. These demonstrate that the consequences of these review, it appears that the three instruments are neither used for, nor capable events are within the appropriate acceptance standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are of, detecting a significant abnormal criteria. The proposed change will not alter satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff degradation of the reactor coolant pressure the way these instruments are used in proposes to determine that the boundary before a design basis accident, nor providing a basis for estimating annual do they function as a primary success path radiation doses resulting from radioactive amendment request involves no to mitigate events which assume a failure of, materials released in airborne effluents. significant hazards consideration. or a challenge to, the integrity of fission Therefore, this change will not significantly Local Public Document Room product barriers. Although the core power increase the probability or consequences of location: Learning Resources Center, distribution (measured by the incore an accident previously evaluated. Three Rivers Community-Technical detectors) constitutes an important initial Revision of Index page V and the proposed College, 574 New London Turnpike, condition to design basis accidents and changes to the associated Bases sections are Norwich, Connecticut, and the therefore needs to be addressed by Technical administrative changes. Therefore, these Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Specifications, the detectors themselves are changes will not significantly increase the not an active design feature needed to probability or consequences of an accident Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, preclude analyzed accidents or transients. previously evaluated. Connecticut. The proposed change will not alter the way The proposed changes do not alter how Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. core power distribution is measured by the any structure, system, or component Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, incore detectors, nor will it alter any of the functions. There will be no effect on
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.078 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19561 equipment important to safety. The proposed Local Public Document Room that a dropped load would not lead to core changes have no effect on any of the design location: Learning Resources Center, damage, 2) the polar crane had been basis accidents previously evaluated. Three Rivers Community-Technical evaluated to withstand jet impingement loads Therefore, this License Amendment Request College, 574 New London Turnpike, without the seismic loads, and 3) the probability of simultaneous seismic and does not impact the probability of an Norwich, Connecticut, and the accident previously evaluated, nor does it HELB events is low. involve a significant increase in the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Therefore, based on probabilistic consequences of an accident previously Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, considerations, the risk associated with this evaluated. Connecticut. proposed change does not involve a 2. Create the possibility of a new or Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. significant increase in the probability or different kind of accident from any accident Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, consequences of an accident previously previously evaluated. Northeast Utilities Service Company, evaluated. The proposed changes do not alter the P.O. Box 270, Hartford, Connecticut. 2. The proposed change does not create the plant configuration (no new or different type NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford. possibility of a new or different kind of of equipment will be installed) or require any accident from any accident previously new or unusual operator actions. They do not Pacific Gas and Electric Company, evaluated. alter the way any structure, system, or Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo Deterministic engineering methods component functions and do not alter the Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. required combining both the seismic and jet manner in which the plant is operated. The 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, impingement loads to qualify Design Class I structures. The polar cranes were not proposed changes do not introduce any new California failure modes. Therefore, the proposed originally qualified for these combined loads. changes will not create the possibility of a Date of amendment request: This resulted in administrative controls that new or different kind of accident from any September 11, 1998, as supplemented prohibited parking the polar cranes in jet accident previously evaluated. by letter dated January 14, 1999. impingement zones to preclude jet 3. Involve a significant reduction in a Description of amendment request: impingement loads from a postulated pipe margin of safety. The proposed amendments would rupture. The proposed change does not The proposed relocation of incore detector change the combined Technical involve a physical change to the plant, but instrumentation requirements to the TRM it does involve a change to the TS required Specifications (TS) for the Diablo program for containment polar crane does not imply any reduction in their Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 importance in confirming that core power operation. distribution is bounded by safety analysis to revise TS 6.8.4f., ‘‘Containment Polar The proposed change is to control the limits. The incore detectors will still be used and Turbine Building Cranes,’’ to operation of the containment polar cranes in to measure core power distribution and the control the operation of the containment jet impingement zones. It recognizes that assumptions used in the accident analysis polar cranes in jet impingement zones. there are jet (HELB) and target (polar crane) will be verified. The proposed relocation of Basis for proposed no significant interactions. They were previously not seismic instrumentation requirements to the hazards consideration determination: considered for postulated jet impingement TRM does not imply any reduction in their As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the analyses because administrative controls prohibited parking the polar cranes in jet importance in determining the response of licensee has provided its analysis of the those nuclear power plant features important impingement zones. PG&E has evaluated jet issue of no significant hazards impingement loads on the polar crane and to safety in the event of an earthquake. The consideration, which is presented seismic instrumentation will still be used to determined it is able to withstand these loads determine the response of those nuclear below: without seismic loads. Based on this power plant features important to safety in 1. The proposed change does not involve evaluation, the polar crane would not fail the event of an earthquake. The capability of a significant increase in the probability or due to a HELB event. The movement of a the plant to withstand a seismic or other consequences of an accident previously heavy load would be done in accordance design basis accident, which is determined evaluated. with the DCPP Heavy Loads Program. Thus, by the initial design and construction of The Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4f there would be no consequential failures that systems, structures, and components will not requirement to have a program that will would lead to core damage. be altered. The relocation of meteorological ensure the position of the polar cranes Therefore, the proposed change does not instrumentation requirements to the TRM precludes jet impingement from a postulated create the possibility of a new or different does not change the way these instruments pipe rupture was previously evaluated in the kind of accident from any accident are used in providing a basis for estimating NRC staff’s safety evaluation for License previously evaluated. annual radiation doses resulting from Amendments (LA) 20 and 21. The proposed 3. The proposed change does not involve radioactive materials released in airborne change is to control the operation of the a significant reduction in a margin of safety. effluents. The meteorological containment polar cranes in jet impingement The current TS 6.8.4f. requirement to have instrumentation will continue to perform zones. a program that will ensure the position of the their function in exactly the same way. PG&E evaluated a high energy line break polar cranes precludes jet impingement from The proposed changes do not affect any of (HELB) scenario for core damage frequency a postulated pipe rupture was previously the assumptions used in the accident (CDF) considering operation of a polar crane. evaluated in the NRC staff’s safety evaluation analysis, nor do they affect any operability A postulated HELB would have to damage for LAs 20 and 21. requirements for equipment important to the crane or cause its load to drop in a The credible HELB sources that could plant safety. Therefore, the proposed changes manner that damages a component that impinge on the polar crane were identified will not result in a significant reduction in exacerbates the HELB event and leads to core and evaluated. The feedwater and main the margin of safety as defined in the Bases damage. The PRA evaluation for this scenario steam line steam generator nozzles are the for Technical Specifications covered in this concluded the CDF is 1.6E–9 per year. It is only credible HELBs that could impinge License Amendment Request. not a significant increase in CDF compared upon the polar crane. The structural integrity to never operating the polar crane in jet of these lines was evaluated and determined The NRC staff has reviewed the impingement zones. The CDF for this to be of robust design. licensee’s analysis and, based on this scenario is nonrisk significant when The margin of safety affected by the review, it appears that the three compared to the industry standard threshold proposed change involves a comparison for risk significance for an operational between the margin of safety afforded by no standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are evolution, which is 1E–6 per year. Several operation of the polar crane and operation satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff factors that further lower the risk of CDF that is controlled by procedures. The margin proposes to determine that the include: 1) the movement of heavy loads is of safety in this case is the increase in risk amendment request involves no done in accordance with the DCPP Heavy for CDF caused by a scenario that postulates significant hazards consideration. Loads Program, which provides assurance that operation of the polar crane would lead
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.079 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19562 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices to core damage. The risk for CDF has been 2, Revision 1, Addendum to the Local Public Document Room evaluated and determined to be nonrisk Westinghouse Small Break ECCS. Location: California Polytechnic State significant. The CDF value is well below the Evaluation Model Using the NOTRUMP University, Robert E. Kennedy Library, industry standard threshold for acceptable Code: Safety Injection Into the Broken Loop Government Documents and Maps risk for an operational evolution, which is and COSI Condensation Model,’’ July 1997, Department, San Luis Obispo, California 1E–6 per year. and other NRC approved addenda to WCAP– Therefore, the proposed change does not 10054–P–A to determine core operating 93407. involve a significant reduction in a margin of limits for Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP). Attorney for Licensee: Christopher J. safety. Because plant operation will continue to be Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas & Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San The NRC staff has reviewed the limited in accordance with cycle specific core operating limits that are established Francisco, California 94120. licensee’s analysis and, based on this using an NRC approved methodology, NRC NRC Project Director: Stuart A. review, it appears that the three approved addenda to WCAP–10054–P–A are Richards. standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. acceptable for use in determining DCPP Unit Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 1 and 2 cycle specific core operating limits. Power Authority of The State of New determine that the amendment requests The change does not affect plant operation, York, Docket No. 50–286, Indian Point involve no significant hazards or physically alter or change the function of Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, consideration. structures, systems, or components required Westchester County, New York Local Public Document Room to mitigate the consequences of a design basis Date of amendment request: January Location: California Polytechnic State accident. In addition, it cannot initiate a 25, 1999. University, Robert E. Kennedy Library, transient or affect the probability of occurrence of any previously analyzed Description of amendment request: Government Documents and Maps accident. This application for amendment to the Department, San Luis Obispo, California Therefore, the proposed change does not Indian Point 3 (IP3) Technical 93407. involve a significant increase in the Specifications (TSs) proposes to relocate Attorney for Licensee: Christopher J. probability or consequences of an accident the time restriction for movement of Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas & Electric previously evaluated. irradiated fuel and its related basis page Company, P.O. Box 7442, San 2. The proposed change does not create the from the TSs to the IP3 Final Safety Francisco, California 94120. possibility of a new or different kind of Analysis Report (FSAR). NRC Project Director: Stuart A. accident from any accident previously Basis for proposed no significant Richards. evaluated. The proposed change revises the TS to hazards consideration determination: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, allow the use of NRC approved analytical As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo methods in WCAP–10054–P–A, Addendum licensee has provided its analysis of the Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 2, Revision 1, and other NRC approved issue of no significant hazards 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, addenda to WCAP–10054–P–A, to determine consideration, which is presented core operation limits. The change is California consistent with the requirements of the TS, below: Date of amendment request: and does not affect plant operation, or (1) Does the proposed license amendment December 12, 1998. physically alter or change the function of involve a significant increase in the Description of amendment request: structures, systems, or components required probability or consequences of an accident The proposed amendments would to mitigate the consequences of a design basis previously [evaluated]? change the combined Technical accident. Response Therefore, the proposed change does not Specifications (TS) for the Diablo create the possibility of a new or different Relocation (i.e., removal from TS) of TS Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 kind of accident from any accident 3.8.A.9 and its basis for the minimum time to revise TS 6.9.1.8, ‘‘Core Operating previously evaluated. prior to movement of more than 76 irradiated Limits Report,’’ to allow use of NRC 3. The proposed change does not involve fuel assemblies (267 hour limit) will not approved addenda to WCAP–10054–P– a significant reduction in a margin of safety. involve a significant increase in the A, ‘‘Westinghouse Small Break ECCS The proposed change revises the TS to probability or consequences of an accident since the relocation of the TS to Evaluation Model Using NOTRUMP allow the use of the NRC approved analytical methods in WCAP–10054–P–A, Addendum administrative controls governed by 10 CFR Code,’’ August 1985, to determine core 50.59 (FSAR) does not affect the availability operating limits. 2, Revision 1 and other NRC approved addenda to WCAP–10054–P–A, to determine or function of fuel storage and handling Basis for proposed no significant core operating limits. The change is equipment or the SFP [spent fuel pool] hazards consideration determination: consistent with the requirements of the TS, cooling system. The waiting time of 267 As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the and does not affect plant operation, or hours following plant shutdown before licensee has provided its analysis of the physically alter or change the function of unloading more than 76 assemblies from the issue of no significant hazards structures, systems, or components required reactor is to ensure that the maximum SFP consideration, which is presented to mitigate the consequences of a design basis water temperature will be within design objectives as stated in the FSAR. below: accident. The acceptance limits for the small break loss-of-coolant accident are not affected The waiting time of 267 hours is not an 1. The proposed change does not involve by this change and will continue to be met. initiator of an accident and the proposed a significant increase in the probability or Therefore, the proposed change does not change does not alter overall system consequences of an accident previously involve a significant reduction in a margin of operation, physical design, system evaluated. safety. configuration, or operational setpoints. There This change is administrative in nature in will be no significant increase in the that it revises the Technical Specification The NRC staff has reviewed the consequences of an accident because the (TS) Administrative Controls for the Core licensee’s analysis and, based on this restricted movement time for irradiated fuel Operating Limits Report to include reference review, it appears that the three will continue to be administratively to NRC approved addenda to WCAP–10054– controlled under 10 CFR 50.59. P–A, ‘‘Westinghouse Small Break ECCS standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. The other TS of section 3.8.A (such as the Evaluation Model Using the NOTRUMP Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to remaining portion of 3.8.A.9, and 3.8.A. 10) Code,’’ August 1985. The proposed change determine that the amendment requests and the other controls ensure that doses from would allow the use of the analytical involve no significant hazards a postulated FHA are within 10 CFR 100 methods in WCAP–10054–P–A, Addendum consideration. limits.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.081 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19563
(2) Does the proposed license amendment Attorney for licensee: Mr. David E. kind of accident than any accident already create the possibility of a new or different Blabey, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, evaluated. The additional function added to kind of accident from any accident New York 10019. the P–8 Permissive does not result in any previously evaluated? NRC Section Chief: S. Singh Bajwa. event previously deemed incredible being Response made credible. No new accident scenarios, Power Authority of The State of New failure mechanisms, or limiting single The basis for the waiting time of 267 hours failures are introduced as a result of this following plant shutdown before unloading York, Docket No. 50–286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, change. In addition, the safety functions of more than 76 assemblies from the reactor is safety related systems and components, to ensure that the maximum pool water Westchester County, New York which are related to accident mitigation, temperature will be within design objectives Date of amendment request: January have not been altered. Therefore, the as stated in the FSAR. Relocation of this 28, 1999. possibility of a new or different kind of waiting time of 267 hours for irradiated fuel Description of amendment request: accident is not created. will not create the possibility of a new or (3) Does the proposed amendment involve different kind of accident from any This application for amendment to the Indian Point 3 (IP3) Technical a significant reduction in a margin of safety? previously evaluated. The TS change will not The addition of the reactor trip on turbine create the possibility of a new or different Specifications (TSs) proposes to change trip at [greater than or equal to] 50% to the kind of accident from any previously the setpoint of the automatic reactor trip P–8 Permissive function, versus its current evaluated since it does not alter the on turbine trip to at or below the P–8 setting of [greater than or equal to] 10% and administrative controls for fuel handling or setpoint. associated changes to TS Sections 2.3. l.C.(3), the operation, physical design, system Basis for proposed no significant 2.3.2.A, 2.3.2.B, Table 3.5–2, item 12, Table configuration, or operational setpoints for hazards consideration determination: 4.1–1, item 21 and the associated bases, will fuel handling and SFP cooling. The plant have no effect on the availability, operability systems for fuel storage and handling, and As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the or performance of the safety-related systems SFP cooling are operated in the same manner and components and does not affect the plant as before and, consequently, the relocation issue of no significant hazards TS requirements. The current licensing basis does not introduce any new accident consideration, which is presented safety analyses for IP3 remain bounding with initiators or failure mechanisms and does not below: the modification to the P–8 Permissive invalidate the existing FHA response. The (1) Does the proposed license amendment function; therefore, the margin of safety as minimum waiting time for movement of defined in the TS is not reduced. The change more than 76 irradiated fuel assemblies is not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident to the IP3 TS does not involve a significant an accident initiator. The minimum waiting reduction in a margin of safety. time will continue to be controlled under 10 previously evaluated? CFR 50.59. The addition of reactor trip on turbine trip The NRC staff has reviewed the (3) Does the proposed amendment involve at [greater than or equal to] 50% to the P– licensee’s analysis and, based on this a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 8 Permissive function versus its current review, it appears that the three setting of [greater than or equal to] 10%, as Response standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. revised in TS section 2.3.1.C.(3), 2.3.2.A, Relocation (i.e., removal from TS) of TS 2.3.2.B, Table 3.5–2, item 12, Table 4.1–1, Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 3.8.A.9 and its basis for the waiting time of item 21 and associated bases, does not determine that the amendment request 267 hours following plant shutdown for significantly increase the probability or involves no significant hazards irradiated fuel will not involve a significant consequences of an accident previously consideration. reduction in margin of safety. The waiting evaluated. This additional function, change Local Public Document Room time of 267 hours following plant shutdown in reactor trip on turbine trip setpoint, does location: White Plains Public Library, before unloading more than 76 assemblies not cause the initiation of any accident, nor 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New from the reactor is to ensure that the create any new credible limiting single maximum SFP water temperature will be York 10601. failure, nor result in any event previously Attorney for licensee: Mr. David E. within design objectives as stated in the deemed incredible being made credible. The FSAR. The relocation is a change to the Blabey, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, existing separation of the reactor and New York 10019. administrative controls that are used to limit protection functions are not adversely the heat load on the SFP cooling system, and NRC Section Chief: S. Singh Bajwa. impacted. In addition, the safety functions of those administrative controls will be safety related systems and component, which governed by 10 CFR 50.59. The manner in Power Authority of The State of New are related to accident mitigation, have not which fuel storage and handling is York, Docket No. 50–286, Indian Point been altered. The change in the P–7 or P–8 performed, and how the SFP cooling system Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, circuitry does not directly initiate an is operated does not change and there is no Westchester County, New York accident. The consequences of accidents change to physical design, system previously [evaluated] in the IP3 FSAR [final Date of amendment request: January configuration, or operational setpoints. The safety analysis report] are unaffected by this other controls and the existing TS assure that 28, 1999. change because no change to any equipment dose from a postulated FHA are within 10 Description of amendment request: CFR 100 limits. Previous analyses remain response or accident mitigation scenario has This application for amendment to the unchanged. The current TS does not meet the resulted. There are no additional challenges Indian Point 3 Technical Specifications criteria in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) for inclusion to fission product barrier integrity. Therefore, (TSs) proposes to reduce the number of in the Technical Specifications. the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) The NRC staff has reviewed the increased. required to be operable during cold licensee’s analysis and, based on this (2) Does the proposed license amendment shutdown from 2 to 1 under certain review, it appears that the three create the possibility of a new or different conditions. standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. kind of accident from any accident Basis for proposed no significant Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to previously evaluated? hazards consideration determination: determine that the amendment request By adding the reactor trip on turbine trip As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the at [greater than or equal to] 50% to the P– licensee has provided its analysis of the involves no significant hazards 8 Permissive function and setpoint, versus its consideration. issue of no significant hazards current setting of [greater than or equal to] consideration, which is presented Local Public Document Room 10% and revising TS sections 2.3. l.C.(3), location: White Plains Public Library, 2.3.2.A, 2.3.2.B, Table 3.5–2, item 12, Table below: 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New 4.1–1, item 21 and associated bases, does not (1) Does the proposed license amendment York 10601. create the possibility of a new or different involve a significant increase in the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 19564 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices probability or consequences of an accident The lone EDG is capable of accepting and Power Authority of The State of New previously [evaluated]? starting required loads within the assumed York, Docket No. 50–286, Indian Point Response loading sequence intervals and continue to Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, operate until offsite power can be provided No. The equipment, which is affected by Westchester County, New York to the 480VAC EDS buses. Action statements the proposed Technical Specification change, Date of amendment request: January is not an initiator to those accidents provide prompt, specific guidance to ensure sufficiently conservative plant response 29, 1999. postulated to occur during Cold Shutdown or Description of amendment request: Refueling operating conditions. A should the expected EDG power supply not comprehensive systems review and EDG be available. These action statements are This application for amendment to the loading electrical analysis has demonstrated similar to those in the STS. Therefore, the Indian Point 3 (IP3) Technical the ability of those shutdown support proposed license amendment (i.e., changes to Specifications (TSs) proposes to change systems, necessary to provide safe shutdown 3.7.F.4 and added sections 3.71.5 & 3.7.F.6) the allowable indicated control rod needs, to perform their accident mitigation does not create the possibility of a new or misalignment. functions for the postulated accidents during different kind of accident from any accident Basis for proposed no significant Cold Shutdown and Refueling conditions. previously evaluated. hazards consideration determination: One EDG can support the necessary electrical (3) Does the proposed amendment involve As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the loads required in Cold Shutdown and a significant reduction in a margin of safety? licensee has provided its analysis of the Refueling in the event of postulated accidents Response along with a LOOP [loss of offsite power] in issue of no significant hazards the time frame required to prevent reactor No. The electrical power system consideration, which is presented core/cavity/SFP [spent fuel pool] heatup specifications support the equipment below: concerns. This EDG support relies upon required to be operable, commensurate with (1) Does the proposed license amendment existing plant designed manual closure of the current level of safety, including the involve a significant increase in the 480VAC EDS [electrical distribution system] equipment requiring an EDG backed power probability or consequences of an accident bus tie breakers to allow a single EDG to pick source. The design review results previously evaluated? up other 480VAC EDS bus loads, such as demonstrate that operation in the conditions Response supplying an RHR [residual heat removal] of Cold Shutdown and Refueling, in pump and SFP cooling pump, located on accordance with the proposed Technical No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation 480VAC EDS buses 3A, 5A, or 6A. Together, Specification change, is acceptable from an in WCAP–14668, the Authority has operability of the required offsite circuit(s) accident mitigation standpoint. The basic determined that all pertinent licensing basis and one EDG ensures the availability of system functions in Cold Shutdown and acceptance criteria have been met, and the margin of safety as defined in the TS Bases sufficient AC sources to operate the unit in Refueling operating conditions are not is not reduced in any of the IP3 licensing a safe manner and to mitigate the changed. One EDG can supply the necessary basis accident analysis. Increasing the consequences of postulated accidents during electrical power needs during these plant shutdown (e.g., Fuel Handling Accidents). magnitude of allowed control rod indicated operating conditions, and in the time frame misalignment (in section 3.10.5) is not a Action statements provide prompt, specific required to prevent reactor core/cavity/SFP guidance to ensure sufficiently conservative contributor to the mechanistic cause of an heatup concerns, with sufficient ‘‘kw plant response should the expected EDG accident evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety loading’’ to spare. The analysis conducted power supply not be available. These Action Analysis Report]. Neither the rod control shows that the systems are capable of Statements are similar to those in the STS system nor the rod position indicator [Standard Technical Specifications]. performing their design basis functions. function is being altered. Therefore, the Therefore, the proposed license amendment Applicable safety analysis in the Standard probability of an accident previously (i.e., changes to 3.7.F.4 and the added Technical Specifications, NUREG 1431, evaluated has not significantly increased. sections of 3.7.F.5 & 3.7.F.6) does not involve discusses these system requirements as well Because design limitations continue to be a significant increase in the probability or (i.e., it is not required to assume a single met, and the integrity of the reactor coolant consequences of an accident previously failure and concurrent loss of all offsite or all system pressure boundary is not challenged, analyzed. onsite power). Action statements, similar to the assumptions employed in the calculation (2) Does the proposed license amendment those in the Standard Technical of the offsite radiological doses remain valid. create the possibility of a new or different Specifications, provide prompt, specific Therefore, the consequences of an accident kind of accident from any accident guidance to ensure sufficiently conservative previously evaluated will not be significantly previously evaluated? plant response should the expected EDG increased. (2) Does the proposed license amendment Response power supply not be available. On this basis, the proposed license amendment (i.e., create the possibility of a new or different No. The proposed license amendment does changes to 3.7.F.4 and added sections 3.7.F.5 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? not involve any physical changes to plant & 3.7.F.6) does not involve a significant systems or component set points. The use of reduction in the margin of safety. Response 480VAC EDS bus tie breakers to power loads No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation from an energized 480VAC bus is part of The NRC staff has reviewed the in WCAP–14668, the Authority has present plant design and included within the licensee’s analysis and, based on this determined that all pertinent licensing basis present LOOP Off-Normal operating review, it appears that the three acceptance criteria have been met, and the procedures when the reactor is in Cold margin of safety as defined in the TS Bases Shutdown operating conditions. As standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. is not reduced in any of the IP3 licensing discussed in the Standard Technical Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to basis accident analysis. Increasing the Specifications, NUREG 1431, during plant determine that the amendment request magnitude of allowed control rod indicated shutdown with one EDG, it is not required involves no significant hazards misalignment is not a contributor to the to assume a single failure and concurrent loss consideration. mechanistic cause of any accident. Neither of all offsite or all onsite power. Worst case Local Public Document Room the rod control system nor the rod position bounding events are deemed not credible in location: White Plains Public Library, indicator function is being altered. Therefore, Cold Shutdown and Refueling conditions an accident which is new or different than because the energy contained within the 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601. any previously evaluated will not be created. reactor pressure boundary, reactor coolant (3) Does the proposed amendment involve temperature and pressure, and the Attorney for licensee: Mr. David E. a significant reduction in a margin of safety? corresponding stresses result in the Blabey, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, probabilities of occurrence being Response New York 10019. significantly reduced or eliminated, and No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation ultimately result in minimal consequences. NRC Section Chief: S. Singh Bajwa. in WCAP–14668, the Authority has
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.085 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19565 determined that all pertinent licensing basis system pressure boundary is not challenged, instrumentation, to ensure that the acceptance criteria have been met, and the the assumptions employed in the calculation automatic feature of the steam generator margin of safety as defined in the TS Bases of the offsite radiological doses remain valid. power-operated relief valve (i.e., is not reduced in any of the IP3 licensing Therefore, the consequences of an accident atmospheric steam relief valves) basis accident analysis based on the changes previously evaluated will not be significantly to safety analyses input parameter values as increased. remains operable during Modes 1 and 2. discussed in WCAP–14668. Since the (2) Does the proposed license amendment In addition, the proposed change would evaluations in Section 3.0 of WCAP–14668 create the possibility of a new or different add an associated surveillance requiring demonstrate that all applicable acceptance kind of accident from any accident that a channel calibration on the steam criteria continue to be met, the proposed previously evaluated? generator power-operated relief valve be change will not involve a significant Response performed every 18 months. reduction in margin of safety. Basis for proposed no significant No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation The NRC staff has reviewed the in WCAP–14668, the Authority has hazards consideration determination: licensee’s analysis and, based on this determined that all pertinent licensing basis As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the review, it appears that the three acceptance criteria have been met, and the licensee has provided its analysis of the standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. margin of safety as defined in the TS Bases issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to is not reduced in any of the IP3 licensing consideration, which is presented determine that the amendment request basis accident analysis. Increasing the below: involves no significant hazards magnitude of allowed control rod indicated misalignment is not a contributor to the 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences consideration. mechanistic cause of any accident. Neither of an accident previously evaluated? Local Public Document Room the rod control system nor the rod position The methodologies used in the accident location: White Plains Public Library, indicator function is being altered. Therefore, analyses remain unchanged. The automatic 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New an accident which is new or different than actuation of the Steam Generator Power York 10601. any previously evaluated will not be created. Operated Relief Valves is not a new design Attorney for licensee: Mr. David E. (3) Does the proposed amendment involve feature. The effects of the inadvertent a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Blabey, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, opening of a Steam Generator Power New York 10019. Response Operated Relief Valve are currently analyzed NRC Section Chief: S. Singh Bajwa. No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation as described in Section 15.1.4 of the Updated Power Authority of The State of New in WCAP–14668, the Authority has Final Safety Analysis Report. The York, Docket No. 50–286, Indian Point determined that all pertinent licensing basis radiological consequences for the Small acceptance criteria have been met, and the Break Loss of Coolant Accident (SBLOCA) Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, event presented in the Updated Final Safety Westchester County, New York margin of safety as defined in the TS Bases is not reduced in any of the IP3 licensing Analysis Report remain unchanged. The ° Date of amendment request: January basis accident analysis based on the changes calculated Peak Clad Temperature is 1849 F ° 29, 1999. to safety analyses input parameter values as remaining substantially below the 2200 F Description of amendment request: discussed in WCAP–14668. Since the acceptance limit of 10 CFR 50.46. Although This application for amendment to the evaluations in Section 3.0 of WCAP–14668 the manual control specification is relocated demonstrate that all applicable acceptance from Specification 3.7.1.6 to the new Indian Point 3 (IP3) Technical instrumentation specification, the limiting Specifications (TSs) proposes to change criteria continue to be met, the proposed change will not involve a significant condition for operation, applicability and the allowable indicated control rod reduction in margin of safety. action statements for manual controls remain misalignment. unchanged. Therefore no increase in the Basis for proposed no significant The NRC staff has reviewed the probability or consequences of any accident hazards consideration determination: licensee’s analysis and, based on this previously evaluated will occur. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the review, it appears that the three 2. Does the proposed change create the licensee has provided its analysis of the standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. possibility of a new or different kind of Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards evaluated? consideration, which is presented determine that the amendment request The automatic actuation of the Steam below: involves no significant hazards Generator Power Operated Relief Valves is (1) Does the proposed license amendment consideration. not an accident initiator for the SBLOCA involve a significant increase in the Local Public Document Room event. The automatic actuation of the Steam probability or consequences of an accident location: White Plains Public Library, Generator Power Operated Relief Valves previously evaluated? 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New currently exists at the South Texas Project and is not a new design feature. The Response York 10601. Attorney for licensee: Mr. David E. description of the Steam Generator Power No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation Blabey, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, Operated Relief Valves currently exists in the in WCAP–14668, the Authority has Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. This determined that all pertinent licensing basis New York 10019. change does not represent a change to the acceptance criteria have been met, and the NRC Section Chief: S. Singh Bajwa. facility and does not affect the safety margin of safety as defined in the TS Bases STP Nuclear Operating Company, functions and reliability of systems, is not reduced in any of the IP3 licensing Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South structures, or components in any new basis accident analysis. Increasing the manner. Operating procedures have a magnitude of allowed control rod indicated Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda temporary administrative control to ensure misalignment (in Section 3.10.5) is not a County, Texas the automatic actuation of the Steam contributor to the mechanistic cause of an Date of amendment request: March Generator Power Operated Relief Valves accident evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety 22, 1999. remains operable in Modes 1 and 2. This Analysis Report]. Neither the rod control Description of amendment request: condition will become permanent with the system nor the rod position indicator approval of this Technical Specification function is being altered. Therefore, the The proposed amendments would Amendment proposal. Although the manual probability of an accident previously revise Technical Specification (TS) control specification is relocated from evaluated has not significantly increased. 3.7.1.6, ‘‘Atmospheric Steam Relief Specification 3.7.1.6 to the new Because design limitations continue to be Valves,’’ and add a new TS for instrumentation specification, the limiting met, and the integrity of the reactor coolant atmospheric steam relief valve condition for operation, applicability and
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.087 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19566 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices action statements for manual controls remain not consider these devices to be the source complies with the standards and unchanged. Since the automatic actuation of of any accident; therefore, this administrative requirements of the Atomic Energy Act the Steam Generator Power Operated Relief relocation of the requirements will not of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Valves is not an accident initiator and is not increase the possibility of an accident. SQN’s Commission’s rules and regulations. a new design feature to the facility, no electrical equipment protective devices will possibility exists for a new or different kind continue to provide fault protection for The Commission has made appropriate of accident from those previously evaluated. circuits and equipment. Changes to the findings as required by the Act and the 3. Does this change involve a significant relocated requirements will be processed, in Commission’s rules and regulations in reduction in a margin of safety? accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, to ensure 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in The proposed change results in the changes are not implemented that would the license amendment. calculated Peak Clad Temperature of 1849°F reduce the functionality or introduce an Notice of Consideration of Issuance of remaining well below the acceptance limit of unreviewed safety question to SQN’s Amendment to Facility Operating 10 CFR 50.46 and comparable to the results electrical equipment devices. Therefore, the License, Proposed No Significant currently described in the Updated Final proposed relocation of the TS requirements Hazards Consideration Determination, Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, the change for electrical equipment protective devices and Opportunity for A Hearing in does not involve a significant reduction in a will not increase the consequences of an margin of safety. accident. connection with these actions was Based on the above, the South Texas B. The proposed amendment does not published in the Federal Register as Project has evaluated the proposed Technical create the possibility of a new or different indicated. Specification change and determined it does kind of accident from any accident Unless otherwise indicated, the not represent a significant hazards previously evaluated. Commission has determined that these consideration. SQN’s electrical equipment protective amendments satisfy the criteria for The NRC staff has reviewed the devices ensure proper operation of plant categorical exclusion in accordance equipment. These devices are not associated with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant licensee’s analysis and, based on this with accident mitigation or previously review, it appears that the standards of to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental evaluated accidents and would not be the impact statement or environmental 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, initiator of any new or different kind of the NRC staff proposes to determine that accident. The proposed change does not alter assessment need be prepared for these the request for amendments involves no the current functions of these devices, amendments. If the Commission has significant hazards consideration. therefore, this proposed change will not prepared an environmental assessment Local Public Document Room create the possibility of a new or different under the special circumstances location: Wharton County Junior kind of accident. provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has College, J. M. Hodges Learning Center, C. The proposed amendment does not made a determination based on that 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas involve a significant reduction in a margin of assessment, it is so indicated. safety. 77488. For further details with respect to the The requirements for SQN’s electrical action see (1) the applications for Attorney for licensee: Jack R. equipment protective devices are unchanged Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & by the proposed relocation of the amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W., requirements to the SQN Technical the Commission’s related letter, Safety Washington, DC 20036–5869. Requirements Manual. The function of these Evaluation and/or Environmental NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm. devices and the surveillance testing to ensure Assessment as indicated. All of these operability of these devices remains items are available for public inspection Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), unchanged. Any future changes to these at the Commission’s Public Document Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, requirements will be evaluated, in Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, (SQN), Units 1 accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, to ensure Street, NW, Washington, DC, and at the and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee acceptability and NRC review as required. local public document rooms for the Date of application for amendments: Accordingly, the proposed change will not result in a reduction in a margin of safety. particular facilities involved. March 19, 1999 (TS 99–01). Brief description of amendments: The The NRC has reviewed the licensee’s Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., proposed amendments would change analysis and, based on this review, it Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris the SQN Technical Specifications (TS) appears that the three standards of 10 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and for Operating Licenses DPR–77 (Unit 1) CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the Chatham Counties, North Carolina and DPR–79 (Unit 2) by relocating TS NRC staff proposes to determine that the Date of application for amendment: Sections 3.8.3.1, 3.8.3.2, and 3.8.3.3 to amendment request involves no December 16, 1997, as supplemented the SQN Technical Requirements significant hazards consideration. August 31, and December 7, 1998. Manual. These sections provide Local Public Document Room Brief description of amendment: This requirements for electrical overcurrent location: Chattanooga-Hamilton County amendment changes Technical isolation devices. Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Specification 4.7.1.2.1.a.2.a, Auxiliary Basis for proposed no significant Tennessee 37402. Feedwater (AFW) System Surveillance hazards consideration determination: Attorney for licensee: General Requirements, by changing the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, differential pressure and flow licensee has provided its analysis of the 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 10H, requirements of the steam turbine- issue of no significant hazards Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. driven AFW pump to allow testing of consideration, which is presented NRC Section Chief: Sheri R. Peterson. the pump at a lower speed. below: Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Date of issuance: April 1, 1999. Effective date: April 1, 1999. Facility Operating Licenses A. The proposed amendment does not Amendment No.: 87. involve a significant increase in the During the period since publication of Facility Operating License No. NPF– probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. the last biweekly notice, the 63: Amendment revises the Technical The proposed revision to the TS relocates Commission has issued the following Specifications. the requirements for SQN’s electrical amendments. The Commission has Date of initial notice in Federal equipment protective devices without determined for each of these Register: February 11, 1998 (63 FR changing the current requirements. TVA does amendments that the application 6981).
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.088 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19567
The August 31, and December 7, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 1998, submittals contained clarifying 72 and NPF–77: The amendments 35 and NPF–52: Amendments revised information only, and did not change revised the Technical Specifications. the Technical Specifications. the initial no significant hazards Date of initial notice in Federal Date of initial notice in Federal consideration determination. Register: February 24, 1999 (64 FR Register: February 24, 1999 (64 FR The Commission’s related evaluation 9185). 9187). of the amendment is contained in a The Commission’s related evaluation The Commission’s related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated April 1, 1999. of the amendments is contained in a of the amendments is contained in a No significant hazards consideration Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 1999. Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 1999. comments received: No. No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration Local Public Document Room comments received: No. comments received: No. location: Cameron Village Regional Local Public Document Room Local Public Document Room Library, 1930 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, location: Wilmington Public Library, location: York County Library, 138 East North Carolina 27605. 201 S. Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina. Illinois 60481. Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris Commonwealth Edison Company, 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Chatham Counties, North Carolina Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 Oconee County, South Carolina Date of application for amendment: and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Date of application of amendments: September 1, 1998, as supplemented on Date of application for amendments: October 15, 1998, as supplemented March 19, 1999. January 21, 1999. December 15, 1998, and January 11 and Brief description of amendment: This Brief description of amendments: The 21, 1999. amendment changes Technical amendments revised the Technical Brief description of amendments: The Specification (TS) 3⁄4.9.11, ‘‘Water Specifications (TSs) by relocating TS amendments revised the Technical Level—New and Spent Fuel Pools,’’ and Section 3⁄4.6.I, ‘‘Primary System Specifications (TSs) to change the its associated Bases by requiring 23 feet Boundary-Chemistry’’ and associated heatup, cooldown, and inservice test of water above the top of fuel rods bases to the Updated Final Safety limitations for the reactor coolant within irradiated fuel assemblies seated Analysis Report (UFSAR) and to system of each unit to a maximum of 26 in the storage racks. applicable plant procedures. effective full-power years. The Date of issuance: April 8, 1999. Date of issuance: March 31, 1999. amendments also revise the TSs for low Effective date: April 8, 1999. Effective date: Immediately, to be temperature overpressure protection to Amendment No.: 88. implemented within 30 days. reflect the revised pressure-temperature Facility Operating License No. NPF– Amendment Nos.: 187 and 184. limits of the reactor vessels. 63: Amendment revises the Technical Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Date of Issuance: March 30, 1999. Specifications. 29 and DPR–30: The amendments Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal revised the Technical Specifications. issuance to be implemented within 90 Register: September 23, 1998 (63 FR Date of initial notice in Federal days from the date of issuance. 50935). Register: February 24, 1999 (64 FR Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–302; Unit The March 19, 1999, submittal 9186). 2–302; Unit 3–302. contained clarifying information only, The Commission’s related evaluation Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– and did not change the initial no of the amendments is contained in a 38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: Amendments significant hazards consideration Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 1999. revised the Technical Specifications. determination. No significant hazards consideration Date of initial notice in Federal The Commission’s related evaluation comments received: No. Register: December 2, 1998 (63 FR of the amendment is contained in a Local Public Document Room 66592). Safety Evaluation dated April 8, 1999. location: Dixon Public Library, 221 The December 15, 1998, and January No significant hazards consideration Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois 11 and 21, 1999, letters provided comments received: No. 61021. clarifying information that did not Local Public Document Room change the scope of the original Federal Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket location: Cameron Village Regional Register notice and the initial proposed Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba Library, 1930 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, no significant hazards consideration Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York North Carolina 27605. determination. County, South Carolina The Commission’s related evaluation Commonwealth Edison Company, Date of application for amendments: of the amendments is contained in a Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– January 28, 1999. Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 1999. 457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and Brief description of amendments: The No significant hazards consideration 2, Will County, Illinois amendments revised Technical comments received: No. Date of application for amendments: Specifications Section 3.7.13, ‘‘Fuel Local Public Document Room November 25, 1998. Handling Ventilation Exhaust System,’’ location: Oconee County Library, 501 Brief description of amendments: The and associated Bases to correct West South Broad Street, Walhalla, amendments revised the Technical discrepancies between the current South Carolina. Specifications (TS) to support on-line design and this section. Duquesne Light Company, et al., Docket replacement of the Braidwood, Unit 2, Date of issuance: March 26, 1999. Nos. 50–334 and 50–412, Beaver Valley vital batteries. Effective date: As of the date of Date of issuance: March 26, 1999. issuance to be implemented within 30 Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Effective date: Immediately, to be days from the date of issuance. Shippingport, Pennsylvania implemented within 30 days. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–176; Unit Date of application for amendments: Amendment Nos.: 99 and 99. 2–168. October 15, 1998, as supplemented
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 19568 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
December 14, 1998, February 18, 1999, Brief description of amendment: The Date of issuance: March 26, 1999. and February 23, 1999. amendment modifies Technical Effective date: March 26, 1999. Brief description of amendments: Specification 3/4.4.5, ‘‘Steam Amendment No.: 104. These amendments made several Generators,’’ and its associated Bases Facility Operating License No. NPF– changes that are administrative in and adds a new license condition to 47: The amendment revised the nature. The changes (1) made editorial Appendix D to allow repair of steam Technical Specifications. changes that delete obsolete material or generator tubes by installation of sleeves Date of initial notice in Federal material adequately described developed by ABB Combustion Register: February 10, 1999 (64 FR elsewhere, changed action statement Engineering. In addition, the 6695). numbers, updated technical amendment deletes the option for using The Commission’s related evaluation specification (TSs) index pages, and the kinetic sleeving methodology of the amendment is contained in a made changes to be consistent with the previously approved for use at Beaver Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 1999. No significant hazards consideration guidance provided in the improved Valley Power Station, Unit 2. comments received: No. standard technical specifications for Date of issuance: March 26, 1999. Effective date: As of date of issuance, Local Public Document Room Westinghouse reactors (NUREG–1431, location: Government Documents Revision 1); (2) deleted reporting to be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No: 98. Department, Louisiana State University, requirements that are duplicated in Baton Rouge, LA 70803. various sections of Title 10 of the Code Facility Operating License No. NPF– of Federal Regulations; and (3) relocated 73. Amendment revised the Technical Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, the requirement for meteorological Specifications and License. Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point monitoring instrumentation from the Date of initial notice in Federal Nuclear Station Unit No. 1, Oswego TSs to the Licensing Requirements Register: April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19829). County, New York Manual. The July 28, 1997, September 17, 1997, April 30, 1998, January 29, 1999, Date of application for amendment: The February 18, 1999, and February and February 26, 1999, letters provided November 30, 1998. 23, 1999, letters withdrew a portion of clarifying information that did not Brief description of amendment: The the amendment request that would have change the initial proposed no amendment changes Technical deleted the description of the site significant hazards consideration Specification 3.1.2, ‘‘Liquid Poison exclusion boundary from the TSs. The determination or expand the System,’’ and its associated Bases to description of the site exclusion amendment request beyond the scope of correct the required concentration and boundary will remain in the TS. the April 23, 1997, Federal Register volume of boron solution. Date of issuance: March 26, 1999. Date of issuance: April 2, 1999. notice. Effective date: As of the date of Effective date: Units 1 and 2, as of The Commission’s related evaluation issuance to be implemented within 30 date of issuance, to be implemented of the amendment is contained in a days. within 60 days. Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 1999. Amendment Nos.: 220 and 97. Amendment No.: 166. No significant hazards consideration Facility Operating License No. DPR– Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– comments received: No. 66 and NPF–73: Amendments revised 63: Amendment revises the Technical Local Public Document Room Specifications. the Technical Specifications and location: B.F. Jones Memorial Library, licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, PA Register: December 30, 1998 (63 FR Date of initial notice in Federal 15001. Register: November 18, 1998 (63 FR 71970). The Commission’s related evaluation 64111). Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy of the amendment is contained in a The December 14, 1998, February 18, Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 1999. 1999, and February 23, 1999, letters did River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana No significant hazards consideration not change the initial proposed no comments received: No. significant hazards consideration Date of amendment request: January Local Public Document Room determination or expand the 12, 1999, supersedes application dated location: Reference and Documents amendment request beyond the scope of May 31, 1996. Department, Penfield Library, State the initial notice. Brief description of amendment: The University of New York, Oswego, New The Commission’s related evaluation amendment adds an additional required York 13126. of the amendments is contained in a action to the Limiting Condition for Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 1999. Operation (LCO) 3.9.1, ‘‘Refueling Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et No significant hazards consideration Equipment Interlocks,’’ of the RBS al., Docket No. 50–423, Millstone comments received: No. Technical Specifications. The additional Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New Local Public Document Room action will allow an alternative to the London County, Connecticut location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library, current action for one or more Date of application for amendment: 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, PA inoperable refueling equipment April 1, 1998, as supplemented May 29, 15001 interlocks. The current action is to June 26, and August 4, 1998. ‘‘suspend in-vessel fuel movement with Brief description of amendment: The Duquesne Light Company, et al., Docket equipment associated with the No. 50–412, Beaver Valley Power amendment revises the Millstone Unit 3 inoperable interlock(s).’’ The alternative final safety analysis report (FSAR) by Station, Unit 2, Shippingport, action will be to (1) insert a control rod Pennsylvania adding a new sump pump subsystem to withdrawal block, and (2) verify all address groundwater inleakage through Date of application for amendment: control rods are fully inserted in core the containment basemat. March 10, 1997, as supplemented July cells containing one or more fuel Date of issuance: March 17, 1999. 28, 1997, September 17, 1997, April 30, assemblies. The amendment also Effective date: As of the date of 1998, January 29, 1999, and February revised the Bases for LCO 3.9.1 actions issuance, to be implemented within 60 26, 1999. to describe the alternative action. days from the date of issuance.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.093 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19569
Amendment No.: 168. (Regional Depository) Education Date of initial notice in Federal Facility Operating License No. NPF– Building, Walnut Street and Register: January 27, 1999 (64 FR 4161). 49: Amendment authorized changes to Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, The Commission’s related evaluation the FSAR. Harrisburg, PA 17105. of the amendments is contained in a Date of initial notice in Federal Safety Evaluation dated April 1, 1999. Register: April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19974). Public Service Electric & Gas Company, No significant hazards consideration The May 29, June 26, and August 4, Docket No. 50–354, Hope Creek comments received: No. 1998, letters provided clarifying Generating Station, Salem County, New Local Public Document Room information that did not change the Jersey location: Appling County Public scope of the April 1, 1998, application Date of application for amendment: Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, and the initial proposed no significant October 22, 1998. Georgia. hazards consideration determination. Brief description of amendment: This The Commission’s related evaluation amendment revises Technical Southern Nuclear Operating Company, of the amendment, state consultation, Specification (TS) 4.8.2.1.b.3 to increase Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50– and final determination of no significant the minimum battery electrolyte 425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, hazards consideration are contained in temperature limit from 60°F to 72°F. Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia a Safety Evaluation dated March 17, This change resolves a discrepancy in Date of application for amendments: 1999. the electrolyte temperature assumed in October 15, 1998, as supplemented by No significant hazards consideration the Class 1E battery sizing calculations letter dated November 11, 1998. comments received: No public versus the limit specified in the TSs. Brief description of amendments: The comments received. A petition to Date of issuance: March 25, 1999. amendments change the Vogtle Electric intervene was received from the Effective date: As of the date of Generating Plant Unit 1 and 2 Facility Citizens Regulatory Commission that issuance, to be implemented within 60 Operating Licenses to delete or modify was dismissed and terminated by the days. certain license conditions that have NRC Atomic Safety Licensing Board Amendment No.: 118. become obsolete or inappropriate. In (LBP–98–22). Facility Operating License No. NPF– addition, the Technical Specifications Local Public Document Room 57: This amendment revised the and Bases are reissued to reflect new location: Learning Resources Center, Technical Specifications. word processing software. Three Rivers Community-Technical Date of initial notice in Federal Date of issuance: March 26, 1999. College, 574 New London Turnpike, Register: December 2, 1998 (63 FR Effective date: As of the date of Norwich, Connecticut, and the 66602). issuance to be implemented within 30 Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince The Commission’s related evaluation days from the date of issuance. Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, of the amendment is contained in a Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–107; Unit Connecticut. Safety Evaluation dated March 25, 1999. 2–85. No significant hazards consideration Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– PECO Energy Company, Public Service comments received: No. 68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised Electric and Gas Company Delmarva Local Public Document Room Facility Operating Licenses and the Power and Light Company, and Atlantic location: Pennsville Public Library, 190 Technical Specifications. City Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50– S. Broadway, Pennsville, NJ 08070. Date of initial notice in Federal 277 and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic Register: December 2, 1998 (63 FR Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, York 66602). Inc., Georgia Power Company, County, Pennsylvania The Commission’s related evaluation Oglethorpe Power Corporation, of the amendments is contained in a Date of application for amendments: Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, February 4, 1998, as revised September Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 1999. City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– No significant hazards consideration 29, 1998. 321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Brief description of amendments: The comments received: No. Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, amendments revise the Technical Local Public Document Room Georgia Specifications surveillance location: Burke County Library, 412 requirements concerning secondary Date of application for amendments: Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia December 4, 1998. containment doors. Union Electric Company, Docket No. Date of issuance: April 7, 1999. Brief description of amendments: The amendments make two changes to the 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Effective date: As of the date of Callaway County, Missouri issuance, to be implemented within 30 TS. The first change revises the Unit 1 days. TS Section 2.1.1.2 to delete the footnote Date of applications for amendment: Amendments Nos.: 227 and 230. that specifies that the Safety Limit October 31, 1997, as supplemented by Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Minimum Critical Power Ratios are for letter dated September 29, 1998, and 44 and DPR–56: The amendments Cycle 18 only. The second change application dated July 30, 1998. revised the Technical Specifications. revises the TS for both units by deleting Brief description of amendment: The Date of initial notice in Federal Section 5.6.5.b.2) and incorporating amendment revised Tables 3.3–3, 3.3–4, Register: August 14, 1998 (63 FR Section 5.6.5.b.1) into Section 5.6.5.b. and 4.3–2 of the technical specifications 38202). Date of issuance: April 1, 1999. regarding the engineered safety feature The Commission’s related evaluation Effective date: As of the date of actuation system (ESFAS) Functional of the amendments is contained in a issuance to be implemented within 30 Unit 6.f, ‘‘Loss of Offisite Power—Start Safety Evaluation dated April 7, 1999. days from the date of issuance. Turbine-Driven Pump,’’ by establishing No significant hazards consideration Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–215; Unit separate requirements for the analog and comments received: No. 2–156. digital portions of the associated circuit. Local Public Document Room Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– The amendment also adds a note to TS location: Government Publications 57 and NPF–5: Amendments revised the Table 4.3–2 to clarify that the Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Technical Specifications. verification of time delays associated
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 19570 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices with ESFAS Functional Units 8.a and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549– 8.b, ‘‘Loss of Power,’’ is only performed COMMISSION 0102 (Tel. 202–942–8090). as part of the channel calibration. Applicant’s Representations Date of issuance: April 2, 1999. [Investment Company Act Release No. 1. Applicant is a business Effective date: April 2, 1999, to be 23785; 812±11218] development company (‘‘BDC’’) within implemented within 30 days of the date American Capital Strategies, Ltd.; the meaning of section 2(a)(48) of the of issuance. Notice of Application Act.1 Applicant’s primary business is Amendment No.: 130. making loans and investments in small Facility Operating License No. NPF– April 14, 1999. and medium-sized companies. 30: The amendment revised the AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Applicant’s investment decisions are Technical Specifications. Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’). made by a board of directors (‘‘Board’’) Date of initial notice in Federal ACTION: Notice of an application for an based on recommendations of a loan Register: December 16, 1998 (63 FR order under section 61(a)(3)(B) of the approval committee comprised of senior 69348). Investment Company Act of 1940 (the management. Applicant does not have The Commission’s related evaluation ‘‘Act’’). an external investment adviser within of the amendment is contained in a the meaning of section 2(a)(20) of the SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicant, Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 1999. Act. American Capital Strategies, Ltd., 2. Applicant requests an order under No significant hazards consideration requests an order approving its 1997 section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act approving comments received: No. Disinterested Director Stock Option the Plan, which provides for the grant Local Public Document Room Plan (the ‘‘Plan’’) and the grant of of options to purchase shares of location: Elmer Ellis Library, University certain stock options under the Plan. applicant’s common stock to directors of Missouri, Columbia Missouri 65201. FILING DATES: The application was filed who are neither officers nor employees Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, on July 10, 1998 and amended on of applicant (‘‘Non-Employee Docket No. 50–305, Kewaunee Nuclear November 12, 1998. Applicant has Directors’’).2 Applicant has a nine Power Plant, Kewaunee County, agreed to file an amendment to the member Board, the majority of whom Wisconsin application during the notice period, the are not ‘‘interested persons’’ as defined substance of which is reflected in this in section 2(a)(19) of the Act. On Date of application for amendment: notice. November 6, 1997, the Board adopted November 18, 1998, as supplemented Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An the Plan subject to approval by the with additional information by letters order granting the application will be Commission and applicant’s dated March 1, 1999, and March 9, issued unless the Commission orders a shareholders. On May 14, 1998, 1999. hearing. Interested persons may request applicant’s shareholders approved the Brief description of amendment: The a hearing by writing to the Plan. The Plan will not become effective amendment revises the pressure/ Commission’s Secretary and serving until the date that a Commission order temperature limits and the low- applicant with a copy of the request, is issued on the application. temperature overpressure protection personally or by mail. Hearing requests 3. The Plan provides that each Non- requirements in the facility technical should be received by the Commission Employee Director will receive an initial specifications. by 5:30 p.m. on May 10, 1999, and grant of options (together with any Date of issuance: April 1, 1999. should be accompanied by proof of options issued later under the Plan, ‘‘Options’’) to acquire 15,000 shares of Effective date: April 1, 1999. service on applicant, in the form of an applicant’s common stock. The Options Amendment No.: 144. affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state will vest over a three-year period in Facility Operating License No. DPR– the nature of the writer’s interest, the 5,000 share increments. Five of the Non- 43: Amendment revised the Technical reason for the request, and the issues Employee Directors were directors when Specifications. contested. Persons who wish to be the Board adopted the Plan. These five Date of initial notice in Federal notified of a hearing may request Non-Employee Directors will have 5,000 Register: December 30, 1998. notification by writing to the Options vest on November 6 of each of (63FR71978) Commission’s Secretary. the three years following November 6, The Commission’s related evaluation 1997. The sixth Non-Employee Director ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 450 became a director and received an of the amendment is contained in a 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549– Safety Evaluation dated April 1, 1999. initial grant of 15,000 Options on 0609. Applicant, c/o Samuel A. Flax, August 8, 1998. The sixth director’s No significant hazards consideration Esquire, Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth comments received: No. Options will vest in 5,000 increments Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004– on August 8th of each of the three Local Public Document Room 1206. following years. Any Options granted location: University of Wisconsin, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: prior to the issuance of a Commission Cofrin Library, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Emerson S. Davis, Sr., Senior Counsel, order that otherwise would have vested Green Bay, WI 54311–7001. at (202) 942–0714, or George J. Zornada, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day Branch Chief, at (202) 942–0564 1 Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed- of April 1999. (Division of Investment Management, end investment company that operates for the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Investment Company purpose of making investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1) through 55(a)(3) of the John A. Zwolinski, Regulation). Act and makes available significant managerial Director, Division of Licensing Project SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The assistance with respect to the issuers of such Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor following is a summary of the securities. Regulation. 2 Each Non-Employee Director receives $10,000 application. The complete application is per year for each year they serve as a director and [FR Doc. 99–9839 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] available for a fee at the Commission’s $1,000 for each Board or committee meeting BILLING CODE 7590±01±P Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth attended, plus reimbursement of related expenses.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19571 will vest on the date that the Billings, Ramsey & Co. in connection experience of the Board, and that Non- Commission issues an order on the with applicant’s initial public offering. Employee Directors provide advice to application. The Plan provides that a Each warrant is exercisable for one applicant on operational issues, maximum of 150,000 shares of share of applicant’s common stock, underwriting policies, credit policies applicant’s common stock may be representing 4% of applicant’s and asset valuation and strategic issued to Non-Employee Directors as a outstanding common stock. direction, as well as serving on group. Following the initial grants, Applicant’s Legal Analysis committees. Applicant believes that the 60,000 shares of applicant’s stock would Plan will provide additional incentives remain eligible for grants under the 1. Section 63(3) of the Act permits a to Non-Employee Directors to remain on Plan. Future grants would be made by BDC to sell its common stock at a price the Board and devote their best efforts below current net asset value upon the a committee of the Board, none of to ensure applicant’s success. Applicant exercise of any option issued in whose members are eligible to also believes that the Options will accordance with section 61(a)(3) of the participate in the Plan (‘‘Committee’’). provide significant at-risk incentives to Act. Section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act The Committee has plenary authority to the Non-Employee Directors, thereby determine, subject to the Plan, the provides, in pertinent part, that a BDC may issue to its non-employee directors further ensuring close identification of granting of future Options. Under the their interests with those of the Plan, no single Non-Employee Director options to purchase its voting securities applicant and its shareholders. may receive Options to purchase more pursuant to an executive compensation Applicant asserts that by providing than 25,000 shares of applicant’s plan, provided that: (a) The options incentives such as Options, applicant common stock. expire by their terms within ten years; 4. Under the terms of the Plan, the (b) the exercise price of the options is will be able to maintain continuity in exercise price of the initial grants will not less than the current market value the Board’s membership and to attract be the current market price of of the underlying securities at the date and retain the highly experienced and applicant’s common stock on the date of the issuance of the options, or if no skilled professionals who are critical to that a Commission order is issued on market exists, the current net asset value applicant’s success as a BDC. the application, and on the date of of the voting securities; (c) the proposal 4. Applicant submits that the terms of issuance of any Options thereafter. The to issue the options is authorized by the the Plan are fair and reasonable and do Options expire ten years from the date BDC’s shareholders, and is approved by not involve overreaching of applicant or of grant and may not be assigned or order of the Commission upon its shareholders. Applicant states that transferred other than by the laws of application; (d) the options are not the Options would not be immediately descent and distribution. In the event of transferable except for disposition by exercisable and that they vest over a the death or disability of a Non- gift, will or intestacy; (e) no investment three-year period. Applicant asserts that Employee Director during the Director’s adviser of the BDC receives any if the current Non-Employee Directors service, unexercised Options compensation described in section remain in office for a period of three immediately become exercisable and 205(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of years and exercise all of the Options may be exercised for a period of three 1940, except to the extent permitted by granted to them under the Plan, years following the date of death (by the clause (A) or (B) of that section; and (f) applicant would issue 90,000 shares of Director’s personal representative) or the BDC does not have a profit-sharing common stock representing .81% of the plan as described in section 57(n) of the one year following the date of disability, applicant’s outstanding common stock. but in no event after the respective Act. 2. In addition, section 61(a)(3)(C) of Applicant also states that the total expiration dates of such Options. In the number of shares of common stock event of the termination of a Non- the Act provides that the amount of the BDC’s voting securities that would issuable under the Plan to Non- Employee Director for cause, any Employee Directors represents unexercised Options terminate result from the exercise of all approximately 1.4% of applicant’s immediately. If a Non-Employee outstanding warrants, options, and outstanding common stock. Applicant Director’s service is terminated for any rights at the time of issuance may not asserts that the Options will have value reason other than by death, disability, or exceed 25% of the BDC’s outstanding only to the extent that applicant’s for cause, the Options may be exercised voting securities, except that if the market value increases above the within one year immediately following amount of voting securities that would the date of termination, but in no event result from the exercise of all exercise price of the Options and that, later than the expiration date of such outstanding warrants, options, and given the small amount of common Options. rights issued to the BDC’s directors, stock issuable upon exercise of the 5. As of March 16, 1999, applicant officers, and employees pursuant to an Options, the exercise of the Options had outstanding 11,106,105 shares of executive compensation plan would pursuant to the Plan would not have a common stock. Applicant’s officers and exceed 15% of the BDC’s outstanding substantial dilutive effect on the net employees, including employee voting securities, then the total amount asset value of applicant’s common directors, are eligible to receive options of voting securities that would result stock. Applicant states that the total under Applicant’s other stock option from the exercise of all outstanding amount of voting securities that would plan (under which Non-Employee warrants, options, and rights at the time result from the exercise of all Directors are not entitled to participate) of issuance will not exceed 20% of the outstanding warrants, options and rights (‘‘Other Plan’’). A maximum of outstanding voting securities of the upon approval of the Plan would 1,800,252 shares, or 16.2% of BDC. represent 19.6% of applicant’s applicant’s outstanding common stock, 3. Applicant represents that the Plan outstanding voting securities. To the may be issued under the Other Plan, of would comply with all of the extent that applicant has authorized a which 1,637,778 shares, representing requirements of section 61(a)(3)(B) of number of options for future issuance 14.7% of applicant’s outstanding the Act. Applicant states in support of that, if granted currently, would exceed common stock, are subject to granted its application that the Board actively the limits imposed by section 61(a)(3)(C) options. Applicant also has outstanding oversees applicant’s affairs, applicant of the Act, applicant represents that no 442,751 warrants issued to Friedman, relies extensively on the judgment and grants will be made in excess of the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.106 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19572 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices percentage limitations set forth in resultant division of the market for such the opening of business on January 11, section 61(a)(3)(C) of the Act. Securities. 1999. As a result of listing its Securities For the Commission, by the Division of The Company’s application relates on the Nasdaq, the Company Investment Management, pursuant to solely to the withdrawal of the determined to withdraw its Securities delegated authority. Securities from listing on the Amex and from listing on the Amex. Jonathan G. Katz, shall have no effect upon the continued The Company has complied with the listing of the Securities on the NYSE. By rules of the Amex by notifying the Secretary. reason of Section 12(b) of the Act and Exchange of its intention to withdraw [FR Doc. 99–9910 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] the rules and regulations of the the Securities from listing on the BILLING CODE 8010±01±M Commission thereunder, the Company Exchange and by delivering to the shall continue to be obligated to file Exchange a certified copy of the resolution adopted by the Company’s SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE reports under Section 13 of the Act with Board of Directors authorizing the COMMISSION the Commission and with the NYSE. Any interested person may, on or withdrawal of its Securities from listing Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application before May 5, 1999, submit by letter to on the Amex and by setting forth in to Withdraw from Listing and the Secretary of the Securities and detail to the Exchange the reasons for Registration; (K±V Pharmaceutical Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, the proposed withdrawal, and the facts Company, Class A Common Stock, Par NW., Washington, DC 20549–0609, facts in support thereof. The Amex has in Value $.01 Per Share, and Class B bearing upon whether the application turn informed the Company that it has Common Stock, Par Value $0.1 Per has been made in accordance with the no objection to the withdrawal of the Share) File No. 1±9601 rules of the Exchange and what terms, Company’s Securities from listing on if any, should be imposed by the the Exchange. April 14, 1999. Commission for the protection of Any interested person may, on or K–V Pharmaceutical Company investors. The Commission, based on before May 5, 1999, submit by letter to (‘‘Company’’) has filed an application the information submitted to it, will the Secretary of the Securities and with the Securities and Exchange issue an order granting the application Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant after the date mentioned above, unless NW., Washington, DC 20549–0609, facts to Section 12(d) of the Securities the Commission determines to order a bearing upon whether the application Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule hearing on the matter. has been made in accordance with the rules of the Exchange and what terms, 12d2–2(d) promulgated thereunder, to For the Commission, by the Division of withdraw the securities specified above Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated if any, should be imposed by the (‘‘Securities’’) from listing and authority. Commission for the protection of registration on the American Stock Jonathan G. Katz, investors. The Commission, based on Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’). Secretary. the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application The Securities have been listed for [FR Doc. 99–9907 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] after the date mentioned above, unless trading on the Amex and, pursuant to a BILLING CODE 8010±01±M Registration Statement on Form 8–A the Commission determines to order a which became effective on March 25, hearing on the matter. 1999, on the New York Stock Exchange, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE For the Commission, by the Division of Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’). Trading in the Securities COMMISSION Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated on the NYSE commenced at the opening authority. of business on March 25, 1999. Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application Jonathan G. Katz, The Company has complied with the To Withdraw From Listing and Secretary. rules of the Amex by filing with the Registration (PolyMedica Corporation, [FR Doc. 99–9908 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Exchange a certified copy of the Common Stock, $.01 Par Value Per BILLING CODE 8010±01±M resolutions adopted by the Company’s Share, and Preferred Stock Purchase Board of Directors authorizing the Rights); File No. 1±13690 withdrawal of its Securities from listing SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE April 14, 1999. COMMISSION on the Exchange and by setting forth in PolyMedica Corporation (‘‘Company’’) detail to the Exchange the reasons for has filed an application with the Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application such proposed withdrawal, and the facts Securities and Exchange Commission To Withdraw From Listing and in support thereof. The Amex has in (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section Registration; (Unocal Corporation, turn informed the Company that it has 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of Common Stock, Par Value $1.00, and no objection to the withdrawal of the 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 12d2–2(d) Associated Preferred Stock Purchase Company’s Securities from listing on promulgated thereunder, to withdraw Rights) File No. 1±8483 the Exchange. the above specified securities In making the decision to withdraw (‘‘Securities’’) from listing and April 14, 1999. its Securities from listing on the Amex, registration on the American Stock Unocal Corporation (‘‘Company’’) has the Company determined the following: Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’). filed an application with the Securities (a) that listing on the NYSE would The reasons cited in the application and Exchange Commission enhance the overall value of the for withdrawing the Securities from (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section Company’s Securities and provide listing and registration include the 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of enhanced trading and other services to following: 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 12d2–2(d) the Company’s stockholders; and (b) The Securities of the Company have promulgated thereunder, to withdraw that withdrawal of such Securities from been listed for trading on the Amex and the above specified securities listing on the Amex would avoid both on the Nasdaq National Market (‘‘Securities’’) from listing and the direct and indirect costs arising from (‘‘Nasdaq’’). Trading of the Company’s registration on the Chicago Stock maintaining dual listings, as well as the Securities on the Nasdaq commenced at Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CHX’’) and
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:16 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19573 the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (‘‘PCX’’) For the Commission, by the Division of Amex, including its Five-Year Warrants (collectively, the CHX and the PCX shall Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated expiring July 7, 1999, its 6.75% Senior be referred to herein as the authority. Notes due 2003, its 7.75% Senior Notes ‘‘Exchanges’’). Jonathan G. Katz, due 2005, its 8% Exchangeable Secretary. The reasons cited in the application Subordinated Debentures due 2006, and [FR Doc. 99–9909 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] its 7.625% Senior Debentures due 2016. for withdrawing the Securities from BILLING CODE 8010±01±M Moreover, by reason of Section 12(b) of listing and registration on the Exchanges the Act and the rules and regulations of include the following: the Commission thereunder, the The Securities of the Company have SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Company shall continue to be obligated been listed for trading on the CHX, the COMMISSION to file reports under Section 13 of the PCX and the New York Stock Exchange, Act with the Commission and the Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’). The Board of Directors of Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application Amex, as well as the NYSE. the Company has authorized To Withdraw From Listing and Any interested person may, on or withdrawing the Securities from the Registration; (Viacom Inc., Class A before May 6, 1999, submit by letter to CHX and the PCX in order to eliminate Common Stock, $.01 Par Value, and the Secretary of the Securities and Class B Common Stock, $.01 Par the costs associated with such listings. Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, Value) File No. 1±9553 These costs include both annual NW, Washington, DC 20549–0609, facts maintenance fees for listed shares and April 15, 1999. bearing upon whether the application fees for listing additional shares. Viacom Inc. (‘‘Company’’) has filed an has been made in accordance with the rules of the Exchange and what terms, The Company has complied with the application with the Securities and if any, should be imposed by the rules of each Exchange by filing with Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Commission for the protection of them certified copies of the resolutions investors. The Commission, based on adopted by the Company’s Board of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 12d2–2(d) promulgated the information submitted to it, will Directors authorizing the withdrawal of issue an order granting the application its Securities from listing on the thereunder, to withdraw the securities specified above (‘‘Securities’’) from after the date mentioned above, unless Exchanges and by setting forth in detail listing and registration on the American the Commission determines to order a to the Exchanges the reasons for the Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or hearing on the matter. proposed withdrawal, and the facts in ‘‘Exchange’’). For the Commission, by the Division of support thereof. The Securities have been listed for Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated Both CHX and the PCX have informed trading on the Amex and, pursuant to a authority. the Company that they have no Registration Statement on Form 8–A Jonathan G. Katz, objections to the Company’s application filed with the Commission which Secretary. to withdraw its Securities from listing became effective on April 1, 1999, on [FR Doc. 99–9944 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] on the Exchanges. the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. BILLING CODE 8010±01±M The Company’s application relates (‘‘NYSE’’). Trading in the Securities on the NYSE commenced at the opening of solely to the withdrawal of its Securities business on April 8, 1999. from listing on the CHX and the PCX SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE The Company has complied with the COMMISSION and shall have no effect upon the rules of the Amex by filing with the continued listing of the Securities on Exchange a certified copy of the the NYSE. By reason of Section 12(b) of [Release No. 34±41287; File No. SR±NASD± resolutions adopted by the Company’s 99±18] the Act and the rules and regulations of Board of Directors authorizing the the Commission thereunder, the withdrawal of its Securities from listing Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice Company shall continue to be obligated on the Exchange and by setting forth in of Filing and Order Granting to file reports under Section 13 of the detail to the Exchange the reasons for Accelerated Approval of Proposed Act with the Commission and with the such proposed withdrawal, and the facts Rule Change by the National NYSE. in support thereof. The Amex has in Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Any interested person may, on or turn informed the Company that it has Relating to the Size of the Nasdaq before May 5, 1999, submit by letter to no objection to the withdrawal of the Listing and Hearing Review Council Company’s Securities from listing on the Secretary of the Securities and April 14, 1999. Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, the Exchange. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the NW, Washington, DC 20549–0609, facts In making the decision to withdraw its Securities from listing on the Amex, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 bearing upon whether the application the Company determined that it would (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 has been made in accordance with the be in the Company’s best interests to notice is hereby given that on April 1, rules of the Exchange and what terms, withdraw its Securities from listing on 1999, the National Association of if any, should be imposed by the the Amex in order to list them on the Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’), Commission for the protection of NYSE. through its wholly owned subsidiary, investors. The Commission, based on The Company’s application relates the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. the information submitted to it, will solely to the withdrawal of the (‘‘Nasdaq’’) filed with the Securities and issue an order granting the application Securities described above from listing Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) after the date mentioned above, unless on the Amex and shall have no effect the proposed rule change as described the Commission determines to order a upon the continued listing of the in Items I and II below, which Items hearing on the matter. Securities on the NYSE, nor shall it have any effect on the continued listing 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). of the Company’s other securities on the 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:39 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APN1 19574 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices have been prepared by Nasdaq.3 The A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s copies thereof with the Secretary, Commission is publishing this notice to Statement of the Purpose of, and Securities and Exchange Commission, solicit comments on the proposed rule Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC change from interested persons and Change 20549–0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written simultaneously granting approval to the 1. Purpose proposed rule change. statements with respect to the proposed This proposal is designed to address rule change that are filed with the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the increase in the workload of the Commission, and all written Statement of the Terms of Substance of Review Council. The number of listing communications relating to the the Proposed Rule Change and policy matters pending before the proposed rule change between the Review Council has significantly Commission and any person, other than Nasdaq is proposing to increase the increased over the last year. This those that may be withheld from the maximum size of the Nasdaq Listing increased workload is challenging the public in accordance with the and Hearing Review Council (‘‘Review ability of the Review Council to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Council’’) to 18 members and increase effectively discharge its duties. available for inspection and copying at the minimum number of non-industry Accordingly, Nasdaq is proposing to the Commission’s Public Reference members on the Review Council to five. increase the maximum size of the Room. Copies of such filing will also be Below is the text of the proposed rule Review Council to 18 members. The available for inspection and copying at change. Proposed new language is in Review Council will continue to be a the principal office of the NASD. All italics; proposed deletions are in balanced committee, with not more than submissions should refer to File No. [brackets]. 50 percent of its members engaged in SR–NASD–99–18 and should be * * * * * market-making activity or employed by submitted by May 12, 1999. a member whose revenues from market- Bylaws of The Nasdaq Stock Market, making activity exceed ten percent of its IV. Commission’s Findings and Other Inc. total revenues. Furthermore, the Granting Accelerated Approval of proposal provides for the minimum Proposed Rule Change Sec. 5.2 Number of Members and percentage of non-industry members on The Commission finds that the Qualifications the Review Council to remain virtually proposed rule change is consistent with (a) The Nasdaq Listing and Hearing the same. the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder Review Council shall consist of no 2. Statutory Basis fewer than eight and no more than [11] applicable to a national securities Nasdaq believes that the proposed 5 18 members, of which not more than 50 association. Specifically, the rule change is consistent with the percent may be engaged in market- Commission believes the proposal is provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the making activity or employed by a consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) and Act 4 in that it is designed to prevent 6 member whose revenues from market- (6)(11). Section 15A(b)(6) requires, in fraudulent and manipulative acts and part, that the rules of a national making activity exceed ten percent of its practices, to promote just and equitable securities association be designed to total revenues. The Nasdaq Listing and principals of trade, and in general, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative Hearing Review Council shall include at protect investors and the public interest. acts and practices, to promote just and least [three] five Non-Industry members. Increasing the size of the Review equitable principals of trade, and in * * * * * Council, while maintaining it as a general, to protect investors and the balanced committee, will permit the 7 II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s public interest. Section 15A(b)(11) Review Council to remain focused on requires, among other things, that the Statement of the Purpose of, and issues that may raise investor protection rules of a national securities association Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule concerns and to act rapidly on such include provisions governing the form Change issues when necessary. and content of quotations, and that such In its filing with the Commission, B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s rules must be designed to promote Nasdaq included statements concerning Statement on Burden on Competition orderly procedures for collecting, the purpose of and basis for the distributing, and publishing Nasdaq does not believe that the quotations.8 proposed rule change and discussed any proposed rule change will impose any comments it received on the proposed The Commission finds that increasing inappropriate burden on competition. the number of members on the Review rule change. The text of these statements Council should provide for the efficient may be examined at the places specified C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s and timely execution of the Review in Item III below. Nasdaq has prepared Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Council’s duties (e.g., establishing summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, Members, Participants, or Others listing standards and making listing and C below, of the most significant determinations).9 The Commission Written comments were neither aspects of such statements. believes that this proposal should solicited nor received. III. Solicitation of Comments 5 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal’s impact on Interested persons are invited to efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 submit written data, views, and U.S.C. 78c(f). 3 Amendment No. 1 was received by the arguments concerning the foregoing, 6 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6) and (b)(11). Commission on April 8, 1999, the substance of including whether the proposal is 7 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). which is incorporated into this notice. Letter from 8 consistent with the Act. Persons making 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(11). Robert E. Aber, Senior Vice President and General 9 The Nasdaq submits that the proposed rule Counsel, Nasdaq, to Katherine A. England, Division written submissions should file six change is immediately necessary given the of Market Regulation, Commission, dated April 7, increased workload facing the Review Council. See, 1999 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). 4 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). Amendment No. 1.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.045 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19575 reduce workloads, expedite the listing of State, 2201 ‘‘C’’ Street, NW, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION process and facilitate capital formation Washington, D.C. Coast Guard by allowing issuers quicker access to The ITAC will meet from 9:30 to 1:00 capital. The Nasdaq proposal should on Wednesday, May 5 (Room 1205), [USCG±1998±4620] also protect investors and the public May 12 (Room 1205), May 19 (Room interest by ensuring that delisting 1406), May 26 (Room 1205), June 2 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) decisions and policy determinations (Room 1205), and June 9 (Room 1205), Phase-Out Requirements for Single involving listing standards are Hull Tank Vessels addressed promptly. In addition, the 1999, to complete preparations for the Commission notes that the proposed ITU Council meeting in June 1999. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. rule change maintains virtually the The ITAC–T National Committee will ACTION: Notice of policy. same percentage of industry members meet from 9:30 to 4:00 on May 26, 1999, SUMMARY: In a notice published on versus non-industry members on the (Room 1207). The ITAC–T will review November 16, 1998, the Coast Guard Review Council, which should prevent activities resulting from the ITU requested comments on whether a any unfair discrimination in the Telecommunication Sector Advisory single hull tank vessel, converted to execution of the Review Council’s Group (TSAG) meeting in April 1999. duties. For the foregoing reasons, the include double sides or a double Commission finds good cause for ITAC–T Study Group A will meet bottom, should be accepted as a approving the proposed rule change from 9:30 to 4:00 on May 19, 1999, different hull design when applying the prior to the thirtieth day after the date (Room 1205). Study Group A will tank vessel phase-out dates under the of publication of notice thereof in the complete preparations for ITU Study Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). This Federal Register. Groups 2 and 3. notice discusses the comments received and the Coast Guard’s determination. V. Conclusion ITAC–T Study Group D will meet from 9:30 to 4:00 on May 20, 1999, to The Coast Guard has decided that changing the hull configuration of an It is therefore ordered, pursuant to prepare for ITU Study Group 8 and 16 Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 that the existing single hull tank vessel to a meetings. proposed rule change (SR–NASD–99– single hull tank vessel with double sides 18) is approved. The ITAC ad hoc CITEL committee or a double bottom, after August 18, For the Commission, by the Division of will meet May 6, 1999 in Room 4517 1990, will not result in a change to the Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated from 9:30 to 12:30 to prepare for the tank vessel’s originally scheduled 11 authority. next Permanent Consultative Committee phase-out date as required by 46 U.S.C. Jonathan G. Katz, I meeting. 3703a. Secretary. Members of the general public may DATES: This policy is effective April 21, [FR Doc. 99–9943 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] attend these meetings and join in the 1999. BILLING CODE 8010±01±M discussions, subject to the instructions ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, of the Chair. Admission of public documents referred to in this notice are members will be limited to seating available for inspection or copying at DEPARTMENT OF STATE available. Entrance to the Department of the Docket Management Facility, [Public Notice No. 3028] State is controlled; people intending to (USCG–1998–4620), U.S. Department of attend ITAC, ITAC–T National Transportation, Plaza level, room PL– Notice of Meetings; United States Committee and Study Groups A & D 401, 400 Seventh Street SW, International Telecommunication meetings should send a fax to (202) Washington DC 20590–0001, between 9 Advisory Committee (ITAC); 647–7407 or email to a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Telecommunication Standardization [email protected] not later than 24 Friday, except Federal holidays. The Sector (ITAC±T) National Committee telephone number is 202–366–9329. hours before the meeting. This fax and Study Groups A & D; You may also access this docket on the should display the name of the meeting Interamerican Telecommunication Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. (ITAC, ITAC–T, National Committee, Commission (CITEL) Ad Hoc FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Study Group and date of meeting), your For Committee questions on this policy, please contact name, social security number, date of Mr. Bob Gauvin, Project Manager, Office The Department of State announces birth, and organizational affiliation. One of Operating and Environmental meetings of the U.S. International of the following valid photo Standards, Commandant (G–MSO–2), Telecommunication Advisory identifications will be required for Committee (ITAC) and its committees U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, admission: U.S. driver’s license, U.S. telephone 202–267–1053. For questions and Study Groups in the passport, U.S. Government Telecommunication Standardization, on viewing material in the docket, identification card. Enter from the ‘‘C’’ contact Dorothy Walker, Chief, Dockets, Telecommunication Development Street Main Lobby. In view of escorting Sectors, and CITEL ad hoc committee Department of Transportation, requirements, non-Government for May and June 1999. The purpose of telephone 202–366–9329. attendees should plan to arrive not less the Committee and its Study Groups is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast than 15 minutes before the meeting to advise the Department on policy and Guard published a request for comments technical issues with respect to the begins. (63 FR 63768) on November 16, 1998. International Telecommunication Union Dated: April 14, 1999. The notice encouraged interested and international telecommunication Marian R. Gordon, persons to provide written comments, information, opinions and arguments on standardization and development. All Information and Telecommunication meetings will be held at the Department Standardization, U.S. Department of State. whether single hull tank vessels that were altered with double sides or a [FR Doc. 99–9982 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). double bottom should be considered a 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). BILLING CODE 4710±45±P different hull configuration for
