10–31–01 Wednesday Vol. 66 No. 211 Oct. 31, 2001 Pages 54909–55066
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:27 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\31OCWS.LOC pfrm03 PsN: 31OCWS
1 II Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2001
The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Assistance with public subscriptions 512–1806 Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 512–1803 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 523–5243 Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523–5243 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see http://www.nara.gov/ What’s NEW! fedreg. Federal Register Table of Contents via e-mail The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication Subscribe to FEDREGTOC, to receive the Federal Register Table of established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, Contents in your e-mail every day. the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. If you get the HTML version, you can click directly to any document The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases in the issue. on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. To subscribe, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select: The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the Online mailing list archives authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register FEDREGTOC-L 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 Join or leave the list day the Federal Register is published and it includes both text Then follow the instructions. 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 $699, or $764 for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $264. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge for individual copies in paper form is $10.00 for each issue, or $10.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $2.00 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: 66 FR 12345.
.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:49 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\31OCWS.LOC pfrm01 PsN: 31OCWS
2 III
Contents Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 211
Wednesday, October 31, 2001
Agricultural Marketing Service Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES RULES Milk marketing orders: Consumer Product Safety Act; implementation: Southeast; CFR correction, 54909 Substantial product hazard reports, 54923–54925 NOTICES Meetings: Defense Department Plant Variety Protection Board, 54981 See Air Force Department See Army Department Agriculture Department See Navy Department See Agricultural Marketing Service RULES See Food Safety and Inspection Service Privacy Act; implementation See Forest Service National Reconnaissance Office, 54925–54928 See Rural Telephone Bank See Rural Utilities Service Education Department NOTICES NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Meetings: National Sheep Industry Improvement Center Board of Federal Interagency Coordinating Council, 54985 Directors, 54978 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Energy Department Sheep and Goat Industry Program, 54978–54981 See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Air Force Department Environmental Protection Agency RULES RULES Privacy Act; implementation, 54929–54930 Air pollution control: State operating permits programs— Army Department Kentucky, 54953–54955 Air programs: NOTICES Fuels and fuel additives— Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Motorcycle fuel inlet restrictor exemption; gasoline Fort Indiantown Gap, PA; National Guard Training containing lead or lead additives; prohibition for Center; enhanced training and operations, 54984– highway use, 54955–54959 54985 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Children and Families Administration Pennsylvania, 54936–54953 NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Agency information collection activities: Air programs: Submission for OMB review; comment request, 54999– Fuels and fuel additives— 55000 Motorcycle fuel inlet restrictor exemption; gasoline Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: containing lead or lead additives; prohibition for Head Start— highway use, 54965–54967 Unserved communities enrollment; correction, 55000 Hazardous waste: Project XL program; site-specific projects— Coast Guard NASA White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, NM, RULES 55049–55060 Drawbridge operations: NOTICES Florida, 54930–54931 Federal Nitrogen Oxide Budget Trading Program; NOTICES applicability determinations: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Ohio, 54992 Remaining 180-foot seagoing buoy tender fleet and former Meetings: Coast Guard Cutter FIR; decommissioning and/or Dietary and residential exposure methodologies for use in excessing, 55038–55039 organophosphate pesticide risk assessment; technical briefing, 54992–54993 Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements National Drinking Water Advisory Council, 54993 NOTICES Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: Cotton, wool, and man-made textiles: BASF Corp., 54993–54995 Costa Rica, 54982–54983 Pesticides; experimental use permits, etc.: Guatemala, 54983–54984 Dow AgroSciences LLC, 54995–54996
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES RULES Meetings: Airworthiness directives: Technology Advisory Committee, 54984 Boeing, 54918–54923
VerDate 11
Procedural rules: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Flight Operational Quality Assurance programs; NOTICES enforcement protection, 55041–55048 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54998 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Federal Trade Commission Eurocopter France, 54960–54963 PROPOSED RULES Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act; implementation: Federal Communications Commission Parental consent, 54963–54964 PROPOSED RULES Common carrier services: Fish and Wildlife Service Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service— RULES Lifeline and Link-Up service for low-income customers, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; Title VIII 54967–54970 implementation (subsistence priority): Digital television stations; table of assignments: Kuskokwim River drainage; emergency closures and Connecticut, 54970–54971 adjustments, 54931–54934 Radio stations; table of assignments: Redoubt and Salmon Lakes drainages; emergency Missouri, 54972 closures, 54934–54936 Texas, 54971–54972 NOTICES Television broadcasting: Comprehensive conservation plans; availability, etc.: Cable television systems— Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, WY, 55002–55003 Multichannel video and cable television service; video Endangered and threatened species permit applications, programming distribution; competition and 55003 diversity development, 54972–54977 NOTICES Food and Drug Administration Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Proposed collection; comment request, 54996 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Apple juice, apple juice concentrates, and apple juice Federal Election Commission products; adulteration with patulin; compliance NOTICES policy guide and supporting document, 55000–55001 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54996 Food Safety and Inspection Service Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES NOTICES Meat and poultry inspection: Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: Transglutaminase enzyme and pork collagen use as Metro Energy, L.L.C., et al., 54987–54990 binders, 54912–54916 Hydroelectric applications, 54990–54992 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Forest Service CalPeak Power-Panoche LLC et al., 54985–54986 RULES Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 54986 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; Title VIII El Dorado Irrigation District, 54986 implementation (subsistence priority): Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 54986 Kuskokwim River drainage; emergency closures and New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 54986– adjustments, 54931–54934 54987 Redoubt and Salmon Lakes drainages; emergency closures, 54934–54936 Federal Highway Administration PROPOSED RULES Health and Human Services Department Engineering and traffic operations: See Children and Families Administration Design-build contracting See Food and Drug Administration Correction, 54964–54965 See Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Federal Housing Finance Board Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: RULES Public Health Preparedness, Secretary’s Council, 54998 Federal home loan bank system: Federal claims; interest rates on overdue debts, 54998– Annual bank board of directors meetings; minimum 54999 number; maintenance of effort, 54916–54918 Scientific misconduct findings; administrative actions: Smith, Sherman, 54999 Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agreements filed, etc., 54996–54997 NOTICES Ocean transportation intermediary licenses: Agency information collection activities: Ditto, 54997 Proposed collection; comment request, 55001 Ramses Logistics Co. et al., 54997 Submission for OMB review; comment request, 55001– 55002 Federal Reserve System NOTICES Immigration and Naturalization Service Banks and bank holding companies: RULES Change in bank control, 54997 Executive Office for Immigration Review: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 54997–54998 Custody determinations review, 54909–54912
VerDate 11
Interior Department Rural Telephone Bank See Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES See Reclamation Bureau Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54981 International Trade Commission NOTICES Rural Utilities Service Import investigations: NOTICES Significant U.S. import restraints, economic effects; Environmental statements; notice of intent: update, 55003–55004 Georgia Transmission Corp., 54981–54982 Justice Department Securities and Exchange Commission See Immigration and Naturalization Service NOTICES See Prisons Bureau Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Labor Department American Stock Exchange LLC, 55031–55037 See Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Government Securities Clearing Corp.; correction, 55037 NOTICES New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 55037 Agency information collection activities: Submission for OMB review; comment request, 55004– Textile Agreements Implementation Committee 55005 See Committee for the Implementation of Textile National Aeronautics and Space Administration Agreements NOTICES Meetings: Transportation Department Advisory Council See Coast Guard Space Science Advisory Committee, 55007 See Federal Aviation Administration Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, 55007 See Federal Highway Administration Navy Department RULES Treasury Department Privacy Act; implementation, 54928–54929 See Public Debt Bureau NOTICES Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Submission for OMB review; comment request, 55039 Operating licenses, amendments; no significant hazards considerations; biweekly notices, 55007–55031 Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Separate Parts In This Issue NOTICES Meetings: Part II Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Advisory Transportation Department, Federal Aviation Council, 55005–55007 Administration, 55041–55048 Prisons Bureau RULES Part III Inmate control, custody, care, etc.: Environmental Protection Agency, 55049–55060 National security; prevention of acts of violence and terrorism, 55061–55066 Part IV Public Debt Bureau Justice Department, Prisons Bureau, 55061–55066 NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 55039 Reader Aids Public Health Service Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for See Food and Drug Administration phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, See Health Resources and Services Administration and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Reclamation Bureau LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// NOTICES listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group, 55003 settings); then follow the instructions.
VerDate 11
CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE
A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.
7 CFR 1007...... 54909 8 CFR 3...... 54909 9 CFR 319...... 54912 12 CFR 918...... 54916 14 CFR 13...... 55042 39 (2 documents) ...... 54918, 54920 Proposed Rules: 39...... 54960 16 CFR 1115...... 54923 Proposed Rules: 312...... 54963 23 CFR Proposed Rules: 627...... 54964 635...... 54964 636...... 54964 637...... 54964 710...... 54964 25 CFR 500...... 55062 501...... 55062 32 CFR 326...... 54925 701...... 54928 806b...... 54929 33 CFR 117...... 54930 36 CFR 242 (2 documents) ...... 54931, 54934 40 CFR 52 (3 documents) ...... 54936, 54942, 54947 70...... 54953 80...... 54955 Proposed Rules: Ch. I ...... 55050 80...... 54965 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 54...... 54967 73 (3 documents) ...... 54970, 54971, 54972 76...... 54972 50 CFR 100 (2 documents) ...... 54931, 54934
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:08 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\31OCLS.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 31OCLS 54909
Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 211
Wednesday, October 31, 2001
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ACTION: Interim rule with request for determine whether to hold an alien in contains regulatory documents having general comments. custody while proceedings are pending applicability and legal effect, most of which to determine whether an alien is to be are keyed to and codified in the Code of SUMMARY: This rule amends the removed from the United States. As a Federal Regulations, which is published under regulations of the Executive Office for general principle, whether to detain an 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. Immigration Review (EOIR), by alien or to release the alien on bond or expanding the existing regulatory other appropriate conditions is a matter The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by provision for a temporary automatic stay the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of entrusted to the Attorney General’s new books are listed in the first FEDERAL of an immigration judge’s decision to discretion. Under section 236(c) of the REGISTER issue of each week. order an alien’s release in any case in Act, however, certain aliens are subject which a district director has ordered to mandatory detention during the that the alien be held without bond or course of proceedings to determine their DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE has set a bond of $10,000 or more, to removal. These generally include maintain the status quo while the individuals who are inadmissible or Agricultural Marketing Service Immigration and Naturalization Service deportable due to the commission of seeks expedited review of the custody specified crimes or due to having 7 CFR Part 1007 order by the Board of Immigration engaged in terrorist activity. Appeals (Board) or by the Attorney Milk in the Southeast Marketing Area More than a century ago, the Supreme General. Court upheld detention as a necessary CFR Correction DATES: Effective date: This interim rule aspect of the exclusion or expulsion of In Title 7 of the Code of Federal is effective October 29, 2001. aliens. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 Comment date: Written comments Regulations, parts 1000 to 1199, revised U.S. 228, 235 (1896); see also Carlson v. must be submitted on or before as of January 1, 2001, in § 1007.7, Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 538 (1952) December 31, 2001. paragraph (c) is revised to read as (‘‘Detention is necessarily a part of this ADDRESSES: follows: Please submit written deportation procedure. Otherwise aliens comments to the Director, Policy arrested for deportation would have § 1007.7 Pool plant. Directives and Instructions Branch, opportunities to hurt the United States * * * * * Immigration and Naturalization Service, during the pendency of deportation (c) A supply plant from which 50 425 I Street, NW., Room 4034, proceedings.’’). An alien’s interest in percent or more of the total quantity of Washington, DC 20536. To ensure being at liberty during the course of milk that is physically received during proper handling, please reference INS immigration proceedings is ‘‘narrow’’ the month from dairy farmers and No. 2172–01 on your correspondence. and ‘‘circumscribed by considerations of handlers described in § 1000.9(c), The public may also submit comments the national interest.’’ Doherty v. including milk that is diverted from the electronically to the Service at Thornburgh, 943 F.2d 204, 208, 208, 209 plant, is transferred to pool distributing [email protected]. When submitting (2d Cir. 1991). ‘‘An alien’s freedom from plants. Concentrated milk transferred comments electronically, please make detention is only a variation on the from the supply plant to a distributing sure that you include INS No. 2172–01 alien’s claim of an interest in entering plant for an agreed-upon use other than in the subject field. Comments are the country.’’ Clark v. Smith, 967 F.2d Class I shall be excluded from the available for public inspection at the 1329, 1332 (9th Cir. 1992). supply plant’s shipments in computing above address by calling (202) 514–3048 Section 236 of the Act confers the plant’s shipping percentage. to arrange for an appointment. discretion upon the Attorney General to * * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For determine the custody of aliens who are matters relating to the Executive Office in proceedings as long as they are not [FR Doc. 01–55533 Filed 10–31–01; 8:45 am] for Immigration Review: Chuck Adkins- subject to the mandatory detention BILLING CODE 1505–01–D Blanch, General Counsel, Executive provisions of section 236(c) of the Act. Office for Immigration Review, 5107 The detention of aliens during the Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, pendency of the immigration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE telephone (703) 305–0470 (not a toll-free proceedings serves two essential call). For matters relating to the purposes: ensuring removal by Immigration and Naturalization Service Immigration and Naturalization Service: preventing the alien from fleeing, and Daniel S. Brown, Office of the General protecting the public from potential 8 CFR Part 3 Counsel, Immigration and harm. [INS No. 2172–01; AG Order No. 2528–2001] Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, Under the regulations, the NW., Room 6100, Washington, DC Immigration and Naturalization Service RIN 1115–AG41 20536, telephone (202) 514–2895 (not a (Service) makes the initial custody Executive Office for Immigration toll-free call). decision in each case—that is, whether Review; Review of Custody SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to keep the alien in detention pending Determinations completion of the removal proceedings, Background or whether to release the alien on bond AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Section 236 of the Immigration and or other appropriate conditions. The Service, Justice; and Executive Office for Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1226, alien, however, may ask an immigration Immigration Review, Justice. authorizes the Attorney General to judge to review the custody decision,
VerDate 11
subject to specified exceptions in invoked the automatic stay provision, it and bond status for aliens during the § 3.19(h). The immigration judge may has the usual 30 days to file an appeal pendency of removal proceedings. The then reduce the required bond amount, to the Board. As a matter of practice, the existing rules permit the Service to release the alien on his or her own Service does not take that long and appeal a decision ordering the release of recognizance, or make such other makes a prompt decision on whether or an alien, but in many cases the rules do custody decision as the immigration not to appeal a custody decision that is not provide for a stay of the release judge finds warranted. The Board then subject to an automatic stay. This decision during the time that the has jurisdiction to hear an appeal change in the rule will better reflect the Service would be pursuing an appeal. (whether by the alien or by the Service) need for an expedited decision in the Thus, an alien who has received a from the immigration judge’s decision. case of a custody appeal that is subject custody redetermination by an to an automatic stay. immigration judge is eligible for release Stays Pending Appeals of Custody In addition to the existing provisions under the terms of that order unless and Determinations for an automatic stay of an immigration until a stay of that order is granted by This rule revises the existing judge’s custody decision in § 3.19(i), the Board. provisions in § 3.19(i). That rule pending an appeal to the Board, this The time that elapses from the currently provides for an automatic stay rule also provides an automatic five-day custody redetermination to the granting in certain cases where the Service has stay of the Board’s decision, where the of a stay by the Board may be denied release of an alien during the Board dismisses the Service’s appeal of significant. The time it takes to draft a pendency of removal proceedings or has an immigration judge’s custody notice of appeal and motion for set a bond in excess of $10,000, an decision. This provision will allow the emergency stay and file these immigration judge orders an alien Commissioner a meaningful opportunity documents with the Board is often up to released, and the Service promptly files to review the Board’s decision and to twenty-four hours, as the Service a Form EOIR–43, Notice of Intent to decide whether to certify the case to the attorney handling the case may have to Appeal Custody Redetermination, with Attorney General pursuant to § 3.1(h). complete his or her duties in court that the Immigration Court. If the Service Where the Commissioner certifies a day before securing the necessary then files a timely appeal, the stay will custody decision of the Board to the supervisory approval to file the motion continue pending the disposition of the Attorney General within that five-day for stay. The Service attorney then must appeal by the Board. See Matter of period, the automatic stay will continue draft the filings and transmit them to the Joseph, Int. Dec. 3387 (1999). pending the Attorney General’s review Board in Falls Church, Virginia. The Under the existing rule, since the of the custody issues. Board then must review the record and expiration of the Transition Period This change in § 3.19 makes explicit, adjudicate the motion. The Board does Custody Rules, this automatic stay in the context of bond appeals, the not have a complete record upon which applies only to cases involving aliens general principle that a ‘‘decision of the to base a ruling, because that record subject to mandatory detention. This Board is not final while pending review remains with the immigration court. As interim rule extends the existing scope before the Attorney General on a matter of practice, the Board will not of the automatic stay provisions in certification.’’ Matter of Farias, 21 I&N grant a stay without communicating § 3.19(i) to authorize the Service, in its Dec. 269, 282 (BIA 1996; A.G. 1997). with the alien or opposing counsel, so discretion, to invoke the automatic stay This provision for an automatic stay as to ascertain the alien’s position in other cases in which the Service has will avoid the necessity of having to regarding the necessity of the stay. denied release of an alien during the decide whether to order a stay on Thus, under current procedures, there is pendency of the removal proceedings or extremely short notice with only the a significant window of time wherein has set a bond of $10,000 or more. most summary presentation of the the alien may be released while the This change will allow the Service to issues. Service prepares its filings to the Board maintain the status quo while it seeks The rule also makes a slight and while the Board adjudicates the review by the Board, and thereby avoid modification to the existing rule by motion. Also, the crucial determination the necessity for a case-by-case providing that the Form EOIR–43 must by the Board is made without the determination of whether a stay should be filed within one business day of the benefit of a full record of proceedings be granted in particular cases in which decision of the immigration judge. This and the Board instead relies upon the the Service had previously determined is intended to afford the Service an submissions of the parties. that the alien should be kept in opportunity to file the Form EOIR–43 in Another significant problem that is detention and no conditions of release those cases where the immigration remedied by this provision concerns would be appropriate. This stay is a judge’s custody decision is issued after custody determinations that arise on the limited measure and is limited in time— normal business hours. west coast. Due to the time difference it only applies where the Service between the east and west coast, an determines that it is necessary to invoke Effective Date of This Interim Rule alien may be ordered released after the the special stay procedure pending The Department’s immediate Board has closed for the day. When this appeal, and the stay only remains in implementation of this interim rule, occurs, the Service is effectively barred place until the Board has had the with provision for post-promulgation from filing a stay request and this opportunity to consider the matter. public comment, is based upon findings significantly increases the period during However, in order to ensure that any of good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. which the alien may be released. custody appeal proceedings are 553(b)(3)(B) and (d). During this window of time, the conducted on an expeditious basis, this The immediate implementation of Service may be required to release an rule also amends § 3.19(i) to add a new this interim rule without prior public alien that it believes is a threat to limitation that the automatic stay will comment is necessary to prevent the national security or the public safety continue, pending the decision by the release of aliens who may pose a threat without even having the opportunity to Board on appeal, only if the Service files to national security and to provide a present its case to the Board. The its appeal within ten business days of clear set of procedural rules of automatic stay provision allows the the immigration judge’s order. Under administrative procedure with respect Service attorney to maintain the alien’s the current rules, once the Service has to determining the custody conditions custody status via immediate filing of
VerDate 11
the Form EOIR–43. This rule extends This rule does not affect small entities OMB, for review and approval, any the scope of the existing automatic stay as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. reporting or recordkeeping requirements provision to cover all cases in which the 601(6). inherent in a final rule. This rule does Service has denied release of an alien not impose any new reporting or Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of pending the completion of removal recordkeeping requirements under the 1995 proceedings or has set a bond of $10,000 Paperwork Reduction Act. or more, and in which the Service This rule will not result in the specifically invokes the automatic stay expenditure by State, local, and tribal List of Subjects in order to seek an expedited appeal. governments, in the aggregate, or by the 8 CFR Part 3 The purpose of the automatic stay is to private sector, of $100 million or more allow the Service to maintain the status in any one year, and it will not Administrative practice and quo during such time as is necessary for significantly or uniquely affect small procedure, Immigration, Organization the Service to take a prompt appeal to governments. Therefore, no actions were and functions (government agencies). the Board, and the stay only remains in deemed necessary under the provisions Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the place until the Board has had an of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Code of Federal Regulations is amended opportunity to consider the matter. This of 1995. as follows: rule similarly provides a five-day period Small Business Regulatory Enforcement after a decision by the Board to allow PART 3—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR Fairness Act of 1996 sufficient time for the Commissioner to IMMIGRATION REVIEW determine whether to certify a decision This rule is not a major rule as of the Board to the Attorney General for defined by section 251 of the Small 1. The authority citation for part 3 is review. These provisions for a Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of revised to read as follows: temporary automatic stay will avoid the 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1101 necessity of the Service having to seek result in an annual effect on the note, 1103, 1252 note, 1252b, 1324b, 1362; 28 stays on a case by case basis and the economy of $100 million or more; a U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No. Board or the Attorney General having to major increase in costs or prices; or 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., p. 1002; decide whether to order a stay on significant adverse effects on section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100, 111 Stat. extremely short notice with only the competition, employment, investment, 2196–200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. most summary presentation of the productivity, innovation, or on the 106–386, 114 Stat. 1527–29, 1531–32; section issues. ability of United States-based 1505 of Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A– 326 to –328. Finally, the current investigation in companies to compete with foreign- connection with recent terrorist based companies in domestic and 2. Section 3.19 is amended by revising activities has resulted in the detention export markets. paragraph (i)(2), to read as follows: of a large number of individuals. This may overwhelm the capacity of the Executive Order 12866 § 3.19 Custody/bond. Service to take the steps necessary to This rule is considered by the * * * * * secure stays of custody redeterminations Department of Justice to be a (i) * * * in timely fashion. The automatic stay ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under (1) * * * provision will address this problem and Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), prevent the Service and the Board from Regulatory Planning and Review. (2) Automatic stay in certain cases. In being overwhelmed with stay requests. Accordingly, this rule has been any case in which the district director For these reasons, the Attorney submitted to the Office of Management has determined that an alien should not General has determined that there is and Budget (OMB) for review. be released or has set a bond of $10,000 good cause to publish this interim rule or more, any order of the immigration and to make it effective upon filing for Executive Order 13132 judge authorizing release (on bond or public inspection at the Office of the This rule will not have substantial otherwise) shall be stayed upon the Federal Register, because the delays direct effects on the States, on the Service’s filing of a Notice of Service inherent in the regular notice-and- relationship between the National Intent to Appeal Custody comment process would be Government and the States, or on the Redetermination (Form EOIR–43) with ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary and distribution of power and the immigration court within one contrary to the public interest.’’ responsibilities among the various business day of the issuance of the order, and shall remain in abeyance Regulatory Flexibility Act levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive pending decision of the appeal by the The Attorney General, in accordance Order 13132, it is determined that this Board of Immigration Appeals. The stay with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 rule does not have sufficient federalism shall lapse if the Service fails to file a U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this implications to warrant the preparation notice of appeal with the Board in regulation and, by approving it, certifies of a federalism summary impact accordance with § 3.38 within ten that this rule will not have a significant statement. business days of the issuance of the economic impact on a substantial order of the immigration judge. If the number of small entities. This rule Executive Order 12988 Board authorizes release (on bond or extends the scope of the existing This rule meets the applicable otherwise), that order shall be automatic stay provision to cover cases standards set forth in sections 3(a) and automatically stayed for five business in which the Service has denied release 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil days. If, within that five-day period, the of an alien pending the completion of Justice Reform. Commissioner certifies the Board’s removal proceedings or has set a bond custody order to the Attorney General of $10,000 or more, in order to allow the Paperwork Reduction Act pursuant to § 3.1(h)(1) of this chapter, Service to maintain the status quo while Under the Paperwork Reduction Act the Board’s order shall continue to be it pursues an expedited appeal of an of 1995, Public Law 104–13, all stayed pending the decision of the order to release the alien from custody. Departments are required to submit to Attorney General.
VerDate 11
Dated: October 26, 2001. Room from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., GRAS status of any use of this enzyme, John Ashcroft, Monday through Friday. FDA would not challenge, at this time, Attorney General. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ajinomoto’s conclusion that TG enzyme [FR Doc. 01–27447 Filed 10–29–01; 1:51 pm] Robert C. Post, Ph.D., Director, Labeling is safe under the proposed conditions of BILLING CODE 4410–10–P and Consumer Protection Staff, Office of use. Policy, Program Development and Based on the findings of FDA’s Evaluation, Food Safety and Inspection evaluation, described above, and the technical data provided by Ajinomoto, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250–3700; (202) 205– FSIS concluded that TG enzyme was Food Safety and Inspection Service 0279 suitable for use in non-standardized SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: meat and poultry products, and in meat 9 CFR Parts 317, 319, and 381 and poultry products that have been Background formulated to reduce sodium or fat [Docket No. 01–016DF] Ajinomoto and AMPC Petitions content. Thus, the Agency permits the use of TG enzyme, at levels of up to 65 Use of Transglutaminase Enzyme and On May 5, 1999, Hogan and Hartson, ppm, in such products, provided that Pork Collagen as Binders in Certain L.L.P. filed a petition with FSIS on the products are identified by a truthful Meat and Poultry Products behalf of its client, Ajinomoto, USA, descriptive designation, such as ‘‘low fat Inc. (Ajinomoto), requesting that the AGENCY: pork sausage, water and TG enzyme Food Safety and Inspection Agency amend its regulations to allow Service, USDA. product.’’ the use of TG enzyme, at usage levels of Although FSIS determined that TG ACTION: Direct final rule. up to 65 ppm of product formulation, to enzyme was suitable for use in non- improve texture and cooking yields in SUMMARY: The Food Safety and standardized meat and poultry various standardized meat and poultry Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending products, and in meat and poultry products. Ajinomoto also requested that its meat inspection regulations to permit products that have been formulated to FSIS permit TG enzyme to be used as the use of pork collagen and reduce sodium or fat content, in its a protein cross-linking agent, at usage transglutaminase enzyme (TG enzyme), review of the 1997 petition, the Agency levels of up to 65 ppm, to fabricate or in limited amounts, as binders in certain also found that Ajinomoto submitted reform cuts of meat. When TG enzyme standardized meat food products. FSIS insufficient data on the suitability of the is used to fabricate or reform cuts of also is amending its poultry products use of TG enzyme in standardized meat meat, Ajinomoto requested that the inspection regulations to permit the use and poultry products. FSIS informed resulting product be distinguished from of TG enzyme, in limited amounts, as a Ajinomoto that in order to permit the its non-fabricated counterpart through binder in certain standardized poultry use of TG enzyme in standardized terms such as ‘‘formed’’ or ‘‘reformed’’ products. Additionally, FSIS is products, the Agency must pursue as part of the product name (e.g. amending the meat and poultry rulemaking to amend the regulatory ‘‘formed beef tenderloin’’), as opposed inspection regulations to require that, standards of identity. FSIS suggested to a statement that declares the presence when TG enzyme is used to fabricate or that Ajinomoto submit a petition to of the enzyme as part of the product reform cuts of meat or poultry, the request that the Agency amend the name (e.g. ‘‘beef tenderloin formed with resulting product bear labeling to individual meat and poultry product water and transglutaminase enzyme’’). standards to provide for the use of TG indicate that it has been formed from TG enzyme is derived from a non- pieces of whole muscle meat, or that it enzyme. The Agency also informed toxigenic and non-pathogenic strain of Ajinomoto that such a petition must has been reformed from a single cut. Streptoverticillium mobaraense and FSIS is proceeding with this direct final include technical data to establish the functions by catalyzing the formation of suitability of TG enzyme for use in rule in response to petitions submitted a covalent bond between the glutamine to the Agency by Ajinomoto, U.S.A., standardized meat and poultry and lysine side residues of proteins. products. In response, Ajinomoto Inc. and AMPC, Corp. There are no current allowances in the submitted the May 5, 1999, petition, to DATES: This rule will be effective FSIS regulations or those of the Food which this rulemaking responds. December 31, 2001 unless FSIS receives and Drug Administration (FDA) for the In support of its most recent petition, written adverse comments within the use of TG enzyme as a binder or protein Ajinomoto submitted numerous scope of this rulemaking or written cross-linking agent in standardized meat published studies on the efficacy of TG notice of intent to submit adverse or poultry products. enzyme in cross-linking muscle comments within the scope of this In a previous petition submitted in proteins. FSIS determined that the data rulemaking on or before November 30, June 1997, Ajinomoto requested that demonstrate that TG enzyme is effective 2001. If FSIS receives adverse FSIS permit the use of TG enzyme in in improving texture by increasing comments, a timely withdrawal will be both standardized and non-standardized elasticity and improving cooking yields published in the Federal Register meat and poultry products. In support in standardized meat sausage products, informing the public that the rule will of the petition, Ajinomoto submitted standardized restructured meat not take effect. data to support the generally recognized products, standardized ‘‘roast beef ADDRESSES: Submit adverse comments as safe (GRAS) status of TG enzyme for parboiled and steam roasted’’ meat or notice of intent to submit adverse use as a cross-linking agent in meat and products, and standardized poultry comments within the scope of this poultry products at levels of up to 65 rolls. The Agency also determined that rulemaking to: FSIS Docket Clerk, ppm. As part of its review of the TG enzyme is effective in binding pieces Docket #01–016DF, Room 102, Cotton petition, FSIS asked FDA to evaluate the of whole muscle meat to fabricate or Annex, 300 C Street, SW., Washington, data submitted by Ajinomoto on the reform cuts of meat. FSIS concluded DC 20250–3700. Reference materials safety of TG enzyme for this proposed that the data demonstrate efficacy at 65 cited in this document and any use. In January 1998, FDA sent a letter ppm. However, FSIS found that the comments received will be available for to FSIS that said that, although it has petition contained insufficient data to public inspection in the FSIS Docket not made a determination regarding the support the use of TG enzyme in
VerDate 11
standardized poultry products other sausages, and canned, frozen, or with FSIS, assesses the safety of the than poultry rolls. dehydrated meat food products. There ingredient’s proposed use, while FSIS In support of its request that cuts of are no current allowances in the FSIS evaluates its efficacy and suitability for meat fabricated or reformed using TG regulations for the use of pork collagen use in meat and poultry products. At the enzyme be identified as ‘‘formed’’ or as a binder in standardized meat or time that AMPC and Ajinomoto ‘‘reformed’’ in conjunction with the poultry products. submitted their petitions, substances product name, Ajinomoto claimed that Before petitioning FSIS, AMPC permitted for use in the production of TG enzyme does not change the submitted a GRAS Notification to FDA meat products were listed in the chart essential character of a meat product. concerning the use of pork collagen as of approved substances contained in According to the data presented by a binder in meat products. After former 9 CFR 318.7(c)(4), and Ajinomoto, TG enzyme functions to fuse consulting with FSIS, FDA sent a letter substances permitted to be used in the together muscle tissue, and that whole to AMPC on July 29, 1999, that said that production of poultry products were muscle tissues fused together with the FDA ‘‘has no questions at this time listed in the chart of approved TG enzyme have the same taste, aroma, regarding the conclusion of AMPC that substances contained in former 9 CFR nutritional profile, and other properties pork collagen is GRAS for use as a 381.147(f)(4). Therefore, in its petition, as untreated whole muscle tissue. Thus, binder and purge reducing additive in Ajinomoto requested that FSIS amend Ajinomoto argued, the primary meat and meat type products at a level the chart of substances in former difference between a cut of meat formed of 1–3.5% ‘‘ (GRAS Notice No. GRN §§ 318.7(c)(4) and 381.147(f)(4) to with TG enzyme and an untreated cut 000021). FDA instructed AMPC to include the acceptable use of TG will be the shape or size of the final consult with FSIS regarding the enzyme as a binder and cross-linking product. suitability of the use of pork collagen in agent for sausage and other standardized Because muscle fibers treated with TG meat and poultry products, and the meat and poultry products. Likewise, in enzyme will not be aligned as they acceptability of use within the context its petition, AMPC requested that FSIS would be naturally, the Agency does not of the Federal meat and poultry amend the chart of substances in former agree that TG enzyme does not affect the products inspection regulations. §§ 318.7(c)(4) and 381.147(f)(4) to essential character of a product. AMPC has conducted research to include the acceptable use of pork However, the Agency does agree that, support the efficacy of pork collagen as collagen as a binder for sausage and because the primary difference between a binder in sausages and submitted data other standardized meat and poultry a cut of meat formed with TG enzyme with the petition. After evaluating the products. and an untreated cut is the shape of the data submitted by AMPC, FSIS On December 23, 1999, FSIS product, special labeling to alert the determined that the data demonstrate published a final rule, ‘‘Food consumer to the presence of the TG that pork collagen is effective at Ingredients and Sources of Radiation enzyme in the product, such as ‘‘beef reducing purge and improving cooking Listed or Approved for Use in Meat and tenderloin formed with water and yields in those meat sausages whose Poultry Products,’’ designed to improve transglutaminase enzyme,’’ is not standards permit binders, in certain the efficiency of the procedures used by necessary. Therefore, in this direct final standardized cured pork products, and FSIS and FDA to review and approve rule, the Agency is requiring that in non-standardized meat and poultry the use of food ingredients and sources products that are fabricated using TG products. FSIS also determined that the of radiation in the production of meat enzyme bear the term ‘‘formed’’ or data demonstrate efficacy at 3.5% of the and poultry products (64 FR 72168). ‘‘reformed’’ in conjunction with product product formulation. Thus, the Agency Under the new regulations, rather than name. The words ‘‘formed’’ and permits the use of pork collagen, at the listing substances approved for use in ‘‘reformed’’ are appropriate terms to specified levels, in non-standardized the production of meat and poultry identify these products because these meat and poultry products, provided products in the chart of substances terms reveal the material fact that that these products are identified by a contained in former 9 CFR 318.7(c)(4) multiple pieces of meat have been truthful descriptive designation, such as and former 9 CFR 381.147(f)(4), FDA formed to look like a solid piece of ‘‘low fat pork sausage, water and pork now lists food ingredients and sources meat. Otherwise, consumers could be collagen.’’ of radiation that are safe for specific use misled. The product must also declare However, to permit the use of pork in the production of meat and poultry the presence of TG enzyme in the list of collagen in standardized meat and products in its regulations in title 21 of ingredients on the product’s label, as poultry products, the Agency must the CFR. 9 CFR parts 310, 318, 319, and required by 9 CFR 317.2(f)(1) and conduct rulemaking to amend the 381 of the FSIS regulations were 381.118(a)(1). individual product standards. amended to include appropriate cross- On September 27, 1999, AMPC, Inc., Therefore, in response to AMPC’s references to title 21 listings of petitioned FSIS to amend its regulations petition, FSIS is publishing this direct substances and sources of radiation to allow the use of pork collagen, a final rule to amend the standards of approved for use in meat and poultry connective tissue protein, as a binder in identity for certain meat sausages and products. In the final rule, FSIS also sausage as provided in 9 CFR Part 319, certain standardized cured pork created one list of food ingredients at usage levels of up to 3.5% of product products. The Agency is not amending approved for use in the production of formulation. In addition to sausage as other product standards in this meat and poultry products by provided in 9 CFR Part 319, AMPC rulemaking because it found that the combining the listing contained in requested that FSIS allow the use of petition contained insufficient data to former section 318.7(c)(4) with the pork collagen as a binder in other support the suitability of pork collagen listing contained in former section standardized meat and poultry for use in standardized poultry 381.147(f)(4) and moving the combined products, such as cured pork products, products. listing to section 424.21(c). The final luncheon meat, meat food entre´e rule became effective on January 24, products, pies, turnovers, meat snacks, Current Regulatory Requirements 2000. hors d’oeuvres, pizza and specialty In order to permit the use of a food Because FDA now lists food items, meat salads, meat spreads, ingredient in the production of meat or ingredients and sources of radiation barbecued meats, poultry breakfast poultry products, FDA, in consultation approved for use in the production of
VerDate 11
meat and poultry products in its limited to those particular cured pork The following examples are intended regulations, FSIS has stated that it will products. to provide further clarification on the limit substance-specific rulemakings to Because it no longer adds new application of the labeling requirements those necessary to establish specific substances to the list of approved for products that have been fabricated or prohibitions or limitations on the use of substances codified at 9 CFR 424.21(c), reformed using TG enzyme. When the food ingredients in the production of the Agency is amending the standards of surface of two whole beef tenderloins meat or poultry products. Such identity for sausage at 9 CFR 319.140, are fused together to create a product rulemakings are necessary when a fabricated steaks at 9 CFR 319.15(d), with a uniform thickness or portion standard of identity or composition ‘‘roast beef parboiled and steam size, an appropriate name for the prohibits or limits the use of an roasted’’ at 9 CFR 319.81, certain cured product would be ‘‘Formed Beef ingredient. In these instances, the pork products at 9 CFR 319.104, and Tenderloin.’’ However, if TG enzyme is standard of identity must be amended to poultry rolls at 9 CFR 381.159 to permit used to fuse non-intact pieces of beef include the permitted use of the the use of either TG enzyme, pork tenderloin to form a roll that resembles ingredient. FSIS does not intend to add collagen, or both of these substances at a tenderloin, an appropriate name any new substances to the chart the specified levels. The Agency is would be ‘‘Reformed Beef Tenderloin contained in 9 CFR 424.21(c). revising the standards of identity for the Pieces.’’ When a beefsteak is formed by As previously mentioned, FSIS sausages that currently permit the use of treating chopped pieces of meat trim currently permits TG enzyme and pork binders, such as ‘‘breakfast sausage’’ (9 with TG enzyme to fuse the pieces collagen to be used in non-standardized CFR 319.143), ‘‘frankfurter,’’ ‘‘frank,’’ together, an appropriate name for this meat and poultry products, such as meat ‘‘furter,’’ ‘‘hotdog,’’ ‘‘weiner,’’ ‘‘vienna,’’ product would be ‘‘Formed Beefsteak, links or patties, and modified versions ‘‘bologna,’’ ‘‘garlic bologna,’’ Chopped and Shaped.’’ When seam fat of traditional products, such as ‘‘low fat ‘‘knockwurst,’’ and similar products (9 is removed from a cut of meat and the pork sausage, water, and pork collagen CFR 319.180), and ‘‘cheesefurters’’ and cut is then reassembled using TG similar products (9 CFR 319.181), to product,’’ and ‘‘reduced fat breakfast enzyme, an appropriate name for the cross reference 319.140 for the purpose sausage with transglutaminase enzyme,’’ product would be ‘‘reformed’’ in of determining which binders are provided that these products are conjunction with the name of the permitted for use in these products and identified by a truthful descriptive product, for example, ‘‘Reformed Ribeye at what levels. The standards of identity designation (9 CFR 317.2(c)(1), 317.2(e) Steak.’’ for ‘‘braunschweiger’’ (9 CFR The petition did not request that FSIS and 381.117(a)). However, according to 319.182(a)) and ‘‘liver sausage’’ or adopt these labeling requirements for the petitioners, these descriptive ‘‘liverwurst’’ (9 CFR 319.182(b)) permit fabricated or reformed poultry products. designations may confuse some the addition of binders and contain a However, because FSIS has determined consumers or may cause some cross reference to § 319.140 for purposes that TG enzyme is suitable for use in consumers to believe that the product of determining the permissible use of non-standardized poultry products and identified by the descriptive designation these substances in these products. modified versions of traditional poultry is inferior to the traditional Therefore, there is no need to change products, and because it is interested in standardized version. Thus, the these product standards. harmonizing the meat and poultry petitioners requested that, when TG The Agency is also amending 9 CFR inspection regulations, the Agency is enzyme or pork collagen is used as a 317.8(b) of the meat inspection amending 9 CFR 381.129 to require that binder in certain standardized products, regulations to require that, when the labels of poultry products fabricated these products be permitted to be transglutaminase enzyme is used to or reformed using TG enzyme state that identified by a standardized term, such fabricate or reform a cut of meat, the the product has been ‘‘formed’’ or as ‘‘hotdogs’’ or ‘‘breakfast sausage.’’ resulting product’s labeling include a ‘‘reformed’’ as part of the product name. The Final Rule statement to indicate that the product Establishments that choose to use TG has been ‘‘formed’’ or ‘‘reformed’’ as enzyme or pork collagen in their FSIS is amending its meat inspection part of the product name. The Agency products will be required to list these regulations and poultry products has determined that such labeling is substances, in descending order of inspection regulations to permit the use necessary because TG enzyme alters the predominance, in the product’s of TG enzyme as a binder at up to 65 essential character of a product by ingredients statement (9 CFR 317.2(f)(1) ppm of product formulation in sausages making multiple cuts of meat or pieces and 381.118(a)(1)). This will require as provided in 9 CFR part 319, in of muscle tissue appear to be one intact modification of the product’s label and fabricated steaks under 9 CFR 319.15(d), cut or piece of meat, which could the printing of new product labels. in ‘‘roast beef parboiled and steam mislead consumers about the nature of Because the use of these substances at roasted’’ under 9 CFR 319.81, and in this type of product. The Agency has the level that are being provided for by poultry rolls under 9 CFR 319.81. FSIS determined that the terms ‘‘formed’’ and FSIS is not controversial, and because is also amending its meat inspection ‘‘reformed’’ are appropriate descriptive these substances are permitted in non- regulations to permit the use of pork terms. Although it must be revealed in standardized products, FSIS expects no collagen as a binder at up to 3.5% of the ingredients statement, the presence adverse comment to result from the product formulation in sausages whose of TG enzyme need not be disclosed as changes that it is making in this direct standards currently permit binders as part of the product name. The labeling final rule. Therefore, unless the Agency provided in 9 CFR part 319 and cured of these products must still comply with receives written adverse comments pork products as provided in 9 CFR the requirement that a product that has within the scope of this rulemaking, or 319.104. Under § 319.104, binders are been prepared by salting, smoking, a written notice of intent to submit only permitted in certain cured pork drying, cooking, chopping, or otherwise adverse comments within the scope of products, such as ‘‘Ham Water Added,’’ must be so described on the label, this rulemaking, within 30 days, this ‘‘Ham and Water Product-X% of Weight unless the name of the product implies, action will become final 60 days after is Added Ingredients,’’ and ‘‘Ham with or the manner of packaging shows that publication in the Federal Register. If Natural Juices.’’ Under this direct final the product was subject to such written adverse comments within the rule, the use of pork collagen is also preparation (9 CFR 317.2(e)). scope of the rulemaking are received,
VerDate 11
the final rulemaking notice will be establishments must complete FSIS addition, the update is available on line withdrawn, and the Agency will publish Form 7234–1. FSIS program employees through the FSIS Web page located at a proposed rulemaking notice that review FSIS Form 7234–1 to ensure that http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is includes a comment period. the information on the labels complies used to provide information regarding with the regulations. FSIS estimates that FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory it will take 60 minutes to design and Federal Register notices, FSIS public Flexibility Act develop modified product labels in meetings, recalls, and any other types of This rule has been reviewed under accordance with this direct final rule information that could affect or would Executive Order 12866. It has been and 15 minutes to prepare FSIS Form be of interest to our constituents/ determined to be not significant for 7234–1 and submit it, along with the stakeholders. The constituent fax list purposes of E.O. 12866 and therefore, sketch label, to FSIS. consists of industry, trade, and farm has not been reviewed by the Office of Establishments will only need to groups, consumer interest groups, allied Management and Budget (OMB). make the label change once. health professionals, scientific Respondents: Meat and poultry Effect on Small Entities professionals, and other individuals that product establishments. have requested to be included. Through This direct final rule will permit the Estimated Number of Respondents: these various channels, FSIS is able to use of TG enzyme and pork collagen in 992 provide information to a much broader, certain standardized meat food Estimated number of Responses per more diverse audience. For more products. It also prescribes labeling Respondents: FSIS estimates that each information and to be added to the requirements for meat and poultry establishment will modify one product constituent fax list, fax your request to products fabricated or reformed using label. the Congressional and Public Affairs TG enzyme. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Office, at (202) 720–5704. The use of these ingredients is Respondents: 1,240 hours. voluntary and therefore, the impact of Copies of this information collection List of Subjects assessment can be obtained from Lee this direct final rule on small 9 CFR Part 317 establishments is likely to be minimal. Puricelli, Paperwork Specialist, Food FSIS does not believe that any costs Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Food labeling, Meat Inspection. associated with changes to labels will be Room 109 Cotton Annex., Washington, significant. The decision by individual DC 20250–3700. 9 CFR Part 319 Comments are invited on: (a) Whether establishments to use these ingredients Food grades and standards, Food the proposed collection of information will be based on their conclusions that labeling, Meat inspection. the benefits of providing new product to is necessary for the proper functions of meet consumers’ needs outweigh the the Agency, including whether the 9 CFR Part 381 implementation costs. information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency’s Food labeling, Poultry and poultry Executive Order 12988 estimate of the burden of the proposed products. This direct final rule has been collection of information, including the For the reasons discussed in the reviewed under Executive Order 12988, validity of the method and assumptions preamble, FSIS amends 9 CFR Chapter Civil Justice Reform. This final rule: (1) used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, III as follows: Preempts State and local laws and utility, and clarity of the information to regulations that are inconsistent with be collected; (d) ways to minimize the PART 317—LABELING, MARKING this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; burden of the collection of information DEVICES, AND CONTAINERS and (3) does not require administrative on those who are to respond, including proceedings before parties may file suit through use of appropriate automated, 1. The authority citation for part 317 in court challenging this rule. However, electronic, mechanical, or other continues to read as follows: the administrative procedures specified technological collection techniques, or Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18, in 9 CFR 306.5, 381.35, and 590.320 other forms of information technology. 2.53. through 590.370, respectively, must be Comments may be sent to Lee Puricelli, 2. Section 317.8 is amended by exhausted before any judicial challenge see the address above, and to the Desk adding a new paragraph (b)(39) to read of the application of the provisions of Officer for Agriculture, Office of as follows: this direct final rule, if the challenge Information and Regulatory Affairs, involves any decision of an FSIS Office of Management and Budget § 317.8 False or misleading labeling or employee relating to inspection services (OMB) Washington, DC 20253. practices generally; specific prohibitions provided under the FMIA or PPIA. and requirements for labels and containers. Additional Public Notification * * * * * Paperwork Requirements Public awareness of all segments of (b) * * * Abstract: FSIS has submitted an rulemaking and policy development is emergency information collection important. Consequently, in an effort to (39) When transglutaminase enzyme request for the paperwork and record better ensure that minorities, women, is used to bind pieces of meat to form keeping requirements in this direct final and persons with disabilities are aware a cut of meat, or to reform a piece of rule in accordance with the Paperwork of this direct final rule and are informed meat from a multiple cuts, there shall Reduction Act. Establishments that about the mechanism for providing their appear on the label, as part of the choose to use any of the substances comments, FSIS will announce it and product name, a statement that indicates permitted by this final rule will have to provide copies of this Federal Register that the product has been ‘‘formed’’ or make changes to their product labels. publication in the FSIS Constituent ‘‘reformed,’’ in addition to other Estimate of Burden: Establishments Update. FSIS provides a weekly FSIS preparation steps, e.g., ‘‘Formed Beef must develop product labels in Constituent Update, which is Tenderloin’’ or ‘‘Reformed and Shaped accordance with the regulations. To communicated via fax to over 300 Beef Tenderloin.’’ receive approval of the labels, organizations and individuals. In * * * * *
VerDate 11
PART 319—DEFINITIONS AND Product-X% of Weight is Added § 381.129 False or misleading labeling or STANDARDS OF IDENTITY OR Ingredients,’’ and ‘‘Ham with Natural containers. COMPOSITION Juices’’: pork collagen at up to 3.5% of * * * * * the product formulation. Unless their (e) When transglutaminase enzyme is 3. The authority citation for part 319 use is provided for in a regulation in used to bind pieces of poultry to form continues to read as follows: this subchapter, in 9 CFR Chapter III, a cut of poultry, or to reform a piece of Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901–1906; 21 Subchapter E, or in 21 CFR Chapter I, poultry from a multiple cuts of poultry, U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.55. Subchapter A or Subchapter B, or in this there shall appear on the label, as part paragraph, these binders are not of the product name, a statement that 4. Section 319.15 is amended by permitted to be used in combination indicates that the product has been revising paragraph (d) to read as with another such binder listed for use ‘‘formed’’ or ‘‘reformed,’’ in addition to follows: in cured pork products. When any such other preparation steps, e.g., ‘‘Formed § 319.15 Miscellaneous beef products. substance is added to these products, Turkey Thigh Roast’’ or ‘‘Reformed and * * * * * the substance shall be declared in the Shaped Chicken Breast.’’ (d) Fabricated steak. Fabricated beef ingredients statement by its common or 12. Section 381.159 is amended by steaks, veal steaks, beef and veal steaks, usual name in order of predominance. revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: or veal and beef steaks, and similar * * * * * § 381.159 Poultry rolls. products, such as those labeled ‘‘Beef 7. Section 319.140 is amended by (a) Binders or extenders may be added Steak, Chopped, Shaped, Frozen,’’ adding the following new sentence after ‘‘Minute Steak, Formed, Wafer Sliced, in accordance with a regulation in this the phrase ‘‘may contain binders and subchapter, in 9 CFR Chapter III, Frozen,’’ ‘‘Veal Steaks, Beef Added, extenders as provided in a regulation Chopped—Molded—Cubed—Frozen, Subchapter E, or in 21 CFR Chapter I, permitting that use in this subchapter or Subchapter A or Subchapter B. In Hydrolyzed Plant Protein, and in 9 CFR Chapter III, Subchapter E, or Flavoring’’ shall be prepared by addition to the binders referred to in the in 21 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter A or preceding sentence, the following comminuting and forming the product Subchapter B’’: from fresh and/or frozen meat, with or substances are permitted for use as ‘‘In addition to the binders and binders in poultry rolls: without added fat, of the species extenders referred to in the preceding indicated on the label. Such products transglutaminase enzyme at up to 65 sentence, the following two substances ppm. When binding agents are added in shall not contain more than 30 percent may also be used as binders in those fat and shall not contain added water or excess of 3 percent for cooked rolls and sausages in which the use of such class 2 percent for raw rolls, the common extenders. Transglutaminase enzyme at of substances is permitted: pork levels of up to 65 ppm may be used as name of the agent or the term ‘‘Binders collagen at up to 3.5% of the product Added’’ shall be included in the name a binder. Beef cheek meat (trimmed beef formulation and transglutaminase cheeks) may be used in the preparation of the product; e.g., ‘‘Turkey Roll- enzyme at up to 65 ppm of the product Gelatin Added.’’ of fabricated beef steaks only in formulation.’’ accordance with the conditions * * * * * 8. Section 319.143 is amended by prescribed in paragraph (a) of this removing the phrase ‘‘§ 318.7(c)(4) of Done at Washington, DC, on: October 25, section. 2001. this subchapter’’, and adding ‘‘§ 319.140 * * * * * of this part’’ in its place. Thomas J. Billy, 5. Section 319.81 is amended by Administrator. 9. Section 319.180 is amended by adding the following new sentence after revising paragraph (e) to read as follows [FR Doc. 01–27264 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] the phrase ‘‘shall not exceed 70 percent BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P of the fresh beef weight’’: § 319.180 Frankfurter, frank, furter, ‘‘Transglutaminase enzyme at levels hotdog, weiner, vienna, bologna, garlic bologna, knockwurst, and similar products. of up to 65 ppm may be used as a binder FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD in such product.’’ * * * * * 6. Section 319.104 is amended by (e) Binders and extenders as provided 12 CFR Part 918 revising paragraph (d) to read as in § 319.140 of this part may be used in [No. 2001–25] follows: cooked sausage that otherwise comply § 319.104 Cured pork products. with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. RIN 3069–AB05 When any such substance is added to * * * * * these products, the substance shall be Maintenance of Effort—Minimum (d) The binders provided for use in declared in the ingredients statement by Number of Annual Bank Board of cured pork products in a regulation in its common or usual name in order of Directors Meetings this subchapter, in 9 CFR Chapter III, predominance. Subchapter E, or in 21 CFR Chapter I, AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Subchapter A or Subchapter B, may be * * * * * Board. used singly in those cured pork PART 381—POULTRY PRODUCTS ACTION: Final rule. products labeled as ‘‘Ham Water INSPECTION REGULATIONS Added,’’ ‘‘Ham and Water Product-X% SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance of Weight is Added Ingredients,’’ and 10. The authority citation for part 381 Board (Finance Board) is adopting as ‘‘Ham with Natural Juices.’’ In addition continues to read as follows: final, without change, the interim final to the binders referred to in the rule that amended the maintenance of preceding sentence, the following Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C. effort provision of its regulations to 451–470; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53. substances are permitted for use as eliminate the three-year averaging binders and may be used singly in those 11. Section 381.129 is amended by requirement and to reduce the required cured pork products labeled as ‘‘Ham adding a new paragraph (e) to read as minimum number of in-person board of Water Added,’’ ‘‘Ham and Water follows: directors meetings that a Federal Home
VerDate 11
Loan Bank (Bank) must hold annually to May 14, 2001, the Finance Board continue to maintain its level of oversight of six meetings. published a second interim final rule the management of the Bank. In maintaining its level of oversight, the board of directors DATES: This final rule shall become that further amended the maintenance of effort provision to eliminate the of a Bank shall hold at least six in-person effective on November 30, 2001. meetings in any year. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: three-year averaging requirement and to reduce the required minimum number 12 CFR 918.7. Scott L. Smith, Acting Director, at (202) One commenter interpreted the 408–2991, Patricia L. Sweeney, Program of in-person board of directors meetings that a Bank must hold annually to six changes to the maintenance of effort Analyst, at (202) 408–2872, Office of requirement as a conclusion by the Policy, Research, and Analysis; or meetings. See 66 FR 24263 (May 14, 2001). The May 2001 interim final rule Finance Board that six in-person board Sharon B. Like, Senior Attorney- meetings each year will fully enable the Advisor, at (202) 408–2930, or Thomas also removed the waiver provision of § 918.7(b), because the ability to request directors of a Bank to fulfill their Hearn, Senior Attorney-Advisor, at (202) fiduciary duties to the Bank’s members. 408–2976, Office of the General a waiver of Finance Board regulatory provisions is already provided for in 12 This comment misinterprets the Counsel; or by regular mail at the maintenance of effort requirement. Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F CFR part 907. See id. As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY Section 918.7 requires that, in Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. A INFORMATION section of the May 2001 maintaining its level of oversight of the telecommunications device for deaf interim final rule, these changes were management of the Bank, the Bank shall persons (TDD) is available at (202) 408– made based on arguments by the Banks hold at least six in-person board 2579. that they would be able to conduct their meetings in any year. As the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: business more efficiently and effectively SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of I. Statutory and Regulatory Background by holding only six annual in-person the May 2001 interim final rule board meetings. The Banks indicated explains, if a Bank’s board intends to On December 21, 1999, the Finance that they would be able to continue to hold fewer annual in-person board Board published an interim final rule maintain their level of oversight over meetings than it has held in past years, implementing the specific limits on the management of the Banks by it would be in the board’s best interest annual compensation for the conducting more business at fewer, but to document how it will continue to Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and longer, board meetings, and/or placing meet the maintenance of effort standard other members of a Bank’s board of greater reliance on board committees for and its fiduciary duties regarding the directors imposed by section 7(i) of the the conduct of certain board business. Bank’s safety and soundness. If the Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Act, as The Banks noted that the three-year cannot continue to maintain its level of amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley averaging requirement created a oversight over Bank management with Act (GLB Act) (section 606(b)), Pub. L. standard that varied among the Banks, six board meetings in a given year, then No. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November with, for example, one Bank, based on it would need to hold more board 12, 1999). See 64 FR 71275 (December the standard, already holding only six meetings per year. See 66 FR at 24264. 21, 1999). The interim final rule in-person board meetings annually. The other commenter contended that required each Bank’s board of directors, The Finance Board also determined, the Finance Board should only be notwithstanding the compensation based on a survey of the number of concerned that a Bank’s board of limits, to continue to maintain its level board of directors meetings held in 1999 directors has established sound of oversight of the management of the by a number of financial institution governing processes, and should not Bank (maintenance of effort standard). holding companies and housing pre-determine what governance Consistent with this maintenance of Government-Sponsored Enterprises practices are absolutely required for all effort standard, the interim final rule (GSEs), that requiring at least six in- Banks in all circumstances. As required that each Bank’s board of person Bank board of directors meetings discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY directors hold no fewer in-person in any year is within the range of the INFORMATION section of the March 2000 meetings in any year than it held on number of annual board meetings held final rule, the minimum meetings average over the immediately preceding by such holding companies and GSEs. requirement was adopted for safety and three years (three-year averaging Further, providing the boards of the soundness reasons. While the Finance requirement). Banks with greater discretion in Board acknowledges that decisions on The Finance Board finalized the determining the number of board the number of Bank board meetings interim final rule on March 14, 2000. meetings to hold annually is consistent generally should be within the purview See 65 FR 13663 (March 14, 2000). The with the GLB Act’s emphasis on of the corporate governance final rule revised the minimum devolving governance issues to the responsibilities of the Banks’ boards, the meetings requirement in § 918.7(a) to Banks. Finance Board believes that its safety the lesser of: (1) Nine; or (2) the three- The May 2001 interim final rule and soundness concerns with respect to year averaging requirement. See id. This provided for a 30-day comment period, the Bank boards’ level of oversight of change was made in order to avoid the which closed on June 13, 2001. The Bank management warrant a regulatory vagaries of timing of the pure averaging Finance Board received comment letters response. Accordingly, the Finance requirement and reflect the operational from two Banks, which are discussed Board is retaining the minimum reality at the Banks regarding the below. meetings requirement in the final rule. average number of meetings held over the preceding three years. In addition, II. Analysis of Final Rule III. Regulatory Flexibility Act § 918.7(b) of the final rule clarified that The final rule adopts § 918.7 of the Because no notice of proposed a Bank could apply to the Finance May 2001 interim final rule without rulemaking is required for this final Board for a waiver of the minimum change. Section 918.7 states: rule, the provisions of the Regulatory meetings requirement pursuant to the Notwithstanding the limits on annual Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., do procedures of 12 CFR part 907. See id. directors’ compensation established by not apply. Moreover, the final rule Based on subsequent experience with section 7(i) of the [Bank] Act, as amended, applies only to the Banks, which do not the minimum meetings requirement, on the board of directors of each Bank shall come within the meaning of ‘‘small
VerDate 11
entities’’ as defined in the Regulatory vertical fin, loss of the vertical fin, and dents that crossed a radial tearstrap and Flexibility Act. See id. section 601(6). consequent loss of control of the a crease common to one edge. During airplane. replacement of the damaged web IV. Paperwork Reduction Act DATES: Effective November 5, 2001, to sections of the bulkhead, additional This final rule does not contain any all persons except those persons to damage to the vertical shear beam web collections of information pursuant to whom it was made immediately and to the skin adjacent to the the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. effective by emergency AD 2001–21–51, attachment fittings of the vertical fin at See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Therefore, the issued October 12, 2001, which BS 1016 was found. The vertical shear Finance Board has not submitted any contained the requirements of this beam webs are integral to the information to the Office of amendment. attachment fittings that attach the Management and Budget for review. The incorporation by reference of vertical fin to the fuselage. A shimmy Accordingly, the interim final rule certain publications listed in the event of the main landing gear (MLG) on amending 12 CFR part 918, published at regulations is approved by the Director that airplane also was reported, and was 66 FR 24263 (May 14, 2001), is adopted of the Federal Register as of November so severe that it damaged the MLG and by the Federal Housing Finance Board 5, 2001. resulted in replacement of the right as final without change. Comments for inclusion in the Rules MLG. Dated: October 24, 2001. Docket must be received on or before Subsequent to the first report, three By the Board of Directors of the Federal December 31, 2001. other operators reported similar damage Housing Finance Board. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in to the aft pressure bulkhead on other J. Timothy O’Neill, triplicate to the Federal Aviation Boeing Model 737–700 series airplanes, following severe shimmy events which Chairman. Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, resulted in damage to the MLG. A 0.65- [FR Doc. 01–27389 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] inch crack in the aft pressure bulkhead BILLING CODE 6725–01–P Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM– 310–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., also was found on one of the damaged Renton, Washington 98055–4056. airplanes. Shimmy events are a possible cause of the aft pressure bulkhead DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 damage; however, the actual cause is undetermined. Hard landings and tail Federal Aviation Administration p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be strikes are other possible causes. Such damage, if not fixed, could result in 14 CFR Part 39 submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments may also be sent via the structural failure of the aft pressure [Docket No. 2001–NM–310–AD; Amendment Internet using the following address: 9- bulkhead and consequent uncontrolled 39–12474; AD 2001–21–51] [email protected]. Comments decompression, or loss of structural integrity of the forward support of the RIN 2120–AA64 sent via fax or the Internet must contain ‘‘Docket No. 2001-NM–310-AD’’ in the vertical fin, loss of the vertical fin, and Airworthiness Directives; Boeing subject line and need not be submitted consequent loss of control of the Model 737–600, –700, and –800 Series in triplicate. Comments sent via the airplane. Boeing Model 737–600 and –800 Airplanes Internet as attached electronic files must series airplanes have identical structure be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for AGENCY: Federal Aviation in the subject area and may also be Administration, DOT. Windows or ASCII text. The applicable service information subject to the same unsafe condition ACTION: Final rule; request for may be obtained from Boeing described above. comments. Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box Explanation of Relevant Service SUMMARY: This document publishes in 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Information the Federal Register an amendment This information may be examined at The FAA has reviewed and approved adopting airworthiness directive (AD) the FAA, Transport Airplane Boeing Telegraphic Alert Service 2001–21–51 that was sent previously to Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Bulletin, 737–53A1238, dated October all known U.S. owners and operators of Renton, Washington; or at the Office of 11, 2001, which describes procedures certain Boeing Model 737–600, –700, the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol for a detailed visual inspection for and –800 series airplanes by individual Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. damage of the aft pressure bulkhead at notices. This AD requires a detailed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: body station (BS) 1016 and the forward visual inspection for damage of the aft Scott Fung, Aerospace Engineer, attachment of the vertical fin at body pressure bulkhead at body station (BS) Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, section 48. For airplanes on which 1016 and the forward attachment of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, damage is found, the service bulletin vertical fin at body section 48, and 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, describes procedures for doing an corrective action, if necessary. This Washington; telephone (425) 227–1221; additional detailed visual inspection of action is prompted by a report of fax (425) 227–1181. the vertical beam web installation. The damage to the web of the aft pressure SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On service bulletin also specifies contacting bulkhead at BS 1016. The actions October 12, 2001, the FAA issued Boeing for repair of any damage found, specified by this AD are intended to emergency AD 2001–21–51, which is and reporting inspection results to find and fix damage of the aft pressure applicable to certain Boeing Model 737– Boeing. bulkhead at BS 1016 and the forward 600, –700, and –800 series airplanes. attachment of the vertical fin at body The FAA recently received a report Explanation of Requirements of the section 48, which could result in indicating that an operator found Rule structural failure of the aft pressure damage to the web of the aft pressure Since the unsafe condition described bulkhead and consequent uncontrolled bulkhead at body station (BS) 1016 on is likely to exist or develop on other decompression, or loss of structural a Boeing Model 737–700 series airplane. airplanes of the same type design, the integrity of the forward support of the One section of the web had two large FAA issued emergency AD 2001–21–51
VerDate 11
to find and fix damage of the aft notices issued on October 12, 2001, to have federalism implications under pressure bulkhead at BS 1016 and the all known U.S. owners and operators of Executive Order 13132. forward attachment of the vertical fin at Boeing Model 737–600, –700, and –800 The FAA has determined that this body section 48, which could result in series airplanes; line numbers 1 through regulation is an emergency regulation structural failure of the aft pressure 405 inclusive, and line numbers 466, that must be issued immediately to bulkhead and consequent uncontrolled 585, 590, and 793. These conditions still correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, decompression, or loss of structural exist, and the AD is hereby published in and that it is not a ‘‘significant integrity of the forward support of the the Federal Register as an amendment regulatory action’’ under Executive vertical fin, loss of the vertical fin, and to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Order 12866. It has been determined consequent loss of control of the Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it further that this action involves an airplane. The AD requires a detailed effective to all persons. emergency regulation under DOT visual inspection for damage of the aft Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Comments Invited pressure bulkhead at body station 1016 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is and the forward attachment of the Although this action is in the form of determined that this emergency vertical fin at body section 48, and a final rule that involves requirements regulation otherwise would be corrective action, if necessary. The affecting flight safety and, thus, was not significant under DOT Regulatory actions are required to be accomplished preceded by notice and an opportunity Policies and Procedures, a final in accordance with the service bulletin for public comment, comments are regulatory evaluation will be prepared previously described, except as invited on this rule. Interested persons and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy discussed below. are invited to comment on this rule by of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Differences Between This AD and the submitting such written data, views, or Rules Docket at the location provided Telegraphic Service Bulletin arguments as they may desire. under the caption ADDRESSES. Communications shall identify the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Although the service bulletin Rules Docket number and be submitted specifies that the manufacturer may be in triplicate to the address specified Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation contacted for disposition of certain under the caption ‘‘ADDRESSES.’’ All safety, Incorporation by reference, repair conditions, this AD requires the communications received on or before Safety. repair of those conditions to be the closing date for comments will be Adoption of the Amendment accomplished per a method approved considered, and this rule may be by the FAA, or per data meeting the amended in light of the comments Accordingly, pursuant to the type certification basis of the airplane received. Factual information that authority delegated to me by the approved by a Boeing Company supports the commenter’s ideas and Administrator, the Federal Aviation Designated Engineering Representative suggestions is extremely helpful in Administration amends part 39 of the who has been authorized by the evaluating the effectiveness of the AD Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification action and determining whether part 39) as follows: Office, to make such findings. additional rulemaking action would be The service bulletin also specifies needed. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS doing a detailed visual inspection of the Comments are specifically invited on DIRECTIVES aft pressure bulkhead at body station the overall regulatory, economic, 1016 and the forward attachment of the 1. The authority citation for part 39 environmental, and energy aspects of vertical fin at body section 48 for continues to read as follows: the rule that might suggest a need to damage, within a compliance time that modify the rule. All comments Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. ranges between 5 and 30 days, submitted will be available, both before depending upon airplane grouping. § 39.13 [Amended] and after the closing date for comments, However, this AD also requires doing in the Rules Docket for examination by 2. Section 39.13 is amended by the detailed visual inspection before interested persons. A report that adding the following new airworthiness further flight if a severe shimmy event summarizes each FAA-public contact directive: that damaged the main landing gear, a concerned with the substance of this AD 2001–21–51 Boeing: Amendment 39–12474. hard landing, or a tail strike occurs after will be filed in the Rules Docket. Docket 2001–NM–310–AD. the effective date of this AD. Commenters wishing the FAA to Applicability: Model 737–600, –700, and Interim Action acknowledge receipt of their comments –800 series airplanes; line numbers 1 through submitted in response to this rule must 405 inclusive, and line numbers 466, 585, This is considered to be interim 590, and 793; certificated in any category. action. The inspection reports that are submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane required by this AD will enable the FAA identified in the preceding applicability to complete its evaluation of the need statement is made: ‘‘Comments to provision, regardless of whether it has been for final action. Once final action is Docket Number 2001–NM–310–AD.’’ modified, altered, or repaired in the area developed, approved, and made The postcard will be date stamped and subject to the requirements of this AD. For available, the FAA may consider further returned to the commenter. airplanes that have been modified, altered, or rulemaking. repaired so that the performance of the Regulatory Impact requirements of this AD is affected, the Determination of Rule’s Effective Date The regulations adopted herein will owner/operator must request approval for an Since it was found that immediate not have a substantial direct effect on alternative method of compliance in corrective action was required, notice the States, on the relationship between accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the and opportunity for prior public the national Government and the States, effect of the modification, alteration, or repair comment thereon were impracticable or on the distribution of power and on the unsafe condition addressed by this and contrary to the public interest, and responsibilities among the various AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been good cause existed to make the AD levels of government. Therefore, it is eliminated, the request should include effective immediately by individual determined that this final rule does not specific proposed actions to address it.
VerDate 11
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless flight, do a detailed visual inspection of the Incorporation by Reference accomplished previously. vertical beam web installation for damage, (h) Except as provided by paragraph (d) of To find and fix damage of the aft pressure according to Boeing Telegraphic Alert this AD, the actions shall be done in bulkhead at body station 1016 and the Service Bulletin, 737–53A1238, dated accordance with Boeing Telegraphic Alert forward attachment of the vertical fin at body October 11, 2001. If any damage is found, Service Bulletin, 737–53A1238, dated section 48, which could result in structural before further flight, repair all damage per a October 11, 2001. This incorporation by failure of the aft pressure bulkhead and method approved by the Manager, Seattle reference was approved by the Director of the consequent uncontrolled decompression, or Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. loss of structural integrity of the forward per data meeting the type certification basis 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be support of the vertical fin, loss of the vertical of the airplane approved by a Boeing obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane fin, and consequent loss of control of the Company Designated Engineering Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington airplane; accomplish the following: Representative who has been authorized by 98124–2207. Copies may be inspected at the Inspection the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 findings. For a repair method to be approved (a) Do a detailed visual inspection for Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North damage of the aft pressure bulkhead at body this paragraph, the approval letter must station 1016 and the forward attachment of Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, specifically reference this AD. the vertical fin at body section 48, according DC. to Boeing Telegraphic Alert Service Bulletin, Reporting Requirement (i) This amendment becomes effective on November 5, 2001, to all persons except 737–53A1238, dated October 11, 2001. (e) Submit a report of inspection findings Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this those persons to whom it was made (both positive and negative) to the Manager, immediately effective by emergency AD AD, do the inspections at the time specified Seattle ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, 2001–21–51, issued on October 12, 2001, Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, as applicable. which contained the requirements of this Washington 98055–4056; fax (425) 227–1181; (1) For Group 1 airplanes as identified in amendment. at the applicable time specified in paragraph paragraph 1.A., ‘‘Effectivity,’’ of the service (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD. The report must Issued in Renton, Washington, on October bulletin: Within 5 days after the effective include the following: The approximate date 22, 2001. date of this AD. Ali Bahrami, (2) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in of inspection; whether the shimmy dampers paragraph 1.A., ‘‘Effectivity,’’ of the service were installed subsequent to aircraft delivery; Acting Manager, Transport Airplane bulletin: Within 10 days after the effective a description of any structural damage found Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. date of this AD. and its location, as well as the extent and [FR Doc. 01–27188 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] depth of the damage, or whether structural (3) For Group 3 airplanes as identified in BILLING CODE 4910–13–P paragraph 1.A., ‘‘Effectivity,’’ of the service damage was NOT found; whether any bulletin: Within 30 days after the effective shimmy event, hard landing, engine-out, or date of this AD. tail strike has occurred; the airplane serial DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION number; and the number of landings and Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An flight hours on the airplane. Information Federal Aviation Administration intensive visual examination of a specific collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office structural area, system, installation, or 14 CFR Part 39 assembly to detect damage, failure, or of Management and Budget (OMB) under the irregularity. Available lighting is normally provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of [Docket No. 2001–NM–281–AD; Amendment supplemented with a direct source of good 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been 39–12491; AD 2001–22–12] lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, (1) For airplanes on which the inspection RIN 2120–AA64 magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface is accomplished after the effective date of cleaning and elaborate access procedures this AD: Submit the report within 5 days Airworthiness Directives; Boeing may be required.’’ after performing the inspection required by Model 727 Series Airplanes paragraph (a) of this AD. (b) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (2) For airplanes on which the inspection AGENCY: Federal Aviation (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD: Do the inspection has been accomplished prior to the effective Administration, DOT. at the time specified in those paragraphs, as date of this AD: Submit the report within 5 applicable. ACTION: Final rule; request for (1) For Group 2 or Group 3 airplanes on days after the effective date of this AD. comments. which a severe shimmy event that damaged Alternative Methods of Compliance the main landing gear before the effective SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a (f) An alternative method of compliance or date of this AD, or on which a hard landing new airworthiness directive (AD) that is adjustment of the compliance time that or a tail strike occurred before the effective applicable to all Boeing Model 727 provides an acceptable level of safety may be date of this AD: Do the inspection required used if approved by the Manager, Seattle series airplanes. This action requires by paragraph (a) of this AD at the time ACO, FAA. Operators shall submit their repetitive inspections for migration or specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. requests through an appropriate FAA corrosion of the outer hinge pins that (2) For Group 3 airplanes on which a Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may attach the horizontal stabilizer to the shimmy event that damaged the aircraft add comments and then send it to the interior or the flaps occurred before the vertical fin, and various follow-on effective date of this AD: Do the inspection Manager, Seattle ACO. actions, if necessary. This action also required by paragraph (a) of this AD at the Note 3: Information concerning the provides other repetitive inspections for time specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD. existence of approved alternative methods of cracking or corrosion of the hinge pins, (c) Do the inspection required by paragraph compliance with this AD, if any, may be which terminate the required repetitive (a) of this AD before further flight after any obtained from the Seattle ACO. inspections for migration or corrosion; of the following events occurring after the Special Flight Permits these inspections are optional for effective date of this AD: A severe shimmy airplanes on which no migration or (g) Special flight permits may be issued in event that damaged the main landing gear, a corrosion is found. This action is hard landing, or a tail strike. accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR necessary to find and fix corrosion or Corrective Action 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to cracking in the hinge pins of the (d) If any damage is found during the a location where the requirements of this AD horizontal stabilizer, which could lead inspection required by this AD, before further can be accomplished. to structural degradation of the hinge of
VerDate 11
the horizontal stabilizer and result in degradation of the stabilizer hinge joint those conditions to be accomplished per loss of the horizontal stabilizer and and consequent loss of the horizontal a method approved by the FAA, or per consequent loss of controllability of the stabilizer, which would result in loss of data meeting the type certification basis airplane. This action is intended to controllability of the airplane. of the airplane approved by a Boeing address the identified unsafe condition. Company Designated Engineering Explanation of Relevant Service DATES: Representative who has been authorized Effective November 15, 2001. Information The incorporation by reference of by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft certain publications listed in the The FAA has reviewed and approved Certification Office, to make such regulations is approved by the Director Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727– findings. of the Federal Register as of November 55A0090, Revision 1, dated September • The referenced service bulletin 15, 2001. 20, 2001, which describes procedures recommends accomplishment of the Comments for inclusion in the Rules for repetitive detailed visual inspections repetitive detailed visual and magnetic Docket must be received on or before for migration or corrosion of the outer particle inspections for corrosion or December 31, 2001. hinge pins of the horizontal stabilizer, cracking of the outer and inner hinge ADDRESSES: Submit comments in and various follow-on actions, if pins; and provides initial and repetitive triplicate to the Federal Aviation necessary. The follow-on actions compliance times for these inspections. Administration (FAA), Transport include: However, for airplanes on which no Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, • A torque test (referred to in the migrated, cracked, broken, or corroded Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM– service bulletin as a ‘‘torque check’’) of hinge pins are found, this AD provides 281–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., the nut on the outer hinge pins, and for accomplishment of the repetitive Renton, Washington 98055–4056. reduction of the torque values for the detailed visual and magnetic particle Comments may be inspected at this nut on the outer hinge pins, if inspections as an option which location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., necessary. terminates the requirement for repetitive Monday through Friday, except Federal • Repetitive detailed visual and inspections for pin migration or holidays. Comments may be submitted magnetic particle inspections for corrosion. corrosion or cracking of the outer and via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments Interim Action may also be sent via the Internet using inner hinge pins (which also involves the following address: 9-anm- removal of outer and inner hinge pins, This is considered to be interim [email protected]. Comments sent as necessary, and application of action. The FAA is currently via fax or the Internet must contain corrosion preventative compound or considering requiring, for all airplanes, ‘‘Docket No. 2001-NM–281-AD’’ in the grease on the hinge pins). accomplishment of the inspections in subject line and need not be submitted • Replacement of migrated, cracked, Part 3 and Part 4 of the service bulletin, in triplicate. Comments sent via the or broken hinge pins with new or which—as described above—are Internet as attached electronic files must serviceable hinge pins. specified in this AD as optional for be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Accomplishment of the repetitive airplanes on which no migrated, Windows or ASCII text. detailed visual and magnetic particle cracked, broken, or corroded hinge pins The service information referenced in inspections for corrosion or cracking of are found. However, the planned this AD may be obtained from Boeing the outer and inner hinge pins, as compliance time for such inspections is Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box necessary, including all associated sufficiently long so that notice and 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. actions, eliminates the need for the opportunity for prior public comment This information may be examined at repetitive detailed visual inspections for will be practicable. migration or corrosion of the hinge pins. the FAA, Transport Airplane Determination of Rule’s Effective Date Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Explanation of the Requirements of the Since a situation exists that requires Renton, Washington; or at the Office of Rule the immediate adoption of this the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Since an unsafe condition has been regulation, it is found that notice and Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. identified that is likely to exist or opportunity for prior public comment FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: develop on other airplanes of the same hereon are impracticable, and that good Walter Sippel, Aerospace Engineer, type design, this AD is being issued to cause exists for making this amendment Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, find and fix corrosion or cracking in the effective in less than 30 days. Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, outer hinge pins of the horizontal Comments Invited 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, stabilizer, which could lead to structural Washington 98055–4056; telephone degradation of the hinge of the Although this action is in the form of (425) 227–2774; fax (425) 227–1181. horizontal stabilizer and result in loss of a final rule that involves requirements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA the horizontal stabilizer and consequent affecting flight safety and, thus, was not has received reports of cracks and loss of controllability of the airplane. preceded by notice and an opportunity corrosion in the outer hinge pins that This AD requires accomplishment of the for public comment, comments are attach the horizontal stabilizer to the actions specified in the service bulletin invited on this rule. Interested persons vertical fin on several Boeing Model 727 described previously, except as are invited to comment on this rule by series airplanes. The cracks in the outer discussed below. submitting such written data, views, or hinge pins, which are made of 4330 arguments as they may desire. steel, have been attributed to stress Differences Between This AD and Communications shall identify the corrosion. These cracks often initiate in Service Bulletin Rules Docket number and be submitted corroded areas of the hinge pin not This AD differs from the referenced in triplicate to the address specified protected by chrome plating. Corrosion service bulletin in the following ways: under the caption ADDRESSES. All has also been found on inner fail-safe • The service bulletin specifies that communications received on or before hinge pins. Corrosion or cracking in the the manufacturer may be contacted for the closing date for comments will be outer hinge pins of the horizontal disposition of repair conditions. considered, and this rule may be stabilizer could lead to structural However, this AD requires the repair of amended in light of the comments
VerDate 11
received. Factual information that Rules Docket at the location provided before further flight, do a torque test (referred supports the commenter’s ideas and under the caption ADDRESSES. to in the service bulletin as a ‘‘torque check’’) suggestions is extremely helpful in of the nuts on the outer hinge pins to List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 evaluating the effectiveness of the AD determine the existing torque values and if action and determining whether Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation any hinge pins are cracked or broken, per safety, Incorporation by reference, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–55A0090, additional rulemaking action would be Revision 1. needed. Safety. Submit comments using the following Note 2: Boeing Service Bulletin 727–55– Adoption of the Amendment 0086, Revision 1, dated June 23, 1988, format: • recommends a one-time inspection and Organize comments issue-by-issue. Accordingly, pursuant to the application of primer to prevent corrosion on For example, discuss a request to authority delegated to me by the the outer hinge pins of the horizontal change the compliance time and a Administrator, the Federal Aviation stabilizer on all Boeing Model 727 series request to change the service bulletin Administration amends part 39 of the airplanes. That service bulletin also specifies reference as two separate issues. Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR a reduction of torque values for installing the • For each issue, state what specific part 39) as follows: nuts of the outer hinge pins, which is change to the AD is being requested. intended to prevent stress corrosion cracking. • Include justification (e.g., reasons or PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a data) for each request. DIRECTIVES detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An Comments are specifically invited on 1. The authority citation for part 39 intensive visual examination of a specific the overall regulatory, economic, structural area, system, installation, or environmental, and energy aspects of continues to read as follows: assembly to detect damage, failure, or the rule that might suggest a need to Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good modify the rule. All comments § 39.13 [Amended] submitted will be available, both before lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by and after the closing date for comments, 2. Section 39.13 is amended by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface in the Rules Docket for examination by adding the following new airworthiness directive: cleaning and elaborate access procedures interested persons. A report that may be required.’’ 2001–22–12 Boeing: Amendment 39–12491. summarizes each FAA-public contact (1) For any outer hinge pin that is not Docket 2001-NM–281–AD. concerned with the substance of this AD migrated, cracked, broken, or corroded, will be filed in the Rules Docket. Applicability: All Model 727 series torque the nut on the outer hinge pin within Commenters wishing the FAA to airplanes, certificated in any category. the limits specified in Boeing Alert Service acknowledge receipt of their comments Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane Bulletin 727–55A0090, Revision 1, per that submitted in response to this rule must identified in the preceding applicability service bulletin, and within 180 days after submit a self-addressed, stamped provision, regardless of whether it has been accomplishment of paragraph (a) of this AD, postcard on which the following modified, altered, or repaired in the area do the initial inspection in paragraph (b) of subject to the requirements of this AD. For statement is made: ‘‘Comments to this AD, and applicable follow-on actions. airplanes that have been modified, altered, or (2) For any migrated, cracked, or broken Docket Number 2001-NM–281-AD.’’ The repaired so that the performance of the outer hinge pin that is not corroded: Do postcard will be date-stamped and requirements of this AD is affected, the paragraph (c) of this AD. returned to the commenter. owner/operator must request approval for an (3) For any corroded outer hinge pin: Do alternative method of compliance in paragraph (d) of this AD. Regulatory Impact accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD. The The regulations adopted herein will request should include an assessment of the Repetitive Inspections not have a substantial direct effect on effect of the modification, alteration, or repair (b) For outer hinge pins of the outer the States, on the relationship between on the unsafe condition addressed by this horizontal stabilizer on which the actions in the national Government and the States, AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been Boeing Service Bulletin 727–55–0086, eliminated, the request should include or on the distribution of power and Revision 1, dated June 23, 1988, HAVE been specific proposed actions to address it. accomplished prior to the effective date of responsibilities among the various Compliance: Required as indicated, unless this AD, and airplanes identified in levels of government. Therefore, it is accomplished previously. paragraph (a)(1) of this AD: Within 90 days determined that this final rule does not To find and fix corrosion or cracking in the after the effective date of this AD, except as have federalism implications under hinge pins of the horizontal stabilizer, which provided by paragraph (a) of this AD, do a Executive Order 13132. could lead to structural degradation of the detailed visual inspection for migration or The FAA has determined that this hinge of the horizontal stabilizer and result corrosion of both the outer and inner hinge regulation is an emergency regulation in loss of the horizontal stabilizer and pins, per Part 2 of the Work Instructions of that must be issued immediately to consequent loss of controllability of the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–55A0090, correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, airplane, accomplish the following: Revision 1, dated September 20, 2001. If no migration or corrosion of a hinge pin is and that it is not a ‘‘significant One-Time Inspection and Torque Test, and found, repeat the inspection every 180 days, Follow-On Actions (Certain Airplanes) regulatory action’’ under Executive per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727– Order 12866. It has been determined (a) For outer hinge pins that attach the 55A0090, Revision 1, until paragraph (e) of further that this action involves an horizontal stabilizer to the vertical fin on this AD is accomplished. emergency regulation under DOT which the actions in Boeing Service Bulletin Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 727–55–0086, Revision 1, dated June 23, Follow-On Corrective Actions: Migrated, Cracked, or Broken Hinge Pin FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is 1988, have NOT been accomplished prior to determined that this emergency the effective date of this AD: Within 90 days (c) If any migration of the hinge pin or a regulation otherwise would be after the effective date of this AD, do a one- cracked or broken hinge pin is found during time detailed visual inspection for migration an inspection per paragraph (a) or (b) of this significant under DOT Regulatory or corrosion of the outer hinge pins, per Part AD, but NO corrosion is found: Before further Policies and Procedures, a final 1 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert flight, do all actions in Part 4 of the Work regulatory evaluation will be prepared Service Bulletin 727–55A0090, Revision 1, Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy dated September 20, 2001. If no migration or 727–55A0090, Revision 1, dated September of it, if filed, may be obtained from the corrosion of an outer hinge pin is found, 20, 2001, per paragraph (e) of this AD.
VerDate 11
Note 4: Parts 1 and 2 of the Work through an appropriate FAA Principal United States that may be relevant to the Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin Maintenance Inspector, who may add existence of potential defects and 727–55A0090, Revision 1, refer to Figures 4 comments and then send it to the Manager, hazards associated with products and 5 of that service bulletin as follow-on Seattle ACO. distributed within the United States corrective actions for certain conditions. Note 5: Information concerning the Figures 4 and 5 of that service bulletin should evaluate that information and, if existence of approved alternative methods of necessary, report under section 15(b). specify accomplishment of Parts 3 and 4, compliance with this AD, if any, may be respectively, of the Work Instructions of that obtained from the Seattle ACO. EFFECTIVE DATE: This revision is service bulletin. effective November 30, 2001. Special Flight Permits FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Follow-On Corrective Actions: Corrosion (g) Special flight permits may be issued in Marc Schoem, Director, Division of (d) If any corrosion of a hinge pin is found accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 Recalls and Compliance, Consumer during an inspection per paragraph (a) or (b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Product Safety Commission, of this AD: Do paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to this AD, as applicable. a location where the requirements of this AD Washington. D.C. 20207, telephone— (1) If corrosion is found on the inner hinge can be accomplished. (301) 504–0608, ext. 1365, fax.—(301) pin only: Before further flight, do all actions 504–0359, E-mail address— in Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Incorporation by Reference [email protected]. (h) Except as provided by paragraph (e)(1) Alert Service Bulletin 727–55A0090, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section of this AD, the actions shall be done in Revision 1, dated September 20, 2001, per 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety paragraph (e) of this AD. accordance with Boeing Alert Service (2) If corrosion is found on the outer hinge Bulletin 727–55A0090, Revision 1, dated Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b) requires pin: Before further flight, do all actions in September 20, 2001. This incorporation by manufacturers, distributors, and Part 4 of the Work Instructions of Boeing reference was approved by the Director of the retailers of consumer products to report Alert Service Bulletin 727–55A0090, Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. possible ‘‘substantial product hazards’’ Revision 1, dated September 20, 2001, per 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be to the Commission. In 1978, the paragraph (e) of this AD. obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Commission published in the Federal Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington Optional Inspections Register ‘‘Substantial Product Hazard 98124–2207. Copies may be inspected at the Reports’’, 16 CFR 1115, an interpretative FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 (e) Accomplishment of detailed visual and rule that set forth the Commission’s magnetic particle inspections for corrosion or Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at cracking including all associated actions the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North understanding of this requirement and (such as removal of outer, inner, or outer Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, established procedures for filing such AND inner hinge pins, as applicable, and DC. reports and proffering remedial action to the Commission. That rule addresses the application of corrosion preventative Effective Date compound or grease), per Part 3 or 4, as types of information a firm should applicable, of the Work Instructions of (i) This amendment becomes effective on evaluate in considering whether to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–55A0090, November 15, 2001. report. It does not, however, specifically Revision 1, dated September 20, 2001; AND Issued in Renton, Washington, on October address information about experience accomplishment of applicable follow-on 24, 2001. with products manufactured or sold actions per paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this Ali Bahrami, AD, as applicable; terminates the repetitive outside of the United States. The Acting Manager, Transport Airplane inspections required by paragraph (b) of this Commission has always expected that Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. AD. firms would report when they obtained (1) If any corrosion or cracking is found, [FR Doc. 01–27214 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] reportable information, no matter where replace the outer, inner, or outer AND inner BILLING CODE 4910–13–U that information comes from. Neither hinge pins, as applicable, with new or the statute, nor the rule itself, suggests serviceable pins, per Boeing Alert Service otherwise. Bulletin 727–55A0090, Revision 1, EXCEPT, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY Over the past several years, the where the service bulletin specifies to contact COMMISSION Commission has received reports under Boeing for appropriate action, before further section 15(b) that included information flight, repair per a method approved by the 16 CFR Part 1115 Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office on experience with products abroad and technical data concerning such (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type Substantial Product Hazard Reports certification basis of the airplane approved products. When appropriate, the by a Boeing Company Designated AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission has initiated recalls based Engineering Representative who has been Commission. in whole or in part on that experience. authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to ACTION: Final amendment to In addition, the Bridgestone/Firestone make such findings. For a repair method to interpretative rule. tire recall of 2000 focused public be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as attention on the possible relevance of required by this paragraph, the Manager’s SUMMARY: Section 15(b) of the Consumer information generated abroad to safety approval letter must specifically reference this AD. And, Product Safety Act, requires issues in the United States. Accordingly, (2) Repeat the inspections in Part 3 or 4 of manufacturers, distributors, and to assure that firms who obtain the service bulletin, as applicable, at the retailers of consumer products to report information generated abroad are aware applicable time specified in the ‘‘REPEAT possible substantial product hazards to that they should consider such INSPECTIONS’’ column of the table under the Commission. The Consumer Product information in deciding whether to paragraph 1.E. ‘‘Compliance’’ of Boeing Alert Safety Commission publishes a final report under section 15(b), on January 3, Service Bulletin 727–55A0090, Revision 1. amendment to its interpretative rule 2001, the Commission solicited Alternative Methods of Compliance advising manufacturers, distributors, comments in the Federal Register on a (f) An alternative method of compliance or and retailers how to comply with the proposed policy statement. The adjustment of the compliance time that requirements of section 15(b). The statement set forth the Commission’s provides an acceptable level of safety may be amendment points out that firms that position that firms should evaluate and, used if approved by the Manager, Seattle obtain information concerning products if appropriate, report to the Commission ACO. Operators shall submit their requests manufactured or sold outside of the information concerning products
VerDate 11
manufactured or sold outside of the recognize these differences. These the exercise of due care to ascertain the United States that may be relevant to commentors also noted that U.S. truth of representations.’’ defects and hazards associated with subsidiaries of foreign companies are The existing interpretative rule also products distributed within the United often not in a position to require provides guidance, consistent with States corporate parents to collect and/or section 20, on how the Commission will On June 7, 2001, after considering the forward safety-related information to analyze the facts of each case. In its comments, the Commission published those subsidiaries. They further discussion of the imputation of in the Federal Register a final policy indicated that U.S. subsidiaries will not knowledge to a firm, 16 CFR 1115.11 statement memorializing this position. necessarily be aware of, or be able to notes that ‘‘the Commission will deem Simultaneously, the Commission obtain, information that other a subject firm to know what a proposed for comment an amendment to independent subsidiaries of a common reasonable person acting in the codify this policy guidance as part of foreign parent acquire. Again, the circumstances in which the firm finds the Substantial Product Hazard Reports commentors suggested that the itself would know.’’ The section goes on interpretative rule, 16 CFR 1115. The Commission recognize in the final rule to explain that this imputation extends proposed amendment notes in or its preamble these possible to knowledge that a firm could have substance that information about impediments to the acquisition of obtained, had it exercised due care to product experience, performance, information. ascertain the truth of complaints or design or manufacture outside the The issue of obtaining and evaluating other representations or conducted a United States may be relevant to information from abroad is pertinent to reasonably expeditious investigation to products sold or distributed in the two aspects of reporting—timely evaluate the reportability of a death, United States. It further notes that firms reporting and corrective action. With grievous bodily injury, or other should study and evaluate such respect to the first aspect—failing to information. Under section 115.11, the ‘‘reasonable information under section 15(b). report in a timely manner or not at all, Discussion: The Commission received person’’ standard applies to a firm’s the Commission believes that the four comments in response to the accountability for failure to obtain commentors may have misconstrued the proposed amendment. One of these information that exists abroad. intent and scope of the proposed commentors, the CPSC Coalition of the Considerations, such as those described amendment. The Commission National Association of Manufacturers above that may have affected the firm’s recognizes that a number of factors may (‘‘NAM’’), resubmitted comments that it ability to obtain or appreciate the affect the ability of a firm located in the had presented in response to the significance of such information are United States to obtain information from Commission’s January proposed policy certainly relevant to whether a firm abroad, including limitations on the statement. NAM’s resubmission acted reasonably in the circumstances. contended that the Commission’s availability of and access to information. In view of the strictures in the statute response to its comments to that The Commission also appreciates that and the existing interpretative proposal did not take the Coalition’s the nature of corporate business regulation, the Commission believes concerns into account. However, NAM relationships and affiliations may that the commentors’ fears that the did not point to any specific inadequacy impact the ability of a firm to obtain Commission would not take such factors in the Commission’s response, nor did such information. The Commission into account when assessing a firm’s it otherwise elaborate on its contention. further understands that training, compliance with the reporting The Commission, on the other hand, experience, and corporate position, and obligations are unfounded. believes that its response to the NAM differences in product design, use and With respect to the second aspect of comments in the June 7 Federal operating environment from standard reporting—corrective action, as the June Register notice was more than adequate. practices in the United States may affect 7, 2001 final policy statement points The NAM comments largely voiced the the ability of recipients abroad to out, information from abroad may be same hypothetical concerns that appreciate the significance of relevant to the core issue of whether commentors on the original 1977 information that may relate to products some form of remedial action is proposed interpretative rule on to be sold in the United States. necessary to protect American reporting raised. As the June 7 Federal As commentors acknowledged in consumers from defective products that Register notice points out, the their written comments and in present a substantial risk of death or Commission addressed the substance of discussions with the Commission staff, injury. The Commission hopes that all those comments in the preamble to and the evaluation of compliance with the of the commentors to the proposed text of the final rule in 1978. 43 FR reporting obligations requires a case-by- amendment accept that, in evaluating 34988. The Commission believes, case assessment of relevant facts, potential hazards, firms should attempt therefore, that the NAM comments including those relating to the to obtain all reasonably available require no further response. considerations identified above. The information, including that from abroad, a. Imputing Knowledge: The three Consumer Product Safety Act provides in a timely manner to assure that they commentors other than NAM expressed the standard for this evaluation. In the can reach reasoned decisions. Indeed, concern that the proposed amendment context of reporting, section 20, 15 one of the three commentors expressly treated information generated abroad in U.S.C. 2069, only permits the stated its agreement with this the same manner that the Commission assessment of civil penalties against a proposition. The Commission believes views domestically obtained data. In the party who ‘‘knowingly’’ commits a that this perspective is appropriate, commentors’ view, the amendment prohibited act by failing to furnish since the welfare of their domestic should have, but did not, take into information required by section 15(b). customers should be of paramount account differences in data-gathering Section 20(d) of the act defines concern to U.S. companies. capabilities abroad from those within ‘‘knowingly’’ as ‘‘***’’ (2) the b. Two commentors believed that the the United States, as well as perceptions presumed having of knowledge deemed proposed amendment differed of the significance of data that becomes to be possessed by a reasonable man materially from the final policy available. The commentors requested who acts in the circumstances, statement because, unlike the policy that the final rule or its preamble including knowledge obtainable upon statement, the amendment did not
VerDate 11
expressly note that firms had to have official or employee who may examples of information which a subject first obtained information from abroad reasonably be expected to be capable of firm should study and evaluate in order for the obligation to evaluate the appreciating the significance of the to determine whether it is obligated to information to arise. The commentors information.’’ Because this provision report under section 15(b) of the CPSA. feared that the omission signaled a already addresses the commentor’s Such information may include possibility that, in evaluating a firm’s request, no additional revision to the information that a firm has obtained, or compliance with the reporting final amendment is necessary. reasonably should have obtained in requirements, the Commission might d. Products Imported into the United accordance with § 1115.11, about hold a firm responsible for not States: Section 3(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 product use, experience, performance, exercising due diligence to search for U.S.C. 2051(a)(4) classifies importers as design, or manufacture outside the and obtain information that was ‘‘manufacturers’’ under the act, while United States that is relevant to available abroad, but that had not come section 15(b) itself imposes reporting products sold or distributed in the to the firm’s attention. The commentors obligations on manufacturers, United States. All information should be therefore requested that the final distributors, and retailers of consumer evaluated to determine whether it amendment expressly state that a firm products. The Commission notes that suggests the existence of a only needs to review information that it foreign manufacturers export many noncompliance, a defect, or an obtains. products into the United States directly unreasonable risk of serious injury or The Commission believes that the to importers, distributors, and retailers. death: amendment as proposed implicitly In these circumstances, the Commission * * * * * recognized that, in order to have an reminds importers, distributors, and obligation to study and evaluate retailers that they also have obligations Dated: October 24, 2001. information, a firm must first obtain the under section 15 to conduct reasonable Todd Stevenson, information, or be reasonably expected and diligent investigations, and to Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety to have obtained it because, for evaluate and report information about Commission. example, of the firm’s relationship with possible safety defects based on [FR Doc. 01–27316 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] or access to a firm or individual who information they obtain or should BILLING CODE 6355–01–P possesses it. To alleviate the apparent reasonably obtain, including confusion, however, the Commission information from outside the United has included in the final amendment an States. Retailers and distributors should DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE express statement that the information refer to section 1115.13(b) of the that should be evaluated includes interpretative rule for procedures for 32 CFR Part 326 information that a firm ‘‘has obtained, or reporting. reasonably should have obtained in Effective Date: This revision becomes National Reconnaissance Office; NRO accordance with section 1115.11’’ effective 30 days after the date of Privacy Act Program relating to product experience, etc. The publication of the revised final AGENCY: National Reconnaissance Commission has not, however, limited interpretative rule in the Federal Office, DOD. this revision to cover only information Register. that a firm has ‘‘actually’’ obtained, as ACTION: Final rule. List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1115 one commentor requested. As is SUMMARY: The National Reconnaissance discussed infra, both the CPSA and the Administrative practice and Office (NRO) is exempting two Privacy interpretative rule recognize that a firm procedure, Business and industry, Act systems of records. The systems of need not have actually obtained Consumer protection, Reporting and records are QNRO–10, Inspector General information for obligations under recordkeeping requirements. Investigative Records and QNRO–15, section 15(b) to arise, if a reasonable In accordance with the procedures of Facility Security Files. The exemptions person acting in the circumstances in 5 U.S.C. 553 and under the authority of are intended to increase the value of the which the firm finds itself would have the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 system of records for law enforcement obtained the information. Accordingly, U.S.C. 2051 et seq., the Commission purposes, to comply with prohibitions the Commission believes that these amends part 1115 of title 16, Chapter II, against the disclosure of certain kinds of provisions that address the imputation of the Code of Federal Regulations as information, and to protect the privacy of knowledge to a firm dictate against follows: of individuals identified in the systems further limiting the revision to the of records. amendment. Adopting the restriction PART 1115—SUBSTANTIAL PRODUCT EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16, 2001. suggested by the commentor, on the HAZARD REPORTS other hand, could encourage firms to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. avoid seeking reasonably available 1. The authority citation for part 1115 Barbara Freimann at (703) 808–5029. information that could ultimately continues to read as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The support the need for those firms to take Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2061, 2064, 2065, proposed rules were previously corrective action. 2066(a), 2068, 2070, 2071, 2073, 2076, 2079 published on August 17, 2001, at 66 FR c. Recipients of Information: One and 2084. 43138. No comments were received; commentor stated that the rule should 2. Section 1115.12(f) introductory text therefore, the National Reconnaissance reflect that a firm ‘‘obtains’’ information is revised to read as follows: Office is adopting the rules as final. only when an employee of the firm capable of appreciating the significance § 1115.12 Information which should be Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory of the information actually receives it. reported; evaluating substantial product Planning and Review’’ Section 1115.11 of the interpretative hazard. The Director of Administration and rule already states that ‘‘ the * * * * * Management, Office of the Secretary of Commission will deem a firm to have * * * (f) Information which should Defense, hereby determines that Privacy obtained reportable information when be studied and evaluated. Paragraphs Act rules for the Department of Defense the information has been received by an (f)(1) through (7) of this section are are not significant rules. The rules do
VerDate 11
not (1) Have an annual effect on the National Government and the States, or foreign country law enforcement economy of $100 million or more or on the distribution of power and agencies, information may be received adversely affect in a material way the responsibilities among the various which may relate to a case under the economy; a sector of the economy; levels of government. investigative jurisdiction of another productivity; competition; jobs; the agency. The maintenance of this List of Subjects in 32 CFR part 326 environment; public health or safety; or information may be necessary to State, local, or tribal governments or Privacy. provide leads for appropriate law communities; (2) Create a serious 32 CFR part 326 is amended as enforcement purposes and to establish inconsistency or otherwise interfere follows: patterns of activity, which may relate to with an action taken or planned by the jurisdiction of other cooperating another Agency; (3) Materially alter the PART 326—[AMENDED] agencies. budgetary impact of entitlements, 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR (iv) From subsection (e)(2) because grants, user fees, or loan programs, or part 326 continues to read as follows: collecting information to the fullest the rights and obligations of recipients extent possible directly from the subject thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a). individual may or may not be practical issues arising out of legal mandates, the 2. Section 326.17 is amended by in a criminal and/or civil investigation. President’s priorities, or the principles adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as (v) From subsection (e)(3) because set forth in this Executive order. follows: supplying an individual with a form Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory containing a Privacy Act Statement § 326.17 Exemptions. Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) would tend to inhibit cooperation by * * * * * many individuals involved in a criminal The Director of Administration and (f) QNRO–10, Inspector General and/or civil investigation. The effect Management, Office of the Secretary of Investigative Files—(1) Exemption: This would be somewhat adverse to Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy system may be exempt pursuant to 5 established investigative methods and Act rules for the Department of Defense U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is techniques. do not have significant economic impact compiled and maintained by a (vi) From subsection (e)(4) (G) through on a substantial number of small entities component of the agency which (I) because this system of records is because they are concerned only with performs as its principle function any exempt from the access provisions of the administration of Privacy Act activity pertaining to the enforcement of subsection (d). systems of records within the criminal laws. Any portion of this (vii) From subsection (e)(5) because Department of Defense. system which falls within the the requirement that records be Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) may be maintained with attention to accuracy, Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) exempt from the following subsections relevance, timeliness, and completeness of 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), The Director of Administration and would unfairly hamper the investigative (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), (e)(5), Management, Office of the Secretary of process. It is the nature of law (e)(8), (f), and (g). Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy enforcement for investigations to uncover the commission of illegal acts Act rules for the Department of Defense (2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) at diverse stages. It is frequently impose no information requirements (3) Reasons beyond the Department of Defense and impossible to determine initially what that the information collected within (i) From subsection (c)(3) because the information is accurate, relevant, timely, the Department of Defense is necessary release of accounting of disclosure and least of all complete. With the and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, would inform a subject that he or she is passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or known as the Privacy Act of 1974. under investigation. This information untimely information may acquire new would provide considerable advantage significance as further investigation Section 202, Public Law 104–4, to the subject in providing him or her brings new details to light. (viii) From ‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ with knowledge concerning the nature subsection (e)(8) because the notice The Director of Administration and of the investigation and the coordinated requirements of this provision could Management, Office of the Secretary of investigative efforts and techniques present a serious impediment to law Defense, hereby certifies that the employed by the cooperating agencies. enforcement by revealing investigative Privacy Act rulemaking for the This would greatly impede the NRO IG’s techniques, procedures, and existence of Department of Defense does not involve criminal law enforcement. confidential investigations. a Federal mandate that may result in the (ii) From subsection (c)(4) and (d), (ix) From subsection (f) because the expenditure by State, local and tribal because notification would alert a agency’s rules are inapplicable to those governments, in the aggregate, or by the subject to the fact that an open portions of the system that are exempt private sector, of $100 million or more investigation on that individual is and would place the burden on the and that such rulemaking will not taking place, and might weaken the on- agency of either confirming or denying significantly or uniquely affect small going investigation, reveal investigative the existence of a record pertaining to a governments. techniques, and place confidential requesting individual might in itself informants in jeopardy. provide an answer to that individual Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ (iii) From subsection (e)(1) because relating to an on-going investigation. The Director of Administration and the nature of the criminal and/or civil The conduct of a successful Management, Office of the Secretary of investigative function creates unique investigation leading to the indictment Defense, hereby certifies that the problems in prescribing a specific of a criminal offender precludes the Privacy Act rules for the Department of parameter in a particular case with applicability of established agency rules Defense do not have federalism respect to what information is relevant relating to verification of record, implications. The rules do not have or necessary. Also, due to NRO IG’s disclosure of the record to that substantial direct effects on the States, close liaison and working relationships individual, and record amendment on the relationship between the with other Federal, state, local and procedures for this record system.
