2–25–02 Monday Vol. 67 No. 37 Feb. 25, 2002 Pages 8461–8704
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:14 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\25FEWS.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FEWS
1 II Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002
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 202–512–1806 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 202–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general (Toll-Free) applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published FEDERAL AGENCIES by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Subscriptions: Paper or fiche 202–523–5243 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–523–5243 issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see http://www.nara.gov/ fedreg. What’s NEW! The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication Federal Register Table of Contents via e-mail established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, Subscribe to FEDREGTOC, to receive the Federal Register Table of the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. Contents in your e-mail every day. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases If you get the HTML version, you can click directly to any document on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. in the issue. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the To subscribe, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select: authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register Online mailing list archives 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 FEDREGTOC-L day the Federal Register is published and it includes both text Join or leave the list and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. Then follow the instructions. 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: 67 FR 12345.
.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:14 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\25FEWS.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FEWS
2 III
Contents Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Submission for OMB review; comment request, 8544 See Historic Preservation, Advisory Council Children and Families Administration Agriculture Department NOTICES See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Agency information collection activities: See Forest Service Proposed collection; comment request, 8544 See Natural Resources Conservation Service See Rural Business-Cooperative Service See Rural Housing Service Civil Rights Commission See Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Meetings; State advisory committees: Air Force Department Delaware, 8518 NOTICES Louisiana, 8518–8519 Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 8527 Coast Guard Meetings: RULES Community College Board of Visitors, 8527–8528 Drawbridge operations: New Hampshire, 8479 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service New Jersey, 8479 RULES Golden nematode-infested farm equipment, construction equipment and containers; steam treatment, 8461–8466 Commerce Department Poultry improvement: See Foreign-Trade Zones Board National Poultry Plan and auxiliary provisions— See International Trade Administration Plan participants and participating flocks; new or See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration modified sampling and testing procedures, 8466– 8475 Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Agency information collection activities: Nonregulated status determinations— Submission for OMB review; comment request, 8577– Aventis CropScience; genetically engineered canola for 8578 male sterility, fertility restoration, and glufosinate herbide tolerance, 8509–8510 Defense Department See Air Force Department Antitrust Division See Engineers Corps NOTICES Competitive impact statements and proposed consent judgments: Education Department Sprint Corp. and Joint Venture Co., 8559–8560 NOTICES National cooperative research notifications: Agency information collection activities: Financial Services Technology Consortium, Inc., 8560 Proposed collection; comment request, 8528 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 8560 PKI Forum, Inc., 8560–8561 Energy Department See Energy Information Administration Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Board NOTICES NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Meetings: Mining Industry of the Future/Mineral Processing Access Board, 8518 Technologies, 8529–8530 Army Department Energy Information Administration See Engineers Corps NOTICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Proposed collection; comment request, 8530–8532 Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 8541–8542 Engineers Corps NOTICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Environmental statements; notice of intent: NOTICES Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, GA, 8528 Agency information collection activities: Nationwide permits (NWP); issuance, reissuance, and Proposed collection; comment request, 8542, 8543 modifications; correction, 8579
VerDate 11
Environmental Protection Agency Human drugs: PROPOSED RULES Patent extension; regulatory review period Air programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for determinations— designated facilities and pollutants: Celexa, 8546–8547 Puerto Rico, 8496–8499 Medical devices: Air quality implementation plans; approval and Patent extension; regulatory review period promulgation; various States: determinations— California, 8493–8496 Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens, 8547– Water pollution; effluent guidelines for point source 8548 categories: Meetings: Meat and poultry products processing facilities, 8581– Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee, 8548 8669 NOTICES Foreign-Trade Zones Board Air pollution control: NOTICES Citizens suits; proposed settlements— Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Medical Alliance for Healthy Air et al., 8535–8536 Alabama Austal USA, LLC; shipbuilding and repair facility, 8519 Federal Aviation Administration California, 8519 RULES Indiana Airworthiness directives: Rolls Royce Corp.; gas turbine engine manufacturing Boeing, 8475–8476 facilities, 8519–8520 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness standards: Forest Service Special conditions— NOTICES Airbus Industrie Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes, Environmental statements; notice of intent: 8487–8489 El Dorado National Forest, CA, 8510–8512 Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model 728-100 airplane, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests et al., WY, 8512– 8485–8487 8514 NOTICES Meetings: Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee, 8514 Small Airplane Directorate policy statements— Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council, Flammability testing, 8575–8576 8514 Resource Advisory Committees— Federal Communications Commission Madera County, 8514–8515 RULES Siuslaw, 8514 Frequency allocations and radio treaty matters: 27 MHz of spectrum transferred from Federal government General Accounting Office use to non-government services; reallocation PROPOSED RULES Correction, 8579 Bid protest regulations; revision, 8485
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission General Services Administration NOTICES NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: Interagency Committee for Medical Records: LG&E Trust No. 2001-A et al., 8532–8534 Medical record-radiologic consultation request/report (SF MidAmerican Energy Co. et al., 8534–8535 519A); automation, 8541
Federal Trade Commission Geological Survey NOTICES NOTICES Prohibited trade practices: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: American Home Products Corp., 8536–8539 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 8555– TechnoBrands, Inc., et al., 8539–8541 8556
Fish and Wildlife Service Health and Human Services Department PROPOSED RULES See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Endangered and threatened species: See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Findings on petitions, etc.— See Children and Families Administration Big Cypress fox squirrel, 8499–8503 See Food and Drug Administration NOTICES See Health Resources and Services Administration Meetings: See National Institutes of Health National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Commission, 8555 Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Food and Drug Administration Meetings: NOTICES Childhood Vaccines Advisory Commission, 8548–8549 Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 8545–8546 Historic Preservation, Advisory Council Food additive petitions: NOTICES Abbott Laboratories; withdrawn, 8546 Meetings, 8509
VerDate 11
Interior Department National Communications System See Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES See Geological Survey Meetings: See Land Management Bureau National Security Telecommunications Advisory See National Park Service Committee, 8561 Internal Revenue Service National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES NOTICES Income taxes: Motor vehicle safety standards: Controlled corporations; recognition of gain on certain Nonconforming vehicles— distributions of stock or securities in connection with Importation eligibility; determinations, 8576–8577 acquisition; correction, 8579 National Institutes of Health International Trade Administration NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Antidumping: National Eye Institute, 8549 Antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) National Institute of Mental Health, 8549–8550 and parts from— National Institute of Nursing Research, 8550–8551 Germany, 8520 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 8549 Helical spring lock washers from— Scientific Review Center, 8551–8555 China, 8520–8522 Large newspaper printing presses and components, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration whether assembled or unassembled, from— PROPOSED RULES Japan, 8522–8523 Fishery conservation and management: Porcelain-on-steel cookware from— Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic fisheries— Mexico, 8523–8524 Gulf of Mexico shrimp, 8503–8508 Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from— NOTICES Germany, 8524 Meetings: Sulfanilic acid from— Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 8525–8526 Hungary and Portugal, 8525 Permits: Endangered and threatened species, 8526 International Trade Commission Marine mammals, 8526–8527 NOTICES Import investigations: National Park Service Welded large diameter line pipe from— RULES Mexico, 8556–8557 Special regulations: Appalachian National Scenic Trail, ME et al.; Justice Department snowmobile routes, 8479–8481 See Antitrust Division Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve AK; NOTICES resident zone communities added, 8481–8484 Pollution control; consent judgments: NOTICES Allied Battery Co. et al., 8557 Meetings: Franc Motors et al., 8557–8558 Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission, Mobile, AL, Water and Sewer Commissioners Board et 8556 al., 8558 Settling Defendants, 8558–8559 National Science Foundation NOTICES Land Management Bureau Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Proposed collection; comment request, 8562–8563 Public land orders: Nevada, 8556 Natural Resources Conservation Service Resource management plans, etc.: NOTICES Great Divide Resource Area, WY, 8700–8703 Field office technical guides; changes: Pinedale Resource Area, WY, 8699–8701 Delaware, 8515 Oklahoma, 8515 Legal Services Corporation RULES Nuclear Regulatory Commission Legal assistance eligibility; maximum income guidelines, NOTICES 8484 Meetings: Enforcement program and alternative dispute resolution; Maritime Administration workshop, 8563–8565 NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Postal Service Submission for OMB review; comment request, 8576 PROPOSED RULES Persons with disabilities; access to Postal Service programs, National Archives and Records Administration activities, facilities, and electronic and information NOTICES technologies, 8489–8493 Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Submission for OMB review; comment request, 8561 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8565
VerDate 11
Public Health Service Tennessee Valley Authority See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES See Food and Drug Administration Environmental statements; notice of intent: See Health Resources and Services Administration Reservoir operating policies, 8573–8575 See National Institutes of Health Transportation Department Rural Business-Cooperative Service See Coast Guard NOTICES See Federal Aviation Administration Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: See Maritime Administration Rural Business Opportunity Program, 8515–8517 See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Rural Housing Service Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Proposed collection; comment request, 8575 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Multi-family and single family housing programs, 8683– Transportation Security Administration 8697 RULES Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Section 516 Aviation security infrastructure fees Farm Labor Housing Grants for off-farm housing, Correction, 8579 8671–8674 Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program, 8673–8677 Treasury Department Section 533 Housing Preservation Program, 8677–8679 See Comptroller of the Currency Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program, See Internal Revenue Service 8678–8684 Veterans Affairs Department Rural Utilities Service NOTICES NOTICES Real property; enhanced-use leases: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Las Vegas, NV; Veterans Assistance Office, 8578 Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., 8517–8518
Separate Parts In This Issue Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Part II Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8565 Environmental Protection Agency, 8581–8669 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 8565– Part III 8567 Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service, 8671– New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 8567–8569 8697 Public utility holding company filngs, 8569–8572 Part IV Small Business Administration Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 8699– NOTICES 8703 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Vermont; Women’s Business Center project, 8572 Reader Aids State Department Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for RULES phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, Visas; immigrant and nonimmigrant documentation: and notice of recently enacted public laws. Fingerprinting requirements; and criminal history records, access and conditions for use, protection, To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents dissemination, and destruction, 8477–8478 LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// NOTICES listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list Passport travel restrictions, U.S.: archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change Iraq, 8572–8573 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.
4 CFR Proposed Rules: 21...... 8485 7 CFR 300...... 8461 301...... 8461 318...... 8461 319...... 8461 353...... 8461 9 CFR 145...... 8466 147...... 8466 14 CFR 39...... 8475 Proposed Rules: 25 (2 documents) ....8485, 8487 22 CFR 40...... 8477 41...... 8477 42...... 8477 26 CFR 1...... 8579 33 CFR 117 (2 documents) ...... 8479 36 CFR 7...... 8479 13...... 8481 39 CFR Proposed Rules: 255...... 8489 40 CFR Proposed Rules: 52...... 8493 62...... 8496 432...... 8582 45 CFR 1611...... 8484 47 CFR 95...... 8579 49 CFR 1511...... 8579 50 CFR Proposed Rules: 17...... 8499 622...... 8503
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:16 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\25FELS.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FELS 8461
Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 1238. Please state that your comment other used farm products containers. contains regulatory documents having general refers to Docket No. 01–050–1. If you Regulated articles must meet conditions applicability and legal effect, most of which use e-mail, address your comment to specified in the regulations before they are keyed to and codified in the Code of [email protected]. Your may be moved interstate from a Federal Regulations, which is published under comment must be contained in the body regulated area. One of the conditions for 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. of your message; do not send attached movement is treatment. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by files. Please include your name and The Plant Protection and Quarantine the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of address in your message and ‘‘Docket Treatment Manual (PPQ Treatment new books are listed in the first FEDERAL No. 01–050–1’’ on the subject line. Manual), which is maintained by the REGISTER issue of each week. You may read any comments that we U.S. Department of Agriculture’s receive on this docket in our reading (USDA) Animal and Plant Health room. The reading room is located in Inspection Service (APHIS), contains DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE room 1141 of the USDA South Building, approved treatment schedules and is 14th Street and Independence Avenue incorporated by reference into the Code Animal and Plant Health Inspection SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading of Federal Regulations at 7 CFR 300.1. Service room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Currently, fumigation with methyl Monday through Friday, except bromide is the sole treatment available 7 CFR Parts 300, 301, 318, 319, and 353 holidays. To be sure someone is there to in the PPQ Treatment Manual to qualify [Docket No. 01–050–1] help you, please call (202) 690–2817 used containers, construction before coming. equipment, and farm equipment for Steam Treatment of Golden Nematode- APHIS documents published in the interstate movement from areas infested Infested Farm Equipment, Federal Register, and related with golden nematodes. Construction Equipment, and information, including the names of Research conducted by APHIS1 has Containers organizations and individuals who have demonstrated that steam heat effectively commented on APHIS dockets, are eliminates the golden nematode. Steam AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health treatment takes less time than Inspection Service, USDA. available on the Internet at http:// www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/ fumigation with methyl bromide—1 ACTION: Direct final rule. webrepor.html. hour versus 24 to 48 hours—and commodities can be released to the SUMMARY: We are amending the Plant FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Protection and Quarantine Treatment owner immediately after steam Vedpal Malik, Agriculturist, Invasive treatment, whereas several hours of Manual, which is incorporated by Species and Pest Management, PPQ, reference into the Code of Federal aeration are required after methyl APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, bromide fumigation. Steam treatment is Regulations, to allow containers, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– construction equipment without cabs, not harmful to the environment and is 6774. noncorrosive. No special precautions and farm equipment without cabs used SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in golden nematode-infested areas to be are necessary for the transportation of treated with steam heat before being Background steam treatment equipment. In addition, steam treatments can be performed at moved interstate from any regulated The golden nematode (Globodera area. This action provides an alternative farm or warehouse locations with less rostochiensis) is a plant pest that is stringent safety requirements than those to fumigation with methyl bromide for highly destructive to potatoes and other treating used containers, construction needed for methyl bromide fumigation solanaceous plants. The golden (e.g., enclosures used for methyl equipment without cabs, and farm nematode has been determined to occur equipment without cabs. bromide fumigation must be leakproof, in the United States only in parts of and the location must be secured to DATES: This rule will be effective on New York. prevent unauthorized entry and April 26, 2002 unless we receive written The golden nematode regulations adverse comments or written notice of exposure to methyl bromide). (contained in 7 CFR 301.85 through Therefore, we are amending the PPQ intent to submit adverse comments that 301.85–10 and referred to below as the Treatment Manual to allow used are postmarked, delivered, or e-mailed regulations) list two entire counties and containers, used construction by March 27, 2002. The incorporation portions of seven other counties in the equipment without cabs, and used farm by reference provided for by this rule is State of New York as regulated areas equipment without cabs to be treated approved by the Director of the Federal and restrict the interstate movement of with steam heat before being moved Register as of April 26, 2002. regulated articles from those areas. Such interstate from any regulated area. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments restrictions are necessary to prevent the (Pending further testing, this treatment or notice of intent to submit adverse artificial spread of the golden nematode was not recommended for equipment or comments by postal mail/commercial to noninfested areas of the United vehicles with cabs due to possible delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal States. damage to electrical or plastic mail/commercial delivery, please send Regulated articles are identified in components.) This action provides an four copies (an original and three § 301.85(b). The list of regulated articles alternative to fumigation with methyl copies) to: Docket No. 01–050–1, includes used mechanized cultivating Regulatory Analysis and Development, equipment, used mechanized harvesting 1 Information concerning this research may be PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River equipment, used mechanized soil- obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737– moving equipment, used crates, and INFORMATION CONTACT.
VerDate 11
bromide for treating used containers, bottom of the center of the equipment or submit adverse comments that are construction equipment, and farm load on the left side, but at least 3 postmarked, delivered, or e-mailed by equipment. The treatment procedure we inches above the floor if the equipment March 27, 2002. are adding to the PPQ Treatment is flush with the floor; (6) rear high— Adverse comments are comments that Manual is described in the following near the top of the rear of the equipment suggest the rule should not be adopted paragraphs. on the right side; (7) rear middle— or that suggest the rule should be changed. Treatment Procedure midway from the top and bottom of the rear of the equipment; and (8) rear If we receive written adverse Administer steam treatment in a low—bottom of the rear of the comments or written notice of intent to tarpaulin or tent using steam generators. equipment or load on the left side, but submit adverse comments, we will The recommended minimum air at least 3 inches above the floor if the publish a document in the Federal temperature for steam treatment varies equipment is flush with the floor. Register withdrawing this rule before according to the size of the enclosure in Place the steam generator at the front the effective date. We will then publish which the treatment is conducted. For of the enclosure. Close the tent or tarp a proposed rule for public comment. enclosures 4,000 ft3 or less, the and place sandsnakes (flexible weights) As discussed above, if we receive no recommended minimum air at the base to seal it. As an airtight seal written adverse comments nor written ° temperature is 40 F, and for enclosures is not essential for steam treatment; notice of intent to submit adverse 4,000 to 6,000 ft3, the recommended small pinholes are acceptable. comments that are postmarked, minimum air temperature is 60 °F. Steam heat the enclosure for 60 delivered, or e-mailed within 30 days of Place the farm equipment or minutes after all probes reach a publication of this direct final rule, this containers inside the tarpaulin or tent so minimum of 140 °F (60 °C). The direct final rule will become effective 60 that it faces the front of the enclosure, maximum temperature in the enclosure days following its publication. We will where the steam will be introduced. If should not exceed 160 °F (71 °C). publish a document in the Federal a tarp (6 mil plastic) is used instead of Throughout the treatment, record the Register, before the effective date of this a tent, pad sharp edges of the equipment temperatures at least once every 2 direct final rule, confirming that it is or containers before covering with the minutes. effective on the date indicated in this tarp. Place temperature recording document. sensors on the equipment or containers Miscellaneous Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory to be treated. The scientific name for golden Flexibility Act When the treatment is being nematode has been changed from conducted in enclosures 4,000 ft3 or Heterodera rostochiensis to Globodera This rule has been reviewed under less, use at least four temperature rostochiensis. Therefore, we are Executive Order 12866. For this action, recording sensors in addition to the amending §§ 301.85(a) and 301.85–1 to the Office of Management and Budget probe on the steam generator. Place reflect that change. has waived its review process required probes in hard-to-treat cracks or crevices We are also revising the definition for by Executive Order 12866. on the equipment or containers. the term treatment manual in § 301.85– This rule, which allows containers, Position probes in the following 1 so that it refers to the PPQ Treatment construction equipment without cabs, locations: (1) Front high—near the top Manual rather than the ‘‘Manual of and farm equipment without cabs used of the front of the equipment or load; (2) Administratively Authorized in golden nematode-infested areas to be center middle—midway from the top Procedures to be Used Under the treated with steam heat before being and bottom of the center of the Golden Nematode Quarantine’’ and the moved interstate from any regulated equipment or load; (3) center bottom— ‘‘Fumigation Procedures Manual,’’ area, provides an alternative to bottom of the center of the equipment or which are no longer in use. Revising the fumigation with methyl bromide. load, but at least 3 inches above the definition of treatment manual will It is expected that the cost of steam floor if the equipment is flush with the eliminate footnote 1, so we are also treatment will compare favorably to the floor; and (4) rear bottom—bottom of the redesignating the subsequent footnotes cost of methyl bromide fumigation. rear of the equipment, but at least 3 in the subpart. Treatment costs will continue to be inches above the floor if the equipment The definitions in § 301.85–1 are no borne by APHIS. A steam generator and is flush with the floor. longer assigned paragraph designations related equipment, such as temperature When the treatment is being and are simply listed in alphabetical sensors and plastic tarps, costs conducted in enclosures 4,000 to 6,000 order. We are, therefore, amending approximately $20,000. After the initial ft3, use at least eight temperature § 301.85(b) to update a reference to the investment in equipment, most of the recording sensors in addition to the definition of regulated article. cost of treatment is due to personnel probe on the steam generator. Again, Finally, we are revising part 300 so costs. It takes one 8-hour day for a Plant place probes in hard-to-treat cracks or that all of the materials incorporated by Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) officer crevices on the equipment or containers. reference are assigned specific section and a technician to steam treat farm Position probes in the following designations. Accordingly, we are also equipment, including the time required locations: (1) Front high—near the top updating citations to part 300 found to set up and tear down the treatment of the left side of the front of the elsewhere in title 7. site. equipment or load; (2) front low— In contrast, there are higher bottom of the right side of the front of Dates equipment and personnel costs the equipment or load, but at least 3 We are publishing this rule without a associated with methyl bromide inches above the floor if the equipment prior proposal because we view this treatment. The cost of methyl bromide is flush with the floor; (3) center high— action as noncontroversial and is currently $3.24 per pound. For a 24- near the top of the center of the anticipate no adverse public comment. hour treatment, 15 lbs of methyl equipment or load on the right side; (4) This rule will be effective, as published bromide per 1,000 ft 3 is needed, while center middle—midway from the top in this document, on April 26, 2002, 7.5 lbs of methyl bromide per 1,000 ft 3 and bottom of the center of the unless we receive written adverse are needed for a 48-hour treatment. PPQ equipment or load; (5) center low— comments or written notice of intent to officers must be certified to handle
VerDate 11
pesticides and must use a self-contained secure, it is not necessary to have a PPQ methyl bromide currently costs $3.24 breathing apparatus during the officer on site during the entire per pound; these calculations assume treatment. A self-contained breathing treatment period. However, if the site is that 30 lbs are needed per treatment, apparatus costs $1,500 plus the cost of not secure, it is not advisable to leave which is enough to treat 2,000 ft 3. We periodic maintenance. Air tanks cost the treatment site unattended. estimate that, over the course of 600 $600–$700 and typically last about 3 Table 1 shows costs associated with treatments, the use of steam treatment years. each treatment option. These rather than methyl bromide would Personnel costs also would be higher calculations assume that one GS–11 result in savings of $259,920. This is for methyl bromide treatment than for PPQ officer and one GS–7 technician considerably more than the initial cost steam treatment. Methyl bromide would have to stay on site twice as long of the equipment needed for the steam treatment takes from 24 to 48 hours. If for methyl bromide treatments as for the methyl bromide treatment site is steam treatments. As noted previously, treatment.
TABLE 1.—MARGINAL COST OF STEAM TREATMENT VS. METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT
Steam treatment Methyl bromide
Labor GS–11, step 5 ...... $200 ($25/hr × 8 hrs) ...... $400 ($25/hr × 16 hrs) Labor GS–7, step 5 ...... $136 ($17/hr × 8 hrs) ...... $272 ($17/hr × 16 hrs) Chemicals ...... NA ...... $97.20 ($3.24 × 30 lbs) Sub-total ...... $336 ...... $769.20 Treatments per year ...... 600 ...... 600
Total cost ...... $201,600 ...... $461,520
Over the past 4 years, an average of determined that this action will not 7 CFR Part 318 618 pieces of farm equipment per year have a significant economic impact on Cotton, Cottonseeds, Fruits, Guam, have been treated. It is expected that, a substantial number of small entities. Hawaii, Incorporation by reference, with this rule, most of these treatments Executive Order 12372 Plant diseases and pests, Puerto Rico, will be steam treatments. However, Quarantine, Transportation, Vegetables, there may still be some cases in which This program/activity is listed in the Virgin Islands. methyl bromide treatment is the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance preferred method of treatment. under No. 10.025 and is subject to 7 CFR Part 319 While there are higher initial costs for Executive Order 12372, which requires Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, steam treatment, the marginal cost for intergovernmental consultation with Imports, Incorporation by reference, each treatment would be lower. Because State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part Logs, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and steam treatment has lower marginal 3015, subpart V.) pests, Quarantine, Reporting and costs, in the long run it will be more recordkeeping requirements, Rice, economical to use steam treatment than Executive Order 12988 Vegetables. methyl bromide fumigation. Potato farms are classified as small This rule has been reviewed under 7 CFR Part 353 Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice businesses if they have less than Exports, Incorporation by reference, $750,000 in annual receipts. USDA’s Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are Plant diseases and pests, Reporting and National Agricultural Statistics Service recordkeeping requirements. (NASS) does not publish data by farm inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR size for New York potato farms. chapter III as follows: However, it is likely that most of the require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court 1. Part 300 is revised to read as farms affected by this rule would qualify follows: as small businesses, as defined by the challenging this rule. U.S. Small Business Administration Paperwork Reduction Act PART 300–INCORPORATION BY (SBA). REFERENCE This rule provides an alternative This rule contains no new treatment for farm equipment, information collection or recordkeeping Subpart—Materials Incorporated by construction equipment, and containers requirements under the Paperwork Reference used in golden nematode-infested areas. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Farmers do not pay for the treatment; et seq.). Sec. 300.1 Plant Protection and Quarantine the costs are borne by APHIS. This is to List of Subjects Treatment Manual. encourage farmers to treat equipment 300.2 Dry Kiln Operator’s Manual. before selling or moving it. Farm 7 CFR Part 300 300.3 Reference Manual A. equipment is often treated when a farm 300.4 Reference Manual B. is sold or going out of business, when Incorporation by reference, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772; 7 CFR 2.22, farmers are unlikely to have the funds 2.80, and 371.3. available to pay for treatment. Because 7 CFR Part 301 the cost is not borne by the farmer, this § 300.1 Plant Protection and Quarantine rule will not have an adverse economic Agricultural commodities, Treatment Manual. impact on these small entities. Incorporation by reference, Plant (a) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) Under these circumstances, the diseases and pests, Quarantine, and 1 CFR part 51, the Director of the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Reporting and recordkeeping Office of the Federal Register has Health Inspection Service has requirements, Transportation. approved for incorporation by reference
VerDate 11
in 7 CFR chapter III the Plant Protection § 300.3 Reference Manual A. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106–224, 114 Stat. and Quarantine Treatment Manual, (a) The Reference Manual for 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). which was reprinted November 30, Administration, Procedures, and 3. In § 301.45–1, footnote 3 is revised 1992, and all revisions through May Policies of the National Seed Health to read as follows: 2000; and: System, which was published on (1) Treatment T101–n–2 and T102–b, February 25, 2000, by the National Seed § 301.45–1 Definitions. and Table 5–2–5, revised July 2001; Health System (NSHS), has been * * * * * (2) Treatment T102–e, revised July approved for incorporation by reference 3 The Plant Protection and Quarantine 2001; and in 7 CFR chapter III by the Director of Treatment Manual is incorporated by (3) Treatment T406–d, dated January the Office of the Federal Register in reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. 2002. accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 (b) The treatments specified in the 4. In § 301.64–10, paragraphs (a) and CFR part 51. (f) are amended by revising the first Plant Protection and Quarantine (b) Availability. Copies of Reference Treatment Manual and its revisions are sentence after the paragraph heading to Manual A: read as follows: required to authorize the movement of (1) Are available for inspection at the certain articles regulated by domestic Office of the Federal Register Library, § 301.64–10 Treatments. quarantines (7 CFR parts 301 and 318) 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, * * * * * and foreign quarantines (7 CFR part Washington, DC, and the APHIS (a) * * * Cold treatment in accordance 319). Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture, with the PPQ Treatment Manual, which (c) Availability. Copies of the Plant 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD; or is incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of Protection and Quarantine Treatment (2) May be obtained by writing to this chapter. Manual: Phytosanitary Issues Management, (1) Are available for inspection at the * * * * * Operational Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 Office of the Federal Register Library, (f) * * * Cold treatment in accordance River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, with the PPQ Treatment Manual, which 20737–1236; or is incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of Washington, DC; or (3) May be viewed on the APHIS Web (2) May be obtained by writing or this chapter, and in accordance with the site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ calling the Animal and Plant Health following schedule: pim/accreditation. Inspection Service, Documents * * * * * Management Branch, Printing § 300.4 Reference Manual B. 5. In § 301.78–10, the introductory Distribution and Mail Section, 4700 (a) The Reference Manual for Seed paragraph is revised to read as follows: River Road Unit 1, Riverdale, MD Health Testing and Phytosanitary Field 20737–1229, (301) 734–5524; or Inspection Methods, which was § 301.78–10 Treatments. (3) May be obtained from field offices published on February 27, 2001, by the Treatment schedules listed in the of the Animal and Plant Health National Seed Health System (NSHS), Plant Protection and Quarantine Inspection Service, Plant Protection and has been approved for incorporation by Treatment Manual to destroy Quarantine. Addresses of these offices reference in 7 CFR chapter III by the Mediterranean fruit fly are authorized may be found in local telephone Director of the Office of the Federal for use on regulated articles. The Plant directories. Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Protection and Quarantine Treatment § 300.2 Dry Kiln Operator’s Manual. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Manual is incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. The following (a) The Dry Kiln Operator’s Manual, (b) Availability. Copies of Reference Manual B: treatments may be used for the regulated which was published in August 1991 as articles indicated: Agriculture Handbook No. 188 by the (1) Are available for inspection at the United States Department of Office of the Federal Register Library, * * * * * Agriculture, Forest Service, has been 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, 6. In § 301.81–4, paragraph (b) is approved for incorporation by reference Washington, DC, and the APHIS revised to read as follows: in 7 CFR chapter III by the Director of Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD; or § 301.81–4 Interstate movement of the Office of the Federal Register in regulated articles from quarantined areas. accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 (2) May be obtained by writing to CFR part 51. Phytosanitary Issues Management, * * * * * (b) The kiln drying schedules Operational Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 (b) Inspectors are authorized to stop specified in the Dry Kiln Operator’s River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD any person or means of conveyance Manual provide a method by which 20737–1236; or moving in interstate commerce they certain articles regulated by ‘‘Subpart— (3) May be viewed on the APHIS Web have probable cause to believe is Logs, Lumber, and Other site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ moving regulated articles, and to inspect Unmanufactured Wood Articles’’ (7 CFR pim/accreditation. the articles being moved and the means of conveyance. Articles found to be 319.40–1 through 319.40–11) may be PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE imported into the United States. infested by an inspector, and articles not NOTICES (c) Availability. Copies of the Dry Kiln in compliance with the regulations in Operator’s Manual: this subpart, may be seized, 2. The authority citation for part 301 quarantined, treated, subjected to other (1) Are available for inspection at the continues to read as follows: Office of the Federal Register Library, remedial measures, destroyed, or 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 7711, 7712, 7714, otherwise disposed of. Any treatments Washington, DC; or 7731, 7735, 7751, 7752, 7753, and 7754; 7 will be in accordance with the methods (2) Are for sale as ISBN 0–16–035819– CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. and procedures prescribed in the 1 by the U.S. Government Printing Section 301.75–15 also issued under Appendix to this subpart (III. Regulatory Office, Superintendent of Documents, Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 Procedures), or in accordance with the Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC Stat. 1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 methods and procedures prescribed in 20402–9328. and 301.75–16 also issued under Sec. the Plant Protection and Quarantine
VerDate 11
Treatment Manual, which is Treatment Manual to destroy the melon supervision of an inspector and if the incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of fruit fly are authorized for use on articles are handled after treatment in this chapter. regulated articles. The Plant Protection accordance with all conditions that the * * * * * and Quarantine Treatment Manual is inspector requires. The Plant Protection incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of and Quarantine Treatment Manual is § 301.85 [Amended] this chapter. The following treatments incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of 7. In § 301.85, paragraph (a) is also may be used for the regulated this chapter. Treatments shall be amended by removing the words articles indicated: applied at the expense of the shipper, ‘‘(Heterodera rostochiensis)’’ and adding * * * * * owner, or person in charge of the the words ‘‘(Globodera rostochiensis)’’ 13. In § 301.98–10, the introductory articles. The Department of Agriculture in their place and in paragraph (b), the paragraph is revised to read as follows: or its inspector will not be responsible introductory text is amended by for loss or damage resulting from any removing the citation ‘‘§ 301.85–1(q)’’ § 301.98–10 Treatments. treatment prescribed or supervised and adding the citation ‘‘§ 301.85–1’’ in Treatment schedules listed in the under this subpart. its place. Plant Protection and Quarantine * * * * * 8. Section 301.85–1 is amended as Treatment Manual to destroy the West 17. Section 318.58–11 is revised to follows: Indian fruit fly are authorized for use on a. In the definition of Golden regulated articles. The Plant Protection read as follows: nematode, by removing the words and Quarantine Treatment Manual is § 318.58–11 Disinfection of means of ‘‘(Heterodera rostochiensis)’’ and adding incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of conveyance. the words ‘‘(Globodera rostochiensis)’’ this chapter. The following treatments in their place. also may be used for the regulated If an inspector, through an inspection b. By revising the definition of articles indicated: pursuant to this subpart, finds that a treatment manual to read as follows. means of conveyance is infested with or * * * * * contains any plant pest, and the § 301.85–1 Definitions. PART 318—HAWAIIAN AND inspector orders disinfection of the * * * * * TERRITORIAL QUARANTINE NOTICES means of conveyance, then the person Treatment manual. The provisions in charge or in possession of the means currently contained in the Plant 14. The authority citation for part 318 of conveyance shall disinfect the means Protection and Quarantine Treatment continues to read as follows: of conveyance and its cargo, in Manual, which is incorporated by accordance with an approved method Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7711, 7712, 7714, 7731, reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. 7754, and 7756; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. contained in the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual under the § 301.85–2b [Amended] 15. Section 318.13–11 is revised to supervision of an inspector and in a 9. In § 301.85–2b, footnote 2 and its read as follows: manner prescribed by the inspector, reference in the section heading are § 318.13–11 Disinfection of means of prior to any movement of the means of redesignated as footnote 1. conveyance. conveyance or its cargo. The Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment § 301.85–3 [Amended] If an inspector, through an inspection Manual is incorporated by reference at pursuant to this subpart, finds that a 10. Section 301.85–3 is amended as § 300.1 of this chapter. follows: means of conveyance is infested with or a. Footnote 3 and its reference in the contains plant pests, and the inspector PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE section heading are redesignated as orders disinfection of the means of NOTICES footnote 2. conveyance, then the person in charge or in possession of the means of b. In paragraph (b), footnotes 4 and 5 18. The authority citation for part 319 conveyance shall disinfect the means of and their references in the text are continues to read as follows: redesignated as footnotes 3 and 4, conveyance and its cargo in accordance respectively. with an approved method contained in Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 450, 7711–7714, 11. In § 301.93–10, the introductory the Plant Protection and Quarantine 7718, 7731, 7732, and 7751–7754; 21 U.S.C. paragraph is revised to read as follows: Treatment Manual under the 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. supervision of an inspector and in a § 301.93–10 Treatments. manner prescribed by the inspector, 19. In § 319.37–4, footnote 6 is revised Treatment schedules listed in the prior to any movement of the means of to read as follows: Plant Protection and Quarantine conveyance or its cargo. The Plant § 319.37–4 Inspection, treatment, and Treatment Manual to destroy the Protection and Quarantine Treatment phytosanitary certificates of inspection. Oriental fruit fly are approved for use on Manual is incorporated by reference at * * * * * regulated articles. The Plant Protection § 300.1 of this chapter. 6 and Quarantine Treatment Manual is 16. In § 318.58–4, paragraph (b) is The Plant Protection and Quarantine Manual is incorporated by reference at incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of revised to read as follows: this chapter. The following treatments § 300.1 of this chapter. can be used for bell pepper, citrus and § 318.58–4 Issuance of certificates or grape, tomato, premises, and soil: limited permits. § 319.40–7 [Amended] * * * * * * * * * * 20. In § 319.40–7, paragraph (d)(1)(i) (b) Certification on basis of treatment. 12. In § 301.97–10, the introductory is amended by removing the citation Fruits and vegetables designated in paragraph is revised to read as follows: ‘‘§ 300.1’’ and adding the citation § 318.58–2(b) may be certified after ‘‘§ 300.2’’ in its place. § 301.97–10 Treatments. undergoing an approved treatment Treatment schedules listed in the contained in the Plant Protection and 21. In § 319.56–2h, paragraph (b) is Plant Protection and Quarantine Quarantine Treatment Manual under the revised to read as follows:
VerDate 11
§ 319.56–2h Regulations governing the (g) * * * DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE entry of grapes from Australia. (2) Authorized treatments are listed in Animal and Plant Health Inspection * * * * * the Plant Protection and Quarantine (b) Authorized treatments. Authorized Service Treatment Manual, which is treatments are listed in the Plant incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of Protection and Quarantine Treatment 9 CFR Parts 145 and 147 this chapter. Manual, which is incorporated by [Docket No. 00–075–2] reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. * * * * * * * * * * 25. In § 319.56–2s, paragraph (f)(2) is National Poultry Improvement Plan and 22. In § 319.56–2i, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: Auxiliary Provisions revised to read as follows: § 319.56–2s Administrative instructions AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health § 319.56–2i Administrative instructions governing the entry of apricots, nectarines, Inspection Service, USDA. prescribing treatments for mangoes from peaches, plumcot, and plums from Chile. ACTION: Final rule. Central America, South America, and the * * * * * West Indies. SUMMARY: We are amending the National (a) Authorized treatments. Treatment (f) * * * Poultry Improvement Plan (the Plan) with an authorized treatment listed in (2) Authorized treatments are listed in and its auxiliary provisions by the Plant Protection and Quarantine the Plant Protection and Quarantine providing new or modified sampling Treatment Manual will meet the Treatment Manual, which is and testing procedures for Plan treatment requirements imposed under incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of participants and participating flocks. § 319.56–2 as a condition for the this chapter. These changes, which were voted on importation into the United States of and approved by the voting delegates at * * * * * mangoes from Central America, South the Plan’s 2000 Millennial Plan Conference, will keep the provisions of America, and the West Indies. The Plant PART 353–EXPORT CERTIFICATION Protection and Quarantine Treatment the Plan current with developments in Manual is incorporated by reference at the poultry industry and provide for the 26. The authority citation for part 353 § 300.1 of this chapter. use of new sampling and testing continues to read as follows: * * * * * procedures. 23. In § 319.56–2p, paragraph (f) is Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7711, 7712, 7718, 7751, EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 2002. and 7754; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR revised to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior Coordinator, § 319.56–2p Administrative instructions prescribing treatment and relieving § 353.1 [Amended] Poultry Improvement Staff, National Poultry Improvement Plan, Veterinary restrictions regarding importation of okra 27. Section 353.1 is amended as from Mexico, the West Indies, and certain Services, APHIS, USDA, 1498 Klondike countries in South America. follows: Road, Suite 200, Conyers, GA 30094– * * * * * a. In the definition of Reference 5104; (770) 922–3496. (f) Treatment of okra for pests other Manual A, by removing the citation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘§ 300.1’’ and adding the citation than pink bollworm. If, upon Background examination of okra imported in ‘‘§ 300.3’’ in its place. accordance with paragraphs (c), (d), or b. In the definition of Reference The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as (e) of this section, an inspector at the Manual B, by removing the citation ‘‘the Plan’’) is a cooperative Federal- port of arrival finds injurious insects, ‘‘§ 300.1’’ and adding the citation State-industry mechanism for other than the pink bollworm, that do ‘‘§ 300.4’’ in its place. not exist in the United States or are not controlling certain poultry diseases. The widespread in the United States, the § 353.9 [Amended] Plan consists of a variety of programs okra will remain eligible for entry into intended to prevent and control egg- the United States only if it is treated for 28. Section 353.9 is amended as transmitted, hatchery-disseminated the injurious insects in the physical follows: poultry diseases. Participation in all presence of an inspector in accordance a. In paragraph (b)(2), the introductory plan programs is voluntary, but flocks, with the Plant Protection and text, by removing the citation ‘‘§ 300.1’’ hatcheries, and dealers must qualify as Quarantine Treatment Manual. The and adding the citation ‘‘§ 300.4’’ in its ‘‘U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean’’ before Plant Protection and Quarantine place. participating in any other Plan program. Treatment Manual is incorporated by Also, the regulations in 9 CFR part 82, b. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. If the subpart C, which provide for certain citation ‘‘§ 300.1’’ and adding the treatment authorized by the Plant testing, restrictions on movement, and Protection and Quarantine Treatment citation ‘‘§ 300.3’’ in its place. other restrictions on certain chickens, Manual is not available, or if no Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of eggs, and other articles due to the authorized treatment exists, the okra February 2002. presence of Salmonella enteritidis, may not be entered into the United W. Ron DeHaven, prohibit hatching eggs or newly hatched States. chicks from egg-type chicken breeding Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant flocks from being moved interstate 24. In § 319.56–2r, paragraph (g)(2) is Health Inspection Service. revised to read as follows: unless they are classified ‘‘U.S. S. [FR Doc. 02–4384 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Enteritidis Monitored’’ under the Plan § 319.56–2r Administrative instructions BILLING CODE 3410–34–P or have met equivalent requirements for governing the entry of apples and pears S. enteritidis control, in accordance from certain countries in Europe. with 9 CFR 145.23(d), under official * * * * * supervision.