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.046 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19576 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices determining their OPA 90 phase-out bulk oil service with a later phase-out concerns; national oil transportation date. The comment period ended on date. needs; shipbuilding resources January 15, 1999, and there were 32 Recent inquiries by the maritime availability; existing vessels and need submissions to the docket. industry indicate a continued interest in for tank vessels which would operate in The Coast Guard held no public the possibility of converting single hull U.S. trade after OPA 90 became meeting on this request for comments. tank vessels to include double sides or effective. Two comments did request a public a double bottom to increase a vessel’s • The phase-out schedule was liberal, meeting, but the Coast Guard operational life past its original OPA 90 but, as with all of OPA 90, it does not determined that the written comments phase-out date. In our November 16, provide for equivalence, waivers, or in the docket adequately addressed the 1998, request for comments, we asked exemptions to its requirements. • issues and that a public meeting would for information to help us develop a OPA 90 was intended to protect the not be helpful in acquiring additional clear policy on phase-out dates. environment from operational or information. accidental discharge of oil by removing Summary of Comments older single hull tankers from service, as Background The comments fell into two clearly soon as possible, and by constructing Section 4115 of the Oil Pollution Act opposed groups on whether a single new double hull tankers with the latest of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–380, August 18, hull tank vessel could, after August 18, technology, design, and materials for 1990) (OPA 90) amended title 46, 1990, add double sides or a double safer operations, reducing damage to the United States Code, by adding a new bottom and use that alteration to change environment. • Allowing the continued operation section 3703a. This section contains the the vessel’s category under § 3703a and of existing single hull tank vessels for double hull requirements and phase-out thus have a later phase-out date. longer periods of time than established schedule for single hull tank vessels The comments generally urged that by the OPA 90 schedule is not operating in U.S. waters. It requires an the Coast Guard either— • NOT ALLOW a single hull tank acceptable or fair to owners who have owner to remove a single hull tank vessel converted with double sides or a invested in the building of new double vessel from bulk oil service on a specific double bottom after August 18, 1990, to hull vessels. date, depending on a vessel’s gross be considered under a different category Conversion to add double sides or a tonnage, build date, and hull in § 3703a to result in later phase-out double bottom SHOULD be allowed to configuration. The phase-out schedule dates; or, change the phase-out date under OPA allows more years of service for single • ALLOW single hull tank vessels 90. hull tank vessels configured to include converted with double sides or a double Thirteen comments supported double sides or a double bottom than for bottom after August 18, 1990, to be allowing a change of phase-out date single hull tank vessels without these considered under a different category in after a single hull tank vessel converts hull configurations. § 3703a that would result in a later to either double sides or a double The OPA 90 timetable for double hull phase-out date or a return to operation bottom. These thirteen comments came requirements and phase-out schedule after the vessel’s phase-out date. from ship owners, oil companies, a for single hull tank vessels are Conversion to add double sides or a shipyard company, a marine terminal implemented in 33 CFR part 157, double bottom SHOULD NOT be company, and a licensed U.S. merchant Appendix G. Both OPA 90 and our allowed to change the phase-out date mariner. This group of thirteen implementing regulations are silent on under OPA 90. comments offered the following reasons if, or when, a vessel owner can convert Nineteen comments stated that no for their position: a single hull tank vessel to include change or extension of a single hull tank • There is no language in OPA 90 or double sides or a double bottom to vessel phase-out date is allowed by OPA U.S. regulations that prohibits a qualify for a later phase-out date. As a 90. These comments came from conversion of a single hull tank vessel result, some vessel owners have asked members of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House to add double sides or a double bottom the Coast Guard to clarify the types of of Representatives, MARAD, the U.S. from being considered under a different vessel conversions permitted and their shipbuilding industry and associations, category in § 3703a for the additional associated phase-out dates. major ship companies and associations, operating years allowed for that hull In 1997, the Vessel Compliance environmental groups and individual configuration. Division replied to a question asking if citizens. One individual’s comment • If Congress had intended not to a single hull tank vessel with wing cargo included eighty (80) signatures allow such a conversion of single hull tanks reconfigured as segregated ballast supporting the ‘‘* * * replacement of tank vessels to be considered, they tanks or void spaces to create double single hull oil tankers by double hull oil would have used the words ‘‘vessels sides would qualify for a different OPA tankers * * *’’ as scheduled by OPA 90. built with double sides or a double 90 phase-out date. They indicated that This group of nineteen comments bottom,’’ instead of ‘‘vessels equipped this type of conversion and an offered the following reasons for their with double sides or a double bottom.’’ associated later phase-out date was position: Not defining when the vessel had to be acceptable provided that the modified • Congress intended OPA 90 to equipped with double sides or a double tanks meet the double side dimension protect the environment from the bottom, allows it to occur after the requirements applied to new tank increased risk of oil spills that were statute became effective (August 18, vessels in 33 CFR 157.10d(c)(1). specifically linked to older single hull 1990). Converted double side segregated ballast tank vessels. • The acceptance of the alteration of tanks must also provide protection to • The phase-out schedule of § 3703a an existing vessel’s design is not the full extent of a vessel’s cargo tank was deliberate and designed to ensure considered a major conversion under 33 length. In 1998, we received another balance between the environment and CFR 157.03. This also allows the inquiry from the same source asking if the interests of the vessel owners. When ‘‘natural action’’ of single hull tank hull conversions completed after a developing the phase-out schedule, vessels, or a single hull tank vessel single hull tank vessel’s original phase- Congress took into account economic originally built with double sides or a out date qualified the vessel to reenter conditions; owner capital investment double bottom, to be converted to a
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.047 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19577 complete double hull and meet the OPA included in the general comments would be the effect on the conversion of 90 requirements. It provides an summary are enclosed below. the tank vessel fleet to double hull tank incentive to completely double hull an 1. If the Coast Guard does not allow vessels? Would there be an adverse existing vessel and has been used by single hull tank vessels to qualify for impact on the marine environment? U.S. tanker and barge owners to convert later OPA 90 phase-out dates by • The U.S. environment would be their tank vessels to be compliant with converting the single hulls to single adversely impacted by vessels not the double hull standards. hulls with double sides or a double complying with the original OPA 90 • One comment pointed out that bottom, what would be the effect on U.S. phase-out schedule for single hull section 3606 of Pub. L. 105–85 halted oil transportation and supplies? tankers. the industry practice of reducing gross • There would be little to no effect on • Allowing extension of the phase-out tonnage to extend the phase-out date. oil transportation in the U.S. as there dates for converted single hull tank This comment suggested that if the were more than a sufficient number of vessels reduces the incentive for double Congress did not approve of a Coast tankers available and planned, to meet hull new buildings and slows the Guard position to allow double sides or U.S. demands. building of double hulls, advancing the a double bottom modification, then they • Any extensions of the phase-out average age and reducing the levels of could take legislative action once again. schedule would slow down the demand safety in the existing tank vessel fleet. • Given the current market conditions by owners to build new U.S. double hull • Allowing extensions of the phase- and expectations for needs of tankers. out dates would indefinitely delay the transportation and supply of oil to the • Shortages of tanker tonnage may environmental benefit of the double hull U.S., this issue will not effect an occur in the specialty class U.S. tramp tank vessels anticipated by Congress increase of shipyard orders for new tanker trade within the clean product and the U.S. population, who have double hull tank vessels, specifically market. This will raise tanker rates and advocated the need for double hull built in U.S. shipyards for the Jones Act the cost of oil to the consumer. tankers for twenty-five (25) years. trade. The cost to build a U.S. Jones Act Extensions of the phase-out schedule • The older converted single hull tanker is approximately three times the will moderate charter tanker rates and tank vessels use more fossil fuels than cost to build the same tanker in the meet the shortages for tank vessels the newer double hull tank vessels, foreign shipyard market. during these periods. increasing the amount of hazardous air • There may be short periods within 2. If single hull tank vessels which pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. the next five to ten years when there have passed their initial phase-out date • Overall double hull conversions in will be an insufficient number of could qualify for later phase-out dates, the U.S. would be modestly impacted, tankers available to transport the Alaska and reenter service by converting their with no impact to the environment. A North Slope (ANS) crude. ANS crude single hulls with double sides or a converted single hull tank vessel offers transportation needs are slowing on a double bottom, what would be the effect a sensible alternative for short-term schedule from approximately 1.3 on U.S. oil transportation and supplies? periods (5 years) of U.S. tonnage needs. million barrels a day in 1999, to • There will be no impact on U.S. oil • Owners of vessels will naturally approximately 460,000 barrels a day in transportation or supplies. wait until the deadline before 2015. Due to this slowing schedule for • There will be a sufficient number of considering a double hull because at ANS crude, the phasing out of the tankers for U.S. oil transportation. this time the economic situation does existing tankers in the ANS operation • Older single hull tank vessels not support the cost involved. (23 in service at this time) will shrink would become heavily relied upon, if • A single hull tank vessel having its until only nine to eleven tank vessels their phase-out dates are extended, and side cargo tanks converted to segregated will be needed to sustain ANS crude no ready replacements of new double ballast tanks would provide a larger delivery to the west coast of the U.S. hull vessels would be built or be double side spacing than required of Many single hull tankers, or single hull available, should the older converted new double hulls, providing more tankers with double bottoms only, will single hull tank vessels be abruptly lost protection to the environment. phase-out in ANS trade and will not be from service. 4. Are there any other concerns replaced. The ability to extend a single • There would not be enough tankers regarding whether we should recognize hull tank vessel for up to five years will in the Jones Act trade and the a single hull tank vessel converted to allow coverage of possible tonnage population would be reduced from the include double sides or a double bottom shortages during the reduction of the 49 in operation now to 21. Allowing this as a different hull design when applying fleet and reduction of oil to be small period of extension (5 years the vessel phase-out dates under OPA transported from Alaska. maximum), could be used by vessel 90? • There is no increase of risk to the owners to ensure that no shortfalls of • Depending on the type of environment in allowing such needed tonnage would occur and conversion to a single hull tanker, it conversions. Statements in the moderate tanker charter rates. could effect the gross tonnage of the Congressional Record during the OPA • A phased out single hull tank vessel tank vessel, imparting a change to the 90 Congressional Conference and could be laid up, if not needed. If a vessel’s phase-out due to reduction of studies completed for the Coast Guard, future transportation need occurred, the the vessel’s gross tonnage from original support that double sides provide vessel could be converted and brought admeasurement. This would extend the protection from a collision and a double back into trade until the transportation tank vessel’s phase-out even later bottom provides protection from a need subsided or the converted single (possibly 7 to 8 years) from its original grounding. hull tank vessel with double sides or a phase-out per § 3703a. double bottom reached its changed • The reconfiguration of oil cargo Specific Questions phase-out date or January 1, 2015, tanks could pose new operational risks; Comments, both supporting and which ever comes first. This option ballast tanks experience high corrosion opposing phase-out date changes, would be beneficial in the ANS trade. rates accounted for in the design of new responded to the four specific questions 3. If single hull tank vessels could double hull tank vessels. in our November 16, 1998, Federal qualify for later phase-out dates through • The average age of the U.S. tanker Register notice. The answers not already these types of hull conversions, what fleet would increase. Older single hull
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.049 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19578 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices tankers would not be maintained, and hulls to continue to deliver oil until Dated: April 15, 1999. become unsafe as they got older and January 1, 2015, either to a deepwater James M. Loy, closer to the extended phase-out date, port or in one of the four lightering Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant. making them a greater risk to the zones we established in the Gulf of [FR Doc. 99–9899 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] environment. Mexico. (See 33 CFR 156.300.) • BILLING CODE 4910±15±P Allowing the extension of the Many vessel owners, including phase-out schedule by recognizing the American Heavy Lift, Maritrans, and conversion of single hull tank vessels Bouchard Transportation Services, have DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION under OPA 90 could be of strategic already modified, or are in the process value to the U.S. in certain national of modifying, existing single hull tank Federal Aviation Administration security scenarios. • barges or tankers with double hulls to [Summary Notice No. PE±99±10] Eliminating the conversion of single meet the requirements of OPA 90. hull tank vessels could possibly reduce, Petitions for Exemption; Summary of rather than increase, shipyard activity in Although a number of comments discussed possible shortages of tankers Petitions Received; Dispositions of the U.S. Petitions Issued • For the U.S. tanker industry to in the Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude succeed it is essential that the trade, the Department of Energy does AGENCY: Federal Aviation companies involved know that the rules not anticipate such shortages in ANS Administration (FAA), DOT. and standards are clear, inherently operations. Further, there are Jones Act ACTION: Notice of petitions for stable and likely to stay that way for the trade vessels currently trading foreign exemption received and of dispositions foreseeable future. With investment that could be employed in ANS of prior petitions. decisions reaching out over 20 years, we operations, if needed. SUMMARY: should not make changes to the ground While the comments contained a Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking provisions governing the application, rules which could have catastrophic variety of responses both for and against processing, and disposition of petitions effects. a policy of allowing vessels to change • Examination of this issue has been their phase-out dates based on for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this couched as an evaluation by a federal conversions after the effective date of notice contains a summary of certain agency of the economics of the U.S. flag OPA 90, most of these issues were petitions seeking relief from specified market. Such decisions should be left considered by Congress when requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I), up to the Congress. developing OPA 90. No comments cited dispositions of certain petitions • There would be increasing immediate operational problems or previously received, and corrections. difficulty in hiring qualified U.S. pressing need to allow vessels to operate The purpose of this notice is to improve merchant seaman. When crew members beyond their currently scheduled phase- the public’s awareness of, and lose jobs due to the phase-out of their out date. vessels, their tendency is to migrate to participation in, this aspect of FAA’s The OPA 90 double hull requirements regulatory activities. Neither publication fields outside the maritime field and not were intended to protect the to return. Extensions of the phase-out of this notice nor the inclusion or environment from oil spills. The only omission of information in the summary schedules could assist keeping these amendment Congress has made to the seamen employed until vessel is intended to affect the legal status of OPA 90 phase-out schedule in § 3703a any petition or its final disposition. replacement is completed. stopped the change of phase-out dates DATES: Comments on petitions received Discussion resulting from reductions in gross must identify the petition docket tonnage. By enactment of Pub. L. 105– OPA 90 and our implementing number involved and must be received 85, Congress demonstrated its regulations in 33 CFR 157 require that on or before May 13, 1999. unwillingness to delay the OPA 90 tank vessels either convert to full double ADDRESSES: Send comments on any schedule for the double hull hull configuration or be removed from petition in triplicate to: Federal requirement. the carriage of oil in bulk service by the Aviation Administration, Office of the dates set out in 46 U.S.C. § 3703a. We Policy Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC– have not, before today, established a 200), Petition Docket No. ll, 800 policy on whether a single hull tank Based on all of the reasons set out Independence Avenue, SW., vessel could alter its hull configuration above, the Coast Guard has decided that Washington, D.C. 20591. with a double bottom or double sides in its policy should be consistent with the Comments may also be sent order to change its OPA 90 phase-out plain language of § 3703a and the intent electronically to the following internet date. of OPA 90. Therefore, changing the hull address: 9–NPRM–[email protected]. Previously, we had interpreted OPA configuration of an existing single hull The petition, any comments received, 90 as not specifically precluding a tank vessel to a single hull tank vessel and a copy of any final disposition are change in phase-out date for tank with double sides or a double bottom, filed in the assigned regulatory docket vessels that reduced their gross tonnage. after August 18, 1990, will not result in and are available for examination in the However, in section 3606 of Pub. L. a change to the tank vessel’s originally Rules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G, 105–85, enacted on November 18, 1997, scheduled phase-out date as required by FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A), Congress added a new paragraph (e) to § 3703a. This policy is effective 800 Independence Avenue, SW., § 3703a. It effectively stopped the immediately and applies to all tank Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone industry practice of using protectively vessels. (202) 267–3132. located segregated ballast tanks to The Coast Guard will shortly open a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: reduce a tank vessel’s gross tonnage and rulemaking to make appropriate changes Cherie Jack (202) 267–7271 or Terry change its phase-out date under OPA to the double hull regulations in 33 CFR Stubblefield (202) 267–7624 Office of 90. part 157 and will revise Navigation and Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal Aviation After a vessel’s phase-out date, OPA Vessel Inspection Circular No. 10–94 Administration, 800 Independence 90 allows tank vessels without double consistent with this policy. Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.050 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19579
This notice is published pursuant to Dispositions of Petitions compensation or hire. GRANT, 4/15/99, paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of Docket No.: 22706. Exemption No. 5209F Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Petitioner: Bankair, Inc. [FR Doc. 99–9985 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Regulations (14 CFR Part 11). Sections of The FAR Affected: 14 CFR BILLING CODE 4910±13±M Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 16, 135.225(e). 1999. Description of Relief Sought/ Donald P. Byrne, Disposition: To permit Bankair pilots to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. operate Bankair aircraft at any U.S. military base that has adopted the Federal Aviation Administration Petitions for Exemption criteria contained in the U.S. Standard Docket No.: 28884. for Terminal Instrument Procedures RTCA Special Committee 195ÐFlight Petitioner: Aero Sky. used for determining lower-than- Information Services Communications Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR standard departure minimums using (FISC) 145.37(b). takeoff visibility minimums that are less Description of Relief Sought: To than 1 mile and equal to or greater than Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the continue to allow Aero Sky to hold a the landing visibility minimums Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. Federal Aviation Administration repair established for those airfields. GRANT, 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is station certificate (certificate No. 4/15/99, Exemption No. 6661A hereby given for Special Committee KQ7R556N) without having suitable Docket No.: 26478. (SC)–195 meeting to be held May 25–26, permanent housing facilities for at least Petitioner: United States Air Force. starting at 9:00 a.m. This new committee one of the heaviest aircraft within the Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR has been approved by the Program weight class of the rating it holds. 91.209(a) (1) and (2). Management Committee to replace SC– Docket No.: 29469. Description of Relief Sought/ 169 and Working Group 3. The meeting Petitioner: Astral Aviation, Inc. dba Disposition: To permit the Air Force to will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Skyways Airlines. conduct conternarcotics aircrew flight Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR training operations in support of drug DC, 20036. 121.358(a). law enforcement and drug traffic The agenda will include: (1) Description of Relief Sought: To interdiction, without lighted aircraft Chairman’s Introductory Remarks; (2) permit Skyway Airlines to begin position or anticollision lights. GRANT, Review Transition from SC–169; (3) proving flights in the Fairchild Dornier 4/8/99, Exemption No. 5305C Approval of Summary from the Last SC– 328–300 aircraft without installation of Docket No.: 28847. 169 Meeting; (4) Approve New Terms of an approved windshear escape flight Petitioner: Trans State Airline. guidance system. Reference; (5) Report Final Disposition Section of The FAR Affected: 14 CFR of Automet Minimum Operational Docket No.: 29479. 14 CFR 121.433(c)(1)(iii) and Performance Standards; (6) Technical Petitioner: Skydive U, Inc. 121.441(a)(1)) & (b)(1) Discussions of FIS–B Minimum Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR Description of Relief Sought/ Aviation System Performance Standards 105.43(a). Disposition: To continue to permit TSA Description of Relief Sought: To to combine recurrent flight and ground (MASPS); (7) Review of FIS–B MASPS permit Skydive U, Inc. to allow non- training and proficiency checks for Issues and Action Items; (8) Other student, foreign national parachutists to TSA’s flight crewmembers in a single Business; (9) Date and Place of Next make international parachute jumps at annual training and proficiency Meeting. Skydive U’s facility without complying evaluation program. GRANT, 4/8/99, Attendance is open to the interested with the parachute equipment packing Exemption No. 63336A public but limited to space availability. requirements of 105.43(a). Docket No.: 29424. With the approval of the chairman, Docket No.: 29483. Petitioner: Amerflight, Inc. members of the public may present oral Petitioner: Jackson Police Department. Section of The FAR Affected: 14 CFR statements at the meeting. Persons Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR 135.243. wishing to present statements or obtain 61.195(g)(1) and 91.109(a). Description of Relief Sought/ information should contact the RTCA Description of Relief Sought: To Disposition: To permit Ameriflight to Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, permit Jackson PD pilots in training to allow its pilots in command to operate NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, use public aircraft to log the under instrument flight rules with a 20036; (202) 833–9339 (phone); (202) aeronautical experience required by minimum of 800 hours of total flight 833–9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org 61.39 to take the practical test for time, including 400 hours of cross- (web site). Members of the public may issuance of a pilot certificate and country flight time and 75 hours of present a written statement to the aircraft rating. night flight time, in lieu of the flight- Committee at any time. Docket No.: 29492. time requirements of 135.243. DENIAL, Issues in Washington, DC, on April 14, Petitioner: Lynden Air Cargo. 4/8/99, Exemption No. 6885. 1999. Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR Docket No.: 29425 121.344. Petitioner: Popular Rotorcraft Janice L. Peters, Description of Relief Sought: To Association, Inc. Designated Official. permit Lynden Air Cargo to operate Section of The FAR Affected: 14 CFR [FR Doc. 99–9984 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] each of its four L382G Hercules aircraft 91.319(a)(1) & (2) BILLING CODE 4910±13±M (Registration Nos. N401LC, N402LC, Description of Relief Sought/ N403LC, N404LC; Serial Nos. 4606, Disposition: To permit PRA and its 4698, 4590, and 4763 respectively) member flight instructors to conduct without a digital flight data recorder as pilot and flight instructor training in an required under 121.344. experimental gyroplane for
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.131 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19580 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Petitions for eligibility decisions may Steering Control Rearward be submitted by either manufacturers or Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, National Highway Traffic Safety importers who have registered with 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Administration NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As Components, 207 Seating Systems, 209 [Docket No. NHTSA±99±5531] specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt publishes notice in the Federal Register Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Notice of Receipt of Petition for of each petition that it receives, and Retention, 214 Side Impact Protection, Decision That Nonconforming 1990± affords interested persons an 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 1991 and 1993±1994 BMW 7 Series opportunity to comment on the petition. Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302 Passenger Cars Are Eligible for At the close of the comment period, Flammability of Interior Materials. Importation NHTSA decides, on the basis of the Additionally, the petitioner states that petition and any comments that it has non-U.S. certified 1990–1991 and 1993– AGENCY: National Highway Traffic received, whether the vehicle is eligible 1994 BMW 7 Series passenger cars Safety Administration, DOT. for importation. The agency then comply with the Bumper Standard ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for publishes this decision in the Federal found in 49 CFR Part 581. decision that nonconforming 1990–1991 Register. Petitioner also contends that the and 1993–1994 BMW 7 Series passenger Wallace Environmental Testing vehicles are capable of being readily cars are eligible for importation. Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas altered to meet the following standards, (‘‘Wallace’’) (Registered Importer 90– in the manner indicated: SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 005) has petitioned NHTSA to decide Standard No. 101 Controls and by the National Highway Traffic Safety whether 1990–1991 and 1993–1994 Displays: (a) substitution of a lens Administration (NHTSA) of a petition BMW 7 Series passenger cars are marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with a for a decision that 1990–1991 and 1993– eligible for importation into the United noncomplying symbol on the brake 1994 BMW 7 Series passenger cars that States. The vehicles which Wallace failure indicator lamp; (b) replacement were not originally manufactured to believes are substantially similar are of the speedometer/odometer with U.S.- comply with all applicable Federal 1990–1991 and 1993–1994 BMW 7 model components. motor vehicle safety standards are Series passenger cars that were Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective eligible for importation into the United manufactured for importation into, and Devices and Associated Equipment: (a) States because (1) they are substantially sale in, the United States and certified installation of U.S.-model headlamp similar to vehicles that were originally by their manufacturer, Bayerische assemblies; (b) installation of U.S.- manufactured for importation into and Motoren Werke, A.G., as conforming to model front and rear sidemarker/ sale in the United States and that were all applicable Federal motor vehicle reflector assemblies; (c) installation of a certified by their manufacturer as safety standards. high-mounted stop lamp if the vehicle complying with the safety standards, The petitioner claims that it carefully is not already so equipped. and (2) they are capable of being readily compared non-U.S. certified 1990–1991 Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and altered to conform to the standards. and 1993–1994 BMW 7 Series passenger Rims: installation of a tire information DATES: The closing date for comments cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, placard. on the petition is May 21, 1999. and found the vehicles to be Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror: substantially similar with respect to inscription of the required warning ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to compliance with most Federal motor the docket number and notice number, statement on the passenger side vehicle safety standards. and be submitted to: Docket rearview mirror. Champagne submitted information Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Management, Room PL–401, 400 with its petition intended to installation of a warning buzzer Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC demonstrate that non-U.S. certified microswitch in the steering lock 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 1990–1991 and 1993–1994 BMW 7 assembly and a warning buzzer. 5 pm]. Series passenger cars, as originally Standard No. 118 Power Window FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: manufactured, conform to many Federal Systems: installation of a relay in the George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle motor vehicle safety standards in the power window system so that the Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366– same manner as their U.S.-certified window transport is inoperative when 5306). counterparts, or are capable of being the ignition is switched off. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: readily altered to conform to those Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash standards. Protection: (a) replacement of the Background Specifically, the petitioner claims that driver’s seat belt latch and installation Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a non-U.S. certified 1990–1991 and 1993– of a seat belt warning system; (b) motor vehicle that was not originally 1994 BMW 7 Series passenger cars are replacement of the driver’s side air bag manufactured to conform to all identical to their U.S.-certified and knee bolster on 1990–1993 models, applicable Federal motor vehicle safety counterparts with respect to compliance and the driver’s and passenger’s side air standards shall be refused admission with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission bags and knee bolsters on 1994 models, into the United States unless NHTSA Shift Lever Sequence * * *., 103 with U.S.-model components if the has decided that the motor vehicle is Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 vehicle is not already so equipped. The substantially similar to a motor vehicle Windshield Wiping and Washing petitioner states that the vehicles are originally manufactured for importation Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, equipped with Type II seat belts in both into and sale in the United States, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic front and rear outboard designated certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of Tires, 113 Hood Latch Systems, 116 seating positions, and with a lap belt in the same model year as the model of the Brake Fluid, 124 Accelerator Control the rear center designated seating motor vehicle to be compared, and is Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in position. capable of being readily altered to Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, Standard No. 301 Fuel System conform to all applicable Federal motor 203 Impact Protection for the Driver Integrity: installation of a rollover valve vehicle safety standards. from the Steering Control System, 204 in the fuel tank vent line between the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.052 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19581 fuel tank and the evaporative emissions DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Petitions for eligibility decisions may collection canister. be submitted by either manufacturers or National Highway Traffic Safety The petitioner also states that a importers who have registered with Administration vehicle identification number plate NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA must be affixed to the vehicle to meet [Docket No. NHTSA±99±5530] publishes notice in the Federal Register the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. Notice of Receipt of Petition for of each petition that it receives, and Additionally, the petitioner states that Decision That Nonconforming 1993± affords interested persons an non-U.S. certified 1990–1991 and 1993– 1997 Toyota Previa Multi-Purpose opportunity to comment on the petition. 1994 BMW 7 Series passenger cars will Passenger Vehicles Are Eligible for At the close of the comment period, be inspected prior to importation to Importation NHTSA decides, on the basis of the ensure that they are equipped to comply petition and any comments that it has with the Theft Prevention Standard AGENCY: National Highway Traffic received, whether the vehicle is eligible found in 49 CFR Part 541. Safety Administration, DOT. for importation. The agency then ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for publishes this decision in the Federal Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject decision that nonconforming 1993–1997 Register. Vehicles Toyota Previa multi-purpose passenger Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale, vehicles (MPVs) are eligible for Pennsylvania (‘‘Champagne’’) The importer of a vehicle admissible importation. (Registered Importer 90–009) has under any final decision must indicate petitioned NHTSA to decide whether on the form HS–7 accompanying entry SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 1993–1997 Toyota Previa MPVs that the appropriate vehicle eligibility by the National Highway Traffic Safety were not originally manufactured to number indicating that the vehicle is Administration (NHTSA) of a petition comply with all applicable Federal eligible for entry. NHTSA has for a decision that 1993–1997 Toyota motor vehicle safety standards are previously decided that a number of Previa MPVs that were not originally eligible for importation into the United individual models within the 1990– manufactured to comply with all States. The vehicles which Champagne 1991 and 1993–1994 BMW 7 Series are applicable Federal motor vehicle safety believes are substantially similar are eligible for importation and has standards are eligible for importation 1993–1997 Toyota Previa MPVs that assigned separate eligibility numbers to into the United States because (1) they were manufactured for sale in the each of these models. If the agency are substantially similar to vehicles that United States and certified by their ultimately decides to grant this petition, were originally manufactured for sale in manufacturer, Toyota Motor these eligibility numbers will be the United States and that were certified Corporation, as conforming to all replaced by a single eligibility number by their manufacturer as complying applicable Federal motor vehicle safety that applies to all 1990–1991 and 1993– with the safety standards, and (2) they standards. The petitioner claims that it carefully 1994 BMW 7 Series passenger cars. are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards. compared the non-U.S. certified 1993– Interested persons are invited to DATES: The closing date for comments 1997 Toyota Previa MPVs to their U.S. submit comments on the petition on the petition is May 21, 1999. certified counterparts, and found the described above. Comments should refer vehicles to be substantially similar with ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to to the docket number and be submitted respect to compliance with most Federal the docket number and notice number, to: Docket Section, National Highway motor vehicle safety standards. and be submitted to: Docket Traffic Safety Administration, Room Champagne submitted information Management, Room PL–401, 400 with its petition intended to 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC Washington, DC 20590. It is requested demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 1993–1997 Toyota Previa MPVs, as but not required that 10 copies be 5 pm]. submitted. originally manufactured, conform to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: many Federal motor vehicle safety All comments received before the George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle standards in the same manner as their close of business on the closing date Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366– U.S. certified counterparts, or are indicated above will be considered, and 5306). capable of being readily altered to will be available for examination in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: conform to those standards. docket at the above address both before Specifically, the petitioner claims that and after that date. To the extent Background the non-U.S. certified 1993–1997 Toyota possible, comments filed after the Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a Previa MPVs are identical to their U.S. closing date will also be considered. motor vehicle that was not originally certified counterparts with respect to Notice of final action on the petition manufactured to conform to all compliance with Standards Nos. 102 will be published in the Federal applicable Federal motor vehicle safety Transmission Shift Lever Sequence Register pursuant to the authority standards shall be refused admission . . . ., 103 Defrosting and Defogging indicated below. into the United States unless NHTSA Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and has decided that the motor vehicle is Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and substantially similar to a motor vehicle Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113 Hood (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority originally manufactured for importation Latch Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 119 at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. into and sale in the United States, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other Issued on: April 14, 1999. certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of than Passenger Cars, 124 Accelerator Marilynne Jacobs, the same model year as the model of the Control Systems, 201 Occupant Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. motor vehicle to be compared, and is Protection in Interior Impact, 204 [FR Doc. 99–9947 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] capable of being readily altered to Steering Control Rearward BILLING CODE 4910±59±P conform to all applicable Federal motor Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, vehicle safety standards. 206 Door Locks and Door Locking
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.053 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 19582 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
Components, 207 Seating Systems, 209 seating positions, and with a lap belt in BTS on transportation statistics and Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt the center designated seating position of analyses, including whether or not the Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield the rear seat. statistics and analysis disseminated by Retention, 219 Windshield Zone Standard No. 301 Fuel System the Bureau are of high quality and are Intrusion, and 302 Flammability of Integrity: installation of a rollover valve based upon the best available objective Interior Materials. in the fuel tank vent line between the information. Petitioner also contends that the fuel tank and the evaporative emissions The agenda for this meeting will vehicles are capable of being readily collection canister. include an introduction of new altered to meet the following standards, The petitioner also states that a Advisory Council member, review of in the manner indicated: vehicle identification number plate staffing, discussion of customer service Standard No. 101 Controls and must be affixed to the vehicles to meet outreach and marketing, upcoming data Displays: (a) substitution of a lens the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. conferences, update on performance marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with a Interested persons are invited to indicators project, identification of noncomplying symbol on the brake submit comments on the petition substantive issues, review of plans and failure indicator lamp; (b) installation of described above. Comments should refer schedule, other items of interest, a seat belt warning lamp that displays to the docket number and be submitted discussion and agreement of date(s) for the appropriate symbol; (c) recalibration to: Docket Management, Room PL–401, subsequent meetings, and comments of the speedometer/odometer from 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC from the floor. kilometers to miles per hour. 20590. [Docket hours are from 10 am to Since access to the DOT building is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 5 pm]. It is requested but not required controlled, all persons who plan to Devices and Associated Equipment: (a) that 10 copies be submitted. attend the meeting must notify Ms. installation of U.S.- model headlamp All comments received before the Lillian Chapman, Council Liaison, on assemblies that incorporate headlamps close of business on the closing date (202) 366–1270 prior to April 26. with DOT markings; (b) installation of indicated above will be considered, and Attendance is open to the interested U.S.-model front and rear sidemarker/ will be available for examination in the public but limited to space available. reflector assemblies; docket at the above address both before With the approval of the Chair, (c) installation of U.S.-model taillamp and after that date. To the extent members of the public may present oral assemblies; possible, comments filed after the statements at the meeting. (d) installation of a center high closing date will also be considered. Noncommittee members wishing to mounted stop lamp on vehicles that are Notice of final action on the petition present oral statements, obtain not already so equipped. will be published in the Federal information, or who plan to access the Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror: Register pursuant to the authority building to attend the meeting should replacement of the passenger side indicated below. also contact Ms. Chapman. rearview mirror with a U.S.-model Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and Members of the public may present a component. (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority written statement to the Council at any Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. time. installation of a warning buzzer Issued on: April 14, 1999. Persons with a disability requiring microswitch in the steering lock Marilynne Jacobs, special services, such as an interpreter assembly and a warning buzzer. Standard No. 118 Power Window Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. for the hearing impaired, should contact Systems: rewiring of the power window [FR Doc. 99–9948 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Ms. Chapman (202) 366–1270 at least seven days prior to the meeting. system so that the window transport is BILLING CODE 4910±59±P inoperative when the ignition is Issued in Washington, DC, on April 15, switched off. 1999. Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Robert A. Knisely, Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Executive Director, Advisory Council on Bureau of Transportation Statistics Passenger Cars: installation of a tire Transportation Statistics. information placard. Advisory Council on Transportation [FR Doc. 99–9986 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Statistics; Notice of Meeting BILLING CODE 4910±FE±P Protection: (a) installation of a U.S.-model seat SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(A)(2) belt in the driver’s position, or a belt of the Federal Advisory Committee Act DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY webbing-actuated microswitch inside (Public Law 72–363; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), the driver’s seat belt retractor; (b) notice is hereby given of a meeting of Submission for OMB Review; installation of an ignition switch- the Bureau of Transportation Statistics Comment Request actuated seat belt warning lamp and (BTS) Advisory Council on buzzer; (c) replacement of the driver’s Transportation Statistics (ACTS) to be April 15, 1999. and passenger’s side air bags and knee held Wednesday, April 28, 1999, 10:00 The Department of Treasury has bolsters with U.S.-model components. to 4:00 pm. The meeting will take place submitted the following public The petitioner states that the vehicles at the U.S. Department of information collection requirement(s) to are equipped with combination lap and Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, OMB for review and clearance under the shoulder restraints that adjust by means SW., Washington, DC, in conference Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of an automatic retractor and release by room 8236–40 of the Nassif Building. Public Law 104–13. Copies of the means of a single push button at both The Advisory Council, called for submission(s) may be obtained by front designated seating positions, and under Section 6007 of Public Law 102– calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance with combination lap and shoulder 240, Intermodal Surface Transportation Officer listed. Comments regarding this restraints that release by means of a Efficiency Act of 1991, December 18, information collection should be single push button at all middle seat 1991, and chartered on June 19, 1995, addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and rear seat outboard designated was created to advise the Director of and to the Treasury Department
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.054 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19583
Clearance Officer, Department of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Background Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. Customs Service On June 3, 1998, Customs published DATES: Written comments should be a document in the Federal Register (63 received on or before May 21, 1999 to Announcement of a Public Briefing FR 30288) announcing what is expected be assured of consideration. Concerning the Expansion of the to be a series of prototypes collectively International Trade Prototype called the International Trade Prototype Financial Management Service (FMS) (ITP). This notice invited public OMB Number: New. AGENCY: Customs Service, Department comments concerning any aspect of the Form Number: None. of the Treasury. planned prototype, informed interested Type of Review: New collection. ACTION: General Notice. members of the public of the eligibility Title: Voluntary Surveys to Enhance requirements for voluntary participation the Electronic Federal Tax Payment in the first phase of the first prototype SUMMARY: This notice announces that System. called the International Trade Prototype Customs will hold a public briefing for Description: The Financial 1 (ITP1) and outlined the development interested parties concerning the Management Service of the Department and evaluation methodology to be used expansion of the International Trade of the Treasury is undertaking voluntary in the test. It was announced that in Prototype. The meeting will focus on surveys to improve the efficiency of tax order to participate in ITP1, the providing details concerning the payment collections and to help entities necessary information, as outlined in functionality of the next phase, comply with electronic payment that notice, must be filed with Customs soliciting participation, and allowing requirements. and approval granted. Respondents: Business or other for- the public to provide comments. Seating profit, Not-for-profit institutions, State, is limited and will be extended to the Today’s document announces that Local or Tribal Government. first 100 callers. Customs will proceed to the next phase Estimated Number of Respondents: of the International Trade Prototype DATES: The public briefing will take commencing in late June 1999 and will 3,520. place on Thursday, April 29, 1999, Estimated Burden Hours Per hold a public briefing for the purpose of beginning at 1:00 p.m. Requests to Respondent: 15 minutes. providing details concerning the attend this briefing must be received by Frequency of Response: Other (one functionality of the next phase, Pamela McGuyer at (202) 927–0279 on time). soliciting participation, and allowing Estimated Total Reporting Burden: or before Monday, April 26, 1999. the public to provide comments. 880 hours. ADDRESSES: The public briefing will For interested parties that are unable Clearance Officer: Jacqueline R. Perry take place in the Edward R. Murrow to attend the public briefing on April 29, (301) 344–8577, Financial Management Conference Room located on the 13th 1999, a subsequent notice will be Service, 3361–L 75th Avenue, Landover, Floor of the National Press Club located published in the Federal Register MD 20785. at 529 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC. providing the details and requirements OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For for participation in the next phase of the (202) 395–7860, Office of Management International Trade Prototype. and Budget, Room 10202, New prototype or participation questions Executive Office Building, Washington, please contact Daniel Buchanan, of the Dated: April 15, 1999. DC 20503. U.S. Customs Service at (617) 565–6236, Charles W. Winwood, Dale A. Morgan, or Linda LeBaron Grasley, of the U.S. Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Departmental Reports Management Officer. Customs Service at (716) 626–0400 x Operations. 204. [FR Doc. 99–9911 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 99–9945 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810±35±P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 4820±02±P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:43 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.118 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN1 eDt 3MR9 64 p 0 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M2AR.X fm2PsN:21APR2 pfrm02 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 16:41Apr20, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register April 21,1999 Wednesday Licensing Regulations;FinalRule Commercial SpaceTransportation 14 CFRParts401etal. Federal AviationAdministration Transportation Department of Part II 19585 19586 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION being placed on a mailing list for future the criteria for obtaining a license for FAA notices of proposed rulemaking expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) Federal Aviation Administration and final rules should request a copy of launching from federal launch ranges, Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of and the underlying safety rationale for 14 CFR Parts 401, 411, 413, 415 and Proposed Rulemaking Distribution the FAA’s launch licensing regime. 417 System, which describes application These regulations also explain that the [Docket No. 28851; Amdt. Nos. 401±01, 411± procedures. FAA will license the operation of a 01, 413±01, 415±01 and 417±01] An electronic copy of this document launch site or the launch of a launch may be downloaded using a modem and vehicle from a site that is not operated RIN 2120±AF99 suitable communications software from by a federal launch range on a case by Commercial Space Transportation the FAA regulations section of the case basis. Licensing Regulations Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703–321–3339) or History and Current Revisions AGENCY: Federal Aviation the Government Printing Office’s The Commercial Space Launch Act of Administration, DOT. electronic bulletin board service 1984, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Subtitle ACTION: Final rule. (telephone 202–512–1661) or the FAA’s IX—Commercial Space Transportation, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory ch. 701, Commercial Space Launch SUMMARY: The Associate Administrator Committee Bulletin Board service Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121 (the for Commercial Space Transportation of (telephone: 800–322–2722 or 202–267– Act), authorizes the Secretary of the Federal Aviation Administration 5948). Internet users may reach the Transportation to oversee, license and (FAA), Department of Transportation FAA’s web page at http://www.faa.gov/ regulate commercial launch and reentry (DOT) is amending the FAA’s avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the activities and the operation of launch commercial space transportation Government Printing Office’s webpage and reentry as carried out by U.S. licensing regulations. The FAA amends at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/aces/ citizens or within the United States. 49 its licensing regulations in order to aces140.html for access to recently U.S.C. 70104, 70105. The Act directs the clarify its license application process published rulemaking documents. Secretary to exercise this responsibility generally, and for launches from federal In order to enhance communications consistent with public health and safety, launch ranges, specifically. The regarding commercial space safety of property, and the national regulations are intended to provide transportation with the public, the FAA security and foreign policy interests of applicants and licensees greater developed an internet-based the United States, 49 U.S.C. 70105, and specificity and clarity regarding the information system, which provides the to encourage, facilitate and promote scope of a license, and to codify and public with electronic access to the commercial space launches by the amend licensing requirements and FAA. The system provides on-line private sector, 49 U.S.C. 70103. criteria. information to interested parties, and The FAA carries out the Secretary’s responsibilities for licensing and EFFECTIVE DATE: June 21, 1999. An allows applicants, through a secure regulating launches and the operation of application pending at the time of the portion of the system, to check the launch sites. Prior to November 15, effective date must conform to any new status of applications and licenses. The 1995, the Secretary’s responsibilities requirements of this rulemaking as of system currently contains a limited amount of information, but includes were implemented by the Office of the effective date. All license terms and Commercial Space Transportation (the conditions, and all safety requirements schedules of upcoming commercial launches, the FAA’s regulations, Office), which was located within the of this rulemaking also apply as of the Office of the Secretary in the effective date. guidance documents, and research studies. The address is: http:// Department of Transportation. Now, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. ast.faa.gov/. Associate Administrator for Commercial Randall Repcheck, Licensing and Safety Space Transportation is part of DOT’s Division (AST–200), Associate Small Entity Inquiries Federal Aviation Administration. When Administrator for Commercial Space If you are a small entity and have a this administrative change was effected, Transportation, Federal Aviation question, contact your local FAA the Secretary delegated the statutory Administration, DOT, Room 331, 800 official. If you do not know how to authority over the regulation of Independence Avenue SW., contact your local FAA official, you may commercial space transportation to the Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) contact Charlene Brown, Program Administrator of the Federal Aviation 267–8379; or Laura Montgomery, Office Analyst Staff, Office of Rulemaking, Administration, and the Administrator of the Chief Counsel (AGC–250), Federal ARM–27, Federal Aviation redelegated this authority to the Aviation Administration, 800 Administration, 800 Independence Associate Administrator. Independence Avenue SW., Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 1– On August 4, 1994, President Clinton Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 888–551–1594. Internet users can find announced a new National Space 267–3150. additional information on SBREFA in Transportation Policy reaffirming the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the ‘‘Quick Jump’’ section of the FAA’s government’s commitment to the commercial space transportation Availability of Final Rules web page at http://www.faa.gov and may send electronic inquiries to the industry and the critical role of the Any person may obtain a copy of this following Internet address: 9–AWA– Department of Transportation in final rule by submitting a request to the [email protected]. encouraging and facilitating private Federal Aviation Administration, Office sector launch activities. In 1996, of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Introduction President Clinton signed a National Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or By this rulemaking, the FAA clarifies Space Policy, which recognized the by calling (202) 267–9680. license application procedures and Department of Transportation as the Communications must identify the requirements. The FAA’s revisions to its lead federal agency for regulatory amendment number or docket number regulations provide information guidance regarding commercial space of this final rule. Persons interested in regarding the scope of a launch license, transportation activities. The FAA’s
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19587 rules, by offering greater specificity and two year period. The FAA has (NASA) to develop X–33 and X–34 certainty regarding licensing continued to apply a case by case launch vehicles incorporating reusable requirements and the scope of a license, analysis to licenses authorizing a single and single-stage-to-orbit technology, should assist the launch industry in its launch or to licenses authorizing a set which could result in vehicles for business and operational planning. This of specifically identified launches. commercial use. will facilitate the private sector’s launch The FAA, in accordance with 49 Currently, commercial launches take activities by increasing certainty and by U.S.C. 70112 and 14 CFR Ch. III, part place from federal launch ranges easing its regulatory burden. 440, imposes financial responsibility operated by the Department of Defense requirements on a licensee, and NASA. Launch operators bring Background on the FAA’s Commercial commensurate with the scope of its launch vehicles to federal ranges such Launch Licensing History and Process license, pursuant to which a licensee is as Cape Canaveral Air Station, The FAA licenses commercial required either to purchase insurance to Vandenberg Air Force Base, White launches and the commercial operation protect launch participants in the event Sands Missile Range and Wallops Flight of launch sites through 14 CFR Ch. III. of claims by third parties and to protect Facility for launch. A launch operator In April 1988, when the then Office of against damage to government property, obtains a number of services from a Commercial Space Transportation first or to otherwise demonstrate financial federal range, including radar, tracking issued final regulations, no licensed responsibility. In the event that there and telemetry, flight termination and launches had yet taken place. were a launch accident and third party other launch services. Pursuant to an Accordingly, the Office established a claims arising out of that launch agreement between a federal launch flexible regime intended to be exceeded the financial responsibility range and a launch operator, the federal responsive to an emerging industry required by the FAA, the Act contains range has final authority over decisions while at the same time ensuring public procedures through which the regarding whether to allow a launch to safety. The Office noted that it would government of the United States may proceed. A federal range operates ‘‘continue to evaluate and, when pay those excess claims up to a statutory pursuant to its own internal rules and necessary, reshape its program in ceiling. See 49 U.S.C. 70113. The procedures, and the launch operator response to growth, innovation and possible payment of excess claims by must comply with those rules and diversity in this critically important the government for damages related to a procedures in addition to the industry.’’ Commercial Space particular launch is commonly referred requirements of the FAA. Transportation Licensing Regulations, to, albeit erroneously, as The U.S. commercial space 53 FR 11004, 11006 (Apr. 4, 1988). ‘‘indemnification’’ of the launch transportation industry faces strong Under the 1988 regulations the Office industry. The payment of excess claims international competition. Ariane, implemented a case-by-case approach constitutes, in fact, only a provisional Europe’s launch vehicle, continues to be for the evaluation of launch license agreement by the government of the the market leader, with other applications. All commercial launches United States subject to conditions, competition coming from China, Russia, at the time took place from federal including Congressional appropriation and Ukraine. The U.S. industry still launch ranges. of funds. obtains a significant percentage of In conjunction with information launch contracts, and AST projects over guidelines describing the Office’s Growth and Current Status of Launch seventy commercial orbital launches application process, the Office’s Industry within the next three years. regulations reflected the intent of The number of commercial space Additionally, U.S. participation in Congress that the Office evaluate the launches has steadily grown over the international ventures is increasing. For policy aspects and safety of a proposed years since the first licensed commercial example, International Launch Services launch. The Office followed a case-by- launch in 1989. As of April 13, 1999, (ILS), comprised of Lockheed Martin case approach to performing these 110 licensed launches have taken place Corporation, Khrunichev Enterprise and reviews, tailoring its information from five different federal launch NPO Energia, markets Russia’s Proton requests to the specifics of a given ranges, and from two non-federal launch rockets and the U.S. Atlas. Another launch proposal. sites. Launch vehicles have included international partnership, Sea Launch Later, the Office took further steps traditional orbital launch vehicles such Limited Partnership (Sea Launch), designed to simplify the licensing as the Atlas, Titan and Delta, as well as involves Boeing Commercial Space process for launch operators with suborbital vehicles such as the Starfire. Company, S.P. Korolev Rocket and established safety records. For example, New vehicles using traditional launch Space Corporation Energia, KB before issuing its final rules in 1988, the techniques include Lockheed Martin’s Yuzhnoye and PO Yuzhnoye Office issued interim regulations, in Athena I and II, EER’s Conestoga, Mashinostroitelny Zavod, and Kvaerner which it had contemplated the Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Taurus, Moss Technologies a.s., which are U.S., possibility that ‘‘one license could cover and Boeing’s Delta III. Unique vehicles Russian, Ukrainian and Norwegian a specified series of launches where the such as the Pegasus are also included in companies, respectively. Sea Launch same safety resources [would] support this count. New launch vehicles are has launched a commercial rocket from identical or similar missions.’’ proposed every year. For example, the a modified oil rig located in the Pacific Commercial Space Transportation Pegasus air-launched rocket has been Ocean. Orbital Sciences Corporation has Licensing Regulations; Interim Final developed since the passage of the Act. conducted a launch outside the United Rule and Request for Comments, 51 FR On the horizon are sea-launched States and envisions more. 6870, 6872 (Feb. 26, 1986). In 1991, the rockets, Lockheed Martin’s Atlas III and Office implemented this option by Boeing’s and Lockheed Martin’s evolved Current Revisions to Licensing instituting a launch operator license for expendable launch vehicles. A number Regulations similar launches carried out by a single of companies are proposing partially With six years of experience in licensee. The launch operator license and fully reusable launch vehicles. regulating the commercial launch currently authorizes a licensee to Several companies are participating in industry, the DOT Office of Commercial conduct any number of launches within partnership with the National Space Transportation initiated a process defined parameters over the course of a Aeronautics and Space Administration for standardizing its licensing
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19588 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations regulations. Originally, when the Office including the implementation of certain requirements, including payload first initiated its licensing program, the safety proposals recommended by the determinations and policy reviews, and Office did not possess standardized National Transportation Safety Board. information required from an applicant rules or requirements. Accordingly, it The FAA also proposed to streamline proposing to launch a vehicle evaluated each license application and reorganize a variety of other employing established technology and individually to ensure that a proposed licensing provisions. The comment procedures from a federal launch range. launch would not jeopardize public period closed May 19, 1997. At the The FAA here changes its interpretation health and safety, the safety of property, request of several launch operators, the of the definition of ‘‘launch’’ and thus U.S. national security or foreign policy FAA reopened the comment period changes the scope of a launch license. interests or international obligations of until August 4, 1997. The FAA received Additionally, in contrast to what was the United States. Over the course of comments from a number of interested originally proposed in the NPRM, which time, and with the input of licensees parties, including launch operators, a was to define with particularity the and federal launch ranges, the FAA has payload provider, a launch site operator beginning of launch for purposes of evolved a standardized approach to and prospective reusable launch vehicle those taking place from a federal launch licensing launches from federal launch operators. range, the FAA will apply its proposed ranges. Accordingly, the FAA now The Environmental Protection Agency definition of launch to a launch taking implements that approach through commented on the FAA’s place at any launch site located in the revisions to its regulations. environmental procedures. The launch United States, whether that launch site On October 13, 1994, in anticipation operators who filed comments included is a federal launch range or not. of issuing a notice of proposed Boeing Commercial Space Company, Through this rulemaking the FAA is rulemaking, the Office of Commercial Lockheed Martin Corporation, formalizing its practice of issuing two Space Transportation, DOT, announced McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, and different types of launch licenses, a that it was holding a public meeting to Orbital Sciences Corporation. Reusable launch operator license pursuant to obtain industry’s views to assist the launch vehicle operators’ views were which a licensee may conduct any Office in developing an NPRM that represented by Kistler Aerospace launches that fall within the broad would address specific requirements for Corporation, Rotary Rocket Company, parameters described in its license, and launch and launch site operator and Space Access. Hughes Electronics, a launch-specific license, which allows licenses. Notice of Public Meeting, 59 Spaceport Florida Authority, and the a licensee to conduct only those FR 52020 (1994). The Office stated that National Transportation Safety Board launches enumerated in the license. it would streamline its launch licensing also filed comments. The comments process by standardizing requirements focused on several major issues, with Scope of Launch License and Definition and by codifying certain information the proposed definition of launch of ‘‘Launch’’ requirements in its regulations. Id. The eliciting the most attention. Foreign The Act requires a launch operator to Office also advised the public that it ownership of a license applicant also obtain a license for the launch of a would promulgate rules concerning proved a topic of concern, as did issues launch vehicle. Accordingly, the licensing the operation of a launch site. surrounding the FAA’s proposed risk definition of ‘‘launch’’ controls the Id. The FAA proposes to implement threshold and various safety scope of a launch license. Greater rules of general applicability for requirements. In light of the great certainty regarding this definition will operation of a launch site through an variety of topics encompassed by this allow a licensee to plan better regarding additional notice of proposed rulemaking, rather than devoting a a number of issues. Because the FAA’s rulemaking in order to foster certainty single section to all of the comments, financial responsibility requirements for this new industry as well. Id. The the FAA addresses the comments by and eligibility for payment by the public meeting took place on October subject matter throughout the preamble United States of excess claims for 27, and 28, 1994, and was attended by and section by section analysis in the liability for damages to third parties are representatives of the commercial relevant context. coextensive with a licensed launch, On October 28, 1998, the Commercial launch industry, payload companies, knowledge of the scope of a launch Space Act of 1998 was signed into law. prospective commercial launch site license allows a licensee to manage its Among other things, it revised the operators, interested government risks appropriately and to make its own definition of launch to include activities agencies, both state and federal, and the provisions for financial responsibility or public. ‘‘involved in the preparation of a launch insurance coverage in addition to that On March 19, 1997, the FAA released vehicle or payload for launch, when required under the statute. Through this a notice of proposed rulemaking those activities take place at a launch rulemaking, the FAA defines launch to proposing to amend its licensing site in the United States.’’ P.L. 105–303 begin with the arrival of a launch requirements. Commercial Space (1998), 49 U.S.C. 70102(3). The change vehicle at a federal launch range or Transportation Licensing Regulations, affects this rulemaking’s definition of other U.S. launch site.1 Launch ends, for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking launch by both confirming the more purposes of ground operations, when (NPRM), 62 FR 13216 (Mar. 19, 1997). narrow application proposed in the the launch vehicle leaves the ground, In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to NPRM and expanding the scope of and, for purposes of flight, after the narrow its definition of launch from launch to encompass launch vehicle licensee’s last exercise of control over ‘‘gate to gate,’’ which resulted in the preparatory activities occurring at any the vehicle. The NPRM had proposed to licensing of the launch related activities launch site in the United States, even include within the new definition ‘‘[t]he of a launch operator at a federal launch when those activities take place at a term launch includes the flight of a range prior to the arrival of the launch launch site from which flight of the launch vehicle, and those hazardous vehicle, to ‘‘vehicle at the gate,’’ which launch vehicle does not take place. encompasses only the launch operator’s pre-flight activities that are closely activities once its vehicle arrives. The Launch License 1 As discussed in greater detail in response to NPRM proposed a launch license The amendments to the FAA’s launch comments, the FAA does not define launch to application process developed through licensing regulations address the commence with the arrival of a payload at a launch its case by case license history, definition of ‘‘launch,’’ licensing site.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19589 proximate in time to flight and are the FAA considered a number of factors. launch vehicles (RLVs), argued against unique to space flight.’’ That sentence is The statutory definition provided the including ground operations within a now omitted as superfluous in light of first line of inquiry. The FAA also took launch license. Kistler recommended, the application of the launch license into account the commenters’ desire for instead, that, for a liquid-fueled vehicle, period to all U.S. launch sites, a consistent and broad interpretation. launch be defined to commence with regardless of whether the launch site is Ease of administration played a role as the fueling of a vehicle. In support of located on a federal launch range or not. well. In the end, the change in the level this position Kistler first noted that The concepts guided the creation of the of risk proved determinative as to where defining launch as commencing with definition for this rulemaking, and will in the course of preparation for flight the arrival of a launch vehicle at a still guide the FAA in defining the the FAA would deem launch to federal launch range, may not or should beginning of launch outside the United commence. not apply to the launch of an RLV, States. The FAA received comments on its pointing out that although an ‘‘RLV may In its NPRM, the FAA considered proposed revisions. Boeing Commercial ‘‘arrive’’ at the launch range initially, it three options to defining launch and the Space Company (Boeing) voiced its thereafter returns directly and scope of a launch license and, by concern with the FAA’s proposed repeatedly to the launch range. Clearly, necessary implication, possible definition of launch, opposing the however, the RLV is not constantly in a ‘‘indemnification’’ for government inclusion of ground operations out of ‘‘launch’’ state.’’ Kistler at 7. Kistler also property and third party damages concern for the precedent such a argued against the FAA position that arising out of a launch. The FAA noted definition might establish for launches pre-flight activities constitute uniquely that its approach of licensing the conducted by Sea Launch, which hazardous activities. ‘‘Many of these activities of a launch operator within proposes to launch from the ocean, and activities are entirely routine industrial the gates of a federal launch range, in which Boeing participates as a activity and pose no unique hazards.’’ commonly referred to as ‘‘gate to gate,’’ partner. Boeing believes that although Kistler at 7. Kistler maintained that had been criticized as too broad. The some hazardous activities are part of subjecting all these activities to FAA criticism came from Congress through launch preparation, these activities do review and prohibiting them without non-binding report language; however, not ‘‘in themselves constitute uniquely the issuance of a license would because Congress would ultimately hazardous events which should be constitute an unnecessary and costly prove the source of funding for any covered in the scope of a launch license. regulatory burden. Moreover, if the FAA possible ‘‘indemnification,’’ the FAA Such activities should [be] and are were to require a license for ground was concerned that ‘‘gate to gate’’ might regulated by existing hazardous material activities, Kistler and its customers eventually mislead industry into and operations regulations that are would have to sign cross-waivers with inappropriately relying on the applicable to industry at large.’’ Boeing its contractor and subcontractors, its government for money that was not at 1. According to Boeing, the purpose customers and the contractors and available. Congress might deny funding of the Act was to define the scope of subcontractors of its customers. This, on the grounds that pre-flight launch ‘‘so as to cover those operations Kistler maintained, ‘‘would distort the preparation did not constitute part of which directly placed the general public normal commercial allocation of risk launch under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. at risk.’’ Boeing at 1. Where more and legal remedies for fault and, 701.2 Accordingly, the FAA considered innovative launch technologies are consequently, would increase insurance two approaches to narrowing its employed, such as that contemplated by costs to the licensee.’’ Kistler at 7–8. definition of launch. It considered, but Sea Launch, Boeing expects that launch Kistler recommended, for a liquid rejected, defining launch as will be defined consistently with this fueled vehicle, that launch commence commencing with ignition. Instead, it purpose. with fueling. This is because fueling is Hughes Electronics (Hughes) proposed to define launch as closely proximate in time to flight and requested that the FAA clarify whether commencing with the arrival of a launch may be directly attributable to space a launch vehicle’s payload is part of vehicle at a federal launch range from flight, unlike other activities, which launch site activities in order for which flight would occur. The FAA also Kistler characterized as routine Hughes to determine when the possible industrial activities not directly proposed in its NPRM to clarify when indemnification provisions of the Act attributable to space flight. Kistler at 8. launch ended. With flight, launch ends apply. Hughes proposed that Kistler did not describe the other when the last action over which a indemnification provisions of the FAA’s ‘‘routine industrial’’ activities. Nor did licensee has direct control is performed. rules be clarified to apply to a payload it describe its basis for distinguishing As proposed in the NPRM, ground and its components, or that a payload be between routine industrial activities and operations would no longer be deemed included within the definition of launch those that are directly attributable to part of launch when an expendable vehicle. Hughes asked, in essence, that space flight. Nonetheless, its point of launch vehicle left the ground. With the the FAA define launch, for purposes of view is interesting, indicating as it does, changes to the definition brought about including payload activities, to that there is an insurance market for by the Commercial Space Act of 1998, commence with the arrival of a payload ground operations, and one apparently the FAA revises the definition to at the launch site. Launch would end, affordable to a start up company such as include activities involved in the under Hughes’ proposal, either after a Kistler. preparation of a launch vehicle for defined period of time or after such time Kistler also advised that it believes launch, when those activities take place as a launch vehicle could cause a that an RLV launch ends with the at a launch site in the United States. The payload accident, whichever came later. landing of the RLV, and would include FAA now adopts those changes. Hughes did not elaborate on the any ‘‘proximate consequences’’ of the In reaching its final decision implementation of its proposals. landing. Kistler at 9. Kistler was silent regarding its interpretation of launch, Kistler Aerospace Corporation with respect to what it considers a (Kistler), concerned that the proposed proximate consequence. Kistler would 2 Although originally prompted to revisit the scope of launch out of concern for the availability regulations governing expendable not include post-launch ground of funding, the FAA’s revision derives from its launch vehicles (ELVs) might serve as a activities within the definition of interpretation of the Act as a whole. model for rules governing reusable launch.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19590 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
Lockheed Martin also filed comments, The former McDonnell Douglas transportation of solid rocket boosters at which included correspondence from Aerospace filed draft comments with a a manufacturer’s facility, even though Marsh & McLellan, an aviation request for an extension of time. In its this [is a] significant hazardous activity, underwriter. Lockheed Martin stated draft comments, McDonnell Douglas so it should not license nor should the that it ‘‘views with serious reservations asked that the FAA continue to employ government offer to indemnify that the Office’s proposed definition of gate to gate as the scope of a launch activity just because it occurs on a ‘‘launch’’ that would narrow the scope license, with certain modifications. Federal Launch Range.’’ Space Access at of a license issued by the Office and Specifically, McDonnell Douglas sought 6. Furthermore, defining a vehicle’s effectively standardize the treatment of to extend license coverage off of a ‘‘major components’’ may ultimately all launch systems from federal ranges, federal launch range, for activity that ‘‘is prove a burdensome task for the FAA. without regard for the[ir] unique consistent with standard commercial Space Access at 4. Space Access also attributes * * *.’’ Lockheed Martin at 1. space industry practice.’’ McDonnell questioned the FAA’s legal authority for Lockheed Martin supported the FAA’s Douglas does not elaborate on what it its proposed definition, and does not proposal to dispense with gate to gate as envisions as consistent with standard believe that the Act supports the ‘‘gate a means of defining launch, agreeing commercial space industry practice. The to gate’’ approach. In support of this, that it resulted in illogical exclusions. main thrust of its argument appears to Space Access pointed out that under the Lockheed Martin at 3. It maintained, be that it favors centralizing questions of Act, as the NPRM also notes, launch however, that ‘‘vehicle at the gate’’ liability and insurance within the FAA does not start with launch services. achieves the same illogical exclusions of and removing them as subjects of Air After reviewing a number of hazardous activities depending on Force launch support agreements. conceptual approaches, Space Access Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) recommended that the FAA define whether they take place before or after opposed that portion of the proposed launch to begin with ‘‘an intentional self a vehicle’s major components arrive at definition of launch that confined a propelled change in the state of a federal launch range. Lockheed Martin licensed launch to the launch site from equilibrium of the launch vehicle and at 3. Lockheed Martin also believes that which flight would occur. According to any payload toward Earth orbit or outer the FAA’s concerns regarding Orbital, the FAA’s proposed approach space [that] continues until the launch congressional report language were was illogical because it meant that vehicle and payload achieve[] a new groundless. Lockheed Martin at 3–4. identical activities might in some state of equilibrium or exit[]the Earth’s Lockheed Martin proposed that the instances be licensed and in others not. dominant gravitational influence.’’ FAA adopt an activity test to determine Also, the proposed approach would Space Access at 5. By this, Space Access what may be included within the scope discriminate against modern launch intended ‘‘vertical or horizontal of a launch license. Lockheed Martin at vehicle technologies, so that they would takeoff.’’ Id. For the end of launch, this 6. The FAA should ‘‘address hazardous be ‘‘penalized by the denial of license would mean that once a vehicle risks associated with a particular launch coverage.’’ Orbital at 2. Orbital, relying completes its propellant expulsion and campaign,’’ presumably on a case-by- on 1997 report language, also argued no other changes in equilibrium are case basis for each license it issues. that the House Science Committee planned, the launch process is over. Lockheed Martin at 6. Lockheed Martin opposed the FAA’s narrowing of the Space Access at 5. A change in believed it would be instructive for the definition of launch. See Civilian Space equilibrium to reach other places in FAA, in considering hazardous risks, to Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1998 earth orbit or outer space would not be consider the Public Law 85–804 3 and 1999, H.R. 1275, H. Rep. 65, 51, part of launch. indemnification that the Department of 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (Apr. 21, 1997). The Spaceport Florida Authority Defense contractually offers its Orbital proposed that the FAA adopt (SFA) supported the proposed contractors. Lockheed Martin at 5. It an activity test to determine what definition of launch as including those noted that DoD contracts for Atlas, Titan activities might be included in the hazardous pre-flight activities that are and Delta launch services provide definition of launch. It recommended closely proximate in time to flight and government indemnification for that the FAA ‘‘identify pre-launch are unique to space flight. SFA at 1. SFA ‘‘unusually hazardous risks,’’ which activities generally common to launch also supported the FAA’s proposal to include, in part, the burning, explosion systems and cover them for all launch define the beginning of launch as or detonation of propellants, liquid systems if they are sufficiently commencing with the arrival of a fueled rocket engines or solid fueled hazardous and integral to a licensed vehicle’s major components at a federal rocket motors, or launch vehicles or launch, regardless of where or when range. SFA opposed limiting the scope their components during testing, they occur.’’ Orbital at 4. Orbital of a licensed launch to those activities transporting, launch preparation or provides a list of those of its pre-flight that occur at the federal launch range launch. Lockheed Martin at 5. activities it considers hazardous. from which flight would occur because ‘‘Unusually hazardous risks’’ also Orbital, Attachment 2. this approach would result in some of Space Access, which intends to include, according to Lockheed Martin’s the current pre-flight activity of at least operate a reusable launch vehicle, also list, the toxic or other unusually two launch companies not being filed comments. Space Access’ hazardous properties of propellants or licensed. SFA at 2. SFA accordingly comments focused on the impact on inert gases, their constituent viewed this approach as discriminatory. future developments, such as reusable ingredients, or their degradation SFA also maintained that the proposal launch vehicles, of the FAA’s proposed products and the flight or surface was contrary to the statute, which definition of launch. Space Access requires consistency with public health impact of launch vehicles or opposed defining launch to encompass and safety. SFA pointed out that in components or fragments thereof. a vehicle’s entire time at a launch site, some situations the FAA would review Lockheed Martin at 5. and believes that there is no way to certain pre-flight activities and in others consistently and fairly apply the FAA’s it would not, thus resulting in no FAA 3 P.L. 85–804, 50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1431–1435 (1991 and West Supp. 1997), is effective only during a proposed definition of launch. Space safety oversight and no possibility of national emergency. 50 U.S.C. § 1435. It does not Access noted that the FAA ‘‘does not indemnification by the federal define launch. regulate the development, testing, or government. SFA at 2. On a separate
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19591 note, SFA stated its support for necessary to effectuate flight. The Act for any damage it may cause. These excluding the storage of solid rocket defines ‘‘launch’’ to mean ‘‘to place or hazardous activities include, but are not motors from the definition of ‘‘launch.’’ try to place a launch vehicle or reentry limited to, fuel tank wet testing, SFA at 3. SFA notes that such storage vehicle 4 and any payload from Earth- ordnance installation, spin balancing is not extremely hazardous and that (A) in a suborbital trajectory; (B) in and the stacking of motors. They are commercial insurance for storage is Earth orbit in outer space; or (C) hazardous because they expose third available at a reasonable premium. otherwise in outer space, including parties and government property to risk The FAA considered three possible activities involved in the preparation of of damage or loss. The FAA believes options in defining ‘‘launch’’ for a launch vehicle or payload for launch, that this test is well within the new purposes of developing proposed when those activities take place at a licensing authority conferred by the regulations. The FAA considered launch site in the United States.’’ 49 Congress’ 1998 revision to the Act. Also codifying its ‘‘gate to gate’’ definition U.S.C. § 70102(3). it both broadly incorporates the activity but was concerned that ‘‘gate to gate’’ The recently enacted change to the test advocated by commenters such as created a false impression that definition of launch in the Act Lockheed Martin and Orbital and indemnification would be available for establishes which pre-flight activities accommodates the FAA’s need for all commercial activities taking place are part of a launch. There are certain simplicity in administration. A launch within the confines of a federal range. pre-flight activities so integral to the license will encompass hazardous The FAA also weighed the most narrow launch of a launch vehicle that they activities without requiring numerous approach, which would employ the should be considered part of the launch decisions regarding individual ordinary definition of ‘‘launch’’ as only itself even though they do not constitute hazardous activities on a piecemeal those flight activities beginning at ‘‘T flight. Additionally, there are hazards basis. minus zero (T–0),’’ or intentional first associated with pre-flight activity that Moreover, with the expansion of the stage ignition; but the FAA initially are proximate in time to flight and definition as originally proposed to determined in its NPRM that this unique to space flight. Because the encompass the ground operations of a approach failed to provide regulatory changes to the Act dictate that launch launch operator at a commercial launch oversight of certain hazardous activities include preparation of a launch vehicle site not situated on a federal launch and that concerns regarding and payload for flight, the FAA defines range, the advisability of this approach international competition weighed the commencement of launch as the is further evident. The FAA believes against this formulation. In light of the moment at which hazardous activities that a launch operator contracting with 1998 change to the Act, the FAA must related to the assembly and ultimate a licensed launch site operator should reject this narrow definition as flight of the launch vehicle begin, be the licensee responsible for activities inconsistent with the new law. A less which, for purposes of consistency and in preparation for flight. To the extent expansive approach than ‘‘gate to gate,’’ clarity, the FAA deems to be when the that the government may hope to one within the scope of the FAA’s major components of a licensee’s launch achieve seamless safety and financial mandate, will include within a launch vehicle enter, for purposes of preparing responsibility coverage, the FAA would license those activities that are part of for flight, the gate of a U.S. launch site, rather look to a launch operator, who a launch as contemplated by the new whether situated on a federal launch has control and authority over its directive to license activities involved range or not, and regardless of whether employees, contractor and in the preparation of a launch vehicle flight occurs from there or not. subcontractors, including any launch for launch, when those activities take In its NPRM, the FAA determined that site operator providing services as well place at a launch site in the United defining ‘‘launch’’ as the arrival of the as a location from which to launch, for States. This satisfies the requirements of launch vehicle at the gate of a launch regulatory responsibility. Otherwise, the the statutory change and the wishes of site accorded with the proposals of a FAA might have to attempt to apportion commenters such as Orbital and the number of earlier commenters, who responsibility for ground operations Spaceport Florida Authority. Under the suggested that the FAA define ‘‘launch’’ between a launch operator and a launch approach the FAA now adopts, because to begin when hazardous activities start. site operator and develop additional of the 1998 changes and because risks The FAA is charged by statute with criteria for doing so. In this regard, change shortly after the launch vehicle protecting the public, and a definition commenters such as Kistler and Space or its components enter the gate of a that recognizes hazards will address Access should note that were a launch launch site, launch begins, for purposes concerns regarding public health and license for ground operations not of licensing, upon the arrival of that safety. Only if an activity is so required a license to operate a launch vehicle to be prepared for flight at a U.S. hazardous as to pose a threat to third site might be. launch site. parties should regulatory oversight by For purposes of ascertaining the start the FAA be exercised, and of launch, and particularly with the Vehicle at the Gate ‘‘indemnification’’ to recompense third 1998 addition to the definition of By this rulemaking, the FAA will parties be available. Because shortly launch, the FAA reviewed the license as launch those preparatory after vehicle components arrive, hazardous activities associated with the activities that may be considered part of hazardous activities related to the launch of a launch vehicle to determine a launch. As noted in the NPRM, the assembly and ultimate flight of the when those hazardous activities started. FAA’s licensing authority derives from launch vehicle begin, the arrival of the The FAA’s experience shows that the Act, which states that a license is vehicle or its parts is a logical point at commercial launch vehicles share a required ‘‘to launch a launch vehicle.’’ which the FAA should ensure that a number of hazardous procedures, and 49 U.S.C. § 70104(a). The word launch operator is exercising safe that most of those procedures take place ‘‘launch’’ is commonly understood to practices and is financially responsible once the vehicle is at a launch site in mean ignition, lift-off and flight of a order to minimize hazardous transport launch vehicle, as well as, perhaps only 4 The Commercial Space Act of 1998 also amends and exposure time. The DOT Office of in popular parlance, certain the definition of launch to add ‘‘reentry vehicle and Commercial Space Transportation any payload from Earth—.’’ Because reentry will be immediately preliminary activities such the subject of a separate rulemaking it will not be prepared a study in 1994, available in as countdown and other final steps addressed here. draft, titled ‘‘Prelaunch Hazardous
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19592 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