VerDate 11
(x) From subsection (g) because this normally afforded under the Privacy Act (1) Exemptions system of records should be exempt to would provide the subject with valuable (i) Investigative material compiled for the extent that the civil remedies relate information that would allow law enforcement purposes may be to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a from interference with or compromise of exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). which this rule exempts the system. witnesses or render witnesses reluctant However, if an individual is denied any to cooperate; lead to suppression, right, privilege, or benefit for which he (4) Exemptions alteration, or destruction of evidence; would otherwise be entitled by Federal (i) Investigative material compiled for enable individuals to conceal their law or for which he would otherwise be law enforcement purposes, other than wrongdoing or mislead the course of the eligible, as a result of the maintenance material within the scope of subsection investigation; and result in the secreting of such information, the individual will (j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 of or other disposition of assets that be provided access to such information U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an would make them difficult or except to the extent that disclosure individual is denied any right, privilege, impossible to reach in order to satisfy would reveal the identity of a or benefit for which he would otherwise any Government claim growing out of confidential source. be entitled by Federal law or for which the investigation or proceeding. he would otherwise be eligible, as a (iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it (ii) Investigative material compiled result of the maintenance of such is not always possible to detect the solely for the purpose of determining information, the individual will be relevance or necessity of each piece of suitability, eligibility, or qualifications provided access to such information information in the early stages of an for federal civilian employment, except to the extent that disclosure investigation. In some cases, it is only military service, federal contracts, or would reveal the identity of a after the information is evaluated in access to classified information may be confidential source. light of other evidence that its relevance exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), (ii) Investigative material compiled and necessity will be clear. but only to the extent that such material solely for the purpose of determining (iv) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) would reveal the identity of a suitability, eligibility, or qualifications because this system of records is confidential source. for federal civilian employment, compiled for investigative purposes and (iii) Therefore, portions of this system military service, federal contracts, or is exempt from the access provisions of of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 access to classified information may be subsections (d) and (f). U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and/or (k)(5) from the exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), (v) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because following subsections of 5 U.S.C. but only to the extent that such material to the extent that this provision is 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and would reveal the identity of a construed to require more detailed (I), and (f). confidential source. disclosure than the broad, generic (2) Authority (iii) Therefore, portions of this system information currently published in the of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 system notice, an exemption from this 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5). U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and/or (k)(5) from the provision is necessary to protect the (3) Reasons following subsections of 5 U.S.C. confidentiality of sources of information (i) From subsection (c)(3) because to 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and and to protect privacy and physical grant access to the accounting for each (I), and (f). safety of witnesses and informants. NRO will, nevertheless, continue to publish disclosure as required by the Privacy (5) Authority such a notice in broad generic terms as Act, including the date, nature, and 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5). is its current practice. purpose of each disclosure and the (vi) Consistent with the legislative identity of the recipient, could alert the (6) Reasons purpose of the Privacy Act of 1974, the subject to the existence of the (i) From subsection (c)(3) because to NRO will grant access to nonexempt investigation or prosecutable interest by grant access to the accounting for each material in the records being the NRO or other agencies. This could disclosure as required by the Privacy maintained. Disclosure will be governed seriously compromise case preparation Act, including the date, nature, and by NRO’s Privacy Regulation, but will by prematurely revealing its existence purpose of each disclosure and the be limited to the extent that the identity and nature; compromise or interfere identity of the recipient, could alert the of confidential sources will not be with witnesses or make witnesses subject to the existence of the compromised; subjects of an reluctant to cooperate; and lead to investigation or prosecutable interest by investigation of an actual or potential suppression, alteration, or destruction of the NRO or other agencies. This could criminal or civil violation will not be evidence. seriously compromise case preparation alerted to the investigation; the physical (ii) From subsections (d)(1) through by prematurely revealing its existence safety of witnesses, informants and law (d)(4), and (f) because providing access and nature; compromise or interfere enforcement personnel will not be to investigative records and the right to with witnesses or make witnesses endangered, the privacy of third parties contest the contents of those records reluctant to cooperate; and lead to will not be violated; and that the and force changes to be made to the suppression, alteration, or destruction of disclosure would not otherwise impede information contained therein would evidence. effective law enforcement. Whenever seriously interfere with and thwart the (ii) From subsections (d) and (f) possible, information of the above orderly and unbiased conduct of the because providing access to nature will be deleted from the investigation and impede case investigative records and the right to requested documents and the balance preparation. Providing access rights contest the contents of those records made available. The controlling normally afforded under the Privacy Act and force changes to be made to the principle behind this limited access is would provide the subject with valuable information contained therein would to allow disclosures except those information that would allow seriously interfere with and thwart the indicated above. The decisions to interference with or compromise of orderly and unbiased conduct of the release information from these systems witnesses or render witnesses reluctant investigation and impede case will be made on a case-by-case basis. to cooperate; lead to suppression, preparation. Providing access rights (g) QNRO–15, Facility Security Files. alteration, or destruction of evidence;
VerDate 11
enable individuals to conceal their DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE do not have significant economic impact wrongdoing or mislead the course of the on a substantial number of small entities investigation; and result in the secreting Department of the Navy because they are concerned only with of or other disposition of assets that the administration of Privacy Act would make them difficult or 32 CFR Part 701 systems of records within the impossible to reach in order to satisfy Department of Defense. [Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5] any Government claim growing out of Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork the investigation or proceeding. Privacy Act; Implementation Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) (iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to detect the AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. The Director of Administration and relevance or necessity of each piece of ACTION: Final rule. Management, Office of the Secretary of information in the early stages of an Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy investigation. In some cases, it is only SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy Act rules for the Department of Defense after the information is evaluated in is exempting those records contained in impose no information requirements light of other evidence that its relevance N05211–1, Privacy Act Files and beyond the Department of Defense and and necessity will be clear. Tracking System, and N05720–1, FOIA that the information collected within Request Files and Tracking System, (iv) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) the Department of Defense is necessary when an exemption has been previously because this system of records is and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, claimed for the records in ‘other’ compiled for investigative purposes and known as the Privacy Act of 1974. systems of records. The exemptions are is exempt from the access provisions of Section 202, Public Law 104–4, intended to preserve the exempt status subsections (d) and (f). ‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’. The of records when the purposes Director of Administration and (v) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because underlying the exemption for the Management, Office of the Secretary of to the extent that this provision is original records are still valid and Defense, hereby certifies that the construed to require more detailed necessary to protect the contents of the Privacy Act rulemaking for the disclosure than the broad, generic records. Department of Defense does not involve information currently published in the EFFECTIVE DATE: a Federal mandate that may result in the system notice, an exemption from this October 16, 2001. expenditure by State, local and tribal provision is necessary to protect the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. governments, in the aggregate, or by the confidentiality of sources of information Doris Lama at (202) 685–6545 or DSN private sector, of $100 million or more and to protect privacy and physical 325–6545. and that such rulemaking will not safety of witnesses and informants. NRO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The significantly or uniquely affect small will, nevertheless, continue to publish proposed rule was published on August governments. such a notice in broad generic terms as 17, 2001, at 66 FR 43141. No comments is its current practice. were received therefore the Navy is Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ adopting the rules as final. (vi) Consistent with the legislative The Director of Administration and purpose of the Privacy Act of 1974, the Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Management, Office of the Secretary of NRO will grant access to nonexempt Planning and Review’’ Defense, hereby certifies that the material in the records being Privacy Act rules for the Department of maintained. Disclosure will be governed The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense do not have federalism by NRO’s Privacy Regulation, but will implications. The rules do not have be limited to the extent that the identity Defense, hereby determines that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense substantial direct effects on the States, of confidential sources will not be on the relationship between the compromised; subjects of an are not significant rules. The rules do not: (1) Have an annual effect on the National Government and the States, or investigation of an actual or potential on the distribution of power and criminal or civil violation will not be economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the responsibilities among the various alerted to the investigation; the physical levels of government. safety of witnesses, informants and law economy; a sector of the economy; enforcement personnel will not be productivity; competition; jobs; the List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 701 endangered; the privacy of third parties environment; public health or safety; or Privacy. will not be violated; and that the State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious 32 CFR part 701 is amended as disclosure would not otherwise impede follows; effective law enforcement. Whenever inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by possible, information of the above PART 701—[AMENDED] nature will be deleted from the another Agency; (3) Materially alter the requested documents and the balance budgetary impact of entitlements, 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR made available. The controlling grants, user fees, or loan programs, or part 701, Subpart G continues to read as principle behind this limited access is the rights and obligations of recipients follows: to allow disclosures except those thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 indicated above. The decisions to U.S.C. 552a). release information from these systems President’s priorities, or the principles will be made on a case-by-case basis. set forth in this Executive order. 2. Section 701.118, is amended by adding paragraphs (v) and (w) as Dated: October 19, 2001. Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory follows: L.M. Bynum, Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison The Director of Administration and § 701.118 Exemptions for specific Navy Officer, Department of Defense. Management, Office of the Secretary of record systems. [FR Doc. 01–27185 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy * * * * * BILLING CODE 5001–08–P Act rules for the Department of Defense (v) System identifier and name:
VerDate 11
(1) N05211–1, Privacy Act Files and system, as claimed for the original August 21, 2001, at 66 FR 43820. No Tracking System primary system of which they are a part. comments were received therefore the Department of the Air Force is adopting (2) Exemption (3) Authority: the rules as final. During the processing of a Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory request (which may include access (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7). Planning and Review’’ requests, amendment requests, and (4) Records are only exempt from requests for review for initial denials of pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to The Director of Administration and such requests), exempt materials from the extent such provisions have been Management, Office of the Secretary of other systems of records may in turn identified and an exemption claimed for Defense, hereby determines that Privacy become part of the case record in this the original record and the purposes Act rules for the Department of Defense system. To the extent that copies of underlying the exemption for the are not significant rules. The rules do exempt records from those ‘other’ original record still pertain to the record not: (1) Have an annual effect on the systems of records are entered into this which is now contained in this system economy of $100 million or more or system, the Department of the Navy of records. In general, the exemptions adversely affect in a material way the hereby claims the same exemptions for were claimed in order to protect economy; a sector of the economy; the records from those ‘other’ systems properly classified information relating productivity; competition; jobs; the that are entered into this system, as to national defense and foreign policy, environment; public health or safety; or claimed for the original primary system to avoid interference during the conduct State, local, or tribal governments or of which they are a part. of criminal, civil, or administrative communities; (2) Create a serious actions or investigations, to ensure inconsistency or otherwise interfere (3) Authority protective services provided the with an action taken or planned by 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), President and others are not another Agency; (3) Materially alter the (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7). compromised, to protect the identity of budgetary impact of entitlements, confidential sources incident to Federal grants, user fees, or loan programs, or (4) Records are only exempt from employment, military service, contract, the rights and obligations of recipients pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to and security clearance determinations, thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy the extent such provisions have been and to preserve the confidentiality and issues arising out of legal mandates, the identified and an exemption claimed for integrity of Federal evaluation materials. President’s priorities, or the principles the original record and the purposes The exemption rule for the original set forth in this Executive order. underlying the exemption for the records will identify the specific reasons original record still pertain to the record Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory why the records are exempt from which is now contained in this system Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6). specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a. of records. In general, the exemptions * * * * * The Director of Administration and were claimed in order to protect Management, Office of the Secretary of properly classified information relating Dated: October 19, 2001. Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy to national defense and foreign policy, L.M. Bynum, Act rules for the Department of Defense to avoid interference during the conduct Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison do not have significant economic impact of criminal, civil, or administrative Officer, Department of Defense. on a substantial number of small entities actions or investigations, to ensure [FR Doc. 01–27184 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] because they are concerned only with protective services provided the BILLING CODE 5001–08–P the administration of Privacy Act President and others are not systems of records within the compromised, to protect the identity of Department of Defense. confidential sources incident to Federal DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE employment, military service, contract, Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork and security clearance determinations, Department of the Air Force Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and to preserve the confidentiality and The Director of Administration and integrity of Federal evaluation materials. 32 CFR Part 806b Management, Office of the Secretary of The exemption rule for the original [Air Force Instruction 37–132] Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy records will identify the specific reasons Act rules for the Department of Defense why the records are exempt from Privacy Act; Implementation impose no information requirements specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a. beyond the Department of Defense and AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, (w) System identifier and name that the information collected within DoD. the Department of Defense is necessary (1) N05720–1, FOIA Request Files and ACTION: Final rule. and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, Tracking System SUMMARY: The Department of the Air known as the Privacy Act of 1974. (2) Exemption Force is revising two existing exemption Section 202, Public Law 104–4, During the processing of a Freedom of rules for the Privacy Act systems of ‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ Information Act request, exempt records notices F031 AF SP E, Security The Director of Administration and materials from other systems of records Forces Management Information System Management, Office of the Secretary of may in turn become part of the case (SFMIS) and F44 AF SG Q, Family Defense, hereby certifies that the record in this system. To the extent that Advocacy Program Records. Privacy Act rulemaking for the copies of exempt records from those EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2001. Department of Defense does not involve ‘other’ systems of records are entered FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. a Federal mandate that may result in the into this system, the Department of the Anne Rollins at (703) 588–0561 or DSN expenditure by State, local and tribal Navy hereby claims the same 425–0561. governments, in the aggregate, or by the exemptions for the records from those SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The private sector, of $100 million or more ‘other’ systems that are entered into this proposed rules were published on and that such rulemaking will not
VerDate 11
significantly or uniquely affect small existence of that investigation, provide the encourage those who know of exceptional governments. subject of the investigation with information medical or educational conditions or family that might enable him to avoid detection, and maltreatments to come forward by protecting Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ would present a serious impediment to law their identities and to protect such sources The Director of Administration and enforcement. from embarrassment or recriminations, as Management, Office of the Secretary of (E) From subsection (e)(4)(H) because this well as to protect their right to privacy. It is system of records is exempt from individual essential that the identities of all individuals Defense, hereby certifies that the access pursuant to subsection (j) of the who furnish information under an express Privacy Act rules for the Department of Privacy Act of 1974. promise of confidentiality be protected. Defense do not have federalism (F) From subsection (f) because this system Granting individuals access to information implications. The rules do not have of records has been exempted from the access relating to criminal and civil law substantial direct effects on the States, provisions of subsection (d). enforcement, as well as the release of certain on the relationship between the (G) Consistent with the legislative purpose disclosure accounting, could interfere with National Government and the States, or of the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department ongoing investigations and the orderly on the distribution of power and of the Air Force will grant access to administration of justice, in that it could nonexempt material in the records being result in the concealment, alteration, responsibilities among the various maintained. Disclosure will be governed by destruction, or fabrication of information; levels of government. the Department of the Air Force’s Privacy could hamper the identification of offenders List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 806b Instruction, but will be limited to the extent or alleged offenders and the disposition of that the identity of confidential sources will charges; and could jeopardize the safety and Privacy. not be compromised; subjects of an well being of parents and their children. 32 CFR part 806b is amended as investigation of an actual or potential Exempted portions of this system also follows; violation will not be alerted to the contain information considered relevant and investigation; the physical safety of necessary to make a determination as to PART 806b—AIR FORCE PRIVACY witnesses, informants and law enforcement qualifications, eligibility, or suitability for ACT PROGRAM personnel will not be endangered, the Federal employment and Federal contracts, privacy of third parties will not be violated; and that was obtained by providing an 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR and that the disclosure would not otherwise express or implied promise to the source that part 806b continues to read as follows: impede effective law enforcement. Whenever his or her identity would not be revealed to possible, information of the above nature will the subject of the record. Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 be deleted from the requested documents and * * * * * U.S.C. 552a). the balance made available. The controlling 2. Appendix C to section 806b is principle behind this limited access is to Dated: October 23, 2001. amended by revising paragraph a.(3) allow disclosures except those indicated L.M. Bynum, and paragraph b.(6) to read as follows: above. The decisions to release information Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Appendix C to Part 806b—General and from these systems will be made on a case- Officer, Department of Defense. by-case basis [FR Doc. 01–27186 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Specific Exemptions b. * * * a. General exemptions.*** (6) System identifier and name: F44 AF SG BILLING CODE 5001–08–P (3) System identifier and name: F031 AF Q, Family Advocacy Program Records. SP E, Security Forces Management (i) Exemption: (A) Investigative material Information System (SFMIS). compiled for law enforcement purposes, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (i) Exemption: Parts of this system may be other than material within the scope of exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt Coast Guard information is compiled and maintained by pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if a component of the agency which performs an individual is denied any right, privilege, 33 CFR Part 117 as its principle function any activity or benefit for which he would otherwise be pertaining to the enforcement of criminal entitled by Federal law or for which he [CGD07–01–127] laws. Portions of this system of records may would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) maintenance of the information, the Drawbridge Operation Regulations; SR from the following subsections of 5 U.S.C. individual will be provided access to the 84 Bridge, South Fork of the New 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), information exempt to the extent that River, Mile 4.4, Ft. Lauderdale, Broward (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g). disclosure would reveal the identify of a County, FL (ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). confidential source. NOTE: When claimed, (iii) Reasons: (A) To protect ongoing this exemption allows limited protection of AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. investigations and to protect from access investigative reports maintained in a system ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation criminal investigation information contained of records used in personnel or from regulations. in this record system, so as not to jeopardize administrative actions. any subsequent judicial or administrative (B) Investigative material compiled solely SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh process taken as a result of information for the purpose of determining suitability, Coast Guard District, has approved a contained in the file. eligibility, or qualifications for federal temporary deviation from the (B) From subsection (c)(3) because the civilian employment, military service, federal release of the disclosure accounting, for contracts, or access to classified information regulations governing the operation of disclosures pursuant to the routine uses may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. the SR 84 Bridge across the South Fork published for this system, would permit the 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such of the New River, mile 4.4, Ft. subject of a criminal investigation or matter material would reveal the identity of a Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. under investigation to obtain valuable confidential source. This deviation allows the drawbridge information concerning the nature of that (C) Therefore, portions of the system of owner or operator to not open the investigation which will present a serious records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Bridge from October 29, 2001 to impediment to law enforcement. 552a(c)(3) and (d), but only to the extent that November 3, 2001. This temporary (C) From subsection (c)(4) because an disclosure would reveal the identity of a deviation is required to allow the bridge exemption is being claimed for subsection confidential source. (d), this subsection will not be applicable. (ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and owner to safely complete repairs of the (D) From subsection (d) because access to (k)(5). Bridge. the records contained in this system would (iii) Reasons: From subsections (c)(3) and DATES: This deviation is effective from inform the subject of an investigation of the (d) because the exemption is needed to October 29, 2001 to November 3, 2001.
VerDate 11
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. SUMMARY: This provides notice of the and, therefore, negated State compliance Barry Dragon, Chief, Operations Section, Federal Subsistence Board’s in-season with ANILCA. Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge management actions to protect chinook The Department of the Interior and Section at (305) 415–6743. and chum salmon escapement in the the Department of Agriculture SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SR 84 Kuskokwim River drainage. These (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, Bridge across the South Fork of the New regulatory adjustments and the closures responsibility for implementation of River at Ft. Lauderdale, Broward provide an exception to the Subsistence Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. County, Florida is a single leaf bridge Management Regulations for Public The Departments administer Title VIII with a vertical clearance of 21.0 feet Lands in Alaska, published in the through regulations at Title 50, Part 100 above mean high water (MHW) Federal Register on February 13, 2001. and Title 36, Part 242 of the Code of measured at the fenders in the closed Those regulations established seasons, Federal Regulations (CFR). Consistent position with a horizontal clearance of harvest limits, methods, and means with Subparts A, B, and C of these 40 feet. On October 2, 2001, the Florida relating to the taking of fish and regulations, as revised January 8, 1999, Department of Transportation, the shellfish for subsistence uses during the (64 FR 1276), the Departments drawbridge owner, requested a 2001 regulatory year. established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence deviation from the current operating DATES: The fourth Kuskokwim River regulation in 33 CFR 117.315(b) which Management Program. The Board’s drainage closure and regulatory composition includes a Chair appointed requires the draw of the SR 84 Bridge, adjustment was effective June 17, 2001, mile 4.4 at Fort Lauderdale, to open on by the Secretary of the Interior with through June 19, 2001, for Districts 1 concurrence of the Secretary of signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. and 2. The fifth Kuskokwim River Public vessels of the Unites States, Agriculture; the Alaska Regional drainage closure and regulatory Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; regularly scheduled cruise vessels, tugs adjustment was effective June 24, 2001, with tows, and vessels in distress shall the Alaska Regional Director, National through June 26, 2001, for Districts 1 Park Service; the Alaska State Director, be passed through the draw as soon as and 2. The sixth Kuskokwim River possible. This temporary deviation was Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska drainage closure and regulatory Regional Director, Bureau of Indian requested to allow necessary repairs to adjustment was effective July 1, 2001, the drawbridge in a critical time Affairs; and the Alaska Regional through July 10, 2001, for Districts 1 and Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through sensitive manner. 2. The seventh Kuskokwim River The District Commander has granted the Board, these agencies participate in drainage closure and regulatory the development of regulations for a temporary deviation from the adjustment was effective July 11, 2001, operating requirements listed in 33 CFR Subparts A, B, and C, which establish through July 31, 2001, for Districts 1 and the program structure and determine 117.315(b) to complete repairs to the 2. The eighth Kuskokwim River drawbridge. Under this deviation, the which Alaska residents are eligible to drainage closure and regulatory take specific species for subsistence SR 84 Bridge need not open from adjustment was effective July 27, 2001, October 29, 2001 through November 3, uses, and the annual Subpart D through July 31, 2001, for Districts 1 and regulations, which establish seasons, 2001, except in the event of an 2. emergency with 24 hours advance harvest limits, and methods and means notification. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for subsistence take of species in Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence specific areas. Subpart D regulations for Dated: October 25, 2001. Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife the 2001 fishing seasons, harvest limits, Greg E. Shapley, Service, telephone (907) 786–3888. For and methods and means were published Chief, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast questions specific to National Forest on February 13, 2001, (66 FR 10142). Guard District. System lands, contact Ken Thompson, Because this rule relates to public lands [FR Doc. 01–27386 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Subsistence Program Manager, USDA— managed by an agency or agencies in BILLING CODE 4910–15–U Forest Service, Alaska Region, both the Departments of Agriculture and telephone (907) 786–3592. the Interior, identical closures and adjustments would apply to 36 CFR part DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 242 and 50 CFR part 100. Background The Alaska Department of Fish and Forest Service Game (ADF&G), under the direction of Title VIII of the Alaska National the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF), 36 CFR Part 242 Interest Lands Conservation Act manages sport, commercial, personal (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126) use, and State subsistence harvest on all DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR requires that the Secretary of the Interior lands and waters throughout Alaska. and the Secretary of Agriculture However, on Federal lands and waters, Fish and Wildlife Service (Secretaries) implement a joint program the Federal Subsistence Board to grant a preference for subsistence implements a subsistence priority for 50 CFR Part 100 uses of fish and wildlife resources on rural residents as provided by Title VIII public lands in Alaska, unless the State of ANILCA. In providing this priority, Subsistence Management Regulations of Alaska enacts and implements laws the Board may, when necessary, for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart D; of general applicability that are preempt State harvest regulations for Emergency Closures and consistent with ANILCA and that fish or wildlife on Federal lands and Adjustments—Kuskokwim River provide for the subsistence definition, waters. Drainage preference, and participation specified These emergency closures (restricted AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Fish in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of subsistence fishing schedules) and and Wildlife Service, Interior. ANILCA. In December 1989, the Alaska adjustments were necessary because of Supreme Court ruled that the rural predictions of extremely weak returns of ACTION: Emergency closures and preference in the State subsistence chinook and chum salmon in the adjustments. statute violated the Alaska Constitution Kuskokwim River drainage. These
VerDate 11
emergency actions are authorized and in boundaries of the Yukon Delta National On June 14, 2001, the Federal accordance with 50 CFR 100.19(d) and Wildlife Refuge, within or adjacent to Subsistence Board, acting through the 36 CFR 242.19(d). Denali National Park and Preserve, and delegated field official and in concert within or adjacent to Lake Clark with ADF&G managers and the Kuskokwim River Drainage National Park and Preserve and to close KRSMWG initiated a fourth closure on The Federal Subsistence Board, subsistence harvest on those same Federal waters for the period from June ADF&G, and subsistence users were waters by any residents living outside 17, 2001, through June 19, 2001, in the very concerned that not enough chinook the Kuskokwim Fishery Management Kuskokwim Aera Districts 1and 2 for and chum salmon would be returning to Area. Additionally, any chinook or the subsistence gillnet and fishwheel the Kuskokwim River and its tributaries summer chum salmon taken fisheries. In Kuskokwim Area District 1 in 2001 to meet both spawning incidentally in another fishery must be and 2, fishing for whitefish, suckers and escapement objectives and subsistence released immediately. In other words, if other non-salmon species during closed needs. Adequate spawning escapement you catch a chinook or chum salmon in salmon fishing periods continued to be is necessary to assure sustaining the Federal waters while fishing for sheefish allowed seven days per week with population. Last year, subsistence or pike, you must immediately release gillnets of 4 inches or less stretch mesh salmon harvests in the Kuskokwim it. Although commercial fisheries were that are 60 feet or less in length. Salmon River were among the lowest in the past closed and ADF&G indicated that an caught incidentally in those nets could 12 years. Returns of chinook and chum opening in June or July was highly be kept for subsistence uses. salmon have been extremely poor over unlikely, this action would prevent any On June 22, 2001, the Federal the last 3 years. The expected low runs such opening from occurring on Federal Subsistence Board, acting through the and poor spawning escapements in 2001 waters. Should the runs have come in delegated field official and in concert could jeopardize the viability of future stronger than expected with spawning with ADF&G managers and the returns. Federal and State biologists escapements and subsistence needs KRSMWG initiated a fifth closure on anticipated that the 2001 salmon returns being met, the delegated field manager, Federal waters for the period from June would be critically low, and subsistence as authorized by the Federal 24, 2001, through June 26, 2001, in the needs in some areas may not be met. Subsistence Board, could have removed Kuskokwim Area Districts 1and 2 for The BOF met in January 2001 to this restriction. the subsistence gillnet and fishwheel review the status of salmon returns on On June 1, 2001, the Federal fisheries. This action was necessary due the Kuskokwim River and identified to continued low returns. In Kuskokwim Subsistence Board, acting through the Kuskokwim River chinook and chum Area District 1 and 2, fishing for delegated field official and in concert salmon as stocks of concern. The BOF whitefish, suckers and other non- with ADF&G managers and the then took action to establish a salmon salmon species during closed salmon Kuskokwim River Salmon Management rebuilding plan for the Kuskokwim fishing periods continued to be allowed Working Group (KRSMWG), initiated a River. In addition, ADF&G indicated seven days per week with gillnets of 4 second closure on Federal waters for the that no commercial fishing periods were inches or less stretch mesh that are 60 period from June 3, 2001, through June being considered for June and July for feet or less in length. Salmon caught 5, 2001, in the Kuskokwim Area District the Kuskokwim River, that they incidentally in those nets could be kept 1 for the subsistence gillnet and intended to limit the sport fishery to one for subsistence uses. salmon per person per day, and that fishwheel fisheries (66 FR 33642, June On June 28, 2001, the Federal they would close the sport fishery for 25, 2001). This reduced the subsistence Subsistence Board, acting through the salmon in the entire Kuskokwim River salmon fishing schedule to four days delegated field official and in concert drainage if the runs were weaker than that week. In Kuskokwim Area District with ADF&G managers and the expected. The ADF&G and U.S. Fish & 1, fishing for whitefish, suckers and KRSMWG initiated a sixth closure Wildlife Service personnel conducted other non-salmon species during closed (Sunday through Tuesday of each week) public meetings, produced information salmon fishing periods continued to be on Federal waters for the period from posters, and published news articles to allowed seven days per week with July 1, 2001, through July 10, 2001, in let the local users know about concerns gillnets of 4 inches or less stretch mesh the Kuskokwim Area Districts 1 and 2 regarding the expected low salmon that are 60 feet or less in length. Salmon for the subsistence gillnet and fishwheel returns and advise them regarding the caught incidentally in those nets could fisheries. This action was necessary due restrictions and closures to protect be kept for subsistence uses. to continued low returns. In Kuskokwim spawning escapement. On June 8, 2001, the Federal Area District 1 and 2, fishing for On May 10, 2001, in public forum and Subsistence Board, acting through the whitefish, suckers and other non- after hearing testimony, the Federal delegated field official and in concert salmon species during closed salmon Subsistence Board adopted the first with ADF&G managers and the fishing periods continued to be allowed emergency action closing the chinook KRSMWG initiated a third closure on seven days per week with gillnets of 4 and chum salmon fishery on Federal Federal waters for the period from June inches or less stretch mesh that are 60 waters in the Kuskokwim River drainage 10, 2001, through June 12, 2001, in the feet or less in length. Salmon caught to all users except Federally-qualified Kuskokwim Area Districts 1 and 2 for incidentally in those nets could be kept subsistence users. That closure was for the subsistence gillnet and fishwheel for subsistence uses. 60 days (the maximum amount of time fisheries (66 FR 33642, June 25, 2001). On July 10, 2001, the Federal allowed under 50 CFR 100.19(d) and 36 In Kuskokwim Area District 1 and 2, Subsistence Board, acting through the CFR 242.19(d)) from June 1, 2001, to fishing for whitefish, suckers and other delegated field official and in concert July 30, 2001 (66 FR 32750, June 18, non-salmon species during closed with ADF&G managers and the 2001). This is the period of the majority salmon fishing periods continued to be KRSMWG initiated a seventh closure of chinook and chum salmon run allowed seven days per week with (Friday through Tuesday of each week) passage through the river. The effect of gillnets of 4 inches or less stretch mesh on Federal waters for the period from that action was to close the sport take that are 60 feet or less in length. Salmon July 11, 2001, through July 10, 2001, in for chinook and chum salmon in the caught incidentally in those nets could the Kuskokwim Area Districts 1and 2 Kuskokwim River drainage within the be kept for subsistence uses. for the subsistence gillnet and fishwheel
VerDate 11
fisheries. This action was necessary due Conformance With Statutory and trade that will result from this Federal to continued low returns. In Kuskokwim Regulatory Authorities land-related activity is unknown. The aggregate effect is an insignificant Area District 1 and 2, fishing for National Environmental Policy Act economic effect (both positive and whitefish, suckers and other non- Compliance salmon species during closed salmon negative) on a small number of small fishing periods continued to be allowed A Final Environmental Impact entities supporting subsistence seven days per week with gillnets of 4 Statement (FEIS) was published on activities, such as guides and boat, February 28, 1992, and a Record of inches or less stretch mesh that are 60 fishing tackle, and gasoline dealers. The Decision on Subsistence Management feet or less in length. Salmon caught number of small entities affected is for Federal Public Lands in Alaska unknown; but, the effects will be incidentally in those nets could be kept (ROD) signed April 6, 1992. The final seasonally and geographically-limited in for subsistence uses. rule for Subsistence Management nature and will likely not be significant. On July 25, 2001, the Federal Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, The Departments certify that the Subsistence Board, acting through the Subparts A, B, and C (57 FR 22940– adjustment and emergency closures will delegated field official and in concert 22964, published May 29, 1992) not have a significant economic effect with ADF&G managers and the implemented the Federal Subsistence on a substantial number of small entities KRSMWG initiated an eighth action Management Program and included a within the meaning of the Regulatory (establishing four days of each week) on framework for an annual cycle for Flexibility Act. Federal waters for the period from July subsistence hunting and fishing Title VIII of ANILCA requires the 27, 2001, through July 31, 2001, in the regulations. A final rule that redefined Secretaries to administer a subsistence Kuskokwim Area Districts 1and 2 for the jurisdiction of the Federal preference on public lands. The scope of the subsistence gillnet and fishwheel Subsistence Management Program to this program is limited by definition to fisheries. In Kuskokwim Area District 1 include waters subject to the certain public lands. Likewise, the adjustment and emergency closures and 2, fishing for whitefish, suckers and subsistence priority was published on have no potential takings of private other non-salmon species during closed January 8, 1999, (64 FR 1276.) property implications as defined by salmon fishing periods continued to be Compliance with Section 810 of Executive Order 12630. allowed seven days per week with ANILCA The Service has determined and gillnets of 4 inches or less stretch mesh The intent of all Federal subsistence certifies pursuant to the Unfunded that are 60 feet or less in length. Salmon regulations is to accord subsistence uses Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et caught incidentally in those nets could of fish and wildlife on public lands a seq., that the adjustment and emergency be kept for subsistence uses. priority over the taking of fish and closures will not impose a cost of $100 These regulatory actions were wildlife on such lands for other million or more in any given year on necessary to assure the continued purposes, unless restriction is necessary local or State governments or private viability of the chinook and chum to conserve healthy fish and wildlife entities. The implementation is by salmon runs and provide a long-term populations. A Section 810 analysis was Federal agencies, and no cost is subsistence priority during a period of completed as part of the FEIS process. involved to any State or local entities or limited harvest opportunity. These The final Section 810 analysis Tribal governments. The Service has determined that the closures and adjustments brought the determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD which concluded that the adjustment and emergency closures Federal subsistence fishing regulations meet the applicable standards provided in line with the similar ADF&G action Federal Subsistence Management Program, under Alternative IV with an in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive for unified management and minimized annual process for setting hunting and Order 12988, regarding civil justice confusion under the dual management fishing regulations, may have some local reform. system. impacts on subsistence uses, but the In accordance with Executive Order The Board finds that additional public program is not likely to significantly 13132, the adjustment and emergency notice and comment requirements restrict subsistence uses. closures do not have sufficient under the Administrative Procedure Act federalism implications to warrant the Paperwork Reduction Act (APA) for these emergency closures are preparation of a Federalism Assessment. impracticable, unnecessary, and The adjustment and emergency Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State contrary to the public interest. Lack of closures do not contain information from exercising management authority appropriate and immediate conservation collection requirements subject to Office over fish and wildlife resources on measures could seriously affect the of Management and Budget (OMB) Federal lands. Cooperative salmon run assessment efforts with ADF&G will continued viability of fish populations, approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. continue. adversely impact future subsistence In accordance with the President’s opportunities for rural Alaskans, and Other Requirements memorandum of April 29, 1994, would generally fail to serve the overall The adjustment and emergency ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations public interest. Therefore, the Board closures have been exempted from OMB with Native American Tribal finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. review under Executive Order 12866. Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 553(b)(3)(B) to waive additional public The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have notice and comment procedures prior to (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires evaluated possible effects on Federally implementation of these actions and preparation of flexibility analyses for recognized Indian tribes and have pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to make this rules that will have a significant effect determined that there are no effects. The rule effective as indicated in the DATES on a substantial number of small Bureau of Indian Affairs is a section. entities, which include small participating agency in this rulemaking. businesses, organizations, or On May 18, 2001, the President issued governmental jurisdictions. The exact Executive Order 13211 on regulations number of businesses and the amount of that significantly affect energy supply,
VerDate 11
distribution, or use. This Executive Federal Register on February 13, 2001. the development of regulations for Order requires agencies to prepare Those regulations established seasons, Subparts A, B, and C, which establish Statements of Energy Effects when harvest limits, methods, and means the program structure and determine undertaking certain actions. As these relating to the taking of fish and which Alaska residents are eligible to actions are not expected to significantly shellfish for subsistence uses during the take specific species for subsistence affect energy supply, distribution, or 2001 regulatory year. uses, and the annual Subpart D use, they are not significant energy DATES: This closure was effective July regulations, which establish seasons, actions and no Statement of Energy 13, 2001, through August 31, 2001. harvest limits, and methods and means Effects is required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for subsistence take of species in specific areas. Subpart D regulations for Drafting Information Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife the 2001 fishing seasons, harvest limits, William Knauer drafted this Service, telephone (907) 786–3888. For and methods and means were published document under the guidance of questions specific to National Forest on February 13, 2001, (66 FR 10142). Thomas H. Boyd, of the Office of System lands, contact Ken Thompson, Because this rule relates to public lands Subsistence Management, Alaska Subsistence Program Manager, USDA— managed by an agency or agencies in Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Forest Service, Alaska Region, both the Departments of Agriculture and Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Taylor telephone (907) 786–3592. the Interior, identical closures and Brelsford, Alaska State Office, Bureau of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION adjustments would apply to 36 CFR part Land Management; Rod Simmons, 242 and 50 CFR part 100. Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Background The Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife Service; Bob Gerhard, Alaska Title VIII of the Alaska National Game (ADF&G), under the direction of Regional Office, National Park Service; Interest Lands Conservation Act the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF), Ida Hildebrand, Alaska Regional Office, (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126) manages sport, commercial, personal Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Ken requires that the Secretary of the Interior use, and State subsistence harvest on all Thompson, USDA-Forest Service, and the Secretary of Agriculture lands and waters throughout Alaska. provided additional guidance. (Secretaries) implement a joint program However, on Federal lands and waters, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, to grant a preference for subsistence the Federal Subsistence Board 3101–3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551–3586; 43 U.S.C. uses of fish and wildlife resources on implements a subsistence priority for 1733. public lands in Alaska, unless the State rural residents as provided by Title VIII Dated: October 4, 2001. of Alaska enacts and implements laws of ANILCA. In providing this priority, Kenneth E. Thompson, of general applicability that are the Board may, when necessary, Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest consistent with ANILCA and that preempt State harvest regulations for Service. provide for the subsistence definition, fish or wildlife on Federal lands and Thomas H. Boyd, preference, and participation specified waters. Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of These emergency closures were [FR Doc. 01–27341 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] ANILCA. In December 1989, the Alaska necessary because of predictions of BILLING CODE 3410–11–P and 4310–55–P Supreme Court ruled that the rural extremely weak returns of sockeye preference in the State subsistence salmon in the Redoubt and Salmon statute violated the Alaska Constitution Lakes drainages. These emergency DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and, therefore, negated State compliance actions are authorized and in with ANILCA. accordance with 50 CFR 100.19(d) and Forest Service The Department of the Interior and 36 CFR 242.19(d). the Department of Agriculture Redoubt Lake Drainage 36 CFR Part 242 (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, responsibility for implementation of Since the projected escapement was DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. well below desirable levels for Redoubt The Departments administer Title VIII Lake, the system was closed to provide Fish and Wildlife Service through regulations at Title 50, part 100 for spawning escapement needs. The and Title 36, part 242 of the Code of total return to July 11, 2001, was 1,089 50 CFR Part 100 Federal Regulations (CFR). Consistent sockeye. Usually 16% of the run with Subparts A, B, and C of these returned to the lake by that time. The Subsistence Management Regulations regulations, as revised January 8, 1999, projected escapement is 7,571 fish for for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart D; (64 FR 1276), the Departments the 2001 season. This projection Emergency Closures—Redoubt and established a Federal Subsistence Board represents 21% of the average Salmon Lakes Drainages to administer the Federal Subsistence escapement of 36,000 sockeye during AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Fish Management Program. The Board’s the period 1989–1999 composition includes a Chair appointed and Wildlife Service, Interior. Salmon Lake Drainage ACTION: Emergency closures. by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Salmon Lake was closed since returns SUMMARY: This provides notice of the Agriculture; the Alaska Regional were low, and to avoid excessive Federal Subsistence Board’s in-season Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; harvest effort for this relatively small management actions to protect sockeye the Alaska Regional Director, National sockeye population. Closure of the salmon escapement in the Redoubt and Park Service; the Alaska State Director, nearby Redoubt Lake system could Salmon Lakes drainages. These Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska displace harvest effort in the Sitka regulatory adjustments and the closures Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Sound area to Salmon Lake. The total provide an exception to the Subsistence Affairs; and the Alaska Regional escapement to July 11, 2001, was 320 at Management Regulations for Public Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through Salmon Lake. Past subsistence harvest Lands in Alaska, published in the the Board, these agencies participate in for Salmon Lake has ranged from zero
VerDate 11
to 353 sockeye salmon since monitoring Compliance With Section 810 of The Service has determined and began in 1985. ANILCA certifies pursuant to the Unfunded On July 11, 2001, the Federal The intent of all Federal subsistence Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et Subsistence Board, acting through the regulations is to accord subsistence uses seq., that the emergency closure will not delegated field official and in concert of fish and wildlife on public lands a impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State with ADF&G managers initiated a priority over the taking of fish and governments or private entities. The sockeye salmon closure in the Redoubt wildlife on such lands for other implementation is by Federal agencies, and Salmon Lakes drainages for the purposes, unless restriction is necessary and no cost is involved to any State or period from July 13, 2001, through to conserve healthy fish and wildlife local entities or Tribal governments. August 31, 2001. This action was populations. A Section 810 analysis was necessary due to low sockeye returns. The Service has determined that the completed as part of the FEIS process. emergency closure meets the applicable This regulatory action was necessary The final Section 810 analysis standards provided in Sections 3(a) and to assure the continued viability of the determination appeared in the April 6, 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, sockeye salmon runs and provide a 1992, ROD which concluded that the regarding civil justice reform. long-term subsistence priority during a Federal Subsistence Management In accordance with Executive Order period of limited harvest opportunity. Program, under Alternative IV with an 13132, the emergency closure does not This closure brought the Federal annual process for setting hunting and have sufficient federalism implications subsistence fishing regulations in line fishing regulations, may have some local to warrant the preparation of a with the similar ADF&G action for impacts on subsistence uses, but the Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of unified management and minimized program is not likely to significantly ANILCA precludes the State from confusion under the dual management restrict subsistence uses. exercising management authority over system. Paperwork Reduction Act fish and wildlife resources on Federal The Board finds that additional public lands. Cooperative salmon run notice and comment requirements The emergency closure does not assessment efforts with ADF&G will under the Administrative Procedure Act contain information collection continue. (APA) for this emergency closure is requirements subject to Office of In accordance with the President’s impracticable, unnecessary, and Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum of April 29, 1994, contrary to the public interest. Lack of approval under the Paperwork ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations appropriate and immediate conservation Reduction Act of 1995. with Native American Tribal measures could seriously affect the Other Requirements Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive continued viability of fish populations, Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have adversely impact future subsistence The emergency closure has been evaluated possible effects on Federally opportunities for rural Alaskans, and exempted from OMB review under recognized Indian tribes and have would generally fail to serve the overall Executive Order 12866. determined that there are no effects. The public interest. Therefore, the Board The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 Bureau of Indian Affairs is a finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires participating agency in this rulemaking. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive additional public preparation of flexibility analyses for On May 18, 2001, the President issued notice and comment procedures prior to rules that will have a significant effect Executive Order 13211 on regulations implementation of this action and on a substantial number of small that significantly affect energy supply, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to make this entities, which include small distribution, or use. This Executive effective as indicated in the DATES businesses, organizations, or Order requires agencies to prepare section. governmental jurisdictions. The exact Statements of Energy Effects when number of businesses and the amount of undertaking certain actions. As this Conformance With Statutory and trade that will result from this Federal action is not expected to significantly Regulatory Authorities land-related activity is unknown. The affect energy supply, distribution, or National Environmental Policy Act aggregate effect is an insignificant use, it is not a significant energy action Compliance economic effect (both positive and and no Statement of Energy Effects is negative) on a small number of small required. A Final Environmental Impact entities supporting subsistence Statement (FEIS) was published on activities, such as boat, fishing tackle, Drafting Information February 28, 1992, and a Record of and gasoline dealers. The number of William Knauer drafted this Decision on Subsistence Management small entities affected is unknown; but, document under the guidance of for Federal Public Lands in Alaska the effects will be seasonally and Thomas H. Boyd, of the Office of (ROD) signed April 6, 1992. The final geographically-limited in nature and Subsistence Management, Alaska rule for Subsistence Management will likely not be significant. The Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Departments certify that the emergency Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Taylor Subparts A, B, and C (57 FR 22940– closure will not have a significant Brelsford, Alaska State Office, Bureau of 22964, published May 29, 1992) economic effect on a substantial number Land Management; Rod Simmons, implemented the Federal Subsistence of small entities within the meaning of Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Management Program and included a the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Wildlife Service; Bob Gerhard, Alaska framework for an annual cycle for Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Regional Office, National Park Service; subsistence hunting and fishing Secretaries to administer a subsistence Ida Hildebrand, Alaska Regional Office, regulations. A final rule that redefined preference on public lands. The scope of Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Ken the jurisdiction of the Federal this program is limited by definition to Thompson, USDA-Forest Service, Subsistence Management Program to certain public lands. Likewise, the provided additional guidance. include waters subject to the emergency closure has no potential Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, subsistence priority was published on takings of private property implications 3101–3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551–3586; 43 U.S.C. January 8, 1999, (64 FR 1276). as defined by Executive Order 12630. 1733.
VerDate 11
Dated: October 4, 2001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: from the Commonwealth for NOX and or Kenneth E. Thompson, VOC sources located in the Philadelphia I. Background Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest area. A summary of those comments and Service. On September 20, 1995, April 16, EPA’s responses are provided below. Thomas H. Boyd, 1996, May 2, 1996, July 2, 1997, July 24, A. Comment: PennFuture comments Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. 1998, December 7, 1998, April 9, 1999, that EPA has conducted no independent and April 20, 1999, PADEP submitted technical review, and has prepared no [FR Doc. 01–27342 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which technical support document to survey BILLING CODE 3410–11–P and 4310–55–P establish and impose RACT for several potential control technologies, sources of VOC and/or NOX. This determine the capital and operating rulemaking pertains to eighteen of those costs of different options, and rank these sources. The remaining sources are or ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION options in total and marginal cost per have been the subject of separate AGENCY ton of NOX and VOC controlled. In rulemakings. The Commonwealth’s citing the definition of the term 40 CFR Part 52 submittals consist of plan approvals and ‘‘RACT,’’ and the Strelow Memorandum operating permits which impose VOC [Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator and/or NOX RACT requirements for for Air and Waste Management, EPA, [PA–4176; FRL–7089–5] each source. These sources are all December 9, 1976, cited in Michigan v. Approval and Promulgation of Air located in the Philadelphia area and Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir. Quality Implementation Plans; include: Amerada Hess Corp.; Amoco 1986) and at 62 FR 43134, 43136 Oil Company; Cartex Corporation; Pennsylvania; VOC and NO RACT (1997)], PennFuture appears to X Exxon Company, USA; GATX Terminals Determinations for Eighteen Individual comment that in every situation, RACT Corporation; Hatfield Quality Meats, Sources in the Philadelphia- must include an emission rate. Incorporated; J. L. Clark, Incorporated; Wilmington-Trenton Area PennFuture asserts that EPA should Johnson Matthey, Incorporated; Kurz conduct its own RACT evaluation for AGENCY: Environmental Protection Hastings, Incorporated; Lawrence each source, or at a minimum document Agency (EPA). McFadden Company; Philadelphia a step-by-step review demonstrating the Baking Company; Philadelphia Gas adequacy of state evaluations, to ensure ACTION: Final rule. Works; PPG Industries, Incorporated; that appropriate control technology is SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; applied. The commenter also believes SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA; The that EPA’s failure to conduct its own approve revisions to the Commonwealth Philadelphian Condominium Building; independent review of control of Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Warner Company; and Webcraft technologies has resulted in our Plan (SIP). The revisions were Technologies, Incorporated. proposing to approve some RACT submitted by the Pennsylvania On August 20, 2001, EPA published a determinations that fail to meet the Department of Environmental Protection direct final rule (66 FR 43502) and a terms of EPA’s own RACT standard. (PADEP) to establish and require companion notice of proposed Response: On March 23, 1998 (63 FR reasonably available control technology rulemaking (66 FR 43551) to approve 13789), EPA granted conditional limited (RACT) for eighteen major sources of these SIP revisions. On September 7, approval of Pennsylvania’s generic volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 2001, we received adverse comments on RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters nitrogen oxides (NOX). These sources our direct final rule from the Citizens 121 and 129, thereby approving the are located in the Philadelphia- for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture). definitions, provisions and procedures Wilmington-Trenton ozone On September 26, 2001, (66 FR 49107), contained within those regulations nonattainment area (the Philadelphia we published a timely withdrawal in under which the Commonwealth would area). EPA is approving these revisions the Federal Register informing the require and impose RACT. Subsection to establish RACT requirements in the public that the direct final rule did not 129.91, Control of major sources of NOX SIP in accordance with the Clean Air take effect. We indicated in our August and VOCs, requires subject facilities to Act (CAA). 20, 2001 direct final rulemaking that if submit a RACT plan proposal to both EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is we received adverse comments, EPA the Pennsylvania Department of effective on November 15, 2001. would address all public comments in Environmental Protection (DEP) and to a subsequent final rule based on the EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents proposed rule (66 FR 43551). This is accordance with subsection 129.92, relevant to this action are available for that subsequent final rule. A description entitled, RACT proposal requirements. public inspection during normal of the RACT determination(s) made for Under subsection 129.92, that proposal business hours at the Air Protection each source was provided in the August is to include, among other information: Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 20, 2001 direct final rule and will not (1) A list of each subject source at the Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, be restated here. A summary of the facility; (2) The size or capacity of each Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the comments submitted by PennFuture affected source, and the types of fuel Air and Radiation Docket and germane to this final rulemaking and combusted, and the types and amounts Information Center, U.S. Environmental EPA’s responses are provided in Section of materials processed or produced at Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., II of this document. each source; (3) A physical description Washington, DC 20460; and the of each source and its operating Pennsylvania Department of II. Public Comments and Responses characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air The Citizens for Pennsylvania’s and actual emissions from each affected Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Future (PennFuture) submitted adverse source with supporting documentation; Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. comments on the proposed rule (5) A RACT analysis which meets the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: published by EPA in the Federal requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), Marcia Spink, (215) 814–2104 or by Register on August 20, 2001 to approve including technical and economic e-mail at [email protected]. case-by-case RACT SIP submissions support documentation for each affected
VerDate 11
source; (6) A schedule for Commonwealth to verify and determine comments and provides responses in implementation as expeditiously as if they are consistent with the RACT the final rule pertaining to those practicable but not later than May 15, requirements of the Act and any sources. 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, relevant EPA guidance. EPA does not B. Comment: PennFuture comments recordkeeping and reporting procedures agree, however, that this obligation to that when EPA reviewed Pennsylvania’s proposed to demonstrate compliance review the case-by-case RACT RACT program, it noted that with RACT; and (8) any additional determinations submitted by Pennsylvania coal-fired boilers with a information requested by the DEP Pennsylvania necessarily extends to our rated heat input of equal to or greater necessary to evaluate the RACT performing our own RACT analyses, than 100 million Btu per hour ‘‘are some proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the independent of the sources’ RACT of the largest NOX emitting sources in DEP will approve, deny or modify each plans/analyses (included as part of the the Commonwealth and in the Northeast RACT proposal, and submit each RACT case-by-case RACT SIP revisions) or the United States’’ [63 FR 13789, 13791 determination to EPA for approval as a Commonwealth’s analyses. EPA first (1998)] and as such should have SIP revision. reviews this submission to ensure that numeric emission limitations imposed The conditional nature of EPA’s the source and the Commonwealth as RACT whether or not they install March 23, 1998 conditional limited followed the SIP-approved generic rule presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code approval did not impose any conditions when applying for and imposing RACT 129.93) to guarantee that sources would pertaining to the regulation’s procedures for a specific source. Then EPA achieve quantifiable emissions for the submittal of RACT plans and performs a thorough review of the reductions under the RACT program. analyses by subject sources and technical and economic analyses PennFuture goes on to comment that approval of case-by-case RACT conducted by the source and the state. because EPA has not conducted and determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA If EPA believes additional information documented a technical review of stated that ‘‘* * * RACT rules may not may further support or would undercut Pennsylvania case-by-case RACT merely be procedural rules (emphasis the RACT analyses submitted by the submissions, EPA has not demonstrated added) that require the source and the state, then EPA may add additional that these large boilers are subject to State to later agree to the appropriate EPA-generated analyses to the record. ‘‘numeric emission limitations’’ under level of control; rather the rules must While RACT, as defined for an RACT. EPA must conduct a thorough identify the appropriate level of control individual source or source category, RACT evaluation or review for each for source categories or individual often does specify an emission rate, such source, and must document the sources.’’ such is not always the case. EPA has application of numeric emission limits On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA issued Control Technique Guidelines and quantifiable reductions for each published a rulemaking determining (CTGs) which states are to use as coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input that Pennsylvania had satisfied the guidance in development of their RACT of over 100 million Btu per hour. conditions imposed in its conditional determinations/rules for certain sources Response: Circumstances may exist limited approval. In that rulemaking, or source categories. Not every CTG wherein a state could justify otherwise, EPA removed the conditional status of issued by EPA includes an emission however, in general, EPA agrees with its approval of the Commonwealth’s rate. There are several examples of CTGs PennFuture that coal-fired boilers with generic VOC and NOX RACT regulations issued by EPA wherein equipment a rated heat input of equal to or greater on a statewide basis. EPA received no standards and/or work practice than 100 million Btu per hour should public comments on its action and that standards alone are provided as RACT have numeric emission limitations final rule removing the conditional guidance for all or part of the processes imposed as RACT whether or not they status of Pennsylvania’s VOC and NOX covered. Such examples include the install presumptive RACT (under 25 RACT regulations became effective on CTGs issued for Bulk gasoline plants, Pa.Code 129.93). June 18, 2001. As of that time, Gasoline service stations—Stage I, As provided in the response found in Pennsylvania’s generic VOC and NOX Petroleum Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, II. A, EPA does not agree that it must RACT regulations retained a limited Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent conduct its own technical analysis of approval status. On September 6, 2001 metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical each of the case-by-case RACT (66 FR 46571), EPA proposed to remove products, External Floating roof tanks determinations submitted for each the limited nature of its approval of and Synthetic Organic Chemical RACT source in order to document that Pennsylvania’s generic RACT regulation Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer its RACT requirements include numeric in the Philadelphia area. EPA received manufacturing. (The publication emission limitations. That no comments on that proposal. Final numbers for these CTG documents may determination can be made by EPA action converting the limited approval be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ when it reviews the plan approval, to full approval shall occur once EPA catc/dir1/ctg.txt). consent order, or permit issued to such has completed rulemaking to approve EPA disagrees with PennFuture’s a source as submitted by the either (1) the case-by-case RACT general comment that our failure to Commonwealth as SIP revision. proposals for all sources subject to the conduct our own independent review of PennFuture’s comment did not point to RACT requirements currently known in control technologies for every case-by- a specific instance where a RACT plan the Philadelphia area or (2) for a case RACT determination conducted by approval, consent order or permit sufficient number of sources such that the Commonwealth has resulted in our imposing RACT on a coal-fired boiler the emissions from any remaining proposing to approve some RACT with a rated heat input of equal to or subject sources represent a de minimis determinations that fail to meet the greater than 100 million Btu per hour level of emissions as defined in the terms of our own RACT standard. did, in fact, lack a numerical emission March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR PennFuture submitted comments limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to 13789). specific to the case-by-case RACT PennFuture’s comment, EPA has re- EPA agrees that it has an obligation to determinations for two located in the examined all of the case-by-case RACT review the case-by-case RACT plan Philadelphia area, namely for Kurz- SIP submissions made by the approvals and/or permits submitted as Hastings and GATX Terminals Commonwealth for such sources located individual SIP revisions by Corporation. EPA summarizes those in the Philadelphia area. That re-
VerDate 11
examination, combined with sources of VOC,’’ located within those stating that as of that date there were no information provided by the areas of a state where RACT applies applicable sources in this category. Commonwealth, indicates that each under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. Therefore, the Commonwealth did not case-by-case RACT plan approval, This is referred to as the non-CTG VOC adopt a category RACT regulation for consent order and/or permit for each RACT requirement. Moreover, EPA natural gas/gas processing plants. coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input disagrees that there is a statutory D. Comment: PennFuture cites EPA of equal to or greater than 100 million mandate that a state adopt a source correspondence [letter from Marcia Btu per hour includes a numeric category RACT regulation even for a Spink, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, emission limitation. A listing of each source category where EPA has issued a December 15, 1993] to the source, its plan approval, consent order CTG. There are two statutory provisions Commonwealth which states that and/or permit number and its numerical that address RACT for sources covered establishing any dollar figure in RACT emission limitation has been placed in by a CTG. One provides that states must guidance will not provide for the the Administrative Records for the case- adopt RACT for ‘‘any category of VOC ‘‘automatic’’ selection or rejection of a by-case RACT rulemakings for the sources’’ covered by a CTG issued prior control technology or emission Philadelphia area. to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)]. limitation as RACT for a source or C. Comment: PennFuture asserts that The other provides that states must source category. With regard to the the Commonwealth has not adopted and adopt VOC RACT for all ‘‘VOC sources’’ Pennsylvania DEP’s intent to finalize a submitted category RACT rules for all covered by a CTG issued after November NOX RACT Guidance Document for VOC source categories for which federal 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long implementation of its NOX RACT control technique guidelines (CTGs) interpreted the statutory RACT regulation, EPA’s 1993 letter stated that have been issued. The commenter refers requirement to be met either by the document could improperly be used to Appendix 1 of the Technical Support adoption of category-specific rules or by to establish ‘‘bright line’’ or ‘‘cook- Document (dated May 14, 2001), source-specific rules for each source book’’ approaches, particularly for a prepared by EPA in support of its within a category. When initially regulation applicable to many source proposed rule to redesignate the established, RACT was clearly defined categories and suggested that if the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone as a case-by-case determination, but guidance document must include dollar Nonattainment Area (66 FR 29270), to EPA provided CTG’s to simplify the figures/ton, it provide approximate assert that EPA has failed to require the process for states such that they would ranges by source category. PennFuture Commonwealth to submit VOC RACT not be required to adopt hundreds or comments that DEP issued its rules for certain categories of sources. thousands of individual rules. See ‘‘Guidance Document on Reasonably PennFuture specifically names source Strelow Memorandum dated December Available Control Technology for categories such as equipment leaks from 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, Sources of NOX Emissions,’’ March 11, natural gas/gas processing plants, coke 1979. EPA does not believe that 1994, and on pp. 8–9 states that the oven batteries, iron and steel foundries, Congress’ use of ‘‘source category’’ in acceptable threshold is $1500 per ton, and publically owned treatment works one provision of section 182(b)(2) was and that this figure applies to ‘‘all and asserts that the Commonwealth has intended to preclude the adoption of source categories.’’ PennFuture notes neglected a statutory requirement to source-specific rules. that EPA later objected to the $1500 per adopt category RACT regulations for Thus, where CTG-subject sources are ton methodology as ‘‘not generically these and 14 other unnamed VOC located within those areas of a state acceptable to EPA’’ [letter from Thomas source categories. where RACT applies under Part D of the Maslany, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, Response: EPA has not issued CTGs Act, the state is obligated to impose June 24, 1997] and further stated in a for coke oven batteries, iron and steel RACT for the same universe of sources Federal Register notice that a ‘‘dollar foundries and publically owned covered by the CTG. However, that per ton threshold’’ is ‘‘inconsistent with treatment works. The Appendix 1, obligation is not required to be met by the definition of RACT’’ [62 FR 43134, referred to by the commenter, lists CTG the adoption and submittal of a source 37–38 (1997)]. covered categories as well as source category RACT rule. A state may, PennFuture comments that EPA is categories taken from two STAPPA/ instead, opt to impose RACT for such proposing to approve RACT ALAPCO documents entitled, ‘‘Meeting sources in permits, plan approvals, determinations based on a cost per ton the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress consent orders or in any other state method that EPA had previously Requirement Under the Clean Air Act— enforceable document and submit those rejected, and according to its own A Menu of Options’’ (September 1993) documents to EPA for approval as clearly expressed standard, EPA must and ‘‘Controlling Nitrogen Oxides source-specific SIP revisions. This not approve RACT determinations by Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of option has been exercised by many Pennsylvania DEP that apply this $1500 Options’’ (July 1994). The categories states, and happens most commonly per ton threshold. PennFuture asserts referenced by PennFuture are not VOC when only a few CTG-subject sources EPA must reject all Pennsylvania RACT categories for which EPA has issued are located in the state. The source- determinations applying the standard of CTGs, but were included in Appendix A specific approach is generally employed $1500 per ton, or any other ‘‘bright line’’ as examples of some of the types of to avoid what can be a lengthy and approach, as failing to follow EPA sources that could be subject to resource-intensive state rule adoption procedures established for Pennsylvania Pennsylvania’s generic RACT process for only a few sources that may RACT. regulations. The Commonwealth is have different needs and considerations Response: EPA still takes the position under no statutory obligation to adopt that must be taken into account. that a single cost per ton dollar figure RACT rules for source categories for As stated earlier, there is one source may not, in and of itself, form the basis which EPA has not issued a CTG. In category explicitly included in for rejecting a control technology, fact, CTGs do not exist for all but one PennFuture’s comment for which EPA equipment standard, or work practice of the categories to which the has issued a CTG, namely natural gas/ standard as RACT. The Technical commenter explicitly refers. gas processing plants. The Support Document prepared by EPA in The Act requires that states adopt Commonwealth made a negative support of its March 23, 1998 regulations to impose RACT for ‘‘major declaration to EPA on April 13, 1993, rulemaking [63 FR 13789] clearly
VerDate 11
indicates that the Commonwealth’s was based solely on a conclusion that baseline from which further emission document, ‘‘Guidance Document on controls that cost more than $1500/ton reductions may be calculated and Reasonably Available Control were not required as RACT. As assumed creditable under the Technology for Sources of NOX explained in the response provided in Commonwealth’s SIP-approved NSR Emissions.’’ March 11, 1994, had not section II. A. of this document, EPA and ERC program. Moreover, EPA’s been included as part of the SIP conducts its review of the entire case- review of the Pennsylvania DEP’s submission of the Commonwealth’s by-case RACT SIP submittal including implementation of its approved SIP- generic regulation and, therefore, had the source’s proposed RACT plan and approved NSR and ERC program not been approved by EPA. EPA further analyses, Pennsylvania’s analyses and indicates that the Commonwealth notes that the Administrative Record of the RACT plan approval, consent order calculates and credits ERCs in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR or permit itself to insure that the accordance with the SIP-approved 13789], in addition to the requirements of the SIP-approved criteria for doing so as outlined in correspondence cited by PennFuture, generic RACT have been followed. PennFuture’s comment. No source for also includes correspondence from DEP These analyses not only evaluate and which EPA is approving a case-by-case to EPA [letter from James Salvaggio, consider the costs of potential control RACT determination should assume DEP to David Arnold, EPA, September options, but also evaluate their that its RACT approval alone 10, 1997] stating that DEP’s RACT technological feasibility. automatically establishes the baseline guidance document does not establish a E. Comment: PennFuture comments against which it may calculate maximum dollar per ton for determining that any emission reduction credits creditable ERCs. the cost effectiveness for RACT (ERCs) earned by sources subject to F. Comment: PennFuture comments determinations and notes that the DEP’s RACT must be surplus to all applicable that as in the case with Pennsylvania $1500 per ton cost effectiveness is a state and federal requirements. Under Power—Newcastle, EPA should target value and not an absolute Pennsylvania law, ERCs must be compare RACT proposals to applicable maximum. For example, in its analyses surplus, permanent, quantified, and acid rain program emission limits and of the cost effectiveness of RACT control Federally enforceable. 25 Pa.Code control strategies. PennFuture contends options submitted by DEP as part of the 127.207(1). As to the requirement that that EPA previously disapproved a case-by-case SIP revision for Peoples ERCs be surplus, the Pennsylvania Code RACT proposal for the Pennsylvania Natural Gas (PNG) Valley Compressor states: ERCs shall be included in the Power—Newcastle plant [62 FR 43959 Station’s turbo charged lean burn IC current emission inventory, and may (1997); 63 FR 23668 (1998)] and that engine (see the Administrative Record not be required by or be used to meet EPA did so on the basis that the acid for 66 FR 43492), the Commonwealth past or current SIP, attainment rain program requires more stringent included DEP interoffice memoranda demonstration, RFP, emission limitation emission limits. PennFuture asserts that (Thomas Joseph to Krishnan or compliance plans. Emission while EPA had originally proposed to Ramamurthy, July 14, 1994 and reductions necessary to meet NSPS, approve this proposal, an analysis of Krishnan Ramamurthy to Thomas LAER, RACT, Best Available comparable boilers and, especially, a McGinley, Babu Patel, Ronald Davis, Technology, BACT and permit or plan comparison to Phase II emission limits Richard Maxwell, and Devendra Verma, approval emissions limitations or under the acid rain program led EPA to July 15, 1994) which spoke directly to another emissions limitation required conclude that the RACT proposal the $1500/ton dollar figure as being a by the Clean Air Act or the [Air emission limits were too lenient. [62 FR Pollution Control Act] may not be used at 43961]. Therefore, PennFuture guideline and not an upper limit. These to generate ERCs. 25 Pa.Code contends that for sources subject to the memoranda explain that although PNG 127.207(1)(i). To be creditable, ERCs acid rain program, EPA should consider initially proposed intermediate original must surpass not only RACT emissions and control strategies for equipment manufacturer (OEM) requirements but a host of other compliance with acid rain emission combustion controls which would have possible sources of emission limits. limits when evaluating proposals for reduced NO emissions from 254.7 tons X PennFuture comments that some of the compliance with RACT. per year to 115 tons per year (by 55 %) RACT evaluations at issue in the current Response: Title IV of the Act, at a cost of $1355 per ton reduced, DEP EPA notices purport to establish RACT addressing the acid rain program, required the installation of an OEM lean as a baseline for future ERCs. contains NOX emission requirements for combustion modification that reduced PennFuture does acknowledge that EPA utilities which must be met in addition NOX emissions from 254.7 tons per year notes in its boilerplate for the notices, to any RACT requirements (see NOX to 76 tons per year (by 69%) at a cost that Pennsylvania and EPA have Supplement to the General Preamble at of $1684 per ton reduced. The DEP’s established a series of NOX-reducing 57 FR 55625, November 25, 1992). The July 15, 1994 interoffice memorandum rules, including the recent Chapter 145 Act provides for a number of control says of the PNG RACT determination rule, to reduce NOX at large utility and programs that may affect similar which exceeded the cost effectiveness industrial sources. See, for example, 66 sources. For example, new sources may screening level of $1500 per ton ‘‘Tom’s FR 42415, 16–17 (August 13, 2001). be subject to new source performance (Joseph) insistence for the next more Because any ERCs must be surplus to standards (NSPS), best available control stringent level of control than the the most stringent limitation applicable technology (BACT), and lowest company’s chosen level in the case of under state or federal law as described achievable emission rate (LAER). Other PNG was consistent with EPA Region in the Pennsylvania Code provision set controls, under such programs as the III’s sentiment that establishing any forth above, DEP and EPA must not acid rain program or the hazardous air dollar figure in RACT guidance will not approve ERCs unless they surpass all pollutant program may also apply to provide for an ‘‘automatic’’ rejection of such limitations in addition to any sources. However, the applicability of a control technology as RACT for a limits set by RACT. these other requirements, which are source.’’ Response: EPA agrees with this often more stringent than RACT, do not In no instance, has EPA proposed to comment by PennFuture. The approval establish what requirements must apply approve a RACT determination of a case-by-case RACT determination, under the RACT program. While these submitted by the Commonwealth which in and of itself, does not establish the programs may provide information as to
VerDate 11
the technical and economic feasibility of effective in favor of minimal work- Loading Terminal Facility, prepared for reduction programs for RACT, there is practice efforts. Therefore, PennFuture GATX Terminals Corporation by Versar, no presumption that acid rain controls comments that the RACT determination Inc., July 14, 1994, p. 12). PennFuture should be mandated as RACT. for Kurz-Hastings merits close review by comments that AMS either overlooked EPA stated in the final disapproval of EPA to determine whether RACT this reference or chose not to require as the NOX RACT determination for PPNC requires a more effective control strategy RACT a highly effective control [63 FR at 23669], that the discussion for VOCs, and as at other plants, EPA technology that, according to the GATX concerning average emission rates for must not approve this RACT proposal consultant, was ‘‘technically viable’’ at boilers with respect to the acid rain without conducting a thorough this plant. PennFuture, therefore, asserts program requirements were included in evaluation of available control that since EPA has promulgated a order to provide a context for EPA’s technology. regulation specifically designating proposed disapproval. EPA made clear Response: EPA disagrees with RACT for sources such as the GATX in its August 18, 1997 proposed PennFuture’s comments. The comment marine vessel loading operation, EPA disapproval of Pennsylvania Powers’— regarding the RACT requirements must not approve a RACT proposal for Newcastle (PPNC) RACT determination, applicable to the printing machines at this operation unless it includes the that the basis for disapproval was a Kurz-Hastings are outside the scope of application of technology required by comparison between PPNC’s boilers and this rulemaking. Those printing EPA in its regulation at 40 CFR, Part 63, other similar combustion units, not acid machines are subject to a SIP-approved Subpart Y. rain limits. In fact, EPA stated in the source category VOC RACT regulation Response: EPA disagrees with August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval adopted by the Commonwealth PennFuture’s comments regarding the that ‘‘Without additional knowledge or pursuant to the Graphic Arts CTG. The marine vessel loading operation at information, it would be erroneous and fact that compliance with that GATX. The federal regulations cited by premature to conclude that the limits in applicable regulation achieves an PennFuture were promulgated at 40 the acid rain permit are RACT.’’ [62 FR approximate 66 percent annual CFR, Part 63, Subpart Y on September at 43961]. EPA clearly stated in the final reduction in VOCs from Kurz-Hastings’ 19, 1995 (61 FR 48399) more than 3 disapproval for PPNC that it did not use printing machines does not require that months after the compliance date acid rain permit limits, or a different or more stringent RACT be imposed in Act for major sources of Pennsylvania’s participation in any explored and imposed on this facility. VOC subject to non-CTG RACT. other NOX control program, to With regard to fugitive emissions from Moreover, the compliance date determine PPNC RACT approvability the mixing room and clean-up promulgated for the RACT standards of [63 FR at 23670]. Nor has EPA intended operations, the work practice standards Subpart Y for sources such as GATX to use participation in NOX control imposed on Kurz-Hastings for its mixing was two years beyond after the programs including acid rain, in room and clean-up operations are regulation’s effective date. Most determining RACT for PPNC or any consistent with RACT determinations relevantly, the 59 ton per year annual other subject sources. EPA also stated routinely made and approved for such limit imposed by AMS (and submitted that the April 30, 1998, PPNC fugitive emission sources at graphic arts by DEP on its behalf as a SIP revision) disapproval was based on the absence of facilities. EPA’s review of the SIP on GATX’s marine vessel loading pertinent information regarding a revision submitted for Kurz-Hastings operation represents a 98.3 percent computerized combustion optimization indicates that the applicable SIP- reduction in VOC emissions from the system through an enforceable permit, approved definitions, provisions and operation’s 3,520 tons per year potential not comparison of acid rain permit procedures have been followed in to emit which is at least as stringent as limits. imposing RACT for this facility. the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, G. Comment: PennFuture submitted (2) GATX Terminals Corporation— Subpart Y. Moreover, GATX’s RACT comments specific to the case-by-case Citing Philadelphia Air Management plan approval (PA–51–5003) requires RACT determinations for two sources Service (AMS) documents, PennFuture the compliance with the 59 ton per year located in the Philadelphia area, namely notes that GATX has the potential to annual limit by the date imposed in Act for Kurz-Hastings, and GATX Terminals emit 12,867 tons per year of VOC as a for major sources of VOC subject to non- Corporation. Bulk Terminal facility, and that its CTG RACT. Environmentally, there is (1) Kurz-Hastings—PennFuture marine vessel loading unit has a no additional benefit that would result comments that the Kurz-Hastings plant potential to emit 3,520 tons of VOC per in disapproving the case-by-case RACT is the second-highest VOC emitter in year. PennFuture then comments that SIP submittal for GATX’s marine vessel Philadelphia with the potential to emit the Philadelphia AMS’s RACT review loading operation. Approval of the case- 3400 tons per year of VOCs. memorandum notes that a permit by-case RACT SIP revision for GATX in PennFuture’s comment recognizes that restriction limits emissions from this no way relieves the source from any Kurz-Hastings’ VOC-emitting processes marine vessel loading operation to 59 otherwise applicable Maximum (several printing machines) are subject tons per year in place of an add-on VOC Available Control Technology (MACT) to SIP-approved category RACT control device. PennFuture goes on to requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart regulations and do not require a case-by- note that, EPA promulgated a National Y. case RACT evaluation. PennFuture Emission Standard for Marine Tank asserts, however, that Kurz-Hastings’ Vessel Loading Operations in 1995, III. Final Action own data show that annual emissions which specifically established RACT for EPA is approving the SIP revisions to from these units are still one-third or such sources at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by more of its potential to emit, suggesting Y. PennFuture notes that the RACT PADEP to establish and require VOC that VOC controls on these units are evaluation submitted by GATX to AMS and/or NOX RACT for 18 major sources only modestly effective. PennFuture in 1994 noted the pendency of this rule, located in the Philadelphia area. EPA is also comments that the case-by-case which requires capture of VOCs and approving Pennsylvania’s RACT SIP RACT evaluation of Kurz-Hastings’ routing for combustion or recovery at an submittals because the AMS and PADEP mixing room operations, rejects control efficiency of up to 98 percent (RACT established and imposed these RACT technologies that are up to 99% Proposal for a Marine Tank Vessel requirements in accordance with the
VerDate 11
criteria set forth in the SIP-approved Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), be challenged later in proceedings to RACT regulations applicable to these because it is not economically enforce its requirements. (See section sources. The AMS and PADEP have also significant. In reviewing SIP 307(b)(2).) imposed record-keeping, monitoring, submissions, EPA’s role is to approve List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 and testing requirements on these state choices, provided that they meet sources sufficient to determine the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this Environmental protection, Air compliance with the applicable RACT context, in the absence of a prior pollution control, Hydrocarbons, determinations. existing requirement for the State to use Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen voluntary consensus standards (VCS), dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and IV. Administrative Requirements EPA has no authority to disapprove a recordkeeping requirements. A. General Requirements SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Dated: October 15, 2001. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR It would thus be inconsistent with James W. Newsom, 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is applicable law for EPA, when it reviews Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. a SIP submission, to use VCS in place not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: therefore is not subject to review by the of a SIP submission that otherwise Office of Management and Budget. For satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air PART 52—[AMENDED] this reason, this action is also not Act. Thus, the requirements of section 1. The authority citation for Part 52 subject to Executive Order 13211, 12(d) of the National Technology continues to read as follows: ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May rule does not impose an information Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 22, 2001). This action merely approves collection burden under the provisions state law as meeting Federal of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 2. Section 52.2020 is amended by requirements and imposes no additional adding paragraph (c)(156) to read as requirements beyond those imposed by B. Submission to Congress and the follows: state law. Accordingly, the Comptroller General § 52.2020 Identification of plan. Administrator certifies that this rule The Congressional Review Act, 5 will not have a significant economic U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small * * * * * impact on a substantial number of small Business Regulatory Enforcement (c) * * * (156) Revisions to the Pennsylvania entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Regulations, Chapter 129 pertaining to Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this that before a rule may take effect, the VOC and NO RACT determinations for rule approves pre-existing requirements agency promulgating the rule must X sources located in the Philadelphia area under state law and does not impose submit a rule report, which includes a submitted by the Pennsylvania any additional enforceable duty beyond copy of the rule, to each House of the Department of Environmental Protection that required by state law, it does not Congress and to the Comptroller General on September 20, 1995, April 16, 1996, contain any unfunded mandate or of the United States. Section 804 May 2, 1996, July 2, 1997, July 24, 1998, significantly or uniquely affect small exempts from section 801 the following December 7, 1998, April 9, 1999, and governments, as described in the types of rules: (1) Rules of particular April 20, 1999. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 applicability; (2) rules relating to agency (Public Law 104–4). This rule also does (i) Incorporation by reference. management or personnel; and (3) rules (A) Letters submitted by the not have tribal implications because it of agency organization, procedure, or will not have a substantial direct effect Pennsylvania Department of practice that do not substantially affect Environmental Protection transmitting on one or more Indian tribes, on the the rights or obligations of non-agency relationship between the Federal source-specific VOC and/or NOX RACT parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not determinations, in the form of plan Government and Indian tribes, or on the required to submit a rule report distribution of power and approvals and operating permits on regarding today’s action under section September 20, 1995, April 16, 1996, responsibilities between the Federal 801 because this is a rule of particular Government and Indian tribes, as May 2, 1996, July 2, 1997, July 24, 1998, applicability establishing source- December 7, 1998, April 9, 1999, and specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 specific requirements for eighteen (18) FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This April 20, 1999. named sources. (B) Plan approvals (PA), Operating action also does not have Federalism permits (OP) issued to the following implications because it does not have C. Petitions for Judicial Review sources: substantial direct effects on the States, Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean (1) Amerada Hess Corp., PA–51–5009, on the relationship between the national Air Act, petitions for judicial review of for PLID 5009, effective May 29, 1995. government and the States, or on the this action must be filed in the United (2) Amoco Oil Company, PA–51– distribution of power and States Court of Appeals for the 5011, for PLID 5011, effective May 29, responsibilities among the various appropriate circuit by December 31, 1995. levels of government, as specified in 2001. Filing a petition for (3) Cartex Corporation, OP–09–0076, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, reconsideration by the Administrator of effective April 9, 1999, except for the August 10, 1999). This action merely this final rule does not affect the finality expiration date. approves a state rule implementing a of this rule for the purposes of judicial (4) Exxon Company, U.S.A., PA–51– Federal standard, and does not alter the review nor does it extend the time 5008, for PLID 5008, effective May 29, relationship or the distribution of power within which a petition for judicial 1995. and responsibilities established in the review may be filed, and shall not (5) GATX Terminals Corporation, PA– Clean Air Act. This rule also is not postpone the effectiveness of such rule 51–5003, for PLID 5003, effective May subject to Executive Order 13045 or action. This action approving VOC 29, 1995. ‘‘Protection of Children from and/or NOX RACT for eighteen sources (6) Hatfield, Inc., OP–46–0013A, Environmental Health Risks and Safety located in the Philadelphia area may not effective January 9, 1997 (as revised
VerDate 11
October 1, 1998), except for the of Pennsylvania’s State Implementation companion notice of proposed expiration date. Plan (SIP). The revisions were rulemaking (66 FR 46573) to approve (7) J. L. Clark, Inc., OP–36–02009, submitted by the Pennsylvania these SIP revisions. On October 9, 2001, effective April 16, 1999, except for the Department of Environmental Protection we received adverse comments on our expiration date. (PADEP) to establish and require direct final rule from the Citizens for (8) Johnson Matthey, Inc., OP–15– reasonably available control technology Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture). On 0027, effective August 3, 1998 (as (RACT) for fourteen major sources of October 10, 2001, EPA signed a revised April 15, 1999), except for the volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/ withdrawal notice for timely expiration date. or nitrogen oxides (NOX). These sources publication in the Federal Register (9) Kurz Hastings, Inc., PA–51–1585, are located in the Philadelphia- informing the public that the direct final for PLID 1585, effective May 29, 1995. Wilmington-Trenton ozone rule did not take effect. We indicated in (10) Lawrence McFadden, Inc., PA– nonattainment area (the Philadelphia our September 6, 2001 direct final 51–2074, for PLID 2074, effective June area). EPA is approving these revisions rulemaking that if we received adverse 11, 1997. to establish RACT requirements in the comments, EPA would address all (11) Philadelphia Baking Company, SIP in accordance with the Clean Air public comments in a subsequent final PA–51–3048, for PLID 3048, effective Act (CAA or the Act). rule based on the proposed rule (66 FR April 10, 1995. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 46573). This is that subsequent final (12) Philadelphia Gas Works, PA–51– effective on November 15, 2001. rule. A description of the RACT 4921, for PLID 4921, effective May 29, determination(s) made for each source ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 1995. was provided in the September 6, 2001 (13) PPG Industries, Inc., OP–23– relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal direct final rule and will not be restated 0005, effective June 4, 1997, except for here. A summary of the comments business hours at the Air Protection the expiration date. submitted by PennFuture germane to Division, U.S. Environmental Protection (14) SmithKline Beecham this final rulemaking and EPA’s Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Pharmaceuticals, OP–46–0035, effective responses are provided in Section II of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the March 27, 1997 (as revised October 20, this document. 1998), except for the expiration date. Air and Radiation Docket and (15) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, OP– Information Center, U.S. Environmental II. Public Comments and Responses 09–0010, effective April 9, 1999, except Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, On October 9, 2001, the Citizens for for the expiration date. Washington, DC 20460; and the Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture) (16) The Philadelphian Condominium Pennsylvania Department of submitted adverse comments on the Building, PA–51–6512, for PLID 6512, Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air proposed rule published by EPA in the effective May 29, 1995. Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Federal Register on September 6, 2001 (17) Warner Company, OP–15–0001, Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. to approve case-by-case RACT SIP effective July 17, 1995 except for the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submissions from the Commonwealth expiration date. Marcia Spink, (215) 814–2104 or by for NOX and or VOC sources located in (18) Webcraft Technologies, Inc., OP– e-mail at [email protected]. the Philadelphia area. A summary of 09–0009, effective April 18, 1996 (as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: those comments and EPA’s responses revised October 15, 1998), except for the are provided below. I. Background expiration date. A. Comment: PennFuture comments (ii) Additional Materials—Other On December 8, 1995, March 21, that EPA has conducted no independent materials submitted by the 1996, January 21, 1997, July 24, 1998, technical review, and has prepared no Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in April 20, 1999, March 23, 2001 (two technical support document to survey support of and pertaining to the RACT separate submissions), and July 5, 2001; potential control technologies, determinations for the sources listed in PADEP submitted revisions to the determine the capital and operating paragraph (c)(156)(i)(B) of this section. Pennsylvania SIP to establish and costs of different options, and rank these impose RACT for several major sources options in total and marginal cost per [FR Doc. 01–26766 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] of VOC and/or NOX. This rulemaking ton of NOX and VOC controlled. In BILLING CODE 6560–50–P pertains to fourteen of those sources. citing the definition of the term The remaining sources are or have been ‘‘RACT,’’ and the Strelow Memorandum ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the subject of separate rulemakings. [Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, EPA, AGENCY These sources are all located in the Philadelphia area and include: Perkasie December 9, 1976, cited in Michigan v. 40 CFR Part 52 Industries; Quaker Chemical Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir. Corporation; Rohm and Haas—Bucks 1986) and at 62 FR 43134, 43136 [PA–4186; FRL–7089–9] County Plant; Rohm and Haas— (1997)], PennFuture appears to Philadelphia Plant; SBF comment that in every situation, RACT Approval and Promulgation of Air Communications Graphics; Schlosser must include an emission rate. Quality Implementation Plans; Steel, Inc.; SEPTA’s Berridge/Courtland PennFuture asserts that EPA should Pennsylvania; VOC and NO RACT X Maintenance Shop; Smith-Edwards- conduct its own RACT evaluation for Determinations for 14 Individual Dunlap Company; Southwest Water each source, or at a minimum document Sources in the Philadelphia- Pollution Control Plant/Biosolids a step-by-step review demonstrating the Wilmington-Trenton Area Recycling Center; Stroehman Bakeries, adequacy of state evaluations, to ensure AGENCY: Environmental Protection Inc.; Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) Refinery; Tasty that appropriate control technology is Agency (EPA). Baking Company; Transcontinental Gas applied. The commenter also believes ACTION: Final rule. Pipeline Corp.—Compressor Station that EPA’s failure to conduct its own #200; and Worthington Steel Company. independent review of control SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to On September 6, 2001 (66 FR 46525), technologies has resulted in our approve revisions to the Commonwealth EPA published a direct final rule and a proposing to approve some RACT
VerDate 11
determinations that fail to meet the limited approval. In that rulemaking, or source categories. Not every CTG terms of EPA’s own RACT standard. EPA removed the conditional status of issued by EPA includes an emission Response: On March 23, 1998 (63 FR its approval of the Commonwealth’s rate. There are several examples of CTGs 13789), EPA granted conditional limited generic VOC and NOX RACT regulations issued by EPA wherein equipment approval of Pennsylvania’s generic on a statewide basis. EPA received no standards and/or work practice RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters public comments on its action and that standards alone are provided as RACT 121 and 129, thereby approving the final rule removing the conditional guidance for all or part of the processes definitions, provisions and procedures status of Pennsylvania’s VOC and NOX covered. Such examples include the contained within those regulations RACT regulations became effective on CTGs issued for Bulk gasoline plants, under which the Commonwealth would June 18, 2001. As of that time, Gasoline service stations—Stage I, require and impose RACT. Subsection Pennsylvania’s generic VOC and NOX Petroleum Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, 129.91, Control of major sources of NOX RACT regulations retained a limited Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent and VOCs, requires subject facilities to approval status. On September 6, 2001 metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical submit a RACT plan proposal to both (66 FR 46571), EPA proposed to remove products, External Floating roof tanks the Pennsylvania Department of the limited nature of its approval of and Synthetic Organic Chemical Environmental Protection (DEP) and to Pennsylvania’s generic RACT regulation Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in in the Philadelphia area. EPA received manufacturing. (The publication accordance with subsection 129.92, no public comments on that proposal. numbers for these CTG documents may entitled, RACT proposal requirements. Final action converting the limited be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ Under subsection 129.92, that proposal approval to full approval shall occur catc/dir1/ctg.txt). is to include, among other information: once EPA has completed rulemaking to EPA disagrees with PennFuture’s (1) A list each of subject source at the approve either: (1) The case-by-case general comment that our failure to facility; (2) The size or capacity of each RACT proposals for all sources subject conduct our own independent review of affected source, and the types of fuel to the RACT requirements currently control technologies for every case-by- combusted, and the types and amounts known in the Philadelphia area or (2) case RACT determination conducted by of materials processed or produced at for a sufficient number of sources such the Commonwealth has resulted in our each source; (3) A physical description that the emissions from any remaining proposing to approve some RACT of each source and its operating subject sources represent a de minimis determinations that fail to meet the characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential level of emissions as defined in the terms of our own RACT standard. and actual emissions from each affected March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR PennFuture submitted comments source with supporting documentation; 13789). specific to the case-by-case RACT (5) A RACT analysis which meets the EPA agrees that it has an obligation to determinations for two located in the requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), review the case-by-case RACT plan Philadelphia area, namely for Kurz- including technical and economic approvals and/or permits submitted as Hastings and GATX Terminals support documentation for each affected individual SIP revisions by Corporation. EPA summarizes those source; (6) A schedule for Commonwealth to verify and determine comments and provides responses in implementation as expeditiously as if they are consistent with the RACT the final rule pertaining to those practicable but not later than May 15, requirements of the Act and any sources. 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, relevant EPA guidance. EPA does not recordkeeping and reporting procedures agree, however, that this obligation to B. Comment: PennFuture comments proposed to demonstrate compliance review the case-by-case RACT that when EPA reviewed Pennsylvania’s with RACT; and (8) any additional determinations submitted by RACT program, it noted that information requested by the DEP Pennsylvania necessarily extends to our Pennsylvania coal-fired boilers with a necessary to evaluate the RACT performing our own RACT analyses, rated heat input of equal to or greater proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the independent of the sources’ RACT than 100 million Btu per hour ‘‘are some DEP will approve, deny or modify each plans/analyses (included as part of the of the largest NOX emitting sources in RACT proposal, and submit each RACT case-by case RACT SIP revisions) or the the Commonwealth and in the Northeast determination to EPA for approval as a Commonwealth’s analyses. EPA first United States’’ [63 FR 13789, 13791 SIP revision. reviews this submission to ensure that (1998)] and as such should have The conditional nature of EPA’s the source and the Commonwealth numeric emission limitations imposed March 23, 1998 conditional limited followed the SIP-approved generic rule as RACT whether or not they install approval did not impose any conditions when applying for and imposing RACT presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code pertaining to the regulation’s procedures for a specific source. Then EPA 129.93) to guarantee that sources would for the submittal of RACT plans and performs a thorough review of the achieve quantifiable emissions analyses by subject sources and technical and economic analyses reductions under the RACT program. approval of case-by case RACT conducted by the source and the state. PennFuture goes on to comment that determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA If EPA believes additional information because EPA has not conducted and stated that ‘‘* * * RACT rules may not may further support or would undercut documented a technical review of merely be procedural rules (emphasis the RACT analyses submitted by the Pennsylvania case-by case RACT added) that require the source and the state, then EPA may add additional submissions, EPA has not demonstrated State to later agree to the appropriate EPA-generated analyses to the record. that these large boilers are subject to level of control; rather the rules must While RACT, as defined for an ‘‘numeric emission limitations’’ under identify the appropriate level of control individual source or source category, RACT. EPA must conduct a thorough for source categories or individual often does specify an emission rate, RACT evaluation or review for each sources.’’ such is not always the case. EPA has such source, and must document the On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA issued Control Technique Guidelines application of numeric emission limits published a rulemaking determining (CTGs) which states are to use as and quantifiable reductions for each that Pennsylvania had satisfied the guidance in development of their RACT coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input conditions imposed in its conditional determinations/rules for certain sources of over 100 million Btu per hour.