VerDate 11
The Plan identifies States, flocks, vaccination’’ option that may be utilized program are lower than the added hatcheries, and dealers that meet certain if an injectable bacterin or live vaccine benefits they receive from the program. disease control standards specified in that does not spread is used to vaccinate The changes contained in this the Plan’s various programs. As a result, a flock. document generally either update customers can buy poultry that has We are making two minor technical testing procedures and sanitation tested clean of certain diseases or that changes in this final rule that were not guidelines or amend the Plan’s has been produced under disease- discussed in the proposed rule. administrative operations, with the aim prevention conditions. Specifically, in the proposed rule, we of better safeguarding the health of the The regulations in 9 CFR parts 145 proposed to redesignate paragraph (b) of Nation’s poultry industry. The and 147 (referred to below as the § 147.12 as paragraph (c), but Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that regulations) contain the provisions of inadvertently failed to update two agencies consider the economic effects the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health internal references within that Inspection Service (APHIS or the paragraph. Therefore, in this final rule of their rules on small entities. We do Service) of the U.S. Department of we are amending redesignated not expect that the changes in this Agriculture (USDA or the Department) § 147.12(c)(1) so the introductory text of document will result in significant amends these provisions from time to that paragraph refers to paragraphs economic effects on small entities. time to incorporate new scientific (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) rather than (b)(1)(i) The Small Business Administration information and technologies within the and (b)(1)(ii); similarly, we are defines size standards for industries Plan. amending redesignated § 147.12(c)(2) so using the North American Industry On July 20, 2001, we published in the the introductory text of that paragraph Classification System (NAICS). Under Federal Register (66 FR 37919–37932, refers to paragraph (c)(2)(i) rather than this system, a firm classified within Docket No. 00–075–1) a proposal to (b)(2)(i). ‘‘Chicken Egg Production’’ (NAICS code amend the regulations by (1) providing Therefore, for the reasons given in the new or modified sampling, testing, and 112310) is considered small if its annual proposed rule and in this document, we cleaning/disinfection procedures for receipts are $9 million or less. For firms are adopting the proposed rule as a final Plan participants and participating classified within ‘‘Broilers and Other rule, with the changes discussed in this flocks, (2) updating some of the Plan’s Meat Type Chicken Production’’ (NAICS document. administrative provisions, and (3) code 112320), the small-entity criterion making several nonsubstantive editorial Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory is annual receipts of $750,000 or less. changes to improve clarity and correct Flexibility Act The egg and poultry industries are erroneous citations to several sections This rule has been reviewed under highly integrated vertically, with most within the regulations. production owned or under contract to We solicited comments concerning Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for large-scale processing and marketing our proposal for 60 days ending 1 the purposes of Executive Order 12866 firms. For example, broilers for Tyson September 18, 2001. We received one Foods, the world’s largest producer, comment by that date. The comment and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. came in 1999 from 6,060 farms (98 was from a private veterinarian who percent under contract), and its eggs requested that we clarify what we meant The changes contained in this document are based on the came from breeder flocks on 1,388 by the phrase ‘‘does not spread’’ in the farms.2 proposed revision to recommendations of representatives of § 145.23(d)(1)(vi)(B). (That paragraph member States, hatcheries, dealers, In 1997, an average of 303,604,000 begins with the words ‘‘If an injectable flockowners, and breeders who took egg-producing layers produced 77,532 bacterin or live vaccine that does not part in the Plan’s 2000 National Plan million eggs.3 The number of egg- spread is used * * *.’’) The commenter Conference. This rule amends the Plan producing farms and their size was concerned that our use of that and its auxiliary provisions by distribution is not known, but it is phrase meant that we intended to providing new or modified sampling reasonable to assume that some of them require the use of live vaccines that do and testing procedures for Plan may be small entities, operating either not ever shed or that are not transmitted participants and participating flocks. independently or under contract. The changes contained in this rule, between birds, and stated that it was Also in 1997, there were 13,458 farms which were voted on and approved by unlikely that any live vaccine could that sold layers, pullets, and pullet the voting delegates at the Plan’s 2000 meet that standard, thus precluding the chicks, and 23,937 farms that sold National Plan Conference, will keep the use of an otherwise valuable food safety broilers and other meat-type chickens.4 provisions of the plan current with vaccine. Regarding the latter, a farm would need As we explained in the proposed rule, changes in the poultry industry and to produce about 275,000 broilers a year the regulations in § 145.23(d)(1)(vi) provide for the use of new sampling and in order to reach annual sales of at least regarding the use of a federally licensed testing procedures. Salmonella enteritidis bacterin had not The plan serves as a ‘‘seal of $500,000, according to Census of differentiated between the use of approval’’ for eggs and poultry Agriculture and other National vaccines or bacterins that may spread to producers in the sense that tests and Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) other birds and those that do not, which procedures recommended by the Plan is why we proposed to introduce the are considered optimal for the industry. 1 The broiler industry, in particular, is heavily concentrated. Tyson Foods had weekly sales of term ‘‘does not spread’’ into that In all cases, the changes in this ready-to-cook chicken that averaged 154.3 million paragraph. In both the proposed rule document have been generated by the pounds in 1999. The 10 largest broiler companies and this final rule, the text of industry itself with the goal of reducing accounted for 429.6 million pounds per week in § 145.23(d)(1)(vi)(B) does not require the disease risk and increasing product 1999, approximately half of the Nation’s production (WATT Poultry USA, January 2000). use of live vaccines that do not spread, marketability. Because participation in 2 WATT Poultry USA, January 2000. nor does it prohibit the use of live the Plan is voluntary, individuals are 3 ‘‘Chickens and Eggs, Final Estimates 1994–97,’’ vaccines that spread. Rather, that likely to remain in the program as long USDA/NASS, December 1998. paragraph simply offers a ‘‘testing after as the costs of implementing the 4 1997 Census of Agriculture.
VerDate 11
data.5 By this measure, about one-half of § 145.1 Definitions. (4) Chick/poult processing equipment broiler farms can be considered small.6 * * * * * and rooms should be thoroughly Clearly, some of the poultry and egg- Public exhibition. A public show of cleaned and disinfected after each producing farms that may be affected by poultry. hatch. Chick/poult boxes should be this rule are small. However, the * * * * * cleaned and disinfected before being procedural and administrative changes 3. In § 145.2, a new paragraph (e) is reused. Vaccination equipment should in this rule are not expected to have a added to read as follows: be cleaned and disinfected after each significant economic impact on any use. Cleaning and disinfection entities, either large or small. § 145.2 Administration. procedures should be as outlined in Under these circumstances, the * * * * * § 147.24 of this chapter. Administrator of the Animal and Plant (e) An authorized laboratory of the (5) Hatchery residue, such as chick/ Health Inspection Service has National Poultry Improvement Plan will poult down, eggshells, infertile eggs, determined that this action would not follow the laboratory protocols outlined and dead germs, should be disposed of have a significant economic impact on in part 147 of this chapter when promptly and in a manner satisfactory a substantial number of small entities. determining the status of a participating to the Official State Agency. flock with respect to an official Plan (6) The entire hatchery should be kept Executive Order 12372 classification. in a neat, orderly condition and cleaned This program/activity is listed in the * * * * * and disinfected after each hatch. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 4. Section 145.6 is amended as (7) Effective insect and rodent control under No. 10.025 and is subject to follows: programs should be implemented. Executive Order 12372, which requires a. By revising paragraph (a). * * * * * intergovernmental consultation with b. In paragraph (b), by removing the State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part word ‘‘which’’ and adding the word § 145.10 [Amended] 3015, subpart V.) ‘‘that’’ in its place. 5. In § 145.10, paragraphs (a) and (l) c. In paragraph (c), by removing the Executive Order 12988 are removed and reserved and word ‘‘shall’’ and adding the word paragraph (m) is amended by adding the This final rule has been reviewed ‘‘should’’ in its place. words ‘‘§ 145.23(d) and’’ immediately under Executive Order 12988, Civil d. In paragraph (d), in both the first after the word ‘‘See’’. Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts and second sentences, by removing the all State and local laws and regulations word ‘‘shall’’ and adding the word § 145.13 [Amended] that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has ‘‘should’’ in its place. 6. In § 145.13, the introductory text of no retroactive effect; and (3) does not § 145.6 Specific provisions for the section is amended as follows: require administrative proceedings participating hatcheries. a. In the first sentence, by adding the before parties may file suit in court (a) Hatcheries must be kept in sanitary words ‘‘in writing’’ immediately after challenging this rule. condition, acceptable to the Official the words ‘‘are notified’’. Paperwork Reduction Act State Agency. The procedures outlined b. In the sixth sentence, by removing in §§ 147.22 through 147.25 of this the words ‘‘§§ 50.21 through 50.28–14 This final rule contains no new chapter will be considered as a guide in and §§ 50.30 through 50.33 of’’. information collection or recordkeeping determining compliance with this c. In the seventh sentence, by requirements under the Paperwork provision. The minimum requirements removing the citation ‘‘7 CFR 50.2(e), Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 with respect to sanitation include the (g), (h), and (l)’’ and adding the citation et seq.). following: ‘‘7 CFR 50.10’’ in its place. List of Subjects in 9 CFR Parts 145 and (1) Egg room walls, ceilings, floors, air 7. Section 145.14 is amended as 147 filters, drains, and humidifiers should follows: be cleaned and disinfected at least two a. In the introductory text of the Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry times per week. Cleaning and section, by revising the first sentence. products, Reporting and recordkeeping disinfection procedures should be as b. In paragraph (a)(1), footnote 1, by requirements. outlined in § 147.24 of this chapter. removing the words ‘‘Veterinary Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR (2) Incubator room walls, ceilings, Biologics, 4700 River Road, Unit 148, parts 145 and 147 as follows: floors, doors, fan grills, vents, and ducts Riverdale, Maryland 20737–1237’’ and should be cleaned and disinfected after adding the words ‘‘Center for Veterinary PART 145—NATIONAL POULTRY each set or transfer. Incubator rooms Biologics, 510 South 17th Street, Suite IMPROVEMENT PLAN should not be used for storage. Plenums 104, Ames, IA 50010–8197’’ in their should be cleaned at least weekly. Egg 1. The authority citation for part 145 place. trays and buggies should be cleaned and continues to read as follows: disinfected after each transfer. Cleaning § 145.14 Blood testing. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 429; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and disinfection procedures should be Poultry must be more than 4 months and 371.4. as outlined in § 147.24 of this chapter. of age when blood tested for an official 2. In § 145.1, a definition of public (3) Hatcher walls, ceilings, floors, classification: Provided, That turkey exhibition is added, in alphabetical doors, fans, vents, and ducts should be candidates under subpart D of this part order, to read as follows: cleaned and disinfected after each may be blood tested at more than 12 hatch. Hatcher rooms should be cleaned weeks of age; game bird candidates 5 In 1997, the average liveweight equivalent price and disinfected after each hatch and under subpart E of this part may be of broilers was $0.377 per pound, and the average should not be used for storage. Plenums blood tested when more than 4 months weight was 4,835 pounds. Thus, the average price should be cleaned after each hatch. of age or upon reaching sexual maturity, received per broiler was $1.82. 6 The 1997 Census of Agriculture indicates that Cleaning and disinfection procedures whichever comes first; and ostrich, emu, 52 percent of broiler-producing farms sold at least should be as outlined in § 147.24 of this rhea, and cassowary candidates under 200,000 broilers. chapter. subpart F of this part may be blood
VerDate 11
tested when more than 12 months of immediately before the words § 145.54 [Amended] age. * * * ‘‘paragraph (h)(1)(iv)’’ and by adding the 14. In § 145.54, paragraph (a)(2) is * * * * * words ‘‘and/or 500 cloacal swabs amended by adding the words ‘‘in 8. In § 145.23, paragraph (d) is collected in accordance with accordance with rules of practice amended as follows: § 147.12(a)(2) of this chapter’’ adopted by the Administrator’’ a. In paragraph (d), by revising the immediately before the word ‘‘must’’. immediately after the word ‘‘hearing’’. introductory text. § 145.33 Terminology and classification; PART 147—AUXILIARY PROVISIONS b. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing flocks and products. the word ‘‘Monitored’’ and adding the ON NATIONAL POULTRY word ‘‘Clean’’ in its place. * * * * * IMPROVEMENT PLAN c. By revising paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) (c) * * * (2) A participant handling U.S. M. and (d)(1)(vi). 15. The authority citation for part 147 Gallisepticum Clean products must keep continues to read as follows: § 145.23 Terminology and classification; these products separate from other flocks and products. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 429; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, products through the use of separate and 371.4. * * * * * hatchers and incubators, separate hatch (d) U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean. This days, and proper hatchery sanitation § 147.5 [Amended] classification is intended for egg-type and biosecurity (see §§ 147.22, 147.23, 16. Section 147.5 is amended as breeders wishing to assure their and 147.24) in a manner satisfactory to follows: customers that the hatching eggs and the Official State Agency: Provided, a. In paragraph (c), by removing the chicks produced are certified free of That U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean chicks numbers ‘‘1:20’’ and adding the Salmonella enteritidis. from primary breeding flocks must be numbers ‘‘1:40’’ in their place. (1) * * * produced in incubators and hatchers in b. In paragraph (d), the introductory * * * * * which only eggs from flocks qualified text, by removing the numbers ‘‘1:20’’ (iv) The flock is maintained in under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section and adding the numbers ‘‘1:40’’ in their compliance with §§ 147.21, 147.24(a), are set. place. and 147.26 of this chapter. Rodents and * * * * * c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing the other pests should be effectively (h) * * * words ‘‘10 microliters (0.01 cc.)’’ and controlled; (1) * * * adding the words ‘‘5 microliters (0.005 * * * * * (i) The flock originated from a U.S. S. cc.)’’ in their place. (vi) If a Salmonella vaccine is used Enteritidis Clean flock, or one of the that causes positive reactions with following samples has been examined § 147.7 [Amended] pullorum-typhoid antigen, one of the bacteriologically for S. enteritidis at an 17. In § 147.7, paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) is following options must be utilized: authorized laboratory and any group D amended by removing the third and (A) Administer the vaccine after the Salmonella samples have been fourth sentences. pullorum-typhoid testing is done as serotyped: 18. In § 147.11, paragraph (a) is described in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this (A) A 25-gram sample of meconium revised to read as follows: section. from the chicks in the flock collected (B) If an injectable bacterin or live and cultured as described in § 147.11 Laboratory procedure vaccine that does not spread is used, § 147.12(a)(5) of this chapter; or recommended for the bacteriological keep a sample of 350 birds unvaccinated (B) A sample of chick papers collected examination of salmonella. and banded for identification until the and cultured as described in § 147.12(c) (a) For egg- and meat-type chickens, flock reaches at least 4 months of age. of this chapter; or waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game Following negative serological and (C) A sample of 10 chicks that died birds. All reactors to the Pullorum- bacteriological examinations as within 7 days after hatching. Typhoid tests, up to 25 birds, and birds described in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this * * * * * from Salmonella enteritidis (SE) section, vaccinate the banded, non- (vi) Hatching eggs produced by the positive environments should be vaccinated birds. flock are collected as quickly as possible cultured in accordance with both the * * * * * and are handled as described in § 147.22 direct (paragraph (a)(1)) and selective of this chapter. enrichment (paragraph (a)(2)) § 145.24 [Amended] procedures described in this section. § 145.34 [Amended] 9. In § 145.24, paragraph (a)(2), at the Careful aseptic technique should be end of the last sentence, the words ‘‘in 11. In § 145.34, paragraphs (a)(2) and used when collecting all tissue samples. accordance with rules of practice (b)(2) are each amended by adding the (1) Direct culture (refer to illustration adopted by the Administrator’’ are words ‘‘in accordance with rules of 1). Grossly normal or diseased liver, added immediately after the word practice adopted by the Administrator’’ heart, pericardial sac, spleen, lung, ‘‘hearing’’. immediately after the word ‘‘hearing’’. kidney, peritoneum, gallbladder, oviduct, misshapen ova or testes, 10. Section 145.33 is amended as § 145.44 [Amended] inflamed or unabsorbed yolk sac, and follows: a. By revising paragraph (c)(2). 12. In § 145.44, paragraphs (a)(2), other visibly pathological tissues where b. In paragraph (h), the introductory (b)(2), and (c)(2) are each amended by purulent, necrotic, or proliferative text, by removing the word ‘‘primary’’. adding the words ‘‘in accordance with lesions are seen (including cysts, c. By revising paragraph (h)(1)(i). rules of practice adopted by the abscesses, hypopyon, and inflamed d. In paragraph (h)(1)(iv), by adding Administrator’’ immediately after the serosal surfaces) should be sampled for the words ‘‘or under the supervision of’’ word ‘‘hearing’’. direct culture using either flamed wire immediately after the word ‘‘by’’. loops or sterile swabs. Since some e. By revising paragraph (h)(1)(vi). § 145.53 [Amended] strains may not dependably survive and f. In paragraph (h)(3), the first 13. In § 145.53, paragraph (a) is grow in certain selective media, sentence, by removing the word ‘‘in’’ removed and reserved. inoculate non-selective plates (such as
VerDate 11
blood or nutrient agar) and selective (iii) Ovary-Testes (entire inactive outlined in illustration 1 for the plates (such as MacConkey [MAC] and ovary or testes, but if ovary is active, isolation and identification of brilliant green novobiocin [BGN] for include any atypical ova); Salmonella. pullorum-typhoid and MAC, BGN, and (iv) Oviduct (if active, include any (5) After selective enrichment, xylose-lysine-tergitol 4 [XLT 4] for SE). debris and dehydrated ova); inoculate selective plates (such as MAC After inoculating the plates, pool the (v) Kidneys and spleen; and and BGN for pullorum-typhoid and swabs from the various organs into a (vi) Other visibly pathological sites MAC, BGN, and XLT 4) for SE. tube of non-selective broth (such as where purulent, necrotic, or Inoculate three to five Salmonella- nutrient or brain-heart infusion). Refer proliferative lesions are seen. suspect colonies from plates into triple to illustration 1 for recommended (3) From each bird, aseptically collect sugar iron (TSI) and lysine iron agar bacteriological recovery and 10 to 15 grams of each organ or site (LIA) slants. Screen colonies by identification procedures.7 Proceed listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. serological (i.e., serogroup) and immediately with collection of organs Mince, grind, or blend and place in a biochemical procedures (e.g., the and tissues for selective enrichment sterile plastic bag. All the organs or sites Analytical Profile Index for culture. listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section Enterobacteriaceae [API]) as shown in (2) Selective enrichment culture (refer from the same bird may be pooled into illustration 1. As a supplement to to illustration 1). Collect and culture one bag. Do not pool samples from more screening three to five Salmonella- organ samples separately from intestinal than one bird. Add sufficient suspect colonies on TSI and LIA slants, samples, with intestinal tissues tetrathionate enrichment broth to give a a group D colony lift assay may be collected last to prevent cross- 1:10 (sample to enrichment) ratio. utilized to signal the presence of hard- contamination. Samples from the Follow the procedure outlined in to-detect group D Salmonella colonies following organs or sites should be illustration 1 for the isolation and on agar plates. collected for culture in selective identification of Salmonella. (6) If the initial selective enrichment enrichment broth: (4) From each bird, aseptically collect is negative for Salmonella, a delayed (i) Heart (apex, pericardial sac, and 10 to 15 grams of each of the following secondary enrichment (DSE) procedure contents if present); parts of the digestive tract: Crop wall, is used. Leave the tetrathionate-enriched (ii) Liver (portions exhibiting lesions duodenum, jejunum (including remnant sample at room temperature for 5 to 7 or, in grossly normal organs, the drained of yolk sac), both ceca, cecal tonsils, and days. Transfer 1 mL of the culture into gallbladder and adjacent liver tissues); rectum-cloaca. Mince, grind, or blend 10 mL of fresh tetrathionate enrichment tissues and pool them into a sterile broth, incubate at 37 C for 20 to 24 7 Biochemical identification charts may be plastic bag. Do not pool tissues from hours, and plate as before. obtained from ‘‘A Laboratory Manual for the different birds into the same sample. (7) Serogroup all isolates identified as Isolation and Identification of Avian Pathogens,’’ chapter 2, Salmonellosis. Fourth edition, 1998, Add sufficient tetrathionate enrichment salmonellae and serotype all serogroup American Association of Avian Pathologists, Inc., broth to give a 1:10 (sample to D1 isolates. Phage-type all SE isolates. Kennett Square, PA 19348. enrichment) ratio. Follow the procedure BILLING CODE 3410–34–U
VerDate 11
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C c. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), by removing designed for this purpose)’’ immediately * * * * * the words ‘‘(Hajna or Mueller- before the words ‘‘, a key component’’. 19. Section 147.12 is amended as Kauffmann Tetrathionate Brilliant e. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by removing follows: Green)’’. the words ‘‘paragraph (a)(1)’’ and adding a. By revising the section heading. d. In paragraph (a)(3), the the words ‘‘paragraph (a)(3)(i)’’ in their b. In paragraph (a), the introductory place. introductory text, by adding the words text, by removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and f. In paragraph (a)(3)(iv), by revising ‘‘(or commercially available sponges adding the word ‘‘should’’ in its place. the first two sentences.