Operations for the Delta, Atlas, Titan at The FAA considers these operations guaranteed by the fact that regardless of Cape Canaveral Air Station, Pegasus at hazardous because their processes may vehicle type, each vehicle will receive Vandenberg Air Force Base, Conestoga lead to identifiable mishaps and the same regulatory coverage within the at Wallops Flight Facility and Black dangerous consequences.6 Solid rocket United States. Although some Brant at White Sands Missile Range.’’ motor handling and processing may commenters maintain that launch The study analyzed similarities in the result in ignition of the propellant, begins at different points for different risk profiles for pre-flight processing of either explosively or otherwise. This vehicles, because the FAA wishes to these vehicles, and compared the pre- may be caused by the unconstrained treat launch operators in an equivalent flight processing timelines for the burning or explosion of a major portion fashion, the FAA will not define various vehicles. The results of the propellant if circumstances ‘‘launch’’ on the basis of the launch complement information available in a prevented proper venting of the vehicle. Moreover, reliance on a DOT ‘‘Hazard Analysis of Commercial propellant. Casualties and property geographic element provides clarity of Space Transportation,’’ May 1988. The damage may result if an installed igniter interpretation even for a launch operator amount of damage that a vehicle may initiates and causes an engine or solid of a new vehicle using different cause varies from vehicle to vehicle, rocket motor to become fully technology. An applicant seeking a depending upon such factors as the propulsive, as during flight. Casualties license for a new vehicle will know to mass of the vehicle, the number of or damage may result from fire, plan for license coverage at the time its stages, the presence and number of solid explosion or toxic fumes that may be a vehicle enters a U.S. launch site. rocket motors, and the type and quantity by-product of combustion. These events Some commenters dispute this of propellants. The launch vehicles may result in direct damage or conclusion, arguing that defining a studied and their pre-flight processing casualties as the consequence of blast launch to commence with a vehicle’s arrival results in different licensing procedures are similar in that each has and debris effects. These events may treatment of different activities. The a similar hazardous potential. also lead to secondary effects such as fires, explosions or unintended motor FAA recognizes this dilemma. It The study showed that even though stage flight that may be caused by the believes, however, that a single test such pre-flight processing procedures and the direct blast and debris effects. as a vehicle’s arrival will avoid an sequence of those procedures may vary Flight termination system or administrative burden on both the FAA among vehicles, the vehicles studied separation ordnance installation and and its licensees. Rather than creating share such pre-flight processing checkout may result in lethal or an activity test, as recommended by procedures as solid rocket motor damaging releases of energy. The some, which would result in a series of handling and processing, flight inadvertent ignition of installed or tests, the FAA will face only questions termination system or separation uninstalled ordnance, including that of attendant to a single activity. Many of ordnance installation and checkout, and the flight termination system and the questions that will plague fueling. These activities occur at explosive bolts installed on various determining when a vehicle arrives at a different times for different vehicles. separation systems could result in federal launch range’’ launch vehicles The likelihood of a mishap 5 resulting explosion and debris. Fueling may show up in parts, a lot of them’would from these procedures is similar for result in a range of consequences, also bedevil any particular hazardous each vehicle. These procedures including fires, either pool fires or activity related to the preparation of any constitute hazardous operations that fireballs, or the release of vapor clouds, particular vehicle for flight. have an identifiable or otherwise which may be toxic or which may Additionally, the FAA considers it quantifiable probability of occurrence ignite. These events may occur because outside of its statutory mandate to (Po) of a mishap. The probabilities that of leakage during fueling or spills license pre-flight activities located these operations will result in a mishap during an accident. If such a mishap outside of a launch site in light of the ¥4 ¥5 are approximately Po=10 to 10 for involves toxic propellants, toxic new definition of launch. That solid rocket motor handling and components of the fuels may be released definition limits launch to activities ¥5 processing; Po=10 for flight into the atmosphere or spilled on the taking place at a U.S. launch site. In any termination system or separation ground. If a vehicle releases its event, that commercial operations exist ordnance installation and checkout, and hazardous materials into the outside of federal launch ranges to ¥3 ¥6 Po=10 to 10 for fueling. ‘‘Eastern atmosphere, it could expose people at a manufacture and process vehicle Launch Site Safety Programs,’’ Louis J. launch site or in the public at large to components and payloads indicates to Ullian, Commercial Space Risk and those hazards. the FAA that the hazards are not so Insurance Symposium, Cocoa Beach, As a general rule, hazardous extreme as to stifle the development of Florida (Oct. 26, 1988). These operations begin as soon as, or shortly facilities and services off of a federal probabilities are relied upon by launch after, a launch vehicle’s major systems launch range. Additionally, as some of companies, federal agencies and federal arrive at a launch site. The FAA relies the comments indicate, insurance does launch ranges for their analyses of on the new 1998 definition to employ a appear to be available. hazardous operation risks, and reflect geographic element in defining launch Another aspect of the FAA’s the rigorous safety standards, analysis by using entry of a launch vehicle onto definition attempts to capture those and review process required at federal a launch site in the United States as part activities that constitute preparation for launch ranges for hazardous ground of its definition of ‘‘launch.’’ This flight. For example, fueling for liquid- operations. ensures consistency and clarity of fueled vehicles usually takes place not interpretation. Consistency is long before flight to minimize the risks 5 The term ‘‘mishap’’ means a launch accident, a attendant to the exposure to a fueled launch incident, failure to complete a launch as 6 These findings are based on the DOT Office of vehicle, and the FAA would consider planned, or an unplanned event or series of events Commercial Space Transportation’s 1994 review of that activity to be a component of resulting in a fatality or serious injury (as defined launch vehicle manufacturers’ data, FAA launch under the Act. On the other in 49 CFR § 830.2) or resulting in greater than commercial launch baseline assessments, past FAA $25,000.00 worth of damage to a payload, a launch maximum probable loss determination analyses and hand, the FAA does not intend a launch vehicle, a launch support facility or government Ullian’s 1988 presentation at the Commercial Space license to encompass components property located on the launch site. Risk and Insurance Symposium. stored at a launch site for a considerable
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19593 period of time prior to flight. The FAA vehicle, not for the launch of a payload launch vehicles similarly. Whether a is aware that the definition of launch or for the launch of a launch vehicle and launch vehicle undergoes hazardous may be construed to encompass motor a payload. Moreover, were launch to integration significantly in advance of storage as well. However, if motors begin with the arrival of a payload it flight, as the Delta and Pegasus do, or arrive at a launch site for purposes of would constitute unlicensed launch, closer in time as an Atlas does, a license storage rather than as part of a launch and a payload operator is not required covered the same pre-launch activities: campaign in preparation for flight, the to obtain a launch license in any event. all launch related activities performed FAA does not consider that storage part Additionally, the launch operator, who by a launch operator within the gates of of a launch. SFA’s comments support is the licensee, is not necessarily a federal range. Additionally, ‘‘gate to this interpretation. participating in the payload processing gate’’ licensing ensured that the FAA Orbital questioned one element of the until integration of the payload with the required launch operators to FAA’s proposed definition. Orbital vehicle. For all these reasons, the FAA demonstrate financial responsibility disputed that part of the FAA’s will not change its definition. through the purchase of insurance definition that included within the coverage or other appropriate measures ‘‘T Minus Zero (T–0)’’ or Intentional definition of launch only those activities for possible damage arising out of First Stage Ignition that take place at the launch site from commercial activities to government which flight will occur. Orbital’s The FAA also considered defining property. ‘‘Gate to gate’’ licensing concern is addressed in the 1998 ‘‘launch’’ as the word is ordinarily received support because of the belief amendment to the definition of launch. understood. This would have limited that a launch operator would be The statutory revision expands launch the scope of a launch license to indemnified for damage to third parties to include preparatory activities that activities commencing at intentional caused by pre-flight and post-flight ‘‘take place at a launch site in the first stage ignition. Were a launch ground operations. United States.’’ 49 U.S.C. 70102(3) license to cover only those activities, the The FAA does not define ‘‘launch’’ to (emphasis added). This provision launch industry would no longer have encompass all pre-flight activities by a includes preparatory activities at any been eligible for so-called launch operator at a launch site because U.S. launch site. The FAA notes that the indemnification for damages arising out not all activities are part of the launch revision excludes preparatory activities of any preparatory activities. The of a launch vehicle. A launch operator outside of a U.S. launch site. regulatory burden, however, would be may be present on the range, and Hughes asked for clarification correspondingly less. Such a licensee engaged in preparatory activities, but regarding the commencement of launch would not, for instance, be required to not be working on a launch vehicle or with respect to payloads. Hughes obtain a license as early in the process its component parts in preparation for suggested that launch be defined to as it must for gate to gate, nor would it flight. A licensed launch operator may commence with the arrival of a payload. be required to provide the FAA as much be present at a federal range between Under current conditions, a payload information. Likewise, this approach launches. The FAA is aware of launch tends to arrive after a launch vehicle, would have resulted in similar operators who perform construction and its integration to a launch vehicle treatment of licensees regardless of the activities within the gates of a federal has been included within the definition type of vehicle employed or the timing range months or years prior to any of launch. The FAA does not consider or location of hazardous activities. The anticipated flight of a launch vehicle. At payload processing absent launch FAA carefully weighed this approach, that point, the launch operator may or vehicle integration to constitute part of especially in light of those comments may not be engaged in the type of launch or part of a licensee’s licensed advocating a more narrow definition of hazardous activities warranting FAA activities. Although the 1998 launch. With the changes brought about oversight or indemnification because amendment appears to provide that by the 1998 revision to the Act, which construction activity, however preparation of a payload for launch at a expands the scope of launch, defining hazardous, is not part of the process of U.S. launch site is part of launch, the launch as commencing with intentional preparing the vehicle itself for flight. revision does not require the definition first stage ignition is no longer an In support of ‘‘gate to gate’’ licensing of launch to encompass payload option. it has been suggested that pre-launch processing at a launch site until the licensing authority arises out of the payload is being integrated with a ‘‘Gate to Gate’’ Act’s directive to license ‘‘operation of launch vehicle. The revision itself The FAA’s practice of licensing a launch site.’’ See 49 U.S.C. 70104(a). provides for activities involved in the ground operations associated with the In the case of a launch taking place from preparation of a launch vehicle or conduct of a launch, commonly referred a federal launch range, the launch payload for flight to ensure that launch to as ‘‘gate to gate,’’ was to license all operator is not, in fact, operating a may begin with a launch vehicle’s commercial, launch related activities by launch site. The site is operated by the arrival alone at a launch site, regardless a launch operator operating within the federal range. Moreover, it is the FAA’s of the presence of a payload. Read in the gates of a federal range. Through this opinion that a person requires a license context of existing statutory provisions rulemaking the FAA abandons this to operate a launch site only if offering and requirements, the revised definition approach. Under this view, a launch the site to customers for their launch. does not encompass payload activities operator’s operations were licensed, Otherwise, activities related to that are not otherwise associated with a even if ignition and flight were not preparation for flight are part of a launch vehicle. The original and still imminent and even if the launch vehicle launch license rather than a license to unchanged definition of launch means, itself was not present at the range. The operate a launch site. in relevant part, the launch of a launch 1998 amendment to the definition of As noted in the NPRM, ‘‘gate to gate’’ vehicle and any payload. 49 U.S.C. launch confirms the FAA’s intent to evolved out of an industry desire for 70102(3). Section 70104 further abandon this approach. A launch broad license coverage, and this confirms the inadvisability of vehicle must be present for preparatory approach was the FAA’s official commencing launch with the arrival of activities to constitute part of launch. position with respect to the scope of its a payload. Section 70104 requires a The ‘‘gate to gate’’ approach licenses. Other government sectors, license for the launch of a launch constituted an attempt to treat different including NASA, have criticized this
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19594 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations approach as overly broad. Civilian purposes of flight, the FAA will chosen option, ground operations would Space Authorization Act, Fiscal Years continue to define the end of a launch not be considered part of launch once 1998 and 1999, H. Rep. 65, 51 105th as the point after payload separation the launch vehicle left the ground. Cong., 1st Sess. (Apr. 21, 1997). In 1995, when the last action occurs over which Reentry activities aside, it has not been House Science Committee Report No. a licensee has direct or indirect control the FAA’s experience that post-flight 104–233, accompanying H.R. 2043, the over the launch vehicle. For a liquid- activities involve the same levels of NASA Authorization Act for Fiscal Year fueled stage, that point may be when public safety risk as pre-flight handling, 1996, noted that members of Congress any remaining fuel is emptied from the integration and fueling of a vehicle. The view with concern this approach to upper stage, the vehicle propellant and FAA reviewed another option. Ground covering all licensee activities within gas tanks are vented and other stored operations for launch could end with the gates of a federal range, and energy is released. For solid rocket the end of launch in the context of considered it too broad.7 Although motors, that point may arrive when the flight, namely, when the last action recognizing that the report language upper stage fuel is expended or the stage occurs over which a licensee has direct does not carry the force and effect of is inert, and the payload is released. For or indirect control over the launch law, the FAA is concerned that launch purposes of ground operations, launch vehicle. This alternative would have operators might be pursuing their pre- no longer ends with the cessation of allowed for at least part of the post- launch activities in reliance on an supporting ground operations but when flight ground operations to be covered indemnification that must be enacted by the vehicle leaves the surface. by the license. The end of launch for Congress and that may or may not be With respect to flight, others apply purposes of flight is not, however, available from Congress. This prompted different definitions to the end of related to activities on the ground. The the FAA in its NPRM to revisit the issue launch. The most recent House FAA is concerned that attempting to of the scope of a license and, thus, Committee Report, H.R. Rep. No. 347, create such a connection would be necessarily, of the definition of 105th Cong., 1st Sess., 22 (1997), arbitrary and might inappropriately ‘‘launch.’’ suggests that launch ends when a influence a licensee’s post-flight ground Lockheed Martin questioned the payload is placed into orbit or in its operation procedures. The third option FAA’s concern over the possibility that planned trajectory in outer space. The the FAA considered was to define the Congress would refuse to vote for 45th Space Wing considers a launch end of ground operations for launch as indemnification for all of a launch complete when all hazardous activities that point at which all personnel may operator’s activities at a federal launch are secured and, for purposes of flight resume operations at the launch pad range. As stated in the NPRM, while the safety, upon orbital insertion. NPRM, 62 and related environs. This approach FAA recognizes that the report language FR at 13223. Orbital insertion takes recognized that hazardous operations do of concern does not have the effect of place when a launch vehicle achieves occur subsequent to ignition and lift off. law, see, e.g., Public Employees orbital velocity or when its These operations include such activities Retirement Systems of Ohio v. Betts, 492 instantaneous impact point leaves the as securing ground propellant and U.S. 158, 168, 109 S. Ct. 2854, 2862 earth. In other words, orbital insertion is pneumatic systems and inspecting the (1989), it nonetheless remains a fact that achieved when a launch vehicle is launch pad to verify that no post-flight Congress does play a role in deciding moving horizontally to the earth’s hazards exist. With this option, ground whether to provide ‘‘coverage’’ for surface sufficiently fast enough, given operations would no longer have been damages in excess of the FAA’s its altitude, to counteract the effects of part of launch when the launch pad and financial responsibility requirements. In the earth’s gravity. The FAA believes other launch related facilities no longer Betts, the Court noted that it ‘‘has that although defining launch to end at endangered personnel. Because, observed on more than one occasion orbital insertion may make sense from a however, the hazards associated with that the interpretation given by one federal range ‘‘flight termination’’ ground operations subsequent to lift off Congress (or a committee or Member perspective, such a definition would are not related to the preparation of the thereof) to an earlier statute is of little halt FAA oversight of certain aspects of vehicle for flight, the FAA defines the assistance in discerning the meaning of launch too soon for safety. For example, end of launch for purposes of ground that statute.’’ Id. However, in this damage to other orbiting material may operations as the point at which the funding context, the FAA does not still ensue as the result of activities launch vehicle leaves the ground. This believe that it behooves either the FAA subsequent to orbital insertion. Absent a analysis applies to expendable launch or licensed launch operators to ignore licensee taking appropriate measures, vehicles. For the time being, judgment these warnings. That is the source of the risk exists of the possible collision of a is reserved with respect to reusable FAA’s concern. Additionally, the fact launch vehicle or its components with launch vehicles. that 1997 also produced report language other objects in space. Additionally, recommending a more narrow definition dangerous orbital debris might be Formalizing Launch and Launch indicates to the FAA, as it should to generated. Accordingly, in the interests Operator Licenses industry, that the better course is to rely of safety, the FAA will retain its current This rulemaking, through section on a definition grounded in the Act practice of defining the cessation of 415.3, codifies the FAA practice of rather than on fluctuating Congressional launch. issuing two types of launch licenses, the report language. With respect to ground operations, the launch-specific and the launch operator, FAA now changes its current practice of and amends the duration of a launch End of Launch including post-flight ground operations operator license from two to five years. The FAA notes that the end of launch for expendable launch vehicles in a In order to enable the FAA to issue a may be expressed both in terms of flight launch license and thus as part of license for a single mission or for activity and ground operations. For launch. Instead, ground operations are multiple missions, the FAA’s licensing no longer part of launch once the structure provides for two types of 7 In 1994, a House Space, Science and Technology vehicle leaves the ground. The FAA launch licenses, the launch-specific and Committee Report expressed the same sentiments. considered several options as to when the launch operator license. A launch The report accompanied H.R. 4489, the NASA Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, a bill that ground operations were no longer specific license authorizes a licensee to was not enacted into law. considered part of a launch. Under the conduct a single launch, or a specified
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19595 number of identical launches, from a at 1; Lockheed Martin at 7; Orbital launch, but a newer entity may have a single launch site. The launch vehicle Sciences at 6; Rotary Rocket Company at greater showing to make. A first launch for each authorized launch must be the 4–5 (while emphasizing its need for a may be safe without being successful. A same and launch parameters must launch operator license for a reusable first launch LMLV–1 failure that present no unique public safety issues flight test program); Space Access at 6. demonstrated that a safety system or other issues affecting U.S. national Kistler Aerospace Corporation requested worked led to a launch operator license interests. The licensee’s authorization to that the FAA consider issuing launch for Lockheed Martin. Historically, conduct launches terminates upon operator licenses of indefinite duration. launch operators who received launch completion of all launches authorized Kistler at 4. Kistler maintains that the operator licenses had already by the license or the expiration date set choice of five years is arbitrary and of demonstrated some level of capability in forth in the license, whichever comes little utility in regulating a licensee. Id. conducting launches, either by first. A launch operator license Kistler notes that the proposed conducting launches for the government authorizes a licensee to conduct regulations vest the FAA with or with other launch vehicles. launches from a specified launch site, continuing oversight powers, require a The FAA policy of considering an using the same family of launch licensee to ensure the continuing applicant for a launch operator license vehicles, carrying specified classes of accuracy of its application after a safe launch conducted under a payloads, within the range of launch representations and allow the FAA to launch-specific license has, to date, parameters defined by the license. amend the terms and conditions of a applied to launches from federal launch Initially, the FAA’s launch operator license at any time. Id. Kistler claims ranges. This policy may not always be license allowed a launch operator to that renewing a license every five years appropriate under other circumstances. conduct launches authorized by its poses an unnecessary burden and The complexity of the proposed license for a period of two years. Under creates an uncertainty that adversely operations, whether a vehicle is the new section 415.3(b), a launch affects a licensee’s ability to enter into reusable and the potential for operator license authorizes the conduct contracts, attract capital and otherwise endangering the public may also play a of launches for five years from the date make long term plans. Id. role in whether the FAA decides a of issuance. Although the FAA appreciates the launch operator license is appropriate The option of issuing a launch issues raised by Kistler, the FAA will for subsequent launches. operator license, as opposed to requiring increase the duration of a launch Space Access also asks whether an a launch-specific license for every operator license from two to five years launch, provides advantages both to the as originally proposed rather than overall accident history of licensee and to the FAA. Although the creating a license of indefinite duration. approximately ten to fifteen percent is application preparation for and review This is because an increase in duration acceptable. The FAA has not made a of a launch operator license will be from two to five years already place determination regarding an acceptable more extensive than for a launch greater reliance on the FAA’s mishap rate at this point, and is hesitant specific license, use of this class of compliance monitoring program. A to prejudge the question. The answer license will ultimately result in cost license renewal application has the may turn more on the facts underlying reductions and efficiency gains for benefit of compelling the FAA and a a mishap rather than on a particular licensees by reducing the number of licensee to perform a comprehensive rate. The FAA would also like to stress applications that a company with an review of a licensee’s operations. what it defines as a launch accident. By active launch schedule must submit, Experience has shown that a renewal definition, a launch accident is an and that the FAA must review. The process ensures that oversight is unplanned event occurring during the FAA’s increase of the term of a launch performed. flight of a launch vehicle resulting in operator license from the current Space Access raises a separate issue, the known impact of a launch vehicle, practice of two years to five years namely the question of how the FAA its payload or any component thereof reflects the FAA’s experience with its will determine who is qualified for a outside designated impact limit lines, or licensees during the past few years. launch operator license as opposed to a a fatality or serious injury to any person During that time, the FAA has launch-specific license. Space Access who is not associated with the flight, or encountered very few serious safety asks what constitutes a safe launch resulting in damage estimated to exceed problems with launch operator record. To this, the FAA is able to $25,000 to property not associated with licensees. respond with some guidance culled the flight. This has rarely, if ever, On the basis of this record, the FAA from its past practices. The FAA happened in the history of the U.S. proposed in the NPRM that a launch licensed the first launch of a Pegasus space program. Space Access appears to operator with a safe launch record launch vehicle on a launch-specific be referring to other mishaps such as should not be required to apply for a basis. It is currently contemplating a mission failures that are not launch new license every two years. The FAA launch-specific license for Sea Launch’s accidents. An unsuccessful mission is will continue to verify, through proposed first launch from the Pacific not necessarily an un-safe flight. In fact, compliance monitoring, that a licensee Ocean. Other examples of launch- a successful mission may not even be a is operating in accordance with the specific licenses include the first safe one, as recognized by the FAA’s terms and conditions of its license. In launches of Lockheed Martin’s LMLV– definition of ‘‘launch incident,’’ which this regard, the longer the license term, 1 and 2, EER’s Conestoga launch and is an unplanned event occurring during the more important the role compliance AMROC’s hybrid launch vehicle launch. the flight of a launch vehicle, other than monitoring plays in enabling the FAA to To date, the FAA has not considered a a launch accident, involving a provide safety oversight regarding how new launch operator one with a safe malfunction of a flight safety system or a licensee implements its procedures. launch record. A new launch operator failure of the licensee’s safety The FAA received comments has no record. organization, design or operations. regarding the duration of a launch Although a launch-specific license Because the FAA is concerned with operator license. Several launch might be required for a new vehicle, an public safety, a safe launch record is operators supported the proposed established operator may apply for a judged based on whether an applicant’s increase from two to five years. Boeing launch operator license after the first launches have placed the public at risk,
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19596 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations not whether the launches have placed services. The ranges require compliance issue a deviation to allow a launch even payloads in space. with their safety rules as a condition of when a launch operator’s designs or Space Access contends that any using their facilities and services. proposed operations do not comply launch accident, incident or mishap Because different federal launch ranges with range requirements. A range may should result in a license amendment confront different safety issues, issue a waiver when it is discovered reflecting changes made to prevent a practices are not always standardized; after production that hardware does not reoccurrence. If circumstances warrant, the Air Force ranges did, however, satisfy range requirements or when it is this may prove a likely result. Space produce a joint set of documentation discovered that operations do not meet Access also asks whether a launch requirements and procedures, ‘‘Eastern range requirements after operations operator accident that is not covered by and Western Range Requirements 127– have begun at a federal range. A range an FAA license, that is, perhaps, a 1’’ (Mar. 1995).8 In addition to providing will allow a deviation or grant a waiver government launch, is considered part for public safety, the federal launch only under unique and compelling of a licensee’s accident history, and range procedures protect government circumstances, or when the intent of the whether an accident would result in a property and launch capability, and are range requirements is met. license revocation. An un-licensed designed, to some extent, to ensure The FAA’s baseline assessments 9 of launch resulting in a mission failure mission success. various federal launch ranges found may certainly raise safety concerns for The FAA fully recognizes the their safety services adequate. The FAA future licensed launches, but need not comprehensive and responsible safety will not require an applicant to necessarily lead to license revocation. oversight that DOD and NASA have demonstrate the adequacy of the range When a mishap occurred with exercised at their ranges for over forty services it proposes to employ if the McDonnell Douglas’ Delta vehicle in years. The FAA communicates on an applicable baseline assessment included January 1997, during a government ongoing basis with the federal launch those services and if those services launch, the FAA did not revoke, ranges regarding standards and launch remain adequate. Certain showings suspend or modify McDonnell Douglas’ activities. The FAA also recognizes the regarding the applicant’s own launch operator license. This was scope of information that a launch capabilities are still required. The FAA because McDonnell Douglas’ license operator employing federal range requires specific information regarding specified that it comply with the services must submit for approval over the interface between the safety requirements of the federal launch range a two to three year period in order to organizations of a federal launch range from which it was authorized to launch, conduct launch operations. Therefore, and of an applicant. In the event that a and the FAA knew that the Air Force for launches that take place from DOD service or procedure upon which an would not allow additional Delta or NASA launch ranges, the FAA’s applicant proposed to rely was not launches to take place until the problem regulatory program makes maximum within the documented experience of was identified and resolved. Space use of information provided by an the federal launch range that the Access’ inquiry arises, perhaps, out of applicant to the federal launch range applicant proposed to utilize, the contemplating launch activity that is not and of federal launch range analyses applicant would have to demonstrate governed by federal launch range and approvals. This means that the FAA the safety of that particular aspect of its oversight. To avoid prejudging a relies on the processes of the federal launch. This is also true if a hypothetical situation, the FAA will not launch range and does not duplicate documented range safety service has address that situation until confronted those safety analyses conducted by a changed significantly or has with it. federal launch range. experienced a recent failure. In those Relationship Between FAA and Federal A federal launch range requires a cases, the burden of demonstrating Government Launch Ranges launch operator to provide data safety shifts to the applicant. regarding its proposed launch. The The revisions also codify FAA The FAA’s launch requirements as range evaluates the data to ascertain guidelines containing National promulgated through part 415, subpart whether the launch operator will Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) C, of this rulemaking apply to launches comply with range requirements. The recommendations concerning launch as they currently take place from readiness and countdown procedures. Department of Defense (DOD) or NASA range also uses the data to prepare range support for the mission. DOD ranges The FAA’s guidelines implement NTSB launch ranges. Public meeting recommendations made following an comments strongly supported avoidance require that a launch operator apply for and obtain specific mandatory investigation of a commercial launch of duplication of launch safety oversight anomaly occurring during a launch from for launches that take place from a approvals from the range in order to conduct certain specified operations. a federal launch range. These guidelines federal launch range. The rules are are designed to ensure that a launch consistent with that desire. Although For example, the Air Force’s Eastern and Western Range Requirements 127– licensee has clear lines of authority and the FAA requires information and communication during launch, and has analyses not required by federal launch 1 require a launch operator to obtain approvals for hazardous and safety specific procedures governing other ranges to ensure that all flight safety safety aspects of its launch operations. issues are addressed, and imposes critical procedures before the range will allow those operations to proceed. In The NTSB filed comments to the docket certain additional requirements derived stating that the regulations proposed in from a National Transportation Safety the event that a launch operator’s proposal does not fully comply with the NPRM would, if implemented, Board investigation, the FAA will not satisfy the intent of the NTSB’s duplicate the safety assessments range requirements, a range may issue a performed by federal launch ranges. deviation or a waiver if the mission objectives of the launch operator could 9 ‘‘Commercial Launch Baseline Assessment, Federal launch ranges manage the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops launch facilities from which the great not otherwise be achieved. A range may Flight,’’ DOT (Oct. 1989); ‘‘Commercial Launch majority of commercial launches now Baseline Assessment, U.S. Air Force Western Space 8 The latest version of these requirements may be and Missile Center,’’ DOT (Jul. 1989); ‘‘Commercial take place. The federal ranges act, in found at http://www.pafb.af.mil/45SW/rangesafety/ Launch Baseline Assessment, U.S. Air Force effect, both as landlords and as ewr97.htm. The Air Force up-dates its requirements Eastern Space and Missile Center,’’ DOT (Sept. providers of launch facilities and on an ongoing basis. 1988).
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19597 recommendations. Accordingly, the elements of launch, ‘‘the return of any ‘‘Federal launch range’’ means a NTSB supports their adoption. boosters is pertinent.’’ Id. at 5–6. For launch site from which launches take these reasons, the FAA’s proposed place that is owned and operated by the Discussion of Parts Affected by the Rule definition of launch vehicle should government of the United States. Part 401—Organization and Definitions clearly encompass ‘‘all physically Federal launch ranges include Cape Canaveral Air Station, Vandenberg Air Section 401.5 contains definitions of connected parts used to propel or to Force Base, White Sands Missile Range significant terms used in the FAA’s otherwise place [a] launch vehicle and and Wallops Flight Facility. In its regulations. Proposed amendments any payload into an Earth orbit or comments, Kistler Aerospace include both changes to existing otherwise in outer space.’’ Id. at 5. Corporation recommended that the FAA definitions and the addition of new Space Access believes that its proposed clarify that only these four facilities terms. Certain changes are intended definition would clearly encompass first constitute federal launch ranges. The only to reflect changes resulting from stage boosters that fall back to earth and FAA is not prepared to do this, but will the 1994 codification of the Act. Others a carrier aircraft such as is used to reach a separate accommodation. The are editorial. launch a Pegasus. Id. Under the Act, launch vehicle means FAA agrees that the definition of a Deletions ‘‘(A) a vehicle built to operate in, or federal launch range should only encompass those federal launch The FAA proposes to remove the place a payload in, outer space; and (B) facilities where the government terms ‘‘Director,’’ ‘‘launch activity,’’ a suborbital rocket.’’ 49 U.S.C. facilities, services and organization ‘‘licensee,’’ ‘‘mission,’’ and ‘‘safety § 70102(7). Congress chose this routinely support launch activities. The operations.’’ ‘‘Director’’ no longer definition, and the FAA designed the four listed above, however, are not the constitutes a title related to the FAA’s new regulatory definition to match the only current ones, and others could Associate Administrator for Commercial congressional choice. Space Access emerge in the future. Space Transportation and is therefore fears that the definition could imply that only the parts of a launch vehicle The FAA assumes that Kistler’s deleted. ‘‘Launch activity’’ refers to interest in this topic arises out of its activities licensed by the FAA. The term that reach outer space are part of a launch vehicle, thus excluding both the proposed launch plans for the Nevada is overly broad and lacking in Test Site, which is not currently a specificity. ‘‘Licensee’’ is also deleted as carrier aircraft for an air launch and any vehicle stages that fall back to earth. federal launch range. The Nevada Test a term whose meaning is self-evident. Site should not, in its current Space Access at 5. The definition does ‘‘Mission’’ is no longer necessary operational status, be considered a not preclude the inclusion of carrier because the FAA is modifying and federal launch range because the U.S. aircraft or vehicle stages as part of the renaming the mission review contained government does not routinely oversee definition of launch vehicle. The FAA in part 415, subpart C. ‘‘Safety the launch of launch vehicles from the agrees with Space Access that vehicle operations’’ does not appear in the site. Although it is true that the U.S. stages are included within the definition regulations and the FAA has therefore government has conducted launches of a launch vehicle. It should be noted removed it. from the site, this does not mean that that because the definition includes a the Nevada Test Site is a federal launch Revisions vehicle that either operates in or places range for purposes of this rule because Some of the proposed revisions a payload in outer space, the definition the activities that have occurred there merely reflect the codification of the includes the entire vehicle necessary to are not routine. No staff is dedicated to Act. These include ‘‘Act,’’ ‘‘launch,’’ accomplish that objective. This routinely supporting launch activity, ‘‘launch vehicle,’’ ‘‘payload,’’ and necessarily includes the first and and the FAA is not aware of any ‘‘person.’’ The FAA revises the term intermediate stages of a launch vehicle. permanent launch infrastructure at the ‘‘launch,’’ however, not only to reflect Therefore, the FAA will not change site. Nor is the Nevada Test Site a the codification of Pub. L. 98–575 and what it proposed as the new definition member of the Range Commander’s the Commercial Space Act of 1998, but of ‘‘launch vehicle’’ with the exception Council. Accordingly, the FAA here to clarify that launch, for purposes of that it will change ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘or’’ to clarifies its definition by adding licensing, includes the flight of a launch clarify that a suborbital rocket is also a ‘‘routinely.’’ vehicle and preflight activities launch vehicle. ‘‘Hazardous materials’’ mean commencing with the arrival of a launch Additions hazardous materials as defined in 49 vehicle at a U.S. launch site as CFR § 172.101. discussed earlier. New terms include ‘‘Associate ‘‘Launch accident,’’ ‘‘launch As noted in the NPRM, the FAA Administrator,’’ ‘‘federal launch range,’’ incident,’’ and ‘‘mishap’’ all address proposed to change the definition of ‘‘hazardous materials,’’ ‘‘launch related issues. The term ‘‘mishap’’ is a ‘‘launch vehicle’’ to reflect the changes accident,’’ ‘‘launch incident,’’ ‘‘launch general term for all unplanned events at made to the Act when it was codified in operator,’’ ‘‘launch site,’’ and ‘‘mishap.’’ a launch site or during a launch 1994. This rulemaking implements that Although the NPRM proposed ‘‘Office,’’ resulting in injury, occupational illness, change. Space Access provides an that term is no longer included. or damage to or loss of equipment or interesting analysis of one of the ‘‘Associate Administrator’’ reflects a property. Mishaps include but are not constituent parts of a launch concerning change in title of the person in charge limited to launch accidents and launch an element that the NPRM did not of Commercial Space Transportation incidents. Launch accidents and launch address in detail, namely, that vehicle within the FAA and arises out of the incidents are types of ‘‘mishaps.’’ stages are part of launch. ‘‘Space Access transfer of the Office of Commercial ‘‘Launch accident’’ and ‘‘launch believes anything that does not achieve Space Transportation from the Office of incident’’ derive from the FAA’s current orbit should be considered as part of the Secretary, DOT, to the Federal definition of ‘‘accident’’ and ‘‘incident’’ launch, just like multiple stage boosters Aviation Administration. The term as the terms appear in the FAA’s are today.’’ Space Access at 5. Space describes the FAA’s Associate accident investigation plan. Both terms Access points out that if the FAA’s Administrator for Commercial Space encompass unplanned events occurring intent is to cover the hazardous Transportation. during flight. ‘‘Launch accident’’ is
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19598 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations defined by the seriousness of the results, however, to reflect accurately the new nation providing that the foreign nation and ‘‘launch incident’’ focuses on the language of the codified statute, the shall exercise jurisdiction. 49 U.S.C. failure of a safety system or process that FAA’s definition of launch site will not, § 70104(a)(3). A foreign corporation, may or may not have caused serious as proposed in the NPRM, include partnership, joint venture, association or harm. Special reporting and ‘‘necessary facilities located at the site,’’ other foreign entity controlled by a U.S. investigation requirements attach if a but ‘‘necessary facilities at that citizen does not require an FAA license launch accident or incident occurs. location.’’ to launch from foreign territory, unless ‘‘Accident’’ is also defined in a The FAA will not include the term that foreign nation has agreed that the Memorandum of Understanding with Office in its definitions as originally United States shall exercise jurisdiction the National Transportation Safety proposed in the NPRM. There is greater over the launch. 49 U.S.C. § 70104(a)(4). Board (NTSB). A launch accident will familiarity with the term ‘‘FAA’’ and the Section 413.5, which renumbers and entail NTSB involvement. A ‘‘launch agency believes that its use will result amends the former section 413.3, incident’’ may or may not involve the in less confusion. requires a prospective applicant to consult with the FAA prior to NTSB, depending on the seriousness of Part 411—Policy the safety issues involved. Other submitting an application. Pre- mishaps, such as a mission failure, have The FAA deletes as unnecessary and application consultation is now fewer reporting and investigation reserves part 411, which establishes the mandatory in order to allow both an requirements. policies of the FAA for licensing applicant and the FAA the opportunity Orbital raised a concern regarding the commercial launch activities. This part to identify potential issues relevant to reporting requirements for a mishap. identified how the FAA addressed the FAA’s licensing determination. Pre- Orbital at 5. It noted that, if read safety and mission reviews, which, application consultation does not literally, section 415.41 would require pursuant to this rulemaking, are possess a formal structure or timetable. FAA notification every time a piece of addressed in parts 413, 415 and 417. Nor does it require personal meetings. the licensee’s own equipment was Part 413—License Application For many proposals consultations may damaged. The FAA does not require this Procedures be made by telephone, electronic mail and now amends its definition of or other means. mishap from that originally proposed in Part 413 continues to describe those Pre-application consultation is the NPRM to include only a launch license application procedures intended to provide an efficient and accident, a launch incident, failure to applicable to all license applications. As effective process leading to the complete a launch as planned, or an explained by section 413.1, which development of a substantially complete unplanned event resulting in fatal or clarifies the former section of the same application. It should also ensure that serious injury or greater than $25,000 number, the procedures apply to any an applicant is aware of the damage to a payload, a launch vehicle, application for a license to launch a responsibilities of a licensee. Pre- a launch support facility, or government launch vehicle or to operate a launch application consultation allows a property located at the launch site. The site. These procedures should also be prospective applicant to familiarize the notification requirement has also been used by a payload owner or operator FAA with its proposal and the FAA to modified for mishaps other than launch requesting a payload review. More familiarize the prospective applicant accidents and launch incidents. For a specific requirements applicable to with the licensing process. It has been mishap that is not a launch accident or obtaining a launch license or a license the FAA’s experience that pre- launch incident, or one that does not to operate a launch site are set forth in application consultation helps speed the involve a fatality, a licensee must notify parts 415 and 417, respectively. The overall licensing process by ensuring the FAA within 24 hours of the event. majority of the revisions to this part are that any unique safety issues are Such mishaps may involve insurance editorial or self-explanatory. A few bear uncovered early. It also avoids claims or may uncover flaws in a individual mention. potentially wasted efforts by a licensee’s safety procedures. Section 413.3, which renumbers the prospective applicant in preparation of ‘‘Launch operator’’ is defined as a former section 415.3 and amends the an application. For new launch person who launches or plans to launch provision by including operation of a concepts, the pre-application process a launch vehicle and any payload. launch site, identifies who must obtain allows a prospective applicant and the The definition of ‘‘launch site’’ a license to launch a launch vehicle or FAA’s Commercial Space reflects changes resulting from the to operate a launch site. Any person Transportation Licensing and Safety codification of the Act and a subsequent proposing to launch a launch vehicle or Division to identify the most efficient revision. The definition of ‘‘launch site’’ to operate a launch site within the process for the applicant to demonstrate in the original Commercial Space United States must obtain a license the safety of any proposed launch. Launch Act includes ‘‘facilities located authorizing the launch or the operation Experience shows that this often is best on a launch site which are necessary to of the launch site. 49 U.S.C. carried out through a series of meetings, conduct a launch.’’ 49 U.S.C. App. § 70104(a)(1). A U.S. citizen or entity and other interchanges, each focusing 2603(5) (emphasis added). As noted in proposing to launch outside the United on different issues. The schedule and the NPRM, the codified definition of States or to operate a launch site outside order of such discussions is nearly ‘‘launch site’’ merely included of the United States must obtain a always driven by a prospective ‘‘necessary facilities’’ with no mention license authorizing the launch or the applicant’s concept, issues and of their location. Now, Congress has operation of the launch site. 49 U.S.C. schedule. In all cases, the FAA remedied that oversight, and the § 70104(a)(2). A foreign corporation, encourages the proposed applicant to definition of ‘‘launch site’’ means the partnership, joint venture, association or submit, as part of the process, location on Earth from which a launch other foreign entity controlled by a U.S. application material in draft, and the takes place and necessary facilities at citizen and proposing to launch from, or FAA will review and provide feedback that location. 49 U.S.C. 70102(6) to operate a launch site within, on the content. (emphasis added). The FAA correctly international territory or waters must Although the FAA will answer proposed to include only those facilities obtain a license if the United States does general questions regarding the located at the launch site. In order, not have an agreement with a foreign licensing process at any time, the pre-
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19599 application process is best begun when The FAA considered the option of not commence its application review once it a prospective applicant is ready to commencing any review of an receives a substantially complete discuss specific application application and thus of not starting to application, the fact that an application requirements or to begin preparation of count the 180-day statutory time limit is only substantially complete means an application. At this time, the until the application was complete in that more information may be required Licensing and Safety Division will order to ensure that the FAA did not before the application is entirely assign a primary staff engineer who will receive piecemeal applications. The complete. If an application does not be responsible for working with the FAA also considered rejecting or address requests for required prospective applicant. Typically, a denying an incomplete application, information in sufficient detail, or if the second engineer is also assigned to track which would also prevent the 180-day application contains inconsistencies, the project and to be available should review period from commencing. the FAA will advise the applicant and the primary engineer not be available. Instead, the FAA determined that if an provide a time by which the requested Other support staff may also be assigned applicant presented sufficient material information must be provided. Once the to help in specialized areas such as to allow at least some meaningful deadline has passed, and while the FAA environmental reviews. review to commence, the FAA would do waits for any information necessary to Section 413.7, which renumbers and so in the interests of the applicant. complete its review, the 180-day time amends the former section 413.5, Commencing the review of even an limit on the FAA does not run. The FAA contains a change in the name of the incomplete application should allow for considered the option of denying a entity regulating commercial space earlier identification of required license and returning the application for transportation. Effective November 15, information not addressed, hasten the resubmission if the requested 1995, the DOT Office of Commercial process and increase efficiency. information were not submitted within Space Transportation became a part of In order for the FAA to review an the time provided. Because of the new the Federal Aviation Administration, application, however, the application submission of the application, a new where it now operates as the FAA’s must be sufficiently complete to allow 180-day review period would seventh line of business. With that review to commence. Accordingly, commence. This course would provide move, the name was changed from the under section 413.13, the FAA’s the applicant a strong incentive to Office of Commercial Space acceptance of an application does not respond to the FAA’s information Transportation to that of the Associate constitute a determination that the request in a timely fashion, and, Administrator for Commercial Space application is complete. That section perhaps, result in the processing of only Transportation. Section 413.7(a), which now contains an additional provision those applications where the applicant directs an applicant where to file an that was not explicit in the NPRM. The possesses the actual capacity to application, reflects that change, as well new provision clarifies that the FAA respond. This would discourage as the new address. Section 413.7(b)(2) may ask for additional information in frivolous applications. The FAA requires an applicant to provide the the course of the licensing process. It determined, however, that most FAA with one or more points of contact states that if, in addition to the applicants, provided with information to receive notices from the FAA. information required by the applicable regarding how soon the FAA would Section 413.9, which renumbers the parts of this chapter, the FAA requires require information necessary to former section 413.7, describes how an other information necessary for a complete a review, would respond in applicant may request confidential determination that public health and the time allotted. Thus, so extreme an treatment for trade secrets or proprietary safety, safety of property and national incentive would not be required. commercial or financial data. The security and foreign policy interests of However, it has been the FAA’s treatment of confidential information is the United States are protected during experience that applicants do not governed by applicable law, including the conduct of a licensed activity, an always respond in a timely fashion to the Freedom of Information Act. applicant shall submit the additional requests from the FAA for clarification Section 413.11, amending former information required to show or additional information. Accordingly, section 413.9, describes the process by compliance with this chapter. The FAA some incentive to respond promptly is which an application is accepted or anticipates that there will be situations necessary, and in the event an applicant rejected. Section 413.11(a) provides for where an applicant’s proposal fails to respond within the time an initial screening of an application in contemplates activities, vehicle provided, the FAA will toll the 180-day order for the FAA to determine whether configurations or technologies not statutory review period. the application is sufficiently complete envisioned in the course of this Both Orbital and Rotary Rocket to allow the FAA to initiate the required rulemaking. In that case, it is necessary objected to this provision. Oribital at 5; reviews. The Act requires the FAA to for the regulations to reflect clearly the Rotary Rocket at 5. Neither, however, complete its evaluation of an FAA’s authority to request additional proposed a different solution for application within 180 days. The FAA information prior to issuing a license. addressing the problem of an applicant determines when an application is Although review of an incomplete not supplying requested information in sufficiently complete for the 180 days application may commence, section a timely fashion. For the reasons review period to commence and how 413.13 requires an applicant to discussed above, the FAA adopts the those 180 days will be measured. If the complete an incomplete application, tolling provision. FAA receives an application that fails to and section 413.15 allows for tolling in Section 413.17, which renumbers and provide sufficient information for the the event an applicant does not submit amends former section 413.19, describes FAA to commence a meaningful review, the remaining material in sufficient time an applicant’s responsibility for the then a review cannot be performed. The to avoid affecting the evaluation continuing accuracy and completeness FAA returns applications that are not process. Section 413.15, a new of the information contained in the substantially complete, noting the areas provision, tolls, or stops the clock of, applicant’s license application. Orbital of deficiency. Accordingly, the 180-day the review period of 180 days when an objects to requiring that an applicant review period will start to run only applicant fails to provide information update its application any time it is no upon receipt of an acceptable required for the FAA to complete its longer accurate and complete in all application. review. Although the FAA will respects, and recommends retaining the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19600 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations language of former section 413.19. renewal of the license and must apply National Environmental Policy Act Orbital at 6. The FAA agrees that it need for a new license. (NEPA) requires the FAA, prior to not be advised of any and all changes, considering a license application, to Part 415—Launch License and will therefore incorporate a perform environmental reviews of major materiality standard. An applicant Part 415 establishes requirements federal actions such as issuing a launch should note, however, that the FAA applicable to obtaining a license to license. Accordingly, if a proposed considers a great majority of the launch a launch vehicle and establishes launch vehicle is not otherwise already information required for an application post-licensing requirements. The encompassed by a 1986 Programmatic to be material. Otherwise, the FAA provisions of this part apply to Environmental Assessment of would not require that information. An prospective and licensed launch Commercial Expendable Launch applicant must advise the FAA in a operators and to prospective payload Vehicle Programs, then NEPA may timely manner of any proposed material owners and operators, and should be direct the FAA to perform an additional change in any representation contained read in conjunction with the general environmental review. No other in its application, including, without application requirements of part 413. approvals or determinations are being limited to, its launch plans or This part replaces and amends the required from the FAA in order for an operations, launch procedures, classes former part 415. A flow chart of the applicant to obtain a license for launch of payloads, orbital destinations, safety launch license application process is of a launch vehicle. requirements, the type of launch provided in Figure 1. This subpart also contains new vehicle, flight path, launch site, and Subpart A describes the scope and provisions for issuance and transfer of a launch point, or any safety related types of launch licenses, required launch license. Once an applicant has system, policy, procedure, requirement, approvals or determinations, and obtained all required approvals, the criteria or standard, related to procedures governing issuance or FAA will issue a launch license under commercial space launch or launch site transfer of a launch license. Like the section 415.9. operation activities, that may affect former section 415.1, the new section Section 415.11, a new provision, public health and safety, the safety of 415.1 explains that part 415 prescribes allows the FAA to modify a launch property, including government requirements for obtaining a launch license at any time by modifying or property, or hazards to the environment. license and adds that it prescribes post- adding terms and conditions to the Because the FAA proposes to rely upon licensing requirements. Section 415.3, a license to ensure compliance with the federal launch ranges for launches from new provision arising out of this Act and regulations. Although standard those sites, an applicant must also rulemaking, addresses the types of license terms and conditions, contained launch licenses issued, as discussed notify the FAA in a timely manner in in subpart E, apply to all licensees, it is previously. the event the applicant applies to the the experience of the FAA that a Sections 415.5 and 415.7 identify the federal range for a waiver to, or deviates particular licensee’s launch may present from the federal range’s safety approvals and determinations required to qualify for a launch license. These unique circumstances which apply only requirements or procedures. to that licensee. In that event, the FAA Changes to an application may sections require a license applicant to obtain policy and safety approvals from may issue or modify a license with lengthen the time that the FAA requires terms and conditions not identified in to complete its reviews in support of a the FAA. Section 415.7 constitutes an administrative change, although the subpart E to protect public health and license determination. The FAA will safety, safety of property, U.S. national reserve to itself the right to toll the 180- FAA has conducted payload reviews in the past. This provision requires an security and foreign policy interests, or day review period in the event that any international obligations of the United amendment to an application so applicant to obtain a payload determination unless the payload is States. A licensee may also initiate radically changes the applicant’s license modification.10 proposal that the change, in effect, otherwise exempt from FAA consideration. The owner or operator of Under section 415.13, a new constitutes a new application. The provision, only the FAA may transfer a FAA’s experience, however, has been the proposed payload may also apply for a payload determination. Only a license, and only upon application by that most amendments, while the transferee. The prospective important, have a relatively minor launch license applicant may apply for safety and policy approvals, and, as transferee must satisfy all requirements impact on the processing time, for obtaining a license as specified in particularly if those amendments are with former section 415.5, may apply for either approval separately and in parts 413 and 415. submitted in a timely manner. Subpart B describes the requirements Section 413.19 addresses issuance of advance of submitting a complete for a policy review. To date a policy a license. license application. An applicant Section 413.21 contains the applying for a separate approval should review has been known as a mission procedures employed by the FAA when note, however, that some of the review under former sections 415.21– it denies an applicant a license, and information described as required for 415.25. Because the FAA now separates describes the recourse available to that one approval may be necessary for a a payload determination from any applicant. An applicant may attempt to different approval. In order to avoid mission review, it is changing the name correct the deficiencies that resulted in duplication, the FAA is requesting only of the review to policy review to more the denial of its application and request once material that is relevant to more accurately identify its purpose. Under reconsideration of its application, or it than one review. For example the sections 415.21 and 415.23, a policy may request a hearing to show why the information required by section 415.25 10 Should a licensee wish to protest an FAA application should not be denied. is germane to an FAA safety review modification of its license, it is entitled to a hearing Section 413.23 allows a licensee to although it is also pertinent to a policy pursuant to section 406.1(a)(3) of part 406. In the apply for renewal of an expiring license. review. event safety requires that additional terms and A licensee seeking authorization to In addition to the approvals and conditions be applied to all licensees, the FAA would revise subpart E by rulemaking to implement conduct activities that are substantially determinations that the FAA requires of any such standardized terms. As provided in part different from those authorized under an applicant for a launch license, an 415, a licensee may request modification of its the expiring license is not eligible for applicant should bear in mind that the license to reflect changes in its proposed launches.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19601 review addresses whether some aspect Section 415.25, a new provision, FAA not require an applicant to identify of a proposed launch presents any describes the information an applicant its foreign ownership interests. Kistler at issues affecting U.S. national security or must provide to obtain a policy 10; Lockheed Martin at 7. Kistler foreign policy interests or is approval. As described in the NPRM, recommended that the FAA require, inconsistent with international the information required reflects current instead, a statement from the applicant obligations of the United States. Specific FAA information requests. The FAA that it is in compliance with all federal launch safety issues will be addressed requires this information in order to requirements governing foreign only in a safety review although the inform it and other agencies of what is ownership in certain sensitive FAA will address payload safety issues being launched, by whom, for what industries under 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et in the course of a payload purpose, and where a vehicle and its seq. and 31 CFR Part 800. Kistler notes determination. Only a launch license payload are going. The State that the Treasury Department examines applicant may request a policy Department, for example, may identify and passes upon foreign involvement in approval. An applicant must provide overflight issues regarding particular sensitive industries such as the launch the information required by subpart B so countries. industry. Thus, according to Kistler, the that the FAA may review those aspects Accordingly, the FAA requires that an FAA’s information requirements of an applicant’s launch proposal that applicant supply sufficient information concerning foreign ownership would be are not related to safety. The FAA to describe a proposed launch vehicle duplicative. Lockheed Martin maintains coordinates this review with other and its mission. The information that the FAA offers an insufficient government agencies, including the requested by paragraph 415.25(b) is explanation regarding the purposes of Departments of Defense, State, and required in the event there are any obtaining the information. Commerce, the National Aeronautics policy issues surrounding the launch The statutory and regulatory and Space Administration and the vehicle itself. The FAA requires a brief provisions upon which Kistler relies for Federal Communications Commission. description of the launch vehicle, its argument do address certain Space Access questioned the inclusion including the propellants used and the elements of foreign ownership, but of NASA in the policy review. Space vehicle’s major systems, such as its address a more narrow area of concern Access at 12. Space Access states that structural, pneumatic, propulsion, than identified in the Act. The NASA does not determine U.S. national electrical or avionics systems. Policy provisions of 50 U.S.C. ch. 35— security, foreign policy or questions of questions may arise, for example, over International Emergency Economic international obligations. Id. The FAA’s the use of nuclear power, or the Powers, §§ 1701–1706, apply to the experience has been that NASA, as the Department of Defense may have President’s exercise of authority in a primary civilian government launch concerns over the allocation of national emergency. The FAA, on the operator, often offers insights of value resources to a commercial launch if a other hand, may apply the information with respect to issues of concern. The sole source manufacturer is involved. on a more routine basis, and for its own The information requested by FAA plans to continue to consult with purposes. For example, the FAA has paragraph 415.25(c)(2), that an applicant NASA for a number of reasons. NASA occasion, as with Sea Launch, to identify any foreign ownership interests has a long history of launching determine whether a U.S. citizen of 10% or more means that an applicant expendable launch vehicles, and controls a license applicant for purposes must identify any foreign owner currently operates the Space Shuttle. of ascertaining whether the launch possessing a ten percent or greater operator requires a license. Nor do the NASA also operates a federal launch interest in a license applicant. This regulations Kistler cites address all range . NASA procures launch services provision is intended to provide the forms of foreign ownership. On its face, from the private sector for a wide range FAA and the Departments of State and part 800 only applies to mergers, of satellites and space probes. Also, Defense the identities of foreign acquisitions and takeovers by foreign NASA has programs and assets that it interests involved in a licensed launch. persons. 31 CFR Part 800. There are may wish to bring to the FAA’s The Departments of State and Defense transactions that are not acquisitions attention in the context of a particular have interests in foreign involvement in under part 800. See 31 CFR § 800.302 launch. Accordingly, NASA will remain the U.S. launch industry, including, for and examples provided. In light of the one of the agencies regularly consulted example, issues surrounding technology fact that not all foreign ownership regarding any launch license transfer and national security. The FAA receives scrutiny under part 800, the application. believes that a ten percent ownership FAA finds that its information An applicant may choose to submit an interest is sufficiently high for a foreign requirements concerning foreign application for policy review separately owner to be able to influence a ownership will not duplicate those of from its license application, or, as do prospective licensee. The FAA is aware the Treasury. The FAA also takes note most applicants, it may submit a that a publicly traded corporation will of the fact that part 800 does not alter complete license application. The FAA not always know the identity of each of or affect any other reviews. Accordingly, will allow separate submission of a its smaller shareholders. However, such because the FAA itself may require the request for a policy review because of an applicant should be aware of any information regarding foreign the possibility that an applicant might shareholders possessing that significant ownership in order to determine be uncertain about policy issues an interest in the corporation. Reporting whether a U.S. citizen exercises control surrounding its proposal, and might requirements of the Securities and over an applicant, because the wish to allay concerns over reactions to Exchange Commission and the Departments of State and Defense have any proposed launch. An applicant Department of Defense are often interests in foreign ownership issues, might then request only a policy review triggered by an ownership interest of ten and because the Treasury regulations do prior to undertaking the additional percent or even less, and the FAA not address all forms of foreign effort necessary to prepare a complete believes that this constitutes a ownership, the FAA adopts paragraph license application. Past experience reasonable threshold. 415.25(c)(2) as proposed. indicates that the FAA accomplishes Through the comment process, Kistler Section 415.25(d)(2) requires an these reviews relatively quickly in Aerospace Corporation and Lockheed applicant to identify proposed vehicle comparison with a safety review. Martin Corporation requested that the flight profiles. Space Access maintains
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19602 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations that compliance may be difficult when maneuvers and engine cutoff. An reconsideration of the denial, or, upon planning large numbers of launches. To applicant may provide this information denial of a license, it may request a date, it has been the experience of the through a text explanation or through hearing. The final version of this FAA that compliance is possible. An diagrams and charts. provision differs slightly from what the applicant may satisfy this requirement Section 415.25(d)(4) requests a NPRM proposed. The NPRM stated that by providing a range of proposed flight description of the range of nominal an applicant who was denied a policy azimuths, trajectories, ground tracks, impact areas for all spent motors and approval could reapply. In order to and instantaneous impact points. other discarded mission hardware. The avoid confusion, the provision now Launch frequency should not affect an area identified for each impacting permits an applicant to request the component shall include that area accurately identified range of flight FAA’s reconsideration of its denial. This profiles. In any event, this same within three standard deviations of the makes clear that the FAA need only information is also used by the FAA in nominal impact point, a calculation reconsider an issue once rather than an its safety review and is critical to otherwise known as a 3-sigma footprint. assessing public risk. Section 415.27 contains procedures unlimited number of times. The Section 415.25(d)(3) requires employed by the FAA when it denies an particular issue in controversy may information regarding the sequence of applicant a policy approval and serve as one of the reasons for major launch events during flight. In describes the recourse available to that requesting a hearing before an this regard, the FAA expects to be applicant. If an applicant fails to obtain administrative law judge after denial of informed of events such as approximate a policy approval, the applicant may a license. engine burn times of all stages, stage attempt to correct the deficiencies BILLING CODE 4910±13±P separation events, pitch and yaw which resulted in the denial and request
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19603
BILLING CODE 4910±13±C
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19604 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart C addresses the FAA’s safety example, affect the FAA’s ability to rely of the federal launch range upon which evaluation process for license on a federal launch range. The FAA may the applicant proposes to rely, and those applications for launch from a federal ascertain this during the course of a pre- of any other organization providing launch range. This subpart is new and application consultation or once an flight safety services. The applicant’s replaces the former subpart B—Safety applicant submits its application, or description must include interfaces with Review, 14 CFR 415.11–415.17. Because through its communications regarding the federal launch range and should of the history and safety record of the launch activities with the federal ranges. explain how the safety policies and federal launch ranges, and because the The FAA may then require the applicant procedures of all segments of the safety FAA’s baseline assessments provide a to demonstrate safety with respect to organization identified above will be written record of the federal launch those specific areas of concern on an implemented. range’s experience relevant to individual or case by case basis. In Section 415.33(b) requires an commercial space transportation, the addition to requiring a showing of safety applicant to have a safety official FAA accepts that a federal launch range from the applicant, the FAA will also possessing authority to examine launch will perform its safety role. Accordingly, work with the federal launch range to safety operations and to monitor the FAA’s information requirements are address the issue, and will update the independently personnel compliance directed more toward an applicant’s FAA’s baseline assessment as with safety policies and procedures. In own safety capabilities and its appropriate. order to keep safety concerns separate integration with a federal launch range’s The FAA also makes maximum use of from mission goals, the person safety organization. The FAA requires the information an applicant must responsible for safety should have the information regarding an applicant’s provide a federal launch range. The ability to perform independently of safety organization, vehicle design and applicant, to save paperwork, may those parts of the applicant’s operational safety practices. This submit to the FAA either entire, or organization responsible for mission subpart includes standards regarding appropriate sections of, documents it assurance, and should also have the acceptable flight risk and requires an prepares and submits to a federal launch authority to report directly to the applicant to submit procedures and range that are relevant to the applicant’s licensee’s personnel in charge of plans that demonstrate that it will launch application. It has been the licensed launches. The safety official satisfy certain other safety requirements FAA’s experience that because should be identified by name, title or if it obtains a license. information requested by federal launch position, and by qualifications. The FAA recognizes that federal ranges provides greater detail than the Orbital suggests that a safety official launch ranges provide a number of FAA requires, the FAA’s requirements should not be required to report to safety services for launch operators, and may be satisfied by this material. someone who has a vested interest in that these sites have an historically good Section 415.33 requires an applicant the outcome of the launch. Orbital at 7. record of safety. Section 415.31 explains to document its safety organization. An According to Orbital, such a person that the FAA will issue a license to an applicant must possess a functioning might be in a position to exert undue applicant proposing to launch from a safety organization because an applicant influence or pressure on the safety federal launch range if the applicant cannot ensure safety without someone official. Id. When it proposed this satisfies the requirements of subpart C designated as responsible for safety requirement, the FAA intended just the and has contracted with the federal issues. The FAA will evaluate whether opposite. The FAA intended that the launch range for the range to provide the structure, lines of communication, safety official have authority to report launch services and property, as long as and approval authority an applicant directly to the person in charge of the safety related launch services and establishes will enable the applicant to licensed launches in order to ensure proposed use of property are within the identify and address safety issues and to that safety decisions were made at experience of the federal launch range. ensure compliance with the appropriately elevated levels, rather All other safety services and property requirements of range safety and the than becoming low priority issues associated with an applicant’s proposal FAA’s regulations. How a federal launch buried in the lower levels of an are evaluated on an individual, case by range’s safety services are integrated organization. As noted in the NPRM, the case basis. with the licensee is also relevant. The FAA intends the reporting to ensure that The FAA has assessed the four federal FAA expects that for launches from the person responsible for the licensed launch ranges which provide launch federal launch ranges an applicant will launch ensure that all of a safety services and facilities. The federal structure its safety organization to official’s concerns are addressed prior to ranges assessed include Cape Canaveral ensure compliance with federal launch launch. Accordingly, because both the Air Station, Vandenberg Air Force Base, range requirements, such as, for safety official and the person Wallops Flight Facility and White Sands example, Eastern and Western Range responsible for licensed launch possess Missile Range. The FAA does not Regulation 127–1 for Air Force launch safety obligations, no conflict of interest duplicate federal launch range analyses ranges. The FAA believes that charts are should exist. The FAA also believes that or routinely review those analyses the most efficient way to depict much this decision reflects a reality within during the launch safety review of the required information, and industry, namely, that the person in conducted by the FAA. Instead, the encourages applicants to include one or charge of mission success may well FAA relies on its knowledge of the more, as appropriate, organizational make final decisions regarding safety. range processes as documented in the charts that will delineate the lines of The regulations impose safety FAA’s baseline assessments. The FAA’s communication and the internal obligations on that individual as well. assessments provide a basis for the decision making process. The lines of Space Access also questioned this FAA’s reliance on the adequacy of the communication must depict the lines of provision, querying the value of an services provided by each of the federal communication within the applicant’s applicant identifying the qualifications launch ranges. Some safety issues, organizational structure, and between of a safety official’s position. Space however, may not be adequately the applicant and any federal launch Access believes that this could result in addressed by a federal launch range. range providing launch services. In an applicant identifying the The failure of federal launch range providing this information, the qualifications of the position even safety systems or procedures may, for applicant should include those services though the individual performing the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19605 job is not qualified. In order to clarify course of day to day activities, and finds Collective risk is estimated prior to the FAA’s intent, section 415.33(b) now that voluntary risk provides an launch, and constitutes the sum total states that an applicant shall identify acceptable basis of comparison for launch related risk to that part of the the safety official by name, title, and determining acceptable risk. Moreover, public exposed to the hazards of a qualifications. An applicant must show even when compared to involuntary launch. The public includes everyone that there is a relationship between the risk, as Space Access recommends, if except launch personnel. Government individual’s experience and the FAA’s collective risk measure is personnel who are not essential to a responsibilities. The FAA agrees with described in terms of its individual risk launch are defined as the public for Space Access that a safety official’s counterpart, the measure compares purposes of measuring acceptable risk. experience be provided. The FAA will favorably. The FAA’s standard derives from not at this time impose requirements Section 415.35(a) requires that launch risk guidance employed by the governing the particulars of a person’s acceptable flight risk through orbital Air Force at its Eastern Range, Cape education and years of experience. insertion for an orbital launch vehicle, Canaveral Air Station, and its Western Instead, it will rely on the performance and through impact for a suborbital Range, Vandenberg Air Force Base, to standard articulated in 415.33(b). launch vehicle, be measured in terms of define acceptable risk. The FAA adopts Although risk is inherent in the collective risk. Pursuant to section this standard because the FAA believes launch of a launch vehicle, section 415.35(a), the collective risk associated that commercial launches should not 415.35, which is promulgated through with debris from an applicant’s expose the public to risk greater than this rulemaking, establishes limits on proposed launch, measured by casualty normal background risk, which the FAA how much risk the FAA will allow for expectancy, shall not exceed 0.00003 defined in its NPRM as those risks ¥6 a licensed launch. The FAA has (30 × 10 ) casualties per launch. Ec voluntarily accepted in the course of clarified this section from that originally represents the FAA’s measure of the normal day-to-day activities. The FAA proposed in the NPRM to better describe collective risk to the population is using the Air Force standard because the FAA’s expected casualty (Ec) exposed to the launch of a launch it reflects the standard already in place measure of risk by deleting ‘‘the vehicle. The measure represents the for the majority of commercial U.S. probability of occurrence’’ and expected average number of casualties launches, and for the majority of including mention of suborbital launch for a specific launch mission. In other government launches of vehicles of a vehicles. The FAA is also classifying the words, if there were thousands of the comparable size. No casualties arising scope of the hazards addressed. An Ec same mission conducted and all the out of a government or commercial measure reflects risk from debris, not casualties were added up and the sum launch have occurred to the public from toxic releases or blast divided by the number of missions, the under this standard. It is the FAA’s overpressure, which the federal launch answer and the mission’s expected understanding that although the Air ranges handle through other means. casualty should statistically be the Force published this figure in 1995, it Additionally, the proposed term same. This Ec value defines acceptable did so because it found that this figure ‘‘collective risk’’ in the second sentence collective risk.11 best represented historical launch risk is now deleted to state more specifically levels. 11 that an applicant’s proposed launch The Ec value adopted originated with the Air The FAA is aware that the Air Force shall not exceed an expected average Force’s stated measure of acceptable risk. ‘‘Eastern implements this standard as ‘‘acceptable and Western Range 127–1 Range Safety launch risk without high management number of 30 casualties in one million Requirements,’’ Sec. 1.4(d), 1–12 (Mar. 31, 1995). launches. This phrasing still describes Space Access brought a number of risk levels to the (Range Commander) review.’’ ‘‘Eastern collective risk, but with more precision. FAA’s attention, requesting that the FAA reconcile and Western Range 127–1 Range Safety With these clarifying editorial changes, the apparent discrepancies between those risk Requirements,’’ Sec. 1.4.1, 1–12. This levels, including the agency’s own past descriptions means that based on national need and the FAA now adopts its measure of of risk levels, and the FAA’s proposed risk measure. ¥6 acceptable risk of Ec ≤ 30 × 10 per A rulemaking is the appropriate mechanism for the the approval of a range or wing launch. FAA to adopt new standards. Thus, although the commander the Air Force may allow a The FAA received comments FAA now adopts a standard different than those its launch with a predicted expected earlier reviews described, this rulemaking provides × ¥6 regarding its proposed risk threshold. the forum for doing so. The conflicts Space Access casualty risk of greater than 30 10 . Boeing supported the FAA’s proposal. identifies stem, in relevant part, from the fact that Id. As mentioned in the NPRM, the FAA Boeing at 1. Space Access argued that the risk figures Space Access cites pre-date the recognizes that many commercial the Ec was insufficiently strict, and Eastern and Western Ranges’ publication of an launches carry government payloads, ¥6 acceptable risk threshold of Ec ≤ 30 × 10 . For should be compared to involuntary example, although it is true that DOT’s ‘‘Hazard and that there may be a national need rather than voluntary risk. Space Access Analysis of Commercial Space Transportation’’ to launch a critical national payload recommended an individual risk (1988) (‘‘DOT Hazard Analysis’’) states that the with a predicted launch risk of greater ¥7 ¥6 threshold of Ec ≤ 1 × 10 . Space Access Department of Defense (DOD) ranges do not have than 30 × 10 . An applicant proposing published standards for acceptable levels of public at 11. The FAA anticipates that a better risk, DOD’s Eastern and Western Ranges have since to launch a government payload, where explanation of what Ec measures and the published the risk criteria on which the FAA now the launch would not meet the FAA’s differences between individual and bases its own measure. Likewise, ‘‘Financial risk requirement, would have to request collective risk will respond to Space Responsibility for Reentry Vehicle Operations,’’ a waiver from the FAA and show that × DOT, 27 (May 1995) describes general background Access’ arguments against an Ec of 30 risk as 1 × 10¥6 per year. Prior to 1990, a collective national need warranted waiver of this ¥ 6 ¥6 10 . In short, when expressed in terms risk of Ec ≤ 1 × 10 was thought to be the typical standard. The FAA would work with of individual risk, the FAA’s collective safety level at the DOD ranges. However, studies any government payload owner or risk measure satisfies the concerns using the most up to date models for predicting operator to resolve such an issue. The risk, undertaken to support the effort by the Eastern voiced by Space Access. Space Access and Western Ranges to adopt a common standard FAA establishes this standard, however, also maintains that a comparison to showed that this was not always the case. The Air for all commercial launches, so that the ¥6 voluntary risk is inappropriate and that Force eventually published an Ec ≤ 30 × 10 in involuntary risk provides the better 1995 instead. Again, the ‘‘Commercial Launch relatively simple calculation of risk in the launch measure. The FAA, however, like the Baseline Assessment for US Air Force Western area for a representative launch, and provides an Space and Missile Center’’ DOT, 79, Sec. D.7.e (Jul. example of the risks rather than a worst case limit. ¥7 Air Force, defines background risk as 1989) states that Ec should lie between 1.9 × 10 This estimate today proves low with the availability the risk voluntarily accepted in the and 4.6 × 10¥7. The referenced passage was a of more accurate data.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19606 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations general public will not be exposed to a total launch related risk, that is, the No. 97/350–2.1–01, ACTA, for the higher than normal risk from a probability of injury or death to that part Department of the Air Force, 30th and commercial activity. of the public exposed to a launch. 45th Space Wings (Sept. 1997) 12. ACTA The FAA also recognizes that the Collective risk is analogous to an estimated the average annual accidental federal launch ranges may perform estimate of the average number of fatality probability for any individual, separate Ec analyses for three different people hit by lightning each year, while which is defined as all accidental causes hazard categories, including debris, individual annual risk would be an of death. ACTA estimated the fatality toxic releases and blast overpressure. individual’s likelihood of being hit by probability by adding the estimated When the FAA relies on a federal lightning in any given year. Collective annual individual fatality probability launch range’s Ec analysis to determine risk may be expressed in terms of from accidents outside the home and whether the FAA Ec requirement is met, individual risk if certain factors the reported annual individual fatality the FAA is interested only in the debris associated with any given launch are probability from accidents in the home. analysis performed by a range, and this taken into account. Also, individual risk This excludes risk of disease. ACTA provision makes that clear. For toxic may be—and will be, in most estimated a total risk of 2 × 10¥4. Id. at releases and blast overpressure, the instances—less than collective risk, 18. The FAA’s measure of acceptable federal launch ranges implement depending on the size of the population risk for casualties may be as much as specific safety requirements designed to exposed. For example, a collective risk four orders of magnitude lower than this ¥6 keep toxic releases and the effects of of Ec of 30 × 10 for a defined accident death risk. The comparison blast from reaching the public. For population of one hundred thousand may only be made, of course, by example, if more than a given number people exposed to a particular launch translating the FAA’s collective risk of parts per million of a toxic release results (assuming the risk is spread measure into individual risk and by would reach people, a launch will be equally throughout the defined employing the same time scale for both. delayed until conditions improve. population) in a probability of injury or If the comparison is made on an annual Likewise, if atmospheric effects threaten death to any one individual exposed of basis, and the example of an exposed to carry overpressure impact to persons 3 × 10¥10 (three per ten billion). population of 100,000 persons outside the federal launch site, a launch In its comments, Space Access argued continues to be employed, then will be delayed. Because these measures for a stricter standard on the basis of individual risk for a launch is, as achieve safety, the FAA will rely on what it understood to be other measures mentioned earlier, 3 × 10¥10. Assuming them rather than implementing an Ec of risk. Space Access analyzed the 100 launches per year, then the analysis requirement for toxic releases FAA’s proposed measure in terms of individual annual risk results in a figure and blast overpressure. two categories: background risk, which of 3 × 10¥8, which is four orders of Space Access raised the question of may be further categorized as a magnitude lower than the risks, both × ¥6 whether an Ec of 30 10 meant that combination of voluntary and voluntary and involuntary, of day to day if an accident occurred and 100,000 involuntary risk, and other launch risk activity. people were exposed then 3 deaths thresholds. Contrary to the contentions Space Access also makes the point would occur. Space Access at 8. The of Space Access, the FAA finds that the that the FAA would have to assign a FAA wishes to take advantage of this comparison to voluntary risks is maximum number of launches per opportunity to clarify the concepts appropriate. Even, however, when launch site if the agency intends involved. Ec is the expected average compared to involuntary risk, if the acceptable risk to remain below number of casualties per launch of a risks of launch are expressed in terms of background risk. In the NPRM, the FAA launch vehicle. The consequence individual risk, launch risk usually acknowledged that its standard is based measured is casualties, which includes compares favorably. In fact, it is on present launch rates, and it still finds serious injury as well as deaths, and the possible to have an unacceptably high that this threshold is appropriate for the measure is per event, namely, launch. expected casualty value while still scope and frequency of launch Space Access based its question on the having an extremely low individual risk operations planned over the next several assumption that 30 × 10¥6 is ‘‘3 per level. years. Even if launch rates increase by 100,000’’ persons. That Ec is a measure Space Access inquired whether the an order of magnitude, individual of casualties rather than deaths aside, proposed standard appropriately reflects annual risk will still compare favorably expected casualty is measured for each risk levels voluntarily accepted by the with other voluntary and involuntary event, which, in this case is a single public in normal daily activity. risks. An exponential rise in launch launch. Although Space Access is, of Voluntary risk provides an appropriate rates may require a reassessment, ¥6 course, correct that an Ec of 30 × 10 comparison. The FAA defines although the FAA does not foresee an is equivalent to 3 per 100,000, the background risk in the context of its exponential increase in launch rates in 100,000 refers not to exposed persons, statutory mandate to regulate and the near term. but to the number of launches that facilitate the commercial launch Space Access also suggests that other would have to be conducted before one industry. Congress has chosen to accept launch risk standards provide the would expect statistically that total the risk of launch in order to reap the proper measure of acceptable risk. number of casualties. One would have benefits attendant to the activity. Space Access notes that the 1988 DOT to launch 100,000 times to statistically Recognizing that this country has Hazard Analysis states that ‘‘acceptable reach 3 casualties. decided to accept these risks, the FAA risk criteria’’ for NASA’s Wallops Flight ¥7 Space Access sought clarification on believes, as the federal launch ranges do Facility (WFF) is Ec ≤ 1 × 10 . Space the differences between individual and (see ‘‘Eastern and Western Range 127– Access at 10. As noted in its NPRM the collective risk. In contrast to the more 1 Range Safety Requirements’’, Sec. FAA recognizes that WFF does not use familiar measure of risk, namely, 1.4(d), 1–12), that it is appropriate to an expected casualty standard of Ec ≤ 30 individual risk, which describes the compare launch risks to other measures probability of serious injury or death to of voluntary risk. A recent study proves 12 ACTA prepared this study in support of Range a single person, the launch industry’s helpful for making that comparison. See Commander’s Council Standard 321–97, which articulates federal launch range policies and criteria common measure of risk is collective Acceptable Risk Criteria for Launches for protection of personnel, aircraft, ships, and risk. Collective risk constitutes the sum from National Ranges: Rationale, Rep. spacecraft.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19607
× 10¥6. Although at the time of the As an alternative to relying on federal ensure that the hazard controls will be publication of DOT’s Hazard Analysis launch range procedures, an applicant effective. ¥7 WFF may have reported Ec ≤ 1 × 10 , may perform its own quantitative risk Section 415.37(a), which was since that time, NASA has stated that analysis. Pursuant to section 415.35(b), originally proposed as section 415.37(c), WFF uses an Ec of less than or equal to although an applicant may submit a implements the FAA’s current flight 1 × 10¥6. ‘‘Range Safety Manual for federal launch range risk analysis, the readiness guidelines. As noted in the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/ applicant bears the burden of NPRM, the requirements arise out of Wallops Flight Facility,’’ 24 (Jun. 23, demonstrating that predicted risk does recommendations from a National 1993); Beyma, ‘‘Flight Safety Range not exceed an expected casualty of 30 × Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Officer Training Manual, NASA/ 10¥6. To assist applicants, the FAA has investigation 14 of an anomaly that Wallops Flight Facility,’’ 2 (Sept. 1993). documented the range safety process for occurred during a commercial launch The FAA must choose one standard. each of the federal launch ranges. A from a federal launch range. The level of safety at the Eastern and launch hazard event tree, such as the Requirements intended to ensure the Western Ranges, represented by the one described in the DOT Hazard readiness of a launch team include collective risk standard of Ec ≤ 30 × Analysis of Commercial Space designation of an individual responsible 10¥6 has resulted in no harm to the Transportation, page 10–29, provides an for flight readiness, launch readiness public. The vast majority of U.S. acceptable method for identifying reviews, rules and abort procedures and, commercial launches take place from hazards and assessing risks. countdown checklists, dress rehearsals CCAS and VAFB. The FAA therefore Section 415.35(c), which was procedures, and procedures for crew finds that this accepted standard is proposed in the NPRM as section rest. appropriate for all licensed launches. 415.37(a), ensures that an applicant The FAA recognizes that there are identify the design of its launch vehicle. many reviews conducted of a launch Space Access also maintains that in system from its initial design up to ≤ In its application, an applicant shall order to adopt an Ec standard of Ec 30 identify and describe its launch flight. However, in section 415.37(a)(1), × ¥6 10 , the FAA would have to obtain vehicle’s design, including its structure the FAA places special emphasis on a NASA’s acceptance. This is not in fact and the vehicle’s hazardous and safety- flight readiness review, or its the case. NASA and the FAA have critical systems, and provide drawings equivalent. A review is typically different roles. Commercial launches are and schematics for each system conducted not more than one or two regulated by the FAA, not NASA. As the identified. Because federal launch days prior to scheduled flight. In most operator of a launch site, NASA is free ranges require an applicant to provide a cases a flight readiness review is to require a different measure of detailed description of the applicant’s standard practice at federal launch acceptable risk than that required by the launch vehicle and its systems, ranges, but the FAA considers the FAA. Any FAA licensed commercial including drawings and schematics, an review, and the topics required in this launch, regardless of where it takes applicant may satisfy the requirements section, to be so important that the place, must, however, at least meet FAA of this paragraph by providing the FAA applicant must, in its application, standards, even were a particular federal with a copy of all or appropriate commit to a meeting and identify the launch range to impose less stringent portions of the documentation provided topics to be addressed. This review requirements. In this case, the more to a federal launch range. The FAA will must ensure that all system and stringent NASA standard with which a not use the data to duplicate the federal personnel readiness problems are user of WFF would have to comply does launch range’s design approval process, identified and are associated with a plan not conflict with the FAA standard. but to document the characteristics of to resolve them, that all systems needed Paragraph 415.35(b), which the NPRM the launch vehicle being licensed and for flight have been checked out and are proposed as paragraph 415.35(c), upon which the hazard identification ready, and that each participant is requires an applicant to submit an and risk assessment are based. cognizant of his or her role on the day analysis that identifies the hazards and Section 415.35(d) requires that an of flight. If this review reveals assesses the risks for flight under applicant’s launch vehicle be operated unresolved issues, the licensee will be nominal and non-nominal conditions.13 in a manner that meets the criteria of able to assess its ability to resolve those This requirement has been modified to paragraph 415.35(a). To that end, an issues before the intended launch time clarify that the risk assessment serves applicant must describe the launch or to delay the flight, as appropriate. the purpose of demonstrating operations and procedures that the Section 415.37(a)(2) requires an compliance with paragraphs 415.35(a). applicant will employ to mitigate risks applicant to possess procedures that A federal launch range will sometimes for flight. The applicant should ensure mission constraints, rules and perform a quantitative analysis for flight eliminate or control by design and abort procedures are contained in a until orbital insertion, or for a suborbital operations all identified hazards to the single document approved by licensee mission until impact. A range may levels specified in paragraph (a). flight safety and federal launch range personnel. determine that an analysis of previously Typical hazard controls for flight until Section 415.37(a)(3) requires an approved missions applies or may serve orbital insertion used at current federal launch ranges include flight termination applicant to employ procedures that as a basis for a comparative analysis. If ensure that all launch countdown an applicant’s previously submitted systems, and, for suborbital launches, azimuth and elevation adjustments checklists are current and consistent. application contains a risk assessment, Past inconsistencies in critical the applicant need not submit based on a wind weighting analysis. Other hazard controls may involve countdown checklists and procedures additional analyses for similar launches. modifying a vehicle trajectory to avoid have raised serious safety concerns. The In such cases, a comparative analysis high risk areas, and delaying launch FAA recognizes that it may be may be supplied. until more favorable conditions exist. An applicant for a license to launch 14 ‘‘Special Investigation Report, Commercial 13 This section is renumbered in order to from a federal launch range may rely on Space Launch Incident, Launch Procedure accommodate the move of the NPRM’s proposed Anomaly, Orbital Sciences Corporation Pegasus/ paragraph 415.35(b) into section 415.39, which the methods used by federal launch SCD–1 80 Nautical Miles East of Cape Canaveral, addresses safety at the end of launch. ranges to identify hazard controls and to Florida,’’ NTSB (Feb. 9, 1993).