VerDate 11
Response: Circumstances may exist oven batteries, iron and steel foundries, adoption of category-specific rules or by wherein a state could justify otherwise, and publically owned treatment works source-specific rules for each source however, in general, EPA agrees with and asserts that the Commonwealth has within a category. When initially PennFuture that coal-fired boilers with neglected a statutory requirement to established, RACT was clearly defined a rated heat input of equal to or greater adopt category RACT regulations for as a case-by-case determination, but than 100 million Btu per hour should these and 14 other unnamed VOC EPA provided CTG’s to simplify the have numeric emission limitations source categories. PennFuture contends process for states such that they would imposed as RACT whether or not they that the case-by-case approach for not be required to adopt hundreds or install presumptive RACT (under 25 establishing and approving RACT is thousands of individual rules. See Pa.Code 129.93). unacceptable under a statutory scheme Strelow Memorandum dated December As provided in the response found in that specifically requires category-wide 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, II. A, EPA does not agree that it must RACT regulations for sources covered 1979. EPA does not believe that conduct its own technical analysis of by CTGs. PennFuture’s comment cites to Congress’ use of ‘‘source category’’ in each of the case-by-case RACT Wall v. EPA, 2001 FED App. 0318P (6th one provision of section 182(b)(2) was determinations submitted for each Cir.)(Cincinnati ozone redesignation and intended to preclude the adoption of RACT source in order to document that RACT). EPA should reject any proposed source-specific rules. its RACT requirements include numeric case-by-case VOC RACT for a source in Thus, where CTG-subject sources are emission limitations. That a category for which there is a CTG but located within those areas of a state determination can be made by EPA no Pennsylvania RACT regulation. where RACT applies under Part D of the when it reviews the plan approval, Response: EPA has not issued CTGs Act, the state is obligated to impose consent order, or permit issued to such for coke oven batteries, iron and steel RACT for the same universe of sources a source as submitted by the foundries and publically owned covered by the CTG. However, that Commonwealth as SIP revision. treatment works. The Appendix 1, obligation is not required to be met by PennFuture’s comment did not point to referred to by the commenter, lists CTG the adoption and submittal of a source a specific instance where a RACT plan covered categories as well as source category RACT rule. A state may, approval, consent order or permit categories taken from two STAPPA/ instead, opt to impose RACT for such imposing RACT on a coal-fired boiler ALAPCO documents entitled, ‘‘Meeting sources in permits, plan approvals, with a rated heat input of equal to or the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress consent orders or in any other state greater than 100 million Btu per hour Requirement Under the Clean Air Act— did, in fact, lack a numerical emission A Menu of Options’’ (September 1993) enforceable document and submit those limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to and ‘‘Controlling Nitrogen Oxides documents to EPA for approval as PennFuture’s comment, EPA has re- Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of source-specific SIP revisions. This examined all of the case-by-case RACT Options’’ (July 1994). The categories option has been exercised by many SIP submissions made by the referenced by PennFuture are not VOC states, and happens most commonly Commonwealth for such sources located categories for which EPA has issued when only a few CTG-subject sources in the Philadelphia area. That re- CTGs, but were included in Appendix A are located in the state. The source- examination, combined with as examples of some of the types of specific approach is generally employed information provided by the sources that could be subject to to avoid what can be a lengthy and Commonwealth, indicates that each Pennsylvania’s generic RACT resource-intensive state rule adoption case-by-case RACT plan approval, regulations. The Commonwealth is process for only a few sources that may consent order and/or permit for each under no statutory obligation to adopt have different needs and considerations coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input RACT rules for source categories for that must be taken into account. EPA of equal to or greater than 100 million which EPA has not issued a CTG. In disagrees with the commenter’s citing to Btu per hour includes a numeric fact, CTGs do not exist for all but one Wall v. EPA, 2001 FED App. 0318P (6th emission limitation. A listing of each of the categories to which the Cir. Sept. 11, 2001) (Cincinnati ozone source, its plan approval, consent order commenter explicitly refers. redesignation and RACT) as indicative and/or permit number and its numerical The Act requires that states adopt of his contentions regarding states’ emission limitation has been placed in regulations to impose RACT for ‘‘major obligations to adopt category-wide the Administrative Records for the case- sources of VOC,’’ located within those RACT regulations for sources covered by-case RACT rulemakings for the areas of a state where RACT applies by CTGs. The opinion rendered in the Philadelphia area. under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. cited case neither requires states to C. Comment: PennFuture asserts that This is referred to as the non-CTG VOC adopt category-wide RACT regulations the Commonwealth has not adopted and RACT requirement. Moreover, EPA for sources covered by CTGs, nor does submitted category RACT rules for all disagrees that there is a statutory it preclude states from exercising their VOC source categories for which federal mandate that a state adopt a source option to impose RACT for CTG-subject control technique guidelines (CTGs) category RACT regulation even for a sources, on a case-by-case basis. Rather, have been issued. The commenter refers source category where EPA has issued a it speaks only to the Act’s requirement to Appendix 1 of the Technical Support CTG. There are two statutory provisions that states must implement RACT for Document (dated May 14, 2001), that address RACT for sources covered CTG-subject sources in ozone prepared by EPA in support of its by a CTG. One provides that states must nonattainment areas; and not to any proposed rule to redesignate the adopt RACT for ‘‘any category of VOC specific regulatory construct by which Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone sources’’ covered by a CTG issued prior they must do so. Pennsylvania has Nonattainment Area (66 FR 29270), to to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)]. implemented RACT for all CTG-subject assert that EPA has failed to require the The other provides that states must sources in the Philadelphia area, and, Commonwealth to submit VOC RACT adopt VOC RACT for all ‘‘VOC sources’’ EPA has approved all such RACT rules for certain categories of sources. covered by a CTG issued after November determinations as revisions to the PennFuture specifically names source 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long Pennsylvania SIP. As stated earlier, categories such as equipment leaks from interpreted the statutory RACT there is one source category explicitly natural gas/gas processing plants, coke requirement to be met either by included in PennFuture’s comment for
VerDate 11
which EPA has issued a CTG, namely standard as RACT. The Technical a control technology as RACT for a natural gas/gas processing plants. The Support Document prepared by EPA in source.’’ Commonwealth made a negative support of its March 23, 1998 In no instance, has EPA proposed to declaration to EPA on April 13, 1993, rulemaking [63 FR 13789] clearly approve a RACT determination stating that as of that date there were no indicates that the Commonwealth’s submitted by the Commonwealth which applicable sources in this category. document, ‘‘Guidance Document on was based solely on a conclusion that Therefore, the Commonwealth did not Reasonably Available Control controls that cost more than $1500/ton adopt a category RACT regulation for Technology for Sources of NOX were not required as RACT. As natural gas/gas processing plants. Emissions.’’ March 11, 1994, had not explained in the response provided in D. Comment: PennFuture cites EPA been included as part of the SIP section II. A. of this document, EPA correspondence [letter from Marcia submission of the Commonwealth’s conducts its review of the entire case- Spink, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, generic regulation and, therefore, had by-case RACT SIP submittal including December 15, 1993] to the not been approved by EPA. EPA further the source’s proposed RACT plan and Commonwealth which states that notes that the Administrative Record of analyses, Pennsylvania’s analyses and establishing any dollar figure in RACT the March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR the RACT plan approval, consent order guidance will not provide for the 13789], in addition to the or permit itself to insure that the ‘‘automatic’’ selection or rejection of a correspondence cited by PennFuture, requirements of the SIP-approved control technology or emission generic RACT have been followed. limitation as RACT for a source or also includes correspondence from DEP to EPA [letter from James Salvaggio, These analyses not only evaluate and source category. With regard to the consider the costs of potential control Pennsylvania DEP’s intent to finalize a DEP to David Arnold, EPA, September 10, 1997] stating that DEP’s RACT options, but also evaluate their NOX RACT Guidance Document for technological feasibility. implementation of its NO RACT guidance document does not establish a X E. Comment: PennFuture comments regulation, EPA’s 1993 letter stated that maximum dollar per ton for determining that any emission reduction credits the document could improperly be used the cost effectiveness for RACT (ERCs) earned by sources subject to to establish ‘‘bright line’’ or ‘‘cook- determinations and notes that the DEP’s RACT must be surplus to all applicable book’’ approaches, particularly for a $1500 per ton cost effectiveness is a state and federal requirements. Under regulation applicable to many source target value and not an absolute Pennsylvania law, ERCs must be categories and suggested that if the maximum. For example, in its analyses guidance document must include dollar of the cost effectiveness of RACT control surplus, permanent, quantified, and figures/ton, it provide approximate options submitted by DEP as part of the Federally enforceable. 25 Pa.Code ranges by source category. PennFuture case-by-case SIP revision for Peoples 127.207(1). As to the requirement that comments that DEP issued its Natural Gas (PNG) Valley Compressor ERCs be surplus, the Pennsylvania Code ‘‘Guidance Document on Reasonably Station’s turbo charged lean burn IC states: ERCs shall be included in the current emission inventory, and may Available Control Technology for engine (see the Administrative Record not be required by or be used to meet Sources of NOX Emissions,’’ March 11, for 66 FR 43492), the Commonwealth past or current SIP, attainment 1994, and on pp. 8–9 states that the included DEP interoffice memoranda demonstration, RFP, emission limitation acceptable threshold is $1500 per ton, (Thomas Joseph to Krishnan or compliance plans. Emission and that this figure applies to ‘‘all Ramamurthy, July 14, 1994 and source categories.’’ PennFuture notes reductions necessary to meet NSPS, Krishnan Ramamurthy to Thomas LAER, RACT, Best Available that EPA later objected to the $1500 per McGinley, Babu Patel, Ronald Davis, ton methodology as ‘‘not generically Technology, BACT and permit or plan Richard Maxwell, and Devendra Verma, approval emissions limitations or acceptable to EPA’’ [letter from Thomas July 15, 1994) which spoke directly to Maslany, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, another emissions limitation required the $1500/ton dollar figure as being a by the Clean Air Act or the [Air June 24, 1997] and further stated in a guideline and not an upper limit. These Federal Register notice that a ‘‘dollar Pollution Control Act] may not be used memoranda explain that although PNG to generate ERCs. 25 Pa.Code per ton threshold’’ is ‘‘inconsistent with initially proposed intermediate original the definition of RACT’’ [62 FR 43134, 127.207(1)(i). To be creditable, ERCs equipment manufacturer (OEM) 37–38 (1997)]. must surpass not only RACT PennFuture comments that EPA is combustion controls which would have requirements but a host of other proposing to approve RACT reduced NOX emissions from 254.7 tons possible sources of emission limits. determinations based on a cost per ton per year to 115 tons per year (by 55%) PennFuture comments that some of the method that EPA had previously at a cost of $1355 per ton reduced, DEP RACT evaluations at issue in the current rejected, and according to its own required the installation of an OEM lean EPA notices purport to establish RACT clearly expressed standard, EPA must combustion modification that reduced as a baseline for future ERCs. not approve RACT determinations by NOX emissions from 254.7 tons per year PennFuture does acknowledge that EPA Pennsylvania DEP that apply this $1500 to 76 tons per year (by 69%) at a cost notes in its boilerplate for the notices, per ton threshold. PennFuture asserts of $1684 per ton reduced. The DEP’s that Pennsylvania and EPA have EPA must reject all Pennsylvania RACT July 15, 1994 interoffice memorandum established a series of NOX-reducing determinations applying the standard of says of the PNG RACT determination rules, including the recent Chapter 145 $1500 per ton, or any other ‘‘bright line’’ which exceeded the cost effectiveness rule, to reduce NOX at large utility and approach, as failing to follow EPA screening level of $1500 per ton ‘‘Tom’s industrial sources. See, for example, 66 procedures established for Pennsylvania (Joseph) insistence for the next more FR 42415, 16–17 (August 13, 2001). RACT. stringent level of control than the Because any ERCs must be surplus to Response: EPA still takes the position company’s chosen level in the case of the most stringent limitation applicable that a single cost per ton dollar figure PNG was consistent with EPA Region under state or federal law as described may not, in and of itself, form the basis III’s sentiment that establishing any in the Pennsylvania Code provision set for rejecting a control technology, dollar figure in RACT guidance will not forth above, DEP and EPA must not equipment standard, or work practice provide for an ‘‘automatic’’ rejection of approve ERCs unless they surpass all
VerDate 11
such limitations in addition to any sources. However, the applicability of IV. Administrative Requirements limits set by RACT. these other requirements, which are A. General Requirements Response: EPA agrees with this often more stringent than RACT, do not comment by PennFuture. The approval establish what requirements must apply Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR of a case-by-case RACT determination, under the RACT program. While these 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is in and of itself, does not establish the programs may provide information as to not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and baseline from which further emission the technical and economic feasibility of therefore is not subject to review by the reductions may be calculated and reduction programs for RACT, there is Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not assumed creditable under the no presumption that acid rain controls subject to Executive Order 13211, Commonwealth’s SIP-approved NSR should be mandated as RACT. and ERC program. Moreover, EPA’s ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That review of the Pennsylvania DEP’s EPA stated in the final disapproval of Significantly Affect Energy Supply, implementation of its approved SIP- the NOX RACT determination for PPNC Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May approved NSR and ERC program [63 FR at 23669], that the discussion 22, 2001). This action merely approves indicates that the Commonwealth concerning average emission rates for state law as meeting Federal calculates and credits ERCs in boilers with respect to the acid rain requirements and imposes no additional accordance with the SIP-approved program requirements were included in requirements beyond those imposed by criteria for doing so as outlined in order to provide a context for EPA’s state law. Accordingly, the PennFuture’s comment. No source for proposed disapproval. EPA made clear Administrator certifies that this rule which EPA is approving a case-by-case in its August 18, 1997 proposed will not have a significant economic RACT determination should assume disapproval of Pennsylvania Powers’— impact on a substantial number of small that its RACT approval alone Newcastle (PPNC) RACT determination, entities under the Regulatory Flexibility automatically establishes the baseline that the basis for disapproval was a Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this against which it may calculate comparison between PPNC’s boilers and rule approves pre-existing requirements creditable ERCs. other similar combustion units, not acid under state law and does not impose F. Comment: PennFuture comments rain limits. In fact, EPA stated in the any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not that as in the case with Pennsylvania August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval Power—Newcastle, EPA should contain any unfunded mandate or that ‘‘Without additional knowledge or compare RACT proposals to applicable significantly or uniquely affect small information, it would be erroneous and acid rain program emission limits and governments, as described in the control strategies. PennFuture contends premature to conclude that the limits in Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 that EPA previously disapproved a the acid rain permit are RACT.’’ [62 FR (Public Law 104–4). This rule also does RACT proposal for the Pennsylvania at 43961]. EPA clearly stated in the final not have tribal implications because it Power—Newcastle plant [62 FR 43959 disapproval for PPNC that it did not use will not have a substantial direct effect (1997); 63 FR 23668 (1998)] and that acid rain permit limits, or on one or more Indian tribes, on the EPA did so on the basis that the acid Pennsylvania’s participation in any relationship between the Federal rain program requires more stringent other NOX control program, to Government and Indian tribes, or on the emission limits. PennFuture asserts that determine PPNC RACT approvability distribution of power and while EPA had originally proposed to [63 FR at 23670]. Nor has EPA intended responsibilities between the Federal approve this proposal, an analysis of to use participation in NOX control Government and Indian tribes, as comparable boilers and, especially, a programs including acid rain, in specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 comparison to Phase II emission limits determining RACT for PPNC or any FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This under the acid rain program led EPA to other subject sources. EPA also stated action also does not have Federalism conclude that the RACT proposal that the April 30, 1998, PPNC implications because it does not have emission limits were too lenient. [62 FR disapproval was based on the absence of substantial direct effects on the States, at 43961]. Therefore, PennFuture pertinent information regarding a on the relationship between the national contends that for sources subject to the computerized combustion optimization government and the States, or on the acid rain program, EPA should consider system through an enforceable permit, distribution of power and emissions and control strategies for not comparison of acid rain permit responsibilities among the various compliance with acid rain emission limits. levels of government, as specified in limits when evaluating proposals for Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, compliance with RACT. III. Final Action August 10, 1999). This action merely Response: Title IV of the Act, approves a state rule implementing a addressing the acid rain program, EPA is approving the SIP revisions to Federal standard, and does not alter the the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by contains NOX emission requirements for relationship or the distribution of power utilities which must be met in addition PADEP to establish and require VOC and responsibilities established in the to any RACT requirements (see NOX and/or NOX RACT for fourteen major of Clean Air Act. This rule also is not Supplement to the General Preamble at sources located in the Philadelphia area. subject to Executive Order 13045 57 FR 55625, November 25, 1992). The EPA is approving these SIP submittals ‘‘Protection of Children from Act provides for a number of control because the Philadelphia AMS and Environmental Health Risks and Safety programs that may affect similar PADEP established and imposed these Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), sources. For example, new sources may RACT requirements in accordance with because it is not economically be subject to new source performance the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved significant. In reviewing SIP standards (NSPS), best available control RACT regulations applicable to these submissions, EPA’s role is to approve technology (BACT), and lowest sources. The AMS and PADEP have also state choices, provided that they meet achievable emission rate (LAER). Other imposed record keeping, monitoring, the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this controls, under such programs as the and/or testing requirements sufficient to context, in the absence of a prior acid rain program or the hazardous air determine compliance with the existing requirement for the State to use pollutant program may also apply to applicable RACT determinations. voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
VerDate 11
EPA has no authority to disapprove a dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and (8) SEPTA—Berridge/Courtland SIP submission for failure to use VCS. recordkeeping requirements. Maintenance Shop, PA–51–4172, It would thus be inconsistent with Dated: October 15, 2001. effective July 27, 1999, except for applicable law for EPA, when it reviews James W. Newsom, condition 2.C. and condition 5. a SIP submission, to use VCS in place (9) Southwest Water Pollution Control Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. of a SIP submission that otherwise Plant/Biosolids Recycling Center, PA– satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 51–9515, effective July 27, 1999, except for condition 1.A.(1), condition 1.A.(2), Act. Thus, the requirements of section PART 52—[AMENDED] 12(d) of the National Technology condition 2.A., condition 2.B., and Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 1. The authority citation for Part 52 condition 7. (15 U.S.C. 272 Note) do not apply. This continues to read as follows: (10) Rohm and Haas Company, rule does not impose an information Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Philadelphia Plant, PA–51–1531, collection burden under the provisions effective July 27, 1999, except for of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Subpart NN—Pennsylvania condition 7. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). (11) Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), PA–1501/ 2. Section 52.2020 is amended by 1517, for Plant ID: 1501 and 1517, B. Submission to Congress and the adding paragraph (c)(169) to read as effective August 1, 2000, except for Comptroller General follows: conditions 1.A.(4) as it pertains to H– The Congressional Review Act, 5 § 52.2020 Identification of plan. 600, H–601, H–602, H–1 and H–3 heaters; 1.A. (7)–(10); 1.A. (12) as it U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small * * * * * Business Regulatory Enforcement (c) * * * pertains to HTR 1H4; 1.A. (13) as it Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides (169) Revisions to the Pennsylvania pertains to HTR PH2 and HTR PH7; 1.A. that before a rule may take effect, the Regulations, Chapter 129 pertaining to (15) as it pertains to HTR 11H2; 1.A. (16); 1.A. (18) as it pertains to HTR 2H1, agency promulgating the rule must VOC and/or NOX RACT for 14 sources submit a rule report, which includes a located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington- HTR 2H6, and HTR 2H8; 1.A. (19); 1.A. copy of the rule, to each House of the Trenton area, submitted by the (21); 1.A.(22); 2.B. as it pertains to Gas Congress and to the Comptroller General Pennsylvania Department of Oil HDS Unit 866: HTR 12H1; 2.E.; 2.L.; of the United States. Section 804 Environmental Protection on December and condition 6. exempts from section 801 the following 8, 1995, March 21, 1996, January 21, (12) SBF Communication Graphics, types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 1997, July 24, 1998, April 20, 1999, PA–2197, for Plant ID: 2197, effective applicability; (2) rules relating to agency March 23, 2001 (two separate July 21, 2000. management or personnel; and (3) rules submissions), and July 5, 2001. (13) Smith-Edwards-Dunlap, of agency organization, procedure, or (i) Incorporation by reference. Company, PA–2255, for Plant ID: 2255, practice that do not substantially affect (A) Letters submitted by the effective July 14, 2000. (14) Tasty Baking Co., PA–2054, for the rights or obligations of non-agency Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection transmitting Plant ID: 2054, effective April 9, 1995. parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not (ii) Additional Materials—Other source-specific VOC and/or NOX RACT required to submit a rule report materials submitted by the regarding today’s action under section determinations, in the form of plan approvals, operating permits, or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 801 because this is a rule of particular support of and pertaining to the sources applicability establishing source- compliance permits on December 8, 1995, March 21, 1996, January 21, 1997, listed in paragraph (c)(169)(i)(B) of this specific requirements for fourteen section. named sources. July 24, 1998, April 20, 1999, March 23, 2001 (two separate submissions), and [FR Doc. 01–26760 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] C. Petitions for Judicial Review July 5, 2001. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean (B) Plan approvals (PA), or Operating Air Act, petitions for judicial review of permits (OP) issued to the following this action must be filed in the United sources: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1) Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc., PA– States Court of Appeals for the AGENCY 46–0003, effective on May 4, 1995, appropriate circuit by December 31, except for the expiration date. 40 CFR Part 52 2001. Filing a petition for (2) Schlosser Steel, Inc., OP–46–0051, reconsideration by the Administrator of [PA–4182; FRL–7089–6] effective February 1, 1996, except for this final rule does not affect the finality the expiration date. of this rule for the purposes of judicial Approval and Promulgation of Air (3) Perkasie Industries Corporation, Quality Implementation Plans; review nor does it extend the time OP–09–0011, effective August 14, 1996, within which a petition for judicial Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT except for the expiration date. Determinations for Nine Individual review may be filed, and shall not (4) Quaker Chemical Corporation, postpone the effectiveness of such rule Sources in the Philadelphia- OP–46–0071, effective September 26, Wilmington-Trenton Area or action. This action approving VOC 1996, except for the expiration date. and NOX RACT for fourteen major (5) Worthington Steel Company, OP– AGENCY: Environmental Protection sources located in the Philadelphia area 15–0016, effective July 23, 1996, except Agency (EPA). may not be challenged later in for the expiration date. ACTION: Final rule. proceedings to enforce its requirements. (6) Transcontinental Gas Pipeline (See section 307(b)(2).) Corp., PA–15–0017, effective June 5, SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 1995, except for the expiration date. approve revisions to the Commonwealth (7) Rohm and Haas Company, Bucks of Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Environmental protection, Air County Plant, OP–09–0015, effective Plan (SIP). The revisions were pollution control, Hydrocarbons, April 20, 1999, except for the expiration submitted by the Pennsylvania Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen date. Department of Environmental Protection
VerDate 11
(PADEP) to establish and require we received adverse comments on our approval of Pennsylvania’s generic reasonably available control technology direct final rule from the Citizens for RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters (RACT) for 9 major sources of volatile Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture). On 121 and 129, thereby approving the organic compounds (VOC) and/or October 11, 2001, we published a timely definitions, provisions and procedures nitrogen oxides ( NOX). These sources withdrawal in the Federal Register contained within those regulations are located in the Philadelphia- informing the public that the direct final under which the Commonwealth would Wilmington-Trenton ozone rule did not take effect. We indicated in require and impose RACT. Subsection nonattainment area (the Philadelphia our August 31, 2001 direct final 129.91, Control of major sources of NOX area). EPA is approving these revisions rulemaking that if we received adverse and VOCs, requires subject facilities to to establish RACT requirements in the comments, EPA would address all submit a RACT plan proposal to both SIP in accordance with the Clean Air public comments in a subsequent final the Pennsylvania Department of Act (CAA or the Act). rule based on the proposed rule (66 FR Environmental Protection (DEP) and to EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 45953). This is that subsequent final EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in effective on November 15, 2001. rule. A description of the RACT accordance with subsection 129.92, ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents determination(s) made for each source entitled, RACT proposal requirements. relevant to this action are available for was provided in the August 31, 2001 Under subsection 129.92, that proposal public inspection during normal direct final rule and will not be restated is to include, among other information: business hours at the Air Protection here. A summary of the comments (1) A list each of subject source at the Division, U.S. Environmental Protection submitted by PennFuture germane to facility; (2) The size or capacity of each Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, this final rulemaking and EPA’s affected source, and the types of fuel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the responses are provided in Section II of combusted, and the types and amounts this document. Air and Radiation Docket and of materials processed or produced at each source; (3) A physical description Information Center, U.S. Environmental II. Public Comments and Responses of each source and its operating Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., On October 1, 2001, the Citizens for characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential Washington, DC 20460; and the Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture) and actual emissions from each affected Pennsylvania Department of submitted adverse comments on the source with supporting documentation; Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air proposed rule published by EPA in the (5) A RACT analysis which meets the Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Federal Register on August 31, 2001 to requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. approve case-by-case RACT SIP including technical and economic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submissions from the Commonwealth support documentation for each affected Marcia Spink (215) 814–2104 or by e- for NOX and or VOC sources located in source; (6) A schedule for mail at spink.marcia.epa.gov. the Philadelphia area. A summary of implementation as expeditiously as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: those comments and EPA’s responses practicable but not later than May 15, are provided below. I. Background 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, A. Comment: PennFuture comments recordkeeping and reporting procedures On April 16, 1996, June 10, 1996, that EPA has conducted no independent proposed to demonstrate compliance November 4, 1997, December 31, 1997, technical review, and has prepared no with RACT; and (8) any additional March 24, 1998, March 23, 2001, and technical support document to survey information requested by the DEP August 8, 2001, PADEP submitted potential control technologies, necessary to evaluate the RACT revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which determine the capital and operating proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the establish and impose RACT for several costs of different options, and rank these DEP will approve, deny or modify each sources of VOC and/or NOX. This options in total and marginal cost per RACT proposal, and submit each RACT rulemaking pertains to the 9 of those ton of NOX and VOC controlled. In determination to EPA for approval as a sources. The remaining sources are or citing the definition of the term SIP revision. have been the subject of separate ‘‘RACT,’’ and the Strelow Memorandum The conditional nature of EPA’s rulemakings. The Commonwealth’s [Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator March 23, 1998 conditional limited submittals consist of plan approvals and for Air and Waste Management, EPA, approval did not impose any conditions operating permits which impose VOC December 9, 1976, cited in Michigan v. pertaining to the regulation’s procedures and/or NOX RACT requirements for Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir. for the submittal of RACT plans and each source. These sources are all 1986) and at 62 FR 43134, 43136 analyses by subject sources and located in the Philadelphia area and (1997)], PennFuture appears to approval of case-by case RACT include: Jefferson Smurfit Corporation comment that in every situation, RACT determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA and Container Corporation of America; must include an emission rate. stated that ‘‘* * * RACT rules may not Maritank Philadelphia, Inc.; Moyer PennFuture asserts that EPA should merely be procedural rules (emphasis Packing Company; PECO Energy conduct its own RACT evaluation for added) that require the source and the Company; Exelon Generation each source, or at a minimum document State to later agree to the appropriate Company—Schuylkill Generating a step-by-step review demonstrating the level of control; rather the rules must Station; Exelon Generation Company— adequacy of state evaluations, to ensure identify the appropriate level of control Delaware Generating Station; that appropriate control technology is for source categories or individual Philadelphia Gas Works, Richmond applied. The commenter also believes sources.’’ Plant; SPS Technologies; and Tullytown that EPA’s failure to conduct its own On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA Resource Recovery Facility (Waste independent review of control published a rulemaking determining Management of PA, Inc.). technologies has resulted in our that Pennsylvania had satisfied the On August 31, 2001, EPA published a proposing to approve some RACT conditions imposed in its conditional direct final rule (66 FR 45928) and a determinations that fail to meet the limited approval. In that rulemaking, companion notice of proposed terms of EPA’s own RACT standard. EPA removed the conditional status of rulemaking (66 FR 45953) to approve Response: On March 23, 1998 (63 FR its approval of the Commonwealth’s these SIP revisions. On October 1, 2001, 13789), EPA granted conditional limited generic VOC and NOX RACT regulations
VerDate 11
on a statewide basis. EPA received no standards and/or work practice than 100 million Btu per hour should public comments on its action and that standards alone are provided as RACT have numeric emission limitations final rule removing the conditional guidance for all or part of the processes imposed as RACT whether or not they status of Pennsylvania’s VOC and NOX covered. Such examples include the install presumptive RACT (under 25 RACT regulations became effective on CTGs issued for Bulk gasoline plants, Pa.Code 129.93). June 18, 2001. As of that time, Gasoline service stations—Stage I, As provided in the response found in Pennsylvania’s generic VOC and NOX Petroleum Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, II. A, EPA does not agree that it must RACT regulations retained a limited Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent conduct its own technical analysis of approval status. On September 6, 2001 metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical each of the case-by-case RACT (66 FR 46571), EPA proposed to remove products, External Floating roof tanks determinations submitted for each the limited nature of its approval of and Synthetic Organic Chemical RACT source in order to document that Pennsylvania’s generic RACT regulation Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer its RACT requirements include numeric in the Philadelphia area. EPA received manufacturing. (The publication emission limitations. That no public comments on that proposal. numbers for these CTG documents may determination can be made by EPA Final action converting the limited be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ when it reviews the plan approval, approval to full approval shall occur catc/dir1/ctg.txt). consent order, or permit issued to such once EPA has completed rulemaking to EPA disagrees with PennFuture’s a source as submitted by the approve either (1) the case-by-case general comment that our failure to Commonwealth as SIP revision. RACT proposals for all sources subject conduct our own independent review of PennFuture’s comment did not point to to the RACT requirements currently control technologies for every case-by- a specific instance where a RACT plan known in the Philadelphia area or (2) case RACT determination conducted by approval, consent order or permit for a sufficient number of sources such the Commonwealth has resulted in our imposing RACT on a coal-fired boiler that the emissions from any remaining proposing to approve some RACT with a rated heat input of equal to or subject sources represent a de minimis determinations that fail to meet the greater than 100 million Btu per hour level of emissions as defined in the terms of our own RACT standard. did, in fact, lack a numerical emission March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR PennFuture submitted comments limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to 13789). specific to the case-by-case RACT PennFuture’s comment, EPA has re- EPA agrees that it has an obligation to determinations for two located in the examined all of the case-by-case RACT review the case-by-case RACT plan Philadelphia area, namely for Kurz- SIP submissions made by the approvals and/or permits submitted as Hastings and GATX Terminals Commonwealth for such sources located individual SIP revisions by the Corporation. EPA summarizes those in the Philadelphia area. That re- Commonwealth to verify and determine comments and provides responses in examination, combined with if they are consistent with the RACT the final rule pertaining to those information provided by the requirements of the Act and any sources. Commonwealth, indicates that each relevant EPA guidance. EPA does not B. Comment: PennFuture comments case-by-case RACT plan approval, agree, however, that this obligation to that when EPA reviewed Pennsylvania’s consent order and/or permit for each review the case-by-case RACT RACT program, it noted that coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input determinations submitted by Pennsylvania coal-fired boilers with a of equal to or greater than 100 million Pennsylvania necessarily extends to our rated heat input of equal to or greater Btu per hour includes a numeric performing our own RACT analyses, than 100 million Btu per hour ‘‘are some emission limitation. A listing of each independent of the sources’ RACT of the largest NOX emitting sources in source, its plan approval, consent order plans/analyses (included as part of the the Commonwealth and in the Northeast and/or permit number and its numerical case-by case RACT SIP revisions) or the United States’’ [63 FR 13789, 13791 emission limitation has been placed in Commonwealth’s analyses. EPA first (1998)] and as such should have the Administrative Records for the case- reviews this submission to ensure that numeric emission limitations imposed by-case RACT rulemakings for the the source and the Commonwealth as RACT whether or not they install Philadelphia area. followed the SIP-approved generic rule presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code C. Comment: PennFuture asserts that when applying for and imposing RACT 129.93) to guarantee that sources would the Commonwealth has not adopted and for a specific source. Then EPA achieve quantifiable emissions submitted category RACT rules for all performs a thorough review of the reductions under the RACT program. VOC source categories for which federal technical and economic analyses PennFuture goes on to comment that control technique guidelines (CTGs) conducted by the source and the state. because EPA has not conducted and have been issued. The commenter refers If EPA believes additional information documented a technical review of to Appendix 1 of the Technical Support may further support or would undercut Pennsylvania case-by case RACT Document (dated May 14, 2001), the RACT analyses submitted by the submissions, EPA has not demonstrated prepared by EPA in support of its state, then EPA may add additional that these large boilers are subject to proposed rule to redesignate the EPA-generated analyses to the record. ‘‘numeric emission limitations’’ under Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone While RACT, as defined for an RACT. EPA must conduct a thorough Nonattainment Area (66 FR 29270), to individual source or source category, RACT evaluation or review for each assert that EPA has failed to require the often does specify an emission rate, such source, and must document the Commonwealth to submit VOC RACT such is not always the case. EPA has application of numeric emission limits rules for certain categories of sources. issued Control Technique Guidelines and quantifiable reductions for each PennFuture specifically names source (CTGs) which states are to use as coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input categories such as equipment leaks from guidance in development of their RACT of over 100 million Btu per hour. natural gas/gas processing plants, coke determinations/rules for certain sources Response: Circumstances may exist oven batteries, iron and steel foundries, or source categories. Not every CTG wherein a state could justify otherwise, and publically owned treatment works issued by EPA includes an emission however, in general, EPA agrees with and asserts that the Commonwealth has rate. There are several examples of CTGs PennFuture that coal-fired boilers with neglected a statutory requirement to issued by EPA wherein equipment a rated heat input of equal to or greater adopt category RACT regulations for
VerDate 11
these and 14 other unnamed VOC 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, adopt a category RACT regulation for source categories. PennFuture’s 1979. EPA does not believe that natural gas/gas processing plants. comment cites to Wall v. EPA, 2001 FED Congress’ use of ‘‘source category’’ in D. Comment: PennFuture cites EPA App. 0318P (6th Cir.)(Cincinnati ozone one provision of section 182(b)(2) was correspondence [letter from Marcia redesignation and RACT). EPA should intended to preclude the adoption of Spink, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, reject any proposed case-by-case VOC source-specific rules. December 15, 1993] to the RACT for a source in a category for Thus, where CTG-subject sources are Commonwealth which states that which there is a CTG but no located within those areas of a state establishing any dollar figure in RACT Pennsylvania RACT regulation. where RACT applies under Part D of the guidance will not provide for the Response: EPA has not issued CTGs Act, the state is obligated to impose ‘‘automatic’’ selection or rejection of a for coke oven batteries, iron and steel RACT for the same universe of sources control technology or emission foundries and publically owned covered by the CTG. However, that limitation as RACT for a source or treatment works. The Appendix 1, obligation is not required to be met by source category. With regard to the referred to by the commenter, lists CTG the adoption and submittal of a source Pennsylvania DEP’s intent to finalize a covered categories as well as source category RACT rule. A state may, NOX RACT Guidance Document for categories taken from two STAPPA/ instead, opt to impose RACT for such implementation of its NOX RACT ALAPCO documents entitled, ‘‘Meeting sources in permits, plan approvals, regulation, EPA’s 1993 letter stated that the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress consent orders or in any other state the document could improperly be used Requirement Under the Clean Air Act— enforceable document and submit those to establish ‘‘bright line’’ or ‘‘cook- A Menu of Options’’ (September 1993) book’’ approaches, particularly for a documents to EPA for approval as and ‘‘Controlling Nitrogen Oxides regulation applicable to many source source-specific SIP revisions. This Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of categories and suggested that if the option has been exercised by many Options’’ (July 1994). The categories guidance document must include dollar states, and happens most commonly referenced by PennFuture are not VOC figures/ton, it provide approximate when only a few CTG-subject sources categories for which EPA has issued ranges by source category. PennFuture are located in the state. The source- CTGs, but were included in Appendix A comments that DEP issued its specific approach is generally employed as examples of some of the types of ‘‘Guidance Document on Reasonably to avoid what can be a lengthy and sources that could be subject to Available Control Technology for resource-intensive state rule adoption Pennsylvania’s generic RACT Sources of NOX Emissions,’’ March 11, regulations. The Commonwealth is process for only a few sources that may 1994, and on pp. 8–9 states that the under no statutory obligation to adopt have different needs and considerations acceptable threshold is $1500 per ton, RACT rules for source categories for that must be taken into account. EPA and that this figure applies to ‘‘all which EPA has not issued a CTG. In disagrees with the commenter’s citing to source categories.’’ PennFuture notes fact, CTGs do not exist for all but one Wall v. EPA, 2001 FED App. 0318P (6th that EPA later objected to the $1500 per of the categories to which the Cir. Sept. 11, 2001) (Cincinnati ozone ton methodology as ‘‘not generically commenter explicitly refers. redesignation and RACT) as indicative acceptable to EPA’’ [letter from Thomas The Act requires that states adopt of his contentions regarding states’ Maslany, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, regulations to impose RACT for ‘‘major obligations to adopt category-wide June 24, 1997] and further stated in a sources of VOC,’’ located within those RACT regulations for sources covered Federal Register notice that a ‘‘dollar areas of a state where RACT applies by CTGs. The opinion rendered in the per ton threshold’’ is ‘‘inconsistent with under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. cited case neither requires states to the definition of RACT’’ [62 FR 43134, This is referred to as the non-CTG VOC adopt category-wide RACT regulations 37–38 (1997)]. RACT requirement. Moreover, EPA for sources covered by CTGs, nor does PennFuture comments that EPA is disagrees that there is a statutory it preclude states from exercising their proposing to approve RACT mandate that a state adopt a source option to impose RACT for CTG-subject determinations based on a cost per ton category RACT regulation even for a sources, on July 2, 1997, November 4, method that EPA had previously source category where EPA has issued a 1997, July 24 1998, October 2, 1998, rejected, and according to its own CTG. There are two statutory provisions March 3, 1999, April 9, 1999, and April clearly expressed standard, EPA must that address RACT for sources covered 20, 1999, on a case-by-case basis. not approve RACT determinations by by a CTG. One provides that states must Rather, it speaks only to the Act’s Pennsylvania DEP that apply this $1500 adopt RACT for ‘‘any category of VOC requirement that states must implement per ton threshold. PennFuture asserts sources’’ covered by a CTG issued prior RACT for CTG-subject sources in ozone EPA must reject all Pennsylvania RACT to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)]. nonattainment areas; and not to any determinations applying the standard of The other provides that states must specific regulatory construct by which $1500 per ton, or any other ‘‘bright line’’ adopt VOC RACT for all ‘‘VOC sources’’ they must do so. Pennsylvania has approach, as failing to follow EPA covered by a CTG issued after November implemented RACT for all CTG-subject procedures established for Pennsylvania 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long sources in the Philadelphia area, and, RACT. interpreted the statutory RACT EPA has approved all such RACT Response: EPA still takes the position requirement to be met either by determinations as revisions to the that a single cost per ton dollar figure adoption of category-specific rules or by Pennsylvania SIP. As stated earlier, may not, in and of itself, form the basis source-specific rules for each source there is one source category explicitly for rejecting a control technology, within a category. When initially included in PennFuture’s comment for equipment standard, or work practice established, RACT was clearly defined which EPA has issued a CTG, namely standard as RACT. The Technical as a case-by-case determination, but natural gas/gas processing plants. The Support Document prepared by EPA in EPA provided CTG’s to simplify the Commonwealth made a negative support of its March 23, 1998 process for states such that they would declaration to EPA on April 13, 1993, rulemaking [63 FR 13789] clearly not be required to adopt hundreds or stating that as of that date there were no indicates that the Commonwealth’s thousands of individual rules. See applicable sources in this category. document, ‘‘Guidance Document on Strelow Memorandum dated December Therefore, the Commonwealth did not Reasonably Available Control
VerDate 11
Technology for Sources of NOX explained in the response provided in Commonwealth’s SIP-approved NSR Emissions.’’ March 11, 1994, had not section II. A. of this document, EPA and ERC program. Moreover, EPA’s been included as part of the SIP conducts its review of the entire case- review of the Pennsylvania DEP’s submission of the Commonwealth’s by-case RACT SIP submittal including implementation of its approved SIP- generic regulation and, therefore, had the source’s proposed RACT plan and approved NSR and ERC program not been approved by EPA. EPA further analyses, Pennsylvania’s analyses and indicates that the Commonwealth notes that the Administrative Record of the RACT plan approval, consent order calculates and credits ERCs in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR or permit itself to insure that the accordance with the SIP-approved 13789], in addition to the requirements of the SIP-approved criteria for doing so as outlined in correspondence cited by PennFuture, generic RACT have been followed. PennFuture’s comment. No source for also includes correspondence from DEP These analyses not only evaluate and which EPA is approving a case-by-case to EPA [letter from James Salvaggio, consider the costs of potential control RACT determination should assume DEP to David Arnold, EPA, September options, but also evaluate their that its RACT approval alone 10, 1997] stating that DEP’s RACT technological feasibility. automatically establishes the baseline guidance document does not establish a E. Comment: PennFuture comments against which it may calculate maximum dollar per ton for determining that any emission reduction credits creditable ERCs. the cost effectiveness for RACT (ERCs) earned by sources subject to F. Comment: PennFuture comments determinations and notes that the DEP’s RACT must be surplus to all applicable that as in the case with Pennsylvania $1500 per ton cost effectiveness is a state and federal requirements. Under Power—Newcastle, EPA should target value and not an absolute Pennsylvania law, ERCs must be compare RACT proposals to applicable maximum. For example, in its analyses surplus, permanent, quantified, and acid rain program emission limits and of the cost effectiveness of RACT control Federally enforceable. 25 Pa.Code control strategies. PennFuture contends options submitted by DEP as part of the 127.207(1). As to the requirement that that EPA previously disapproved a case-by-case SIP revision for Peoples ERCs be surplus, the Pennsylvania Code RACT proposal for the Pennsylvania Natural Gas (PNG) Valley Compressor states: ERCs shall be included in the Power—Newcastle plant [62 FR 43959 Station’s turbo charged lean burn IC current emission inventory, and may (1997); 63 FR 23668 (1998)] and that engine (see the Administrative Record not be required by or be used to meet EPA did so on the basis that the acid for 66 FR 43492), the Commonwealth past or current SIP, attainment rain program requires more stringent included DEP interoffice memoranda demonstration, RFP, emission limitation emission limits. PennFuture asserts that or compliance plans. Emission (Thomas Joseph to Krishnan while EPA had originally proposed to reductions necessary to meet NSPS, Ramamurthy, July 14, 1994 and approve this proposal, an analysis of LAER, RACT, Best Available Krishnan Ramamurthy to Thomas comparable boilers and, especially, a Technology, BACT and permit or plan McGinley, Babu Patel, Ronald Davis, comparison to Phase II emission limits approval emissions limitations or Richard Maxwell, and Devendra Verma, under the acid rain program led EPA to another emissions limitation required July 15, 1994) which spoke directly to conclude that the RACT proposal by the Clean Air Act or the [Air the $1500/ton dollar figure as being a emission limits were too lenient. [62 FR Pollution Control Act] may not be used guideline and not an upper limit. These at 43961]. Therefore, PennFuture to generate ERCs. 25 Pa.Code memoranda explain that although PNG contends that for sources subject to the initially proposed intermediate original 127.207(1)(i). To be creditable, ERCs must surpass not only RACT acid rain program, EPA should consider equipment manufacturer (OEM) requirements but a host of other emissions and control strategies for combustion controls which would have possible sources of emission limits. compliance with acid rain emission reduced NO emissions from 254.7 tons X PennFuture comments that some of the limits when evaluating proposals for per year to 115 tons per year (by 55%) RACT evaluations at issue in the current compliance with RACT. at a cost of $1355 per ton reduced, DEP EPA notices purport to establish RACT Response: Title IV of the Act, required the installation of an OEM lean as a baseline for future ERCs. addressing the acid rain program, combustion modification that reduced PennFuture does acknowledge that EPA contains NOX emission requirements for NO emissions from 254.7 tons per year X notes in its boilerplate for the notices, utilities which must be met in addition to 76 tons per year (by 69%) at a cost that Pennsylvania and EPA have to any RACT requirements (see NOX of $1684 per ton reduced. The DEP’s established a series of NOX-reducing Supplement to the General Preamble at July 15, 1994 interoffice memorandum rules, including the recent Chapter 145 57 FR 55625, November 25, 1992). The says of the PNG RACT determination rule, to reduce NOX at large utility and Act provides for a number of control which exceeded the cost effectiveness industrial sources. See, for example, 66 programs that may affect similar screening level of $1500 per ton ‘‘Tom’s FR 42415, 16–17 (August 13, 2001). sources. For example, new sources may (Joseph) insistence for the next more Because any ERCs must be surplus to be subject to new source performance stringent level of control than the the most stringent limitation applicable standards (NSPS), best available control company’s chosen level in the case of under state or federal law as described technology (BACT), and lowest PNG was consistent with EPA Region in the Pennsylvania Code provision set achievable emission rate (LAER). Other III’s sentiment that establishing any forth above, DEP and EPA must not controls, under such programs as the dollar figure in RACT guidance will not approve ERCs unless they surpass all acid rain program or the hazardous air provide for an ‘automatic’ rejection of a such limitations in addition to any pollutant program may also apply to control technology as RACT for a limits set by RACT. sources. However, the applicability of source.’’ Response: EPA agrees with this these other requirements, which are In no instance, has EPA proposed to comment by PennFuture. The approval often more stringent than RACT, do not approve a RACT determination of a case-by-case RACT determination, establish what requirements must apply submitted by the Commonwealth which in and of itself, does not establish the under the RACT program. While these was based solely on a conclusion that baseline from which further emission programs may provide information as to controls that cost more than $1500/ton reductions may be calculated and the technical and economic feasibility of were not required as RACT. As assumed creditable under the reduction programs for RACT, there is
VerDate 11
no presumption that acid rain controls this reason, this action is also not Act. Thus, the requirements of section should be mandated as RACT. subject to Executive Order 13211, 12(d) of the National Technology EPA stated in the final disapproval of ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 the NOX RACT determination for PPNC Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This [63 FR at 23669], that the discussion Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May rule does not impose an information concerning average emission rates for 22, 2001). This action merely approves collection burden under the provisions boilers with respect to the acid rain state law as meeting Federal of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 program requirements were included in requirements and imposes no additional (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). order to provide a context for EPA’s requirements beyond those imposed by proposed disapproval. EPA made clear state law. Accordingly, the B. Submission to Congress and the in its August 18, 1997 proposed Administrator certifies that this rule Comptroller General disapproval of Pennsylvania Powers’— will not have a significant economic The Congressional Review Act, 5 Newcastle (PPNC) RACT determination, impact on a substantial number of small U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small that the basis for disapproval was a entities under the Regulatory Flexibility comparison between PPNC’s boilers and Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this Business Regulatory Enforcement other similar combustion units, not acid rule approves pre-existing requirements Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides rain limits. In fact, EPA stated in the under state law and does not impose that before a rule may take effect, the August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval any additional enforceable duty beyond agency promulgating the rule must that ‘‘Without additional knowledge or that required by state law, it does not submit a rule report, which includes a information, it would be erroneous and contain any unfunded mandate or copy of the rule, to each House of the premature to conclude that the limits in significantly or uniquely affect small Congress and to the Comptroller General the acid rain permit are RACT.’’ [62 FR governments, as described in the of the United States. Section 804 at 43961]. EPA clearly stated in the final Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 exempts from section 801 the following disapproval for PPNC that it did not use (Public Law 104–4). This rule also does types of rules: (1) Rules of particular acid rain permit limits, or not have tribal implications because it applicability; (2) rules relating to agency Pennsylvania’s participation in any will not have a substantial direct effect management or personnel; and (3) rules other NOX control program, to on one or more Indian tribes, on the of agency organization, procedure, or determine PPNC RACT approvability relationship between the Federal practice that do not substantially affect [63 FR at 23670]. Nor has EPA intended Government and Indian tribes, or on the the rights or obligations of non-agency to use participation in NOX control distribution of power and parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not programs including acid rain, in responsibilities between the Federal required to submit a rule report determining RACT for PPNC or any Government and Indian tribes, as regarding today’s action under section other subject sources. EPA also stated specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 801 because this is a rule of particular that the April 30, 1998, PPNC FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This applicability establishing source- disapproval was based on the absence of action also does not have Federalism specific requirements for nine named pertinent information regarding a implications because it does not have sources. computerized combustion optimization substantial direct effects on the States, system through an enforceable permit, on the relationship between the national C. Petitions for Judicial Review not comparison of acid rain permit government and the States, or on the limits. distribution of power and Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of III. Final Action responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in this action must be filed in the United EPA is approving the SIP revisions to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, States Court of Appeals for the the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by August 10, 1999). This action merely appropriate circuit by December 31, PADEP to establish and require VOC approves a state rule implementing a 2001. Filing a petition for and/or NOX RACT for nine major of Federal standard, and does not alter the reconsideration by the Administrator of sources located in the Philadelphia area. relationship or the distribution of power this final rule does not affect the finality EPA is approving these RACT SIP and responsibilities established in the of this rule for the purposes of judicial submittals because the Philadelphia Air Clean Air Act. This rule also is not review nor does it extend the time Management Services (AMS) and subject to Executive Order 13045 within which a petition for judicial PADEP established and imposed these ‘‘Protection of Children from review may be filed, and shall not RACT requirements in accordance with Environmental Health Risks and Safety postpone the effectiveness of such rule the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), or action. This action approving VOC RACT regulations applicable to these because it is not economically and/or NOX RACT for nine sources sources. The AMS and PADEP have also significant. In reviewing SIP imposed record-keeping, monitoring, located in the Philadelphia area may not submissions, EPA’s role is to approve be challenged later in proceedings to and testing requirements on these state choices, provided that they meet sources sufficient to determine enforce its requirements. (See section the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this 307(b)(2).) compliance with the applicable RACT context, in the absence of a prior determinations. existing requirement for the State to use List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 IV. Administrative Requirements voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a Environmental protection, Air A. General Requirements SIP submission for failure to use VCS. pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR It would thus be inconsistent with Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is applicable law for EPA, when it reviews dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and a SIP submission, to use VCS in place recordkeeping requirements. therefore is not subject to review by the of a SIP submission that otherwise Office of Management and Budget. For satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air
VerDate 11
Dated: October 15, 2001. July 27, 1999, except for condition 1.A. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. James W. Newsom, 10–17, inclusive, condition 2.E., 2.F., Kim Pierce, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562– Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 2.G., and condition 8. 9124 or [email protected]/. (8) Exelon Generation Company- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Delaware Generating Station, PA–51– section provides additional information 4901, effective July 11, 2001. by addressing the following questions: (9) Exelon Generation Company- 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: Schuylkill Generating Station, PA–51– What is the operating permit program? Why is EPA taking this action? 4904, effective July 11, 2001. What is involved in this final action? PART 52—[AMENDED] (ii) Additional Materials—Other What Is the Operating Permit Program? 1. The authority citation for Part 52 materials submitted by the continues to read as follows: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in Title V of the CAA Amendments of support of and pertaining to the RACT 1990 required all state and local Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. determinations for the sources listed in permitting authorities to develop paragraph (c)(184) (i)(B) of this section. Subpart NN—Pennsylvania operating permit programs that met [FR Doc. 01–26765 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] certain federal criteria. In implementing 2. Section 52.2020 is amended by BILLING CODE 6560–50–P the title V operating permit programs, adding paragraph (c)(184) to read as the permitting authorities require follows: certain sources of air pollution to obtain ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION permits that contain all applicable § 52.2020 Identification of plan. AGENCY requirements under the CAA. The focus * * * * * of the operating permit program is to (c) * * * 40 CFR Part 70 improve enforcement by issuing each (184) Revisions to the Pennsylvania [KY–T5–2001–02; FRL–7095–1] source a permit that consolidates all of Regulations, Chapter 129 pertaining to the applicable CAA requirements into a VOC and NOX RACT, for sources Clean Air Act Final Full Approval of federally enforceable document. By located in the Philadelphia area Operating Permit Program; KY consolidating all of the applicable submitted by the Pennsylvania requirements for a facility, the source, Department of Environmental Protection AGENCY: Environmental Protection the public, and the permitting on April 16, 1996, June 10, 1996, Agency (EPA). authorities can more easily determine November 4, 1997, December 31, 1997, ACTION: Final full approval. what CAA requirements apply and how March 24, 1998, March 23, 2001, and compliance with those requirements is SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating full August 8, 2001. determined. approval of the operating permit (i) Incorporation by reference. Sources required to obtain an program of the Kentucky Department of (A) Letters submitted by the operating permit under the title V Environmental Protection. This program Pennsylvania Department of program include: ‘‘major’’ sources of air was submitted in response to the Environmental Protection transmitting pollution and certain other sources directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act source-specific VOC and/or NOX RACT specified in the CAA or in EPA’s (CAA) Amendments that permitting determinations, in the form of plan implementing regulations. For example, authorities develop, and submit to EPA, approvals and operating permits on all sources regulated under the acid rain programs for issuing operating permits April 16, 1996, June 10, 1996, November program, regardless of size, must obtain to all major stationary sources and to 4, 1997, December 31, 1997, March 24, operating permits. Examples of major certain other sources within the 1998, March 23, 2001, and August 8, sources include those that have the permitting authorities’ jurisdiction. On 2001. potential to emit 100 tons per year or November 14, 1995, EPA granted (B) Plan approvals (PA), or Operating more of volatile organic compounds interim approval to the Kentucky title V Permits (OP) issued to the following (VOCs), carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur operating permit program. This agency sources: dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NO ), or revised its program to satisfy the X (1) Jefferson Smurfit Corporation and particulate matter (PM ); those that conditions of the interim approval, and 10 Container Corporation of America, PA– emit 10 tons per year of any single EPA proposed full approval in the 51–1566, for PLID 1566, effective April hazardous air pollutant (specifically Federal Register on September 12, 2001. 10, 1995. listed under the CAA); or those that EPA did not receive any comments on (2) Maritank Philadelphia, Inc., PA– emit 25 tons per year or more of a the proposed action, so this action 51–5013, for PLID 5013, effective combination of hazardous air pollutants promulgates final full approval of the December 28, 1995. (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the Kentucky operating permit program. (3) Moyer Packing Company, OP–46– National Ambient Air Quality Standards 0001, effective March 15, 1996, except EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 2001. for ozone, carbon monoxide, or for the expiration date. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Kentucky particulate matter, major sources are (4) Tullytown Resource Recovery submittal and other supporting defined by the gravity of the Facility (Waste Management of PA, documentation used in developing the nonattainment classification. For Inc.), OP–09–0024, effective July 14, final full approval are available for example, in ozone nonattainment areas 1997, except for the expiration date. inspection during normal business classified as ‘‘serious,’’ major sources (5) SPS Technologies, OP–46–0032, hours at EPA, Air Planning Branch, 61 include those with the potential of effective October 30, 1997, except for Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia emitting 50 tons per year or more of the expiration date. 30303–8960. Interested persons wanting VOCs or NOX. (6) PECO Energy Company, OP–09– to examine these documents, which are 0077, effective December 19, 1997, contained in EPA docket number KY– Why Is EPA Taking This Action? except for the expiration date. T5–2001–01, should make an Where a title V operating permit (7) Philadelphia Gas Works, appointment at least 48 hours before the program substantially, but not fully, met Richmond Plant, PA–51–4922, effective visiting day. the criteria outlined in the
VerDate 11
implementing regulations codified at 40 Order 12866, and (2) concerns an have a significant economic impact on Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part environmental health or safety risk that a substantial number of small entities. 70, EPA granted interim approval EPA has reason to believe may have a Small entities include small businesses, contingent on the state revising its disproportionate effect on children. If small not-for-profit enterprises, and program to correct the deficiencies. the regulatory action meets both criteria, small governmental jurisdictions. Because the Kentucky program the Agency must evaluate the This rule will not have a significant substantially, but not fully, met the environmental health or safety effects of impact on a substantial number of small requirements of part 70, EPA granted the planned rule on children, and entities because operating permit interim approval to this program in a explain why the planned regulation is program approvals under section 502 of rulemaking (60 FR 57186) published on preferable to other potentially effective the CAA do not create any new November 14, 1995. The interim and reasonably feasible alternatives requirements but simply approve approval notice described the considered by the Agency. requirements that the state is already conditions that had to be met in order This rule is not subject to Executive imposing. Therefore, because this for the Kentucky program to receive full Order 13045 because it is not an approval does not create any new approval. Interim approval of this economically significant regulatory requirements, I certify that this action program expires on December 1, 2001. action as defined in Executive Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small What Is Involved in This Final Action? 12866, and it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental entities. The Kentucky Department of health or safety risks. Environmental Protection has fulfilled H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the conditions of the interim approval D. Executive Order 13132 Under sections 202 of the Unfunded granted on November 14, 1995. On This rule does not have Federalism Mandates Reform Act of 1995, EPA September 12, 2001, EPA published a implications because it will not have must prepare a budgetary impact notice in the Federal Register (see 66 FR substantial direct effects on the States, statement to accompany any proposed 47428) proposing full approval of the on the relationship between the national or final rule that includes a federal Kentucky title V operating permit government and the States, or on the mandate that may result in estimated program, and proposing approval of distribution of power and costs to state, local, or tribal other program revisions. Since EPA did responsibilities among the various governments in the aggregate, or to the not receive any comments on the levels of government, as specified in private sector, of $100 million or more. proposal, this action promulgates final Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ Under section 205, EPA must select the full approval of the Kentucky program (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This most cost-effective and least and final approval of the other program rule merely approves existing burdensome alternative that achieves changes described in the proposal. requirements under state law, and does the objectives of the rule and is Administrative Requirements not alter the relationship or the consistent with statutory requirements. distribution of power and Section 203 requires EPA to establish a A. Docket responsibilities between the state and plan for informing and advising any Copies of the Kentucky submittal and the federal government established in small governments that may be other supporting documentation used in the CAA. significantly or uniquely impacted by developing the final full approval are the rule. E. Executive Order 13175 contained in docket files maintained at EPA has determined that the approval the EPA Region 4 office. The docket is This rule does not have tribal action proposed does not include a an organized and complete file of all the implications because it will not have a federal mandate that may result in information submitted to, or otherwise substantial direct effect on one or more estimated costs of $100 million or more considered by, EPA in the development Indian tribes, on the relationship to either state, local, or tribal of this proposed full approval. The between the federal government and governments in the aggregate, or to the primary purposes of the docket are: (1) Indian tribes, or on the distribution of private sector. This federal action To allow interested parties a means to power and responsibilities between the approves pre-existing requirements identify and locate documents so that federal government and Indian tribes, as under state or local law, and imposes no they can effectively participate in the specified by Executive Order 13175, new requirements. Accordingly, no approval process, and (2) to serve as the ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with additional costs to state, local, or tribal record in case of judicial review. The Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR governments, or to the private sector, docket files are available for public 67249, November 9, 2000). result from this action. inspection at the location listed under F. Executive Order 13211 I. National Technology Transfer and the ADDRESSES section of this document. This rule is not subject to Executive Advancement Act B. Executive Order 12866 Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Section 12 of the National Technology The Office of Management and Budget Regulations That Significantly Affect Transfer and Advancement Act (OMB) has exempted this regulatory Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 (NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal action from Executive Order 12866, FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is agencies to evaluate existing technical entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and not a significantly regulatory action standards when developing a new Review.’’ under Executive Order 12866. regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary C. Executive Order 13045 G. Regulatory Flexibility Act consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available Protection of Children from The Regulatory Flexibility Act and applicable when developing Environmental Health Risks and Safety generally requires an agency to conduct programs and policies unless doing so Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) a regulatory flexibility analysis of any would be inconsistent with applicable applies to any rule that: (1) Is rule subject to notice and comment law or otherwise impractical. determined to be ‘‘economically rulemaking requirements unless the In reviewing operating permit significant’’ as defined under Executive agency certifies that the rule will not programs, EPA’s role is to approve state
VerDate 11
choices, provided that they meet the PART 70—[AMENDED] after December 31, 1995. As a deterrent criteria of the CAA and EPA’s to misfueling prior to that date, the EPA regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. 1. The authority citation for part 70 regulations required filler inlet In this context, in the absence of a prior continues to read as follows: restrictors on motor vehicles equipped existing requirement for the state to use Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. with an emission control device that VCS, EPA has no authority to could be affected by the use of leaded 2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended disapprove an operating permit program gasoline, such as a catalytic converter. by revising the entry for Kentucky to for failure to use VCS. It would thus be EPA retained that provision after 1995 read as follows: inconsistent with applicable law for because the filler inlet restrictor, besides EPA, when it reviews an operating Appendix A to Part 70—Approval being a deterrent to misfueling, has also permit program, to use VCS in place of Status of State and Local Operating been incorporated into the design of an operating permit program that Permits Programs some vapor recovery gasoline nozzle otherwise satisfies the provisions of the * * * * * spouts. Gasoline tank filler inlet CAA. Thus, the requirements of section restrictors do not work well with most 12(d) of NTTAA do not apply. Kentucky motorcycle fuel tanks, especially the J. Paperwork Reduction Act (a)(1) Kentucky Natural Resources and saddle type of tank, because of their Environmental Protection Cabinet: Submitted shallow depth. A gasoline tank filler This action will not impose any on December 27, 1993, and supplemented on inlet restrictor may cause gasoline collection of information subject to the November 15, 1994, April 14, 1995, May 3, spitback or spillage when a motorcycle provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 1995, and May 22, 1995; interim approval is refueled, which increases evaporative Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than expires on December 1, 2001. emissions. Today there is relatively those previously approved and assigned (2) Revision submitted on February 13, little risk of misfueling a motorcycle. OMB control number 2060–0243. For 2001. Rule revisions contained in the additional information concerning these February 13, 2001 submittal adequately Also, it is unlikely that a gasoline tank addressed the conditions of the interim filler inlet restrictor on a motorcycle requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An approval which expires on December 1, 2001. agency may not conduct or sponsor, and helps to control gasoline vapors when The Commonwealth is hereby granted final the motorcycle is refueled. a person is not required to respond to, full approval effective on November 30, 2001. a collection of information unless it (b)(1) Air Pollution Control District of DATES: This action will be effective displays a currently valid OMB control Jefferson County: submitted on February 1, December 31, 2001, unless the Agency number. 1994, and supplemented on November 15, receives adverse or critical comments or 1994, May 3, 1995, July 14, 1995, and a request for a public hearing by K. Submission to Congress and the February 16, 1996; full approval effective on Comptroller General April 22, 1996. November 30, 2001. If the Agency (2) [Reserved] receives adverse or critical comments, The Congressional Review Act, 5 EPA will publish in the Federal * * * * * U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Register a timely withdrawal of this Business Regulatory Enforcement [FR Doc. 01–27362 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] direct final rule informing the public Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides BILLING CODE 6560–50–P that this rule will not take effect. that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must ADDRESSES: Any person wishing to submit a rule report, which includes a ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submit comments should submit them copy of the rule, to each House of the AGENCY (in duplicate, if possible) to the docket Congress and to the Comptroller General listed below, with a copy forwarded to of the United States. EPA will submit a 40 CFR Part 80 Richard Babst, U.S. Environmental report containing this rule and other [FRL–7095–8] Protection Agency, Transportation and required information to the U.S. Senate, Regional Programs Division, 1200 the U.S. House of Representatives, and RIN 2060–AJ76 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., (Mail the Comptroller General of the United Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Code: 6406J), Washington, D.C. 20460. States prior to publication of the rule in Lead or Lead Additives for Highway Public Docket: Materials relevant to the Federal Register. A major rule Use: Fuel Inlet Restrictor Exemption this rule are available for inspection in cannot take effect until 60 days after it for Motorcycles public docket A–2001–17 at the Air is published in the Federal Register. Docket Office of the EPA, Room M– AGENCY: This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Environmental Protection 1500, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Agency. D.C. 20460, (202) 260–7548, between List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 ACTION: Direct final rule. the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Environmental protection, SUMMARY: This rule exempts Monday through Friday. As provided in Administrative practice and procedure, motorcycles with emission control 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be Air pollution control, Intergovernmental devices that could be affected by the use charged for copying docket material. relations, Operating permits, Reporting of leaded gasoline from having to be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and recordkeeping requirements. equipped with gasoline tank filler inlet Richard Babst at (202) 564–9473 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. restrictors. As before, motorcycles and facsimile: (202) 565–2085, e-mail other motor vehicles without such address: [email protected] Dated: October 22, 2001. emission control devices are not A. Stanley Meiburg, required to be equipped with gasoline SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. tank filler inlet restrictors. Regulated Entities For reasons set out in the preamble, The Clean Air Act and corresponding Appendix A of part 70 of title 40, EPA regulations prohibit gasoline Entities potentially affected by this chapter I, of the Code of Federal containing lead or lead additives rule are manufacturers of motorcycles. Regulations is amended as follows: (leaded gasoline) as a motor vehicle fuel Regulated categories include:
VerDate 11
Category Examples of regulated entities the restrictor opening or push open the that all motor vehicles were spring loaded door. Fueling with leaded manufactured with tank filler inlet Industry .... Manufacturers of motorcycles gasoline would require the nozzle spout restrictors at that time. We did not to be positioned in front of the restrictor intend to broaden the applicability of To determine whether you are opening and spring-loaded door. If § 80.24(b). affected by this rule, you should fueling were attempted in this manner, In the February 2, 1996 direct final carefully examine the requirements in the gasoline would pool at the restrictor rule and associated notice of proposed § 80.24(b) of title 40 of the Code of opening and cause the nozzle’s rulemaking, we also removed Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have automatic shut-off device to activate. §§ 80.24(b)(1) and 80.24(b)(2). We any questions regarding the The related § 80.24(b)(2) exempted believed misfueling would be unlikely, applicability of this action to a motorcycle manufacturers from meeting making the § 80.24(b)(1) ‘‘pooling’’ particular entity, consult the person the ‘‘pooling’’ requirements of safeguard against misfueling listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER § 80.24(b)(1). unnecessary. Once we removed INFORMATION CONTACT section. Section 211(n) of the Clean Air Act, § 80.24(b)(1), it was appropriate for us to I. History of Fuel Tank Filler Restrictor 42 U.S.C. 7545(n), prohibits the remove § 80.24(b)(2) as well, since introduction of gasoline containing lead § 80.24(b)(2) exempted motorcycle Prior to 1996, 40 CFR 80.24(b) or lead additives into commerce for use manufacturers from the requirements of contained size specifications for the as a motor vehicle fuel after December § 80.24(b)(1). gasoline tank filler inlet of motor 31, 1995. For consistency with this We received an adverse comment vehicles equipped with an emission Clean Air Act prohibition, we published from Harley Davidson, Inc. (Harley) on control device that would be in the Federal Register on February 2, the revised language of 40 CFR 80.24(b) significantly impaired by the use of 1996 a direct final rule and associated in the February 2, 1996 direct final rule leaded gasoline. The purpose of the tank notice of proposed rulemaking revising and proposed rule.1 In its comment, filler inlet restriction was to allow the our regulations (61 FR 3832 and 61 FR Harley stated that motorcycles generally insertion of an unleaded gasoline pump 3894, respectively). The direct final rule do not use emission control devices that nozzle, but not a leaded gasoline pump became effective on March 4, 1996 would be significantly impaired by the nozzle. Specifically, § 80.24(b) required except for language associated with use of leaded gasoline (e.g., catalytic that a manufacturer of motor vehicles § 80.24(b). We withdrew language for converters) and are therefore not ‘‘equipped with an emission control that paragraph from the direct final rule manufactured with tank filler inlet device which the Administrator has on March 4, 1996 (61 FR 8221) due to restrictors matching the requirements of determined will be significantly adverse comment, and subsequently the existing § 80.24(b). The February 2, impaired by the use of leaded gasoline’’ published revised language in the 1996 direct final rule and associated shall ‘‘[m]anufacture such vehicle with Federal Register on June 6, 1996 (61 FR notice of proposed rulemaking would each gasoline tank filler inlet having a 28763). have required these motorcycles to meet restriction which prevents the insertion In the February 2, 1996 direct final the fuel inlet size requirements of 40 of a nozzle with a spout as described in rule and associated notice of proposed CFR § 80.24(b), thereby causing § 80.22(f)(1) and allows the insertion of rulemaking, we removed various a nozzle with a spout as described in additional economic burden and portions of § 80.24, including the manufacturing complexity for Harley. § 80.22(f)(2).’’ Section 80.22(f)(1) introductory text, and modified specified that ‘‘[e]ach pump from which We did not intend or foresee that we § 80.24(b) to make the size requirements would be expanding the applicability of leaded gasoline is introduced into motor of the tank filler inlet applicable to all vehicles shall be equipped with a nozzle § 80.24(b) by the revised applicability new motor vehicles, and not just to language. Because of this adverse spout having a terminal end with an those equipped with an emission outside diameter of not less than 0.930 comment, we withdrew paragraph 40 control device that would be CFR 80.24(b) from the direct final rule, inch (2.363 centimeters).’’ Section significantly impaired by the use of 80.22(f)(2) specified that ‘‘[e]ach pump and published it in the June 6, 1996 leaded gasoline. We reasoned that final rule with its previous applicability. from which unleaded gasoline is retaining the requirement for the tank introduced into motor vehicles shall be filler inlet restrictor would conform II. Why Are We Exempting equipped with a nozzle spout which with the statutory ban prohibiting the Motorcycles? meets the following specifications: (i) use of gasoline containing lead or lead There are few, if any, offsetting The outside diameter of the terminal additives as a motor vehicle fuel. The environmental benefits to support the end shall not be greater than 0.840 inch restrictor requirements for motor continued use of gasoline tank filler (2.134 centimeters); (ii) * * *’’ vehicles would match the nozzle size inlet restrictors in motorcycles equipped Section 80.24(b) contained additional requirement for dispensing unleaded with emission control devices that specifications to prevent misfueling of gasoline, which we had retained in would be significantly impaired by the motor vehicles with leaded gasoline. § 80.22(f)(2). Further, General Motors use of leaded gasoline. Today there is Section 80.24(b)(1) required that the and several gasoline pump nozzle relatively little risk of misfueling a filler inlet restrictor ‘‘pool’’ gasoline at manufacturers had requested that the motorcycle. Gasoline tank filler inlet the restrictor’s opening, if fueling is specification for the tank filler inlet size restrictors were originally required to attempted when the spout of a pump be retained so that automobile prevent motor vehicles with an nozzle is not inserted into the restrictor equipment would continue to be emission control device, such as a opening. Historically, this had been compatible with Stage II vapor recovery catalytic converter, from using leaded accomplished by a spring-loaded door pump nozzles. We simplified the gasoline. Leaded gasoline can damage on the inside of the restrictor opening, applicability language of § 80.24(b) to catalytic converters and certain other which would be pushed open by refer to all motor vehicles, instead of emission control devices. Significantly, inserting the spout of an unleaded motor vehicles equipped with an gasoline nozzle. Since leaded gasoline emission control device that would be 1 This comment can be found in docket No. A– nozzle spouts were larger than the inlet significantly impaired by the use of 95–13 for the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and restrictor opening, they did not fit into leaded gasoline, because we thought proposed rule, and for the June 6, 1996 final rule.
VerDate 11
leaded gasoline has now been banned then diverted to a canister in the motorcycles from a requirement that, from use in all motor vehicles for over vehicle.3 when applied to motorcycles, generally five years and is generally no longer We understand that gasoline tank has no air quality benefits and that, in available for sale at gasoline filling filler inlet restrictors do not work well fact, could cause increased evaporative stations. Also, it is unlikely that a with most motorcycle fuel tanks, emissions from motorcycles during gasoline tank filler inlet restrictor on a especially the saddle type of tank, refueling. In the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ motorcycle helps to control gasoline because of their shallow depth. The use section of today’s Federal Register, vapors when the motorcycle is refueled. of gasoline tank inlet restrictors in however, we are publishing a separate Although a vapor recovery gasoline motorcycles may in fact contribute to document that will serve as the proposal nozzle, in conjunction with the gasoline unnecessary releases of gasoline vapors to exempt motorcycles from having to tank filler inlet restrictor, helps to and emissions. Unlike a car or truck, be equipped with a tank filler inlet control gasoline vapors and emissions motorcycles are typically fueled while restrictor if adverse comments are filed. when used to refuel most motor the operator observes the tank fuel level, This direct final rule will be effective on vehicles, they are relatively ineffective similar to filling a small gasoline December 31, 2001 without further when used to refuel motorcycles. container typically used to refuel notice unless we receive adverse During refueling of a car or truck, the lawnmowers and other small gasoline comment by November 30, 2001. If EPA fuel nozzle spout is inserted into the fill powered equipment. However, the receives adverse comment, we will tube and through the filler neck restrictor plate obstructs the view of the publish a timely withdrawal of this restrictor plate. The fuel nozzle fuel level, and could contribute to direct final rule in the Federal Register automatically stops the flow of gasoline inadvertent fuel overfill and spillage. If informing the public that the rule will when it senses a sufficiently high level fueling with the ‘‘balance’’ type of vapor not take effect. We will address all of gasoline vapors below the restrictor recovery nozzle, motorcycle operators public comments in a subsequent final plate, which indicates the fuel tank is generally pull back and hold the rubber rule based on today’s proposed rule. We full. We understand that, beginning boot to activate the interlock and allow will not institute a second comment with the introduction of Stage I vapor for better visibility, but that defeats the period on this action. Any parties recovery fueling systems in the early vapor recovery system.4 Further, the interested in commenting must do so at 1990s and continuing with current Stage filler inlet restrictor may cause the this time. II vapor recovery systems, the fuel tank nozzle spout to be inserted deeper into IV. Administrative Requirements inlet restrictor of a car or truck has been the motorcycle tank than otherwise used as a guide, a seat and a pressure would be necessary, potentially causing A. Executive Order 12866 contact point for some vapor recovery increased splash back from the shallow Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR gasoline nozzle spouts. tank. Besides causing excess gasoline 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must For some vapor recovery fueling vapors and spitback through the determine whether the regulatory action systems, the restrictor plate lines up the restrictor plate openings, this is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to nozzle and helps concentrate the splashback could cause the pump OMB review and the requirements of fugitive emissions for collection. nozzle to prematurely stop the flow of the Executive Order. The Order defines Without the restrictor plate, more gasoline. The operator may have to ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one fugitive emissions would be released. reactivate the pump nozzle, possible that is likely to result in a rule that may: The ‘‘balance’’ type of vapor recovery several times, before the tank is full. (1) Have an annual effect on the system uses a boot to seal around the These problems were not much of an economy of $100 million or more, or outside of the tank filler inlet tube. issue in the 1995 and earlier time frame, adversely affect in a material way the While this system does not require the because only relatively few motorcycles economy, a sector of the economy, restrictor plate to help capture fugitive were equipped with catalytic productivity, competition, jobs, the emissions, it requires the restrictor plate converters, and thus, only relatively few environment, public health or safety, or to push against in order to activate an required tank inlet restrictors. However, State, local, or tribal governments or interlock. An ‘‘emission’’ or ‘‘efficiency’’ a significant number of 2001 model year communities; control vapor recovery device does not motorcycles have been equipped with (2) Create a serious inconsistency or need the restrictor plate to control catalytic converters. otherwise interfere with an action taken fugitive emissions. This device consists III. Final EPA Action or planned by another agency; of a cup, which has an outside diameter (3) Materially alter the budgetary the same as the inside diameter of the Today’s direct final rule revises 40 impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, fill hole, that is clipped to the spout. A CFR 80.24(b) to exempt motorcycles or loan programs or the rights and similar type of vapor recovery system, equipped with an emission control obligations of recipients thereof; or the Marconi system, does not need the device that will be affected by the use (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues restrictor plate or the plastic cup.2 of leaded gasoline, such as a catalytic arising out of legal mandates, the Most on-board vapor recovery converter, from having to be equipped President’s priorities, or the principles systems, which are required for light- with a fuel tank inlet restrictor. set forth in the Executive Order. duty vehicles and light-duty trucks but EPA is publishing this rule without It has been determined that this rule not for motorcycles, are also designed prior proposal because we view this as is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ around the restrictor plate. A seal is a noncontroversial action and anticipate under the terms of EO 12866 and is needed between the pump nozzle and no adverse comment. This rulemaking is therefore not subject to OMB review. the tank filler inlet tube to prevent very narrow in scope and exempts fugitive emissions from escaping. This B. Paperwork Reduction Act seal is normally located below the 3 Ibid This action does not impose any new restrictor plate, and uses the restrictor 4 Also, for those motorcycles where the filler cap information collection burden under the plate to line-up the nozzle with the seal. is attached to the gas tank by a hinge, the rubber provisions of the Paperwork Reduction boot of a ‘‘balance’’ type of vapor recovery nozzle Fugitive emissions below the seal are would not seat correctly anyway, and the insertion Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and pressure required to compress the boot may damage therefore is not subject to these 2 Conversation with Catlow on April 3, 2001. the gas cap, hinge, and tank finish. requirements.
VerDate 11
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the rule is a deregulatory action and regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Title II of the Unfunded Mandates affects only motorcycle manufacturers. effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of the States, or on the distribution of Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Children From Environmental Health power and responsibilities among the Federal agencies to assess the effects of Risks and Safety Risks their regulatory actions on State, local, various levels of government.’’ Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of This rule does not have federalism and tribal governments and the private Children from Environmental Health sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, implications. It will not have substantial Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, direct effects on the States, on the EPA generally must prepare a written Apr. 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: statement, including a cost-benefit relationship between the national (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically government and the States or on the analysis, for proposed and final rules significant’’ as defined under Executive with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may distribution of power and Order 12866, and (2) concerns an responsibilities among the various result in expenditures to State, local, environmental health or safety risk that and tribal governments, in the aggregate, levels of government as specified in EPA has reason to believe may have a Executive Order 13132. Today’s rule or to the private sector of $100 million disproportionate effect on children. If or more in any one year. Before eliminates the existing requirement that the regulatory action meets both criteria, manufacturers of motorcycles must promulgating an EPA rule for which a the Agency must evaluate the written statement is needed, section 205 equip certain motorcycles with fuel tank environmental health or safety effects of filler inlet restrictors. Thus, Executive of the UMRA generally requires EPA to the planned rule on children, and Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. identify and consider a reasonable explain why the planned regulation is number of regulatory alternatives and preferable to other potentially effective F. National Technology Transfer and adopt the least costly, most cost- and reasonably feasible alternatives Advancement Act effective or least burdensome alternative considered by the Agency. that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule is not subject to the Section 12(d) of the National The provisions of section 205 do not Executive Order because it is not Technology Transfer and Advancement apply when they are inconsistent with economically significant as defined in Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub L. No. applicable law. Moreover, section 205 Executive Order 12866, and because the 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other Agency does not have reason to believe note) directs EPA to use voluntary than the least costly, most cost-effective the environmental health or safety risks consensus standards in its regulatory or least burdensome alternative if the addressed by this action present a activities unless to do so would be Administrator publishes with the final disproportionate risk to children. EPA inconsistent with applicable law or rule an explanation why that alternative reduced the content of lead in leaded otherwise impractical. Voluntary was not adopted. Before EPA establishes gasoline, because EPA found that lead consensus standards are technical any regulatory requirements that may particle emissions from motor vehicles standards (e.g., materials specifications, significantly or uniquely affect small presented a significant risk of harm to test methods, sampling procedures, and governments, including tribal the health of urban populations, business practices) that are developed or governments, it must have developed especially children (38 FR 33734, Dec. adopted by voluntary consensus under section 203 of the UMRA a small 6, 1973). Congress ultimately banned standards bodies. The NTTAA directs government agency plan. The plan must the use of leaded gasoline in motor EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, provide for notifying affected small vehicles after 1995. 42 U.S.C. 7545(n). explanations when the Agency decides governments, enabling officials of Gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors were not to use available and applicable affected small governments to have related to the phase-out of leaded voluntary consensus standards. meaningful and timely input in the gasoline to prevent a motor vehicle with This action does not involve technical development of EPA regulatory an emission control device, such as a standards. Therefore, EPA did not proposals with significant Federal catalytic converter, from using leaded consider the use of any voluntary intergovernmental mandates, and gasoline. Leaded gasoline can damage consensus standards. informing, educating, and advising such emission control devices. Today G. Congressional Review small governments on compliance with there is relatively little risk of the regulatory requirements. misfueling a motorcycle with an The Congressional Review Act, 5 EPA has determined that this rule emission control device that could be U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small does not contain a Federal mandate that damaged by the use of leaded gasoline, Business Regulatory Enforcement may result in expenditures of $100 because leaded gasoline has now been Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides million or more for State, local, and banned from use in all motor vehicles that before a rule may take effect, the tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for over five years and is generally no agency promulgating the rule must the private sector in any one year. longer available for sale at gasoline submit a rule report, which includes a Today’s rule exempts motorcycles from filling stations. copy of the rule, to each House of the a current provision that requires them, Congress and to the Comptroller General under certain circumstances, to be E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) of the United States. EPA will submit a equipped with fuel inlet restrictors, and Executive Order 13132, entitled report containing this rule and other thus avoids the costs imposed by the ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, required information to the U.S. Senate, existing Federal regulations. Today’s 1999), requires EPA to develop an the U.S. House of Representatives, and rule, therefore, is not subject to the accountable process to ensure the Comptroller General of the United requirements of sections 202 and 205 of ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State States prior to publication of the rule in the UMRA. and local officials in the development of the Federal Register. A ‘‘major rule’’ EPA has determined that this rule regulatory policies that have federalism cannot take effect until 60 days after it contains no regulatory requirements that implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have is published in the Federal Register. might significantly or uniquely affect federalism implications’’ is defined in This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as small governments. As discussed above, the Executive Order to include defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(a).
VerDate 11
H. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Order 13175. However, this rule was K. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Amended by the Small Business developed during the period when A copy of this action is available on Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of Executive Order 13084 was still in force, the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. and so tribal considerations were under the title: ‘‘Direct Final Rule— addressed under Executive Order 13084. After considering the economic Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Executive Order 13175, entitled impacts of today’s final rule on small Lead or Lead Additives for Highway ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with entities, EPA has concluded that this Use: Fuel Inlet Restrictor Exemption for Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR action will not have a significant Motorcycles.’’ 67249, Nov. 6, 2000), requires EPA to economic impact on a substantial develop an accountable process to L. Statutory Authority number of small entities. In determining ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by whether a rule has a significant Authority for this action is in sections tribal officials in the development of economic impact on a substantial 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 regulatory policies that have tribal number of small entities, the impact of U.S.C. 7545, 7601(a). implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal concern is any significant adverse implications’’ is defined in the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 economic impact on small entities, Executive Order to include regulations since the primary purpose of the Environmental protection, Air that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on regulatory flexibility analyses is to pollution control, Motor vehicle and one or more Indian tribes, on the identify and address regulatory motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle relationship between the Federal alternatives ‘‘which minimize any pollution, Penalties. government and the Indian tribes, or on significant economic impact of the the distribution of power and Dated: October 24, 2001. proposed rule on small entities.’’ 5 responsibilities between the Federal Christine Todd Whitman, U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency government and Indian tribes.’’ Administrator. may conclude that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a Today’s rule does not have tribal For the reasons set forth in the substantial number of small entities if implications. It will not have substantial preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the Code the rule relieves regulatory burden, or direct effects on tribal governments, on of Federal Regulations is amended as otherwise has a positive economic effect the relationship between the Federal follows: government and Indian tribes, or on the on all of the small entities subject to the PART 80—REGULATIONS OF FUELS distribution of power and rule. We have therefore concluded that AND FUEL ADDITIVES today’s final rule will relieve regulatory responsibilities between the Federal burden for all small entities affected by government and Indian tribes, as 1. The authority citation for part 80 this rule. specified in Executive Order 13175. The continues to read as follows: rule affects the applicability of the fuel Today’s rule is a deregulatory action Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and and affects all motorcycle tank filler inlet restrictor to motorcycles. 7601(a). manufacturers. It eliminates the existing It therefore affects only manufacturers of requirement that manufacturers of motorcycles. Thus, Executive Order 2. Section 80.24 is amended by motorcycles must equip certain 13175 does not apply to this rule. adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: motorcycles with fuel tank filler inlet J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy § 80.24 Controls applicable to motor restrictors. We have therefore concluded Effects) vehicle manufacturers. that today’s rule will relieve regulatory * * * * * burden for any small entity. This rule is not subject to Executive (c) A motorcycle, as defined at 40 CFR Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 86.402 for the applicable model year, is I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Regulations That Significantly Affect exempt from to the requirements of and Coordination With Indian Tribal Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 paragraph (b) of this section. Governments FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is On January 1, 2001, Executive Order not a significant regulatory action under [FR Doc. 01–27378 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] 13084 was superseded by Executive Executive Order 12866. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate 11
Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 211
Wednesday, October 31, 2001
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim which might lead to temporary loss of contains notices to the public of the proposed Grigg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, access to the brake pedals during issuance of rules and regulations. The Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations aircraft taxiing or difficulties in purpose of these notices is to give interested Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0111, ensuring the yaw control of the aircraft persons an opportunity to participate in the telephone (817) 222–5490, fax (817) in flight. rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. 222–5961. Eurocopter France has issued Alert SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Service Telex No. 67.00.19 R1, dated November 14, 2000 (Telex). The Telex Comments Invited DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION specifies inspecting the lever, part Interested persons are invited to number (P/N) 332A27–2344–20, for a Federal Aviation Administration participate in the making of the crack by either a borescope within 50 proposed rule by submitting such hours time-in-service (TIS) and at 14 CFR Part 39 written data, views, or arguments as intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS or they may desire. Communications by dye-penetrant inspection within 50 [Docket No. 2001–SW–07–AD] should identify the Rules Docket hours TIS and at intervals not to exceed number and be submitted in triplicate to 1500 hours TIS. The Telex also specifies RIN 2120–AA64 the address specified above. All replacing any cracked lever with an communications received on or before airworthy lever. The DGAC has Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter the closing date for comments will be classified this Telex as mandatory and France Model AS332C, L, L1, and L2 considered before taking action on the issued AD Nos. 2000–487–017(A) and Helicopters proposed rule. The proposals contained 2000–486–077(A), both dated December in this document may be changed in 13, 2000, to ensure the continued AGENCY: Federal Aviation light of the comments received. airworthiness of these helicopters in Administration, DOT. Comments are specifically invited on France. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking the overall regulatory, economic, These helicopter models are (NPRM). environmental, and energy aspects of manufactured in France and are type the proposed rule. All comments certificated for operation in the United SUMMARY: This document proposes submitted will be available, both before adopting a new airworthiness directive States under the provisions of 14 CFR and after the closing date for comments, 21.29 and the applicable bilateral (AD) for Eurocopter France Model in the Rules Docket for examination by AS332C, L, L1, and L2 helicopters. This agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral interested persons. A report agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA proposal would require inspecting the summarizing each FAA-public contact cockpit pedal unit adjustment lever informed of the situation described concerned with the substance of this above. The FAA has examined the (lever) for a crack at specified time proposal will be filed in the Rules intervals by either a borescope or by a findings of the DGAC, reviewed all Docket. available information, and determined dye-penetrant inspection and replacing Commenters wishing the FAA to that AD action is necessary for products any cracked lever with an airworthy acknowledge receipt of their mailed of these type designs that are lever before further flight. This proposal comments submitted in response to this is prompted by reports of cracks proposal must submit a self-addressed, certificated for operation in the United detected in the lever. The actions stamped postcard on which the States. specified by the proposed AD are following statement is made: We have identified an unsafe intended to prevent failure of the lever, ‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2001–SW– condition that is likely to exist or loss of access to the brake pedals on the 07–AD.’’ The postcard will be date develop on other Eurocopter France ground or loss of yaw control in flight, stamped and returned to the Model AS332C, L, L1, and L2 and subsequent loss of control of the commenter. helicopters of the same type designs helicopter. registered in the United States. Availability of NPRMs Therefore, the proposed AD would DATES: Comments must be received on Any person may obtain a copy of this require inspecting the lever for a crack or before December 31, 2001. NPRM by submitting a request to the and replacing any unairworthy lever, P/ ADDRESSES: Submit comments in FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, N 332A27–2344–20, with an airworthy triplicate to the Federal Aviation Southwest Region, Attention: Rules lever. The actions would be required to Administration (FAA), Office of the Docket No. 2001–SW–07–AD, 2601 be accomplished in accordance with the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Telex described previously. Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–SW– Texas 76137. The FAA estimates that 3 helicopters 07–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room of U.S. registry would be affected by this 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may Discussion proposed AD. The FAA also estimates also send comments electronically to The Direction Generale De L’Aviation the following requirements to the Rules Docket at the following Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness accomplish the proposed AD: 2 work address: [email protected]. authority for France, notified the FAA hours for a borescope inspection, 5 work Comments may be inspected at the that an unsafe condition may exist on hours for a dye-penetrant inspection, Office of the Regional Counsel between Eurocopter France Model AS332 and 5 work hours to replace the lever 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through helicopters. The DGAC advises of unless accomplished during a dye- Friday, except Federal holidays. several cases of failure of the lever, penetrant inspection in which no
VerDate 11
additional work hours would be List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. required. The average labor rate is $60 The request should include an assessment of Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation the effect of the modification, alteration, or per work hour. Required parts would safety, Safety. cost approximately $200. Based on these repair on the unsafe condition addressed by The Proposed Amendment this AD; and if the unsafe condition has not figures, the total cost impact of the been eliminated, the request should include proposed AD on U.S. operators is Accordingly, pursuant to the specific proposed actions to address it. authority delegated to me by the estimated to be $1500 assuming an Compliance: Required as indicated, unless inspection using the dye-penetrant Administrator, the Federal Aviation accomplished previously. method and replacing each lever. Administration proposes to amend part To prevent failure of the lever, loss of The regulations proposed herein 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations access to the brake pedals on the ground or would not have a substantial direct (14 CFR part 39) as follows: loss of yaw control in flight, and subsequent effect on the States, on the relationship loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS the following: between the national Government and DIRECTIVES (a) Inspect the lever for a crack, using the States, or on the distribution of either a borescope or dye-penetrant power and responsibilities among the 1. The authority citation for part 39 inspection, in accordance with the various levels of government. Therefore, continues to read as follows: Accomplishment Instructions of either it is determined that this proposal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. paragraph C.C.3. or C.C.5., as applicable, of would not have federalism implications Eurocopter France Alert Telex 67.00.19R1, under Executive Order 13132. § 39.13 [Amended] dated November 14, 2000, and Figure 1 of 2. Section 39.13 is amended by this AD as follows: For the reasons discussed above, I adding a new airworthiness directive to (1) For helicopters with 4450 or more certify that this proposed regulation (1) read as follows: hours time-in-service (TIS), inspect the lever Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within the next 50 hours TIS, and thereafter under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not Eurocopter France: Docket No. 2001–SW– at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS if a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT 07–AD. performed by a borescope or 1500 hours TIS Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Applicability: Model AS332C, L, L1, and if performed by dye-penetrant. L2 helicopters, with a cockpit pedal unit (2) For helicopters with less than 4450 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if adjustment lever (lever), part number (P/N) promulgated, will not have a significant hours TIS, inspect the lever before 332A27–2344–20, installed, certificated in accumulating 4500 hours TIS, and thereafter economic impact, positive or negative, any category. at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS if on a substantial number of small entities Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter performed by a borescope or 1500 hours TIS under the criteria of the Regulatory identified in the preceding applicability if performed by dye-penetrant. Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft provision, regardless of whether it has been (3) Replace any cracked lever with an regulatory evaluation prepared for this otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in airworthy lever before further flight. the area subject to the requirements of this action is contained in the Rules Docket. Note 2: Returning a cracked lever to the AD. For helicopters that have been modified, A copy of it may be obtained by altered, or repaired so that the performance manufacturer is not required by this AD nor contacting the Rules Docket at the of the requirements of this AD is affected, the are you required to inspect levers held as location provided under the caption owner/operator must request approval for an spares. ADDRESSES. alternative method of compliance in BILLING CODE 4910–13–U
VerDate 11
BILLING CODE 4910–13–C
VerDate 11
(b) An alternative method of compliance or commenter and the name and version of methods of verification to become adjustment of the compliance time that the word processing program used to widely available and affordable, the provides an acceptable level of safety may be create the document. (Programs based Rule sets forth a sliding scale approach used if approved by the Manager, Regulations on DOS or Windows are preferred. Files to obtaining verifiable parental consent. Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through from other operating systems should be For uses of personal information that an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, submitted in ASCII text format.) will involve disclosing the information who may concur or comment and then send Alternatively, the Commission will to the public or third parties, the Rule it to the Manager, Regulations Group. accept comments submitted to the requires that website operators use the Note 3: Information concerning the following e-mail address more reliable methods of obtaining existence of approved alternative methods of [email protected]. Individual verifiable parental consent. These compliance with this AD, if any, may be members of the public filing comments methods include: using a print-and-send obtained from the Regulations Group. need not submit multiple copies or form that can be faxed or mailed back (c) Special flight permits may be issued in comments in electronic form. All to the website operator; requiring a accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 submissions should be captioned: parent to use a credit card in connection to operate the helicopter to a location where ‘‘Children’s Online Privacy Protection with a transaction; having a parent call the requirements of this AD can be Rule Amendment—Comment, a toll-free telephone number staffed by accomplished. P994504.’’ Comments will be posted on trained personnel; using a digital Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed the Commission’s website: http:// certificate that uses public key in Direction Generale De L’Aviation Civile www.ftc.gov. technology; and using e-mail (France) AD Nos. 2000–487–017(A) and accompanied by a PIN or password 2000–486–077(A), both dated December 13, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: obtained through one of the above 2000. Elizabeth Delaney, (202) 326–2903, methods.3 Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 16, Mamie Kresses, (202) 326–2070, or Kial In contrast, if the website operator is 2001. Young, (202) 326–3525, Division of collecting personal information for its Eric Bries, Advertising Practices, Bureau of internal use only, the Rule allows Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, verifiable parental consent to be Aircraft Certification Service. Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, obtained through the use of an e-mail NW., Washington, DC 20580. [FR Doc. 01–26964 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] message from the parent, coupled with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 4910–13–U additional steps. Such additional steps Section A. Background are designed to provide assurances that the person providing the consent is the As part of the effort to protect FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION parent and include: sending a children’s online privacy, Congress confirmatory e-mail to the parent after 16 CFR Part 312 enacted the Children’s Online Privacy receiving consent; or obtaining a postal Protection Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. 6501 address or telephone number from the Children’s Online Privacy Protection et seq. (‘‘COPPA’’), to prohibit unfair or parent and confirming the parent’s Rule deceptive acts or practices in consent by letter or telephone call. The connection with the collection, use, or sliding scale is set to expire on April 21, AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. disclosure of personally identifiable 2002, at which time website operators ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. information from children on the must obtain verifiable parental consent Internet. On October 20, 1999, the SUMMARY: The Federal Trade using the more reliable methods for all Commission issued its final Rule 4 Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) uses of personal information. implementing COPPA, which became proposes amending the Children’s At the time it issued the final Rule, effective on April 21, 2000.1 The Rule Online Privacy Protection Rule (‘‘the the Commission anticipated that the imposes certain requirements on Rule’’) to extend the time period during sliding scale was necessary only in the operators of websites or online services which website operators may use an e- short term because the more reliable directed to children under 13 years of mail message from the parent, coupled methods of obtaining verifiable parental age, or other websites or online services with additional steps, to obtain consent would soon be widely available that have actual knowledge that they 5 verifiable parent consent for the and affordable. At the present time, have collected information from a child collection of personal information from however, it appears that the expected under 13 years of age. Among other children for internal use by the website progress in available technology has not things, the Rule requires that website operator. The Commission proposes to occurred. The Commission therefore operators obtain verifiable parental extend the time period from April 21, proposes to amend the Rule to extend consent prior to collecting, using, or 2002 until April 21, 2004. the sliding scale mechanism for an disclosing personal information from additional two years to April 21, 2004 DATES: Written comments will be children under 13 years of age. accepted until November 30, 2001. and requests public comment on this proposed extension of time. ADDRESSES: Written comments should Section B. Obtaining Verifiable Parent be submitted to: Secretary, Federal Consent Section C. Invitation To Comment Trade Commission, Room H–159, 600 The Rule provides that, ‘‘[a]ny Before adopting this amendment as Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., method to obtain verifiable parental final, the Commission will give Washington, DC 20580. The consent must be reasonably calculated, consideration to any written comments Commission requests that commenters in light of available technology, to submitted to the Secretary of the submit the original plus five copies, if ensure that the person providing Commission on or before November 30, feasible. To enable prompt review and consent is the child’s parent.’’ 2 In order 2001. Comments submitted will be public access, comments also should be to allow time for reliable electronic submitted, if possible, in electronic 3 16 CFR 312.5(b)(2). form, on a 31⁄2-inch computer disk, with 1 64 FR 59888 (1999). 4 Id. a disk label stating the name of the 2 16 CFR 312.5(b)(1). 5 64 FR 59902 (1999).
VerDate 11
available for public inspection in Reduction Act, as amended, 44 U.S.C. verifiable parental consent at a accordance with the Freedom of 3501 et seq. reasonable cost. Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and Section G. Questions on the Proposed List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 312 Commission regulations, on normal Amendment business days between the hours of 8:30 Children, Communications, Consumer a.m. and 5 p.m. at the Public Reference Members of the public are invited to protection, Electronic mail, E-mail, Section, Room 130, Federal Trade comment on any issues or concerns they Internet, Online service, Privacy, Record Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue believe are relevant or appropriate to the retention, Safety, Science and NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments Commission’s consideration of the technology, Trade practices, Website, will also be posted on the Commission proposed amendment to the Children’s Youth. website, http://www.ftc.gov. Online Privacy Protection Rule. The Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission proposes to extend the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR Section D. Communications by Outside sliding scale mechanism for obtaining Part 312 as follows: Parties to Commissioners or Their verifiable parental consent for two years Advisors until April 21, 2004. The Commission is PART 312—CHILDREN’S ONLINE Written communications and particularly interested in comments PRIVACY PROTECTION RULE summaries or transcripts of oral addressing the following questions: 1. The authority citation for part 312 communications respecting the merits (1) Are secure electronic mechanisms continues to read as follows: of this proceeding from any outside now widely available to facilitate party to any Commissioner or verifiable parental consent at a Authority: 15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq. Commissioner’s advisor will be placed reasonable cost? Please include 2. Amend § 312.5 by revising the on the public record. See 16 CFR comments on the following: second sentence of paragraph (b)(2) to 1.26(b)(5). (a) Digital signature technology; read as follows: (b) Digital certificate technology; Section E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (c) Other digital credentialing § 312.5 Parental consent. The provision of the Regulatory technology; * * * * * Flexibility Act requiring an initial (d) P3P technology; and (b) * * * regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. (e) Other secure electronic (2) * * * Provided that: For the period 605) does not apply because it is technologies. until April 21, 2004, methods to obtain believed that the proposed amendment (2) Are infomediary services now verifiable parental consent for uses of to the Rule will not have a significant widely available to facilitate verifiable information other than the economic impact on a substantial parental consent at a reasonable cost? ‘‘disclosures’’ defined by § 312.2 may number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605). (3) Is this proposed extension an also include use of e-mail coupled with This notice also serves as certification to adequate amount of time considering additional steps to provide assurances the Small Business Administration of the current development of secure that the person providing the consent is that determination. electronic mechanisms and/or the parent. * * * The economic impact of the proposed infomediary services for obtaining * * * * * amendment to the Rule is not verifiable parental consent at a anticipated to be significant because it reasonable cost? Please include By direction of the Commission. is only extending, for a two-year period, comments on the following: Donald S. Clark, a sliding scale mechanism that is (a) The anticipated availability of Secretary. already in place. The proposed secure electronic mechanisms and/or [FR Doc. 01–27390 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] amendment does not alter the status infomediary services; BILLING CODE 6750–01–P quo, and would postpone the potential (b) The anticipated affordability of economic impact, if any, of the secure electronic mechanisms and/or infomediary services; and expiration of the sliding scale DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION mechanism. Thus, the economic impact (c) The likelihood and timeframe of of the amendment to the Rule is consumer adoption of secure electronic Federal Highway Administration expected to be comparatively minimal. mechanisms and/or infomediary Nonetheless, to ensure that no services. 23 CFR Parts 627, 635, 636, 637 and significant economic impact on a (4) Should the extension be longer 710 substantial number of small entities is than two years? overlooked, the Commission hereby (5) Rather than be extended, should [FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2000–7799] requests public comment on the effect of the sliding scale mechanism be kept in RIN 2125–AE79 the proposed amendment to the Rule on place indefinitely, until the the costs, profitability, and development of secure electronic Design-Build Contracting competitiveness of, and employment in, mechanisms and/or infomediary small entities. After considering such services become widely available to AGENCY: Federal Highway comments, if any, the Commission will facilitate verifiable parental consent at a Administration (FHWA), DOT. determine whether preparation of a final reasonable cost? ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed regulatory flexibility analysis (pursuant (6) What, if any, will be the negative rulemaking. to 5 U.S.C. 605) is required. impact of extending the time period for the sliding scale mechanism for SUMMARY: This document corrects a Section F. Paperwork Reduction Act obtaining verifiable parental consent? typographical error in the FHWA’s This amendment would not amend Please include comments on whether notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), any information collection requirements the extension will serve as a published on October 19, 2001, at 66 FR that have previously been reviewed and disincentive for industry to develop 53288. The NPRM proposes the approved by the Office of Management secure electronic mechanisms and/or implementation of regulations for and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork infomediary services to facilitate design-build contracting as mandated by
VerDate 11
section 1307(c) of the Transportation ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– AGENCY charged for copying docket material. 21). The docket number that appeared FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in the heading of the NPRM was 40 CFR Part 80 Richard Babst at (202) 564–9473, incorrect. This notice provides the [FRL–7095–9] facsimile: (202) 565–2085, e-mail correct docket number regarding the address: [email protected]. design-build contracting NPRM as RIN 2060–AJ76 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For more FHWA–2000–7799. information on this proposal, please see Prohibition on Gasoline Containing DATES: Written comments to the NPRM EPA’s direct final rule published in the Lead or Lead Additives for Highway must be received on or before December Rules and Regulations section of this Use: Fuel Inlet Restrictor Exemption 18, 2001. Late comments will be Federal Register which amends the for Motorcycles considered to the extent practicable. regulations to exempt motorcycles from AGENCY: the tank filler inlet restrictor provision FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). of 40 CFR 80.24(b). The Agency views Gerald Yakowenko, Office of Program this direct final rule as a ACTION: Administration (HIPA), (202) 366–1352, Proposed rule. noncontroversial action for the reasons or Mr. Harold Aikens, Office of the SUMMARY: Today’s proposed rule discussed in the Direct Final Rule Chief Counsel (202) 366–1373, Federal exempts motorcycles with emission published in today’s Federal Register. If Highway Administration, 400 Seventh control devices that could be affected by no adverse or critical comments or Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. the use of leaded gasoline from having requests for a public hearing are Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 to be equipped with gasoline tank filler received in response to this proposal, no p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, inlet restrictors. As before, motorcycles further action is contemplated in except Federal holidays. and other motor vehicles without such relation to this rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: emission control devices are not required to be equipped with gasoline the direct final rule and it will not take Electronic Access tank filler inlet restrictors. effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule An electronic copy of this document The Clean Air Act and corresponding EPA regulations prohibit gasoline based on this proposed rule. The EPA may be downloaded using a modem and containing lead or lead additives will not institute a second comment suitable communications software from (leaded gasoline) as a motor vehicle fuel period on this action. Any parties the Federal Register Electronic Bulletin after December 31, 1995. As a deterrent interested in commenting on this action Board Service at (202) 512–1661. to misfueling prior to that date, the EPA should do so at this time. Internet users may reach the Federal regulations required filler inlet Register’s homepage at: http:// Administrative Requirements restrictors on motor vehicles equipped www.nara.gov/fedreg and the with an emission control device that A. Executive Order 12866 Government Printing Office’s database could be affected by the use of leaded at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR gasoline, such as a catalytic converter. 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must Background EPA retained that provision after 1995 determine whether the regulatory action because the filler inlet restrictor, besides is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to On October 19, 2001, at 66 FR 53288, being a deterrent to misfueling, has also OMB review and the requirements of the FHWA issued a NPRM regarding the been incorporated into the design of the Executive Order. The Order defines implementation of regulations for some vapor recovery gasoline nozzle ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one design-build contracting as mandated by spouts. Gasoline tank filler inlet that is likely to result in a rule that may: section 1307(c) of the TEA–21. The restrictors do not work well with most (1) Have an annual effect on the heading of this NPRM inadvertently motorcycle fuel tanks, especially the economy of $100 million or more, or referenced an incorrect docket number, saddle type of tank, because of their adversely affect in a material way the FHWA–2000–7790 (this docket number shallow depth. A gasoline tank filler economy, a sector of the economy, references a final rule published by the inlet restrictor may cause gasoline productivity, competition, jobs, the Coast Guard). The purpose of this notice spitback or spillage when a motorcycle environment, public health or safety, or is to correct the docket number for the is refueled, which increases evaporative State, local, or tribal governments or design-build contracting NPRM. The emissions. Today there is relatively communities; correct docket number for the design- little risk of misfueling a motorcycle. (2) Create a serious inconsistency or build contracting NPRM is FHWA– Also, it is unlikely that a gasoline tank otherwise interfere with an action taken 2000–7799. All written comments filler inlet restrictor on a motorcycle or planned by another agency; submitted to the docket in response to helps to control gasoline vapors when (3) Materially alter the budgetary the October 19, 2001, NPRM should the motorcycle is refueled. impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, reference the correct docket number, DATES: Comments on this proposed rule or loan programs or the rights and FHWA–2000–7799. must be received in writing by obligations of recipients thereof; or Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; sec. 1307(c) of November 30, 2001. (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues Pub. L. 105–178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998); 49 CFR ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this arising out of legal mandates, the 1.48. rule are available for inspection in President’s priorities, or the principles Issued on: October 26, 2001. public docket A-2001–17 at the Air set forth in the Executive Order. Docket Office of the EPA, Room M– It has been determined that this Mary E. Peters, 1500, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant Federal Highway Administrator. D. C. 20460, (202)260–7548, between regulatory action’’ under the terms of [FR Doc. 01–27401 Filed 10–26–01; 3:47 pm] the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Executive Order 12866 and is therefore BILLING CODE 4910–22–P Monday through Friday. As provided in not subject to OMB review.