VerDate 11
g. By adding new paragraphs (a)(4) footnote 12 to this section) and rub the (iv) Enrich the sample with selective and (a)(5). pad across the surface of five chick box enrichment broth for 24 hours at 42 °C. h. By removing paragraph (c), papers. Rub the pad over at least 75 (v) Streak the enriched sample onto redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph percent of each paper and use sufficient brilliant green novobiocin (BGN) agar (c), and adding a new paragraph (b). pressure to rub any dry meconium off and xylose-lysine-tergitol 4 (XLT4) agar. i. In the introductory text of newly the paper. Pouring a small amount of ° redesignated paragraph (c)(1), by double-strength skim milk (1 to 2 (vi) Incubate both plates at 37 C for removing the citation ‘‘(b)(1)(i) or tablespoons) on each paper will make it 24 hours and process suspect (b)(1)(ii)’’ and adding the citation easier to collect samples. Salmonella colonies according to ‘‘(c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii)’’ in its place. (D) After collecting samples from 10 paragraph (b) of this section. j. In the introductory text of newly chick box papers, place the two gauze (b) Isolation and identification of redesignated paragraph (c)(2), by pads used to collect the samples (i.e., Salmonella. Either of the two removing the citation ‘‘(b)(2)(i)’’ and one pad per 5 chick box papers) into an enrichment procedures in this adding the citation ‘‘(c)(2)(i)’’ in its 18 oz. Whirl-Pak bag and add 1 to 2 paragraph may be used. place. tablespoons of double-strength skim (1) Tetrathionate enrichment with milk. delayed secondary enrichment (DSE): § 147.12 Procedures for collection, (E) Promptly refrigerate the Whirl-Pak (i) Add tetrathionate enrichment broth isolation, and identification of Salmonella bags containing the samples and from environmental samples, cloacal transport them, on ice or otherwise to the sample to give a 1:10 (sample to swabs, chick box papers, and meconium enrichment) ratio. Incubate the sample samples. refrigerated, to a laboratory within 48 ° hours of collection. The samples may be at 37 or 41.5 C for 20 to 24 hours as * * * * * frozen for longer storage if the Plan shown in illustration 2. (a) * * * participant is unable to transport them (ii) After selective enrichment, (3) * * * to a laboratory within 48 hours. inoculate selective plates (such as BGN (iv) Nest box or egg belt sampling (ii) The Plan participant may send and XLT4). Incubate the plates at 37 °C technique. Collect nest box or egg belt chick box papers directly to a for 20 to 24 hours. Inoculate three to samples by using two 3-by-3 inch sterile laboratory, where samples may be five Salmonella-suspect colonies from gauze pads premoistened with double- collected as described in paragraph the plates into triple sugar iron (TSI) strength skim milk and wiping the pads (a)(4)(i) of this section. To send chick and lysine iron agar (LIA) slants. over assorted locations in about 10 box papers directly to a laboratory: Incubate the slants at 37 °C for 20 to 24 percent of the total nesting area or the (A) Collect 1 chick box paper for each hours. Screen colonies by serological egg belt. * * * 10 boxes of chicks placed in a house (i.e., serogroup) and biochemical (e.g., * * * * * and place the chick papers immediately API) procedures as shown in illustration (4) Chick box papers. Samples from into large plastic bags and seal the bags. 2. As a supplement to screening three to chick box papers may be (B) Place the plastic bags containing five Salmonella-suspect colonies on TSI bacteriologically examined for the the chick box papers in a clean box and and LIA slants, a group D colony lift presence of Salmonella. The Plan transport them within 48 hours to a assay may be utilized to signal the participant may collect the samples in laboratory. The plastic bags do not presence of hard-to-detect group D accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(i) of require refrigeration. Salmonella colonies on agar plates. this section or submit chick box papers (iii) The laboratory must follow the (iii) If the initial selective enrichment directly to a laboratory in accordance procedure set forth in paragraph (a)(5) of is negative for Salmonella, use a DSE with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section. this section for testing chick meconium procedure. Leave the original It is important that the paper be for Salmonella. tetrathionate-enriched sample at room removed from the chick box before the (5) Chick meconium testing procedure temperature for 5 to 7 days. Transfer 1 box is placed in the brooding house. for Salmonella. mL of the culture into 10 mL of fresh (i) Instructions for collecting samples (i) Record the date, source, and flock tetrathionate enrichment broth, incubate from chick box papers: destination on the ‘‘Meconium at 37 °C for 20 to 24 hours, and plate (A) Collect 1 chick box paper for each Worksheet.’’ as in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. 10 boxes of chicks placed in a house (ii) Shake each plastic bag of and lay the papers on a clean surface. meconium until a uniform consistency (iv) Serogroup all isolates identified (B) Clean your hands and put on latex is achieved. as Salmonella and serotype all gloves. Do not apply disinfectant to the (iii) Transfer a 25 gm sample of serogroup D isolates. Phage-type all gloves. Change gloves after collecting meconium to a sterile container. Add Salmonella enteritidis isolates. samples from 10 chick box papers or 225 mL of a preenrichment broth to (2) Pre-enrichment followed by any time a glove is torn. each sample (this is a 1:10 dilution), selective enrichment. (See illustration (C) Saturate a sterile 3-by-3 inch gauze mix gently, and incubate at 37 °C for 2.) pad with double-strength skim milk (see 18–24 hours. BILLING CODE 3410–34–U
VerDate 11
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C
VerDate 11
* * * * * airflow patterns in the hatchery should installed equipment such as curtains, be from clean areas to dirty areas (i.e., ventilation ducts and openings, fans, fan § 147.18 [Removed] from egg room to chick/poult processing housings and shutters, feeding 20. Section 147.18 is removed. rooms) and should avoid tracking from equipment, watering equipment, etc. 21. Section 147.22 is revised to read dirty areas back into clean areas. Use high pressure and high volume as follows: (c) The hatchery rooms, and tables, water spray (for example 200 pounds racks, and other equipment in them per square inch and 10 gallons per § 147.22 Hatching egg sanitation. should be thoroughly cleaned and minute or more) to soak into and Hatching eggs should be collected disinfected frequently. All hatchery remove the dirt to decontaminate the from the nests at frequent intervals and, wastes and offal should be burned or building. Scrub the walls, floors, and to aid in the prevention of otherwise properly disposed of, and the equipment with a hot soapy water contamination with disease-causing containers used to remove such solution. Rinse to remove soap. organisms, the following practices materials should be cleaned and * * * * * should be observed: sanitized after each use. (b) * * * (a) Cleaned and disinfected (d) The hatching compartments of containers, such as egg flats, should be incubators, including the hatching trays, (1) Use cleaning agents and sanitizers used in collecting the nest eggs for should be thoroughly cleaned and that are registered by the U.S. hatching. Egg handlers should disinfected after each hatch. Environmental Protection Agency as thoroughly wash their hands with soap (e) Only clean eggs should be used for germicidal, fungicidal, and water prior to and after egg hatching purposes. pseudomonocidal, and tuberculocidal. collection. Clean outer garments should (f) Only new or cleaned and Use manufacturer’s recommended be worn. disinfected egg cases should be used for dilution. Remove loose organic debris (b) Dirty eggs should not be used for transportation of hatching eggs. Soiled by sweeping, scraping, vacuuming, hatching purposes and should be egg case fillers should be destroyed. brushing, or scrubbing, or by hosing collected in a separate container from (g) Day-old chicks, poults, or other surface with high pressure water (for the nest eggs. Slightly soiled nest eggs newly hatched poultry should be example 200 pounds per square inch may be gently dry cleaned by hand. distributed in clean, new boxes and new and 10 gallons per minute or more). (c) Hatching eggs should be stored in chick papers. All crates and vehicles Remove trays and all controls and fans a designated egg room under conditions used for transporting birds should be for separate cleaning. Use hot water that will minimize egg sweating. The cleaned and disinfected after each use. (minimum water temperature of 140 °F) egg room walls, ceiling, floor, door, 23. Section 147.24 is amended as for cleaning hatching trays and chick heater, and humidifier should be follows: separator equipment. Thoroughly wet cleaned and disinfected after every egg a. In paragraph (a), the introductory the ceiling, walls, and floors with a pickup. Cleaning and disinfection text, by removing the words ‘‘, hatchery stream of water, then scrub with a hard procedures should be as outlined in rooms and delivery trucks’’. bristle brush. Use a cleaner/sanitizer § 147.24. b. By revising paragraphs (a)(1) and that can penetrate protein and fatty (d) The egg processing area should be (a)(3). deposits. Allow the chemical to cling to cleaned and disinfected daily. c. In paragraph (b), the introductory treated surfaces at least 10 minutes (e) Effective rodent and insect control text, by adding the words ‘‘and hatchery before rinsing off. Manually scrub any programs should be implemented. rooms’’ immediately after the word remaining deposits of organic material (f) The egg processing building or area ‘‘hatchers’’. until they are removed. Rinse until there should be designed, located, and d. By revising paragraph (b)(1). is no longer any deposit on the walls, constructed of such materials as to e. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the particularly near the fan opening, and assure that proper egg sanitation word ‘‘sanitized’’ and adding the word apply disinfectant. Use a clean and procedures can be carried out, and that ‘‘disinfected’’ in its place. sanitized squeegee to remove excess the building itself can be easily, f. By redesignating paragraph (c) as water, working down from ceilings to effectively, and routinely sanitized. paragraph (b)(4) and adding a new walls to floors and being careful not to (g) All vehicles used for transporting paragraph (c). recontaminate cleaned areas. eggs or chicks/poults should be cleaned * * * * * and disinfected after use. Cleaning and § 147.24 Cleaning and disinfecting. * * * * * (c) The egg and chick/poult delivery disinfection procedures should be as truck drivers and helpers should use the outlined in § 147.24. (a) * * * (1) Remove all live ‘‘escaped’’ and following good biosecurity practices 22. Section 147.23 is revised to read dead birds from the building. Blow dust while picking up eggs or delivering as follows: from equipment and other exposed chicks/poults: § 147.23 Hatchery sanitation. surfaces. Empty the residual feed from (1) Spray truck tires thoroughly with An effective program for the the feed system and feed pans and disinfectant before leaving the main prevention and control of Salmonella remove it from the building. road and entering the farm driveway. and other infections should include the Disassemble feeding equipment and (2) Put on sturdy, disposable plastic following measures: dump and scrape as needed to remove boots or clean rubber boots before (a) An effective hatchery sanitation any and all feed cake and residue. Clean getting out of the truck cab. Put on a program should be designed and up spilled feed around the tank and clean smock or coveralls and a hairnet implemented. clean out the tank. Rinse down and before entering the poultry house. (b) The hatchery building should be wash out the inside of the feed tank to (3) After loading eggs or unloading arranged so that separate rooms are decontaminate the surfaces and allow to chicks/poults, remove the dirty smock/ provided for each of the four operations: dry. coveralls and place into plastic garbage Egg receiving, incubation and hatching, * * * * * bag before loading in the truck. Be sure chick/poult processing, and egg tray and (3) Wash down the entire inside to keep clean coveralls separate from hatching basket washing. Traffic and surfaces of the building and all the dirty ones.
VerDate 11
(4) Reenter the cab of the truck and committee members will include, but Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., remove boots before placing feet onto not be limited to: Advertisements in at Renton, Washington; or at the Office of floorboards. Remove hairnet and leave least two industry journals, such as the the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol with disposable boots on farm. newsletters of the American Association Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. (5) Sanitize hands using appropriate of Avian Pathologists, the National FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: hand sanitizer. Chicken Council, the United Egg Duong Tran, Aerospace Engineer, (6) Return to the hatchery or go to the Producers, and the National Turkey Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, next farm and repeat the process. Federation; a Federal Register Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, announcement; and special inquiries for § 147.25 [Amended] 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, nominations from universities or 24. Section 147.25 is amended by Washington 98055–4056; telephone colleges with minority/disability (425) 227–2773; fax (425) 227–1181. removing the words ‘‘as an essential’’ enrollments and faculty members in and adding the words ‘‘or rooms as a’’ poultry science or veterinary science. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A in their place. * * * * * proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 25. Section 147.26 is amended as Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to follows: Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of include an airworthiness directive (AD) February 2002. a. By revising paragraph (a). that is applicable to all Boeing Model b. In paragraph (b)(5), by removing the W. Ron DeHaven, 727 series airplanes was published in word ‘‘Keep’’ and adding the words Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant the Federal Register on November 28, ‘‘Establish a rodent control program to Health Inspection Service. 2001 (66 FR 59384). That action keep’’ in its place. [FR Doc. 02–4264 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] proposed to require repetitive c. By removing paragraph (b)(10) and BILLING CODE 3410–34–U inspections for cracking of the upper redesignating paragraphs (b)(11) through chord of the rear spar of the wing, and (b)(15) as paragraphs (b)(10) through corrective action, if necessary. (b)(14), respectively. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Comments § 147.26 Procedures for establishing Federal Aviation Administration isolation and maintaining sanitation and Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the good management practices for the control 14 CFR Part 39 of Salmonella and Mycoplasma infections. making of this amendment. No (a) The following procedures are [Docket No. 2001–NM–203–AD; Amendment comments were submitted in response required for participation under the U.S. 39–12663; AD 2002–04–06] to the proposal or the FAA’s determination of the cost to the public. Sanitation Monitored, U.S. M. RIN 2120–AA64 Gallisepticum Clean, U.S. M. Synoviae Conclusion Clean, U.S. S. Enteritidis Monitored, Airworthiness Directives; Boeing and U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean Model 727 Series Airplanes The FAA has determined that air classifications: safety and the public interest require the AGENCY: (1) Allow no visitors except under Federal Aviation adoption of the rule as proposed. Administration, DOT. controlled conditions to minimize the Cost Impact introduction of Salmonella and ACTION: Final rule. Mycoplasma. Such conditions must be There are approximately 1,375 Boeing SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a approved by the Official State Agency Model 727 series airplanes of the new airworthiness directive (AD), affected design in the worldwide fleet. and the Service; applicable to all Boeing Model 727 (2) Maintain breeder flocks on farms The FAA estimates that 912 airplanes of series airplanes, that requires repetitive free from market birds and other U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, inspections for cracking of the upper domesticated fowl. Follow proper that it will take approximately 12 work chord of the rear spar of the wing, and isolation procedures as approved by the hours per airplane to accomplish the corrective action, if necessary. This Official State Agency; required inspections, and that the action is necessary to find and fix such (3) Dispose of all dead birds by locally average labor rate is $60 per work hour. cracking, which could result in fuel approved methods. Based on these figures, the cost impact leaking through the cracks, reduced of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated * * * * * structural integrity of the wing, and 26. In § 147.43, paragraph (b) is to be $656,640, or $720 per airplane, per separation of the wing from the inspection cycle. revised to read as follows: airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. The cost impact figure discussed § 147.43 General Conference Committee. above is based on assumptions that no DATES: * * * * * Effective April 1, 2002. operator has yet accomplished any of (b) The regional committee members The incorporation by reference of the requirements of this AD action, and and their alternates will be elected by certain publications listed in the that no operator would accomplish the official delegates of their respective regulations is approved by the Director those actions in the future if this AD regions, and the member-at-large will be of the Federal Register as of April 1, were not adopted. The cost impact elected by all official delegates. There 2002. figures discussed in AD rulemaking must be at least two nominees for each ADDRESSES: The service information actions represent only the time position, the voting will be by secret referenced in this AD may be obtained necessary to perform the specific actions ballot, and the results will be recorded. from Boeing Commercial Airplane actually required by the AD. These At least one nominee from each region Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, figures typically do not include must be from an underrepresented Washington 98124–2207. This incidental costs, such as the time group (minorities, women, or persons information may be examined at the required to gain access and close up, with disabilities). The process for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), planning time, or time necessitated by soliciting nominations for regional Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules other administrative actions.
VerDate 11
Regulatory Impact the effect of the modification, alteration, or airplane approved by a Boeing Company DER repair on the unsafe condition addressed by who has been authorized by the Manager, The regulations adopted herein will this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a not have a substantial direct effect on been eliminated, the request should include repair method to be approved by the the States, on the relationship between specific proposed actions to address it. Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this the national Government and the States, Compliance: Required as indicated, unless paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter or on the distribution of power and accomplished previously. must specifically reference this AD. responsibilities among the various To find and fix cracking of the upper chord levels of government. Therefore, it is of the rear spar of the wing, which could Alternative Methods of Compliance result in fuel leaking through the cracks, determined that this final rule does not (c) An alternative method of compliance or have federalism implications under reduced structural integrity of the wing, and separation of the wing from the airplane, adjustment of the compliance time that Executive Order 13132. accomplish the following: provides an acceptable level of safety may be For the reasons discussed above, I used if approved by the Manager, Seattle certify that this action (1) is not a Repetitive Inspections ACO. Operators shall submit their requests ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under (a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total through an appropriate FAA Principal Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after Maintenance Inspector, who may add ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT the effective date of this AD, whichever is comments and then send it to the Manager, Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 later, do detailed visual and high frequency Seattle ACO. FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) eddy current inspections for cracking of the upper chord of the rear spar of the wing, Note 3: Information concerning the will not have a significant economic according to Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57– existence of approved alternative methods of impact, positive or negative, on a 0184, dated August 16, 2001. The detailed compliance with this AD, if any, may be substantial number of small entities visual inspection must include an inspection obtained from the Seattle ACO. under the criteria of the Regulatory of the surface finish for damage or Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has deterioration (discoloration, blistering, raised Special Flight Permits been prepared for this action and it is or rough areas), as described in the service (d) Special flight permits may be issued in bulletin. Repeat all inspections every 4,500 contained in the Rules Docket. A copy accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 flight cycles. of it may be obtained from the Rules of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Docket at the location provided under Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An the caption ADDRESSES. a location where the requirements of this AD intensive visual examination of a specific can be accomplished. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or Incorporation by Reference Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation irregularity. Available lighting is normally safety, Incorporation by reference, supplemented with a direct source of good (e) Except as provided by paragraphs Safety. lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2) of this AD, the actions the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, shall be done in accordance with Boeing Adoption of the Amendment magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface Service Bulletin 727–57–0184, dated August Accordingly, pursuant to the cleaning and elaborate access procedures 16, 2001. This incorporation by reference was may be required.’’ authority delegated to me by the approved by the Director of the Federal Administrator, the Federal Aviation Repairs Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) Administration amends part 39 of the and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained (b) If any cracking, damage, or from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR deterioration is found during any inspection P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124– part 39) as follows: required by paragraph (a) of this AD: Before further flight, do paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of 2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS this AD, as applicable. Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind DIRECTIVES (1) If any damage or deterioration but no Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the cracking is found, remove the finish, blend Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 1. The authority citation for part 39 the area smooth, and reapply the finish Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, continues to read as follows: according to Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57– DC. 0184, dated August 16, 2001. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. (i) If the blend-out is within the limits Effective Date § 39.13 [Amended] specified in Section 57–10–1 of the Boeing (f) This amendment becomes effective on 727 Structural Repair Manual (SRM), no April 1, 2002. 2. Section 39.13 is amended by further action is required by this paragraph. adding the following new airworthiness (ii) If the blend-out is outside the limits Issued in Renton, Washington, on February directive: specified in Section 57–10–1 of the Boeing 14, 2002. 727 SRM, before further flight, repair 2002–04–06 Boeing: Amendment 39–12663. Charles D. Huber, according to a method approved by the Docket 2001–NM–203–AD. Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Applicability: All Model 727 series (ACO), FAA; or according to data meeting the Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. airplanes, certificated in any category. type certification basis of the airplane [FR Doc. 02–4112 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated BILLING CODE 4910–13–P identified in the preceding applicability Engineering Representative (DER) who has provision, regardless of whether it has been been authorized by the Manager, Seattle modified, altered, or repaired in the area ACO, to make such findings. For a repair subject to the requirements of this AD. For method to be approved by the Manager, airplanes that have been modified, altered, or Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, repaired so that the performance of the the Manager’s approval letter must requirements of this AD is affected, the specifically reference this AD. owner/operator must request approval for an (2) If any cracking is found, repair alternative method of compliance in according to a method approved by the accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. Manager, Seattle ACO, or according to data The request should include an assessment of meeting the type certification basis of the
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF STATE Information Center (NCIC) as mutually Section 403 requires the Department: agreed upon by the Attorney General • To limit the re-dissemination of 22 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 42 and the Department. The purpose of this criminal history records received from [Public Notice 3921] provision is to give the Department the FBI; access to an applicant’s criminal history • To use any criminal history Visas: Documentation of or other record indexed in a specified information it receives solely to Nonimmigrants and Immigrants Under NCIC database and to place conditions determine whether or not to issue a visa the Immigration and Nationality Act, As on the Department’s use of database to an alien or to admit the alien to the Amended: Fingerprinting; Access to information it receives from the FBI. United States; Criminal History Records; Conditions How Will the Department Access NCIC • To ensure the security, for Use of Criminal History Records Criminal History Records? confidentiality, and destruction of such information; and ACTION: Interim rule, with request for Access to NCIC databases is to be • comments. provided by means of criminal history To protect any privacy rights of record extracts for placement in the individuals who have NCIC criminal SUMMARY: Recent legislation, commonly Department’s automated Lookout history records. known as the USA Patriot Act, requires database. All visa applicants and Because NCIC–III and other FBI the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) applicants for admission to the United criminal history records received by the to give the Department access to certain States will be subject to name-check Department are law enforcement of its criminal history record and other queries against the extract information sensitive, only authorized consular databases, conditioned in certain for the purpose of determining whether personnel with visa processing instances upon the Department an applicant may have a criminal responsibilities may have access to an providing an applicant’s fingerprints to history or other record. The extracts of applicant’s criminal history record. To the FBI. This rule amends the the records are to be provided without protect applicants’ privacy, the Department’s regulations pertaining to charge and are to be updated at intervals Department must secure all NCIC the fingerprinting of nonimmigrants and mutually agreed upon by the FBI and criminal history or other records, immigrants. It also establishes new the Department. At the time of receipt automated or otherwise, to prevent regulations that set forth the conditions of an updated criminal history extract, access by unauthorized persons. Unless for the use, protection, dissemination the Department will destroy previously otherwise mutually agreed upon by the and destruction of any criminal history provided extracts contained in its Attorney General and the Secretary of or other records provided to the database. Access to an extract does not State, NCIC–III and other FBI criminal Department by the FBI. entitle the Department to obtain an history records may be used solely to DATES: Effective date: This interim final applicant’s corresponding automated determine whether or not to issue a visa rule is effective on February 25, 2002. full content criminal history record. The to an alien or to admit an alien to the Comment date: Written comments full content of a criminal history record United States. At the time the must be submitted on or before April 26, can only be obtained by submitting the Department receives updated NCIC 2002. applicant’s fingerprints to the FBI with criminal history extracts from the FBI, ADDRESSES: Submit comments in the appropriate processing fee. the Department will delete the outdated duplicate to the Chief, Legislation and Which Applicants Must Be NCIC criminal history extracts from its Regulations Division, Visa Services, Fingerprinted? database/s. Department of State, 20520–0106, When extract information indicates How Is the Department Amending Its Comments may also be forwarded via e- that an applicant may have a criminal Regulations? mail at [email protected]. or faxed at history record indexed in an NCIC The Department is amending its (202) 663–3898. database, the Department will require regulations by adding a new section at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the applicant to submit fingerprints and 22 CFR 40.5 ‘‘Limitations on the use of Nancy Altman, Legislation and pay the specified fee fingerprint NCIC criminal history record Regulations Division, Visa Services, processing fee. The Department will information.’’ The new section Department of State, Washington, DC forward the fingerprints and the fee to establishes the conditions for the use of 20520–0106, (202) 261–8040. the FBI for the purpose of confirming applicants’ criminal history record SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: whether or not the criminal history or information by the Department. What Is the Authority for This Rule? other record in the NCIC database belongs to the applicant. If an The Department is also amending its On October 26, 2001, the President applicant’s fingerprints confirm an regulations at section 22 CFR 41.105(b) signed into law the ‘‘Uniting and NCIC criminal history record, the FBI by adding a new paragraph (2) ‘‘NCIC Strengthening America Act by Providing will forward the automated full content name check response.’’ Paragraph (2) of Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept criminal history record to the subsection (b) states the requirement for and Obstruct Terrorism’’ (USA Patriot Department. the fingerprinting of any nonimmigrant Act), Pub. L. 107–56. [Section 403 of the applicant whose name check response USA Patriot Act, in relevant part, Are Limitations Placed On the indicates the possibility of a criminal amended section 105 of the INA by Department’s Use of NCIC Criminal history record indexed in the NCIC inserting ‘‘(a)’’ after ‘‘Sec. 105 ‘‘ and by History Records? databases. adding the language of section 403 as NCIC criminal history record The Department is further amending subpart ‘‘(b)’’ in that section.] information (which includes the extract its regulations at section 22 CFR Section 403 of the USA Patriot Act data associated with such information) 42.67(c) ‘‘Fingerprinting’’ by adding a requires the FBI to provide the received by the Department is new paragraph (2) ‘‘NCIC name check Department access to certain criminal considered law enforcement sensitive response.’’ Paragraph (2) of subsection history record and other databases and is subject to conditions for its use (c ) states the requirement for contained in the National Crime and procedures for its destruction. fingerprinting any immigrant applicant
VerDate 11
whose name check response indicates it does not require review by the Office authorized Department personnel must the possibility of a criminal history of Management and Budget. secure all NCIC criminal history record indexed in the NCIC databases. records, automated or otherwise, to Executive Order 13132 prevent access by unauthorized persons. Regulatory Analysis and Notices This rule will not have substantial Such criminal history records must be Administrative Procedure Act direct effects on the states, on the destroyed, deleted or overwritten upon relationship between the national receipt of updated versions. The Department’s implementation of government and the states, or on the this regulation as an interim rule is distribution of power and PART 41—[AMENDED] based upon the ‘‘good cause’’ exceptions responsibilities among the various found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). levels of government. Therefore, in 3. The authority citation for Part 41 The USA Patriot Act, signed into law on accordance with section 6 of Executive shall continue to read as follows: October 26, 2001, requires that final Order 13132, it is determined that this regulations be promulgated prior to the Authority: 8 U.S.C, 1104; Pub. L. 105–277, rule does not have sufficient federalism 112 Stat. 2681 et seq. Department’s receipt of NCIC data but implications to warrant the preparation no later than four months after the date of a federalism summary impact 4. Amend § 41.105 by redesignating of enactment. The Department has statement. paragraph (b) as (b)(1) and adding a new determined there to be insufficient time paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: to issue a proposed rule with a request Paperwork Reduction Act for comments. § 41.105 Supporting documents and This rule does not impose any new fingerprinting. Regulatory Flexibility Act reporting or record-keeping * * * * * requirements. The Department of State, in (b) * * * List of Subjects accordance with the Regulatory (2) NCIC name check response. When Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has 22 CFR Part 40 an automated database name check reviewed this regulation and, by query indicates that a nonimmigrant approving it, certifies that this rule will Aliens, Nonimmigrants and Immigrants, Passports and visas. applicant may have a criminal history not have a significant economic impact record indexed in an NCIC database, the on a substantial number of small 22 CFR Part 41 applicant shall be required to have a set entities. Aliens, Nonimmigrants, Passports and of fingerprints taken in order for the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 visas. Department to obtain such record. The applicant must pay the fingerprint- This rule will not result in the 22 CFR Part 42 processing fee as indicated in the expenditure by state, local and tribal Aliens, Immigrants, Passports and schedule of fees found at 22 CFR part governments, in the aggregate, or by the 22.1. private sector, of $100 million or more visas. in any year and it will not significantly Accordingly, the Department amends PART 42—[AMENDED] or uniquely affect small governments. 22 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 42 to read as follows: Therefore, no actions were deemed 5. The authority citation for Part 42 necessary under the provisions of the shall continue to read: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of PART 40—[AMENDED] 1995. Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104 1. The authority citation for Part 40 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement shall continue to read: 6. Amend § 42.67 by redesignating Fairness Act of 1996 paragraph (c) as (c )(1) and adding a new Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104. paragraph (c )(2) to read as follows: This rule is not a major rule as 2. Amend Part 40 by adding a new § 42.67 Execution of application, defined by section 804 of the Small § 40.5 to read as follows: Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of registration, and fingerprinting. 1996. This rule will not result in an § 40.5 Limitations on the use of National * * * * * annual effect on the economy of $100 Crime Information Center (NCIC) criminal (c) * * * history information. million or more; a major increase in (2) NCIC name check response. When (a) Authorized access. The FBI’s costs or prices: or significant adverse an automated database name check National Crime Information Center effects on competition, employment, query indicates that an immigrant (NCIC) criminal history records are law investment, productivity, innovation, or applicant may have a criminal history enforcement sensitive and can only be on the ability of United States-based record indexed in an NCIC database, the accessed by authorized consular companies to compete with foreign- applicant shall be required to have a set personnel with visa processing based companies in domestic and of fingerprints taken in order for the responsibilities. export markets. Department to obtain such record. The (b) Use of information. NCIC criminal applicant must pay the fingerprint Executive Order 12866 history record information shall be used processing fee as indicated in the solely to determine whether or not to The Department does not consider schedule of fees found at 22 CFR 22.1. this rule to be a ‘‘significant regulatory issue a visa to an alien or to admit an action’’ under Executive Order 12866, alien to the United States. All third Dated: February 15, 2002. section (3)(f), Regulatory planning and party requests for access to NCIC Mary A. Ryan, Review. Therefore, in accordance with criminal history record information Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. the letter to the Department of State of shall be referred to the FBI. Department of State. February 4, 1994, from the Director of (c ) Confidentiality and protection of [FR Doc. 02–4541 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the Office of Management and Budget, records. To protect applicants’ privacy, BILLING CODE 4710–06–P
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Coast Guard Coast Guard National Park Service
33 CFR Part 117 33 CFR Part 117 36 CFR Part 7 RIN 1024–AC67 [CGD01–02–018] [CGD01–02–019] Special Regulations; Areas of the Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Drawbridge Operation Regulations: National Park System Hackensack River, NJ Hampton River, NH AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation SUMMARY: ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. The National Park Service from regulations. (NPS) is adopting this final rule to SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast designate as snowmobile routes on NPS SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary administered Appalachian National Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation Scenic Trail lands, portions of deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the SR1A Bridge, mile snowmobile trails that are part of a regulations for the Witt-Penn (Route 7) 0.0, across the Hampton River in New State-approved network of snowmobile Bridge, mile 3.1, across the Hackensack Hampshire. This deviation from the routes and that cross the Appalachian River at Jersey City, New Jersey. This regulations, effective from February 20, Trail corridor. Snowmobile use on these routes is established. The Park Manager temporary deviation will allow the 2002 through March 31, 2002, allows is also provided the discretion to bridge to remain closed to navigation the bridge to remain in the closed designate temporary snowmobile from 9 a.m. on March 5, 2002 through position for vessel traffic. This temporary deviation is necessary to crossings in the Compendium of 6 a.m. on March 7, 2002. This temporary Superintendent’s Orders. deviation is necessary to facilitate facilitate scheduled maintenance repairs DATES: This rule becomes effective repairs at the bridge. at the bridge. March 27, 2002. DATES: This deviation is effective from DATES: This deviation is effective from February 20, 2002 through March 31, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: March 5, 2002 through March 7, 2002. 2002. Pamela Underhill, Park Manager, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Appalachian National Scenic Trail, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Joseph Schmied, Project Officer, First National Park Service, Harpers Ferry McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Center, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425. Coast Guard District, at (212) 668–7195. Guard District, at (617) 223–8364. Telephone 304–535–6278. Email: _ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Witt- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pamela [email protected]. Penn (Route 7) Bridge has a vertical existing drawbridge operating SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: clearance in the closed position of 35 regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.697. Background feet at mean high water and 40 feet at The bridge owner, New Hampshire mean low water. The existing Department of Transportation (NHDOT), The regulation designates as regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5. requested a temporary deviation from snowmobile routes on NPS The bridge owner, New Jersey the drawbridge operating regulations to administered Appalachian National Department of Transportation, has facilitate necessary structural repairs at Scenic Trail lands, portions of requested a temporary deviation from the bridge. snowmobile trails that are part of a the drawbridge operating regulations to This deviation to the operating State-approved network of snowmobile facilitate necessary maintenance, power regulations, effective from February 20, routes that cross NPS administered lands in order to connect with other and communication cable replacement, 2002 through March 31, 2002, allows state approved routes. The regulation at the bridge. The nature of the required the SR1A Bridge to remain in the closed designates the minimum number of repairs will require the bridge to remain position for vessel traffic. There have crossings necessary to accommodate in the closed position. been only two or three opening at this bridge each year during the requested statewide snowmobile trail networks. During this deviation the bridge will time period scheduled for these The Appalachian Trail is a north- not open for vessel traffic from 9 a.m. structural repairs in past years. The south hiking trail that stretches nearly on March 5, 2002 through 6 a.m. on Coast Guard coordinated this closure 2,160 miles from Katahdin, Maine, to March 7, 2002. with the mariners effected and no Springer Mountain, Georgia, along the This deviation from the operating objections were received. crest of the Appalachian Mountains. regulations is authorized under 33 CFR This deviation from the operating The Trail is administered by the 117.35, and will be performed with all regulations is authorized under 33 CFR Secretary of the Interior through the NPS, in consultation with the Secretary due speed in order to return the bridge 117.35, and will be performed with all of Agriculture through the U.S. Forest to normal operation as soon as possible. due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. Service, as part of the National Trails Dated: February 13, 2002. System. Upon completion of the land G.N. Naccara, Dated: February 13, 2002. protection program, the NPS will have G.N. Naccara, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, protected approximately 800 miles of First Coast Guard District. Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, the Trail and approximately 100,000 First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 02–4416 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] acres of land. Because NPS [FR Doc. 02–4415 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] administered lands are intermingled BILLING CODE 4910–15–U BILLING CODE 4910–15–U with private, local, state and other
VerDate 11
Federal government lands, differing be broadly interpreted to include any Drafting Information regulations apply and varying land uses other motorized or non-motorized off- The principal authors of this are allowed. These agencies have road vehicles. rulemaking are Robert W. Gray, Park become partners in the Appalachian During the development of the NPS Ranger, Appalachian National Scenic Trail cooperative management system. land protection program, the issue of Trail and Dennis Burnett, Washington The linear nature of the resource and continuing use of existing snowmobile Office of Ranger Activities, National the varied land ownership patterns crossings of the planned Trail corridor Park Service. require special consideration in was raised by adjacent landowners, Compliance with Laws, Executive management planning. snowmobile organizations and state Orders and Department Policy Generally, any motorized use along agencies. The NPS assured interested the Appalachian Trail is prohibited, parties that establishment of the Regulatory Planning and Review including snowmobiles. However the permanent linear trail corridor would (Executive Order 12866) National Trails System Act provides for not sever established snowmobile This document is not a significant limited authority for allowing routes. For the purposes of this Special snowmobile use for crossings, rule and is not subject to review by the Regulation, established snowmobile Office of Management and Budget under emergencies, and for adjacent routes are considered to be those routes landowners: Executive Order 12866. in use at the time of NPS land (1) This rule will not have an effect of The use of motorized vehicles by the acquisition. The NPS has worked $100 million or more on the economy. general public along any national scenic trail closely with state snowmobile shall be prohibited and nothing in this It will not adversely affect in a material organizations and state agencies to way the economy, productivity, chapter shall be construed as authorizing the identify only those routes that are part use of motorized vehicles within the natural competition, jobs, the environment, and historical areas of the national park of a State-approved network of public health or safety, or State, local or system, the national wildlife refuge system, snowmobile routes. tribal governments or communities. the national wilderness preservation system There are a number of crossings of the This rule establishes designated routes where they are presently prohibited or on Appalachian Trail corridor by for snowmobile use across the Trail and other federal lands where they are presently established, State-approved snowmobile would cause only a small economic prohibited or on other Federal lands where trails are designated as being closed to such trails in Maine, New Hampshire, benefit to the local communities, if any. use by the appropriate Secretary: Provided, Vermont, Massachusetts and (2) This rule will not create a serious That the Secretary charged with the Connecticut. Most of these crossings are inconsistency or otherwise interfere administration of such trail shall establish currently allowed by deeded right-of- with an action taken or planned by regulations which shall authorize the use of way reserved by the seller or by public another agency. This rule supports local motorized vehicles when, in his judgment, road right-of-way. Three State-approved government and community plans for such vehicles are necessary to meet snowmobile trails, two in Maine and snowmobile routes that already exist. emergencies or to enable adjacent one in Massachusetts cross lands (3) This rule does not alter the landowners or land users to have reasonable budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, access to their lands or timber acquired for the protection of the rights...(16 U.S.C. 1246 (c)). Appalachian Trail and would require user fees, or loan programs or the rights designation. The NPS intends to or obligations of their recipients. There The regulation allows limited designate only the State approved routes are no budgetary considerations snowmobile crossings of the that are existing crossings of the trail involved in this rule. Appalachian Trail while still corridor and part of a State network of (4) This rule does not raise novel legal prohibiting such use along the trail. snowmobile routes. Within the NPS or policy issues. This rule codifies Additionally, the limited use is corridor, snowmobile travel will be snowmobile use that previously existed. consistent with the Federal limited to the designated crossing only. Regulatory Flexibility Act government’s obligations to provide Snowmobiles will not be permitted to access for emergencies and to owners of follow the trail footpath itself. The Department of the Interior lands adjacent to the Trail. Snowmobile use of other NPS determined that this document will not 36 CFR 2.18 of the NPS general Appalachian Trail corridor lands will have a significant economic effect on a regulations prohibits the use of not be allowed. substantial number of small entities snowmobiles in units of the National under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Park System except on routes A proposed regulation was published USC 601 et seq.). This rule codifies designated specifically for snowmobile in the Federal Register on March 19, existing use of snowmobile routes and use. These specific routes must be 1998 (63 FR 13383). Public comment merely maintains use levels; it does not authorized through promulgation of was invited. The comment period restrict or prohibit current use patterns special regulations. Snowmobile use closed May 18, 1998. so would not likely have any economic may occur only on designated routes Summary of Comments Received impact. and when the use is consistent with the park’s natural, cultural, scenic and During the public comment period, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement aesthetic values, safety considerations, the NPS received two letters. Both of the Fairness Act (SBREFA) park management objectives, and will respondents to the proposed rule This rule is not a major rule under 5 not disturb wildlife or damage park endorsed the proposed special U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business resources. Section 2.18 establishes regulation. The respondents stated that Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. further procedures and criteria for the the regulation would fulfill This rule: use of snowmobiles within park areas. commitments made to the snowmobile a. Does not have an annual effect on The term ‘‘snowmobile’’ is defined in community that acquisition for the the economy of $100 million or more. § 1.4 and conforms to the standard Appalachian Trail would not sever This rule is not expected to have any definition used by the International existing snowmobile routes while effect on the economy since the rule Snowmobile Industry Association. The limiting motorized recreation within the does not change existing uses in any NPS does not intend that this definition trail corridor. way.