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19608 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations impractical for all launch participants to termination decision. In the NPRM, the countdown or a recycle procedure, and have identical checklists due to FAA noted its interest in views as to any under what specific conditions. This differences in the roles of launch need for future standards relating to will help eliminate confusion and cross- participants. The applicant should, rehearsals and the criteria for deciding, talk that could cause a however, have some process, such as a based on performance during the miscommunication leading to an unsafe master countdown manual, to ensure rehearsal, that it is acceptable to condition. In addition, the FAA requires the currency and consistency of all proceed with the launch. In response, that everyone who has a decision- participants’ checklists during Space Access suggested that no making role, or who, by action or countdown to flight. This will ensure discrepancies be permitted for a inaction can either prevent or allow a that confusion and uncertainties on nominal profile, and only minor launch to take place, be on the same launch day are minimized, that flight discrepancies be permitted for failure predetermined channel during safety critical procedures are completed profiles, if the discrepancies involve countdown and flight. successfully, and that those individuals non-critical actions. Space Access at 11. Under section 415.39, which was with launch decision authority know The FAA agrees, and will interpret included in the NPRM as paragraph what is going on and are able to make section 415.37(a)(4)(i) according to 415.35(b), an applicant must sound decisions. Space Access’ recommendation. demonstrate that for any proposed Section 415.37(a)(4) requires an Section 415.37(a)(5) responds to launch that for all launch vehicle stages applicant to have procedures for the another NTSB recommendation, and or components that reach earth orbit conduct of dress rehearsals. As requires that an applicant ensure that its that there will be no unintended demonstrated in the past, poor flight safety personnel adhere to federal physical contact of the vehicle or its performance at a dress rehearsal may launch range crew rest rules. Experience components with its payload after indicate a lack of readiness of has shown that launch crew rest criteria payload separation. The applicant’s individuals or systems responsible for for all those involved in supporting proposal must also ensure that debris safety. An applicant’s procedures launch operations are extremely generation will not result from the should include criteria for determining important and can have a significant conversion of energy sources into when dress rehearsals are not necessary. impact on public health and safety. energy that fragments the vehicle or its A number of launch companies, for Federal launch ranges typically have components. In addition, although not example, have been conducting routine such requirements. Based on current specifically proposed in the NPRM, the launches of the same vehicle for many knowledge and the demonstrated safety FAA now adds paragraph (c) to specify years. The FAA recognizes that although history of the federal ranges, the FAA required measures that prevent the dress rehearsals may not be necessary in would consider adequate adherence to conversion of energy sources into every case, they may be critical to those these requirements. Other rest criteria energy that fragments a vehicle or its launch companies that are new to a proposed by an applicant may be components, unless other measures are launch site, to those that have acceptable if the applicant requests a approved in the course of the licensing significant changes in personnel, or to waiver of the FAA’s rules and process. The FAA discussed the new those launching a new launch vehicle. demonstrates that the criteria would be measures in the NPRM. Even those launch operators that adequate. Those involved in commercial, routinely conduct launches typically Section 415.37(b) and (c), originally defense and scientific uses of space have certain criteria and procedures in proposed as a separate section, 415.39, have been voicing a growing space place to verify that a launch team is require an applicant to submit a safety concern due to the increasing ready for launch, especially if a communications plan that ensures that number of objects being placed in orbit, considerable period of time has elapsed licensee and federal launch range which increases the potential for since the last launch took place. In this personnel receive safety-critical collisions between objects in space. regard, Space Access recommends that information during countdown and Collisions in turn create additional the FAA impose a currency requirement flight. The NTSB, after its investigation objects, increasing the potential for of 45 days. Space Access at 11. The FAA of a launch anomaly, concluded that harm or damage. The operation of will take the recommendation into effective communications are critical to launch vehicles in space affects and is account in future rulemakings, but for the conduct of a safe flight. Everyone affected by hazards associated with the time being declines to impose a involved in a launch needs to know not space debris. Accordingly, the currency requirement of 45 days. The only what channel has been assigned for requirements of this section serve to need for dress rehearsals is driven by particular communications, but also the mitigate hazards associated with space issues specific to particular vehicles, proper protocol for communicating on debris. Federal launch ranges perform a including the number of personnel that channel. The FAA recognizes that collision avoidance analysis, or required to launch the vehicle, the a number of different individuals conjunction on launch assessment, complexity of their tasks, and the typically have input and decision commonly referred to as a COLA, prior amount of communication required authority with respect to the readiness to launch only to ensure that manned or among team members to launch safely. of various launch and safety systems. potentially manned spacecraft will not For those situations where dress Past experience has shown that serious be affected through orbital insertion. rehearsals are necessary, the dress mishaps could result if these The FAA has elected to adopt only rehearsal should simulate both nominal relationships are not clearly defined and selected debris mitigation practices that and non-nominal conditions, induced understood by all parties. These are of almost universal applicability. It not only by the launch vehicle or relationships must therefore be has not, for example, opted for requiring payload, but by the range safety system identified by the applicant. Identifying collision avoidance measures or post- as well. Anomalies introduced during persons with authority to make ‘‘hold’’ mission disposal, or for specifying a the rehearsal should exercise and prove and ‘‘go/no-go’’ decisions is critical to minimum lifetime on orbit. the abilities of all launch participants, ensuring that on launch day, everyone Orbital noted in its comments that including federal launch range knows who can call a ‘‘hold’’ and, more preventing unplanned contact is a personnel, to recognize an event that importantly, who has the authority to primary goal of each launch because it compels a launch hold, delay or flight authorize the resumption of the ‘‘represents sound technical,
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19609 operational, safety and financial line valves open, venting pressurized Under subpart D, the FAA conducts a business practice,’’ rendering a systems, leaving batteries in a payload review and determination regulation prohibiting such contact permanent discharge state, and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 70104(c). The unnecessary. Orbital at 10. Orbital removing any remaining sources of Act provides that the Secretary of recommends that the prohibition on stored energy, or other equivalent Transportation may prevent the launch unintended contact be deleted or procedures. The practices enumerated of a particular payload if the Secretary modified so that rather than ensuring in paragraph (c) should satisfy the determines that the payload’s launch there be no contact, such contact be requirement in paragraph (b). would jeopardize the public health and prevented ‘‘to the fullest extent A number of standard industry safety, safety of property, or national feasible.’’ Id. For the reasons stated in practices reduce potential on-orbit risks security or foreign policy interests, or the NPRM the FAA now implements arising out of flight following orbital international obligations of the United this requirement. In light of the fact that insertion. A launch operator may States. Subpart D explains when a preventing unplanned contact is already maneuver its launch vehicle orbital payload review and determination are a primary goal of a launch operator, the stage after payload separation to required and the elements of that FAA does not consider the requirement minimize the likelihood that the orbital review. Addition of this subpart unduly burdensome. At the time of the stage will recontact the payload. This constitutes a change from the FAA’s NPRM, the FAA intended that the avoids the consequences of either a current practice because the payload original requirement constitute a malfunctioning payload or orbital review will no longer be performed as performance standard that could be debris. In order to reduce the possibility part of the policy review. This subpart implemented in any manner that of future explosions that could create allows either a launch license applicant achieved the goal, thus avoiding an orbital debris, a launch operator must or a payload owner or operator to apply overly intrusive degree of regulation. render liquid fueled orbital stages as for a payload determination separately Orbital’s recommendation that a inert as possible by expelling all from a launch license application, as licensee ensure against unplanned propellants and pressurants and was also provided under the former contact ‘‘to the fullest extent feasible’’ protecting batteries from spontaneous section 415.23 of a mission review. A cannot be adopted because it only adds explosion. A launch operator may keep launch license applicant’s decision to ambiguity to what is required. Ensuring stage-to-stage separation devices and seek a payload determination separately against an event is a clear requirement. other potential debris sources captive to from a license application might be It means that the event must not occur. a stage with lanyards or other means. based on uncertainty with respect to Ensuring against that event to the fullest Also, a launch operator may choose payload issues and a desire to gain a extent feasible raises questions launch times to geosynchronous transfer payload determination before regarding whether something need not orbit designed to align the final orbit of undertaking the additional effort be done if it is technically not feasible, the orbital stage so as to lower the required to prepare a complete launch too expensive or for some other reason. perigee of the stage more quickly than license application. The FAA does not discern a reason for other orbits. Although a payload determination is making such distinctions that outweigh Section 415.41 requires an applicant required for a license, it is not the safety benefits of requiring a to submit an accident investigation necessarily a requirement imposed on a licensee to prevent unplanned contact. plan. The accident investigation plan license applicant. An applicant need not Orbital also maintains that it is must comply with the reporting itself apply for a payload determination impossible to ensure that debris requirements identified in section if a determination has otherwise been generation will not result from the 415.41(b), and must contain procedures issued to a payload owner or operator. conversion of energy sources into for responding to a launch accident, In addition to the fact that many energy that fragments the vehicle as incident or other mishap. As noted in payloads are exempt from FAA required by paragraph (b). Although the discussion of the definition of consideration, an applicant may Orbital is correct that it is impossible to ‘‘mishap,’’ the proposed rules have been incorporate by reference a payload ensure with utter certainty that energy modified to require notification of determination issued earlier to the will not fragment the vehicle, or, indeed mishaps only above a threshold severity applicant or to a payload owner or that any given event could be prevented level. operator. Alternatively, an applicant with utter certainty, there are practices Section 415.43 contains the may reference a separate application that have been shown to prevent this procedures employed by the FAA when submitted by another launch license occurrence. As noted in the NPRM, the it denies an applicant a safety approval applicant for a payload determination FAA is aware of a number of standard and describes the recourse available to and request that the FAA incorporate its industry practices designed to prevent that applicant. If an applicant fails to earlier determination. or reduce this on-orbit risk. These obtain a safety approval, the applicant The FAA does not believe that this practices include depleting residual may attempt to correct the deficiencies flexible approach affects the statutory fuels and leaving fuel lines valves open, which resulted in the denial and request requirement that the FAA complete its venting pressurized systems, and reconsideration of the denial, or, upon license application review within 180 leaving batteries in a permanent denial of a license, it may request a days. Submission of a request for a discharge state. These practices are hearing. The final version of this payload determination does not routine. The NPRM intended to require provision differs slightly from what the constitute the filing of a complete that these practices be employed for all NPRM proposed. The NPRM stated that application, and a license application is commercial launches, rather than an applicant who was denied a safety not complete without a request for a ignored for reasons of cost or otherwise. approval could reapply. In order to payload determination. The FAA stated The FAA recently uncovered ambiguity avoid confusion, the provision now in its NPRM that it was considering in the proposed requirements. permits an applicant to request the issuing conditional licenses on those Therefore, the FAA now clarifies the FAA’s reconsideration of its denial. This occasions when a request for a payload requirement by specifying that a makes clear that the FAA need only determination had yet to be completed. licensee must remove stored energy by reconsider an issue once rather than an This would mean that a license would depleting residual fuels and leaving fuel unlimited number of times. be issued subject to or conditional upon
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19610 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations issuance of a payload determination. The FAA must take this opportunity determination could reapply. In order to The FAA once issued a conditional to clarify an issue raised by the avoid confusion, the provision now license to an applicant who proposed to comments of Kistler Aerospace permits an applicant to request the launch a reentry vehicle as its payload. Corporation. Kistler expressed concern FAA’s reconsideration of its denial. This The reentry vehicle was still under that the launch reporting requirement makes clear that the FAA need only development, but the FAA issued a under section 415.79 amounted to an reconsider an issue once rather than an launch license conditioned upon additional payload review by the FAA unlimited number of times. eventual submission of all required for each payload within the class Section 415.63 addresses payload information and a final encompassed by a launch operator incorporation of a payload determination by the FAA regarding the license. Kistler at 5–6. In point of fact, determination into subsequent license payload. The FAA has decided, the information submitted sixty days reviews. It also explains that any change however, that with these rules it will prior to launch would not trigger in information provided to the FAA not adopt such a course. A license will additional policy and safety reviews. It must be reported in accordance with be issued only for a complete would merely identify the applicable rules. application. characteristics of what is being Subpart E addresses post-licensing The FAA also addresses payload launched for compliance monitoring requirements, including license terms safety issues because payload safety is purposes. Kistler recommends that a and conditions. This subpart describes a not otherwise part of the safety licensee whose class of payload has licensee’s public safety responsibilities evaluation of a launch. Payload issues been approved and is proposing to under section 415.71. Section 415.73 describes the considered during the review include, launch a payload within that approved circumstances that require a licensee to but are not limited to, safety issues class merely submit a copy of a launch apply for a modification to its license. associated with the launch of the manifest ‘‘describing the payload, the This section modifies and builds upon payload and its intended operation and payload owner, pertinent details about the former section 413.19. That design, the payload owner(s), and the the launch, etc.’’ Kistler at 6. By provision required an applicant or a payload function. For example, a past requiring the information described in licensee to notify the FAA whenever the payload issue included the nature of the section 415.59, the FAA intends just information that formed the basis for cargo. In that case the payload cargo that. Section 415.57 provides procedures any approval, determination or license consisted of cremains, which are human action was no longer substantially remains reduced to small pellets. A an applicant must follow to obtain a payload determination. The FAA accurate and complete in all significant safety issue addressed was whether the respects, or whenever there has been a pellets would be dispersed while in coordinates a payload review with other government agencies such as the substantial change as to any matter of orbit. Departments of Defense, State, and decisional significance. The FAA has Section 415.51 describes the scope of Commerce, the National Aeronautics required licensees to report material an FAA payload review, clarifying part and Space Administration and the changes in order for the FAA to of the former section 415.21. Pursuant to Federal Communications Commission. determine their significance. In the proposed section 415.53, the FAA will The information requested under NPRM, the FAA proposed requiring that not review payloads owned and section 415.59 for a payload review is it be notified of all changes regardless of operated by the government of the required to identify and address materiality, but now adopts a United States or those that are subject to possible safety and policy issues related materiality standard in response to the regulation of the Federal to the payload, and to conduct any comments. A launch licensee must Communications Commission or the necessary interagency review. In most ensure the continuing accuracy of Department of Commerce, National instances, the information submitted representations contained in its Oceanic and Atmospheric may be brief, but in cases which present application for the term of its license, Administration. potential unique safety concerns and must conduct its licensed launches As explained in the NPRM, new considerable detail may be necessary as it has represented that it will. This section 415.55 allows the FAA to make regarding the physical characteristics, means that if any information a licensee a determination regarding a proposed functional description and operations of provides pursuant to part 415 will no class of payloads, including, for the payload. longer be accurate, a licensee must example, communications, remote Section 415.61(a), which reflects apply for a modification to its license in sensing or navigation satellites. When certain requirements of former section advance of instituting the proposed an applicant requests an operator 415.21, explains that the FAA will issue change. For example, if a licensee license to conduct unspecified but a payload determination unless policy intends to alter its accident similar launches over a period of five or safety considerations prevent launch investigation plan, it must obtain years, the applicant will not always be of the payload. Section 415.61(b) authorization in advance through a able to identify specifically each contains the procedures employed to license modification to do so. Orbital payload to be launched. The applicant deny an applicant a payload describes this requirement as overly must describe the class or classes of determination and describes the broad and undefined. Orbital at 9. payloads proposed for launch under the recourse available to that applicant. If Orbital recommends that the FAA license and general characteristics of an applicant fails to obtain a payload incorporate a materiality standard, so those payloads. In these cases, the determination, the applicant may that an applicant or licensee would only licensee must later provide additional attempt to correct the deficiencies notify the FAA of any significant descriptive information regarding the which resulted in a denial and request changes. Id. The FAA agrees in part. It specific payload prior to flight as reconsideration of the denial, or, upon does not wish to be advised of any and described in section 415.79(a). That denial of a license, it may request a all changes, only of those material to section refers a licensee to the hearing. The final version of this public health and safety or safety of information requirements of section provision differs slightly from what the property. The FAA wishes to be advised 415.59, which specify the information NPRM proposed. The NPRM stated that of any material changes so that it may required for a payload review. an applicant who was denied a payload determine whether to modify a license.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19611
The FAA also wishes to draw licensee need not provide registration the current regulations. In response to attention to an editorial change from the information concerning objects owned the NPRM relocation proposal, the provision as originally proposed. In its and registered by the government of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NPRM, the regulations required a United States. The former version of this commented that the environmental licensee to ‘‘amend’’ its application requirement provided that a licensee review process for licensing commercial even after its license was issued. Now, need not provide registration launch activities should reference FAA the same provisions require a license information for objects it placed in Order 1050.1D. This change is ‘‘modification.’’ This results in no space that were owned by a foreign incorporated here. Additionally, the substantive change. It does clarify, entity. The new provision contains the EPA requested that section 415.101 however, that an application is part of same proviso. It has, however, come to reference other informal FAA guidance any ensuing license and that a licensee the attention of the FAA that this documents. The FAA notes that must obtain advance authorization from requires clarification. The Act requires informal guidance documents are the FAA for any material changes. that a foreign entity controlled by a U.S. available, and will confer with a license The remainder of subpart E contains citizen which launches outside the applicant regarding the applicability of license terms and conditions applicable territory of any nation obtain an FAA the guidance. The FAA also notes that to all licensees. Section 415.75 requires license to launch. 49 U.S.C. 70104(a)(3). the NPRM text omitted the proposed a licensee to enter into an agreement Applying these principles to an actual section revisions. They are now with the federal launch range from case, the FAA found that Sea Launch, a included in the regulatory text. which it proposes to launch. Orbital Cayman Islands partnership, which Part 417—License To Operate a Launch recommends that rather than require the intends to launch from international Site range agreement to remain in effect for waters, required a launch license on the term of the license, that the FAA account of the control Boeing Because the FAA is removing and require that it be in effect during the Commercial Space Company, a U.S. reserving part 411, which contains conduct of licensed launches. Orbital at company, exercised over the section 411.3 regarding the operation of 9. The FAA sees no practical difference, partnership. 49 U.S.C. 70104(a)(3), a launch site, the FAA now creates part but agrees, and revises the regulation 70102(1)(C); 14 CFR 401.5. Because Sea 417 to govern licensing the operation of accordingly. A licensee should bear in Launch is a U.S. citizen for licensing a launch site. The FAA will license the mind, however, that ‘‘launch’’ begins purposes, the FAA requires data operation of a launch site on an with the arrival of a vehicle at the pertinent to registration for Sea individual, case by case basis until it launch site. Accordingly, any agreement Launch’s upper stage. issues regulations of general must be in place at the time of the Section 415.83 requires a licensee to applicability. Until then, an applicant vehicle’s arrival. comply with financial responsibility for a license to operate a launch site Section 415.77 requires a licensee to requirements as specified in a license or should refer to the FAA’s draft maintain those records that pertain to license order. guidelines and pre-application activities carried out under a license Section 415.85 explains that a consultation for assistance. This part issued by the FAA. These records must licensee is required to cooperate with also now contains the requirements be retained for at least three years after the compliance monitoring governing an environmental review for the completion of all launches responsibilities of the FAA. licensing the operation of a launch site conducted under the license. Subpart F describes the FAA’s safety previously located in 14 CFR 415.31–33. Section 415.79, as proposed in the review for a proposed launch from a Paperwork Reduction Act NPRM, required a licensee to report launch site not operated by a federal certain information before each launch. launch range. The FAA will conduct a Section 441 of this rule contains Because launch begins with the arrival review on an individual, case by case information collection requirements. In of a launch vehicle at the gate, this basis until it issues regulations of accordance with the Paperwork section is now clarified to require general applicability. The FAA will take Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 reporting 60 days prior to flight. Section this opportunity to advise applicants to et seq., the information collection 415.79(b) regarding provision of the bear in mind that a case by case review requirements associated with this rule FAA’s Launch Notification Form has still must conform to existing standards and titled, Commercial Space also been clarified from the FAA’s and precedent. For example, part of the Transportation Licensing Regulations, original proposal. The FAA files the reason that the FAA relies on federal were submitted to the Office of Launch Notification Form with U.S. launch range safety reviews is because Management and Budget for review. The Space Command 15 days prior to flight. of the testing and reviews the ranges collection of information was approved Accordingly, the form is now due at conduct of a launch operator’s flight and assigned OMB control number noon, Eastern Standard Time, 15 days safety system, which, in most cases, 2120–0608. Information collected prior to flight so that the FAA may contain a flight termination system. includes: data to support both policy provide the form to U.S. Space Accordingly, when a federal launch and payload reviews; evidence that Command in a timely manner. The range is not assessing the adequacy of a supports launch safety requirements, Federal Aviation Administration/ U.S. launch operator’s flight safety system, it and submitted environmental impact Space Command Launch Notification is incumbent upon the FAA to do so. statement (EIS) materials. The required Form is provided in this notice. See Subpart G incorporates the FAA’s information will be used to determine if Appendix A. Section 415.79(c) is now environmental review requirements, the applicant proposals for conducting modified from what was proposed in former sections 415.31 and 415.33, commercial space launches can be done the NPRM to add a requirement for which require the FAA to comply with in a safe manner as set forth in immediate notification of any mishap applicable environmental laws and regulations and in the licenses and the involving a fatality or serious injury. regulations, and state that an applicant license orders issued by the FAA. Section 415.81, which replaces former must provide the FAA with the Comments received on the reporting section 415.10, contains requirements information required for doing so. The requirements associated with this rule for registration of space objects, renumbering of these provisions have been discussed earlier in the including a new provision that a represents no substantive change from preamble. Respondents are license
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19612 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations applicants and licensees. The estimated narrower than it has been under current upon to indemnify for third-party number of respondents on an annual practice. damages under the ‘‘indemnification’’ basis is six. The estimated annual This rulemaking is expected to result provisions of the statute, because the burden is 2914 hours. in quantifiable cost savings compared to launch phase is now more limited. The An agency may not conduct or current practice because of the change in risk to the U.S. Treasury is sponsor, and a person is not required to increased duration of the launch expected to be minimal. This risk has respond to a collection of information operator license. Increasing the duration not been quantified. of the launch operator license will unless it displays a currently valid OMB Regulatory Flexibility Determination control number. The OMB control decrease paperwork and administrative number associated with this collection costs both to government and to The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 of information is 2120–0608. industry. establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory The cost savings to industry over ten issuance that agencies shall endeavor, Regulatory Evaluation Summary years resulting from the administrative consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statues, to fit This section summarizes the full and paperwork impacts are estimated to be $305,000, undiscounted and regulatory and informational regulatory evaluation prepared by the $185,000, discounted. These savings are requirements to the scale of the FAA that provides more detailed primarily due to the fewer number of business, organizations, and estimates of the economic consequences license renewal applications that are governmental jurisdictions subject to of this regulatory action. This summary likely to be submitted. The cost savings regulation.’’ To achieve that principal, and the full evaluation quantify, to the reflect primarily the fewer number of the Act requires agencies to solicit and extent practicable, estimated costs to the hours necessary for both submitting the consider flexible regulatory proposals private sector, consumers, Federal, State license applications to the FAA and for and to explain the rationale for their and local governments, as well as complying with the financial actions. The Act covers a wide-range of anticipated benefits. This evaluation responsibility requirements when there small entities, including small was conducted in accordance with are fewer licenses covering the same businesses, not-for-profit organizations Executive Order 12866, which directs number of launches. No added costs and small governmental jurisdictions. that each Federal agency can propose or from the paperwork and administrative Agencies must perform a review to adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned impacts are expected. determine whether a proposed or final determination that the benefits of the The FAA is expected to receive some rule will have a significant economic intended regulation justify the costs. cost savings, as well, because of reduced impact on a substantial number of small This document also includes an initial paperwork and administrative costs that entities. If the determination is that it regulatory flexibility determination, result from processing and issuing fewer will, the agency must prepare a required by the Regulatory Flexibility applications and licenses. Cost savings regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as Act of 1980, and an international trade to the FAA over ten years is estimated described in the Act. impact assessment, required by the to be $424,000, undiscounted and However, if an agency determines that Office of Management and Budget. This $256,000, discounted. The FAA is a proposed or final rule is not expected rule is considered a significant expected to incur no costs resulting to have a significant economic impact regulatory action under section 3 (f) of from the paperwork and administrative on a substantial number of small Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, impacts. Over the ten-year time horizon entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act was reviewed by the Office of of this analysis, the total cost savings to provides that the head of the agency Management and Budget. The rule is both industry and the FAA is expected must so certify and an RFA is not considered significant under to be approximately $729,000, required. The certification must include Department of Transportation Policies undiscounted and $441,000, a statement providing the factual basis and Procedures, 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, discounted. for this determination, and the 1979). In addition, for the reasons stated There are numerous non-quantifiable reasoning should be clear. under the ‘‘Trade Impact Statement’’ impacts associated with this final The FAA conducted the required and the ‘‘ Regulatory Flexibility rulemaking. The information coding review of this final rulemaking and Determination,’’ the FAA certifies that requirements are expected to increase determined that it would not have a this rule will not have a significant clarity to both industry and government. significant economic impact on a economic impact on a substantial Probably more importantly, however, is substantial number of small entities. number of small entities. the fact that firms will be better able to Accordingly, pursuant to the regulatory Economic Impacts plan future operations because this Flexibility Act, U.S.C. 605(b), the rulemaking extends the time period of Federal Aviation Administration The Federal Aviation Administration the launch operator license to five years. certifies that this rule will not have a (FAA) is modifying its commercial The narrower scope of launch licenses significant economic impact on a space licensing regulations to streamline under this rulemaking is expected to substantial number of small entities. its licensing process while continuing to slightly increase the launch operator’s ensure safety and continuing to preserve risk of having to pay for any damages to Potentially Affected Entities the flexibility required to address third parties or government property. The Small Business Administration multiple launch technologies and The activities that will no longer be has defined small business entities associated issues. With this rulemaking, covered under the narrower scope of the relating to space vehicles [SIC codes the FAA is clarifying its license launch license are of low risk (such as 3761, 3764, and 3769] as entities application procedures, codifying its ground activities prior to the arrival of comprising fewer than 1000 employees. practice of issuing launch-specific the hazardous components of the launch The potentially affected entities are licenses and launch operator licenses, vehicle). The higher burden of risk Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Orbital increasing the duration of launch borne by the licensee should be Sciences Corporation, Sea Launch, Beal operator licenses from two years to five considered low and inconsequential. Aerospace Technologies and Universal years, and defining the launch period so There is also a slightly lower risk to Space Lines. Lockheed-Martin, Boeing that the scope of a launch license is the U.S. Treasury that it will be called and Orbital Sciences Corporation all
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19613 have more than 1,000 employees and FAA again concludes that the to potentially affected small are therefore not small entities. Sea annualized cost savings of $1,202 does governments, if any, and for a Launch is a partnership of various not represent a significant amount for meaningful and timely opportunity to entities that includes Boeing and this firm. provide input in the development of therefore would not be considered a regulatory proposals. International Trade Impact Assessment small entity. Beal and Universal Space This final rule does not contain a Lines each have under 1,000 employees This final rulemaking will not Federal intergovernmental or private and can therefore be considered small constitute a barrier to international sector mandate that exceeds $100 entities. According to an FAA forecast, trade. This rulemaking affects launch million a year. Therefore, the Beal Aerospace Technologies will be activities located within the United requirements of Title II of the Unfunded issued a launch operator license in 2000 States and launch activities abroad that Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not and Universal Space Lines will be have substantial U.S. involvement. In apply. issued a launch operator license in fact, if the anticipated cost savings 2002. result and are passed along to launch List of Subjects This final rulemaking will result in a service customers in the form of 14 CFR Part 411 cost savings to the launch operator. It reduced prices, it is possible that the primarily results from renewing a international competitiveness of U.S. Space transportation and exploration. license every five years instead of two commercial launch services will be 14 CFR Part 413 years. To calculate the annualized cost enhanced. Confidential business information, savings, the FAA discounted the costs Federalism Implications Space transportation and exploration. or cost savings for the appropriate year. The net total cost savings for Beal The regulations herein will not have 14 CFR Part 415 substantial direct effects on the states, Aerospace is $13,204 and the net total Aviation safety, Environmental cost savings for Universal Space Lines is on the relationship between the national protection, Space transportation and $8,442. The net total cost savings for the government and the states, or on the exploration. period 1999–2008 is then annualized by distribution of power and multiplying the net total cost savings for responsibilities among the various 14 CFR Part 417 each of the affected firms by the 10 year, levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, Environmental protections, Reporting 7 percent annualization factor (.142378). and recordkeeping requirements, The FAA estimates that the annualized it is determined that this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications Rockets, Space transportation and cost savings for Beal Aerospace is exploration. $1,880 ($13,204 × 142378 = $1,880) and to warrant the preparation of a the annualized cost savings for Federalism Assessment. The Amendment Universal Space Lines is $1,202 ($8,442 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act × In consideration of the foregoing, the 142378 = $1,202). Federal Aviation Administration The FAA has little financial Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the UMRA), amends Chapter III of Title 14 of the information to calculate whether the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: projected cost savings represents a enacted as Pub. L. 104–4 on March 22, significant amount to these two firms. 1995, requires each Federal agency, to SUBCHAPTER AÐGENERAL However, according to the Beal the extent permitted by law, to prepare Aerospace website, over 70 people a written assessment of the effects of PART 401ÐORGANIZATION AND currently work for Beal Aerospace. They any Federal mandate in a proposed or DEFINITIONS final agency rule that may result in the project that the firm will grow to more 1. The authority citation for part 401 expenditure by State, local, and tribal than 200 people over the next ten years. is revised to read as follows: Moreover, the same source states that: governments, in the aggregate, or by the ‘‘Beal Aerospace is fully financed, up to private sector, of $100 million or more Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70102. $250M.’’ The FAA concludes that the (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 2. Section 401.5 is revised to read as annualized cost savings of $1,880 does one year. Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 follows: not represent a significant amount for U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal this firm. Even less information is agency to develop an effective process § 401.5 Definitions. available on Universal Space Lines. to permit timely input by elected As used in this chapter— However, one article quotes John Grady, officers (or their designees) of State, Act means 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Universal’s chief financial officer by local, and tribal governments on a Commercial Space Transportation, ch. stating that: ‘‘Initially the company will proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 701—Commercial Space Launch hire about 40 people—mostly in mandate.’’ A ‘‘significant Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. technological and engineering positions. intergovernmental mandate’’ under the Amateur rocket activities means In three years, employment is expected Act is any provision in a Federal agency launch activities conducted at private to rise to 100.’’ The same article states regulation that will impose an sites involving rockets powered by a that: ‘‘The initial plan is to manufacture enforceable duty upon State, local, and motor or motors having a total impulse low-cost, two-stage orbital launch tribal governments, in the aggregate, of of 200,000 pound-seconds or less and a vehicles capable of launching 3,000- $100 million (adjusted annually for total burning or operating time of less pound and greater satellite payloads.’’ If inflation) in any one year. Section 203 than 15 seconds, and a rocket having a 40 people each hypothetically earned of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which ballistic coefficient—i.e., gross weight in $50,000 annually, then the annual cost supplements section 204(a), provides pounds divided by frontal area of rocket to employ these individuals would be at that before establishing any regulatory vehicle—less than 12 pounds per square least $2 million. Comparing the requirements that might significantly or inch. hypothetical annual cost of employing uniquely affect small governments, the Associate Administrator means the these individuals against the net cost agency shall have developed a plan that, Associate Administrator for Commercial savings of this final rulemaking, the among other things, provides for notice Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19614 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
Administration, or any person support facility or government property 413.19 Issuance of a license. designated by the Associate located on the launch site. 413.21 Denial of a license application. Administrator to exercise the authority Operation of a launch site means the 413.23 License renewal. or discharge the responsibilities of the conduct of approved safety operations at Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. Associate Administrator. a permanent site to support the § 413.1 Scope. Federal launch range means a launch launching of vehicles and payloads. This part prescribes the procedures site, from which launches routinely take Payload means an object that a person applicable to all applications submitted place, that is owned and operated by the undertakes to place in outer space by under this chapter to conduct licensed government of the United States. means of a launch vehicle, including activities. These procedures apply to Hazardous materials means components of the vehicle specifically applications for issuance of a license, hazardous materials as defined in 49 designed or adapted for that object. transfer of an existing license and CFR 172.101. Person means an individual or an renewal of an existing license. More Launch means to place or try to place entity organized or existing under the specific requirements applicable to a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle and laws of a state or country. obtaining a launch license or a license any payload from Earth in a suborbital State and United States when used in to operate a launch site are contained in trajectory, in Earth orbit in outer space, a geographical sense, mean the several parts 415 and 417 of this chapter, or otherwise in outer space, and States, the District of Columbia, the respectively. includes activities involved in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, preparation of a launch vehicle for American Samoa, The United States § 413.3 Who must obtain a license. flight, when those activities take place Virgin Islands, Guam, and any other (a) Any person must obtain a license at a launch site in the United States. The commonwealth, territory, or possession to launch a launch vehicle from the term launch includes the flight of a of the United States; and United States or a license to operate a launch vehicle and pre-flight ground United States citizen means: launch site within the United States. operations beginning with the arrival of (1) Any individual who is a citizen of (b) An individual who is a United a launch vehicle or payload at a U.S. the United States; States citizen or an entity organized or launch site. Flight ends after the (2) Any corporation, partnership, joint existing under the laws of the United licensee’s last exercise of control over venture, association, or other entity States or any state must obtain a license its launch vehicle. organized or existing under the laws of to launch a launch vehicle outside of Launch accident means an unplanned the United States or any State; and the United States or a license to operate event occurring during the flight of a (3) Any corporation, partnership, joint a launch site outside of the United launch vehicle resulting in the known venture, association, or other entity States. impact of a launch vehicle, its payload which is organized or exists under the (c) A foreign entity in which a United or any component thereof outside laws of a foreign nation, if the States citizen has a controlling interest, designated impact limit lines; or a controlling interest in such entity is as defined in section 401.5 of this fatality or serious injury (as defined in held by an individual or entity chapter, must obtain a launch license to 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this launch a launch vehicle from or a associated with the flight; or any definition. license to operate a launch site within— damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to Controlling interest means ownership (1) Any place that is both outside the property not associated with the flight of an amount of equity in such entity United States and outside the territory that is not located at the launch site or sufficient to direct management of the of any foreign nation, unless there is an designated recovery area. entity or to void transactions entered agreement in force between the United Launch incident means an unplanned into by management. Ownership of at States and a foreign nation providing event occurring during the flight of a least fifty-one percent of the equity in an that such foreign nation shall exercise launch vehicle, other than a launch entity by persons described in jurisdiction over the launch or the accident, involving a malfunction of a paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition operation of the launch site; or flight safety system or failure of the creates a rebuttable presumption that (2) The territory of any foreign nation licensee’s safety organization, design or such interest is controlling. if there is an agreement in force between the United States and that foreign nation operations. SUBCHAPTER CÐLICENSING Launch operator means a person who providing that the United States shall conducts or who will conduct the PART 411Ð[REMOVED AND exercise jurisdiction over the launch or launch of a launch vehicle and any RESERVED] the operation of the launch site. payload. 3. Part 411 is removed and reserved. § 413.5 Pre-application consultation. Launch site means the location on A prospective applicant shall consult Earth from which a launch takes place 4. Part 413 is revised to read as follows: with the FAA before submitting an (as defined in a license the Secretary application to discuss the application issues or transfers under this chapter) PART 413ÐLICENSE APPLICATION process and potential issues relevant to and necessary facilities at that location. PROCEDURES. the FAA’s licensing decision. Early Launch vehicle means a vehicle built consultation enables an applicant to to operate in, or place a payload in, Sec. identify potential licensing issues at the outer space or a suborbital rocket. 413.1 Scope. planning stage when changes to a Mishap means a launch accident, a 413.3 Who must obtain a license. 413.5 Pre-application consultation. license application or to proposed launch incident, failure to complete a licensed activities are less likely to launch as planned, or an unplanned 413.7 Application. 413.9 Confidentiality. result in significant delay or costs to the event or series of events resulting in a 413.11 Acceptance of an application. applicant. fatality or serious injury (as defined in 413.13 Complete application. 49 CFR 830.2) or resulting in greater 413.15 Review period. § 413.7 Application. than $25,000 worth of damage to a 413.17 Continuing accuracy of application; (a) Form. An application must be in payload, a launch vehicle, a launch supplemental information; amendment. writing, in English and filed in
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19615 duplicate with the Federal Aviation unless the Associate Administrator (c) 120-day notice. If the FAA has not Administration, Associate determines that the withholding of the made a licensing determination within Administrator for Commercial Space information or data is contrary to the 120 days of receipt of an accepted Transportation, AST–200, Room 331, public or national interest. application, the FAA informs the 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., applicant, in writing, of any outstanding Washington, D.C. 20591. Attention: § 413.11 Acceptance of an application. information needed to complete the Licensing and Safety Division, The FAA will initially screen an reviews or evaluations required by this Application Review. application to determine whether the chapter for a licensing determination, or (b) Administrative information. An application is sufficiently complete to of any pending issues that would affect application must identify the following: enable the FAA to initiate the reviews the licensing determination. (1) The name and address of the or evaluations required under any applicant; applicable part of this chapter. After § 413.17 Continuing accuracy of (2) The name, address, and telephone completion of the initial screening, the application; supplemental information; amendment. number of any person to whom FAA notifies the applicant, in writing, inquiries and correspondence should be of one of the following: (a) An applicant is responsible for the directed; and (a) The application is accepted and continuing accuracy and completeness (3) The type of license for which the the FAA will initiate the reviews or of information furnished to the FAA as applicant is applying. evaluations required for a licensing part of a pending license application. If (c) Signature and certification of determination under this chapter; or at any time information provided by an accuracy. An application must be (b) The application is so incomplete applicant as part of a license application legibly signed, dated, and certified as or indefinite as to make initiation of the is no longer accurate and complete in all true, complete, and accurate by one of reviews or evaluations required for a material respects, the applicant shall the following: licensing determination under this submit a statement furnishing the new (1) For a corporation: An officer chapter inappropriate, and the or corrected information. As part of its authorized to act for the corporation in application is rejected. The notice will submission, the applicant shall recertify licensing matters. state the reason(s) for rejection and the accuracy and completeness of the (2) For a partnership or a sole corrective actions necessary for the application in accordance with section proprietorship: A general partner or application to be accepted. The FAA 413.7. An applicant’s failure to comply proprietor, respectively. may return a rejected application to the with any of the requirements set forth in (3) For a joint venture, association, or applicant or may hold it pending this paragraph is a sufficient basis for other entity: An officer or other additional submissions by the applicant. denial of a license application. individual duly authorized to act for the (b) An applicant may amend or joint venture, association, or other entity § 413.13 Complete application. supplement a license application at any in licensing matters. Acceptance by the FAA of an time prior to issuance or transfer of a application does not constitute a license. § 413.9 Confidentiality. determination that the application is (c) Willful false statements made in (a) Any person furnishing information complete. If, in addition to the any application or document relating to or data to the FAA may request in information required by the applicable an application or license are punishable writing that trade secrets or proprietary parts of this chapter, the FAA requires by fine and imprisonment under section commercial or financial data be treated other information necessary for a 1001 of Title 18, United States Code, as confidential. The request must be determination that public health and and by administrative sanctions in made at the time the information or data safety, safety of property and national accordance with part 405 of this is submitted, and state the period of security and foreign policy interests of chapter. time for which confidential treatment is the United States are protected during desired. the conduct of a licensed activity, an § 413.19 Issuance of a license. (b) Information or data for which any applicant shall submit the additional After the FAA completes its reviews person or agency requests information required to show and makes the approvals and confidentiality must be clearly marked compliance with this chapter. determinations required by this chapter with an identifying legend, such as for a license, the FAA issues a license ‘‘Proprietary Information,’’ ‘‘Proprietary § 413.15 Review period. to an applicant in accordance with this Commercial Information,’’ ‘‘Trade (a) 180-day review. Unless otherwise chapter. Secret,’’ or ‘‘Confidential Treatment specified in this chapter, the FAA Requested.’’ Where this marking proves reviews and makes a determination on § 413.21 Denial of a license application. impracticable, a cover sheet containing a license application within 180 days of (a) The FAA informs a license the identifying legend must be securely receipt of an accepted application. applicant, in writing, if its application attached to the compilation of (b) Review period tolled. If an has been denied and states the reasons information or data for which accepted application does not provide for denial. confidential treatment is requested. sufficient information to continue or (b) An applicant whose license (c) If a person requests that previously complete the reviews or evaluations application is denied may either: submitted information or data be treated required by this chapter for a licensing (1) Attempt to correct any deficiencies confidentially, the FAA will do so to the determination, or an issue exists that identified by the FAA and request extent practicable in light of any prior would affect a licensing determination, reconsideration of the revised distribution of the information or data. the FAA notifies the applicant, in application. The FAA has 60 days or the (d) Information or data for which writing, and informs the applicant of number of days remaining in the 180- confidential treatment has been any information required to complete day review period, whichever is greater, requested or information or data that the application. If further review is within which to reconsider its licensing qualifies for exemption under section impracticable, the 180-day review determination; or 552(b)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, period shall be tolled pending receipt by (2) Request a hearing in accordance will not be disclosed to the public the FAA of the requested information. with part 406 of this chapter, for the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19616 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations purpose of showing why the application 415.11 Additional license terms and licensee shall comply to remain should not be denied. conditions. licensed. Requirements for preparing a (c) An applicant whose license 415.13 Transfer of a launch license. license application are contained in part application is denied after 415.15 Rights not conferred by launch 413 of this subchapter. license. reconsideration under paragraph (b)(1) 415.16–415.20 [Reserved] of this section may request a hearing in § 415.3 Types of launch licenses. accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this Subpart BÐPolicy Review and Approval (a) Launch-specific license. A launch- section. 415.21 General. specific license authorizes a licensee to 415.23 Policy review. conduct one or more launches, having § 413.23 License renewal. 415.25 Application requirements for policy the same launch parameters, of one type (a) Eligibility. A licensee may apply to review. of launch vehicle from one launch site. renew its license by submitting to the 415.27 Denial of policy approval. The license identifies, by name or 415.28–415.30 [Reserved] FAA a written application for renewal mission, each launch authorized under of the license at least 90 days before the Subpart CÐSafety Review and Approval for the license. A licensee’s authorization to expiration date of the license. Launch From a Federal Launch Range launch terminates upon completion of (b) Application. 415.31 General. all launches authorized by the license or (1) A license renewal application 415.33 Safety organization. the expiration date stated in the license, shall satisfy the requirements set forth 415.35 Acceptable flight risk. whichever occurs first. in this part and any other applicable 415.37 Flight readiness and (b) Launch operator license. A launch communications plan. part of this chapter. operator license authorizes a licensee to (2) The application may incorporate 415.39 Safety at end of launch. 415.41 Accident investigation plan. conduct launches from one launch site, by reference information provided as within a range of launch parameters, of part of the application for the expiring 415.43 Denial of safety approval. 415.44–415.50 [Reserved] launch vehicles from the same family of license or any modification to that vehicles transporting specified classes license. Subpart DÐPayload Review and Determination of payloads. A launch operator license (3) The applicant must describe any remains in effect for five years from the proposed changes in its conduct of 415.51 General. date of issuance. licensed activities and provide any 415.53 Payloads not subject to review. additional clarifying information 415.55 Classes of payloads. § 415.5 Policy and safety approvals. 415.57 Payload review. required by the FAA. To obtain a launch license, an (c) Review of application. The FAA 415.59 Information requirements for payload review. applicant must obtain policy and safety conducts the reviews required under 415.61 Issuance of payload determination. approvals from the FAA. Requirements this chapter for a license to determine 415.63 Incorporation of payload for obtaining these approvals are whether the applicant’s license may be determination in license application. contained in subparts B, C and F of this renewed for an additional term. The 415.64–415.70 [Reserved] part. Only a launch license applicant FAA may incorporate by reference any Subpart EÐPost-Licensing RequirementsÐ may apply for the approvals, and may findings that are part of the record for Launch License Terms and Conditions apply for either approval separately and the expiring license. in advance of submitting a complete (d) Grant of license renewal. After 415.71 Public safety responsibility. 415.73 Continuing accuracy of license license application, using the completion by the FAA of the reviews application; application for modification application procedures contained in required by this chapter for a license of license. part 413 of this subchapter. and issuance of the requisite approvals 415.75 Agreement(s) with federal launch and determinations, the FAA issues an range. § 415.7 Payload determination. order amending the expiration date of 415.77 Records. A payload determination is required the license. The FAA may impose 415.79 Launch reporting requirements. for a launch license unless the proposed additional or revised terms and 415.81 Registration of space objects. payload is exempt from payload review 415.83 Financial responsibility conditions necessary to protect public under § 415.53 of this part. The FAA health and safety and the safety of requirements. 415.85 Compliance monitoring. conducts a payload review, as described property and to protect U.S. national 415.86–415.90 [Reserved] in subpart D of this part, to make the security and foreign policy interests. determination. Either a launch license (e) Denial of license renewal. The Subpart FÐSafety Review and Approval for applicant or a payload owner or FAA informs a licensee, in writing, if Launch From a Launch Site not Operated by a Federal Launch Range operator may request a review of its the licensee’s application for renewal proposed payload using the application has been denied and states the reasons 415.91 General. procedures contained in part 413 of this for denial. A licensee whose application 415.93 Denial of safety approval. 415.94–415.100 [Reserved] subchapter. Upon receipt of an for renewal is denied may follow the application, the FAA may conduct a procedures set forth in section 413.21 of Subpart GÐEnvironmental Review payload review independently of a this part. 415.101 General launch license application. 5. Part 415 is revised to read as 415.103 Environmental information follows: § 415.9 Issuance of a launch license. Appendix A to Part 415—FAA/ USSPACECOM Launch Notification Form (a) The FAA issues a launch license PART 415ÐLAUNCH LICENSE to an applicant who has obtained all Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. Subpart AÐGeneral approvals and determinations required under this chapter for a license. Sec. Subpart AÐGeneral 415.1 Scope. (b) A launch license authorizes a § 415.1 Scope. 415.3 Types of launch licenses. licensee to conduct a launch or 415.5 Policy and safety approvals. This part prescribes requirements for launches in accordance with the 415.7 Payload determination. obtaining a launch license and post- representations contained in the 415.9 Issuance of a launch license. licensing requirements with which a licensee’s application, subject to the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19617 licensee’s compliance with terms and (b) Interagency consultation. states the reasons for the FAA’s conditions contained in license orders (1) The FAA consults with the determination. The applicant may accompanying the license, including Department of Defense to determine respond to the reasons for the financial responsibility requirements. whether a license application presents determination and request any issues affecting U.S. national reconsideration. § 415.11 Additional license terms and security. conditions. (2) The FAA consults with the §§ 415.28±415.30 [Reserved] The FAA may modify a launch Department of State to determine Subpart CÐSafety Review and license at any time by modifying or whether a license application presents adding license terms and conditions to Approval for Launch From a Federal any issues affecting U.S. foreign policy Launch Range ensure compliance with the Act and interests or international obligations. regulations. (3) The FAA consults with other § 415.31 General. § 415.13 Transfer of a launch license. federal agencies, including the National (a) The FAA conducts a safety review Aeronautics and Space Administration, to determine whether an applicant is (a) Only the FAA may transfer a authorized to address issues identified capable of launching a launch vehicle launch license. under paragraph (a) of this section, and its payload without jeopardizing (b) An applicant for transfer of a associated with an applicant’s launch public health and safety and safety of launch license shall submit a license proposal. property. The FAA issues a safety application in accordance with part 413 (c) The FAA advises an applicant, in approval to a license applicant of this subchapter and shall meet the writing, of any issue raised during a proposing to launch from a federal requirements of part 415 of this policy review that would impede launch range if the applicant satisfies subchapter. The FAA will transfer a issuance of a policy approval. The the requirements of this subpart and has license to an applicant who has applicant may respond, in writing, or contracted with the federal launch range obtained all of the approvals and revise its license application. for the provision of safety-related determinations required under this launch services and property, as long as chapter for a license. In conducting its § 415.25 Application requirements for those launch services and the proposed policy review. reviews and issuing approvals and use of launch property are within the determinations, the FAA may In its launch license application, an federal launch range’s experience. The incorporate by reference any findings applicant shall— FAA evaluates on an individual basis all made part of the record to support the (a) Identify the model and other safety-related launch services and initial licensing determination. The configuration of any launch vehicle property associated with an applicant’s FAA may modify a license to reflect any proposed for launch by the applicant. proposal. A safety approval is part of the changes necessary as a result of a (b) Identify structural, pneumatic, licensing record on which the FAA’s license transfer. propellant, propulsion, electrical and licensing determination is based. avionics systems used in the launch § 415.15 Rights not conferred by launch (b) The FAA advises an applicant, in license. vehicle and all propellants. writing, of any issue raised during a (c) Identify foreign ownership of the safety review that would impede Issuance of a launch license does not applicant as follows: issuance of a safety approval. The relieve a licensee of its obligation to (1) For a sole proprietorship or applicant may respond, in writing, or comply with all applicable requirements partnership, identify all foreign revise its license application. of law or regulation that may apply to ownership; its activities, nor does issuance confer (2) For a corporation, identify any § 415.33 Safety organization. any proprietary, property or exclusive foreign ownership interests of 10% or (a) An applicant shall maintain a right in the use of any federal launch more; and safety organization and document it by range or related facilities, airspace, or (3) For a joint venture, association, or identifying lines of communication and outer space. other entity, identify any participating approval authority for all launch safety decisions. Lines of communication, both §§ 415.16±415.20 [Reserved] foreign entities. (d) Identify proposed launch vehicle within the applicant’s organization and Subpart BÐPolicy Review and flight profile(s), including: between the applicant and any federal Approval (1) Launch site; launch range providing launch services, (2) Flight azimuths, trajectories, and shall be employed to ensure that § 415.21 General. associated ground tracks and personnel perform launch safety The FAA issues a policy approval to instantaneous impact points; operations in accordance with range a license applicant unless the FAA (3) Sequence of planned events or safety requirements and with plans and determines that a proposed launch maneuvers during flight; procedures required by this subpart. would jeopardize U.S. national security (4) Range of nominal impact areas for Approval authority shall be employed to or foreign policy interests, or all spent motors and other discarded ensure compliance with range safety international obligations of the United mission hardware, within three requirements and with plans and States. A policy approval is part of the standard deviations of the mean impact procedures required by this subpart. licensing record on which the FAA’s point (a 3-sigma footprint); and (b) Safety official. An applicant shall licensing determination is based. (5) For each orbital mission, the range identify by name, title, and of intermediate and final orbits of each qualifications, a qualified safety official § 415.23 Policy review. vehicle upper stage, and their estimated authorized to examine all aspects of the (a) The FAA reviews a license orbital lifetimes. applicant’s launch safety operations and application to determine whether it to monitor independently personnel presents any issues affecting U.S. § 415.27 Denial of policy approval. compliance with the applicant’s safety national security or foreign policy The FAA notifies an applicant, in policies and procedures. The safety interests, or international obligations of writing, if it has denied policy approval official shall report directly to the the United States. for a license application. The notice person responsible for an applicant’s
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19618 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations licensed launches, who shall ensure that to make a judgement as to flight (2) Personnel identified under all of the safety official’s concerns are readiness: paragraph (b) of this section monitor addressed prior to launch. (i) Flight-readiness of safety-related common intercom channel(s) during launch property and services to be countdown and flight; and § 415.35 Acceptable flight risk. provided by a federal launch range; (3) A protocol is established for (a) Flight risk through orbital insertion (ii) Flight-readiness of launch vehicle utilizing defined radio telephone or impact. Acceptable flight risk and payload; communications terminology. through orbital insertion for an orbital (iii) Flight-readiness of flight safety (c) An applicant shall submit launch vehicle, and through impact for systems; procedures that ensure that licensee and a suborbital launch vehicle, is measured (iv) Mission rules and launch federal launch range personnel receive a in terms of the expected average number constraints; copy of the communications plan of casualties (Ec) to the collective (v) Abort, hold and recycle required by paragraph (b) of this section, members of the public exposed to debris procedures; and that the federal launch range hazards from any one launch. To obtain (vi) Results of dress rehearsals and concurs in the communications plan. safety approval, an applicant shall simulations conducted in accordance demonstrate that the risk level with paragraph (a)(4) of this section; § 415.39 Safety at end of launch. associated with debris from an (vii) Unresolved safety issues as of the To obtain safety approval, an applicant’s proposed launch shall not launch readiness review and plans for applicant must demonstrate for any exceed an expected average number of addressing and resolving them; and proposed launch that for all launch 0.00003 casualties per launch (Ec ≤ 30 (viii) Any additional safety vehicle stages or components that reach × 10¥6). information required by the individual earth orbit— (b) Hazard identification and risk designated under paragraph (a) of this (a) There will be no unplanned assessment. To demonstrate compliance section to determine flight readiness. physical contact between the vehicle or with this section, an applicant shall (2) Procedures that ensure mission its components and the payload after submit an analysis that identifies constraints, rules and abort procedures payload separation; hazards and assesses risks to public are listed and consolidated in a safety (b) Debris generation will not result health and safety and safety of property directive or notebook approved by from the conversion of energy sources associated with nominal and non- licensee flight safety and federal launch into energy that fragments the vehicle or nominal flight under its launch range personnel; its components. Energy sources include proposal. (3) Procedures that ensure currency chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy; (c) A launch vehicle shall be designed and consistency of licensee and federal and to ensure that flight risks meet the launch range countdown checklists; (c) Stored energy will be removed by criteria set forth in this section. An (4) Dress rehearsal procedures that— depleting residual fuel and leaving all applicant shall identify and describe the (i) Ensure crew readiness under fuel line valves open, venting any following: nominal and non-nominal flight pressurized system, leaving all batteries (1) Launch vehicle structure, conditions; in a permanent discharge state, and including physical dimensions and (ii) Contain criteria for determining removing any remaining source of weight; whether to dispense with one or more stored energy. Other equivalent (2) Hazardous and safety critical dress rehearsals; and procedures may be approved in the systems, including propulsion systems; (iii) Verify currency and consistency course of the licensing process. and of licensee and federal launch range (3) Drawings and schematics for each countdown checklists. § 415.41 Accident investigation plan. system identified under paragraph (c)(2) (5) Procedures for ensuring the (a) An applicant shall submit an of this section. licensee’s flight safety personnel adhere accident investigation plan (AIP) (d) A launch vehicle shall be operated to federal launch range crew rest rules. containing the applicant’s procedures in a manner that ensures that flight risks (b) Communications plan for reporting and responding to launch meet the criteria set forth in this section. requirements. An applicant shall submit accidents, launch incidents, or other An applicant shall identify all launch a communications plan providing mishaps, as defined in § 401.5 of this operations and procedures that must be licensee and federal launch range chapter. The AIP shall be signed by an performed to ensure acceptable flight personnel communications procedures individual authorized to sign and certify risks. during countdown and flight. Effective the application in accordance with issuance and communication of safety- § 413.7(c) of this chapter, and the safety § 415.37 Flight readiness and critical information during countdown official designated under § 415.33(b) of communications plan. shall include hold/resume, go/no go and this subpart. (a) Flight readiness requirements. An abort commands by licensee and federal (b) Reporting requirements. An AIP applicant shall designate an individual launch range personnel during shall provide for— responsible for flight readiness. The countdown. The communications plan (1) Immediate notification to the applicant shall submit the following shall describe the authority of licensee Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedures for verifying readiness for and federal launch range personnel, by Washington Operations Center in case safe flight: individual or position title, to issue of a launch accident, a launch incident (1) Launch readiness review these commands. The communications or a mishap that involves a fatality or procedures involving the applicant’s plan shall also ensure that— serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR flight safety personnel and federal (1) Communication networks are § 830.2). launch range personnel involved in the assigned so that personnel identified (2) Notification within 24 hours to the launch. The procedures shall ensure a under paragraph (b) of this section have Associate Administrator for Commercial launch readiness review is conducted direct access to real-time safety-critical Space Transportation or the Federal during which the individual designated information required for issuing hold/ Aviation Administration (FAA) under paragraph (a) of this section is resume, go/no go and abort decisions Washington Operations Center in the provided with the following information and commands; event of a mishap, other than those in
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19619
§ 415.41 (b) (1), that does not involve a states the reasons for the FAA’s any issues affecting public health and fatality or serious injury (as defined in determination. The applicant may safety, safety of property, U.S. national 49 CFR 830.2). respond to the reasons for the security or foreign policy interests, or (3) Submission of a written determination and request international obligations of the United preliminary report to the FAA, reconsideration. States. Associate Administrator for Commercial (1) The FAA consults with the Space Transportation, in the event of a §§ 415.44±415.50 [Reserved] Department of Defense to determine launch accident or launch incident, as Subpart DÐPayload Review and whether launch of a proposed payload defined in § 401.5 of this chapter, Determination or payload class would present any within five days of the event. The report issues affecting U.S. national security. shall identify the event as either a § 415.51 General. (2) The FAA consults with the launch accident or launch incident, and The FAA reviews a payload proposed Department of State to determine shall include the following information: for launch to determine whether a whether launch of a proposed payload (i) Date and time of occurrence; license applicant or payload owner or or payload class would present any (ii) Description of event; operator has obtained all required issues affecting U.S. foreign policy (iii) Location of launch; licenses, authorization, and permits, interests or international obligations. (iv) Launch vehicle; unless the payload is exempt from (3) The FAA consults with other (v) Any payload; review under § 415.53 of this subpart. If federal agencies, including the National (vi) Vehicle impact points outside not otherwise exempt, the FAA reviews Aeronautics and Space Administration, designated impact lines, if applicable; a payload proposed for launch to authorized to address issues identified (vii) Number and general description determine whether its launch would under paragraph (b) of this section of any injuries; jeopardize public health and safety, associated with an applicant’s launch (viii) Property damage, if any, and an safety of property, U.S. national security proposal. estimate of its value; or foreign policy interests, or (c) The FAA advises a person (ix) Identification of hazardous international obligations of the United requesting a payload determination, in materials, as defined in § 401.5 of this States. A payload determination is part writing, of any issue raised during a chapter, involved in the event, whether of the licensing record on which the payload review that would impede on the launch vehicle, payload, or on FAA’s licensing determination is based. issuance of a license to launch that the ground; payload or payload class. The person (x) Action taken by any person to § 415.53 Payloads not subject to review. requesting payload review may respond, contain the consequences of the event; The FAA does not review payloads in writing, or revise its application. and that are— (xi) Weather conditions at the time of (a) Subject to regulation by the § 415.59 Information requirements for the event. Federal Communications Commission payload review. (c) Response plan. An AIP shall (FCC) or the Department of Commerce, (a) A person requesting review of a contain procedures that— National Oceanic and Atmospheric particular payload or payload class shall (1) Ensure the consequences of a Administration (NOAA); or identify the following: launch accident, launch incident or (b) Owned or operated by the U.S. (1) Payload name; other mishap are contained and Government. (2) Payload class; minimized; (3) Physical dimensions and weight of (2) Ensure data and physical evidence § 415.55 Classes of payloads. the payload; is preserved; The FAA may review and issue (4) Payload owner and operator, if (3) Require the licensee to report to findings regarding a proposed class of different from the person requesting and cooperate with FAA and National payload, e.g., communications, remote payload review; Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sensing or navigation. However, each (5) Orbital parameters for parking, investigations and designate one or payload is subject to compliance transfer and final orbits; more points of contact for the FAA or monitoring by the FAA before launch to (6) Hazardous materials, as defined in NTSB; and determine whether its launch would § 401.5 of this chapter, and radioactive (4) Require the licensee to identify jeopardize public health and safety, materials, and the amounts of each; and adopt preventive measures for safety of property, U.S. national security (7) Intended payload operations avoiding recurrence of the event. or foreign policy interests, or during the life of the payload; and (d) Investigation plan. An AIP shall international obligations of the United (8) Delivery point in flight at which contain— States. The licensee is responsible for the payload will no longer be under the (1) Procedures for investigating the providing current information, in licensee’s control. cause of a launch accident, launch accordance with § 415.79(a), regarding a (b) [Reserved] incident or other mishap; payload proposed for launch not later (2) Procedures for reporting than 60 days before a scheduled launch. § 415.61 Issuance of payload investigation results to the FAA; and determination. (3) Delineated responsibilities, § 415.57 Payload review. (a) The FAA issues a favorable including reporting responsibilities for (a) Timing. A payload review may be payload determination unless it personnel assigned to conduct conducted as part of a license determines that launch of the proposed investigations and for any one retained application review or may be requested payload would jeopardize public health by the licensee to conduct or participate by a payload owner or operator in and safety, safety of property, U.S. in investigations. advance of or apart from a license national security or foreign policy application. interests, or international obligations of § 415.43 Denial of safety approval. (b) Interagency consultation. The FAA the United States. The FAA advises any The FAA notifies an applicant, in consults with other agencies to person who has requested a payload writing, if it has denied safety approval determine whether launch of a proposed review of its determination, in writing. for a license application. The notice payload or payload class would present The notice states the reasons for the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19620 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations determination in the event of an payload, orbital destination, type of § 415.79 Launch reporting requirements. unfavorable determination. launch vehicle, flight path, launch site, (a) Not later than 60 days before each (b) Any person issued an unfavorable launch point, or any safety system, flight conducted under a launch payload determination may respond to policy, procedure, requirement, criteria operator license, a licensee shall the reasons for the determination and or standard. provide the FAA the following launch- request reconsideration. (c) An application to modify a launch specific information: license shall be prepared and submitted (1) Payload information contained in § 415.63 Incorporation of payload in accordance with part 413 of this determination in license application. § 415.59 of this part; chapter. The launch licensee shall (2) Flight information, including the A favorable payload determination indicate any part of its license or license launch vehicle, planned flight path, issued for a payload or class of payload application that would be changed or including staging and impact locations, may be included by a license applicant affected by a proposed modification. and on-orbit activity of the launch as part of its application. However, any (d) The FAA reviews approvals and vehicle including payload delivery change in information provided under determinations required by this chapter point(s); and section 415.59 of this subpart must be to determine whether they remain valid (3) Mission specific launch waivers, reported in accordance with section in light of a proposed modification. The approved or pending, from a federal 413.17 of this chapter. The FAA FAA approves a modification that launch range from which the launch determines whether a favorable payload satisfies the requirements set forth in will take place, that are unique to the determination remains valid in light of this part. launch and may affect public safety. reported changes and may conduct an (e) Upon approval of modification, the (b) Not later than noon, EST, 15 days additional payload review. FAA issues either a written approval to before each licensed flight a licensee § 415.64±415.70 [Reserved] the launch licensee or a license order shall submit to the FAA a completed modifying the license if a stated term or Federal Aviation Administration/U.S. Subpart EÐPost-Licensing condition of the license is changed, Space Command (FAA/USSPACECOM) RequirementsÐLaunch License Terms added or deleted. A written approval Launch Notification Form (OMB No. and Conditions has the full force and effect of a license 2120–0608). order and is part of the licensing record. (c) A launch licensee shall report a § 415.71 Public safety responsibility. launch accident, launch incident, or a A launch licensee is responsible for § 415.75 Agreement(s) with federal launch mishap that involves a fatality or serious range. ensuring the safe conduct of a licensed injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2) launch and for ensuring that public Prior to conducting a licensed launch immediately to the Federal Aviation safety and safety of property are from a federal launch range, a launch Administration (FAA) Washington protected at all times during the licensee or applicant shall enter into an Operations Center and provide a written conduct of a licensed launch. agreement with a federal launch range preliminary report in the event of a providing for access to and use of U.S. launch accident or launch incident, in § 415.73 Continuing accuracy of license Government property and services accordance with the accident application; application for modification of required to support a licensed launch license. investigation plan (AIP) submitted as from the facility and for public safety part of its license application under (a) A launch licensee is responsible related operations and support. The § 415.41 of this part. for the continuing accuracy of agreement shall be in effect for the representations contained in its conduct of any licensed launch. A § 415.81 Registration of space objects. application for the entire term of the launch licensee shall comply with any (a) To assist the U.S. Government in license. A launch licensee must conduct requirements of the agreement(s) that implementing Article IV of the 1975 a licensed launch and carry out launch may affect public safety and safety of Convention on Registration of Objects safety procedures in accordance with its property during the conduct of a Launched into Outer Space, each application. A licensee’s failure to licensed launch, including flight safety licensee shall provide to the FAA the comply with the requirements of this procedures and requirements. information required by paragraph (b) of paragraph is sufficient basis for this section for all objects placed in § 415.77 Records. suspension or revocation of a license. space by a licensed launch, including a (b) After a launch license has been (a) A launch licensee shall maintain launch vehicle and any components, issued, a licensee must apply to the all records necessary to verify that except: FAA for modification of the license if: licensed launches are conducted in (1) Any object owned and registered (1) The launch licensee proposes to accordance with representations by the U.S. Government; and conduct a launch or carry out a launch contained in the licensee’s application. (2) Any object owned by a foreign safety procedure or operation in a A launch licensee shall retain records entity. manner that is not authorized by the for three years after completion of all (b) For each object that must be license; or launches conducted under the license. registered in accordance with this (2) Any representation contained in (b) In the event of a launch accident section, not later than thirty (30) days the license application that is material or launch incident, as defined in § 405.1 following the conduct of a licensed to public health and safety or safety of of this chapter, a launch licensee shall launch, a licensee shall submit the property would no longer be accurate preserve all records related to the event. following information: and complete or would not reflect the Records shall be retained until (1) The international designator of the launch licensee’s procedures governing completion of any federal investigation space object(s); the actual conduct of a launch. A and until the FAA advises the licensee (2) Date and location of launch; change is material to public health and that the records need not be retained. (3) General function of the space safety or safety of property if it alters or The licensee shall make available to object; and affects the licensee’s launch plans or federal officials for inspection and (4) Final orbital parameters, procedures submitted in accordance copying all records required to be including: with subpart D of this part, class of maintained under these regulations. (i) Nodal period;
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19621
(ii) Inclination; applicant proposing to launch from a National Environment Policy Act, 42 (iii) Apogee; and launch site not operated by a federal U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA), the Council (iv) Perigee. launch range when the FAA determines on Environmental Quality Regulations that the launch demonstrates an for Implementing the Procedural § 415.83 Financial responsibility requirements. equivalent level of safety to that Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500– provided by a launch from a federal 1508, and the FAA’s Procedures for A launch licensee shall comply with launch range as set forth in subpart C of Considering Environmental Impacts, financial responsibility requirements this part. A safety approval is part of the FAA Order 1050.1D. specified in a license or license order. licensing record on which the FAA’s § 415.103 Environmental information. § 415.85 Compliance monitoring. licensing determination is based. An applicant shall submit A launch licensee shall allow access § 415.93 Denial of safety approval. by, and cooperate with, federal officers environmental information concerning: or employees or other individuals The FAA notifies an applicant, in (a) A proposed launch site not authorized by the FAA to observe any writing, if it has denied safety approval covered by existing environmental activities of the licensee, or of the for a license application. The notice documentation; states the reasons for the FAA’s licensee’s contractors or subcontractors, (b) A proposed launch vehicle with determination. The applicant may associated with the conduct of a characteristics falling measurably respond to the reasons for the licensed launch. outside the parameters of existing determination and request environmental documentation; § 415.86±415.90 [Reserved] reconsideration. (c) A proposed launch from an Subpart FÐ-Safety Review and §§ 415.94±415.100 [Reserved] established launch site involving a Approval for Launch From a Launch vehicle with characteristics falling Site Not Operated by a Federal Launch Subpart GÐEnvironmental Review measurably outside the parameters of Range § 415.101 General. any existing environmental impact statement that applies to that site; § 415.91 General. An applicant shall provide the FAA (d) A proposed payload that may have The FAA evaluates on an individual with information for the FAA to analyze significant environmental impacts in the basis the safety-related elements of an the environmental impacts associated event of a mishap; and applicant’s proposal to launch a launch with a proposed launch. The vehicle from a launch site not operated information provided by an applicant (e) Other factors as determined by the by a federal launch range. The FAA must be sufficient to enable the FAA to FAA. issues a safety approval to a license comply with the requirements of the BILLING CODE 4910±13±P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19622 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix A to Part 415—FAA/USSPACECOM Launch Notification Form
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19623
BILLING CODE 4910±13±C
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 19624 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