VerDate 11
B. Paperwork Reduction Act existing Federal regulations. Today’s that assessed results of early life This proposed action does not impose rule, therefore, is not subject to the exposure to lead, evaporative gasoline any new information collection burden requirements of sections 202 and 205 of emissions, or ozone (caused by any under the provisions of the Paperwork the UMRA. increased evaporative emissions) EPA has determined that this Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., resulting from the absence of fuel filler proposed rule contains no regulatory and therefore is not subject to these neck restrictors on motorcycles that are requirements that might significantly or requirements. equipped with emission control devices uniquely affect small governments. As that are impacted by the use of leaded C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act discussed above, the proposed rule is a gasoline. deregulatory action and affects only Title II of the Unfunded Mandates E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Public Law motorcycle manufacturers. Executive Order 13132, entitled 104–4 establishes requirements for D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, Federal agencies to assess the effects of Children From Environmental Health 1999), requires EPA to develop an their regulatory actions on State, local, Risks and Safety Risks accountable process to ensure and tribal governments and the private Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Children from Environmental Health and local officials in the development of EPA generally must prepare a written Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, regulatory policies that have federalism statement, including a cost-benefit Apr. 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have analysis, for proposed and final rules (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically federalism implications’’ is defined in with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may significant’’ as defined under Executive the Executive Order to include result in expenditures to State, local and Order 12866, and (2) concerns an regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct tribal governments in the aggregate, or environmental health or safety risk that effects on the States, on the relationship to the private sector of $100 million or EPA has reason to believe may have a between the national government and more in any one year. Before disproportionate effect on children. If the States, or on the distribution of promulgating an EPA rule for which a the regulatory action meets both criteria, power and responsibilities among the written statement is needed, section 205 the Agency must evaluate the various levels of government.’’ of the UMRA generally requires EPA to environmental health or safety effects of This proposed rule does not have identify and consider a reasonable the planned rule on children and federalism implications. It will not have number of regulatory alternatives and explain why the planned regulation is substantial direct effects on the States, adopt the least costly, more cost- preferable to other potentially effective on the relationship between the national effective or least burdensome alternative and reasonably feasible alternatives government and the States or on the that achieves the objectives of the rule. considered by the Agency. distribution of power and The provisions of section 205 do not This proposed rule is not subject to responsibilities among the various apply when they are inconsistent with the Executive Order because it is not levels of government as specified in applicable law. Moreover, section 205 economically significant as defined in Executive Order 13132. Today’s allows EPA to adopt an alternative other E.O. 12866, and because the Agency proposed rule eliminates the existing than the least costly, most cost-effective does not have reason to believe the requirement that manufacturers of or least burdensome alternative if the environmental health or safety risks motorcycles must equip certain Administrator publishes with the final addressed by this action present a motorcycles with fuel tank filler inlet rule an explanation why that alternative disproportionate risk to children. EPA restrictors. Thus, Executive Order 13132 was not adopted. Before EPA establishes reduced the content of lead in leaded does not apply to this proposed rule. any regulatory requirements that may gasoline, because EPA found that lead significantly or uniquely affect small particle emissions from motor vehicles F. National Technology Transfer and governments, including tribal presented a significant risk of harm to Advancement Act governments, it must have developed the health of urban populations, Section 12(d) of the National under section 203 of the UMRA a small especially children (38 FR 33734, Dec. Technology Transfer and Advancement government agency plan. The plan must 6, 1973). Congress ultimately banned Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub L. No. provide for notifying affected small the use of leaded gasoline in motor 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 governments, enabling officials of vehicles after 1995. 42 U.S.C. 7545(n). note) directs EPA to use voluntary affected small governments to have Gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors were consensus standards in its regulatory meaningful and timely input in the related to the phase-out of leaded activities unless to do so would be development of EPA regulatory gasoline to prevent a motor vehicle with inconsistent with applicable law or proposals with significant Federal an emission control device, such as a otherwise impractical. Voluntary intergovernmental mandates, and catalytic converter, from using leaded consensus standards are technical informing, educating, and advising gasoline. Leaded gasoline can damage standards (e.g., materials specifications, small governments on compliance with such emission control devices. Today test methods, sampling procedures, and the regulatory requirements. there is relatively little risk of business practices) that are developed or EPA has determined that this rule misfueling a motorcycle with an adopted by voluntary consensus does not contain a Federal mandate that emission control device that could be standards bodies. The NTTAA directs may result in expenditures of $100 damaged by the use of leaded gasoline, EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, million or more for State, local, and because leaded gasoline has now been explanations when the Agency decides tribal governments, in the aggregate, or banned from use in all motor vehicles not to use available and applicable the private sector in any one year. for over five years and is generally no voluntary consensus standards. Today’s rule exempts motorcycles from longer available for sale at gasoline This proposed rulemaking does not a current provision that requires them, filling stations. involve technical standards. Therefore, under certain circumstances, to be The public is invited to submit or EPA is not considering the use of any equipped with fuel inlet restrictors, and identify peer-reviewed studies and data, voluntary consensus standards. EPA thus avoids the costs imposed by the of which the agency may not be aware, welcomes comments on this aspect of
VerDate 11
the proposed rulemaking and, concluded that today’s proposed rule described in the preamble to the direct specifically, invites the public to will relieve regulatory burden for any final rule see a copy of this rule on the identify potentially-applicable small entity. Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq voluntary consensus standards and to We continue to be interested in the under the title: ‘‘Proposed Rule— explain why such standards should be potential impacts of the proposed rule Prohibition on Gasoline Containing used in this regulation. on small entities and welcome Lead or Lead Additives for Highway comments on issues related to such Use: Fuel Inlet Restrictor Exemption for G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as impacts. Amended by the Small Business Motorcycles.’’ Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation K. Statutory Authority 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. and Coordination With Indian Tribal Authority for this action is in sections Governments The RFA generally requires an agency 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 to prepare a regulatory flexibility On January 1, 2001 Executive Order U.S.C. 7545, 7601(a). analysis of any rule subject to notice 13084 was superseded by Executive and comment rulemaking requirements Order 13175. However, this proposed List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 under the Administrative Procedure Act rule was developed during the period Environmental protection, Air or any other statute unless the agency when Executive Order 13084 was still in pollution control, Motor vehicle and certifies that the rule will not have a force, and so tribal considerations were motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle significant economic impact on a addressed under Executive Order 13084. pollution, Penalties. substantial number of small entities. Development of the final rule will Dated: October 24, 2001. Small entities include small businesses, address tribal considerations. Executive Christine Todd Whitman, small organizations, and small Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and governmental jurisdictions. Coordination with Indian Tribal Administrator. For purposes of assessing the impacts Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, [FR Doc. 01–27379 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] of today’s proposed rule on small 2000), requires EPA to develop an BILLING CODE 6560–50–P entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A accountable process to ensure small business, including its affiliates, ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal that has a maximum of 1,000 employees officials in the development of FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS (13 CFR 121.201 for SIC code 3711 regulatory policies that have tribal COMMISSION ‘‘Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal Bodies’’); (2) a small governmental implications’’ is defined in the 47 CFR Part 54 jurisdiction that is a government of a Executive Order to include regulations [CC Docket No. 96–45; FCC 01J–2] city, county, town, school district or that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on special district with a population of less one or more Indian tribes, on the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal than 50,000; and (3) a small relationship between the Federal Service Seeks Comment on Review of organization that is any not-for-profit government and the Indian tribes, or on Lifeline and Link-Up Service for all enterprise which is independently the distribution of power and Low-Income Consumers owned and operated and is not responsibilities between the Federal dominant in its field. government and Indian tribes.’’ AGENCY: Federal Communications After considering the economic Today’s proposed rule does not have Commission. impacts of today’s proposed rule on tribal implications. It will not have ACTION: Proposed rule; solicitation of small entities, I certify that this action substantial direct effects on tribal comments. will not have a significant economic governments, on the relationship impact on a substantial number of small between the Federal government and SUMMARY: In a public notice released on entities. In determining whether a rule Indian tribes, or on the distribution of October 12, 2001, the Federal-State Joint has a significant economic impact on a power and responsibilities between the Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) substantial number of small entities, the Federal government and Indian tribes, invites comment regarding its review of impact of concern is any significant as specified in Executive Order 13175. Lifeline/Link-Up, two federal support adverse economic impact on small The proposed rule affects the programs that are used to preserve and entities, since the primary purpose of applicability of the fuel tank filler inlet advance universal service and to ensure the regulatory flexibility analyses is to restrictor to motorcycles. It therefore that quality telecommunications and identify and address regulatory affects only manufacturers of information services are available to alternatives ‘‘which minimize any motorcycles. Thus, Executive Order low-income consumers at just, significant economic impact of the 13175 does not apply to this proposed reasonable and affordable rates, as proposed rule on small entities.’’ 5 rule. required by the Telecommunications U.S.C. Sections 603 and 604. Thus, an Act of 1996. I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy agency may certify that a rule will not DATES: Submit comments on or before Effects) have a significant economic impact on December 31, 2001. Submit reply a substantial number of small entities if This rule is not subject to Executive comments on or before February 28, the rule relieves regulatory burden, or Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 2002. otherwise has a positive economic effect Regulations That Significantly Affect on all of the small entities subject to the Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 ADDRESSES: See Supplementary rule. Today’s proposed rule is a FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is Information section for where and how deregulatory action and affects all not a significant regulatory action under to file comments. motorcycle manufacturers. It eliminates Executive Order 12866. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the existing requirement that Anita Cheng or Dana Bradford, Common manufacturers of motorcycles must J. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Carrier Bureau, Accounting Policy equip certain motorcycles with fuel tank For more information about this Division, (202) 418–7400 TTY: (202) filler inlet restrictors. We have therefore proposed rule and more details as 418–0484.
VerDate 11
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full (LIHEAP), in order for an individual to have data on the Lifeline/Link-Up text of this document is available for be eligible for Lifeline/Link-Up in states enrollment in each state. Commenters public inspection and copying during that choose not to provide matching should provide information on the regular business hours at the FCC support from the intrastate jurisdiction. number and percentage of low-income Reference Information Center, Portals II, An individual living on tribal lands households that are with and without 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, may also qualify for Lifeline/Link-Up telephones within the living unit; the Washington, DC 20554. This document assistance if he/she certifies number and percentage of low-income may also be purchased from the participation in one of the following households who receive Lifeline/Link- Commission’s copy contractor, Qualex Federal programs: Bureau of Indian Up support; the number and percentage International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, Affairs general assistance, Tribally- of low-income households who do not SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC administered Temporary Assistance for receive Lifeline/Link-Up support; and 20554, telephone 202–863–2893, Needy Families; Head Start (only for the number and percentage of facsimile 202–863–2898, or via e-mail those meeting its income qualifying households that are low-income and not [email protected]. standard); or National School Lunch enrolled in Federal assistance programs. Program. I. Background Where possible, commenters should In the Universal Service Order, the break these figures into on-reservation Since 1984, the Commission, in Commission explained that: ‘‘We and off-reservation categories. conjunction with the states and local clarify, however, that the Joint Board The 2001 Trends Report includes telephone companies, has administered recommendation, which we adopt, some of the information we seek; a Lifeline program designed to promote requires states to base eligibility on however, states and/or universal service by providing low- income or factors directly related to telecommunications companies may income individuals with monthly income and merely suggests using have gathered more comprehensive discounts on the cost of receiving participation in a low income assistance information concerning Lifeline/Link- telephone service. The Commission also program as the criterion.’’ The Up enrollment in their respective established ‘‘Link-Up America,’’ a Commission further explained that: state(s). In the interest of compiling the program designed to help low-income ‘‘[w]e have tied the default Lifeline most complete and accurate record, we individuals pay the initial costs of qualification standards (which will therefore encourage commenters to commencing telephone service. In June apply in states that do not provide provide as much detail as possible with 2000, the Commission expanded the intrastate funds) to programs that respect to Lifeline/Link-Up enrollment, Lifeline and Link-Up programs to commenters believe to be unaffected or including the source of the information, provide additional discounts to those minimally affected by the new welfare when and how this information was individuals living on Indian legislation. We will, however, continue compiled, or other information the reservations. to monitor the situation and may make commenters believe to be relevant. In the 1996 Joint Board further changes in the future if it We also invite parties to discuss the Recommended Decision, 61 FR 63778, appears that changes to other programs reasons that some low-income December 2, 1996), the Joint Board unduly limit Lifeline eligibility.’’ determined that Congress’s intent would On December 21, 2000, the individuals are not receiving Lifeline/ best be served if all low-income Commission referred the low-income Link-Up assistance. For example, these consumers had access to Lifeline/Link- support issues to the Joint Board and individuals may be excluded from Up assistance. Accordingly, the Joint stated: ‘‘* * * we ask the Joint Board to qualifying programs because of federal Board found that the goal of increasing undertake a review of Lifeline and Link- or state program restrictions; they may low-income subscribership would best Up service for all low-income not be receiving adequate information be met if the Commission maintained customers, including a review of the about the Lifeline/Link-Up program; or the basic framework for administering income eligibility criteria.’’ they may be excluding themselves by Lifeline/Link-Up qualification in states choice from participating in qualifying that provide matching support from the A. The Effectiveness of the Current programs. intrastate jurisdiction, with the criteria Lifeline/Link-Up Program We also seek comment regarding to be based solely on income or factors According to the 2001 Trends in welfare reform and its impact on the directly related to income. The Joint Telephone Service Report, an estimated number of low-income households that Board also recommended that for states 5.9 million consumers paid reduced are participating in Lifeline/Link-Up. In choosing not to provide intrastate rates for local telephone service under particular, we seek comment on matching support, the Commission the low-income provisions of the whether the number of low-income should adopt specific default means- Lifeline program in 2000. Since the households eligible for Lifeline/Link-Up tested eligibility standards. inception of the Link-Up America assistance has changed as a result of Consistent with the Joint Board’s program in 1987, approximately 10.6 state and federal efforts to reduce the recommendations, the Commission million low-income consumers have number of participants in welfare maintained the basic framework for been able to initiate telephone service programs such as food stamps, SSI, administering the Lifeline program that using Link-Up. We note that, in a recent LIHEAP, etc. existed prior to the adoption of the study, the Missouri Office of Public We encourage commenters to discuss Universal Service Order, 62 FR 32862, Counsel estimated that 26 percent of whether there are other reasons that June 17, 1997. The Commission also households with incomes at or below low-income individuals may not enroll adopted the Joint Board’s 150 percent of the Federal poverty level in qualifying programs or participate in recommendation to apply a specific, take advantage of the Lifeline/Link-Up Lifeline/Link-Up. Commenters also means-tested eligibility standard, by program. should discuss whether existing or requiring participation in Medicaid, We invite parties to develop a full proposed qualification standards and food stamps, Supplementary Security record on the effectiveness of the enrollment procedures may serve to Income (SSI), Federal public housing Commission’s existing Lifeline/Link-Up encourage or discourage increased assistance (Section 8), or Low Income rules. In particular, we seek comment participation among all low-income Home Energy Assistance Program from all interested parties who may households.
VerDate 11
In addition, there may be special qualify for Lifeline/Link-Up support program or programs from which he/she concerns regarding recent immigrants, merely by being eligible for low-income receives benefits and must agree to individuals living on reservations, and assistance programs, rather than notify the carrier if he/she ceases to other groups that may need to be actually participating in them. If the participate in the identified program(s). considered. In this regard, we invite Commission were to adopt such a We invite comment on whether this comment on the extent to which standard, we invite comment on how process effectively targets support. In immigrants may be underrepresented in eligibility might be certified or verified. this regard, commenters should discuss public assistance programs for legal or Commenters also are encouraged to what application procedures should be social reasons. Commenters also should discuss whether low-income considered in order to promote an discuss whether individuals living on individuals should be removed efficient and effective Lifeline/Linkup reservations face barriers to immediately from Lifeline enrollment program, including increasing participation and what modifications to when they no longer meet the eligibility participation where appropriate. the Lifeline/Link-Up program may be standards, or whether Lifeline We also seek comment on whether an necessary to overcome those barriers. enrollment should be guaranteed for a individual’s eligibility to receive Moreover, we seek comment on the specified minimum period of time. Lifeline/Link-Up support should be innovative ways in which states are We also seek comment on whether verified, and if so, what the federal implementing their respective Lifeline/ eligibility based on income level should verification measures should be (e.g., Link-Up programs. Specifically, be added to the existing eligibility requiring consumers to provide a copy commenters should discuss what steps standards as an additional means to of a food stamp coupon in order to have been taken to increase Lifeline/ qualify for Lifeline/Link-Up. In the receive support). We seek comment on Link-Up subscribership in their Twelfth Report and Order, 65 FR 47941, the effects of any proposed verification respective state(s). Commenters should August 4, 2000, the Commission stated procedures on enrollment, on the costs also discuss ways in which successful its intent to examine, in consultation of administration, and on the state methods could be implemented at with the Joint Board, revisions to effectiveness of the program. For the federal level. § 54.409 of the Commission’s rules to instance, commenters should discuss provide for eligibility based solely on whether verification of eligibility should B. Modifying the Existing Lifeline/Link- income level. We seek comment on occur periodically or whether the Up Rules whether this approach would reach subscriber should be required to notify We seek comment on whether more or fewer low-income consumers the carrier when he/she is no longer changes to the current Lifeline/Link-Up than the federal criteria, which eligible to receive Lifeline/Link-Up program are warranted to further the condition eligibility on participation in assistance. In addition, we encourage goal of bringing affordable rates to low- low-income assistance programs. We commenters to provide information income consumers. We discuss various invite comment on what the appropriate concerning best practices of states with possible changes below. income level might be, if an income- regard to certification and/or based test is used. Commenters should verification procedures and whether 1. Eligibility Criteria discuss whether the Federal Poverty those procedures have been successful. We seek comment on whether the Guidelines or some other mechanism We also ask commenters to provide current eligibility criteria should be should be used to establish an information on the extent and frequency modified. Specifically, commenters appropriate income level. of any fraudulent or otherwise should address whether new eligibility Commenters also should discuss how inappropriate enrollment in Lifeline or criteria should be added to the existing an individual may qualify for Lifeline/ Link-Up programs, or any other list for Lifeline/Link-Up and enhanced Link-Up support under an income-based problems that lead to improper program Lifeline/Link-Up, or whether particular standard; how an individual might expenditures. We seek comment on any eligibility criteria should be deleted certify his/her income level; and what, problems relating to our existing from the existing list. if any, special procedures should be procedures and also on any problems Commenters also should discuss implemented to verify an individual’s that could result from adopting new whether there are programs used by income level. qualifying standards. states that are particularly effective in 2. Application/Verification Finally, we seek comment regarding determining eligibility for Lifeline/Link- automatic enrollment and verification Up assistance. In addition, commenters We invite comment on the Lifeline/ methods that could assist the states in should discuss how modifications to the Link-Up application process. Currently, more readily identifying low-income current federal eligibility criteria may in order to receive Lifeline/Link-Up households that qualify for Lifeline/ impact state Lifeline/Link-Up programs. support under federal criteria, a Link-Up, and reduce delay and As indicated, a state that has its own consumer must certify that he/she inefficiency in the processing of Lifeline/Link-Up program establishes participates in at least one of the applications. the eligibility criteria for that program. qualifying federal programs set forth. As such, these criteria vary from state to Under the federal criteria of the 3. Additional Modifications state. To the extent a state has its own Commission’s Lifeline/Link-Up rules, We invite comment on the ways in Lifeline/Link-Up program, we seek certification of participation in a federal which the Federal Lifeline/Link-Up comment on the specifics of the assistance program is accomplished in program could be improved. For eligibility criteria used. We also seek the following manner: the eligible example, commenters may wish to comment on whether all states should telecommunications carrier that is discuss whether increased or alternative be required to include, at a minimum, providing Lifeline/Link-Up service to methods of Link-Up support would the federal eligibility criteria in their the low-income consumer obtains the improve the Lifeline program. respective programs or whether we consumer’s signature on a document We also seek comment regarding should adopt one national standard for certifying under penalty of perjury that impediments that may prevent low- purposes of determining eligibility. the consumer receives benefits from at income households from obtaining Moreover, we invite comment on least one of the qualifying programs. affordable access to the network, whether individuals should be able to The consumer also must identify the including existing credit, collections,
VerDate 11
and disconnection policies and service should discuss the costs and benefits of Commission’s duplicating contractor, application procedures that are required preparing and distributing information Qualex International, Portals II, 445 by local exchange companies. to the public. Commenters also should 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Commenters are requested to suggest discuss whether existing websites on Washington, DC 20554. Such alternatives to those procedures that are Lifeline/Link-Up provide adequate submissions should be on a 3.5-inch identified as impediments. information. We encourage commenters diskette formatted in an IBM-compatible Commenters also are requested to to provide as much detail as possible format using Word or compatible provide information about specific with respect to their consumer software. The diskette should be procedures that have been adopted to education and outreach efforts. accompanied by a cover letter and eliminate impediments and provide Commenters also may wish to identify should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’ efficient processing of Lifeline/LinkUp specifically those non-profit mode. The diskette should be clearly applications without undue delay. We organizations that may be able to assist labeled with the commenter’s name, CC are particularly interested in learning with consumer outreach efforts, Docket No. 96–45, the type of pleading about specific credit and collection Lifeline/Link-Up enrollment, and any (comment or reply comment), the date procedures that have resulted in eligibility verification procedures that of submission, and the name of the increased subscribership in low-income may be adopted. In addition, electronic file on the diskette. The label households. commenters should discuss whether the should also include the following Commenters also should discuss Commission should adopt specific phrase ‘‘Disk Copy—Not an Original.’’ whether there are initiatives in addition outreach requirements if current Each diskette should contain only one to Lifeline/Link-Up that could increase outreach efforts are not effectively party’s pleadings, preferably in a single telephone subscribership among low- providing Lifeline/Link-Up information electronic file. income households. to low-income consumers. We ask The full text of this document is C. Outreach commenters to provide detailed available for public inspection and comment on these as well as any other copying during regular business hours In the Twelfth Report and Order, the issues relating to Lifeline/Link-Up that at the FCC Reference Information Commission amended §§ 54.405 and they wish to raise. Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 54.411 of its rules to require eligible Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. telecommunications carriers to Commission’s rules, interested parties This document may also be purchased publicize the availability of Lifeline/ may file comments on or before from the Commission’s duplicating Link-Up services in a manner December 31, 2001, and reply comments contractor, Qualex International, Portals reasonably designed to reach those on or before February 28, 2002. II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, likely to qualify for those services. We Comments may be filed using the Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– seek comment on whether more Commission’s Electronic Comment 863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, or extensive consumer education and Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper via e-mail [email protected]. outreach efforts are necessary to copies. See Electronic Filing of increase participation in the Lifeline/ Federal Communications Commission. Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, William F. Caton, Link-Up program. We recognize that 63 FR 24,121 (1998). Comments filed Deputy Secretary. many carriers and states have been through the ECFS can be sent as an successful in locating and informing electronic file via the Internet to [FR Doc. 01–27229 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] low-income consumers of the Lifeline/ http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Link-Up program by various measures, Only one copy of an electronic such as mailings, hanging posters in submission must be filed. In completing FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS churches and community centers, the transmittal screen, commenters COMMISSION placing advertisements in local should include their full name, Postal newspapers, and in some cases, Service mailing address, and CC Docket 47 CFR Part 73 canvassing. We seek comment on No. 96–45. Parties also may submit whether these efforts have been electronic comments by Internet e-mail. [DA 01–2468, MM Docket No. 01–306, RM– sufficient to educate low-income To receive filing instructions for e-mail 10152] individuals about their comments, commenters should send an telecommunications options. We Digital Television Broadcast Service; e-mail to [email protected], and include the Hartford, CT encourage states, carriers, and interested following words in the body of the non-profit organizations to continue to message, ‘‘get form
VerDate 11
kilometers of the U.S.-Canadian border, PART 73—TELEVISION BROADCAST ADDRESSES: Federal Communications concurrence of the Canadian SERVICES Commission, Washington, D.C., 20554. government must be obtained for this In addition to filing comments with the allotment. As requested, we propose to 1. The authority citation for part 73 FCC, interested parties should serve the allot DTV Channel to 31 with a power continues to read as follows: petitioner for both proposals, as follows: of 500 and a height above average Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and Jeraldine Anderson; 1702 Cypress Drive; terrain (HAAT) of 492 meters. 336. Irving, Texas 75601. DATES: Comments must be filed on or § 73.622 [Amended] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. before December 17, 2001, and reply 2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau, comments on or before January 2, 2002. Digital Television Allotments under (202) 418–2180. Connecticut is amended by removing ADDRESSES: Federal Communications SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., DTV Channel 5 and adding DTV synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Room TW–A325, Washington, DC Channel 31 at Hartford. Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 20554. In addition to filing comments Federal Communications Commission. 01–304 and MM Docket No. 01–305, with the FCC, interested parties should Barbara A. Kreisman, adopted October 10, 2001, and released serve the petitioner, or its counsel or Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media October 19, 2001. The full text of this consultant, as follows: John C. Quale, Bureau. document is available for public Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom [FR Doc. 01–27346 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] inspection and copying during regular LLP, 1440 New York Avenue, NW., BILLING CODE 6712–01–P business hours in the FCC Reference Washington, DC 20005 (Counsel for Fox Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Television Stations, Inc.). Street, SW, Room CY–A257, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Washington, DC, 20554. This document Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) COMMISSION may also be purchased from the 418–1600. Commission’s duplicating contractor, 47 CFR Part 73 Qualex International, Portals II, 445 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of [DA 01–2445; MM Docket No. 01–304, RM– Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 10309; MM Docket No. 01–305, RM–10310. 863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, or 01–306, adopted October 25, 2001, and Radio Broadcasting Services: Menard, via e-mail [email protected]. released October 26, 2001. The full text TX; San Isidro, TX of this document is available for public Provisions of the Regulatory inspection and copying during regular AGENCY: Federal Communications Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to business hours in the FCC Reference Commission. this proceeding. Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th ACTION: Proposed rule. Members of the public should note Street, SW., Room CY–A257, that from the time a Notice of Proposed Washington, DC 20554. This document SUMMARY: The Commission requests Rule Making is issued until the matter may also be purchased from the comments on a petition filed by is no longer subject to Commission Commission’s duplicating contractor, Jeraldine Anderson, proposing the consideration or court review, all ex Qualex International, Portals II, 445 allotment of Channel 287C3 at Menard, parte contacts are prohibited in 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Texas, as the community’s second local Commission proceedings, such as this Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– aural transmission service. Channel one, which involve channel allotments. 863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, or 287C3 can be allotted to Menard in See 47 CFR § 1.1204(b) for rules via-e-mail [email protected]. compliance with the Commission’s governing permissible ex parte contacts. minimum distance separation Provisions of the Regulatory requirements with a site restriction of For information regarding proper Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 11.9 kilometers (7.4 miles) southwest of filing procedures for comments, see 47 this proceeding. Menard. The coordinates for Channel CFR §§ 1.415 and 1.420. Members of the public should note 287C3 at Menard are 30–52–29 North List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 that from the time a Notice of Proposed Latitude and 99–54–00 West Longitude. Rule Making is issued until the matter The Commission also requests Radio broadcasting. is no longer subject to Commission comments on a petition filed by consideration or court review, all ex For the reasons discussed in the Jeraldine Anderson proposing the preamble, the Federal Communications parte contacts are prohibited in allotment of Channel 247A at San Commission proceedings, such as this Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Isidro, Texas, as the community’s first Part 73 as follows: one, which involve channel allotments. local aural transmission service. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules Channel 247A can be allotted to San PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST governing permissible ex parte contacts. Isidro in compliance with the SERVICES For information regarding proper Commission’s minimum distance filing procedures for comments, see 47 separation requirements with a site The authority citation for Part 73 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. restriction of 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) continues to read as follows: List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 northeast of San Isidro. The coordinates Authority: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 334, and for Channel 247A at San Isidro are 26– 336. Television, Digital television 45–00 North Latitude and 98–26–00 broadcasting. West Longitude. § 73.202 [Amended] For the reasons discussed in the DATES: Comments must be filed on or 1. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM preamble, the Federal Communications before December 10, 2001, and reply Allotments under Texas, is amended by Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR comments on or before December 26, adding Channel 287C3 at Menard, and part 73 as follows: 2001. San Isidro, Channel 247A.
VerDate 11
Federal Communications Commission. Provisions of the Regulatory satellite cable programming or satellite John A. Karousos, Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to broadcast programming between Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules this proceeding. vertically integrated programming Division, Mass Media Bureau. Members of the public should note vendors and cable operators. Under [FR Doc. 01–27347 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] that from the time a Notice of Proposed section 628(c)(5), the prohibition on BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Rule Making is issued until the matter exclusive programming contracts is no longer subject to Commission contained in section 628(c)(2)(D) will consideration or court review, all ex cease to be effective on October 5, 2002, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS parte contacts are prohibited in unless the Commission finds that such COMMISSION Commission proceedings, such as this prohibition continues to be necessary to one, which involve channel allotments. preserve competition and diversity in 47 CFR Part 73 See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules the distribution of video programming. governing permissible ex parte contact. The document initiates a proceeding in [DA 01–2446, MM Docket No. 01–303, RM– For information regarding proper order to make that determination. 10306] filing procedures for comments, see 47 DATES: Comments are due December 3, CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 2001 and reply comments are due Radio Broadcasting Services; Birch List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 January 7, 2002. Tree, MO ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Radio broadcasting. Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., AGENCY: Federal Communications For the reasons discussed in the Commission. Washington, DC 20554. In addition, to preamble, the Federal Communications filing comments with the secretary, a ACTION: Proposed rule. Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR copy of any comments on the part 73 as follows: information collections contained SUMMARY: This document requests herein should be submitted to Judy comments on a petition filed by Charles PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Boley, Federal Communications Crawford proposing the allotment of SERVICES Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th Channel 241A at Birch Tree, Missouri, Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or providing the community with 1.The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: via the Internet to [email protected], and to additional local FM service. The Edward C. Springer, Office of coordinates for Channel 241A at Birch Authority: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 334 and Management and Budget, Office of Tree are 36–55–35 and 91–24–23. There 336. Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 is a site restriction 10.5 kilometers (6.5 17th Street NW., Room 10236, NEOB, miles) southeast of the community. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Washington, DC 20503 or via the DATES: Comments must be filed on or Allotments under Missouri, is amended Internet to [email protected]. before December 10, 2001, and reply by adding Channel 241A at Birch Tree. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments on or before December 26, Karen A. Kosar, Cable Services Bureau Federal Communications Commission. 2001. at 202–418–1053 or via the Internet at John A. Karousos, ADDRESSES: Federal Communications [email protected]. For additional Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules information concerning the information Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Division, Mass Media Bureau. Washington, DC 20554. In addition to collection(s) contained in this NPRM, [FR Doc. 01–27348 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] filing comments with the FCC, contact Judy Boley at 202–418–0214, or interested parties should serve the BILLING CODE 6712–01–P via the Internet at [email protected]. petitioner, as follows: Charles Crawford, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a Notice of Proposed 4553 Bordeaux Avenue, Dallas, Texas FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS Rulemaking (NPRM) initiating the 75205. COMMISSION proceeding in CS-Docket No. 01–290. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 47 CFR Part 76 The complete text of this NPRM is Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media available for inspection and copying Bureau, (202) 418–2180. [CS Docket No. 01–290; FCC 01–307] during normal business hours in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a FCC Reference Information Center, Implementation of the Cable Television summary of the Commission’s Notice of Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street SW., Consumer Protection and Competition Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. Washington, DC, and also may be Act of 1992 and the Development of 01–303, adopted October 10, 2001 and purchased from the Commission’s copy Competition and Diversity in Video released October 19, 2001. The full text contractor, Qualex International, Portals Programming Distribution: Section of this Commission decision is available II, 445 12th Street, S.W. Room CY–B402, 628(c)(5) of the Communications Act— for inspection and copying during Washington, DC 20554. normal business hours in the FCC’s Sunset of Exclusive Contract This NPRM contains a proposed Reference Information Center, Portals II, Prohibition. information collection. The 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY– AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing A257, Washington, DC 20554. The Commission. effort to reduce paperwork burdens, complete text of this decision may also ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. invites the general public and the Office be purchased from the Commission’s of Management and Budget (OMB) to duplicating contractor, Qualex SUMMARY: The Commission issues this comment on the information International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, document in accordance with section collection(s) contained in this NPRM, as SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 628(c)(5) of the Communications Act of required by the Paperwork Reduction 20554, telephone 202–863–2893, 1934, as amended. Section 628(c)(2)(D) Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public facsimile 202–863–2898, or via e-mail generally prohibits, in areas served by a and agency comments are due at the [email protected]. cable operator, exclusive contracts for same time as other comments on this
VerDate 11
NPRM; OMB notification of action is programming contracts contained in marketplace; (5) the impact the due December 31, 2001. Comments section 628(c)(2)(D) will cease to be prohibition on exclusivity has had on should address: (a) Whether the effective on October 5, 2002, unless the diversity in programming; (6) whether it proposed collection of information is Commission conducts a proceeding and would be advisable, and consistent with necessary for the proper performance of finds that such prohibition continues to the Commission’s statutory authority, to the functions of the Commission, be necessary to preserve and protect retain the rule only for some types of including whether the information shall competition and diversity in the programming or in some specific cases; have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of distribution of video programming. (7) how other program access provisions the Commission’s burden estimates; (c) 2. The program access provisions would function should the exclusivity ways to enhance the quality, utility, and contained in section 628 of the prohibition sunset; (8) what future clarity of the information collected; and Communications Act were adopted as procedures the Commission should (d) ways to minimize the burden of the part of the Cable Television Consumer undertake if the prohibition on collection of information on the Protection and Competition Act of 1992. exclusivity is retained; and (9) any other respondents, including the use of When adopting the statute, Congress issues appropriate to our inquiry in automated collection techniques or was concerned by its finding that a accordance with section 628(c)(5). majority of cable operators enjoyed a other forms of information technology. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis OMB Control Number: 3060–0551. monopoly in program distribution at the Title: Section 76.1002 Specific Unfair local level, and concluded that the use 5. As required by the Regulatory Practices Prohibited. of exclusive contracts between vertically Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, Form No.: N/A. integrated programming vendors and (‘‘RFA’’), the Commission has prepared Type of Review: Revision. cable operators served to inhibit the this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Respondents: Business or other for- development of competition among Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) of the possible profit. distributors. significant economic impact on small Number of Respondents: 52 (26 3. Section 628(c) instructs the entities by the policies and rules petitions and 26 oppositions). Commission to adopt regulations to referenced in this NPRM. Written public Estimated Time Per Response: 1 prohibit a number of specific practices. comments are requested on this IRFA. hour–25 hours. We estimate that the For example, Congress absolutely Comments must be identified as total burden for completion of all prohibited exclusive contracts between responses to this IRFA and must be filed aspects of the proceeding will be no vertically integrated programming by the deadlines for comments in the more than 25 hours. We estimate that vendors and cable operators in areas NPRM. The Commission will send a 50% of entities will use outside counsel unserved by cable, and, pursuant to copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, and will undergo a burden of 1 hour to section 628(c)(2)(D), generally to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the coordinate information with outside prohibited exclusive contracts within Small Business Administration. In counsel. areas served by cable. Congress addition, the IRFA (or summaries Total Annual Burden: 676 hours. (26 recognized, however, that in areas thereof) will be published in the Federal respondents with outside counsel × 1 served by cable some exclusive Register. hour = 26 hours. 26 respondents with contracts between vertically integrated I. Need for, and Objectives of, the outside counsel × 25 hours = 650 hours. programming vendors and cable Proposed Regulatory Approaches Total Annual Costs: $97,500.00 26 operators may serve the public interest. respondents using outside counsel at Accordingly, in determining whether an 6. The purpose of section 628 of the $150 per hour= 26 × 25 × $150 = exclusive contract is in the public Communications Act is to promote the $97,500.00. interest for purposes of section public interest, convenience, and Needs and Uses: This information is 628(c)(2)(D), Congress instructed the necessity by increasing competition and used by Commission staff to determine Commission to consider the factors diversity in the multichannel video on a case-by-case basis whether outlined in section 628(c)(4). The market, to increase the availability of particular exclusive contracts for cable prohibition contained in section satellite cable programming and satellite television programming comply with 628(c)(2)(D) regarding restrictions on broadcast programming to persons in the statutory public interest standard of exclusive contracts is not unlimited and rural and other areas not currently able Section 19 of the Cable Television Congress determined that after a ten- to receive such programming, and to Consumer Protection and Competition year period the Commission should spur the development of Act of 1992 and Section 628 of the determine in a proceeding conducted communications technologies. Communications Act, as amended. pursuant to section 628(c)(5) whether Specifically, this proceeding involves Section 301(j) of the 1996 Act amends such prohibition continues to be section 628(c)(2)(D), which prohibits, in the restriction in section 628 to include necessary. areas served by a cable operator, common carriers and their affiliates that 4. The Notice seeks comment on: (1) exclusive contracts for satellite cable provide video programming. Whether section 628(c)(2)(D) of the programming or satellite broadcast Communications Act should cease to be programming between vertically Synopsis of the NPRM effective pursuant to the sunset integrated programming vendors and 1. This Notice of Proposed provision contained in section 628(c)(5); cable operators unless the Commission Rulemaking involves the possible sunset (2) the effect, if any, section 628(c)(2)(D) determines that such exclusivity is in of section 628(c)(2)(D) of the has had on competition in local and the public interest. The exclusivity Communications Act, which generally national markets; (3) the degree to prohibition set forth in section prohibits, in areas served by a cable which, if at all, clustering and the 628(c)(2)(D) ceases to be effective after operator, exclusive contracts for satellite continuing consolidation within the a 10-year period ending October 5, 2002. cable programming or satellite broadcast communications industry should inform Section 628(c)(5) of the programming between vertically our decision on the possible sunset of Communications Act requires that integrated programming vendors and the exclusivity prohibition; (4) the restrictions on exclusive contracts, cable operators. Pursuant to section effects of exclusivity in the within areas served by cable, are to 628(c)(5), the prohibition on exclusive multichannel video programming sunset unless the Commission finds, in
VerDate 11
a proceeding conducted during the last grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, applicable to producers or distributors year of such 10-year period, that such and others may have been involved in of cable television programs. Therefore, prohibition continues to be necessary to transactions that caused them to be we will use the SBA classifications of preserve and protect competition and combined with other cable operators. Motion Picture and Video Tape diversity in the distribution of video Consequently, we estimate that there are Production (NAICS Code 51211), programming. Pursuant to this statutory fewer than 1,439 small entity cable Motion Picture and Video Tape mandate and by this Notice of Proposed system operators that may be affected by Distribution (NAICS Code 42199), and Rulemaking, we seek comment on the decisions and rules proposed in this Theatrical Producers (Except Motion whether section 628(c)(2)(D) should be NPRM. Pictures) and Miscellaneous Theatrical retained or eliminated. 11. The Communications Act also Services (NAICS Codes 56131, 71111, contains a definition of a small cable 71141, 561599, 71151, 71112, 71132, II. Legal Basis system operator, which is ‘‘a cable 51229, 53249). These SBA definitions 7. The authority for the action operator that, directly or through an provide that a small entity in the cable proposed in this rulemaking is affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer television programming industry is an contained in section 4(i), 303 and 628 of than 1% of all subscribers in the United entity with $21.5 million or less in the Communications Act of 1934, as States and is not affiliated with any annual receipts for NAICS Codes 51211, amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303 and 548. entity or entities whose gross annual 42199 and 51212, and $5 million or less III. Description and Estimate of the revenues in the aggregate exceed in annual receipts for NAICS Codes Number of Small Entities to Which the $250,000,000.’’ The Commission has 56131, 71111, 71141, 561599, 71151, Proposed Rules Will Apply determined that there are 67,700,000 71112, 51229, and 53249. Census subscribers in the United States. Bureau data indicate the following: (a) 8. The RFA directs the Commission to Therefore, an operator serving fewer There were 7,265 firms in the United provide a description of and, where than 677,000 subscribers shall be States classified as Motion Picture and feasible, an estimate of the number of deemed a small operator, if its annual Video Production (NAICS Code 51211), small entities that will be affected by the revenues, when combined with the total and that 6,987 of these firms had proposed rules. The RFA defines the annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do $16.999 million or less in annual term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same not exceed $250 million in the receipts and 7,002 of these firms had meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ aggregate. Based on available data, we $24.999 million or less in annual ‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small find that the number of cable operators receipts; (b) there were 1,139 firms governmental jurisdiction. In addition, serving 677,000 subscribers or less totals classified as Motion Picture and Video the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same approximately 1450. Although it seems Tape Distribution (NAICS Codes 42199 meaning as the term ‘‘small business certain that some of these cable system and 51212), and 1007 of these firms had concern’’ under the Small Business Act. operators are affiliated with entities $16.999 million or less in annual A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one whose gross annual revenues exceed receipts and 1013 of these firms had which: (1) Is independently owned and $250,000,000, we are unable at this time $24.999 million or less in annual operated; (2) is not dominant in its field to estimate with greater precision the receipts; and (c) there were 5,671 firms of operation; and (3) satisfies any number of cable system operators that in the United States classified as additional criteria established by the would qualify as small cable operators Theatrical Producers and Services Small Business Administration under the definition in the (NAICS Codes 56131, 71111, 71141, (‘‘SBA’’). Communications Act. 561599, 71151, 71121, 51229, and 9. SBA has developed a definition of 12. Open Video Systems: Because 53249), and 5627 of these firms had small entities for cable and other pay OVS operators provide subscription $4.999 million or less in annual television services, which includes all services, OVS falls within the SBA- receipts. such companies generating $11 million recognized definition of ‘‘Cable and 14. Each of these NAICS categories are or less in annual receipts. This Other Pay Television Services.’’ This very broad and include firms that may definition includes cable system definition provides that a small entity is be engaged in various industries, operators, closed circuit television one with $11 million or less in annual including cable programming. Specific services, direct broadcast satellite receipts. The Commission has certified figures are not available regarding how services, multipoint distribution approximately 25 OVS operators to many of these firms exclusively produce systems, satellite master antenna serve 75 areas, and some of those are and/or distribute programming for cable systems and subscription television currently providing service. Affiliates of television or how many are services. According to the Census Residential Communications Network, independently owned and operated. Bureau data from 1992, there were 1,758 Inc. (‘‘RCN’’) received approval to Thus, we estimate that our rules may total cable and other pay television operate OVS systems in New York City, affect approximately 6,987 small entities services and 1,423 had less than $11 Boston, Washington, D.C. and other primarily engaged in the production and million in revenue. We address below areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to distribution of taped cable television each service individually to provide a assure us that they do not qualify as programs and 5,627 small producers of more precise estimate of small entities. small business entities. Little financial live programs that may be affected by 10. Cable Systems: The Commission information is available for the other the rules adopted in this proceeding. has developed, with SBA’s approval, entities authorized to provide OVS that 15. Direct Broadcast Satellite Service our own definition of a small cable are not yet operational. Given that other (‘‘DBS’’): Because DBS provides system operator for the purposes of rate entities have been authorized to provide subscription services, DBS falls within regulation. Under the Commission’s OVS service but have not yet begun to the SBA-recognized definition of ‘‘Cable rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one generate revenues, we conclude that at and Other Pay Television Services.’’ serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers least some of the OVS operators qualify This definition provides that a small nationwide. We last estimated that there as small entities. entity is one with $11 million or less in were 1,439 cable operators that qualified 13. Program Producers and annual receipts. There are four licensees as small cable companies. Since then, Distributors: The Commission has not of DBS services under part 100 of the some of those companies may have developed a definition of small entities Commission’s rules. Three of those
VerDate 11
licensees are currently operational. Two program packagers may be substantially 22. Additionally, the auction of the of the licensees that are operational smaller. 1,030 LMDS licenses began on February have annual revenues that may be in 18. Multipoint Distribution Service 18, 1998 and closed on March 25, 1998. excess of the threshold for a small (‘‘MDS’’), Multichannel Multipoint The Commission defined ‘‘small entity’’ business. The Commission, however, Distribution Service (‘‘MMDS’’) and for LMDS licenses as an entity that has does not collect annual revenue data for Local Multipoint Distribution Service average gross revenues of less than $40 DBS and, therefore, is unable to (‘‘LMDS’’): MMDS systems, often million in the three previous calendar ascertain the number of small DBS referred to as ‘‘wireless cable,’’ transmit years. An additional classification for licensees that could be impacted by video programming to subscribers using ‘‘very small business’’ was added and is these proposed rules. DBS service the microwave frequencies of the defined as an entity that, together with requires a great investment of capital for Multipoint Distribution Service its affiliates, has average gross revenues operation, and we acknowledge that (‘‘MDS’’) and Instructional Television of not more than $15 million for the there are entrants in this field that may Fixed Service (‘‘ITFS’’). LMDS is a fixed preceding calendar years. These not yet have generated $11 million in broadband point-to-multipoint regulations defining ‘‘small entity’’ in annual receipts, and therefore may be microwave service that provides for the context of LMDS auctions have been categorized as a small business, if two-way video telecommunications. approved by the SBA. There were 93 independently owned and operated. 20. In connection with the 1996 MDS winning bidders that qualified as small 16. Home Satellite Dish Service auction, the Commission defined small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of (‘‘HSD’’): Because HSD provides businesses as entities that had annual 93 small and very small business subscription services, HSD falls within average gross revenues of less than $40 bidders won approximately 277 A Block the SBA-recognized definition of ‘‘Cable million in the previous three calendar licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On and Other Pay Television Services.’’ years. This definition of a small entity March 27, 1999, the Commission re- This definition provides that a small in the context of MDS auctions has been auctioned 161 licenses; there were 40 entity is one with $11 million or less in approved by the SBA. The MDS winning bidders. Based on this annual receipts. The market for HSD auctions resulted in 67 successful information, we conclude that the service is difficult to quantify. Indeed, bidders obtaining licensing number of small LMDS licenses will the service itself bears little resemblance opportunities for 493 Basic Trading include the 93 winning bidders in the to other MVPDs. HSD owners have Areas (‘‘BTAs’’). Of the 67 auction first auction and the 40 winning bidders access to more than 265 channels of winners, 61 met the definition of a small in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small programming placed on C-band business. MDS also includes licensees entity LMDS providers as defined by the satellites by programmers for receipt of stations authorized prior to the SBA and the Commission’s auction and distribution by MVPDs, of which rules. auction. As noted, the SBA has 115 channels are scrambled and 23. In sum, there are approximately a developed a definition of small entities approximately 150 are unscrambled. total of 2,000 MDS/MMDS/LMDS for pay television services, which HSD owners can watch unscrambled stations currently licensed. Of the channels without paying a subscription includes all such companies generating approximate total of 2,000 stations, we fee. To receive scrambled channels, $11 million or less in annual receipts. estimate that there are 1,595 MDS/ however, an HSD owner must purchase This definition includes multipoint MMDS/LMDS providers that are small an integrated receiver-decoder from an distribution services, and thus applies businesses as deemed by the SBA and equipment dealer and pay a to MDS licensees and wireless cable the Commission’s auction rules. subscription fee to an HSD operators that did not participate in the 24. Satellite Master Antenna programming package. Thus, HSD users MDS auction. Information available to Television (‘‘SMATV’’) Systems. The include: (1) Viewers who subscribe to a us indicates that there are SBA definition of small entities for packaged programming service, which approximately 850 of these licensees ‘‘Cable and Other Pay Television affords them access to most of the same and operators that do not generate Services’’ specifically includes SMATV programming provided to subscribers of revenue in excess of $11 million services and, thus, small entities are other MVPDs; (2) viewers who receive annually. Therefore, for purposes of the defined as all such companies only non-subscription programming; IRFA, we find there are approximately generating $11 million or less in annual and (3) viewers who receive satellite 850 small MDS providers as defined by receipts. Industry sources estimate that programming services illegally without the SBA and the Commission’s auction approximately 5,200 SMATV operators subscribing. Because scrambled rules. were providing service as of December packages of programming are most 21. The SBA definition of small 1995. Other estimates indicate that specifically intended for retail entities for pay television services, SMATV operators serve approximately consumers, these are the services most which includes such companies 1.5 million residential subscribers as of relevant to this discussion. generating $11 million in annual June 2000. The best available estimates 17. According to the most recently receipts, appears applicable to ITFS. indicate that the largest SMATV available information, there are There are presently 2,032 ITFS operators serve between 15,000 and approximately four program packagers licensees. All but 100 of these licenses 55,000 subscribers each. Most SMATV nationwide offering packages of are held by educational institutions. operators serve approximately 3,000– scrambled programming to retail Educational institutions are included in 4,000 customers. Because these consumers. These program packagers the definition of a small business. operators are not rate regulated, they are provide subscriptions to approximately However, we do not collect annual not required to file financial data with 1,476,700 subscribers nationwide. This revenue data for ITFS licensees, and are the Commission. Furthermore, we are is an average of about 370,000 not able to ascertain how many of the not aware of any privately published subscribers per program package. This is 100 non-educational licensees would be financial information regarding these smaller than the 400,000 subscribers categorized as small under the SBA operators. Based on the estimated used in the commission’s definition of definition. Thus, we tentatively number of operators and the estimated a small MSO. Furthermore, because this conclude that at least 1,932 licensees are number of units served by the largest is an average, it is likely that some small businesses. ten SMATVs, we believe that a
VerDate 11
substantial number of SMATV operators assumptions with regard to exclusivity. generally prohibited. Persons making qualify as small entities. If section 628(c)(2)(D) is retained, the oral ex parte presentations are reminded NPRM seeks comment in para. 15 on that a memorandum summarizing a IV. Description of Projected Reporting, future procedures necessarily related to presentation must contain a summary of Recordkeeping and Other Compliance the retention of section 628(c)(2)(D). the substance and not merely a listing Requirements of the subjects discussed. More than a VI. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 25. The NPRM seeks comment on the one or two sentence description of the sunset of section 628(c)(2)(D) of the Overlap, or Conflict With the views and arguments presented is Communications Act. The NPRM does Commission’s Proposals generally required. Additional rules not propose any specific reporting, 27. There are no federal rules that pertaining to oral and written recordkeeping or other compliance specifically duplicate, overlap or presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) requirements. conflict with the Commission’s inquiry of the Commission’s rules. with regard to section 628(c)(2)(D). V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Comment Dates Impact on Small Entities, and VII. Report to Congress 31. Pursuant to applicable procedures Significant Alternatives Considered 28. The Commission will send a copy set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 26. The RFA requires an agency to of the NPRM, including this IRFA, in a Commission’s rules, interested parties describe any significant alternatives that report to be sent to Congress pursuant may file comments on or before it has considered in proposing to the Small Business Regulatory December 3, 2001 and reply comments regulatory approaches, which may Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In on or before January 7, 2002. Comments include the following four alternatives: addition, the Commission will send a may be filed using the Commission’s (1) The establishment of differing copy of the NPRM, including IRFA, to Electronic Comment Filing System compliance or reporting requirements or the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. timetables that take into account the Small Business Administration. A copy Comments filed through the ECFS can resources available to small entities; (2) of the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries be sent as an electronic file via the the clarification, consolidation, or thereof) will also be published in the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ simplification of compliance or Federal Register. ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of reporting requirements under the rule an electronic submission must be filed. Paperwork Reduction Analysis for small entities; (3) the use of If multiple docket or rulemaking performance, rather than design, 29. This NPRM contains a proposed numbers appear in the caption of this standards; and (4) an exemption from information collection. As part of its proceeding, however, commenters must coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, continuing effort to reduce paperwork transmit one electronic copy of the for small entities. The NPRM seeks burdens, we invite the general public comments to each docket or rulemaking comment on whether section and the Office of Management and number referenced in the caption. In 628(c)(2)(D) should cease to be effective, Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity completing the transmittal screen, pursuant to the sunset provision in to comment on the information commenters should include their full section 628(c)(5), or whether section collections contained in this NPRM, as name, Postal Service mailing address, 628(c)(2)(D) should be retained. Thus, required by the Paperwork Reduction and the applicable docket or rulemaking the NPRM invites comments on a Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public number. Parties may also submit an number of issues that may significantly and agency comments are due at the electronic comment by Internet e-mail. impact small entities. Specifically, the same time as other comments on this To get filing instructions for e-mail NPRM seeks comment in para. 8 on the NPRM; OMB comments are due comments, commenters should send an effect, if any, section 628(c)(2)D) has December 31, 2001. Comments should e-mail to [email protected], and should had on competition in local and address: (a) Whether the proposed include the following words in the body national markets. The NPRM also seeks collection information is necessary for of the message, ‘‘get form VerDate 11 copies of each filing. If participants Communications Commission, 445 12th amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303 and 548, want each Commissioner to receive a Street, SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC Notice is hereby given of the proposals personal copy of their comments, an 20554. Persons with disabilities who described in this Notice of Proposed original plus nine copies must be filed. need assistance in the FCC Reference Rulemaking. If more than one docket or rulemaking Center may contact Bill Cline at (202) 37. It is further ordered that the number appears in the caption of this 418–0270, TTY (202) 418–2555, or Commission’s Consumer Information proceeding commenters must submit [email protected]. Comments and reply Bureau, Reference Information Center, two additional copies for each comments are available electronically in shall send a copy of this Notice of additional docket or rulemaking ASCII text, Word 97, and Adobe Proposed Rulemaking, including the number. All filings must be sent to the Acrobat. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 35. This document is available in Commission’s Secretary, Magalie Roman to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the alternative formats (computer diskette, Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Small Business Administration. Communications Commission, 445 12th large print, audio cassette, and Braille). Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20554. Persons who need documents in such List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76 The Cable Services Bureau contact for formats may contact Brian Millin at (202) 418–7426, TTY (202) 418–7365, or Administrative practice and this proceeding is Karen A. Kosar at procedure and Cable television. (202) 418–7200, TTY (202) 418–7172, or [email protected]. at [email protected]. Ordering Clauses Federal Communications Commission. 34. Comments and reply comments 36. Accordingly, It is ordered that, William F. Caton, will be available for public inspection pursuant to the authority contained in Deputy Secretary. during regular business hours in the sections 4(i), 303 and 628 of the [FR Doc. 01–27225 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Act of 1934, as BILLING CODE 6712–01–P VerDate 11 Notices Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 211 Wednesday, October 31, 2001 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Sheep Industry Improvement Center, PO Development and the Under Secretary contains documents other than rules or Box 23483, Washington DC 20026–3483 of Agriculture for Research, Education, proposed rules that are applicable to the if using USPS or 1400 Independence and Economics. Board members will not public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Ave., SW, Room 2117, Washington, DC receive compensation for serving on the committee meetings, agency decisions and 20250–3252, Attn.: National Sheep Board of Directors, but shall be rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency Improvement Center, Nominations. reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and statements of organization and functions are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay other necessary expenses. examples of documents appearing in this B. Wilson, Executive Director, National The Secretary of Agriculture shall section. Sheep Industry Improvement Center, PO appoint the voting members from the Box 23483, Washington DC 20026–3483 submitted nominations. Member’s term if using USPS or 1400 Independence of office shall be three years. Voting DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20250–3252 members are limited to two terms. The if using another carrier, telephone (202) two positions for which nominees are National Sheep Industry Improvement 690–0632, (This is not a toll free sought are currently held by one Center; Solicitation of Nominations of number.) FAX 202–720–1053. member who is completing a first term Board Members SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The and is eligible for reappointment and AGENCY: National Sheep Industry Federal Agriculture Improvement and one member who is serving a second Improvement Center, USDA. Reform Act of 1996, known as the 1996 term and is therefore not eligible to be ACTION: Notice: Invitation to submit Farm Bill, established a National Sheep re-nominated. The Board shall meet not nominations. Industry Improvement Center. The less than once each fiscal year, but is Center shall (1) promote strategic likely to meet at least quarterly. SUMMARY: The National Sheep Industry development activities and collaborative The statement of qualifications of the Improvement Center announces that it efforts by private and State entities to individual nominees is being obtained is accepting nominations for the Board maximize the impact of Federal by using Form AD–755, ‘‘Advisory of Directors of the National Sheep assistance to strengthen and enhance Committee Membership Background Industry Improvement Center for two production and marketing of sheep or Information.’’ The requirements of this directors’ positions whose terms are goat products in the United States; (2) form are incorporated under OMB expiring on February 13, 2002. Both optimize the use of available human number 0505–0001. positions are for voting members who capital and resources within the sheep Dated: October 26, 2001. are active producers of sheep or goats. or goat industries; (3) provide assistance Jay B. Wilson, Board members manage and oversee the to meet the needs of the sheep or goat Center’s activities. Nominations may Executive Director, National Sheep Industry industry for infrastructure development, Improvement Center. only be submitted by National business development, production, [FR Doc. 01–27397 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] organizations that consist primarily of resource development, and market and active sheep or goat producers in the environmental research; (4) advance BILLING CODE 135100001–P United States and who have as their activities that empower and build the primary interest the production of sheep capacity of the United States sheep or DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE or goats in the United States. goat industry to design unique Nominating organizations should responses to special needs of the sheep National Sheep Industry Improvement submit: or goat industries on both a regional and Center; Inviting Grant Proposals for (1) Substantiation that the nominating national basis; and (5) adopt flexible the Sheep and Goat Industry Grant organization is national in scope, and innovative approaches to solving Program (2) The number and percent of the long-term needs of the United States members that are active sheep or goat sheep or goat industry. The Center has AGENCY: National Sheep Industry producers, a Revolving Fund established in the Improvement Center, USDA. (3) Substantiation of the primary Treasury to carry out the purposes of the ACTION: Notice. interests of the organization, and Center. Management of the Center is (4) An Advisory Committee vested in a Board of Directors, which SUMMARY: The National Sheep Industry Membership Background Information has hired an Executive Director and Improvement Center (NSIIC) announces form (Form AD–755) for each nominee. other staff to operate the Center. the availability of approximately This action is taken in accordance The Board of Directors is composed of $200,000 in competitive grants for with section 759 of the Federal seven voting members of whom four are product or business development, Agriculture Improvement and Reform active producers of sheep or goats in the producer information or education, Act of 1996 for the establishment of a United States, two have expertise in marketing and promotion for sheep or National Sheep Industry Improvement finance and management, and one has goats or their products, genetic retention Center. expertise in lamb, wool, goat or goat or animal health. Funds have been made DATES: The closing date for acceptance product marketing. Both of the open available by the Board of Directors of of nominations is December 17, 2001. positions are for voting members who the National Sheep Industry Nominations must be received by, or are active producer of sheep or goats in Improvement Center (NSIIC) to be postmarked, on or before, this date. the United States. The Board also awarded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 with ADDRESSES: Submit nominations and includes two non-voting members, the projects completed by the end of FY statements on qualifications to National Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural 2003. The intent is to fund a variety of VerDate 11 proposals that will benefit the U.S. Eligible Applicants eligibility requirements and whether the sheep and goat industries. An Eligible entity is an organization proposal application contains the information required. After this initial DATES: Completed proposals must be that promotes the betterment of the evaluation, the following criteria will be received no later than December 31, United States sheep or goat industries that is: (A) A public, private, or used to rate and rank proposals received 2001. Proposals received after that date in response to this notice of funding will not be considered. cooperative organization; (B) an association, including a corporation not availability. Failure to address any one ADDRESSES: Completed proposals and operated for profit; (C) a federally of the criteria will disqualify the other required materials should be recognized Indian Tribe; or (D) a public proposal. Equal weight shall be given to submitted to Jay B. Wilson, Executive or quasi-public agency. Eligible entities each of the criterion listed below and Director, National Sheep Industry must have at least 51 percent ownership points will be awarded to each criterion Improvement Center, U.S. Department by those who are either citizens of the on a scale of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. A score of 5 of Agriculture, PO Box 23483, United States or reside in the United indicates that the proposal was judged Washington, DC 20026–3483 if using States after being legally admitted for to be highly relevant to the criteria and the US Postal Service or Room 2117, permanent residence. Under the a score of 1 indicates that the proposal South Agriculture Building, 1400 Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, an was judged not to sufficiently address Independence Avenue, SW., organization described in section the criteria. A proposal with an average Washington, DC 20250 if using other 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code score from the NSIIC evaluation panel of carriers. Telephone (202) 690–0632 or of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(4)) which less than 2 for any one criterion will (207) 236–6567. engages in lobbying activities, is not disqualify the proposal. eligible to apply. Each proposal criteria area will be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay evaluated and judged on its own merits B. Wilson, Executive Director, National Use of Funds using the following criteria: Sheep Industry Improvement Center, Use of funds should directly impact 1. Potential Industry Impact— U.S. Department of Agriculture, PO Box the U.S. sheep or goat industries Describe the proposed project and 23483, Washington, DC 20026–3483 if through product or business demonstrate how it will stimulate the using the US Postal Service or Room development, producer information or U.S. sheep or goat industries. Provide a 2117, South Agriculture Building, 1400 education, marketing and promotion for detailed analysis of the sheep or goat Independence Avenue, SW., sheep or goats or their products, genetic industry issue that is being addressed by Washington, DC 20250 if using other retention, or animal health programs. the proposal by including the: (A) carriers. Telephone (202) 690–0632 or Funds may not be used to: (a) Pay costs Product or group that will be impacted (207) 236–6567. of preparing the application package; (b) by the proposal (B) geographic area pay costs incurred prior to the effective SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: affected (C) target audience or end user; date of the grant; (c) conduct duplicative (D) and expected results. Is the industry General Information research; or (d) fund political activities. issue and need well-defined? Does the Preference will be given to proposals proposed project provide an effective The Board of Directors of the National that have over 50 percent of the project and efficient approach to resolving the Sheep Industry Improvement Center costs in matching funds, including in identified need? (NSIIC) makes this grant program of up kind contributions, and no proposal will 2. Industry Commitment—Describe to $200,000 available. The NSIIC is be funded if the proposed overhead the commitment of the producers, authorized under section 375 of the costs exceed 25 percent. processor, end-users or other involved Federal Agriculture Improvement and Available Funds and Award parties in participating in the proposed Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 2008j). A Limitations project. This may include, but is not fund is established in the Treasury of limited to, individual producers, the United States, without fiscal year The total amount of funds available for grants in FY 2002 is approximately producer groups, processors, seminar limitations, to provide funds for the participants, local organizations, local enhancement and marketing of sheep or $200,000. It is anticipated that all funds will be awarded in FY 2002 for projects or state governments or trade goat products in the United States. associations. Is there a commitment Grants are authorized by section that will be completed by September 30, 2003. It is expected that there will be from all who are expected to participate 375(e)(3)(A) of the Consolidated Farm and benefit from the proposed project? and Rural Development Act. proposals submitted that address a variety of needs related to the U.S. 3. Business Soundness—Provide a Projects that are submitted in the sheep and goat industries. Awards will timetable and objectives along with a proposals should be completed in a be segregated so that a variety of needs quantifiable benchmark and expected timely fashion as provided in the will be addressed by the funded results. Does the proposal include: (A) proposal, but under no circumstances proposals. The actual number of grants A clear objective; (B) well-defined tasks later than September 30, 2003. The funded will depend on the quality of that will accomplish the objectives; (C) primary objective of the Sheep and Goat proposals received and the amount of realistic benchmarks; (D) a realistic Industry Grant Program (SGIG) is to funding requested. A proposal may be timetable for the completion of the fund a number of diverse projects that partially funded or funded in its proposed tasks? Has the business will benefit the U.S. sheep or goat entirety. The maximum amount of strategy been adequately developed? industries through product or business Federal funds through this grant 4. Financial Feasibility—Provide a development, producer information or program awarded for any one proposal well-defined budget for the proposal. education, marketing and promotion for will be $50,000. Are the funding requirements and sheep or goats or their products, genetic budget for the project well defined and retention or animal health at the Selection Criteria financially feasible? Are matching funds regional, national or international level. The proposal will initially be or other resources that will be used to The program is administered through reviewed to determine whether the leverage the requested funds in the USDA, NSIIC. entity submitting the proposal meets the proposal identified? VerDate 11 5. Management Ability—Identify the contacts and the applicant organization, considered for review and to grants management team needed to complete followed by the summary. The summary awarded under this program. These the proposal objectives and describe should be self-contained and should include but are not limited to: their qualifications. Is the management describe the overall goals and relevance 7 CFR part 1.1—USDA implementation team identified, and are they capable of of the project. The summary should also of the Freedom of Information Act. implementing the proposal? contain a listing of all organizations of 1964. involved in the project. The Project 7 CFR part 15a—USDA implementation Selection Process Summary should immediately follow of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of The Board of Directors of the NSIIC the Table of Contents. 1964. will evaluate proposal applications. 6. Project Narrative: The narrative 7 CFR part 3015—USDA Uniform Applications will be evaluated portion of the Project Proposal is limited Federal Assistance Regulations. competitively and points awarded as to 10 pages of text and should contain 7 CFR part 3016—Uniform specified in the Selection Criteria the following: Administrative Requirements for section of this notice. Grants will be a. Introduction. A clear statement of Grants and Cooperative Agreements awarded on a competitive basis to the goals and objectives of the project. to State and Local Governments. eligible entities. A proposal may be The problem should be set in context of 7 CFR part 3017—Governmentwide partially funded. After assigning points the present-day situation. Summarize Debarment and Suspension based upon those criteria, applications the body of knowledge which (nonprocurement) and will be funded in rank order until all substantiates the need for the proposed Governmentwide Requirements for available funds have been expended. project. drug-free workplace (grants). The Board of Directors reserves the right b. Rationale and Significance. 7 CFR part 3018—New Restrictions on to award up to five additional points in Substantiate the need for the proposed Lobbying. order to provide a diversity of projects project. Describe the impact of the 7 CFR part 3019—Uniform targeting various situations, geographic project on the U.S. sheep or goat Administrative Requirements for areas or subject matter distribution of industry. Describe the project’s specific Grants and Agreements with funded projects. Projects that are relationship to the segment of sheep or Institutions of Higher Education, approved for further processing will be goat industry issue, product or market Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit subject to the grant terms that are being addressed. Organizations. negotiated between the applicant and c. Objectives and Approach. Discuss 7 CFR part 3052—Audits of State, Local the Board of Directors including, but not the specific objectives to be Governments, and Non-Profit limited to, the amount to be funded, accomplished under the project. A Organizations. project goals, timetables, completion detailed description of the approach Public Burden in This Notice date or other terms as deemed must include: (1) Techniques or necessary. procedures used to carry out the Form SF–424, ‘‘Application for proposed activities and for Federal Assistance’’ This form is used Proposal Submission accomplishing the objectives; (2) The by applicants as a required face sheet for All proposals, except for forms, are to results expected. applications for Federal assistance. be submitted on standard 8.5″ x 11″ d. Time Table. Tentative schedule for Form SF–424A, ‘‘Budget Information- paper with typing on one side of the conducting the major steps of the Non Construction Programs’’ This form page only. In addition, margins must be project. must be completed by applicants to at least 1″, type must be 12 characters e. Evaluation. Provide a plan for show the project’s budget breakdown, per inch (12 pitch or 10 point) or larger, assessing and evaluating the both as to expense categories and the no more than 6 lines per inch, and there accomplishments of the stated division between Federal and non- should be no page reductions. objectives during the project and Federal sources. describe ways to determine the Form SF–424B, ‘‘Assurances-Non Content of a Proposal effectiveness (impact) of the end results Construction Programs’’ The applicant A proposal should contain the upon conclusion of the project. must complete this form to give the following: Awardees will be required to submit Federal government certain assurances 1. Form SF–424 ‘‘Application for written project performance reports on a that the applicant has the legal authority Federal Assistance.’’ semi-annual basis. to apply for Federal assistance and the 2. Form SF–424A ‘‘Budget f. Coordination and Management financial capability to pay the non- Information-Non Construction Plan. Describe how the project will be Federal share of project costs. The Programs.’’ coordinated among various participants applicant also gives assurance it will 3. Form SF–424B ‘‘Assurances-Non and the nature of the collaborations. comply with various legal and Construction Programs.’’ Describe plans for management of the regulatory requirements as described in 4. Table of Contents—For ease of project to ensure its proper and efficient the form. locating information, each proposal administration. must contain a detailed Table of Reporting Requirements Contents immediately following the What To Submit Awardees will be required to submit required forms. The Table of Contents An original and 10 copies must be written project performance reports on a should include page numbers for each submitted. Each copy must be stapled in semi-annual basis and a final report at component of the proposal. Page the upper left-hand corner. (DO NOT the completion of the project. The numbering should begin immediately BIND). All copies of the proposal must project performance report and final following the Table of Contents. be submitted in one package. report shall include, but need not be 5. Project Summary: The proposal limited to: (1) A comparison of timeline, must contain a project summary of 1 Other Federal Statutes and Regulations tasks and objectives outlined in the page or less on a separate page. This That Apply proposal as compared to the actual page must include the title of the project Several Federal statutes and accomplishments; (2) If report varies and the names of the primary project regulations apply to proposals from the stated objectives or they were VerDate 11 not met, the reasons why established 8. Adjournment. Dated: October 25, 2001. objectives were not met; (3) Problems, A.J. Yates, CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: delays, or adverse conditions which will Roberta D. Purcell, Assistant Governor, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing materially affect attainment of planned Service. Rural Telephone Bank, (202) 720–9554. project objectives; (4) Objectives AGENDA—Plant Variety Protection established for the next reporting Dated: October 26, 2001. (PVP) Board Meeting, November 14 and period; and (5) Status of compliance Hilda Gay Legg, 15, 2001, National 4–H Conference with any special conditions on the use Governor, Rural Telephone Bank. Center, Chevy Chase, MD of awarded funds. [FR Doc. 01–27479 Filed 10–29–01; 2:17 pm] Dated: October 26, 2001. BILLING CODE 3410–15–P November 14, 2001 Jay B. Wilson, Call to Order Introductions Executive Director, National Sheep Industry DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Improvement Center. Opening Remarks [FR Doc. 01–27396 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Adoption of Agenda Agricultural Marketing Service Adoption of March and September 2000 BILLING CODE 135100001–P Board Meeting Minutes [Docket No. ST–01–01] Overview of the PVP Act and proposed changes to the regulations and rules of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Plant Variety Protection Board; Open practice Rural Telephone Bank Meeting Discussion of proposed fee increase and supplemental fees Sunshine Act; Meeting AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, Reengineering PVP Office business USDA. operations (Six Sigma Process) AGENCY: Rural Telephone Bank, USDA. Recommendations ACTION: Notice of meeting. ACTION: Staff briefing for the board of November 15, 2001 directors. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the FY2001 Accomplishment Report TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Thursday, schedule and proposed agenda of a Appeals to the Secretary of Agriculture November 8, 2001. forthcoming meeting of the Plant (if any) PLACE: Conference Room 5030, South Variety Protection Board. E-Business Migration Plans Building, Department of Agriculture, DATES: November 14 and 15, 2001, 8 Biotechnology—Influence of new 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., a.m. to 5 p.m., open to the public. molecular techniques for the Washington, DC. reviewing applications and STATUS: Open. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in bioengineered varieties the National 4–H Conference Center, MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED: Future Program Activities 1. Contract for legal and business 1700 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase, Topics brought forward by Board advisors to the Privatization Committee. Maryland. members Meeting Summary 2. FY 2002 Appropriations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adjourn 3. Current telecommunications Commissioner Paul M. Zankowski, industry issues. Plant Variety Protection Office, Science [FR Doc. 01–27324 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] 4. Schedule for Year 2002 board and Technology Program, United States BILLING CODE 3410–02–M meetings. Department of Agriculture, 10301 5. Administrative issues. Baltimore Blvd., Room 400, National ACTION: Board of directors meeting. Agricultural Library Building, Beltsville, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Maryland 20705–2351, Telephone TIME AND DATE: 9 p.m., Friday, Rural Utilities Service November 9, 2001. number (301) 504–5518 or fax (301) 504–5291. PLACE: Conference Room 104–A, Jamie Georgia Transmission Corporation, L. Whitten Building, Department of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Notice of Intent Agriculture, 12th and Jefferson Drive, to the provisions of section 10(a) of the AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. SW., Washington, DC. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. ACTION: Notice of intent to hold scoping STATUS: Open. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App.), this notice is given regarding a Plant Variety meetings and prepare an environmental MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The assessment. following matters have been placed on Protection Advisory Board meeting. The the agenda for the Board of Directors board is constituted under section 7 of SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that meeting: the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 1. Call to order. U.S.C. 2327). proposes to prepare environmental 2. Introduction of Ms. Hilda Gay Legg, The proposed agenda for the meeting assessments related to possible newly appointed Governor of the Rural will include discussions of: (1) A financing assistance to Georgia Telephone Bank. proposal to increase fees of the Plant Transmission Corporation for the 3. Action on Minutes of the August Variety Protection Office, (2) the Six construction of approximately 25 miles 17, 2001, board meeting. Sigma review process, (3) long term of 230 kV transmission line and 30 4. Report on loans approved in FY strategic planning for efficient miles of 500 kV transmission line. The 2001. functioning of the Plant Variety 230 kV transmission line project would 5. Report on financial activity for FY Protection Office, (4) migration to e- be located in Heard and Carroll 2001. business and (5) and other related Counties, Georgia. The 500 kV 6. Privatization Committee report. topics. Written comments may be transmission line would be located in 7. Establish dates and locations for submitted to the contact person listed Heard, Carroll, and Douglas Counties, Year 2002 board meetings. above before or after the meeting. Georgia. VerDate 11 DATES: RUS and Georgia Transmission Macro Corridor Study Report, prepared would not have a significant Corporation will conduct a scoping by Georgia Transmission Corporation, environmental impact, it will prepare a meeting in an open house format from will be presented at the public scoping finding of no significant impact. Public 3 P.M. until 8 P.M. on Thursday, meetings. The report is available for notification of a finding of no significant November 15, 2001. public review at RUS at the address impact would be published in the ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at provided in this notice, at Georgia Federal Register and in newspapers the Carrollton Parks Recreation and Transmission Corporation, 2100 East with a circulation in the project area. Cultural Arts Center in the Optimist Exchange Place, Tucker, Georgia 30085 Any final action by RUS related to the Room located at 118 South White Street, and at: proposed project will be subject to, and in Carrollton, Georgia 30117, phone Whitesburg City Hall, 788 Main Street, contingent upon, compliance with (770)–832–1161. The purpose of the Whitesburg, GA 30185, Phone: 770– environmental review requirements as meeting is to provide information to the 832–1184 prescribed by CEQ and RUS public and solicit comments. Neva Lomason Memorial Library, 710 environmental policies and procedures. FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Quigel, Rome Street, Carrollton, GA 30117, Dated: October 23, 2001. Engineering and Environmental Staff, Phone: 770–836–6711 Glendon D. Deal, Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1571, 1400 Villa Rica City Hall, 571 West Bankead Acting Director, Engineering and Independence Avenue, SW., Hwy., Villa Rica, GA 30180, Phone: Environmental Staff. Washington, DC 20250–1571, telephone 770–459–3656 [FR Doc. 01–27325 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] (202) 720–0468. Mr. Quigel’s e-mail Heard County Public Library, 564 Main BILLING CODE 3410–15–P address is [email protected]. You Street, Franklin, GA, Phone: 706– can also contact Ms. Analee Mayes at 675–6501 Georgia Transmission Corporation at Villa Rica Public Library, 70 Horace COMMITTEE FOR THE (770) 270–7030. Ms. Mayes’ e-mail Luther Dr., Villa Rica, GA 30180, IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE address is [email protected]. Phone: 770–459–7012 AGREEMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Two Carrollton City Hall, 315 Bradley Street, separate transmission lines are being Carrollton, GA 30117, Phone: 404– Announcement of Import Limits and proposed. A separate environmental 830–2000 Guaranteed Access Levels for Certain assessment will be prepared for each Mr. Jim Veal, Roopville City Council, Cotton, Wool and Man-Made Fiber transmission line. Georgia Transmission P.O. Box 410, Roopville, GA 30170, Textile Products Produced or Corporation proposes to construct a 230 Phone: 770–854–7723 Manufactured in Costa Rica kV transmission between the Yellowdirt Government agencies, private Switching Station at Plant Wansley in organizations, and the public are invited October 25, 2001. Heard County to the proposed Hickory to participate in the planning and AGENCY: Committee for the Level Substation in Carroll County. (The analysis of the proposed project. Implementation of Textile Agreements Hickory Level Substation is anticipated Representatives from RUS and Georgia (CITA). to be in service by 2002 as it is a needed Transmission Corporation will be ACTION: Issuing a directive to the system improvement regardless of the available at the scoping meetings to Commissioner of Customs establishing 230 kV transmission line described discuss RUS’s environmental review limits and guaranteed access levels. herein.) Concrete or steel single pole process, describe the project, the need structures ranging in height from 90 to for the project, and macro corridors EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002. 130 feet would support the conductors under consideration, and discuss the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and would require a right-of way of scope of environmental issues to be Naomi Freeman, International Trade approximately 100 feet. The considered, answer questions, and Specialist, Office of Textiles and approximate length of the line is 25 accept oral and written comments. Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, miles. It is anticipated that this Written comments will be accepted for (202) 482–4212. For information on the transmission line would be in service in 30 days after the public scoping quota status of these limits, refer to the the spring of 2004. Georgia meeting. Written comments should be Quota Status Reports posted on the Transmission Corporation proposes to sent to RUS at the address provided in bulletin boards of each Customs port, construct a 500 kV transmission line this notice. call (202) 927–5850, or refer to the U.S. from the existing substation at Plant From information provided in the Customs website at http:// Wansley in Heard County to the existing alternative evaluation and site selection www.customs.ustreas.gov. For Villa Rica #2 Substation east of Villa study, input that may be provided by information on embargoes and quota re- Rica, in Douglas County. Lattice steel government agencies, private openings, refer to the Office of Textiles structures would be used to support the organizations, and the public, Georgia and Apparel website at http:// conductors for the length of the project. Transmission Corporation will prepare otexa.ita.doc.gov. The heights of these structures typically an environmental analysis to be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: range from 80 to 150 feet and require a submitted to RUS for review. RUS will right-of-way width of 180 feet. The use the environmental analysis to Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural approximate length of the line is 30 determine the significance of the Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); miles. It is anticipated that this impacts of the project and may adopt it Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as transmission line would be in service by as its environmental assessment of the amended. the spring of 2008. project. RUS’ environmental assessment The import restraint limits and Alternatives considered by RUS and of the project would be available for Guaranteed Access Levels (GALs) for Georgia Transmission Corporation review and comment for 30 days. textile products, produced or include: (a) No action, (b) alternative Should RUS determine, based on the manufactured in Costa Rica and transmission improvements, and (c) environmental assessment of the exported during the period January 1, alternative transmission line corridors. project, that the impacts of the 2002 through December 31, 2002 are An Alternative Evaluation Study and construction and operation of the plant based on limits notified to the Textiles VerDate 11 Monitoring Body pursuant to the the limits established for that period have ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles been exhausted by previous entries, such Commissioner of Customs establishing and Clothing (ATC). products shall be charged to the limits set import limits and guaranteed access In the letter published below, the forth in this directive. Also pursuant to the ATC, and under the levels. Chairman of CITA directs the terms of the Special Access Program, as set Commissioner of Customs to establish forth in 63 FR 16474 (April 3, 1998), you are EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002. limits and guaranteed access levels for directed to establish guaranteed access levels 2002. for properly certified cotton, wool and man- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: These specific limits and guaranteed made fiber textile products in the following Naomi Freeman, International Trade access levels do not apply to goods that categories which are assembled in Costa Rica Specialist, Office of Textiles and qualify for quota-free entry under the from fabric formed and cut in the United Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Trade and Development Act of 2000. States and re-exported to the United States from Costa Rica during the period beginning (202) 482–4212. For information on the A description of the textile and quota status of these limits, refer to the apparel categories in terms of HTS on January 1, 2002 and extending through December 31, 2002: Quota Status Reports posted on the numbers is available in the bulletin boards of each Customs port, CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Guaranteed access call (202) 927–5850, or refer to the U.S. Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Category level Schedule of the United States (see Customs website at http:// Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328, 340/640 ...... 650,000 dozen. www.customs.ustreas.gov. For published on December 28, 2000). 342/642 ...... 250,000 dozen. information on embargoes and quota re- Information regarding the availability of 347/348 ...... 1,500,000 dozen. openings, refer to the Office of Textiles 443 ...... 200,000 numbers. and Apparel website at http:// the 2002 CORRELATION will be 447 ...... 4,000 dozen. published in the Federal Register at a otexa.ita.doc.gov. later date. Any shipment for entry under the Special SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requirements for participation in the Access Program which is not accompanied Special Access Program are available in by a valid and correct certification in Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Federal Register notice 63 FR 16474, accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); published on April 3, 1998. certification requirements established in the Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as directive of May 15, 1990 (55 FR 21074), as amended. D. Michael Hutchinson, amended, shall be denied entry unless the Acting Chairman, Committee for the Government of Costa Rica authorizes the The import restraint limits and Implementation of Textile Agreements. entry and any charges to the appropriate Guaranteed Access Levels (GALS) for specific limit. Any shipment which is textile products, produced or Committee for the Implementation of Textile declared for entry under the Special Access Agreements manufactured in Guatemala and Program but found not to qualify shall be exported during the period January 1, October 25, 2001. denied entry into the United States. 2002 through December 31, 2002 are Commissioner of Customs, These specific limits and guaranteed access Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC levels do not apply to goods that qualify for based on limits notified to the Textiles 20229. quota-free entry under the Trade and Monitoring Body pursuant to the Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section Development Act of 2000. Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as In carrying out the above directions, the and Clothing (ATC). amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order Commissioner of Customs should construe 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the entry into the United States for consumption In the letter published below, the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and to include entry for consumption into the Chairman of CITA directs the Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Commissioner of Customs to establish effective on January 1, 2002, entry into the The Committee for the Implementation of limits and guaranteed access levels for United States for consumption and Textile Agreements has determined that 2002. withdrawal from warehouse for consumption these actions fall within the foreign affairs of cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile exception of the rulemaking provisions of These specific limits and guaranteed products in the following categories, U.S.C.553(a)(1). access levels do not apply to goods that produced or manufactured in Costa Rica and Sincerely, qualify for quota-free entry under the exported during the twelve-month period D. Michael Hutchinson, Trade and Development Act of 2000. beginning on January 1, 2002 and extending Acting Chairman, Committee for the through December 31, 2002, in excess of the Implementation of Textile Agreements. A description of the textile and following restraint limits: [FR Doc.01–27345 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] apparel categories in terms of HTS BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S numbers is available in the Category Twelve-month limit CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff 340/640 ...... 1,541,941 dozen. COMMITTEE FOR THE Schedule of the United States (see 342/642 ...... 569,217 dozen. IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328, 347/348 ...... 2,598,514 dozen. AGREEMENTS 443 ...... 230,083 numbers. published on December 28, 2000). Information regarding the availability of 447 ...... 12,405 dozen. Announcement of Import Restraint the 2002 CORRELATION will be Limits and Guaranteed Access Levels The limits set forth above are subject to for Certain Cotton, Wool and Man- published in the Federal Register at a adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the later date. ATC and administrative arrangements Made Fiber Textile Products Produced notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body. or Manufactured in Guatemala Requirements for participation in the Products in the above categories exported Special Access Program are available in during 2001 shall be charged to the October 25, 2001. applicable category limits for that year (see AGENCY: Committee for the directive dated December 13, 2000) to the Implementation of Textile Agreements extent of any unfilled balances. In the event (CITA). VerDate 11 Federal Register notice 63 FR 16474, accordance with the provisions of the For further information concerning published on April 3, 1998. certification requirements established in the this meeting, please contact Natalie A. directive of January 24, 1990 (55 FR 3079), Markman or William Penner at (202) D. Michael Hutchinson, as amended, shall be denied entry unless the 418–5060. Acting Chairman, Committee for the Government of Guatemala authorizes the Implementation of Textile Agreements. entry and any charges to the appropriate Issued by the Commission in Washington, specific limit. Any shipment which is DC on October 26, 2001. Committee for the Implementation of Textile declared for entry under the Special Access Jean A. Webb, Agreements Program but found not to qualify shall be Secretary of the Commission. October 25, 2001. denied entry into the United States. These specific limits and guaranteed access [FR Doc. 01–27374 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Commissioner of Customs, levels do not apply to goods that qualify for BILLING CODE 6351–01–M Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC quota-free entry under the Trade and 20229. Development Act of 2000. Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section In carrying out the above directions, the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as Commissioner of Customs should construe amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order entry into the United States for consumption Department of the Army 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the to include entry for consumption into the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, The Committee for the Implementation of Draft Environmental Impact Statement effective on January 1, 2002, entry into the Textile Agreements has determined that (DEIS) for Enhanced Training and United States for consumption and these actions fall within the foreign affairs Operations at the National Guard withdrawal from warehouse for consumption exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 Training Center (NGTC)—Fort of cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Indiantown Gap (FTIG), PA products in the following categories, Sincerely, produced or manufactured in Guatemala and D. Michael Hutchinson, AGENCY: National Guard Bureau (NGB), exported during the period beginning on Acting Chairman, Committee for the Department of the Army, DoD. January 1, 2002 and extending through Implementation of Textile Agreements. December 31, 2002, in excess of the following ACTION: Notice of availability. levels of restraint: [FR Doc. 01–27344 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S SUMMARY: The Pennsylvania Army Twelve-month restraint National Guard (PAARNG) and the Category limit Pennsylvania Air National Guard COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING (PaANG) have formulated long-range 340/640 ...... 2,013,906 dozen. COMMISSION plans to ensure the continued and long- 347/348 ...... 2,411,420 dozen. term viability of FTIG as a National 351/651 ...... 424,822 dozen. 443 ...... 76,123 numbers. Technology Advisory Committee; Guard Training Center. In these plans, a 448 ...... 47,696 dozen. Security Procedures for November 27, total of 11 actions, comprised of 42 2001; Meeting component projects, are proposed for the specific purposes and needs set The limits set forth above are subject to On October 17, 2001, the Commodity adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the forth in the DEIS. These proposed Futures Trading Commission published ATC and administrative arrangements actions consist of the construction or notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body. notice that its Technology Advisory improvement of the following projects: Products in the above categories exported Committee will conduct a public (1) Tracked Vehicle Training Complex, during 2001 shall be charged to the meeting on Tuesday, November 27, (2) Ammunition Supply Point Facility, applicable category limits for that year (see 2001. The meeting will take place at the (3) Artillery Training Support Facility, directive dated November 28, 2000) to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 230 extent of any unfilled balances. In the event (4) Multi-Purpose Training Range South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60604– Facility, (5) NGTC–FTIG Garrison the limits established for that period have 1413, from 1 to 5 p.m. For general been exhausted by previous entries, such Facility, (6) Wastewater Treatment Plant information concerning this meeting, products shall be charged to the limits set and Collection System, (7) Muir Army forth in this directive. see 66 FR 52747. Airfield Complex, (8) Air Guard Station Due to the physical security Also pursuant to the ATC, and under the Facilities, (9) Air-to-Ground Range procedures at the Federal Reserve Bank terms of the Special Access Program, as set Control Compound, (10) Regional of Chicago, all attendees must register forth in 63 FR 16474 (April 3, 1998), effective Equipment Operator Training School, on January 1, 2002, you are directed to with the Bank in advance, (but not later and (11) the implementation of the establish guaranteed access levels for than November 25, 2001) by providing Integrated Natural Resources properly certified textile products in the their names and company affiliations. Management Plan. Implementation of following categories which are assembled in To register, please contact Judith Kozla Guatemala from fabric formed and cut in the these actions and component projects, by telephone at (800) 333–0894, United States and re-exported to the United in concert with on-going operations, extension or by e-mail at States from Guatemala during the period will provide the user of NGTC–FTIG [email protected]. The secondary January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002: with the facilities, training support, contact is Pamela Suarez, who can be logistical support, and resources Guaranteed access reached at (800) 333–0894, extension Category necessary to complete their military Level 8103, or [email protected]. mission. Persons who do not register by 340/640 ...... 520,000 dozen. November 25, 2001 will not be able to ADDRESSES: Written comments or 347/348 ...... 1,000,000 dozen. 351/651 ...... 200,000 dozen. attend the meeting. materials should be forwarded to 443 ...... 25,000 numbers. On the day of the meeting, attendees Captain Geoffrey Lincoln, NGTC–FTIG 448 ...... 42,000 dozen. must bring photo identification to EIS Project Officer, NGTC–FTIG, receive a visitors pass. Be advised that Environmental Section, 1119 Utility Any shipment for entry under the Special the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Road, Annville, Pennsylvania 17003– Access Program which is not accompanied utilizes metal detectors as well as x-ray 5002; or Lieutenant Colonel Christopher by a valid and correct certification in machines for all bags and briefcases. Cleaver, NGTC–FTIG Public Affairs VerDate 11 Officer (PAO), PADMVA Headquarters, their opportunity to attend the meeting. FICC meetings will be maintained and Building 0–47, Annville, Pennsylvania The meeting will be accessible to available for public inspection at the 17003–5002. individuals with disabilities. U.S. Department of Education, 330 C FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FICC will attend to ongoing work Street, SW., Room 3080, Switzer Captain Lincoln at (717) 861–2548 or including discussion of future planning. Building, Washington, DC 20202, from Lieutenant Colonel Cleaver at (717) DATES AND TIMES: FICC Meeting: the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., weekdays, 861–8468. Thursday, December 13, 2001 from 1:30 except Federal Holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Robert H. Pasternack, mission of the 28th Infantry Division ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of (Mechanized) is to be trained and Education, Barnard Auditorium, 400 Assistant Secretary for Special Education and equipped to join the active forces in Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, Rehabilitative Services. time of war or national emergency; DC 20202 (near the Federal Center [FR Doc. 01–27323 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] response to orders of the governor Southwest and L’Enfant metro stops). BILLING CODE 4000–010–M protecting lives and property during FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: natural and man-made disasters; Bobbi Stettner-Eaton or Obral Vance, cleaning up the environment; fighting to U.S. Department of Education, 330 C eradicate the illicit flow of drugs; and Street, SW., Room 3080, Switzer DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY serving as role models for future Building, Washington, DC 20202. generations. Each of the proposed Telephone: (202) 205–5507 Ext. 3. Federal Energy Regulatory actions has been determined to be Individuals who use a Commission necessary to allow the PAARNG and telecommunications device for the deaf PaANG to continue to utilize the (TDD) may call (202) 205–9754. [Docket Nos. ER02–146–000, ER02–147– training site to support on-going SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 000, ER02–148–000, ER02–149–000] military and civilian missions. By Federal Interagency Coordinating implementing each of these actions, Council (FICC) is established under CalPeak Power—Panoche LLC et. al.; NGTC–FTIG will continue to provide section 644(c) of the Individuals with Notice of Filing training and support facilities necessary Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. to ensue its long-term viability, 1484a). The Council is established to: October 25, 2001. sustainability, and value as a major NGB (1) Minimize duplication across Federal, Take notice that on October 22, 2001, training site. A summary of impact State and local agencies of programs and CalPeak Power—Panoche LLC, CalPeak analysis of previously completed activities relating to early intervention Power—Vaca Dixon LLC, CalPeak Environmental Assessments are services for infants and toddlers with Power—Enterprise LLC, and CalPeak incorporated into the DEIS. disabilities and their families and Power—Border LLC (the CalPeak Two public comment meetings are preschool services for children with Entities) tendered for filing each of the anticipated to be held in the fall of 2001, disabilities; (2) ensure effective CalPeak Entities’ respective long-term with exact dates and locations to be coordination of Federal early power purchase agreements with the determined and published in the local intervention and preschool programs, California Department of Water news media well in advance of the including Federal technical assistance Resources (CDWR). meeting. These meetings will be and support activities; and (3) identify conducted in order to receive comments gaps in Federal agency programs and Any person desiring to be heard or to from the public on the DEIS. services and barriers to Federal protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Dated: October 24, 2001. interagency cooperation. To meet these purposes, the FICC seeks to: (1) Identify Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Raymond J. Fatz, areas of conflict, overlap, and omissions First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, in interagency policies related to the in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health), OASA (I&E). provision of services to infants, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice toddlers, and preschoolers with and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and [FR Doc. 01–27353 Filed 10–31–01; 8:45 am] disabilities; (2) develop and implement 385.214). All such motions and protests BILLING CODE 3710–08–M joint policy interpretations on issues should be filed on or before November related to infants, toddlers, and 12, 2001. Protests will be considered by preschoolers that cut across Federal DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION the Commission to determine the agencies, including modifications of appropriate action to be taken, but will Federal Interagency Coordinating regulations to eliminate barriers to not serve to make protestants parties to Council Meeting (FICC) interagency programs and activities; and the proceedings. Any person wishing to (3) coordinate the provision of technical become a party must file a motion to AGENCY: Federal Interagency assistance and dissemination of best intervene. Copies of this filing are on Coordinating Council, Education. practice information. The FICC is file with the Commission and are chaired by Dr. Robert H. Pasternack, ACTION: Notice of public meeting. available for public inspection. This Assistant Secretary for Special filing may also be viewed on the web at SUMMARY: This notice describes the Education and Rehabilitative Services. schedule and agenda of a forthcoming The meeting of the FICC is open to the http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ meeting of the Federal Interagency public and is physically accessible. link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the Coordinating Council (FICC), and Anyone requiring accommodations such instructions (call 202–208–2222 for invites people to participate. Notice of as an interpreter, materials in Braille, assistance). Comments, protests and this meeting is required under section large print, or cassette please call Obral interventions may be filed electronically 644(c) of the Individuals with Vance at (202) 205–5507 (voice) or (202) via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and is 205–9754 (TDD) ten days in advance of CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the intended to notify the general public of the meeting. Summary minutes of the VerDate 11 instructions on the Commission’s web DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Natural states that the purpose of this site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. filing is to eliminate the surcharges for Federal Energy Regulatory Gas Supply Realignment costs David P. Boergers, Commission applicable to Natural’s services and to Secretary. [Project No. 184–065 California] delete other references to GSR where no [FR Doc. 01–27333 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] longer applicable. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Natural states that copies of the filing Public Meeting are being mailed to its customers and interested state regulatory agencies. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY October 25, 2001. Any person desiring to be heard or to The Federal Energy Regulatory protest said filing should file a motion Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is reviewing to intervene or a protest with the Commission the application for a new license for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, El Dorado Project (FERC No.184), which 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC was filed on February 22, 2000. The El [Docket No. RP00–325–005] 20426, in accordance with sections Dorado Project, licensed to the El 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Dorado Irrigation District (EID), is Rules and Regulations. All such motions Notice of Compliance Filing located on the South Fork American or protests must be filed in accordance River, in El Dorado, Alpine, and with Section 154.210 of the October 25, 2001. Amador Counties, California. The Commission’s Regulations. Protests will project occupies lands of the Eldorado be considered by the Commission in Take notice that on October 22, 2001, National Forest. Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) determining the appropriate action to be The EID, several state and federal taken, but will not serve to make tendered for filing as part of its FERC agencies, and several non-governmental Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, protestants parties to the proceedings. agencies have agreed to ask the Any person wishing to become a party the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to Commission for time to work must file a motion to intervene. Copies the filing, with an effective date October collaboratively with a facilitator to of this filing are on file with the 5, 2001. resolve certain issues relevant to this Commission and are available for public CIG states that the filing is being made proceeding. The purpose of this meeting inspection. This filing may also be is to finalize the protocols by which the in compliance with the Commission’s viewed on the web at http:// collaborative group would operate and, order issued October 5, 2001 at Docket www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link, if time permits, begin discussions of the No. RP00–325–003, et al. select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the interests of the parties. We invite the instructions (call 202–208–2222 for Any person desiring to protest said participation of all interested assistance). Comments, protests and filing should file a protest with the governmental agencies, non- interventions may be filed electronically Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, governmental organizations, and the via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC general public in this meeting. CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 20426, in accordance with section The meeting will be held on Tuesday, instructions on the Commission’s web 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and November 13, 2001, from 9 a.m. until 4 site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Regulations. All such protests must be p.m. in the Sacramento Marriott, located filed in accordance with section 154.210 at 11211 Point East Drive, Rancho David P. Boergers, of the Commission’s Regulations. Cordova, California. Secretary. For further information, please Protests will be considered by the [FR Doc. 01–27337 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Commission in determining the contact Elizabeth Molloy at (202) 208– 0771 or John Mudre at (202) 219–1208. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to David P. Boergers, the proceedings. Copies of this filing are Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY on file with the Commission and are [FR Doc. 01–27334 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Federal Energy Regulatory available for public inspection. This BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Commission filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ [Docket No. ER01–3112–001] link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY instructions (call 202–208–2222 for New York Independent System Federal Energy Regulatory Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing assistance). Comments, protests and Commission interventions may be filed electronically October 25, 2001. via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 [Docket No. RP02–22–000] Take notice that on October 22, 2001, CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of the New York Independent System instructions on the Commission’s web America; Notice of Proposed Changes Operator, Inc. (NYISO) filed a correction site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. in FERC Gas Tariff to revisions to its Market Administration and Control Area David P. Boergers, October 25, 2001. Services Tariff (Services Tariff) and its Secretary. Take notice that on October 22, 2001, Open-Access Transmission Tariff [FR Doc. 01–27336 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Natural Gas Pipeline Company of (‘‘OATT’’) to make permanent two BILLING CODE 6717–01–P America (Natural) tendered for filing to temporary market rules pertaining to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, External Transactions that were initially Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff implemented as ‘‘Extraordinary sheets listed on Appendix A to the Corrective Actions,’’ and to introduce filing, to be effective December 1, 2001. several new enhancements to its VerDate 11 external transaction scheduling application pursuant to section 203 of (Consumers) tendered for filing with the processes. the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 842b) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The NYISO has requested a waiver of and part 33 of the Commission’s (Commission) the following substitute the usual sixty day notice period so that Regulations for authorization of the tariff sheets as part of its FERC Electric this filing can become effective on transfer to the Charter County of Wayne, Tariff No. 5 in compliance with the October 30, 2001. Michigan (County) of certain October 5, 2001 letter order, and The NYISO has served a copy of the interconnection facilities which may be previous orders, issued in these filing on all parties that have executed regarded as jurisdictional facilities and proceedings; Second Sub Original Sheet Service Agreements under the NYISO’s which are appurtenant to the 17.1 MW Nos. 2.00, 10.00, 11.00 and 12.00. Open-Access Transmission Tariff or natural-gas fueled generating facility The first sheet listed is to have an Services Tariff, to the New York State that Metro Energy is transferring to the effective date of June 21, 1993. The Public Service Commission and to the County. remaining three sheets are to have an electric utility regulatory agencies in Comment date: November 9, 2001, in effective date of May 2, 1992. Copies of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. accordance with Standard Paragraph E these sheets were served upon the Any person desiring to be heard or to at the end of this notice. Michigan Public Service Commission protest such filing should file a motion and upon those on the official service 2. American Transmission Company to intervene or protest with the Federal lists in these proceeding. LLC Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Comment date: November 13, 2001, in First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, [Docket No. EC02–9–000] accordance with Standard Paragraph E in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 Take notice that on October 18, 2001, at the end of this notice. of the Commission’s Rules of Practice American Transmission Company LLC 5. PacifiCorp and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and (ATCLLC), tendered for filing with the 385.214). All such motions and protests Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER01–1152–003] should be filed on or before November (Commission), an Application for Take notice that PacifiCorp on 1, 2001. Protests will be considered by Authorization to Transfer Operational October 22, 2001, tendered for filing the Commission to determine the Control of Jurisdictional Transmission with the Federal Energy Regulatory appropriate action to be taken, but will Facilities to the Midwest Independent Commission (Commission) an not serve to make protestants parties to Transmission System Operator, Inc. amendment to its January 30, 2001 filing the proceedings. Any person wishing to pursuant to section 203 of the Federal of a revised Exhibit C to the contract for become a party must file a motion to Power Act and part 33 of the Interconnections and Transmission intervene. Copies of this filing are on Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR 33.1. Service between PacifiCorp and Western file with the Commission and are Comment date: November 8, 2001, in Area Power Administration (Western), available for public inspection. This accordance with Standard Paragraph E Contract No. 14–06–400–2436, filing may also be viewed on the web at at the end of this notice. Supplement No. 2 (PacifiCorp’s Rate http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ Schedule FERC No. 262). The revisions 3. Arizona Public Service Company, El link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the modify the rates charged to Western for Paso Electric Company, Public Service instructions (call 202–208–2222 for Block 2 transmission service. Copies of Company of New Mexico, Tucson assistance). Comments, protests and this filing were supplied to the Electric Power Company, WestConnect interventions may be filed electronically Washington Utilities and Transportation RTO, LLC via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 Commission and the Public Utility CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the [Docket No. EL02–9–000] Commission of Oregon. instructions on the Commission’s web Take notice that on October 16, 2001, PacifiCorp has requested an effective site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Arizona Public Service Company, El date of April 1, 2001. David P. Boergers, Paso Electric Company, Public Service Comment date: November 13, 2001, in Secretary. Company of New Mexico, and Tucson accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. [FR Doc. 01–27332 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Electric Power Company filed pursuant to Rule 207 of the Rules of Practice and BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 6. Mountain View Power Partners II, Procedure of the Federal Energy LLC Regulatory Commission (Commission), DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 18 CFR 385.207, and the Commission’s [Docket No. ER01–1336–001] Regional Transmission Organization Take notice that on October 22, 2001, Federal Energy Regulatory (RTO) rules at 18 CFR 35.34(d)(3) and Mountain View Power Partners II, LLC Commission (4), a petition for Declaratory Order (Mountain View II) filed with the seeking confirmation that their joint Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EC02–8–000, et al.] proposal to form WestConnect RTO, (Commission) a Notice of Change in Metro Energy, L.L.C., et al.; Electric LLC (WestConnect) meets or exceeds the Status with the Commission in Rate and Corporate Regulation Filings Commission’s requirements for the accordance with the delegated letter formation of RTOs under Order No. order issued April 6, 2001 in Mountain October 24, 2001. 