VerDate 11
b. Will not cause a major increase in this rulemaking will not have a right-of-way reserved by the seller or by costs or prices for consumers, significant effect on the quality of the public road right-of-way. You may also individual industries, Federal, State, or human environment, health and safety cross National Park Service local government agencies, or because it is not expected to (a) increase administered lands within the geographic regions. No increase is public use to the extent of Appalachian National Scenic Trail expected since the rule does not change compromising the nature and character corridor at the following locations: existing uses in any way. of the area or causing physical damage (2) Nahmakanta Lake Spur—The spur c. Does not have significant adverse to it, (b) introduce incompatible uses snowmobile route that leads from Maine effects on competition, employment, which compromise the nature and Bureau of Parks and Lands Debsconeag investment, productivity, innovation, or character of the area or cause physical Pond Road to the southeastern shore of the ability of U.S.–based enterprises to damage to it, (c) conflict with adjacent Nahmakanta Lake. compete with foreign–based enterprises. ownerships or land uses, or (d) cause a (3) Lake Hebron to Blanchard-Shirley No effects are expected since the rule nuisance to adjacent owners or Road Spur—The spur snowmobile route does not change existing uses in any occupants. A Categorical Exclusion that leads from Lake Hebron near way. Determination has been completed. Monson, Maine to the Maine Interconnecting Trail System Route 85 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Government-to-Government near the Blanchard-Shirley Road. This rule does not impose an Relationship with Tribes (4) Massachusetts Turnpike to Lower unfunded mandate on State, local, or In accordance with Executive Order Goose Pond Crossing—That part of the tribal governments or the private sector 13175 ‘‘Consultation with Indian Tribal Massachusetts Interconnecting Trail of more than $100 million per year. The Governments’’ (65 FR 67249) and the System Route 95 from the rule does not have a significant or President’s memorandum of April 29, Massachusetts Turnpike Appalachian unique effect on State, local or tribal 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government Trail Bridge to the northeastern shore of governments or the private sector. This Relations with Native American Tribal Lower Goose Pond. rule poses no mandates on the Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), and 512 (5) Temporary crossings of National government or private sector. The use of DM 2, we have evaluated potential Park Service administered Appalachian snowmobile routes on the Trail is a effects on Federally recognized Indian Trail corridor lands may be designated voluntary activity. tribes and have determined that there by the Park Manager in the are no potential effects. This rule solely Superintendent’s Compendium of Takings (Executive Order 12630) affects snowmobile users who choose to Orders when designated snowmobile In accordance with Executive Order use the crossing routes designated in routes are temporarily dislocated by 12630, the rule does not have significant this rule and does not have any effects timber haul road closures. takings implications. This rule codifies on lands or entities outside the NPS. (6) Maps that show the crossings of existing snowmobile use and does not National Park Service administered have implications on lands outside the List of Subject in 36 CFR Part 7 lands within the Appalachian National Trail. National parks, District of Columbia, Scenic Trail may be obtained from the Reporting and recordkeeping Park Manager, Appalachian National Federalism (Executive Order 13132) requirements Scenic Trail, Harpers Ferry Center, In accordance with Executive Order In consideration of the foregoing, 36 Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425. 13132, the rule does not have sufficient CFR Part 7 is amended as follows: (c) Is powerless flight permitted? The federalism implications to warrant the use of devices designed to carry persons preparation of a Federalism Assessment. PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, through the air in powerless flight is This rule codifies existing snowmobile AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK allowed at times and locations use and does not place any SYSTEM designated by the Park Manager, requirements on State governments. pursuant to the terms and conditions of 1. The authority citation for Part 7 a permit. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order continues to read as follows: 12988) Dated: February 1, 2002. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), Joseph E. Doddridge, In accordance with Executive Order 462(k); § 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 8– 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife 137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). and Parks. determined that this rule does not 2. Revise § 7.100 to read as follows: unduly burden the judicial system and [FR Doc. 02–4339 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] meets the requirements of sections 3(a) § 7.100 Appalachian National Scenic Trail. BILLING CODE 4310–70–P and 3(b)(2) of the Order. (a) What activities are prohibited? (1) The use of bicycles, motorcycles or Paperwork Reduction Act DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR other motor vehicles is prohibited. The This regulation does not require an operation of snowmobiles is addressed National Park Service information collection from 10 or more in paragraph (b). parties and a submission under the (2) The use of horses or pack animals 36 CFR Part 13 Paperwork Reduction Act is not is prohibited, except in locations required. An OMB form 83–I is not designated for their use. RIN 1024–AC83 required. (b) Where can I operate my snowmobile? Special Regulations; Wrangell-St. Elias National Environmental Policy Act (1) You may cross the Appalachian National Park and Preserve This rule does not constitute a major National Scenic Trail corridor by using AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Federal action significantly affecting the established, State-approved snowmobile ACTION: Final rule. quality of the human environment. In trails in Maine, New Hampshire, accordance with 516 DM 6, Appendix Vermont, Massachusetts and SUMMARY: This rule amends the 7.4 A(10), the NPS has determined that Connecticut that are allowed by deeded regulations for Wrangell-St. Elias
VerDate 11
National Park (WRST) by adding the administrative change to more clearly NPS Response: The NPS believes the communities of Dot Lake, Healy Lake, describe community and area existing methodology used to apply the Northway (including Northway, boundaries is also adopted by this eligibility criteria is consistent with the Northway Village and Northway revised rule. authorizing legislation. While the Junction), Tanacross, and Tetlin to the resident zone concept has been the II. Responses to Public Comments park subsistence resident zone. The subject of much debate from the start, regulation provides for the addition of Two respondents commented on the the actual application of the program communities to park subsistence proposed regulations during the 60-day criteria has been stable. The same resident zones. Park subsistence public comment period that closed criteria used to establish the existing resident zones include nearby areas and August 13, 2001. Those comments and resident zone communities have been communities with a significant our responses follow. uniformly applied to the five new concentration of residents who are communities. Therefore, we believe Quantity Test eligible to engage in subsistence there is no reason to defer action on activities in the park. Permanent Comment: A public interest adding these communities to the park residents of subsistence resident zone organization questioned the resident zone as proposed. communities are allowed to participate methodology used to determine Compliance With Laws, Executive in subsistence activities in the park significant concentrations of subsistence Orders, and Department Policy without a subsistence permit. users. They recommended that a DATES: This rule is effective March 27, ‘‘quantity test’’, in which at least 51% Regulatory Planning and Review 2002. of community residents are shown to be (Executive Order 12866) ADDRESSES: Superintendent, Wrangell- eligible park subsistence users, should This document is not a significant St. Elias National Park and Preserve, be used. rule and is not subject to review by the P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska NPS Response: While the ‘‘quantity Office of Management and Budget under 99573, (907) 822–7210. test’’ idea continues to be debated Executive Order 12866. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devi among interested park constituencies, (1) This rule will not have an effect of Sharp, Chief, Natural and Cultural including agency managers and staffers, $100 million or more on the economy. Resources, Wrangell-St. Elias National NPS policy favors use of a more flexible It will not adversely affect in a material Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper methodology that considers a wider way the economy, productivity, Center, Alaska 99573, (907) 822–7236 range of variables. We believe the competition, jobs, the environment, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The existing methodology is consistent with public health or safety, or State, Local, principal authors of this rule are Devi the legislative mandate for subsistence or tribal governments or communities. Sharp, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park activities in the Alaska parks and The net effect of adoption of this rule and Preserve, Janis Meldrum and Paul monuments. would be to reduce costs by eliminating Hunter, Alaska System Support Office, Re-evaluation of Existing Communities the need for subsistence users to apply Anchorage, Alaska, and Kym Hall, for a permit. The cost saving would Regulations Manager, Washington, DC. Comment: The public interest accrue to the affected user groups and organization recommended that existing the park through reduction of actual and I. Background resident zone communities should be potential administrative costs. A proposed rule to amend 36 CFR re-examined periodically using the (2) This rule will not create a serious 13.73 was published by the National ‘‘quantity test’’ and current census data inconsistency or otherwise interfere Park Service (NPS) in the Federal to evaluate continuing eligibility. A with an action taken or planned by Register on June 14, 2001 (66 FR 32282). State of Alaska agency expressed another agency. There will be no change The intent of this regulation change is concern that the addition of new in the manner or substance of to add five communities to the WRST communities might lead to unnecessary interaction with other agencies. subsistence resident zone in accordance re-evaluation of current resident zone (3) This rule does not alter the with the provisions of 36 CFR 13.43(b). communities. budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, Section 13.43 provides for the addition NPS Response: The NPS is committed user fees, or loan programs or the rights and deletion of nearby communities to to re-evaluating resident zone or obligations of their recipients. park subsistence resident zones in communities on a case-by-case basis as Current and potential subsistence Alaska based on stated criteria in the necessary. A regular established permittees will continue to be eligible section. The community of Northway schedule for reviewing resident zone under the resident zone system. made the first request to be added to the communities would be costly and does (4) This rule does not raise novel legal WRST subsistence resident zone in not appear to be warranted at this time. or policy issues. This rule is the direct 1985. Subsequently four additional The State concern for unnecessary consequence of an existing regulatory communities requested consideration. reviews is not warranted by program method for administering the resident The request has been the subject of experience to date. zone system. review and favorable recommendations Defer Action While the decision concerning adding by the park Subsistence Resource or deleting a particular community Commission (SRC), a federal advisory Comments: The public interest could be controversial, the regulatory group for subsistence activities, since organization recommended deferring process for making the decision is well the initial request in 1985. After review action on the five new communities established in existing regulations. and study, including public notice, until resident zone evaluation hearing and comment, as well as methodology is revised and existing Regulatory Flexibility Act environmental assessment and finding communities re-evaluated as discussed The Department of the Interior of no significant impact, the NPS has above. The State agency supported the certifies that this document will not determined the five communities are rulemaking analysis and the addition of have a significant economic effect on a qualified to be added to the park the five communities to the park substantial number of small entities subsistence resident zone. A collateral resident zone. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
VerDate 11
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic takings implications. This rule will need for certain subsistence users to consequences of this rule will be to modify regulations in a manner that apply for a permit to engage in reduce administrative costs for private reduces the regulatory impact on private allowable subsistence activities in the citizens and for the park. The permitting citizens, and is, therefore, excluded park. Subsistence use on federal public process that would be eliminated for the from EO 12630. lands is not managed as a tribal activity residents of five communities operates and the federal subsistence program Federalism (Executive Order 13132) directly between individual subsistence does not apply on Native owned lands. users and the park. Therefore, there is In accordance with Executive Order List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13 no impact on small entities and a 13132, the rule does not have sufficient Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and federalism implications to warrant the Alaska, National Parks; Reporting and Small Entity Compliance Guide are not preparation of a Federalism Assessment. recordkeeping requirements. required. This rule applies to the permitting For the reasons discussed in the relationship between individual Small Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble, the National Park Service subsistence users and the park for amends 36 CFR part 13 as follows: Fairness Act (SBREFA) activities occurring on federal public This rule is not a major rule under 5 lands within the park. The rule does not PART 13—NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business change or impact the relationship of the UNITS IN ALASKA Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. park with State and local governments. This rule: Subpart C—Special Regulations— a. Does not have an annual effect on Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order Specific Park Areas in Alaska the economy of $100 million or more. 12988) 1. The authority citation for Part 13 This rule applies to individual In accordance with Executive Order continues to read as follows: subsistence users. It has no applicability 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has to small businesses. determined that this rule does not Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 462(k), 3101 et b. Will not cause a major increase in unduly burden the judicial system and seq.; § 13.65 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1a– costs or prices for consumers, meets the requirements of §§ 3(a) and 2(h), 1361, 1531. individual industries, Federal, State, or 3(b)(2) of the Order. 2. Amend § 13.73 as follows: local government agencies, or Paperwork Reduction Act a. By revising the heading of geographic regions. This rule will paragraph (a)(1) and by adding the reduce costs for private citizens and the This regulation does not require an following entries in alphabetical order federal government. It will eliminate the information collection from 10 or more to the list of communities in paragraph need for subsistence users in five parties and a submission under the (a)(1); communities to apply to the National Paperwork Reduction Act is not b. By redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as Park Service for a subsistence permit. required. An OMB form 83–I is not paragraph (a)(3); The rule will eliminate application costs required. This rule will eliminate permit c. By adding a new paragraph (a)(2); to individual subsistence users such as applications for residents of the five d. By revising the heading of newly the cost of a phone call, postage, or affected communities, thus reducing the redesignated paragraph (a)(3). travel to the park office, and will reduce level of previously approved The addition and revisions read as the current and potential administrative information collection (see 46 FR 31854) follows: processing costs for the park. associated with subsistence c. Does not have significant adverse management in the park. § 13.73 Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. effects on competition, employment, National Environmental Policy Act investment, productivity, innovation, or (a) Subsistence—(1) What the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to This rule does not constitute a major communities and areas are included in compete with foreign-based enterprises. Federal action significantly affecting the the park resident zone? This rule does not affect foreign trade. quality of the human environment. * * * * * The interaction of the subsistence However, Environmental Assessments economy and the general economy is (EAs) and findings of no significant Dot Lake unchanged by this rule. impact (FONSIs) have been completed * * * * * and are on file in the NPS office at 2525 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Gambell St., Anchorage, AK 99503 and Healy Lake This rule does not impose an at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and * * * * * unfunded mandate on State, local, or Preserve offices in Copper Center. tribal governments or the private sector Northway/Northway Village/Northway Government-to-Government of more than $100 million per year. The Junction Relationship With Tribes rule does not have a significant or * * * * * unique effect on State, local or tribal In accordance with Executive Order Tanacross governments or the private sector. This 13175 ‘‘Consultation and Coordination rule affects the permitting process with Indian Tribal Governments’’ and * * * * * the President’s memorandum of April between individual subsistence users Tetlin and the park. There is no involvement 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government of small governments in this Relations with Native American Tribal * * * * * relationship. The subsistence activities Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), and 512 (2) How are boundaries determined affected occur only on federal public DM 2 we have evaluated potential for communities added to the park lands within a national park. effects on Federally recognized Indian resident zone? Boundaries for tribes and have determined that there communities and areas added to the Takings (Executive Order 12630) are no potential effects. This rule park resident zone will be determined In accordance with Executive Order applies to individual subsistence users by the Superintendent after consultation 12630, the rule does not have significant and will result in the elimination of the with the affected area or community. If
VerDate 11
the Superintendent and community are ACTION: Final rule. Section 1611.3(b) of the Corporation’s not able to agree on a boundary within regulations establishes a maximum two years, the boundary of the area or SUMMARY: The Legal Services income level equivalent to one hundred community added will be the boundary Corporation (‘‘Corporation’’) is required and twenty-five percent (125%) of the of the Census Designated Place, or other by law to establish maximum income Federal Poverty Guidelines. Since 1982, area designation, used by the Alaska levels for individuals eligible for legal the Department of Health and Human Department of Labor for census assistance. This document updates the Services has been responsible for purposes for that community or area. specified income levels to reflect the updating and issuing the Poverty Copies of the boundary map will be annual amendments to the Federal Guidelines. The revised figures for 2002 available in the park headquarters Poverty Guidelines as issued by the set out below are equivalent to 125% of office. Department of Health and Human the current Poverty Guidelines as (3) What communities are exempted Services. from the aircraft prohibition for published on February 14, 2002 (67 FR subsistence use? EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective as 6931). * * * * * of February 25, 2002. For reasons set forth above, 45 CFR 1611 is amended as follows: Dated: February 1, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mattie C. Condray, Senior Assistant Joseph E. Doddridge, PART 1611—ELIGIBILITY Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and General Counsel, Legal Services Wildlife and Parks. Corporation, 750 First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002–4250; (202) 336– 1. The authority citation for Part 1611 [FR Doc. 02–4340 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] continues to read as follows: BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 8817; [email protected]. Authority: Secs. 1006(b)(1), 1007(a)(1) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1007(a)(2) of the Legal Services Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 42 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Corporation Act (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1), 2996f(a)(1), 2996f(a)(2). 2996f(a)(2), requires the Corporation to 2. Appendix A of Part 1611 is revised 45 CFR Part 1611 establish maximum income levels for to read as follows: Income Level for Individuals Eligible individuals eligible for legal assistance, for Assistance and the Act provides that other Appendix A of Part 1611 specified factors shall be taken into AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. account along with income.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2002 POVERTY GUIDELINES*
48 contiguous States and the ii iii Size of family unit District of Alaska Hawaii Columbia i
1 ...... $11,075 $13,850 $12,750 2 ...... 14,925 18,663 17,175 3 ...... 18,775 23,475 21,600 4 ...... 22,625 28,288 26,025 5 ...... 26,475 33,100 30,450 6 ...... 30,325 37,913 34,875 7 ...... 34,175 42,725 39,300 8 ...... 38,025 47,538 43,725 * The figures in this table represent 125% of the poverty guidelines by family size as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services. i For family units with more than eight members, add $3,850 for each additional member in a family. ii For family units with more than eight members, add $4,813 for each additional member in a family. iii For family units with more than eight members, add $4,425 for each additional member in a family.
Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary. [FR Doc. 02–4420 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050–01–P
VerDate 11
Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 1238. Please state that your comment other used farm products containers. contains regulatory documents having general refers to Docket No. 01–050–1. If you Regulated articles must meet conditions applicability and legal effect, most of which use e-mail, address your comment to specified in the regulations before they are keyed to and codified in the Code of [email protected]. Your may be moved interstate from a Federal Regulations, which is published under comment must be contained in the body regulated area. One of the conditions for 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. of your message; do not send attached movement is treatment. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by files. Please include your name and The Plant Protection and Quarantine the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of address in your message and ‘‘Docket Treatment Manual (PPQ Treatment new books are listed in the first FEDERAL No. 01–050–1’’ on the subject line. Manual), which is maintained by the REGISTER issue of each week. You may read any comments that we U.S. Department of Agriculture’s receive on this docket in our reading (USDA) Animal and Plant Health room. The reading room is located in Inspection Service (APHIS), contains DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE room 1141 of the USDA South Building, approved treatment schedules and is 14th Street and Independence Avenue incorporated by reference into the Code Animal and Plant Health Inspection SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading of Federal Regulations at 7 CFR 300.1. Service room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Currently, fumigation with methyl Monday through Friday, except bromide is the sole treatment available 7 CFR Parts 300, 301, 318, 319, and 353 holidays. To be sure someone is there to in the PPQ Treatment Manual to qualify [Docket No. 01–050–1] help you, please call (202) 690–2817 used containers, construction before coming. equipment, and farm equipment for Steam Treatment of Golden Nematode- APHIS documents published in the interstate movement from areas infested Infested Farm Equipment, Federal Register, and related with golden nematodes. Construction Equipment, and information, including the names of Research conducted by APHIS1 has Containers organizations and individuals who have demonstrated that steam heat effectively commented on APHIS dockets, are eliminates the golden nematode. Steam AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health treatment takes less time than Inspection Service, USDA. available on the Internet at http:// www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/ fumigation with methyl bromide—1 ACTION: Direct final rule. webrepor.html. hour versus 24 to 48 hours—and commodities can be released to the SUMMARY: We are amending the Plant FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Protection and Quarantine Treatment owner immediately after steam Vedpal Malik, Agriculturist, Invasive treatment, whereas several hours of Manual, which is incorporated by Species and Pest Management, PPQ, reference into the Code of Federal aeration are required after methyl APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, bromide fumigation. Steam treatment is Regulations, to allow containers, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– construction equipment without cabs, not harmful to the environment and is 6774. noncorrosive. No special precautions and farm equipment without cabs used SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in golden nematode-infested areas to be are necessary for the transportation of treated with steam heat before being Background steam treatment equipment. In addition, steam treatments can be performed at moved interstate from any regulated The golden nematode (Globodera area. This action provides an alternative farm or warehouse locations with less rostochiensis) is a plant pest that is stringent safety requirements than those to fumigation with methyl bromide for highly destructive to potatoes and other treating used containers, construction needed for methyl bromide fumigation solanaceous plants. The golden (e.g., enclosures used for methyl equipment without cabs, and farm nematode has been determined to occur equipment without cabs. bromide fumigation must be leakproof, in the United States only in parts of and the location must be secured to DATES: This rule will be effective on New York. prevent unauthorized entry and April 26, 2002 unless we receive written The golden nematode regulations adverse comments or written notice of exposure to methyl bromide). (contained in 7 CFR 301.85 through Therefore, we are amending the PPQ intent to submit adverse comments that 301.85–10 and referred to below as the Treatment Manual to allow used are postmarked, delivered, or e-mailed regulations) list two entire counties and containers, used construction by March 27, 2002. The incorporation portions of seven other counties in the equipment without cabs, and used farm by reference provided for by this rule is State of New York as regulated areas equipment without cabs to be treated approved by the Director of the Federal and restrict the interstate movement of with steam heat before being moved Register as of April 26, 2002. regulated articles from those areas. Such interstate from any regulated area. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments restrictions are necessary to prevent the (Pending further testing, this treatment or notice of intent to submit adverse artificial spread of the golden nematode was not recommended for equipment or comments by postal mail/commercial to noninfested areas of the United vehicles with cabs due to possible delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal States. damage to electrical or plastic mail/commercial delivery, please send Regulated articles are identified in components.) This action provides an four copies (an original and three § 301.85(b). The list of regulated articles alternative to fumigation with methyl copies) to: Docket No. 01–050–1, includes used mechanized cultivating Regulatory Analysis and Development, equipment, used mechanized harvesting 1 Information concerning this research may be PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River equipment, used mechanized soil- obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737– moving equipment, used crates, and INFORMATION CONTACT.
VerDate 11
bromide for treating used containers, bottom of the center of the equipment or submit adverse comments that are construction equipment, and farm load on the left side, but at least 3 postmarked, delivered, or e-mailed by equipment. The treatment procedure we inches above the floor if the equipment March 27, 2002. are adding to the PPQ Treatment is flush with the floor; (6) rear high— Adverse comments are comments that Manual is described in the following near the top of the rear of the equipment suggest the rule should not be adopted paragraphs. on the right side; (7) rear middle— or that suggest the rule should be changed. Treatment Procedure midway from the top and bottom of the rear of the equipment; and (8) rear If we receive written adverse Administer steam treatment in a low—bottom of the rear of the comments or written notice of intent to tarpaulin or tent using steam generators. equipment or load on the left side, but submit adverse comments, we will The recommended minimum air at least 3 inches above the floor if the publish a document in the Federal temperature for steam treatment varies equipment is flush with the floor. Register withdrawing this rule before according to the size of the enclosure in Place the steam generator at the front the effective date. We will then publish which the treatment is conducted. For of the enclosure. Close the tent or tarp a proposed rule for public comment. enclosures 4,000 ft3 or less, the and place sandsnakes (flexible weights) As discussed above, if we receive no recommended minimum air at the base to seal it. As an airtight seal written adverse comments nor written ° temperature is 40 F, and for enclosures is not essential for steam treatment; notice of intent to submit adverse 4,000 to 6,000 ft3, the recommended small pinholes are acceptable. comments that are postmarked, minimum air temperature is 60 °F. Steam heat the enclosure for 60 delivered, or e-mailed within 30 days of Place the farm equipment or minutes after all probes reach a publication of this direct final rule, this containers inside the tarpaulin or tent so minimum of 140 °F (60 °C). The direct final rule will become effective 60 that it faces the front of the enclosure, maximum temperature in the enclosure days following its publication. We will where the steam will be introduced. If should not exceed 160 °F (71 °C). publish a document in the Federal a tarp (6 mil plastic) is used instead of Throughout the treatment, record the Register, before the effective date of this a tent, pad sharp edges of the equipment temperatures at least once every 2 direct final rule, confirming that it is or containers before covering with the minutes. effective on the date indicated in this tarp. Place temperature recording document. sensors on the equipment or containers Miscellaneous Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory to be treated. The scientific name for golden Flexibility Act When the treatment is being nematode has been changed from conducted in enclosures 4,000 ft3 or Heterodera rostochiensis to Globodera This rule has been reviewed under less, use at least four temperature rostochiensis. Therefore, we are Executive Order 12866. For this action, recording sensors in addition to the amending §§ 301.85(a) and 301.85–1 to the Office of Management and Budget probe on the steam generator. Place reflect that change. has waived its review process required probes in hard-to-treat cracks or crevices We are also revising the definition for by Executive Order 12866. on the equipment or containers. the term treatment manual in § 301.85– This rule, which allows containers, Position probes in the following 1 so that it refers to the PPQ Treatment construction equipment without cabs, locations: (1) Front high—near the top Manual rather than the ‘‘Manual of and farm equipment without cabs used of the front of the equipment or load; (2) Administratively Authorized in golden nematode-infested areas to be center middle—midway from the top Procedures to be Used Under the treated with steam heat before being and bottom of the center of the Golden Nematode Quarantine’’ and the moved interstate from any regulated equipment or load; (3) center bottom— ‘‘Fumigation Procedures Manual,’’ area, provides an alternative to bottom of the center of the equipment or which are no longer in use. Revising the fumigation with methyl bromide. load, but at least 3 inches above the definition of treatment manual will It is expected that the cost of steam floor if the equipment is flush with the eliminate footnote 1, so we are also treatment will compare favorably to the floor; and (4) rear bottom—bottom of the redesignating the subsequent footnotes cost of methyl bromide fumigation. rear of the equipment, but at least 3 in the subpart. Treatment costs will continue to be inches above the floor if the equipment The definitions in § 301.85–1 are no borne by APHIS. A steam generator and is flush with the floor. longer assigned paragraph designations related equipment, such as temperature When the treatment is being and are simply listed in alphabetical sensors and plastic tarps, costs conducted in enclosures 4,000 to 6,000 order. We are, therefore, amending approximately $20,000. After the initial ft3, use at least eight temperature § 301.85(b) to update a reference to the investment in equipment, most of the recording sensors in addition to the definition of regulated article. cost of treatment is due to personnel probe on the steam generator. Again, Finally, we are revising part 300 so costs. It takes one 8-hour day for a Plant place probes in hard-to-treat cracks or that all of the materials incorporated by Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) officer crevices on the equipment or containers. reference are assigned specific section and a technician to steam treat farm Position probes in the following designations. Accordingly, we are also equipment, including the time required locations: (1) Front high—near the top updating citations to part 300 found to set up and tear down the treatment of the left side of the front of the elsewhere in title 7. site. equipment or load; (2) front low— In contrast, there are higher bottom of the right side of the front of Dates equipment and personnel costs the equipment or load, but at least 3 We are publishing this rule without a associated with methyl bromide inches above the floor if the equipment prior proposal because we view this treatment. The cost of methyl bromide is flush with the floor; (3) center high— action as noncontroversial and is currently $3.24 per pound. For a 24- near the top of the center of the anticipate no adverse public comment. hour treatment, 15 lbs of methyl equipment or load on the right side; (4) This rule will be effective, as published bromide per 1,000 ft 3 is needed, while center middle—midway from the top in this document, on April 26, 2002, 7.5 lbs of methyl bromide per 1,000 ft 3 and bottom of the center of the unless we receive written adverse are needed for a 48-hour treatment. PPQ equipment or load; (5) center low— comments or written notice of intent to officers must be certified to handle
VerDate 11
pesticides and must use a self-contained secure, it is not necessary to have a PPQ methyl bromide currently costs $3.24 breathing apparatus during the officer on site during the entire per pound; these calculations assume treatment. A self-contained breathing treatment period. However, if the site is that 30 lbs are needed per treatment, apparatus costs $1,500 plus the cost of not secure, it is not advisable to leave which is enough to treat 2,000 ft 3. We periodic maintenance. Air tanks cost the treatment site unattended. estimate that, over the course of 600 $600–$700 and typically last about 3 Table 1 shows costs associated with treatments, the use of steam treatment years. each treatment option. These rather than methyl bromide would Personnel costs also would be higher calculations assume that one GS–11 result in savings of $259,920. This is for methyl bromide treatment than for PPQ officer and one GS–7 technician considerably more than the initial cost steam treatment. Methyl bromide would have to stay on site twice as long of the equipment needed for the steam treatment takes from 24 to 48 hours. If for methyl bromide treatments as for the methyl bromide treatment site is steam treatments. As noted previously, treatment.