6. Subchapter C of Chapter III, title 14, launch site does not jeopardize public et seq. (NEPA), the Council on Code of Federal Regulations, is health and safety, safety of property, Environmental Quality Regulations for amended by adding a new part 417 to U.S. national security or foreign policy Implementing the Procedural Provisions read as follows: interests, or international obligations of of NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508, and the United States. the FAA’s Procedures for Considering PART 417ÐLICENSE TO OPERATE A (b) A license to operate a launch site Environmental Impacts, FAA Order LAUNCH SITE authorizes a licensee to operate a launch 1050.1D. Sec. site in accordance with the § 417.107 Environmental information. 417.101 General. representations contained in the 417.103 Issuance of a license to operate a licensee’s application, subject to the An applicant shall submit launch site. licensee’s compliance with terms and environmental information concerning: 417.105 Environmental. condition contained in any license order 417.107 Environmental information. (a) A proposed launch site not accompanying the license. covered by existing environmental Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. § 417.105 Environmental. documentation; and § 417.101 General. (b) Other factors as determined by the An applicant shall provide the FAA The FAA evaluates on an individual FAA. with information for the FAA to analyze basis an applicant’s proposal to operate Issued in Washington, DC on April 13, a launch site. the environmental impacts associated with proposed operation of a launch 1999. § 417.103 Issuance of a license to operate site. The information provided by an Patricia G. Smith, a launch site. applicant must be sufficient to enable Associate Administrator for Commercial (a) The FAA issues a license to the FAA to comply with the Space Transportation. operate a launch site when it determines requirements of the National [FR Doc. 99–9639 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] that an applicant’s operation of the Environment Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 BILLING CODE 4910±13±P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:41 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 21APR2 eDt 0AR9 60 p 0 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M2AP.X fm6PsN:21APP2 pfrm06 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 16:05Apr20, 1999 VerDate 20-APR-99 federal register April 21,1999 Wednesday Notice Space LaunchandReentryMissions; Casualty CalculationsforCommercial Process andAC431±02,Expected Reusable LaunchVehicleSystemSafety Proposed AdvisoryCircular(AC)431±01, Licensing Regulations;ProposedRule Reusable LaunchVehicleandReentry Commercial SpaceTransportation 14 CFRPart400etal. Federal AviationAdministration Transportation Department of Part III 19625 19626 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Comments Invited Persons interested in being placed on Interested persons are invited to the mailing list for future NPRMs Federal Aviation Administration participate in the making of the should request from the above office a proposed action by submitting such copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, 14 CFR Parts 400, 401, 404, 405, 406, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 413, 415, 431, 433, and 435 written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments relating to Distribution System, that describes the the environmental, energy, federalism, application procedure. [Docket No. FAA±1999±5535; Notice No. 99± SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 04] or economic impact that might result from adopting the proposals in this Background document also are invited. Substantive RIN 2120±AG71 comments should be accompanied by General cost estimates. Comments must identify The Commercial Space Act of 1998 Commercial Space Transportation the regulatory docket or notice number (CSA), Public Law 105–303, extends the Reusable Launch Vehicle and Reentry and be submitted in duplicate to the licensing authority of the Secretary of Licensing Regulations DOT Rules Docket address specified Transportation under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle AGENCY: Federal Aviation above. IX, chapter 701 (known as the Administration (FAA), DOT. All comments received, as well as a Commercial Space Launch Act or CSLA), to reentry vehicle operators and ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking report summarizing each substantive the operation of reentry sites by a (NPRM). public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking, commercial or non-Federal entity. SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend will be filed in the docket. The docket Under the CSA, the Secretary is the commercial space transportation is available for public inspection before authorized to license reentry of a reentry licensing regulations by establishing and after the comment closing date. vehicle, including reusable launch operational requirements for launches of All comments received on or before vehicles, and the operation of reentry reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) and the the closing date will be considered by sites when those activities are authorized conduct of commercial space the Administrator before taking action conducted within the United States or reentry activities. The proposed rule on this proposed rulemaking. Comments by U.S. citizens abroad. The Secretary is would respond to advancements in the filed late will be considered to the charged with exercising licensing development of commercial RLV and extent possible without incurring authority protection of public health reentry capability and enactment of expense or delay. The proposals in this and safety and the safety of property as legislation extending the FAA’s document may be changed in light of well as consistency with U.S. national licensing authority to reentry activities. the comments received. security and foreign policy interests, The agency is proposing requirements Commenters wishing the FAA to and treaty obligations entered into by that limit risk to the public from RLV acknowledge receipt of their comments the United States. By delegation of and reentry operations and seeks public submitted in response to this document authority, the Administrator of the comment on appropriate measures to must include a pre-addressed, stamped Federal Aviation Administration is carry out its licensing and safety postcard with those comments on which responsible for carrying out the responsibilities. the following statement is made: Secretary’s licensing and safety mandate ‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–1999– with respect to commercial space DATES: Comments must be received on transportation and the Administrator or before July 20, 1999. 5535.’’ The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter. has, in turn, delegated regulatory and ADDRESSES: Comments on this related authority to the Associate Availability of NPRMs document should be mailed or Administrator for Commercial Space delivered, in duplicate, to: U.S. An electronic copy of this document Transportation (AST). Department of Transportation Dockets, may be downloaded using a modem and Amendment of the CSLA responds to Docket No. FAA–1999–5535, 400 suitable communications software from development of reentry capability and Seventh Street SW., Room Plaza 401, the FAA regulations section of the reusable launch vehicle technology by Washington, DC 20590. Comments also FedWorld electronic bulletin board the commercial space industry. Market may be sent electronically to the service (telephone (703) 321–3339) or forecasts of launch demand and following Internet address: 9–NPRM– the Government Printing Office’s international launch competition are [email protected]. Comments may be filed electronic bulletin board service driving industry to invest in means of and examined in Room Plaza 401 (telephone (202) 512–1661). accomplishing lower cost and more between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, Internet users may reach the FAA’s efficient access to space and specifically except Federal holidays. web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/ to low earth orbit. Reusable, or partially FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government reusable vehicles that are capable of Stewart W. Jackson, AST–100, Space Printing Office’s web page at http:// payload delivery and return to Earth for Systems Development Division, Office www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to reflight are considered by many in of the Associate Administrator for recently published rulemaking industry as integral to reducing launch Commercial Space Transportation, documents. costs. For years, expendable launch Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Any person may obtain a copy of this vehicles (ELVs) have successfully Department of Transportation, 800 NPRM by submitting a request to the provided commercial payload delivery Independence Avenue SW., Federal Aviation Administration, Office services; however, the ability to survive Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267–7903; of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 the rigors of launch and the prospect of or Ms. Esta M. Rosenberg, Attorney- Independence Avenue SW., multiple missions per vehicle may Advisor, Regulations Division, Office of Washington, DC 20591, or by calling dramatically lower price-per-pound-to- the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation (202) 267–9680. Communications must orbit launch costs. Growing interest in Administration, U.S. Department of identify the notice number or docket the ability to provide reliable round-trip Transportation, (202) 366–9320. number of this NPRM. space-route services, such as satellite
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.001 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19627 retrieval, package delivery, and alternative landing site where the discussion between the agency and ultimately space tourism, is attracting problem can be corrected and flight aerospace companies to avoid regulatory investment in a new class of space attempted again. Or, in another obstacles down the road that may delay launch vehicle that can provide orbital scenario, thrust termination combined operations. launch and reentry services. with a soft or slowed landing may allow The proposed rules would apply to A reusable launch vehicle, or RLV, a vehicle operator to recover its vehicle both commercial reentry vehicle and differs from an expendable launch for reconditioning and reuse. If a RLV activities. Not all RLVs are reentry vehicle in that the vehicle, or a landing can be accomplished safely in vehicles, and all reentry vehicles are not significant portion of it, would be terms of public risk, the operator would RLVs. A reentry vehicle is defined by designed to survive launch and reentry prefer it to total loss of the vehicle, and the Commercial Space Act of 1998 to from space and maintain functional may purposely select an in-land site for mean ‘‘a vehicle designed to return from integrity. Proponents of reusable launch the conduct of an RLV launch rather Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a technology envision rapid than risk launching over water where reusable launch vehicle designed to reconditioning and turn-around time to recovery would be difficult and costly. return from outer space to Earth, maximize efficiency and profitability. Return to Earth of a substantially substantially intact.’’ Pub. L. 105–303, Reusable launch vehicles are one form intact vehicle also presents safety issues Section 102(a)(3). Therefore, an RLV is of reentry capability that would be for the FAA. Although spent vehicle a reentry vehicle under specific subject to FAA licensing and safety stages return to Earth periodically, as conditions of design and operation. requirements under the Commercial does other space debris, it is generally Similarly, ‘‘reentry’’ is defined to mean Space Act of 1998. Any vehicle, expected that reentering space objects ‘‘to return or attempt to return, reusable or not, that is designed and burn up upon reentry into the Earth’s purposefully, a reentry vehicle and its operated such that it would atmosphere and do not present a threat payload, if any, from Earth orbit or from intentionally return to Earth from Earth to public safety. Reentry vehicles would outer space to Earth.’’ Pub. L. 105–303, orbit or outer space, substantially intact, be designed and controlled to the extent Section 102(a)(3). would require an FAA license. A person necessary to avoid burning up upon An RLV is a launch vehicle designed who offers use of a designated site for entry into the Earth’s atmosphere and to be launched more than once; however purposes of containing landing impacts the FAA’s safety program must ensure its return to Earth would be licensable would also be subject to FAA licensing that they impact Earth in a manner that as a reentry only if the vehicle achieves to assure public safety is maintained if does not jeopardize public health and Earth orbit or outer space. Some RLVs that person is a citizen of the United safety or the safety of property. Until are designed to operate in a suborbital States or if the reentry site is in the accuracy and reliability of a vehicle’s fashion in that they do not enter Earth United States. performance can be demonstrated orbit. Others achieve Earth orbit and Launch vehicle survivability poses through rigorous testing and numerous remain on orbit anywhere from one unique issues for the FAA in carrying flights, other risk mitigation measures orbital revolution to several days prior out its safety mandate. Except for the may be necessary to limit risks to the to initiating reentry, depending on the U.S. Space Transportation System (STS) public from an off-site landing, nature of the mission. Some vehicle which transports the space shuttle, only explosion or release of toxic substances. concepts employ a fully reusable ELVs are launched from the United The proposed rules would establish vehicle that carries the payload to orbit States and the vast majority of ELV general performance-based standards for and returns to Earth with the entire launches have been from federally the launch of an RLV from any launch vehicle intact. This category of RLV owned and operated launch sites, such site and requirements applicable to includes single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) as Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) or commercial reentry activities. The vehicles, such as the VentureStar Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). approach proposed by the FAA in this vehicle planned by Lockheed Martin ELVs having an orbital delivery notice is intended to provide the Corporation (Lockheed Martin) and capability are generally launched over emerging commercial space Rotary Rocket’s Roton vehicle. For unpopulated ocean areas so that debris transportation industry with the some, only certain stages, or portions, of generated from a vehicle failure would requisite flexibility to develop the vehicle are designed to reenter . For impact the Earth away from population. commercially feasible reentry and example, Kistler Aerospace Risk to public safety is assessed by reusable launch vehicle systems whose Corporation’s (Kistler) K–1 vehicle Federal ranges and launches proceed operation would not jeopardize public relies upon a two-stage-to-orbit concept from Federal sites only if public risk is safety. in which both the orbital vehicle and contained at an acceptable level. ELVs booster vehicle return to Earth for reuse; Reentry Vehicles and Reusable Launch rely upon flight termination systems however only the orbital vehicle would (FTS) that assure safe flight by Vehicle Proposals qualify as a reentry vehicle under the destroying a vehicle if it is traveling Extension of the FAA’s licensing statutory definition. An RLV also may beyond pre-approved boundaries so as authority to cover reentry operations be designed with one or more stages that to endanger the public. The boundaries, responds to the development of RLV are fully reusable and with other stages or impact limit lines, are drawn in technology by a number of commercial that are either partially reusable or even advance of a launch and ensure that entities that have begun to develop and expendable. There are also airborne vehicle debris is confined within an test RLV concepts. Not all test launch systems under development, unpopulated area in the event of vehicle operations require FAA launch and such as that proposed by Kelly failure or FTS activation. reentry licensing and may be covered by Aerospace, involving RLV and reentry In contrast, RLVs would be designed other agency authority. A number of operations. for recovery and reuse. Therefore, RLV technology developers have begun Further complicating the launch safety, for the most part, may be preliminary consultations with the FAA development of regulations for assured through non-destructive means to ascertain the nature and extent of commercial space transportation of terminating flight. In the event of a FAA safety requirements and activities is the variety of take-off and malfunction, an RLV may be able to authorization needed for flight of their landing concepts that have been return to its launch site or fly to an vehicles and the FAA encourages early proposed. These concepts include
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.002 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19628 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules vertical launch from conventional missions were originally planned, with letter from the Chairman of the House launch pads, horizontal take-off from an option for two additional missions. Subcommittee on Space to the Director conventional runways, and airborne The reentry vehicle system was of OCST, the Department was advised release using tow or air-drop comprised of a service module, that it did not have explicit licensing configurations. Also included are manufactured by Westinghouse Electric authority over payloads but that it vertical landing, horizontal landing, and Corporation, and a capsule-shaped should continue its safety review of a variety of ‘‘soft’’ landing concepts, reentry vehicle, manufactured by Space reentry vehicle operations associated such as parachutes, airbags, parafoils, Industries, Inc. Both companies were with the Launch. In the letter, dated rotors, water landings, or aerial under contract with NASA’s CCDS. The September 2, 1992, the House recovery. program was intended to demonstrate Subcommittee Chairman indicated that The FAA does not want to constrain the capability of a low cost, medium- the Committee would seek legislation to the development of emerging term (30-day) platform in space for the address commercial reentry vehicle technology as operators seek effective conduct and return to Earth of licensing issues, including and efficient methods of operation. microgravity experiments. The COMET indemnification and liability. OCST Therefore, the regulatory requirements Program and the agency’s approach to continued its evaluation of the COMET proposed by the FAA are not, generally authorizing its activity is fully described reentry vehicle system, and then speaking, based on type or design of a in several Federal Register Notices . METEOR, under its authority to reentry vehicle or RLV, nor is the FAA (See 57 FR 10213, March 24, 1992; 57 evaluate missions and payloads not proposing to certificate vehicle design. FR 55021, November 23, 1992; and 60 otherwise licensed by the Federal Rather, the FAA is proposing to FR 39476, August 2, 1995.) EER Systems government, for purposes of assuring examine closely those critical systems Corporation (EER), also under contract whether the launch of the COMET whose performance or reliability can to the CCDS, was responsible for payload would jeopardize public health affect public safety. Except for certain launching the COMET reentry vehicle and safety or safety of property. restrictions deemed critical to assuring system into space using a Conestoga The Commercial Space Act of 1998, public safety, the FAA proposes to expendable launch vehicle. Pub. L. 105–303, provides reentry employ a system safety engineering Upon command from Earth, the licensing authority to the Department approach that effectively allows an COMET would separate into two and imposes the financial responsibility operator to design its own operational components and the reentry vehicle and risk allocation provisions of 49 restrictions and performance envelope portion (Freeflyer), designed and U.S.C. 70112 and 70113 on licensed within permissible risk thresholds operated by Space Industries, Inc., reentries. (Financial responsibility established by the agency consistent would reenter the Earth’s atmosphere issues associated with licensed reentry with safety mandate. Limits and targeting a designated landing site on activities are discussed in a separate conditions on a licensee’s RLV launch earth where experiments could be rulemaking.) recovered. Because of funding problems and reentry vehicle operations would be COMET/METEOR Safety Approval determined through the system safety the COMET Program was terminated The COMET Program safety review process and risk assessments performed and subsequently resurrected under a evaluated safety aspects of the reentry by a license applicant. The FAA contract between NASA and Systems, vehicle system when operated in envisions that future use of RLV Inc., which became responsible for both launch and reentry operations. Flight accordance with certain operating operations may include passenger limits. The review encompassed vehicle transport, in addition to cargo transport, capability of the reentry vehicle system, renamed METEOR, was never design, engineering analyses, testing, to and from space. This notice is not manufacturing, and integration. A intended to address these issues. Future demonstrated, however, because of the Conestoga launch failure which vehicle safety evaluation determined the rulemakings will address crew and performance capabilities and limitations passenger safety and other issues. destroyed the METEOR system shortly after lift-off. of the integrated reentry vehicle system. History of U.S. Commercial Reentry The agency’s initial approach to the OCST did not dictate the methodology Capability COMET Program was to license the to be used by the applicant in reentry event separately from the launch performing the hazard and risk COMET/METEOR Program event under existing launch licensing assessment required for vehicle safety A number of the safety principles authority. The determination to issue a approval; however, the applicant had to reflected in this proposal originate with separate license for return to Earth of address engineering and safety analyses, the experience gained by the the reentry vehicle was based, in large component and system tests and Department’s Office of Commercial measure, on the fact that the reentry checkouts, quality assurance Space Transportation (OCST), the vehicle operator was a different entity procedures, manufacturing processes, predecessor organization to AST, in than the launch operator, and that and test plans and results. A separate evaluating the COMET (Commercial responsibility over the subsequent operations review evaluated the Experiment Transporter) Program and, reentry (30 days following completion operator’s ability to carry out the reentry later, the METEOR (Multiple of the launch) ought not be imposed operation in a safe manner consistent Experiment to Earth Orbit and Return) regulatorily on the launch operator, with the capability and limitations of Program. whose responsibility for launch safety the reentry vehicle system. Vehicle The COMET Program began as a would terminate after delivery of safety and operations approvals issued commercial program administered COMET to orbit and upon safing of the by OCST were limited to the design and through National Aeronautics and Space Conestoga expendable launch vehicle operating limits presented in the Administration (NASA)’s Centers for the upper stage. Also, under typical respective applications. Any subsequent Commercial Development of Space circumstances, the launch provider’s changes would require an amendment (CCDS). COMET was intended to obligations to its customer would end of the application and further review provide the services of a reentry vehicle upon successful deployment of the and approval by the agency. system to carry and return to Earth payload or cargo, in this case the For further assurance of public safety, experimental payloads. Three reentry COMET reentry vehicle system. By OCST determined it prudent to conduct
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19629 independent evaluations of the probability of any casualty occurring considered the probability of failure of reliability, design performance, and shall not exceed one in a million on an certain safety critical systems and the operation of the COMET reentry vehicle annual basis. In addition, the resultant errors in the landing location. system in addition to assessing the data probability of any casualty occurring in Therefore, EER pursued the requested submitted by Space Industries, Inc., and the area that is both outside the relief from the accuracy and reliability later by EER, to support the application designated landing site and the 100-mile criterion. for vehicle safety approval. These zone around the site shall not exceed OCST granted the requested waiver independent evaluations were designed one in a million for a single mission. for the following reasons: OCST to serve as a means of ensuring all The three criteria, established an determined that the three criteria were hazards had been identified and the acceptable level of risk that designed to collectively ensure public applicant had adequately addressed all conservatively, did not exceed the safety, meaning that satisfaction of the potential risks. The evaluation also normal background risk of individuals second and third criteria would provided technical verification of the affected by the activity. The criteria compensate if the ability of the reentry applicant’s analysis of the reliability of were published in the Federal Register vehicle system to meet the accuracy and the reentry vehicle system. on March 24, 1992 (57 FR 10213). reliability criterion was marginal. OCST As explained in the March 24, 1992 analyzed failure scenarios and COMET/METEOR Safety Approval Notice, the first criterion was directed at Criteria determined that there were ensuring vehicle reliability and circumstances in which intentional The COMET Program was the first accuracy within a controlled area. The reentry of the METEOR reentry vehicle commercial reentry operation that second criterion was intended to ensure could occur and public safety would be proposed to land a reentry vehicle in the that as a result of nominal operations, or assured without the demonstrated level United States. The designated landing in the event of a system error or of accuracy required under the first site for the reentry vehicle was the Utah deviation from planned trajectory of the criterion. Those circumstances were as Test and Training Range, a Federal vehicle, persons living within the follows: (i) if there were well-defined facility located in a sparsely populated vicinity of the landing site were not areas within which the vehicle was area. exposed to greater than the normal most likely to land if it missed the In fulfilling its statutory mandate to background risk that is accepted by the designated landing site, and the risk to protect public safety, OCST selected public in daily activities. The third the population within those areas fell three criteria against which the reentry criterion would limit public risk to within acceptable limits; (ii) if the vehicle system would be evaluated. The normal background risk even if a major condition of the vehicle following an evaluation criteria were performance- system failure resulted in an essentially errant reentry presented little risk to based rather than design standards to random reentry; however, flight path, afford the COMET Program participants design, and limited cross-range exposed populations because it would maximum flexibility in developing a capability of the vehicle made it not survive reentry or because of its safe and cost-effective product. As a possible to define the potential small size and mass and the absence of general matter, performance-based ‘‘footprint’’ in which a random reentry hazardous materials on the vehicle; and standards also further the public interest could occur. (iii) if risk mitigation measures could be by encouraging innovation and Believing that it could not satisfy the implemented to limit public safety risk technology development. The three first criterion in the absence of flight to acceptable levels. Because all of these criteria developed by OCST to evaluate performance history, Space Industries, circumstances were found to exist, and the COMET Program reentry vehicle Inc. petitioned for relief from the because criteria two and three were system were as follows: accuracy and reliability criterion. The satisfied, OCST concluded that public 1. The probability of the Reentry program was discontinued in May 1994, safety and U.S. national interests would Vehicle (RV) landing outside the before official action could be taken on not be jeopardized if criterion one were designated landing site shall not be the waiver request. Approximately one not satisfied for non-nominal cases. A greater than 3 in 1,000 missions. year later, NASA restarted the program, waiver of the accuracy and reliability 2. The additional risks to the public renamed METEOR by EER, which took criterion was therefore granted for the in the immediate vicinity of the landing over responsibility for development and METEOR Program’s first reentry. site (that is, the area within 100 miles operation of the reentry vehicle system However, as a condition of the waiver, of the designated landing site) shall not in addition to launch of the METEOR, OCST required that the operator exceed the normal background risks to on its Conestoga launch vehicle. implement a public information which those individuals ordinarily However, unlike the COMET Program, communications plan under which the would be exposed but for the reentry NASA contracted for reentry services affected public would be informed of missions. Normal background risk is and designated an area in the Atlantic the reentry activity, including its characterized as: the probability of any Ocean, off the coast of Virginia, for the estimated time and location. The casualty occurring within the 100-mile program’s initial reentry attempt. operator also was required to have an zone shall not exceed one in a million Changing the landing site from Utah to emergency response plan whereby local on an annual basis. In addition, the the Atlantic Ocean significantly reduced officials would be notified in the event probability of any casualty occurring the public’s exposure to risk if the of an off-site landing. within the zone shall not exceed one in vehicle were to land off-site as a result The launch vehicle failed shortly after a million for a single mission. of a system failure. While analysis lift-off during first stage powered ascent 3. The additional risks to the general showed that the properly operating and the vehicle and payload were public beyond the 100-mile zone around reentry vehicle would land within the destroyed. No subsequent application the designed landing site, and to designated landing area in 997 out of for a launch license or payload property on orbit, shall not exceed 1,000 nominal cases, Systems determination has been made under the normal background risks to which the Corporation argued that it could not COMET/METEOR Program and, as yet, public ordinarily would be exposed but demonstrate that the vehicle met the no formal application has been for the reentry missions. This normal criterion in non-nominal cases. Non- submitted to the FAA to reenter a background risk is characterized as: the nominal cases were those that reentry vehicle.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.004 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19630 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
Lessons Learned From COMET/ purposefully, [of] a reentry vehicle and intact landing of such vehicles returning METEOR Safety Approval Criteria its payload, if any, from Earth orbit or from outer space and whether financial The FAA concludes that a collective from outer space to Earth.’’ 49 U.S.C. responsibility and risk allocation approach of using a number of safety 70102(10). Two elements must be requirements, specifically the so-called standards, in combination, to limit risk satisfied for an event to qualify as a indemnification provisions of 49 U.S.C. is in the public interest. Accordingly, ‘‘reentry’’ subject to FAA licensing 70113, would apply to their landing on the FAA is proposing a three-prong jurisdiction. First, the vehicle (an Earth. The matter is now resolved by interrelated approach to achieving safe undefined term) that is being returned legislation and, to ensure consistency in reentry operations, in addition to to Earth must qualify as a ‘‘reentry its regulatory approach to assessing and requiring certain organizational vehicle’’ under the statutory definition. limiting risk to public safety, the FAA safeguards derived from the That is, not only must its reentry considers a suborbitally operated RLV government’s experience in managing originate from Earth orbit or outer space, the same as other reentry vehicles that safe launch operations. First, the but the vehicle must be designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space. performance hazards and risks to public reenter and land on Earth in From a safety and risk standpoint, the safety presented by a reentry vehicle substantially intact condition. Second, difference between a suborbital reentry proposal would be identified through a deliberate intent to reenter, or the and an orbital one is a distinction system safety process that defines the element of purposefulness, must exist. without a difference, in the agency’s safe operating envelope for a particular Absent these two elements, the opinion, because both pose comparable reentry vehicle, much like the vehicle unintended, though foreseeable, return risks to public safety as a result of safety approval process utilized for to Earth of an object capable of launch or ascent of the vehicle and evaluating the COMET reentry vehicle surviving reentry is not an event that intact descent or reentry of the vehicle. system. Second, an applicant for a requires licensing by the FAA. To ensure consistent application of reentry license would be required to For example, the return to Earth in standards in evaluating ascent and satisfy a collective risk criteria, referred 1997 of a major part of a Delta II launch descent risks presented by RLV vehicle, a second stage tank, in to as Ec. Third, as in COMET, the FAA proposals, the FAA has determined that is proposing certain risk mitigation substantially intact condition in a Texas the better approach is to regard a measures that must be followed even if field was foreseeable inasmuch as any suborbitally operated RLV as the launch other standards are satisfied. These object in orbit, and most immediately in and reentry of a reentry vehicle, rather measures take the form of operational low Earth orbit, will experience the than as a suborbital launch of a launch restrictions and are described below. effects of orbital decay over time and vehicle. As explained in the next The FAA proposes that the reentry eventually reenter Earth atmosphere. section of this supplementary site must be sufficiently large so as to Most such objects will burn up upon information, because the FAA would encompass the three-sigma footprint of reentry into Earth atmosphere due to evaluate the safety of the entire mission, the vehicle, as explained in greater aerodynamic heating caused by regardless of whether one authorization detail in a subsequent section elsewhere atmospheric drag. The Delta II second (launch) or two (launch and reentry) are in this notice under supplementary stage tank is notorious because it failed combined in a single instrument known information. This articulation of the to do so, however it would not require as a license, consistency in the agency’s landing site accuracy standard FAA licensing. The event illustrates that approach to risk assessment is assured. an object that is not intended to survive effectively limits the risk of an off-site The FAA concludes that a reentry substantially intact may in fact landing but does so in a way that is suborbitally operated RLV that achieves do so. The Delta II second stage is not more readily demonstrable by an outer space would satisfy the requisite a reentry vehicle under the statutory applicant, as it relates only to nominal element of purposefulness and would definition because it was not designed performance of the vehicle and its thus be subject to FAA reentry licensing to survive reentry. However, even if it systems. authority, even though an intervening were a reentry vehicle, the event would event of human control over vehicle General Approach to Reusable Launch not be subject to FAA licensing operations is not required to return that Vehicle and Reentry Licensing jurisdiction because there was never any vehicle to Earth. The term deliberate intent by an operator to Purposeful Reentry From Earth Orbit or ‘‘purposefully’’ that appears in the return the Delta II second stage to Earth, Outer Space definition of ‘‘reenter’’ and ‘‘reentry’’ is even though it was understood that the intended to include within the FAA’s Prior to enactment of the Commercial Delta stage, just like any other space reentry licensing authority those Space Act of 1998 (CSA), FAA licensing object, would eventually reenter Earth vehicles whose return to Earth must be authority over launch vehicle flight was atmosphere as a function of orbital deliberately initiated by human or pre- limited to launches of launch vehicles, decay. defined to mean to place or try to place Certain RLV launch concepts operate programmed intervention, as well as those vehicles for which intentional a launch vehicle and any payload in a in a suborbital 1 fashion in that they do reentry has been designed into the suborbital trajectory, in Earth orbit in not achieve orbital velocity. However, vehicle’s capability without initiation of outer space, or otherwise in outer space. until passage of the CSA, it remained a reentry sequence, as is the case in a 49 U.S.C. 70102(3). A ‘‘launch vehicle’’ doubtful (or at best unclear) as to ballistic launch and reentry where there is defined in 49 U.S.C. 70102 to mean whether Congress intended for the FAA is no need to activate a reentry a vehicle built to operate in, or place a to impose regulatory controls over the payload in, outer space, and a suborbital propulsion system. The term rocket. 49 U.S.C. 70102(7). 1 The dictionary definition of the term ‘‘purposeful’’ is, however, intended to Recent amendment of 49 U.S.C. ‘‘suborbital’’ means of or less than one orbit of the eliminate from the scope of FAA Subtitle IX, chapter 701, grants to the earth. A suborbital trajectory is a flight path that is licensing jurisdiction those spacecraft agency explicit licensing authority over not closed, whereas an orbit is a closed path. A that are not designed to, but may, suborbital trajectory may be ballistic, that is, acted reentry operations. ‘‘Reentry,’’ an event on only by atmospheric drag and gravity, or it can survive reentry into Earth atmosphere that must be authorized by the FAA, be controlled by external forces and therefore through application of natural means the ‘‘return or attempt to return, maneuverable. deorbiting forces, such as orbital decay.
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19631
Where the operator’s intent, as concepts, or that reenter in multiple licensing authority, as far as the payload evidenced through vehicle design and stages (some or all of which may also be is concerned, beyond placement of the operation, is to launch and deliberately reentry vehicles). A single safety payload in orbit or its planned return to Earth the RLV, and the vehicle criteria, measured in terms of expected trajectory. According to the Committee is designed to return from outer space casualty for the mission, would apply to Report, only the launch of a launch to Earth substantially intact, the return all public risk exposure from vehicle vehicle and reentry of a reentry vehicle to Earth is licensable as a ‘‘reentry.’’ operations during both ascent and requires FAA licensing and regulatory Thus, suborbitally operated RLVs that descent. Thus, a launch vehicle that oversight. While non-reentry vehicle reach outer space are reentry vehicles utilizes an expendable first stage booster operations on-orbit, maneuvers between whose reentry would be subject to FAA to achieve altitude and a second orbits, and activities following launch reentry licensing authority. reusable stage for delivery on orbit that also precede reentry are not As previously indicated, not all RLVs followed by reentry would be required intended to be covered by an FAA will satisfy the statutory definition of to satisfy the single Ec criterion cited license, the Committee Report the term ‘‘reenter’’ because they do not above for the FAA to authorize the recognized that the FAA may need to achieve Earth orbit or outer space. mission (launch and reentry). examine pre-reentry procedures and However, RLVs and reentry vehicles The FAA believes a caveat may be activities to evaluate safe reentry share the common operational appropriate with respect to the capability. characteristic of intact, targeted reentry appropriate public safety risk threshold A discussion of launch duration and and it is this operational characteristic to apply to a reentry vehicle that is the commencement point of a reentry that presents risks to public safety designed to remain on orbit for an license appears in a separate rulemaking warranting regulatory oversight. It is extended period of time and for which that addresses financial responsibility also this operational characteristic that planned reentry is so remote from the and risk allocation for licensed reentry heightens the risk of U.S. Government launch event that there is no objective activities so that space vehicle operators international liability under the Outer means or rational basis for combining can manage risks appropriately. Space Treaties and therefore warrants reentry risk with launch or ascent risk. Unlicensed events would only be regulatory supervision by the United The FAA requests public comment on eligible for government payment of States to ensure that reentry activities the circumstances, if any, under which excess claims protection, known as are conducted in a manner consistent it may be appropriate to separately indemnification, to the extent losses with international obligations of the assess the reentry risks of a reentry result from and are causally related to United States. vehicle from those presented by the a licensed activity. Therefore, for Therefore, whether or not an RLV is entire mission of launching a reentry purposes of insurance and also a reentry vehicle specifically vehicle into space and its subsequent indemnification under 49 U.S.C. 70112 subject to reentry licensing jurisdiction reentry. and 70113, it is critical that the FAA of the agency, the FAA is proposing a That said, the FAA envisions define those activities to which consistent measure of safety for ascent combining launch and reentry statutory-based insurance and risk and descent flight phases of an RLV. authorizations under a single license allocation would be applicable. For The measure of safety would not vary whereby a single operator is responsible purposes of licensing, it is also on the basis of whether an RLV’s flight for launch and reentry phases of the important that the agency define the and return to Earth meet the statutory extent of activity that is covered by a mission.2 The FAA would not use a definition of a ‘‘reentry.’’ In other license and is therefore subject to FAA ‘‘wait and see’’ approach to authorize a words, the public should not be exposed safety standards. to greater risk because a vehicle reentry. Reentry authorization would In determining the appropriate scope achieves Earth orbit or outer space, or is have to be issued in advance of launch, of a reentry license, the FAA considered maneuvered in its return to Earth rather signifying the FAA’s conclusion that the Committee Report language cited than returning through ballistic flight. both ascent and descent flight phases above, the scope of launch licenses for However, where reentry must be could be performed in a manner that ELV launches, and reentry risks for deliberately initiated for de-orbit to does not expose the public to which statutorily mandated financial occur, certain affirmative controls or unreasonable risk. responsibility and risk allocation are safety standards, as described under a Scope of License necessary. separate heading elsewhere in this In its report accompanying H.R. 1702, The report of the House Committee on supplementary information, would be the House Committee on Science stated Science, Report 105–347, addresses the imposed on the operator to ensure that ‘‘[b]y way of definition, the intended scope of licensing authority conditions for safe reentry are satisfied. Committee intends that [‘‘reentry’’] over reentry operations granted to the begins when the vehicle is prepared Mission Risk Assessment FAA by H.R. 1702, the Commercial specifically for reentry. By way of For all RLVs and most reentry Space Act of 1997. (The Commercial definition, the Committee intends the vehicles, the FAA proposes to approach Space Act of 1998 was enacted into law term to apply to that phase of the overall safety on an overall mission basis. The during the second session of the 105th space mission during which the reentry FAA would evaluate the safety of the Congress as Public Law 105–303. No is intentionally initiated. Although this ascent and descent phases of an RLV substantive changes to FAA reentry may vary slightly from system to mission and would not allow it to licensing authority from that reported system, as a general matter the proceed unless the combined risk of the on by the House Science Committee in Committee expects reentry to begin ascent and descent phases of the Report 105–347 appear in the public when the vehicle’s attitude is oriented mission satisfies the agency’s safety law.) It provides that the legislation is for propulsion firing to place the vehicle ¥6 not intended to extend FAA launch criteria. That criteria is: Ec ≤ 30 × 10 . on its reentry trajectory.’’ (Report 105– For risk assessment purposes, the FAA 347 at p. 21, 105th Cong., 1st Sess.) 2 Separate licenses would be appropriate in proposes no distinction among space circumstances where different operators are each The Report acknowledges that to launch vehicles that combine responsible for a particular phase of flight, as evaluate capability of a reentry operator expendable and reusable vehicle originally planned in the COMET Program. to conduct a safe reentry, the agency
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.006 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19632 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules may need to examine certain proposed non-nominal reentry could occur as a (or design in) certain control over the procedures and activities that would result of or during reentry-readiness vehicle in order to ready it for reentry. precede initiation of reentry; however, activity following a vehicle’s ascent to Because separate licensing authority these procedures and activities are not orbit, the agency concludes that such over launch and reentry is granted to the events requiring a license or otherwise activities must necessarily be covered agency by the amended statute, the FAA subject to regulations. ‘‘Rather, they by a license in order to assure public believes that the defined end of licensed would represent aspects of an safety. As discussed in a separate launch activity for an ELV may not be application that the Department would rulemaking on reentry financial appropriate in defining the end of have to measure against standards and responsibility, licensing reentry- licensed launch activity for an RLV. criteria that the Department has readiness activity is also critical to a However, that portion of the definition established are necessary to evaluate meaningful risk management scheme that addresses payload delivery is capability to conduct the reentry.’’ The under 49 U.S.C. 70112 and 70113. instructive in defining the end of the Committee further allows for both Accordingly, the FAA proposes to launch phase of an RLV mission that general and particular (case-by-case) define reentry and the scope of a reentry involves both a launch and reentry. In applicability of such standards and license in a manner similar to that fact, the Committee focuses on payload criteria to a reentry proposal. utilized for launch licensing. The term delivery in defining the end of launch The FAA proposes regulations ‘‘launch’’ is characterized in the House under the original intent of the CSLA. adopting the analytical approach to Science Committee Report as including ‘‘The original Act intended that a assessing reentry capability envisioned activities that precede flight that entail launch ends, as far as the payload is by the House Science Committee. The critical preparatory steps to initiating concerned, once the launch vehicle FAA is not proposing design-based or flight, are unique to space launch and places the payload in Earth orbit or in prescriptive requirements applicable to are so hazardous as to warrant agency the planned trajectory in outer space.’’ RLV or reentry vehicle activities while regulatory oversight, as long as they are (House Science Committee Report 105– on orbit. As described below, the conducted at a launch site in the United 347, at p. 22.) agency’s system safety approach to States, even if that site is not ultimately The Committee report language reentry risk requires that a reentry the site of the actual launch. (Report employs terms that describe the operator establish operating procedures 105–347 at p. 22, 105th Cong., 1st Sess.) appropriate end of a licensed launch of and specifications that ensure reentry The FAA finds in this report language a reentry vehicle when the reentry risks are confined within acceptable helpful guidance in attempting to vehicle itself is a payload, as was the limits. Reentry authorization would be delimit ‘‘that phase of the overall space case in the COMET/METEOR granted based on a demonstration by an mission during which the reentry is experience, in an effort to ensure the applicant that its vehicle and reentry intentionally initiated.’’ Just as pre- FAA does not bootstrap licensing operations satisfy the agency’s safety flight launch activities must be licensed authority over payloads. If the COMET criteria when operated in accordance because, among other things, they are or METEOR vehicle were presented with operator-designed procedures and critical and particular to the launch today for licensing, the end of launch criteria. process, the reentry phase may be would properly be defined as placement For purposes of measuring reentry defined as encompassing those vehicle of the payload, the COMET or METEOR safety against FAA criteria (Ec), operations necessary to assure reentry reentry vehicle, in Earth orbit or its however, it remains necessary to define readiness and safety that are uniquely planned trajectory, and safing of the the extent of activities that enter into the associated with the purpose and ELV upper stage used to launch the Ec analysis. Most of the RLV and reentry performance of the reentry mission. reentry vehicle (payload) to orbit, activities currently contemplated by the The FAA also considered the point in consistent with FAA licensing rules and aerospace industry involve very limited time when licensing authority over a Committee report language. During the time on orbit. RLVs that operate launch is concluded in an effort to 30-day period following launch and suborbitally, as discussed above, would define the point after launch when an preceding planned reentry, the COMET/ spend no time on orbit and would be authorized reentry may commence for METEOR payload would not be subject subject to continuous FAA licensing. licensing purposes. In a separate to FAA licensing, just as any other Unlike the COMET situation, RLVs that rulemaking governing licensing payload operating on orbit is not subject are reentry vehicles are not payloads for requirements for launches from Federal to FAA licensing. However, the purposes of launch. Rather, they are ranges, the FAA defines the end of intentional reentry to Earth of the both a launch and reentry vehicle. licensed activity, for purposes of the COMET/METEOR reentry vehicle from Except for extended microgravity launch vehicle, as the point after Earth orbit would require FAA licensing experimentation, such as that payload separation when the last action because it was designed to return to contemplated by the COMET Program, occurs over which a licensee has direct Earth substantially intact. regulation of on orbit activity of orbital or indirect control over the launch Reusable launch vehicles that are also reentry vehicles would be limited to vehicle. Typically, this point occurs reentry vehicles present a different that necessary to ensure reentry when the vehicle’s upper stage is situation from COMET/METEOR in that readiness, capability and safe return to rendered inert or safe from explosive RLV operations on orbit are not payload a designated destination. Because risk. Currently, licensed launches from operations. Based on pre-application additional time on orbit would raise Federal ranges are exclusively launches consultations with RLV developers, the costs and otherwise interfere with RLV of expendable launch vehicles (ELVs), FAA understands that RLV operations objectives of prompt delivery and return and the licensing rule definition of the on orbit following payload deployment services, the FAA envisions that the end of licensed launch activity is would be those conducted generally for only on orbit time spent by an orbital directed, quite properly, to ELV the purpose of assuring reentry reentry vehicle would be that required launches. If applied to RLV technology, readiness, such as safety system to assure reentry-readiness through however, a launch might not be checkouts, vehicle orientation for the reentry safety-critical system check-out concluded under the terms of this targeted landing site, and attitude and attitude and orientation adjustment definition until reentry is complete control and adjustment prior to for return to the reentry site. Because a because the RLV operator would retain initiating a deorbit burn or other reentry
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.007 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19633 sequence necessary for the intended Public Safety Strategy for Assessing rate per mission; and (3) mandatory return to Earth. Accordingly, the FAA Reusable Launch Vehicle and Reentry operational restrictions imposed by defines the end of licensed launch Safety regulation for risk mitigation purposes. activity for an RLV launch at No single one of these processes is deployment of a payload. The licensed This proposal reflects a three-pronged sufficient by itself to ensure that a reentry phase of a mission begins approach to assuring that risks to public reentry operation would not jeopardize immediately thereafter for vehicles that safety are maintained at or below public safety. The FAA believes that the are intended to reenter when reentry- acceptable levels during an RLV mission combination of these elements will be and any licensed reentry. The three readiness is verified. In other effective in limiting public risk. The prongs, which are interrelated, are: (1) circumstances, such as a planned or following chart demonstrates the utilization by an applicant of a designed-in delay of reentry for an interrelationship of the three elements extended duration the FAA requests systematic, logical and disciplined of the agency’s public safety strategy: comments on the appropriate point for system safety process; (2) an analysis commencing reentry licensing authority. that determines the expected casualty
The first two elements are applied on systems such as that contained in 14 The FAA does not propose to define a case-by-case, or individual, basis CFR 25.1309. This process lays the acceptable system safety processes as a because the factors that comprise the foundation for the system safety regulatory matter; however, the process necessary analyses are uniquely engineering effort used in designing a selected must be adequate to dependent on vehicle capability, design vehicle and therefore the FAA believes accomplish its intended purpose. The and intended operation. Mandatory the requirement would impose no FAA will issue guidance material operational restrictions would be additional burden on an applicant. A describing an acceptable system safety specified in rules of general system safety process employs methods process and its elements as a means of applicability. and techniques that may be utilized for compliance with regulations. The FAA Assessment of expected casualties is a identifying: (i) the hazards that result will also issue guidance on acceptable commonly used measure of launch risk from a particular launch or reentry methodology for calculating expected within the aerospace community. The vehicle operation, (ii) the effects on or casualty risk. The FAA believes FAA proposes to measure collective consequences to public safety of those applying a flexible approach of this risk, defined as the product of the hazards including vehicle failure, (iii) nature to assessing risk to public safety probability (or frequency) of occurrence means of controlling or mitigating those is particularly critical at this early stage of all events and the severity of each consequences, and (iv) verification of RLV and reentry technology events impact or consequences on processes of the effectiveness of risk development to accommodate, and public safety. A quantitative number is mitigation measures. Part of a system encourage, the varied operational and derived through analytic techniques in safety process is the application of design concepts envisioned within the lieu of empirical launch data, because techniques and tools to determine industry. the actual number of launches of a failure probabilities and to estimate the Calculation of casualty expectancy particular type of launch vehicle is too consequences of such failures, which in and system safety process analyses are small to be statistically significant. turn informs calculation of the expected analytical tools. Absent operational Presented below is the agency’s casualty rate. Thus, the two analyses are proof of vehicle reliability, the FAA proposed measure of acceptable interrelated. Through a system safety believes that additional constraints on casualty risk. process, an applicant develops operations are also necessary to assure Applicants will be required to utilize operational constraints and defines the public safety until sufficient flight data a system safety process. In some operating envelope that will ensure its is available to validate analytical respects, this is similar to the FAA mission does not exceed acceptable risk demonstrations. The FAA is proposing systems approach to examining aviation thresholds . to impose certain operational
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.008 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19634 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
restrictions on all RLV missions and range Ec standard of 0.00003 casualties The basic elements for determining ¥6 reentries, and additional restrictions for per launch or Ec ≤ 30 × 10 in its mission risk are discussed above; unproven vehicles. The FAA will licensing regulations and will license however, the real-world process for relieve or waive restrictions once launches from non-Federal launch sites determining mission risk is a bit more sufficient performance data is available if equivalent safety is demonstrated. The complicated. The process must account to support an agency determination that FAA proposes to apply the same for a large number of possible events, public safety is assured without their approach to evaluate RLV and reentry and there are likely to be many different imposition. risks on a per mission basis. failure modes that could affect the There are two fundamental characteristics (e.g., size, location) of the 1. Calculation of Ec (Acceptable public components of Ec analysis: (1) debris and lethal area. Fortunately, the risk) determination of the probability of a goal in conducting a risk analysis to Although risk is inherent in the failure event (pi), and (2) evaluation of determine Ec for a particular mission is operation of an RLV or reentry vehicle, the consequence of the failure event (Ci). not to determine the actual risk but to this proposal would establish limits on The complete equation for Ec is the sum, determine that the risk is below a ¥6 the risk to public safety that may result over all possible failure events, of the certain threshold Ec of 30 × 10 . The from licensed flight of an RLV or reentry product of the pi and Ci as follows: FAA believes that Ec calculations are vehicle. Risk analysis has been widely best made using conservative estimates used to support regulatory and n =() × and worst-case assumptions to identify industrial decision-making and to Ec∑ p i c i and limit the public’s risk exposure for allocate limited resources. The Nuclear i=1 improbable hazardous events with high Regulatory Commission and the where ‘‘i’’ is a failure event and where consequences. Department of Energy, for example, there are ‘‘n’’ failure events that could Recognizing that Congress has chosen have made extensive use of risk analysis result in a non-zero consequence. to accept the risk of RLV operations and in analyzing, licensing, and regulating The probability of a failure event is reentry to derive the benefits from the operation of nuclear power plants; always a fraction between 0 and 1, evolving commercial technology, the prioritizing nuclear waste disposal while the measure of the consequence of FAA considered whether to separately safety issues; and performing the failure event could be any number. assess launch risk from reentry risk and, environmental impact analyses. The The larger the number, the greater the if so, whether a different risk threshold Department of Defense (DOD) also has risk. Reducing the probability of the should be used for launch as opposed to used risk analysis to develop and test failure event could lower the risk. reentry. This proposal reflects the FAA’s nuclear weapons systems. Because the probability of a failure opinion that a single consistent standard In the space launch arena, risk event is related directly to the reliability for measuring acceptable public risk analysis is used to evaluate the hazards of a vehicle’s safety critical systems and should be applied, and that it should and consequences associated with a subsystems, having a very reliable apply on a per mission basis. launch. One measure of acceptable vehicle could lower the risk. (Whether The FAA has met with representatives flight risk used to determine whether a a system is safety critical such that a of the space transportation industry in launch can proceed at a Federal launch failure of the system might affect public pre-application consultation on RLV range is calculation of the expected safety would depend on a number of proposals and to provide licensing number of casualties (Ec) to the factors, including vehicle flight path guidance. On May 13, 1998, the FAA collective members of the public and its capability to reach populated met with representatives of each RLV exposed to debris hazards from a areas.) developer then known to the agency to particular launch. A casualty includes Lowering the consequence of the discuss RLV and reentry safety serious injury as well as death. Ec failure event also could reduce the risk. assessment issues and to gather provides the advantage of a The consequence of the failure event is information from industry members mathematically defined criterion on calculated by multiplying the surface who have begun to develop commercial which to evaluate an event, such as a area population density by the casualty RLVs and reentry vehicles. A summary launch or reentry, without the necessity area of the vehicle. This calculation of the meeting has been added to the of completing detailed vehicle design would have to be made using the docket for this proposal. Information analyses. The term ‘‘public’’ for casualty area produced by an intact obtained by the FAA indicates that a purposes of Ec calculation means all vehicle or the casualty area created by reentry accident may be comparatively persons who do not participate in the the debris fragments produced by a less hazardous than a launch accident, operation of the vehicle, hence, the term vehicle that has broken up in midair. a risk generally accepted by the public. ‘‘public’’ would not include the crew on The worst-case scenario should be used. A reentry accident could pose less of a a manned vehicle. The casualty area of the vehicle would risk than a launch accident because a Federal range safety requirements consider the potential for casualties reentry vehicle could carry substantially developed over the last 40 years related to secondary explosions, less propellant, if any, than a launch safeguard the public by limiting the hazardous material exposure, collateral vehicle and could therefore pose less of public’s exposure to the risks associated damage, and the lateral movement of an explosive or fire hazard under some with launch activities. Because of debris after impact. From the equation circumstances. If this is so, it also could operator adherence to Federal range it can be deduced that Ec could be be expected that the Ec for the reentry safety requirements and practices, the lowered by operating the vehicle so that of a vehicle of a particular design would public has not suffered any casualty a failure event causes few or fewer be significantly less than the Ec for the from launches of ELVs. Therefore, it has casualties. (ELVs generally have a small launch of that same vehicle over any not been necessary for the FAA to Ec because planned flight paths are over area of the same population density. independently evaluate the design or unpopulated areas, such as the ocean, On February 11, 1999, the FAA held manufacture of vehicles and duplicate and a destructive flight termination a public meeting to discuss draft interim the evaluation process undertaken when system (FTS) would be used to destroy safety guidance concerning RLV a vehicle is launched from a Federal the vehicle if it deviates from its operations and to gather information range. The FAA has adopted the Federal planned flight path.) from industry representatives who are
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.009 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19635 developing commercial RLVs. The draft most are believed to burn up on reentry. for unproven vehicles. Instead, it would interim safety guidance, issued in While some components of the stages focus solely on identifying and advance of rulemaking proceedings, was have been found to have survived, evaluating failure modes and rates prepared to assist prospective reentry empirical data seems to support this affecting risks to public health and license applicants in understanding the conclusion. safety and the safety of property by nature of the agency’s public safety In fostering the nation’s space launch conducting an evaluation of vehicle concerns when evaluating proposed capability, the government understands systems and proposed operations. RLV operations. A transcript of that some risk to public safety shall be Because of the variety of RLV and comments made at the public meeting endured for the national interest and reentry vehicle designs and operational have been added to the docket economic well-being of the United concepts, the FAA has not enumerated inasmuch as they may also address States. And, the public accepts the very a specific evaluation methodology. aspects of the agency’s proposed limited risks to which it is exposed, as Examples of acceptable techniques for regulatory approach to regulating safety evidenced by population growth in the determining failure conditions include, of RLV and reentry operations. Written vicinity of Federal launch sites. but are not limited to, the following: comments are also placed in the docket. However, the FAA is reticent to impose Preliminary Hazards Analysis, Failure In light of this information, the FAA greater risk on the public than that Mode and Effect Analysis, Failure Mode considered whether a single Ec risk currently accepted for ELV launches in Effect and Criticality Analysis, Fault threshold should be applied to the order to accomplish the comparable Hazard Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, mission as a whole or separately to each launch mission of placing payloads on Double Failure Matrix, Hazard and segment of the mission (launch and orbit, but at reduced costs. Accordingly, Operability Analysis or Operability reentry). If it is assumed that a vehicle the FAA proposes to continue use of the Hazard Analysis, and Fault Tree will operate at the absolute extreme Federal range risk standard of Ec ≤ 30 × ¥6 Analysis Methodology for Hazard allowed by the risk threshold, 10 on a per mission basis for RLV and Assessment. An applicant would use employing separate risk thresholds at other launch and reentry missions. the evaluation methodology most the level currently tolerated for launch Nevertheless, the FAA acknowledges appropriate for the system being would make the total maximum risk that there may be circumstances under evaluated. A separate analysis needn’t exposure for an entire RLV mission which it would be appropriate to be performed for each flight of a launch nearly equal to 60 × 10¥6 (30 × 10¥6 for separate launch from reentry risk, such vehicle. If a previously approved launch plus 30 × 10¥6 for reentry, as where different operators are mission utilized a risk assessment for a assuming independent events). The involved and may be apportioned similar mission with a substantially effect of using separate, independently allowable risk thresholds, or where similar vehicle, the earlier risk applied standards would be to intervening events or time make reentry assessment may serve as the basis of a effectively nearly double the acceptable risks sufficiently independent of launch comparative analysis for the proposed maximum risk exposure imposed on the risks as to warrant separate mission. public for an RLV mission in consideration. comparison to the public’s risk from the Potential risks identified in the 2. System Safety Process and Risk launch of an expendable launch vehicle analysis must be mitigated to protect Analysis launching the same payload. (Note that public health and safety and the safety applying separate risk thresholds for As part of the system safety process of property. The process of evaluating launch and reentry would result in an and risk analysis, an applicant would be and mitigating the potential risk of a increased risk threshold for the mission required to determine the probability vehicle or operation would continue if the aggregate risk allowed (launch Ec and consequences of events that may until all risks are mitigated to an + reentry Ec) were greater than 30 × affect public safety. Doing so requires acceptable level. In the aviation 10¥6.) population data, vehicle casualty areas, industry, typical hazard control and risk Next, the FAA considered the and vehicle failure modes and rates. mitigation includes the following: appropriate risk threshold to use in Accurate population data generally are • Design integrity and quality, assessing risk on a per-mission basis if available and casualty areas could be including life limits, to ensure intended a single Ec value is applied to the estimated using accepted industry function and prevent failures; mission, that is, whether the level of practices. However, development of • Proven reliability of systems so that acceptable risk should be increased in vehicle failure rate is more complicated. multiple, independent failures are the interest of technology advancement. Failure modes and rates for a vehicle unlikely to occur during the same flight; Currently, the FAA’s practice in are related to the failure modes and • Capability to check a component’s evaluating the collective risks associated rates of its major systems, which in turn condition; with a launch is to ensure that Ec is not correlate to the failure modes and rates • Failure warning or indication to greater than 30 × 10¥6. This value was of major subsystems of a vehicle. To provide failure detection; derived from launch risk guidance obtain a conservative risk assessment of • employed by the U.S. Air Force at Cape a vehicle lacking an adequate flight Isolation of systems, components, Canaveral Air Station and Vandenberg history, an applicant could conduct a and elements so the failure of one does Air Force Base to define acceptable risk. risk analysis and assume the probability not cause the failure of another; • ‘‘Eastern and Western Range 127–1 of a catastrophic failure of 1.0. In the Redundancy or backup systems to Range Safety Requirements,’’ Section alternative, an applicant would have to enable continued function after any 1.4 (October 31, 1995). Since the complete a detailed risk analysis. This failure; beginning of the U.S. space program, the risk analysis would be similar to a • Design failure effect limits, public has not suffered any serious traditional systems safety analysis used including the capability to sustain injuries or fatalities as a result of a by DOD and NASA; however, it would damage and to limit the safety impact or Government or commercial launch not focus on mission success per se. effects of a failure; under this standard. Expected risks from However, while experience shows that • Design failure path to control and eventual reentry of ELV stages due to such analyses are helpful, they are direct the effects of a failure in a way orbital decay is relatively small because subject to error because of ‘‘unknowns’’ that limits its safety impact;
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.010 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19636 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
• Margins or factors of safety to allow As noted above, the risk a vehicle industry noted that the STS (Space for any undefined or unforeseeable poses to public health and safety and Shuttle) is still in the midst of its test adverse conditions; the safety of property is a product of two program. • Error tolerance that considers factors: the probability of a failure event Moreover, because of the costs and adverse effects of foreseeable errors and the consequences of that failure disadvantages of flight testing, the FAA during the vehicle’s design, test, event. If the probability of a failure expects that many RLV and reentry manufacture, operation, and event is related directly to vehicle vehicle operators will propose to maintenance; reliability and that reliability cannot be validate vehicle design through the use • Computer software verification, determined accurately, public health of sophisticated computer simulations, validation, documentation, and safety and the safety of property can ground testing, or other detailed configuration management, and quality be protected only by limiting the analyses. The FAA does not object to assurance; consequences of a failure event. this anticipated approach but does • Personnel qualification and Therefore, based on the uncertainties believe it necessary to impose training; involved in the operation of an operational restrictions in the interest of • Contingency planning, including unproven RLV or reentry vehicle and public safety until vehicle performance operator procedures after failure the projected benefits resulting from the is proven. Finally, the FAA is not proposing detection to enable continued safe imposition of operational restrictions on rules applicable to reuse or reflight of a flight, evacuating personnel from high such vehicles (based on a current particular vehicle. Each flight of a risk areas, and modifying vehicle assessment of probable system failures), reusable launch vehicle would be trajectory to avoid high risk areas; and the FAA proposes to impose operational • restrictions on a vehicle that has not required to satisfy the safety criteria Process approval, including an promulgated by the agency in licensing evaluation of risk reduction, mitigation proven system performance and reliability through a flight test program rules, and an applicant’s demonstration strategies, and configuration that it has satisfied the criteria would management. or operational use. In support of proposed restrictions, have to account for effects of prior flight The system safety process and the FAA notes that industry on vehicle performance. associated risk analysis that the FAA representatives have stated that, For these reasons, the FAA proposes proposes to require is substantially historically, predictions of vehicle to impose operational restrictions that similar to the engineering analysis a performance and failure modes have would apply to all RLV launches and vehicle developer would complete to often overlooked key events or reentries, with an additional restriction assess the viability and the probability circumstances. None of the significant on the flights of unproven vehicles at of success of an intended operation. failures in the Apollo program or other least until sufficient data is obtained Developers would also need this ELV programs were predicted. Also, about vehicle performance to warrant information to convince and assure failure rates for the first launch of new relief from that restriction. investors of the soundness of their launch vehicles are significant. While a A. Restricting flight over populated investment. quantitative risk analysis is an areas. The FAA defines flight The FAA is developing guidance important and necessary tool in the restrictions applicable to flight of an material to assist the industry in development of a vehicle concept, the RLV or reentry of a reentry vehicle in complying with the proposed system FAA considers it inappropriate in this terms of its ‘‘dwell time,’’ which refers safety approach. In discussions, proposal to allow the flight of an to the measured period of time during industry representatives recommended unproven and untested RLV or reentry which an area is exposed to hazards that the FAA develop an approach built vehicle over populated areas in a from a vehicle’s operation, and its around engineering documentation manner that can affect public safety instantaneous impact point, or IIP. The during specific program phases, such as based solely on the favorable results of IIP reflects a projected impact point on design and development, a quantitative risk analysis. the surface of the Earth where the manufacturing, and vehicle operations. The FAA does not believe an vehicle or vehicle debris in the event of Others have stated that [an applicant’s adequate determination of system failure and break-up would land. A submission] [the documents] should performance and reliability for new vehicle’s IIP is not generally the area outline the applicant’s ‘‘philosophy’’ flight concepts can be demonstrated immediately under the vehicle’s flight but that the FAA should require solely through hazard analyses and path because the vehicle’s momentum evidence supporting the documentation. ground tests. Accidents or other failures and atmospheric conditions will cause The FAA invites further comments and often are the result of an unforeseen the vehicle to impact in some other recommendations that would assist in combination of hardware and software location. The projected IIP of a vehicle developing an acceptable analysis to failures in combination with external can be calculated with some degree of ensure all factors affecting public health influences, such as human error. System accuracy if the vehicle’s aerodynamic and safety and the safety of property are design validation and functional characteristics are known. The projected considered and addressed specifically. performance verification could possibly IIP of an RLV during ascent to orbit be accomplished in 10 to 20 flights, moves across the surface of the Earth 3. Operational Restrictions on Reusable depending on the design unique to each until the vehicle attains orbital velocity. Launch Vehicle Launch and Reentry vehicle. However, a relatively large Once on orbit, a vehicle no longer has The system safety process, in number of flights may be needed to an IIP. combination with quantitative risk demonstrate reliability and to The FAA does not believe it would be criteria, yields a performance envelope understand unanticipated failure appropriate to allow the IIP of an within which an applicant demonstrates modes. Some industry representatives unproven RLV or reentry vehicle to pass its ability to operate without excessive have expressed the opinion that one over populated areas unless the risk is risk to public safety. But these are would need to complete 1,000 flights to very low, even if failure occurs. In other analytical processes only and may not accurately determine reliability of a words, if the vehicle were to fail and the reflect real world performance even vehicle. At the May 1998 FAA meeting vehicle or debris from vehicle break-up under the best of circumstances. with RLV industry representatives, were dispersed in the course of vehicle
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.011 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19637 flight, the flight path and trajectory must determine the point of transition will and the FAA concurs that a thorough be designed to minimize the risk of depend on the unique design flight test program similar to that debris impacting a populated area. The characteristics of the vehicle. The FAA required of commercial aircraft would proposed regulation therefore limits believes that, at a minimum, an operator stifle the emerging industry and pose a public risk exposure to an Ec of not must validate its risk analysis with number of difficulties. Furthermore, by greater than 30 × 10¥6 assuming a flight data in order to ‘‘prove’’ the the nature of their operational failure while the IIP is over each performance of a vehicle. In this envelopes, differences between an RLV populated area. context, the term ‘‘validate’’ means that or reentry vehicle test flight and Thus, for unproven vehicles, the FAA the vehicle’s flight data show that the operational flight are less distinct than proposes that during any segment of vehicle operated in a manner those of an aircraft test flight and flight, the projected IIP of the vehicle substantially similar to that predicted by operational flight. While an aircraft may shall not have substantial dwell time the operator’s risk analysis. conduct tests of its full-flight envelope over a populated area. The applicant As stated earlier, the number of flights within a remote site, conducting full- may either avoid any passage of the necessary to validate a vehicle’s risk flight tests of an RLV or reentry vehicle vehicle’s IIP over populated areas or analysis also would depend on the would require suborbital and/or orbital may demonstrate that the Ec criteria of nature of the operations the vehicle flights over substantially large areas. ≤30 × 10¥6 would be satisfied even if would be expected to perform. For Because of the physical range of such the vehicle were certain to fail while its example, if an operator proposes to flights, there would be little distinction IIP is over a populated area.3 An operate its vehicle over populated areas between a test and an operational flight applicant can select the approach to and to rely on an abort capability to with its inherent risks. Imposition of a limiting public risk that best suits its achieve required levels of safety, the flight test requirement also would proposed operations. operator would be required to impose on the industry direct costs to For a proven vehicle, the FAA demonstrate that the vehicle can conduct the tests and indirect costs proposes that a vehicle may not have perform the critical abort and recovery through lost revenue, reduced life substantial dwell time over densely maneuvers necessary to fly safely. cycles, and vehicle test flight damage populated areas but for the time being The agency also believes it prudent to that would have to be repaired to ensure proposes to determine what is gain practical experience in observing the vehicle meets regulatory standards ‘‘substantial’’ and ‘‘densely’’ on a case- the stresses of flight on reentry vehicles, for reentry operations. For these by-case basis to afford the agency particularly those intended for reuse, reasons, the FAA is not proposing flexibility in evaluating an RLV or before issuing a pronouncement of the requirements for the conduct of a flight reentry flight proposal. Substantial point at which a vehicle is ‘‘proven’’ for test program but rather has proposed a dwell time over a populated area could purposes of safety regulation. In regulatory structure that would require result from a stationary or slowly adopting this stance, the FAA is an applicant to demonstrate that its moving IIP that remains over a mindful that the nation’s STS, proposed operations meet an acceptable populated area or a rapidly moving IIP commonly referred to as the Space level of risk and conform to certain that traverses numerous populated Shuttle, is still undergoing a test operational requirements. However, an areas. Typical dwell time for ELV program under NASA’s purview, operator may choose to conduct flight- operations ranges from four to six despite its many flights. Therefore, testing to ensure its proposed operations seconds of flight but varies depending before the FAA would allow an RLV or meet proposed risk mitigation criteria. upon the point in vehicle flight during reentry vehicle to fly over densely The FAA requests views on which it occurs. For example, dwell populated areas, an applicant would appropriate measures of validating new time in the first seconds of a launch need to prove that its vehicle maintains vehicle performance and criteria for would not be tolerated because of the structural and aerodynamic integrity determining the point at which a risk of vehicle failure. Later in flight throughout its proposed flight regime vehicle may be considered ‘‘proven.’’ when a vehicle is nearing orbital (i.e., flight lifetime), and that the B. Monitoring critical systems. The velocity, some dwell time over operator can maintain command and operator of an RLV or reentry vehicle populated areas has historically been control of the vehicle during flight. must be able to monitor and verify the tolerated because the probability of That said, the FAA is not specifically status of launch and reentry safety- failure and its consequences are much mandating adherence to a flight test critical systems before launch, during reduced. Thus, for any particular RLV regime to demonstrate vehicle launch flight, and before reentry flight. flight or reentry proposal, the agency capability. Traditionally, flight testing The status of a reentry safety-critical would evaluate on an individual basis has not been required of ELVs. Because system before reentry would affect any the public safety risks associated with ELVs are generally launched over ocean decision to conduct reentry operations. proposed dwell time over populated areas and the flight safety systems are To ensure an operator is aware of the areas. However, in any event, vehicle subject to rigorous design and testing status of the vehicle, the FAA proposes operations would be assessed against Ec standards such that little public risk to require procedures for monitoring criteria, which may not be exceeded. exposure is involved, there is little to be performance of on-board, safety critical The FAA is not prepared to state in gained in terms of public safety risk systems just prior to enabling reentry. a rule of general applicability the point mitigation from a requirement to Monitoring would provide an operator at which an RLV transitions from an conduct test flights of ELVs for the with the status of key systems before ‘‘unproven’’ state to a proven one. The purpose of design validation. Moreover, conducting public safety critical number of flights necessary to because each flight of an ELV is its first operations and would ensure that flight, and its only flight, little would be reentry flight would be initiated only 3 The proposed restrictions would apply only to learned about the effects of flight stress under nominal or non-nominal those segments of flight where the IIP touches the on reusability of the vehicle. conditions that have been assessed surface of the Earth. Certain reentry-readiness RLV industry representatives have through the system safety process and operations performed on orbit during the ‘‘reentry phase of flight’’ do not involve an IIP that touches noted that for vehicles currently under satisfy the risk threshold. Critical the surface of the Earth and therefore would not be development it would be impractical to information would have to be provided affected by the criteria. require thousands of flight test hours, perhaps through telemetry to a control
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.012 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19638 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules center or individual with command For example, if the reentry site were Reusable Launch Vehicle Mission and capacity and decision making an area on a target, the mid-point or Other Reentry Licenses responsibility. Other information used center point is the mean and the small For the near term, the FAA envisions for system validation, system reuse, area around it is the bulls-eye. The that the majority of reentry activities performance characterization, or post- bulls-eye represents one standard subject to FAA licensing jurisdiction flight anomaly investigation could be deviation from the mean or center point. would involve reusable launch vehicle recorded for review after flight. This The first contour area is two standard technology, as opposed to the COMET/ type of data may facilitate transition deviations from the mean point and the METEOR type of reentry vehicle. The from an unproven to proven vehicle; second contour area is three standard latter was intended for launch as a however, the FAA is not mandating deviations from that point. Assuming a payload by an expendable launch real-time monitoring of non-safety normal distribution, the three-sigma vehicle, would enter its designated orbit critical systems. area, or the area within two contours of and ultimately perform an unguided C. Positive enabling of fail-safe the bulls-eye, represents the area in ballistic reentry to a designated reentry reentry. To further enhance safety, the which an archer’s arrow would strike site about 30 days later. In the case of FAA proposes a fail-safe operational with a three-sigma probability. such reentries, the same risk criteria procedure whereby an operator must However, the size of the area must be would apply to launch and reentry of issue a command that enables vehicle adjusted for different conditions or the reentry vehicle as would apply to reentry unless the vehicle is designed to variables, such as distance from the any other RLV mission, under the FAA’s operate suborbitally. In the event target, wind, or aerodynamic qualities of proposal. However, other regulatory reentry cannot be enabled, the vehicle different kinds of arrows. If one’s ability requirements to assure public safety, would remain in orbit. Totally to meet the three-sigma probability such as operational restrictions, would autonomous initiation of reentry would distribution depends on the existence of be directed exclusively to RLV missions. not be allowed to ensure that certain certain conditions, then those Other safety requirements may only be clearances and system verifications are conditions become requirements. appropriate for reentry vehicles completed to assure that a reentering resembling the COMET/METEOR From a regulatory standpoint, an vehicle will not pose safety risks to the vehicle system. Therefore, to make the applicant would be required to public. These may include clearance of requirements ‘‘user friendly,’’ the FAA demonstrate that a proposed reentry or airspace in the reentry corridor, proposes to address RLV mission controlled landing site is large enough securing reentry sites, verifying the licensing requirements in a separate part to contain the landing impacts of its configuration and status of reentry of the licensing regulations so that RLV safety critical systems, and verifying vehicle with a three-sigma probability, operators can see, at a glance, the reentry corridor weather is within assuming a nominal reentry, and the commercial space transportation vehicle operational constraints. Such conditions or assumptions on which the regulations applicable to their activities would be external to the demonstration is predicated would operations. A separate part is proposed vehicle’s systems and autonomous become conditions of the license. to address unique safety requirements control systems would not verify them. The size of the area must be large applicable to licensing other types of D. Reentry sites. To minimize public enough to accommodate potential reentries, that is, those that don’t safety risk due to an off-site landing, the trajectory deviations that may occur. involve RLVs, even though policy, site selected for reentry of a reentry Therefore, in determining the necessary payload reentry, and environmental vehicle or as the landing area for an RLV size of the three-sigma area, an review requirements would be must be sufficiently large such that the applicant should calculate the errors comparable to those applied to RLV vehicle will land within it with a certain associated with physical forces that act missions. degree of predictability. The agency on the vehicle to cause its flight path to 1. Reusable Launch Vehicle Mission assesses size suitability of a proposed deviate from the planned trajectory, if Licensing Overview reentry or landing site by using the reentry is intended to occur despite three-sigma footprint measure those errors. Before granting an applicant a safety commonly applied to launch operations. approval, the FAA would review the Maneuverability of a vehicle is likely The three-sigma footprint describes the appropriateness for a particular launch to affect the three-sigma area. For area where the vehicle will land with a activity of the following items: the example, the three-sigma area for an .997 probability rate, assuming no major location, size, and design configuration airplane may be a narrow ellipse system failure. of the proposed launch site; launch because the pilot can stand otherwise The statistical term ‘‘three-sigma’’ operational procedures; personnel control the vehicle’s descent such that refers to three standard deviations from qualifications; range safety equipment it touches down within a narrow band. the mean, or average point, assuming a and instrumentation; vehicle safety An uncontrolled or ballistic vehicle, standard normal distribution. The area systems; and the applicant’s flight safety such as the COMET/METEOR reentry that is within three standard deviations analysis. from the mean point encompasses the vehicle, required a large three-sigma An RLV launch operator would be area surrounding it with the mean at its area because of imprecise orientation of required to possess the ability to center. An area within two or even one the vehicle at the point at which reentry monitor the status of launch and reentry standard deviation of the mean point is was initiated and the varying effects of safety critical systems during a smaller, more precise measure; atmospheric forces on the vehicle. countdown to launch. The FAA also however, statistically there is less In any case, a designated reentry site, proposes that an operator have the chance of an event falling within that including any designated contingency ability to activate the vehicle’s flight range. The larger the area, the higher abort location, would have to be large safety system (FSS), if any, or to invoke degree of confidence one has of an event enough to ensure the probability of contingency plans if the vehicle is not falling within its boundary limits, landing outside the designated area is operating within approved mission assuming a normal distribution of not greater than .997 for nominal parameters and poses an unreasonable events. vehicle operations. risk to public health and safety. This