2000. View Power Partners II, LLC, Docket No. Take notice that the following filings Comment date: November 15, 2001, in ER01–1336–000, accepting for filing have been made with the Commission: accordance with Standard Paragraph E Mountain View II’s marked-based rate at the end of this notice. tariff. The Notice of Change in Status 1. Metro Energy, L.L.C. reports that the change in ownership of 4. Consumers Energy Company [Docket No. EC02–8–000] Mountain View II that was described in Take notice that on October 19, 2001, [Docket Nos. ER92–331–009 and ER92–332– its market-based rate application filed Metro Energy, L.L.C. (Metro Energy), 009] with the Commission on February 27, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Take notice that on October 22, 2001, 2001 in the above-referenced docket, Commission (Commission), an Consumers Energy Company has occurred. VerDate 11 Comment date: November 13, 2001, in CFR Section 35 of the Commission’s operated by Fremont Energy Center, accordance with Standard Paragraph E Rules and Regulations, an Amendatory L.L.C. (Fremont) to the FirstEnergy at the end of this notice. Agreement No. 1 to Service Agreement Transmission System and for No. 50 under PacifiCorp’s FERC Electric coordination of the operation and 7. Public Service Company of New Tariff, Volume No. 12 dated October 12, maintenance of those facilities with Mexico 2001 between Flathead and PacifiCorp. ATSI. The proposed effective date for [Docket No. ER01–2566–002] Copies of this filing were supplied to the Generator Interconnection and Take notice that on October 22, 2001, the Washington Utilities and Operating Agreement is September 19, Public Service Company of New Mexico Transportation Commission and the 2001. (PNM) submitted for filing with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon. Copies of this filing have been served Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Comment date: November 13, 2001, in on the Ohio and Pennsylvania utility (Commission) a supplement to its filing accordance with Standard Paragraph E commissions and Fremont. in this proceeding to respond to a letter at the end of this notice. Comment date: November 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E dated September 21, 2001, from the 10. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation Director, Division of Tariffs and Rates + at the end of this notice. [Docket No. ER02–128–001] West, notifying PNM that its original 13. Wisconsin Public Service filing was deficient. This supplement Take notice that on October 23, 2001, Corporation provides additional information PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL concerning the Wholesale Requirements Electric) and Williams Generation [Docket No. ER02–133–000] Power Sale and Services Agreement Company—Hazleton (WGC) filed with Take notice that on October 19, 2001, (Agreement) between PNM and Texas- the Federal Energy Regulatory Wisconsin Public Service Corporation New Mexico Power Company (TNMP) Commission (Commission) Exhibit C to (WPSC) tendered for filing with the filed by PNM in this proceeding. an Interconnection Agreement between Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Specifically, the supplement provides PPL Electric and WGC. The (Commission) a revised partial additional information concerning Interconnection Agreement originally requirements service agreement with transmission service associated with filed with the Commission on October Washington Island (WIEC). Second sales to TNMP pursuant to the 18, 2001 inadvertently omitted the Revised Service Agreement No. 9 Agreement, as well as additional contents of Exhibit C. provides WIEC’s contract demand information concerning charges for PPL Electric and WGC request an nominations for January 2002— ancillary services. The supplement effective date of October 19, 2001 for the December 2002, under WPSC’s W–2A includes an amended version of the Interconnection Agreement. partial requirements tariff. Agreement, designated as Substitute Comment date: November 13, 2001, in The company states that copies of this Service Agreement No. 28 under PNM’s accordance with Standard Paragraph E filing have been served upon WIEC and FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised at the end of this notice. to the State Commissions where WPSC Volume No. 3. serves at retail. 11. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Copies of this filing have been served Comment date: November 9, 2001, in upon TNMP, Southwestern Public [Docket No. ER02–131–000] accordance with Standard Paragraph E Service Company, and the New Mexico Take notice that on October 19, 2001, at the end of this notice. Public Regulation Commission. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), 14. Consumers Energy Company Comment date: November 13, 2001, in submitted for filing with the Federal accordance with Standard Paragraph E Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER02–134–000] at the end of this notice. (Commission) amendments to the Take notice that on October 18, 2001 8. ODEC Power Trading, Inc. Amended and Restated Operating Consumers Energy Company Agreement of PJM Interconnection, (Consumers) tendered for filing with the [Docket No. ER01–2783–001] L.L.C. and PJM’s FERC Electric Tariff, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Take notice that on October 22, 2001, Third Revised Volume No. 1 to permit (Commission) a Service Agreement with ODEC Power Trading, Inc. (OPT) filed Market Sellers the option of requesting Carolina Power & Light Company, with the Federal Energy Regulatory cost-based start-up fees in their Offer (Customer) under Consumer’s FERC Commission (Commission) an Data that are modifiable on a daily basis. Electric Tariff No. 9 for Market Based Amendment to its application for Copies of this filing were served upon Sales. Consumers requested that the blanket authority to sell wholesale all PJM members and each state electric Agreement be allowed to become power at market-based rates (Docket No. utility regulatory commission in the effective as of September 27, 2001. ER01–2783–000). OPT’s Amendment is PJM control area. Copies of the filing were served upon filed pursuant to section 205 of the Comment date: November 9, 2001, in the Customer and the Michigan Public Federal Power Act and Rules 205 and accordance with Standard Paragraph E Service Commission. 207 of Commission’s Rules of Practice at the end of this notice. Comment date: November 8, 2001, in and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.205 and accordance with Standard Paragraph E 12. American Transmission Systems, 385.207. at the end of this notice. Incorporated Comment date: November 13, 2001, in 15. Mid-Continent Area Power Pool accordance with Standard Paragraph E [Docket No. ER02–132–000] at the end of this notice. Take notice that on October 19, 2001, [Docket No. ER02–135–000] 9. PacifiCorp American Transmission Systems, Take notice that on October 19, 2001, Incorporated (ATSI) tendered for filing the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool [Docket No. ER01–3071–001] with the Federal Energy Regulatory (MAPP), on behalf of its members that Take notice that on October 22, 2001, Commission (Commission) a Generator are subject to Commission jurisdiction PacifiCorp, tendered for filing with the Interconnection and Operating as public utilities under section 201(e) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Agreement to provide a connection of of the Federal Power Act, filed with the (Commission) in accordance with 18 electric generating facilities owned and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission VerDate 11 (Commission) an amendment to TPC Corp. (TPC). The rate applicable to the Michigan Public Service Schedule R of the Restated Agreement any such sales will be no lower than the Commission, ITC, and the Customer. that would extend provision of the published ‘‘Into-Cinergy’’ price for the Michigan Transco is requesting an redispatch service from October 31, applicable time period. The ‘‘Into- effective date of October 15, 2001 for the 2001 to October 31, 2002. Cinergy’’ rate will act as a guarantee Agreements. Comment date: November 9, 2001, in against potential affiliate concerns. Comment date: November 13, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E Under the terms of the proposed Service accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. Agreement, neither TPC nor NIPSCO at the end of this notice. shall be required to undertake any sales 16. West Penn Power Company 22. American Electric Power Service or purchases of electric energy. Corporation [Docket No. ER02–136–000] Comment date: November 13, 2001, in Take notice that on October 19, 2001 accordance with Standard Paragraph E [Docket No. ER02–141–000] West Penn Power Company filed with at the end of this notice. Take notice that on October 22, 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory 19. Florida Power & Light Company the American Electric Power Service Commission (Commission) a unilateral Corporation (AEPSC) tendered for filing addendum to its agreement for service [Docket No. ER02–139–000] with the Federal Energy Regulatory to Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. Take notice that on October 22, 2001, Commission (Commission) ten West Penn recites that the addendum Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) replacement blanket Service contains terms and conditions proposed filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Agreements for existing customers by West Penn for a one-year renewal Commission (Commission), pursuant to under the AEP Companies’ Power Sales period of that agreement. Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, Tariffs; AEPSC’s request to terminate Comment date: November 9, 2001, in an executed Interconnection & several Service Agreements under the accordance with Standard Paragraph E Operation Agreement between FPL and Power Sales Tariffs and; various at the end of this notice. CPV Atlantic, Ltd. Counterparty requests to assign their Comment date: November 13, 2001, in Service Agreement under AEPSC’s 17. Mohawk River Funding III, L.L.C. accordance with Standard Paragraph E Power Sales Tariffs to other entities [Docket No. ER02–137–000] at the end of this notice. because of a merger or acquisition. The Take notice that on October 19, 2001, 20. Wisconsin Public Service Power Sales Tariffs were accepted for Mohawk River Funding III, L.L.C. Corporation filing effective October 10, 1997 and has (Mohawk), filed with the Federal Energy been designated AEP Operating Regulatory Commission (Commission) [Docket No. ER02–140–000] Companies’ FERC Electric Tariff an application asking that the Take notice that on October 22, 2001, Original Volume No. 5 (Wholesale Tariff Commission accept for filing an Wisconsin Public Service Corporation of the AEP Operating Companies) and Amended and Restated PPA (designated (WPSC) tendered for filing with the FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume as Mohawk River Funding III, L.C. Rate Federal Energy Regulatory Commission No. 8, Effective January 8, 1998 in Schedule FERC No. 1), thereby (Commission) a revised partial Docket ER 98–542–000 (Market-Based authorizing Mohawk to engage in the requirements service agreement with Rate Power Sales Tariff of the CSW wholesale sales of energy and capacity Manitowoc Public Utilities (MPU). Operating Companies). AEPSC under the Amended and Restated PPA Second Revised Service Agreement No. respectfully requests waiver of notice to at the market-based rates to which the 5 provides MPU’s contract demand permit the attached Service Agreements parties have agreed, and grant other nominations for January 2002– to be made effective on or prior to waivers, approvals, and authorizations December 2002, under WPSC’s W–2A September 20, 2001. AEPSC also requested in the application. partial requirements tariff. respectively requests that the Mohawk is a limited liability The company states that copies of this Commission accepts its request to company formed under the laws of filing have been served upon MPU and terminate those Service Agreements Delaware. Mohawk does not own any to the State Commissions where WPSC identified in Exhibit 2 and the generating facilities. serves at retail. assignments identified in Exhibit 3 to be Comment date: November 9, 2001, in Comment date: November 13, 2001, in effective on, or prior to September 20, accordance with Standard Paragraph E accordance with Standard Paragraph E 2001. at the end of this notice. at the end of this notice. A copy of the filing was served upon the Parties and the State Utility 18. Northern Indiana Public Service 21. Michigan Electric Transmission Regulatory Commissions of Arkansas, Company Company Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, [Docket No. ER02–138–000] [Docket No. ER02–142–000] Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Please take notice that on October 22, Take notice that on October 22, 2001, Virginia and West Virginia. 2001, Northern Indiana Public Service Michigan Electric Transmission Comment date: November 13, 2001, in Company (NIPSCO), a wholly owned Company (Michigan Transco) tendered accordance with Standard Paragraph E subsidiary of NiSource Inc., tendered for for filing with the Federal Energy at the end of this notice. filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 23. Commonwealth Edison Company Regulatory Commission (Commission) a executed Service Agreements for Firm Service Agreement. NIPSCO seeks an and Non-Firm Point-to-Point [Docket No. ER02–143–000] effective date of December 21, 2001, for Transmission Service with Dynegy Take notice that on October 22, 2001, the tariff sheets submitted with this Power Marketing (Customer) pursuant Commonwealth Edison Company filing. to the Joint Open Access Transmission (ComEd) submitted for filing with the NIPSCO states that pursuant to the Service Tariff filed on February 22, 2001 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Service Agreement, it will be authorized by Michigan Transco and International (Commission) an amended Form of to sell electric energy, from time to time, Transmission Company (ITC). Copies of Service Agreement for Firm Point-To- to its marketing affiliate, EnergyUSA- the filed agreements were served upon Point Transmission Service (Amended VerDate 11 Service Agreement) between ComEd Standard Paragraph g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) and Exelon Generation Company, LLC of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. E. Any person desiring to be heard or (Exelon) under the terms of ComEd’s 817(b). to protest such filing should file a Open Access Transmission Tariff h. Applicant Contact: Peter Fox Sipp, motion to intervene or protest with the (OATT). ComEd asks that the Amended 8 Bear Creek Place, Asheville, NC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Service Agreement supersede and be 28806, telephone (828) 258–8139. 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC substituted for the Service Agreement i. FERC Contact: Any questions on 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 with Exelon previously filed on August this notice should be addressed to and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of 21, 2001 in Docket No. ER01–2897–000. Patricia W. Gillis (202) 208–0735, or E- Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 The Amended Service Agreement has mail address: [email protected]. and 385.214). All such motions or been amended to change the roll-over j. Deadline for filing comments and/ protests should be filed on or before the rights from pending to granted. Copies or motions: December 7, 2001. comment date. Protests will be of this filing were served on Exelon. All documents (original and eight considered by the Commission in copies) should be filed with: David P. ComEd requests an effective date of determining the appropriate action to be Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy October 5, 2001 for the Amended taken, but will not serve to make Regulatory Commission, 888 First Service Agreement, and waiver of the protestants parties to the proceeding. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Commission’s notice requirements. Any person wishing to become a party Copies of this filing are on file with the Comment date: November 13, 2001, in must file a motion to intervene. Copies Commission and are available for public accordance with Standard Paragraph E of this filing are on file with the inspection. Comments, protests and at the end of this notice. Commission and are available for public interventions may be filed electronically inspection. This filing may also be via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 24. Entergy Services, Inc. viewed on the web at http:// CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the [Docket No. ER02–144–000] www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link, instructions on the Commission’s web select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Take notice that on October 22, 2001, instructions (call 202–208–2222 for Please include the docket number Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of assistance). Comments, protests and (DI02–1–000) on any comments or Entergy Gulf States, Inc., tendered for interventions may be filed electronically motions filed. filing with the Federal Energy via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 k. Description of Project: The Regulatory Commission (Commission) a CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the proposed Peter Sipp’s Hydro-Generating unilaterally executed Interconnection instructions on the Commission’s web Facility would consist of: (1) A jib and Operating Agreement with Mobil site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. crane; (2) a paddle type wheel 12 feet Oil Corporation (Mobil), and a wide, 14 feet in diameter; (3) a Generator Imbalance Agreement with David P. Boergers, drawbridge with a screen on the Mobil. Secretary. upstream side only in front of the Comment date: November 13, 2001, in [FR Doc. 01–27330 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] wheel; (4) a 12-volt automotive accordance with Standard Paragraph E BILLING CODE 6717–01–P alternator and producing approximately at the end of this notice. 420 watts connected to a 24-volt D.C. x 25. New England Power Pool 25 amp truck generator producing DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY approximately 600 watts; and (5) [Docket No. ER02–145–000] appurtenant facilities. Federal Energy Regulatory When a Declaration of Intention is Take notice that on October 22, 2001, Commission the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory submitted to the Federal Energy Commission, the Federal Power Act [Docket No. DI02–1–000] Regulatory Commission (Commission) requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of the Seventy-Seventh Agreement Notice of Declaration of Intention and Amending the Restated NEPOOL interstate or foreign commerce would be Soliciting Comments, Motions To affected by the project. The Commission Agreement ( the Seventy-Seventh Intervene, and Protests Agreement), which corrects and updates also determines whether or not the certain provisions of the NEPOOL Tariff October 25, 2001. project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy to reflect recently completed merger Take notice that the following or affect public lands or reservations of activity among various NEPOOL application has been filed with the the United States; (3) would utilize Participants, and corrects certain other Commission and is available for public surplus water or water power from a incorrect references in various defined inspection: government dam; or (4) if applicable, terms in the NEPOOL Tariff. NEPOOL a. Application Type: Declaration of has involved or would involve any also filed on October 22, 2001 certain Intention. construction subsequent to 1935 that changes to the NEPOOL Tariff b. Docket No.: DI02–1–000. Attachment F Implementation Rule, may have increased or would increase c. Date Filed: October 11, 2001. the project’s head or generating which correct incorrect references in d. Applicant: Peter Fox Sipp, Jr. various defined terms of the capacity, or have otherwise significantly e. Name of Project: Peter Fox Sipp’s Implementation Rule and are not modified the project’s pre-1935 design Hydro-Generating Facility. substantive. NEPOOL states that these or operation. changes will not increase rates. f. Location: The Peter Fox Sipp l. Locations of the Application: Copies Hydro-Generating Facility would be of this filing are on file with the NEPOOL request a January 1, 2002 located approximately 15 miles from Commission and are available for public effective date. Burnsville, North Carolina, on the Cane inspection. Copies of this filing are on Comment date: November 13, 2001, in River in Yancy County, North Carolina. file with the Commission and are accordance with Standard Paragraph E The project will not occupy Federal or available for public inspection. This at the end of this notice. Tribal land. filing may also be viewed on the web at VerDate 11 http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY k. This application is not ready for link, select ‘‘Docketι’’ and follow the environmental analysis at this time. instructions (call 202–208–2222 for Federal Energy Regulatory l. The existing Pit 3, 4, 5 Project assistance). Commission consists of three hydraulically- connected developments, with a total of m. Individuals desiring to be included Notice of Application Tendered for four dams, four reservoirs, three on the Commission’s mailing list should Filing With the Commission, Soliciting powerhouses, associated tunnels, surge so indicate by writing to the Secretary Additional Study Requests, and chambers, and penstocks. The of the Commission. Establishing Procedures for powerhouses contain nine generating n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Relicensing and a Deadline for units with a combined operating Intervene—Anyone may submit Submission of Final Amendments capacity of about 325 MW. No new comments, a protest, or a motion to October 25, 2001. construction is proposed. The Pit 3 development consists of: (1) intervene in accordance with the Take notice that the following The 1,293-acre Lake Britton, with a requirements of Rules of Practice and hydroelectric application has been filed gross storage capacity of 41,877 acre Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, with the Commission and is available feet; (2) the Pit 3 Dam, with a crest 385.214. In determining the appropriate for public inspection. length of 494 feet and a maximum action to take, the Commission will a. Type of Application: New Major height of 130 feet; (3) a concrete tunnel consider all protests or other comments License. b. Project No.: 233–081. in two sections, 19 feet in diameter with filed, but only those who file a motion a total length of about 21,000 feet; (4) a to intervene in accordance with the c. Date Filed: October 19, 2001. d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric surge tank; (5) three penstocks about 10 Commission’s Rules may become a Company. feet in diameter and 600 feet in length; party to the proceeding. Any comments, e. Name of Project: Pit 3, 4, and 5 (6) a 47-foot by 194-foot reinforced protests, or motions to intervene must Hydroelectric Project. concrete multilevel powerhouse; (7) be received on or before the specified f. Location: On the Pit River, in Shasta three generating units, driven by three comment date for the particular County, near the community of Burney vertical Francis turbines, with a application. and the Intermountain towns of Fall combined normal operating capacity of o. Filing and Service of Responsive River Mills and McArthur, California. 70 MW; and (8) appurtenant facilities. Documents—Any filings must bear in The project includes 746 acres of lands The Pit 4 development consists of: (1) all capital letters the title of the United States, which are The 105-acre Pit 4 Reservoir, with a gross storage capacity of 1,970 acre feet; ‘‘COMMENTS’’, administered by the Forest Supervisor (2) the Pit 4 Dam, consisting of a gravity ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS of the Shasta Trinity National Forest and the Forest Supervisor of the Lassen type overflow section 203 feet in length AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR with a maximum height of 108 feet and ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as National Forest. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power a slab-and-buttress type section 212 feet applicable, and the Project Number of Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r). in length with a maximum height of 78 the particular application to which the h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Randal feet; (3) a 19-foot-diameter pressure filing refers. A copy of any motion to Livingston, Lead Director, Hydro tunnel with a total length of about intervene must also be served upon each Generation Department, Pacific Gas and 21,500 feet; (4) two 12-foot-diameter representative of the Applicant Electric Company, P.O. Box 770000, penstocks about 800 feet in length; (5) specified in the particular application. N11C, San Francisco, CA 94177, (415) a four-level 58-foot by 155-foot p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, 973–6950. reinforced concrete powerhouse; (6) two and local agencies are invited to file i. FERC Contact: John Mudre, (202) generating units, driven by two vertical comments on the described application. 219–1208 or [email protected]. Francis turbines, with a combined A copy of the application may be j. Deadline for filing additional study normal operating capacity of 95 MW; obtained by agencies directly from the requests: December 18, 2001. and (7) appurtenant facilities. All documents (original and eight The Pit 5 development consists of: (1) Applicant. If an agency does not file copies) should be filed with: David P. The 32-acre Pit 5 Reservoir, with a gross comments within the time specified for Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy storage capacity of 314 acre feet; (2) the filing comments, it will be presumed to Regulatory Commission, 888 First Pit 5 Dam, with a concrete gravity have no comments. One copy of an Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. overflow structure 340 feet in length agency’s comments must also be sent to Additional study requests may be filed and a maximum height of 67 feet; (3) the the Applicant’s representatives. electronically via the Internet in lieu of 19-foot-diameter Tunnel No. 1; (4) the David P. Boergers, paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) 48-acre Pit 5 Tunnel Reservoir, with a and the instructions on the gross storage capacity of 1,044 acre feet; Secretary. Commission’s web site (http:// (5) the Pit 5 Tunnel Reservoir Dam, [FR Doc. 01–27331 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] www.ferc.gov) under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. approximately 3,100 feet long and 66 BILLING CODE 6717–01–P The Commission’s Rules of Practice feet high; (6) the 19-foot-diameter Pit 5 require all intervenors filing documents Tunnel No. 2; (7) four steel penstocks with the Commission to serve a copy of about 8 feet in diameter and 1,400 feet that document on each person on the in length; (8) a 56-foot by 266.5-foot official service list for the project. reinforced concrete multilevel Further, if an intervenor files comments powerhouse; (9) four generating units, or documents with the Commission driven by four vertical Francis turbines, relating to the merits of an issue that with a combined normal operating may affect the responsibilities of a capacity of 160 MW; and (10) particular resource agency, they must appurtenant facilities. also serve a copy of the document on m. A copy of the application is on file that resource agency. with the Commission and is available VerDate 11 for public inspection. This filing may Plant 1576000301 in Ohio is not subject DATES: The technical briefing will be also be viewed on the web at http:// to the Program because it is not an EGU, held on Thursday, November 15, 2001, www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link— since it does not serve a generator, nor from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. On Friday, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the is it a non-EGU, since it has less than November 16, 2001, from 9 a.m. to instructions (call 202–208–2222 for 250 (166) mmBtu/hr maximum design noon, EPA and the U.S. Department of assistance). A copy is also available for heat input. Further, it is not a ‘‘ NOX Agriculture will hold a public meeting inspection and reproduction at the Budget unit’’ as defined at 40 CFR 97.2. of the CARAT Workgroup on address in item h above. Since Point B015 is not subject to the Cumulative Risk Assessment/Public n. With this notice, we are initiating Program, NOX allowances will not be Participation Process. consultation with the CALIFORNIA allocated for this unit in EPA’s NOX ADDRESSES: The technical briefing will STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION Allowance Tracking System. be held at the Old Town Holiday Inn OFFICER (SHPO), as required by section DATES: Any comments regarding this Select, 480 King Street, Alexandria, VA. 106 of the National Historic applicability determination must be The telephone number for the hotel is Preservation Act. submitted in writing to EPA at the (703) 549–6080. Complimentary shuttle o. Procedural schedule and final address below no later than November service to and from the Ronald Reagon amendments: The application will be 30, 2001. Airport and the King Street Metro processed according to the following ADDRESSES: U.S. EPA, Clean Air Station is available. The CARAT milestones, some of which may be Markets Division (6204N), Attn: Robert Workgroup Meeting will be held at the combined to expedite processing: Miller, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Environmental Protection Agency, 1921 Notice of application has been accepted NW., Washington DC, 20460. Jefferson Davis Highway, Room 1110 (Fishbowl), Arlington, VA. for filing; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Notice of NEPA Scoping (unless scoping Robert Miller, U.S. EPA Headquarters, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For has already occurred); Clean Air Markets Division, (202) 564– general information contact: Terria Notice of application is ready for 9077. Northern, Special Review and environmental analysis; Reregistration Division (7508C), Office Notice of the availability of the draft Dated: October 24, 2001. of Pesticide Programs, Environmental NEPA document; Brian J. McLean, Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Notice of the availability of the final Director, Acid Rain Division, Office of Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; NEPA document; Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and telephone number: (703) 305–7093; fax Order issuing the Commission’s Radiation. number (703) 308–8005, e-mail address: decision on the application. [FR Doc. 01–27382 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] [email protected]. Final amendments to the application BILLING CODE 6560–50–P For technical questions contact: Kathy must be filed with the Commission no Monk, Special Review and later than 30 days from the issuance Reregistration Division (7508C), Office date of the notice of ready for ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of Pesticide Programs, Environmental environmental analysis. AGENCY Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania David P. Boergers, [OPP–34240; FRL–6810–7] Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; Secretary. telephone number: (703) 308–8071; fax Technical Briefing on Dietary and number (703) 308–8005, e-mail address: [FR Doc. 01–27335 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Residential Exposure Methodologies [email protected]. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P for Use in the Organophosphate Deanna Scher, Special Review and Pesticide Cumulative Preliminary Risk Reregistration Division (7508C), Office Assessment of Pesticide Programs, Environmental ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania AGENCY AGENCY: Environmental Protection Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; Agency (EPA). [FRL–7096–2] telephone number: (703) 308–7043; fax ACTION: Notice of public meeting. number (703) 308–7042, e-mail address: Federal NO Budget Trading Program; X SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a public [email protected]. Applicability Determination technical briefing on November 15, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Environmental Protection 2001, to discuss the exposure I. General Information Agency (EPA). methodologies proposed for use in the A. Does this Action Apply to Me? ACTION: Notice of applicability organophosphate (OP) cumulative risk assessment for food and residential This action is directed to the public determination under Federal NOX Budget Trading Program. exposures. The briefing will provide the in general. This action may, however, be public with an explanation in non- of interest to persons who are concerned SUMMARY: EPA established 40 CFR part technical terms of the proposed about implementation of the Food 97, the Federal NOX Budget Trading exposure methodologies. In addition, Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Passed Program (‘‘the Program’’), to reduce the briefing will cover how the in 1996, this new law strengthens the interstate transport of ozone under Calendex model calculates and nation’s system for regulating pesticides section 126 of the Clean Air Act combines these exposure estimates. This on food. Participants may include (‘‘section 126’’). The Program applies to briefing follows the August 22, 2001, environmental/public interest and existing or new large electric generating briefing on the hazard portion of the consumer groups; industry and trade units (‘‘EGU’s’’) and large non-EGU’s (as assessment and the October 3, 2001, associations; pesticide user and grower defined at 40 CFR 52.34) in states briefing on the water exposure groups; Federal, State and local subject to section 126. EPA finds, in an methodology. This technical briefing governments; food processors; applicability determination dated will complete the background briefings academia; general public; etc. Since October 24, 2001, that Point B015 at on the proposed OP cumulative risk others may also be interested, the Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC’s assessment methodology. Agency has not attempted to describe all VerDate 11 the specific entities that may be affected will become part of the permanent During the first half of November 28th, by this action. If you have any questions record and will be available for public the working group will also discuss the regarding the applicability of this action inspection at the address listed in Unit status of the cross-cutting issues and to a particular entity, consult the person II. criteria for prioritizing research. listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION List of Subjects FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For CONTACT. more information, please contact Maggie Environmental protection, Javdan, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground II. How Can I Get Additional organophosphate pesticides. Information, Including Copies of this Water and Drinking Water, Mailcode Document and Other Related Dated: October 25, 2001. 4607, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Documents? Marcia E. Mulkey, Washington, DC 20460. Phone number: Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. (202)–260–9862. E-mail: 1. Electronically. You may obtain [email protected]. electronic copies of this document, and [FR Doc. 01–27384 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] certain other related documents that BILLING CODE 6560–50–S Dated: October 23, 2001. might be available electronically, from Evelyn Washington, the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// Deputy Office Director, Office of Ground www.epa.gov/. To access this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Water and Drinking Water. document, on the Home Page select AGENCY [FR Doc. 01–27381 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] ‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations [FRL–7096–7] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up RIN 2040–AB75 the entry for this document under the ‘‘Federal Register—Environmental Meeting of the Research Working ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Documents.’’ You can also go directly to Group of the National Drinking Water AGENCY the Federal Register listings at http:// Advisory Council; Notice of Public [OPP–30516; FRL–6803–4] www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. Meeting To access information about the Pesticide Product; Registration cumulative process you can also go AGENCY: Environmental Protection Applications directly to the Home Page for the Office Agency. of Pesticide Programs (OPP) at http:// ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Environmental Protection www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. Agency (EPA). 2. In person. The Agency has SUMMARY: Under section 10(a)(2) of ACTION: Notice of receipt. established an official record under Public Law 92–423, ‘‘The Federal docket control number OPP–34240. The Advisory Committee Act,’’ notice is SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt official record consists of the documents hereby given that a meeting of the of applications to register pesticide specifically referenced in this action, Drinking Water Research Working products containing new active and other information related to this Group of the National Drinking Water ingredients not included in any action, including any information Advisory Council established under the previously registered products pursuant claimed as Confidential Business Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the Information (CBI). This official record (42 U.S.C. S300F et seq.), will be held Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and includes the documents that are on November 28–29, 2001. The meeting Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. physically located in the docket, as well will begin at 9 a.m. on the 28th and end DATES: Written comments, identified by as the documents that are referenced in by 4 p.m. on the 29th, at RESOLVE, the docket control number OPP–30516, those documents. The public version of 1255 23rd Street, NW., Suite 275, must be received on or before November the official record does not include any Washington, DC 20037. The meeting 30, 2001. information claimed as CBI. The public will be open to the public to observe ADDRESSES: Comments may be version of the official record, which and statements will be taken from the submitted by mail, electronically, or in includes printed, paper versions of any public as time allows. Seating is limited. person. Please follow the detailed electronic comments submitted during This is the third meeting of the instructions for each method as an applicable comment period is Drinking Water Research Working provided in Unit I. of the available for inspection in the Public Group. The purpose of this working SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure Information and Records Integrity group is to provide advice to NDWAC proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall as it develops recommendations for EPA that you identify docket control number #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., on a Comprehensive Drinking Water OPP–30516 in the subject line on the Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Research Strategy (as required under the first page of your response. Monday through Friday, excluding legal Safe Drinking Water Act) that will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: holidays. The PIRIB telephone number consider a broad range of research needs Cynthia Giles-Parker, Registration is (703) 305–5805. to support the Agency’s drinking water Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide regulatory activities. The research Programs, Environmental Protection III. How Can I Request to Participate in strategy will include an assessment of this Meeting? Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., research needs for microbes and Washington, DC 20460; telephone This meeting is open to the public. disinfection by-products (M/DBPs), number: (703) 305–7740; and e-mail Outside statements by observers are arsenic, contaminants on the address: [email protected]. welcome. Oral statements will be Contaminants Candidate List (CCL), and limited to 3 to 5 minutes, and it is other critical cross-cutting issues, such SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: preferred that only one person per as sensitive subpopulations, distribution I. General Information organization present the statement. Any systems, contaminants mixtures, future person who wishes to file a written scenarios and source water assessment. A. Does this Action Apply to Me? statement may do so immediately before The majority of this meeting (1.5 days) You may be affected by this action if or after the meeting. These statements will be a workshop on futures scenarios. you are an agricultural producer, food VerDate 11 manufacturer, or pesticide an applicable comment period, is information claimed as CBI, a copy of manufacturer. Potentially affected available for inspection in the Public the comment that does not contain the categories and entities may include, but Information and Records Integrity information claimed as CBI must be are not limited to: Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall submitted for inclusion in the public #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., version of the official record. NAICS Examples of poten- Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Information not marked confidential Categories tially affected enti- Monday through Friday, excluding legal codes ties will be included in the public version holidays. The PIRIB telephone number of the official record without prior Industry 111 Crop production is (703) 305–5805. notice. If you have any questions about 112 Animal production C. How and to Whom Do I Submit CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 311 Food manufac- Comments? please consult the person identified turing under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 32532 Pesticide manufac- You may submit comments through CONTACT. turing the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare This listing is not intended to be imperative that you identify docket My Comments for EPA? exhaustive, but rather provides a guide control number OPP–30516 in the You may find the following for readers regarding entities likely to be subject line on the first page of your suggestions helpful for preparing your affected by this action. Other types of response. comments: entities not listed in the table could also 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: 1. Explain your views as clearly as be affected. The North American Public Information and Records possible. Industrial Classification System Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information 2. Describe any assumptions that you (NAICS) codes have been provided to Resources and Services Division used. assist you and others in determining (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs 3. Provide copies of any technical whether or not this action might apply (OPP), Environmental Protection information and/or data you used that to certain entities. If you have questions Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., support your views. regarding the applicability of this action Washington, DC 20460. 4. If you estimate potential burden or to a particular entity, consult the person 2. In person or by courier. Deliver costs, explain how you arrived at the listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION your comments to: Public Information estimate that you provide. CONTACT. and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), 5. Provide specific examples to B. How Can I Get Additional Information Resources and Services illustrate your concerns. Information, Including Copies of this Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide 6. Offer alternative ways to improve Document and Other Related Programs (OPP), Environmental the registration activity. Documents? Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal 7. Make sure to submit your Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, comments by the deadline in this 1. Electronically. You may obtain Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from notice. electronic copies of this document, and 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, certain other related documents that Friday, excluding legal holidays. The be sure to identify the docket control might be available electronically, from PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– number assigned to this action in the the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// 5805. subject line on the first page of your www.epa.gov/. To access this 3. Electronically. You may submit response. You may also provide the document, on the Home Page select your comments electronically by e-mail name, date, and Federal Register ‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations to: [email protected], or you can citation. and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up submit a computer disk as described the entry for this document under the above. Do not submit any information II. Registration Applications ‘‘Federal Register Environmental electronically that you consider to be EPA received applications as follows Documents.’’ You can also go directly to CBI. Avoid the use of special characters to register pesticide products containing the Federal Register listings at http:// and any form of encryption. Electronic active ingredients not included in any www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. submissions will be accepted in previously registered products pursuant 2. In person. The Agency has WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of established an official record for this format. All comments in electronic form FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these action under docket control number must be identified by docket control applications does not imply a decision OPP–30516. The official record consists number OPP–30516. Electronic by the Agency on the applications. of the documents specifically referenced comments may also be filed online at Products Containing Active Ingredients in this action, any public comments many Federal Depository Libraries. received during an applicable comment Not Included In Any Previously period, and other information related to D. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want Registered Products this action, including any information to Submit to the Agency? 1. File symbol: 7969-RIU. Applicant: claimed as confidential business Do not submit any information BASF Corporation, Agricultural information (CBI). This official record electronically that you consider to be Products Division, P.O. Box 13528, includes the documents that are CBI. You may claim information that Research Triangle Park, NC 27709–3528. physically located in the docket, as well you submit to EPA in response to this Product name: Insignia Fungicide. as the documents that are referenced in document as CBI by marking any part or Active ingredient: pyraclostrobin those documents. The public version of all of that information as CBI. (methyl-N-(((1-(4-chlorophenyl)pyrazol- the official record does not include any Information so marked will not be 3-yl)oxy)o-tolyl)N-methoxycarbamate). information claimed as CBI. The public disclosed except in accordance with Proposed classification: None. Proposed version of the official record, which procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. use pattern: Control of anthracnose, includes printed, paper versions of any In addition to one complete version of brown patch, cool weather patch/yellow electronic comments submitted during the comment that includes any patch, fusarium patch, gray leaf spot, VerDate 11 gray snow mold/typhula blight, leaf anthracnose, leaf blotch, leaf spot, In person or by telephone: Contact the spot, pink snow mold, pythium blight, phomopsis, powdery mildew, rust, and designated person at the following red thread, rhizoctonia large patch, rust, spur blight on the berries group; control address at the office location, telephone spring dead spot, summer patch, and of alternaria purple blotch, downy number, or e-mail address cited in each take-all patch on turf grass sites mildew, and powdery mildew on the EUP: 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., including golf courses; institutional, bulb vegetables group; control of Arlington, VA. commercial, and residential lawns; sod alternaria blight, anthracnose, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: farms; parks; recreation areas; cercospora leaf spot, downy mildew, cemeteries; and sports fields. gummy stem blight, microdochium I. General Information 2. File symbol: 7969-RIL. Applicant: blight, powdery mildew, and target leaf A. Does this Action Apply to Me? BASF Corporation, Agricultural spot on the cucurbit vegetables group; Products Division, P.O. Box 13528, control of anthracnose, early blight, late This action is directed to the public Research Triangle Park, NC 27709–3528. blight, powdery mildew, and septoria in general. Although this action may be Product name: BAS 500F Manufacturers leaf spot on the fruiting vegetables of particular interest to those persons Use Product. Active ingredient: group; control of angular leaf spot, who conduct or sponsor research on Pyraclostrobin (methyl-N-(((1-(4- anthracnose, black rot, downy mildew, pesticides, the Agency has not chlorophenyl)pyrazol-3-yl)oxy)o- mycosphaerella leaf blight, phomopsis attempted to describe all the specific tolyl)N-methoxycarbamate). Proposed rot, powdery mildew, and ripe rot, and entities that may be affected by this classification: None. Proposed use suppression of botrytis gray mold on action. If you have any questions pattern: A technical product for use in grape (vinifera variety only); control of regarding the information in this action, fungicide formulations for control of a late blight and shoot blight on pistachio; consult the designated contact person wide range of fungi on turf grass and a control of alternaria, cercospora, listed for the individual EUP. wide range of crops, as here in detailed powdery mildew, and white rust on the B. How Can I Get Additional for the three end-use products root vegetables group; control of Information, Including Copies of this containing this active ingredient. alternaria, anthracnose, leaf rust, and Document and Other Related 3. File symbol: 7969-RIA. Applicant: shothole, and suppression of blossom Documents? BASF Corporation, Agricultural blight on the tree nuts group; control of Products Division, P.O. 13528, Research alternaria, anthracnose, leaf spot, You may obtain electronic copies of Triangle Park, NC 27709 –3528. Product powdery mildew, scab, and shothole, this document from the EPA Internet name: Headline EC Fungicide. Active and suppression of monilinia blossom Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. On ingredient: pyraclostrobin (methyl-N- blight on the stone fruits group; control the Home Page select ‘‘Laws and (((1-(4-chlorophenyl)pyrazol-3-yl)oxy)o- of anthracnose, leaf spot, and powdery Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations and tolyl)N-methoxycarbamate). Proposed mildew, and suppression of botrytis Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up the classification: None. Proposed use gray mold on strawberry. entry for this document under the pattern: Control of alternaria brown ‘‘Federal Register—Environmental spot, anthracnose, black spot, greasy List of Subjects Documents.’’ You can also go directly to spot, melanose, phytophthora brown Environmental protection, Pesticides the Federal Register listings at http:// spot, post bloom fruit drop, and scab on and pests. www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. the citrus crop group; control of II. EUPs anthracnose, ascochyta blight, Dated: October 15, 2001. mycosphaerella blight, powdery Peter Caulkins, EPA has issued the following EUPs: mildew, and rust on the dried shelled Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 053263–EUP–1. Issuance. Cognis pea and bean subgroup; control of of Pesticide Programs. Corporation, 4900 Este Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45232–1419. This EUP powdery mildew and rust on grasses [FR Doc. 01–27292 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] allows the use of 1,700 pounds of the grown for seed; control of early leafspot, BILLING CODE 6560–50–S late leafspot, pepperspot, rhizoctonia insecticide poly(oxy–1,2,–ethanediyl), limb rot, rhizoctonia peg rot, rhizoctonia alpha-isoctadecyl-omega-hydroxy on 67 pod rot, rust, stem rot, southern blight, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION acres of mosquitoes and midge habitats web blotch, and white mold on peanuts; AGENCY to evaluate the control of immature control of downy mildew, early blight, midges and mosquitoes. The program is late blight, leaf spot, powdery mildew, [OPP–50890; FRL–6804–8] authorized only in the States of California, Florida, and South Carolina. and rust on the tuberous and corm Issuance of Experimental Use Permits vegetables subgroup; control of The EUP is effective from October 1, cercospora leaf spot and powdery AGENCY: Environmental Protection 2001 to October 2, 2002. (Dani Daniel; mildew on sugarbeets; and control of Agency (EPA). Rm. 211, Crystal Mall #2; telephone fusarium head scab/blight, net blotch, ACTION: Notice. number: (703) 305–5409; e-mail address: powdery mildew, rust, scald, septoria, [email protected]). spot blotch, and tan spot on wheat, SUMMARY: EPA has granted experimental 62719–EUP–46. Extension. Dow barley, and rye. use permits (EUPs) to the following AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville 4. File symbol: 7969-RIT. Applicant: pesticide applicants. An EUP permits Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268– BASF Corporation, Agricultural use of a pesticide for experimental or 1054. This EUP allows the use of Products Division, P.O. Box 13528, research purposes only in accordance 237,350 pounds of the nematicide 1,3– Research Triangle Park, NC 27709–3528. with the limitations in the permit. dichloropropene on 5,000 acres of golf Product name: Cabrio Fungicide. Active FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By course turf to evaluate the control of ingredient: Pyraclostrobin (methyl-N- mail: Registration Division (7505C), plant parasitic nematodes. The program (((1-(4-chlorophenyl)pyrazol-3-yl)oxy)o- Office of Pesticide Programs, is authorized only in the State of tolyl)N-methoxycarbamate). Proposed Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Florida. The EUP is effective from classification: None. Proposed use Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, August 28, 2001 to August 28, 2002. pattern: Control of alternaria, DC 20460. (Mary L. Waller; Rm. 249, Crystal Mall VerDate 11 #2; telephone number: (703) 308–9354; collection techniques or other forms of FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION e-mail address: [email protected]). information technology. Sunshine Act Meeting Persons wishing to review these EUPs DATES: Written comments should be are referred to the designated contact submitted on or before December 31, * * * * * person. Inquiries concerning these 2001. If you anticipate that you will be Previously announced date & time: permits should be directed to the submitting comments, but find it Thursday, November 1, 2001, open persons cited above. It is suggested that difficult to do so within the period of meeting scheduled for 10:00 a.m. The interested persons call before visiting time allowed by this notice, you should starting time has been changed to 2:00 the EPA office, so that the appropriate advice the contact listed below as soon p.m. file may be made available for as possible. inspection purposes from 8 a.m. to 4 DATES & TIME: Tuesday, November 6, p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Les 2001 at 10:00 a.m. legal holidays. Smith, Federal Communications PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, Commissions, Room 1 A–804, 445 DC. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136. Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC STATUS: This meeting will be closed to 20554 or via the Internet to the public. List of Subjects [email protected]. ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Environmental protection, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Compliance matters pursuant to 2 Experimental use permits. additional information or copies of the U.S.C. 437g. information collections contact Les Audits conducted pursuant to 2 Dated: October 13, 2001. Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Peter Caulkins, Internet at [email protected]. Matters concerning participation in Acting Director, Registration Division, Office civil actions or proceedings or of Pesticide Programs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control No.: 3060–0992. arbitration. [FR Doc. 01–27290 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Title: Request for Extension of the Internal personnel rules and BILLING CODE 6560–50–S Implementation Deadline for Non- procedures or matters affecting a Recurring Services, CC Docket 96–45 particular employee. (FCC 01–195) and 47 CFR Section DATES & TIME: Thursday, November 8, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 54.507(d)(1)(4). 2001 at 10:00 a.m. COMMISSION Form No.: N/A. PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, Type of Review: Extension. DC (ninth floor). Notice of Public Information Respondents: Business or Other for STATUS: This meeting will be closed to Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Profit; Not-for-Profit Institutions. the public. Federal Communications Commission Number of Respondents: 850. ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: for Extension Under Delegated Correction and Approval of Minutes. Authority, Comments Requested Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour per response (avg). Draft Advisory Opinion 2001–13: October 25, 2001. Total Annual Burden: 850 hours. Green Party of the United States by special counsel, Thomas Alan Linzey, SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Estimated Annual Reporting and and senior counsel, David Cobb. Commission, as part of its continuing Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0. Administrative Matters. effort to reduce paperwork burden Frequency of Response: On occasion; PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: invites the general public and other Third Party Disclosure. Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer. Federal agencies to take this Needs and Uses: Section 54.507(d) Telephone: (202) 694–1220. opportunity to comment on the provides additional time for recipients following information collection(s), as under the schools and libraries Mary W. Dove, required by the Paperwork Reduction universal service support mechanism to Secretary of the Commission. Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An implement contracts or agreements with [FR Doc. 01–27486 Filed 10–29–01; 3:12 pm] agency may not conduct or sponsor a service providers for non-recurring BILLING CODE 6715–01–M collection of information unless it services. Section 54.507(d) extends the displays a currently valid control deadline for receipt of non-recurring number. No person shall be subject to services from June 30 to September 30 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION any penalty for failing to comply with following the close of the funding year. a collection of information subject to the Section 54.407(d) establishes a deadline Notice of Agreement(s) Filed Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that for the implementation of non-recurring does not display a valid control number. services for certain qualified applicants The Commission hereby gives notice Comments are requested concerning (a) who are unable to complete of the filing of the following Whether the proposed collection of implementation by the September 30 agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of information is necessary for the proper deadline. Applicants may qualify for the 1984. Interested parties can review or performance of the functions of the extension, based on satisfaction of one obtain copies of agreements at the Commission, including whether the of four criteria. Applicants may be Washington, DC offices of the information shall have practical utility; required to submit documentation or a Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s certification. NW., Room 940. Interested parties may burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance submit comments on an agreement to the quality, utility, and clarity of the Federal Communications Commission. the Secretary, Federal Maritime information collected; and (d) ways to William F. Caton, Commission, Washington, DC 20573, minimize the burden of the collection of Deputy Secretary. within 10 days of the date this notice information on the respondents, [FR Doc. 01–27349 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] appears in the Federal Register. including the use of automated BILLING CODE 6712–01–M Agreement No.: 011692–001. VerDate 11 Title: SCI/Contship and CMA CGM Reason: Surrendered license Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Space Charter and Sailing Agreement. voluntarily. § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank Parties: CMA CGM S.A., Contship Sandra L. Kusumoto, Containerlines, The Shipping holding company. The factors that are Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints considered in acting on the notices are Corporation of India, Ltd. and Licensing. set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 Synopsis: The proposed modification [FR Doc. 01–27399 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). adds language establishing a conference BILLING CODE 6730–01–P The notices are available for arrangement in that portion of the immediate inspection at the Federal agreement scope westbound from India, Reserve Bank indicated. The notices FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh to also will be available for inspection at the U.S. East Coast; retains voluntary Ocean Transportation Intermediary the office of the Board of Governors. rate authority for the remainder of the License Applicants Interested persons may express their scope; retains sailing vessel-sharing views in writing to the Reserve Bank authority for the entire scope; updates Notice is hereby given that the indicated for that notice or to the offices Contship’s name to indicate its status as following applicants have filed with the of the Board of Governors. Comments Federal Maritime Commission an a subsidiary of CP Ships (UK) Limited; must be received not later than application for licenses as Non-Vessel and changes the name of the agreement November 14, 2001. Operating Common Carrier and Ocean A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago to the Indamex Agreement. Freight Forwarder—Ocean (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) Agreement No.: 011779. Transportation Intermediary pursuant to 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Title: Tropical/Kent Agreement. section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 Illinois 60690–1414: as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 1. R. Steven Lutterbach, Michigan Parties: Kent Line International CFR 515). City, Indiana; to acquire voting shares of Limited, Tropical Shipping & Persons knowing of any reason why Alliance Financial Corp., New Buffalo, Construction Co., Ltd. the following applicants should not Michigan, and thereby indirectly Synopsis: Under the agreement, Kent receive a license are requested to acquire voting shares of Alliance Line agrees not to compete as a contact the Office of Transportation Banking Company, New Buffalo, container liner operator for a period of Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Michigan. Commission, Washington, DC 20573. five years in the trades between Canada, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve the U.S. East Coast, and the Caribbean. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier System, October 25, 2001. This is part of the consideration Ocean Transportation, Intermediary Robert deV. Frierson, Applicant: associated with Tropical’s purchase of Deputy Secretary of the Board. Cargo Control Express, Inc. dba Kent’s assets in these trades. Ramses Logistics Co., 2782 Engel [FR Doc. 01–27322 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] By Order of the Federal Maritime Drive, Los Alamitos, CA 90702. BILLING CODE 6210–01–S Commission. Officer: Christine Kim, President, Dated: October 26, 2001. (Qualifying Individual). FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Bryant L. VanBrakle, Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Secretary. and Ocean Freight Forwarder Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Transportation Intermediary [FR Doc. 01–27400 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Applicants: BILLING CODE 6730–01–P Coltrans (USA), Inc., 10925 N.W. 27th The companies listed in this notice Street, Suite 201, Miami, FL 33172. have applied to the Board for approval, Officers: Consuelo Suarez, Vice pursuant to the Bank Holding Company FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION President-Sea/Air Operations, Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (Qualifying Individual), Jochen (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part Ocean Transportation Intermediary Raute, President. 225), and all other applicable statutes License Revocation Logenix International LLC, 13800 and regulations to become a bank Coppermine Road, Suite 255, holding company and/or to acquire the The Federal Maritime Commission Herndon, VA 20171. Officer: Ron assets or the ownership of, control of, or hereby gives notice that the following Cruise, President/CEO, (Qualifying the power to vote shares of a bank or Ocean Transportation Intermediary Individual), James Halstead, Vice bank holding company and all of the license has been revoked pursuant to President. banks and nonbanking companies section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 Dated: October 26, 2001. owned by the bank holding company, (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the Bryant L. VanBrakle, including the companies listed below. regulations of the Commission The applications listed below, as well Secretary. pertaining to the licensing of Ocean as other related filings required by the Transportation Intermediaries, effective [FR Doc. 01–27398 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Board, are available for immediate on the corresponding date shown below: BILLING CODE 6730–01–P inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be License Number: 15865N. available for inspection at the offices of Name: Davis International Trade and FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM the Board of Governors. Interested Transportation Organization, Inc. dba Change in Bank Control Notices; persons may express their views in Ditto. Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank writing on the standards enumerated in Address: 6610 Tributary Street, Suite Holding Companies the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 200, Baltimore, MD 21224. proposal also involves the acquisition of The notificants listed below have a nonbanking company, the review also Date Revoked: May 10, 2000. applied under the Change in Bank includes whether the acquisition of the VerDate 11 nonbanking company complies with the Dated: October 29, 2001. preparedness at the Federal, State, and standards in section 4 of the BHC Act Elizabeth S. Woodruff, local levels. (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Structure noted, nonbanking activities will be Thrift Investment Board. conducted throughout the United States. [FR Doc. 01–27446 Filed 10–29–01; 12:17 The Council shall consist of not more Additional information on all bank pm] than 26 members appointed by the holding companies may be obtained BILLING CODE 6760–01–M Secretary. Members shall be selected from the National Information Center from State and local public health website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. agencies, other components of the Unless otherwise noted, comments DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND public health community, academia, regarding each of these applications HUMAN SERVICES and other appropriate stakeholders. must be received at the Reserve Bank Members shall be invited to serve for indicated or the offices of the Board of Office of the Secretary overlapping four year terms. Terms for Governors not later than November 26, more than two years are contingent 2001. Announcement of the Establishment of upon the renewal of the Committee by A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland the Secretary’s Council on Public appropriate action prior to its (Stephen J. Ong, Vice President) 1455 Health Preparedness termination. Unless renewed by appropriate action, the Council will East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio AGENCY: Office of Public Health and terminate on September 30, 2003. 44101–2566: Science. 1. HFB Financial Corporation, ACTION: Notice of Establishment of the Compensation Middlesboro, Kentucky; to become a Secretary’s Council on Public Health Members shall be paid at a rate of bank holding company by acquiring 100 Preparedness. $188.00 for each day they are actively percent of the voting shares of Home engaged in the performance of duties as SUMMARY: Federal Bank, Middlesboro, Kentucky. The Office of the Secretary members of the Council. Members also announces establishment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve shall receive per diem and System, October 25, 2001. Secretary’s Council on Public Health reimbursement of travel expenses Preparedness by the Secretary of Health Robert deV. Frierson, incurred, in accordance with the and Human Services on October 22, Deputy Secretary of the Board. Federal Travel Regulations, when travel 2001. The Secretary established this [FR Doc. 01–27321 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] becomes necessary to carry out duties in committee to respond to public health relation to Council membership. BILLING CODE 6210–01–S emergencies, which exist as a consequence of the terrorist attacks on Dated: October 26, 2001. September 11, 2001. Arthur J. Lawrence, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold P. Thompson, (202) 690–5605. for Health. INVESTMENT BOARD [FR Doc. 01–27414 Filed 10–30–01; 4:08 pm] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sunshine Act Meeting BILLING CODE 4150–28–M Authority and Purpose TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m. (EST), Pursuant to section 319 of the Public DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND November 13, 2001. Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247D), the HUMAN SERVICES PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room Secretary of Health and Human Services 4506, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, has determined that a public health Office of the Secretary DC. emergency exists as a consequence of the terrorist attacks on September 11, STATUS: Open. Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue 2001. The Secretary’s Council on Public Debts MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Health Preparedness, established 1. Approval of the minutes of the pursuant to section 222 of the Public Section 30.13 of the Department of October 9, 2001, Board member Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. §217a), Health and Human Services’ claims meeting. will provide advice to the Secretary on collection regulations (45 CFR Part 30) 2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report appropriate actions to take to respond to provides that the Secretary shall charge by the Executive Director. this public health emergency and an annual rate of interest as fixed by the 3. Review of KPMG LLP audit reports: similar emergencies. Secretary of the Treasury after taking into consideration private consumer (a) Policies and Procedures of the Function Federal Retirement Thrift Investment rates of interest prevailing on the date Board Administrative Staff The Council shall advise the Secretary that HHS becomes entitled to recovery. regarding steps that the U.S. Department (b) Thrift Savings Plan F, C, S, and I The rate generally cannot be lower than of Health and Human Services can take Fund Investment Management the Department of Treasury’s current to (1) Improve the public health and Operations at Barclays Global Investors, value of funds rate or the applicable rate health care infrastructure to better N.A. determined from the ‘‘Schedule of enable Federal, State, and local Certified Interest Rates with Range of 4. Semiannual review of status of governments to respond to a public Maturities.’’ This rate may be revised audit recommendations. health emergency and, specifically, a quarterly by the Secretary of the 5. Quarterly investment policy bio-terrorism event; (2) ensure that there Treasury and shall be published review. are comprehensive contingency plans in quarterly by the Department of Health 6. Annual ethics briefing. place at the Federal, State, and local and Human Services in the Federal CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: levels to respond to a public health Register. Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of emergency and, specifically, a bio- The Secretary of the Treasury has External Affairs, (202) 942–1640. terrorism event; and (3) improve public certified a rate of 131⁄4% for the quarter VerDate 11 ended September 30, 2001. This interest interviewer in the PHS-funded UCSF nonprocurement transactions (e.g., rate will remain in effect until such time Asthma Disability Study (Asthma grants and cooperative agreements) of as the Secretary of the Treasury notifies Study). The UCSF Asthma Study was the Federal government and from HHS of any change. funded by National Heart, Lung, and contracting or subcontracting with any Dated: October 24, 2001. Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Federal government agency as defined George Strader, Institutes of Health (NIH), grants K04 in 45 CFR part 76 (Debarment HL03225, R01 HL56438, and R29 Regulations). Deputy Assistant Secretary, Finance. HL48959, and National Institute for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 01–27352 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Occupational Safety and Health BILLING CODE 4150–04–M Director, Division of Research (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control Investigations, Office of Research (CDC), grant R01 OH03480. Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 700, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Specifically, Mr. Smith intentionally Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 443–5330. HUMAN SERVICES falsified and fabricated the interviews of 107 patients in the Asthma Study. The Chris B. Pascal, Office of the Secretary falsification of the patient interviews Director, Office of Research Integrity. was committed with an intent to [FR Doc. 01–27365 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Findings of Scientific Misconduct deceive. This deception, in turn, had a BILLING CODE 4150–31–P material, negative impact on the Asthma AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. Study in particular and on asthma ACTION: Notice. research in general. The falsified and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that fabricated data were reported in ten HUMAN SERVICES the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) publications, and fellow members of the Asthma Study Team had to spend over Administration for Children and has made a final finding of scientific Families misconduct in the following case: two years correcting the research data and were required to submit retractions Mr. Sherman Smith, University of Submissiion for OMB Review; or corrections for all ten publications California at San Francisco: Based on Comment Request the report of an investigation conducted produced by the study. by the University of California at San PHS has implemented the following Title: Social Services Block Grant Francisco (UCSF) and information administrative actions for the five (5) Post-Expenditure Report. obtained by ORI during its oversight year period beginning October 9, 2001: OMB No.: None. review, the U.S. Public Health Service (1) Mr. Smith is prohibited from Description: States are required to (PHS) finds that Mr. Smith, former serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, report their annual SSBG expenditures research technician, Division of including but not limited to service on on a standard post-expenditure report, Occupational and Environmental any PHS advisory committee, board, which includes a yearly total of adults Medicine at UCSF, engaged in scientific and/or peer review committee, or as a and children served and annual misconduct by intentionally and consultant. expenditures in each of 29 service knowingly fabricating and falsifying (2) Mr. Smith is debarred from categories. patient interview data as the sole eligibility for, or involvement in, Respondents: 56. ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES Number of re- Average bur- Instrument Number of re- sponses per den hours per Total burden spondents respondent response hours Post-Expenditure Report ...... 56 1 110 6160 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: ...... 6160 Additional Information: Copies of the of Management and Budget, Paperwork DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND proposed collection may be obtained by Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, NW., HUMAN SERVICES writing to The Administration for Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Children and Families, Office of Officer for ACF. Administration for Children and Information Services, 370 L’Enfant Families Promenade, SW., Washington, DC Dated: October 25, 2001. 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Bob Sargis, Submission for OMB Review; Officer. Reports Clearance Officer. Comment Request OMB Comment: OMB is required to [FR Doc. 01–27350 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] make a decision concenring the BILLING CODE 4184–01–M Title: IRS Project 1099. collection of information between 30 OMB No.: 0970–0183. and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Description: A Voluntary program Therefore, a comment is best assured of which provides States’ Child Support having its full effect if OMB receives it Enforcement agencies, upon their within 30 days of publication. Written request access to the earned and comments and recommendations for the unearned income information reported proposed information collection should to IRS by employers and financial be sent directly to the following: Office institutions. The IRS 1099 information VerDate 11 is used to locate noncustodial parents Respondents: State IV–D programs. and to verify income and employment. ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES Average bur- Number of Number of re- den per re- Total burden Reporting respondents sponses per sponse hours respondent (in hours) States ...... 12 12 2 288 Estimated Total Annual Burden: 288. Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA Juice, Apple Juice Concentrates, and Additional Information: Copies of the 22209 or telephone: 1–(800)–351–2293, Apple Juice Containing Products— proposed collection may be obtained by or E. Mail to: [email protected]. Adulteration with Patulin’’ and/or the writing to the Administration for Dated: October 25, 2001. final supporting document entitled Children and Families, Office of James A. Harrell, ‘‘Patulin in Apple Juice, Apple Juice Information Services, Division of Concentrates and Apple Juice Products’’ Information Resource Management Acting Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. to the Office of Plant and Dairy Foods Services, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW., and Beverages (HFS–305), Center for [FR Doc. 01–27375 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Reports Clearance Officer. BILLING CODE 4184–01–M Food and Drug Administration, 200 C OMB Comment: OMB is required to St. SW., Washington, DC 20204. Send make a decision concerning the two self-addressed adhesive labels to collection of information between 30 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES assist that office in processing your and 60 days after publication of this request. Submit written comments to document in the Federal Register. Food and Drug Administration the Docket Management Branch (HFA– Therefore, a comment is best assured of 305), Food and Drug Administration, [Docket No. 00D–1305] having its full effect if OMB receives it 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, within 30 days of publication. Written Compliance Policy Guide: ‘‘Apple MD 20852. Submit electronic comments comments and recommendations for the to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ proposed information collection should Juice, Apple Juice Concentrates, and ecomments. See the SUPPLEMENTARY be sent directly to the following: Office Apple Juice Products—Adulteration with Patulin,’’ Availability; and ‘‘Patulin INFORMATION section for electronic of Management and Budget, Paperwork access to these documents. Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, NW., in Apple Juice, Apple Juice Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Ms. Laura Concentrates and Apple Juice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oliven. Products,’’ Supporting Document; Technical questions concerning Availability Dated: October 25, 2001. patulin in apple juice products: Bob Sargis, AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Michael E. Kashtock, Center for Acting Reports Clearance Officer. HHS. Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [FR Doc. 01–27351 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice. (HFS–305), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., BILLING CODE 4184–01–M SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Washington, DC 20204, 202–205– Administration (FDA) is announcing the 5321, FAX 202–205–4422, e-mail: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND availability of a compliance policy [email protected]. HUMAN SERVICES guide (CPG) entitled ‘‘Apple Juice, Questions concerning regulatory Apple Juice Concentrates, and Apple actions: MaryLynn Datoc, Office of Administration for Children and Juice Products—Adulteration with Enforcement (HFC–230), Office of Families Patulin.’’ This document is intended to Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug make FDA offices and the industry Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Announcement of Financial Assistance aware of FDA’s guidance for Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827– to Expand Head Start Enrollment to enforcement concerning apple juice, 0413, FAX 301–827–0482, e-mail: Unserved Communities. apple juice concentrates, and apple [email protected]. juice products that contain patulin, a AGENCY: Administration on Children, toxic substance produced by molds that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Youth and Families, ACF, DHHS. may grow on apples and that has been ACTION: Correction. I. Background found to occur at high levels in some SUMMARY: This document contains a apple juice products offered for sale in In a notice published in the Federal correction to the Notice that was the United States. The agency also is Register of June 16, 2000 (65 FR 37791), published in the Federal Register on announcing the availability of a FDA announced the availability of a Monday, September 24, 2001. document entitled ‘‘Patulin in Apple draft CPG entitled ‘‘Apple Juice, Apple In Appendix A, add Bloomfield Juice, Apple Juice Concentrates and Juice Concentrates, and Apple Juice County, Colorado to the list of Apple Juice Products’’ (final supporting Products—Adulteration with Patulin’’ geographic areas currently unserved by document). and a draft supporting document Head Start grantees, and delete Lemhi DATES: Submit written or electronic entitled ‘‘Patulin in Apple Juice, Apple County, Idaho because it is a served comments on the CPG or the final Juice Concentrates, and Apple Juice community. supporting document at any time. Products.’’ The agency has finalized the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for draft CPG and the draft supporting ACYF Operations Center at 1815 N. Fort single copies of the CPG entitled ‘‘Apple document after considering the VerDate 11 comments we received on these document. Comments also may be instruments, call the HRSA Reports documents. submitted electronically. A copy of the Clearance Officer on (301) 443–1129. FDA received four comments on these CPG and the final supporting document Comments are invited on: (a) Whether two documents, three from food and received comments are available for the proposed collection of information industry associations and one from an public examination in the Dockets is necessary for the proper performance organization representing several Management Branch between 9 a.m. and of the functions of the agency, including foreign governments. Three of the 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. whether the information shall have comments supported the draft CPG and IV. Electronic Access practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the draft supporting document and did not agency’s estimate of the burden of the raise any questions. Persons with access to the Internet proposed collection of information; (c) The fourth comment posed three may obtain the CPG at http:// ways to enhance the quality, utility, and questions about the action level and the www.fda.gov/ora under ‘‘Compliance clarity of the information to be safety assessment described in the draft References.’’ The supporting document collected; and (d) ways to minimize the supporting document. FDA has may be accessed at http:// burden of the collection of information considered these questions and has www.cfsan.fda.gov under the heading on respondents, including through the responded to them in the revised ‘‘How to Obtain FDA Food & Cosmetic use of automated collection techniques supporting document. Guidance Documents.’’ or other forms of information Dated: October 22, 2001. technology. II. Significance of Guidance Dennis E. Baker,, Proposed Project: The National Health This CPG is being issued as guidance Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Service Corps Uniform Data System consistent with FDA’s good guidance Affairs. (OMB No. 0915–0232): Extension practices regulation in 21 CFR 10.115. [FR Doc. 01–27319 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] The CPG represents the agency’s current BILLING CODE 4160–01–S The National Health Service Corps thinking on its enforcement process (NHSC) of the Bureau of Health concerning the adulteration of apple Professions (BHPr), Health Resources juice, apple juice concentrates, and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND and Services Administration (HRSA), is apple juice products with patulin. It HUMAN SERVICES committed to improving the health of does not create or confer any rights for the Nation’s underserved by uniting or on any person and does not operate Health Resources And Services communities in need with caring health to bind FDA or the public. An Administration professionals and by supporting alternative approach may be used if communities’ efforts to build better Agency Information Collection such approach satisfies the systems of care. Activities: Proposed Collection: requirements of the applicable statute The NHSC needs to collect data on its Comment Request and regulations. programs to ensure compliance with In compliance with the requirement legislative mandates and to report to III. Comments for opportunity for public comment on Congress and policymakers on program Interested persons may, at any time, proposed data collection projects accomplishments. To meet these submit to the Docket Management (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United objectives, the NHSC requires a core set Branch (address above) written or States Code, as amended by the of information collected annually that is electronic comments concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, appropriate for monitoring and CPG entitled ‘‘Apple Juice, Apple Juice Public Law 104–13), the Health evaluating performance and reporting Concentrates, and Apple Juice Resources and Services Administration on annual trends. The following Products—Adulteration with Patulin’’ (HRSA) publishes periodic summaries information will be collected from each or the final supporting document. Two of proposed projects being developed site: services offered and delivery copies of any comments are to be for submission to OMB under the method; users by various characteristics; submitted, except that individuals may Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To staffing and utilization; charges and submit one copy. Comments are to be request more information on the collections; receivables, income, and identified with the docket number proposed project or to obtain a copy of expenses; and managed care. found in brackets in the heading of this the data collection plans and draft The estimated burden is as follows: Responses Type of report Number of re- per respond- Hours per re- Total burden spondents ent sponse hours Universal Report ...... 620 1 27 16,740 Send comments to Susan G. Queen, Dated: October 25, 2001. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, Jane M. Harrison, HUMAN SERVICES Room 14–22, Parklawn Building, 5600 Director, Division of Policy Review and Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Coordination. Health Resources and Services Written comments should be received [FR Doc. 01–27366 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Administration within 60 days of this notice. BILLING CODE 4515–15–P Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) VerDate 11 publishes abstracts of information collect baseline data from the 56 States Services Division are jointly collection requests under review by the and Territories on their current trauma administering this project. HRSA has Office of Management and Budget, in care systems and self-identified unmet included national performance compliance with the Paperwork needs to achieve minimum standards measures for Trauma/EMS for this Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. for a comprehensive statewide trauma project in accordance with the Chapter 35). To request a copy of the care program. This information will be requirements of the ‘‘Government clearance requests submitted to OMB for used to establish a national strategy to Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of review, call the HRSA Reports assist in future grant opportunities to 1993’’ (Public Law 103–62). This act Clearance Office on (301)–443–1129. the States to improve or enhance their requires the establishment of The following request has been basic systems infrastructure in trauma measurable goals for Federal programs submitted to the Office of Management care. The survey includes an assessment that can be reported as part of the and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: of trauma care systems, readiness to budgetary process, thus linking funding participate in disaster relief efforts, and decisions with performance. Proposed Project: State-by-State Self infrastructure development needs. The estimated response burden is as Assessment of Trauma Care Systems— HRSA’s Maternal and Child Health follows: (NEW) Bureau (MCHB) and the Office of Rural The Health Resources and Services Health Policy and the Department of Administration (HRSA) proposes to Transportation’s Emergency Medical Number of re- Responses Burden Total Type of form spondents per respond- hour per burden ent response hours Trauma Survey ...... 54 1 9 486 Analysis ...... 54 1 1 54 Disaster Module ...... 54 1 9 486 Total ...... 54 3 1026 Written comments and DATES: Submit written comments by purpose of Seedskadee NWR is to recommendations concerning the November 30, 2001. All comments need provide for the conservation, proposed information collection should to be addressed to: Carol Damberg, maintenance, and management of be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife wildlife resources and its habitat John Morrall, Human Resources and Service, Seedskadee National Wildlife including the development and Housing Branch, Office of Management Refuge, P.O. Box 700, Green River, WY improvement of such wildlife resources and Budget, New Executive Office 82935 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC ADDRESSES: A copy of the Draft Plan U.S.C. 664). Additionally, the Refuge is 20503. may be obtained by writing to U.S. Fish charged to protect the scenery, cultural Dated: October 25, 2001. and Wildlife Service, Seedskadee NWR, resources, and other natural resources Jane M. Harrison, P.O. Box 700, Green River, WY 82935 or and provide for public use and Director, Division of Policy Review and from http://www.r6.fws.gov/larp/. enjoyment of compatible wildlife- Coordination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: dependent activities (Colorado River [FR Doc. 01–27367 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Carol Damberg, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Storage Act 43 U.S.C. 620g). Besides these, the 35th legislature of the State of BILLING CODE 4165–15–P Service, Seedskadee NWR, P.O. Box 700, Green River, WY 82935, phone Wyoming passed enrolled Act No. 54 in 307/875–2187; fax 307/875–4425; E- 1959 ‘‘providing consent of the State of Mail: [email protected]. Wyoming to the acquisition by the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States where approved by the 26,382-acre Seedskadee National Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Refuge is located within the and the State Land Board, of lands for the establishment of migratory bird Availability of Draft Comprehensive Central Flyway, the Upper Colorado refuges.’’ All efforts leading to the Conservation Plan and Environmental River Ecosystem, and the Green River preparation of this draft CCP were Assessment for Seedskadee National Basin in southwestern Wyoming, about undertaken to provide the Refuge with Wildlife Refuge, Green River, WY 37 miles northwest of the city of Green River, WY. Seedskadee NWR was a vision for the future, guidelines for AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, established in 1965 through the wildlife and habitat management over Interior. Colorado River Storage Project Act of the next 15 years to ensure progress is ACTION: Notice of Availability. 1956. Section 8 of this Act provided for made toward attaining the mission and the establishment of wildlife habitat goals of Seedskadee NWR and the SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Refuge development areas to offset the loss of Refuge System, and to comply with Improvement Act of 1997, the U.S. Fish wildlife habitat resulting from reservoir Congressional mandates stated in the and Wildlife Service has published the development in the Colorado River National Wildlife Refuge System Draft Seedskadee National Wildlife Drainage. The Seedskadee Reclamation Improvement Act of 1997. The CCP will Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Act of 1958 specifically authorized be used to prepare step-down Plan and Environmental Assessment. acquisition of lands for Seedskadee management plans and revise existing This Plan describes how the FWS NWR. Seedskadee NWR’s purpose is plans. It also will be used to prepare intends to manage the Seedskadee NWR defined by two pieces of Federal budgets which describe specific actions for the next 10 to 15 years. enabling legislation. The principal to be taken by the Refuge over the next VerDate 11 15 years. Given that new information, days of the date of this notice. Anyone Federal Advisory Committee Act of guidance and technology frequently requesting a hearing should give 1972 (Public Law 92–463). Following change and become available, the CCP specific reasons why a hearing would be consultation with the General Services will be updated as necessary throughout appropriate. The holding of such a Administration, notice is hereby given the 15-year period. hearing is at the discretion of the that the Secretary of the Interior is Dated: October 10, 2001. Director. renewing the Yakima River Basin Applicant: The Newark Museum, John A. Blankenship, Conservation Advisory Group (CAG). Newark, NJ, PRT–042580. Deputy Regional Director, Denver, Colorado. The purpose of the Committee is to Permit Type: Import for public provide assistance and [FR Doc. 01–27373 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] display. recommendations to the Secretary of the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Name and Number of Animals: Polar Interior and the State of Washington on bear (Ursus maritimus), One (1). the structure and implementation of the Summary of Activity to be DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Authorized: The applicant requests a Program. In consultation with the State, permit to import a polar bear skin and Fish and Wildlife Service the Yakima Nation, Yakima River basin skull. irrigators, and other interested and Source of Marine Mammals: Southern Notice of Receipt of Applications for related parties, six-members and a Permit Beaufort Sea population, Canada. Period of Activity: 1 year, if issued. facilitator are appointed to serve on the Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Endangered Species Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the Advisory Group (CAG). The public is invited to comment on Division of Management Authority is The basin conservation program is the following application(s) for a permit forwarding copies of the above structured to provide economic to conduct certain activities with applications to the Marine Mammal incentives with cooperative Federal, endangered species. This notice is Commission and the Committee of State, and local funding to stimulate the provided pursuant to section 10(c) of Scientific Advisors for their review. identification and implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service structural and nonstructural cost- amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.). has information collection approval effective water conservation measures in Written data, comments, or requests for from OMB through March 31, 2004, the Yakima river basin. Improvements copies of these complete applications OMB Control Number 1018–0093. in the efficiency of water delivery and should be submitted to the Director Federal Agencies may not conduct or use will result in improved streamflows (address below) and must be received sponsor and a person is not required to for fish and wildlife and improve the within 30 days of the date of this notice. respond to a collection of information reliability of water supplies for Applicant: Kevin L. Reid, Rio Rancho, unless it displays a current valid OMB irrigation. NM, PRT–041574. control number. The applicant requests a permit to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Documents and other information Esget, Manager, Yakima River Basin import the sport-hunted trophy of one submitted with these applications are male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus Water Enhancement Program, telephone available for review, subject to the (509) 575–5848, extension 267. dorcas) culled from a captive herd requirements of the Privacy Act and maintained under the management The certification of renewal is Freedom of Information Act, by any published below: program of the Republic of South Africa, party who submits a written request for for the purpose of enhancement of the a copy of such documents within 30 Certification survival of the species. days of the date of publication of this Applicant: Fred H. Palmer, I hereby certify that renewal of the notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Kremmling, CO, PRT–048683. Yakima River Basin Conservation The applicant requests a permit to Service, Division of Management Advisory Group is in the public interest import the sport-hunted trophy of one Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, in connection with the performance of male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203, duties imposed on the Department of dorcas) culled from a captive herd telephone 703/358–2104 or fax 703/ the Interior. 358–2281. maintained under the management Gale A. Norton, Dated: October 19, 2001. program of the Republic of South Africa, Secretary of the Interior. for the purpose of enhancement of the Michael S. Moore, [FR Doc. 01–27395 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] survival of the species. Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. BILLING CODE 4310–94–M Marine Mammals [FR Doc. 01–27388 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] The public is invited to comment on BILLING CODE 4310–55–P the following application(s) for a permit INTERNATIONAL TRADE to conduct certain activities with marine COMMISSION mammals. The application(s) was DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [Investigation 332–325] submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Bureau of Reclamation The Economic Effects of Significant as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and U.S. Import Restraints: Third Update the regulations governing marine Yakima River Basin Conservation mammals (50 CFR 18). Advisory Group AGENCY: International Trade Written data, comments, or requests AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Commission for copies of these complete Interior. ACTION: Notice of third update report applications or requests for a public ACTION: Notice of renewal. and scheduling of public hearing, hearing on these applications should be corrected. submitted to the Director (address SUMMARY: This notice is published in below) and must be received within 30 accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2001. VerDate 11 SUMMARY: The Commission has investigations, section 337, and 406 Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., announced the schedule for its third investigations, or section 301 actions. Washington, DC 20436. The update report in investigation No. 332– The initial notice of institution of this Commission’s rules do not authorize 325, The Economic Effects of Significant investigation was published in the filing submissions with the Secretary by U.S. Import Restraints, and has Federal Register of June 17, 1992 (57 facsimile or electronic means. F.R. 27063). established deadlines for the submission List of Subjects of requests to appear at the hearing and Public Hearing for the filing of written submissions as U.S. Import Restraints, Nontariff set forth below. The investigation was A public hearing in connection with measures (NTM), Tariffs, Imports. the investigation will be held at the U.S. requested by the Office of the U.S. Trade By order of the Commission. Representative (USTR) in May 1992. International Trade Commission Issued: October 26, 2001. Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, That request called for an initial Donna R. Koehnke, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on December investigation and subsequent updates, Secretary. 4, 2001. All persons shall have the right under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of to appear, by counsel or in person, to [FR Doc. 01–27391 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)). present information and to be heard. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests to appear at the public hearing Sandra Rivera, Project Leader (202–205– should be filed with the Secretary, 3007) or Kyle Johnson, Deputy Project United States International Trade DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Leader (202–205–3229), Office of Commission, 500 E Street SW., Office of the Secretary Economics, U.S. International Trade Washington, DC 20436, no later than Commission, Washington, DC, 20436. 5:15 p.m., November 9, 2001. Any Submission for OMB Review; For information on the legal aspects of prehearing briefs (original and 14 Comment Request this investigation, contact William copies) should be filed not later than Gearhart of the Office of the General close of business, November 14, 2001; October 22, 2001. Counsel (202–205–3091). Hearing the deadline for filing post-hearing The Department of Labor (DOL) has impaired individuals are advised that briefs or statements is close of business, submitted the following public information on this matter can be January 10, 2002. In the event that, as information collection requests (ICRs) to obtained by contacting the TDD of the close of business on November 9, the Office of Management and Budget terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons 2001, no witnesses are scheduled to (OMB) for review and approval in with mobility impairments who will appear at the hearing, the hearing will accordance with the Paperwork need special assistance in gaining access be canceled. Any person interested in Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, to the Commission should contact the attending the hearing as an observer or 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. non-participant may call the Secretary individual ICR, with applicable General information concerning the to the Commission (202–205–2000) after supporting documentation, may be Commission may also be obtained by November 9, 2001, to determine obtained by calling the Department of accessing its internet server (http:// whether the hearing will be held. Labor. To obtain documentation contact www.usitc.gov). The public record for Written Submissions Marlene Howze at (202) 219–8904 or e- these investigations may be viewed on mail [email protected]). In lieu of or in addition to the Commission’s electronic docket Comments should be sent to Office of participating in the hearing, interested (EDIS-ON-LINE) at http:// Information and Regulatory Affairs, parties are invited to submit written dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public. Attn: OMB Desk Officer for PWBA, statements (original and 14 copies) Office of Management and Budget, Background concerning the matters to be addressed Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 by the Commission in its report on this (202) 395–7316, within 30 days from the The Commission instituted this investigation. Commercial or financial date of this publication in the Federal investigation following receipt on May information that a submitter desires the Register. 15, 1992 of a request from the USTR. Commission to treat as confidential The OMB is particularly interested in The request asked that the Commission must be submitted on separate sheets of comments which: conduct an investigation assessing the paper, each clearly marked • Evaluate whether the proposed quantitative economic effects of ‘‘Confidential Business Information’’ at collection of information is necessary significant U.S. import restraints on the the top. All submissions requesting for the proper performance of the U.S. economy, and prepare periodic confidential treatment must conform functions of the agency, including update reports following the submission with the requirements of section 201.6 whether the information will have of the first report. The first report was of the Commission’s Rules of Practice practical utility; delivered to the USTR in November and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). All • Evaluate the accuracy of the 1993, the first update in December 1995, written submissions, except for agency’s estimate of the burden of the and the second update in May 1999. In confidential business information, will proposed collection of information, this third update report, the be made available in the Office of the including the validity of the Commission will assess the economic Secretary for inspection by interested methodology and assumptions used; effects of significant tariff and non-tariff parties. To be assured of consideration • Enhance the quality, utility, and U.S. import restraints on U.S. by the Commission, written statements clarity of the information to be consumers, on the activities of U.S. relating to the Commission’s report collected; and minimize the burden of firms, on the income and employment should be submitted to the Commission the collection of information on those of U.S. workers, and on the net at the earliest practical date and should who are to respond, including through economic welfare of the United States. be received no later than the close of the use of appropriate automated, The assessment will not include import business on January 10, 2002. All electronic, mechanical, or other restraints resulting from final submissions should be addressed to the technological collection techniques or antidumping or countervailing duty Secretary, United States International other forms of information technology, VerDate 11 e.g., permitting electronic submission of (OMB) for review and approval in between the Federal and State partners responses. accordance with the Paperwork to enhance the ability of the program to Type of Review: Extension of a Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, reflect the joint commitment to currently approved collection. 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this continuous improvement and client- Agency: Pension and Welfare Benefits ICR, with applicable supporting centered services. Administration (PWBA). documentation, may be obtained by Ira L. Mills, Title: Procedure for Application for calling the Department of Labor. To Departmental Clearance Officer. Exemption from the Prohibited obtain documentation contact Darrin Transaction Provisions of Section 408(a) King at (202) 693–4129 or E-Mail: King- [FR Doc. 01–27355 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] of the Employee Retirement Income [email protected]. BILLING CODE 4510–30–M Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Comments should be sent to Office of OMB Number: 1210–0060. Information and Regulatory Affairs, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Affected Public: Business or other for- Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office profit; Individuals or households; and of Management and Budget, Room Pension and Welfare Benefits Not-for-profit institutions. 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) Administration Frequency: On occasion. 395–7136), within 30 days from the date Number of Respondents: 116. of this publication in the Federal Working Group on Increasing Pension Number of Annual Responses: 116. Register. Coverage, Participation and Savings Total Burden Hours: 0. The OMB is particularly interested in Advisory Council on Employee Welfare Total Annualized Capital/Startup comments which: and Pension Benefits Plans; Notice of Costs: $0. • Evaluate whether the proposed Total Annual Costs (operating/ Meeting collection of information is necessary maintaining systems or purchasing for the proper performance of the Pursuant to the authority contained in services): $162,648. functions of the agency, including section 512 of the Employee Retirement Description: Section 408(a) of ERISA whether the information will have Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to practical utility; U.S.C. 1142, the Working Group grant exemptions from the prohibited • Evaluate the accuracy of the assigned by the Advisory Council on transaction sections of 406 and 407(a) of agency’s estimate of the burden of the Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit ERISA and directs the Secretary to proposed collection of information, Plans to study the issue of increasing establish a procedure with respect to including the validity of the pension coverage, participation and such provisions. This regulation methodology and assumptions used; savings will hold an open public provides a procedure that requires • Enhance the quality, utility, and meeting on Tuesday, November 13, applications for exemption to make clarity of the information to be 2001, in Room N–5437 A–C, U.S. certain disclosures to the Department of collected; and Department of Labor Building, Second Labor and to participants and • Minimize the burden of the and Constitution Avenue NW., beneficiaries. collection of information on those who Washington, DC 20210. There are two information disclosure are to respond, including through the The purpose of the open meeting, requirements incorporated within the use of appropriate automated, which will run from 9:30 a.m. to exemption procedure regulation. The electronic, mechanical, or other approximately noon, is for Working first requirement, that an applicant for technological collection techniques or Group members to complete the group’s an exemption disclose information other forms of information technology, findings and/or recommendations to regarding the application and certify to e.g., permitting electronic submission of present to the Secretary of Labor. Members of the public are encouraged that information, is necessary in order responses. for the Department to make an informed Agency: Employment and Training to file a written statement pertaining to determination regarding the application. Administration (ETA). the topic by sending 20 copies on or The second requirement, notice to Type of Review: Extension of a before November 6, 2001, to Sharon interested persons, ensures that currently approved collection. Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA participants and beneficiaries are Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) Advisory Council, U.S. Department of informed of the application for State Quality Service Plan (SQSP). Labor, Room N–5677, 200 Constitution exemption and have an opportunity to OMB Number: 1205–0132. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. respond. Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Individuals or representatives of Government. organizations wishing to address the Ira L. Mills, Working Group should forward their Departmental Clearance Officer. Frequency: Annually and Quarterly. Type of Response: Reporting. request to the Executive Secretary or [FR Doc. 01–27354 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Number of Respondents: 53. telephone (202) 219–8753 or, after BILLING CODE 4510–29–M Number of Annual Responses: 835. October 26, 2001, (202) 693–8668. Oral Average Time per Respondent: 40 presentations will be limited to 20 hours. minutes, but an extended statement may DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,121. be submitted for the record. Individuals Office of the Secretary Total Annualized Capital/Startup with disabilities, who need special Costs: $0. accommodations, should contact Sharon Submission for OMB review; Comment Total Annual Costs (operating/ Morrissey by November 6, at the address Request maintaining systems or purchasing indicated in this notice. services): $0. Organizations or individuals may also October 24, 2001. Description: The State Quality Service submit statements for the record The Department of Labor (DOL) has Plan (ETA Handbook Number 336, 17th without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of submitted the following public Edition) is one of several mechanisms such statements should be sent to the information collection requests (ICRs) to for implementing UI PERFORMS, that Executive Secretary of the Advisory the Office of Management and Budget allows for an exchange of information Council at the above address. Papers VerDate 11 will be accepted and included in the will be accepted and included in the Executive Secretary of the Advisory record of the meeting if received on or record of the meeting if received on or Council at the above address. Papers before November 6. before November 6. will be accepted and included in the Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of Signed at Washington, D.C. this 25th day record of the meeting if received on or October 2001. of October 2001. before November 6. Ann L. Combs, Ann L. Combs, Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare October 2001. Benefits Administration. Benefits Administration. Ann L. Combs, [FR Doc. 01–27356 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 01–27357 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare BILLING CODE 4510–29–M BILLING CODE 4510–29–M Benefits Administration. [FR Doc. 01–27358 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–29–M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Pension and Welfare Benefits Pension and Welfare Benefits DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Administration Administration Pension and Welfare Benefits Working Group on Planning for Working Group on Challenges to the Administration Retirement; Advisory Council on Employment-Based Healthcare Employee Welfare and Pension System; Advisory Council on 116th Full Meeting of the Advisory Benefits Plans; Notice of Meeting Employee Welfare and Pension Council on Employee Welfare and Benefits Plans; Notice of Meeting Pension Benefits Plans; Notice of Pursuant to the authority contained in Meeting section 512 of the Employee Retirement Pursuant to the authority contained in Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 section 512 of the Employee Retirement Pursuant to the authority contained in U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting will be Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 section 512 of the Employee Retirement held Tuesday, November 13, 2001, of U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting will be Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 the Advisory Council on Employee held Wednesday, November 14, 2001, of U.S.C. 1142, the 116th open meeting of Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans the Advisory Council on Employee the full Advisory Council on Employee Working Group assigned to study Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans will planning for retirement. Working Group assigned to study be held Wednesday, November 14, The session will take place in Room challenges to the employment-based 2001, in the Secretary’s Conference N–5437 A–C, U.S. Department of Labor healthcare system. Room S–2508, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution The session will take place in Room Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. N–5437 A–C, U.S. Department of Labor NW., Washington, DC 20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which Building, Second and Constitution will run from 1 p.m. to approximately Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. The purpose of the meeting, which 4 p.m., is for working group members to The purpose of the open meeting, which will begin at 1:30 p.m. and end at finish their report and/or will run from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m., is for members recommendations on ways in which approximately noon, is for working to present their Working Group reports individuals can be encouraged to better group members to complete their report and/or recommendations to be accepted prepare for their retirement. and/or recommendations on the by the full body and ultimately Members of the public are encouraged weaknesses, strengths and alternatives forwarded to the Secretary of Labor for to file a written statement pertaining to to employer-based health benefits. her consideration. Outgoing members of the topic by submitting 20 copies on or Members of the public are encouraged the Advisory Council also will be before November 6, 2001, to Sharon to file a written statement pertaining to presented certificates of appreciation for Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA the topic by submitting 20 copies on or their three-years of service to the Advisory Council, U.S. Department of before November 6, 2001, to Sharon Council. Labor, Room N–5677, 200 Constitution Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Members of the public are encouraged Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Advisory Council, U.S. Department of to file a written statement pertaining to Individuals or representatives of Labor, Room N–5677, 200 Constitution any topics the Council studied during organizations wishing to address the Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 2001 by submitting 20 copies on or Working Group should forward their Individuals or representatives of before November 6, 2001 to Sharon request to the Executive Secretary or organizations wishing to address the Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA telephone (202) 219–8753 or, after Working Group should forward their Advisory Council, U.S. Department of October 26, 2001 (202) 693–8668. Oral request to the Executive Secretary or Labor, Suite N–5677, 200 Constitution presentations will be limited to 20 telephone (202) 219–8753 or, after Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. minutes, but an extended statement may October 26, 2001, (202) 693–8668. Oral Individuals or representatives of be submitted for the record. Individuals presentations will be limited to 20 organizations wishing to address the with disabilities, who need special minutes, but an extended statement may Advisory Council should forward their accommodations, should contact Sharon be submitted for the record. Individuals requests to the Executive Secretary or Morrissey by November 6, at the address with disabilities, who need special telephone (202) 219–8921 or, after indicated in this notice. accommodations, should contact Sharon October 26, 2001, (202) 693–8668. Oral Organizations or individuals may also Morrissey by November 6, at the address presentations will be limited to ten submit statements for the record indicated in this notice. minutes, time permitting, but an without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of Organizations or individuals may also extended statement may be submitted such statements should be sent to the submit statements for the record for the record. Individuals with Executive Secretary of the Advisory without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of disabilities, who need special Council at the above address. Papers such statements should be sent to the accommodations, should contact Sharon VerDate 11 Morrissey by November 6 at the address participants. Visitors will be requested NUCLEAR REGULATORY indicated. to sign a visitor’s register. COMMISSION Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the record Beth M. McCormick, Biweekly Notice; Applications and without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of Advisory Committee Management Officer, Amendments to Facility Operating such statements should be sent to the National Aeronautics and Space Licenses Involving No Significant Executive Secretary of the Advisory Administration. Hazards Considerations Council at the above address. Papers [FR Doc. 01–27392 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] will be accepted and included in the BILLING CODE 7510–01–P Note: The publication date for this notice record of the meeting if received on or will change from every other Wednesday to every other Tuesday, effective January 8, before November 6, 2001. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 2002. The notice will contain the same Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of information and will continue to be October, 2001. SPACE ADMINISTRATION published biweekly. Ann L. Combs, I. Background Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare [Notice 01–137] Benefits Administration. Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the [FR Doc. 01–27359 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (ASAP); Meeting BILLING CODE 4510–29–M (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Public Law 97–415 revised section 189 Space Administration. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND ACTION: Notice of meeting. amended (the Act), to require the SPACE ADMINISTRATION Commission to publish notice of any SUMMARY: In accordance with the amendments issued, or proposed to be [NOTICE (01–136)] Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the L. 92–463, as amended, the National Commission the authority to issue and NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Space Aeronautics and Space Administration make immediately effective any Science Advisory Committee Meeting announces a forthcoming meeting of the amendment to an operating license AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. upon a determination by the Space Administration. DATES: Friday, November 9, 2001, 8 a.m. Commission that such amendment ACTION: Notice of meeting. to 11:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the SUMMARY: In accordance with the ADDRESSES: Radisson Resort At the Port, pendency before the Commission of a Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. Cape Canaveral, 8701 Astronaut Blvd., request for a hearing from any person. L. 92–463, as amended, the National Cape Canaveral, FL 32920. Martinique This biweekly notice includes all Aeronautics and Space Administration Room. Hotel phone number is (321) notices of amendments issued, or announces a forthcoming meeting of the 784–0000. proposed to be issued from October 9, NASA Advisory Council, Space Science 2001 through October 19, 2001. The last Advisory Committee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David M. Lengyel, Aerospace Safety biweekly notice was published on DATES: Wednesday, December 5, 2001, Advisory Panel Executive Director, October 17, 2001 (66 FR 52794). 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Thursday, December 6, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Code Q–1, National Aeronautics and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Space Administration, Washington, DC Amendments to Facility Operating ADDRESSES: Hilton Cocoa Beach 20546, 202/358–0391, if you plan to Licenses, Proposed No Significant Oceanfront, 1550 North Atlantic attend. Hazards Consideration Determination, Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931– and Opportunity for a Hearing 3268. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be open to the public up The Commission has made a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. proposed determination that the to the seating capacity of the room (40). Marian Norris, Code SB, National following amendment requests involve The agenda for the meeting is to Aeronautics and Space Administration, no significant hazards consideration. Washington, DC 20546, 202/358–4452. conduct deliberations on Calendar Year Under the Commission’s regulations in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2001 fact-finding activities and trip 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation meeting will be open to the public up reports in preparation for the drafting of of the facility in accordance with the to the capacity of the room. The agenda the Panel’s Annual Report. It is proposed amendment would not (1) for the meeting includes the following: imperative that the meeting be held on involve a significant increase in the —Associate Administrator’s Program this date to accommodate the probability or consequences of an Status Report scheduling priorities of the key accident previously evaluated; or (2) —Division Managers’ Reports participants. Visitors will be requested create the possibility of a new or —Subcommittee Reports to sign a visitors register. different kind of accident from any —In-Space Propulsion accident previously evaluated; or (3) Beth M. McCormick, —Mars Exploration involve a significant reduction in a —Strategic Planning Status Advisory Committee Management Officer, margin of safety. The basis for this —Technology Programs Update National Aeronautics and Space proposed determination for each Administration. —GPRA Science Objectives Assessment amendment request is shown below. It is imperative that the meeting be [FR Doc. 01–27393 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] The Commission is seeking public held on these dates to accommodate the BILLING CODE 7510–01–P comments on this proposed scheduling priorities of the key determination. Any comments received VerDate 11 within 30 days after the date of Agencywide Documents Access and show that a genuine dispute exists with publication of this notice will be Management Systems (ADAMS) Public the applicant on a material issue of law considered in making any final Electronic Reading Room on the internet or fact. Contentions shall be limited to determination. at the NRC web site, http:// matters within the scope of the Normally, the Commission will not www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. amendment under consideration. The issue the amendment until the If a request for a hearing or petition for contention must be one which, if expiration of the 30-day notice period. leave to intervene is filed by the above proven, would entitle the petitioner to However, should circumstances change date, the Commission or an Atomic relief. A petitioner who fails to file such during the notice period such that Safety and Licensing Board, designated a supplement which satisfies these failure to act in a timely way would by the Commission or by the Chairman requirements with respect to at least one result, for example, in derating or of the Atomic Safety and Licensing contention will not be permitted to shutdown of the facility, the Board Panel, will rule on the request participate as a party. Commission may issue the license and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Those permitted to intervene become amendment before the expiration of the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing parties to the proceeding, subject to any 30-day notice period, provided that its Board will issue a notice of a hearing or limitations in the order granting leave to final determination is that the an appropriate order. intervene, and have the opportunity to amendment involves no significant As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a participate fully in the conduct of the hazards consideration. The final petition for leave to intervene shall set hearing, including the opportunity to determination will consider all public forth with particularity the interest of present evidence and cross-examine and State comments received before the petitioner in the proceeding, and witnesses. action is taken. Should the Commission how that interest may be affected by the If a hearing is requested, the take this action, it will publish in the results of the proceeding. The petition Commission will make a final Federal Register a notice of issuance should specifically explain the reasons determination on the issue of no and provide for opportunity for a why intervention should be permitted significant hazards consideration. The hearing after issuance. The Commission with particular reference to the final determination will serve to decide expects that the need to take this action following factors: (1) The nature of the when the hearing is held. will occur very infrequently. petitioner’s right under the Act to be If the final determination is that the Written comments may be submitted made a party to the proceeding; (2) the amendment request involves no by mail to the Chief, Rules and nature and extent of the petitioner’s significant hazards consideration, the Directives Branch, Division of property, financial, or other interest in Commission may issue the amendment Administrative Services, Office of the proceeding; and (3) the possible and make it immediately effective, Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory effect of any order which may be notwithstanding the request for a Commission, Washington, DC 20555– entered in the proceeding on the hearing. Any hearing held would take 0001, and should cite the publication petitioner’s interest. The petition should place after issuance of the amendment. date and page number of this Federal also identify the specific aspect(s) of the If the final determination is that the Register notice. Written comments may subject matter of the proceeding as to amendment request involves a also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two which petitioner wishes to intervene. significant hazards consideration, any White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Any person who has filed a petition for hearing held would take place before Pike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 leave to intervene or who has been the issuance of any amendment. a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. admitted as a party may amend the A request for a hearing or a petition Copies of written comments received petition without requesting leave of the for leave to intervene must be filed with may be examined at the NRC Public Board up to 15 days prior to the first the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Document Room, located at One White prehearing conference scheduled in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first proceeding, but such an amended Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of petition must satisfy the specificity Rulemaking and Adjudications Branch, requests for a hearing and petitions for requirements described above. or may be delivered to the leave to intervene is discussed below. Not later than 15 days prior to the first Commission’s Public Document Room, By November 30, 2001, the licensee prehearing conference scheduled in the located at One White Flint North, 11555 may file a request for a hearing with proceeding, a petitioner shall file a Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, respect to issuance of the amendment to supplement to the petition to intervene Maryland 20852, by the above date. A the subject facility operating license and which must include a list of the copy of the petition should also be sent any person whose interest may be contentions which are sought to be to the Office of the General Counsel, affected by this proceeding and who litigated in the matter. Each contention U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, wishes to participate as a party in the must consist of a specific statement of Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to the proceeding must file a written request the issue of law or fact to be raised or attorney for the licensee. for a hearing and a petition for leave to controverted. In addition, the petitioner Nontimely filings of petitions for intervene. Requests for a hearing and a shall provide a brief explanation of the leave to intervene, amended petitions, petition for leave to intervene shall be bases of the contention and a concise supplemental petitions and/or requests filed in accordance with the statement of the alleged facts or expert for a hearing will not be entertained Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for opinion which support the contention absent a determination by the Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 and on which the petitioner intends to Commission, the presiding officer or the CFR part 2. Interested persons should rely in proving the contention at the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714, hearing. The petitioner must also the petition and/or request should be which is available at the NRC’s Public provide references to those specific granted based upon a balancing of Document Room, located at One White sources and documents of which the factors specified in 10 CFR Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first petitioner is aware and on which the 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d). floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. petitioner intends to rely to establish For further details with respect to this Publicly available records will be those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner action, see the application for accessible electronically from the must provide sufficient information to amendment which is available for VerDate 11 public inspection at the Commission’s There will be no changes to the an outcome of the lessons learned from Public Document Room, located at One procedures by which the operators the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike operate the plants. There will be no 2. Requirements related to PASS were (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. changes to the systems, structures, or imposed by Order for many facilities Publicly available records will be components in the plants. and were added to or included in the accessible from the Agencywide Based on the above, these proposed technical specifications (TS) for nuclear Documents Assess and Management changes do not involve a significant power reactors currently licensed to Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic increase in the probability or operate. Lessons learned and Reading Room on the internet at the consequences of an accident previously improvements implemented over the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ evaluated. last 20 years have shown that the ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have 2. The proposed change does not information obtained from PASS can be access to ADAMS or if there are create the possibility of a new or readily obtained through other means or problems in accessing the documents different kind of accident previously is of little use in the assessment and located in ADAMS, contact the NRC evaluated. mitigation of accident conditions. Public Document room (PDR) Reference There will be no changes to the The NRC staff issued a notice of staff at 1–800–397–4209, 304–415–4737 procedures by which the operators opportunity for comment in the Federal or by email to [email protected]. operate the plants. There will be no Register on August 11, 2000 (65 FR AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket changes to the systems, structures, or 49271) on possible amendments to No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, components in the plants. eliminate PASS, including a model Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Therefore, the proposed changes will safety evaluation and model no Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek not create the possibility of a new or significant hazards consideration Generating Station, Ocean County, different kind of accident previously (NSHC) determination, using the New Jersey evaluated. consolidated line item improvement Docket Nos. 50–289, Three Mile Island 3. The proposed change does not process. The NRC staff subsequently Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin involve a significant reduction in a issued a notice of availability of the County, Pennsylvania margin of safety. models for referencing in license Date of amendment request: August 1, There will be no change in the plants’ amendment applications in the Federal 2001. systems, structures, or components, nor Register on October 31, 2000 (65 FR Description of amendment request: in the way in which they will be 65018). The licensee affirmed the The requested changes to the technical operated as a result of the proposed applicability of the following NSHC specifications (TSs) propose to revise changes. Therefore, the proposed determination in its application dated requirements that have been superceded changes will not involve a significant July 31, 2001. based on licensed operator training reduction in a margin of safety. Basis for proposed no significant programs being accredited by the Based on this review, it appears that hazards consideration determination: Institute for Nuclear Power Operations the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an (INPO), promulgation of the revised 10 are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff analysis of the issue of no significant CFR part 55, Operators’ Licenses, and proposes to determine that the hazards consideration is presented adoption of a systems approach to requested amendments involve no below: training as required by 10 CFR 50.120, significant hazards consideration. Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Training and qualification of nuclear Attorney for licensee: Mr. Edward J. Involve a Significant Increase in the power plant personnel. The same Cullen, Vice President, General Counsel, Probability or Consequences of an changes were requested by Exelon Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 300 Accident Previously Evaluated. Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) for Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. The PASS was originally designed to Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Byron NRC Section Chiefs: Anthony J. perform many sampling and analysis Station, Units 1 and 2; Dresden Nuclear Mendiola, Lakshminaras Raghavan. functions. These functions were designed and intended to be used in post accident Power Station, Units 2 and 3; LaSalle Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50–336, Millstone situations and were put into place as a result County Station, Units 1 and 2; Limerick of the TMI–2 accident. The specific intent of Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; Peach Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, the PASS was to provide a system that has Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 New London County, Connecticut the capability to obtain and analyze samples and 3; and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Date of amendment request: July 31, of plant fluids containing potentially high Station, Units 1 and 2. The proposed no 2001. levels of radioactivity, without exceeding significant hazards consideration for Description of amendment request: plant personnel radiation exposure limits. those plants is published elsewhere in The proposed amendment deletes Analytical results of these samples would be the Federal Register under Exelon requirements from the Technical used largely for verification purposes in aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent Generation Company, LLC. Specifications (and, as applicable, other of core damage and subsequent offsite Basis for proposed no significant elements of the licensing bases) to radiological dose projections. The system hazards consideration determination: maintain a Post Accident Sampling was not intended to and does not serve a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the System (PASS). Licensees were function for preventing accidents and its licensee has provided its analysis of the generally required to implement PASS elimination would not affect the probability issue of no significant hazards upgrades as described in NUREG–0737, of accidents previously evaluated. consideration. The staff has reviewed ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile In the 20 years since the TMI–2 accident the licensee’s analysis against the Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and and the consequential promulgation of post standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC Regulatory Guide 1.97, accident sampling requirements, operating experience has demonstrated that a PASS staff’s review is presented below: ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- provides little actual benefit to post accident 1. The proposed change does not Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess mitigation. Past experience has indicated that involve a significant increase in the Plant and Environs Conditions During there exists in-plant instrumentation and probability or consequences of an and Following an Accident.’’ methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for accident previously evaluated. Implementation of these upgrades was collecting and assimilating information VerDate 11 needed to assess core damage following an the requirements established as a result of the unusual operator actions. The proposed accident. Furthermore, the implementation of TMI–2 accident can be adequately met changes will not alter the way any structure, Severe Accident Management Guidance without reliance on a PASS. system, or component functions, and will not (SAMG) emphasizes accident management Therefore, this change does not involve a significantly alter the manner in which the strategies based on in-plant instruments. significant reduction in the margin of safety. plant is operated. The response of the plant These strategies provide guidance to the Based upon the reasoning presented above and the operators following an accident will plant staff for mitigation and recovery from and the previous discussion of the not be different. In addition, the proposed a severe accident. Based on current severe amendment request, the requested change changes do not introduce any new failure accident management strategies and does not involve a significant hazards modes. Therefore, the proposed changes will guidelines, it is determined that the PASS consideration. not create the possibility of a new or different provides little benefit to the plant staff in The NRC staff proposes to determine kind of accident from any accident coping with an accident. that the amendment request involves no previously analyzed. The regulatory requirements for the PASS 3. Involve a significant reduction in a can be eliminated without degrading the significant hazards consideration. margin of safety. plant emergency response. The emergency Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. The proposed Technical Specification response, in this sense, refers to the Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, changes to revise the action and surveillance methodologies used in ascertaining the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., requirements associated with the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. containment air lock will not cause an consequences of an accident, assessing and NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford. accident to occur and will not result in any projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., change in the operation of the associated and establishing protective action Docket No. 50–336, Millstone accident mitigation equipment. The recommendations to be communicated to Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, operability requirements for the containment offsite authorities. The elimination of the air lock have not been changed. The PASS will not prevent an accident New London County, Connecticut containment air lock will continue to management strategy that meets the initial Date of amendment request: August function as assumed in the safety analysis. In intent of the post-TMI–2 accident guidance 27, 2001. addition, the proposed changes will not through the use of the SAMGs, the Description of amendment request: adversely affect equipment design or emergency plan (EP), the emergency The proposed amendment would revise operation, and there are no changes being operating procedures (EOP), and site survey the Technical Specification action and made to the Technical Specification required monitoring that support modification of surveillance requirements associated safety limits or safety system settings that emergency plan protective action with the containment air lock and would adversely affect plant safety. recommendations (PARs). expand the current guidance provided Therefore, the proposed changes will not Therefore, the elimination of PASS result in a reduction in a margin of safety. requirements from Technical Specifications to address inoperable air lock (TS) (and other elements of the licensing components. The NRC staff has reviewed the bases) does not involve a significant increase Basis for proposed no significant licensee’s analysis and, based on this in the consequences of any accident hazards consideration determination: review, it appears that the three previously evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not licensee has provided its analysis of the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Create the Possibility of a New or issue of no significant hazards proposes to determine that the Different Kind of Accident from any consideration, which is presented amendment request involves no Previously Evaluated. below: significant hazards consideration. The elimination of PASS related 1. Involve a significant increase in the Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. requirements will not result in any failure probability or consequences of an accident Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, mode not previously analyzed. The PASS previously evaluated. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., was intended to allow for verification of the The proposed Technical Specification Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. extent of reactor core damage and also to changes to revise the action and surveillance NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford. provide an input to offsite dose projection requirements associated with the calculations. The PASS is not considered an Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., containment air lock will not cause an Docket No. 50–336, Millstone accident precursor, nor does its existence or accident to occur and will not result in any elimination have any adverse impact on the change in the operation of the associated Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident mitigation equipment. The New London County, Connecticut accident confinement of radionuclides containment air lock is not an accident Date of amendment request: August within the containment building. initiator. The proposed changes will not 28, 2001. Therefore, this change does not create the revise the operability requirements (e.g., possibility of a new or different kind of Description of amendment request: leakage limits) for the containment air lock. The proposed amendment would revise accident from any previously evaluated. Proper operation of the containment air lock Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not the Technical Specifications by will still be verified. As a result, the design removing the surveillance requirement Involve a Significant Reduction in the basis accidents will remain the same Margin of Safety. postulated events described in the Millstone that verifies the automatic opening The elimination of the PASS, in light of Unit No. 2 Final Safety Analysis Report, and features of the safety injection tank existing plant equipment, instrumentation, the consequences of the design basis outlet isolation valves. procedures, and programs that provide accidents will remain the same. Therefore, Basis for proposed no significant effective mitigation of and recovery from the proposed changes will not increase the hazards consideration determination: reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact probability or consequences of an accident As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the to the margin of safety. Methodologies that previously evaluated. licensee has provided its analysis of the are not reliant on PASS are designed to 2. Create the possibility of a new or issue of no significant hazards provide rapid assessment of current reactor different kind of accident from any accident consideration, which is presented core conditions and the direction of previously evaluated. degradation while effectively responding to The proposed changes to the Technical below: the event in order to mitigate the Specifications do not impact any system or 1. Involve a significant increase in the consequences of the accident. The use of a component that could cause an accident. The probability or consequences of an accident PASS is redundant and does not provide proposed changes will not alter the plant previously evaluated. quick recognition of core events or rapid configuration (no new or different type of The proposed Technical Specification response to events in progress. The intent of equipment will be installed) or require any change to remove the surveillance VerDate 11 requirement that verifies the automatic Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. way. Therefore, the proposed change opening features of the safety injection tank Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, will not result in a reduction in a outlet isolation valves will not cause an Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., margin of safety. accident to occur since the safety injection tanks and associated isolation valves are not Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. Based on the NRC staff’s analysis, it accident initiators. In addition, the proposed NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford. appears that the three standards of 10 change will not alter the operation of the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the associated accident mitigation equipment. al., Docket Nos. 50–336 and 50–423, NRC staff proposes to determine that the The operability requirement for the safety Millstone Nuclear Power Station, amendment request involves no injection tank outlet isolation valves to be Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London significant hazards consideration. deenergized open when the safety injection tanks are required to be operable will not be County, Connecticut Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. affected, and outlet isolation valve position Date of amendment request: June 4, Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, will still be verified periodically. As a result, 2001. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., the design basis accidents will remain the Description of amendment request: Hartford, CT 06141–5127. same postulated events described in the The proposed amendment modifies the NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford. Millstone Unit No. 2 Final Safety Analysis Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Report, and the consequences of the design Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et basis accidents will remain the same. No. 2 (MP2) and Unit No. 3 (MP3) al., Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Therefore, the proposed change will not Technical Specifications (TSs) to Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, increase the probability or consequences of relocate selected MP2 and MP3 New London County, Connecticut an accident previously evaluated. technical specifications related to the 2. Create the possibility of a new or reactor coolant system to the respective Date of amendment request: July 31, different kind of accident from any accident Technical Requirements Manual (TRM), 2001. previously evaluated. with the exception of MP3 Technical Description of amendment request: The proposed Technical Specification Specification section 4.4.10, which will The proposed amendment deletes change does not impact any system or be relocated to section 6 of MP3’s TS. requirements from the Technical component that could cause an accident. The Specifications (and, as applicable, other proposed change will not alter the plant The Bases of the affected TSs will be configuration (no new or different type of modified to address the proposed elements of the licensing bases) to equipment will be installed) or require any changes. maintain a Post Accident Sampling unusual operator actions. The proposed Basis for proposed no significant System (PASS). Licensees were change will not alter the way any structure, hazards consideration determination: generally required to implement PASS system, or component functions, and will not As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the upgrades as described in NUREG–0737, significantly alter the manner in which the licensee has provided its analysis of the ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile plant is operated. The response of the plant Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and and the operators following an accident will issue of no significant hazards not be different. In addition, the proposed consideration. The NRC staff reviewed Regulatory Guide 1.97, change does not introduce any new failure the licensee’s analysis against the ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- modes. Therefore, the proposed change will standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess not create the possibility of a new or different staff’s analysis, which is based on the Plant and Environs Conditions During kind of accident from any accident representation made by the licensee in and Following an Accident.’’ previously analyzed. the June 4, 2001, application, is Implementation of these upgrades was 3. Involve a significant reduction in a an outcome of the lessons learned from margin of safety. presented below: The proposed Technical Specification 1. Involve a significant increase in the the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit change to remove the surveillance probability or consequences of an 2. Requirements related to PASS were requirement that verifies the automatic accident previously evaluated. imposed by Order for many facilities opening features of the safety injection tank The proposed requirements remain and were added to or included in the outlet isolation valves will not cause an the same except that the requirements technical specifications (TS) for nuclear accident to occur and will not result in any will be relocated to the TRM. Since the power reactors currently licensed to change in the operation of the associated proposed requirements are the same, operate. Lessons learned and accident mitigation equipment. The proposed improvements implemented over the change will not revise the operability this proposed change will not increase requirement for the safety injection tank the probability or consequences of an last 20 years have shown that the outlet isolation valves to be deenergized open accident previously evaluated. information obtained from PASS can be when the safety injection tanks are required 2. Create the possibility of a new or readily obtained through other means or to be operable. The safety injection tanks will different kind of accident from any is of little use in the assessment and continue to be able to mitigate the design accident previously evaluated. mitigation of accident conditions. basis accidents as assumed in the safety Since the requirements remain the The NRC staff issued a notice of analysis. In addition, the proposed change will not adversely affect equipment design or same, these proposed changes do not opportunity for comment in the Federal operation, and there are no changes being alter the way any system, structure, or Register on August 11, 2000 (65 FR made to the Technical Specification required component functions and do not alter 49271) on possible amendments to safety limits or safety system settings that the manner in which the plant is eliminate PASS, including a model would adversely affect plant safety. operated. The proposed changes do not safety evaluation and model no Therefore, the proposed change will not introduce any new failure modes. significant hazards consideration result in a reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed changes will (NSHC) determination, using the The NRC staff has reviewed the not create the possibility of a new or consolidated line item improvement licensee’s analysis and, based on this different kind of accident from any process. The NRC staff subsequently review, it appears that the three accident previously evaluated. issued a notice of availability of the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 3. Involve a significant reduction in a models for referencing in license satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff margin of safety. amendment applications in the Federal proposes to determine that the Since the proposed changes are solely Register on October 31, 2000 (65 FR amendment request involves no to relocate the existing requirements, it 65018). The licensee affirmed the significant hazards consideration. does not affect plant operation in any applicability of the following NSHC VerDate 11 determination in its application dated (TS) (and other elements of the licensing and TS Section 5.4, ‘‘Fuel Storage,’’ to July 31, 2001. bases) does not involve a significant increase allow the credit for soluble boron in the Basis for proposed no significant in the consequences of any accident criticality analysis of the spent fuel pit hazards consideration determination: previously evaluated. (SFP). The revisions also incorporate As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not changes to the SFP rack layout by analysis of the issue of no significant Create the Possibility of a New or dividing it into sub-regions and hazards consideration is presented Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated. specifying requirements for fuel below: assembly burnup and soluble boron The elimination of PASS related Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not requirements will not result in any failure concentration for various loading Involve a Significant Increase in the mode not previously analyzed. The PASS configurations in these sub-regions. Probability or Consequences of an was intended to allow for verification of the Basis for proposed no significant Accident Previously Evaluated. extent of reactor core damage and also to hazards consideration determination: The PASS was originally designed to provide an input to offsite dose projection As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the perform many sampling and analysis calculations. The PASS is not considered an licensee has provided its analysis of the functions. These functions were designed accident precursor, nor does its existence or issue of no significant hazards and intended to be used in post accident elimination have any adverse impact on the consideration, which is presented situations and were put into place as a result pre-accident state of the reactor core or post below: of the TMI–2 accident. The specific intent of accident confinement of radionuclides the PASS was to provide a system that has within the containment building. 1. Operation of the facility in accordance the capability to obtain and analyze samples Therefore, this change does not create the with the proposed amendment would not of plant fluids containing potentially high possibility of a new or different kind of involve a significant increase in the levels of radioactivity, without exceeding accident from any previously evaluated. probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. plant personnel radiation exposure limits. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Current TS contain minimum requirements Analytical results of these samples would be Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the for the SFP boron concentration. The actual used largely for verification purposes in Margin of Safety. aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent boron concentration in the SFP has been of core damage and subsequent offsite The elimination of the PASS, in light of maintained at a higher value. The proposed radiological dose projections. The system existing plant equipment, instrumentation, changes to the TS establish new boron was not intended to and does not serve a procedures, and programs that provide concentration requirements for the SFP water function for preventing accidents and its effective mitigation of and recovery from that are consistent with the new criticality elimination would not affect the probability reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact analysis. Since soluble boron has already of accidents previously evaluated. to the margin of safety. Methodologies that been maintained in the SFP water and is In the 20 years since the TMI–2 accident are not reliant on PASS are designed to currently required by the TS, the and the consequential promulgation of post provide rapid assessment of current reactor implementation of this new requirement will accident sampling requirements, operating core conditions and the direction of have no effect on the normal SFP operations experience has demonstrated that a PASS degradation while effectively responding to and maintenance. provides little actual benefit to post accident the event in order to mitigate the The presence of an increased requirement mitigation. Past experience has indicated that consequences of the accident. The use of a for soluble boron in the SFP water does not there exists in-plant instrumentation and PASS is redundant and does not provide increase the probability of a fuel assembly methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for quick recognition of core events or rapid drop accident in the SFP. The handling of the collecting and assimilating information response to events in progress. The intent of fuel assemblies in the SFP has always been needed to assess core damage following an the requirements established as a result of the performed in borated water. The criticality accident. Furthermore, the implementation of TMI–2 accident can be adequately met analysis shows the consequences of a fuel Severe Accident Management Guidance without reliance on a PASS. assembly drop accident in the SFP are not (SAMG) emphasizes accident management Therefore, this change does not involve a affected when considering the presence of strategies based on in-plant instruments. significant reduction in the margin of safety. soluble boron since the rack keff remains ≤ These strategies provide guidance to the Based upon the reasoning presented above 0.95. plant staff for mitigation and recovery from and the previous discussion of the Fuel assembly placement will continue to a severe accident. Based on current severe amendment request, the requested change be controlled in accordance with approved accident management strategies and does not involve a significant hazards fuel handling procedures and will be in guidelines, it is determined that the PASS consideration. accordance with TS spent fuel rack storage provides little benefit to the plant staff in The NRC staff proposes to determine configuration limitations. The proposed SFP coping with an accident. storage configuration limitations will be more The regulatory requirements for the PASS that the amendment request involves no complex but will be similar to those can be eliminated without degrading the significant hazards consideration. previously approved. Therefore, the new plant emergency response. The emergency Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. limitations will not significantly increase the response, in this sense, refers to the Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, probability of accident occurrence. There is methodologies used in ascertaining the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., no increase in the consequences of the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. accidental misloading of spent fuel consequences of an accident, assessing and NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford. assemblies into the spent fuel racks since the criticality analysis demonstrates that the SFP projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Docket No. and establishing protective action keff will remain ≤ 0.95 following an recommendations to be communicated to 50–247, Indian Point Nuclear accidental misloading. offsite authorities. The elimination of the Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester There is no increase in the probability of PASS will not prevent an accident County, New York the loss of normal cooling to the spent fuel management strategy that meets the initial Date of amendment request: pit water when considering the presence of intent of the post-TMI–2 accident guidance September 20, 2001. soluble boron in the pit water for through the use of the SAMGs, the Description of amendment request: subcriticality control since a high emergency plan (EP), the emergency The proposed amendment would revise concentration of soluble boron has always operating procedures (EOP), and site survey been maintained in the SFP water. monitoring that support modification of Technical Specification (TS) 3.8, Soluble boron requirements for mitigating emergency plan protective action ‘‘Refueling, Fuel Storage and Operations reactivity effects due to increased pool recommendations (PARs). with the Reactor Vessel Head Bolts Less temperatures are adequately met by the Therefore, the elimination of PASS Than Fully Tensioned,’’ TS Table 4.1– proposed increase in minimum TS soluble requirements from Technical Specifications 2, ‘‘Frequencies for Sampling Tests,’’ boron concentration. A negligible increase in VerDate 11 the probability of a criticality accident due to ensure the spent fuel rack keff will be <1.0 ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile increased pool temperature exists with the with no soluble boron. Soluble boron credit Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and proposed TS changes, as the minimum is used to offset uncertainties, tolerances, and Regulatory Guide 1.97, soluble boron concentration will not change. off-normal conditions and to provide ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- The positive reactivity introduced as a result subcritical margin such that the SFP keff is of the higher TS boron concentration effect maintained ≤0.95. Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess on moderator reactivity coefficient will be The loss of substantial amounts of soluble Plant and Environs Conditions During sufficiently mitigated by the substantial boron from the SFP, which could lead to keff and Following an Accident.’’ margin to the amount actually required to exceeding 0.95, has been evaluated and Implementation of these upgrades was ≤ maintain keff 0.95. shown to be not credible. An evaluation has an outcome of the lessons learned from Decreased fuel temperatures will increase been performed that shows that the dilution the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit the water density in the SFP, therefore of the SFP boron concentration from 2000 2. Requirements related to PASS were increasing the thermal neutron flux, possibly ppm [parts per million] to 786 ppm is not imposed by Order for many facilities causing an increase in reactivity. This credible. Also the spent fuel rack keff will and were added to or included in the density increase will increase the differential remain <1.0 with the SFP flooded with worth of the soluble boron but the excess unborated water. These safety analyses TSs for nuclear power reactors currently soluble boron in the SFP is more than demonstrate a level of safety comparable to licensed to operate. Lessons learned and sufficient to offset any reactivity increase the conservative criticality analysis approved improvements implemented over the introduced by a temperature decrease. for License Amendment 150 and show that last 20 years have shown that the Therefore, the proposed changes do not the requirements of 10CFR50.68 are met. information obtained from PASS can be involve a significant increase in the The reactivity credit for additional poisons readily obtained through other means or probability or consequences of an accident in the spent and fresh fuel assemblies is of little use in the assessment and previously evaluated. increases the margin of safety in the SFP. No 2. Operation of the facility in accordance mitigation of accident conditions. credit is taken for Boraflex in certain regions, The NRC staff issued a notice of with the proposed amendment would not when in reality some residual Boraflex does create the possibility of a new or different remain in these regions. In regions that do opportunity for comment in the Federal kind of accident from any accident take credit for Boraflex, the amount of credit Register on August 11, 2000 (65 FR previously evaluated. is conservative. These conservatisms add an 49271) on possible amendments to Spent fuel handling accidents are not new increased safety margin. Predictions of the eliminate PASS, including a model or different types of accidents, they have effective neutron multiplication factors have safety evaluation and model no been analyzed for the UFSAR [Updated Final shown that, under the worst of scenarios, the significant hazards consideration Safety Analysis Report] and in Criticality SFP remains subcritical when conservative (NSHC) determination, using the Analysis reports associated with License credit for future expected loss of Boraflex consolidated line item improvement Amendment 150 up to the nominal 5.0 w/o poison plates is considered. 235 process. The NRC staff subsequently U [weight percent uranium-235] that is The analysis show that the level of safety assumed for the proposed change. required by 10CFR50.68 is achieved for the issued a notice of availability of the A dilution of the SFP soluble boron has IP2 [Indian Point 2] SFP with the proposed models for referencing in license always been a possibility. However the boron TS. amendment applications in the Federal dilution event previously had no Therefore, operation of the facility in Register on October 31, 2000 (65 FR consequences since boron was not previously accordance with the proposed amendment 65018). The licensee affirmed the credited. With the proposed TS, credit is would not involve a significant reduction in applicability of the following NSHC taken for soluble boron. So a boron dilution [a] margin of safety. determination in its application dated has been evaluated as a possible new accident. The evaluation concluded a boron The NRC staff has reviewed the September 20, 2001. dilution accident was not credible, that licensee’s analysis and, based on this Basis for proposed no significant processes were in place to detect and review, it appears that the three hazards consideration determination: mitigate the possible events, and that, even standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an if the SFP boron concentration was diluted satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff analysis of the issue of no significant to zero, criticality would not occur. proposes to determine that the hazards consideration is presented Therefore, there would be no additional amendment request involves no below: hazards if this request were approved. significant hazards consideration. Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not There is no other change in the plant Attorney for licensee: Mr. John Fulton, configuration or equipment design. Involve a Significant Increase in the Therefore, the proposed change does not Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Probability or Consequences of an create a new accident initiator or precursor, Nuclear Generating Co., Pilgrim Station, Accident Previously Evaluated. or create the possibility of a new or different 600 Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth, MA The PASS was originally designed to kind of accident from any accident 02360. perform many sampling and analysis previously evaluated. NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan, functions. These functions were designed 3. Operation of the facility in accordance Acting. and intended to be used in post accident with the proposed amendment would not Entergy Nuclear Operations, Docket No. situations and were put into place as a result involve a significant reduction in [a] margin 50–247, Indian Point Nuclear of the TMI–2 [Three Mile Island 2] accident. of safety. The specific intent of the PASS was to The TS changes proposed by this LAR Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester provide a system that has the capability to [license amendment request] and the County, New York obtain and analyze samples of plant fluids resulting spent fuel storage operation limits Date of amendment request: containing potentially high levels of will provide adequate safety margin to ensure September 20, 2001. radioactivity, without exceeding plant that the stored fuel assembly array will Description of amendment request: personnel radiation exposure limits. always remain subcritical. These limits are The proposed amendment deletes Analytical results of these samples would be based on the plant specific criticality analysis requirements from the Technical used largely for verification purposes in and boron dilution analysis. The proposed Specifications (TSs) (and, as applicable, aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent TS changes rely upon known and predictable of core damage and subsequent offsite reactivity effects to ensure required criticality other elements of the licensing bases) to radiological dose projections. The system margins in the SFP. maintain a Post Accident Sampling was not intended to and does not serve a While the criticality analysis utilizes credit System (PASS). Licensees were function for preventing accidents and its for soluble boron, storage configurations have generally required to implement PASS elimination would not affect the probability been defined using 95/95 keff calculations to upgrades as described in NUREG–0737, of accidents previously evaluated. VerDate 11 In the 20 years since the TMI–2 accident are not reliant on PASS are designed to probability or consequences of an accident and the consequential promulgation of post provide rapid assessment of current reactor previously evaluated? accident sampling requirements, operating core conditions and the direction of There is no change to the design, function, experience has demonstrated that a PASS degradation while effectively responding to or capability of any plant structure, system, provides little actual benefit to post accident the event in order to mitigate the or component as a result of the proposed mitigation. Past experience has indicated that consequences of the accident. The use of a surveillance interval extensions. Hence there there exists in-plant instrumentation and PASS is redundant and does not provide is no change in the probability of occurrence methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for quick recognition of core events or rapid of an accident previously evaluated. collecting and assimilating information response to events in progress. The intent of The proposed surveillance interval needed to assess core damage following an the requirements established as a result of the extensions do not affect the ability of any accident. Furthermore, the implementation of TMI–2 accident can be adequately met plant structure, system, or component to Severe Accident Management Guidance without reliance on a PASS. mitigate the consequences of any accident (SAMG) emphasizes accident management Therefore, this change does not involve a previously evaluated. The surveillance strategies based on in-plant instruments. significant reduction in [a] margin of safety. interval extensions do not alter or prevent the These strategies provide guidance to the Based upon the reasoning presented above ability of the affected structures, systems, and plant staff for mitigation and recovery from and the previous discussion of the components to perform their intended a severe accident. Based on current severe amendment request, the requested change functions. accident management strategies and does not involve a significant hazards [VCT] guidelines, it is determined that the PASS consideration. A statistical analysis of channel provides little benefit to the plant staff in uncertainty for a proposed 31 month coping with an accident. The NRC staff proposes to determine operating cycle has been performed. It The regulatory requirements for the PASS that the amendment request involves no confirms that the channel drift for the can be eliminated without degrading the significant hazards consideration. proposed 31 month interval is bounded by plant emergency response. The emergency Attorney for licensee: Mr. John Fulton, the existing drift allowance used in the response, in this sense, refers to the Assistant General Counsel, Entergy current uncertainty calculations. Therefore, methodologies used in ascertaining the Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton there is no expected decrease in reliability for condition of the reactor core, mitigating the Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. the VCT level channel for the proposed 31 consequences of an accident, assessing and NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan, month operating cycle. Since there is no projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, Acting. expected decrease in the reliability of the and establishing protective action VCT level channels, the design safety recommendations to be communicated to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Docket No. functions of the VCT are not affected. offsite authorities. The elimination of the 50–247, Indian Point Nuclear PASS will not prevent an accident Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester [RHR] management strategy that meets the initial County, New York Since the past test data supports the intent of the post-TMI–2 accident guidance integrity of the system and an extended through the use of the SAMGs, the Date of amendment request: standby period is not expected to affect any emergency plan (EP), the emergency September 20, 2001. potential leak path, there is a reasonable operating procedures (EOP), and site survey Description of amendment request: expectation that the RHR and Safety Injection monitoring that support modification of The proposed amendment would allow systems will continue to perform their emergency plan protective action the one-time extension of the intervals intended safety functions without excessive recommendations (PARs). for selected Technical Specification (TS) leakage. It is concluded that a one-time Therefore, the elimination of PASS surveillance requirements (SRs) to extension of less than one month for the requirements from Technical Specifications enable the tests to be performed during leakage test surveillance intervals will have (TS) (and other elements of the licensing minimal impact on the system reliability. the next refueling outage starting no bases) does not involve a significant increase [EDG] in the consequences of any accident later than November 19, 2002. The identified anomalies with valve and previously evaluated. Specifically, the surveillance interval filter operation for EDG 23 were evaluated Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not would be extended for certain SRs associated with the volume control tank and corrected and are not indicative of any Create the Possibility of a New or inability of the machine to meet performance Different Kind of Accident from any (VCT), residual heat removal system requirements. The anomalous adjustment Previously Evaluated. (RHR) , emergency diesel generators affecting movement of the fuel control lever The elimination of PASS related (EDGs), and shock suppressors arm for EDG 22 was properly evaluated and requirements will not result in any failure (snubbers). In addition, the proposed eliminated as evidenced by subsequent mode not previously analyzed. The PASS amendment would: (1) Correct the successful testing. Therefore, the historical was intended to allow for verification of the channel functional test interval in Items data together with the positive verification of extent of reactor core damage and also to 3 and 4 of TS Table 4.10–4 and Items the adequacy of corrective actions for provide an input to offsite dose projection 4 and 5 of Table 4–10–4, (2) delete previous test failures demonstrate that the calculations. The PASS is not considered an EDGs have met the required performance accident precursor, nor does its existence or alternate inspection requirements for criteria. Therefore the ability of the EDGs to elimination have any adverse impact on the the steam generator snubbers, and (3) mitigate accidents is not affected by this pre-accident state of the reactor core or post remove the reference to a prior one-time proposed change. accident confinement of radionuclides extension of checks, calibrations and Failure of an EDG cannot, of itself, initiate within the containment building. tests for certain instrument channels in an accident. Therefore, this change does not create the TS Table 4.1–1 that is no longer [Snubbers] possibility of a new or different kind of applicable. The TS functional testing program requires accident from any previously evaluated. Basis for proposed no significant a sampling program that provides a 95% Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not hazards consideration determination: confidence level that 90–100% of the Involve a Significant Reduction in [a] As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the snubbers operate within acceptance limits. Margin of Safety. licensee has provided its analysis of the For each snubber failing the functional test The elimination of the PASS, in light of issue of no significant hazards an additional sample lot must be selected existing plant equipment, instrumentation, consideration, which is presented and tested to assure that the required procedures, and programs that provide confidence level is maintained. The past effective mitigation of and recovery from below: functional test history with very few reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact (1) Does the proposed license amendment functional test failures provides assurance to the margin of safety. Methodologies that involve a significant increase in the that an extension in the surveillance will not VerDate 11 result in increased snubber failures. In all conditions for operation. The only change is margin of safety. The proposed change for a cases, the functional test failures were a change to the surveillance testing frequency one-time extension of the test interval does thoroughly analyzed and appropriate action for affected structures, systems, and not adversely affect the performance of any was taken to prevent recurrence. Subsequent components. safety related system, component or structure testing resulted in all snubbers meeting their The proposed surveillance interval and does not result in increased severity of design requirements. extensions have been evaluated to not any of the accidents considered in the The operability of snubbers is not affected significantly degrade the reliability of any UFSAR. by the deletion of the allowance to separately existing system, structure, or component. Therefore, the one-time extension of less group steam generator snubbers for the Therefore, testing in accordance with the than one month for the functional tests does purposes of determining inspection intervals. proposed test intervals continues to ensure not involve a significant reduction in a Therefore, operation of the facility in that the necessary quality of affected margin of safety. accordance with the proposed amendment structures, systems, and components is The proposed deletion of the allowance to would not involve a significant increase in maintained, that IP2 operation will be within separately group steam generator snubbers the probability or consequences of an safety limits, and that the IP2 limiting for the purpose of determining inspection accident previously evaluated. conditions for operation will be met. intervals does not affect the effectiveness of (2) Does the proposed license amendment The proposed surveillance interval the surveillance requirements. The steam create the possibility of a new or different extensions do not adversely affect the ability generator snubbers will still be inspected at kind of accident from any accident of any IP2 structures, systems, or components the interval required by the TS. previously evaluated? to function when required to mitigate any Therefore, operation of the facility in The proposed changes do not involve any accident or licensing basis event. accordance with the proposed amendment physical design change or operational change [VCT] would not involve a significant reduction in to any plant system, structure or component. the margin of safety. Thus a new failure mode is not introduced. The proposed change in surveillance Therefore, the proposed changes do not interval resulting from an increased operating The NRC staff has reviewed the create a new accident initiator or precursor, cycle will not result in a channel statistical licensee’s analysis and, based on this or create the possibility of a new or different allowance that impacts any TS limit or any review, it appears that the three kind of accident from any accident UFSAR requirement. Protective functions standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are previously evaluated. will continue to occur so that safety analysis limits are not exceeded. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff [VCT] Based on past rest results, the one-time proposes to determine that the The proposed change does not involve the extension of nine days does not involve a amendment request involves no addition of any new or different type of significant reduction in a margin of safety. significant hazards consideration. equipment, nor does it involve operating [RHR] Attorney for licensee: Mr. John Fulton, equipment required for safe operation of the Assistant General Counsel, Entergy facility in a manner that is different from that There is minimal risk that a surveillance interval extension of less than one month Nuclear Generating Co., Pilgrim Station, addressed in the Updated Final Safety 600 Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth, MA Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed will increase leakage in the piping systems change in the surveillance interval has been under review beyond the TS limits or that the 02360. evaluated to have a negligible effect on the system performance will be influenced. Past NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan, reliability of the existing instruments. test data indicate that there was no impact on Acting. the margin imposed by the TS. [RHR] Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– [EDG] The proposed change does not involve the 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit addition of any new or different type of The functional test history indicates the No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas equipment. Nor does it involve operating functional test failures were the result of Date of amendment request: October equipment required for safe operation of the actions independent of actual EDG load 2, 2001. facility in a manner that is different from that performance. Apart from these anomalous Description of amendment request: addressed in the UFSAR. actions, the record does not indicate a potential for failure to meet performance The proposed amendment would revise [EDG] criteria. In all cases, the functional test Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3– The proposed change does not involve the failures were thoroughly analyzed and 4, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation addition of any new or different type of appropriate actions were taken to prevent System Instrumentation Trip Values,’’ equipment, nor does it involve operating recurrence. Functional Unit 7.b, ‘‘Loss of Power, equipment required for safe operation of the Subsequent testing resulted in the EDG 460 volt Emergency Bus Undervoltage,’’ facility in a manner that is different from that meeting its design requirements. by changing the referenced bus from the addressed in the UFSAR. Also, the increased There is no reduction of margin indicated 460 volt (V) bus to the 480 V bus, by surveillance interval (one-time only) will not by the surveillance testing. The proposed adversely affect the reliability of the EDGs. change for a one-time extension of the test removing the trip setpoint, and by slightly increasing the range of [Snubbers] interval does not adversely affect the performance of any safety related system, allowable values for the degraded The proposed license amendment does not component or structure and does not result voltage setting and its associated time create the possibility of a new or different in increased severity of any of the accidents delay. kind of accident from any previously considered in the UFSAR. Surveillance test Basis for proposed no significant evaluated. The proposed change does not results indicate no trend toward margin hazards consideration determination: involve the addition of any new or different reduction. type of equipment, nor does it involve As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the operating equipment required for safe [Snubbers] licensee has provided its analysis of the operation of the facility in a manner that is The objective of the functional test is to issue of no significant hazards different from that addressed in the UFSAR. provide a 95% confidence level that 90– consideration, which is presented Also, the increased surveillance interval 100% of the snubbers operate within the below: (one-time only) will not adversely affect the specified acceptance limits. The review of snubbers. past test history indicates that this objective Criterion 1—Does Not Involve a Significant (3) Does the proposed amendment involve was met at the time of the testing. There are Increase in the Probability or a significant reduction in a margin of safety? no identified trends that would suggest that Consequences of an Accident Previously As a result of these proposed surveillance the same success rate would not be Evaluated. interval extensions, there are no changes to maintained over the requested extension The two degraded voltage protection relays IP2’s design or to the IP2 TS safety limits, period. The proposed license amendment that are provided on each of the 480 V safety limiting safety system settings, or limiting does not involve a significant reduction in a buses act to mitigate the consequences of an VerDate 11 accident by detecting a sustained tolerances, while fully meeting their required 2. Will operation of the facility in undervoltage condition, isolating the safety safety functions of degraded voltage accordance with this proposed change create buses from offsite power, and starting the protection without resulting in undesired the possibility of a new or different kind of associated emergency diesel generator (EDG). tripping of the offsite power source. accident from any accident previously This safety function is unchanged by the The slightly higher range of allowable evaluated. proposed allowable voltage setting revisions. values for the degraded voltage settings The proposed change relocates TS 3.9.3.b The revised settings for the degraded voltage allows enhanced protection of the Class 1E to the TRM. There are no changes to the protection relays will continue to provide the components, but does not result in undesired design or operation of the facility proposed. safety function of protecting the associated tripping of the offsite power source for the Thus, there are no new or different kinds of Class 1E equipment from the effects of a low analyzed grid minimum normal condition. In accidents created. SFP cooling capability and voltage condition. The time delays remain addition, the slight increase in the range of the heat load generated by the movement of within those assumed in the ANO–2 allowable values for the degraded voltage fuel into the SFP will continue to be [Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2] safety time delay remains well within the evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59. The SFP analyses. Additionally, the revised allowable assumption of the accident analysis. cooling system includes two cooling pumps voltage settings will not result in any Therefore, this change does not involve a and one heat exchanger. In addition, several unnecessary isolation from the off-site power significant reduction in the margin of safety. systems are available for makeup when sources. The relocation of trip setpoint values The NRC staff has reviewed the needed. Under postulated accident to station surveillance procedures allows conditions, when no pool cooling systems are operational flexibility to account for licensee’s analysis and, based on this operational, the maximum temperature at the additional margins, drifts, or uncertainties review, it appears that the three inlet to the cells is assumed to be equal to while ensuring that the relays are set to standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the saturation temperature at atmospheric actuate within the acceptable range of satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff pressure or 212F [Fahrenheit] (allowed to allowable values denoted in the TSs. Since proposes to determine that the boil). The proposed change does not increase the proposed change does not adversely amendment request involves no the possibility of a complete loss of pool impact the mitigating function of the relays, significant hazards consideration. cooling. the consequences of an accident previously Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. Therefore, this change does not create the evaluated remains unchanged. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, possibility of a new or different kind of The ANO–2 technical specifications will accident from any previously evaluated. continue to require the 480 V bus degraded 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 3. Will operation of the facility in voltage functions to be surveillance tested at 20005–3502. accordance with this proposed change their present frequency without changing the NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm. involve a significant reduction in a margin of modes in which the surveillance is required Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– safety? or the modes of applicability for these 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit The proposed change relocates TS 3.9.3.b components. The technical specifications No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas to the TRM. Following relocation, any future will continue to require the same actions as changes to TRM 3.9.3.b will be assessed currently exist for the inoperability of one or Date of amendment request: October under the guidance of 10 CFR 50.59. The more of the 480 V bus degraded voltage 2, 2001. ANO [Arkansas Nuclear One] 50.59 process relays. Description of amendment request: will provide an evaluation to ensure heat Therefore, this change does not involve a The proposed amendment would loads transferred will be within the cooling significant increase in the probability or relocate the technical specification (TS) capacity of the service water system. consequences of any accident previously requirement that the reactor core be Analyses will continue to demonstrate that evaluated. subcritical for a minimum of 175 hours even in the event of a loss of SFP cooling, Criterion 2—Does Not Create the Possibility prior to discharge of more than 70 the maximum temperature in the pool is such of a New or Different Kind of Accident assemblies to the spent fuel pool (SFP), that design limits associated with assuring from any Previously Evaluated. to the technical requirements manual the integrity of the fuel cladding are satisfied. The proposed change introduces no new Therefore, this change does not involve a (TRM). significant reduction in the margin of safety. modes of plant operation or new plant Basis for proposed no significant configuration that could lead to a new or hazards consideration determination: The NRC staff has reviewed the different kind of accident from any As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee’s analysis and, based on this previously evaluated being introduced. The review, it appears that the three 480 V bus degraded voltage relays are licensee has provided its analysis of the required to operate upon detection of a issue of no significant hazards standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are sustained undervoltage condition to protect consideration, which is presented satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the Class 1E components from damage from below: proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no low voltage by initiating transfer of the 4160 1. Will operation of the facility in V safety bus power source to the EDG. This accordance with this proposed change significant hazards consideration. safety function remains unchanged by the involve a significant increase in the Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. proposed allowable voltage setting revisions, probability or consequences of an accident Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, and the proposed values continue to provide previously evaluated? 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC the required actions consistent with the The accident of concern related to the 20005–3502. ANO–2 safety analysis. proposed change is the fuel handling NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm. Therefore, this change does not create the accident. This accident assumes a dropped possibility of a new or different kind of fuel assembly. One of the assumptions made Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– accident from any previously evaluated. in the analysis is that fuel movement is 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit Criterion 3—Does Not Involve a Significant delayed at least 100 hours after shutdown to No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas Reduction in the Margin of Safety. allow for radioactive decay of the fission Date of amendment request: October The two degraded voltage relays located on product inventory. TS 3.9.3.a provides this 2, 2001. each 480 V safety bus are provided to detect restriction. The analysis does not assume any Description of amendment request: sustained undervoltage, isolate the safety further delay in fuel movement following the The proposed amendment would buses, and start the EDGs. This safety initial 100-hour decay period. The relocation function remains unchanged by the proposed of TS 3.9.3.b will not impact this assumption. change the technical specification revisions to the allowable values. The Therefore, this change does not involve a definitions of response time for the proposed changes to the allowable values for significant increase in the probability or reactor trip system (RTS) and for the degraded voltage relays incorporate consequences of any accident previously engineered safety features (ESFs) to channel uncertainties and calibration evaluated. allow use of either an allocated or a VerDate 11 measured response time for select function within the response time assumed sizes determined in this analysis remain sensors in these two systems. in the safety analysis. bounding. All of the NSSS will still perform Therefore, this change does not involve a the intended design functions during normal Basis for proposed no significant significant reduction in the margin of safety. and accident conditions. The auxiliary hazards consideration determination: systems and components continue to meet As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The NRC staff has reviewed the their applicable structural limits and will licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this continue to perform their intended design issue of no significant hazards review, it appears that the three functions. Thus, there is no increase in the consideration, which is presented standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are probability of a structural failure of these below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff components. All of the NSSS and Balance of proposes to determine that the Plant (BOP) interface systems will continue 1. Will operation of the facility in amendment request involves no to perform their intended design functions. accordance with this proposed change significant hazards consideration. The main steam safety valves (MSSVs) will involve a significant increase in the provide adequate relief capacity to maintain probability or consequences of an accident Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. the steam generator pressures within design previously evaluated? Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, limits. The atmospheric dump valves and Response time testing is not an initiator of 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC steam bypass valves meet design sizing any previously evaluated accident. The 20005–3502. requirements at the uprated power level. The proposed change to the definition of RTS and NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm. current Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) ESF response time allows substitution of an Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50– hydraulic forcing functions are still bounding allocated response time for selected sensors 382, Waterford Steam Electric for the proposed 1.5 percent increase in in lieu of measuring the sensor response power. time. The allocated response times Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Because the integrity of the plant will not adequately represent the response time of the Louisiana be affected by operation at the uprated components such that the safety systems Date of amendment request: condition, it is concluded that all structures, utilizing these components will continue to September 21, 2001. systems, and components required to perform their accident mitigation function as Description of amendment request: mitigate a transient remain capable of assumed in the safety analysis. Response Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the fulfilling their intended functions. The time testing for the non-sensor portions of the licensee) is requesting approval of reduced uncertainty in the flow input to the channels will continue to use a series of power calorimetric measurement allows the sequential or overlapping test measurements. changes to the Waterford Steam Electric current safety analyses to be used, without Therefore, this change does not involve a Station, Unit 3, Operating License and change, to support operation at a core power significant increase in the probability or Technical Specifications associated of 3,441 megawatts thermal (MWt). As such, consequences of any accident previously with an increase in the licensed power all Updated Final Safety Analysis Report evaluated. level. The changes involve a proposed (UFSAR) Chapter 15 accident analyses 2. Will operation of the facility in increase in the power level from 3,390 continue to demonstrate compliance with the accordance with this proposed change create Megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,441 relevant event acceptance criteria. Those the possibility of a new or different kind of MWt. These changes result from analyses performed to assess the effects of accident from any accident previously increased feedwater flow measurement mass and energy releases remain valid. The evaluated? source terms used to assess radiological The proposed change does not involve a accuracy to be achieved by utilizing consequences have been reviewed and physical change to the plant. Modifications high accuracy ultrasonic flow determined to either bound operation at the will not be made to existing components nor measurement instrumentation. 1.5 percent uprated condition, or new will any new or different types of equipment Basis for proposed no significant analyses were performed to verify all be installed. The proposed change modifies hazards consideration determination: acceptance criteria continue to be met. the definitions for RTS and ESF response As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Therefore, this change does not involve a time and allows the substitution of an licensee has provided its analysis of the significant increase in the probability or allocated response time in lieu of measured issue of no significant hazards consequences of any accident previously sensor response time for selected sensors. consideration, which is presented evaluated. The response time assumed in the accident 2. Will operation of the facility in analysis for the non-sensor portions of the below: accordance with this proposed change create channels will continue to be verified using a 1. Will operation of the facility in the possibility of a new or different kind of series of sequential or overlapping test accordance with this proposed change accident from any accident previously measurements. Appropriate actions will be involve a significant increase in the evaluated? taken to ensure overall channel response probability or consequences of an accident No new accident scenarios, failure time remains within the times specified in previously evaluated? mechanisms, or single failures are introduced the accident analysis. The comprehensive analytical efforts as a result of the proposed changes. The new Therefore, this change does not create the performed to support the proposed change installation of the LEFM [leading edge flow possibility of a new or different kind of included a review of the Nuclear Steam meter] CheckPlus system has been analyzed, accident from any previously evaluated. Supply System (NSSS) systems and and failures of this system will have no effect 3. Will operation of the facility in components that could be affected by this on any safety-related system or any systems, accordance with this proposed change change. All systems and components will structures or components required for involve a significant reduction in a margin of function as designed, and the applicable transient mitigation. All systems, structures, safety? performance requirements have been and components previously required for the The proposed change modifies the evaluated and found to be acceptable. mitigation of a transient remain capable of definitions of RTS and ESF response time to The primary loop components (reactor fulfilling their intended design functions. allow a substitution of an allocated response vessel, reactor internals, control element The proposed changes have no adverse time for selected sensors in lieu of measuring drive mechanisms, loop piping and supports, effects on any safety-related system or the response time. The allocated time reactor coolant pumps, steam generators, and component and do not challenge the adequately represents the actual measured pressurizer) continue to comply with their performance or integrity of any safety related time for the associated sensors. The overall applicable structural limits and will continue system. response time of each channel will continue to perform their intended design functions. Therefore, this change does not create the to be measured using a series of sequential, Thus, there is no increase in the probability possibility of a new or different kind of overlapping or entire channel measurements of a structural failure of these components. accident from any previously evaluated. to ensure the components actuated by each The Leak Before Break analysis conclusions 3. Will operation of the facility in channel perform their accident mitigation remain valid, and thus the limiting break accordance with this proposed change VerDate 11 involve a significant reduction in a margin of the Clinton Power Station, Oyster Creek, elements of the licensing bases) to safety? and Three Mile Island, Unit 1. The maintain a Post Accident Sampling Operation at the uprated power condition proposed no significant hazards System (PASS). Licensees were does not involve a significant reduction in a consideration for those plants is generally required to implement PASS margin of safety. Analyses of the primary fission product barriers have concluded that published elsewhere in the Federal upgrades as described in NUREG–0737, all relevant design criteria remain satisfied, Register under AmerGen. ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile both from the standpoint of the integrity of Basis for proposed no significant Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and the primary fission product barrier and from hazards consideration determination: Regulatory Guide 1.97, the standpoint of compliance with the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- required acceptance criteria. licensee has provided its analysis of the Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Therefore, this change does not involve a issue of no significant hazards Plant and Environs Conditions During significant reduction in the margin of safety. consideration. The staff has reviewed and Following an Accident.’’ The NRC staff has reviewed the the licensee’s analysis against the Implementation of these upgrades was licensee’s analysis and, based on this standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC an outcome of the lessons learned from review, it appears that the three staff’s review is presented below: the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 1. The proposed change does not involve 2. Requirements related to PASS were satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff a significant increase in the probability or imposed by Order for many facilities proposes to determine that the consequences of an accident previously and were added to or included in the amendment request involves no evaluated. technical specifications (TS) for nuclear significant hazards consideration. There will be no changes to the procedures power reactors currently licensed to Attorney for licensee: N. S. Reynolds, by which the operators operate the plants. operate. Lessons learned and Esquire, Winston & Strawn 1400 L There will be no changes to the systems, improvements implemented over the structures, or components in the plants. last 20 years have shown that the Street NW., Washington, DC 20005– Based on the above, these proposed 3502. changes do not involve a significant increase information obtained from PASS can be NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm. in the probability or consequences of an readily obtained through other means or Exelon Generation Company, LLC, accident previously evaluated. is of little use in the assessment and Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 2. The proposed change does not create the mitigation of accident conditions. 50–457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 possibility of a new or different kind of The NRC staff issued a notice of and 2, Will County, Illinois accident previously evaluated. opportunity for comment in the Federal Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– There will be no changes to the procedures Register on August 11, 2000 (65 FR by which the operators operate the plants. 49271) on possible amendments to 455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, There will be no changes to the systems, Ogle County, Illinois eliminate PASS, including a model structures, or components in the plants. safety evaluation and model no Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, Therefore, the proposed changes will not Dresden Nuclear Power Station, create the possibility of a new or different significant hazards consideration Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, kind of accident previously evaluated. (NSHC) determination, using the Illinois 3. The proposed change does not involve consolidated line item improvement Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle a significant reduction in a margin of safety. process. The NRC staff subsequently County Station, Units 1 and 2, There will be no change in the plants’ issued a notice of availability of the LaSalle County, Illinois systems, structures, or components, nor in models for referencing in license the way in which they will be operated as a amendment applications in the Federal Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, result of the proposed changes. Therefore, the Limerick Generating Station, Units Register on October 31, 2000 (65 FR proposed changes will not involve a 65018). The licensee affirmed the 1 and 2, Montgomery County, significant reduction in a margin of safety. Pennsylvania applicability of the following NSHC Docket Nos. STN 50–277 and STN 50– Based on this review, it appears that determination in its application dated 278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) September 21, 2001. Station, Units 2 and 3, York are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Basis for proposed no significant County, Pennsylvania proposes to determine that the hazards consideration determination: Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad requested amendments involve no As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units significant hazards consideration. analysis of the issue of no significant 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Attorney for licensee: Mr. Edward J. hazards consideration is presented Illinois Cullen, Vice President, General Counsel, below: Date of amendment request: August 1, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 300 Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not 2001. Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. Involve a Significant Increase in the Description of amendment request: NRC Section Chiefs: Anthony J. Probability or Consequences of an The requested changes to the technical Mendiola, James W. Clifford. Accident Previously Evaluated. specifications (TSs) propose to revise Exelon Generation Company, LLC, The PASS was originally designed to perform many sampling and analysis requirements that have been superceded Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 functions. These functions were designed based on licensed operator training and intended to be used in post accident programs being accredited by the and 2, Ogle County, Illinois situations and were put into place as a result Institute for Nuclear Power Operations Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– of the TMI–2 accident. The specific intent of (INPO), promulgation of the revised 10 457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 the PASS was to provide a system that has CFR part 55, Operators’ Licenses, and and 2, Will County, Illinois the capability to obtain and analyze samples adoption of a systems approach to Date of amendment request: of plant fluids containing potentially high training as required by 10 CFR 50.120, September 21, 2001. levels of radioactivity, without exceeding plant personnel radiation exposure limits. Training and qualification of nuclear Description of amendment request: Analytical results of these samples would be power plant personnel. The same The proposed amendment deletes used largely for verification purposes in changes were requested by AmerGen requirements from the Technical aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen) for Specifications (and, as applicable, other of core damage and subsequent offsite VerDate 11 radiological dose projections. The system procedures, and programs that provide which the plant is maintained. Thus, the was not intended to and does not serve a effective mitigation of and recovery from proposed change does not involve a function for preventing accidents and its reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact significant increase in the probability of an elimination would not affect the probability to the margin of safety. Methodologies that accident previously evaluated. of accidents previously evaluated. are not reliant on PASS are designed to The proposed change to a PMTC does not In the 20 years since the TMI–2 accident provide rapid assessment of current reactor alter or prevent the ability of structures, and the consequential promulgation of post core conditions and the direction of systems, and components (SSCs) from accident sampling requirements, operating degradation while effectively responding to performing their intended function to experience has demonstrated that a PASS the event in order to mitigate the mitigate the consequences of an initiating provides little actual benefit to post accident consequences of the accident. The use of a event within the assumed acceptance limits. mitigation. Past experience has indicated that PASS is redundant and does not provide The proposed change is consistent with the there exists in-plant instrumentation and quick recognition of core events or rapid safety analysis assumptions and resultant methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for response to events in progress. The intent of consequences. Accident analyses affected by collecting and assimilating information the requirements established as a result of the the proposed change have been reanalyzed needed to assess core damage following an TMI–2 accident can be adequately met and all applicable acceptance criteria have accident. Furthermore, the implementation of without reliance on a PASS. been met. Thus, the proposed change does Severe Accident Management Guidance Therefore, this change does not involve a not involve a significant increase in the (SAMG) emphasizes accident management significant reduction in the margin of safety. consequences of an accident previously strategies based on in-plant instruments. Based upon the reasoning presented above evaluated. These strategies provide guidance to the and the previous discussion of the Therefore, the proposed amendment does plant staff for mitigation and recovery from amendment request, the requested change not involve a significant increase in the a severe accident. Based on current severe does not involve a significant hazards probability or consequences of an accident accident management strategies and consideration. previously evaluated. guidelines, it is determined that the PASS 2. Does the change create the possibility of provides little benefit to the plant staff in The NRC staff proposes to determine a new or different kind of accident from any coping with an accident. that the amendment request involves no The regulatory requirements for the PASS significant hazards consideration. accident previously evaluated? can be eliminated without degrading the No. The change to a PMTC does not Attorney for licensee: Mr. Edward J. involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., plant emergency response. The emergency Cullen, Vice President, General Counsel, response, in this sense, refers to the no new or different type of equipment will Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 300 be installed), subsequently no new or methodologies used in ascertaining the Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. condition of the reactor core, mitigating the different failure modes or limiting single consequences of an accident, assessing and NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. failures are created. The plant will not be projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, Mendiola. operated in a different manner due to the and establishing protective action FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating proposed change. All SSCs will continue to recommendations to be communicated to Company, et al., Docket No. 50–412, function as currently designed. Thus, the offsite authorities. The elimination of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit proposed change does not create any new or different accident scenarios. PASS will not prevent an accident 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania management strategy that meets the initial Therefore, the proposed amendment does intent of the post-TMI–2 accident guidance Date of amendment request: June 28, not create the possibility of a new or different through the use of the SAMGs, the 2001. kind of accident from any accident emergency plan (EP), the emergency Description of amendment request: previously evaluated. operating procedures (EOP), and site survey The proposed amendment would revise 3. Does the change involve a significant monitoring that support modification of the technical specification (TS) 3.1.1.4 reduction in a margin of safety? emergency plan protective action upper limit for the moderator No. The proposed change to a PMTC does recommendations (PARs). temperature coefficient (MTC) from 0 × not involve revisions to any safety limits or Therefore, the elimination of PASS ¥4 safety system settings that would adversely 10 change in reactivity per degree impact plant safety. The proposed requirements from Technical Specifications ° × ¥4 Fahrenheit (‘‘k/k/ F) to +0.2 10 ‘‘k/ amendment does not alter the functional (TS) (and other elements of the licensing ° bases) does not involve a significant increase k/ F for power levels up to 70 percent capabilities assumed in a safety analysis for in the consequences of any accident of rated thermal power (RTP), and any SSCs important to the mitigation and ¥ previously evaluated. ramping linearly to 0 × 10 4 ‘‘k/k/°F control of design bases accident conditions Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does from 70 percent to 100 percent RTP. The within the facility. Not Create the Possibility of a New or proposed change is needed to address All of the applicable acceptance criteria Different Kind of Accident From Any future core designs with higher energy (i.e., preventing reactor coolant system [RCS] Previously Evaluated. requirements, associated with plant or main steam system overpressurization, maintaining the minimum departure from The elimination of PASS related operation at higher capacity factors. nucleate boiling ratio [DNBR], preventing requirements will not result in any failure Basis for proposed no significant core uncovery, preventing fuel temperatures mode not previously analyzed. The PASS hazards consideration determination: from exceeding their limit, preventing clad was intended to allow for verification of the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the damage, and limiting the number of fuel rods extent of reactor core damage and also to licensee has provided its analysis of the that enter a departure from nucleate boiling provide an input to offsite dose projection [DNB] condition) for each of the analyses calculations. The PASS is not considered an issue of no significant hazards affected by the proposed change continue to accident precursor, nor does its existence or consideration, which is presented be met. The conclusions of the UFSAR elimination have any adverse impact on the below: remain valid. Thus, since the operating pre-accident state of the reactor core or post 1. Does the change involve a significant accident confinement of radionuclides parameters and system performance will increase in the probability or consequences remain within design requirements and within the containment building. of an accident previously evaluated? Therefore, this change does not create the safety analysis assumptions, safety margin is No. The proposed change from a[n] MTC maintained. possibility of a new or different kind of × ¥4 ° of 0 10 ‘‘k/k/ F to a positive moderator Therefore, the proposed amendment does accident from any previously evaluated. × temperature coefficient (PMTC) of +0.2 not involve a significant reduction in a ¥4 ° Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does 10 ‘‘k/k/ F does not introduce an initiator margin of safety. Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the of any design basis accident or event. The Margin of Safety proposed change does not adversely affect The NRC staff has reviewed the The elimination of the PASS, in light of accident initiators or precursors nor alter the licensee’s analysis and, based on this existing plant equipment, instrumentation, configuration of the facility or the manner in review, it appears that the three VerDate 11 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Does the change involve a significant Therefore, the proposed license amendment satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff reduction in a margin of safety? will not involve a significant increase in the proposes to determine that the The proposed change does not impact or probability or consequences of an accident amendment request involves no have a direct effect on any safety analysis previously evaluated. assumptions. The proposed change is 2. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit significant hazards consideration. administrative in nature and makes the TS 2 in accordance with the proposed Attorney for licensee: Mary O’Reilly, Administrative Control language conform to amendment will not create the possibility of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating the Final Rule, dated October 4, 1999, related a new or different kind of accident from any Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 to the 10 CFR 50.59 rule. Changes to the accident previously evaluated. South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. facility that result in meeting the criteria of Control room operators use the NRC Section Chief: Lakshminaras 10 CFR 50.59 will still require NRC approval containment hydrogen monitors following a Raghavan, (Acting). pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. LOCA to establish hydrogen control GPU Nuclear Inc., Docket No. 50–320, Therefore, the proposed changes do not measures should it become necessary. The involve a significant reduction in the margin proposed license amendment would not Three Mile Island Nuclear of safety. eliminate the requirement to establish Generating Station, Unit 2, Dauphin The NRC staff has reviewed the hydrogen monitoring, but would allow it to County, Pennsylvania be delayed until those actions required to Date of amendment request: June 21, licensee’s analysis and, based on this mitigate the accident and verify proper 2001. review, it appears that the three operation of essential safety equipment have Description of amendment request: standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are been completed. The proposed extension The proposed technical specifications satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff maintains the requirement to establish change request (TSCR) No. 81 is to proposes to determine that the hydrogen monitoring well before calculated revise Three Mile Island Nuclear amendment request involves no conditions inside the containment indicate any need to initiate hydrogen control Generating Station, Unit 2 (TMI–2) significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, measures. Therefore, the proposed license Technical Specification (TS) amendment will not create a new or different Administrative Controls section that Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., kind of accident from any accident will provide consistency with the previously evaluated. changes to the revised 50.59 rule of Title Washington, DC 20037. 3. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm. 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 2 in accordance with the proposed (10 CFR) Regulations, as published in Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, amendment will not involve a significant the Federal Register on October 4, 1999 Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point reduction in a margin of safety. (64 FR 53582). Nuclear Station Unit No. 2, Oswego The need to establish hydrogen control Basis for proposed no significant County, New York measures will not be present within the first Date of amendment request: October 3 hours following a LOCA since there will hazards consideration determination: not be significant hydrogen accumulation. By As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 5, 2001. extending the time allowed to establish licensee has provided its analysis of the Description of amendment request: containment hydrogen monitoring, the issue of no significant hazards The licensee proposed to amend the operators can remain focused on the actions consideration, which is presented Technical Specifications (TSs) to change necessary to mitigate the accident before below: the licensing basis requirement for directing their attention to hydrogen control establishing containment hydrogen measures and other long-term actions. The Does the change involve a significant monitoring ‘‘within 30 minutes’’ to proposed extension maintains the increase in the probability or consequences requirement to establish hydrogen of an accident previously evaluated? ‘‘within 3 hours’’ of initiating monitoring well before calculated conditions The proposed changes reflect the revised emergency core cooling following a loss- inside the containment indicate any need to 50.59 rule, issued as a Final Rule in October of-coolant accident (LOCA). initiate hydrogen control measures. 4, 1999, and do not impact the operation of Basis for proposed no significant Therefore, the proposed license amendment any system or component assumed in any hazards consideration determination: accident analysis. The proposed change does will not involve a significant reduction in a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the margin of safety. not change the requirement to perform a licensee has provided its analysis of the 50.59 review when required by the Technical issue of no significant hazards The NRC staff has reviewed the Specification Administrative Controls. Based licensee’s analysis and, based on this on the administrative nature of this change consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis against review, it appears that the three there will be no direct impact on the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are radiological source term. Therefore, these the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). changes will not involve a significant The licensee’s analysis is presented satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff increase in the probability or consequences below: proposes to determine that the of an accident previously evaluated. requested amendment involves no Does the change create the possibility of a 1. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit significant hazards consideration. new or different kind of accident from any 2 in accordance with the proposed Attorney for licensee: Mark J. accident previously evaluated? amendment will not involve a significant Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & Strawn, The proposed changes are administrative increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC in nature and do not involve a change to the 20005–3502. plant design or operation. No new or The Updated Safety Analysis Report different types of equipment will be installed (USAR) Chapter 15 accident analyses do not NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan, as a result of this change. The proposed require or take credit for hydrogen Acting. change is administrative in nature and makes monitoring to be established shortly after a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the language in the Technical Specification loss of coolant accident (LOCA). Post-LOCA Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Administrative Controls conform to the Final hydrogen production occurs over a long Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Rule, dated October 4, 1999, related to the 10 period of time, and an extension from 30 (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, San Luis CFR 50.59 rule. No new accident mode or minutes to 3 hours for establishing hydrogen Obispo County, California equipment failure modes are created by these monitoring will have a positive impact on the changes. Therefore, these proposed changes ability of the operators to concentrate on Date of amendment requests: do not create the possibility of a new or their more immediate actions while having September 13, 2001. different kind of accident from any accident no negative impact on containment integrity Description of amendment requests: previously evaluated. or the long-term assessment efforts. The proposed license amendments VerDate 11 would revise Technical Specification Criticality accidents in the SFP are not new standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are (TS) 3.7.16, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool Boron or different types of accidents; they have satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Concentration,’’ TS 3.7.17, ‘‘Spent Fuel been analyzed in the UFSAR and in the proposes to determine that the Assembly Storage—Region 1/Region 2,’’ Criticality Analysis reports associated with amendment requests involve no the specific license amendments for fuel and TS 4.3, ‘‘Fuel Storage’’ for DCPP enrichments up to 5.0 weight percent U–235. significant hazards consideration. Units 1 and 2, to allow the use of credit Because soluble boron has always been Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. for soluble boron in the spent fuel pool required in the SFP water, and is currently Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric criticality analysis. required by TS, credit for soluble boron will Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Basis for proposed no significant have no effect on normal pool operation and Francisco, California 94120. hazards consideration determination: maintenance. Crediting soluble boron in the NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the SFP criticality analysis will only result in Pacific Gas and Electric Company, licensee has provided its analysis of the increased sampling to verify the boron Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, issue of no significant hazards concentration. This increased sampling Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant consideration, which is presented frequency will not create the possibility of a (DCPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis new or different kind of accident. below: The SFP dilution analysis demonstrates Obispo County, California 1. The proposed change does not involve that a dilution which could increase the rack Date of amendment requests: a significant increase in the probability or keff to greater than 0.95 is not a credible September 13, 2001. consequences of an accident previously event. Therefore, crediting soluble boron in Description of amendment requests: evaluated. the SFP criticality analysis will not result in The proposed license amendments Response: No. the possibility of a new kind of accident. would modify Technical Specification There is no increase in the probability of Revised specifications continue to specify (TS) 5.5.9, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube a fuel assembly drop accident in the spent the requirements for SFP storage Surveillance Program,’’ to allow fuel pool (SFP) when considering the configurations. The only significant changes presence of soluble boron in the SFP water relate to the criteria for determining the extension of steam generator tube W star for criticality control. The handling of the storage configuration. Because the proposed alternate repair criteria for DCPP Units fuel assemblies does not change as a result SFP storage configuration limitations will be 1 and 2, from Cycles 10 and 11 to Cycles of crediting soluble boron in the SFP. similar to those currently contained in the 12 and 13. There is no increase in the probability of TS, the new limitations will not have any Basis for proposed no significant the accidental misloading of a fuel assembly significant effect on normal SFP operations hazards consideration determination: into the SFP racks when considering the and maintenance and will not create the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the presence of soluble boron in the SFP water possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the for criticality control. Fuel assembly accident. A SFP loading verification will placement will continue to be controlled issue of no significant hazards continue to be performed to ensure that the consideration, which is presented pursuant to approved fuel handling SFP loading configuration meets the procedures and will be in accordance with specified requirements. below: the Technical Specification (TS) SFP storage Therefore, the proposed change does not 1. The proposed change does not involve configuration limitations. create the possibility of a new or different a significant increase in the probability or There is no increase in the consequences kind of accident from any previously consequences of an accident previously of an accidental drop or accidental evaluated. evaluated. misloading of a fuel assembly into the SFP Of the various accidents previously racks because the criticality analysis 3. The proposed change does not involve evaluated, the extension of the steam demonstrates that the pool will remain a significant reduction in a margin of safety. generator (SG) tube W star (W*) alternate subcritical following either event even if the Response: No. repair criteria (ARC) through Cycles 12 and pool contains a boron concentration less than The TS changes proposed by this license that currently specified in the TS. The amendment request and the resulting spent 13 only affects the steam generator tube current TS limitation will ensure that an fuel storage limitations will provide an rupture (SGTR) accident evaluation and the adequate SFP boron concentration will be adequate safety margin to ensure that the postulated steam line break (SLB) accident maintained. stored fuel assembly array will always evaluation. Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) There is no increase in the probability of remain subcritical. Those limits are based on conditions cause a compressive axial load to the loss of normal cooling to the SFP water a plant specific criticality analysis performed act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA considering the presence of soluble boron in for the Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 SFPs tends to force the tube into the tubesheet the pool water for subcriticality control since that includes technically supported margins. rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in a high concentration of soluble boron has While the criticality analysis utilized credit this evaluation. always been maintained in the SFP water. for soluble boron, storage configurations have For the SGTR accident, the required There is no increase in the consequences been defined to ensure that the spent fuel structural margins of the SG tubes will be of a loss of normal SFP cooling because the rack keff will be less than 1.0 with no soluble maintained by the presence of the tubesheet. 2,000 ppm boron concentration required by boron with a 95 percent probability at a 95 Tube rupture is precluded for cracks in the TS provides significant negative reactivity to percent confidence level. Soluble boron Westinghouse explosive tube expansion provide subcritical margin such that the SFP credit is used to offset uncertainties, (WEXTEX) region due to the constraint keff is maintained less than or equal to 0.95 tolerances and off-normal conditions, and to provided by the tubesheet. Therefore, up to boiling (212°F). provide subcritical margin such that the SFP Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ‘‘Bases for Therefore, the proposed change does not keff is maintained less than or equal to 0.95. Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator involve a significant increase in the Since keff is less than or equal to 0.95, the Tubes,’’ margins against burst are maintained probability or consequence of an accident current margin of safety is maintained. for both normal and postulated accident previously evaluated. A substantial reduction in the SFP soluble conditions. 2. The proposed change does not create the boron concentration that could lead to WCAP–14797, Revision 1, defines a length, possibility of a new or different kind of exceeding a keff of 0.95 has been evaluated W*, of degradation free expanded tubing that accident from any accident previously and shown not to be credible. provides the necessary resistance to tube evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not pullout due to the pressure induced forces Response: No. involve a significant reduction in a margin of (with applicable safety factors applied). The Spent fuel handling accidents are not new safety. W* length supplies the necessary resistive or different types of accidents; they have force to preclude pullout loads under both been analyzed in Section 15.5.22 of the The NRC staff has reviewed the normal operating and accident conditions. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report licensee’s analysis and, based on this The contact pressure results from the (UFSAR). review, it appears that the three WEXTEX expansion process, thermal VerDate 11 expansion mismatch between the tube and to service under W* ARC remain below the NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek. tubesheet and from the differential pressure TTS, including an allowance for NDE PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 between the primary and secondary side. The uncertainty. proposed changes do not affect other These changes do not introduce any new and 50–311, Salem Nuclear systems, structures, components, or equipment or any change to existing Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and operational features. Therefore, the proposed equipment. No new effects on existing 2, Salem County, New Jersey change results in no significant increase in equipment are created nor are any new Date of amendment request: August the probability of the occurrence of an SGTR malfunctions introduced. 17, 2001. or SLB accident. Therefore, based on the above evaluation, Description of amendment request: The consequences of an SGTR accident are the proposed changes do not create the The proposed amendments delete affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage possibility of a new or different kind of flow during the accident. Primary-to- accident from any accident previously requirements from the Technical secondary leakage flow through a postulated evaluated. Specifications (and, as applicable, other broken tube is not affected by the proposed 3. The proposed change does not involve elements of the licensing bases) to changes since the tubesheet enhances the a significant reduction in a margin of safety. maintain a Post Accident Sampling tube integrity in the region of the WEXTEX The proposed changes maintain the System (PASS). Licensees were expansion by precluding tube deformation required structural margins of the SG tubes generally required to implement PASS beyond its initial expanded outside diameter. for both normal and accident conditions. RG upgrades as described in NUREG–0737, 1.121 is used as the basis in the development The resistance to both tube rupture and ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile collapse is strengthened by the tubesheet in of the W* ARC for determining that SG tube that region. At normal operating pressures, integrity considerations are maintained Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and leakage from primary water stress corrosion within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes Regulatory Guide 1.97, cracking (PWSCC) in the W* length is limited a method acceptable to the NRC staff for ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the meeting General Design Criteria 14, 15, 31, Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess limited crack opening permitted by the and 32 by reducing the probability and Plant and Environs Conditions During tubesheet constraint. No leakage has been consequences of an SGTR. RG 1.121 and Following an Accident.’’ observed in any in-situ test of W* indications concludes that by determining the limiting Implementation of these upgrades was identified to date. Consequently, negligible safe conditions of tube wall degradation beyond which tubes with unacceptable an outcome of the lessons learned from normal operating leakage is expected from the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit cracks within the tubesheet region. cracking, as established by inservice SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow inspection, should be removed from service 2. Requirements related to PASS were restrictions resulting from the crack and tube- or repaired, the probability and consequences imposed by Order for many facilities to-tubesheet contact pressures that provide a of a SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety and were added to or included in the restricted leakage path above the indications factors on loads for tube-burst that are technical specifications (TS) for nuclear and also limit the degree of crack face consistent with the requirements of Section power reactors currently licensed to opening compared to free span indications. III of the ASME Code. operate. Lessons learned and The total leakage, that is, the combined For primarily axially oriented cracking improvements implemented over the leakage for all such tubes, plus the combined located within the tubesheet, tube-burst is precluded due to the presence of the last 20 years have shown that the leakage developed by any other ARC, are information obtained from PASS can be maintained below the maximum allowable tubesheet. WCAP–14797, Revision 1, defines SLB leak rate limit, such that off-site doses a length, W*, of degradation free expanded readily obtained through other means or are maintained less than 10 CFR 100 tubing that provides the necessary resistance is of little use in the assessment and guideline values. to tube pullout due to the pressure induced mitigation of accident conditions. Therefore, based on the above evaluation, forces (with applicable safety factors The NRC staff issued a notice of the proposed changes do not involve a applied). Application of the W* ARC will opportunity for comment in the Federal significant increase in the probability or preclude unacceptable primary-to-secondary Register on August 11, 2000 (65 FR leakage during all plant conditions. The consequences of an accident previously 49271) on possible amendments to evaluated. methodology for determining leakage provides for large margins between eliminate PASS, including a model 2. The proposed change does not create the calculated and actual leakage values in the safety evaluation and model no possibility of a new or different kind of W* ARC. significant hazards consideration accident from any accident previously Plugging of the SG tubes reduces the evaluated. (NSHC) determination, using the reactor coolant flow margin for core cooling. The proposed changes do not introduce consolidated line item improvement Continued implementation of W* ARC will any changes or mechanisms that create the process. The NRC staff subsequently result in maintaining the margin of flow that possibility of a new or different kind of issued a notice of availability of the may have otherwise been reduced by tube accident. Tube bundle integrity is expected plugging. models for referencing in license to be maintained for all plant conditions Based on the above, it is concluded that the amendment applications in the Federal upon continued implementation of the W* proposed changes do not result in a Register on October 31, 2000 (65 FR ARC. significant reduction of margin with respect 65018). The licensee affirmed the Axial indications left in service shall have to plant safety as defined in the Final Safety applicability of the following NSHC the upper crack tip below the top of the Analysis Report Update or Bases of the plant determination in its application dated tubesheet (TTS) by at least the value of the Technical Specifications. nondestructive examination (NDE) August 17, 2001. uncertainty and crack growth allowance, The NRC staff has reviewed the Basis for proposed no significant such that at the end of the subsequent licensee’s analysis and, based on this hazards consideration determination: operating cycle the entire crack remains review, it appears that the three As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an below the tubesheet secondary face, thereby standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are analysis of the issue of no significant minimizing the potential for free span satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff hazards consideration is presented cracking and demonstrating that an proposes to determine that the below: acceptable level of risk is maintained for tubes returned to service under W* ARC. amendment requests involve no Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not This repair criteria is in addition to ensuring significant hazards consideration. Involve a Significant Increase in the that the upper crack tip is located below the Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. Probability or Consequences of an bottom of the WEXTEX transition by at least Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Accident Previously Evaluated. the NDE measurement uncertainty. Condition Company, P.O. Box 7442, San The PASS was originally designed to monitoring will verify that all tubes returned Francisco, California 94120. perform many sampling and analysis VerDate 11 functions. These functions were designed accident precursor, nor does its existence or 2. Requirements related to PASS were and intended to be used in post accident elimination have any adverse impact on the imposed by Order for many facilities situations and were put into place as a result pre-accident state of the reactor core or post and were added to or included in the TS of the TMI–2 accident. The specific intent of accident confinement of radionuclides for nuclear power reactors currently the PASS was to provide a system that has within the containment building. the capability to obtain and analyze samples Therefore, this change does not create the licensed to operate. Lessons learned and of plant fluids containing potentially high possibility of a new or different kind of improvements implemented over the levels of radioactivity, without exceeding accident from any previously evaluated. last 20 years have shown that the plant personnel radiation exposure limits. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not information obtained from PASS can be Analytical results of these samples would be Involve a Significant Reduction in the readily obtained through other means or used largely for verification purposes in Margin of Safety. is of little use in the assessment and aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent mitigation of accident conditions. of core damage and subsequent offsite The elimination of the PASS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, The NRC staff issued a notice of radiological dose projections. The system opportunity for comment in the Federal was not intended to and does not serve a procedures, and programs that provide function for preventing accidents and its effective mitigation of and recovery from Register on August 11, 2000 (65 FR elimination would not affect the probability reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact 49271) on possible amendments to of accidents previously evaluated. to the margin of safety. Methodologies that eliminate PASS, including a model In the 20 years since the TMI–2 accident are not reliant on PASS are designed to safety evaluation and model no and the consequential promulgation of post provide rapid assessment of current reactor significant hazards consideration core conditions and the direction of accident sampling requirements, operating (NSHC) determination, using the experience has demonstrated that a PASS degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consolidated line item improvement provides little actual benefit to post accident process. The NRC staff subsequently mitigation. Past experience has indicated that consequences of the accident. The use of a there exists in-plant instrumentation and PASS is redundant and does not provide issued a notice of availability of the methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for quick recognition of core events or rapid models for referencing in license collecting and assimilating information response to events in progress. The intent of amendment applications in the Federal needed to assess core damage following an the requirements established as a result of the Register on October 31, 2000 (65 FR accident. Furthermore, the implementation of TMI–2 accident can be adequately met 65018). The licensee affirmed the Severe Accident Management Guidance without reliance on a PASS. applicability of the following NSHC Therefore, this change does not involve a (SAMG) emphasizes accident management determination in its application dated strategies based on in-plant instruments. significant reduction in the margin of safety. Based upon the reasoning presented above October 1, 2001. These strategies provide guidance to the Basis for proposed no significant plant staff for mitigation and recovery from and the previous discussion of the a severe accident. Based on current severe amendment requests, the requested changes hazards consideration determination: accident management strategies and do not involve a significant hazards As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an guidelines, it is determined that the PASS consideration. analysis of the issue of no significant provides little benefit to the plant staff in The NRC staff proposes to determine hazards consideration is presented coping with an accident. that the amendment requests involve no below: The regulatory requirements for the PASS can be eliminated without degrading the significant hazards consideration. Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not plant emergency response. The emergency Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an response, in this sense, refers to the Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21, Accident Previously Evaluated. methodologies used in ascertaining the P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ condition of the reactor core, mitigating the 08038. The PASS was originally designed to consequences of an accident, assessing and NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford. perform many sampling and analysis projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, functions. These functions were designed South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and intended to be used in post accident and establishing protective action (SCE&G), South Carolina Public recommendations to be communicated to situations and were put into place as a result offsite authorities. The elimination of the Service Authority, Docket No. 50– of the TMI–2 accident. The specific intent of PASS will not prevent an accident 395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear the PASS was to provide a system that has management strategy that meets the initial Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield the capability to obtain and analyze samples intent of the post-TMI–2 accident guidance County, South Carolina of plant fluids containing potentially high through the use of the SAMGs, the levels of radioactivity, without exceeding Date of amendment request: October plant personnel radiation exposure limits. emergency plan (EP), the emergency 1, 2001. operating procedures (EOP), and site survey Analytical results of these samples would be Description of amendment request: used largely for verification purposes in monitoring that support modification of The proposed amendment deletes emergency plan protective action aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent recommendations (PARs). requirements from the Technical of core damage and subsequent offsite Therefore, the elimination of PASS Specifications (TS) (and, as applicable, radiological dose projections. The system requirements from Technical Specifications other elements of the licensing bases) to was not intended to and does not serve a (TS) (and other elements of the licensing maintain a Post Accident Sampling function for preventing accidents and its bases) does not involve a significant increase System (PASS). Licensees were elimination would not affect the probability of accidents previously evaluated. in the consequences of any accident generally required to implement PASS previously evaluated. In the 20 years since the TMI–2 accident upgrades as described in NUREG–0737, and the consequential promulgation of post Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile accident sampling requirements, operating Create the Possibility of a New or Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and experience has demonstrated that a PASS Different Kind of Accident from any Regulatory Guide 1.97, provides little actual benefit to post accident Previously Evaluated. ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- mitigation. Past experience has indicated that The elimination of PASS related Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess there exists in-plant instrumentation and requirements will not result in any failure Plant and Environs Conditions During methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for mode not previously analyzed. The PASS collecting and assimilating information was intended to allow for verification of the and Following an Accident.’’ needed to assess core damage following an extent of reactor core damage and also to Implementation of these upgrades was accident. Furthermore, the implementation of provide an input to offsite dose projection an outcome of the lessons learned from Severe Accident Management Guidance calculations. The PASS is not considered an the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit (SAMG) emphasizes accident management VerDate 11 strategies based on in-plant instruments. Based upon the reasoning presented above evaluated. The safety limits imposed in These strategies provide guidance to the and the previous discussion of the Technical Specification (TS) 2.1 are plant staff for mitigation and recovery from amendment request, the requested change consistent with the values stated in the FNP a severe accident. Based on current severe does not involve a significant hazards FSAR. accident management strategies and consideration. This change does not involve an increase guidelines, it is determined that the PASS in the probability or consequences of any provides little benefit to the plant staff in The NRC staff proposes to determine accident previously evaluated. coping with an accident. that the amendment request involves no 2. The proposed change does not create the The regulatory requirements for the PASS significant hazards consideration. possibility of a new or different kind of can be eliminated without degrading the Attorney for licensee: Thomas G. accident from any accident previously plant emergency response. The emergency Eppink, South Carolina Electric & Gas evaluated. response, in this sense, refers to the Company, Post Office Box 764, Relocation of the cycle-specific parameters methodologies used in ascertaining the Columbia, South Carolina 29218. has no influence or impact on, nor does it condition of the reactor core, mitigating the NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer, contribute in any way to the probability or consequences of an accident, assessing and consequences of an accident. No plant projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, Acting. equipment, function or plant operation will and establishing protective action Southern Nuclear Operating Company, be altered as a result of this proposed change. recommendations to be communicated to Inc, Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50– The cycle-specific parameters are calculated offsite authorities. The elimination of the 364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear using the NRC approved methods and PASS will not prevent an accident Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston submitted to the NRC to allow the staff to management strategy that meets the initial County, Alabama continue to trend the values of these limits. intent of the post-TMI–2 accident guidance The TS will continue to require operation through the use of the SAMGs, the Date of amendment request: May 3, within the core operating limits and emergency plan (EP), the emergency 2001. appropriate actions will be required if these operating procedures (EOP), and site survey Description of amendment request: limits are exceeded. The safety limits are monitoring that support modification of The proposed amendments would maintained in the COLR and appropriate emergency plan protective action relocate cycle-specific reactor coolant actions will be required if these limits are recommendations (PARs). system Technical Specifications exceeded. In addition, the minimum limit for Therefore, the elimination of PASS Reactor Coolant System flow will be retained requirements from Technical Specifications parameters limits to the Core Operating Limits Report. Also, a reference to the in the TS. The safety limits imposed in TS (TS) (and other elements of the licensing 2.1 are consistent with the values stated in bases) does not involve a significant increase Refueling Operations Boron the FNP FSAR. in the consequences of any accident Concentration is added to TS 5.6.5 to This proposed amendment does not create previously evaluated. correct an omission. the possibility of a new or different kind of Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Basis for proposed no significant accident from any accident previously Create the Possibility of a New or hazards consideration determination: evaluated. Different Kind of Accident from any As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 3. The Proposed change does not involve Previously Evaluated. licensee has provided its analysis of the a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The elimination of PASS related issue of no significant hazards The margin of safety is not affected by the requirements will not result in any failure consideration, which is presented removal of cycle-specific core operating mode not previously analyzed. The PASS limits from the TS. The margin of safety was intended to allow for verification of the below: presently provided by current TS limits extent of reactor core damage and also to 1. The proposed change does not involve remains unchanged. Appropriate measures provide an input to offsite dose projection a significant increase in the probability or exist to control the values of these cycle- calculations. The PASS is not considered an consequences of an accident previously specific limits. The proposed amendment accident precursor, nor does its existence or evaluated. continues to require operation within the elimination have any adverse impact on the The proposed amendment is a core limits as obtained from NRC approved pre-accident state of the reactor core or post programmatic and administrative change that reload design methodologies and the actions accident confinement of radionuclides does not physically alter plant systems, nor to be taken if a limit is exceeded remain within the containment building. does it impact the performance of their unchanged. Therefore, this change does not create the functions. No new equipment is added nor is The development of the limits for future possibility of a new or different kind of installed equipment being changed or reloads will continue to conform to those accident from any previously evaluated. operated in a different manner. Because the methods described in NRC approved Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not design of the facility and system operating documentation. In addition, each future Involve a Significant Reduction in the parameters are not being changed, the reload will involve a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation Margin of Safety. proposed amendment does not involve an to assure that operation of the unit within the The elimination of the PASS, in light of increase in the probability or consequences cycle-specific limits will not involve a existing plant equipment, instrumentation, of any accident previously evaluated. significant reduction in the margin of safety. procedures, and programs that provide The cycle-specific limits in the Core The proposed changes to relocate cycle effective mitigation of and recovery from Operating Limits Report (COLR) will specific parameter limits to the COLRs will reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact continue to be controlled by the Farley not affect plant design or system operating to the margin of safety. Methodologies that Nuclear Plant (FNP) programs and parameters, there is no detrimental impact on are not reliant on PASS are designed to procedures. Each accident analysis addressed any equipment design parameters, and the provide rapid assessment of current reactor in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) plant will continue to operate within core conditions and the direction of will be examined with respect to changes in prescribed limits. The safety limits imposed degradation while effectively responding to the cycle dependent parameters, which are in TS 2.1 are consistent with the values the event in order to mitigate the obtained from the use of Nuclear Regulatory stated in the FNP FSAR. consequences of the accident. The use of a Commission (NRC) approved reload design This proposed change does not involve a PASS is redundant and does not provide methodologies, to ensure that the transient significant reduction in the margin of safety. quick recognition of core events or rapid evaluation of new reloads are bounded by The NRC staff has reviewed the previously accepted analyses. This response to events in progress. The intent of licensee’s analysis and, based on this the requirements established as a result of the examination, which will be conducted per TMI–2 accident can be adequately met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, will review, it appears that the three without reliance on a PASS. ensure that future reloads will not involve a standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff significant reduction in the margin of safety. consequences of an accident previously proposes to determine that the VerDate 11 amendment request involves no leakage is within acceptable limits. This information obtained from PASS can be significant hazards consideration. testing will continue. These changes do not readily obtained through other means or Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford impact the function of the valves. is of little use in the assessment and Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Therefore, the proposed change does not mitigation of accident conditions. Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue create the possibility of a new or different The NRC staff issued a notice of kind of accident from any accident North, Birmingham, Alabama 35201. previously evaluated. opportunity for comment in the Federal NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer, 3. The proposed changes do not involve a Register on August 11, 2000 (65 FR Acting. significant reduction in a margin of safety. 49271) on possible amendments to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, The physical plant is unaffected by this eliminate PASS, including a model Inc, Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50– change. The proposed change does not safety evaluation and model no 364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear impact accident offsite dose, containment significant hazards consideration Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston pressure or temperature, emergency core (NSHC) determination, using the County, Alabama cooling system (ECCS) or reactor protection consolidated line item improvement system (RPS) settings or any other parameter process. The NRC staff subsequently Date of amendment request: June 5, that could affect a margin of safety. The 2001. clarification of the testing requirements issued a notice of availability of the Description of amendment request: ensures that future testing is consistent with models for referencing in license The proposed amendments would the historical licensing basis for Farley. amendment applications in the Federal modify Technical Specifications (TS) Therefore, the proposed change does not Register on October 31, 2000 (65 FR Surveillance Requirement 3.4.14.1 to involve a significant reduction in a margin of 65018). The licensee affirmed the clarify that the frequency does not apply safety. applicability of the following NSHC to Reactor Coolant System Pressure The NRC staff has reviewed the determination in its application dated Isolation Valves in the Residual Heat licensee’s analysis and, based on this September 10, 2001. Removal System flow path. Also, related review, it appears that the three Basis for proposed no significant TS Bases and editorial changes are part standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are hazards consideration determination: of this TS change. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an Basis for proposed no significant proposes to determine that the analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration determination: amendment request involves no hazards consideration is presented As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the significant hazards consideration. below: licensee has provided its analysis of the Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not issue of no significant hazards Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Involve a Significant Increase in the consideration, which is presented Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue Probability or Consequences of an below: North, Birmingham, Alabama 35201. Accident Previously Evaluated. The PASS was originally designed to 1. The proposed changes do not involve a NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer, Acting. perform many sampling and analysis significant increase in the probability or functions. These functions were designed consequences of an accident previously Virginia Electric and Power Company, and intended to be used in post accident evaluated. Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, situations and were put into place as a result The proposed change to Surveillance North Anna Power Station, Units of the TMI–2 accident. The specific intent of Requirement (SR) 3.4.14.1 clarifies that the No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County, the PASS was to provide a system that has requirement to test Reactor Coolant System Virginia the capability to obtain and analyze samples (RCS) Pressure Isolation Valves (PIVs) Date of amendment request: of plant fluids containing potentially high following valve actuation due to automatic or levels of radioactivity, without exceeding manual action or flow through the valve does September 10, 2001. plant personnel radiation exposure limits. not apply to PIVs in the Residual Heat Description of amendment request: Analytical results of these samples would be Removal (RHR) flow path. This resolves a The proposed amendment deletes used largely for verification purposes in source of potential confusion and ensures requirements from the Technical aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent that the testing requirements are Specifications (and, as applicable, other of core damage and subsequent offsite implemented consistent with the historical elements of the licensing bases) to radiological dose projections. The system licensing basis for Farley and the Improved maintain a Post Accident Sampling was not intended to and does not serve a Technical Specification conversion NRC System (PASS). Licensees were function for preventing accidents and its Safety Evaluation Report. The valves will elimination would not affect the probability continue to be tested for back leakage every generally required to implement PASS of accidents previously evaluated. 18 months. The proposed change does not upgrades as described in NUREG–0737, In the 20 years since the TMI–2 accident affect the consequences of a previously ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile and the consequential promulgation of post analyzed accident since the magnitude and Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and accident sampling requirements, operating duration of analyzed events are not impacted Regulatory Guide 1.97, experience has demonstrated that a PASS by this change. Thus, the consequences of a ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- provides little actual benefit to post accident previously evaluated accident are Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess mitigation. Past experience has indicated that unchanged. Plant and Environs Conditions During there exists in-plant instrumentation and Therefore, the proposed TS change does methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for not involve a significant increase in the and Following an Accident.’’ collecting and assimilating information probability or consequences of an accident Implementation of these upgrades was needed to assess core damage following an previously evaluated. an outcome of the lessons learned from accident. Furthermore, the implementation of 2. The proposed changes do not create the the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit Severe Accident Management Guidance possibility of a new or different kind of 2. Requirements related to PASS were (SAMG) emphasizes accident management accident from any accident previously imposed by Order for many facilities strategies based on in-plant instruments. evaluated. and were added to or included in the These strategies provide guidance to the The proposed change involves no change technical specifications (TS) for nuclear plant staff for mitigation and recovery from to the physical plant. It allows for a a severe accident. Based on current severe clarification to the testing requirements to power reactors currently licensed to accident management strategies and ensure that the historical licensing basis for operate. Lessons learned and guidelines, it is determined that the PASS Farley is maintained. These valves are tested improvements implemented over the provides little benefit to the plant staff in every 18 months to ensure that the back last 20 years have shown that the coping with an accident. VerDate 11 The regulatory requirements for the PASS The NRC staff proposes to determine hazards consideration is presented can be eliminated without degrading the that the amendment request involves no below: plant emergency response. The emergency significant hazards consideration. Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not response, in this sense, refers to the Attorney for licensee: Mr. Donald P. Involve a Significant Increase in the methodologies used in ascertaining the Irwin, Esq., Hunton and Williams, Probability or Consequences of an condition of the reactor core, mitigating the Riverfront Plaza, East Tower, 951 E. Accident Previously Evaluated. consequences of an accident, assessing and Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. The PASS was originally designed to projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer, perform many sampling and analysis and establishing protective action functions. These functions were designed recommendations to be communicated to Acting. and intended to be used in post accident offsite authorities. The elimination of the Virginia Electric and Power Company, situations and were put into place as a result PASS will not prevent an accident Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, of the TMI–2 accident. The specific intent of management strategy that meets the initial Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 the PASS was to provide a system that has intent of the post-TMI–2 accident guidance and 2, Surry County, Virginia the capability to obtain and analyze samples of plant fluids containing potentially high through the use of the SAMGs, the Date of amendment request: emergency plan (EP), the emergency levels of radioactivity, without exceeding September 10, 2001. plant personnel radiation exposure limits. operating procedures (EOP), and site survey Description of amendment request: monitoring that support modification of Analytical results of these samples would be emergency plan protective action The proposed amendment deletes used largely for verification purposes in aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent recommendations (PARs). requirements from the Technical of core damage and subsequent offsite Therefore, the elimination of PASS Specifications (and, as applicable, other radiological dose projections. The system requirements from Technical Specifications elements of the licensing bases) to maintain a Post Accident Sampling was not intended to and does not serve a (TS) (and other elements of the licensing function for preventing accidents and its bases) does not involve a significant increase System (PASS). Licensees were elimination would not affect the probability in the consequences of any accident generally required to implement PASS of accidents previously evaluated. previously evaluated. upgrades as described in NUREG–0737, In the 20 years since the TMI–2 accident Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not ‘‘Clarification of TMI [Three Mile and the consequential promulgation of post Create the Possibility of a New or Island] Action Plan Requirements,’’ and accident sampling requirements, operating Different Kind of Accident from any Regulatory Guide 1.97, experience has demonstrated that a PASS Previously Evaluated. ‘‘Instrumentation for Light-Water- provides little actual benefit to post accident The elimination of PASS related Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess mitigation. Past experience has indicated that there exists in-plant instrumentation and requirements will not result in any failure Plant and Environs Conditions During mode not previously analyzed. The PASS methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for and Following an Accident.’’ collecting and assimilating information was intended to allow for verification of the Implementation of these upgrades was needed to assess core damage following an extent of reactor core damage and also to an outcome of the lessons learned from accident. Furthermore, the implementation of provide an input to offsite dose projection the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit Severe Accident Management Guidance calculations. The PASS is not considered an 2. Requirements related to PASS were (SAMG) emphasizes accident management accident precursor, nor does its existence or strategies based on in-plant instruments. elimination have any adverse impact on the imposed by Order for many facilities and were added to or included in the These strategies provide guidance to the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post plant staff for mitigation and recovery from accident confinement of radionuclides technical specifications (TS) for nuclear a severe accident. Based on current severe within the containment building. power reactors currently licensed to accident management strategies and Therefore, this change does not create the operate. Lessons learned and guidelines, it is determined that the PASS possibility of a new or different kind of improvements implemented over the provides little benefit to the plant staff in accident from any previously evaluated. last 20 years have shown that the coping with an accident. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not information obtained from PASS can be The regulatory requirements for the PASS Involve a Significant Reduction in the readily obtained through other means or can be eliminated without degrading the Margin of Safety. is of little use in the assessment and plant emergency response. The emergency The elimination of the PASS, in light of response, in this sense, refers to the mitigation of accident conditions. methodologies used in ascertaining the existing plant equipment, instrumentation, The NRC staff issued a notice of condition of the reactor core, mitigating the procedures, and programs that provide opportunity for comment in the Federal consequences of an accident, assessing and effective mitigation of and recovery from Register on August 11, 2000 (65 FR projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact 49271) on possible amendments to and establishing protective action to the margin of safety. Methodologies that recommendations to be communicated to are not reliant on PASS are designed to eliminate PASS, including a model safety evaluation and model no offsite authorities. The elimination of the provide rapid assessment of current reactor PASS will not prevent an accident core conditions and the direction of significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using the management strategy that meets the initial degradation while effectively responding to intent of the post-TMI–2 accident guidance the event in order to mitigate the consolidated line item improvement through the use of the SAMGs, the consequences of the accident. The use of a process. The NRC staff subsequently emergency plan (EP), the emergency PASS is redundant and does not provide issued a notice of availability of the operating procedures (EOP), and site survey quick recognition of core events or rapid models for referencing in license monitoring that support modification of response to events in progress. The intent of amendment applications in the Federal emergency plan protective action the requirements established as a result of the Register on October 31, 2000 (65 FR recommendations (PARs). TMI–2 accident can be adequately met 65018). The licensee affirmed the Therefore, the elimination of PASS without reliance on a PASS. applicability of the following NSHC requirements from Technical Specifications Therefore, this change does not involve a (TS) (and other elements of the licensing significant reduction in the margin of safety. determination in its application dated bases) does not involve a significant increase Based upon the reasoning presented above September 10, 2001. in the consequences of any accident and the previous discussion of the Basis for proposed no significant previously evaluated. amendment request, the requested change hazards consideration determination: Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not does not involve a significant hazards As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an Create the Possibility of a New or consideration. analysis of the issue of no significant Different Kind of Accident from any VerDate 11 Previously Evaluated. License, Proposed No Significant Date of issuance: October 15, 2001. The elimination of PASS related Hazards Consideration Determination, Effective date: October 15, 2001, and requirements will not result in any failure and Opportunity for A Hearing in shall be implemented within 60 days of mode not previously analyzed. The PASS connection with these actions was the date of issuance. was intended to allow for verification of the published in the Federal Register as Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–137, Unit extent of reactor core damage and also to provide an input to offsite dose projection indicated. 2–137, Unit 3–137. calculations. The PASS is not considered an Unless otherwise indicated, the Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– accident precursor, nor does its existence or Commission has determined that these 41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The elimination have any adverse impact on the amendments satisfy the criteria for amendments revised the Technical pre-accident state of the reactor core or post categorical exclusion in accordance Specifications. accident confinement of radionuclides with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Date of initial notice in Federal within the containment building. to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental Register: May 2, 2001 (66 FR 22022). Therefore, this change does not create the impact statement or environmental The Commission’s related evaluation possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. assessment need be prepared for these of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 15, Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not amendments. If the Commission has Involve a Significant Reduction in the prepared an environmental assessment 2001. Margin of Safety. under the special circumstances No significant hazards consideration The elimination of the PASS, in light of provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has comments received: No. existing plant equipment, instrumentation, made a determination based on that Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., procedures, and programs that provide assessment, it is so indicated. Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris effective mitigation of and recovery from For further details with respect to the Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact action see (1) the applications for and Chatham Counties, North to the margin of safety. Methodologies that amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) Carolina are not reliant on PASS are designed to the Commission’s related letter, Safety provide rapid assessment of current reactor Date of application for amendment: core conditions and the direction of Evaluation and/or Environmental October 4, 2000, as supplemented degradation while effectively responding to Assessment as indicated. All of these March 8, 2001, March 27, April 26, May the event in order to mitigate the items are available for public inspection 14, May 18, June 4, June 11, June 26, consequences of the accident. The use of a at the Commission’s Public Document June 29, July 3, July 16 (2 letters), July PASS is redundant and does not provide Room, located at One White Flint North, quick recognition of core events or rapid 17, August 17, and September 20, 2001. 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Brief description of amendment: The response to events in progress. The intent of Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available the requirements established as a result of the license amendment revises the Harris TMI–2 accident can be adequately met records will be accessible from the Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications without reliance on a PASS. Agencywide Documents Access and to support the replacement of the Therefore, this change does not involve a Management Systems (ADAMS) Public current Westinghouse Model D4 steam significant reduction in the margin of safety. Electronic Reading Room on the internet generators with Westinghouse Model Based upon the reasoning presented above at the NRC web site, http:// Delta 75 replacement steam generators and the previous discussion of the www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. and revises the accident analyses to amendment request, the requested change If you do not have access to ADAMS or does not involve a significant hazards adopt the alternate source term (AST) consideration. if there are problems in accessing the methodology, using the guidance of documents located in ADAMS, contact Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) The NRC staff proposes to determine the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) that the amendment request involves no Regulatory Guide 1.183. Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– Date of issuance: October 12, 2001. significant hazards consideration. 415–4737 or by email to [email protected]. Attorney for licensee: Donald P. Irwin, Effective date: October 12, 2001. Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Esq., Hunton and Williams, Riverfront Amendment No.: 107. Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50– Plaza, East Tower, 951 E. Byrd Street, Facility Operating License No. NPF– 529, and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Richmond, Virginia 23219. 63: Amendment revises the Technical NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer, Nuclear Generating Station, Units Specifications. Acting. Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Date of initial notice in Federal Arizona Register: For the steam generator Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Date of application for amendments: replacement amendment request, the Facility Operating Licenses April 1, 2001, as supplemented by letter initial notice is dated November 1, 2000 During the period since publication of dated July 26, 2001. (65 FR 65338). The March 8, 2001, the last biweekly notice, the Brief description of amendments: The March 27, April 26, May 14, May 18, Commission has issued the following amendment revises Technical June 4, June 11, June 26, June 29, July amendments. The Commission has Specifications (TS) section 5.0, 3, July 16 (2 letters), and September 20, determined for each of these ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ by (1) 2001, supplements contained clarifying amendments that the application clarifying new diesel fuel oil limits for information only, and did not change complies with the standards and water and sediment, (2) revising the initial no significant hazards requirements of the Atomic Energy Act guidance on changes to TS Bases consideration determination, or expand of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the consistent with changes to 10 CFR the scope of the initial application. The Commission’s rules and regulations. 50.59, (3) adding clarification to the initial notice for the adoption of the The Commission has made appropriate requirements for the Safety Function AST methodology, using the guidance findings as required by the Act and the Determination Program, (4) adding the of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, was Commission’s rules and regulations in CENTS computer code to the list of published on August 8, 2001 (66 FR 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in analytical methods used to determine 41612). The August 17, 2001, the license amendment. core operating limits, and (5) revising supplement contained clarifying Notice of Consideration of Issuance of the Core Operating Limits Report list of information only, and did not change Amendment to Facility Operating references to approved topical reports. the initial no significant hazards VerDate 11 consideration determination, or expand amendments were approved pursuant to Date of amendment request: January the scope of the initial application. Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of 8, 2001. The Commission’s related evaluation Federal Regulations. Brief description of amendment: The of the amendment is contained in a Date of issuance: September 6, 2001. change revises the lower limit of the Safety Evaluation dated October 12, Effective date: As of the date of allowable containment internal pressure 2001. issuance to be implemented within 30 in Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.1.4, No significant hazards consideration days. ‘‘Containment Systems—Internal comments received: No. Amendment Nos.: 50 (Indian Point 1) Pressure,’’ from 14.375 pounds per Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 and and 220 (Indian Point 2). square inch, absolute (psia) to 14.275 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Docket Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– psia. Nos. 50–003 and 50–247, Indian 05 and DPR–26: Amendments revised Date of issuance: October 10, 2001. Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. the Licenses and Technical Effective date: As of the date of 1 and 2, Westchester County, New Specifications. issuance and shall be implemented 60 York Date of initial notice in Federal days from the date of issuance. Date of application for amendment: Register: January 29, 2001 (66 FR Amendment No.: 174. July 13, 2001. 8122). Facility Operating License No. NPF– Brief description of amendment: The The Commission’s related evaluation 38: The amendment revised the amendments revise Technical of the amendments is contained in a Technical Specifications. Federal Specification (TS) 4.1.8, ‘‘High Safety Evaluation dated August 27, Date of initial notice in Register: Radiation Area,’’ for Indian Point Unit 2001. February 21, 2001 (66 FR 1 and TS 6.12, ‘‘High Radiation Area,’’ No significant hazards consideration 11058). for Indian Point Unit 2 to delete the comments received: Not applicable. The Commission’s related evaluation administrative requirements for the Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– of the amendment is contained in a control of access to high radiation areas. 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit Safety Evaluation dated October 10, The control of access to these areas is No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas 2001. No significant hazards consideration assured by the licensee’s radiation Date of application for amendment: comments received: No. protection programs that comply with June 12, 2001, as supplemented by 10 CFR 20.1601 by using the alternate letters dated July 31, September 19 and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, PSEG methods in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.38, September 25, 2001. Nuclear LLC, and Atlantic City ‘‘Control of Access to High and Very Brief description of amendment: The Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50– High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power amendment revised Technical 277 and 50–278, Peach Bottom Plants,’’ June 1993. Specification (TS) 3.8.1.1 to provide a Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and Date of issuance: October 10, 2001. one-time extension of the allowed 3, York County, Pennsylvania Effective date: As of the date of outage time (AOT) for an inoperable Date of application for amendments: issuance to be implemented within 60 emergency diesel generator (EDG) from October 10, 2000, as supplemented days. three days to ten days. In addition, the October 9, 2001. Amendment No.: 51 and 221. amendment revised TS 3.4.4 to make Brief description of amendments: The Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– the action associated with an inoperable amendments revised the licenses for 5 and DPR–26: Amendments revised the emergency power supply to the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 to remove Technical Specifications. pressurizer heaters consistent with the Atlantic City Electric Company as a Date of initial notice in Federal proposed EDG AOT. licensee, in conjunction with the Register: September 5, 2001 (66 FR Date of issuance: October 15, 2001. transfer of the minority ownership 46477). Effective date: As of the date of interests of Atlantic City Electric The Commission’s related evaluation issuance to be implemented within 60 Company to the majority owners, of the amendment is contained in a days from the date of issuance. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and Safety Evaluation dated October 10, Amendment No.: 234. PSEG Nuclear LLC. 2001. Facility Operating License No. NPF–6: Date of issuance: October 18, 2001. No significant hazards consideration Amendment revised the TSs. Effective date: As of date of issuance, comments received: No. Date of initial notice in Federal and shall be implemented within 30 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Docket Register: July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36341). days of issuance. Nos. 50–003 and 50–247, Indian The July 31, September 19 and Amendments Nos.: 241 and 245. Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. September 25, 2001, supplemental Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 1 and 2, Westchester County, New letters provided clarifying information 44 and DPR–56: The amendments York and revised TSs that were within the revised the License. Date of application for amendments: scope of the original Federal Register Date of initial notice in Federal December 12, 2000, as supplemented on notice and did not change the staff’s Register: November 27, 2000 (65 FR April 12, April 16, May 24, June 6, and initial no significant hazards 70740). June 8, 2001. consideration determination. The Commission’s related evaluation Brief description of amendments: The The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a conforming amendments reflected the of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 27, transfer of the licenses, formerly held by Safety Evaluation dated October 15, 2000. Consolidated Edison Company of New 2001. Florida Power Corporation, et al., York, Inc., to Entergy Nuclear Indian No significant hazards consideration Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Point 2, LLC, as the owner of Indian comments received: No. Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Point 1 and 2, and to Entergy Nuclear Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– Plant, Citrus County, Florida Operations, Inc., as the entity 382, Waterford Steam Electric Date of application for amendment: authorized to maintain Indian Point 1 Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, March 28, 2001, as supplemented July and operate Indian Point 2. The Louisiana 19, and October 2, 2001. VerDate 11 Brief description of amendment: The Florida Power and Light Company, et Date of application for amendment: amendment revised the Improved al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. February 27, 2001, as supplemented on Technical Specifications 3.7.18, Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie September 6, 2001. ‘‘Control Complex Cooling System’’ to County, Florida Brief description of amendment: The allow a one-time increase in the Date of application for amendments: amendment revises surveillance completion time for restoring an April 17, 2001. requirements associated with Technical inoperable Control Complex Cooling Brief description of amendments: Specifications Section 3.3.8.2, ‘‘Reactor System train from 7 to 35 days. Minor changes and corrections to a Unit Protection System (RPS) Electric Power Date of issuance: October 16, 2001. 1 license condition and to Technical Monitoring—Logic,’’ and Section Effective date: As of the date of Specifications of both Unit 1 and 2 to 3.3.8.3, ‘‘Reactor Protection System issuance and shall be implemented correct administrative errors, or to (RPS) Electric Power Monitoring— within 30 days of issuance. incorporate changes justified by Scram Solenoids.’’ Specifically, the Amendment No.: 200. previous submittals, or to correct logic overvoltage allowable values and Facility Operating License No. DPR– errors, or to delete obsolete terminology associated channel calibration 72: Amendment revised the Technical and provide conforming changes to frequency interval are changed. Specifications. reflect the revisions to 10 CFR 50.59. Date of issuance: October 17, 2001. Date of initial notice in Federal Date of Issuance: October 18, 2001. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented by Register: April 18, 2001 (66 FR 20006). Effective Date: As of the date of March 15, 2002. The supplemental letters provided issuance and shall be implemented clarifying information that did not Amendment No.: 99. within 60 days of issuance. Facility Operating License No. NPF– change the initial proposed no Amendment Nos.: 177 and 119. significant hazards consideration 69: Amendment revised the Technical Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Specifications. determination. 67 and NPF–16: Amendments revised The Commission’s related evaluation Date of initial notice in Federal the Unit 1 Operating License and the Register: March 21, 2001 (66 FR of the amendment is contained in a Technical Specifications of both units. Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 15928). Date of initial notice in Federal The staff’s related evaluation of the 2001. Register: May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29357). No significant hazards consideration amendment is contained in a Safety The Commission’s related evaluation comments received: No. Evaluation dated October 17, 2001. of the amendments is contained in a No significant hazards consideration Florida Power Corporation, et al., Safety Evaluation dated October 18, comments received: No. Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River 2001. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50– Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating No significant hazards consideration Plant, Citrus County, Florida 388, Susquehanna Steam Electric comments received: No. Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Date of application for amendment: Nebraska Public Power District, Docket Pennsylvania February 21, 2000, as supplemented No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Date of application for amendment: June 27, 2001. Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska November 16, 2000. Brief description of amendment: The Date of amendment request: February Brief description of amendment: This amendments revise various 28, 2001. amendment deleted a note in TS administrative actions, requirements, Brief description of amendment: The Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.1.1 and responsibilities contained in which extended the leak rate testing Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) amendment revises the technical specifications to reflect changes in the surveillance interval on the 2S299A and 2.0, ‘‘Safety Limits,’’ and ITS 5.0, 2S299B spectacle flange o-rings until ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ to reflect the standard by which the licensee will test charcoal used in engineered safety the Unit 2 10th refueling outage or a recent CR–3 Nuclear Operations prior Unit 2 outage requiring entry into reorganization and the amended feature systems. The requested changes satisfy the requirements of NRC Generic Mode 4. The note, added in Amendment requirements of 10 CFR 50.72, 10 CFR No. 160 to Facility Operating License 50.73 and 10 CFR 50.59. Letter 99–02. Date of issuance: October 16, 2001. No. NPF–22 which was issued on May Date of issuance: October 18, 2001. 8, 2000, was necessitated because of a Effective date: As of the date of Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented Notice of Enforcement Discretion issuance and shall be implemented documented in a letter dated April 11, within 30 days of issuance. within 30 days from the date of issuance. 2000. This note is no longer required to Amendment No.: 201. be included in TS 3.6.1.1.1 because the Facility Operating License No. DPR– Amendment No.: 186. Facility Operating License No. DPR– surveillance test was conducted during 72: Amendment revised the Technical the Unit 2 forced outage in August of Specifications. 46: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. 2000. Date of initial notice in Federal Date of issuance: October 9, 2001. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 21, 2001 (66 FR Effective date: As of the date of Register: June 12, 2001 (66 FR 31710). 15926). The supplemental letter issuance and shall be implemented The Commission’s related evaluation provided clarifying information that did within 30 days. not change the initial proposed no of the amendment is contained in a Amendment No.: 171. significant hazards consideration Safety Evaluation dated October 16, Facility Operating License No. NPF– determination. 2001. 22: This amendment revised the The Commission’s related evaluation No significant hazards consideration Technical Specifications. of the amendment is contained in a comments received: No. Date of initial notice in Federal Safety Evaluation dated October 20, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Register: July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36343). 2001. Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point The Commission’s related evaluation No significant hazards consideration Nuclear Station Unit No. 2, Oswego of the amendment is contained in a comments received: No. County, New York Safety Evaluation dated October 9, 2001. VerDate 11 No significant hazards consideration not expand the scope of the original Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– comments received: No. application with respect to both the 87 and NPF–89: The amendments PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, proposed transfer action and the revised the Technical Specifications. Hope Creek Generating Station, proposed amendment action as initially Date of initial notice in Federal Salem County, New Jersey noticed in the Federal Register. No Register: September 5, 2001 (66 FR Date of application for amendment: hearing requests or comments were 46482). December 20, 1999, as supplemented on received. In addition, the submittals did The supplemental letter dated August February 11, February 25, and October not affect the applicability of the 23, 2001, provided clarifying 10, 2000. Commission’s generic no significant information that did not change the Brief description of amendment: The hazards consideration determination set Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the amendment revises the license to reflect forth in 10 CFR 2.1315. Commission) staff’s proposed no changes related to the transfer of the The Commission’s related evaluation significant hazards consideration license for the Hope Creek Generating of the amendments is contained in a determination. Station, to the extent held by Atlantic Safety Evaluation dated December 21, The Commission’s related evaluation City Electric Company to PSEG Nuclear 2000. of the amendments is contained in a LLC. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Safety Evaluation dated October 9, 2001. Date of issuance: October 18, 2001. Inc., Georgia Power Company, No significant hazards consideration Effective date: As of the date of Oglethorpe Power Corporation, comments received: No. issuance, and shall be implemented Municipal Electric Authority of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power within 30 days. Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Corporation, Docket No. 50–271, Amendment No.: 135. Docket No. 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Facility Operating License No. NPF– Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Appling Station, Vernon, Vermont 57: This amendment revised the County, Georgia License. Date of application for amendment: Date of application for amendment: Date of initial notice in Federal May 23, 2001. August 14, 2001, as supplemented on Register: February 18, 2000 (65 FR Brief description of amendments: The August 21, 2001. 8453). amendment revises the Safety Limit Brief description of amendment: The The letters dated February 11, Minimum Critical Power Ratio to reflect proposed amendment would extend the February 25, and October 10, 2000, the results of a cycle-specific calculation allowed outage time (AOT) for the High provided clarifying information that did that was performed using NRC- Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) and not change the initial proposed no approved methodology. Reactor Core Isolation Cooling systems significant hazards consideration Date of issuance: October 12, 2001. from 7 days to 14 days. Requirements determination. Effective date: As of the date of were added to immediately ensure the The Commission’s related evaluation issuance and shall be implemented availability of alternate means of high of the amendment is contained in a within 30 days from the date of pressure coolant makeup. Also, Safety Evaluation dated April 21, 2000. issuance. clarifying changes were made to No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.: 167. Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.5.E.2 comments received: No. Facility Operating License No. NPF–5: and 3.5.G.2 by reformatting the TSs to Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Amendment revises the Technical make the nomenclature consistent Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311, Specifications. regarding HPCI and the Automatic Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Date of initial notice in Federal Depressurization System as being Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, Register: June 12, 2001 (66 FR 31714). systems, not subsystems. New Jersey The Commission’s related evaluation Date of Issuance: October 18, 2001. Date of application for amendments: of the amendments is contained in a Effective date: As of the date of December 20, 1999, as supplemented Safety Evaluation dated October 12, issuance, and shall be implemented February 11, February 25, and October 2001. within 30 days. 10, 2000. No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.: 205. comments received: No. Brief description of amendments: The Facility Operating License No. DPR–28: amendments revised Facility Operating TXU Electric, Docket Nos. 50–445 and Amendment revised the Technical Licenses DPR–70 and DPR–75 to reflect 50–446, Comanche Peak Steam Specifications. changes related to the transfer of the Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Date of initial notice in Federal license for the Salem Nuclear Somervell County, Texas Register: September 18, 2001 (66 FR Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Date of amendment request: April 25, 48152). to the extent held by the Atlantic City 2001, as supplemented by letters dated The Commission’s related evaluation Electric Company, to PSEG Nuclear July 31 and August 23, 2001. of this amendment is contained in a Limited Liability Company. Brief description of amendments: The Safety Evaluation dated October 18, Date of issuance: October 18, 2001. amendments change the Technical 2001. Effective date: As of the date of Specifications (TS) to allow a one-time No significant hazards consideration issuance, and shall be implemented only change to TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources— comments received: No. within 30 days. Operating,’’ Action A.3, by extending Amendment Nos.: 246 and 227. the required Completion Time for Note: The publication date for this notice Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– restoration of an inoperable offsite will change from every other Wednesday to 70 and DPR–75: The amendments circuit from 72 hours to 21 days. every other Tuesday, effective January 8, revised the License. Date of issuance: October 9, 2001. 2002. The notice will contain the same Federal information and will continue to be Date of initial notice in Effective date: As of the date of published biweekly. Register: February 18, 2000 (65 FR issuance and shall be implemented no 8452). The February 11, February 25, later than February 28, 2002. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd and October 10, 2000, supplements did Amendment Nos.: 88/88. day of October 2001. VerDate 11 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. comments on the proposed rule change, Exchange reviews Floor member John A. Zwolinski, as amended, from interested persons. conduct and takes remedial action where necessary to improve Director, Division of Licensing Project I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor performance. The registration of Statement of the Terms of Substance of Regulation. specialists (‘‘allocations’’) is the process the Proposed Rule Change [FR Doc. 01–27261 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] by which the Exchange matches BILLING CODE 7590–01–P The Exchange proposes to adopt appropriate specialists to particular Amex Rules 26 and 27 to codify the securities. Exchange’s performance evaluation and The Exchange proposes to codify its allocations procedures. The text of the performance evaluation and allocation SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE proposed rule change is available at the procedures as Amex Rules 26 and 27 in COMMISSION Office of the Secretary, the Amex and order to make them readily available to [Release No. 34–44972; File No. SR–Amex– the Commission. members since these procedures currently are not available in one easily 2001–19] II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s accessed location. Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice Statement of the Purpose of, and of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Performance Evaluation (Rule 26) and Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by the Change Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 26 American Stock Exchange LLC In its filing with the Commission, the describes the composition of the Relating to Its Performance Evaluation Exchange included statements Performance Committee. The proposed and Allocations Procedures concerning the purpose of, and basis for, rule states that the Performance the proposed rule change and discussed Committee consists of 16 persons drawn October 23, 2001. any comments it received on the from a larger pool divided as equally as Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the proposed rule change. The text of these possible among specialists, registered Securities Exchange Act of 1934 statements may be examined at the traders, brokers and upstairs member (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 places specified in Item IV below. The firm representatives. Specialists, notice is hereby given that on March 19, Exchange has prepared summaries, set registered traders, and brokers are the 2001, the American Stock Exchange LLC forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of three classes of market participants on (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the the most significant aspects of such the Exchange Floor. Upstairs member Securities and Exchange Commission statements. firm representatives, while not on the (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed Floor, make extensive use of the rule change as described in Items I, II, A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Exchange’s services and have another and III below, which Items have been Statement of the Purpose of, and perspective on the operation of the prepared by the Exchange. On May 31, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule market. A Floor Governor chairs 2001, the Exchange submitted Change meetings of the Performance Committee Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule 1. Purpose and only may vote to break a tie. A change.3 On August 13, 2001, the The Board of Governors of the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2 performance evaluation processes fulfill a to the proposed rule change.4 On Exchange is generally responsible for combination of business and regulatory interests at August 27, 2001, the Exchange the supervision of its members. With exchanges and are not disciplinary in nature. The regards to (1) evaluating the Commission states in the Post X–17 case: submitted Amendment No. 3 to the We believe that the reallocation of a market proposed rule change.5 The Commission performance of specialists, registered traders, and brokers, and (2) allocating maker’s (or a specialist’s) security due to poor is publishing this notice to solicit performance is neither an action responding to a securities to specialists, the Board has violation of an exchange rule nor an action where delegated its responsibilities to the a sanction is sought or intended. Instead, we believe 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Committee on Floor Member that performance-based security reallocations are 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. instituted by exchanges to improve market maker 3 See Letter from Bill Floyd-Jones, Jr., Assistant Performance (the ‘‘Performance performance and to ensure quality of markets. General Counsel, Legal and Regulatory, Amex, to Committee’’ or ‘‘Committee’’) and the Accordingly, in approving rules for performance- Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division Allocations Committee, respectively.6 based reallocations, we historically have taken the Market Regulation (‘‘Division’’), Commission (May Performance evaluation is the non- position that the reallocation of a specialist’s or a 31, 2001). Amendment No. 1 adds discussion to the 7 market maker’s security due to inadequate purpose section of the proposal regarding the ability disciplinary process by which the performance does not constitute a disciplinary of the Performance Committee to take appropriate sanction. action should a member or member organization 6 See Amex Rules 170 and 958, which establish We believe that an SRO’s need to evaluate market fail without a reasonable excuse to meet with the standards for specialists and Registered Options maker and specialist performance arises from both committee after receiving notice. In addition, Traders. See also Article II, Section 3 of the business and regulatory interests in ensuring Amendment No. 1 corrects structural and Exchange Constitution, which provides in relevant adequate market making performance by its market typographical errors that appeared in the proposed part: makers and specialists that are distinct from the rule language. The Board shall establish standards and SRO’s enforcement interests in disciplining 4 See Letter from Bill Floyd-Jones, Jr., Assistant requirements for the registration of specialists or members who violate SRO or Commission Rules. General Counsel, Legal and Regulatory, Amex, to odd-lot dealers in securities dealt in on the An exchange has an obligation to ensure that its Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division, Exchange, and may grant to a committee or market makers or specialists are contributing to the Commission (August 10, 2001). Amendment No. 2 committees, the authority to (i) approve the maintenance of fair and orderly markets in its adds a reference to the Special Allocations registration of specialists or odd-lot dealers, (ii) securities. In addition, an exchange has an interest Committee in the proposal and proposed rule text; revoke or suspend any such registration at any time, in ensuring that the services provided by its adds allocations procedures for structured products (iii) allocate to a registered specialist or odd-lot members attract buyers and sellers to the exchange. and Exchange Traded Funds; and makes technical dealer any security dealt in on the Exchange, and To effectuate both purposes, an SRO needs to be changes to the proposed rule text. (iv) revoke any such allocation, temporarily or able to evaluate the performance of its market 5 See Letter from Bill Floyd-Jones, Jr., Assistant permanently, at any time. makers or specialists and transfer securities from General Counsel, Legal and Regulatory, Amex, to 7 See In the Matter of the Application of Pacific poor performing units to the better performing Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division, Stock Exchange’s Options Floor Post X–17, Admin. units. This type of action is very different from a Commission (August 24, 2001). Amendment No. 3 Proc. File No. 3–7285, Securities Exchange Act disciplinary proceeding where a sanction is meted clarifies the Performance and Allocations Release No. 31666 (December 29, 1992), 51 SEC out to remedy a specific rule violation. (Footnotes Committee review procedures. DOC 261. The Commission determined that omitted.) VerDate 11 Senior Floor Official may chair the appears to the Committee that it would authority to target remedial action to a Committee in the event that a Floor raise concentration issues. This review particular class of security traded by a Governor is unavailable. authority gives the Performance specialist or registered trader. Paragraph (a) of the proposed Rule 26 Committee an important means for Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 26 also allows the Performance Committee ensuring that specialists maintain describes the responsibilities and to delegate some or all its quality markets on the Exchange and authority of the Performance Committee responsibilities to one or more thus benefits investors. with respect to registered traders. It is subcommittees consisting of six In addition to reviewing transactions quite similar to paragraph (b) of persons. Due to the large size of the of specialists, the Performance proposed Rule 26 (which concerns Performance Committee, the Exchange Committee would review specialist specialists) in recognition of the fact believes that it is impractical to convene performance relative to the quality of that the Registered Options Traders the full Committee for all matters that markets, competition with other (‘‘ROTs’’) are ‘‘quasi-specialists.’’ 11 might come before it. As a result, it is markets, observance of ethical Since the Exchange does not ‘‘allocate’’ the practice of the Performance standards, and administrative factors. securities to registered traders, however, Committee to use subcommittees to (1) The Exchange believes that the there is no provision for reallocations or screen matters to determine if they Performance Committee of the Amex allocation preclusions with respect to warrant the attention of the full and its analogues at other principal registered traders. Committee, and (2) resolve routine equity and options exchanges Commentary .01 to proposed Rule 26 matters (e.g., adherence to zone traditionally have used these factors to provides that an Auto-Ex 12 performance performance standards). A Performance review specialists performance to standard applicable to ROTs is subcommittee would have less ensure the maintenance of quality monitored by the Performance substantial remedial tools available to it markets. If the Performance Committee Committee. The standard provides that than are available to the Performance determines that a specialist has failed to any ROT that trades an option during a Committee due to its limited size. The properly perform as a specialist, the break-out situation and has signed-on to remedial actions available to Exchange proposes that the Committee Auto-Ex for a period of two or more Performance subcommittees are may take one or more of the 10 remedial days over the ten previous business enumerated in paragraph (a) of actions enumerated in Paragraph (b) of days must sign on to Auto-Ex for the proposed Rule 26. proposed Rule 26. These range from break-out option. LEAPS are excluded Paragraphs (b) through (d) of relatively mild actions such as from this standard. The proposed proposed Rule 26 describe the counseling the specialists on how to standard further provides that all ROTs responsibilities of the Performance improve its performance or issuing an that sign on to Auto-Ex for the break-out Committee with respect to specialist, admonitory letter, to more intermediate must remain on Auto-Ex for the registered traders, and brokers. These actions such as assigning a performance duration of the break-out. ROTs that paragraphs also enumerate the remedial 8 rating or requiring the adoption of a have signed-on to Auto-Ex during a actions available to the Committee with 9 Performance Improvement Plan, to break-out only are permitted to sign-off respect to each group of Floor members. stronger actions such as directing the With respect to specialists, paragraph with the permission of a Floor reallocation of one or more securities. Governor. The purpose of the standard (b) of proposed Rule 26 would provide The four types of securities that is to ensure that there is sufficient that the Performance Committee reviews currently trade on the Amex are (1) liquidity for an option during times of proposed transfers to specialist stock and other equities, (2) structured market stress. The Performance registrations and specified transactions products, (3) standardized options, and Committee may prohibit a ROT, or his involving specialists. Paragraph (b) (4) Exchange Traded Funds (‘‘ETFs’’).10 or her firm, from participating on Auto- provides that the Performance Specializing or market making in these Ex for up to six months for deviations Committee will approve a proposed securities requires different resources, from this standard. transaction unless a ‘‘countervailing and firms or units that specialize in Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 26 institutional interest’’ indicates that the more than one security class describes the responsibilities and transaction should be disapproved or customarily are staffed and managed authority of the Performance Committee conditionally approved. In determining along product line. As a result, poor with respect to Floor Brokers. Since the presence of a countervailing performance by a specialist unit in brokers do not act as dealers, they are institutional interest, the Performance listed equities might not be mirrored by not evaluated in terms of quality or Committee would consider whether the poor performance by the same unit in markets and competition with other proposed transaction would maintain or listed options. Therefore, the markets. Instead, they are evaluated enhance the quality of the Exchange’s Performance Committee would have the markets. The Performance Committee with respect to order handling, also would consider whether the 8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27455 observance of ethical standards, and transaction would create a level of (Nov. 22, 1989), 54 FR 49152 (Nov. 29, 1989) administrative factors. In addition, the concentration among specialists that (approving File No. SR–Amex–83–27, regarding the remedial actions that the Performance should be mitigated. Commentary .03 to Exchange’s ‘‘rating’’ system). Committee may take with respect to 9 Commentary .02 to proposed Rule 26 describes brokers are more limited than those that proposed rule 26 describes the Performance Improvement Plans and the procedure Exchange’s ‘‘concentration’’ policy. for implementing them. In general, the Performance may be taken with respect to registered The Exchange proposes that the Improvement Plan procedure permits the Performance Committee disapprove or Performance Committee to require specialists and 11 See Commentary .01 to Amex rule 958. Unlike registered traders to implement business plans to a specialist, however, a ROT may not handle agency conditionally approve a transaction if it improve their performance. orders. See also Amex Rules 111(c) and 950(c). appears to the Committee that the 10 ETFs include, but are not limited to, Portfolio 12 Auto-Ex is the Exchange system that provides proposed transaction (1) would not Depositary Receipts (e.g., SPDRs, DIAMONDS and an automatic execution to incoming customer maintain, or (2) would not enhance the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock), Index Fund orders up to a specific size. Specialists and ROTs Shares (e.g., Select Sector SPDRs and iShares) and that sign on to the system take the opposite side of quality of markets on the Exchange. The Trust Issued Receipts (e.g., ‘‘HOLDRs’’). The incoming customer orders at the displayed bid or Committee also may disapprove or Exchange also lists corporate and government offer except when a limit order on the book conditionally approve a transaction if it bonds. establishes the best bid or offer on the Amex. VerDate 11 traders and specialists because many of review to the record created by the units that they are associated with are the Committee’s remedial measures Performance Committee, (2) consider ineligible to be allocated any security involve restrictions on acting as a additional matters that were not that is allocated at a meeting where they dealer, which is not a broker’s function. included in the record, or (3) hear the participate on the Committee. As a Paragraph (e) of proposed rule 26 matter ‘‘de novo,’’ as the Adjudicatory result, specialists frequently decline to describes Performance Committee Council determines is appropriate to participate at Allocations Committee procedures. Paragraph (e) of proposed render a fair decision on the appeal. A meetings. Representatives of upstairs rule 26 provides that persons (i.e., verbatim record of the proceeding before member firms have an intermediate specialists, specialist units, registered the Adjudicatory Council is maintained number of representatives on the traders or brokers) that are asked to and the Adjudicatory Council’s decision Committee (as do ROTs with respect to address the Performance Committee is in writing. The decision of the the Options Allocations Committee). because they may have failed to meet Adjudicatory Council constitutes final Upstairs member firms, like brokers, are minimum performance standards are action by the Exchange. users of the services provided by notified in writing of the matter(s) to be Allocations Procedures (Rule 27) specialists and have valuable insights as considered by the Committee and are to their relative competencies. ROTs, as provided with copies of any written Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 27 market makers, also have insights into materials that are given to the describes the composition and the qualifications of different Committee prior to the meeting. Such responsibilities of the Options and specialists. The Chief Executive Officer persons may be questioned by the Equities Allocations Committees. The is a member of the Special Allocations Performance Committee members and Options Allocations Committee is Committee as a result of the role played Exchange staff present at the meeting, responsible for allocating standardized by the Exchange’s staff in securing and they have an opportunity to present equity options. This Committee consists listings of the securities that are information and documents to rebut any of 11 persons as follows: Six Floor allocated by the Special Allocations concerns about their performance. brokers, two Registered Options Committee (e.g., ETFs). Anyone appearing before the Committee Traders, and three representatives of Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 27 (not just persons that may have failed to upstairs member firms. The Equities provides that the Allocations Committee meet appropriate performance Allocations Committee allocates the shall select the specialist or unit for a standards) may be represented by equity securities of operating security that appears best able in the counsel. Formal rules of evidence do companies. It consists of ten persons as professional judgment of the Committee not apply at meetings of the follows: Six Floor brokers, one members to perform the functions of a Performance Committee. If the specialist, and three representatives of specialist in the security to be allocated. Performance Committee determines that upstairs member firms. A Floor The proposed rule also provides a non- a member or member organization has Governor, who only may vote to break exclusive list of the criteria that the failed to meet minimum performance a tie, chairs both Committees. A Senior Allocations Committee uses to decide Floor Official may chair a meeting in the standards, the affected person or which unit should be allocated a event that a Floor Governor is persons would be notified in writing of particular security. The Exchange, the the Committee’s findings, conclusions, unavailable. The Special Allocations Committee New York Stock Exchange, Inc., and and the remedial action to be taken. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. Paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 26 allocates securities that are not allocated customarily use these criteria to ensure provides that the Performance by the Options or Equities Allocations that securities are allocated consistent Committee may take action against a Committees and securities with special with the interests of investors and the member or member organization if the characteristics as may be determined by Exchange. Issuers of equity securities person or firm fails without reasonable the Chief Executive Officer of the may elect to use the Exchange’s ‘‘Issuer excuse to meet with the Committee after Exchange or his or her designee. It consists of six persons as follows: The Choice’’ procedures to allocate a receiving notice of the meeting. 13 Paragraphs (g) and (h) of proposed Chief Executive Officer (or his or her security if they so desire, pursuant to Rule 26 describe procedures for designee), two brokers, two Registered paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 27 and appealing decisions of the Performance Options Traders, and a representative of Commentary .05 of proposed Rule 27. Committee. Members and member an upstairs member firm. The Special Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 27 organizations aggrieved by Allocations Committee is chaired by the also provides that specialists subject to determinations of the Performance Chief Executive Officer who does not a preclusion on new allocations in one Committee or a Performance vote except to make or break a tie. In the or more classes of a security as a result subcommittee must submit an Chief Executive Officer’s absence, a of Performance Committee or a application to review the decisions to Floor Governor or Senior Floor Official disciplinary action only are eligible for the Secretary of the Exchange within may chair the Committee. The Options, allocations of ‘‘related securities ’’ as five business days of receipt of the Equities and Special Allocations described in proposed Commentary .05 Committee’s or subcommittee’s written Committees are collectively referred to to Rule 27. decision. Filing a timely application for herein as the ‘‘Allocations Committee.’’ With respect to equity securities, review stays the decisions of the Floor brokers have the greatest proposed Commentary .05 to Rule 27 Performance Committee or number of representatives on the provides that newly listed convertible subcommittee. Appeals from decisions Allocations Committee since they tend securities and securities issued in of a Performance subcommittee are to have personal familiarity with all connection with a name change or reviewed ‘‘de-novo’’ by the Performance units on the Floor as a result of their reverse stock split are automatically Committee. Appeals from decisions of representation of orders at different allocated (i.e., allocated without any the Performance Committee are posts. Specialists have the fewest involvement of the Allocations reviewed by the Amex Adjudicatory representatives on the Allocations 13 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 23593 Council (‘‘Adjudicatory Council’’). The Committee since they typically have (Sept. 5, 1986), 51 FR 32985 (Sept. 17, 1986) (order Exchange represents that the limited personal familiarity with other approving File No. SR–Amex–86–10, regarding the Adjudicatory Council may (1) Limit its units. In addition, specialists and the Issuer Choice program). VerDate 11 Committee) to the specialist that already conjunction with Commentary .02 and requests. In the case of an equity trades the issuer’s securities regardless .03 to proposed Rule 27, ‘‘Contacts with security, the Allocations Committee of an allocation preclusion. In other Unlisted Companies,’’ and ‘‘Specialist only is advised of a company’s situations involving the allocation for and other Member Contacts with Issuers preference for a particular specialist equity securities that are related and Sponsors of Exchange Traded where the specialist’s efforts actually securities, proposed Commentary .05 Funds and Structured Products for the have been instrumental in securing the provides that the Allocations Committee Purpose of Securing New Listings.’’ listing as evidenced by the company would determine whether the trading Commentary .02 to proposed Rule 27 filing a preference with the Exchange for characteristics of the newly listed provides that specialists or other the specialist within two weeks of the related security are closely related to the members are required to submit a Notice Exchange initiating a listing exiting security given the Exchange of Marketing Interest (‘‘NOMI’’) to the qualification review. staff’s recommendations as to whether Exchange (1) prior to initiating any Pursuant to proposed Rule 27, issuers the newly listed related securities contact with an unlisted company may interview specialists on the list of should be allocated to the current regarding listing, or (2) within five eligible units prepared by the specialist. If the Allocations Committee business days of an unanticipated Allocations Committee. Exchange staff determines that the trading contact with a company where would arrange these interviews, and in characteristics of the newly listed discussions regarding listing occurred or the case of an equity security, the Chief related security are closely related to the are anticipated in the future. There is an Executive Officer of the Exchange or his existing listed security, it would allocate automatic 12-month sunset on the or her designee may require a member the newly listed security to the existing authorization of a specialist unit or of the Exchange staff to attend such regardless of an allocation preclusion. If other member to effect the listing of interviews to answer questions about the Allocations Committee determines prospect company on the Exchange. the Exchange’s allocation policies and that the trading characteristics of the This sunset period may be extended for to ensure that any statements by newly listed related security are not one additional six-month period by specialists and their representatives are closely related to the existing security, Amex staff if the specialist or other consistent with the Exchange’s policies the related security is allocated either by member submits a written request to on communications with unlisted the Allocations Committee (paragraph Amex staff detailing the activities that companies. Inappropriate statements to (b) of proposed Rule 27) or according to the specialist or other member has issuers and ETF sponsors include, but the Issuer Choice procedure (paragraph undertaken which it believes will result are not limited to, apparent (e) of proposed Rule 27). The existing in a favorable listing decision. Once a misrepresentations as to market making specialist, if subject to an allocation company decides to list on the capabilities or promises unrelated to the preclusion, is eligible for the newly Exchange, specialists and other specialist’s role in making a market in listed related security only if the issuer members can have no further the issuer’s stock. Specialists and their requests its current specialist under the communications with the company for representatives also may not supply Issuer Choice procedure. the purpose of influencing the choice of information concerning another With respect to the standardized specialist except for the interview specialist unit or units either orally or options, proposed Commentary .05 described below. in writing, except they may refer to provides that options on related Commentary .03 to Rule 27 provides overall floor-wide statistics. securities are automatically allocated to that the Exchange must approved Under proposed Rule 27, the issuer the existing option specialist unless the proposed contacts between specialists selects its specialist from the list of existing options specialist is subject to and potential issuers and sponsors of eligible units provided to it. In addition, an allocation preclusion. If the existing ETFs and Structured Products regarding if an issuer becomes dissatisfied with its option specialist is subject to a potential new listings. The Exchange specialist, it has a one-time right to preclusion on new option allocations, would approve the contact where it request the reallocation of its securities. the specialist only will be allocated the appears that the contact would benefit This right may be exercised at any time new option if the Allocations the Exchange’s listing effort. The between 120 days and one year of Committee determines that the trading Exchange would disapprove the contact listing. In the event that the issuer characteristics of the newly listed where it might hinder the listing effort requests a reallocation under this option are closely related to the existing or would be inappropriate. The provision, its securities may be option, given the Exchange’s approval would last for six months and reallocated either under the Exchange’s recommendation as to whether the could be extended for one or more six- Issuer Choice or regular allocations newly listed related securities should be month period where it appears that the procedures. allocated to the current specialist. specialist is making progress in securing Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 27 Unless the Allocations Committee the listing. The Exchange also could provides miscellaneous procedures that makes the required determination, the withdraw the approval prior to apply to both the regular and Issuer existing specialist that is subject to an scheduled termination if it appears that Choice allocation process. Paragraph (c) allocation preclusion is ineligible for the the specialist contacts are hindering the of proposed Rule 27 also provides that newly listed option on the related Exchange’s listing efforts. all eligible specialists are automatically security. Paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 27 deemed to apply for all new listings. In Commentary .05 states that the term provides that the Allocations Committee contrast, options specialists must ‘‘related security’’ does not include prepares a list of six qualified units submit an application to be considered ETF’s. Thus, an ETF specialist that is based upon the criteria used by the for a new allocation of options. In subject to a preclusion on the allocation Allocations Committee in selecting a addition, the Exchange proposes to of ETCs is not eligible for any new ETF specialist under its regular allocations require that specialists disclose any allocations for the duration of the process. The issuer or sponsor (in the business transactions (e.g., agreements) preclusion. case of an ETF) may request that a unit or other relationships (e.g., ownership of Paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 27 or units be placed on the list of eligible stock or other securities) that a describes the Exchange’s ‘‘Issuer specialist. The Allocations Committee, specialist, its affiliates, and the Choice’’ program, and should be read in however, is not obligated to honor such employees of both the specialist and its VerDate 11 affiliates have with a newly listed be by-passed and the Allocations Committee, the Allocations Committee company, its affiliates and the Committee would be convened as soon reallocates the securities in accordance employees of the company and its as possible to determine if the specialist with its customary (no Issuer Choice) affiliates. Specialists also would be or specialist unit should be removed procedures. required to confirm to the Exchange in from the pre-allocation list. Paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 27 writing the absence of any disclosable Paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of proposed addresses emergency reallocations for business transactions or relationships if Rule 27 address the role of the reasons of financial or operating there are none. Allocations Committee in the condition. It provides that the Chief Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 27 reallocation of securities. Paragraph (f) Executive Officer of the Exchange or the provides that specialists may present of proposed Rule 27 provides that the Senor Supervisory Officer on the relevant information to the Allocations Allocations Committee follows its Trading Floor, in consultation with the Committee for its consideration in regular allocation procedures (not Issuer available Floor Governors, may request connection with specific allocation Choice) in the event that the Exchange the Allocations Committee to convene decisions. The Allocations Committee reallocates securities because of, among to reallocate securities on an emergency would have discretion to permit other things, (1) A Performance basis where it appears that a unit cannot members of a trading crowd to present Committee remedial action, (2) a be permitted to continue to specialize in relevant information to the Allocations specialist request to be relieved of a one or more of its securities with safety Committee in appropriate security for good cause, or (3) the to investors, its creditors, or other circumstances. Information presented to registration of a specialist which is members due to financial or operational the Allocations Committee could cancelled as a result of a disciplinary conditions. The affected specialist include, for example, undertakings as to action. Paragraph (f) of proposed Rule would be notified of the meeting (the the size of the markets and quote 27 also provides that the procedures notice does not have to be in writing) spreads that the Specialist and crowd specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of and, if time and circumstances permit, would maintain, and other information proposed Rule 27 shall apply to the specialist will be given an relevant to the factors that the reallocations made in connection with opportunity to appear before the Allocations Committee may consider in the emergency reallocations due to Allocations Committee. If a prior making its decisions. The Allocations financial or operating conditions or to hearing is not feasible, however, the Committee may require that all reallocations because of business Exchange proposes that the Allocations submissions be in writing. transactions that result in a transfer of Committee may proceed with the Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 27 one or more specialist registration. reallocation, and the specialist unit describes the ‘‘Pre-Allocation’’ or As previously noted by the Exchange, shall be afforded an opportunity to ‘‘Piggy-Back’’ allocation process. This the Performance Committee is address the Committee as soon as procedure is used in situations where responsible for reviewing proposed reasonably possible after the the Exchange decides to ‘‘piggy-back’’ a transfers of specialist registrations and reallocation. If the conditions which led listing announced by another exchange specified transactions involving to the reallocation no longer exist or are (i.e., the Amex determines to list an specialists including the dissolution of corrected, the Chief Executive Officer in option following its designation by specialist units. Since the Performance consultation with the available Floor another exchange). Due to the delay Committee is primarily responsible for Governors, or the specialist unit may attendant to the regular allocation reviewing such matters, paragraph (g) of request the Allocations Committee to process and the short time prior to the proposed Rule 26 provides that the reconvene to consider whether the commencement of trading in ‘‘piggy- Allocations Committee shall follow securities should be restored to the unit. back’’ situations, pre-selected units directions received from the Paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 27 identified by the Allocations Committee Performance Committee with respect to provides for the appeal of decisions of as the Exchange’s premier units are the reallocation of securities in these the Allocations Committee to the Amex allocated ‘‘piggy-back’’ options on a matters. If the Performance Committee Adjudicatory Council. A written rotating basis. directs that there should be some other application to appeal a decision must be Twice a year, the entire Allocations disposition of the securities than filed with the Office of the Secretary Committee pool meets to interview and provided for by the parties, but does not within five business days of the review applications from all specialists give the Allocations Committee specific decision of the Committee. An that wish to be placed on the pre- instructions as to how the securities application to review the Allocations allocation list. Following this review should be allocated, the Allocations Committee’s decision, however, does process, the Allocations Committee Committed would follow its customary not stay the decision. Unless the prepares a list of the selected units in (i.e., no Issuer Choice) procedures in Adjudicatory Council decides such order of priority as the Allocations reallocating these securities. Paragraph otherwise, the review of Allocations Committee designates based on the (g) of proposed Rule 27 further provides Committee decisions is limited to criteria enumerated in paragraph (b) of that the Exchange will defer to the matters raised before the Committee. A proposed Rule 27. decision of the arbitrators in the event verbatim record of the proceeding before When the Exchange determines to list of an arbitration between specialists the Adjudicatory Council is maintained an option in response to its listing by unless the Performance Committee and the Council’s decision is in writing. another exchange, the Exchange determines that a countervailing The decision of the Adjudicatory proposes that the Exchange staff may institutional interest dictates that the Council is final and may not be contact available Floor Governors to Exchange either should not wait for appealed. confirm that no material performance and/or abide by the decision of the situation or other relevant matter has arbitrators. In such cases, the 2. Statutory Basis developed that would cause the next Performance Committee may direct the Proposed Rules 26 and 27 are unit on the list to be inappropriate to Allocations Committee to reallocate the consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 14 receive the allocation. If such a situation disputed securities in a specified in general, and further the objectives of has developed, the Exchange proposes manner. In the absence of specific that specialists or specialist units would instructions from the Performance 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). VerDate 11 section 6(b)(5) of the Act 15 in particular, little or nothing to do with the quality C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s in that the Exchange’s procedures are of the market provided by the specialist. Statement on Comments on the designed to promote just and equitable Because the Exchange believes that Proposed Rule Change Received from principles of trade and protect investors the Commission has previously Members, Participants or Others and the public interest by encouraging considered the practice of payment for As set forth above in Item II(B), there good performance and competition order flow, it will not address the among specialists and other Floor were no written comments received by advantages or disadvantages of payment members. the Exchange directly in response to for order flow at this time.18 proposed Rules 26 and 27. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Nevertheless, the Exchange Statement on Burden on Competition acknowledges that payment for order III. Date of Effectiveness of the flow can in some circumstances be one Proposed Rule Change and Timing for The Exchange believes that proposed of many factors capable of affecting a Commission Action Rules 26 and 27 will impose no burden specialist’s market share in an option. on competition; rather, the proposed Within 35 days of the publication of rules will enhance and encourage The Exchange believes that payment for this notice in the Federal Register or competition both within the Exchange, order flow, however, is never the sole within such longer period (i) as the and, more significantly, between and determining factor of market share. Commission may designate up to 90 among the Exchange and other Furthermore, the Exchange believes days of such date if it finds such longer exchanges and markets by establishing that, as in any free and competitive period to be appropriate and publishes incentives for superior performance and market, a loss of market share is a its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to thereby ensuring the maintenance of warning signal that the customer, in this which the Exchange consents, the quality markets at the Exchange. In this case the investor, views the market as Commission will: respect, the Exchange believes that it is inferior in some respect to a (A) By order approve such proposed critical to recognize that the most competitor’s market. According to the rule change or Exchange, to ignore the diminishment of important level of competition occurs (B) Institute proceedings to determine market share would be tantamount to a not among specialists of the same whether the proposed rule change exchange to obtain a particular listing declaration of non-competition (i.e., it should be disapproved. (although this, too, is important), rather would ignore the fact that the investing among specialists of different exchanges public views another market or IV. Solicitation of Comments trading in the same security and actively exchange as superior or more Interested persons are invited to competing for the business of the competitive). In such circumstances, the submit written data, views and investing public.16 Exchange believes that the only arguments concerning the foregoing, responsible course is to investigate and Moreover, the Exchange believes that including whether the proposed rule weigh the reasons for the loss of market the Commission has expressly change, as amended, is consistent with share to competitive markets and recognized the types of procedures as the Act. Persons making written are set forth in Rules 26 and 27 for exchanges. submissions should file six copies allocating securities to the most suitable The Exchange notes that the thereof with the Secretary, Securities specialists, reviewing the performance Performance Committee may in its and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth of specialists and other Floor members, evaluation determine that the loss of Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549– and, if applicable, reallocating market share occurred through no fault 0609. Copies of the submission, all securities, are necessary to ensure of the specialist involved, and the subsequent amendments, all written quality markets and thereby attract security would not be reassigned. In any statements with respect to the proposed 17 buyers and sellers to the Exchange. event, the Exchange believes that market rule change that are filed with the The Exchange did not solicit share is one of a number of appropriate Commission, and all written comments on this proposal and, factors for the Performance Committee communications relating to the therefore, did not receive written to weigh in evaluating performance by proposed rule change between the comments directly on proposed Rules specialists, including options Commission and any person, other than 26 and 27. However, criticism was specialists, and that inclusion of this those that may be withheld from the expressed to the Exchange during criterion promotes competition among public in accordance with the internal meetings to review these rules market makers and among markets. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be regarding the practice of payment for Exchange believes that the failure to available for inspection and copying in order flow in options and its alleged include loss of market share as one the Commission’s Public Reference impact upon a specialist’s market share, possible indicator of poor performance Room. Copies of such filing will also be combined with the concomitant use of could leave the Exchange unable to available for inspection and copying at market share as a criterion for prevent the erosion of a viable market in the principal office of the Exchange. All measuring performance by options a security, which would reduce or submissions should refer to File No. specialists. The criticism expressed was eliminate competition with respect to SR–Amex–2001–19 and should be that payment for order flow skews a that security. submitted by November 21, 2001. specialist’s market share in ways having For the Commission, by the Division of 18 The Exchange notes that on July 20, 2000, the Market Regulation, pursuant to the delegated 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Exchange filed a proposed rule change establishing authority.19 16 The Exchange represents that much of the new a marketing fee for equity option transactions of Margaret H. McFarland, proposed rules are merely codifications of existing specialists and registered options traders used to practices and procedures, and thus do not reflect attract order flow, which became effective upon Deputy Secretary. any fundamental changes with respect to the filing with the Commission. The Exchange further [FR Doc. 01–27326 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] allocation of securities to specialists or the notes that, after soliciting comments, the BILLING CODE 8010–01–M evaluation of the performance of specialists and Commission allowed the rule to remain in effect. other Floor members. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43228 17 See note 5, supra. (Aug. 30, 2000), 65 FR 54330 (Sept. 7, 2000). 19 17 CFR 200.30–2(a)(12). VerDate 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant COMMISSION section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 that the to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities proposed rule change (SR–Amex–2001– Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and [Release No. 34–44974; File No. SR–Amex– 67) is approved. Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule 2001–67] For the Commission, by the Division change to amend the Exchange’s of Market Regulation, pursuant to Allocation Policy and Procedures to Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order delegated authority.7 allow a listing company to send a Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Margaret H. McFarland, separate letter to the Allocation Change of the American Stock Deputy Secretary. Committee indicating the role that one Exchange LLC to Codify Current Audit specialist unit has played in helping the Trail and Trade Comparison [FR Doc. 01–27328 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010–01–M company to reach its listing decision. Requirements and To Make Other Such specialist unit would then be Technical Amendments to the included in the pool of potential Exchange’s Audit Trail Rules SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE specialist units that would be October 24, 2001. COMMISSION interviewed by the listing company. Notice of the proposed rule change On August 28, 2001, the American [Release 34–44946A; File No. GSCC–2001– Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or 01] appeared in the Federal Register on 3 ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities August 17, 2001. The Commission and Exchange Commission Self-Regulatory Organizations; received no comments on the proposed (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section Government Securities Clearing rule change. This order approves the 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act Corporation; Order Granting Approval proposed rule change. of 1934 (‘‘Act’’)1 and Rule 19b–4 of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to The Commission finds that the thereunder,2 a proposal to codify certain the Redesign of Comparison Rules proposed rule change is consistent with audit trail and trade comparison October 25, 2001. the requirements of the Act and the requirements and to make other rules and regulations thereunder technical amendments to the Exchange’s Correction applicable to a national securities audit trial rules. On Septemberr 21, In FR Document No. 01–26727, exchange.4 Specifically, the 2001, the Commission published the beginning on page 53816, in the issue of Commission believes that the proposal proposed rule change in the Federal Wednesday, October 24, 2001, the first is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the 3 Register. The Commission received no sentence of the first paragraph in the Act, which requires among other things, comments on the proposal. This order middle column on page 53817 should that the rules of an exchange promote approves the proposed rule change. read as follows: ‘‘In the current just and equitable principles of trade, The Commission finds that the environment, most trades are compared remove impediments to and perfect the proposed rule change is consistent with within the GSCC system as a result of mechanism of a free and open market the Act and the rules and regulations bilateral comparison, the exception and a national market system and, in thereunder applicable to a national being certain lock-in trades, such as general, protect investors and the public 4 securities exchange. In particular, the members’ Federal Reserve auction interests.5 The Commission bases its purchases.’’ Commission finds that the proposal is findings on representations by the NYSE consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act For the Commission, by the Division of that the Exchange’s Allocation Policy which requires, among other things, that Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated and Procedures would continue to the rules of an exchange be designed to 17 authority. carefully restrict communications prevent fraudulent and manipulative Margaret H. McFarland, between specialists and issuers, and that acts and practices and to protect Deputy Secretary. the fairness of the allocation process investors and the public interest, and [FR Doc. 01–27363 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] not be designed to permit unfair would not be compromised BILLING CODE 8010–01–M discrimination between customers, It is therefore ordered, pursuant to issuers, brokers, and dealers.5 The section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 that the proposed clarifications to the Amex’s SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–2001– audit trail rules previously were set COMMISSION 17) be, and it hereby is, approved. forth in the Exchange’s information For the Commission, by the Division of circulars, but were not codified in the [Release No. 34–44975; File No. SR–NYSE– 2001–17] Market Regulation, pursuant to the delegated Exchange’s rules. The Commission authority.7 believes that these provisions are Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Margaret H. McFarland, reasonably designed to improve the Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Exchange’s audit trail, and that Deputy Secretary. Change by the New York Stock [FR Doc. 01–27327 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] codifying them will make the Exchange, Inc. to Amend the Exchange’s rules more transparent to its Exchange’s Allocation Policy and BILLING CODE 8010–01–M members and other market participants. Procedures 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). October 24, 2001. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. On July 3, 2001, the New York Stock 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44676 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44807 Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) (August 9, 2001), 66 FR 43281. 4 In approving this proposal, the Commission has (September 17, 2001), 66 FR 48727. filed with the Securities and Exchange 4 In approving the proposed rule change, the considered its impact on efficiency, competition, Commission has considered the proposed rule’s and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 1 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). VerDate 11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is a National Historic Landmark listed need to cost effectively rid itself of the on the NRHP. The USCG intends to obsolete and inefficient FIR. Coast Guard replace the 180-foot WLBs with 175-foot Final Programmatic Environmental Coastal Buoy Tenders (WLMs) and 225- [USCG–2001–9188] Assessment foot Coastal Buoy Tenders (WLBs). Proposed Decommissioning and/or These new vessels will support the The Coast Guard completed a draft Excessing of the Remaining 180-foot same mission requirements as the 180- Programmatic Environmental Seagoing Buoy Tender Class, and the foot WLBs, with state-of-the-art Assessment (PEA) in March of 2001 and Proposed Excessing of the Vessel, FIR technology. published a Notice of Availability in the (WLM 212) While the 180-foot WLBs have Federal Register on April 23, 2001 (66 contributed to nearly every USCG FR 20513). The draft PEA identified and AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, DOT. mission area, their primary contribution examined the reasonable alternatives to ACTION: Notice of availability. has been servicing the Short Range Aids our proposed action and assessed to Navigation System. All 180-foot potential environmental impacts. The SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard WLBs are over 50 years of age and alternatives analyzed in the draft PEA announces the availability of the final further renovation is impractical. were chosen because they fulfilled the Programmatic Environmental Excessive maintenance problems need for the USCG to cost effectively Assessment and the Finding of No stemming from the age of these vessels and legally rid itself of obsolete and Significant Impact on its proposal to are also being experienced with inefficient vessels that can no longer decommission and/or declare excess the resultant reduced reliability and effectively carry out the USCG missions remaining vessels in the 180-foot increased operating costs. The Federal they were designed for. In analyzing seagoing buoy tender fleet and the Property Administrative Services Act these alternatives for environmental proposed excessing of the former United (FPASA) (40 U.S.C. Chapter 10) requires impact, the draft PEA looked at the States Coast Guard Cutter, FIR (WLM– that excess property be identified and impacts of decommissioning and 212). declared as such. Therefore, the USCG excessing which we control, and then DATES: The Final Programmatic has an operational, economic, and legal generally, at the possible environmental Environmental Assessment (PEA) and need to cost-effectively rid itself of impacts resulting from each component the Finding of No Significant Impact obsolete and inefficient vessels that can of the mandated disposal process—the (FONSI) will be available on October 31, no longer effectively carry out the USCG connected actions to the 2001. missions they were designed for. decommissioning and/or excessing of ADDRESSES: The Docket Management Consequently, the USCG is proposing to our remaining 180-foot vessels and FIR. decommission (remove the vessels from Facility maintains the public docket for The draft PEA concluded that the active use) and declare the current WLB this notice. The Final Programmatic only area of significant impact from the fleet excess to its needs. In order to Environmental Assessment (PEA) and Coast Guard’s proposed action was the declare a vessel excess, the USCG must the Finding of No Significant Impact impact to the historic character of the complete a report of survey that states (FONSI) are available for inspection or vessels. However, the PEA states the that the vessel is excess to its needs. The copying in room PL–401 on the Plaza Coast Guard’s commitment to USCG provides the General Services level of the Nassif Building, 400 performing photo-documentation and Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, Administration (GSA) with a Standard Form 120 for the excess material. the completion of historic narratives for between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday the remaining vessels in the 180-foot through Friday, except Federal holidays. Following submittal to GSA, the standard mandated GSA process for fleet and for, FIR. The photographs and You may also find this docket, the historic narratives will be deposited including the PEA, on the Internet at disposing of Federally owned materials ensues. Built in 1939, FIR (WLM 212) is in the Library of Congress and http://dms.dot.gov. classified as a National Historic distributed to the affected states and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Landmark and as such is listed on the interested parties. Future generations you have questions on this notice, the NRHP. Homeported for 50 years in will thus have the ability to appreciate proposed project, or the associated Washington State, FIR served buoys, the contribution of these vessels to this assessment, call Ms. Kebby Kelley, U.S. lighthouses, and other navigation aids nation’s maritime history. The Coast Coast Guard, telephone 202–267–6034. in the Pacific Northwest. FIR is the last Guard’s commitment to providing the If you have questions on viewing or surviving unaltered American historical documentation, as indicated submitting material to the docket, call lighthouse tender, and was the last in the PEA, will mitigate the potential Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, working member of the U.S. Lighthouse for significant impacts to historic Department of Transportation, Service fleet. resources to an insignificant level. telephone 202–366–9329. The FIR has reached the end of its No substantive comments or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: service life. The vessel is over 50 years environmental concerns related to the of age. Excessive maintenance problems draft PEA or the Coast Guard’s proposed Proposed Action stemming from the age of FIR were action were received during the The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) experienced with resultant reduced comment period for the draft PEA. proposes to decommission and/or reliability and increased operating costs. Therefore, this notice announces our declare excess the remaining vessels in As a result of its age and condition, the decision to make the draft PEA our final its aging fleet of 180-foot seagoing buoy USCG decommissioned FIR in 1996. At PEA without any further revisions. tenders and declare the former United present, the USCG is incurring costs to Additionally, this notice announces the States Coast Guard Cutter, FIR (WLM– store the vessel in Suisun Bay, availability of our FONSI for the 212), excess to its needs. The USCG has California. As previously stated, it is a proposed action described in the PEA. determined that the entire class of 180- requirement of the FPASA that excess All those who received a copy of the foot vessels is eligible for listing in the property be identified by the USCG and draft PEA, will receive a copy of the National Register of Historic Places declared as such. Therefore, the USCG final PEA cover pages and the FONSI (NRHP). Additionally, FIR (WLM–212) has an operational, economic, and legal along with a letter explaining our VerDate 11 decision to make the draft our final Description: These regulations ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments document. concern the ability to make a to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Dated: October 24, 2001. distribution from a qualified plan Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, Harvey E. Johnson, within 30 days of giving the participant WV 26106–1328. a written explanation of the distribution Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Operations Capability. options provided the plan administrator Requests for additional information or informs the participant of the right to [FR Doc. 01–27387 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] copies of the form and instructions have at least 30 days to consider the BILLING CODE 4910–15–P should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, options. Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Respondents: Business or other for- Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328, profit, Individuals or households, Not- (304) 480–6553. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY for-profit institutions, Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Government, State, Local or Tribal Submission for OMB Review; Title: U.S. Treasury Auctions Government. Comment Request Submitter Agreement. Estimated Number of Respondents: OMB Number: None. October 24, 2001. 750,000. Form Number: PD F 5441. The Department of Treasury has Estimated Burden Hours Per Abstract: The information is submitted the following public Respondent: .011 hours. requested to establish an account for information collection requirement(s) to Frequency of Response: Other (once entities wishing to submit bids directly OMB for review and clearance under the each year). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, in U.S. Treasury Auctions for the Estimated Total Reporting Burden: purchase of Treasury securities. Public Law 104–13. Copies of the 8,333 hours. Current Actions: None. submission(s) may be obtained by Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, Type of Review: New. calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, Affected Public: Depository Officer listed. Comments regarding this 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Institutions, Brokers/Dealers, and information collection should be Washington, DC 20224. addressed to the OMB reviewer listed Funds/Assessment Management OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, Companies. and to the Treasury Department (202) 395–7860, Office of Management Estimated Number of Respondents: Clearance Officer, Department of the and Budget, Room 10202, New 900. Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Executive Office Building, Washington, Estimated Time Per Respondent: 5 Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. DC 20503. DATES: Written comments should be minutes. received on or before November 30, Mary A. Able, Estimated Total Annual Burden 2001 to be assured of consideration. Departmental Reports, Management Officer. Hours: 72. [FR Doc. 01–27368 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] Request for Comments Internal Revenue Service BILLING CODE 4830–01–P OMB Number: 1545–1465. Comments submitted in response to Regulation Project Number: PS–54–94 this notice will be summarized and/or Final. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY included in the request for OMB Type of Review: Extension. approval. All comments will become a Title: Environmental Settlement Bureau of the Public Debt matter of public record. Comments are Funds—Classification. invited on: (a) Whether the collection of Description: Section 7701 and the Proposed Collection: Comment information is necessary for the proper regulations thereunder classify entities Request performance of the functions of the for federal tax purposes as partnerships, agency, including whether the ACTION: Notice and request for associations, and trusts. Section 671 information shall have practical utility; comments. requires a grantor treated as an owner of (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate a portion of a trust to include items in SUMMARY: The Department of the of the burden of the collection of income. This regulation provides Treasury, as part of its continuing effort information; (c) ways to enhance the reporting rules. to reduce paperwork and respondent quality, utility, and clarity of the Respondents: Business or other for- burden, invites the general public and information to be collected; (d) ways to profit. other Federal agencies to take this minimize the burden of the collection of Estimated Number of Respondents: opportunity to comment on proposed information on respondents, including 500. and/or continuing information through the use of automated collection Estimated Burden Hours Per collections, as required by the techniques or other forms of information Respondent: 4 hours. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, technology; and (e) estimates of capital Frequency of Response: Other (Once). or start-up costs and costs of operation, Estimated Total Reporting Burden: Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of maintenance, and purchase of services 2,000 hours. to provide information. OMB Number: 1545–1471. the Public Debt within the Department Regulation Project Number: REG– of the Treasury is soliciting comments Dated: October 19, 2001. 209626–93 Final. concerning the U.S. Treasury Auction Vicki S. Thorpe, Type of Review: Extension. Submitter Agreement. Manager, Graphics, Printing and Records Title: Notice, Consent, and Election DATES: Written comments should be Branch. Requirements under Sections 411(a)(11) received on or before December 27,2001, [FR Doc. 01–27364 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] and 417. to be assured of consideration. BILLING CODE 4810–39–P VerDate 11 Part II Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 13 Flight Operational Quality Assurance Program; Final Rule VerDate 11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Administration, Office of Rulemaking, Administrator to issue a Notice of ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, Proposed Rulemaking to protect air Federal Aviation Administration SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by carriers and their employees from calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to enforcement actions for violations of 14 CFR Part 13 identify the amendment number or title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, [Docket No. FAA–2000–7554; Amendment docket number of this rulemaking. (other than criminal or deliberate acts) No. 13–30] Small Business Regulatory Enforcement that are reported or discovered as a RIN 2120–AF04 Fairness Act result of voluntary reporting programs, The Small Business Regulatory such as FOQA. Flight Operational Quality Assurance Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of Airlines and pilot associations have Program 1996 requires FAA to comply with strongly endorsed the voluntary AGENCY: Federal Aviation small entity requests for information or establishment of FOQA programs in the Administration (FAA), DOT. advice about compliance with statutes interest of safety. However, they have ACTION: Final rule. and regulations within its jurisdiction. also stated that they will not continue Therefore, any small entity that has a to voluntarily participate in FOQA SUMMARY: This rule codifies question regarding this document may programs unless the FAA codifies enforcement protection for Flight contact their local FAA official, or the regulatory protection from the use of Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) person listed under FOR FURTHER FOQA information in enforcement programs. It states that except for INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out action against operators or their criminal or deliberate acts, the more about SBREFA on the Internet at employees, except for criminal or Administrator will not use an operator’s our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/ deliberate acts. FOQA data or aggregate FOQA data in sbrefa.htm. For more information on an enforcement action against that SBREFA, e-mail us 9–AWA– On July 5, 2000 (65 FR 41528), the operator or its employees when such [email protected]. FAA published a Notice of Proposed FOQA data or aggregate FOQA data is Rulemaking (NPRM) to provide Background obtained from a FOQA program that is protection from the use of FOQA approved by the Administrator. The rule The primary purpose of a Flight information for punitive enforcement requires air carriers participating in Operational Quality Assurance program purposes, subject to certain conditions, approved FOQA programs to submit (FOQA) is to enhance aviation safety. A and to retain FAA discretion to use aggregate FOQA data to the FAA for use FOQA program involves the analysis of FOQA data or aggregate FOQA data in in monitoring safety trends. digital flight data generated during remedial enforcement action. The FAA EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 2001. routine line operations in order to reveal carefully considered all of the situations that may require corrective FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. comments that were submitted, along action, to enable early intervention to Thomas Longridge, Flight Standards with the duty of the FAA to address correct adverse safety trends before they Service, AFS–230, Federal Aviation adverse safety conditions. This final can lead to accidents, and to provide an Administration, 800 Independence rule codifies a level of enforcement Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, objective means of following-up on corrective action to determine whether protection for FOQA information that is telephone (703) 661–0275, email: consistent with the congressional [email protected]. it has been effective. To institute such a program, an operator would need to direction provided in Section 510 of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: develop a system that captures digital AIR–21. Namely, it provides operators Availability of Rulemaking Documents flight data, transforms the data into an and their employees with protection appropriate format for analysis, analyzes from the use of FOQA information for You can get an electronic copy using enforcement, except for criminal or the Internet by taking the following the data, and generates reports and deliberate acts. The FAA anticipates steps: visualizations to assist personnel in (1) Go to the search function of the interpreting the results of analysis. that this final rule will encourage the Department of Transportation’s In 1995 the FAA initiated a voluntary further growth of voluntary FOQA electronic Docket Management System FOQA demonstration program in programs in the United States, and will (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/ cooperation with interested operators. thereby enhance public safety, as well search). The demonstration study determined as provide the FAA with trend (2) On the search page type in the last that the information and insights information to better manage its safety four digits of the Docket number shown provided by a FOQA program can oversight and regulatory decision at the beginning of this notice. Click on significantly enhance line operational making responsibilities. safety, training effectiveness, ‘‘search.’’ This final rule does not require any (3) On the next page, which contains operational procedures, maintenance and engineering procedures, ATC operator to implement a FOQA program, the Docket summary information for the nor does it require any operator who Docket you selected, click on the procedures, and airport surface issues. desires to voluntarily implement such a document number for the item you wish The demonstration study found that program to obtain FAA approval to do to view. FOQA programs can provide objective You can also get an electronic copy safety related information from line so, or to submit FOQA information from using the Internet through FAA’s web operations that is not available from any such an internal program to the FAA. page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/ other source. However, in order to qualify for the armhome.htm or the Government On April 5, 2000, the President signed enforcement protection afforded by this Printing Office’s web page at http:// the Wendell H. Ford Aviation rule, the rule provides that FAA initial www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/ Investment and Reform Act for the 21st and continuing approval of the aces140.html. Century (known as AIR–21). Section proposed program would be required, as You can also get a copy by submitting 510, entitled Flight Operations Quality well as the submission of aggregate a request to the Federal Aviation Assurance Rules, directed the FOQA information to the FAA. VerDate 11 Discussion of Comments and Section- determined that voluntary FOQA § 13.401(b)(1) Flight Operational by-Section Analysis programs enhance safety, and further, Quality Assurance (FOQA) Program The FAA received six written that this final rule is necessary in order (Proposed § 13.401(b)(1)) What comments on the proposed rule, one of to establish the necessary conditions for Constitutes a FOQA Program? which was a consolidated comment voluntary participation by airlines and The NPRM stated that a FOQA from multiple airline and pilot pilot associations in FOQA programs. program means an FAA-approved association groups (Air Transport There are already examples of other program for the routine collection and Association of America, the Air Line voluntary safety enhancement programs analysis of data gathered during aircraft Pilots Association, the Aerospace that have been codified in 14 CFR, such operations by means of a DFDR, Industries Association, the Coalition of as the Aviation Safety Reporting including data currently collected under Airline Pilots Association, the Program (ASRP). existing regulations. The final rule Independent Association of Continental Comment: One commenter noted that definition inserts the words ‘‘digital Pilots, and the Regional Airline an operator who elects to establish a flight’’ before data, to clarify that the Association). Additional organizational FOQA program without complying with data to be collected is digital flight data. commenters were the Transportation The reference to ‘‘DFDR’’ is deleted in the proposed rule would not be in Trades Department, the Advocates for the definition of a FOQA program in the violation of the regulations. Legitimate and Fair Aviation final rule. This is because the Regulations, and an additional comment FAA Response: The FAA concurs. technology used to acquire FOQA data from the Regional Airline Association. Nothing in the proposed regulation or in is expected to evolve over time, and it Two individuals submitted comments. the final rule would compel an operator is not necessary to define a FOQA The FAA also participated in two who does not seek the enforcement program on the basis of the technology meetings with industry representatives protection afforded by the rule to that is used to record the data. The final to hear their comments about the comply with the provisions of the rule. definition was also modified to clarify NPRM. The contents of those meetings that data that operators currently collect as well as a list of the participants § 13.401(a) Applicability (Proposed under the regulations will not be appear in the docket. The comments are § 13.401(a)). Who Is Eligible for the included in FOQA data unless it is discussed below, along with the Enforcement Protection Afforded by identified for inclusion in an approved provisions of the final rule. This Rule? FOQA program. An operator may elect, for example, to establish a FOQA The Rule in General The NPRM stated that the rule applies program using only the data recorded by to any operator of an aircraft who The proposed rule was intended to the mandatory DFDR, rather than by operates that aircraft under an FAA codify certain protection from the use of using the supplementary recorder FOQA information for punitive approved FOQA program. It is not commonly employed in current airline enforcement purposes for operators of necessary for an operator to be a FOQA programs. Indeed, as the voluntary FOQA programs that have certificated air carrier in order to be technological capabilities of the been approved by the FAA. The eligible for the enforcement protection mandatory flight data recorder continue proposal would require operators of afforded by the rule, so long as they are to evolve, operators may find that there approved FOQA programs to submit operating in compliance with an FAA is no longer a need for a supplementary aggregate FOQA data to the FAA. approved FOQA program. An operator recorder to collect all of the parameters Operators who do not seek such who elects to operate a FOQA program an operator desires to include in a enforcement protection would not be that is not approved by the FAA in FOQA program, since a single recorder required to obtain FAA approval of their accordance with this rule may do so, but may be sufficient to meet both voluntary programs, nor would they be will not be afforded the enforcement regulatory and FOQA program required to submit FOQA data to the protections of this rule. No comments requirements. The final definition adds FAA. The proposed rule would not specific to the applicability of this rule the words ‘‘when such data is included require any operator to establish a to operators were received and the in an approved FOQA program’’ to the FOQA program. subparagraph is adopted as proposed. proposed language. This change was Comment: One commenter asserted made to clarify that data currently that under 49 U.S.C. 44701 the FAA is § 13.401(b) Definitions (Proposed collected under the regulations will be only empowered to issue regulations § 13.401(b)). What Is the Meaning of the considered by the FAA to be included that establish minimum standards Key Terminology Employed in This in a FOQA program only when it has required in the interest of safety, and Rule? been identified for inclusion in an there is therefore no legal basis for this approved program. proposed rule. No comments specific to the FAA Response: As noted by the definitions in the proposed rule were § 13.401(2) FOQA Data (Proposed commenter, 49 U.S.C. Section 44701(a) received, although one commenter § 13.401(2)). What Is FOQA Data? also authorizes the FAA to issue asserted that there is general ambiguity The NPRM stated that FOQA data regulations and minimum standards for in the proposed rule language, and means any raw data that has been other practices, methods, and several of the other commenters’ collected by means of a DFDR pursuant procedures that the Administrator finds comments appear to indicate a to an FAA-approved FOQA program. necessary for safety in air commerce. misunderstanding of the proposed The final rule definition replaces the Under this section the FAA is clearly language. The FAA has therefore reference to ‘‘raw data’’ with ‘‘digital authorized to issue regulations for clarified the definitions of each such flight data’’, inserts additional language programs that the Administrator has term. In addition, the definitions for indicating that for the purposes of this determined will enhance safety, and to remedial and punitive enforcement have rule, FOQA data is collected ‘‘from an establish minimum standards for such been deleted, as they are no longer individual aircraft’’, inserts additional programs, including voluntary applicable to the final rule. language ‘‘regardless of the electronic programs. The Administrator has format of that data’’, and deletes the VerDate 11 proposed definition language ‘‘by means the final rule for the reasons discussed between the FAA and the operator on of a DFDR’’. The term ‘‘raw data’’ was below. that issue. deleted because it is subject to varying § 13.401(c) Requirements (Proposed FAA Response: The rule clearly interpretations (e.g. binary data or § 13.401(c)). What Is an Operator places the primary responsibility with engineering units). The reference to Required To Do To Be Eligible for the the operator for determining whether DFDR was deleted for the reasons cited Enforcement Protection Provisions of analysis of FOQA data indicates that above. Reference to individual aircraft This Rule? corrective action is necessary in the was added to clarify that for the interest of safety. This is why the I & O purposes of this rule, FOQA data refers The NPRM proposed that, to be Plan requires the operator to identify the to digital flight data gathered from an eligible for the enforcement protection procedures it will follow if corrective individual aircraft. The languagee provisions of the rule, an operator action becomes necessary. Further, ‘‘regardless of electronic format’’ was would have to submit and adhere to a since only the operator has access to added to clarify that for the purposes of FOQA Implementation and Operations FOQA data from individual flights, only this rule any digital data collected from (I & O Plan) approved by the the operator is in a position to an individual aircraft in an FAA Administrator that would include the determine whether analysis of such data approved FOQA program shall be following: warrants corrective action in that considered to be FOQA data, regardless (1) The operator’s plan for collecting circumstance. The rule does, however, of whether it is in binary format, and analyzing flight data, require the operator to inform the FAA engineering unit format, FOQA (2) Procedures for taking corrective of each corrective action it undertakes exceedence event format, or another action, based on FOQA data. It also requires the electronic format. (3) Procedures for providing the FAA operator to submit aggregate FOQA data § 13.401(b)(3), Aggregate FOQA Data. with aggregate data, and that the FAA could employ to identify What Is Aggregate FOQA Data? (4) Procedures for informing the FAA adverse safety trends, which the agency of each corrective action. might determine warrant corrective The NPRM stated that aggregate Comment: One commenter objected to action. Since FOQA is a voluntary FOQA data means the summary the requirement to obtain FAA approval program that represents a shared statistical indices that are associated of a voluntary program, and asserted commitment to safety enhancement, the with FOQA event categories, based on that the FAA has no authority to require FAA believes that differences of opinion an analysis of FOQA data recorded by such approval. on the necessity and appropriateness of digital flight data recorders (DFDRs) FAA Response: The rule only requires corrective action will be relatively few, during aircraft operations. The proposed that operators who seek the enforcement and that any such differences will definition was modified to delete protection afforded by the rule must normally be resolved through mutual ‘‘recorded by digital flight data submit a FOQA Implementation and discussion. The rule clearly provides recorders (DFDRs)’’ for the reasons cited Operations Plan for FAA approval. the operator of an approved program above. The proposed language ‘‘during Operators who do not seek such with protection from enforcement action aircraft operations’’ was replaced with protection are not required to submit or in the unlikely event that differences of ‘‘from multiple aircraft operations.’’. adhere to an approved plan. The FAA opinion on such issues cannot be The latter change was made to clarify cannot extend enforcement protection to resolved. that for the purposes of this rule the an undefined program. The requirement However, § 13.401(g) of the rule also term aggregate data only applies to for operators to submit and adhere to an provides that the FAA may withdraw multiple aircraft operations. The FAA approved plan is intended to program approval if the agency definition of aggregate FOQA data in the assure that in return for certain determines that the operator has failed final rule retains the basic meaning enforcement protection, the FAA’s goals to implement corrective action that provided in the proposed rule, namely for the enhancement of public safety analysis of available FOQA data that aggregate FOQA data means the will be achieved. Just as the FAA has indicates is necessary in the interest of summary statistical indices that are the authority and responsibility to safety or the operator has failed to associated with FOQA event categories, enforce the aviation regulations, it correct a continuing pattern of based on analysis of FOQA data. clearly has the authority to define the violations following notice by the Individual data records (FOQA data) conditions on which basis any agency. Thus while the operator has the may be aggregated along various enforcement protection from those primary responsibility for determining dimensions (e.g., event category as a regulations will be afforded. The when corrective action is warranted, function of aircraft type, phase of flight, Aviation Safety Reporting Program is an and for determining the nature of that and geographical location) to identify existing example of the exercise of that action, the operator and the FAA must trends and patterns. Aggregation is authority to extend enforcement ultimately agree on these matters. This simply a statistical process that groups protection in the overall interest of approach helps to assure that FOQA and mathematically combines (e.g., safety enhancement, subject to certain programs do in fact enhance public count, total, average, standard conditions. safety. In the event that the FAA and the deviation) individual FOQA data Comment: One commenter questioned operator cannot agree, the only potential elements based on some criterion (e.g. the language of § 13.401(c)2 that consequence to the operator is the the average approach maximum rate of requires a FOQA I & O Plan to identify withdrawal of program approval. In the descent below 2000 feet by fleet type by procedures for taking corrective action event that program approval is airport). that analysis of the data indicates is withdrawn, the operator will not have Proposed definitions § 13.401(b)(4), necessary in the interest of safety. The enforcement protection under this rule Remedial Enforcement Action, and commenter questioned whether the for FOQA data obtained subsequent to § 13.401(b)(5), Punitive Enforcement operator or the FAA makes the the withdrawal. However, the operator Action, have been deleted from the determination of whether corrective may continue to conduct its FOQA definitions section of the final rule, as action is needed and raised the question program if it determines that it is these terms are no longer applicable to of the consequences of a disagreement appropriate for it to do so. VerDate 11 Comment: One commenter asserted and additional processing of the would not impact FAA aggregation that the references in the NPRM to the aggregate data received from operators, specific to a particular operator. Second, required content of a FOQA I & O Plan it must be provided with information in with regard to aggregation across did not contain sufficient information. advance that identifies the data to be multiple operators, the FAA has The commenter observes that no doubt collected. FOQA I & O plans that have established a statistical approach which the FAA intends to require more in the been approved under existing FAA will allow it to accomplish meaningful I & O Plan than the NPRM states. The policy already contain that information. trend analysis that fully takes into commenter asserts that the NPRM’s account whatever differences may exist § 13.401(d) Submission of Aggregate reference to a future advisory circular in event definitions between operators. Data (Proposed § 13.401(d), Access to that provides further detail is an ‘‘extra- One of the functions of a FOQA I & O Data). What Data Must Be Submitted to legal mechanism to create a stealth Plan is to provide the FAA with the the FAA? regulation’’. information it needs in order to FAA Response: The FAA does not The NPRM proposed that the operator appropriately accomplish aggregation concur. The FAA believes that the rule would provide the FAA with aggregate across multiple operators. Proposed contains all of the essential elements FOQA data in a form and manner § 13.401(d) is adopted without that the FAA will require for approval acceptable to the Administrator. modification, except for the title of the purposes. The intent of the planned Comment: One commenter asserted paragraph. The title has been changed advisory circular referenced in the that the FAA has no authority to require from proposed ‘‘Access to data’’ to NPRM is to provide applicants with one submission of data for a voluntary ‘‘Submission of Aggregate Data’’ in the way, but not the only way, of complying program. final rule in order to more accurately with the provisions of the proposed rule FAA Response: The submission of describe the content of the paragraph. with regard to developing the content of aggregate FOQA data to the FAA is a a FOQA I & O Plan. The FOQA condition for the enforcement § 13.401(e) Enforcement (Proposed Advisory Circular, which is being protection afforded by this rule. Just as § 13.401(e)) What Protections Does This published concurrently with this final the FAA has the authority and Rule Provide Against the Use of FOQA rule, does not add any additional responsibility for enforcing the aviation Data by the FAA for Enforcement requirements beyond those specified in regulations, it clearly has the authority Purposes? the rule. Although the issuance of a to define the conditions on which basis As proposed in the NPRM, FOQA Advisory Circular has necessarily any enforcement protection from those § 13.401(e)(1) would have provided that been linked to the issuance of a final regulations will be afforded. The the Administrator could not use an FOQA rule, the FAA already has made Aviation Safety Reporting Program is an operator’s FOQA data or aggregate advisory materials, including a detailed existing regulatory example of the FOQA data in a punitive enforcement I & O Plan template, available to any exercise of that authority to extend action against that operator or its interested operator for the past 5 years. enforcement protection in the overall employees when such FOQA data or With regard to the content of a FOQA interest of safety enhancement, subject aggregate FOQA data is obtained from a I & O Plan, the existing advisory to certain conditions. FOQA program that is approved by the materials closely match the Comment: A number of commenters Administrator. Proposed § 13.401(e)(2) requirements of this rule, as well as the expressed concern that by virtue of this provided that the Administrator could FOQA Advisory Circular. requirement, the FAA intends to force use any operator’s FOQA data and/or The FAA adopts § 13.401(c) as airlines to comply with FAA prescribed aggregate FOQA data in a remedial proposed, with two minor working data collection requirements. These enforcement action. additions for clarification purposes that commenters stated that any such Comment: The majority of do not change the meaning of the attempt by the FAA would adversely commenters took strong exception to the section as originally proposed. The impact the effectiveness of such provisions of proposed § 13.401(e)(1) word ‘‘maintain’’ was inserted into programs, and inhibit initiative to and § 13.401(e)(2). They stated that proposed paragraph § 13.401(c), as in explore new areas for data collection. there is one critical paragraph of the ‘‘the operator must submit, maintain, FAA Response: The FAA does not proposed rule that must be corrected to and adhere to a FOQA Implementation intend to require operators to comply ensure industry participation and and Operations Plan * * *.’’ This word with FAA specified data collection support regarding FOQA. They stated was inserted to clarify that under this protocols. The FAA acknowledges that that § 13.401(e)(1) must be rewritten to final rule an operator will be expected were it to do so, it could adversely effect read ‘‘The Administrator will not use an to maintain the currency of its FOQA I the continued growth and effectiveness operator’s FOQA data or aggregate & O Plan. The phrase ‘‘including of voluntary FOQA programs. The FAA FOQA data in enforcement actions identification of the data to be notes that if the agency intended to against that operator or its employees collected’’ was added to proposed prescribe data collection requirements, except for criminal or deliberate acts’’. § 13.401(c)(1), as in ‘‘a description of the then it would have proposed specific They noted that this revised language operator’s plan for collecting and requirements in the NPRM. would be consistent with the language analyzing flight recorded data from line Comment: A number of commenters of Section 510 of the Wendell H. Ford operations on a routine basis, including observed that various operators employ Aviation Investment and Reform Act of identification of the data to be different definitions for FOQA events. the 21st Century (AIR–21) concerning collected.’’ The language was added to These commenters stated that it would FOQA. These commenters also took clarify that the operator’s plan must therefore not be possible for the FAA to strong exception to proposed identify the data to be collected. The accomplish meaningful aggregation of § 13.401(e)(2), which would have FAA does not intend to prescribe what data, and they recommended that this allowed the use of FOQA data and/or data an operator will collect in its requirement therefore be deleted. aggregate FOQA data for remedial FOQA program as a condition for FAA Response: The FAA is aware of enforcement purposes. These approval of FOQA I & O Plans. the commonalities and differences in commenters stated that this paragraph However, in order to allow the FAA to how operators define FOQA events. must be removed from the rule in order accomplish meaningful interpretation First, any differences among operators to assure industry participation and VerDate 11 support regarding FOQA programs. surveillance activities, including data indicates is necessary in the They stated that this paragraph utterly physical surveillance undertaken by the interest of safety, destroys the spirit, intent, and FAA to verify the effectiveness of (2) Failure to correct a continuing operational effectiveness of any FOQA corrective actions. One of the principal pattern of violations following notice by program, and inpugns the credibility of benefits to the FAA and to public safety the agency, and the rule itself. They stated that removing of aggregate FOQA data submission will (3) Willful misconduct or willful this paragraph from the rule would be the opportunity it affords to target the violation of the regulations. make the rule workable, acceptable, and limited resources available for FAA No comments on this paragraph were supportable from an industry surveillance to those areas where it is received, and it is adopted without standpoint. They stated that in order to most needed. The FAA fully anticipates modification. elicit industry support, all references to that it will conduct physical Paperwork Reduction Act remedial and punitive actions should be surveillance for that purpose in areas removed from the preamble. One identified by FOQA aggregate trend The amendment to 14 CFR Part 13 commenter noted that the rationale in data. FAA discretion to take action, contains information collection the NPRM for retaining remedial including enforcement action where requirements. As required by the enforcement authority as stated in the appropriate, based on such surveillance Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 preamble does not appear to be activities will not be affected by this U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA submitted a consistent with the fact that the existing final rule. copy of these sections to the Office of regulations extend protection from both Management and Budget for its review. civil penalty and certificate action for § 13.401(f) Disclosure (Proposed The collection of information was the cockpit voice recorder record. § 13.401(f)) What Protections From the approved and assigned OMB Control FAA Response: With one minor Disclosure of FOQA Information Will Number 2120–0660. The FAA received exception, the FAA concurs with these the FAA Provide? no comments pertaining to the commenters. The FAA agrees that it is The NRPM proposed that FOQA data Paperwork Reduction Act. Following is a summary of the in the best overall interest of and aggregate FOQA data, if submitted information requirement that was sent encouraging voluntary participation in in accordance with the provisions of to OMB. FOQA, thereby enhancing public safety, Part 193, would be afforded the to modify the language of the proposed Title: Flight Operational Quality nondisclosure protections of that part. Assurance (FOQA) Rule. rule regarding the use of FOQA data or Comment: One commenter observed aggregate data for enforcement Summary/Need/Uses: Flight that this provision of the NPRM makes Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) purposes. The FAA further agrees that it reference to a non-existent part. is consistent with the intent of Congress is a program for the routine collection FAA Response: Part 193 had not yet as embodied in Section 510 of AIR–21, and analysis of digital flight data from been issued as a final rule when the as well as with existing regulatory airline operations, including but not NPRM was issued. Part 193 was precedent, to make this change. limited to digital flight data currently published on June 25, 2001 (66 FR However, the FAA believes that it is collected under the regulations. By this 33791) as a final rule. Part 193 provides only appropriate to extend such amendment, the FAA will require in part that the FAA may issue an order enforcement protection to a FOQA certificate holders who voluntarily program that has been approved by the designating certain voluntarily provided establish approved FOQA programs to Administrator. Accordingly, the safety information as protected from periodically provide aggregate trend language of the final rule has been disclosure. The FAA intends to publish analysis information from such modified to delete proposed paragraphs in the Federal Register a proposed order programs to the FAA. § 13.401(e)(1) and § 13.401(e)(2), and to to protect FOQA data and aggregate The purpose of collecting, analyzing, replace them with a single paragraph FOQA data under part 193. If adopted, aggregating, and reporting this § 13.401(e) which states that except for the order under part 193 will cover all information is to identify potential criminal or deliberate acts, the approved FOQA programs entered into threats to safety, and to enable early Administrator will not use an operator’s by all operators. corrective action before such threats FOQA data or aggregate FOQA data in Section 13.401(f) provides that FOQA lead to accidents. The submitted an enforcement action against that data and aggregate FOQA data, if aggregate trend information will be operator or its employees when such submitted in accordance with an order reviewed by the FAA principal data or aggregate data is obtained from designating the information as protected operations inspector (POI) responsible a FOQA program that is approved by the under part 193 of this chapter, will be for oversight of the certificate holding Administrator. afforded the nondisclosure protections respondent. The POI uses this Although the language of the final of that part. information to monitor operation trends, rule clearly provides protection, except § 13.401(g) Withdrawal of Program to identify areas in need of corrective for criminal or deliberate acts, from the Approval (Proposed § 13.401(g)) On action, and to verify that corrective use of information obtained from a What Grounds May the Administrator action is effective. The aggregate FOQA FOQA program for enforcement Withdraw Approval of a Previously information would also be employed by purposes, this rule will have no impact Approved FOQA Program? the FAA to monitor national trends and on FAA enforcement action based on as a source of objective information for information obtained from other This paragraph states that the agency decision making regarding sources. For example, while the Administrator may withdraw program policy and regulatory issues. operator has a responsibility to initiate approval for failure to comply with the Respondents and Frequency of corrective action for adverse safety requirements of the chapter. It further Response: The FAA has identified 30 trends revealed by FOQA data, the FAA identifies some, but not necessarily all, certificate holders who are candidates to has the responsibility to verity that such of the potential grounds for withdrawal, take the necessary steps to comply with corrective action is effective. This rule including: the rule and gain the benefits of so provides no protection from action (1) Failure to implement corrective doing. They would respond monthly. based on information obtained from action that analysis of available FOQA However, currently twelve certificate VerDate 11 holders, nearly all of which are major not propose to require submission of Agencies must perform a review to airlines, have established FOQA FOQA data from individual flights to determine whether a proposed or final programs. Because of the benefits of the government. The FAA anticipates rule will have a significant economic FOQA participation to both safety and that information obtained by airline impact on a substantial number of small cost containment, it is anticipated that FOQA programs will be voluntarily entities. If the determination is that it FOQA will be implemented on an submitted to the FAA in the interest of will, the agency must prepare a industry wide basis in the U.S. within joint goals to promote safety, and that regulatory flexibility analysis as the next twenty years. because of the objective nature of FOQA described in the Act. Burden Hours: It is estimated that it data, this information will be valuable However, if an agency determines that will take each respondent 1.0 hour to for formulating future policy, NAS prepare aggregate trend information to procedures, and rulemaking a proposed or final rule is not expected be submitted to the FAA. The annual development. This information will to have a significant economic impact burden per respondent is 12.0 hours for enable the FAA to more accurately on a substantial number of small an annual industry burden of 144 hours. compute the estimated cost and benefits entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act The estimated 1.0 hour burden is the of agency decisions. provides that the head of the agency additional time required to send to the This final rule is an enabling initiative may so certify and a regulatory FAA the aggregate data already intended to promote the voluntary flexibility analysis is not required. The produced monthly by the certificate establishment of FOQA programs. The certification must include a statement holder as part of an approved FOQA FAA has determined that because the providing the factual basis for this program. establishment of FOQA programs is determination, and the reasoning should be clear. Regulatory Evaluation Summary voluntary and the final rule only requires certificate holders who This action establishes a voluntary Proposed changes to Federal voluntarily establish approved FOQA program and therefore the FAA expects regulations must undergo several programs to provide periodically the this rule to impose only nominal cost on economic analyses. First, Executive aggregate trend data from such programs small entities. Consequently, the FAA Order 12866 directs that each Federal to the FAA, the costs from this rule are certifies that the rule will not have a agency shall propose or adopt a nominal. Therefore, an economic significant economic impact on a regulation only upon a reasoned evaluation is not warranted. substantial number of small entities. determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. International Trade Impact Executive Order 13132, Federalism Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the prohibits Federal agencies from The FAA has analyzed this rule under economic effect of regulatory changes engaging in any standards or related the principles and criteria of Executive on small entities. Third, the Trade activities that create unnecessary Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section obstacles to the foreign commerce of the determined that this action would not 2531–2533) prohibits agencies from United States. Legitimate domestic have a substantial direct effect on the setting standards that create objectives, such as safety, are not States, on the relationship between the unnecessary obstacles to the foreign considered unnecessary obstacles. The National Government and the States, or commerce of the United States. In statute also requires consideration of on the distribution of power and developing U.S. standards, this Trade international standards and where responsibilities among the various Act also requires agencies to consider appropriate, that they be the basis for levels of government. Therefore, the international standards and, where U.S. standards. FAA has determined that this appropriate, use them as the basis of In accordance with the above statute rulemaking does not have federalism U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded and policy, the FAA has assessed the implications. Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires potential effect of this final rule to be agencies to prepare a written assessment minimal and therefore has determined Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of the costs, benefits, and other effects that this rule will not result in an The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of proposed or final rules that include impact on international trade by of 1995, enacted as Public Law 104–4 on a Federal mandate likely to result in the companies doing business in or with the March 22, 1995, is intended, among expenditure by State, local, or tribal United States. other things, to curb the practice of governments, in the aggregate, or by Regulatory Flexibility Determination imposing unfunded Federal mandates private sector, of $100 million or more on State, local, and tribal governments. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 annually (adjusted for inflation). Title II of the Unfunded Mandates In conducting these analyses, the FAA (RFA) establishes (as a principle of Reform Act requires each Federal has determined this rule (1) has benefits regulatory issuance that agencies shall agency to prepare a written statement which do justify its costs, is ‘‘a endeavor, consistent with the objective assessing the effects of any Federal significant regulatory action’’ as defined of the rule and of applicable statutes, to mandate in a proposed or final agency in the Executive Order and is fit regulatory and informational rule that may result in a $100 million or ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s requirements to the scale of the more expenditure (adjusted annually for Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2) business, organizations, and inflation) in any one year by State, local, will not have a significant impact on a governmental jurisdictions subject to and tribal governments, in the aggregate, substantial number of small entities; regulation.) To achieve that principle, or by the private sector; such a mandate and (3) does not impose an unfunded the Act requires agencies to solicit and mandate on state, local, or tribal consider flexible regulatory proposals is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory governments, or on the private sector. and to explain the rationale for their action.’’ These analyses are summarized below. actions. The Act covers a wide-range of This final rule does not contain such Any costs associated with providing small entities, including small a mandate. Therefore, the requirements the FAA with aggregate FOQA data is businesses, not-for-profit organizations of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates expected to be nominal. The FAA does and small governmental jurisdictions. Reform Act of 1995 do not apply. VerDate 11 Environmental Analysis Subpart I—Flight Operational Quality (4) Procedures for informing the FAA Assurance Programs as to any corrective action being FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA undertaken pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) actions that may be categorically § 13.401 Flight Operational Quality of this section. Assurance Program: Prohibition Against excluded from preparation of a National (d) Submission of aggregate data. The Use of Data for Enforcement Purposes Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) operator will provide the FAA with environmental impact statement. (a) Applicability. This section applies aggregate FOQA data in a form and In accordance with FAA Order to any operator of an aircraft who manner acceptable to the Administrator. 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), operates such aircraft under an (e) Enforcement. Except for criminal approved Flight Operational Quality this rulemaking action qualifies for a or deliberate acts, the Administrator Assurance (FOQA) program. categorical exclusion. will not use an operator’s FOQA data for (b) Definitions. For the purpose of this aggregate FOQA data in an enforcement Energy Impact section, the terms— (1) Flight Operational Quality action against that operator or its The energy impact of the notice has Assurance (FOQA) program means an employees when such FOQA data or been assessed in accordance with the FAA-approved program for the routine aggregate FOQA data is obtained from a Energy Policy and Conservation Act collection and analysis of digital flight FOQA program that is approved by the (EPCA) Public Law 94–163, as amended data gathered during aircraft operations, Administrator. (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. including data currently collected (f) Disclosure. FOQA data and It has been determined that the notice pursuant to existing regulatory aggregate FOQA data, if submitted in is not a major regulatory action under provisions, when such data is included accordance with an order designating the provisions of the EPCA. in an approved FOQA program. the information as protected under part (2) FOQA data means any digital 193 of this chapter, will be afforded the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 13 flight data that has been collected from nondisclosure protections of part 193 of an individual aircraft pursuant to an this chapter. Administrative practice and FAA-approved FOQA program, procedure, Air transportation, Aviation (g) Withdrawal of program approval. regardless of the electronic format of The Administrator may withdraw safety, Investigations, Law enforcement. that data. approval of a previously approved The Admendment (3) Aggregate FOQA data means the FOQA program for failure to comply summary statistical indices that are with the requirements of this chapter. In consideration of the foregoing, the associated with FOQA event categories, Grounds for withdrawal of approval Federal Aviation Administration based on an analysis of FOQA data from may include, but are not limited to— amends part 13 of the Federal Aviation multiple aircraft operations. (c) Requirements. In order for (1) Failure to implement corrective Regulations (14 CFR part 13) as follows: paragraph (e) of this section to apply, action that analysis of available FOQA data indicates is necessary in the PART 13—INVESTIGATIVE AND the operator must submit, maintain, and adhere to a FOQA Implementation and interest of safety; or ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Operation Plan that is approved by the (2) Failure to correct a continuing pattern of violations following notice by 1. The authority citation for part 13 Administrator and which contains the following elements: the agency; or also continues to read as follows: (1) A description of the operator’s (3) Willful misconduct or willful Authority: 18 U.S.C. 6002; 28 U.S.C. 2461; plan for collecting and analyzing flight violation of the FAA regulations in this 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 5121–5124, 40113–40114, recorded data from line operations on a chapter. 44103–44106, 44702–44703, 44709–44710, routine basis, including identification of 44713, 46101–46110, 46301–46316, 46501– the data to be collected; Issued in Washington, DC, on October 25, 2001. 46502, 46504–46507, 47106, 47111, 47122, (2) Procedures for taking corrective 47306, 47531–47532. action that analysis of the data indicates Jane F. Garvey, is necessary in the interest of safety; Administrator. 2. Subpart I, consisting of § 13.401 is (3) Procedures for providing the FAA [FR Doc. 01–27273 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] added to read as follows: with aggregate FOQA data; BILLING CODE 4910–13–M VerDate 11 Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Chapter I Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for NASA White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, NM; Proposed Rule VerDate 11 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION three copies of all written comments as 260–4468 and e-mail address is AGENCY well as an original and three copies of [email protected]. Further any attachments, enclosures, or other information on today’s action may also 40 Ch. I. documents referenced in the comments be obtained on the world wide web at [FRL–7095–7] and refer to Docket Number A–2000–54. http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/. A copy should also be sent to Mr. John SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This RIN 2090–AA27 DuPree at Mail Code 1807, U.S. project assesses the appropriateness of Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for submitting regulatory and compliance Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., NASA White Sands Test Facility, Las information electronically instead of Washington, D.C. 20460. Cruces, NM paper reports. EPA will also accept comments The duration of this project is five AGENCY: Environmental Protection electronically. Electronic comments years. 016 should be addressed to the following Agency. EPA is soliciting comments on this internet address: [email protected]. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for rulemaking. EPA will publish responses Electronic comments must be submitted comment. to comments in the Federal Register as an ASCII or WordPerfect version 5.1, and on the Project XL web-site http:// SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 6.1, or 8.0 format file, and must avoid www.epa.gov/projectxl. The XL project Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing use of special characters or any form of will enter the implementation phase on this rule to implement a pilot project encryption. Electronic comments will be the effective date of a final rule. Any under the Project XL program that transferred into a paper version for the comments received will be made would provide site-specific regulatory official record. EPA will attempt to available on the Project XL web site: flexibility under the Clean Air Act clarify electronic comments if there is http://www.epa.gov/projectxl. (CAA), Resource Conservation and an apparent error in transmission. Recovery Act (RCRA), and Clean Water Request to speak at Hearing: Requests The terms of the overall XL project are Act (CWA) for the National Aeronautics to speak at a hearing should be mailed contained in a Final Project Agreement and Space Administration (NASA) to the Air Docket, Mail Code 6102, U.S. (FPA). The FPA is available for review White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) in Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 at the Air Docket in Washington, D.C.; Las Cruces, New Mexico. The principal Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, EPA Region VI Library in Dallas, TX; objective of this XL project is to enable D.C. 20460. and at the Las Cruces Public Library in the NASA WSTF to electronically Viewing Project Materials: A docket Las Cruces, NM. submit regulatory reports and permit containing the proposed rule, Final Outline of Today’s Proposal information required by EPA regulations Project Agreement, supporting to the NMED Air Quality Bureau, Solid materials, and public comments is The information presented in this Waste Bureau, Hazardous Waste Bureau, available for public inspection and preamble is organized as follows: Groundwater Bureau, and Surface Water copying at the Air Docket, located at I. Authority Bureau in accordance with guidelines Waterside Mall, 401 M St., Washington, II. Overview of Project XL set forth in the NASA WSTF Project XL D.C. 20460. The Air Docket is open from III. Overview of the NASA WSTF XL Project Final Project Agreement (FPA). This 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through A. To Which Facilities Would the project would significantly reduce Proposed Rule Apply? Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The B. What Problems would the NASA WSTF NASA’s regulatory reporting costs and public is encouraged to phone in XL Project Address? enhance the NMED’s ability to analyze advance to review docket materials. C. What Solution is Proposed by the NASA and manage NASA WSTF’s regulatory Appointments can be scheduled by WSTF Project? and permit information. phoning the Docket Office at (202) 260– D. What Regulatory Changes Will Be DATES: Public Comments: Comments on 7549. Refer to docket number A–2000– Necessary to Implement this Project? the proposed rule must be received on 54. The public may copy a maximum of E. How Have Various Stakeholders Been or before November 30, 2001. 100 pages from any regulatory docket at Involved in this Project? Public Hearing: Commentors may no charge. Additional copies cost 15 F. How Would this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction? request a hearing by November 14, 2001. cents per page. Project materials for G. What Are the Terms of the NASA WSTF Commentors must state the basis for today’s action are also available on the XL Project and How Would They Be requesting the public hearing. If EPA internet at http://www.epa.gov/ Enforced? determines there is sufficient reason to projectxl/. H. Does EPA Propose to Require Revision hold a public hearing, it will do so no A duplicate copy of the docket is of NMED’s Authorized, Delegated, or later than November 30, 2001, during available for inspection and copying Approved Programs? the last week of the public comment during normal business hours at U.S. IV. Additional Information period. Requests for a public hearing EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, A. How Does this Rule Comply with should be submitted to the address Texas 75202–2733. Persons wishing to Executive Order 12866? B. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis listed below. If a public hearing is view the duplicate docket at the Dallas Required? scheduled, the date, time, and location location are encouraged to contact Mr. C. Does this Trigger the Requirements of will be made available through a David Bond or Mr. Rob Lawrence, in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act? Federal Register Notice. If a public advance, by telephoning (214) 665–6431 D. How Does this Rule Comply with hearing is held, it will take place in Las or (214) 665–6580, respectively. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Cruces, NM. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks? ADDRESSES: Comments: Written John DuPree; Mail Code 1807; U.S. E. How Does this Rule Comply with comments should be mailed to the Air Environmental Protection Agency; Executive Order 13132: Federalism? Docket Clerk, Mail Code 6102, U.S. Office of Policy, Economics, and F. How Does this Rule Comply with Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Innovation; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460. Mr. Coordination with Indian Tribal D.C. 20460. Please send an original and DuPree’s telephone number is (202) Governments? VerDate 11 G. How Does this Rule Comply with the to assess whether they provide benefits stakeholder involvement and support; National Technology Transfer and at the specific facility affected, and test of an innovative strategy; Advancement Act? whether they should be considered for transferability; feasibility; identification H. How Does this Rule Comply with wider application. Such pilot projects of monitoring, reporting and evaluation Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects? allow EPA to proceed more quickly than methods; and avoidance of shifting risk I. Requirements of Today’s Rule would be possible when undertaking burden. The XL projects must have the J. How Does this Rule Comply with the changes on a nationwide basis. As part full support of the affected Federal, Paperwork Reduction Act? of this experimentation, EPA may try State, local and tribal agencies to be I. Authority approaches or legal interpretations that selected. depart from, or are even inconsistent For more information about the XL EPA is publishing this proposed with, longstanding Agency practice, so criteria, readers should refer to the two regulation under the authority of long as those interpretations are within descriptive documents published in the sections 33 U.S.C. 2701 to 2761; 42 the broad range of discretion enjoyed by Federal Register (60 FR 27282, May 23, U.S.C. 300f to 300J–26; 42 U.S.C. 6901 the Agency in interpreting the statutes 1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997), to 6992k. that it implements. EPA may also and the December 1, 1995 ‘‘Principles II. Overview of Project XL modify rules, on a site-specific basis, for Development of Project XL Final that represent one of several possible Project Agreements’’ document. A copy The Final Project Agreement (FPA) policy approaches within a more of this publication is available in Docket sets forth the intentions of EPA, NMED, general statutory directive, so long as #A–2000–54. For explanation of how and the NASA WSTF (hereinafter, the alternative being used is permissible the NASA WSTF XL project addresses collectively, Project Signatories) with under the statute. the XL criteria, readers should refer to regard to a project developed under Adoption of such alternative the Final Project Agreement available Project XL, an EPA initiative to allow approaches or interpretations in the from the EPA Air docket A–2000–54, or regulated entities to achieve better context of a given XL project does not, the Project XL web page (http:// environmental results with limited however, signal EPA’s willingness to www.epa.gov/projectxl). regulatory flexibility. The proposed adopt that interpretation as a general XL Program Phases regulation, along with the FPA (also matter, or even in the context of other available in today’s Federal Register), XL projects. It would be inconsistent The Project XL program has four basic would facilitate implementation of the with the forward-looking nature of these developmental phases: the initial pre- project. Project XL‘‘eXcellence and pilot projects to adopt such innovative proposal phase in which the project Leadership’’—was announced on March approaches prematurely on a sponsor identifies an innovative concept 16, 1995, as a central part of the widespread basis without first that it would like EPA to consider as an National Performance Review and the determining whether they are viable in XL pilot project; the second phase Agency’s effort to reinvent practice and successful in the particular where the project sponsor works with environmental protection. See 60 FR projects that embody them. EPA and interested stakeholders in 27282 (May 23, 1995). Project XL Furthermore, as EPA indicated in developing an XL proposal; the third provides a limited number of private announcing the XL program, EPA phase in which EPA, local regulatory and public regulated entities an expects to adopt only a limited number agencies, and other interested opportunity to develop their own pilot of carefully selected projects. These stakeholders review the XL proposal; projects to request regulatory flexibility pilot projects are not intended to be a and the fourth phase where the project that will result in environmental means for piecemeal revision of entire sponsor works with EPA, local protection that is superior to what programs. Depending on the results in regulatory agencies, and interested would be achieved through compliance these projects, EPA may or may not be stakeholders in developing a Final with current and reasonably-anticipated willing to consider adopting the Project Agreement and implementation future regulations. These efforts are alternative interpretation again, either mechanism. After the Final Project crucial to EPA’s ability to test new generally or for other specific facilities. Agreement has been signed by all strategies that reduce regulatory burden EPA believes that adopting alternative designated parties and promulgation of and promote economic growth while policy approaches and interpretations, the final rule (or other legal mechanism) achieving better environmental and on a limited, site-specific basis and in for the XL pilot, the XL pilot project public health protection. EPA intends to connection with a carefully selected proceeds to implementation and evaluate the results of this and other pilot project, is consistent with the evaluation. Project XL projects to determine which expectations of Congress about EPA’s Final Project Agreement specific elements of the projects, if any, role in implementing the environmental should be more broadly applied to other statutes (provided that the Agency acts The Final Project Agreement (FPA) is regulated entities for the benefit of both within the discretion allowed by the a written voluntary agreement between the economy and the environment. statute). Congress’ recognition that there the project sponsor and regulatory Under Project XL, participants in four is a need for experimentation and agencies. The FPA contains a detailed categories—facilities, industry sectors, research, as well as ongoing re- description of the proposed pilot governmental agencies, and evaluation of environmental programs, project. It addresses the eight Project XL communities—are offered the flexibility is reflected in a variety of statutory criteria, and the expectation of the to develop common sense, cost-effective provisions. Agency that the XL project will meet strategies that will replace or modify those criteria. The FPA identifies specific regulatory requirements, on the XL Criteria performance goals and indicators that condition that they produce and To participate in Project XL, the project is yielding the expected demonstrate superior environmental applicants must develop alternative environmental benefits, and specifically performance. environmental performance objectives addresses the manner in which the The XL program is intended to enable pursuant to eight criteria: superior project is expected to produce superior EPA to experiment with potentially environmental performance; cost environmental benefits. The FPA also promising regulatory approaches, both savings and paperwork reduction; local discusses the administration of the FPA, VerDate 11 including dispute resolution and implement this project) that has been paper reports. This reporting process termination. The FPA for this XL project developed by EPA, the New Mexico will be implemented in a six-phase is available for review in the docket for Environmental Department (NMED), process that will first utilize data today’s action, and also is available on NASA WSTF and other stakeholders. In submitted on a CD-ROM before the world wide web at http:// order for New Mexico to implement this transitioning to a system that will utilize www.epa.gov/projectxl/. project, it may be necessary for NMED the internet to transmit information to III. Overview of the NASA WSTF XL to make conforming changes to its NMED. Today’s rule sets forth Project regulations or State-issued permits. provisions to facilitate implementation Today’s proposed rule would In this XL Project, the NASA WSTF of phases 1 and 2 of this XL project. All facilitate implementation of Phases 1 proposes to electronically submit six phases are described in Appendix A and 2 of the NASA WSTF FPA (the regulatory reports and permit of the NASA WSTF FPA and in the document that embodies EPA’s intent to information to the NMED in lieu of Table below. Phase Action Affected NMED Bureau Phase 1 ...... NASA WSTF shall submit the reports and permit information Hazardous Waste, Groundwater, Surface Water. listed in Table A on CD-ROM to the affected NMED Bu- reau with an electronic certification statement for compli- ance purposes. Phase 2 ...... NASA WSTF shall submit the reports and permit information Hazardous Waste, Groundwater, Surface Water. listed in Table A on CD-ROM to the affected NMED Bu- reau with an electronic certification statement for compli- ance purposes. NASA WSTF shall post the compliance reports and permit Hazardous Waste, Groundwater, Surface Water. information listed in Table A to their web site for general information purposes. Phase 3 ...... NASA WSTF shall post the reports and permit information Hazardous Waste, Groundwater, Surface Water. listed in Table A to the NASA web site for compliance pur- poses. Eliminate CD ROM submittals for the reports listed in Table Hazardous Waste, Groundwater, Surface Water. A. Phase 4 ...... Post reports and permit information listed in Table A to the Hazardous Waste, Groundwater, Solid Waste. NASA Website for compliance purposes. Submit reports and permit information listed in Table B on Air Quality, Solid Waste Bureaus. CD-ROM to the NMED Air Quality and Surface Water Bu- reaus for compliance purposes. Phase 5 ...... Post reports and permit information listed in Table A to the Hazardous Waste, Groundwater, Solid Waste. NASA Website for compliance purposes. Submit reports and permit information listed in Table B on Air Quality, Solid Waste Bureaus. CD-ROM to the NMED Air Quality and Surface Water Bu- reaus for compliance purposes. Post reports and permit information listed in Table B to the Air Quality, Solid Waste Bureaus. NASA Web site for general information purposes. Phase 6 ...... Eliminate CD-ROM submittals for the reports listed in Table Air Quality, Solid Waste Bureaus. B. Post reports and permit information listed in Tables A and B Air Quality, Solid Waste, Groundwater, Solid Waste, Haz- to the NASA Web site for compliance with EPA and NMED ardous Waste. reporting requirements. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)-Based 1. if A is used to encrypt a message, to encrypt this hash; this encrypted Digital Signatures B and only B can decipher it, and hash is X’s digital signature, and it is 2. if B deciphers the message, it can unique both to X and to the particular In today’s rule, EPA proposes to only have been encrypted with A. message it signs. (3) X attaches this require the use of PKI based digital For purposes of a digital signature, digital signature to X’s message (which signatures to sign certifications of data then, A and B are uniquely assigned to is otherwise not encrypted), and sends submitted by NASA WSTF to NMED as individual X. One of the numbers, say it. part of this XL project. The PKI-based A, submitter X shares with no one. This digital signatures utilized in today’s is X’s ‘‘private key’’. The other, B, is X’s When Y gets X’s message, Y validates proposed rule are the product of two ‘‘public key’’, and X shares B with X’s signature by: (1) deriving the hash concepts: anyone to whom X wishes to send a of the message, using the same standard 1. ‘‘Asymmetric’’ cryptography, and message—X may even publish B algorithm that X used; (2) deciphering together with information that identifies X’s digital signature, using X’s public 2. a framework for ‘‘certifying’’ the him/her as X. key, B; and (3) comparing the hash Y identity of a digital signature-holder, X then signs an electronic document derived (in step 1) with the deciphered provided by PKI. as follows: (1) X uses a standard formula signature. The two numbers—the ‘‘Asymmetric’’ cryptography is based or algorithm to produce a number derived hash and the deciphered on a mathematical relationship that uniquely related to the content of the signature—should agree. If (and only if) exists between certain pairs of numbers, electronic document; this is referred to they do, then Y knows both that the for example number A and number B, as the ‘‘message digest’’ or ‘‘hash’’ of the signature was produced using A (which such that document. (2) X uses A, the private key, VerDate 11 belongs to X), and that the message has on to the CA website and provide the digital signature; (5) immediately notify not changed since X signed it. ‘‘entrance’’ number provided in their EPA and NMED in writing if the Because the digital signature is instruction letter from EPA and the Designated Representative loses the specific to the particular document, and NMED. The submitter provides the authority to sign reports submitted to is unique in each case, to say that X is requested personal information that the NMED as a representative of NASA a ‘‘signature-holder’’ in this context is to CA needs to perform identity-proofing WSTF; and (6) secure any assistance of refer to A and B, the private/public key- (name, address, Social Security Number, third parties that is needed to protect a pair. The A/B key-pair does belong to X driver’s license number, credit card signature from unauthorized use. EPA and plays the same role in each of the number, etc.). This information will not believes that this agreement is important many digital signatures X may create be given to EPA or NMED. During this to ensure that the holder of the private through the process described above. registration process, the issuer of the key understands how to properly use Accordingly, it is this key-pair—rather certificates will also generate the public and protect the key. It is also important than the individual signatures they are and private cryptographic keys that are to ensure that the signature holder used to create—that is associated with associated with the digital certificate understands the legal effect of using the the process of certifying a signature- that the CA will issue. After the CA has private key to affix the digital signature holder’s identity that is provided by completed identity-proofing, the to an electronic document. To achieve PKI. submitter will receive a letter from the these goals, EPA believes that the PKI is a way of reliably establishing CA with instructions on how to signature agreement should require that and maintaining the identity of the download the certificate to their local the signature holder agree to: (1) protect individual associated with a given key- computer via a web connection. This the private key from unauthorized use pair used in producing digital web session will install the certificate in by anyone other than the Designated signatures. This protocol involves the the web browser so it can be used to Representative; (2) be held as legally issuance of a ‘‘PKI certificate’’ by a create digital signatures. bound, obligated, or responsible by use ‘‘trusted’’ ‘‘certificate authority’’ (CA). The electronic signing process will of the Designated Representative’s The CA is ‘‘trusted’’ in the sense that it use software issued by an EPA-approved private key to create a digital signature operates in conformance with an third party to affix a digital signature to as by handwritten signature; (3) under appropriate certificate policy, and has the electronic document being no circumstances, delegate the use of demonstrated this conformance through submitted via CD ROM. The document the private key or make it available for its operations across a wide range of is displayed to the user on the computer use by anyone else; (4) report to NMED electronic commerce applications. screen. When the submitter activates the within twenty-four hours of discovery Issuing a certificate for individual X signing block of the document, a any evidence of the loss, theft, or other typically involves the following steps: ‘‘signing ceremony’’ is initiated. The compromise of any component of the (1) X applies to the CA for a certificate; user is advised that he/she is creating a digital signature; (5) immediately notify (2) the CA requests various pieces of digital signature through the use of their EPA and NMED in writing if the personal information from X, and/or private key. After the user provides Designated Representative loses the notarized verifications of X’s personal access to their private key by providing authority to sign reports submitted to information, and/or X to appear in a password, a hash function is used to NMED as a representative of NASA person, to provide the CA with the basis obtain a condensed or hash version of WSTF; and (6) secure any assistance of for ‘‘proving’’ X’s identity; (3) the CA the document being submitted, called a third parties that is needed to protect a provides X with a way to generate X’s message digest. The message digest and signature from unauthorized use. unique key pair; (4) the CA conducts the private key are then input into the ‘‘identity proofing’’ process—matching approved software’s digital signature CD–ROM Submission Procedures what X has provided against algorithm, to generate the digital During the first, second, fourth and information about X in various signature. Any subsequent changes to fifth phases of this project, NASA WSTF commercial databases, official the document would render the original would mail compliance reports and documents, etc.; (5) when the ‘‘identify digital signature invalid. permit information on Compact Disc- proofing’’ is successfully completed, the Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) to the CA creates a ‘‘certificate’’ for X that Electronic Signature Agreement appropriate NMED bureau. The CD- incorporates X’s public key, along with Today’s proposed rule would require ROMs for this project would be various pieces of identifying NASA WSTF and NMED to enter into prepared at the NASA WSTF. NASA information about X; and (6) the CA an Electronic Signature Agreement to WSTF’s preparation process would digitally signs the certificate to certify properly use and protect the validity of include draft creation by the originator, its authenticity, and makes it available the digital signatures used in this XL internal review by NASA WSTF’s to users through directory services. project. Today’s rule proposes that the contractor Environmental Department terms in this agreement include, a personnel, and final editing prior to Digital Signature Process commitment to: (1) protect the private NASA WSTF concurrence, document In this project, the digital certificate key from unauthorized use by anyone signature, and preparation of the CD- used to create a digital signature would other than the Designated ROMs. After internal review and final be issued to a ‘‘Designated Representative; (2) be held as legally edits are completed, the finalized Representative’’ at the NASA WSTF by bound, obligated, or responsible by use document and certification statement an EPA authorized Certificate Authority of the Designated Representative’s would be electronically submitted to (CA). For the purposes of this XL project private key to create a digital signature NASA management for signatory EPA has contracted with a third party to as by handwritten signature; (3) under review. If NASA management requires serve as the CA, to issue digital no circumstances, delegate the use of changes, the document would be certificates to individuals at the NASA the private key or make it available for returned to the originator for correction. WSTF who are authorized to submit use by anyone else; (4) report to NMED When the document is approved by the signed, electronic reports to NMED. To within twenty-four hours of discovery appropriate NASA management, that receive a digital certificate, a Designated any evidence of the loss, theft, or other individual applies a digital signature Representative would be required to log- compromise of any component of the using standard Public Key Infrastructure VerDate 11 (PKI) software and digital certificates XL Final Project Agreement certification management system would prepare a provided by the EPA. statement listed in section 7 of today’s duplicate copy of all submittals and After the document is digitally signed, rule would then be submitted to the place the electronic documents in the it would be submitted to the document NMED. This certification statement NASA on-site document archival system management system. The document would be contained in each of the for secure storage and future access. The management system copies the reports listed in Table A of today’s following flow chart provides the electronic deliverable to CD-ROMs for proposed rule that would be forwarded electronic deliverable preparation steps. submission to the regulatory agencies. to NMED by NASA WSTF on a CD- BILLING CODE 6560–50–P The CD-ROM that contains the Project ROM. In addition, the document BILLING CODE 6560–50–C NMED by NASA WSTF as part of this the reporting of regulatory reports and Certification Statement XL project, are preserved as they are permit information currently required created, submitted and/or maintained by EPA and NMED. Each report listed in Table A of electronically, so that they can provide today’s proposed rule forwarded to strong evidence of what was intended C. What Solution Is Proposed by the NMED as part of this XL project would by the individuals who created and or NASA WSTF Project? include a certification statement created signed them. by the NASA WSTF Designated The NASA WSTF proposes to Representative as specified in section 7 A. To Which Facilities Would the implement an electronic regulatory of today’s rule. The NASA WSTF Proposed Rule Apply? reporting system. NASA proposes that the extensive paper reporting Designated Representative would be a The proposed rule would apply only deliverable requirements of multiple NASA official legally responsible for the to the NASA White Sands Test Facility Bureaus of NMED can be simplified and accuracy and integrity of the regulatory in Las Cruces, NM and NMED bureaus streamlined through use of a paperless reports and permit information of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste, Air regulatory reporting system that allows submitted to NMED. Quality, Surface Water, and Ground data to be reported electronically. The Water. Further, the regulatory Recordkeeping Requirements system will ultimately provide modifications being proposed would regulatory agencies with real-time Today’s rule proposes standards to only affect the reporting and desktop access to site-specific provide for electronic recordkeeping of recordkeeping requirements for the environmental compliance information documents submitted by NASA WSTF reports listed in Table A. to NMED as part of this XL project. In and reduce needed resources including lieu of paper recordkeeping B. What Problems Would the NASA document preparation time, white paper requirements, NASA WSTF would be WSTF XL Project Address? usage, and triplicate reproduction. required to maintain electronic records The NASA XL project proposes to D. What Regulatory Changes Will Be of the reports included in Table A of implement an electronic document Necessary To Implement This Project? today’s rule for a time period no shorter submission and recordkeeping system than what is currently required under that will reduce the cost and time To implement this project, the Agency existing NMED and EPA regulations. necessary to submit selected regulatory is proposing today a site-specific rule The point of today’s proposed rule reports and permit information to that would authorize NMED to allow the requirements in section 8 is to ensure NMED as required by EPA regulations. NASA WSTF to electronically submit that the authenticity and integrity of the Implementation of this project will the regulatory reports and permit electronic documents submitted to reduce the cost and time associated with information included in Table A of VerDate 11 today’s proposed rule to the NMED G. What Are the Terms of the NASA (3) Materially alter the budgetary bureaus. WSTF XL Project and How Would They impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, This XL project consists of six phases. Be Enforced? or loan programs of the rights and After completion of the second phase, This project would be in effect for five obligations of recipients thereof; or EPA intends to draft a site-specific rule years from the date the final rule takes (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues to enable NASA WSTF to utilize an effect. Any Project Signatory may arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles internet-based electronic reporting terminate its participation in this project set forth in the Executive Order. system to be described in a subsequent at any time in accordance with the rule. Because this rule affects only one procedures set forth in the FPA. facility, it is not a rule of general Upon completion of the project term, E. How Have Various Stakeholders Been applicability and therefore not subject to EPA and NMED, have committed to Involved in This Project? OMB review and Executive Order evaluate the project. If the project 12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that NASA established an appropriate results indicate that it was a success, review of site specific rules under stakeholder group to assist in EPA will consider transferring the Project XL is not necessary. developing the Final Project Agreement regulatory flexibility (or some similar Additionally, the annualized cost of this for this XL pilot project and to evaluate flexibility) to the national RCRA, CAA, final rule would be significantly less NASA WSTF’s plan and progress in or CWA program (through rulemaking implementing the project. NASA than $100 million and would not meet procedures). Should the project results any of the other criteria specified in the solicited input on this project from a indicate that the project was not wide range of stakeholders including Executive Order, therefore, it has been successful or if the project is terminated determined that this rule is not a local and national environmental early, EPA may promulgate a rule to groups, neighborhood associations, and ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under remove the site-specific regulatory the terms of Executive Order 12866, and industry trade associations. flexibility. Stakeholders were notified of this is therefore not subject to OMB review. Executive Order 12866 also project by direct mail, telephone, and H. Does EPA Propose to Require encourages agencies to provide a notification in the local press. Revision of NMED’s Authorized, meaningful public comment period, and NASA WSTF solicited public Delegated, or Approved Programs? suggests that in most cases the comment involvement in this project by holding EPA is not proposing to revise the period should be 60 days. However, in public meetings while negotiating the affected State authorized, delegated, or consideration of the very limited scope Final Project Agreement for this project approved programs. Today’s rule would of today’s proposed rulemaking and the with EPA and NMED. The NMED affect only certain reports submitted by public involvement in the development supports this project and is a Project a single facility. Electronic reporting of the proposed Final Project Signatory to the Final Project and record keeping would also be Agreement, EPA considers 30 days to be Agreement. permitted only in accordance with the sufficient in providing a meaningful specific requirements articulated in NASA has kept an open dialogue with public comment period for today’s today’s proposal. EPA solicits comments interested stakeholders since the action. project’s inception and will continue to on these specific requirements. Under involve any interested stakeholders in these circumstances, EPA does not B. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the project’s development. In addition, believe that program revision is Required? EPA and NASA will make all project- necessary. Nonetheless, EPA solicits The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), related final documents and events comment on whether EPA should 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. generally requires publicly accessible through require New Mexico to seek revision of an agency to conduct a regulatory announcements, EPA’s web site, and the affected State programs. flexibility analysis of any rule subject to public dockets. IV. Additional Information notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies F. How Would This Project Result in A. How Does This Rule Comply With Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction? that the rule will not have a significant Executive Order 12866? economic impact on a substantial In this XL project, the NASA White Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR number of small entities. Small entities Sands Test Facility proposes to reduce 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency include small businesses, small not-for- its EPA and NMED reporting and must determine whether the regulatory profit enterprises, and small recordkeeping costs through use of an action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore governmental jurisdictions. This rule electronic document reporting and subject to Office of Management and would not have a significant impact on recordkeeping system. NASA would Budget (OMB) review and the a substantial number of small entities provide NMED and EPA with access to requirements of the Executive Order. because it would only affect the NASA NASA WSTF’s regulatory information The Order defines ‘‘significant White Sands Test Facility, in Las by electronically submitting regulatory regulatory action’’ as one that is likely Cruces, NM, and it is not a small entity. reports and permit information to a to result in a rule that may: Therefore, EPA certifies that this action NASA controlled web site and (1) Have an annual effect on the will not have a significant economic forwarding compliance data on CD- economy of $100 million or more or impact on a substantial number of small ROM’s in lieu of submitting paper adversely affect in a material way the entities. reports to each NMED Bureau. NASA’s economy, a sector of the economy, use of electronic reporting would greatly productivity, competition, jobs, the C. Does this Project Trigger the reduce the number of reports submitted environment, public health or safety in Requirements of the Unfunded on paper. Additionally, use of the State, local, or tribal governments or Mandates Reform Act? proposed electronic reporting system communities; Title II of the Unfunded Mandates would reduce the manpower required to (2) Create a serious inconsistency or Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public compile and disseminate compliance otherwise interfere with an action taken Law 104–4, establishes requirements for information. or planned by another agency; Federal agencies to assess the effects of VerDate 11 their regulatory actions on State, local, determined to be ‘‘economically F. How Does This Rule Comply With and tribal governments and the private significant,’’ as defined under Executive Executive Order 13175: Consultation sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Order 12866; and (2) concerns an and Coordination With Indian Tribal EPA generally must prepare a written environmental health or safety risk that Government? statement, including a cost-benefit EPA has reason to believe may have a Executive Order 13175, entitled analysis, for proposed and final rules disproportionate effect on children. If with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with the regulatory action meets both criteria, Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR result in expenditures to State, local, the Agency must evaluate the and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA environmental health or safety effects of to develop an accountable process to or to the private sector, of $100 million the planned rule on children, and or more in any one year. Before ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by explain why the planned regulation is promulgating an EPA rule for which a tribal officials in the development of written statement is needed, section 205 preferable to other potentially effective regulatory policies that have tribal of the UMRA generally requires EPA to and reasonably feasible alternatives implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal identify and consider a reasonable considered by the Agency. implications’’ is defined in the number of regulatory alternatives and This rule is not subject to Executive Executive Order to include regulations adopt the least costly, most cost- Order 13045 because it is not an that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on effective or least burdensome alternative economically significant rule, as defined one or more Indian tribes, on the that achieves the objectives of the rule. by Executive Order 12866, and because relationship between the Federal The provisions of section 205 do not it does not involve decisions based on government and the Indian tribes, or on apply when they are inconsistent with environmental health or safety risks. the distribution of power and applicable law. Moreover, section 205 This rule sets forth electronic reporting responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.’’ allows EPA to adopt an alternative other procedures for the submission of than the least costly, most cost-effective environmental compliance data. This proposed rule would not have or least burdensome alternative if the tribal implications. It would not have Administrator publishes with the final E. How Does This Rule Comply With substantial direct effects on tribal rule an explanation of why that Executive Order 13132: Federalism? governments, on the relationship alternative was not adopted. Before EPA between the Federal government and establishes any regulatory requirements Executive Order 13132, entitled Indian tribes, or on the distribution of that may significantly or uniquely affect ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, power and responsibilities between the small governments, including tribal 1999), requires EPA to develop an Federal government and Indian tribes, governments, it must have developed accountable process to ensure as specified in Executive Order 13175. under section 203 of the UMRA a small ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State Today’s proposed rule, would affect a government agency plan. The plan must and local officials in the development of single, non-tribal facility that is not provide for notifying potentially regulatory policies that have federalism located on tribal lands and this rule affected small governments, enabling implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have would have no impact on tribal law or officials of affected small governments federalism implications’’ is defined in culture; thus, Executive Order 13175 to have meaningful and timely input in the Executive Order to include does not apply to this rule. the development of EPA regulatory regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, proposals with significant Federal effects on the States, on the relationship and consistent with EPA policy to intergovernmental mandates, and between the national government and promote communications between EPA informing, educating, and advising the States, or on the distribution of and tribal governments, EPA small governments on compliance with power and responsibilities among the specifically solicits additional comment the regulatory requirements. As noted above, this rule would apply various levels of government.’’ on this proposed rule from tribal only to one facility in Las Cruces, New This proposed rule does not have officials. Mexico. EPA has determined that this federalism implications. It would not G. How Does This Rule Comply With the rule contains no regulatory have substantial direct effects on the National Technology Transfer and requirements that might significantly or States, on the relationship between the Advancement Act? uniquely affect small governments. EPA national government and the States, or has also determined that this rule does on the distribution of power and Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement not contain a Federal mandate that may responsibilities among the various Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law result in expenditures of $100 million or levels of government, as specified in 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 more for State, local, and tribal Executive Order 13132. Today’s governments, in the aggregate, or the note) directs EPA to use voluntary proposed rule would implement a consensus standards in its regulatory private sector in any one year. Thus, project developed under an entirely today’s rule is not subject to the activities unless to do so would be voluntary federal program; thus, requirements of sections 202 and 205 of inconsistent with applicable law or Executive Order 13132 does not apply the UMRA. otherwise impractical. Voluntary to this rule. consensus standards are technical D. How Does This Rule Comply With In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, standards (e.g., materials specifications, Executive Order 13045: Protection of and consistent with EPA policy to test methods, sampling procedures, and Children From Environmental Health promote communications between EPA business practices) that are developed or Risks and Safety Risk? and State and local governments, EPA adopted by voluntary consensus The Executive Order 13045, specifically solicited comments on the standards bodies. The NTTAA directs ‘‘Protection of Children from proposed rule from State and local EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, Environmental Health Risks and Safety officials. explanations when the Agency decides Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) not to use available and applicable applies to any rule that: (1) Is voluntary consensus standard. VerDate 11 Today’s proposed rule would allow electronic records and electronic signature. To be valid a digital signature NASA WSTF to mail regulatory reports documents. must be created by a Designated and permit information on a CD–ROM Electronic signature means any Representative and with a private key diskette to NMED using specified electronic record that is incorporated device issued to that person. technical standards. EPA proposes to into (or appended to) an electronic 5. CD–ROM Submission Procedures. require that NMED require NASA WSTF document for the purpose of expressing Electronic versions of documents listed to use Portable Data Format (PDF), the same meaning and intention that an in Table A may only be submitted by Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) individual’s handwritten signature certified mail to the appropriate NMED and eXtensible Mark-Up Language would express if affixed in the same bureau in Portable Data Format (PDF), (XML) format standards in these CD– relation to the document’s content Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) or ROM submissions. Accordingly, this presented on paper. eXtensible Markup Language format on rule would comply with the Private/public key pair means a pair a read-only CD–ROM disk. To be requirements of NTTAA. of numbers mathematically related to acceptable, each submission must each other and to a specified encryption include a digital signature, as provided H. How Does This Rule Comply With algorithm such that: (i) the private key in sections 2, 3, and 4 of this rule, and Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects? cannot be derived from the public key, a certification statement, as provided in This rule is not subject to Executive and (ii) using the encryption algorithm, section 7 of this rule. Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning the public key will only decrypt 6. Frequency. Any electronic Regulations That Significantly Affect messages encrypted with the private key documents submitted must be Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 and it is the only key that will decrypt submitted at the same time and with the FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is these messages. same frequency prescribed under not a significant regulatory action under 2. Authentication. A Designated applicable NMED and EPA regulations Executive Order 12866. Representative must use a digital for their paper equivalents. certificate, issued by a third party 7. Compliance Certification. NMED I. Requirements for Today’s Rule authorized by EPA, and EPA-approved must require that, as part of any For the reasons set forth above and electronic signature software to affix a electronic document that it receives under the conditions described below, digital signature to any electronic from NASA WSTF, a Designated EPA authorizes the New Mexico version of a document in Table A. Representative provides a digitally- Environment Department (NMED) to 3. Electronic Signature Agreement. signed electronic compliance allow the National Aeronautics and NMED shall require each Designated certification that includes at least the Space Administration (NASA) White Representative to sign, in handwriting following: Sands Test Facility (WTSF) to submit with ink on paper, the Electronic (a) the name of the regulatory and retain in electronic form any of the Signature Agreement in Appendix A. By document being submitted; documents listed in Table A. signing the Electronic Signature (b) date of signature; Agreement, a Designated Representative (c) name and mailing address of the J. How Does This Rule Comply With the must, at a minimum, agree to: NMED bureau to which the document is Paperwork Reduction Act? (a) protect the private key from being sent; and Information collection requests will unauthorized use by anyone other than (d) a digital signature of the not pertain to this rule, which pertains the Designated Representative; Designated Representative who attests to a site specific pilot program that has (b) be held as legally bound, to a statement that reads as follows: only one respondent. obligated, or responsible by use of the ‘‘I am authorized to submit the 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Designated Representative’s private key electronic document identified above on rule, the terms listed below are defined to create a digital signature as by behalf of the NASA White Sands Test as follows: handwritten signature; Facility. I certify under penalty of law Certificate Authority (CA) means an (c) under no circumstances, delegate that I have personally examined, and entity which EPA has authorized to the use of the private key or make it am familiar with, the statements and serve as the trusted third party to available for use by anyone else; information submitted in this electronic oversee the certificate enrollment, (d) report to NMED within twenty- document and all of its attachments. issuance, validation, and revocation four hours of discovery any evidence of Based on my inquiry of those processes. The CA also conducts the loss, theft, or other compromise of individuals with primary responsibility identity proofing inquiries and issues any component of the digital signature; for obtaining the information, I certify digital certificates that accurately (e) immediately notify EPA and that the statements and information convey the subscriber’s identity NMED in writing if the Designated contained in this electronic document information and public keys. Representative loses the authority to and its attachments are, to the best of Designated Representative means an sign reports submitted to NMED as a my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, individual who is authorized to sign representative of NASA WSTF; and and complete. I am aware that there are reports for the NASA WSTF with (f) secure any assistance of third significant penalties for submitting false respect to the submission of any parties that is needed to protect a statements and information or omitting documents listed in Table A. signature from unauthorized use. required statements and information, Digital Signature means a number 4. General Submission Requirements. including the possibility of fine or uniquely calculated by the application In lieu of a paper document, NMED may imprisonment. of an encryption algorithm, using a accept from NASA WSTF an electronic I recognize that NMED and EPA will value supplied by an individual’s version of any document listed in Table rely on this electronic document in lieu private key, to a message digest for the A, provided the electronic document of an equivalent paper document, and document being signed. bears a valid digital signature, as that this document and the information Electronic record-keeping system provided in sections 2 and 3 of this rule, it contains will be used to determine my means any set of apparatus, procedures, to the same extent that a paper compliance with federal and State law. software, records or documentation submission for which the document In addition, I certify that I am the used to retain exact electronic copies of substitutes would bear a handwritten individual to whom the digital VerDate 11 certificate used in signing this document to NMED upon written request. These the signatory and the date and time of has been issued and that I have at all electronic documents must be promptly signature; times complied with the terms under transmitted, mailed, or available for (4) prevents an electronic signatory which this certificate was issued, inspection as NMED requests. and the date and time of signature; including my obligation to protect my (b) NASA employ a method of (5) ensures that record changes do not private key from use by anyone other electronic record retention that: obscure previously recorded than myself and to report any (1) Generates and maintains accurate information and that audit trail compromise of any component of my and complete electronic documents in a documentation is retained for at least as digital signature.’’ form that may not be altered without long as the electronic document; 8. Electronic Record-keeping. Any detection; (6) ensures that electronic documents electronic version of a document listed (2) produces accurate and complete are searchable and retrievable for in Table A must be retained in copies of any electronic document and reference and secondary uses, including electronic format by both NASA WSTF renders these copies readily available, inspections, audits, and legal and NMED for as long as a in both human readable and electronic proceedings; and corresponding paper document must be form, for on-site inspection and off site (7) archives records in an electronic stored under applicable State or federal review, for the entirety of the required form which preserves the context, meta law. NMED must require that: period of record retention; data, and audit trail. (a) NASA make electronic copies of (3) ensures that any electronic record Dated: October 24, 2001. electronic documents available on an or electronic document bearing an Christine Todd Whitman, individual, collective, or standing basis electronic signature contain the name of Administrator. TABLE A.—COVERED DOCUMENTS State permit Report name Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Application for renewal submittal. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Revision/Modification Notification Report. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Non compliance report. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Notification of Emergency Coordinators list change. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Annual compliance monitoring report. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Annual potentiometric flow net report. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Incident reports. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Request for modified post closure care period. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Completion of post closure care requirements submittal. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Appendix IX analysis new defects notification. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Annual effectiveness/conclusions report. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Well Replacement notification. Post Closure Care Permit NM88000194–2 ...... Modification of groundwater monitoring plan submittal. Landfill Post Closure Care Plan ...... Plan revision submittal. Landfill Post Closure Care Plan ...... Methane and groundwater. Landfill Post Closure Care Plan ...... Inspections and maintenance reports. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Annual Wastewater flow volumes submittal. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Spill contingency notification. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Contingency Plan notification. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Modification notifications. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Right to appeal petition. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Application for renewal submittal. Discharge Plan DP–392 ...... Internal written recordkeeping. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Semi-annual Monitoring Reports Submittal. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Semi-annual wastewater discharge volumes report submittal. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Closure sampling results submittal. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Internal written recordkeeping. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Spill contingency notification. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Modification notifications. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Right to appeal petition. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. Discharge Plan DP–584 ...... Application for renewal submittal. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Leak contingency notification and reporting. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Mitigation summary report submittal. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Quarterly monitoring reports submittal. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Internal written recordlkeeping. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Modification notifications. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Right to appeal petition. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. Discharge Plan DP–697 ...... Application for renewal submittal. Discharge Plan DP–1170 ...... Leak contingency notification and reporting. Discharge Plan DP–1170 ...... Semi annual monitoring reports submittal. Discharge Plan DP–1170 ...... Internal written recordkeeping. VerDate 11 TABLE A.—COVERED DOCUMENTS—Continued State permit Report name Discharge Plan DP–1170 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Discharge Plan DP–1170 ...... Modification notifications. Discharge Plan DP–1170 ...... Right to appeal petition. Discharge Plan DP–1170 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. Discharge Plan DP–1170 ...... Application for renewal submittal. Landfill Post Closure Care Plan ...... Inspections and maintenance reports. Landfill Post Closure Care Plan ...... Methane and groundwater monitoring data reports. . Landfill Post Closure Care Plan ...... Plan revision submittal. Landfill Post Closure Care Plan ...... Change of responsible parties notification. Landfill Post Closure Care Plan ...... 30 year reporting requirement. Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Plan ...... Plan revision submittal. Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Plan ...... Request to modify sampling frequencies submittal. Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Plan ...... Monitoring level exceedance notification. Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Plan ...... Analytical data reports. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Revision/Modification notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Waste Analysis Plan modification submittal. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Submittal signatory requirements. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Requests for deadline extension. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Newly identified SWMUs notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Newly identified SWMUs notification plan. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Newly discovered release notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Newly discovered release investigation plan. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... RFI/CMS and monthly progress reports. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Revised reports submittals. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Non EPA analytical method protocol submittal. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Off site access agreements submittal. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Monthly analytical data reports. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Project coordinator change notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Reports, plans, notifications, etc ‘‘in writing’’ requirement. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Lack of funds notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Written statement of dispute submittal. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... ‘‘Force majeur’’ event notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Final RFI/CMS submittal. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Application for renewal submittal. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Duty to provide requested information. . RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Annual ETU liner assessment report. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Notification of non compliance. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Notification and certification of closure and survey plat. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Emergency coordinator personnel change notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Contingency plan modification submittal. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Spill incident reports. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Spill response and corrective action reports. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... Certifications of major repairs submittal and recordkeeping. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... ETU secondary containment useful life extension request. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... ETU steel structure useful life extension request. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... ODU waste quantity exceedance notification. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... ODU statistical results and constituent exceedance report. RCRA Operating Permit NM8800019434–1 ...... FTU waste quantity exceedance notification. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... 40 CFR Notification Requirements. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Revision/Modification Notice. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Compliance Testing schedule notification. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Written test protocol submittal. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Compliance test report submittal. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Quarterly reports submittal. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Modification notifications. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Change of operator notification. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Right to appeal notification. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... Certifications of major repairs submittals and recordkeeping. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... ETU secondary containment useful life extension request. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... ETU steel structure useful life extension request. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... ODU waste quantity exceedance notification. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... ODU statistical results and constituent exceedance report. Air Quality Permit # 629–M–1 ...... FTU waste quantity exceedance notification. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... 40 CFR part 60 notification requirements. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Revision/Modification notification. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Compliance Testing schedule notification. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Written test protocol submittal. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Compliance test report submittal. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. VerDate 11 TABLE A.—COVERED DOCUMENTS—Continued State permit Report name Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Change of operator notification. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Quarterly reports submittal. Air Quality Permit # 629 M–3 ...... Right to appeal petition. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Revision/Modification notification. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... 40 CFR part 60 notification requirements. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Change of operator notification. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Compliance testing schedule notification. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Written test protocol submittal. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Right to appeal petition. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Transfer of ownership notification. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Duty to provide requested information. Air Quality Permit #400 M–1 ...... Right to appeal petition. Surface Water ...... Best Management Practices Report. Surface Water ...... Surface Water Management: Surface Water Worksheet Appendix A my use of my private key as I would be using discrepancy between a report I have signed my hand-written signature, and that legal and submitted and what NMED has received Project XL Electronic Signature Agreement action can be taken against me based on my from me; In accepting the digital certificate issued by use of my private key in submitting reports (6) agree to notify NMED and issuer of the the EPA approved Certificate Authority to to NMED. certificate in writing if I cease to represent digitally sign electronic documents (3) agree never to delegate the use of my NASA WSTF as signatory of that submitted to the New Mexico Environmental private key or make it available for use by organization’s reports to NMED as soon as Department (NMED) as part of the NASA anyone else; this change in relationship occurs. White Sands Test Facility (NASA WSTF) (4) agree to report to NMED and the issuer lllllllllllllllllllll Project XL pilot project, I, [name of digital of the certificate within twenty-four (24) NASA WSTF Designated Representative. signature holder], hours of discovery, any evidence of the loss, lllllllllllllllllllll (1) agree to protect the private key from use theft, or other compromise of my private key; NMED Chief Information Officer. by anyone except me, (5) agree to report to NMED and the issuer (2) understand and agree that I will be held of the certificate within twenty-four (24) [FR Doc. 01–27380 Filed 10–30–01; 8:45 am] as legally bound, obligated, or responsible by hours of discovery, any evidence of BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate 11 Part IV Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Parts 500 and 501 National Security; Prevention of Acts of Violence and Terrorism; Final Rule VerDate 11 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, (202) 307– In either case, the affected inmate may 2105. seek review of any special Bureau of Prisons administrative measures imposed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June pursuant to §§ 501.2 or 501.3 in 28 CFR Parts 500 and 501 20, 1997 (62 FR 33732), the Bureau of accordance with paragraph (a) of this Prisons (‘‘Bureau’’) finalized its interim section through the Administrative [BOP–1116; AG Order No. 2529–2001] regulations on the correctional Remedy Program, 28 CFR part 542. management of inmates whose contacts RIN 1120–AB08 Both rules limit the initial period of with other persons present the potential special administrative measures to 120 for disclosure of classified information National Security; Prevention of Acts days, and provide that additional 120- that could endanger national security or of Violence and Terrorism day periods may be authorized based on of other information that could lead to a certification or notification that the AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Department acts of violence or terrorism. These rules circumstances identified in the original of Justice. are codified at 28 CFR 501.2 (national notification continue to exist. ACTION: Interim rule with request for security) and 501.3 (violence and terrorism). Changes to § 501.2 With Respect to comment. National Security The Bureau previously had published SUMMARY: The current regulations of the an interim rule on preventing the This rule makes no change in the Bureau of Prisons on institutional disclosure of classified information in substantive standards for the imposition management authorize the Bureau to the Federal Register on October 13, of special administrative measures, but impose special administrative measures 1995 (60 FR 53490). No public comment changes the initial period of time under with respect to specified inmates, based was received, and the 1997 final rule § 501.2 from a fixed 120-day period to on information provided by senior adopted the 1995 interim rule with only a period of time designated by the intelligence or law enforcement minor changes. In general, § 501.2 Director, up to one year. Where the head officials, where it has been determined authorizes the Director of the Bureau of of an intelligence agency has certified to to be necessary to prevent the Prisons to impose special administrative the Attorney General that there is a dissemination either of classified measures with respect to a particular danger that the inmate will disclose information that could endanger the inmate that are reasonably necessary to classified information posing a threat to national security or of other information prevent disclosure of classified the national security, there is no logical that could lead to acts of violence and information, upon a written certification reason to suppose that the threat to the terrorism. This rule extends the period by the head of a United States national security will dissipate after 120 of time for which such special intelligence agency that the days. This rule allows the Director to administrative measures may be unauthorized disclosure of such designate a longer period of time, up to one year, in order to protect the national imposed from 120 days to up to one information would pose a threat to the security. year, and modifies the standards for national security and that there is a The rule also allows for the Director approving extensions of such special danger that the inmate will disclose administrative measures. In addition, in to extend the period for the special such information. These special administrative measures for additional those cases where the Attorney General administrative measures ordinarily may has certified that reasonable suspicion one-year periods, based on subsequent include housing the inmate in certifications from the head of an exists to believe that an inmate may use administrative detention and/or limiting communications with attorneys or their intelligence agency. This will ensure a certain privileges, including, but not continuing review by the Director and agents to further or facilitate acts of limited to, correspondence, visiting, violence or terrorism, this rule amends the intelligence community of the need interviews with representatives of the for the special administrative measures the existing regulations to provide that news media, and use of the telephone, the Bureau is authorized to monitor in light of the ongoing risks to the as is reasonably necessary to prevent the national security. Given the serious mail or communications with attorneys disclosure of classified information. in order to deter such acts, subject to nature of the danger to the national specific procedural safeguards, to the The Bureau also had previously security, as determined by the head of extent permitted under the Constitution published a separate interim rule on the intelligence agency, this approach and laws of the United States. Finally, preventing acts of violence and reflects an appropriate balancing of the this rule provides that the head of each terrorism on May 17, 1996 (61 FR interests of the individual inmates and component of the Department of Justice 25120). The Bureau’s 1997 final rule of the public interest in protecting that has custody of persons for whom responded at length to the public against the disclosure of such national special administrative measures are comments received on the 1996 interim security information. determined to be necessary may rule. Section 501.3 authorizes the In addition, this rule modifies the exercise the same authority to impose imposition of similar special standard for approving extensions of the such measures as the Director of the administrative measures on a particular special administrative measures. The Bureau of Prisons. inmate based on a written determination existing regulation requires that the by the Attorney General or, at the head of the intelligence agency certify DATES: Effective date: October 30, 2001. Attorney General’s discretion, the head that ‘‘the circumstances identified in the Comment date: Written comments of a federal law enforcement or original certification continue to exist.’’ must be submitted on or before intelligence agency that there is a This standard, however, is December 31, 2001. substantial risk that an inmate’s unnecessarily static, as it might be read ADDRESSES: Rules Unit, Office of the communications or contacts with other to suggest that the subsequent General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, persons could result in death or serious certifications are limited to a HOLC Room 754, 320 First Street, NW., bodily injury to persons, or substantial reevaluation of the original grounds. Washington, DC 20534. damage to property that would entail Instead, this rule provides that the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the risk of death or serious bodily injury subsequent certifications by the head of Sarah Qureshi, Office of the General to persons. an intelligence agency may be based on VerDate 11 any information available to the or orchestration of a terrorist or violent of the public interest in detecting and intelligence agency. criminal conspiracy may vary over time. deterring acts of terrorism and violence. Although this rule does not alter the Changes to § 501.3 With Respect to The existing regulation fails to recognize that an inmate still may be an substantive standards for the initial Prevention of Acts of Violence and imposition of special administrative Terrorism integral part of an ongoing conspiracy even though his or her activity may measures under § 501.3, it is worth This rule makes no change in the change over time—or, indeed, possibly noting that the Bureau’s final rule substantive standards for the even be dormant for limited periods of implementing this section in 1997 implementation of special time. Those changes in an inmate’s role devoted a substantial portion of the administrative measures under over time, however, would not alter the supplementary information § 501.3(a). The rule also retains the significance of the inmate’s role in accompanying the rule to a discussion existing authority of the Director to planning acts of terrorism or violence of the relevant legal issues. 62 FR extend the imposition of the special and do not diminish the urgent need for 33730–31. As the U.S. Supreme Court administrative measures for additional law enforcement authorities to curb the noted in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, periods, based on subsequent inmate’s ability to participate in 822, 823 (1974), ‘‘a prison inmate certifications from the Attorney General planning or facilitating those acts retains those First Amendment rights or the head of a federal law enforcement through communications with others that are not inconsistent with his status or intelligence agency. By continuing to within or outside the detention facility. as an inmate or with the legitimate apply the existing standards under The phraseology of the existing rule also penological objectives of the corrections § 501.3(a), this rule preserves the may raise questions about the relevance system. * * * An important function of balance struck in the 1997 final rule and of more recently acquired information. the corrections system is the deterrence ensures that the inmate’s circumstances For these reasons, it would not be of crime. * * * Finally, central to all will be subject to a continuing review. appropriate to require a factual other corrections goals is the However, this rule also recognizes determination, in effect, that ‘‘nothing institutional consideration of internal that the threats of violence or terrorism security within the corrections facilities posed by an inmate’s communications has changed’’ with respect to the initial determination. themselves.’’ or contacts with his or her associates, This regulation, with its concern for whether those other persons are within Accordingly, this rule provides that security and protection of the public, the detention facility or in the the subsequent notifications by the clearly meets this test. The changes community at large, may in many cases Attorney General, or the head of the made by this rule, regarding the length be manifested on a continuing basis, federal law enforcement or intelligence of time and the standards for extension such that the periods for special agency should focus on the key factual of periods of special administrative administrative measures need not be determination—that is, whether the measures, do not alter the fundamental limited to 120 days. Accordingly, this special administrative measures basis of the rules that were adopted in rule allows the Director, with the continue to be reasonably necessary, at 1997. Instead, they more clearly focus approval of the Attorney General, to the time of each determination, because the provisions for extensions—both the impose special administrative measures there is a substantial risk that an duration of time and the standards—on for a longer period of time, not to exceed inmate’s communications or contacts the continuing need for restrictions on one year, in cases involving acts of with persons could result in death or a particular inmate’s ability to violence or terrorism. In addition, the serious bodily injury to persons, or communicate with others within or rule provides authority for the Director substantial damage to property that outside the detention facility in order to under certain circumstances to provide would entail the risk of death or serious avoid the risks of terrorism and for extensions of the period for the bodily injury to persons. Where the violence. In every case, the decisions special administrative measures for Attorney General, or the head of a made with respect to a particular inmate additional periods, up to one year. federal law enforcement or intelligence will reflect a consideration of the issues This rule also modifies the standard agency, previously has made such a at the highest levels of the law for approving extensions of the special determination, then the determination enforcement and intelligence administrative measures. The existing made at each subsequent review should communities. Where the issue is regulation requires that the Attorney not require a de novo review, but only prevention of acts of violence and General or the head of the federal law a determination that there is a terrorism, it is appropriate for enforcement or intelligence agency continuing need for the imposition of government officials, at the highest level determine that ‘‘the circumstances special administrative measures in light and acting on the basis of their available identified in the original notification of the circumstances. law enforcement and intelligence continue to exist.’’ Again, that standard With these changes, § 501.3 will still information, to impose restrictions on is unnecessarily static, as it might be ensure a continuing, periodic review by an inmate’s public contacts that may read to suggest that the subsequent the Director and the law enforcement cause or facilitate such acts. determinations are limited to a and intelligence communities of the reevaluation of the original grounds. need for the special administrative Monitoring of Communications With Recent incidents of terrorism and measures in light of the ongoing risks of Attorneys To Deter Acts of Terrorism violence demonstrate, without question, terrorism or violent crime. Given the In general, the Bureau’s existing that some criminal conspiracies develop serious nature of the danger to the regulations relating to special mail and are carried out over a long period— public arising from such incidents, (§§ 540.18, 540.19), visits (§ 540.48), and far in excess of 120 days. During that coupled with a determination by the telephone calls (§ 540.103) contemplate time, as the plans may change or Attorney General or the head of a that communications between an inmate develop, there may be changes in the federal law enforcement or intelligence and his or her attorney are not subject level of activity directed toward that agency regarding the danger posed by to the usual rules for monitoring of conspiracy over time by the various each particular inmate, this approach inmate communications. In specific participants. The level of participation reflects an appropriate balancing of the instances, however, based on by a particular inmate in the planning interests of the individual inmates and information from federal law VerDate 11 enforcement or intelligence agencies, communications with counsel; and (4) reading the memo once he realized it the Bureau may have substantial reason an emergency procedure for immediate contained attorney-client conversation; to believe that certain inmates who have dissemination of information pertaining the court cited the screening procedure been involved in terrorist activities will to future acts of violence or terrorism as a factor in finding that the pass messages through their attorneys where those acts are determined to be government’s intrusion into the defense (or the attorney’s legal assistant or an imminent. camp was unintentional, and that the interpreter) to individuals on the The Supreme Court has held that the intrusion had not benefitted the outside for the purpose of continuing presence of a government informant government). Likewise, firewalls have terrorist activities. during conversations between a been built so that an entire prosecution The existing regulations, of course, defendant and his or her attorney may, office is not disqualified when a lawyer recognize the existence of the attorney- but need not, impair the defendant’s who formerly represented or had a client privilege and an inmate’s right to Sixth Amendment right to effective connection to a defendant joins the counsel. However, it also is clear that assistance of counsel. See Weatherford prosecutor’s office but has no not all communications between an v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 552–54 (1977). involvement in his former client’s inmate and an attorney would fall When the government possesses a prosecution. See Blair v. Armontrout, within the scope of that privilege. For legitimate law enforcement interest in 916 F.2d 1310, 1333 (8th Cir. 1990). example, materials provided to an monitoring such conversations, cf. This rule carefully and attorney that do not relate to the seeking Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, conscientiously balances an inmate’s or providing of legal advice are not 207 (1964), no Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel within the attorney-client privilege. violation occurs so long as privileged against the government’s responsibility Accordingly, such materials would not communications are protected from to thwart future acts of violence or qualify as special mail under the disclosure and no information recovered terrorism perpetrated with the Bureau’s regulations. through monitoring is used by the participation or direction of federal The attorney-client privilege protects government in a way that deprives the inmates. In those cases where the confidential communications regarding defendant of a fair trial. The procedures government has substantial reason to legal matters, but the law is clear that established in this new rule are believe that an inmate may use there is no protection for designed to ensure that defendants’ communications with attorneys or their communications that are in furtherance Sixth Amendment rights are agents to further or facilitate acts of of the client’s ongoing or contemplated scrupulously protected. The violence or terrorism, the government illegal acts. Clark v. United States, 289 circumstances in which monitoring will has a responsibility to take reasonable U.S. 1, 15 (1933) (such a client ‘‘will be permitted are defined narrowly and and lawful precautions to safeguard the have no help from the law’’); United in a way that reflects a very important public from those acts. States v. Gordon-Nikkar, 518 F. 2d 972, law enforcement interest: the prevention 975 (5th Cir. 1975) (‘‘it is beyond of acts of violence or terrorism. The Applicability to All Persons in Custody dispute that the attorney-client privilege monitoring is not surreptitious; on the Under the Authority of the Attorney does not extend to communications contrary, the defendant and his or her General regarding an intended crime’’). The attorney are required to be given notice The existing §§ 501.2 and 501.3 cover crime/fraud exception to the attorney- of the government’s listening activities. only inmates in the custody of the client privilege applies even if the The rule requires that privileged Bureau of Prisons. However, there are attorney is unaware that his professional information not be retained by the instances when a person is held in the service is being sought in furtherance of government monitors and that, apart custody of other officials under the an improper purpose, United States v. from disclosures necessary to thwart an authority of the Attorney General (for Soudan, 812 F.2d 920, 927 (5th Cir. imminent act of violence or terrorism, example, the Director of the United 1986), and the attorney takes no action any disclosures to investigators or States Marshals Service or the to assist the client, In re Grand Jury prosecutors must be approved by a Commissioner of the Immigration and Proceedings, 87 F. 3d 377, 382 (9th Cir. federal judge. Naturalization Service). To ensure 1996). In following these procedures, it is consistent application of these This rule provides specific authority intended that the use of a taint team and provisions relating to special for the monitoring of communications the building of a firewall will ensure administrative measures in those between an inmate and his or her that the communications which fit circumstances where such restrictions attorneys or their agents, where there under the protection of the attorney- are necessary, this rule clarifies that the has been a specific determination that client privilege will never be revealed to appropriate officials of the Department such actions are reasonably necessary in prosecutors and investigators. of Justice having custody of persons for order to deter future acts of violence or Procedures such as this have been whom special administrative measures terrorism, and upon a specific approved in matters such as searches of are required may exercise the same notification to the inmate and the law offices, See, e.g., National City authorities as the Director of the Bureau attorneys involved. The rule provides Trading Corp. v. United States, 635 F.2d of Prisons and the Warden. for (1) protection of the inmate’s right to 1020, 1026–27 (2d Cir. 1980). In a We are also clarifying the definition of counsel; (2) the use of a special similar vein, screening procedures are ‘‘inmate’’ to avoid any question whether ‘‘privilege team’’ to contemporaneously used in wiretap surveillance. See, e.g., these regulations apply to all persons in monitor an inmate’s communications United States v. Noriega, 764 F. Supp. BOP custody. with counsel, pursuant to established 1480 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (DEA agent firewall procedures, when there is a unrelated to the case reviewed prison Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sufficient justification of need to deter telephone tapes to determine whether 553 future acts of violence or terrorism; (3) they contained any privileged attorney- The Department’s implementation of a procedure for federal court approval client communications; agent this rule as an interim rule, with prior to the release or dissemination of mistakenly reduced one such provision for post-promulgation public information gleaned by the privilege communication to memorandum form, comment, is based on the foreign affairs team while monitoring the inmate’s but the assigned prosecutor stopped exception, 5 U.S.C. 553(a), and upon VerDate 11 findings of good cause pursuant to 5 entities within the meaning of the Act. 4. In § 501.2, paragraph (c) is revised U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d). Because this rule pertains to the and paragraph (e) is added, to read as The immediate implementation of management of offenders committed to follows: this interim rule without public the custody of the Department of Justice, comment is necessary to ensure that the its economic impact is limited to the use § 501.2 National security cases. Department is able to respond to current of appropriated funds. * * * * * intelligence and law enforcement This rule will not have substantial (c) Initial placement of an inmate in concerns relating to threats to the direct effects on the states, the administrative detention and/or any national security or risks of terrorism or relationship between the national limitation of the inmate’s privileges in violent crimes that may arise through government and the states, or the accordance with paragraph (a) of this the ability of particular inmates to distribution of power and section may be imposed for a period of communicate with other persons. responsibilities among the various time as determined by the Director, Recent terrorist activities perpetrated on levels of government. Therefore, in Bureau of Prisons, up to one year. United States soil demonstrate the need accordance with Executive Order 13132, Special restrictions imposed in for continuing vigilance in addressing it is determined that this rule does not accordance with paragraph (a) of this the terrorism and security-related have sufficient federalism implications section may be extended thereafter by concerns identified by the law to warrant the preparation of a the Director, Bureau of Prisons, in enforcement and intelligence Federalism Assessment. increments not to exceed one year, but communities. It is imperative that the only if the Attorney General receives Department have the immediate ability List of Subjects in 28 CFR Parts 500 and from the head of a member agency of the to impose special administrative 501 United States intelligence community measures, and to continue those an additional written certification that, Prisoners. measures over time, with respect to based on the information available to persons in its custody who may Accordingly, pursuant to the the agency, there is a danger that the wrongfully disclose classified rulemaking authority vested in the inmate will disclose classified information that could pose a threat to Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a), part information and that the unauthorized national security or who may be 501 in subchapter A of 28 CFR, chapter disclosure of such information would planning or facilitating terrorist acts. V is amended as set forth below: pose a threat to the national security. In view of the immediacy of the SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL The authority of the Director under this dangers to the public, the need for MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION paragraph may not be delegated below detecting and deterring communications the level of Acting Director. from inmates that may facilitate acts of PART 500—GENERAL DEFINITIONS * * * * * violence or terrorism, and the small (e) Other appropriate officials of the portion of the inmate population likely 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR Department of Justice having custody of to be affected, the Department has part 500 continues to read as follows: persons for whom special determined that there is good cause to Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, administrative measures are required publish this interim rule and to make it 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed may exercise the same authorities under effective upon publication, because the in part as to offenses committed on or after this section as the Director of the Bureau delays inherent in the regular notice- November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed of Prisons and the Warden. and-comment process would be October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed 4. In § 501.3, ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary and after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 a. Paragraph (c) is revised; contrary to the public interest.’’ 5 U.S.C. CFR 0.95–0.99. b. Paragraph (d) is redesignated as 553(b)(B), (d). Application of these 2. In § 500.1, paragraph (c) is revised paragraph (e); and measures is likely to affect only a small to read as follows: c. New paragraphs (d) and (f) are portion of the inmate population: those added to read as follows: inmates who have been certified by the § 500.1 Definitions. head of a United States intelligence § 501.3 Prevention of acts of violence and * * * * * terrorism. agency as posing a threat to the national (c) Inmate means all persons in the security through the possible disclosure * * * * * custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (c) Initial placement of an inmate in of classified information; or for whom or Bureau contract facilities, including the Attorney General or the head of a administrative detention and/or any persons charged with or convicted of limitation of the inmate’s privileges in federal law enforcement or intelligence offenses against the United States; D.C. agency has determined that there is a accordance with paragraph (a) of this Code felony offenders; and persons held section may be imposed for up to 120 substantial risk that the inmate’s as witnesses, detainees, or otherwise. communications with others could lead days or, with the approval of the * * * * * to violence or terrorism. Attorney General, a longer period of time not to exceed one year. Special PART 501—SCOPE OF RULES Regulatory Certifications restrictions imposed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may be The Department has determined that 3. The authority citation for 28 CFR extended thereafter by the Director, this rule is a significant regulatory part 501 continues to read as follows: action for the purpose of Executive Bureau of Prisons, in increments not to Order 12866, and accordingly this rule Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, exceed one year, upon receipt by the has been reviewed by the Office of 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed Director of an additional written in part as to offenses committed on or after notification from the Attorney General, Management and Budget. November 1, 1987), 4161–4166 (Repealed as The Department certifies, for the to offenses committed on or after November or, at the Attorney General’s direction, purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed October 12, from the head of a federal law Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this rule 1984 as to offenses committed after that enforcement agency or the head of a will not have a significant economic date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95– member agency of the United States impact on a substantial number of small 0.99. intelligence community, that there VerDate 11 continues to be a substantial risk that be in addition to any findings or limited to, recordings of privileged the inmate’s communications or determinations relating to the need for communications) are not retained contacts with other persons could result the imposition of other special during the course of the monitoring. To in death or serious bodily injury to administrative measures as provided in protect the attorney-client privilege and persons, or substantial damage to paragraph (a) of this section, but may be to ensure that the investigation is not property that would entail the risk of incorporated into the same document. compromised by exposure to privileged death or serious bodily injury to (2) Except in the case of prior court material relating to the investigation or persons. The authority of the Director authorization, the Director, Bureau of to defense strategy, a privilege team Prisons, shall provide written notice to under this paragraph may not be shall be designated, consisting of delegated below the level of Acting the inmate and to the attorneys individuals not involved in the Director. involved, prior to the initiation of any (d) In any case where the Attorney monitoring or review under this underlying investigation. The General specifically so orders, based on paragraph (d). The notice shall explain: monitoring shall be conducted pursuant information from the head of a federal (i) That, notwithstanding the to procedures designed to minimize the law enforcement or intelligence agency provisions of part 540 of this chapter or intrusion into privileged material or that reasonable suspicion exists to other rules, all communications conversations. Except in cases where believe that a particular inmate may use between the inmate and attorneys may the person in charge of the privilege communications with attorneys or their be monitored, to the extent determined team determines that acts of violence or agents to further or facilitate acts of to be reasonably necessary for the terrorism are imminent, the privilege terrorism, the Director, Bureau of purpose of deterring future acts of team shall not disclose any information Prisons, shall, in addition to the special violence or terrorism; unless and until such disclosure has administrative measures imposed under (ii) That communications between the been approved by a federal judge. paragraph (a) of this section, provide inmate and attorneys or their agents are * * * * * appropriate procedures for the not protected by the attorney-client monitoring or review of privilege if they would facilitate (f) Other appropriate officials of the communications between that inmate criminal acts or a conspiracy to commit Department of Justice having custody of and attorneys or attorneys’ agents who criminal acts, or if those persons for whom special are traditionally covered by the communications are not related to the administrative measures are required attorney-client privilege, for the purpose seeking or providing of legal advice. may exercise the same authorities under of deterring future acts that could result (3) The Director, Bureau of Prisons, this section as the Director of the Bureau in death or serious bodily injury to with the approval of the Assistant of Prisons and the Warden. persons, or substantial damage to Attorney General for the Criminal Dated: October 26, 2001. property that would entail the risk of Division, shall employ appropriate John Ashcroft, death or serious bodily injury to procedures to ensure that all attorney- persons. client communications are reviewed for Attorney General. (1) The certification by the Attorney privilege claims and that any properly [FR Doc. 01–27472 Filed 10–30–01; 9:35 am] General under this paragraph (d) shall privileged materials (including, but not BILLING CODE 4410–05–P VerDate 11 Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 211 Wednesday, October 31, 2001 CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING OCTOBER Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–523–5227 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since the revision date of each title. Laws 523–5227 13231) ...... 53063 3 CFR 12978 (See Notice of Presidential Documents Proclamations: October 16, 2001)...... 53073 Executive orders and proclamations 523–5227 7471...... 50097 12994 (Amended by The United States Government Manual 523–5227 7472...... 50099 EO 13225)...... 50291 7473...... 50287 13021 (Amended by 7474...... 50289 Other Services EO 13225)...... 50291 7475...... 50525 13045 (Amended by Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523–3447 7476...... 50527 EO 13229)...... 52013 Privacy Act Compilation 523–3187 7477...... 51295 13075 (Revoked by Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523–6641 7478...... 51297 EO 13225)...... 50291 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523–5229 7479...... 51807 13080 (Revoked by 7480...... 51808 EO 13225)...... 50291 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 7481...... 51810 13090 (Revoked by 7482...... 52011 EO 13225)...... 50291 World Wide Web 7483...... 52015 13130 (Revoked by Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 7484...... 52303 EO 13231)...... 53063 is located at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara 7485...... 52845 13134 (Amended by 7486...... 52847 EO 13225)...... 50291 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 7487...... 53943 13138 (Amended by Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 7488...... 54903 EO 13225)...... 50523 http://www.nara.gov/fedreg 7489...... 54905 13138 (Amended by E-mail 7490...... 54907 EO 13226)...... 50291 Executive Orders: 13168 (Revoked by FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 10789 (Amended by EO 13225)...... 50291 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital EO 13232)...... 53941 13225...... 50291 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 11145 (Amended by 13226...... 50523 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and EO 13225)...... 50291 13227...... 51287 PDF links to the full text of each document. 11183 (Amended by 13228...... 51812 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select EO 13225)...... 50291 13228 (See EO Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 11287 (Amended by 13231) ...... 53063 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. EO 13225)...... 50291 13229...... 52013 12131 (Amended by 13230...... 52841 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail EO 13225)...... 50291 13231...... 53063 service for notification of recently enacted Public Laws. To 12196 (Amended by 13232...... 53941 subscribe, send e-mail to [email protected] EO 13225)...... 50291 Administrative Orders: with the text message: 12216 (Amended by Presidential subscribe PUBLAWS-L your name EO 13225)...... 50291 Determinations: 12333 (See EO No. 2001–27 of Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe. 13231) ...... 53063 September 18, FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 12345 (Amended by 2001 ...... 50807 respond to specific inquiries. EO 13225)...... 50291 No. 2001–28 of 12367 (Amended by September 22, Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the EO 13225)...... 50291 2001 ...... 50095 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 12382 (Amended by No. 2001–30 of The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or EO 13225)...... 50291 September 28, regulations. 12382 (See EO 2001 ...... 51291 13231) ...... 53063 No. 2001–31 of FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, OCTOBER 12472 (See EO September 28, 13231) ...... 53063 2001 ...... 51293 49823–50094...... 1 52849–53072...... 18 12656 (Amended by No. 2002–02 of EO 13228)...... 51812 50095–50286...... 2 53073–53328...... 19 October 16, 2001 ...... 53503 12882 (Revoked by No. 2002–03 of 50287–50524...... 3 53329–53502...... 22 50525–50808...... 4 EO 13226)...... 50523 October 16, 2001 ...... 53505 53503–53710...... 23 12900 (Amended by 50809–51290...... 5 Notices: 53711–53942...... 24 EO 13225)...... 50291 51291–51554...... 9 October 16, 2001...... 53073 53943–54096...... 25 12900 (Revoked by 51555–51818...... 10 54097–54410...... 26 EO 13230)...... 52841 5 CFR 51819–52014...... 11 54411–54640...... 29 12905 (Amended by 550...... 53507 52015–52306...... 12 54641–54908...... 30 EO 13225)...... 50291 1604...... 50712 52307–52482...... 15 54909–55066...... 31 12907 (Revoked by 52483–52656...... 16 EO 13226)...... 50523 7 CFR 52657–52848...... 17 12958 (See EO 29...... 53075 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:06 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\31OCCU.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 31OCCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2001 / Reader Aids 246...... 52849 303...... 54645 1260...... 54468 42...... 54135 302...... 54641 918...... 54916 1274...... 54468 139...... 52502 457...... 53076 925...... 54097 718...... 53507 930...... 54097 15 CFR 23 CFR 723...... 53507, 53945 931...... 54097 14...... 49827 Proposed Rules: 916...... 52307 932...... 54097 742...... 50090 627...... 53288, 54964 920...... 54411 933...... 54097 744...... 50090 635...... 53288, 54964 948...... 52309 950...... 50293 Proposed Rules: 636...... 53288, 54964 989...... 53945 951...... 50296 990...... 50919 637...... 53288, 54964 1007...... 54909 952...... 50293 710...... 53288, 54964 16 CFR 1464...... 53507 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: Ch. IX...... 50366 6...... 51862 24 CFR 75...... 53550 211...... 54399 1115...... 54923 599...... 52675 301...... 53123 609...... 53348 1700...... 53951 888...... 50024 330...... 51340 620...... 53348 Proposed Rules: 985...... 50004 987...... 52363 703...... 54168 312...... 54963 3500...... 53052 1633...... 51886 1000...... 54064 13 CFR Proposed Rules: 1001...... 54064 200...... 53930 123...... 53329 17 CFR 1005...... 54064 203...... 53930 1006...... 54064 400...... 53078 1...... 53510 1007...... 54064 3...... 53510 25 CFR 14 CFR 4...... 53510 1030...... 54064 500...... 55062 Ch. VI...... 52270 140...... 53510 1032...... 53551, 54064 501...... 55062 1033...... 54064 13...... 55042 155...... 53510 23...... 50809, 50819 204...... 54125 Proposed Rules: 1124...... 54064 580...... 50127 1126...... 54064 25 ...... 51299, 52017, 54062, 230...... 50102 54414 1131...... 54064 232...... 49829 26 CFR 1135...... 54064 35...... 50302 239...... 50102 1...... 52675 1260...... 53124, 53127 39 ...... 49823, 49825, 50304, 240...... 50103 50306, 50307, 50529, 51555, 270...... 50102 301...... 50541 8 CFR 51843, 51849, 51853, 51856, 274...... 50102 602...... 50541 51857, 51860, 52020, 52023, Proposed Rules: 3...... 54909 Proposed Rules: 52027, 52312, 52313, 52489, 1...... 53555 204...... 51819 1...... 50786 52492, 52496, 52498, 52668, 48...... 53564 212...... 51821 41...... 50720, 50786 53080, 53083, 53332, 53335, 190...... 50786 27 CFR 9 CFR 53337, 54110, 54111, 54119, 230...... 50744 54416, 54418, 54421, 54422, 232...... 50744 9...... 50564 94...... 52483, 54642 54425, 54651, 54652, 54656, 317...... 52484 239...... 50744 Proposed Rules: 54658, 54661, 54918, 54920 240 ...... 49877, 50744, 50786 40...... 52730 319...... 54912 61...... 52278 381...... 52484 242...... 50720 63...... 52278 249...... 50744 28 CFR Proposed Rules: 71...... 50101, 53950 269...... 50744 381...... 52715 2...... 51301 73 ...... 50310, 53951, 54435 16...... 54663 391...... 52548 91...... 50531 18 CFR 441...... 52715 Proposed Rules: 97 ...... 50821, 50823, 53085, Proposed Rules: 590...... 52548 100...... 50931 53087 Ch. 1 ...... 50591 592...... 52548 121 ...... 51546, 52278, 52834 37...... 50919 29 CFR 135...... 51546, 52278 10 CFR 161...... 50919 Ch. XL...... 51864 142...... 51546, 52278 250...... 50919 102...... 50310 30...... 51823 330...... 54616 284...... 50919, 53134 1904...... 52031 55...... 52657 382...... 51556 358...... 50919 4022...... 52315 70...... 51823 1260...... 54120 4044...... 52315 72...... 51823, 52486 1300...... 52270 19 CFR Proposed Rules: 150...... 51823 Proposed Rules: 10...... 50534, 51864 470...... 50010 1044...... 54643 13...... 52878 122...... 50103 Proposed Rules: 39 ...... 50125, 50578, 50580, 163...... 50534 30 CFR 2...... 52721 50582, 50584, 50586, 50588, 15...... 50860, 54061 50870, 50872, 50873, 50875, 20 CFR 210...... 50827 20...... 52551 50877, 50880, 50872, 50884, 655...... 51095 218...... 50827 920...... 50827 50 ...... 51884, 52065, 52551 50886, 50888, 50891, 50894, Proposed Rules: 72...... 52554 50897, 50899, 50901, 50903, 655...... 53745, 53746 Proposed Rules: 430...... 53554 50906, 50910, 50912, 50915, 901...... 52879 431...... 50355 50917, 51358, 51607, 51611, 21 CFR 904...... 50952 852...... 53130 52066, 52068, 52070, 52072, 101...... 50824 948...... 53749 52073, 53131, 53738, 53741, 172...... 53711 950...... 51891 11 CFR 53743, 54171, 54173, 54453, 310...... 53088 31 CFR Proposed Rules: 54463, 54465, 54466, 54725, 1308...... 51530, 51539 100...... 50359 54727, 54729, 54731, 54960 1310...... 54061 Ch. V...... 54404 114...... 50359 61...... 52878 Proposed Rules: 285...... 51867 117...... 50359 71...... 52076 589...... 50929 586...... 50506 73...... 53132 1308...... 51535 587...... 50506 12 CFR 91...... 52878 1309...... 52670 Proposed Rules: 201...... 52850 119...... 52878 1310...... 52670, 53746 1...... 54175 204...... 53076 125...... 52878 211...... 54346 135...... 52878 22 CFR 32 CFR 265...... 54346 142...... 52878 41 ...... 49830, 52500, 53711 40...... 53957 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:06 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\31OCCU.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 31OCCU Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2001 / Reader Aids iii 42...... 53957 3001...... 54436 142...... 50961, 54178 21...... 51905 46...... 53957 Proposed Rules: 145...... 54178 54...... 54967 51...... 53957 20...... 52555 162...... 54178 64...... 50139, 50140 55...... 53957 111...... 51617 228...... 51628 73 ...... 50602, 50991, 51360, 62...... 53957 233...... 54178 51361, 51905, 52565, 52566, 63...... 53957 40 CFR 257...... 53566, 54178 52567, 52733, 52734, 52735, 65...... 53957 9...... 53044 258...... 53566, 54178 53192, 53755, 54190, 54191, 72...... 53957 52 ...... 50319, 50829, 51312, 260...... 52192 54970, 54971, 54972 76...... 53957 51566, 51568, 51570, 51572, 261...... 50379 76...... 51905, 54972 79...... 53957 51574, 51576, 51578, 51868, 267...... 52192 89...... 53957 51869, 52044, 52050, 52055, 270...... 52192 48 CFR 98...... 53957 52317, 52322, 52327, 52333, 271...... 49896, 54178 Ch. 1...... 53478, 53500 102...... 53957 52338, 52343, 52359, 52506, 272...... 53755 1...... 53479 103...... 53957 52511, 52517, 52522, 52527, 281...... 50963, 54178 2 ...... 53483, 53485, 53487 111...... 53957 52533, 52694, 52695, 52700, 300...... 50380 12...... 53483, 53487 114...... 53957 52705, 52711, 52851, 52857, 403...... 54178 13...... 53487 115...... 53957 52862, 52867, 53090, 53094, 501...... 54178 19...... 53492, 53500 132...... 53957 53340, 53658, 53662, 53665, 721...... 54742 22...... 53479, 53487 157...... 53957 53686, 54143, 54578, 54598, 745...... 54178 32...... 53485 159...... 53957 54666, 54688, 54691, 54698, 763...... 54178 46...... 53483 159a...... 53957 54699, 54704, 54710, 54936, 1048...... 51098 52 ...... 53479, 53483, 53485, 171...... 53957 54942, 54947 1051...... 51098 53487, 53492 186...... 53957 55...... 53533 1065...... 51098 53...... 53492 188...... 53957 60...... 49830, 50110 1068...... 51098 202...... 49860 194...... 53957 61...... 50110 204...... 49860 231...... 54136 62 ...... 49834, 52060, 52534, 41 CFR 211...... 49860 320...... 52680 54715 61–250...... 51998 212...... 49860, 49862 326...... 54925 63 ...... 50110, 50116, 50504, 101–46...... 51095 215...... 49862 701...... 54928 102–39...... 51095 219...... 49860, 49863 706 ...... 53523, 53524, 53525, 52361, 52537 223...... 49864 53526, 53528, 53529, 53530, 70 ...... 49837, 49839, 50321, 42 CFR 225...... 49862 53531, 53532 50325, 50574, 51312, 51318, 51d...... 51873 226...... 50504 806b...... 54929 51581, 52538, 52874, 54444, 54953 Proposed Rules: 232...... 49864 33 CFR 80...... 54955 81...... 50967 236...... 49860 100...... 54136, 54138 81 ...... 53094, 53106, 53665 82...... 50978 237...... 49860 110...... 50315 122...... 53044 403...... 54179 242...... 49860 117 ...... 51302, 51313, 51304, 123...... 53044 408...... 54186 243...... 49865 51305, 51557, 52317, 52684, 124...... 53044 416...... 54179 245...... 49860 52685, 52686, 52687, 52689, 130...... 53044 418...... 54179 248...... 49865 53088, 54140, 54930 180 ...... 50329, 50829, 51585, 460...... 54179 252 ...... 49860, 49862, 49864, 160...... 50565 51587, 53342, 53716, 53720 482...... 54179 49865, 50504, 51515 165 ...... 50105, 50106, 50108, 257...... 53535 483...... 54179 253...... 49862, 51515 258...... 53535 442...... 49866 50315, 51305, 51307, 51309, 43 CFR 51558, 51562, 52035, 52036, 261...... 50332 1804...... 53545 52038, 52039, 52041, 52043, 271...... 49841, 50833 2560...... 52544 1807...... 53545 52689, 52691, 52693, 52851, 272...... 53724 3800...... 54834 1808...... 53545 53712, 53713, 53958, 54141, 403...... 50334 Proposed Rules: 1815...... 53545 54663 Proposed Rules: 3800...... 54863 1816...... 53545 Ch. I ...... 55050 1817...... 53545 Proposed Rules: 44 CFR 117...... 51614 3...... 54178 1819...... 53545 155...... 49877 51...... 50135, 54178 64...... 51320, 54718 1822...... 53545 156...... 49877 52 ...... 50252, 50375, 51359, 65 ...... 53112, 53114, 53115 1832...... 53545 165...... 52365 51619, 52367, 52560, 54733 67...... 53117 1835...... 53545 173...... 53754 60...... 49894, 54178 Proposed Rules: 1836...... 53545 62 ...... 49895, 52077, 52561, 67...... 53182, 53190 1837...... 53545 36 CFR 54734 1842...... 53545 45 CFR 242...... 54931, 54934 63 ...... 50135, 50768, 54178 1843...... 53545 Proposed Rules: 70 ...... 49895, 50136, 50375, Ch. V ...... 49844, 54061 1844...... 53545 50378, 50379, 51359, 51360, 1852...... 53545 1234...... 51740 46 CFR 51620, 51895, 52368, 52561, Proposed Rules: 37 CFR 52562, 52881, 52882, 53140, 32...... 49877 1...... 53314 Proposed Rules: 53148, 53151, 53155, 53159, 126...... 53542 36...... 53314 53163, 53167, 53170, 53174, 52...... 53050 260...... 51617 47 CFR 53178, 53354, 53370, 53966, 53...... 53314 38 CFR 53969, 54178, 54734, 54737, 0...... 50833 552...... 53193 19...... 53339 54739 1...... 50834, 54447 20...... 53339 80...... 54965 2...... 50834, 53960 49 CFR Proposed Rules: 89...... 51098 22...... 50841 27...... 51556 3 ...... 49886, 53139, 53565 90...... 51098 24...... 50841 325...... 49867 4...... 49886 91...... 51098 27...... 51594 355...... 49867 17...... 50594 93...... 50954 64 ...... 50841, 53545, 54165 356...... 49867 20...... 50318 94...... 51098 73 ...... 50576, 50843, 51322, 360...... 49867 36...... 51893 123...... 54178 52547, 52711, 52712, 53730, 365...... 49867 124...... 52192 53731 366...... 49867 39 CFR 136...... 51518 Proposed Rules: 367...... 49867 20...... 53089 141...... 50961 2 ...... 51905, 53191, 53973 370...... 49867 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:06 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\31OCCU.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 31OCCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2001 / Reader Aids 371...... 49867 395...... 49867 391...... 53373 54166, 54721 372...... 49867 396...... 49867 392...... 53373 679 ...... 50576, 50858, 52713, 373...... 49867 397...... 49867 393...... 53373 53122, 53736 374...... 49867 398...... 49867 395...... 53373 Proposed Rules: 375...... 49867 399...... 49867 396...... 53373 10...... 52282 376...... 49867 571...... 51629, 53376 544...... 53731 17 ...... 50383, 51362, 53573, 377...... 49867 579...... 51907 572...... 51880 53756, 54808 378...... 49867 1244...... 53734 587...... 51629 379...... 49867 20...... 51919, 52077 381...... 49867 Proposed Rules: 50 CFR 21...... 52077 383...... 49867 171...... 50147 17 ...... 50340, 51322, 51598 222 ...... 50148, 53194, 53385 384...... 49867 173...... 50147 18...... 50843 223 ...... 50148, 52567, 53194, 385...... 49867 174...... 50147 100...... 54931, 54934 53195, 53385 175...... 50147 386...... 49867 223...... 50350, 52362 229 ...... 49896, 50160, 50390 176...... 50147 387...... 49867 230...... 52712 600...... 53575, 54192 177...... 50147 300...... 53735 388...... 49867 622...... 52370, 53579 389...... 49867 178...... 50147 600...... 50851, 54721 648 ...... 51000, 53575, 53769, 390...... 49867 209...... 51362 622...... 54723 391...... 49867 234...... 51362 635...... 53346, 54165 53770, 54498 392...... 49867 236...... 51362 648...... 54723 660...... 51367 393...... 49867 390...... 53373 660 ...... 49875, 50851, 52062, 679 ...... 49908, 51001, 52090 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:06 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\31OCCU.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 31OCCU Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2001 / Reader Aids v REMINDERS Japan; comments due by State operating permits promulgation; various The items in this list were 11-5-01; published 9-4- programs— States: editorially compiled as an aid 01 [FR 01-22134] Arkansas; comments due California; comments due by to Federal Register users. Plant-related quarantine, by 11-8-01; published 11-9-01; published 10-10- Inclusion or exclusion from domestic: 10-9-01 [FR 01-24901] 01 [FR 01-25255] this list has no legal Oriental fruit fly; comments Nevada; comments due ENVIRONMENTAL significance. due by 11-5-01; published by 11-9-01; published PROTECTION AGENCY 9-5-01 [FR 01-22241] 10-10-01 [FR 01-25410] Air quality implementation COMMERCE DEPARTMENT RULES GOING INTO ENVIRONMENTAL plans; approval and Economic Analysis Bureau PROTECTION AGENCY EFFECT OCTOBER 31, promulgation; various International services surveys: States: 2001 Air pollution control: BE-48; annual survey of State operating permits California; comments due by reinsurance and other programs— 11-9-01; published 10-10- ENVIRONMENTAL insurance transactions by 01 [FR 01-25256] PROTECTION AGENCY Virginia; comments due U.S. insurance companies by 11-9-01; published ENVIRONMENTAL Air pollution control: with foreign persons; 10-10-01 [FR 01-25012] PROTECTION AGENCY State operating permits comments due by 11-5- Air quality implementation programs— 01; published 9-5-01 [FR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY plans; approval and Florida; published 10-1-01 01-22190] Air pollution control: promulgation; various Air quality implementation COMMERCE DEPARTMENT State operating permits States: plans; approval and National Oceanic and programs— California; comments due by promulgation; various Atmospheric Administration Virginia; comments due 11-9-01; published 10-10- States: Fishery conservation and 01 [FR 01-25252] Pennsylvania; published 10- management: by 11-9-01; published 16-01 10-10-01 [FR 01-25013] ENVIRONMENTAL Atlantic highly migratory PROTECTION AGENCY FEDERAL TRADE species— ENVIRONMENTAL Air quality implementation COMMISSION Pelagic longline fisheries; PROTECTION AGENCY Air pollution control: plans; approval and Appliances, consumer; energy comments due by 11-8- promulgation; various State operating permits consumption and water use 01; published 9-24-01 States: information in labeling and [FR 01-23795] programs— California; comments due by advertising: Northeastern United States West Virginia; comments 11-9-01; published 10-10- fisheries— due by 11-8-01; Comparability ranges— 01 [FR 01-25253] Room air conditioners, Monkfish, Atlantic herring, published 10-9-01 [FR Hazardous waste: heat pump water and Atlantic salmon; 01-24711] heaters, storage-type environmental impact ENVIRONMENTAL State underground storage water heaters, gas-fired statements; comments PROTECTION AGENCY tank program approvals— instantaneous water due by 11-9-01; Air pollution control: Hawaii; comments due by published 9-10-01 [FR 11-5-01; published 10-5- heaters, furnaces, State operating permits 01-22648] 01 [FR 01-24594] boilers, and pool programs— heaters; published 8-2- Northeast multispecies; West Virginia; comments ENVIRONMENTAL 01 comments due by 11-5- due by 11-8-01; PROTECTION AGENCY 01; published 10-5-01 HOUSING AND URBAN published 10-9-01 [FR Pesticides; tolerances in food, [FR 01-25036] DEVELOPMENT 01-24712] animal feeds, and raw DEPARTMENT COMMODITY FUTURES Air programs: agricultural commodities: Low income housing: TRADING COMMISSION Transportation conformity Poly (vinyl pyrrolidone), etc. Securities: Section 8 Management rule; grace period Correction; comments due Assessment Program; Accounts holding security addition, etc.; comments by 11-9-01; published lease-up indicator; futures products; due by 11-5-01; published 10-10-01 [FR 01-25019] published 10-1-01 applicability of customer 10-5-01 [FR 01-25017] FEDERAL protection, recordkeeping, TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS reporting, and bankruptcy ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT COMMISSION rules, etc.; comments due PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Aviation Air quality implementation Radio stations; table of Administration by 11-5-01; published 10- 4-01 [FR 01-24573] plans; approval and assignments: Airworthiness directives: Security futures; margin promulgation; various Texas; comments due by Eurocopter France; requirements; comments States: 11-5-01; published 9-27- published 10-16-01 due by 11-5-01; published Arkansas; comments due by 01 [FR 01-24139] McDonnell Douglas; 10-4-01 [FR 01-24574] 11-8-01; published 10-9- Various States; comments published 10-16-01 ENERGY DEPARTMENT 01 [FR 01-24902] due by 11-5-01; published Physicians panel ENVIRONMENTAL 9-28-01 [FR 01-24136] COMMENTS DUE NEXT determinations on worker PROTECTION AGENCY HEALTH AND HUMAN WEEK requests for assistance in Air quality implementation SERVICES DEPARTMENT filing for State workers’ plans; approval and Centers for Medicare & AGRICULTURE compensation benefits; promulgation; various Medicaid Services States: DEPARTMENT guidelines Medicaid: California; comments due by Animal and Plant Health Public hearing rescheduled; Spousal impoverishment 11-9-01; published 10-10- Inspection Service comments due by 11-8- provisions; States’ option 01 [FR 01-25254] Exportation and importation of 01; published 9-21-01 [FR to increase community animals and animal 01-23739] ENVIRONMENTAL spouse’s income when products: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY adjusting protected Foot-and-mouth disease; PROTECTION AGENCY Air quality implementation resource allowance; disease status change— Air pollution control: plans; approval and comments due by 11-6- VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:06 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\31OCCU.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 31OCCU vi Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2001 / Reader Aids 01; published 9-7-01 [FR Spouses and children of TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION 01-22605] lawful permanent resident DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEALTH AND HUMAN aliens; new V Federal Aviation Federal Railroad SERVICES DEPARTMENT classification; comments Administration Administration due by 11-6-01; published Energy Employees Airworthiness directives: Processor-based signal and Occupational Illness 9-7-01 [FR 01-22151] train control systems; Airbus; comments due by Compensation Program Act; development and use NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND 11-5-01; published 10-4- implementation: standards; comments due RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 01 [FR 01-24781] Radiation dose Public availability and use: by 11-8-01; published 10-9- TRANSPORTATION reconstruction methods; Research room procedures; 01 [FR 01-25224] DEPARTMENT comments due by 11-5- public access personal 01; published 10-5-01 [FR Federal Aviation computers (workstations) LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS 01-24879] use; comments due by Administration HEALTH AND HUMAN 11-6-01; published 9-7-01 Airworthiness directives: This is a continuing list of SERVICES DEPARTMENT [FR 01-22484] Airbus; comments due by public bills from the current Grants: NUCLEAR REGULATORY 11-5-01; published 10-4- session of Congress which Substance Abuse Prevention COMMISSION 01 [FR 01-24779] have become Federal laws. It and Treatment Block Rulemaking petitions: TRANSPORTATION may be used in conjunction Grant applicants; tobacco Nuclear Energy Institute; DEPARTMENT with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws regulation and comments due by 11-8- Update Service) on 202–523– maintenance of effort Federal Aviation 01; published 9-24-01 [FR 6641. This list is also reporting requirements; Administration 01-23790] available online at http:// comments due by 11-5- Airworthiness directives: www.nara.gov/fedreg/ 01; published 9-4-01 [FR PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Airbus; comments due by plawcurr.html. 01-22129] OFFICE 11-5-01; published 10-4- The text of laws is not Excepted service: 01 [FR 01-24872] HOUSING AND URBAN published in the Federal DEVELOPMENT Schedule A authority for BAE Systems (Operations) nontemporary part-time or Register but may be ordered DEPARTMENT Ltd.; comments due by in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Mortgage and loan insurance intermittent positions; 11-5-01; published 10-4- comments due by 11-9- pamphlet) form from the programs: 01 [FR 01-24873] Superintendent of Documents, Single family mortgage 01; published 9-10-01 [FR 01-22563] TRANSPORTATION U.S. Government Printing insurance— DEPARTMENT Office, Washington, DC 20402 Property flipping POSTAL SERVICE Federal Aviation (phone, 202–512–1808). The prohibition; comments Domestic Mail Manual: Administration text will also be made due by 11-5-01; Periodicals, Accuracy, available on the Internet from Airworthiness directives: published 9-5-01 [FR Grading, and Evaluation GPO Access at http:// 01-22170] Program; changes; Boeing; comments due by www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ INTERIOR DEPARTMENT comments due by 11-9- 11-5-01; published 9-6-01 nara005.html. Some laws may Fish and Wildlife Service 01; published 10-10-01 [FR 01-22087] not yet be available. Endangered and threatened [FR 01-25433] TRANSPORTATION S. 1465/P.L. 107–57 species: RAILROAD RETIREMENT DEPARTMENT To authorize the President to Critical habitat BOARD Federal Aviation exercise waivers of foreign designations— Administration Interest, penalties, and assistance restrictions with Sacramento Mountains administrative costs; Airworthiness directives: respect to Pakistan through checkerspot butterfly; assessment or waiver with Bombardier; comments due September 30, 2003, and for comments due by 11-5- respect to debt collection; by 11-5-01; published 10- other purposes. (Oct. 27, 01; published 9-6-01 comments due by 11-5-01; 4-01 [FR 01-24780] 2001; 115 Stat. 403) [FR 01-22340] published 9-5-01 [FR 01- Dornier; comments due by Last List October 30, 2001 22272] INTERIOR DEPARTMENT 11-7-01; published 10-2- Surface Mining Reclamation Organization, functions, and 01 [FR 01-24560] and Enforcement Office authority designations McDonnell Douglas; Public Laws Electronic Permanent program and Central and field offices comments due by 11-5- Notification Service abandoned mine land designation to reflect 01; published 9-20-01 [FR (PENS) reclamation plan current agency structure 01-23417] submissions: due to reorganizations; Arkansas; comments due by comments due by 11-5- Pratt & Whitney; comments PENS is a free electronic mail 11-5-01; published 10-5- 01; published 9-5-01 [FR due by 11-9-01; published notification service of newly 01 [FR 01-25005] 01-22271] 10-10-01 [FR 01-25399] enacted public laws. To JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SECURITIES AND Short Brothers; comments subscribe, go to http:// Drug Enforcement EXCHANGE COMMISSION due by 11-5-01; published hydra.gsa.gov/archives/ 10-4-01 [FR 01-24874] publaws-l.html or send E-mail Administration Securities: Turbomeca S.A.; comments to [email protected] Prescriptions: Accounts holding security due by 11-5-01; published with the following text Central fill pharmacies filling futures products; 9-6-01 [FR 01-22313] message: prescriptions for controlled applicability of customer substances on behalf of protection, recordkeeping, Airworthiness standards: SUBSCRIBE PUBLAWS-L retail pharmacies; reporting, and bankruptcy Special conditions— Your Name. comments due by 11-5- rules, etc.; comments due Byerly Aviation, Inc. Twin Note: This service is strictly 01; published 9-6-01 [FR by 11-5-01; published 10- Commander model for E-mail notification of new 01-22322] 4-01 [FR 01-24573] series 690/695 laws. The text of laws is not JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Security futures; margin airplanes; comments available through this service. Immigration and requirements; comments due by 11-5-01; PENS cannot respond to Naturalization Service due by 11-5-01; published published 10-5-01 [FR specific inquiries sent to this Nonimmigrant classes: 10-4-01 [FR 01-24574] 01-25086] address. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:06 Oct 30, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\31OCCU.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 31OCCU