TABLE 1.—MARGINAL COST OF STEAM TREATMENT VS. METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT
Steam treatment Methyl bromide
Labor GS–11, step 5 ...... $200 ($25/hr × 8 hrs) ...... $400 ($25/hr × 16 hrs) Labor GS–7, step 5 ...... $136 ($17/hr × 8 hrs) ...... $272 ($17/hr × 16 hrs) Chemicals ...... NA ...... $97.20 ($3.24 × 30 lbs) Sub-total ...... $336 ...... $769.20 Treatments per year ...... 600 ...... 600
Total cost ...... $201,600 ...... $461,520
Over the past 4 years, an average of determined that this action will not 7 CFR Part 318 618 pieces of farm equipment per year have a significant economic impact on Cotton, Cottonseeds, Fruits, Guam, have been treated. It is expected that, a substantial number of small entities. Hawaii, Incorporation by reference, with this rule, most of these treatments Executive Order 12372 Plant diseases and pests, Puerto Rico, will be steam treatments. However, Quarantine, Transportation, Vegetables, there may still be some cases in which This program/activity is listed in the Virgin Islands. methyl bromide treatment is the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance preferred method of treatment. under No. 10.025 and is subject to 7 CFR Part 319 While there are higher initial costs for Executive Order 12372, which requires Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, steam treatment, the marginal cost for intergovernmental consultation with Imports, Incorporation by reference, each treatment would be lower. Because State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part Logs, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and steam treatment has lower marginal 3015, subpart V.) pests, Quarantine, Reporting and costs, in the long run it will be more recordkeeping requirements, Rice, economical to use steam treatment than Executive Order 12988 Vegetables. methyl bromide fumigation. Potato farms are classified as small This rule has been reviewed under 7 CFR Part 353 Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice businesses if they have less than Exports, Incorporation by reference, $750,000 in annual receipts. USDA’s Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are Plant diseases and pests, Reporting and National Agricultural Statistics Service recordkeeping requirements. (NASS) does not publish data by farm inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR size for New York potato farms. chapter III as follows: However, it is likely that most of the require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court 1. Part 300 is revised to read as farms affected by this rule would qualify follows: as small businesses, as defined by the challenging this rule. U.S. Small Business Administration Paperwork Reduction Act PART 300–INCORPORATION BY (SBA). REFERENCE This rule provides an alternative This rule contains no new treatment for farm equipment, information collection or recordkeeping Subpart—Materials Incorporated by construction equipment, and containers requirements under the Paperwork Reference used in golden nematode-infested areas. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Farmers do not pay for the treatment; et seq.). Sec. 300.1 Plant Protection and Quarantine the costs are borne by APHIS. This is to List of Subjects Treatment Manual. encourage farmers to treat equipment 300.2 Dry Kiln Operator’s Manual. before selling or moving it. Farm 7 CFR Part 300 300.3 Reference Manual A. equipment is often treated when a farm 300.4 Reference Manual B. is sold or going out of business, when Incorporation by reference, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772; 7 CFR 2.22, farmers are unlikely to have the funds 2.80, and 371.3. available to pay for treatment. Because 7 CFR Part 301 the cost is not borne by the farmer, this § 300.1 Plant Protection and Quarantine rule will not have an adverse economic Agricultural commodities, Treatment Manual. impact on these small entities. Incorporation by reference, Plant (a) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) Under these circumstances, the diseases and pests, Quarantine, and 1 CFR part 51, the Director of the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Reporting and recordkeeping Office of the Federal Register has Health Inspection Service has requirements, Transportation. approved for incorporation by reference
VerDate 11
in 7 CFR chapter III the Plant Protection § 300.3 Reference Manual A. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106–224, 114 Stat. and Quarantine Treatment Manual, (a) The Reference Manual for 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). which was reprinted November 30, Administration, Procedures, and 3. In § 301.45–1, footnote 3 is revised 1992, and all revisions through May Policies of the National Seed Health to read as follows: 2000; and: System, which was published on (1) Treatment T101–n–2 and T102–b, February 25, 2000, by the National Seed § 301.45–1 Definitions. and Table 5–2–5, revised July 2001; Health System (NSHS), has been * * * * * (2) Treatment T102–e, revised July approved for incorporation by reference 3 The Plant Protection and Quarantine 2001; and in 7 CFR chapter III by the Director of Treatment Manual is incorporated by (3) Treatment T406–d, dated January the Office of the Federal Register in reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. 2002. accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 (b) The treatments specified in the 4. In § 301.64–10, paragraphs (a) and CFR part 51. (f) are amended by revising the first Plant Protection and Quarantine (b) Availability. Copies of Reference Treatment Manual and its revisions are sentence after the paragraph heading to Manual A: read as follows: required to authorize the movement of (1) Are available for inspection at the certain articles regulated by domestic Office of the Federal Register Library, § 301.64–10 Treatments. quarantines (7 CFR parts 301 and 318) 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, * * * * * and foreign quarantines (7 CFR part Washington, DC, and the APHIS (a) * * * Cold treatment in accordance 319). Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture, with the PPQ Treatment Manual, which (c) Availability. Copies of the Plant 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD; or is incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of Protection and Quarantine Treatment (2) May be obtained by writing to this chapter. Manual: Phytosanitary Issues Management, (1) Are available for inspection at the * * * * * Operational Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 Office of the Federal Register Library, (f) * * * Cold treatment in accordance River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, with the PPQ Treatment Manual, which 20737–1236; or is incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of Washington, DC; or (3) May be viewed on the APHIS Web (2) May be obtained by writing or this chapter, and in accordance with the site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ calling the Animal and Plant Health following schedule: pim/accreditation. Inspection Service, Documents * * * * * Management Branch, Printing § 300.4 Reference Manual B. 5. In § 301.78–10, the introductory Distribution and Mail Section, 4700 (a) The Reference Manual for Seed paragraph is revised to read as follows: River Road Unit 1, Riverdale, MD Health Testing and Phytosanitary Field 20737–1229, (301) 734–5524; or Inspection Methods, which was § 301.78–10 Treatments. (3) May be obtained from field offices published on February 27, 2001, by the Treatment schedules listed in the of the Animal and Plant Health National Seed Health System (NSHS), Plant Protection and Quarantine Inspection Service, Plant Protection and has been approved for incorporation by Treatment Manual to destroy Quarantine. Addresses of these offices reference in 7 CFR chapter III by the Mediterranean fruit fly are authorized may be found in local telephone Director of the Office of the Federal for use on regulated articles. The Plant directories. Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Protection and Quarantine Treatment § 300.2 Dry Kiln Operator’s Manual. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Manual is incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. The following (a) The Dry Kiln Operator’s Manual, (b) Availability. Copies of Reference Manual B: treatments may be used for the regulated which was published in August 1991 as articles indicated: Agriculture Handbook No. 188 by the (1) Are available for inspection at the United States Department of Office of the Federal Register Library, * * * * * Agriculture, Forest Service, has been 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, 6. In § 301.81–4, paragraph (b) is approved for incorporation by reference Washington, DC, and the APHIS revised to read as follows: in 7 CFR chapter III by the Director of Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD; or § 301.81–4 Interstate movement of the Office of the Federal Register in regulated articles from quarantined areas. accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 (2) May be obtained by writing to CFR part 51. Phytosanitary Issues Management, * * * * * (b) The kiln drying schedules Operational Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 (b) Inspectors are authorized to stop specified in the Dry Kiln Operator’s River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD any person or means of conveyance Manual provide a method by which 20737–1236; or moving in interstate commerce they certain articles regulated by ‘‘Subpart— (3) May be viewed on the APHIS Web have probable cause to believe is Logs, Lumber, and Other site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ moving regulated articles, and to inspect Unmanufactured Wood Articles’’ (7 CFR pim/accreditation. the articles being moved and the means of conveyance. Articles found to be 319.40–1 through 319.40–11) may be PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE imported into the United States. infested by an inspector, and articles not NOTICES (c) Availability. Copies of the Dry Kiln in compliance with the regulations in Operator’s Manual: this subpart, may be seized, 2. The authority citation for part 301 quarantined, treated, subjected to other (1) Are available for inspection at the continues to read as follows: Office of the Federal Register Library, remedial measures, destroyed, or 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 7711, 7712, 7714, otherwise disposed of. Any treatments Washington, DC; or 7731, 7735, 7751, 7752, 7753, and 7754; 7 will be in accordance with the methods (2) Are for sale as ISBN 0–16–035819– CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. and procedures prescribed in the 1 by the U.S. Government Printing Section 301.75–15 also issued under Appendix to this subpart (III. Regulatory Office, Superintendent of Documents, Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 Procedures), or in accordance with the Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC Stat. 1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 methods and procedures prescribed in 20402–9328. and 301.75–16 also issued under Sec. the Plant Protection and Quarantine
VerDate 11
Treatment Manual, which is Treatment Manual to destroy the melon supervision of an inspector and if the incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of fruit fly are authorized for use on articles are handled after treatment in this chapter. regulated articles. The Plant Protection accordance with all conditions that the * * * * * and Quarantine Treatment Manual is inspector requires. The Plant Protection incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of and Quarantine Treatment Manual is § 301.85 [Amended] this chapter. The following treatments incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of 7. In § 301.85, paragraph (a) is also may be used for the regulated this chapter. Treatments shall be amended by removing the words articles indicated: applied at the expense of the shipper, ‘‘(Heterodera rostochiensis)’’ and adding * * * * * owner, or person in charge of the the words ‘‘(Globodera rostochiensis)’’ 13. In § 301.98–10, the introductory articles. The Department of Agriculture in their place and in paragraph (b), the paragraph is revised to read as follows: or its inspector will not be responsible introductory text is amended by for loss or damage resulting from any removing the citation ‘‘§ 301.85–1(q)’’ § 301.98–10 Treatments. treatment prescribed or supervised and adding the citation ‘‘§ 301.85–1’’ in Treatment schedules listed in the under this subpart. its place. Plant Protection and Quarantine * * * * * 8. Section 301.85–1 is amended as Treatment Manual to destroy the West 17. Section 318.58–11 is revised to follows: Indian fruit fly are authorized for use on a. In the definition of Golden regulated articles. The Plant Protection read as follows: nematode, by removing the words and Quarantine Treatment Manual is § 318.58–11 Disinfection of means of ‘‘(Heterodera rostochiensis)’’ and adding incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of conveyance. the words ‘‘(Globodera rostochiensis)’’ this chapter. The following treatments in their place. also may be used for the regulated If an inspector, through an inspection b. By revising the definition of articles indicated: pursuant to this subpart, finds that a treatment manual to read as follows. means of conveyance is infested with or * * * * * contains any plant pest, and the § 301.85–1 Definitions. PART 318—HAWAIIAN AND inspector orders disinfection of the * * * * * TERRITORIAL QUARANTINE NOTICES means of conveyance, then the person Treatment manual. The provisions in charge or in possession of the means currently contained in the Plant 14. The authority citation for part 318 of conveyance shall disinfect the means Protection and Quarantine Treatment continues to read as follows: of conveyance and its cargo, in Manual, which is incorporated by accordance with an approved method Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7711, 7712, 7714, 7731, reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. 7754, and 7756; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. contained in the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual under the § 301.85–2b [Amended] 15. Section 318.13–11 is revised to supervision of an inspector and in a 9. In § 301.85–2b, footnote 2 and its read as follows: manner prescribed by the inspector, reference in the section heading are § 318.13–11 Disinfection of means of prior to any movement of the means of redesignated as footnote 1. conveyance. conveyance or its cargo. The Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment § 301.85–3 [Amended] If an inspector, through an inspection Manual is incorporated by reference at pursuant to this subpart, finds that a 10. Section 301.85–3 is amended as § 300.1 of this chapter. follows: means of conveyance is infested with or a. Footnote 3 and its reference in the contains plant pests, and the inspector PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE section heading are redesignated as orders disinfection of the means of NOTICES footnote 2. conveyance, then the person in charge or in possession of the means of b. In paragraph (b), footnotes 4 and 5 18. The authority citation for part 319 conveyance shall disinfect the means of and their references in the text are continues to read as follows: redesignated as footnotes 3 and 4, conveyance and its cargo in accordance respectively. with an approved method contained in Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 450, 7711–7714, 11. In § 301.93–10, the introductory the Plant Protection and Quarantine 7718, 7731, 7732, and 7751–7754; 21 U.S.C. paragraph is revised to read as follows: Treatment Manual under the 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. supervision of an inspector and in a § 301.93–10 Treatments. manner prescribed by the inspector, 19. In § 319.37–4, footnote 6 is revised Treatment schedules listed in the prior to any movement of the means of to read as follows: Plant Protection and Quarantine conveyance or its cargo. The Plant § 319.37–4 Inspection, treatment, and Treatment Manual to destroy the Protection and Quarantine Treatment phytosanitary certificates of inspection. Oriental fruit fly are approved for use on Manual is incorporated by reference at * * * * * regulated articles. The Plant Protection § 300.1 of this chapter. 6 and Quarantine Treatment Manual is 16. In § 318.58–4, paragraph (b) is The Plant Protection and Quarantine Manual is incorporated by reference at incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of revised to read as follows: this chapter. The following treatments § 300.1 of this chapter. can be used for bell pepper, citrus and § 318.58–4 Issuance of certificates or grape, tomato, premises, and soil: limited permits. § 319.40–7 [Amended] * * * * * * * * * * 20. In § 319.40–7, paragraph (d)(1)(i) (b) Certification on basis of treatment. 12. In § 301.97–10, the introductory is amended by removing the citation Fruits and vegetables designated in paragraph is revised to read as follows: ‘‘§ 300.1’’ and adding the citation § 318.58–2(b) may be certified after ‘‘§ 300.2’’ in its place. § 301.97–10 Treatments. undergoing an approved treatment Treatment schedules listed in the contained in the Plant Protection and 21. In § 319.56–2h, paragraph (b) is Plant Protection and Quarantine Quarantine Treatment Manual under the revised to read as follows:
VerDate 11
§ 319.56–2h Regulations governing the (g) * * * DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE entry of grapes from Australia. (2) Authorized treatments are listed in Animal and Plant Health Inspection * * * * * the Plant Protection and Quarantine (b) Authorized treatments. Authorized Service Treatment Manual, which is treatments are listed in the Plant incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of Protection and Quarantine Treatment 9 CFR Parts 145 and 147 this chapter. Manual, which is incorporated by [Docket No. 00–075–2] reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. * * * * * * * * * * 25. In § 319.56–2s, paragraph (f)(2) is National Poultry Improvement Plan and 22. In § 319.56–2i, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: Auxiliary Provisions revised to read as follows: § 319.56–2s Administrative instructions AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health § 319.56–2i Administrative instructions governing the entry of apricots, nectarines, Inspection Service, USDA. prescribing treatments for mangoes from peaches, plumcot, and plums from Chile. ACTION: Final rule. Central America, South America, and the * * * * * West Indies. SUMMARY: We are amending the National (a) Authorized treatments. Treatment (f) * * * Poultry Improvement Plan (the Plan) with an authorized treatment listed in (2) Authorized treatments are listed in and its auxiliary provisions by the Plant Protection and Quarantine the Plant Protection and Quarantine providing new or modified sampling Treatment Manual will meet the Treatment Manual, which is and testing procedures for Plan treatment requirements imposed under incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of participants and participating flocks. § 319.56–2 as a condition for the this chapter. These changes, which were voted on importation into the United States of and approved by the voting delegates at * * * * * mangoes from Central America, South the Plan’s 2000 Millennial Plan Conference, will keep the provisions of America, and the West Indies. The Plant PART 353–EXPORT CERTIFICATION Protection and Quarantine Treatment the Plan current with developments in Manual is incorporated by reference at the poultry industry and provide for the 26. The authority citation for part 353 § 300.1 of this chapter. use of new sampling and testing continues to read as follows: * * * * * procedures. 23. In § 319.56–2p, paragraph (f) is Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7711, 7712, 7718, 7751, EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 2002. and 7754; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR revised to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior Coordinator, § 319.56–2p Administrative instructions prescribing treatment and relieving § 353.1 [Amended] Poultry Improvement Staff, National Poultry Improvement Plan, Veterinary restrictions regarding importation of okra 27. Section 353.1 is amended as from Mexico, the West Indies, and certain Services, APHIS, USDA, 1498 Klondike countries in South America. follows: Road, Suite 200, Conyers, GA 30094– * * * * * a. In the definition of Reference 5104; (770) 922–3496. (f) Treatment of okra for pests other Manual A, by removing the citation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘§ 300.1’’ and adding the citation than pink bollworm. If, upon Background examination of okra imported in ‘‘§ 300.3’’ in its place. accordance with paragraphs (c), (d), or b. In the definition of Reference The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as (e) of this section, an inspector at the Manual B, by removing the citation ‘‘the Plan’’) is a cooperative Federal- port of arrival finds injurious insects, ‘‘§ 300.1’’ and adding the citation State-industry mechanism for other than the pink bollworm, that do ‘‘§ 300.4’’ in its place. not exist in the United States or are not controlling certain poultry diseases. The widespread in the United States, the § 353.9 [Amended] Plan consists of a variety of programs okra will remain eligible for entry into intended to prevent and control egg- the United States only if it is treated for 28. Section 353.9 is amended as transmitted, hatchery-disseminated the injurious insects in the physical follows: poultry diseases. Participation in all presence of an inspector in accordance a. In paragraph (b)(2), the introductory plan programs is voluntary, but flocks, with the Plant Protection and text, by removing the citation ‘‘§ 300.1’’ hatcheries, and dealers must qualify as Quarantine Treatment Manual. The and adding the citation ‘‘§ 300.4’’ in its ‘‘U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean’’ before Plant Protection and Quarantine place. participating in any other Plan program. Treatment Manual is incorporated by Also, the regulations in 9 CFR part 82, b. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. If the subpart C, which provide for certain citation ‘‘§ 300.1’’ and adding the treatment authorized by the Plant testing, restrictions on movement, and Protection and Quarantine Treatment citation ‘‘§ 300.3’’ in its place. other restrictions on certain chickens, Manual is not available, or if no Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of eggs, and other articles due to the authorized treatment exists, the okra February 2002. presence of Salmonella enteritidis, may not be entered into the United W. Ron DeHaven, prohibit hatching eggs or newly hatched States. chicks from egg-type chicken breeding Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant flocks from being moved interstate 24. In § 319.56–2r, paragraph (g)(2) is Health Inspection Service. revised to read as follows: unless they are classified ‘‘U.S. S. [FR Doc. 02–4384 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Enteritidis Monitored’’ under the Plan § 319.56–2r Administrative instructions BILLING CODE 3410–34–P or have met equivalent requirements for governing the entry of apples and pears S. enteritidis control, in accordance from certain countries in Europe. with 9 CFR 145.23(d), under official * * * * * supervision.
VerDate 11
The Plan identifies States, flocks, vaccination’’ option that may be utilized program are lower than the added hatcheries, and dealers that meet certain if an injectable bacterin or live vaccine benefits they receive from the program. disease control standards specified in that does not spread is used to vaccinate The changes contained in this the Plan’s various programs. As a result, a flock. document generally either update customers can buy poultry that has We are making two minor technical testing procedures and sanitation tested clean of certain diseases or that changes in this final rule that were not guidelines or amend the Plan’s has been produced under disease- discussed in the proposed rule. administrative operations, with the aim prevention conditions. Specifically, in the proposed rule, we of better safeguarding the health of the The regulations in 9 CFR parts 145 proposed to redesignate paragraph (b) of Nation’s poultry industry. The and 147 (referred to below as the § 147.12 as paragraph (c), but Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that regulations) contain the provisions of inadvertently failed to update two agencies consider the economic effects the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health internal references within that Inspection Service (APHIS or the paragraph. Therefore, in this final rule of their rules on small entities. We do Service) of the U.S. Department of we are amending redesignated not expect that the changes in this Agriculture (USDA or the Department) § 147.12(c)(1) so the introductory text of document will result in significant amends these provisions from time to that paragraph refers to paragraphs economic effects on small entities. time to incorporate new scientific (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) rather than (b)(1)(i) The Small Business Administration information and technologies within the and (b)(1)(ii); similarly, we are defines size standards for industries Plan. amending redesignated § 147.12(c)(2) so using the North American Industry On July 20, 2001, we published in the the introductory text of that paragraph Classification System (NAICS). Under Federal Register (66 FR 37919–37932, refers to paragraph (c)(2)(i) rather than this system, a firm classified within Docket No. 00–075–1) a proposal to (b)(2)(i). ‘‘Chicken Egg Production’’ (NAICS code amend the regulations by (1) providing Therefore, for the reasons given in the new or modified sampling, testing, and 112310) is considered small if its annual proposed rule and in this document, we cleaning/disinfection procedures for receipts are $9 million or less. For firms are adopting the proposed rule as a final Plan participants and participating classified within ‘‘Broilers and Other rule, with the changes discussed in this flocks, (2) updating some of the Plan’s Meat Type Chicken Production’’ (NAICS document. administrative provisions, and (3) code 112320), the small-entity criterion making several nonsubstantive editorial Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory is annual receipts of $750,000 or less. changes to improve clarity and correct Flexibility Act The egg and poultry industries are erroneous citations to several sections This rule has been reviewed under highly integrated vertically, with most within the regulations. production owned or under contract to We solicited comments concerning Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for large-scale processing and marketing our proposal for 60 days ending 1 the purposes of Executive Order 12866 firms. For example, broilers for Tyson September 18, 2001. We received one Foods, the world’s largest producer, comment by that date. The comment and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. came in 1999 from 6,060 farms (98 was from a private veterinarian who percent under contract), and its eggs requested that we clarify what we meant The changes contained in this document are based on the came from breeder flocks on 1,388 by the phrase ‘‘does not spread’’ in the farms.2 proposed revision to recommendations of representatives of § 145.23(d)(1)(vi)(B). (That paragraph member States, hatcheries, dealers, In 1997, an average of 303,604,000 begins with the words ‘‘If an injectable flockowners, and breeders who took egg-producing layers produced 77,532 bacterin or live vaccine that does not part in the Plan’s 2000 National Plan million eggs.3 The number of egg- spread is used * * *.’’) The commenter Conference. This rule amends the Plan producing farms and their size was concerned that our use of that and its auxiliary provisions by distribution is not known, but it is phrase meant that we intended to providing new or modified sampling reasonable to assume that some of them require the use of live vaccines that do and testing procedures for Plan may be small entities, operating either not ever shed or that are not transmitted participants and participating flocks. independently or under contract. The changes contained in this rule, between birds, and stated that it was Also in 1997, there were 13,458 farms which were voted on and approved by unlikely that any live vaccine could that sold layers, pullets, and pullet the voting delegates at the Plan’s 2000 meet that standard, thus precluding the chicks, and 23,937 farms that sold National Plan Conference, will keep the use of an otherwise valuable food safety broilers and other meat-type chickens.4 provisions of the plan current with vaccine. Regarding the latter, a farm would need As we explained in the proposed rule, changes in the poultry industry and to produce about 275,000 broilers a year the regulations in § 145.23(d)(1)(vi) provide for the use of new sampling and in order to reach annual sales of at least regarding the use of a federally licensed testing procedures. Salmonella enteritidis bacterin had not The plan serves as a ‘‘seal of $500,000, according to Census of differentiated between the use of approval’’ for eggs and poultry Agriculture and other National vaccines or bacterins that may spread to producers in the sense that tests and Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) other birds and those that do not, which procedures recommended by the Plan is why we proposed to introduce the are considered optimal for the industry. 1 The broiler industry, in particular, is heavily concentrated. Tyson Foods had weekly sales of term ‘‘does not spread’’ into that In all cases, the changes in this ready-to-cook chicken that averaged 154.3 million paragraph. In both the proposed rule document have been generated by the pounds in 1999. The 10 largest broiler companies and this final rule, the text of industry itself with the goal of reducing accounted for 429.6 million pounds per week in § 145.23(d)(1)(vi)(B) does not require the disease risk and increasing product 1999, approximately half of the Nation’s production (WATT Poultry USA, January 2000). use of live vaccines that do not spread, marketability. Because participation in 2 WATT Poultry USA, January 2000. nor does it prohibit the use of live the Plan is voluntary, individuals are 3 ‘‘Chickens and Eggs, Final Estimates 1994–97,’’ vaccines that spread. Rather, that likely to remain in the program as long USDA/NASS, December 1998. paragraph simply offers a ‘‘testing after as the costs of implementing the 4 1997 Census of Agriculture.