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.013 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19639 requirement does not mean that an FSS under very specific reentry parameters. The FAA expects it will first issue a cannot also function automatically or An operator must undertake significant new operator a mission-specific license autonomously. Such systems are effort to achieve a successful reentry. to conduct RLV missions. Mission- desirable where, for example, a human Industry has compared successful specific licenses can be structured so as monitor may not be able to react in reentry to ‘‘flying the vehicle through a to accommodate a proposed test sufficient time to achieve a safe key hole.’’ Because an uncontrolled RLV program that may consist of a series of condition. or reentry vehicle may be unlikely to test flights within an envelope of The term FSS encompasses a variety survive reentry, the FAA does not approved parameters. After the operator of devices designed to place a vehicle in propose a requirement that an operator has demonstrated several successful a mode less hazardous to public health would have to be able to incapacitate reentries, it may apply to the FAA for and safety and safety of property. A type the vehicle so that it would not survive an operator license. The FAA has used of FSS commonly used on ELVs is a a random return to Earth. However, the a similar licensing approach destructive-type FTS, which is used to applicant must demonstrate that a successfully for new launch operators terminate flight and destroy the vehicle. random reentry will not exceed and operation of new vehicles. However, many reentry vehicles and acceptable risk for the mission. To receive an RLV license, an RLVs do not propose to rely on a The FAA is proposing a quantitative applicant would be required to obtain destructive-type FTS as a primary risk measure in evaluating RLV mission policy and safety approvals and mechanism for protecting public safety safety because it forces a vehicle complete a payload reentry because the vehicle may be capable of designer to consider failure rates, determination and environmental attempting a nondestructive abort. The consequences, and mitigation of review, if applicable. Procedural proposal would not mandate any unacceptable risks. Acceptable flight regulations governing the policy particular type of FSS. An applicant for risk would be limited to the standard approval, payload reentry a launch license would be permitted to applied for launches from Federal determination, and environmental use any type of FSS necessary to ensure launch ranges, that is, that the Ec is not review generally would be consistent × ¥6 public safety during the applicant’s greater than 30 10 , a collective with the corresponding regulations proposed operation of the vehicle. measure of risk, on a per-mission basis. under part 415, Launch License. Mission rules derived from the Issues related to risk limitation and risk To complete a safety review and applicant’s risk analysis, among other analysis are discussed above in relation receive approval for an RLV mission, an things, would dictate whether and when to RLV launch and reentry. An to activate the FSS. applicant proposing to conduct an RLV applicant would need an acceptable Members of the RLV industry have mission would also be subject to safety organization; mission rules, agreed generally that some type of FSS operational requirements and procedures, and contingency plans; a would be necessary to meet the risk restrictions because the FAA believes communications plan; and a mishap limitations imposed on launch vehicles them necessary to limit risk to public investigation and emergency response by Federal ranges. Many believe that a safety as the industry conducts plan. In addition, the proposed reentry vehicle or RLV operator that operational flights of innovative vehicle operation could not pose an proposed to operate without an FSS concepts. unacceptable risk to public safety as would have to improve overall vehicle The proposal would identify the two demonstrated through a risk analysis reliability and performance to meet types of RLV mission licenses issued— designed to ensure compliance with those risk limitations. Others have also a mission-specific license and an regulations to mitigate risk and protect asserted that some type of human operator license. The mission-specific public health and safety and the safety intervention capability would be license would authorize an operator to of property. necessary before a vehicle could be conduct one or more RLV missions from 2. Reentry Licensing Overview allowed to operate within controlled a designated launch site to a designated airspace. reentry site, using essentially the same A separate part would prescribe An RLV may have the capability to type or model of RLV such that it has reentry licensing and post-licensing abort launch flight to a pre-planned and substantially similar design, requirements and would be modeled approved location. Other vehicles performance, and operational after the RLV mission license would require emergency planning so characteristics. Because more than one regulations. Unique attributes of reentry that in the event of a failure or anomaly, flight may be authorized, the license vehicles that are not RLVs would be they can be directed to an unpopulated would be sufficiently broad to allow an assessed by the FAA on an individual area or attempt a safe landing. operator to conduct a series of RLV test basis as part of the safety approval Therefore, an operator without abort flights within identified parameters. The process. The same risk criteria covering capability would be required to plan a license would terminate automatically launch and reentry and the system flight path that allows for safe flight with the completion of all authorized safety process approach would apply to abort on an emergency basis before the activity or the expiration date of the an applicant for a license to reenter a vehicle reaches orbit. license, whichever first occurs. reentry vehicle. Operational Once an RLV achieves orbit, the FAA The proposed operator license would requirements and restrictions would was concerned that if the vehicle could authorize an operator to conduct RLV result from the applicant’s system safety not reenter or must abort during reentry, missions using any of a designated program plan, which would define the an operator would have to be able to family of vehicles from any launch site safe operating limits and procedures for incapacitate the vehicle so it would not specified in the license to any reentry reentry vehicle operations. substantially survive reentry. Agency site specified in the license. A family of Requirements applicable to launch of a concern was based on the view that, RLVs has similar design and operational reentry vehicle would depend on the unlike an expendable launch vehicle, a characteristics, but each member of the type of vehicle used to place the reentry reentry vehicle is designed to survive family may be capable of different vehicle in orbit or otherwise in outer reentry intact. However, industry performance characteristics. The term of space. For example, an expendable representatives have noted that reentry the operator license would be set at a 2- launch vehicle (ELV) launched from a vehicles are designed to survive reentry year renewable period. Federal range would be subject to the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.014 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19640 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules licensing requirements contained in part reentry vehicle when it is designed to Under the proposal, paragraph (b) 415 of this subchapter. return from Earth orbit or outer space to would be revised to require an The FAA is proposing a mission Earth substantially intact. individual who is a U.S. citizen or an approach to reentry licensing by The term ‘‘reentry accident’’ refers to entity organized under the laws of the assessing the combined risk of launch of unplanned events resulting in certain United States or any State to obtain a a reentry vehicle with its reentry to consequences listed in the definition. reentry license to reenter a reentry determine that a reentry may be Accordingly, reentry to a pre-planned vehicle outside the United States or to licensed. The agency considers that no abort location would not qualify as a operate a reentry site outside the United less stringent safety criteria should be reentry accident unless it resulted in a States. imposed upon a reentry because it casualty to an uninvolved person or Proposed paragraph (d) would be occurs as a separate event, either by damage to unassociated, off-site added. That paragraph would require a time or function, from the launch that property. foreign entity in which a U.S. citizen placed it in Earth orbit or outer space. The term ‘‘mishap’’ would be revised has a controlling interest to obtain a However, the FAA understands that to include reentry events. reentry license or, if the activity is reentry vehicles resembling the Section 404.1 Scope occurring in certain locations and COMET/METEOR vehicle may remain subject to certain conditions. The in space for extended periods and may Section 404.1 sets forth the scope of geographic constraints and conditions be operated under the responsibility of the agency’s procedures for issuing in the proposal would be identical to an operator different from that which implementing regulations. Rather than those imposed on licensed launch launched the vehicle initially. To referring to specific licensing authority activities and launch site operators in address these considerations, the FAA of the agency under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle current paragraph (c) of this section. IX, chapter 701, § 404.1 would be considered whether to apply a COMET/ Section 415.1 Scope METEOR type of risk criteria to reentry, revised to refer to commercial space leaving launch risk as it currently is transportation activities falling within Part 415 contains the approvals stated. The COMET risk criteria that the agency’s statutory authority. necessary to obtain a license to launch there shall be no greater than one in a Section 404.3 Filing of Petitions to the a launch vehicle from a Federal or non- million probability of a casualty, when Associate Administrator Federal launch site. The FAA proposes combined with acceptable launch risk, to limit the scope of part 415 to vehicles Section 404.3 would be revised to other than reusable launch vehicles actually imposes a more stringent include rulemaking petitions regarding criteria on reentry than a combined (RLV) and to place licensing reentry and operation of a reentry site. requirements for the conduct of RLV collective risk measure of Ec ≤ 30 × 10¥6. The FAA wishes to utilize an Section 405.1 Monitoring of Licensed missions in a separate part of the appropriate measure of risk for reentry and Other Activities regulations. Launch and reentry flight capability and requests comments on its phases of a proposed RLV mission Reentry sites and reentry vehicle would be evaluated under a single set of proposed approach of applying mission manufacturing, testing, assembly, and risk. risk criteria applicable to the mission. production facilities would be subject to Placing RLV mission requirements in a Section-By-Section Analysis FAA monitoring and observation and separate part, part 431, should facilitate § 405.1 would be revised accordingly. FAA regulatory and licensing understanding of the licensing responsibilities have been extended by Section 405.5 Emergency Orders requirements applicable to RLV statute to include reentry, as well as The agency’s authority to terminate, operations. launch. It is therefore necessary to add prohibit or suspend a licensed activity Part 431 Launch and Reentry of a the term ‘‘reentry’’ or ‘‘operation of a extend to reentry and operation of a Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) reentry site’’ to agency procedures and reentry site. Section 405.5 would be enforcement provisions, as follows. The proposal would create a new part revised accordingly. 431 that prescribes licensing Section 400.2 Scope Section 406.1 Hearings requirements for the conduct of Section 400.2 sets forth the scope of Rights to a hearing extend to an owner missions involving reusable launch regulations presented in 14 CFR Chapter or operator of a reentry payload, as well vehicles. Part 431 would include III. The scope would be revised to refer as a licensee, and section 406.1 is subpart A (General), subpart B (Policy generally to commercial space revised accordingly. Review and Approval), subpart C transportation activities subject to 49 (Safety Review and Approval for RLV U.S.C. Subtitle IX, chapter 701. The Section 413.1 Scope Missions), subpart D (Payload Reentry FAA proposes to generalize the scope of The procedures contained in part 413 Review and Determination), subpart E the regulations rather than to add of 14 CFR Chapter III would apply to an (Post-Licensing Requirements—RLV specific reference to reentry licensing application for a license to reenter a Mission License Terms and Conditions), and other authority under the statute. reentry vehicle or to operate a reentry and subpart F (Environmental Review). site. Reference to reentry licensing Part 431 is organized in the same Section 401.5 Definitions requirements is added to section 413.1 manner as part 415 ‘‘Launch License’’ New terms are added to the list of in this proposal. and has been modified to address definitions. They are: ‘‘contingency regulatory concerns applicable to RLV abort,’’ ‘‘emergency abort,’’ ‘‘flight safety Section 413.3 Who Must Obtain a operations. Because safety aspects of an system,’’ ‘‘operation of a reentry site,’’ License RLV mission would be evaluated on a ‘‘reenter,’’ ‘‘reentry accident,’’ ‘‘reentry The proposal would revise paragraph per mission basis, commencing upon incident,’’ ‘‘reentry operator,’’ ‘‘reentry (a) to require any person to obtain a initiation of vehicle flight, proceeding site,’’ ‘‘reentry vehicle,’’ ‘‘reusable reentry license to reenter a reentry through orbital insertion and launch vehicle,’’ ‘‘safety-critical,’’ and vehicle in the United States or to concluding with the vehicle’s landing ‘‘vehicle safety operations personnel.’’ A operate a reentry site within the United on Earth, comprehensive requirements reusable launch vehicle would be a States. applicable to all licensed flight phases
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.015 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19641 of an RLV mission are included in this Section 431.7 Payload and Payload requirements for launch and reentry part. Specific mention is made in part Reentry Determinations activities. 431 where requirements of other parts of Section 431.11 Additional License the commercial space transportation For purposes of launching a payload Terms and Conditions regulations are applicable. into earth orbit or outer space there should be no unique issues presented by Under the proposal, the FAA could Section 431.1 Scope the fact that an RLV is the transportation amend an RLV mission license by vehicle that places the payload in space. Proposed § 431.1 would establish the modifying or adding license terms and Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a) of applicability of part 431. The proposed conditions to ensure compliance with this section states that the FAA would part would prescribe the requirements 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, chapter 701, and require an applicant to obtain a payload for obtaining an RLV mission license applicable regulations. Although determination in accordance with part and any continuing requirements to standard terms and conditions that 415 requirements unless the proposed remain licensed. apply to most RLV mission licenses are payload were exempt from payload proposed in subpart E, the unique Section 431.3 Types of Reusable review. Payload reentry issues may be circumstances of a particular licensee Launch Vehicle Mission Licenses different, however, and the FAA would may require the FAA to impose require a separate payload reentry additional requirements to protect The proposed section would identify determination, as indicated in public health and safety, safety of the two types of RLV mission licenses paragraph (b), for purposes of returning property, or U.S. national security and that would be issued and set forth the a payload to Earth unless it is exempt foreign policy interests, or to ensure privileges and limitations of the from FAA review. Payloads exempt compliance with international licenses. Under the proposal the FAA from FAA review include U.S. obligations of the United States. would issue either a mission-specific Government payloads. Payloads subject license or operator license, on bases to reentry review by another Section 431.13 Transfer of a Reusable comparable to that used for issuing Government agency would not be Launch Vehicle Mission License launch licenses. A licensed RLV subject to duplicative review by the Under proposed § 431.13, only the mission includes launch or ascent, and FAA. For a payload that would be FAA would be able to transfer an RLV reentry or descent, authorization. Both substantially similar to a previously mission license. The prospective authorizations are necessary to conduct approved payload, the previously issued transferee would need to satisfy all an RLV mission; however, they would payload reentry determination could requirements for obtaining a license as be embodied in a single license. The serve as the basis for a comparative specified in this chapter. The FAA term ‘‘mission’’ is used to characterize analysis. Proposed paragraph (c) would would amend the license to reflect any both ascent and descent flight phases of allow a previous payload reentry changes necessary as a result of license an RLV operation but should not be determination to be used to meet the transfer. confused with mission-specific requirements of proposed paragraph (b). Section 431.15 Rights Not Conferred authorization. Proposed paragraph (d) identifies the by a Reusable Launch Vehicle Mission A mission-specific license need not be payload review procedures applicable to License limited to a single RLV mission. The reentering a payload. A payload review license would identify the specific RLV determination may be requested of the Proposed § 431.15 would state that missions to which it applies and may agency in advance of or separately from an RLV mission license would not authorize a proposed flight test program an RLV mission (or other reentry) relieve a licensee of its obligation to within an envelope of approved license. comply with applicable laws. parameters. An expiration date would Section 431.9 Issuance of a Reusable Subpart B—Policy Review and Approval be stated in the license so that it is not Launch Vehicle Mission License for Launch and Reentry of a Reusable unlimited as to time. Launch Vehicle An operator license would provide The proposal states that the FAA This subpart would describe the broader authority to the licensee and, as would issue a license to an applicant proposed requirements for a policy with launch licenses, would be issued who has obtained all approvals and review. An applicant could choose to to operators that have demonstrated determinations required under this submit an application for a policy capability to conduct safe operations on chapter for an RLV mission license, review with a comprehensive license an ongoing basis. The FAA is proposing including a policy and safety approval application or separately in advance of an initial two-year license term so that and payload reentry determination, if submitting the complete application. it can routinely reevaluate licensee necessary. Although the National qualifications. Operator licenses issued Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 Section 431.21 General under part 415 were initially authorized U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires the FAA to Under the proposal, the FAA would for a two-year term and have recently perform an environmental review of issue a policy approval to an RLV been extended to a five-year term. The major Federal actions, such as issuing mission license applicant upon FAA considers two years a reasonable an RLV mission license, specific completion of a favorable policy review; duration at the outset of RLV operations. environmental requirements would not it would be part of the licensing record. be set forth in this section, but rather in Section 431.5 Policy and Safety proposed subpart F of this part. Section 431.23 Policy Review Approvals The proposed section also would Proposed § 431.23 states that the FAA Under the proposal, a license require a licensee to conduct its would coordinate the policy review applicant would be required to obtain operations in accordance with the with other Government agencies, policy and safety approvals from the representations in its application and including the Department of Defense FAA. Requirements for obtaining these terms and conditions in license orders (DOD), Department of State (DOS), approvals are contained in subparts B accompanying the RLV mission license, Department of Commerce (DOC), NASA, and C of this part. including financial responsibility and Federal Communications
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.017 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19642 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
Commission (FCC). Under the policy Subpart C—Safety Review and Approval adequately considers public safety review, the FAA would determine for Launch and Reentry of a Reusable concerns before initiating either flight whether conduct of an RLV mission, Launch Vehicle phase of the mission. The safety official inclusive of launch and reentry flight, Subpart C would describe the FAA’s may be dual-hatted in that he or she would adversely affect U.S. national safety evaluation process for reentry may perform functions other than safety-related or mission-driven security or foreign policy interests, license applicants. jeopardize public health and safety or operations for the applicant as long as the safety of property, or be inconsistent Section 431.31 General there is no ‘‘conflict of interest’’ with with international obligations of the The proposal states that the FAA safety responsibilities. The safety official would evaluate an United States. In determining whether would conduct a safety review to applicant’s readiness to safely conduct the mission would jeopardize public determine whether an applicant is an RLV mission by conducting health and safety or the safety of capable of launching and reentering, or operational dress rehearsals and property under the policy review, the otherwise landing, a reentry vehicle and completing a readiness determination. FAA would consider safety issues from payload, if any, from and to a Rehearsals would allow an operator to a policy perspective rather than an designated site without jeopardizing verify that vehicle safety operations engineering perspective. public health and safety and the safety personnel are ready for launch and of property. The launch site may be Section 431.25 Application reentry and can manage non-nominal Requirements for Policy Review different from the reentry landing site, events, especially if a considerable but both must be approved by the FAA The proposed section would describe period of time has elapsed since the in the context of evaluating safety issues operator’s most recent conduct of a the information an applicant would be presented by a particular RLV mission. required to provide to obtain a policy mission. A review typically would be The safety review would be conducted conducted before launch and, for orbital review. The FAA would require this from an engineering perspective to information to effectively begin RLVs, would address reentry readiness ensure that all aspects of the proposed as well. However, before initiating consultation with other Government RLV mission would be sufficient to agencies regarding resolution of any reentry, an operator would be required support safe operations. The safety to conform with mission rules designed potential policy issues. Proposed review is necessarily tailored to the paragraphs (a) and (b) would require a to ensure safe reentry and verify the unique attributes and capabilities of a status of safety critical systems. The basic identification of the vehicle and vehicle and is conducted on an its systems. Foreign ownership reviews would ensure all system and individual basis. personnel readiness problems are information would be required to be Under the proposal, the FAA would identified in proposed paragraph (c). identified and resolved, all systems notify an applicant in writing of any needed for safe conduct of the mission Under proposed § 431.25(d), an issues that might prevent issuance of a are checked and ready, and each applicant would be required to provide safety approval. The notice would state participant is cognizant of his or her the range of proposed launch and the reasons for lack of safety approval role in the operation. While a rehearsal reentry profiles, including reentry sites and allow an applicant to respond and may not be necessary in every case, it and any planned contingency abort correct the deficiencies identified. is critical in certain situations, such as locations. An applicant must also Section 431.33 Safety Organization operations with a new vehicle, provide the sequence of planned events reentering to a new site, or after or maneuvers during an RLV mission. The FAA concurs with National significant personnel changes. Although these vary by vehicle and Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) This proposal also would impose an mission, the FAA would expect to be reports and the Rodgers Commission affirmative obligation on the person informed of events such as engine burn report that indicate an independent responsible for licensed activity to time; stage separation events; pitch, safety organization is key to ensuring address any hazards and risks to public yaw, and roll maneuvers; and engine safe transportation operations. The safety identified by the safety official. cutoff. This information could be proposal, therefore, would require an Such action would help ensure that RLV provided in the form of text, diagrams, RLV mission license applicant to mission operations satisfy the proposed or charts. possess a safety organization. The FAA expected casualty criteria. The FAA For orbital RLVs, proposed § 431.25(e) would evaluate an applicant’s safety believes that management attitude would require information concerning organization to determine whether the influences an organization’s safety intermediate and final orbits intended structure, lines of communication, and compliance; therefore, the proposed for the vehicle and its upper stages, if approval authority an applicant regulations would impose a safety any, and their estimated orbital establishes would enable the applicant obligation on the person responsible for lifetimes. to identify and address safety issues and licensed activity to address identified to ensure an applicant conducts Section 431.27 Denial of Policy hazards. operations in accordance with its Proposed § 431.33(a) would require an Approval license and the proposed regulations. applicant to maintain and define its Under the proposal, the FAA would The experience gained by the FAA in safety organization by identifying lines notify an applicant in writing if a policy regulating aviation and launch of communication and approval approval is denied. The notice would operations has shown that an authority. A number of different state the reasons for denial and allow an independent safety official with direct individuals typically have input and applicant to respond and request access to the person responsible for an decision authority with respect to the reconsideration. An applicant could applicant’s licensed activities can readiness of various vehicle and safety correct the deficiencies identified in the positively influence safety. Therefore, systems. FAA and NTSB investigations denial and request reconsideration of the FAA also proposes that the safety have shown that mishaps could result if the denial. Alternatively, an applicant official report directly to the person the role of each critical individual in the could request a hearing upon denial of responsible for the conduct of licensed organization is not defined clearly and a license. activity to ensure that management understood by all parties. Therefore, the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.018 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19643 applicant would have to identify these mission could not exceed .00003 advisory guidance on acceptability of a relationships by clearly establishing and (30x10¥6) and casualties for any launch system safety process under this identifying the lines of communication and reentry mission and .000001 requirement. At a minimum, it must and approval authority for all mission (1x(10¥6) casualties for persons in the identify and assess the probability and decisions. An applicant would have to areas adjacent to the reentry site. Risk consequences of reasonably foreseeable clearly identify persons with authority criteria are presented in proposed hazardous events and safety critical to make ‘‘hold’’ and ‘‘go/no-go’’ § 431.35(b). The term ‘‘public’’ would system failures during a mission decisions and to authorize the include all members of the general including consequences of a random resumption of the countdown or a public but would not include the launch reentry that could jeopardize public recycle procedure, for both launch and operator, reentry operator, and site safety. reentry flight phases. The FAA personnel. Satisfaction of acceptable Proposed paragraph (d) would specify recommends using organizational charts risk criteria under this part includes the data that must be provided by an as an efficient method of depicting an consideration of the size and applicant as part of the demonstration of applicant’s organization, lines of configuration of planned landing sites, acceptable risk under this subpart. communication, and other required including contingency abort locations, Included are drawings and schematics information. and the surrounding area. for each safety critical system, a Proposed § 431.33(b) would require The FAA would establish these risk timeline identifying all safety critical an applicant to designate a person limitations as a standard for all licensed events and empirical data to responsible for the conduct of all RLV mission activities. An applicant substantiate the risk analysis required licensed RLV mission activities. proposing a mission that does not meet by this section. Proposed § 431.33(c) would require an the FAA’s risk criteria could request a Section 431.37 Mission Readiness applicant to identify a qualified safety waiver from requirements (or any official to ensure compliance with the requirement) under 14 CFR § 404.3, by Under proposed § 431.37, an applicant’s safety policies and demonstrating that granting the waiver applicant must include procedures for procedures. The person assigned to the would be in the public interest. verifying mission readiness for both position of safety official would have Proposed paragraph (c) would require launch and reentry operations as part of the management and technical an applicant to submit an analysis that its application. The procedures must education, training, and experience to assesses public safety risk for the enable the person designated and ensure the highest degree of safety in proposed activity under nominal and responsible for the conduct of licensed the applicant’s operations. The safety non-nominal conditions. The analysis operations to make a judgment of official must be identified by title or would need to demonstrate that the mission readiness before initiating the position and by name and applicant’s proposed activity would not mission, including launch and reentry qualifications. Before mission expose the general public to an site, equipment, vehicle, payload, operations begin, and before initiation unreasonable level of risk at any time personnel, and safety-critical system of RLV reentry or descent, the person during vehicle flight, as defined in readiness. Mission rules, constraints responsible for an applicant’s licensed proposed § 431.35(b), and would not and contingency or abort plans and activities must address all hazards and expose the general public within a 100- procedures must be in a state of risks to public safety identified by the mile area surrounding the reentry site to readiness as well by ensuring that they safety official. unreasonable risk, as defined in are contained in an approved form and The safety official would be proposed paragraph (b). Based on the coordinated with launch and reentry responsible for evaluating an applicant’s agency’s experience in evaluating the site operators. Launch and reentry readiness to safely conduct an RLV COMET/METEOR vehicle system, the readiness procedures must include mission by monitoring compliance with FAA believes that it is prudent to ensure dress rehearsal procedures covering the applicant’s safety policies and that population located within a nominal and non-nominal situations procedures, completing a readiness reasonable area of the intended landing and provide bases for doing away with determination, and conducting site is not exposed to greater than dress rehearsals under certain operational dress rehearsals. Rehearsals normal background risk as a result of a circumstances. Launch and reentry would have to simulate both nominal licensed reentry. The one hundred mile readiness procedures must also cover and non-nominal conditions, under the area surrounding the proposed reentry crew rest requirements and verification. mission readiness requirements listed in site was utilized in COMET/METEOR Section 431.39 Mission Rules, proposed § 431.37, including vehicle because it limits public risk exposure in Procedures, Contingency Plans, and and range safety system failures. the event of a minor system failure Checklists during reentry causing a somewhat off- Section 431.35 Acceptable Reusable site, but not random, landing. To ensure a licensee’s procedures Launch Vehicle Mission Risk If an applicant previously has would be conducted as planned, the Under the proposal, paragraph (a) submitted a risk assessment for a similar FAA proposes that an applicant submit would establish the limits on the risk reentry, the applicant may not need to as part of its application written mission the FAA would allow for an RLV submit an additional analysis. An rules, procedures, emergency plans, and mission. The FAA proposes to assess analysis that compares the parameters contingency abort plans, if applicable, risk on a per mission basis, commencing and assumptions of previously and that vehicle safety operations with initiation of vehicle flight through approved and proposed activities, after personnel have current and consistent authorized landing on Earth. review by the FAA, may be deemed mission checklists. Inconsistencies in Application of risk criteria on a per sufficient. critical countdown checklists and mission basis means that risks presented Proposed paragraph (c) would require procedures can jeopardize public safety. by launch of a reentry vehicle and its an applicant to employ a system safety While all mission participants may not subsequent reentry or other return to process that identifies and assesses risks have identical checklists, an applicant Earth are assessed in a cumulative to public health, safety and property would need some means, such as a manner. The expected average number associated with a nominal and non- master checklist manual, to ensure of casualties from a proposed RLV nominal mission. The FAA will issue participants have current and consistent
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.019 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19644 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules procedures. This process would ensure standards the FAA is not dictating the for launch and reentry activities should that flight safety critical procedures are content of procedures. An applicant be adjusted to account for uncertainties completed successfully. would be afforded flexibility in in the predicted positions of inhabitable Proposed paragraph (a) would require developing procedures specific to its spacecraft. The 200 kilometer separation that an applicant possess adequate vehicle and mission profile that distance is currently practiced by mission rules, procedures, contingency accomplish certain objectives. Federal launch ranges. plans, and checklists to execute safe Procedures would need to cover such To further assure public safety, the nominal and non-nominal operations safety requirements as ensuring that FAA is proposing a number of throughout the mission. Proposed mission risks do not exceed stated risk additional restrictions applicable to all paragraph (b) would require that criteria for nominal and non-nominal RLVs. The FAA is proposing that the mission rules, procedures, contingency operations, ensuring RLV operations projected IIP of the vehicle shall not plans, and checklists be contained in a conform with operator procedures have substantial dwell time over safety directive, notebook, or other derived through the system safety densely populated areas during any compilation approved by the safety process described in proposed segment of mission flight. The agency is official designated under § 431.33(c) of § 431.35(c), monitoring and verifying not setting design-type requirements for this part and concurred in by the reentry the status of safety critical systems determining what constitutes a densely site operator, if applicable. Under during mission operations, and populated area. This determination is proposed paragraph (c), operations activating a flight safety system during consequence-driven, in the agency’s personnel would need current and the launch flight phase to safely view. For example, even though an consistent reentry checklists. terminate flight in the event the vehicle applicant has satisfied the agency’s risk criteria of Ec no greater than 30 Section 431.41 Communications Plan is not operating within approved limits. The FAA believes that sole reliance by casualties in a million missions, if the An applicant also would be required an operator on an autonomous system to consequence of a mission accident at a to submit a communications plan that abort launch flight is not sufficient to particular location would result in a describes personnel communications ensure public safety and that, as is the significant number of actual casualties, procedures during the mission. This case for nearly all expendable launch then the FAA would view that area as requirement would be substantially vehicles, human control capability is densely populated for safety purposes. similar to the current requirement for a critical to safety. To mitigate debris risks that would launch license applicant to submit a A reentry site proposed for use in interfere with the safety of other launch communications plan describing conducting an RLV mission would have and reentry missions, the FAA proposes communications procedures during to be of sufficient size to accommodate that RLV operators ensure no unplanned launch, but the procedures would be the three-sigma landing dispersion and physical contact between its RLV and required to apply throughout the other landing impacts associated with payload with other space objects and mission. The NTSB has concluded that the reentry vehicle or vehicle stage. The that explosive risks are minimized. The effective communications are critical to three-sigma footprint requirement for proposed requirement is intended to the conduct of a safe launch, and the determining site suitability would apply mitigate the hazards posed by orbital FAA believes the same rationale applies to any reentry site contemplated as part debris generation to the integrity of to RLV and reentry operations. of the mission, that is, the nominal another vehicle and is in furtherance of Personnel would be required to follow targeted site as well as any contingency the agency’s safety responsibility for the communication procedures and proper abort location identified in order to conduct of licensed activities. This protocol to help eliminate confusion satisfy acceptable risk criteria during requirement is comparable to that and cross talk that could cause a launch of an RLV. A broad ocean area imposed on licensed launch of an miscommunication leading to an unsafe may be a contingency abort location expendable launch vehicle involving an condition. Personnel with decision- because it would satisfy requirements upper stage that remains on orbit. making authority over launch and for site suitability. An applicant for RLV The proposal contains crew rest reentry would be available on the same mission safety approval would be requirements for vehicle safety predetermined channel during launch required to identify such sites and show operations personnel because their countdown and reentry countdown, if that they are attainable given the performance might affect public safety. any. Safety-critical communications operational capability of a proposed Experience has shown that crew rest would have to be recorded and would RLV. Restrictions are also proposed to criteria for those involved in supporting include hold/resume, go/no go, and further mitigate public safety risks space operations are extremely emergency and contingency abort during flight of any RLV. important and would have a significant commands, and any other irrevocable The space industry has been voicing impact on organizational safety. Crew decisions that could affect public safety a growing concern regarding the rest is of particular concern when the or the safety of property. increasing number of objects being same crew is involved in pre-launch placed in orbit that increases the preparation, launch, on orbit operations, Section 431.43 Reusable Launch potential for collisions between objects monitoring reentry-readiness, and Vehicle Mission Operational in space. Collisions in space create reentry flight of the vehicle. The Requirements and Restrictions additional objects that add to the orbital proposed crew rest rules are based on an Under proposed § 431.43, the FAA debris environment and increase the NTSB investigation of an anomaly that would establish operational potential for damage to other objects. occurred during a commercial launch requirements and impose restrictions on The requirements of this section serve to from a Federal launch range and are RLV missions. Operational requirements mitigate hazards associated with space intended to ensure RLV mission would be implemented through debris. A collision avoidance analysis personnel readiness. The specific work procedures developed by an applicant shall be performed prior to RLV launch and rest standards are similar to those to ensure that RLV mission risks are to ensure that an RLV, its payload, and currently used at Federal launch ranges contained within acceptable levels. In any jettisoned components do not pass ‘‘Eastern and Western Range 127–1 keeping with the preference for closer than 200 kilometers to an Range Safety Requirements,’’ Section performance-based, rather than design, inhabitable spacecraft. Window closures 6.5.1.4 (March 31, 1995). The FAA has
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.020 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19645 not reviewed the impact the proposed identifying and adopting preventive hazardous substance may be approved crew rest standards might have on an measures for avoiding recurrence of the for launch over water or other operator intending to launch and reenter event. This requirement would be unpopulated area, but disapproved for a vehicle in a short time period. The substantially similar to the requirement reentry if the consequences of FAA invites comments from the public for a launch license applicant to submit dispersion cannot be adequately on the practicality and potential burden a plan describing accident and mishap contained for a planned reentry to a site to industry of the proposed crew rest investigation and emergency response on land. standards and also requests information procedures for a launch accident or regarding analogous crew rest incident. Section 431.53 Classes of Payloads requirements in other industries or Also required would be emergency The proposal would permit an regulated areas. response plan whereby an RLV operator applicant to request a payload Proposed paragraph (d) establishes would be responsible for contacting determination for a type or class of additional restrictions on an unproven local officials in the event a non- payload. The applicant would describe vehicle. The projected IIP of an nominal reentry occurs and can be the type or class of payload proposed for unproven reentry vehicle must not have projected to impact at an identified reentry under the license and general substantial dwell time over a populated, location. characteristics of the payload. If a as opposed to a densely populated, area payload reentry determination is issued Section 431.47 Denial of Safety during any segment of the mission for a class of payloads under this Approval unless the applicant can demonstrate section, the RLV mission license that it satisfies stated risk criteria Under the proposal, the FAA would applicant would have to later provide assuming the vehicle will fail while the notify an applicant in writing if a safety additional information regarding the IIP is over a populated area. approval application is denied. The specific payload before reentering it. To further enhance public safety notice would state the reasons for denial when an RLV reenters from Earth orbit, and allow an applicant to respond and Section 431.55 Payload Reentry the FAA proposes under § 431.43(e) that request reconsideration. An applicant Review the operator must be able to monitor the could correct the deficiencies identified Proposed § 431.55 describes how the status of safety critical systems before in the denial and request FAA would coordinate a payload enabling reentry and verify that the reconsideration of the denial or, upon reentry review with other Government condition of the vehicle is such that it denial of a license, an applicant may agencies, such as the Department of can reenter safely. The operator would request reconsideration. Defense, the Department of State, and also be required to issue a positive NASA. Other agencies may include the Subpart D—Payload Reentry Review command to enable the vehicle’s Department of Commerce and the and Determination reentry. The FAA is aware that some Federal Communications Commission. RLV operators are contemplating totally Subpart D would explain when a It also would describe those issues that autonomous reentry capability. The payload reentry review and would be addressed by the FAA in a agency is concerned that authorizing determination would be required and payload reentry review. The FAA would reentry of such vehicles would not the factors considered in that review. notify an applicant of any issue raised fulfill adequately its public safety Either an RLV mission license applicant during the payload reentry review that responsibility. In the absence of active or a payload owner or operator may would impede a favorable payload control, those systems and conditions apply for a payload reentry reentry determination, and the applicant determined necessary for safe reentry determination separately from an RLV could respond or revise its application. would not be verified before reentry is mission license application. A license initiated and safety could be applicant could request a summary Section 431.57 Information compromised. Accordingly, because of determination, if the risks to public Requirements for Payload Reentry the possibility of system anomalies or safety posed by the payload proposed Review other non-compliant conditions, the for reentry are substantially similar to a The proposal would describe the proposed rules require that an operator previously approved payload reentry specific information that an applicant enable reentry. determination issued earlier to the would be required to provide to the applicant, the payload owner or FAA to perform a payload reentry Section 431.45 Mishap Investigation operator, or another RLV mission review and conduct any necessary Plan and Emergency Response Plan license applicant. For purposes of interagency review. In cases that present The proposal also would require that launching the payload, payload review potential unique safety concerns, the an applicant prepare a mishap procedures and requirements of part 415 FAA would require considerable detail investigation plan (MIP) and emergency would apply. regarding the physical characteristics, response plan (ERP) to respond to a functional description, and operation of Section 431.51 General launch or reentry accident or incident, the payload, and its ownership. or unplanned event during the mission. The proposed section would describe In addition to accident investigation the scope of an FAA payload reentry Section 431.59 Issuance of Payload plan requirements applicable to review. Payloads owned and operated Reentry Determination launches under part 415 of the by the U.S. Government or subject to the Proposed § 431.59 would explain that regulations, the MIP would include reentry authority of another Government the FAA issues a payload reentry procedures covering the reentry phase agency, such as the Department of determination unless policy or safety of a mission, including immediate Commerce, would be exempt from this considerations prevent reentry of the notification to the FAA of a mishap and subpart. A payload reentry review and payload. If an applicant were to fail to procedures for minimizing damage, determination is required to address the obtain a favorable payload reentry preserving evidence, investigating or unique safety and policy issues determination, the applicant could cooperating with an investigation presented by the return to Earth of a attempt to correct the deficiencies that conducted by the FAA or NTSB, payload that has been launched or necessitated the denial and request reporting investigation results, and otherwise operated in outer space. A reconsideration of the denial or, upon
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.020 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19646 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules denial of an RLV mission license, the determinations and approvals to licensed site operator and other modal applicant could request reconsideration. determine their continued validity. administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation. An RLV mission or Section 431.61 Incorporation of Section 431.75 Agreements reentry licensee authorized to conduct Payload Reentry Determination in The proposed rules specify a number licensed activities at a private site, or License Application of agreements that an RLV mission one that is reserved for its exclusive use, The proposal states that a favorable licensee must have in place before would be obligated to complete such payload reentry determination may be conducting licensed activities. Just as agreements. An example of an included in the RLV mission license launches of expendable launch vehicles exclusive, although not private, launch application. If, prior to a licensed from Federal launch ranges must be and reentry site would be the lot at the mission, there is a change in the conducted under an agreement between Nevada Test Site authorized for use by information submitted for a payload a licensed launch operator and the Kistler Aerospace Corporation (Kistler) reentry determination, it is the Federal range for the provision of U.S. under a subpermit from the Nevada Test licensee’s responsibility to report the Government launch property and Site Development Corporation. change to the FAA which may revisit its services, so must the conduct of an RLV Although the launch and reentry site to determination. The licensee must mission or reentry using Federal range be utilized by Kistler are located on U.S. ensure that the payload owner or facilities. The FAA also envisions that Government property and therefore not operator reports any such changes to the licensed launch site operators will, privately owned, the Nevada Test Site is licensee so that the licensee is in through agreements with users of its not a Federal launch range as defined in compliance with the requirement. facilities, require adherence to its safety the Commercial Space Transportation rules and requirements and such Licensing Regulations. Therefore Kistler Subpart E—Post-Licensing agreements must be finalized before Requirements—Reusable Launch would be responsible for completing an licensed launch or reentry activity agreement with the appropriate FAA Vehicle Mission License Terms and occurs at the licensed site. In either Conditions regional office for issuance of Notices to case, the terms of an agreement between Airmen and compliance with other Subpart E would describe post- the RLV mission (or reentry) licensee public safety measures involving air licensing requirements for an RLV and the site operator (whether Federal routes. Because the Nevada Test Site is mission licensee, including license or non-Federal) would be expected to an inland location, it is highly unlikely terms and conditions. cover, as appropriate to the flight phase that a comparable agreement with the being conducted at the site, preparation U.S. Coast Guard would be necessary. Section 431.71 Public Safety for licensed flight, securing the vehicle Responsibility before launch and after reentry, and Section 431.77 Records Proposed paragraph (a) would state transporting the vehicle from the site that an RLV mission licensee is following its reentry, because these Proposed § 431.77 would require a responsible for ensuring a safe mission operations must be done in a manner licensee to maintain for a period of 3 and protecting public health and safety that does not jeopardize public health years all records, data, and other and the safety of property at all times and safety. A licensee would be material related to a licensed RLV during the conduct of the mission. required to comply with any portions of mission activity. In the event of a Proposed paragraph (b) would require an agreement that would affect public launch or reentry accident, or launch or the licensee to conduct its operations in health and safety and the safety of reentry incident, the proposal would accordance with representations made property during the conduct of a require a licensee to preserve all records in its license application. Failure to licensed RLV mission or reentry. related to the event until the FAA conduct a licensed activity in Federal launch ranges coordinate advises the licensee that the records accordance with the application would Notices to Airmen and Notices to need not be retained. be cause for the FAA to revoke the Mariners with the FAA and the U.S. Section 431.79 Reusable Launch license or take other appropriate Coast Guard, respectively. Vehicle Mission Reporting Requirements enforcement action. Consequently, there need be no additional responsibility imposed on an Under the proposal, a licensee would Section 431.73 Continuing Accuracy of RLV mission or reentry licensee to issue be required to report certain information License Application; Application for such notices when utilizing a Federal to the Associate Administrator at least Modification of License range facility as the site of a licensed 60 days before each RLV mission. Not The proposal would require a reentry launch or reentry. In a separate later than fifteen days before a mission, licensee to ensure the continuing rulemaking, the FAA intends to propose a licensee would be required to report accuracy of representations contained in that a licensed launch site operator the time and date of the planned RLV its application for the term of its license undertake responsibility for completing mission to the Associate Administrator. and to conduct procedures and an agreement with the FAA and Coast The proposal also would require the operations in accordance with its Guard, respectively, for the issuance of immediate submission of accident, application. An RLV mission licensee such notices when launches are incident, and mishap information to the would be required to apply to the FAA conducted at its launch site in order to FAA in accordance with proposed for modification of the license if any assure a single point of contact. § 431.45. The FAA invites public representation material to public health However, in the absence of such comment on the timeframes proposed and safety and the safety of property agreements, responsibility for safety for reporting requirements in light of made in the application is no longer coordination with regional FAA and operator plans for rapid RLV launch and accurate. A license modification Coast Guard offices would remain with reentry services. application would have to conform with the vehicle operator. An RLV mission Section 431.81 Financial part 413 of this chapter and indicate the (or reentry) licensee that utilizes a Responsibility Requirements part of the license or license application licensed site would be relieved of these affected. The proposal also would state responsibilities if issuance of notices is Proposed § 431.81 would require a that the FAA would review its previous covered by an agreement between the licensee to comply with financial
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.022 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19647 responsibility requirements specified in sites may offer an array of reentry operations may not be adequately its license. services or may simply provide a addressed. Section 433.9 provides that a secured area within which reentry may reentry site operator must submit Section 431.83 Compliance Monitoring occur. Given the breadth of possibilities, information to support environmental Proposed § 431.83 explains that a and the agency’s desire to allow review of reentry impacts at the site, if licensee is required to cooperate with prospective reentry site operators to not already covered in existing the FAA’s compliance monitoring develop unique proposals for operation, documentation. policy. the FAA intends to evaluate the safety Part 435—Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle Section 431.85 Registration of Space of a particular site on an individual Other Than a Reusable Launch Vehicle Objects basis. This principle appears in (RLV) proposed § 433.1. Consistent with the recently issued The proposal would create a new part Commercial Space Transportation Section 433.1 General 435 that addresses FAA’s anticipation Licensing Regulations, certain Proposed section 433.1 reflects the that there may be some reentries that information must be reported to the principle that the FAA will evaluate on will not involve reusable launch vehicle FAA regarding placement of objects in an individual basis whether an (RLV) technology. A COMET/METEOR space. Information requirements applicant is capable of safe operation of type of reentry vehicle or other reentry applicable to RLV missions and the a reentry site and whether a proposed vehicle capability that is not also an associated timeframe for reporting site is suitable to support reentry RLV may be proposed for reentry, and information are consistent with those operations. regulations are required to address for ELV launches. licensing requirements applicable to Section 433.3 Issuance of a License To those vehicles. Under the proposal, the Subpart F—Environmental Review Operate a Reentry Site FAA would evaluate safety aspects of Subpart F would set forth the FAA’s Under § 433.3, the FAA would license reentry vehicles of this nature on an environmental review requirements. an operator to offer use of a reentry site individual basis using the same three- Regulations contained in this subpart if its operation does not jeopardize pronged approach proposed for RLVs. would be substantially similar to the public health and safety, safety of The three-pronged approach consists of environmental review regulations property and U.S. national security and a risk criteria assessed on a per mission applicable to launch licenses under part foreign policy interests. As with other basis so that it encompasses the risks to 415, subpart G. licenses, the authorization granted by an public safety presented by the launch of Section 431.91 General FAA license would be limited to the a reentry vehicle in addition to its representations contained in the reentry, operational requirements and Under the proposal, an applicant licensee’s application and subject to restrictions, and utilization of a system would be required to provide the FAA terms and conditions stated in the safety process. Compliance with that with the information necessary for the license. portion of regulations and licensing FAA to comply with applicable procedures proposed for an RLV Section 433.5 Operational Restrictions environmental laws and regulations, mission that pertain to its reentry would on a Reentry Site including 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the apply to a license to reenter a reentry Council on Environmental Quality A reentry vehicle may be authorized vehicle. Any person seeking a license to Regulations for Implementing the to reenter to a site that, among other reenter a reentry vehicle should refer to Procedural Provisions of NEPA; 40 CFR things, satisfies within three standard part 431 regulations governing RLV parts 1500–1508; and the FAA’s deviations the probable dispersion of missions. Only those requirements and Procedures for Considering the vehicle upon landing. This measure licensing considerations that are unique Environmental Impacts, FAA Order of landing dispersion is known as the to reentry of a reentry vehicle that is not 1050.1D. The proposal also would three-sigma footprint of a vehicle. A also an RLV would be expressly stated indicate how copies of these documents reentry site may be offered to support in part 435. could be obtained. reentry of a particular reentry vehicle if Section 435.1 Scope Section 431.93 Environmental the vehicle’s three-sigma footprint is Proposed § 435.1 would establish the Information contained entirely within the reentry site. applicability of part 435. The proposed Proposed § 431.93 would require an part would prescribe the requirements Section 433.7 Environmental applicant to provide the FAA with for obtaining a license to conduct a required environmental information for Issuance of a license to operate a reentry of a reentry vehicle other than a reentry site and contingency abort reentry site is a major Federal action an RLV and any continuing locations, if any, and activities that may subject to agency review under the requirements to remain licensed. have new effects on established reentry requirements of the National sites. Use of a new vehicle, or reentry Environmental Policy Act. Section 433.7 Section 435.3 Types of Reentry of a payload with characteristics falling provides that an applicant shall provide Licenses measurably outside the parameters of sufficient information to enable the FAA The proposed section would identify existing environmental documentation, to fulfill its environmental review the two types of reentry licenses that would also be subject to FAA responsibilities under Federal law and would be issued and set forth the environmental review requirements. FAA procedures. privileges and limitations of the licenses. Under the proposal the FAA Part 433—License To Operate a Reentry Section 433.9 Environmental would issue either a reentry-specific or Site Information operator license, on bases comparable to The proposal would create a new part Although a reentry site may be that used for issuing launch. 433 that prescribes licensing covered by existing environmental A reentry-specific license would requirements and procedures applicable documentation, its use to support identify the specific missions to which to operation of a reentry site. Reentry licensed reentry activities and other site it applies. An expiration date would be
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.023 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19648 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules stated in the license so that it is not for obtaining a license as specified in Section 435.35 Acceptable Reentry unlimited as to time. this chapter. Risk for Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle An operator license would authorize Section 435.15 Rights Not Conferred The FAA is proposing a mission reentry operations on an ongoing basis, by Reentry License approach to assessment of reentry safety as is currently done for launch. An and risk. As proposed, the risk Proposed § 435.15 would state that initial two-year license term is presented by a proposed reentry, in the license would not relieve a licensee proposed. combination with the launch of the of its obligation to comply with reentry vehicle into Earth orbit or outer Section 435.5 Policy and Safety applicable laws. Approvals space, must not exceed acceptable risk Subpart B—Policy Review and Approval for an RLV mission. As indicated Under the proposal, a license for Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle previously in the supplementary applicant would be required to obtain information of this proposed rule, the policy and safety approvals from the This subpart would impose requirements for a policy review FAA requests comment on its proposed FAA. Requirements for obtaining these approach to combined risk. approvals are contained in subparts B consistent with those for an RLV and C of this part. mission license. Subpart D—Payload Reentry Review and Determination Section 435.7 Payload Reentry Section 435.21 General Determinations Under the proposal, the FAA would Subpart E—Post-Licensing issue a policy approval to a reentry Requirements—Reentry License Terms A payload reentry determination and Conditions would be required, consistent with license applicant upon completion of a proposed requirements for RLV favorable policy review; it would be part Subpart F—Environmental Review of the licensing record. missions, for purposes of returning a Consistent with the FAA’s general payload to Earth unless it is exempt Section 435.23 Policy Review approach to authorizing reentry, from FAA review. As with other Requirements and Procedures requirements governing payload reentry payload determinations, a payload An applicant for reentry policy review review, license terms and conditions, substantially similar to a previously and approval would be referred to and environmental review for the approved payload may be reviewed requirements expressed in proposed reentry or descent phase of an RLV using a comparative analysis. Under part 431, subpart B concerning policy mission would apply to a reentry paragraph (b), a previous payload review for an RLV mission. The FAA license application, unless otherwise reentry determination may be used to reserves authority to impose additional stated in the regulations. meet the requirements of proposed requirements unique to reentry policy Paperwork Reduction Act paragraph (a). Proposed paragraph (c) concerns, if any. identifies the payload review This proposal contains the following procedures applicable to reentering a Subpart C—Safety Review and Approval new information collection payload. A payload review for Reentry of Reentry Vehicle requirements subject to review by the determination may be requested of the Subpart C would describe the FAA’s Office of Management and Budget agency in advance of or separately from safety evaluation process for reentry (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction a reentry license application. license applicants. The safety review is Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. § 3507(d)). conducted to ensure that all safety Title: Commercial Space Section 435.9 Issuance of a Reentry Transportation Reusable Launch License aspects of a proposed reentry have been adequately addressed. The safety review Vehicle and Reentry Licensing The FAA would issue a license to an is necessarily based on the unique Regulations. applicant who has obtained all attributes and capabilities of a vehicle Summary: The FAA proposes to approvals and determinations required and is conducted on an individual basis, amend the commercial space under this chapter for a reentry license, measured against a regulatory risk transportation licensing regulations by including a policy and safety approval criteria. establishing operational requirements and payload reentry determination, if for launches of reusable launch vehicles necessary. The authorization would be Section 435.31 General (RLVs) and the authorized conduct of limited to representations contained in The proposal states that the FAA commercial space reentry activities. The an application and subject to licensee would conduct a safety review to proposed rule would respond to compliance with applicable determine whether an applicant is advancements in the development of requirements of the agency. capable of reentering a reentry vehicle commercial reentry capability and and payload, if any, to a designated site enactment of legislation extending the Section 435.11 Additional License without jeopardizing public health and FAA’s licensing authority to reentry Terms and Conditions safety and the safety of property. The activities. The agency is proposing As proposed, the FAA may amend a suitability of a proposed reentry site requirements that limit risk to the reentry license by modifying or adding would be assessed by the FAA in the public from RLV and reentry operations. license terms and conditions to ensure context of evaluating safety issues Description of Respondents: compliance with 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, presented in a particular reentry Applicants seeking licenses to conduct chapter 701, and applicable regulations. proposal. licensed reentry operations and launches of RLVs. Section 435.13 Transfer of a Reentry Section 435.33 Safety Review The proposed rule outlined is in License Requirements and Procedures accordance with the Paperwork Consistent with other licensing Safety review requirements proposed Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 authority of the agency, only the FAA for the reentry or descent flight phase of et seq. The required information will be would be able to transfer a reentry an RLV mission would apply to the used to determine whether applicants license. The prospective transferee reentry safety review, unless otherwise satisfy requirements for obtaining a would need to satisfy all requirements stated in proposed subpart C of part 431. launch license to protect the public
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.023 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19649 from risks associated with RLV missions its costs and is ‘‘not a significant would incur about 73 percent (or $83 and other reentries. The information to regulatory action’’ as defined in the million) of the total cost estimate in the be collected includes data required for Executive Order and the Department of form of administrative costs. All performing a safety review, which Transportation Regulatory Policies and monetary values shown in this includes a technical assessment to Procedures. The proposed rule is not a regulatory evaluation summary are determine if the applicant can safely significant action. The proposed rule expressed in 1997 dollars over the 15- reenter a reentry vehicle, including an would not have a significant impact on year period. Due to some of the RLV and payload, if any, to a designated a substantial number of small entities operational requirements of the reentry site without jeopardizing public and would not constitute a barrier to proposed rule, costs may materialize health and safety and safety of property. international trade. In addition, this that have not been specifically The frequency of required submissions proposed rule does not contain Federal considered in this evaluation. For may depend upon the frequency of intergovernmental or private sector example, the proposed requirement for licensed launch activities; however, a mandates. Therefore, the requirements each commercial space operator to have license may authorize more than one of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates an independent safety inspector could, launch. The estimated average burden Reform Act of 1995 do not apply. These under certain circumstances, result in hours per respondent are 4,384 hours. analyses, available in the docket, are costs not examined in this evaluation. The agency is soliciting comments to summarized below. The independent safety inspector could (1) evaluate whether the proposed Baseline for Economic Analysis require the operator to abort a launch or collection of information is necessary reentry for safety reasons, which would for the proper performance of the The proposed rule implements certain result in higher operating costs. Due to functions of the agency, including policies developed by AST in 1992 with this additional safety oversight, it is whether the information will have respect to public safety for the first uncertain whether all cost and benefit practical utility; (2) evaluate the commercial space reentry operation. considerations have been captured in accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the However, the safety criteria proposed in this evaluation. Accordingly, the FAA burden; (3) enhance the quality, utility, this rulemaking uses different measures solicits industry comments on the and clarity of the information to be that better reflect current agency and extent to which this evaluation has collected; and (4) minimize the burden range safety practices. The 1992 policy captured critical costs associated with of the collection of information on those established safety criteria pertaining to the proposed rule. who are to respond, including through a unique and specific request to conduct the use of appropriate automated, a first-of-a-kind payload reentry Reentry of RLVs and RVs are subject electronic, mechanical, or other mission; that is, the COMET, later to comparable safety requirements and technological collection techniques or renamed METEOR, reentry vehicle. therefore regulatory costs for reentry are other forms of information technology Accordingly, a comprehensive assessed collectively. Costs are assessed (for example, permitting electronic regulatory (benefit-cost) analysis was on the basis that, over the next 15-year submission of responses). Individuals not required. Therefore, the baseline period, five commercial operators of and organizations may submit case used for this analysis views the RLVs or RVs would be impacted by the comments on the information collection proposed rule as a new requirement regulations. It is assumed that five requirement by June 21, 1999, to the imposed on an emerging segment of the operators would obtain all necessary address listed in the ADDRESSES section commercial space transportation approvals to conduct RLV missions or of this document. industry that plans to operate reusable RV reentries and that market demand is launch vehicles (RLVs) or conduct sufficient to support that level of vehicle International Compatibility reentry operations with reentry vehicles operation. The FAA has determined that a (RVs). Doing so implies that, but for Industry Compliance Costs review of the Convention on imposition of safety requirements by the International Civil Aviation Standards agency, some compliance costs would Section 431.25 Application and Recommended Practices is not not have been incurred by entities Requirements for Policy Review and warranted because there is not a planning to conduct RLV missions Section 435.23 Policy Review comparable rule under ICAO standards. (launch and reentry) and RV operations that are associated with launches from These sections of the proposed rule Regulatory Evaluation Summary Federal ranges. (Regulatory costs and would impose an administrative Proposed and final rule changes to benefits associated with launches from paperwork burden on each of the five Federal regulations must undergo Federal ranges are assessed as part of a anticipated commercial space industry several economic analyses. First, separate rulemaking on launch licensing operators potentially impacted by Executive Order 12866 directs that each requirements for launches from Federal requiring them to provide specific Federal agency shall propose or adopt a ranges.) policy review information to the FAA regulation only upon a reasoned with regard to their anticipated RLV determination that the benefits of the Costs missions (launch and reentry) or RV intended regulation justify its costs. The proposed rule is expected to reentry operations. Compliance with Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act impose a total estimated cost of $113 this proposed section would result in an of 1980, as amended in May 1996, million ($65 million, discounted), in estimated cost of $400 per operator to requires agencies to analyze the 1997 dollars, on the commercial space assemble the data and submit each economic effect of regulatory changes transportation industry and the FAA application or $2,000 (5 x $400), in 1997 on small entities. Third, the Office of over the 15-year period from 2000 to dollars, for all five operators over the Management and Budget directs 2014. Commercial space transportation 15-year period. The cost estimate of agencies to assess the effect of industry operators potentially impacted $400 per operator assumes an employee regulatory changes on international by the proposed rule would incur with an annual loaded salary of trade. In conducting these analyses, the approximately 27 percent (or $30 approximately $103,000 (with fringe FAA has determined that the proposed million) of this total cost estimate in the benefits) and a level of effort of eight rule would generate benefits that justify form of compliance costs. The FAA hours.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.024 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19650 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
Section 431.33 Safety Organization drawings and schematics. This Section 431.41 Communications Plan and Section 435.33 Safety Review compliance activity is expected to fulfill and Section 435.33 Safety Review Requirements and Procedures the level of rigor implied by the Requirements and Procedures Under the baseline, a safety requirements contained in the proposed Commercial space transportation organization with clearly defined roles, rule. The cost impact to a commercial entities are expected to have in place a responsibilities, authorities, and lines of entity attributable to this proposed communications plan that, for the most communication is consistent with the requirement would be approximately part, are consistent with proposed findings and recommendations of the $757,000 in the first year of operation, regulatory requirement as a matter of Rodgers Commission and National with recurring costs of $3,600 annually, standard business practice. However, Transportation Safety Board. However, in 1997 dollars. Over the 15-year period, they are expected to incur incremental the proposed requirement to ‘‘* ** from 2000 to 2014, the cost of costs complying with the requirement, designate a qualified safety official compliance for each potentially annual recurring costs from interfacing ** * to monitor independently impacted operator would be about and exchanging documents with the compliance * * * with * * * [all] $800,000. The total cost of compliance FAA periodically and preparing for, safety policies and procedures’’ is not for all potentially impacted operators accommodating, and reacting to FAA necessarily customary and usual would be approximately $4 million (5 × inspection and compliance monitoring practice. Inclusion of this proposed $800,000), over the 15-year period. activities. The cost impact to a single requirement suggests that it is a commercial space transportation entity refinement of industry baseline Section 431.37 Mission Readiness and to comply would be approximately practices designed to mitigate safety Section 435.33 Safety Review $90,000 or $450,000 for all five entities risks to the public. For example, to be Requirements and Procedures over the 15-year period. ‘‘responsible for the conduct of all The proposed requirement to provide Section 431.43 Reusable Launch ** * mission activities * * *’’implies Vehicle Mission Operational a degree of comprehensiveness that may specific procedures to the FAA that verify mission readiness presents an Requirements and Restrictions, and not be common practice in industry. Section 435.33 Safety Review administrative paperwork burden to a Because the safety official must be Requirements and Procedures independent, the function cannot be commercial entity. This proposed assigned as a collateral duty to an requirement would cause an operator to (Mission Operational Requirements: individual with line responsibility for incur costs for preparing and submitting Dwell Time) launch and reentry operations though it the requisite information to the FAA. A Commercial space transportation could conceivably be assigned to an knowledgeable employee having an entities are expected to expend existing employee. Furthermore, the annual salary of about $103,000 over a additional levels of effort to comply magnitude of responsibilities of the period of 80 hours would perform the with risk mitigation requirements that, safety official suggests that the level of requirement. This exercise would result to some extent, may limit vehicle flight effort required to perform this function in a paperwork cost to a commercial path options during nominal and non- would exceed part-time employment. entity of approximately $4,000 per nominal operations, specifically Assuming that the independent safety application submittal over the 15-year limitations on dwell time over official function will not be performed period. For all entities, this proposed populated areas and requirements for as a collateral duty, this proposed requirement would impose an estimated performing a collision avoidance requirement would result in a cost of compliance of $20,000 (5 × analysis during launch windows to commercial space transportation entity $4,000) over the 15-year period. maintain adequate separation from hiring a person to fulfill the safety orbiting objects. official role. An annual loaded salary for Section 431.39 Mission Rules, this position would be about $103,000. Procedures, Contingency Plans, and (Rest and Duty Restrictions) Therefore, the total incremental Checklists, and Section 435.33 Safety This proposed rule would impose compliance cost to a commercial Review Requirements and Procedures work restrictions and personnel rest operator attributable to the proposed requirements on commercial space requirement would be about $1.6 Commercial space transportation transportation entities potentially million or $8 million (5 × $1.6 million) entities are generally expected to fulfill impacted by this action. For example, for all five operators over the 15-year the proposed requirements as part of an individual having direct control over period. their standard operating procedures. reentry or involved in decisions However, the FAA anticipates that these affecting reentry operations is restricted Section 431.35 Acceptable Reusable entities would incur some additional to working 60 hours over the seven-day Launch Vehicle Mission Risk, and costs conforming to FAA requirements. period preceding reentry. Further, the Section 435.35 Acceptable Reentry Risk proposed rule would reduce the for Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle Additionally, commercial entities are expected to incur costs from submitting maximum permissible hours worked per Commercial space transportation updated documents with the FAA shift to 12, limits the maximum number entities are expected to incur additional periodically, and preparing for, of consecutive workdays to 14, and costs for performance of risk analyses of accommodating and reacting to FAA specifies the minimum rest required (48 vehicle operations, including reentry, inspection and compliance monitoring hours) between five consecutive days of and would incur costs in assessing the activities. The cost impact to a single 12-hour work shifts. probabilities and consequences of all Currently, based on information commercial space transportation entity reentry hazards, events, and system received from industry, it is common failures that potentially expose the to comply with this proposed practice among commercial space requirement would be approximately public to risk. Additionally, commercial × transportation entities to follow Air entities would expend effort preparing $90,000 or $450,000 (5 $90,000) for Force work and rest standards for documentation and establishing an five entities over the 15-year period. launches. Those standards are similar to associated document control system for the proposed requirements. Ordinarily,
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19651 based on industry information, launch Section 431.57 Information this evaluation assumes the FAA would mission operations personnel work less Requirements for Payload Reentry exercise its record request authority. As than the maximum currently Review and Section 435.43 Payload a result the cost of compliance is permissible, such as a 40-hour Reentry Review Requirements and expected to be about $400 per entity per workweek comprised of five eight-hour Procedures year. Over the 15-year period, the cost shifts. Hence, the 72-hour workweek is would be $6,000 (400 × 15) per entity This proposed requirement to provide × generally an extreme condition that specific payload information to the FAA or $30,000 (5 $6,000) for five entities. occurs infrequently. presents an administrative paperwork Section 431.79 Reusable Launch The duration of a reentry operation is burden to a commercial entity. The Vehicle Mission Reporting likely to determine the extent of the submission of data to the FAA is Requirements, and Section 435.51 Post impact that the proposed work and rest estimated to impose costs of $400 per Licensing Requirements—Reentry requirements would have on application or $2,000 for all five entities License Terms and Conditions (General) over the 15-year period. commercial space transportation The information to be supplied by a entities. However, this impact would Section 431.73 Continuing Accuracy of licensee under this proposed occur under extreme or limiting License Application; Application for requirement is similar to that supplied conditions only (e.g., one reentry Modification of License previously to the FAA during the operations person). The proposed requirement would application process in accordance with Given the relatively small size of the impose minor costs on a licensee to Section 431.57. The burden placed on entities comprising the emerging RLV advise the FAA of material changes to the licensee is to provide more specific segment of the commercial space its application, and RLV and reentry mission data than that supplied transportation industry, staff missions that may impact public safety previously but closer in time to the augmentation of at least one person is and property. Depending upon the types actual conduct of the mission. Because not unlikely as a result of the proposed of changes reported, it is assumed based an operator must have this data to perform a scheduled mission, the requirements. Additionally, the FAA on input received from FAA and incremental cost to industry to comply anticipates that additional costs would industry technical personnel that, on with this proposed requirement would be incurred for recordkeeping to ensure average, a licensee would incur be zero. compliance with required work and rest incremental compliance costs of standards, and preparing for, approximately $33,000 per modification Section 431.93 Environmental × accommodating, and reacting to FAA application or $165,000 (5 $33,000) for Information, and Section 435.61 inspection and monitoring activities. five entities over the 15-year period. Environmental Review (General) The incremental cost to a single Section 431.75 Agreements, and Because licensing is a major Federal commercial entity to comply with this Section 435.51 Post Licensing action, a commercial space proposed work and rest requirement Requirements—Reentry License Terms transportation entity would be required would be slightly more than $3 million and Conditions (General) to provide information addressing the over the 15-year period. Over this same Entities that conduct commercial environmental effects of its operations period, for all five entities, the cost of launches of ELVs from Federal ranges so that the agency can fulfil its compliance would be $16 million ($5 × must enter into formal agreements with responsibility under NEPA and CEQ $3.2 million). the Federal range authority prior to environmental regulations, even in the using such facilities. Entities planning absence of the proposed rule. Section 431.45 Mishap Investigation to use these same facilities for reentry Commercial entities planning to Plan and Emergency Response Plan, missions would also be required to enter conduct launch and reentry missions and Section 435.33 Safety Review into such agreements. The proposed must submit environmental assessment Requirements and Procedures requirement has no impact on data to the FAA regarding environmental impacts of its proposed As a matter of standard business commercial entities other than the negligible level of effort expended (e.g., activities. Additional information must practice, commercial entities are less than one hour) to advise the FAA be submitted to evaluate environmental expected to have prepared emergency of compliance, and the incremental cost effects not previously assessed by the response plans that are consistent with to industry to comply with this agency. This proposed requirement much of the regulatory requirement. requirement would be negligible. would cause a commercial entity to However, the FAA anticipates that these incur incremental compliance costs of plans would require additional annual Section 431.77 Records and Section $271,000 per entity or $1.4 million (5 × maintenance to comply with certain 435.51 Post Licensing Requirements— $271,000) for five entities over the 15- elements of the proposed rule. For Reentry License Terms and Conditions year period. example, entities are likely to incur (General) additional costs to establish their ability It is generally accepted practice Section 433.7 Environmental to successfully respond to accidents among all commercial concerns to An analysis of the environmental occurring in remote areas having sparse maintain business operations records for impacts of operating a reentry site is populations. Furthermore, additional some period of time, often more than required under NEPA. The proposed annual maintenance costs are expected three years. Furthermore, the requirement, as distinct from similar to arise from preparing for, availability and capability of electronic requirements for operation of a launch accommodating, and reacting to FAA storage systems renders records site, would cause a applicant to incur inspection and monitoring activities. retention a manageable task. incremental compliance costs of Accordingly, a commercial space Accordingly, the proposed three-year $162,000 over the 15-year period as a transportation entity would incur requirement to maintain records for result of the need to submit additional incremental costs of $542,000 or $2.7 FAA review, upon request, would not information to the agency to evaluate million (5 × $542,000) for all five impact commercial space transportation environmental effects not previously entities over the 15-year period. entities. From a worst case perspective, assessed by the agency. For all
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.026 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19652 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
¥6 operators, the cost of compliance would 431.59, and 431.91; 433.3, 433.9; and (1) Ec ≤ 30 × 10 . This criterion be about $800,000 over the same period. 435.23, 435.31, 435.43, and 435.61 of applies on a per mission basis and the proposed regulation. The costs to be includes both launch and reentry phases FAA Administrative Costs incurred by the FAA to implement its of an RLV mission. It requires that the The proposed rule would result in the compliance monitoring responsibilities risk to the public associated with each FAA expending great effort in corresponding to sections 431.73, mission incorporate a level of safety that evaluating RLV mission and reentry 431.83, and 435.51 can vary widely, as is equivalent to a probabilistic outcome license applications and monitoring the spectrum of changes to reentry of no more than an expected average licensees for compliance. program operations can range from number of 30 public casualties per one This evaluation estimates that the minor to major. Therefore, the FAA million missions. ¥6 FAA would incur costs of expects to spend $2.5 million—an (2) Ec ≤ 1 × 10 . This criterion approximately $83 million ($45 million, amount equivalent to that expended for pertains to the public adjacent to reentry discounted), 1997 dollars over the 15- COMET/METEOR—to implement and sites. It requires that the risk to the year period, as the result of administer these proposed requirements public associated with each reentry administering its review of license for a single application. mission incorporate a level of safety that applications and monitoring of licensees Based on projections of the level of is equivalent to a probabilistic outcome compliance in accordance with the application activity over the 15-year of no more than an expected average proposed requirements of certain period from 2000 to 2014, the FAA is number of one public casualty per one sections of parts 431, 433, and 435. expected to spend approximately $83 million missions. The FAA’s actual experience in million in administering the safety Compliance by operators with these evaluating an application to conduct a requirements of parts 431, 433, and 435. safety criteria, along with other reentry mission is limited to the COMET Approximately 94 percent (or $78 restrictions addressed in the proposed and METEOR programs. Much of the million) of the cost by the FAA to rule are intended to limit risk to public proposed rule reflects safety policies for administer these parts would be safety. In estimating these potential reentry developed by the agency in 1992 incurred to approve the projected safety benefits, the FAA employed the to ensure that the COMET/METEOR reentry license applications and following steps: (First), the agency payload reentry missions would not modifications to be evaluated over the examined six accident types, grouped jeopardize public health and safety and 15-year period. Approximately 6 into two categories, related to airborne health and the safety of property. percent (or $5 million) of the cost to explosions and ground point-of-impact Consequently, this experience provides administer parts 431, 433, and 435 crashes. (For the purpose of this a partial basis for establishing the costs would be expended on the review of evaluation, the term accident is defined to the FAA for administering the application denials and the as any unplanned event with potential proposed rule. Using this past reconsideration process. casualty losses). For each accident experience, AST expects that the costs Unlike the estimates for potential category—airborne or ground—the to be incurred in performing its RLV benefits, the costs section of this population density of the area mission and reentry licensing pre- evaluation uses a point (or single) surrounding the accident scene or application consultation, application estimate rather than a range. The point accident zone can be either (1) none, (2) evaluation, and compliance monitoring estimate approach was chosen in sparse (e.g. rural), or (3) dense (e.g., duties in the near term to be higher than estimating FAA administrative costs urban). An examination of the that incurred for COMET/METEOR for a because, due in large measure to the consequences of these types of accidents single application, with or without a agency’s experience with the COMET/ was conducted. To arrive at accident formal reentry licensing regulation. The METEOR Program, there is far less consequences, the accident scenes or extent to which such costs would be uncertainty associated with the zones for airborne and ground accidents higher than that incurred for COMET/ estimation of costs for this proposed are characterized in terms of fatalities, METEOR is unknown since there is no rule relative to benefits. injuries, and property damage under the history of U.S. commercial reentry baseline and the proposed rule. The activity. The assessment of higher Benefits difference between the baseline scenario application costs, however, is largely The proposed rule is expected to and proposed rule scenario represents due to the expectation that inherently generate safety benefits of $119 million the incremental safety benefits that more complex RLV programs would ($66 million, discounted), in 1997 would be generated by the proposed dominate reentry missions in the future dollars, over the 15-year period. Benefits rule. This process was performed for and initially these would require greater include enhanced safety by limiting each of the steps below: (Second), evaluative effort on the part of FAA reentry risk to a level that does not monetary values are assigned to each of personnel until they have developed exceed an expected average number of the various types of accidents expected experience in this area. While AST 30 casualties per one million RLV to occur during launch or reentry budget estimates for fiscal year 2000 missions or reentries for the general (including accidents at or near launch reflect additional funding needed to public, and an expected average number sites). (Third), probabilities are assigned exercise its reentry mission approval of no more than one casualty per to each of the six accident types based function, this need cannot be attributed million missions for the public in the on the percentage of impacted landmass to the proposed rule, but rather to the vicinity of reentry sites. (e.g., no population, sparse population, complexity associated with the The potential safety benefits that are and dense population) for the baseline advancing technology that would be expected to accrue as the result of this and the proposed rule. That is, the evaluated. proposed rule stem from two types of probability of occurrence for each AST fiscal year 2000 budget estimates safety criteria implemented and accident type over the next 15 years was of the cost to perform its pre-application administered by the FAA on determined by using the two types of consultation and application evaluation commercial space transportation risk criteria mentioned earlier. licensing responsibilities may be industry operators who wish to engage And last, expected values were correlated collectively to sections in RLV missions or reentries. The two estimated for each of the accident types 431.23, 431.27, 431.31, 431.47, 431.55, criteria are: under the baseline and the proposed
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.027 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19653 rule. For this proposed rule, the is estimated to be $119 million for the clarifications that would be facilitated expected benefit values represent the period 2000 to 2014. This estimate of by the iterative pre-application difference between these two scenarios. $119 million represents the midpoint of consultation process, help ensure One of the more difficult areas to benefits ranging from $22 million to consistency in implementing the ascertain is the probability of a reusable $217 million over the 15-year period. licensing process, and may result in launch vehicle (RLV) or RLV accident in This midpoint estimate of benefits was cost-savings to the FAA as a result of the absence of government regulation in chosen because of the high degree of repetitive operations. These cost-savings order to calculate the expected value of uncertainty associated with the wide would also reduce the turnaround time an accident under the baseline and range of accident probabilities. between application submittal and estimate the incremental safety benefits Uncertainty stems from the extent to licensing approval, help commercial of the proposed rule. This difficulty which industry has already adopted and space transportation entities gain stems from the fact there is no empirical implemented safety measures similar to familiarity with requirements, and evidence or historical RLV accident those proposed as part of this facilitate government-industry history. Because of this difficulty, there rulemaking action. (Based on interaction. Enhanced operational is uncertainty associated with information obtained from commercial efficiency, in turn, would lead to estimating the probability of an RLV or space industry technical personnel, industry cost-savings, possibly due to RLV accident. As a result of this nearly all of the potentially impacted less rework or paperwork avoided. uncertainty, the FAA estimated a range operators would be in compliance with of accident probabilities, which are the proposed rule to some degree.) The Summary of Total Costs and Benefits based on historical experience with ELV low end of the range of benefits assumes accidents and incidents, and sorted that practically all of the potentially The total potential benefits and costs them into six categories or types of impacted operators would be in almost of this proposed rule are shown below accidents. In estimating the expected complete compliance in the absence of in Table 1. This Table shows that the casualty and property loss values, the the proposed rule. The high end of the potential cost imposed by the proposed probability of each of the six accident range of benefits assumes the opposite. rule would be approximately $113 types is multiplied by the accident There is insufficient information that million over the 15-year period. Also consequence values (e.g., the cost of an would support adopting the benefits shown in Table 1, about $30 million of accident). This process was repeated for estimates at either end of the range. this total cost would be incurred by all six accident types and summed. This Thus, the median (or midpoint) was industry. The cost estimate of $30 procedure was done for both scenarios chosen as an appropriate benefits million is lower than the summation of (baseline and proposal). Thus, the estimate. It suggests that the actual those costs discussed in the above difference in casualty and property benefits to be generated by the proposed sections for industry because it takes losses for these two scenarios was used rule lies somewhere between the lower into account the fact that certain as the estimated benefits for this and upper end of this range. Since operators would incur recurring costs proposed rule. The results of these uncertainty is associated with using a for some of the 15-year period rather calculations generate the potential midpoint benefits estimate and range of than for the entire period. Table 1 also safety benefits as discussed below. benefits, the FAA solicits public shows that the proposed rule would Safety benefits—accident costs comment as to whether its assumptions generate potential safety benefits of avoided—are realized as RLV launch are appropriate and the validity of this $119 million over the 15-year period. and reentry operations are performed, approach. The agency asks that Due to some of the operational without incident. Therefore, the number comments be specific and supported by requirements of the proposed rule, costs of completed RLV missions and quantitative data wherever possible. and benefits not considered in this reentries projected over the 15-year evaluation may materialize. The FAA period is multiplied by incremental Secondary Benefits solicits comments from the commercial safety benefits per mission to estimate The proposed rule would generate space industry as to what extent this total incremental safety benefits over the secondary benefits in the form of evaluation has captured critical costs period 2000 to 2014. The total safety enhanced operational efficiency, due and benefits associated with the benefit resulting from the proposed rule largely to regulatory and procedural proposed rule.
TABLE 1.ÐSUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS AND BENEFITS [In millions of dollars]
Category (in 1997 dollars, 15 yrs.) Undiscounted Discounted
Commercial Space Transportation Industry Compliance Costs ...... $30 $20 Federal Aviation Administration Implementation Costs ...... 83 45
Total Costs ...... 113 65
Accident Costs Avoided: Lower Bound (Safety Benefits) ...... 22 12 Accident Costs Avoided: Upper Bound (Safety Benefits) ...... 217 121 Total Accident Costs Avoided: Midpoint (Safety Benefits) ...... 119 66
Initial Regulatory Flexibility business and small not-for-profit amended in March 1996, requires that Determination government jurisdictions) are not whenever an agency publishes a general The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 unnecessarily and disproportionately notice of proposed rulemaking, an (RFA) was enacted by Congress to burdened by Federal Government initial regulatory flexibility analysis be ensure that small entities (e.g., small regulations. The RFA, which was performed if the proposed rule would
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.028 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19654 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules have a significant economic impact on in future years. This assessment is based Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 a substantial number of small entities. primarily on information received for Assessment The regulatory flexibility analysis must orbital launch events for ELV operators (1) identify the economic impact on from the FAA’s Office of Commercial Title II of the Unfunded Mandates small entities and (2) consider Space Transportation Report entitled, Reform Act of 1995, enacted as Public alternatives that may lessen those ‘‘Commercial Space Transportation: Law 104–4 on March 22, 1995, requires impacts. 1998 Year In Review’’, Table 1 and the each Federal agency, to the extent The Small Business Administration Appendix (January 1999). permitted by law, to prepare a written has defined small business entities assessment of the effects of any Federal relating to space vehicles (Standard Each of the five potentially impacted mandate by State, local, and tribal Industrial Codes 3761, 3764, and 3769) small RLV entities is expected to governments, in the aggregate, or by the as entities comprising fewer than 1,000 average about seven missions per year private sector, of $100 million or more employees. The FAA has determined over the next 15 years. Using $50 (adjusted annually for inflation) in any that the proposed rule would impact million as an average expected revenue one year. Section 204(a) of the Act, Title five small businesses, imposing on an per mission, each entity would be 2 of the United States Code 1534(a), entity average compliance costs of expected to receive about $350 million requires the Federal agency to develop approximately $6 million over the 15- × in revenue ($50m 7 missions an effectiveness process to permit year period (in 1997 dollars). annually) for all missions annually. The The annualized compliance cost to timely input by elected officers (or their FAA has determined that none of the designees) of State, local, and tribal each small business is approximately five small entities would incur a $700,000 (in 1997 dollars). Ordinarily, governments on a proposed ‘‘significant significant economic impact, since the intergovernmental mandate.’’ A this section of the evaluation would be average annualized cost of compliance based on typical financial data (for significant intergovernmental mandate ($700,000) would be only 0.2 percent of example, annual net income or losses) under the Act is any provision in a the anticipated average annual revenues as a means to determine any of the Federal agency regulation that would commercial space transportation small of $350 for missions conducted impose an enforceable duty upon State, entities significantly impacted by the annually. local, and tribal governments, in the proposed rule. However, the traditional The FAA certifies that the proposed aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted use of such financial data for these rule would not impose a significant annually for inflation) in any one year. small entities cannot be employed since economic impact on a substantial Section 203 of the Act, Title 2 of the RLV operators (including a number of number of small businesses. Therefore, United States Code 1533, which RV operators) represent relatively new a regulatory flexibility analysis is not supplements section 204(a), provides companies and they have no revenue required. Furthermore, the proposed that before establishing any regulatory history. In fact, these small operators are rule is not likely to cause small business requirements that might significantly or in the process of raising funds to finance failures or adversely impact their uniquely affect small governments, the their new ventures. Due to the lack of competitive position relative to larger agency shall have developed a plan that, data on the financial characteristics of businesses. However, the FAA requests among other things, provides for notice these small RLV operators, this comments on the validity of the to potentially affected small evaluation uses the 1998 average assertions herein and additional governments, if any, and for a revenue received per launch for ELV meaningful and timely opportunity any operators. The revenue that RLV information on the financial affected small governments to provide operators would obtain from their characteristics of these small businesses input in the development of proposed customers is expected to be similar to International Trade Impact Assessment the revenue that established ELV rules. operators currently receive from their The proposed rule contains revisions Based on the evaluation and impacts customers. Revenue data based on ELV to commercial space transportation reported herein, the proposed rule is not operators’ experience would be used for licensing regulations that would not expected to meet the $100 million per the purpose of assessing the extent to constitute a barrier to international year cost threshold. Consequently, it which compliance with the proposed trade, including the export of domestic would not impose a significant cost on rule would impose significant economic goods and services out of the United uniquely affect small governments. impacts on each of the five potentially States. The proposed rule would equally Therefore, the requirements of Title II of impacted small RLV operators. This affect domestic and foreign the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of assessment would be done by organizations conducting commercial 1995 do not apply to the proposed comparing the annualized cost of space transportation operations within regulation. compliance to the annual average the United States. The proposed rule is revenue expected to be received by each Federalism Implications not expected to place domestic firms at of the five small RLV operators over the next 15 years. While the long-term a disadvantage with respect to foreign The regulations proposed herein will revenues of RLV operators are expected interests competing for similar business not have a substantial direct effect on to exceed those of ELV operators, which in international markets. Therefore, the states, on the relationship between would be due to inherent lower based on this evaluation and impacts the national government and the states, operating costs, for the purpose of this reported herein, the proposed rule is not or on the distribution of power and evaluation they are assumed to be expected to affect trade opportunities responsibilities among the various nearly the same over the 15-year period. for U.S. firms doing business abroad or levels of government. Therefore, in For this reason, the average revenue of for foreign firms doing business in the accordance with Executive Order 12612, about $50 million generated by each United States. The FAA invites it is determined that this proposal ELV launch in 1998 will be used as an comments on the validity of this would not have sufficient federalism indicator of what RLV operators would assertion and any potential impacts implications to warrant the preparation be expected to generate per RLV mission related thereto. of a Federalism Assessment.
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19655
Environmental Assessment Rockets, Space transportation and Administrator to exercise the authority FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA exploration. or discharge the responsibilities of the Associate Administrator. actions that may be categorically 14 CFR Part 435 excluded from preparation of a National Contingency abort means cessation of Aviation safety, Environmental Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) vehicle flight during ascent or descent protection, Investigations, Reporting environmental assessment (EA) or in a manner that does not jeopardize and recordkeeping requirements, environmental impact statement (EIS). public health and safety and the safety Rockets, Space transportation and In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, of property, in accordance with mission exploration. appendix 4, paragraph 4(i), regulatory rules and procedures. Contingency abort documents which cover administrative The Proposed Amendment includes landing at an alternative or procedural requirements qualify for a location that has been designated as a In consideration of the foregoing, the contingency abort location in advance of categorical exclusion. Proposed sections Federal Aviation Administration 431.91, 431.93, 433.7, and 433.9 would vehicle flight. proposes to amend parts 400, 401, 404, Emergency abort means cessation of require an applicant to submit sufficient 405, 406, 413, and 415, of Chapter III vehicle flight during ascent or descent environmental information for the FAA Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations in a manner that minimizes risk to to comply with NEPA and other and add parts 431, 433 and 435 as public health and safety and the safety applicable environmental laws and follows: of property. Emergency abort involves regulations during the processing of failure of a vehicle, safety-critical each license application. Accordingly, PART 400ÐBASIS AND SCOPE system, or flight safety system such that the FAA proposes that this rule qualifies contingency abort is not possible. for a categorical exclusion because no 1. The authority citation for part 400 is revised to read as follows: Federal launch range means a launch significant impacts to the environment site, from which launches routinely take are expected to result from finalization Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. place, that is owned and operated by the or implementation of its administrative 2. Section 400.2 is revised to read as government of the United States. provisions for licensing. follows: Flight safety system means a system List of Subjects designed to limit or restrict the hazards § 400.2 Scope. to public health and safety and the 14 CFR Part 400 These regulations set forth the safety of property presented by a launch Space transportation and exploration. procedures and requirements applicable vehicle or reentry vehicle while in flight to the authorization and supervision by initiating and accomplishing a 14 CFR Part 401 under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, chapter controlled ending to vehicle flight. A Organization and functions 701, of commercial space transportation flight safety system may be destructive (Government agencies), Space activities conducted in the United States resulting in intentional break up of a transportation and exploration. or by a U.S. citizen. The regulations in vehicle or nondestructive, such as this chapter do not apply to exempted- 14 CFR Part 404 engine thrust termination enabling class rocket activities. vehicle landing or safe abort capability. Administrative practice and Hazardous materials means procedure, Space transportation and PART 401ÐORGANIZATION AND hazardous materials as defined in 49 exploration. DEFINITIONS CFR 172.101. 14 CFR Part 405 3. The authority citation for part 401 Launch means to place or try to place is revised to read as follows: a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle and Investigations, Penalties, Space any payload from Earth in a suborbital transportation and exploration. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. trajectory, in Earth orbit in outer space, 14 CFR Part 406 4. Section 401.5 is revised to read as or otherwise in outer space, and Administrative practice and follows: includes activities involved in the preparation of a launch vehicle for procedure, Space transportation and § 401.5 Definitions. exploration. flight, when those activities take place As used in this chapter— at a launch site in the United States. The 14 CFR Part 413 Act means 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, term launch includes the flight of a Commercial Space Transportation, ch. Confidential business information, launch vehicle and pre-flight ground 701—Commercial Space Launch Space transportation and exploration. operations beginning with the arrival of Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. a launch vehicle or payload at a U.S. 14 CFR Part 415 Amateur rocket activities means launch site. Flight ends after the Aviation safety, Environmental launch activities conducted at private licensee’s last exercise of control over protection, Space transportation and sites involving rockets powered by a its launch vehicle. exploration. motor or motors having a total impulse Launch accident means: of 200,000 pound-seconds or less and a (1) A fatality or serious injury (as 14 CFR Part 431 total burning or operating time of less defined in 49 CFR 830.2) to any person Aviation safety, Environmental than 15 seconds, and a rocket having a who is not associated with the flight; protection, Investigations, Reporting ballistic coefficient—i.e., gross weight in (2) Any damage estimated to exceed and recordkeeping requirements, pounds divided by frontal area of rocket $25,000 to property not associated with Rockets, Space transportation and vehicle—less than 12 pounds per square the flight that is not located at the exploration. inch. launch site or designated recovery area. Associate Administrator means the (3) An unplanned event occurring 14 CFR Part 433 Associate Administrator for Commercial during the flight of a launch vehicle Aviation safety, Environmental Space Transportation, Federal Aviation resulting in the known impact of a protection, Investigations, Reporting Administration, or any person launch vehicle, its payload or any and recordkeeping requirements, designated by the Associate component thereof:
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 19656 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
(i) For an expendable launch vehicle 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not controlling interest in such entity is (ELV), outside designated impact limit associated with the reentry; or any held by an individual or entity lines; and damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this (ii) for an RLV, outside a designated property not associated with the reentry definition. Controlling interest means landing site. and not located within a designated ownership of an amount of equity in Launch incident means an unplanned reentry site. such entity sufficient to direct event occurring during the flight of a Reentry incident means any management of the entity or to void launch vehicle, other than a launch unplanned event occurring during the transactions entered into by accident, involving a malfunction of a reentry of a reentry vehicle, other than management. Ownership of at least fifty- flight safety system or safety-critical a reentry accident, involving a one percent of the equity in an entity by system or failure of the licensee’s safety malfunction of a reentry safety-critical persons described in paragraph (1) or (2) organization, design or operations. system or failure of the licensee’s safety of this definition creates a rebuttable Launch operator means a person who organization, procedures, or operations. presumption that such interest is conducts or who will conduct the Reentry operator means a person controlling. launch of a launch vehicle and any responsible for conducting the reentry payload. of a reentry vehicle as specified in a PART 404ÐREGULATIONS AND Launch site means the location on license issued by the FAA. LICENSING REQUIREMENTS Earth from which a launch takes place Reentry site means the location on (as defined in a license the Secretary Earth where a reentry vehicle is 5. The authority citation for part 404 issues or transfers under this chapter) intended to return. It includes the area is revised to read as follows: and necessary facilities at that location. within three standard deviations of the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. Launch vehicle means a vehicle built intended landing point (the predicted 6. Section 404.1 is revised to read as to operate in, or place a payload in, three-sigma footprint). follows: outer space or a suborbital rocket. Reentry vehicle means a vehicle Mishap means a launch or reentry designed to return from Earth orbit or § 404.1 Scope. accident, launch or reentry incident, outer space to Earth substantially intact. Under section 49 U.S.C. 70105, this failure to complete a launch or reentry A reusable launch vehicle that is part establishes procedures for issuing as planned, or an unplanned event or designed to return from Earth orbit or regulations to implement the provisions series of events resulting in a fatality or outer space to Earth substantially intact of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, chapter 701, serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR is a reentry vehicle. and for eliminating or waiving § 830.2), or resulting in greater than Reusable launch vehicle (RLV) means requirements of Federal law otherwise $25,000 worth of damage to a payload, a launch vehicle that is designed to applicable to the licensing of a vehicle, a launch or reentry support return to Earth substantially intact and commercial space transportation facility or government property located therefore may be launched more than activities under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, on the launch or reentry site. one time or that contains vehicle stages chapter 701. Operation of a launch site means the that may be recovered by a launch 7. Section 404.3 is amended by conduct of approved safety operations at operator for future use in the operation revising the section title and paragraph a permanent site to support the of a substantially similar launch vehicle. (a) to read as follows: launching of vehicles and payloads. Safety-critical means essential to safe Operation of a reentry site means the performance or operation. A safety- § 404.3 Filing of petitions to the Associate conduct of safety operations at a fixed critical system, subsystem, condition, Administrator. site on Earth at which a reentry vehicle event, operation, process or item is one (a) Any person may petition the and its payload, if any, is intended to whose proper recognition, control, Associate Administrator to issue, land. performance or tolerance is essential to amend, or repeal a regulation to Payload means an object that a person safe system operation. eliminate as a requirement for a license undertakes to place in outer space by Vehicle safety operations personnel any requirement of Federal law means of a launch vehicle, including means those persons whose job applicable to commercial space launch components of the vehicle specifically performance is critical to public health and reentry activities and the operation designed or adapted for that object. and safety or the safety of property of launch and reentry sites or to waive Person means an individual or an during RLV or reentry operations. any such requirement in the context of entity organized or existing under the State and United States means, when a specific application for a license. laws of a state or country. used in a geographical sense, the several * * * * * Reenter means to return or attempt to States, the District of Columbia, the return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, PART 405ÐINVESTIGATIONS AND and its payload, if any, from Earth orbit American Samoa, the United States ENFORCEMENT or from outer space to Earth. The term Virgin Islands, Guam, and any other 8. The authority citation for part 405 ‘‘reenter’’ includes activities conducted commonwealth, territory, or possession is revised to read as follows: in Earth orbit or outer space to of the United States; and determine reentry readiness and are United States citizen means: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. therefore unique to reentry and critical (1) Any individual who is a citizen of 9. Section 405.1 is revised to read as to ensuring public health and safety and the United States; follows: the safety of property during reentry. (2) Any corporation, partnership, joint Reentry accident means any venture, association, or other entity § 405.1 Monitoring of licensed and other unplanned event occurring during the organized or existing under the laws of activities. reentry of a reentry vehicle resulting in the United States or any State; and Each licensee must allow access by the known impact of the reentry vehicle, (3) Any corporation, partnership, joint and cooperate with Federal officers or its payload, or any component thereof venture, association, or other entity employees or other individuals outside a designated reentry site; a which is organized or exists under the authorized by the Associate fatality or serious injury (as defined in laws of a foreign nation, if the Administrator to observe licensed
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.032 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19657 facilities and activities, including 14. Section 413.1 is revised to read as obtain a license to reenter a reentry launch sites and reentry sites, as well as follows: vehicle or to operate a reentry site in— manufacturing, production, and testing (1) Any place that is outside the facilities, or assembly sites used by any § 413.1 Scope. United States and outside the territory contractor or a licensee in the This part prescribes the procedures of any foreign nation, unless there is an production, assembly, or testing of a applicable to applications submitted agreement in force between the United launch or reentry vehicle and in the under this chapter to conduct licensed States and a foreign nation providing integration of a payload with its launch activities. These procedures apply to all that such foreign nation shall exercise or reentry vehicle. Observations are applications for issuance of a license, jurisdiction over the reentry or the conducted to monitor the activities of transfer of an existing license, and operation of the reentry site; or the licensee or contractor at such time renewal of an existing license. More (2) The territory of any foreign nation and to such extent as the Associate specific requirements applicable to if there is an agreement in force between Administrator considers reasonable and obtaining a launch license or a license the United States and that foreign nation necessary to determine compliance with to operate a launch site are contained in providing that the United States shall the license or to perform the Associate parts 415 and 417 of this chapter, exercise jurisdiction over the reentry or Administrator’s responsibilities respectively. More specific requirements the operation of the reentry site. pertaining to payloads for which no applicable to obtaining a license to Federal license, authorization, or permit launch and reenter a reentry vehicle or PART 415ÐLAUNCH LICENSE is required. to operate a reentry site are contained in 16. The authority citation for part 415 10. Section 405.5 is amended by parts 431, 433 and 435 of this chapter, is revised to read as follows: revising the introductory text and respectively. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. paragraph (a) to read as follows: 5. Section 413.3 is revised to read as follows: 17. Section 415.1 is revised to read as § 405.5 Emergency orders. follows: The Associate Administrator may § 413.3 Who must obtain a license. immediately terminate, prohibit, or (a) A person must obtain a license— § 415.1 Scope. suspend a licensed launch, reentry, or (1) To launch a launch vehicle from This part prescribes requirements for operation of a launch or reentry site if the United States; obtaining a license to launch a launch the Associate Administrator determines (2) To operate a launch site within the vehicle, other than a reusable launch that— United States; vehicle (RLV), and post-licensing (a) The licensed launch, reentry, or (3) To reenter a reentry vehicle in the requirements with which a licensee operation of a launch or reentry site is United States; or shall comply to remain licensed. detrimental to public health and safety, (4) To operate a reentry site within the Requirements for preparing a license the safety of property, or any national United States. application are contained in part 413 of security or foreign policy interest of the (b) An individual who is a U.S. this subchapter. Requirements for United States; and citizen or an entity organized under the obtaining a license to launch an RLV * * * * * laws of the United States or any State and conduct an RLV mission are must obtain a license— contained in part 431 of this subchapter. PART 406ÐADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (1) To launch a launch vehicle outside 18. Part 431 is added to read as the United States; follows: 11. The authority citation for part 406 (2) To operate a launch site outside of is revised to read as follows: the United States; PART 431ÐLAUNCH AND REENTRY Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. (3) To reenter a reentry vehicle OF A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV) 12. Section 406.1 is amended by outside of the United States; or (4) To operate a reentry site outside of revising paragraphs (a), introductory Subpart AÐGeneral text, (a)(2), and (a)(3) to read as follows: the United States. (c) A foreign entity in which a United Sec. § 406.1 Hearings. States citizen has a controlling interest, 431.1 Scope. 431.3 Types of reusable launch vehicle (a) Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 70110, the as defined in § 401.5 of this chapter, mission licenses. following are entitled to a determination must obtain a launch license to launch 431.5 Policy and safety approvals. on the record after an opportunity for a a launch vehicle from or a license to 431.7 Payload and payload reentry hearing in accordance with 5 U.S.C. operate a launch site within— determinations. 554. (1) Any place that is both outside the 431.9 Issuance of a reusable launch vehicle * * * * * United States and outside the territory mission license. of any foreign nation, unless there is an 431.11 Additional license terms and (2) An owner or operator of a payload conditions. regarding any decision to prevent the agreement in force between the United States and a foreign nation providing 431.13 Transfer of a reusable launch vehicle launch or reentry of the payload; mission license. (3) A licensee regarding any decision that such foreign nation shall exercise 431.15 Rights not conferred by a reusable to suspend, modify, or revoke a license jurisdiction over the launch or the launch vehicle mission license. or to terminate, prohibit, or suspend any operation of the launch site; or 431.16–431.20 [Reserved] (2) The territory of any foreign nation licensed activity; and Subpart BÐPolicy Review and Approval for * * * * * if there is an agreement in force between Launch and Reentry of a Reusable Launch the United States and that foreign nation Vehicle providing that the United States shall PART 413ÐLICENSE APPLICATION 431.21 General. PROCEDURES exercise jurisdiction over the launch or 431.23 Policy review. the operation of the launch site. 13. The authority citation for part 413 431.25 Application requirements for policy (d) A foreign entity in which a U.S. review. is revised to read as follows: citizen has a controlling interest, as 431.27 Denial of policy approval. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. defined in § 401.5 of this chapter, must 431.28–431.30 [Reserved]
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.034 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19658 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
Subpart CÐSafety Review and Approval for one RLV mission and identifies each determinations required under this Launch and Reentry of a Reusable Launch flight of an RLV authorized under the chapter for the license. Vehicle license. A licensee’s authorization to (b) An RLV mission license authorizes 431.31 General. conduct RLV missions terminates upon a licensee to launch and reenter, or 431.33 Safety organization. completion of all activities authorized otherwise land, an RLV and payload, if 431.35 Acceptable reusable launch vehicle by the license or the expiration date mission risk. any, in accordance with the 431.37 Mission readiness. stated in the reentry license, whichever representations contained in the 431.39 Mission rules, procedures, occurs first. licensee’s application, subject to the (b) Operator license. An operator contingency plans, and checklists. licensee’s compliance with terms and license for RLV missions authorizes a 431.41 Communications plan. conditions contained in license orders licensee to launch and reenter, or 431.43 Reusable launch vehicle mission accompanying the license, including otherwise land, any of a designated operational requirements and financial responsibility requirements. restrictions. family of RLVs within authorized 431.45 Mishap investigation plan and parameters, including trajectories, § 431.11 Additional license terms and emergency response plan. transporting specified classes of conditions. 431.47 Denial of safety approval. payloads to any reentry site designated 431.48–431.50 [Reserved] The FAA may amend an RLV mission in the license. An operator license for license at any time by modifying or Subpart DÐPayload Reentry Review and RLV missions is valid for a two-year adding license terms and conditions to Determination renewable term. ensure compliance with 49 U.S.C. 431.51 General. 431.53 Classes of payloads. § 431.5 Policy and safety approvals. subtitle IX, chapter 701, and applicable 431.55 Payload reentry review. To obtain either type of RLV mission regulations. 431.57 Information requirements for license, an applicant must obtain policy payload reentry review. § 431.13 Transfer of a reusable launch and safety approvals from the FAA. vehicle mission license. 431.59 Issuance of payload reentry Requirements for obtaining these determination. approvals are contained in subparts B (a) Only the FAA may transfer an RLV 431.61 Incorporation of payload reentry and C of this part. Only the license mission license. determination in license application. 431.62–431.70 [Reserved] applicant may apply for the approvals, (b) An applicant for transfer of an RLV and may apply for either approval mission license shall submit a license Subpart EÐPost-Licensing Requirements- separately and in advance of submitting Reusable Launch Vehicle Mission License application in accordance with part 413 Terms and Conditions a complete license application, using of this subchapter and satisfy the the application procedures contained in applicable requirements of this part. 431.71 Public safety responsibility. part 413 of this subchapter. 431.73 Continuing accuracy of license The FAA will transfer an RLV mission application; application for modification § 431.7 Payload and payload reentry license to an applicant who has of license. determinations. obtained all of the approvals and 431.75 Agreements. (a) A payload determination is determinations required under this 431.77 Records. required to launch a payload unless the chapter for an RLV mission license. In 431.79 Reusable launch vehicle mission conducting its reviews and issuing reporting requirements. proposed payload is exempt from payload review under § 415.53 of this approvals and determinations, the FAA 431.81 Financial responsibility may incorporate any findings made part requirements. chapter. Requirements for obtaining a 431.83 Compliance monitoring. payload determination are set forth in of the record to support the initial 431.85 Registration of space objects. part 415, subpart D. licensing determination. The FAA may 431.86–431.90 [Reserved] (b) A payload reentry determination is modify an RLV mission license to reflect Subpart FÐEnvironmental Review required to transport a payload to Earth any changes necessary as a result of a license transfer. 431.91 General. on an RLV unless the proposed payload 431.93 Environmental information. is exempt from payload review. § 431.15 Rights not conferred by a (c) A payload reentry determination Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70119. reusable launch vehicle mission license. made under a previous license Subpart AÐGeneral application under this subchapter may Issuance of an RLV mission license satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b) does not relieve a licensee of its § 431.1 Scope. of this section. obligation to comply with requirements This part prescribes requirements for (d) The FAA conducts a review, as of law that may apply to its activities. obtaining a reusable launch vehicle described in subpart D of this part, to (RLV) mission license and post- make a payload reentry determination. §§ 431.16±431.20 [Reserved] licensing requirements with which a Either an RLV mission license applicant Subpart BÐPolicy Review and licensee must comply to remain or a payload owner or operator may Approval for Launch and Reentry of a licensed. Requirements for preparing a request a review of the proposed Reusable Launch Vehicle license application are contained in part payload using the application 413 of this subchapter. procedures contained in part 413 of this § 431.21 General. subchapter. Upon receipt of an The FAA issues a policy approval to § 431.3 Types of reusable launch vehicle application, the FAA may conduct a mission licenses. an RLV mission license applicant upon payload reentry review independently (a) Mission-specific license. A completion of a favorable policy review. of an RLV mission license application. mission-specific license authorizing an A policy approval is part of the RLV mission, authorizes a licensee to § 431.9 Issuance of a reusable launch licensing record on which the licensing launch and reenter, or otherwise land, vehicle mission license. determination is based. one model or type of RLV to a reentry (a) The FAA issues either a mission- § 431.23 Policy review. site approved for the mission. A specific or operator license authorizing mission-specific license authorizing an RLV missions to an applicant who has (a) The FAA reviews an RLV mission RLV mission may authorize more than obtained all approvals and license application to determine
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19659 whether the proposed mission presents (3) Sequence of planned events or license and with the plans and any issues, other than those issues maneuvers during the mission; and procedures required by this subpart. addressed in the safety review, that For an orbital mission, the range of (b) An applicant must designate a would adversely affect U.S. national intermediate and final orbits of the person responsible for the conduct of all security or foreign policy interests, vehicle and upper stages, if any, and licensed RLV mission activities. would jeopardize public health and their estimated orbital life times. (c) Safety official. An applicant shall safety or the safety of property, or would designate by name, title, and not be consistent with international § 431.27 Denial of policy approval. qualifications, a qualified safety official obligations of the United States. The FAA notifies an applicant, in authorized by the applicant to examine (b) Interagency consultation. writing, if the FAA has denied policy all aspects of the applicant’s operations (1) The FAA consults with the approval for an RLV mission license with respect to safety of RLV mission Department of Defense to determine application. The notice states the activities and to monitor independently whether an RLV mission license reasons for the FAA’s determination. compliance by vehicle safety operations application presents any issues The applicant may respond to the personnel with the applicant’s safety adversely affecting U.S. national reasons for the determination and policies and procedures. The safety security. request reconsideration. official shall report directly to the (2) The FAA consults with the person responsible for an applicant’s Department of State to determine §§ 431.28±431.30 [Reserved] licensed RLV mission activities, who whether an RLV mission license shall ensure that all of the safety application presents any issues Subpart CÐSafety Review and official’s concerns are addressed both adversely affecting U.S. foreign policy Approval for Launch and Reentry of a before the mission is initiated and interests or international obligations. Reusable Launch Vehicle before reentry or descent of an RLV is (3) The FAA consults with other § 431.31 General. initiated. The safety official is Federal agencies, including the National responsible for— Aeronautics and Space Administration, (a) The FAA conducts a safety review (1) Conducting operational dress authorized to address issues identified to determine whether an applicant is rehearsals in accordance with under paragraph (a) of this section, capable of launching an RLV and procedures required by § 431.37(a)(4), associated with an applicant’s RLV payload, from a designated launch site, that ensure the readiness of vehicle mission proposal. and reentering the RLV and payload, if safety operations personnel to conduct a (c) The FAA advises an applicant, in any, to a designated reentry site, or safe mission under nominal and non- writing, of any issue raised during a otherwise landing the RLV and payload, nominal conditions; and policy review that would impede if any, on Earth, without jeopardizing (2) Completing a mission readiness issuance of a policy approval. The public health and safety and the safety determination as required by § 431.37 of applicant may respond, in writing, or of property. this subpart before an RLV mission is revise its license application. (b) The FAA issues a safety approval initiated. The safety official must to an RLV mission license applicant that § 431.25 Application requirements for monitor and report to the person policy review. satisfies the requirements of this responsible for the conduct of licensed subpart. The FAA evaluates on an In its RLV mission license RLV mission activities any non- individual basis all public safety aspects compliance with procedures listed in application, an applicant must— of a proposed RLV mission to ensure (a) Identify the model, type, and §§ 431.37 and 431.43 or any they are sufficient to support safe configuration of any RLV proposed for representation contained in the conduct of the mission. A safety launch and reentry, or otherwise application, and the readiness of the approval is part of the licensing record landing on Earth, by the applicant. licensee to conduct mission operations (b) Identify all vehicle systems, on which the FAA’s licensing in accordance with the license and this including structural, thermal, determination is based. part. The safety official is responsible pneumatic, propulsion, electrical, and (c) The FAA advises an applicant, in for compliance with §§ 431.37 and avionics and guidance systems used in writing, of any issue raised during a 431.43 and with representations the vehicle(s), and all propellants. safety review that would impede contained in the application. (c) Identify foreign ownership of the issuance of a safety approval. The applicant as follows: applicant may respond, in writing, or § 431.35 Acceptable reusable launch vehicle mission risk. (1) For a sole proprietorship or revise its license application. (a) To obtain safety approval for an partnership, identify all foreign § 431.33 Safety organization. ownership; RLV mission, an applicant must (2) For a corporation, identify any (a) An applicant shall maintain a demonstrate that the proposed mission foreign ownership interests of 10% or safety organization and document it by does not exceed acceptable risk as more; and identifying lines of communication and defined in this subpart. For purposes of (3) For a joint venture, association, or approval authority for all mission this part, the mission commences upon other entity, identify any participating decisions that may affect public safety. initiation of the launch phase of flight, foreign entities. Lines of communication within the proceeds through orbital insertion of an (d) Identify proposed launch and applicant’s organization, between the RLV or vehicle stage, or flight to outer reentry flight profile(s), including— applicant and the launch site, and space, whichever is applicable, and (1) Launch and reentry site(s), between the applicant and the reentry concludes upon landing on Earth of the including planned contingency abort site, shall be employed to ensure that RLV. locations, if any; personnel perform RLV mission (b) Acceptable risk for a proposed (2) Flight trajectories, reentry operations in accordance with plans and mission is measured in terms of the trajectories, associated ground tracks, procedures required by this subpart. expected average number of casualties and instantaneous impact points for Approval authority shall be employed to (Ec) to the collective members of the nominal operations, and contingency ensure compliance with terms and public exposed to vehicle or vehicle abort profiles, if any; conditions stated in an RLV mission debris impact hazards. To obtain safety
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.036 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19660 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules approval, an applicant shall (1) Mission readiness review § 431.39 Mission rules, procedures, demonstrate— procedures that involve the applicant’s contingency plans, and checklists. (1) For public risk, the risk level vehicle safety operations personnel, and (a) An applicant shall submit mission associated with a proposed mission launch site and reentry site personnel rules, procedures, checklists, emergency does not exceed an expected average involved in the mission. The procedures plans, and contingency abort plans, if number of 0.00003 casualties per shall ensure a mission readiness review any, that ensure safe conduct of mission ¥6 mission (or Ec criterion of 30 × 10 ) to is conducted during which the operations during nominal and non- members of the public from the designated individual responsible for nominal vehicle flight. applicant’s proposed activity; and the conduct of licensed activities under (b) Mission rules, procedures, (2) For persons within a 100-mile § 431.33(b) of this subpart is provided checklists, emergency plans, and distance from the border of the with the following information to make contingency abort plans must be designated reentry site and contingency a judgment as to mission readiness— contained in a safety directive, abort locations, if any, the risk level (i) Readiness of the RLV including notebook, or other compilation that is associated with a proposed mission safety-critical systems and payload for approved by the safety official does not exceed an expected average launch and reentry flight; designated under § 431.33(c) of this part number of .000001 casualties per (ii) Readiness of the launch site, and concurred in by the launch site ¥6 mission (or Ec criterion of 1 × 10 ). personnel, and safety-related launch operator and reentry site operator, if (c) Hazard identification and risk property and launch services to be any. assessment. To demonstrate compliance provided by the launch site; (c) Vehicle safety operations with acceptable risk criteria in this (iii) Readiness of the reentry site, personnel must have current and section, an applicant shall employ a personnel, and safety-related property consistent mission checklists. system safety process to identify the and services for reentry flight and § 431.41 Communications plan. vehicle recovery; hazards and assess the risks to public (a) An applicant shall submit a plan (iv) Readiness of vehicle safety health and safety and the safety of providing vehicle safety operations operations personnel to support mission property associated with the mission, personnel communications procedures flight, including results of dress including nominal and non-nominal during the mission. Procedures for rehearsals and simulations conducted in operation and flight of the vehicle and effective issuance and communication accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this payload, if any. An acceptable system of safety-critical information during the section; safety analysis identifies and assesses mission shall include hold/resume, go/ (v) Mission rules and constraints, the probability and consequences of any no go, contingency abort, if any, and including contingency abort plans and reasonably foreseeable hazardous emergency abort commands by vehicle procedures, if any, as required under events, and safety-critical system safety operations personnel. The failures during launch and reentry that § 431.39 of this part; (vi) Unresolved safety issues communications plan shall describe the could result in a casualty to the public. authority of vehicle safety operations identified during the mission readiness (d) As part of the demonstration personnel, by individual or position review and plans for addressing them; required under paragraph (c) of this title, to issue these commands. The and section, an applicant must— communications plan shall ensure (1) Identify and describe the structure (vii) Any additional safety information required by the individual that— of the RLV, including physical (1) Communication networks are designated under § 431.33(b) of this part dimensions and weight; assigned so that personnel identified to determine launch and reentry (2) Identify and describe any under this section have direct access to readiness. hazardous materials, including real-time, safety-critical information (2) Procedures that ensure mission radioactive materials, and their required for making these decisions and constraints, rules, contingency abort and container on the RLV; issuing the commands; (3) Identify and describe safety- emergency abort procedures are listed (2) Personnel identified under this critical systems; and consolidated in a safety directive or section monitor a common intercom (4) Identify and describe all safety- notebook approved by the person channel for safety-critical critical failure modes and their designated by the applicant under communications during launch and consequences; § 431.33(b) of this subpart, the launch reentry; (5) Provide drawings and schematics site operator, and the reentry site (3) A protocol is established for for each safety-critical system identified operator, if any; utilizing defined radio communications under paragraph (d) (3) of this section; (3) Procedures that ensure currency terminology; and (6) Provide a timeline identifying all and consistency of licensee, launch site (4) Communications affecting the safety-critical events; operator, and reentry site operator safety of the mission are recorded. (7) Provide data that validates the checklists; (b) An applicant shall submit applicant’s system safety analyses (4) Dress rehearsal procedures that— procedures to ensure that licensee and required in paragraph (c) of this section; (i) Ensure crew readiness under reentry site personnel, if any, receive a and nominal and non-nominal flight copy of the communications plan (8) Provide flight trajectory analyses conditions; required by this section and that the covering launch or ascent of the vehicle (ii) Contain criteria for determining reentry site operator, if any, concurs through orbital insertion and reentry or whether to dispense with or add one or with the communications plan. descent of the vehicle through landing, more dress rehearsals; and including three-sigma dispersion. (iii) Verify currency and consistency § 431.43 Reusable launch vehicle mission of licensee, launch site operator, and operational requirements and restrictions. § 431.37 Mission readiness. reentry site operator checklists; and (a) An applicant for RLV mission (a) Mission readiness requirements. (5) Procedures for ensuring the safety approval shall submit An applicant shall submit the following licensee’s vehicle safety operations procedures— procedures for verifying mission personnel adhere to crew rest rules of (1) That ensure RLV mission risks do readiness: this part. not exceed the criteria set forth in
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.037 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19661
§ 431.35 of this part for nominal and densely populated areas during any MIP and ERP shall be signed by an non-nominal operations; segment of mission flight; individual authorized to sign and certify (2) That ensure conformance with the (3) There will be no unplanned the application in accordance with system safety process and associated physical contact between the vehicle or § 413.7(c) of this chapter, the person hazard identification and risk its components and payload after responsible for the conduct of all assessment required under § 431.35(c); payload separation and debris licensed RLV mission activities (3) That ensure conformance with generation will not result from designated under § 431.33(b) of this operational restrictions listed in conversion of energy sources into subpart, and the safety official paragraphs (c) through (e) of this energy that fragments the vehicle or its designated under § 431.33(c) of this section; payload. Energy sources include, but are subpart. MIPs covering launch and (4) To monitor and verify the status of not limited to, chemical, pneumatic, reentry flight phases of an RLV mission RLV safety-critical systems immediately and kinetic energy; and may be combined in a single document. before and during mission operations; (4) Vehicle safety operations (b) Report requirements. A MIP shall and personnel shall adhere to the following provide for— (5) For human activation or initiation work and rest standards: (1) Immediate notification to the FAA of a flight safety system that safely (i) A maximum 12-hour work shift Washington Operations Center in case aborts the launch of an RLV if the with at least 8 hours of rest after 12 of an event identified in paragraph (a) vehicle is not operating within hours of work, preceding initiation of a of this section. In addition to approved mission parameters and the reentry mission or during the conduct of requirements of § 415.41(b), the vehicle poses risk to public health and a mission; notification shall include: safety and the safety of property in (ii) A maximum of 60 hours worked (i) Date and time of occurrence; excess of acceptable flight risk as in the 7 days, preceding initiation of an (ii) Description of the event; defined in § 431.35. RLV mission; (iii) Intended and actual location of (b) To satisfy risk criteria set forth in (iii) A maximum of 14 consecutive reentry, or other landing on Earth; § 431.35(b)(1), an applicant for RLV work days; and (iv) Identification of the vehicle; mission safety approval shall identify (iv) A minimum 48-hour rest period (v) Identification of the payload, if suitable and attainable locations for after 5 consecutive days of 12-hour applicable; nominal landing and vehicle staging shifts. (vi) Number and general description impact, if any. An application shall (d) In addition to requirements of of any fatalities and injuries; (vii) Property damage, if any, and an identify such locations for a paragraph (c) of this section, any estimate of its value; contingency abort if necessary to satisfy unproven RLV may only be operated— (viii) Identification of any hazardous risk criteria contained in § 431.35(b)(1) (1) Such that the projected material, as defined in § 401.5 of this during launch of an RLV. A nominal instantaneous impact point (IIP) of the chapter, involved in the event, whether landing, vehicle staging impact and vehicle does not have substantial dwell on the vehicle, payload, or on the contingency abort location are suitable time over populated areas; or (2) Such that the expected average ground; for launch or reentry if— number of casualties to members of the (ix) Action taken by personnel to (1) For any vehicle or vehicle stage, ¥6 public does not exceed 30 × 10 (Ec ≤ contain the consequences of the event; the area of the predicted three-sigma 30 × 10¥6) given a probability of vehicle (x) Description of weather conditions dispersion of the vehicle or vehicle failure equal to 1 (pf = 1) at any time the at the time of the event; and stage can be wholly contained within IIP is over a populated area; (xi) Potential consequences for other the designated location; and (e) Any RLV that enters Earth orbit vehicles or systems of similar type and (2) The location is of sufficient size to may only be operated such that the proposed operations. contain landing impacts, including vehicle operator is able to— (2) Submission of a written debris dispersion upon impact and any (1) Monitor the status of safety-critical preliminary report to the FAA Associate toxic release. systems immediately before enabling Administrator for Commercial Space (c) For an RLV mission— reentry flight and verify that the vehicle Transportation in the event of a reentry (1) A collision avoidance analysis can reenter safely to Earth; and accident or reentry incident, as defined shall be performed in order to maintain (2) Issue a command enabling reentry in § 401.5 of this chapter, within 5 days at least a 200-kilometer separation from of the vehicle. Reentry cannot be of the event. The report shall identify any inhabitable orbiting object during initiated autonomously under nominal the event as either a reentry accident or launch and reentry. The analysis shall circumstances without prior enable. reentry incident and must include the address: information specified in paragraph (i) For launch, closures in a planned § 431.45 Mishap investigation plan and (b)(1) of this section. launch window for ascent to outer space emergency response plan. (c) A mishap investigation plan must or, for an orbital RLV, to initial orbit (a) An applicant shall submit a contain procedures to— through at least one complete orbit; mishap investigation plan (MIP) (1) Ensure the consequences of a (ii) For reentry, the reentry trajectory; containing the applicant’s procedures reentry accident, reentry incident, or (iii) Expansions of the closure period for reporting and responding to launch other mishap are contained and by subtracting 15 seconds from the and reentry accidents, launch and minimized; closure start-time and adding 15 reentry incidents, or other mishaps, as (2) Ensure data and physical evidence seconds to the closure end-time for each defined in § 401.5 of this chapter, that are preserved; sequential 90 minutes elapsed time satisfies requirements of § 415.41 of this (3) Investigate the cause of a reentry period, or portion there of, beginning at subchapter. An applicant shall submit accident, reentry incident, or other the time the state vectors of the orbiting an emergency response plan (ERP) that mishap; objects were determined; contains procedures for informing the (4) Report the mishap to the FAA; (2) The projected instantaneous affected public of a planned reentry. An (5) Designate a point of contact for the impact point (IIP) of the vehicle shall ERP will provide procedures to notify FAA and the National Transportation not have substantial dwell time over local officials of an off-site landing. The Safety Board;
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.038 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 19662 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules
(6) Cooperate with investigations § 431.53 Classes of payloads. with other materials found on the conducted by the FAA and the National (a) The FAA may approve the return payload or RLV during reentry; Transportation Safety Board; of a type or class of payloads (for (f) Designated reentry site(s); and (7) Delineate responsibilities, example, communications or (g) Method for securing the payload including reporting responsibilities, for microgravity/scientific satellites). on the RLV. personnel assigned to conduct (b) The RLV mission licensee that will investigations and for any unrelated return a payload approved for reentry § 431.59 Issuance of payload reentry entities retained by the licensee to under this section, is responsible for determination. conduct or participate in investigations.; providing current information in (a) The FAA issues a favorable (8) Report investigation results to the accordance with § 431.57 regarding the payload reentry determination unless it FAA; and payload proposed for reentry no later determines that reentry of the proposed (9) Identify and adopt preventive than 60 days before a scheduled RLV payload would adversely affect U.S. measures for avoiding a recurrence of mission involving that payload. national security or foreign policy the event. § 431.55 Payload reentry review. interests, would jeopardize public (d) An emergency response plan shall health and safety or the safety of (a) In conducting a payload reentry provide for— property, or would not be consistent review to decide if the FAA should (1) Notification to local officials in the with international obligations of the approve reentry of a payload, the FAA United States. The FAA responds to any event of an off-site landing so that determines whether its reentry presents person who has requested a payload vehicle recovery can be conducted any issues that would adversely affect reentry review of its determination in safely and effectively, with minimal risk U.S. national security or foreign policy writing. The notice states the reasons for to public safety. The plan must provide interests, would jeopardize public the determination in the event of an for the quick dissemination of up to date health and safety or the safety of unfavorable determination. information to the public, and for doing property, or would not be consistent so in advance of reentry to the extent with international obligations of the (b) Any person issued an unfavorable practicable. United States. payload reentry determination may (2) A public information (b) The FAA consults with the respond to the reasons for the dissemination plan for informing the Department of Defense to determine determination and request potentially affected public, in laymen’s whether reentry of a proposed payload reconsideration. terms and in advance of a planned presents any issues adversely affecting § 431.61 Incorporation of payload reentry reentry, of the estimated date, time and U.S. national security. determination in license application. landing location for the reentry activity. (c) The FAA consults with the (3) An ERP shall be submitted as part Department of State to determine A favorable payload reentry of the application process. whether reentry of a proposed payload determination issued for a payload or presents any issues adversely affecting class of payload may be included by an § 431.47 Denial of safety approval. U.S. foreign policy interests or RLV mission license applicant as part of The FAA notifies an applicant, in international obligations. its application. Before the conduct of an writing, if the FAA has denied safety (d) The FAA consults with other RLV mission involving a payload approval for an RLV mission license Federal agencies, including the National approved for reentry, any change in application. The notice states the Aeronautics and Space Administration, information provided under § 431.57 of reasons for the FAA’s determination. authorized to address issues identified this subpart must be reported by the The applicant may respond to the under paragraph (a) of this section. licensee in accordance with § 413.17 of reasons for the determination and (e) The FAA advises a person this chapter. The FAA determines request reconsideration. requesting a payload reentry whether a favorable payload reentry determination, in writing, of any issue determination remains valid and may §§ 431.48±431.50 [Reserved] raised during a payload reentry review conduct an additional payload reentry review. Subpart DÐPayload Reentry Review that would impede the issuance of a and Determination favorable determination to reenter that §§ 431.62±431.70 [Reserved] payload. The person requesting a § 431.51 General. payload reentry review may respond, in Subpart EÐPost-Licensing (a) A payload reentry review is writing, or revise its application. RequirementsÐReusable Launch conducted to examine the policy and § 431.57 Information requirements for Vehicle Mission License Terms and safety issues related to the proposed payload reentry review. Conditions reentry of a payload, other than a U.S. A person requesting reentry review of § 431.71 Public safety responsibility. Government payload or a payload a particular payload or payload class (a) A licensee is responsible for whose reentry is subject to regulation by must identify the following: another Federal agency, to determine (a) Payload name or class and ensuring the safe conduct of an RLV whether the FAA will approve reentry function; mission and for protecting public health of the payload. (b) Physical characteristics, and safety and the safety of property (b) A payload reentry review may be dimensions, and weight of the payload; during the conduct of the mission. conducted as part of an RLV mission (c) Payload owner and operator, if (b) A licensee must conduct a license application review or may be different from the person requesting the licensed RLV mission and perform RLV requested by a payload owner or payload reentry review; safety procedures in accordance with operator in advance of or separate from (d) Type, amount, and container of representations made in its license an RLV mission license application. hazardous materials, as defined in application. A licensee’s failure to (c) A payload reentry determination § 401.5 of this chapter, and radioactive perform safety procedures in accordance will be made part of the licensing record materials in the payload; with the representations made in the on which the FAA’s licensing (e) Explosive potential of payload license application or comply with any determination is based. materials, alone and in combination license condition is sufficient basis for
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:23 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A21AP2.039 pfrm04 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19663 the revocation of a license or other operator, a licensee or applicant shall § 431.79 Reusable launch vehicle mission appropriate enforcement action. enter into an agreement with the Federal reporting requirements. launch range and/or licensed site (a) Not less than 60 days before each § 431.73 Continuing accuracy of license operator that provides for access to and RLV mission conducted under a license, application; application for modification of a licensee shall provide the FAA with license. use of property and services required to support a licensed RLV mission or the following information: (a) A licensee is responsible for the reentry and for public safety related (1) Payload information in accordance continuing accuracy of representations operations and support. The agreement with § 431.57 of this part; and contained in its application for the shall be in effect before any licensed (2) Flight information, including the entire term of the license. RLV mission or reentry. A licensee shall vehicle, launch site, planned launch (b) After a license has been issued, a comply with any requirements of the and reentry flight path, and intended licensee must apply to the FAA for agreement that may affect public health landing sites including contingency modification of the license if’ and safety and the safety of property abort sites. (1) The licensee proposes to conduct during the conduct of its licensed (3) Launch or reentry waivers, an RLV mission or perform a safety- activity. approved or pending, from a federal critical operation in a manner not range for which the launch or reentry authorized by the license; or (b) Agreements for notices to mariners will take place, that are unique and may (2) Any representation contained in and airmen. Unless otherwise addressed affect public safety. the license application that is material in agreements between a licensed (b) Not later than 15 days before each to public health and safety or the safety launch site operator and the U.S. Coast licensed RLV mission, a licensee must of property is no longer accurate and Guard and the FAA, respectively, a notify the FAA, in writing, of the time complete or does not reflect the licensee authorized to conduct an RLV and date of the intended launch and licensee’s procedures governing the mission using a launch site or reentry reentry or other landing on Earth of the actual conduct of an RLV mission. A site other than a Federal launch range RLV. change is material to public health and shall complete the following: (c) A licensee must report a launch safety or the safety of property if it alters (1) An agreement between the accident, launch incident, reentry or affects the— licensee and the local U.S. Coast Guard accident, reentry incident, or other (i) Mission rules, reentry plans, district to establish procedures for the mishap immediately to the FAA contingency abort plans, if any, or issuance of a Notice to Mariners prior to Operations Center and provide a written emergency plans submitted in a launch or reentry and other measures preliminary report in the event of a accordance with § 431.39 of this part; as the Coast Guard deems necessary to launch accident, launch incident, (ii) Class of payload; protect public health and safety; and reentry accident, or reentry incident, in (iii) Type of RLV; (2) An agreement between the accordance with the mishap (iv) Any safety-critical system; licensee and the FAA regional office investigation and emergency response (v) Type and container of the having jurisdiction over the airspace plan submitted as part of its license hazardous material carried by the through which a launch and reentry will application under § 431.45 of this part. vehicle; take place, to establish procedures for § 431.81 Financial responsibility (vi) Flight trajectory; the issuance of a Notice to Airmen prior requirements. (vii) Launch site or reentry site; or to the conduct of a licensed launch or A licensee under this part must (viii) Any safety system, policy, reentry and for closing of air routes procedure, requirement, criteria, or comply with financial responsibility during the respective launch and requirements specified in its license. standard. reentry windows and other measures (c) An application to modify an RLV deemed necessary by the FAA regional § 431.83 Compliance monitoring. mission license must be prepared and office in order protect public health and A licensee shall allow access by, and submitted in accordance with part 413 safety. cooperate with, federal officers or of this chapter. The licensee must employees or other individuals indicate any part of its license or license § 431.77 Records. authorized by the FAA to observe any application that would be changed or (a) Except as specified in paragraph activities of the licensee, or of the affected by a proposed modification. (b) of this section, a licensee shall licensee’s contractors or subcontractors, (d) The FAA reviews determinations maintain for 3 years all records, data, associated with the conduct of a and approvals required by this chapter and other material necessary to verify licensed RLV mission. to determine whether they remain valid that a licensed RLV mission is after submission of a proposed § 431.85 Registration of space objects. conducted in accordance with modification. (a) To assist the U.S. Government in representations contained in the (e) Upon approval of a modification, implementing Article IV of the 1975 licensee’s application. the FAA issues either a written approval Convention on Registration of Objects to the licensee or a license order (b) In the event of a launch accident, Launched into Outer Space, each amending the license if a stated term or reentry accident, launch incident or licensee shall provide to the FAA the condition of the license is changed, reentry incident, as defined in § 401.5 of information required by paragraph (b) of added, or deleted. An approval has the this chapter, a licensee shall preserve all this section for all objects placed in full force and effect of a license order records related to the event. Records space by a licensed RLV mission, and is part of the licensing record. must be retained until completion of including an RLV and any components, any Federal investigation and the FAA except: § 431.75 Agreements. advises the licensee that the records (1) Any object owned and registered (a) Launch and reentry site use need not be retained. The licensee shall by the U.S. Government; and agreements. Before conducting a make all records required to be (2) Any object owned by a foreign licensed RLV mission using property maintained under the regulations entity. and services of a Federal launch range available to Federal officials for (b) For each object that must be or licensed launch or reentry site inspection and copying. registered in accordance with this
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 19664 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules section, a licensee shall submit the any, not covered by existing FAA the environmental impacts associated following information not later than environmental documentation; with proposed operation of a reentry thirty (30) days following the conduct of (b) A proposed new RLV with site. The information provided by an a licensed RLV mission : characteristics falling measurably applicant must be sufficient to enable (1) The international designator of the outside the parameters of existing the FAA to comply with the space object(s); environmental documentation; requirements of the National (2) Date and location of the RLV (c) A proposed reentry to an Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. mission initiation; established reentry site involving an 4321 et seq. (NEPA), the Council on (3) General function of the space RLV with characteristics falling Environmental Quality Regulations for object; and (4) Final orbital parameters, measurably outside the parameters of Implementing the Procedural Provisions including: existing environmental impact of NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508, and (i) Nodal period; statements covering that site; the FAA’s Procedures for Consideration (ii) Inclination; (d) A proposed payload that may have Environmental Impacts, FAA Order (iii) Apogee; and significant environmental impacts in the 1050.1D. (iv) Perigee. event of a reentry accident; and (e) Other factors as necessary to § 433.9 Environmental information. (c) A licensee shall notify the FAA comply with the National when it removes an object that it has An applicant shall submit Environmental Policy Act. previously placed in space. environmental information concerning a 19. Part 433 is added to read as proposed reentry site not covered by §§ 431.86±431.90 [Reserved] follows: existing environmental documentation for purposes of assessing reentry Subpart FÐEnvironmental Review PART 433ÐLICENSE TO OPERATE A impacts. REENTRY SITE 20. Part 435 is added to read as § 431.91 General. follows: An applicant shall provide the FAA Subpart AÐGeneral with sufficient information to analyze Sec. PART 435ÐREENTRY OF A REENTRY the environmental impacts associated 433.1 General. VEHICLE OTHER THAN A REUSABLE with proposed operation of an RLV, 433.3 Issuance of a license to operate a LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV) reentry site. including the impacts of anticipated 433.5 Operational restrictions on a reentry Subpart AÐGeneral activities to be performed at its reentry site. Sec. site. The information provided by an 433.7 Environmental. 435.1 Scope. applicant must be sufficient to enable 433.9 Environmental information. the FAA to comply with the 435.3 Types of reentry licenses. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121 435.5 Policy and safety approvals. requirements of the National 435.7 Payload reentry determinations. § 433.1 General. Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 435.9 Issuance of a reentry license. 4321 et seq., the Council on The FAA evaluates on an individual 435.11 Additional license terms and Environmental Quality Regulations for basis an applicant’s proposal to operate conditions. Implementing the Procedural Provisions a reentry site. 435.13 Transfer of a reentry license. of the National Environmental Policy 435.15 Rights not conferred by reentry § 433.3 Issuance of a license to operate a license. Act, 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, and the reentry site. FAA’s Procedures for Considering 435.16–435.20 [Reserved] (a) The FAA issues a license to Environmental Impacts, FAA Order Subpart BÐPolicy Review and Approval for 1050.1D. This incorporation by operate a reentry site when it Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle reference was approved by the Director determines that an applicant’s operation of the reentry site does not jeopardize 435.21 General. of the Federal Register in accordance 435.23 Policy review requirements and with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. public health and safety, safety of procedures. Copies of FAA Order 1050.1D may be property, U.S. national security or 435.24–435.30 [Reserved] foreign policy interests, or international obtained from the Office of Environment Subpart CÐSafety Review and Approval for and Energy, AEE–300, Federal Aviation obligations of the United States. (b) A license to operate a reentry site Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle Administration, 800 Independence authorizes a licensee to operate a 435.31 General. Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, reentry site in accordance with the 435.33 Safety review requirements and (202) 267–3553. Copies of FAA Order representations contained in the procedures. 1050.1D may be inspected in the Rules 435.35 Acceptable reentry risk for reentry of licensee’s application, subject to the Docket at the Federal Aviation a reentry vehicle. licensee’s compliance with terms and Administration, Office of the Chief 435.36–435.40 [Reserved] conditions contained in any license Counsel, AGC–200, Room 915G, 800 order accompanying the license. Subpart DÐPayload Reentry Review and Independence Avenue SW., Determination Washington, DC 20591 weekdays § 433.5 Operational restrictions on a 435.41 General. between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., or at reentry site. 435.43 Payload reentry review requirements the Office of the Federal Register, 800 A license to operate a reentry site and procedures. North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, authorizes the licensee to offer use of 435.44–435.50 [Reserved] Washington, DC 20001. the site to support reentry of a reentry Subpart EÐPost-Licensing RequirementsÐ vehicle for which the three-sigma § 431.93 Environmental information. Reentry License Terms and Conditions footprint of the vehicle upon reentry is An applicant shall submit 435.51 General. wholly contained within the site. 435.52–435.60 [Reserved] environmental information concerning— § 433.7 Environmental. Subpart FÐEnvironmental Review (a) A designated reentry site, An applicant shall provide the FAA 435.61 General. including contingency abort locations, if with information for the FAA to analyze 435.62–435.70 [Reserved]
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules 19665