VerDate 11
data.5 By this measure, about one-half of § 145.1 Definitions. (4) Chick/poult processing equipment broiler farms can be considered small.6 * * * * * and rooms should be thoroughly Clearly, some of the poultry and egg- Public exhibition. A public show of cleaned and disinfected after each producing farms that may be affected by poultry. hatch. Chick/poult boxes should be this rule are small. However, the * * * * * cleaned and disinfected before being procedural and administrative changes 3. In § 145.2, a new paragraph (e) is reused. Vaccination equipment should in this rule are not expected to have a added to read as follows: be cleaned and disinfected after each significant economic impact on any use. Cleaning and disinfection entities, either large or small. § 145.2 Administration. procedures should be as outlined in Under these circumstances, the * * * * * § 147.24 of this chapter. Administrator of the Animal and Plant (e) An authorized laboratory of the (5) Hatchery residue, such as chick/ Health Inspection Service has National Poultry Improvement Plan will poult down, eggshells, infertile eggs, determined that this action would not follow the laboratory protocols outlined and dead germs, should be disposed of have a significant economic impact on in part 147 of this chapter when promptly and in a manner satisfactory a substantial number of small entities. determining the status of a participating to the Official State Agency. flock with respect to an official Plan (6) The entire hatchery should be kept Executive Order 12372 classification. in a neat, orderly condition and cleaned This program/activity is listed in the * * * * * and disinfected after each hatch. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 4. Section 145.6 is amended as (7) Effective insect and rodent control under No. 10.025 and is subject to follows: programs should be implemented. Executive Order 12372, which requires a. By revising paragraph (a). * * * * * intergovernmental consultation with b. In paragraph (b), by removing the State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part word ‘‘which’’ and adding the word § 145.10 [Amended] 3015, subpart V.) ‘‘that’’ in its place. 5. In § 145.10, paragraphs (a) and (l) c. In paragraph (c), by removing the Executive Order 12988 are removed and reserved and word ‘‘shall’’ and adding the word paragraph (m) is amended by adding the This final rule has been reviewed ‘‘should’’ in its place. words ‘‘§ 145.23(d) and’’ immediately under Executive Order 12988, Civil d. In paragraph (d), in both the first after the word ‘‘See’’. Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts and second sentences, by removing the all State and local laws and regulations word ‘‘shall’’ and adding the word § 145.13 [Amended] that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has ‘‘should’’ in its place. 6. In § 145.13, the introductory text of no retroactive effect; and (3) does not § 145.6 Specific provisions for the section is amended as follows: require administrative proceedings participating hatcheries. a. In the first sentence, by adding the before parties may file suit in court (a) Hatcheries must be kept in sanitary words ‘‘in writing’’ immediately after challenging this rule. condition, acceptable to the Official the words ‘‘are notified’’. Paperwork Reduction Act State Agency. The procedures outlined b. In the sixth sentence, by removing in §§ 147.22 through 147.25 of this the words ‘‘§§ 50.21 through 50.28–14 This final rule contains no new chapter will be considered as a guide in and §§ 50.30 through 50.33 of’’. information collection or recordkeeping determining compliance with this c. In the seventh sentence, by requirements under the Paperwork provision. The minimum requirements removing the citation ‘‘7 CFR 50.2(e), Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 with respect to sanitation include the (g), (h), and (l)’’ and adding the citation et seq.). following: ‘‘7 CFR 50.10’’ in its place. List of Subjects in 9 CFR Parts 145 and (1) Egg room walls, ceilings, floors, air 7. Section 145.14 is amended as 147 filters, drains, and humidifiers should follows: be cleaned and disinfected at least two a. In the introductory text of the Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry times per week. Cleaning and section, by revising the first sentence. products, Reporting and recordkeeping disinfection procedures should be as b. In paragraph (a)(1), footnote 1, by requirements. outlined in § 147.24 of this chapter. removing the words ‘‘Veterinary Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR (2) Incubator room walls, ceilings, Biologics, 4700 River Road, Unit 148, parts 145 and 147 as follows: floors, doors, fan grills, vents, and ducts Riverdale, Maryland 20737–1237’’ and should be cleaned and disinfected after adding the words ‘‘Center for Veterinary PART 145—NATIONAL POULTRY each set or transfer. Incubator rooms Biologics, 510 South 17th Street, Suite IMPROVEMENT PLAN should not be used for storage. Plenums 104, Ames, IA 50010–8197’’ in their should be cleaned at least weekly. Egg 1. The authority citation for part 145 place. trays and buggies should be cleaned and continues to read as follows: disinfected after each transfer. Cleaning § 145.14 Blood testing. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 429; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and disinfection procedures should be Poultry must be more than 4 months and 371.4. as outlined in § 147.24 of this chapter. of age when blood tested for an official 2. In § 145.1, a definition of public (3) Hatcher walls, ceilings, floors, classification: Provided, That turkey exhibition is added, in alphabetical doors, fans, vents, and ducts should be candidates under subpart D of this part order, to read as follows: cleaned and disinfected after each may be blood tested at more than 12 hatch. Hatcher rooms should be cleaned weeks of age; game bird candidates 5 In 1997, the average liveweight equivalent price and disinfected after each hatch and under subpart E of this part may be of broilers was $0.377 per pound, and the average should not be used for storage. Plenums blood tested when more than 4 months weight was 4,835 pounds. Thus, the average price should be cleaned after each hatch. of age or upon reaching sexual maturity, received per broiler was $1.82. 6 The 1997 Census of Agriculture indicates that Cleaning and disinfection procedures whichever comes first; and ostrich, emu, 52 percent of broiler-producing farms sold at least should be as outlined in § 147.24 of this rhea, and cassowary candidates under 200,000 broilers. chapter. subpart F of this part may be blood
VerDate 11
tested when more than 12 months of immediately before the words § 145.54 [Amended] age. * * * ‘‘paragraph (h)(1)(iv)’’ and by adding the 14. In § 145.54, paragraph (a)(2) is * * * * * words ‘‘and/or 500 cloacal swabs amended by adding the words ‘‘in 8. In § 145.23, paragraph (d) is collected in accordance with accordance with rules of practice amended as follows: § 147.12(a)(2) of this chapter’’ adopted by the Administrator’’ a. In paragraph (d), by revising the immediately before the word ‘‘must’’. immediately after the word ‘‘hearing’’. introductory text. § 145.33 Terminology and classification; PART 147—AUXILIARY PROVISIONS b. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing flocks and products. the word ‘‘Monitored’’ and adding the ON NATIONAL POULTRY word ‘‘Clean’’ in its place. * * * * * IMPROVEMENT PLAN c. By revising paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) (c) * * * (2) A participant handling U.S. M. and (d)(1)(vi). 15. The authority citation for part 147 Gallisepticum Clean products must keep continues to read as follows: § 145.23 Terminology and classification; these products separate from other flocks and products. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 429; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, products through the use of separate and 371.4. * * * * * hatchers and incubators, separate hatch (d) U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean. This days, and proper hatchery sanitation § 147.5 [Amended] classification is intended for egg-type and biosecurity (see §§ 147.22, 147.23, 16. Section 147.5 is amended as breeders wishing to assure their and 147.24) in a manner satisfactory to follows: customers that the hatching eggs and the Official State Agency: Provided, a. In paragraph (c), by removing the chicks produced are certified free of That U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean chicks numbers ‘‘1:20’’ and adding the Salmonella enteritidis. from primary breeding flocks must be numbers ‘‘1:40’’ in their place. (1) * * * produced in incubators and hatchers in b. In paragraph (d), the introductory * * * * * which only eggs from flocks qualified text, by removing the numbers ‘‘1:20’’ (iv) The flock is maintained in under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section and adding the numbers ‘‘1:40’’ in their compliance with §§ 147.21, 147.24(a), are set. place. and 147.26 of this chapter. Rodents and * * * * * c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing the other pests should be effectively (h) * * * words ‘‘10 microliters (0.01 cc.)’’ and controlled; (1) * * * adding the words ‘‘5 microliters (0.005 * * * * * (i) The flock originated from a U.S. S. cc.)’’ in their place. (vi) If a Salmonella vaccine is used Enteritidis Clean flock, or one of the that causes positive reactions with following samples has been examined § 147.7 [Amended] pullorum-typhoid antigen, one of the bacteriologically for S. enteritidis at an 17. In § 147.7, paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) is following options must be utilized: authorized laboratory and any group D amended by removing the third and (A) Administer the vaccine after the Salmonella samples have been fourth sentences. pullorum-typhoid testing is done as serotyped: 18. In § 147.11, paragraph (a) is described in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this (A) A 25-gram sample of meconium revised to read as follows: section. from the chicks in the flock collected (B) If an injectable bacterin or live and cultured as described in § 147.11 Laboratory procedure vaccine that does not spread is used, § 147.12(a)(5) of this chapter; or recommended for the bacteriological keep a sample of 350 birds unvaccinated (B) A sample of chick papers collected examination of salmonella. and banded for identification until the and cultured as described in § 147.12(c) (a) For egg- and meat-type chickens, flock reaches at least 4 months of age. of this chapter; or waterfowl, exhibition poultry, and game Following negative serological and (C) A sample of 10 chicks that died birds. All reactors to the Pullorum- bacteriological examinations as within 7 days after hatching. Typhoid tests, up to 25 birds, and birds described in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this * * * * * from Salmonella enteritidis (SE) section, vaccinate the banded, non- (vi) Hatching eggs produced by the positive environments should be vaccinated birds. flock are collected as quickly as possible cultured in accordance with both the * * * * * and are handled as described in § 147.22 direct (paragraph (a)(1)) and selective of this chapter. enrichment (paragraph (a)(2)) § 145.24 [Amended] procedures described in this section. § 145.34 [Amended] 9. In § 145.24, paragraph (a)(2), at the Careful aseptic technique should be end of the last sentence, the words ‘‘in 11. In § 145.34, paragraphs (a)(2) and used when collecting all tissue samples. accordance with rules of practice (b)(2) are each amended by adding the (1) Direct culture (refer to illustration adopted by the Administrator’’ are words ‘‘in accordance with rules of 1). Grossly normal or diseased liver, added immediately after the word practice adopted by the Administrator’’ heart, pericardial sac, spleen, lung, ‘‘hearing’’. immediately after the word ‘‘hearing’’. kidney, peritoneum, gallbladder, oviduct, misshapen ova or testes, 10. Section 145.33 is amended as § 145.44 [Amended] inflamed or unabsorbed yolk sac, and follows: a. By revising paragraph (c)(2). 12. In § 145.44, paragraphs (a)(2), other visibly pathological tissues where b. In paragraph (h), the introductory (b)(2), and (c)(2) are each amended by purulent, necrotic, or proliferative text, by removing the word ‘‘primary’’. adding the words ‘‘in accordance with lesions are seen (including cysts, c. By revising paragraph (h)(1)(i). rules of practice adopted by the abscesses, hypopyon, and inflamed d. In paragraph (h)(1)(iv), by adding Administrator’’ immediately after the serosal surfaces) should be sampled for the words ‘‘or under the supervision of’’ word ‘‘hearing’’. direct culture using either flamed wire immediately after the word ‘‘by’’. loops or sterile swabs. Since some e. By revising paragraph (h)(1)(vi). § 145.53 [Amended] strains may not dependably survive and f. In paragraph (h)(3), the first 13. In § 145.53, paragraph (a) is grow in certain selective media, sentence, by removing the word ‘‘in’’ removed and reserved. inoculate non-selective plates (such as
VerDate 11
blood or nutrient agar) and selective (iii) Ovary-Testes (entire inactive outlined in illustration 1 for the plates (such as MacConkey [MAC] and ovary or testes, but if ovary is active, isolation and identification of brilliant green novobiocin [BGN] for include any atypical ova); Salmonella. pullorum-typhoid and MAC, BGN, and (iv) Oviduct (if active, include any (5) After selective enrichment, xylose-lysine-tergitol 4 [XLT 4] for SE). debris and dehydrated ova); inoculate selective plates (such as MAC After inoculating the plates, pool the (v) Kidneys and spleen; and and BGN for pullorum-typhoid and swabs from the various organs into a (vi) Other visibly pathological sites MAC, BGN, and XLT 4) for SE. tube of non-selective broth (such as where purulent, necrotic, or Inoculate three to five Salmonella- nutrient or brain-heart infusion). Refer proliferative lesions are seen. suspect colonies from plates into triple to illustration 1 for recommended (3) From each bird, aseptically collect sugar iron (TSI) and lysine iron agar bacteriological recovery and 10 to 15 grams of each organ or site (LIA) slants. Screen colonies by identification procedures.7 Proceed listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. serological (i.e., serogroup) and immediately with collection of organs Mince, grind, or blend and place in a biochemical procedures (e.g., the and tissues for selective enrichment sterile plastic bag. All the organs or sites Analytical Profile Index for culture. listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section Enterobacteriaceae [API]) as shown in (2) Selective enrichment culture (refer from the same bird may be pooled into illustration 1. As a supplement to to illustration 1). Collect and culture one bag. Do not pool samples from more screening three to five Salmonella- organ samples separately from intestinal than one bird. Add sufficient suspect colonies on TSI and LIA slants, samples, with intestinal tissues tetrathionate enrichment broth to give a a group D colony lift assay may be collected last to prevent cross- 1:10 (sample to enrichment) ratio. utilized to signal the presence of hard- contamination. Samples from the Follow the procedure outlined in to-detect group D Salmonella colonies following organs or sites should be illustration 1 for the isolation and on agar plates. collected for culture in selective identification of Salmonella. (6) If the initial selective enrichment enrichment broth: (4) From each bird, aseptically collect is negative for Salmonella, a delayed (i) Heart (apex, pericardial sac, and 10 to 15 grams of each of the following secondary enrichment (DSE) procedure contents if present); parts of the digestive tract: Crop wall, is used. Leave the tetrathionate-enriched (ii) Liver (portions exhibiting lesions duodenum, jejunum (including remnant sample at room temperature for 5 to 7 or, in grossly normal organs, the drained of yolk sac), both ceca, cecal tonsils, and days. Transfer 1 mL of the culture into gallbladder and adjacent liver tissues); rectum-cloaca. Mince, grind, or blend 10 mL of fresh tetrathionate enrichment tissues and pool them into a sterile broth, incubate at 37 C for 20 to 24 7 Biochemical identification charts may be plastic bag. Do not pool tissues from hours, and plate as before. obtained from ‘‘A Laboratory Manual for the different birds into the same sample. (7) Serogroup all isolates identified as Isolation and Identification of Avian Pathogens,’’ chapter 2, Salmonellosis. Fourth edition, 1998, Add sufficient tetrathionate enrichment salmonellae and serotype all serogroup American Association of Avian Pathologists, Inc., broth to give a 1:10 (sample to D1 isolates. Phage-type all SE isolates. Kennett Square, PA 19348. enrichment) ratio. Follow the procedure BILLING CODE 3410–34–U
VerDate 11
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C c. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), by removing designed for this purpose)’’ immediately * * * * * the words ‘‘(Hajna or Mueller- before the words ‘‘, a key component’’. 19. Section 147.12 is amended as Kauffmann Tetrathionate Brilliant e. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by removing follows: Green)’’. the words ‘‘paragraph (a)(1)’’ and adding a. By revising the section heading. d. In paragraph (a)(3), the the words ‘‘paragraph (a)(3)(i)’’ in their b. In paragraph (a), the introductory place. introductory text, by adding the words text, by removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and f. In paragraph (a)(3)(iv), by revising ‘‘(or commercially available sponges adding the word ‘‘should’’ in its place. the first two sentences.
VerDate 11
g. By adding new paragraphs (a)(4) footnote 12 to this section) and rub the (iv) Enrich the sample with selective and (a)(5). pad across the surface of five chick box enrichment broth for 24 hours at 42 °C. h. By removing paragraph (c), papers. Rub the pad over at least 75 (v) Streak the enriched sample onto redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph percent of each paper and use sufficient brilliant green novobiocin (BGN) agar (c), and adding a new paragraph (b). pressure to rub any dry meconium off and xylose-lysine-tergitol 4 (XLT4) agar. i. In the introductory text of newly the paper. Pouring a small amount of ° redesignated paragraph (c)(1), by double-strength skim milk (1 to 2 (vi) Incubate both plates at 37 C for removing the citation ‘‘(b)(1)(i) or tablespoons) on each paper will make it 24 hours and process suspect (b)(1)(ii)’’ and adding the citation easier to collect samples. Salmonella colonies according to ‘‘(c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii)’’ in its place. (D) After collecting samples from 10 paragraph (b) of this section. j. In the introductory text of newly chick box papers, place the two gauze (b) Isolation and identification of redesignated paragraph (c)(2), by pads used to collect the samples (i.e., Salmonella. Either of the two removing the citation ‘‘(b)(2)(i)’’ and one pad per 5 chick box papers) into an enrichment procedures in this adding the citation ‘‘(c)(2)(i)’’ in its 18 oz. Whirl-Pak bag and add 1 to 2 paragraph may be used. place. tablespoons of double-strength skim (1) Tetrathionate enrichment with milk. delayed secondary enrichment (DSE): § 147.12 Procedures for collection, (E) Promptly refrigerate the Whirl-Pak (i) Add tetrathionate enrichment broth isolation, and identification of Salmonella bags containing the samples and from environmental samples, cloacal transport them, on ice or otherwise to the sample to give a 1:10 (sample to swabs, chick box papers, and meconium enrichment) ratio. Incubate the sample samples. refrigerated, to a laboratory within 48 ° hours of collection. The samples may be at 37 or 41.5 C for 20 to 24 hours as * * * * * frozen for longer storage if the Plan shown in illustration 2. (a) * * * participant is unable to transport them (ii) After selective enrichment, (3) * * * to a laboratory within 48 hours. inoculate selective plates (such as BGN (iv) Nest box or egg belt sampling (ii) The Plan participant may send and XLT4). Incubate the plates at 37 °C technique. Collect nest box or egg belt chick box papers directly to a for 20 to 24 hours. Inoculate three to samples by using two 3-by-3 inch sterile laboratory, where samples may be five Salmonella-suspect colonies from gauze pads premoistened with double- collected as described in paragraph the plates into triple sugar iron (TSI) strength skim milk and wiping the pads (a)(4)(i) of this section. To send chick and lysine iron agar (LIA) slants. over assorted locations in about 10 box papers directly to a laboratory: Incubate the slants at 37 °C for 20 to 24 percent of the total nesting area or the (A) Collect 1 chick box paper for each hours. Screen colonies by serological egg belt. * * * 10 boxes of chicks placed in a house (i.e., serogroup) and biochemical (e.g., * * * * * and place the chick papers immediately API) procedures as shown in illustration (4) Chick box papers. Samples from into large plastic bags and seal the bags. 2. As a supplement to screening three to chick box papers may be (B) Place the plastic bags containing five Salmonella-suspect colonies on TSI bacteriologically examined for the the chick box papers in a clean box and and LIA slants, a group D colony lift presence of Salmonella. The Plan transport them within 48 hours to a assay may be utilized to signal the participant may collect the samples in laboratory. The plastic bags do not presence of hard-to-detect group D accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(i) of require refrigeration. Salmonella colonies on agar plates. this section or submit chick box papers (iii) The laboratory must follow the (iii) If the initial selective enrichment directly to a laboratory in accordance procedure set forth in paragraph (a)(5) of is negative for Salmonella, use a DSE with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section. this section for testing chick meconium procedure. Leave the original It is important that the paper be for Salmonella. tetrathionate-enriched sample at room removed from the chick box before the (5) Chick meconium testing procedure temperature for 5 to 7 days. Transfer 1 box is placed in the brooding house. for Salmonella. mL of the culture into 10 mL of fresh (i) Instructions for collecting samples (i) Record the date, source, and flock tetrathionate enrichment broth, incubate from chick box papers: destination on the ‘‘Meconium at 37 °C for 20 to 24 hours, and plate (A) Collect 1 chick box paper for each Worksheet.’’ as in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. 10 boxes of chicks placed in a house (ii) Shake each plastic bag of and lay the papers on a clean surface. meconium until a uniform consistency (iv) Serogroup all isolates identified (B) Clean your hands and put on latex is achieved. as Salmonella and serotype all gloves. Do not apply disinfectant to the (iii) Transfer a 25 gm sample of serogroup D isolates. Phage-type all gloves. Change gloves after collecting meconium to a sterile container. Add Salmonella enteritidis isolates. samples from 10 chick box papers or 225 mL of a preenrichment broth to (2) Pre-enrichment followed by any time a glove is torn. each sample (this is a 1:10 dilution), selective enrichment. (See illustration (C) Saturate a sterile 3-by-3 inch gauze mix gently, and incubate at 37 °C for 2.) pad with double-strength skim milk (see 18–24 hours. BILLING CODE 3410–34–U
VerDate 11
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C
VerDate 11
* * * * * airflow patterns in the hatchery should installed equipment such as curtains, be from clean areas to dirty areas (i.e., ventilation ducts and openings, fans, fan § 147.18 [Removed] from egg room to chick/poult processing housings and shutters, feeding 20. Section 147.18 is removed. rooms) and should avoid tracking from equipment, watering equipment, etc. 21. Section 147.22 is revised to read dirty areas back into clean areas. Use high pressure and high volume as follows: (c) The hatchery rooms, and tables, water spray (for example 200 pounds racks, and other equipment in them per square inch and 10 gallons per § 147.22 Hatching egg sanitation. should be thoroughly cleaned and minute or more) to soak into and Hatching eggs should be collected disinfected frequently. All hatchery remove the dirt to decontaminate the from the nests at frequent intervals and, wastes and offal should be burned or building. Scrub the walls, floors, and to aid in the prevention of otherwise properly disposed of, and the equipment with a hot soapy water contamination with disease-causing containers used to remove such solution. Rinse to remove soap. organisms, the following practices materials should be cleaned and * * * * * should be observed: sanitized after each use. (b) * * * (a) Cleaned and disinfected (d) The hatching compartments of containers, such as egg flats, should be incubators, including the hatching trays, (1) Use cleaning agents and sanitizers used in collecting the nest eggs for should be thoroughly cleaned and that are registered by the U.S. hatching. Egg handlers should disinfected after each hatch. Environmental Protection Agency as thoroughly wash their hands with soap (e) Only clean eggs should be used for germicidal, fungicidal, and water prior to and after egg hatching purposes. pseudomonocidal, and tuberculocidal. collection. Clean outer garments should (f) Only new or cleaned and Use manufacturer’s recommended be worn. disinfected egg cases should be used for dilution. Remove loose organic debris (b) Dirty eggs should not be used for transportation of hatching eggs. Soiled by sweeping, scraping, vacuuming, hatching purposes and should be egg case fillers should be destroyed. brushing, or scrubbing, or by hosing collected in a separate container from (g) Day-old chicks, poults, or other surface with high pressure water (for the nest eggs. Slightly soiled nest eggs newly hatched poultry should be example 200 pounds per square inch may be gently dry cleaned by hand. distributed in clean, new boxes and new and 10 gallons per minute or more). (c) Hatching eggs should be stored in chick papers. All crates and vehicles Remove trays and all controls and fans a designated egg room under conditions used for transporting birds should be for separate cleaning. Use hot water that will minimize egg sweating. The cleaned and disinfected after each use. (minimum water temperature of 140 °F) egg room walls, ceiling, floor, door, 23. Section 147.24 is amended as for cleaning hatching trays and chick heater, and humidifier should be follows: separator equipment. Thoroughly wet cleaned and disinfected after every egg a. In paragraph (a), the introductory the ceiling, walls, and floors with a pickup. Cleaning and disinfection text, by removing the words ‘‘, hatchery stream of water, then scrub with a hard procedures should be as outlined in rooms and delivery trucks’’. bristle brush. Use a cleaner/sanitizer § 147.24. b. By revising paragraphs (a)(1) and that can penetrate protein and fatty (d) The egg processing area should be (a)(3). deposits. Allow the chemical to cling to cleaned and disinfected daily. c. In paragraph (b), the introductory treated surfaces at least 10 minutes (e) Effective rodent and insect control text, by adding the words ‘‘and hatchery before rinsing off. Manually scrub any programs should be implemented. rooms’’ immediately after the word remaining deposits of organic material (f) The egg processing building or area ‘‘hatchers’’. until they are removed. Rinse until there should be designed, located, and d. By revising paragraph (b)(1). is no longer any deposit on the walls, constructed of such materials as to e. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the particularly near the fan opening, and assure that proper egg sanitation word ‘‘sanitized’’ and adding the word apply disinfectant. Use a clean and procedures can be carried out, and that ‘‘disinfected’’ in its place. sanitized squeegee to remove excess the building itself can be easily, f. By redesignating paragraph (c) as water, working down from ceilings to effectively, and routinely sanitized. paragraph (b)(4) and adding a new walls to floors and being careful not to (g) All vehicles used for transporting paragraph (c). recontaminate cleaned areas. eggs or chicks/poults should be cleaned * * * * * and disinfected after use. Cleaning and § 147.24 Cleaning and disinfecting. * * * * * (c) The egg and chick/poult delivery disinfection procedures should be as truck drivers and helpers should use the outlined in § 147.24. (a) * * * (1) Remove all live ‘‘escaped’’ and following good biosecurity practices 22. Section 147.23 is revised to read dead birds from the building. Blow dust while picking up eggs or delivering as follows: from equipment and other exposed chicks/poults: § 147.23 Hatchery sanitation. surfaces. Empty the residual feed from (1) Spray truck tires thoroughly with An effective program for the the feed system and feed pans and disinfectant before leaving the main prevention and control of Salmonella remove it from the building. road and entering the farm driveway. and other infections should include the Disassemble feeding equipment and (2) Put on sturdy, disposable plastic following measures: dump and scrape as needed to remove boots or clean rubber boots before (a) An effective hatchery sanitation any and all feed cake and residue. Clean getting out of the truck cab. Put on a program should be designed and up spilled feed around the tank and clean smock or coveralls and a hairnet implemented. clean out the tank. Rinse down and before entering the poultry house. (b) The hatchery building should be wash out the inside of the feed tank to (3) After loading eggs or unloading arranged so that separate rooms are decontaminate the surfaces and allow to chicks/poults, remove the dirty smock/ provided for each of the four operations: dry. coveralls and place into plastic garbage Egg receiving, incubation and hatching, * * * * * bag before loading in the truck. Be sure chick/poult processing, and egg tray and (3) Wash down the entire inside to keep clean coveralls separate from hatching basket washing. Traffic and surfaces of the building and all the dirty ones.
VerDate 11
(4) Reenter the cab of the truck and committee members will include, but Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., remove boots before placing feet onto not be limited to: Advertisements in at Renton, Washington; or at the Office of floorboards. Remove hairnet and leave least two industry journals, such as the the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol with disposable boots on farm. newsletters of the American Association Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. (5) Sanitize hands using appropriate of Avian Pathologists, the National FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: hand sanitizer. Chicken Council, the United Egg Duong Tran, Aerospace Engineer, (6) Return to the hatchery or go to the Producers, and the National Turkey Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, next farm and repeat the process. Federation; a Federal Register Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, announcement; and special inquiries for § 147.25 [Amended] 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, nominations from universities or 24. Section 147.25 is amended by Washington 98055–4056; telephone colleges with minority/disability (425) 227–2773; fax (425) 227–1181. removing the words ‘‘as an essential’’ enrollments and faculty members in and adding the words ‘‘or rooms as a’’ poultry science or veterinary science. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A in their place. * * * * * proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 25. Section 147.26 is amended as Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to follows: Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of include an airworthiness directive (AD) February 2002. a. By revising paragraph (a). that is applicable to all Boeing Model b. In paragraph (b)(5), by removing the W. Ron DeHaven, 727 series airplanes was published in word ‘‘Keep’’ and adding the words Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant the Federal Register on November 28, ‘‘Establish a rodent control program to Health Inspection Service. 2001 (66 FR 59384). That action keep’’ in its place. [FR Doc. 02–4264 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] proposed to require repetitive c. By removing paragraph (b)(10) and BILLING CODE 3410–34–U inspections for cracking of the upper redesignating paragraphs (b)(11) through chord of the rear spar of the wing, and (b)(15) as paragraphs (b)(10) through corrective action, if necessary. (b)(14), respectively. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Comments § 147.26 Procedures for establishing Federal Aviation Administration isolation and maintaining sanitation and Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the good management practices for the control 14 CFR Part 39 of Salmonella and Mycoplasma infections. making of this amendment. No (a) The following procedures are [Docket No. 2001–NM–203–AD; Amendment comments were submitted in response required for participation under the U.S. 39–12663; AD 2002–04–06] to the proposal or the FAA’s determination of the cost to the public. Sanitation Monitored, U.S. M. RIN 2120–AA64 Gallisepticum Clean, U.S. M. Synoviae Conclusion Clean, U.S. S. Enteritidis Monitored, Airworthiness Directives; Boeing and U.S. S. Enteritidis Clean Model 727 Series Airplanes The FAA has determined that air classifications: safety and the public interest require the AGENCY: (1) Allow no visitors except under Federal Aviation adoption of the rule as proposed. Administration, DOT. controlled conditions to minimize the Cost Impact introduction of Salmonella and ACTION: Final rule. Mycoplasma. Such conditions must be There are approximately 1,375 Boeing SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a approved by the Official State Agency Model 727 series airplanes of the new airworthiness directive (AD), affected design in the worldwide fleet. and the Service; applicable to all Boeing Model 727 (2) Maintain breeder flocks on farms The FAA estimates that 912 airplanes of series airplanes, that requires repetitive free from market birds and other U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, inspections for cracking of the upper domesticated fowl. Follow proper that it will take approximately 12 work chord of the rear spar of the wing, and isolation procedures as approved by the hours per airplane to accomplish the corrective action, if necessary. This Official State Agency; required inspections, and that the action is necessary to find and fix such (3) Dispose of all dead birds by locally average labor rate is $60 per work hour. cracking, which could result in fuel approved methods. Based on these figures, the cost impact leaking through the cracks, reduced of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated * * * * * structural integrity of the wing, and 26. In § 147.43, paragraph (b) is to be $656,640, or $720 per airplane, per separation of the wing from the inspection cycle. revised to read as follows: airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. The cost impact figure discussed § 147.43 General Conference Committee. above is based on assumptions that no DATES: * * * * * Effective April 1, 2002. operator has yet accomplished any of (b) The regional committee members The incorporation by reference of the requirements of this AD action, and and their alternates will be elected by certain publications listed in the that no operator would accomplish the official delegates of their respective regulations is approved by the Director those actions in the future if this AD regions, and the member-at-large will be of the Federal Register as of April 1, were not adopted. The cost impact elected by all official delegates. There 2002. figures discussed in AD rulemaking must be at least two nominees for each ADDRESSES: The service information actions represent only the time position, the voting will be by secret referenced in this AD may be obtained necessary to perform the specific actions ballot, and the results will be recorded. from Boeing Commercial Airplane actually required by the AD. These At least one nominee from each region Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, figures typically do not include must be from an underrepresented Washington 98124–2207. This incidental costs, such as the time group (minorities, women, or persons information may be examined at the required to gain access and close up, with disabilities). The process for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), planning time, or time necessitated by soliciting nominations for regional Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules other administrative actions.