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70119. part 413 of this subchapter. Upon § 435.23 Policy review requirements and receipt of an application, the FAA may procedures. Subpart AÐGeneral conduct a payload reentry review Unless otherwise indicated in this § 435.1 Scope. independently of a reentry license subpart, regulations applicable to policy This part prescribes requirements for application. review and approval of the reentry of an obtaining a license to reenter a reentry § 435.9 Issuance of a reentry license. RLV contained in part 431, subpart B of this subchapter shall apply to the policy vehicle other than a reusable launch (a) The FAA issues a reentry license review conducted for a license to vehicle (RLV), and post-licensing to an applicant who has obtained all reenter a reentry vehicle under this part. requirements with which a licensee approvals and determinations required must comply to remain licensed. under this chapter for a reentry license. §§ 435.24±435.30 [Reserved] Requirements for preparing a license (b) A reentry license authorizes a application are contained in part 413 of licensee to reenter a reentry vehicle and Subpart CÐSafety Review and this subchapter. payload, if any, in accordance with the Approval for Reentry of a Reentry § 435.3 Types of reentry licenses. representations contained in the reentry Vehicle licensee’s application, subject to the (a) Reentry-specific license. A reentry- licensee’s compliance with terms and § 435.31 General. specific license authorizes a licensee to conditions contained in license orders The FAA conducts a safety review to reenter one model or type of reentry accompanying the reentry license, determine whether an applicant is vehicle, other than an RLV, to a reentry including financial responsibility capable of reentering a reentry vehicle site. A reentry-specific license may requirements. and payload, if any, to a designated authorize more than one reentry and reentry site without jeopardizing public identifies each reentry authorized under § 435.11 Additional license terms and health and safety and the safety of conditions. the license. A licensee’s authorization to property. A safety approval is part of the reenter terminates upon completion of The FAA may amend a reentry license licensing record on which the licensing all activities authorized by the license or at any time by modifying or adding determination is based. the expiration date stated in the reentry license terms and conditions to ensure license, whichever occurs first. compliance with 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, § 435.33 Safety review requirements and (b) Reentry operator license. A reentry chapter 701, and applicable regulations. procedures. operator license authorizes a licensee to Unless otherwise stated in this reenter any of a designated family of § 435.13 Transfer of a reentry license. (a) Only the FAA may transfer a subpart, regulations applicable to safety reentry vehicles, other than an RLV, review and approval of the reentry of an within authorized parameters, including reentry license. (b) An applicant for transfer of a RLV contained in part 431, subpart C of trajectories, transporting specified this subchapter shall apply to the policy classes of payloads to any reentry site reentry license shall submit a reentry license application in accordance with review conducted for a license to designated in the license. A reentry reenter a reentry vehicle under this part. operator license is valid for a 2-year part 413 of this subchapter and satisfy renewable term. the applicable requirements of this part. § 435.35 Acceptable reentry risk for The FAA will transfer a reentry license reentry of a reentry vehicle. § 435.5 Policy and safety approvals. to an applicant who has obtained all of To obtain safety approval reentry, an the approvals and determinations To obtain a reentry license, an applicant must demonstrate that risk for required under this chapter for a reentry applicant must obtain policy and safety the proposed reentry, when assessed in license. In conducting its reviews and approvals from the FAA. Requirements combination with launch of the reentry issuing approvals and determinations, for obtaining these approvals are vehicle, does not exceed acceptable risk the FAA may incorporate any findings contained in subparts B and C of this for the conduct of an RLV mission as made part of the record to support the part. Only a reentry license applicant defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of initial licensing determination. The may apply for the approvals, and may § 431.35 of this subchapter. apply for either approval separately and FAA may modify a reentry license to in advance of submitting a complete reflect any changes necessary as a result §§ 435.36±435.40 [Reserved] license application, using the of a reentry license transfer. application procedures contained in Subpart DÐPayload Reentry Review § 435.15 Rights not conferred by reentry and Determination part 413 of this subchapter. license. § 435.7 Payload reentry determinations. Issuance of a reentry license does not § 435.41 General. (a) A payload reentry determination is relieve a licensee of its obligation to The FAA conducts a payload reentry required to transport a payload to Earth comply with requirements of law that review to examine the policy and safety on a reentry vehicle unless the proposed may apply to its activities. issues related to the proposed reentry of payload is exempt from payload review. §§ 435.16±431.20 [Reserved] a payload, except a U.S. Government (b) A payload reentry determination payload, to determine whether the FAA made under a previous license Subpart BÐPolicy Review and will approve the reentry of the payload. application under this subchapter may Approval for Reentry of a Reentry § 435.43 Payload reentry review satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) Vehicle of this section. requirements and procedures. (c) The FAA conducts a review, as § 435.21 General. Unless otherwise indicated in this described in subpart D of this part, to The FAA issues a policy approval to subpart, regulations contained in part make a payload reentry determination. a reentry license applicant upon 431, subpart B of this subchapter Either a reentry license applicant or a completion of a favorable policy review. applicable to a payload reentry review payload owner or operator may request A policy approval is part of the and determination for reentering a a review of the proposed payload using licensing record on which the licensing payload using an RLV shall apply to the the application procedures contained in determination is based. payload reentry review conducted for a
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 19666 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Proposed Rules license to reenter a reentry vehicle subchapter applicable to a license to reenter an RLV shall apply to an under this part. reenter an RLV shall apply to a license application for a reentry license under issued under this part. this part. §§ 435.44±435.50 [Reserved] §§ 435.52±435.60 [Reserved] §§ 435.62±435.70 [Reserved] Subpart EÐPost-Licensing Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, RequirementsÐReentry License Terms Subpart FÐEnvironmental Review 1999. and Conditions § 435.61 General. Patricia Grace Smith, § 435.51 General. Unless otherwise indicated in this Associate Administrator for Commercial Unless otherwise indicated in this subpart, environmental review Space Transportation. subpart, post-licensing requirements requirements contained in part 431 [FR Doc. 99–9640 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] contained in part 431 subpart E of this subpart F, applicable to a license to BILLING CODE 4910±13±P
VerDate 20-APR-99 16:05 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.XXX pfrm06 PsN: 21APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19667
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Independence Ave SW., Washington, AC 431–02 DC 20591, telephone (202) 267–7982. Federal Aviation Administration Expected casualty is used in the space SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: transportation industry as a measure of Proopsed Advisory Circular (AC) risk to public safety from a specific Comments Invited 431±01, Reusable Launch Vehicle mission, and is one of the factors typically used within the U.S. System Safety Process and AC 431±02, A copy of the draft AC’s may be Government to determine if a mission Expected Casualty Calculations for obtained by contacting the person may proceed or a license granted. Commercial Space Launch and named above under FOR FURTHER Reentry Missions Expected casualty is the expected INFORMATION CONTACT. Interested average number of human casualties per AGENCY: Federal Aviation persons are invited to comment on the commercial space mission. Human Administration, DOT. proposed AC’s by submitting such casualty is defined as a fatality or ACTION: Notice of availability and written data, views or arguments as they serious injury. For the purpose of this request for comments. may desire. Commenters must identify advisory circular, a human casualty is AC 431–01 or AC 431–02 and submit considered to be any human contact SUMMARY: This notice announces the comments in duplicate to the address availability of and requests comments with a piece of vehicle debris or specified above. All communications exposure to or greater. Another way of on two proposed AC’s that would received on or before the closing date describe the Federal Aviation expressing the measure of expected for comments will be considered by the casualty is that; if thousands of identical Administration (FAA) Commercial FAA before issuing the final AC’s. Space Transportation Reusable Launch missions were conducted and all the Vehicle. The proposed AC’s would Discussion casualties that resulted were added up provide guidance on two separate and the sum divided by the number of processes. Proposed AC 431–01 will AC 431–01 missions, the actual casualties and the expected casualties per mission should provide top level guidance and An RLV applicant will be expected to information concerning the application ideally be the same. apply a disciplined, systematic, and For the purpose of this advisory of a logical safety process methodology logical safety process methodology for for the identification and control of circular, a mission includes all licensed the identification and control of hazards public safety hazards associated with flight segments throughout the mission. associated with its launch and/or the operation of Reusable Launch If there are activities that occur on orbit Vehicle (RLV) systems. Proposed AC reentry systems. The applicant should that are not conducted under a license, 431–02 would provide a description of use the System Safety Engineering these segments, or phases, are not the measure Expected Casualty and Process or its equivalent, which included in the mission. For example, a generally will discuss the basics of an includes a Risk Analysis, to show that sub-orbital mission might include acceptable methodology for estimating it meets the safety process methodology launch, stage separations, state ignitions the value or upper limit of the value for critieria identified in the proposed AC. and payload landing or recovery. An commercial space launch and reentry The use of a systematic process for the orbital mission of an expendable launch missions. identification and control of safety vehicle (ELV) might include vehicle DATES: Comments must be received on critical systems and operations also launch, multiple booster stage or before July 20, 1999. provides the foundation supporting the separations, stage ignitions, booster stage recovery, and payload insertion ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the Expected Casualty analysis. Without a into orbit. proposed AC’s to Stewart Jackson, AST– process that helps assure a disciplined The proposed AC’s would become 100, Space Systems Development approach to the design, manufacture, effective only after a final rule Division, Office of the Associate integration, test, and operation of a establishing the operational Administrator for Commercial Space system, it will be very difficult to requirements for launches of reusable Transportation, Federal Aviation establish any confidence in the launch vehicles and the authorized Administration, 800 Independence Ave. probabilities of success and failure conduct of commercial space reentry SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone provided for the Expected Casualty activities becomes effective. (202) 267–7982. analysis. The application of the system FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: safety engineering approach in Issued in Washington, D.C. April 13, 1999. Stewart Jackson, AST–100, Space combination with the expected casualty Patricia Grace Smith, Systems Development Division, Office analysis and the mandatory operational Associate Administrator for Commercial of the Associate Administrator for controls defined in the reentry proposal Space Transportation. Commercial Space Transportation, is intended to help ensure an adequate [FR Doc. 99–9641 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] Federal Aviation Administration, 800 level of public safety. BILLING CODE 4910±13±M
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:31 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.002 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN2 eDt 3MR9 03 p 0 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\MA1P.0 fm4PsN:21APN3 pfrm04 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.005 Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 10:38Apr20, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register April 21,1999 Wednesday Youthful OffendersInitiative;Notice Labor's EducationandTrainingfor Evaluation oftheU.S.Department Delinquency Prevention Office ofJuvenileJusticeand Justice Department of Part IV 19669 19670 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE evaluation also will assess the feasibility Objectives of conducting impact evaluations at The objectives for Phase I of this Office of Juvenile Justice and both sites. The award will be made in evaluation are as follows: Delinquency Prevention the form of a cooperative agreement. • Document each facility’s existing [OJP (OJJDP)±1218] Background (i.e., pre-ETA involvement) educational, RIN 1121±ZB52 job training, and employment programs This Office of Juvenile Justice and and transitional (e.g., aftercare) services. Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Evaluation of the U.S. Department of • Document enhancements made to solicitation supports an evaluation of Labor's Education and Training for existing services after the facility two Education and Training for Youth Youthful Offenders Initiative became an ETA program site. Offenders Initiative (Youth Offenders • Describe the number and AGENCY: Office of Juvenile Justice and Initiative) grantees to be funded by the characteristics of the youth served and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Department of Labor’s Employment and the type and amount of services Justice Programs, Justice. Training Administration (ETA). The delivered. ACTION: Notice of funding availability. ETA’s solicitation for these programs • Document how the State agency was published in the Federal Register and/or local government assisted in SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on September 2, 1998 at 63 F.R. 46805– planning, implementing, and managing the Office of Juvenile Justice and 809. The solicitation also can be found the program. Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), on ETA’s Web site at www.doleta.gov. • Document the facility’s pursuant to Section 243(a)(1) of the The ETA solicitation describes grants to coordination with Federal, State, and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency be awarded in three categories: (I) local programs operating in the broader Prevention Act of 1974, as amended Model Community Projects; (II) community and juvenile justice system (Public Law 93–415), is issuing a Education and Training for Youth with a focus on youth employment. solicitation for applications for a Offenders Initiatives; and (III) Explore how the nature of this cooperative agreement from public and Community-Wide Coordination coordination may have changed after private agencies, organizations, Projects. This OJJDP solicitation the facility became an ETA program site. institutions, and individuals to conduct supports the evaluation of the two • Document the leveraging of other process evaluations and impact grants to be awarded under category II. sources of funding, such as Juvenile evaluation feasibility assessments of two The two Youth Offenders Initiative Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act programs administered by the grantees will provide comprehensive (JJDP) formula grant funds and Juvenile Department of Labor (Category II grants school-to-work education and training Accountability Incentive Block Grants under the Youth Offender within juvenile correctional facilities (JAIBG) funds, and steps taken to assure Demonstration Projects notice issued on and followup and job placement the activities are sustained as the September 2, 1998), which are intended services as youth return to the program is developed and implemented. to enhance school-to-work education community (i.e., case management and • Assess the extent to which each and training in juvenile correctional aftercare). It is intended that the program has been implemented in facilities and improve transition into the comprehensive services developed accordance with the requirements of the community. under these grants will serve as models ETA program solicitation. DATES: Applications under this program for other juvenile correctional facilities • Identify and evaluate available data must be received no later than 5 p.m. across the country. Applicants are sources. EDT on June 21, 1999. encouraged to read the ETA solicitation • Determine whether an impact ADDRESSES: The Application Package is for more detailed programmatic evaluation is feasible at each site. available through OJJDP’s Juvenile requirements. Factors to consider include the number Justice Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736 The ETA solicitation states that, as a of youth served and the correctional and can also be obtained online at the condition for award, applicants must environment in which the program is OJJDP Web site at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org. agree to participate in the evaluation implemented. For further information regarding the sponsored by OJJDP and comply with • Design a rigorous impact evaluation Evaluation of the U.S. Department of certain data collection requirements. where the feasibility of such is Labor’s Education and Training for established. Youthful Offenders Initiative, contact: Goals The objectives for Phase II of this Dean Hoffman, Program Manager, Office Phase I has three goals: evaluation are as follows: of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency • • Design and conduct a process Continue process evaluation Prevention, 800 K Street, NW, evaluation of the two Education and activities. Washington, DC 20531; phone: 202– • Training for Youth Offenders Initiative Conduct a rigorous impact 353–9256; e-mail: programs to determine the extent to evaluation to measure the effects of the [email protected]. which educational, job training, and program. As stated above, these SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: aftercare services were enhanced after programs should result in increased job- related skills, higher success in Purpose the facility became an ETA program site. • postrelease employment, increased The evaluation will document the Assess the feasibility of an impact postrelease earnings, improved activities undertaken by two States evaluation at both sites and design an academic performance, and reduced selected to receive Department of Labor impact evaluation where feasibility is recidivism. grants under its Education and Training established. for Youth Offenders Initiative, which is Phase II has a single goal: Evaluation Strategy intended to enhance school-to-work • Conduct an impact evaluation to This evaluation will be conducted in education and training in juvenile measure the effects of the program on two phases over a period of 36 months. correctional facilities and improve job-related skills, employment, earnings, Phase I (12 months), which will be transition into the community. The academic performance, and recidivism. funded under this solicitation, entails
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:38 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.005 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices 19671 designing and conducting a process organizations must agree to waive any Budget (10 points) evaluation at each site and determining profit or fee to be eligible. Joint Applicants must provide a proposed the feasibility of conducting an impact applications from two or more eligible budget that is complete, detailed, evaluation at each site. The results of applicants are welcome; however, one reasonable, allowable, and cost effective the feasibility assessments will applicant must be clearly indicated as in relation to the activities to be determine to what extent, if at all, the the primary applicant (for undertaken. project continues into Phase II (24 correspondence, award, and months). If the project does continue, management purposes) and the others Format Phase II will entail conducting an indicated as coapplicants. Applicants are required to limit their impact evaluation at one or both sites. Selection Criteria proposals to a total of 25 pages OJJDP will make the final determination (excluding the budget narrative). The on whether the project continues into Problem(s) To Be Addressed (15 points) page limit does not include the Phase II. application forms, assurances, or When addressing the issue of Applicants should demonstrate their appendixes. The appendixes must feasibility assessments, applicants must knowledge of educational and include the following: re´sume´s of the demonstrate an understanding of the vocational programming in juvenile project manager and other key staff and potential difficulties involved in correctional facilities, aftercare consultants and the timeline for the conducting an impact evaluation of an programs, and school-to-work efforts. project’s major milestones with dates for initiative such as this one (e.g., Applicants should discuss their submission included. obtaining a sufficient sample size, experience with evaluating similar isolating the effects of the program). programs. Applicants should Award Period demonstrate an understanding of and Products solutions to the challenges that will be The project period will be 36 months, The products for Phase I of the encountered in conducting the process funded in one 12-month budget period evaluation are: and impact evaluations. (Phase I) and one 24-month budget 1. A finalized process evaluation period (Phase II). Funding for Phase II Goals and Objectives (15 points) design and approach to conducting the depends upon feasibility of conducting the impact evaluation(s), grantee feasibility assessments, to be submitted Applicants must establish clearly performance, availability of funds, and to OJJDP for approval within 2 months defined, measurable, and attainable other criteria established at the time of of the grant award. This will be a goals and objectives for the proposed award. modified version of the detailed process evaluation and feasibility assessment. evaluation design and approach to Award Amount conducting the feasibility assessment Project Design (40 points) Up to $250,000 is available for the that must be included in the Applicants must present a clear application. award of a cooperative agreement for the preliminary research design for initial 12-month budget period (Phase I). 2. An interim report detailing the conducting the process evaluation and status of the process evaluation and assessing the feasibility of an impact Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance summarizing data collected to date on evaluation at each site. The design may (CFDA) Number each site, to be submitted 7 months after need to be revised once information is For this program, the CFDA number, the project begins. obtained about the specific approaches 3. A report discussing the results of which is required on Standard Form to be implemented by the selected State 424, Application for Federal Assistance, the impact evaluation feasibility and juvenile correctional facilities. The assessments, due 10 months after the is 16.542. This form is included in research design should also include a OJJDP’s Application Kit, which can be project begins. This report should workplan. All components of the include proposed impact evaluation obtained by calling the Juvenile Justice research design should be sound, Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736 or designs where feasibility is established. feasible, and capable of achieving the 4. A Phase I final report at the end of sending an e-mail request to identified objectives. Issues to be the first phase. A summary version of [email protected]. The Application addressed should be clearly defined. this report suitable for publishing as an Kit is also available online at OJJDP Bulletin must be prepared. Management and Organizational www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org. The products for Phase II of the Capability (20 points) Coordination of Federal Efforts evaluation are: 1. An interim report summarizing the Applicants should discuss how they To encourage better coordination progress of the impact evaluation and will coordinate and manage this among Federal agencies in addressing additional findings of the process evaluation to achieve the objectives. State and local needs, the U.S. evaluation, to be submitted 6 months Applicants’ management structure and Department of Justice is requesting after Phase II begins. staffing must be adequate and applicants to provide information on the 2. A final report summarizing the appropriate for the successful following: (1) Active Federal grant results of the process and impact implementation of the project. award(s) supporting this or related evaluation(s), to be submitted at the end Applicants must clearly identify efforts, including awards from the U.S. of Phase II. A summary version of this responsible individuals, their time Department of Justice; (2) any pending report suitable for publishing as an commitment, and major tasks. Staff application(s) for Federal funds for this OJJDP Bulletin must be prepared. re´sume´s should be attached as part of or related efforts; and (3) plans for the appendixes. Applicants must coordinating any funds described in Eligibility Requirements demonstrate the organization’s ability to items (1) or (2) with the funding sought OJJDP invites applications from conduct the project successfully. by this application. For each Federal public and private agencies, Description of prior experience in award, applicants must include the organizations, institutions, and evaluating State and local programs program or project title, the Federal individuals. Private, for-profit should be provided. grantor agency, the amount of the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:38 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.006 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN3 19672 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Notices award, and a brief description of its evaluation) to the program or project copies of the application package are purpose. described in the application. received by 5 p.m. EDT on June 21, ‘‘Related efforts’’ is defined for these 1999. purposes as one of the following: Delivery Instructions 1. Efforts for the same purpose (i.e., All application packages should be Contact the proposed award would supplement, mailed or delivered to the Office of For further information, call Dean expand, complement, or continue Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Hoffman, Program Manager, Research activities funded with other Federal Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice and Program Development Division, grants). Resource Center, 2277 Research Office of Juvenile Justice and 2. Another phase or component of the Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD Delinquency Prevention, 202–353–9256, same program or project (e.g., to 20850; 301–519–5535. Note: In the or send an e-mail inquiry to implement a planning effort funded by lower left-hand corner of the envelope, [email protected]. other Federal funds or to provide a you must clearly write ‘‘Evaluation of substance abuse treatment or education the Youth Offenders Initiative.’’ Shay Bilchik, component within a criminal justice Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and project). Due Date Delinquency Prevention. 3. Services of some kind (e.g., Applicants are responsible for [FR Doc. 99–9885 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] technical assistance, research, or ensuring that the original and five BILLING CODE 4410±18±P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:38 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A21AP3.008 pfrm04 PsN: 21APN3 eDt 3MR9 03 p 0 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\MA1P.5 fm4PsN:21APR3 pfrm04 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.057 Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 10:39Apr20, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register April 21,1999 Wednesday Grants; FinalRule Juvenile AccountabilityIncentiveBlock 28 CFRPart31 Delinquency Prevention Office ofJuvenileJusticeand Justice Department of Part V 19673 19674 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1997. Subsequently, Pub. L. 105–277, (11) Establishing and maintaining October 21, 1998, Omnibus accountability-based programs that Office of Juvenile Justice and Consolidated and Emergency work with juvenile offenders who are Delinquency Prevention Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 referred by law enforcement agencies, or (1999 Appropriations Act) further which are designed, in cooperation with 28 CFR Part 31 appropriated $250,000,000 to continue law enforcement officials, to protect [OJP (OJJDP)±1158] the JAIBG program. students and school personnel from drug, gang, and youth violence; and, RIN 1121±AA46 B. Program Purposes (12) implementing a policy of controlled Funds are available under JAIBG in Juvenile Accountability Incentive substance testing for appropriate FY 1998, FY 1999, and each subsequent Block Grants categories of juveniles within the fiscal year as funds are made available, juvenile justice system. AGENCY: for State and local grants to support the Office of Justice Programs, C. Application Process Office of Juvenile Justice and following program purposes as set forth Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), in section 1801(b)(1)–(11) of H.R. 3: Eligible applicants in FY 1998, FY Justice. (1) Building, expanding, renovating, 1999, and each subsequent fiscal year as funds are made available, are States ACTION: Final rule. or operating temporary or permanent juvenile correction or detention whose Governor (or other Chief SUMMARY: This rule provides procedures facilities, including the training of Executive Officer for the eligible under which an eligible State, or unit of correctional personnel; jurisdictions that are not one of the 50 local government that receives a (2) Developing and administering States but defined as such for purposes subgrant from the State, is required to accountability-based sanctions for of this program under 1808(3) of Title III provide notice to the Attorney General juvenile offenders; of H.R. 3) certifies, consistent with regarding the proposed use of funds (3) Hiring additional juvenile judges, guidelines established by the Attorney available under the Juvenile probation officers, and court-appointed General in consultation with Congress Accountability Incentive Block Grants defenders, and funding pre-trial services and incorporated into OJJDP’s Program (JAIBG) program. The JAIBG program is for juveniles, to ensure the smooth and Guidance Manual, that the State is designed to promote greater expeditious administration of the actively considering (or already has in accountability in the juvenile justice juvenile justice system; place), or will consider within one year system. OJJDP has developed the (4) Hiring additional prosecutors, so from the date of such certification, ‘‘Juvenile Accountability Incentive that more cases involving violent legislation, policies, or practices which, Block Grants Program Guidance juvenile offenders can be prosecuted if enacted, would qualify the State for a Manual’’ to assist States and units of and backlogs reduced; grant under section 1802 of H.R. 3. local government in applying for, (5) Providing funding to enable Specific information regarding section receiving, obligating, and expending prosecutors to address drug, gang, and 1802 qualifications can be found in the JAIBG funds. The manual is available on youth violence more effectively; JAIBG Program Guidance Manual. OJJDP’s homepage at (6) Providing funding for technology, The Chief Executive of each State is www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org. equipment, and training to assist required to designate a State agency to prosecutors in identifying and apply for, receive, and administer JAIBG EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is expediting the prosecution of violent funds. The designated State agency will effective April 21, 1999. juvenile offenders; administer funds allocated to the State FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (7) Providing funding to enable based on relative population of people Rodney L. Albert, Deputy Director, State juvenile courts and juvenile probation under 18 years of age, with no more Relations and Assistance Division, offices to be more effective and efficient than 25% of the funds retained at the OJJDP, 810 7th Street, NW, Washington, in holding juvenile offenders State level, absent a waiver, and with DC 20531. Phone: (202) 307–5924. accountable and reducing recidivism; 75% or more allocated and subgranted SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (8) The establishment of court-based to units of local government within the juvenile justice programs that target A. Legislative Background State. Specific information regarding young firearms offenders through the ‘‘waiver’’ qualifications can be found in On October 14, 1998, the Office of establishment of juvenile gun courts for the JAIBG Program Guidance Manual. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency the adjudication and prosecution of JAIBG funds awarded to a State and Prevention (OJJDP) published proposed juvenile firearms offenders; expended at the State level or regulations in the Federal Register, at (9) The establishment of drug court subgranted by a State to a unit of local 63 FR 55069, for implementation of the programs for juveniles so as to provide government, other than funds set aside JAIBG Program. The comment period continuing judicial supervision over for administrative costs, may be ended November 13, 1998. Comments juvenile offenders with substance abuse expended only for programs or projects were received from two State agencies. problems and to provide the integrated under one or more of the twelve Pub. L. 105–119, November 26, 1997, administration of other sanctions and purpose areas established by law. Making Appropriations for the services; Departments of Commerce, Justice, and (10) Establishing and maintaining D. Discussion of Comments State, the Judiciary, and Related interagency information sharing Comments were received from a State Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending programs that enable the juvenile and agency regarding issues relevant to the September 30, 1998, and for other criminal justice system, schools, and underlying JAIBG statute. These Purposes (1998 Appropriations Act) social services agencies to make more comments addressed issues involving appropriated $250,000,000 for the informed decisions regarding the early the prosecution of juveniles in criminal Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block identification, control, supervision, and court; implementing a system of Grants (JAIBG) program described in treatment of juveniles who repeatedly graduated sanctions for juvenile Title III of H.R. 3, as passed by the commit serious delinquent or criminal offenders requesting that requirements House of Representatives on May 8, acts; of other OJJDP funded programs be tied
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:39 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.057 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19675 to local JAIBG grant awards; and, This approach would align JAIBG with Executive Order 12866 requesting clarification of match other programs administered by OJJDP. This regulation has been drafted and requirements. These comments were Response: States may drawdown any reviewed in accordance with Executive beyond the scope of this rulemaking but or all funds at any time after the date of Order 12866, section 1(b), Principles of will be addressed in separate award. OJJDP allowed that while States Regulation. The Office of Justice correspondence with the commenting were preparing for the first year of Programs has determined that this rule agency. implementation the Designated State is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Four additional comments were Agency (DSA) could drawdown under Executive Order 12866, section received from the above State agency, administrative funds (up to 10% of the 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, along with another State agency, that total award) up to 180 days prior to and accordingly this rule has not been were within the scope of this drawing down program funds. The reviewed by the Office of Management rulemaking. These comments have been drawdown of program funds starts the and Budget. considered by OJJDP in the issuance of statutorily required 24 month grant a final policy. The following is a period. Allowing States to first Executive Order 12612 summary of these comments and the drawdown administrative funds This regulation will not have response by OJJDP: provided an additional six months for substantial direct effects on the States, 1. Comment: There is some concern States to prepare to administer the on the relationship between the national with the additional burden of reporting program. government and the States, or on the to be placed on local governments and The authority to obligate program distribution of power and subgrantees. funds through the use of the Follow-up responsibilities among the various Response: Use of the Follow-up Information Form is similar to the levels of government. Therefore, in Information Form to report to OJJDP on submission of the Sub-Award Report accordance with Executive Order 12612, the expenditure of JAIBG funds will not Form utilized for the OJJDP Formula it is determined that this rule does not be a cumbersome process. The form will Grants Program. have sufficient federalism implications 3. Comment: Section 31.502(b) of the require that the following types of to warrant preparation of a Federalism proposed regulation provides ‘‘* * * a information be provided on each unit of Assessment. State administering JAIBG funds must local government receiving JAIBG funds provide to OJJDP information that Regulatory Flexibility Act and on funds retained by the State for demonstrates that the State, or a unit of program expenditure: The Office of Justice Programs, in local government that receives JAIBG 1. OJJDP Award Number. accordance with the Regulatory funds, has established a coordinated Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has 2. Award Amount. enforcement plan for reducing juvenile 3. Unit of local government or State reviewed this regulation and by crime, developed by a Juvenile Crime approving it certifies that this regulation agency name, address, city, State, zip, Enforcement Coalition. The phrase phone. will not have a significant economic ‘‘information that demonstrates’’ is impact upon a substantial number of 4. Contact person. subject to interpretation. A certification 5. Jurisdiction type, i.e. State, County, small entities for the following reasons: or an assurance would meet the (1) This rule provides the procedures Local, Regional. requirement, without increasing the under which eligible applicants are 6. Juvenile Crime Enforcement documentation requirements of the required to provide notice regarding the Coalition (JCEC) membership. States or the units of local government. proposed use of funds available under 7. Verification that a Crime Response: Submission of the Follow- the JAIBG program; and Enforcement Plan was developed. up Information Form will satisfy the (2) The award of such funds imposes 8. Program Purpose Area Distribution requirements of providing information. no requirements on small business or on of Funds (dollar amount allocated to 4. Comment: Section 31.503 of the small entities. each purpose area). proposed regulation provides a The Follow-up Information Form will mechanism for a State to report on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of be electronic and anticipated to be proposed use of funds by the State or by 1995 accessible via the Internet, thus a subgrantee unit of local government. A This rule will not result in the reducing the burden required for the ‘‘review’’ by OJJDP is identified. Since expenditure by State, local, and tribal State to meet the reporting the proposed use of funds should be governments, in the aggregate, or by the requirements. It is anticipated that the consistent with the plan as provided in private sector, of $100,000,000 or more form will be very basic in nature and § 31.502, could the Follow-up in any one year, and it will not uniquely should not require undue burden to Information Form with a planning affect small governments. Therefore, no units of local government or the State assurance meet the planning actions were deemed necessary under agency responsible for submission. requirements as a single mechanism for the provisions of the Unfunded 2. Comment: States should be submission to OJJDP? Mandates Reform Act of 1995. afforded the authority to fund projects Response: The review by OJJDP is without having to first seek only for funds retained at the State Small Business Regulatory Enforcement programmatic fund drawdown approval level. It is the responsibility of the DSA Fairness Act of 1996 from OJJDP. The FY 1998 JAIBG to review submissions by units of local This rule is not a major rule as Guidance Manual specified a two phase government to determine if planning defined by section 804 of the Small implementation for States. Initially requirements have been met and funds Business Regulatory Enforcement States could only access administrative are budgeted for expenditures within Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not funds while access to program funds the twelve program purpose areas. result in an annual effect on the required states to make a second For funds expended at the State level, economy of $100,000,000 or more; a submission to OJJDP. States could the Follow-up Information Form will major increase in cost or prices; or commit to program compliance in the include a planning assurance and will significant adverse effects on FY 1999 application and inform OJJDP serve as the single mechanism for competition, employment, investment, of any revisions throughout the year. submission to OJJDP. productivity, innovation, or on the
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:39 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.058 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR3 19676 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations ability of United States-based § 31.300 [Amended] for juveniles so as to provide continuing companies to compete in domestic and 7. Section 31.300 is amended by judicial supervision over juvenile export markets. revising ‘‘This part’’ to read as follows: offenders with substance abuse ‘‘This subpart’’. problems and to provide the integrated National Environmental Policy Act 8. Part 31 is amended by adding new administration of other sanctions and This rule has been reviewed in subpart B to read as follows: services; accordance with OJP’s Procedures for Subpart BÐJuvenile Accountability (j) Program purpose no. 10: Implementing the National Incentive Block Grants Establishing and maintaining Environmental Policy Act, 28 CFR part Sec. interagency information sharing 61. The Assistant Attorney General for 31.500 Program purposes programs that enable the juvenile and OJP has determined that this regulation 31.501 Eligible applicants criminal justice system, schools, and does not constitute a major Federal 31.502 Assurances and plan information social services agencies to make more action significantly affecting the quality 31.503 Notice of proposed use of funds informed decisions regarding the early of the human environment, and in identification, control, supervision, and § 31.500 Program purposes. accordance with the National treatment of juveniles who repeatedly Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. Funds are available under the commit serious delinquent or criminal L. 91–190, an Environmental Impact Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block acts; Statement is not required. Grants (JAIBG) in FY 1998, FY 1999, (k) Program purpose no. 11: and each subsequent fiscal year as funds Paperwork Reduction Act Establishing and maintaining are made available, for State and local accountability-based programs that The collection of information grants to support the following program work with juvenile offenders who are requirements contained in this purposes: referred by law enforcement agencies, or (a) Program purpose no. 1: Building, regulation have been submitted to and which are designed, in cooperation with expanding, renovating, or operating approved by the Office of Management law enforcement officials, to protect temporary or permanent juvenile and Budget for review under the students and school personnel from correction or detention facilities, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 drug, gang, and youth violence; and, including the training of correctional U.S.C. 3504(h)). personnel; (l) Program purpose no. 12: List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 31 (b) Program purpose no. 2: Implementing a policy of controlled Developing and administering substance testing for appropriate Administrative practice and accountability-based sanctions for categories of juveniles within the procedure, Grants. juvenile offenders; juvenile justice system. For the reasons set forth in the (c) Program purpose no. 3: Hiring § 31.501 Eligible applicants. additional juvenile judges, probation preamble, 28 CFR part 31 is amended as (a) Eligible applicants. Eligible follows: officers, and court-appointed defenders, and funding pre-trial services for applicants in FY 1998, FY 1999, and PART 31ÐOJJDP GRANT PROGRAMS juveniles, to ensure the smooth and each subsequent fiscal year as funds are expeditious administration of the made available, are States whose 1. The authority citation for part 31 is juvenile justice system; Governor (or other Chief Executive revised to read as follows: (d) Program purpose no. 4: Hiring Officer for the eligible jurisdictions that are not one of the 50 States but defined Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.; Pub. L. additional prosecutors, so that more 105–119, 111 Stat. 2440. cases involving violent juvenile as such for purposes of this program) offenders can be prosecuted and certifies, consistent with guidelines 2. The heading for part 31 is revised backlogs reduced; established by the Attorney General in as set forth above. (e) Program purpose no. 5: Providing consultation with Congress and 3. The designations ‘‘Subpart A funding to enable prosecutors to address incorporated into OJJDP’s Program through Subpart E’’ are removed and the drug, gang, and youth violence more Guidance Manual, that the State is headings remain as undesignated effectively; actively considering (or already has in centerheadings. (f) Program purpose no. 6: Providing place), or will consider within one year funding for technology, equipment, and from the date of such certification, §§ 31.1 through 31.403 and undesignated training to assist prosecutors in legislation, policies, or practices which, centerheadings [Designated as Subpart A] identifying and expediting the if enacted, would qualify the State for a 4. Sections 31.1 through 31.403, and prosecution of violent juvenile grant. Specific information regarding the undesignated centerheadings, are offenders; qualifications can be found in the JAIBG designated as subpart A and a new (g) Program purpose no. 7: Providing Program Guidance Manual. subpart heading is added to read as funding to enable juvenile courts and (b) Qualifications. Each State Chief follows: juvenile probation offices to be more Executive Officer must designate a state effective and efficient in holding agency to apply for, receive, and Subpart AÐFormula Grants juvenile offenders accountable and administer JAIBG funds. § 31.1 [Amended] reducing recidivism; (h) Program purpose no. 8: The § 31.502 Assurances and plan information. 5. Section 31.1 is amended by revising establishment of court-based juvenile (a) In its application for a Juvenile ‘‘This part’’ to read as follows: ‘‘This justice programs that target young Accountability Incentive Block Grant subpart’’. firearms offenders through the (JAIBG), each State must provide establishment of juvenile gun courts for assurances to the Office of Juvenile § 31.200 [Amended] the adjudication and prosecution of Justice and Delinquency Prevention 6. Section 31.200 is amended by juvenile firearms offenders; (OJJDP), absent a waiver as provided in revising ‘‘This part’’ to read as follows: (i) Program purpose no. 9: The the JAIBG Program Guidance Manual, ‘‘This subpart’’. establishment of drug court programs that:
VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:18 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR3.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 21APR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 19677
(1) The State will subgrant at least (c) State coordinated enforcement § 31.503 Notice of proposed use of funds. 75% of the State’s allocation of funds to plans must be developed by a Juvenile The mechanism for a State to report eligible units of local government to Crime Enforcement Coalition consisting on the proposed use of funds by the implement authorized programs at the of representatives of law enforcement State or by a subgrantee unit of local local level; and and social service agencies involved in government is by electronic submission (2) The State, and each unit of local juvenile crime prevention. To assist in of a ‘‘Follow Up Information Form’’ to government applying for a subgrant developing the State’s coordinated be provided to each participating State. from the State, will expend not less than enforcement plan, States may choose to The purpose of this report is for the 45% of any grant provided to such State utilize members of the State Advisory State to provide assurances to OJJDP or unit of local government, other than Group (SAG) established by the State’s that funds expended by the State and its funds set aside for administration, for Chief Executive under section 223(a)(3) subgrantee units of local government program purposes 3–9 in § 31.500 (c) of Part B of the Juvenile Justice and will be used for authorized program through (i) of this subpart, and will not Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of purpose areas. Although no actual spend less than 35% for program 1974, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. program descriptions will be required, purposes 1, 2, and 10 in § 31.500 (a), (b), 5633(a)(3), if appropriate membership information about the distribution of and (j) of this subpart, unless the State exists, or use or establish another funds among the authorized program certifies to OJJDP, or the unit of local planning group that constitutes a purpose areas must be provided. Upon government certifies to the State, that coalition of law enforcement and social receipt and review of the ‘‘Follow Up the interests of public safety and service agencies. Information Form’’ by OJJDP, States may juvenile crime control would be better (d) When establishing a local Juvenile obligate program funds retained for served by expending the grant award for Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC), expenditure at the State level. Similarly, purposes set forth in the twelve program units of local government must include, the State shall require that each areas in a different ratio. Such unless impracticable, individuals recipient unit of local government certification shall provide information representing: submit its proposed use of non- concerning the availability of existing (1) Police, administrative funds to the State prior structures or initiatives within the (2) Sheriff, to drawdown of subgrant funds to intended areas of expenditure (or the (3) Prosecutor, implement local programs and projects. availability of alternative funding (4) State or local probation services, Upon receipt and review of the local sources for those areas), and the reasons (5) Juvenile court, unit of government’s proposed fund use, for the State or unit of local the State shall authorize the local unit government’s alternative use. (6) Schools, (7) Business, and of government to obligate local subgrant (b) Following award of JAIBG funds to funds. The State shall electronically (8) Religious affiliated, fraternal, a State by OJJDP, but prior to obligation submit a copy of the local subgrant nonprofit, or social service of program funds by the State or of information to OJJDP, as provided in the organizations involved in crime subgrant funds by a unit of local award package, within 30 days of the prevention. government for any authorized program date that the local unit of government is purpose, a State administering JAIBG (e) Units of local government may authorized to obligate program funds funds must provide to OJJDP utilize members of Prevention Policy under its subgrant award. information that demonstrates that the Boards established pursuant to section State, or a unit of local government that 505(b)(4) of Title V of the JJDP Act, Dated: April 12, 1999. receives JAIBG funds, has established a codified at 42 U.S.C. 5784(b)(4), to meet Shay Bilchik, coordinated enforcement plan for the JCEC requirement, provided that Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and reducing juvenile crime, developed by a each JCEC meets the membership Delinquency Prevention. Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition requirements listed in paragraph (d) of [FR Doc. 99–9884 Filed 4–20–99; 8:45 am] (JCEC). this section. BILLING CODE 4410±18±P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:39 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A21AP0.062 pfrm04 PsN: 21APR3 eDt 3MR9 04 p 0 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M2AD.X fm4PsN:21APD1 pfrm04 E:\FR\FM\21APD1.XXX Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 10:47Apr20, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register April 21,1999 Wednesday Week, 1999 Proclamation 7186ÐNationalVolunteer Tissue DonorAwarenessWeek,1999 Proclamation 7185ÐNationalOrganand The President Part VI 19679 VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:47 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\21APD1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APD1 19681
Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 64, No. 76
Wednesday, April 21, 1999
Title 3— Proclamation 7185 of April 16, 1999
The President National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, 1999
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation Organ donation is one of humanity’s most noble expressions of compassion and generosity. It reflects the extraordinary selflessness of the donor and gives the recipient a second chance to experience life’s abundant blessings. For many people across our country, receiving an organ or tissue transplant means relief from suffering and a marked improvement in the quality of their lives. For others, it literally means the difference between life and death. And the demand for such donations continues to grow. In the last six years, the number of people on the national organ transplant list has doubled, from more than 30,000 in 1993 to more than 62,000 patients today. A new name is added to that list every 18 seconds. Fortunately, thanks to remarkable medical breakthroughs, each of us has the power to improve these troubling statistics. In December of 1997, Vice President Gore and Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Donna Shalala launched the National Organ and Tissue Donation Initiative to raise awareness of the successes of transplantation and to educate our citizens about the urgent and continuing need for organ and tissue donations. Building on this effort, the Health Care Financing Administration now requires hos- pitals participating in Medicaid and Medicare to notify organ procurement organizations of all deaths and imminent deaths at their facilities and to train their personnel to discuss donation with the families of potential donors. Judging from the positive impact of similar legislation in Pennsyl- vania, we anticipate that this new Federal regulation will substantially in- crease the number of donations throughout the country. Becoming a donor is simple, requiring only that we complete and carry a donor card and inform our families and friends about our wish to donate. This second step is a critical one because, according to a new study issued by HHS, almost all Americans would agree to donate their loved one’s tissue or organs if they knew their loved one had requested it. Fewer than half would consent if they did not know their loved one’s wishes. During National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, I urge all Ameri- cans to become potential donors. By doing so, we can bring new hope and improved lives to thousands of our fellow citizens and hasten the day when no American on the organ transplant waiting list loses the race against time. NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 18 through April 24, 1999, as National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. I urge all health care professionals, educators, the media, public and private organi- zations concerned with organ donation and transplantation, the clergy, and all Americans to join me in promoting greater awareness and acceptance of this humanitarian action.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:47 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\21APD1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APD1 19682 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Presidential Documents
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-third. œ–
[FR Doc. 99–10176 Filed 4–20–99; 8:51 am] Billing code 3195–01–P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:47 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\21APD1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APD1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Presidential Documents 19683 Presidential Documents
Proclamation 7186 of April 16, 1999
National Volunteer Week, 1999
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation Helping others—and helping others help themselves—through volunteer work is a great American tradition. Our Nation’s dedicated volunteers come from all walks of life, all races, and all ages. Whether they support their commu- nities through their churches, synagogues, or other religious institutions, serve full-time as AmeriCorps members, or spend a few hours a week helping out organizations or individuals in need, America’s volunteers are bringing hope and help to their fellow citizens and building a stronger, more compas- sionate Nation for us all. Our volunteers know that service is one of the best ways to make a difference in the lives of others—and they are proving that Americans at any stage of life can serve. Thousands of older Americans donate their time to serve as foster grandparents, senior companions, and as part of the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program and other initiatives. As many as 13 million young Americans aged 12 to 17 also volunteer each year, improving their communities, broadening their educational experiences, developing new skills, and increasing their understanding of the responsibilities of citizen- ship. This week, during National Youth Service Day, young people across our country will participate in service activities and demonstrate with their good works the power of youth to strengthen our Nation. Volunteers will become increasingly vital to our society as we enter a new millennium. We cannot rely solely on charitable contributions or govern- ment programs to address the challenges we see in our communities. Each of us must find our own role and take action as a volunteer, a neighbor, and a citizen. We must work together to ensure that every child has a caring adult in his or her life, a safe place in which to live and grow, a good school to attend, a healthy start in life, and a chance to serve the community. We must continually strive to bring hope and hard work to bear on the human problems we see every day. With warm hearts and willing hands, we can make a lasting difference. During this week, let us renew our spirit of community, our sense of idealism, and our commitment to service. Let us also honor the invaluable work of the thousands of voluntary, civic, religious, school, and neighborhood groups across our country that are leading the way by serving their fellow Americans and improving the quality of life for us all. NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 18 through April 24, 1999, as National Volunteer Week. I call upon all Americans to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities to express appreciation to the volunteers among us for their commitment to service and to encourage the spirit of volunteerism in our families and communities.
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:49 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\21APD2.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APD2 19684 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Presidential Documents
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-third. œ–
[FR Doc. 99–10177 Filed 4–20–99; 8:51 am] Billing code 3195–01–P
VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:49 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\21APD2.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 21APD2 i
Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 76 Wednesday, April 21, 1999
CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING APRIL
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 3 CFR 1200...... 15916 2411...... 18799 Presidential Documents Proclamations: 7177...... 17075 7 CFR 523±5227 Executive orders and proclamations 7178...... 17077 The United States Government Manual 523±5227 6...... 17501 7179...... 17499 254...... 17085 7180...... 17939 Other Services 301...... 15916 7181...... 18317 760...... 17942 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523±4534 7182...... 18321 801...... 19019 Privacy Act Compilation 523±3187 7183...... 19017 916...... 19022 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523±6641 7184...... 19439 917...... 19022 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523±5229 7185...... 19681 981...... 18800 7186...... 19683 1079...... 19034 Executive Orders: 1361...... 18323 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 11223 (Amended by 1437...... 17271 World Wide Web EO 13118)...... 16595 1477...... 18553 11269 (Amended by 1728...... 17219 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other EO 13118)...... 16595 1753...... 16602 publications: 11958 (Amended by Proposed Rules: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara EO 13118)...... 16595 28...... 15937 12163 (Amended by Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 340...... 16364 EO 13118)...... 16595 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access: 905...... 15634 12188 (Amended by 944...... 15634 http://www.nara.gov/fedreg EO 13118)...... 16595 1000...... 16026 E-mail 12260 (Amended by 1001...... 16026 EO 13118)...... 16595 1002...... 16026 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an E-mail 12293 (Amended by 1004...... 16026 service that delivers information about recently enacted Public EO 13118)...... 16595 1005...... 16026 Laws. To subscribe, send E-mail to 12301 (Amended by 1006...... 16026 [email protected] EO 13118)...... 16595 1007...... 16026 12599 (Amended by with the text message: 1012...... 16026 EO 13118)...... 16595 1013...... 16026 subscribe publaws-l
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:19 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Reader Aids
Proposed Rules: 95...... 18563 12...... 17529 24 CFR 2...... 17128 97 ...... 17277, 17526, 17528 18...... 16345 100...... 16324 401...... 19586 113...... 16345 103...... 18538 9 CFR 411...... 19586 122...... 18566 Proposed Rules: 178...... 16635, 16345 1...... 15918 413...... 19586 990...... 17301 3...... 15918, 19251 415...... 19586 192...... 16635 Proposed Rules: 417...... 19586 Proposed Rules: 25 CFR 72...... 17573 Proposed Rules: 4...... 19508 291...... 17535 93...... 16655 39 ...... 16364, 16366, 16656, 19...... 16865 Proposed Rules: 201...... 15938 17130, 18382, 18384, 18386, 146...... 15873 Ch. I ...... 18585 18835, 18840, 18842, 18845, 159...... 19508 151...... 17574 10 CFR 19096 20 CFR 2...... 15636, 15920 65...... 18302 26 CFR 10...... 15636 71 ...... 15708, 16024, 16368, 404...... 17100, 18566 1...... 15686, 15687 11...... 15636 16369, 16370, 16371, 17133, 416...... 18566 7...... 15687 25...... 15636 17717, 17983, 17984, 18392, 652...... 18662 31...... 15687 40...... 17506 18481, 18584, 19310, 19312, 660...... 18662 301...... 16640, 17279 50...... 17944, 17947 19313, 19314, 19316, 19317 661...... 18662 602 ...... 15687, 15688, 15873, 72...... 17510 91...... 17293, 18302 662...... 18662 17279 73...... 17947 105...... 18302 663...... 18662 95...... 15636 108...... 19220 664...... 18662 Proposed Rules: 1...... 16372 Proposed Rules: 119...... 16298, 18302 665...... 18662 301...... 19217 30...... 18833 121...... 16298, 18766 666...... 18662 125...... 18766 39...... 19089 667...... 18662 27 CFR 40...... 18833 129...... 16298 668...... 18662 70...... 18833 135 ...... 16298, 17293, 18766 669...... 18662 178...... 17291 170...... 15876, 18835 145...... 18766 670...... 18662 Proposed Rules: 171...... 15876, 18835 183...... 16298 671...... 18662 4...... 17588 400...... 19626 5...... 17588 12 CFR 401...... 19626 21 CFR 7...... 17588 404...... 19626 3...... 19034 26...... 16347 28 CFR 208...... 19034 405...... 19626 201...... 18571 213...... 16612 406...... 19626 312...... 19269 16...... 17977 225...... 19034 413...... 19626 330...... 18571 31...... 19674 226...... 16614 415...... 19626 331...... 18571 77...... 19273 325...... 19034 431...... 19626 341...... 18571 504...... 17270 330...... 15653 433...... 19626 346...... 18571 Proposed Rules: 611...... 16617 435...... 19626 355...... 18571 65...... 17128 620...... 16617 358...... 18571 15 CFR 29 CFR 701...... 19441 369...... 18571 790...... 17085 738...... 17968 510...... 15683, 18571 1926...... 18809 935...... 16618, 16788 740...... 17968 520 ...... 15683, 15684, 18571, 4044...... 18575 742...... 17968 Proposed Rules: 18572 Proposed Rules: 748...... 17968 933...... 16792 522 ...... 15683, 15685, 18573 1...... 17442 762...... 17968 934...... 16792 556...... 18573 5...... 17442 774...... 17968 935...... 16792 558...... 15683, 18574 30 CFR 1750...... 18084 16 CFR 701...... 18571 874...... 18327 920...... 17978 Proposed Rules: 13 CFR 882...... 18327 935...... 17980 241...... 18081 890...... 18329 115...... 18324 256...... 18081 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 900...... 18331 46...... 18498, 18528 107...... 18375 17 CFR Proposed Rules: 48...... 18498 120...... 15942 202...... 19450 1...... 15944 206...... 15949, 17990 121...... 15708 232...... 19469 101...... 15948, 17295 250...... 19318 240...... 19450 310...... 17985 700...... 18585 14 CFR 242...... 19450 1308...... 17298, 740...... 18585 17299 13...... 19443 249...... 19450 746...... 18585 750...... 18585 39 ...... 15657, 15659, 15661, 270...... 19469 22 CFR 15669, 15920, 16339, 16621, 274...... 19469 934...... 18586 16624, 16625, 16801, 16803, 275...... 15680 Ch. II ...... 15685 935...... 18857 16805, 16808, 16810, 17086, 279...... 15680 Ch. VI...... 15686 948...... 19327 121...... 17531 17512, 17514, 17522, 17524, Proposed Rules: 123...... 17531 31 CFR 17947, 17949, 17951, 17954, 1...... 17439 124...... 17531 17956, 17950, 17961, 17962, 230...... 18481 210...... 17472 126...... 17531 17964, 17966, 18324, 18802, 240...... 18393, 18481 171...... 18808 32 CFR 18804, 18806, 19254 270...... 18481 71 ...... 15673, 15674, 15675, 201...... 17535 812...... 17101 15676, 15678, 15679, 16024, 18 CFR 514...... 17975, 17976 863...... 17545 16340, 16341, 16342, 16343, 1b...... 17087 Proposed Rules: 16344, 17219, 17934, 18563, 284...... 17276 514...... 17988 33 CFR 19255, 19257, 19258, 19259, 343...... 17087 100 ...... 16348, 16812, 16813 23 CFR 19260, 19261, 19262, 19263, 385...... 17087 117 ...... 16350, 16641, 17101, 19265, 19266, 19267, 19268 1327...... 19269 18576 91...... 15912 19 CFR Proposed Rules: 155...... 18576 93...... 17439 10...... 16345 777...... 16870 165 ...... 16348, 16641, 16642,
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:19 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCU Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Reader Aids iii
17439, 18577, 18810, 18814 17136, 17589, 17592, 17593, 2527...... 17302 1333...... 16651 187...... 19039 17990, 18858, 18860, 18861, 2528...... 17302 1533...... 17109 334...... 18580 18862, 19097, 19330, 19331, 2529...... 17302 1552...... 17109 Proposed Rules: 19332 1832...... 18372 62...... 19333 46 CFR 100...... 18587 Proposed Rules: 63...... 17465, 18862 117...... 17134 32...... 18576 1833...... 17603 154...... 17222 70...... 16659 Proposed Rules: 175...... 15709 81...... 17593, 18864 10...... 15709 177...... 15709 82...... 16373 15...... 15709 49 CFR 179...... 15709 112...... 17227 24...... 15709 195...... 15926 180...... 16874 181...... 15709 25...... 15709 244...... 19512 185...... 16874 183...... 15709 26...... 15709 533...... 16860 186...... 16874 28...... 15709 571...... 16358 34 CFR 194...... 18870 70...... 15709 581...... 16359 300...... 17593 682...... 18974 169...... 15709 1106...... 19512 175...... 15709 36 CFR 41 CFR Proposed Rules: 107...... 18786 7...... 19480 Ch. 301...... 16352, 18581 47 CFR 171...... 16882 Proposed Rules: 60-250...... 15690 1...... 19057 177...... 16882 1...... 17293 60-999...... 15690 43...... 19057 178...... 16882 2...... 17293 302-11 ...... 17105, 18659 63...... 19057 3...... 17293 69...... 16353 180...... 16882 43 CFR 4...... 17293 73 ...... 17108, 19067, 19299, 192...... 16882, 16885 5...... 17293 Proposed Rules: 19498 195...... 16882, 16885 6...... 17293 3100...... 17598 74...... 19498 571...... 19106 7...... 17293 3106...... 17598 Proposed Rules: 578...... 16690 3130...... 17598 0...... 16388 611...... 17062 39 CFR 3160...... 17598 1...... 16661 20...... 19039 44 CFR 2...... 16687 50 CFR 111...... 16814, 17102 25...... 16880, 16687 17 ...... 15691, 17110, 19300 65...... 17567, 17569 69...... 16389 40 CFR 67...... 17571 73 ...... 15712, 15713, 15714, 229...... 17292 52 ...... 15688, 15922, 17102, 206...... 19496 15715, 16388, 16396, 17137, 600...... 16862 17545, 17548, 17551, 17982, Proposed Rules: 17138, 17139, 17140, 17141, 648 ...... 15704, 16361, 16362, 18815, 18816, 18818, 18821, 67...... 17598 17142, 17143, 18596, 18871, 18582, 19503 19277, 19281, 19283, 19286 18872, 18873 660 ...... 16862, 17125, 19067 62...... 17219, 19290 45 CFR 76...... 16388 679 ...... 16361, 16362, 16654, 63 ...... 17460, 17555, 18824 260...... 17720 17126, 18373, 19069, 19507 81...... 17551 261...... 17720 48 CFR 697...... 19069 90...... 16526 262...... 17720 231...... 18827 Proposed Rules: 180 ...... 16840, 16843, 16850, 263...... 17720 232...... 18828 17 ...... 16397, 16890, 18596, 16856, 17565, 18333, 18339, 264...... 17720 235...... 18829 19108, 19333 18346, 18351, 18357, 18359, 265...... 17720 252...... 18828 20...... 17308 18360, 18367, 18369, 19042, 283...... 18484 701...... 16647 32...... 17992 19050, 19484, 19489, 19493 1224...... 19293 703...... 16647 223...... 16396, 16397 185...... 19489 1611...... 17108, 18372 715...... 16647, 19217 224...... 16397 186...... 19493 2508...... 19293 722...... 18481 226...... 16397 257...... 19494 Proposed Rules: 731...... 16647 600 ...... 16414, 18394, 19111 261...... 16643 1635...... 16383 732...... 18481 622...... 18395 300...... 15926, 16351 2522...... 17302 752...... 16647, 18481 648 ...... 16417, 16891, 18394, Proposed Rules: 2525...... 17302 909...... 16649 19111 52 ...... 15711, 15949, 16659, 2526...... 17302 970...... 16649 679...... 19113
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:19 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Reader Aids
REMINDERS McDonnell Douglas; gear; comments due by FEDERAL EMERGENCY The items in this list were published 4-6-99 4-29-99; published 4-14- MANAGEMENT AGENCY editorially compiled as an aid 99 Disaster assistance: to Federal Register users. COMMENTS DUE NEXT DEFENSE DEPARTMENT Major disaster and Inclusion or exclusion from WEEK Acquisition regulations: emergency declarations, this list has no legal People's Republic of China; Governors' requests; significance. evaluation; comments due AGRICULTURE comments due by 4-26- by 4-26-99; published 1- DEPARTMENT 99; published 2-23-99 26-99 RULES GOING INTO Agricultural Marketing DEFENSE DEPARTMENT Service FEDERAL RESERVE EFFECT APRIL 21, 1999 Navy Department SYSTEM Cherries (tart) grown inÐ National Environmental Policy Availability of funds and ENVIRONMENTAL Michigan et al.; comments Act; implementation: collection of checks PROTECTION AGENCY due by 4-26-99; published Policies and responsibilities; (Regulation CC): 2-25-99 Pesticides; tolerances in food, comments due by 4-26- Sending notices in lieu of animal feeds, and raw Milk marketing orders: 99; published 2-25-99 returning original checks; agricultural commodities: Iowa; comments due by 4- ENVIRONMENTAL comments due by 4-30- Dimethyl phosphate of 3- 26-99; published 4-19-99 PROTECTION AGENCY 99; published 2-24-99 hydroxy-N-methyl-cis- Raisins produced from grapes Air pollutants, hazardous; INTERIOR DEPARTMENT crotonamide grown inÐ national emission standards: Fish and Wildlife Service (monocrotophos); California; comments due by Equivalent emission Endangered and threatened published 4-21-99 4-26-99; published 2-24- limitations by permit; species: Fludioxonil; published 4-21- 99 implementation; comments 99 Preble's meadow jumping AGRICULTURE due by 4-26-99; published Solid wastes: 4-16-99 mouse; comments due by DEPARTMENT 4-30-99; published 3-16- Municipal solid waste landfill Animal and Plant Health Air quality implementation 99 permit programs; Inspection Service plans; approval and adequacy Rhadine exilis, etc. (nine Animal welfare: promulgation; various determinationsÐ States: invertebrate species from Marine mammals; humane Bexar County, TX); Texas; published 4-21-99 handling, care, treatment, Arizona; comments due by comments due by 4-29- FEDERAL and transportation; 4-26-99; published 3-26- 99; published 12-30-98 COMMUNICATIONS 99 comments due by 4-26- INTERIOR DEPARTMENT COMMISSION 99; published 2-23-99 California; comments due by Minerals Management Common carrier services: 4-26-99; published 3-25- Exportation and importation of Service Telecommunications Act of animals and animal 99 Outer Continental Shelf; oil, 1996; implementationÐ products: Utah; comments due by 4- gas, and sulphur operations: Pay telephone 26-99; published 3-26-99 Pork and pork products Bonus payments with bids; reclassification and Radiation protection programs: from Sonora and Yucatan, comments due by 4-30- compensation; Mexico; importation; Rocky Flats Environmental 99; published 3-31-99 reconsideration petition; comments due by 4-26- Technology Site; published 3-22-99 99; published 2-23-99 transuranic radioactive Royalty management: Oil value for royalty due on JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURE waste disposal; applicable Federal leases; comment Grants: DEPARTMENT waste characterization documents; availability; extension; comments due Food Safety and Inspection Juvenile accountability comments due by 4-26- by 4-27-99; published 4- Service incentive block grants 99; published 3-25-99 13-99 program; published 4-21- Meat and poultry inspection: Superfund program: INTERIOR DEPARTMENT 99 Irradiation of refrigerated or Toxic chemical release Surface Mining Reclamation Radiation Exposure frozen uncooked meat, reporting; community right- and Enforcement Office Compensation Act; claims: meat byproducts, etc.; to-knowÐ Permanent program and Evidentiary requirements; comments due by 4-26- abandoned mine land definitions and number of 99; published 2-24-99 Chromite ore from reclamation plan times claims may be filed; Transvaal Region, AGRICULTURE South Africa; comments submissions: published 3-22-99 DEPARTMENT due by 4-26-99; Indiana; comments due by SECURITIES AND Rural Utilities Service published 2-23-99 4-26-99; published 3-25- EXCHANGE COMMISSION Rural development: FEDERAL 99 Securities: Distance learning and COMMUNICATIONS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Exchanges and alternative telemedicine loan and COMMISSION Prisons Bureau trading systems; published grant program; comments Radio stations; table of Inmate control, custody, care, 12-22-98 due by 4-26-99; published assignments: etc.: Correction; published 3- 3-25-99 Florida; comments due by 17-99 Inmate discipline respecting COMMERCE DEPARTMENT 4-26-99; published 3-16- violations of telephone TRANSPORTATION National Oceanic and 99 and smoking policies; DEPARTMENT Atmospheric Administration Missouri; comments due by comments due by 4-26- Federal Aviation Fishery conservation and 4-26-99; published 3-16- 99; published 2-25-99 Administration management: 99 Over-the-counter (OTC) Airworthiness directives: Magnuson-Stevens Act Montana; comments due by medications; inmate AlliedSignal Inc.; published provisionsÐ 4-26-99; published 3-16- access; comments due by 4-6-99 Gulf of Maine separator 99 4-30-99; published 3-1-99 CFM International; published trawl whiting fishery and Texas; comments due by 4- Searches of housing units, 3-22-99 proposed supplemental 26-99; published 3-16-99 inmates, and inmate work
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:19 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCU Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 1999 / Reader Aids v
areas, and persons other Statutory bar to Raytheon; comments due by School buses; parking than inmates; use of appointment of persons 4-28-99; published 3-1-99 brake warning system; electronic devices; who fail to register; Airworthiness standards: comments due by 4-30- comments due by 4-26- comments due by 4-28- Special conditionsÐ 99; published 3-1-99 99; published 2-25-99 99; published 3-29-99 Boeing model 717-200 Hydraulic brake systemsÐ LABOR DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION airplane; operation Labor-Management DEPARTMENT without normal electrical Light vehicle brake Standards Office Coast Guard power; comments due systems; antilock brake Transportation Equity Act for Drawbridge operations: by 4-26-99; published system malfunction 21st Century; Louisiana; comments due by 3-25-99 indicator lamp activation protocol; compliance implementation: 4-29-99; published 3-15- Learjet model 35, 35A, date delay; comments Employee protections; 99 36, and 36A airplanes; due by 4-30-99; certification requirements; Michigan; comments due by comments due by 4-28- published 2-26-99 comments due by 4-29- 4-26-99; published 2-25- 99; published 3-29-99 99; published 3-30-99 99 Soloy Corp. model Side impact protection; LABOR DEPARTMENT Ports and waterways safety: Pathfinder 21 airplane; inflatable restraint Mine Safety and Health Eagle Harbor, Bainbridge comments due by 4-26- systems; benefits and Administration Island, WA; regulated 99; published 3-25-99 risks; meeting; comments navigation area; due by 4-30-99; published Coal mine and metal and Class B airspace; comments comments due by 4-26- 3-24-99 nonmetal mine safety and due by 4-30-99; published 99; published 2-23-99 health: 3-1-99 Port of New York and New TRANSPORTATION Underground minesÐ Class E airspace; comments Jersey; safety zone; DEPARTMENT Diesel particulate matter due by 4-26-99; published comments due by 4-26- Research and Special exposure of miners; 3-11-99 99; published 2-24-99 Programs Administration comments due by 4-30- TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION 99; published 2-12-99 DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Pipeline safety: NUCLEAR REGULATORY Maritime Administration Federal Aviation Gas gathering lines, COMMISSION Cargo preferenceÐU.S.-flag Administration definition; electronic commmercial vessels: Domestic licensing and related Airworthiness directives: discussion forum; Carriage of agricultural regulatory functions; BMW Rolls-Royce GmbH; comments due by 4-28- exports; comments due by environmental protection comments due by 4-26- 99; published 3-11-99 4-28-99; published 3-26- regulations: 99; published 2-24-99 99 TREASURY DEPARTMENT Nuclear power plant Eurocopter France; operating licenses; comments due by 4-26- TRANSPORTATION Internal Revenue Service renewal requirements; 99; published 3-26-99 DEPARTMENT comments due by 4-27- Procedure and administration: New Piper Aircraft, Inc.; National Highway Traffic 99; published 2-26-99 comments due by 4-28- Safety Administration Unified partnership audit; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 99; published 3-3-99 Motor vehicle safety modifications and OFFICE Pratt & Whitney; comments standards: additions; comments due Employment: due by 4-29-99; published Hydraulic and electric brake by 4-26-99; published 1- Selective Service LawÐ 3-30-99 systemsÐ 26-99
VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:19 Apr 20, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\21APCU.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 21APCU