VerDate 11
Regulatory Impact the effect of the modification, alteration, or airplane approved by a Boeing Company DER repair on the unsafe condition addressed by who has been authorized by the Manager, The regulations adopted herein will this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a not have a substantial direct effect on been eliminated, the request should include repair method to be approved by the the States, on the relationship between specific proposed actions to address it. Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this the national Government and the States, Compliance: Required as indicated, unless paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter or on the distribution of power and accomplished previously. must specifically reference this AD. responsibilities among the various To find and fix cracking of the upper chord levels of government. Therefore, it is of the rear spar of the wing, which could Alternative Methods of Compliance result in fuel leaking through the cracks, determined that this final rule does not (c) An alternative method of compliance or have federalism implications under reduced structural integrity of the wing, and separation of the wing from the airplane, adjustment of the compliance time that Executive Order 13132. accomplish the following: provides an acceptable level of safety may be For the reasons discussed above, I used if approved by the Manager, Seattle certify that this action (1) is not a Repetitive Inspections ACO. Operators shall submit their requests ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under (a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total through an appropriate FAA Principal Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after Maintenance Inspector, who may add ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT the effective date of this AD, whichever is comments and then send it to the Manager, Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 later, do detailed visual and high frequency Seattle ACO. FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) eddy current inspections for cracking of the upper chord of the rear spar of the wing, Note 3: Information concerning the will not have a significant economic according to Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57– existence of approved alternative methods of impact, positive or negative, on a 0184, dated August 16, 2001. The detailed compliance with this AD, if any, may be substantial number of small entities visual inspection must include an inspection obtained from the Seattle ACO. under the criteria of the Regulatory of the surface finish for damage or Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has deterioration (discoloration, blistering, raised Special Flight Permits been prepared for this action and it is or rough areas), as described in the service (d) Special flight permits may be issued in bulletin. Repeat all inspections every 4,500 contained in the Rules Docket. A copy accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 flight cycles. of it may be obtained from the Rules of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Docket at the location provided under Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An the caption ADDRESSES. a location where the requirements of this AD intensive visual examination of a specific can be accomplished. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or Incorporation by Reference Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation irregularity. Available lighting is normally safety, Incorporation by reference, supplemented with a direct source of good (e) Except as provided by paragraphs Safety. lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2) of this AD, the actions the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, shall be done in accordance with Boeing Adoption of the Amendment magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface Service Bulletin 727–57–0184, dated August Accordingly, pursuant to the cleaning and elaborate access procedures 16, 2001. This incorporation by reference was may be required.’’ authority delegated to me by the approved by the Director of the Federal Administrator, the Federal Aviation Repairs Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) Administration amends part 39 of the and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained (b) If any cracking, damage, or from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR deterioration is found during any inspection P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124– part 39) as follows: required by paragraph (a) of this AD: Before further flight, do paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of 2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS this AD, as applicable. Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind DIRECTIVES (1) If any damage or deterioration but no Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the cracking is found, remove the finish, blend Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 1. The authority citation for part 39 the area smooth, and reapply the finish Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, continues to read as follows: according to Boeing Service Bulletin 727–57– DC. 0184, dated August 16, 2001. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. (i) If the blend-out is within the limits Effective Date § 39.13 [Amended] specified in Section 57–10–1 of the Boeing (f) This amendment becomes effective on 727 Structural Repair Manual (SRM), no April 1, 2002. 2. Section 39.13 is amended by further action is required by this paragraph. adding the following new airworthiness (ii) If the blend-out is outside the limits Issued in Renton, Washington, on February directive: specified in Section 57–10–1 of the Boeing 14, 2002. 727 SRM, before further flight, repair 2002–04–06 Boeing: Amendment 39–12663. Charles D. Huber, according to a method approved by the Docket 2001–NM–203–AD. Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Applicability: All Model 727 series (ACO), FAA; or according to data meeting the Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. airplanes, certificated in any category. type certification basis of the airplane [FR Doc. 02–4112 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated BILLING CODE 4910–13–P identified in the preceding applicability Engineering Representative (DER) who has provision, regardless of whether it has been been authorized by the Manager, Seattle modified, altered, or repaired in the area ACO, to make such findings. For a repair subject to the requirements of this AD. For method to be approved by the Manager, airplanes that have been modified, altered, or Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, repaired so that the performance of the the Manager’s approval letter must requirements of this AD is affected, the specifically reference this AD. owner/operator must request approval for an (2) If any cracking is found, repair alternative method of compliance in according to a method approved by the accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. Manager, Seattle ACO, or according to data The request should include an assessment of meeting the type certification basis of the
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF STATE Information Center (NCIC) as mutually Section 403 requires the Department: agreed upon by the Attorney General • To limit the re-dissemination of 22 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 42 and the Department. The purpose of this criminal history records received from [Public Notice 3921] provision is to give the Department the FBI; access to an applicant’s criminal history • To use any criminal history Visas: Documentation of or other record indexed in a specified information it receives solely to Nonimmigrants and Immigrants Under NCIC database and to place conditions determine whether or not to issue a visa the Immigration and Nationality Act, As on the Department’s use of database to an alien or to admit the alien to the Amended: Fingerprinting; Access to information it receives from the FBI. United States; Criminal History Records; Conditions How Will the Department Access NCIC • To ensure the security, for Use of Criminal History Records Criminal History Records? confidentiality, and destruction of such information; and ACTION: Interim rule, with request for Access to NCIC databases is to be • comments. provided by means of criminal history To protect any privacy rights of record extracts for placement in the individuals who have NCIC criminal SUMMARY: Recent legislation, commonly Department’s automated Lookout history records. known as the USA Patriot Act, requires database. All visa applicants and Because NCIC–III and other FBI the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) applicants for admission to the United criminal history records received by the to give the Department access to certain States will be subject to name-check Department are law enforcement of its criminal history record and other queries against the extract information sensitive, only authorized consular databases, conditioned in certain for the purpose of determining whether personnel with visa processing instances upon the Department an applicant may have a criminal responsibilities may have access to an providing an applicant’s fingerprints to history or other record. The extracts of applicant’s criminal history record. To the FBI. This rule amends the the records are to be provided without protect applicants’ privacy, the Department’s regulations pertaining to charge and are to be updated at intervals Department must secure all NCIC the fingerprinting of nonimmigrants and mutually agreed upon by the FBI and criminal history or other records, immigrants. It also establishes new the Department. At the time of receipt automated or otherwise, to prevent regulations that set forth the conditions of an updated criminal history extract, access by unauthorized persons. Unless for the use, protection, dissemination the Department will destroy previously otherwise mutually agreed upon by the and destruction of any criminal history provided extracts contained in its Attorney General and the Secretary of or other records provided to the database. Access to an extract does not State, NCIC–III and other FBI criminal Department by the FBI. entitle the Department to obtain an history records may be used solely to DATES: Effective date: This interim final applicant’s corresponding automated determine whether or not to issue a visa rule is effective on February 25, 2002. full content criminal history record. The to an alien or to admit an alien to the Comment date: Written comments full content of a criminal history record United States. At the time the must be submitted on or before April 26, can only be obtained by submitting the Department receives updated NCIC 2002. applicant’s fingerprints to the FBI with criminal history extracts from the FBI, ADDRESSES: Submit comments in the appropriate processing fee. the Department will delete the outdated duplicate to the Chief, Legislation and Which Applicants Must Be NCIC criminal history extracts from its Regulations Division, Visa Services, Fingerprinted? database/s. Department of State, 20520–0106, When extract information indicates How Is the Department Amending Its Comments may also be forwarded via e- that an applicant may have a criminal Regulations? mail at [email protected]. or faxed at history record indexed in an NCIC The Department is amending its (202) 663–3898. database, the Department will require regulations by adding a new section at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the applicant to submit fingerprints and 22 CFR 40.5 ‘‘Limitations on the use of Nancy Altman, Legislation and pay the specified fee fingerprint NCIC criminal history record Regulations Division, Visa Services, processing fee. The Department will information.’’ The new section Department of State, Washington, DC forward the fingerprints and the fee to establishes the conditions for the use of 20520–0106, (202) 261–8040. the FBI for the purpose of confirming applicants’ criminal history record SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: whether or not the criminal history or information by the Department. What Is the Authority for This Rule? other record in the NCIC database belongs to the applicant. If an The Department is also amending its On October 26, 2001, the President applicant’s fingerprints confirm an regulations at section 22 CFR 41.105(b) signed into law the ‘‘Uniting and NCIC criminal history record, the FBI by adding a new paragraph (2) ‘‘NCIC Strengthening America Act by Providing will forward the automated full content name check response.’’ Paragraph (2) of Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept criminal history record to the subsection (b) states the requirement for and Obstruct Terrorism’’ (USA Patriot Department. the fingerprinting of any nonimmigrant Act), Pub. L. 107–56. [Section 403 of the applicant whose name check response USA Patriot Act, in relevant part, Are Limitations Placed On the indicates the possibility of a criminal amended section 105 of the INA by Department’s Use of NCIC Criminal history record indexed in the NCIC inserting ‘‘(a)’’ after ‘‘Sec. 105 ‘‘ and by History Records? databases. adding the language of section 403 as NCIC criminal history record The Department is further amending subpart ‘‘(b)’’ in that section.] information (which includes the extract its regulations at section 22 CFR Section 403 of the USA Patriot Act data associated with such information) 42.67(c) ‘‘Fingerprinting’’ by adding a requires the FBI to provide the received by the Department is new paragraph (2) ‘‘NCIC name check Department access to certain criminal considered law enforcement sensitive response.’’ Paragraph (2) of subsection history record and other databases and is subject to conditions for its use (c ) states the requirement for contained in the National Crime and procedures for its destruction. fingerprinting any immigrant applicant
VerDate 11
whose name check response indicates it does not require review by the Office authorized Department personnel must the possibility of a criminal history of Management and Budget. secure all NCIC criminal history record indexed in the NCIC databases. records, automated or otherwise, to Executive Order 13132 prevent access by unauthorized persons. Regulatory Analysis and Notices This rule will not have substantial Such criminal history records must be Administrative Procedure Act direct effects on the states, on the destroyed, deleted or overwritten upon relationship between the national receipt of updated versions. The Department’s implementation of government and the states, or on the this regulation as an interim rule is distribution of power and PART 41—[AMENDED] based upon the ‘‘good cause’’ exceptions responsibilities among the various found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). levels of government. Therefore, in 3. The authority citation for Part 41 The USA Patriot Act, signed into law on accordance with section 6 of Executive shall continue to read as follows: October 26, 2001, requires that final Order 13132, it is determined that this regulations be promulgated prior to the Authority: 8 U.S.C, 1104; Pub. L. 105–277, rule does not have sufficient federalism 112 Stat. 2681 et seq. Department’s receipt of NCIC data but implications to warrant the preparation no later than four months after the date of a federalism summary impact 4. Amend § 41.105 by redesignating of enactment. The Department has statement. paragraph (b) as (b)(1) and adding a new determined there to be insufficient time paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: to issue a proposed rule with a request Paperwork Reduction Act for comments. § 41.105 Supporting documents and This rule does not impose any new fingerprinting. Regulatory Flexibility Act reporting or record-keeping * * * * * requirements. The Department of State, in (b) * * * List of Subjects accordance with the Regulatory (2) NCIC name check response. When Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has 22 CFR Part 40 an automated database name check reviewed this regulation and, by query indicates that a nonimmigrant approving it, certifies that this rule will Aliens, Nonimmigrants and Immigrants, Passports and visas. applicant may have a criminal history not have a significant economic impact record indexed in an NCIC database, the on a substantial number of small 22 CFR Part 41 applicant shall be required to have a set entities. Aliens, Nonimmigrants, Passports and of fingerprints taken in order for the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 visas. Department to obtain such record. The applicant must pay the fingerprint- This rule will not result in the 22 CFR Part 42 processing fee as indicated in the expenditure by state, local and tribal Aliens, Immigrants, Passports and schedule of fees found at 22 CFR part governments, in the aggregate, or by the 22.1. private sector, of $100 million or more visas. in any year and it will not significantly Accordingly, the Department amends PART 42—[AMENDED] or uniquely affect small governments. 22 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 42 to read as follows: Therefore, no actions were deemed 5. The authority citation for Part 42 necessary under the provisions of the shall continue to read: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of PART 40—[AMENDED] 1995. Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104 1. The authority citation for Part 40 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement shall continue to read: 6. Amend § 42.67 by redesignating Fairness Act of 1996 paragraph (c) as (c )(1) and adding a new Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104. paragraph (c )(2) to read as follows: This rule is not a major rule as 2. Amend Part 40 by adding a new § 42.67 Execution of application, defined by section 804 of the Small § 40.5 to read as follows: Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of registration, and fingerprinting. 1996. This rule will not result in an § 40.5 Limitations on the use of National * * * * * annual effect on the economy of $100 Crime Information Center (NCIC) criminal (c) * * * history information. million or more; a major increase in (2) NCIC name check response. When (a) Authorized access. The FBI’s costs or prices: or significant adverse an automated database name check National Crime Information Center effects on competition, employment, query indicates that an immigrant (NCIC) criminal history records are law investment, productivity, innovation, or applicant may have a criminal history enforcement sensitive and can only be on the ability of United States-based record indexed in an NCIC database, the accessed by authorized consular companies to compete with foreign- applicant shall be required to have a set personnel with visa processing based companies in domestic and of fingerprints taken in order for the responsibilities. export markets. Department to obtain such record. The (b) Use of information. NCIC criminal applicant must pay the fingerprint Executive Order 12866 history record information shall be used processing fee as indicated in the solely to determine whether or not to The Department does not consider schedule of fees found at 22 CFR 22.1. this rule to be a ‘‘significant regulatory issue a visa to an alien or to admit an action’’ under Executive Order 12866, alien to the United States. All third Dated: February 15, 2002. section (3)(f), Regulatory planning and party requests for access to NCIC Mary A. Ryan, Review. Therefore, in accordance with criminal history record information Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. the letter to the Department of State of shall be referred to the FBI. Department of State. February 4, 1994, from the Director of (c ) Confidentiality and protection of [FR Doc. 02–4541 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the Office of Management and Budget, records. To protect applicants’ privacy, BILLING CODE 4710–06–P
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Coast Guard Coast Guard National Park Service
33 CFR Part 117 33 CFR Part 117 36 CFR Part 7 RIN 1024–AC67 [CGD01–02–018] [CGD01–02–019] Special Regulations; Areas of the Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Drawbridge Operation Regulations: National Park System Hackensack River, NJ Hampton River, NH AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation SUMMARY: ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. The National Park Service from regulations. (NPS) is adopting this final rule to SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast designate as snowmobile routes on NPS SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary administered Appalachian National Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation Scenic Trail lands, portions of deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the SR1A Bridge, mile snowmobile trails that are part of a regulations for the Witt-Penn (Route 7) 0.0, across the Hampton River in New State-approved network of snowmobile Bridge, mile 3.1, across the Hackensack Hampshire. This deviation from the routes and that cross the Appalachian River at Jersey City, New Jersey. This regulations, effective from February 20, Trail corridor. Snowmobile use on these routes is established. The Park Manager temporary deviation will allow the 2002 through March 31, 2002, allows is also provided the discretion to bridge to remain closed to navigation the bridge to remain in the closed designate temporary snowmobile from 9 a.m. on March 5, 2002 through position for vessel traffic. This temporary deviation is necessary to crossings in the Compendium of 6 a.m. on March 7, 2002. This temporary Superintendent’s Orders. deviation is necessary to facilitate facilitate scheduled maintenance repairs DATES: This rule becomes effective repairs at the bridge. at the bridge. March 27, 2002. DATES: This deviation is effective from DATES: This deviation is effective from February 20, 2002 through March 31, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: March 5, 2002 through March 7, 2002. 2002. Pamela Underhill, Park Manager, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Appalachian National Scenic Trail, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Joseph Schmied, Project Officer, First National Park Service, Harpers Ferry McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Center, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425. Coast Guard District, at (212) 668–7195. Guard District, at (617) 223–8364. Telephone 304–535–6278. Email: _ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Witt- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pamela [email protected]. Penn (Route 7) Bridge has a vertical existing drawbridge operating SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: clearance in the closed position of 35 regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.697. Background feet at mean high water and 40 feet at The bridge owner, New Hampshire mean low water. The existing Department of Transportation (NHDOT), The regulation designates as regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5. requested a temporary deviation from snowmobile routes on NPS The bridge owner, New Jersey the drawbridge operating regulations to administered Appalachian National Department of Transportation, has facilitate necessary structural repairs at Scenic Trail lands, portions of requested a temporary deviation from the bridge. snowmobile trails that are part of a the drawbridge operating regulations to This deviation to the operating State-approved network of snowmobile facilitate necessary maintenance, power regulations, effective from February 20, routes that cross NPS administered lands in order to connect with other and communication cable replacement, 2002 through March 31, 2002, allows state approved routes. The regulation at the bridge. The nature of the required the SR1A Bridge to remain in the closed designates the minimum number of repairs will require the bridge to remain position for vessel traffic. There have crossings necessary to accommodate in the closed position. been only two or three opening at this bridge each year during the requested statewide snowmobile trail networks. During this deviation the bridge will time period scheduled for these The Appalachian Trail is a north- not open for vessel traffic from 9 a.m. structural repairs in past years. The south hiking trail that stretches nearly on March 5, 2002 through 6 a.m. on Coast Guard coordinated this closure 2,160 miles from Katahdin, Maine, to March 7, 2002. with the mariners effected and no Springer Mountain, Georgia, along the This deviation from the operating objections were received. crest of the Appalachian Mountains. regulations is authorized under 33 CFR This deviation from the operating The Trail is administered by the 117.35, and will be performed with all regulations is authorized under 33 CFR Secretary of the Interior through the NPS, in consultation with the Secretary due speed in order to return the bridge 117.35, and will be performed with all of Agriculture through the U.S. Forest to normal operation as soon as possible. due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. Service, as part of the National Trails Dated: February 13, 2002. System. Upon completion of the land G.N. Naccara, Dated: February 13, 2002. protection program, the NPS will have G.N. Naccara, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, protected approximately 800 miles of First Coast Guard District. Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, the Trail and approximately 100,000 First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 02–4416 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] acres of land. Because NPS [FR Doc. 02–4415 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] administered lands are intermingled BILLING CODE 4910–15–U BILLING CODE 4910–15–U with private, local, state and other
VerDate 11
Federal government lands, differing be broadly interpreted to include any Drafting Information regulations apply and varying land uses other motorized or non-motorized off- The principal authors of this are allowed. These agencies have road vehicles. rulemaking are Robert W. Gray, Park become partners in the Appalachian During the development of the NPS Ranger, Appalachian National Scenic Trail cooperative management system. land protection program, the issue of Trail and Dennis Burnett, Washington The linear nature of the resource and continuing use of existing snowmobile Office of Ranger Activities, National the varied land ownership patterns crossings of the planned Trail corridor Park Service. require special consideration in was raised by adjacent landowners, Compliance with Laws, Executive management planning. snowmobile organizations and state Orders and Department Policy Generally, any motorized use along agencies. The NPS assured interested the Appalachian Trail is prohibited, parties that establishment of the Regulatory Planning and Review including snowmobiles. However the permanent linear trail corridor would (Executive Order 12866) National Trails System Act provides for not sever established snowmobile This document is not a significant limited authority for allowing routes. For the purposes of this Special snowmobile use for crossings, rule and is not subject to review by the Regulation, established snowmobile Office of Management and Budget under emergencies, and for adjacent routes are considered to be those routes landowners: Executive Order 12866. in use at the time of NPS land (1) This rule will not have an effect of The use of motorized vehicles by the acquisition. The NPS has worked $100 million or more on the economy. general public along any national scenic trail closely with state snowmobile shall be prohibited and nothing in this It will not adversely affect in a material organizations and state agencies to way the economy, productivity, chapter shall be construed as authorizing the identify only those routes that are part use of motorized vehicles within the natural competition, jobs, the environment, and historical areas of the national park of a State-approved network of public health or safety, or State, local or system, the national wildlife refuge system, snowmobile routes. tribal governments or communities. the national wilderness preservation system There are a number of crossings of the This rule establishes designated routes where they are presently prohibited or on Appalachian Trail corridor by for snowmobile use across the Trail and other federal lands where they are presently established, State-approved snowmobile would cause only a small economic prohibited or on other Federal lands where trails are designated as being closed to such trails in Maine, New Hampshire, benefit to the local communities, if any. use by the appropriate Secretary: Provided, Vermont, Massachusetts and (2) This rule will not create a serious That the Secretary charged with the Connecticut. Most of these crossings are inconsistency or otherwise interfere administration of such trail shall establish currently allowed by deeded right-of- with an action taken or planned by regulations which shall authorize the use of way reserved by the seller or by public another agency. This rule supports local motorized vehicles when, in his judgment, road right-of-way. Three State-approved government and community plans for such vehicles are necessary to meet snowmobile trails, two in Maine and snowmobile routes that already exist. emergencies or to enable adjacent one in Massachusetts cross lands (3) This rule does not alter the landowners or land users to have reasonable budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, access to their lands or timber acquired for the protection of the rights...(16 U.S.C. 1246 (c)). Appalachian Trail and would require user fees, or loan programs or the rights designation. The NPS intends to or obligations of their recipients. There The regulation allows limited designate only the State approved routes are no budgetary considerations snowmobile crossings of the that are existing crossings of the trail involved in this rule. Appalachian Trail while still corridor and part of a State network of (4) This rule does not raise novel legal prohibiting such use along the trail. snowmobile routes. Within the NPS or policy issues. This rule codifies Additionally, the limited use is corridor, snowmobile travel will be snowmobile use that previously existed. consistent with the Federal limited to the designated crossing only. Regulatory Flexibility Act government’s obligations to provide Snowmobiles will not be permitted to access for emergencies and to owners of follow the trail footpath itself. The Department of the Interior lands adjacent to the Trail. Snowmobile use of other NPS determined that this document will not 36 CFR 2.18 of the NPS general Appalachian Trail corridor lands will have a significant economic effect on a regulations prohibits the use of not be allowed. substantial number of small entities snowmobiles in units of the National under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Park System except on routes A proposed regulation was published USC 601 et seq.). This rule codifies designated specifically for snowmobile in the Federal Register on March 19, existing use of snowmobile routes and use. These specific routes must be 1998 (63 FR 13383). Public comment merely maintains use levels; it does not authorized through promulgation of was invited. The comment period restrict or prohibit current use patterns special regulations. Snowmobile use closed May 18, 1998. so would not likely have any economic may occur only on designated routes Summary of Comments Received impact. and when the use is consistent with the park’s natural, cultural, scenic and During the public comment period, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement aesthetic values, safety considerations, the NPS received two letters. Both of the Fairness Act (SBREFA) park management objectives, and will respondents to the proposed rule This rule is not a major rule under 5 not disturb wildlife or damage park endorsed the proposed special U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business resources. Section 2.18 establishes regulation. The respondents stated that Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. further procedures and criteria for the the regulation would fulfill This rule: use of snowmobiles within park areas. commitments made to the snowmobile a. Does not have an annual effect on The term ‘‘snowmobile’’ is defined in community that acquisition for the the economy of $100 million or more. § 1.4 and conforms to the standard Appalachian Trail would not sever This rule is not expected to have any definition used by the International existing snowmobile routes while effect on the economy since the rule Snowmobile Industry Association. The limiting motorized recreation within the does not change existing uses in any NPS does not intend that this definition trail corridor. way.
VerDate 11
b. Will not cause a major increase in this rulemaking will not have a right-of-way reserved by the seller or by costs or prices for consumers, significant effect on the quality of the public road right-of-way. You may also individual industries, Federal, State, or human environment, health and safety cross National Park Service local government agencies, or because it is not expected to (a) increase administered lands within the geographic regions. No increase is public use to the extent of Appalachian National Scenic Trail expected since the rule does not change compromising the nature and character corridor at the following locations: existing uses in any way. of the area or causing physical damage (2) Nahmakanta Lake Spur—The spur c. Does not have significant adverse to it, (b) introduce incompatible uses snowmobile route that leads from Maine effects on competition, employment, which compromise the nature and Bureau of Parks and Lands Debsconeag investment, productivity, innovation, or character of the area or cause physical Pond Road to the southeastern shore of the ability of U.S.–based enterprises to damage to it, (c) conflict with adjacent Nahmakanta Lake. compete with foreign–based enterprises. ownerships or land uses, or (d) cause a (3) Lake Hebron to Blanchard-Shirley No effects are expected since the rule nuisance to adjacent owners or Road Spur—The spur snowmobile route does not change existing uses in any occupants. A Categorical Exclusion that leads from Lake Hebron near way. Determination has been completed. Monson, Maine to the Maine Interconnecting Trail System Route 85 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Government-to-Government near the Blanchard-Shirley Road. This rule does not impose an Relationship with Tribes (4) Massachusetts Turnpike to Lower unfunded mandate on State, local, or In accordance with Executive Order Goose Pond Crossing—That part of the tribal governments or the private sector 13175 ‘‘Consultation with Indian Tribal Massachusetts Interconnecting Trail of more than $100 million per year. The Governments’’ (65 FR 67249) and the System Route 95 from the rule does not have a significant or President’s memorandum of April 29, Massachusetts Turnpike Appalachian unique effect on State, local or tribal 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government Trail Bridge to the northeastern shore of governments or the private sector. This Relations with Native American Tribal Lower Goose Pond. rule poses no mandates on the Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), and 512 (5) Temporary crossings of National government or private sector. The use of DM 2, we have evaluated potential Park Service administered Appalachian snowmobile routes on the Trail is a effects on Federally recognized Indian Trail corridor lands may be designated voluntary activity. tribes and have determined that there by the Park Manager in the are no potential effects. This rule solely Superintendent’s Compendium of Takings (Executive Order 12630) affects snowmobile users who choose to Orders when designated snowmobile In accordance with Executive Order use the crossing routes designated in routes are temporarily dislocated by 12630, the rule does not have significant this rule and does not have any effects timber haul road closures. takings implications. This rule codifies on lands or entities outside the NPS. (6) Maps that show the crossings of existing snowmobile use and does not National Park Service administered have implications on lands outside the List of Subject in 36 CFR Part 7 lands within the Appalachian National Trail. National parks, District of Columbia, Scenic Trail may be obtained from the Reporting and recordkeeping Park Manager, Appalachian National Federalism (Executive Order 13132) requirements Scenic Trail, Harpers Ferry Center, In accordance with Executive Order In consideration of the foregoing, 36 Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425. 13132, the rule does not have sufficient CFR Part 7 is amended as follows: (c) Is powerless flight permitted? The federalism implications to warrant the use of devices designed to carry persons preparation of a Federalism Assessment. PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, through the air in powerless flight is This rule codifies existing snowmobile AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK allowed at times and locations use and does not place any SYSTEM designated by the Park Manager, requirements on State governments. pursuant to the terms and conditions of 1. The authority citation for Part 7 a permit. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order continues to read as follows: 12988) Dated: February 1, 2002. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), Joseph E. Doddridge, In accordance with Executive Order 462(k); § 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 8– 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife 137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). and Parks. determined that this rule does not 2. Revise § 7.100 to read as follows: unduly burden the judicial system and [FR Doc. 02–4339 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] meets the requirements of sections 3(a) § 7.100 Appalachian National Scenic Trail. BILLING CODE 4310–70–P and 3(b)(2) of the Order. (a) What activities are prohibited? (1) The use of bicycles, motorcycles or Paperwork Reduction Act DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR other motor vehicles is prohibited. The This regulation does not require an operation of snowmobiles is addressed National Park Service information collection from 10 or more in paragraph (b). parties and a submission under the (2) The use of horses or pack animals 36 CFR Part 13 Paperwork Reduction Act is not is prohibited, except in locations required. An OMB form 83–I is not designated for their use. RIN 1024–AC83 required. (b) Where can I operate my snowmobile? Special Regulations; Wrangell-St. Elias National Environmental Policy Act (1) You may cross the Appalachian National Park and Preserve This rule does not constitute a major National Scenic Trail corridor by using AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Federal action significantly affecting the established, State-approved snowmobile ACTION: Final rule. quality of the human environment. In trails in Maine, New Hampshire, accordance with 516 DM 6, Appendix Vermont, Massachusetts and SUMMARY: This rule amends the 7.4 A(10), the NPS has determined that Connecticut that are allowed by deeded regulations for Wrangell-St. Elias
VerDate 11
National Park (WRST) by adding the administrative change to more clearly NPS Response: The NPS believes the communities of Dot Lake, Healy Lake, describe community and area existing methodology used to apply the Northway (including Northway, boundaries is also adopted by this eligibility criteria is consistent with the Northway Village and Northway revised rule. authorizing legislation. While the Junction), Tanacross, and Tetlin to the resident zone concept has been the II. Responses to Public Comments park subsistence resident zone. The subject of much debate from the start, regulation provides for the addition of Two respondents commented on the the actual application of the program communities to park subsistence proposed regulations during the 60-day criteria has been stable. The same resident zones. Park subsistence public comment period that closed criteria used to establish the existing resident zones include nearby areas and August 13, 2001. Those comments and resident zone communities have been communities with a significant our responses follow. uniformly applied to the five new concentration of residents who are communities. Therefore, we believe Quantity Test eligible to engage in subsistence there is no reason to defer action on activities in the park. Permanent Comment: A public interest adding these communities to the park residents of subsistence resident zone organization questioned the resident zone as proposed. communities are allowed to participate methodology used to determine Compliance With Laws, Executive in subsistence activities in the park significant concentrations of subsistence Orders, and Department Policy without a subsistence permit. users. They recommended that a DATES: This rule is effective March 27, ‘‘quantity test’’, in which at least 51% Regulatory Planning and Review 2002. of community residents are shown to be (Executive Order 12866) ADDRESSES: Superintendent, Wrangell- eligible park subsistence users, should This document is not a significant St. Elias National Park and Preserve, be used. rule and is not subject to review by the P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska NPS Response: While the ‘‘quantity Office of Management and Budget under 99573, (907) 822–7210. test’’ idea continues to be debated Executive Order 12866. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devi among interested park constituencies, (1) This rule will not have an effect of Sharp, Chief, Natural and Cultural including agency managers and staffers, $100 million or more on the economy. Resources, Wrangell-St. Elias National NPS policy favors use of a more flexible It will not adversely affect in a material Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper methodology that considers a wider way the economy, productivity, Center, Alaska 99573, (907) 822–7236 range of variables. We believe the competition, jobs, the environment, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The existing methodology is consistent with public health or safety, or State, Local, principal authors of this rule are Devi the legislative mandate for subsistence or tribal governments or communities. Sharp, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park activities in the Alaska parks and The net effect of adoption of this rule and Preserve, Janis Meldrum and Paul monuments. would be to reduce costs by eliminating Hunter, Alaska System Support Office, Re-evaluation of Existing Communities the need for subsistence users to apply Anchorage, Alaska, and Kym Hall, for a permit. The cost saving would Regulations Manager, Washington, DC. Comment: The public interest accrue to the affected user groups and organization recommended that existing the park through reduction of actual and I. Background resident zone communities should be potential administrative costs. A proposed rule to amend 36 CFR re-examined periodically using the (2) This rule will not create a serious 13.73 was published by the National ‘‘quantity test’’ and current census data inconsistency or otherwise interfere Park Service (NPS) in the Federal to evaluate continuing eligibility. A with an action taken or planned by Register on June 14, 2001 (66 FR 32282). State of Alaska agency expressed another agency. There will be no change The intent of this regulation change is concern that the addition of new in the manner or substance of to add five communities to the WRST communities might lead to unnecessary interaction with other agencies. subsistence resident zone in accordance re-evaluation of current resident zone (3) This rule does not alter the with the provisions of 36 CFR 13.43(b). communities. budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, Section 13.43 provides for the addition NPS Response: The NPS is committed user fees, or loan programs or the rights and deletion of nearby communities to to re-evaluating resident zone or obligations of their recipients. park subsistence resident zones in communities on a case-by-case basis as Current and potential subsistence Alaska based on stated criteria in the necessary. A regular established permittees will continue to be eligible section. The community of Northway schedule for reviewing resident zone under the resident zone system. made the first request to be added to the communities would be costly and does (4) This rule does not raise novel legal WRST subsistence resident zone in not appear to be warranted at this time. or policy issues. This rule is the direct 1985. Subsequently four additional The State concern for unnecessary consequence of an existing regulatory communities requested consideration. reviews is not warranted by program method for administering the resident The request has been the subject of experience to date. zone system. review and favorable recommendations Defer Action While the decision concerning adding by the park Subsistence Resource or deleting a particular community Commission (SRC), a federal advisory Comments: The public interest could be controversial, the regulatory group for subsistence activities, since organization recommended deferring process for making the decision is well the initial request in 1985. After review action on the five new communities established in existing regulations. and study, including public notice, until resident zone evaluation hearing and comment, as well as methodology is revised and existing Regulatory Flexibility Act environmental assessment and finding communities re-evaluated as discussed The Department of the Interior of no significant impact, the NPS has above. The State agency supported the certifies that this document will not determined the five communities are rulemaking analysis and the addition of have a significant economic effect on a qualified to be added to the park the five communities to the park substantial number of small entities subsistence resident zone. A collateral resident zone. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
VerDate 11
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic takings implications. This rule will need for certain subsistence users to consequences of this rule will be to modify regulations in a manner that apply for a permit to engage in reduce administrative costs for private reduces the regulatory impact on private allowable subsistence activities in the citizens and for the park. The permitting citizens, and is, therefore, excluded park. Subsistence use on federal public process that would be eliminated for the from EO 12630. lands is not managed as a tribal activity residents of five communities operates and the federal subsistence program Federalism (Executive Order 13132) directly between individual subsistence does not apply on Native owned lands. users and the park. Therefore, there is In accordance with Executive Order List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13 no impact on small entities and a 13132, the rule does not have sufficient Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and federalism implications to warrant the Alaska, National Parks; Reporting and Small Entity Compliance Guide are not preparation of a Federalism Assessment. recordkeeping requirements. required. This rule applies to the permitting For the reasons discussed in the relationship between individual Small Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble, the National Park Service subsistence users and the park for amends 36 CFR part 13 as follows: Fairness Act (SBREFA) activities occurring on federal public This rule is not a major rule under 5 lands within the park. The rule does not PART 13—NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business change or impact the relationship of the UNITS IN ALASKA Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. park with State and local governments. This rule: Subpart C—Special Regulations— a. Does not have an annual effect on Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order Specific Park Areas in Alaska the economy of $100 million or more. 12988) 1. The authority citation for Part 13 This rule applies to individual In accordance with Executive Order continues to read as follows: subsistence users. It has no applicability 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has to small businesses. determined that this rule does not Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 462(k), 3101 et b. Will not cause a major increase in unduly burden the judicial system and seq.; § 13.65 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1a– costs or prices for consumers, meets the requirements of §§ 3(a) and 2(h), 1361, 1531. individual industries, Federal, State, or 3(b)(2) of the Order. 2. Amend § 13.73 as follows: local government agencies, or Paperwork Reduction Act a. By revising the heading of geographic regions. This rule will paragraph (a)(1) and by adding the reduce costs for private citizens and the This regulation does not require an following entries in alphabetical order federal government. It will eliminate the information collection from 10 or more to the list of communities in paragraph need for subsistence users in five parties and a submission under the (a)(1); communities to apply to the National Paperwork Reduction Act is not b. By redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as Park Service for a subsistence permit. required. An OMB form 83–I is not paragraph (a)(3); The rule will eliminate application costs required. This rule will eliminate permit c. By adding a new paragraph (a)(2); to individual subsistence users such as applications for residents of the five d. By revising the heading of newly the cost of a phone call, postage, or affected communities, thus reducing the redesignated paragraph (a)(3). travel to the park office, and will reduce level of previously approved The addition and revisions read as the current and potential administrative information collection (see 46 FR 31854) follows: processing costs for the park. associated with subsistence c. Does not have significant adverse management in the park. § 13.73 Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. effects on competition, employment, National Environmental Policy Act investment, productivity, innovation, or (a) Subsistence—(1) What the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to This rule does not constitute a major communities and areas are included in compete with foreign-based enterprises. Federal action significantly affecting the the park resident zone? This rule does not affect foreign trade. quality of the human environment. * * * * * The interaction of the subsistence However, Environmental Assessments economy and the general economy is (EAs) and findings of no significant Dot Lake unchanged by this rule. impact (FONSIs) have been completed * * * * * and are on file in the NPS office at 2525 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Gambell St., Anchorage, AK 99503 and Healy Lake This rule does not impose an at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and * * * * * unfunded mandate on State, local, or Preserve offices in Copper Center. tribal governments or the private sector Northway/Northway Village/Northway Government-to-Government of more than $100 million per year. The Junction Relationship With Tribes rule does not have a significant or * * * * * unique effect on State, local or tribal In accordance with Executive Order Tanacross governments or the private sector. This 13175 ‘‘Consultation and Coordination rule affects the permitting process with Indian Tribal Governments’’ and * * * * * the President’s memorandum of April between individual subsistence users Tetlin and the park. There is no involvement 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government of small governments in this Relations with Native American Tribal * * * * * relationship. The subsistence activities Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), and 512 (2) How are boundaries determined affected occur only on federal public DM 2 we have evaluated potential for communities added to the park lands within a national park. effects on Federally recognized Indian resident zone? Boundaries for tribes and have determined that there communities and areas added to the Takings (Executive Order 12630) are no potential effects. This rule park resident zone will be determined In accordance with Executive Order applies to individual subsistence users by the Superintendent after consultation 12630, the rule does not have significant and will result in the elimination of the with the affected area or community. If
VerDate 11
the Superintendent and community are ACTION: Final rule. Section 1611.3(b) of the Corporation’s not able to agree on a boundary within regulations establishes a maximum two years, the boundary of the area or SUMMARY: The Legal Services income level equivalent to one hundred community added will be the boundary Corporation (‘‘Corporation’’) is required and twenty-five percent (125%) of the of the Census Designated Place, or other by law to establish maximum income Federal Poverty Guidelines. Since 1982, area designation, used by the Alaska levels for individuals eligible for legal the Department of Health and Human Department of Labor for census assistance. This document updates the Services has been responsible for purposes for that community or area. specified income levels to reflect the updating and issuing the Poverty Copies of the boundary map will be annual amendments to the Federal Guidelines. The revised figures for 2002 available in the park headquarters Poverty Guidelines as issued by the set out below are equivalent to 125% of office. Department of Health and Human the current Poverty Guidelines as (3) What communities are exempted Services. from the aircraft prohibition for published on February 14, 2002 (67 FR subsistence use? EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective as 6931). * * * * * of February 25, 2002. For reasons set forth above, 45 CFR 1611 is amended as follows: Dated: February 1, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mattie C. Condray, Senior Assistant Joseph E. Doddridge, PART 1611—ELIGIBILITY Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and General Counsel, Legal Services Wildlife and Parks. Corporation, 750 First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002–4250; (202) 336– 1. The authority citation for Part 1611 [FR Doc. 02–4340 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] continues to read as follows: BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 8817; [email protected]. Authority: Secs. 1006(b)(1), 1007(a)(1) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1007(a)(2) of the Legal Services Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 42 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Corporation Act (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1), 2996f(a)(1), 2996f(a)(2). 2996f(a)(2), requires the Corporation to 2. Appendix A of Part 1611 is revised 45 CFR Part 1611 establish maximum income levels for to read as follows: Income Level for Individuals Eligible individuals eligible for legal assistance, for Assistance and the Act provides that other Appendix A of Part 1611 specified factors shall be taken into AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. account along with income.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2002 POVERTY GUIDELINES*
48 contiguous States and the ii iii Size of family unit District of Alaska Hawaii Columbia i
1 ...... $11,075 $13,850 $12,750 2 ...... 14,925 18,663 17,175 3 ...... 18,775 23,475 21,600 4 ...... 22,625 28,288 26,025 5 ...... 26,475 33,100 30,450 6 ...... 30,325 37,913 34,875 7 ...... 34,175 42,725 39,300 8 ...... 38,025 47,538 43,725 * The figures in this table represent 125% of the poverty guidelines by family size as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services. i For family units with more than eight members, add $3,850 for each additional member in a family. ii For family units with more than eight members, add $4,813 for each additional member in a family. iii For family units with more than eight members, add $4,425 for each additional member in a family.
Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary. [FR Doc. 02–4420 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050–01–P
VerDate 11
Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER or other electronic means must ensure contracting officers are reviewable by contains notices to the public of the proposed that the necessary equipment at GAO’s the Court of Federal Claims under the issuance of rules and regulations. The Procurement Law Group is operational. ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ standard purpose of these notices is to give interested GAO is not aware that there has been applicable under the Administrative persons an opportunity to participate in the any significant confusion regarding Procedures Act. In light of the Federal rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. acceptable means of filing protests and Circuit’s decision, GAO is considering other documents. However, in light of whether to revise its Regulations in this our experience that documents area. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE commonly are filed by facsimile GAO welcomes comments on these transmission, and our recent initiative considerations, as well as suggestions 4 CFR Part 21 to permit electronic filing, we believe for changes to other areas of the this paragraph should clarify that filing Regulations that may enhance the General Accounting Office, by facsimile transmission is permitted efficiency and overall effectiveness of Administrative Practice and Procedure, (and, in fact, is commonplace), and that the bid protest process. Bid Protest Regulations, Government electronic filing (E-mail) of protest Comments may be submitted by hand Contracts documents is permitted under certain delivery or mail to the address in the AGENCY: General Accounting Office. circumstances. address line, by e-mail at Alternate dispute resolution (ADR) is BidProtestRegs.gao.gov, or by facsimile ACTION: Advance notice of proposed utilized regularly by GAO as a means of at 202–512–9749. rulemaking. resolving bid protests in an efficient, Anthony H. Gamboa, expeditious manner, but there is no SUMMARY: The General Accounting General Counsel. Office (GAO) is reviewing, and will be language in the Bid Protest Regulations [FR Doc. 02–4337 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] revising, its Bid Protest Regulations, identifying it as such. Since a promulgated in accordance with the substantial number of cases have been BILLING CODE 1610–02–P Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. found to be suitable for resolution using GAO last revised Part 21 in 1996, and ADR, and it is anticipated that this will believes that developments since that remain the case, GAO is considering DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION time warrant updating the Regulations adding language to reflect this practice. to reflect current practice. In connection Under the timeliness provisions of Federal Aviation Administration with this effort, GAO also is soliciting § 21.2(a)(2), where a debriefing is comments on how its Regulations requested and required, any protest 14 CFR Part 25 should be revised to improve the overall basis that is known or should have been known, either before or as a result of the [Docket No. NM205; Special Conditions No. efficiency and effectiveness of the bid 25–01–05–SC] protest process at GAO. debriefing, shall not be filed prior to the debriefing date offered to the protester. DATES: Comments must be submitted on Special Conditions: Fairchild Dornier This rule has had the unintended result, or before April 1, 2002. GmbH, Model 728–100; Sudden Engine in a very few cases, of leading protesters Stoppage ADDRESSES: Comments should be to delay—until after a debriefing— addressed to: John M. Melody, Assistant protesting a matter that arose during the AGENCY: Federal Aviation General Counsel, General Accounting procurement (for example, an alleged Administration (FAA), DOT. Office, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, Procurement Integrity Act violation), DC 20548. ACTION: Notice of proposed special prior to award. As it has long been conditions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John GAO’s view that it is beneficial to the M. Melody (Assistant General Counsel) procurement system to have alleged SUMMARY: This notice proposes special or David A. Ashen (Deputy Assistant procurement deficiencies resolved, conditions for the Fairchild Dornier General Counsel), 202–512–9732. where possible, at the time the alleged GmbH Model 728–100 airplane. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GAO is deficiency arises, GAO is considering airplane will have a novel or unusual considering revising its Bid Protest revising § 21.2(a)(2) to provide guidance design feature when compared to the Regulations, in accordance with the in this area. state of technology envisioned in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, Section 21.5(c) provides that GAO airworthiness standards for transport 31 U.S.C. 3555(a). Revisions are being will consider affirmative determinations category airplanes, associated with considered in several areas to take into of responsibility only under very engine size and torque load which account legal developments and limited circumstances, reflecting GAO’s affects sudden engine stoppage. The changes in practice that have occurred long held view that such determinations applicable airworthiness regulations do since the 1996 revision. Among the are so subjective that they do not lend not contain adequate or appropriate changes being considered are the themselves to reasoned review. In safety standards for this design feature. following: January 2001, the Court of Appeals for These special conditions contain the Section 21.0(g) currently states that a the Federal Circuit, in its decision additional safety standards that the document may be filed by hand Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Administrator considers necessary to delivery, mail, or commercial carrier, Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 establish a level of safety equivalent to and then goes on to state that parties (Fed. Cir. 2001) held that affirmative that established by the existing wishing to file by facsimile transmission determinations of responsibility by airworthiness standards.
VerDate 11
DATES: Comments must be received on their new Model 728–100 airplane. The as compressor jamming) has been a or before April 11, 2002. Model 728–100 airplane is a 70–85 specific requirement for transport ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal passenger twin-engine regional jet with category airplanes since 1957. The size, may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal a maximum takeoff weight of 77,600 configuration, and failure modes of jet Aviation Administration, Transport pounds. engines have changed considerably from those envisioned when the engine Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Type Certification Basis Docket (ANM–113), Docket No. NM205, seizure requirement of § 25.361(b) was 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, first adopted. Current engines are much Washington 98055–4056; or delivered in Fairchild Dornier must show that the larger and are now designed with large duplicate to the Transport Airplane Model 728–100 airplane meets the bypass fans capable of producing much Directorate at the above address. All applicable provisions of part 25, as larger torque loads if they become comments must be marked: Docket No. amended by Amendments 25–1 through jammed. It is evident from service NM205. Comments may be inspected in 25–96. Fairchild Dornier GmbH has also history that the frequency of occurrence the Rules Docket weekdays, except applied to extend the certification basis of the most severe sudden engine Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and to include Amendments 25–97, 25–98, stoppage events are rare. 4 p.m. and 25–104. Relative to the engine configurations If the Administrator finds that the that existed when the rule was FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom applicable airworthiness regulations developed in 1957, the present Groves, FAA, International Branch, (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain generation of engines are sufficiently ANM–116, Transport Airplane adequate or appropriate safety standards different and novel to justify issuance of Directorate, Aircraft Certification for the Model 728–100 airplane because special conditions to establish Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., of a novel or unusual design feature, appropriate design standards. The latest Renton, Washington 98055–4056; special conditions are prescribed under generation of jet engines are capable of telephone (425) 227–1503; facsimile the provisions of § 21.16. producing, during failure, transient (425) 227–1149. Special conditions, as defined in 14 loads that are significantly higher and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance more complex than the generation of Comments Invited with § 11.38 and become part of the type engines that were present when the certification basis in accordance with 14 existing standard was developed. The FAA invites interested persons to CFR 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are Therefore, the FAA has determined that participate in this rulemaking by initially applicable to the model for special conditions are needed for the submitting written comments, data, or which they are issued. Should the type Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model 728–100 views. The most helpful comments certificate for that model be amended airplane. reference a specific portion of the later to include any other model that In order to maintain the level of safety proposal, explain the reason for any incorporates the same novel or unusual envisioned in § 25.361(b), a more recommended change, and include design feature, the special conditions comprehensive criteria is needed for the supporting data. We ask that you send would also apply to the other model new generation of high bypass engines. us two copies of written comments. under the provisions of 14 CFR The proposed special conditions would We will file in the docket all 21.101(a)(1). distinguish between the more common comments we receive, as well as a In addition to the applicable seizure events and those rarer seizure report summarizing each substantive airworthiness regulations and special events resulting from structural failures. public contact with FAA personnel conditions, the Model 728–100 airplane For these rarer but severe seizure events, concerning these proposed special must comply with the fuel vent and the proposed criteria could allow some conditions. The docket is available for exhaust emission requirements of 14 deformation in the engine supporting public inspection before and after the CFR part 34 and the noise certification structure (ultimate load design) in order comment closing date. If you wish to requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the to absorb the higher energy associated review the docket in person, go to the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory with the high bypass engines, while at address in the ADDRESSES section of this adequacy pursuant to section 611 of the same time protecting the adjacent notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise Control primary structure in the wing and Monday through Friday, except Federal Act of 1972.’’ fuselage by providing a higher safety holidays. factor. The criteria for the more severe We will consider all comments we Novel or Unusual Design Features events would no longer be a pure static receive on or before the closing date for The Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model torque load condition, but would comments. We will consider comments 728–100 airplane will incorporate novel account for the full spectrum of filed late if it is possible to do so or unusual design features involving transient dynamic loads developed from without incurring expense or delay. We engine size and torque load that affect the engine failure condition. may change the proposed special sudden engine stoppage conditions. Applicability conditions in light of the comments we Fairchild Dornier GmbH proposes to receive. treat the sudden engine stoppage As discussed above, these special If you want the FAA to acknowledge condition resulting from structural conditions are applicable to the receipt of your comments on this failure as an ultimate load condition. Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model 728–100 proposal, include with your comments Section 25.361(b)(1) of part 25 airplane. Should Fairchild Dornier a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on specifically defines the seizure torque apply at a later date for a change to the which the docket number appears. We load, resulting from structural failure, as type certificate to include another will stamp the date on the postcard and a limit load condition. model incorporating the same novel or mail it back to you. unusual design feature, these special Discussion conditions would apply to that model as Background The limit engine torque load imposed well under the provisions of section On May 5, 1998, Fairchild Dornier by sudden engine stoppage due to 21.101(a)(1). Fairchild Dornier has GmbH applied for a type certificate for malfunction or structural failure (such submitted applications for certification
VerDate 11
of both increased and reduced passenger considered that combines 1g flight loads Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket capacity derivatives of the Model 728– with the transient dynamic loads (ANM–113), Docket No. NM212, 1601 100 airplane. These derivative models resulting from each of the following: Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, are designated the Model 928–100 (1) The loss of any fan, compressor, or 98055–4056; or delivered in duplicate to airplane and the Model 528–100 turbine blade. the Transport Airplane Directorate at airplane, respectively. As currently (2) Where applicable to a specific the above address. All comments must proposed, these derivative models share engine design, and separately from the be marked: Docket No. NM212. the same design feature of a high-bypass conditions specified in paragraph Comments may be inspected in the ratio fan jet engine as the Model 728– 1.(c)(1), any other engine structural Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal 100 airplane, and it is anticipated that failure that results in higher loads. holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 they will be included in the d. The ultimate loads developed from p.m. applicability of these proposed special the conditions specified in paragraphs FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim conditions. (c)(1) and (c)(2) above are to be Backman, FAA, ANM–116, Transport multiplied by a factor of 1.0 when Conclusion Airplane Directorate, Aircraft applied to engine mounts and pylons Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue This action affects only certain novel and multiplied by a factor of 1.25 when SW., Renton, Washington, 98055–4056; or unusual design features on the applied to adjacent supporting airframe telephone (425) 227–2797; facsimile Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model 728–100 structure. (425) 227–1149. airplane. It is not a rule of general Issued in Renton, Washington, on February SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: applicability, and it affects only the 13, 2002. applicant who applied to the FAA for Comments Invited Ali Bahrami, approval of these features on the The FAA invites interested persons to airplane. Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. participate in this rulemaking by List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 [FR Doc. 02–4411 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting reference a specific portion of the and recordkeeping requirements. proposal, explain the reason for any The authority citation for these DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION recommended change, and include special conditions is as follows: supporting data. We ask that you send Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, Federal Aviation Administration us two copies of written comments. 44702, 44704. We will file in the docket all 14 CFR Part 25 comments we receive, as well as a The Proposed Special Conditions report summarizing each substantive Accordingly, the Federal Aviation [Docket No. NM212; Notice No. 25–02–04– public contact with FAA personnel Administration (FAA) proposes the SC] concerning these proposed special following special conditions as part of Special Conditions: Airbus Industrie, conditions. The docket is available for the type certification basis for Fairchild Model A340–500 and –600 Airplanes; public inspection before and after the Dornier GmbH Model 728–100 Sudden Engine Stoppage comments closing date. If you wish to airplanes. review the docket in person, go to the 1. Sudden Engine Stoppage. In lieu of AGENCY: Federal Aviation address in the ADDRESSES section of this compliance with 14 CFR 25.361(b), the Administration (FAA), DOT. preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 following special conditions apply: ACTION: Notice of proposed special p.m., Monday through Friday, except a. For turbine engine installations, the conditions. Federal holidays. engine mounts, pylons and adjacent We will consider all comments we supporting airframe structure must be SUMMARY: This notice proposes special receive on or before the closing date for designed to withstand 1g level flight conditions for Airbus Industries Model comments. We will consider comments loads acting simultaneously with the A340–500 and –600 airplanes. These filed late if it is possible to do so maximum limit torque loads imposed airplanes will have a novel or unusual without incurring expenses or delay. We by each of the following: design feature when compared to the may change this proposal for special (1) Sudden engine deceleration due to state of technology envisioned in the conditions in light of the comments we a malfunction which could result in a airworthiness standards for transport receive. temporary loss of power or thrust. category airplanes, associated with If you want the FAA to acknowledge (2) The maximum acceleration of the engine size and torque load, which receipt of your comments on this engine. affects sudden engine stoppage. The proposal, include with your comments b. For auxiliary power unit applicable airworthiness regulations do a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on installations, the power unit mounts not contain adequate or appropriate which the docket number appears. We and adjacent supporting airframe safety standards for this design feature. will stamp the date on the postcard and structure must be designed to withstand These proposed special conditions mail it back to you. 1g level flight loads acting contain the additional safety standards Background simultaneously with the maximum limit that the Administrator considers On November 14, 1996, Airbus torque loads imposed by the each of the necessary to establish a level of safety Industries applied for an amendment to following: equivalent to that established by the (1) Sudden auxiliary power unit U.S. type certificate (TC) A43NM to existing airworthiness standards. deceleration due to malfunction or include the new Models A340–500 and structural failure. EFFECTIVE DATE: Comments must be –600. These models are derivatives of (2) The maximum acceleration of the received on or before March 27, 2002. the A340–300 airplane, which is auxiliary power unit. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal approved under the same TC. c. For engine supporting structure, an may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal The Model A340–500 fuselage is a 6- ultimate loading condition must be Aviation Administration, Transport frame stretch of the Model A340–300
VerDate 11
and is powered by 4 Rolls Royce Trent conditions, the Airbus Industrie Model loads that are significantly higher and 553 engines, each rated at 53,000 A340–500 and –600 must comply with more complex than the generation of pounds of thrust. The airplane has the fuel vent and exhaust emission engines that were present when the interior seating arrangements for up to requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the existing standard was developed. 375 passengers, with a maximum takeoff noise certification requirements of 14 Therefore, the FAA has determined that weight (MTOW) of 820,000 pounds. The CFR part 36. special conditions are needed for the Model 340–500 is intended for long- Special conditions, as defined in 14 Model A340–500 and –600 airplanes. range operations and has additional fuel CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance In order to maintain the level of safety capacity over that of the model A340– with § 11.38 and become part of the type envisioned in § 25.361(b), a more 600. certification basis in accordance with 14 comprehensive criteria is needed for the The Model A340–600 fuselage is a 20- CFR 21.101(b)(2). new generation of high bypass engines. frame stretch of the Model A340–300 Special conditions are initially The proposed special conditions would and is powered by 4 Roll Royce Trend applicable to the model for which they distinguish between the more common 556 engines, each rated at 56,000 are issued. Should the type certificate seizure events and those rarer seizure pounds of thrust. The airplane has for that model be amended later to events resulting from structural failures. interior seating arrangements for up to include any other model that For these rarer but severe seizure events, 440 passengers, with a MTOW of incorporates the same novel or unusual the proposed criteria could allow some 804,500 pounds. design feature, or should any other deformation in the engine supporting model already included on the same Type Certificate Basis structure (ultimate load design) in order type certificate be modified to to absorb the higher energy associated Under the provisions of 14 CFR incorporate the same novel or unusual with the high bypass engines, while at § 21.101, Airbus Industrie must show design feature, the special conditions the same time protecting the adjacent that the Model A340–500 and –600 would also apply to the other model primary structure in the wing and airplanes meet the applicable provisions under the provisions of 14 CFR fuselage by providing a higher safety of the regulations incorporated by 21.101(a)(1). factor. The criteria for the more severe reference in TC A43NM or the Novel or Unusual Design Features events would no longer be a pure static applicable regulations in effect on the torque load condition, but would date on the date of application for the The Airbus Model A340–500 and account for the full spectrum of change to the type certificate. The A340–600 airplanes will incorporate transient dynamic loads developed from regulations incorporated by reference in novel or unusual design features the engine failure condition. the type certificate are commonly involving engine size and torque load referred to as the ‘‘original type that affect sudden engine stoppage Applicability certification basis.’’ The regulations conditions. Airbus Industrie proposes to These special conditions are incorporated by reference in TC A43NM treat the sudden engine stoppage applicable to the Airbus Model A340– are 14 CFR part 25 effective February 1, condition resulting from structural 500 and –600 ailplanes. Should Airbus 1965, including Amendments 25–1 failure as an ultimate load condition. Industries apply at a later date for a through 25–63 and Amendments 25–64, Section 25.361(b)(1) of part 25 change to the type certificate to include 25–65, 25–66, and 25–77, with certain specifically defines the seizure torque another model incorporating the same exceptions that are not relevant to these load resulting from structural failure as novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions. a limit load condition. special conditions would apply to that In addition, if the regulations Discussion model as well under the provisions of incorporated by reference do not § 21.101(a)(1). provide adequate standards with respect The limit engine torgue load imposed to the change, the applicant must by sudden engine stoppage due to Conclusion comply with certain regulations in effect malfunction or structural failure (such This action affects certain novel or on the date of application for the as compressor jamming) has been a unusual design features on the Model change. The FAA has determined that specific requirement for transport A340–500 and A340–600 airplanes. It is the Model A340–500 and –600 airplanes category airplanes since 1957. The size, not a rule of general applicability, and must be shown to comply with 14 CFR configuration, and failure modes of jet it affects only the applicant who applied 25–1 through 25–91, with certain FAA- engines have changed considerably from to the FAA for approval of these features allowed reversions for specific part 25 those envisioned when the engine on the airplane. seizure requirement of § 25.361(b) was regulations to the part 25 amendment List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 levels of the original type certification first adopted. Current engines are much basis. larger and are now designed with large Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting Airbus has also chosen to comply bypass fans capable of producing much and recordkeeping requirements. with part 25 as amended by larger torque loads if they become The authority citation for these Amendments 25–92,–93,–94,–95,–97,– jammed. It is evident from service special conditions is as follows: 98, and –104. history that the frequency of occurrence Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, If the Administrator finds that the of the most severe sudden engine 44702, 44704. applicable airworthiness regulations stoppage events are rare. (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain Relative to the engine configurations The Proposed Special Conditions adequate or appropriate safety standards that existed when the rule was Accordingly, The Federal Aviation for the Airbus Industrie Model A340– developed in 1957, the present Administration (FAA) proposes the 500 and–600 because of a novel or generation of engines are sufficiently following special conditions as part of unusual design feature, special different and novel to justify issuance of the type certification basis for Airbus conditions are prescribed under the special conditions to establish Industrie Model A340–500 and –600 provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. appropriate design standards. The latest airplanes. In addition to the applicable generation of jet engines are capable of The following special conditions are airworthiness regulations and special producing, during failure, transient proposed in lieu of compliance with 14
VerDate 11
CFR 25.361(b) and in lieu of the POSTAL SERVICE Board to publish its final standards by previously issued special conditions, February 7, 2000. Limit Engine Torque,’’ recorded as item 39 CFR Part 255 On July 13, 2000, the Military 9 of Special Conditions No. 25–ANM– Access of Persons with Disabilities to Construction Appropriations Act for 69 (Docket No. NM–75), Airbus Postal Service Programs, Activities, Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. 106–246, industrie Model A340 Series Airplanes. Facilities, and Electronic and which contained an amendment to 1. Sudden Engine Stoppage. Information Technology section 508, was signed into law. Public Law No. 106–246 delayed the effective (a) For turbine engine installations, AGENCY: Postal Service. date for enforcement of section 508 to 6 the engine mounts, pylons and adjacent ACTION: Proposed rule with request for months from the publication of the supporting airframe structure must be comments. Access Board’s final standards. The designed to withstand 1g level flight Access Board’s final standards were loads acting simultaneously with the SUMMARY: The Postal Service is published on December 21, 2000, in 65 maximum limit torque loads imposed proposing to amend its regulations in FR 80500–80528. The effective date for by each of the following: order to implement section 508 of the enforcement of section 508 became June Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. (1) Sudden engine deceleration due to 21, 2001. In accordance with the Section 508 requires Federal agencies to statutory requirements outlined above, a malfunction which could result in a ensure that the electronic and temporary loss of power or thrust. the Postal Service is initiating this information technology (EIT) they notice of proposed rulemaking adding a (2) The maximum acceleration of the procure allows individuals with complaint process for section 508 to its engine. disabilities access to EIT comparable to regulations. (b) For auxiliary power unit the access of those who are not disabled, Section-by-Section Analysis installations, the power unit mounts unless the agency would incur an undue hardship. The statute was amended by and adjacent supporting airframe Section 255.1 Purpose the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to structure must be designed to withstand add enforcement provisions and to This new section is added to describe 1g level flight loads acting require agencies to add a complaint the purposes of part 255. These simultaneously with the maximum limit process for section 508. The complaint purposes are to implement sections 504 torque loads imposing by each of the process for members of the public who and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of following: are disabled is outlined here in part 255. 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, (1) Sudden auxiliary power unit The complaint process for employees 794d. Another purpose is to state that deceleration due to malfunction or and applicants who are disabled is set the EIT standards set forth in part 255 structural failure. forth in the Postal Service’s Handbook are intended to be consistent with the (2) The maxium acceleration of the EL–603, Equal Employment standards of the Access Board Opportunity Complaint Processing. auxiliary power unit. announced in the Federal Register on DATES: Written comments must be December 21, 2000. (c) For engine supporting structure, an received on or before March 27, 2002. Former Section 255.1 ultimate loading condition must be ADDRESSES: Written comments should Discrimination against handicapped considered that combines 1g flight loads be mailed to Office of the Consumer persons has been renamed and with the transient dynamic loads Advocate, United States Postal Service, renumbered as Section 255.3 resulting from each of the following: 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 5801, Nondiscrimination under any program (1) The loss of any fan, compressor, or Washington, DC 20260–2200. Copies of or activity conducted by the Postal turbine blade. all written comments will be available Service. for inspection and photocopying (2) Where applicable to a specific Section 255.2 Definitions engine design, and separately from the between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Corporate Library, conditions specified in paragraph This new section has been added to United States Postal Service, 475 1.(c)(1), any other engine structural provide definitions of the terms used in L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 11800, failure that results in higher loads. part 255. A number of definitions have Washington, DC 20260, (202) 268–2900. been added to clarify words and (d) The ultimate loads developed from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan concepts already in part 255. New the conditions specified in paragraphs C. Goodrich, (202) 268–3047 or definitions were added for the new (c)(1) and (c)(2) above are to be Christine M. Taylor, (202) 268–3017. terms associated with section 508. There multiplied by a factor of 1.0 when SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The is a change in terms from ‘‘handicapped applied to engine mounts and pylons Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. person’’ to ‘‘individual with a and multiplied by a factor of 1.25 when L. 105–220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998), disability,’’ but the definition of who is applied to adjacent supporting airframe amending section 508 of the ‘‘disabled’’ remains the same. This structure. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. change was made to reflect the change Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 794d, was signed into law on August 7, in terminology in the Rehabilitation Act. 13, 2002. 1998. In addition to the provisions Prior Section 255.2 Special outlined above, the act required the Arrangements for postal services is now Ali Bahrami, Architectural and Transportation Section 255.7 Special arrangements Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Barriers Compliance Board (Access for postal services. Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. Board) to publish standards defining [FR Doc. 02–4410 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Section 255.3 Nondiscrimination EIT and setting forth the technical and Under any Program or Activity BILLING CODE 4910–13–M functional performance criteria Conducted by the Postal Service necessary to accessibility for such technology. The act, which was effective This section states the prohibition August 7, 2000, also required the Access against discrimination based upon
VerDate 11
disability in federally conducted Subparagraph (2) is new and explains may be provided with special programs or activities that is contained that complaints brought by applicants arrangements as a reasonable in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. and employees alleging violations of accommodation. It originally appeared in former section section 508 and involving employment The section, previously found at 255.1(a). The words ‘‘handicapped’’ and will be processed in accordance with section 255.2, is essentially unchanged ‘‘handicap’’ have been removed and the new section 508 procedures added with the exception of editing for clarity replaced with ‘‘disability.’’ to Handbook EL–603. and the addition of language on reasonable accommodation under Section 255.4 Accessibility to (c) Complaints by Members of the Public section 504. Specific section numbers Electronic and Information Technology Section 508 has been added to the contained in the cited manuals were This section is new. It states the former complaint process for section removed because manual revisions have standards set forth in section 508 of the 504. The former process, previously changed where the topics are now Rehabilitation Act which apply to found at section 255.1(c), has been found. making EIT accessible to individuals modified to include an informal stage with disabilities. It also specifics the and a formal stage. A requirement that Section 255.8 Access to Postal obligations of the Postal Service where a complainant shall first exhaust Facilities providing access to EIT would pose an informal administrative procedures This section is essentially unchanged undue burden. before filing a formal complaint has except for editing for clarity and the been added. addition of legal citations to make the Section 255.5 Employment Subparagraphs (1) (i) through (iii) cited authorities easier to identify and This section states the prohibition outline the informal procedures for locate. It was previously found at against discrimination in employment sections 504 and 508. The procedures section 255.3. based upon disability that is contained retain the 60-day requirement for in section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, resolution of a complaint at the informal Section 255.9 Other Postal as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791. It was stage. The informal process focuses on Regulations; Authority of Postal previously found at section 255.1(d). resolution of the complaint at the local Managers and Employees The word ‘‘handicapped’’ has been level and provides an automatic review This section is the same as the removed and replaced with ‘‘disability.’’ by higher level managers. A written original previously found at section decision on the informal complaint 255.4 except that ‘‘official’’ was changed Section 255.6 Complaint Procedures must be issued on or before the 60th day to ‘‘manager’’ and the last sentence This section adds section 508 to the by the area/functional vice president. referring to misdirected informal existing complaint process for section Addition of the area/functional vice complaints was deleted. A similar 504. It revises and clarifies the president as the final level of review requirement that postal managers or complaint process. was added to ensure accountability at employees promptly refer informal the highest level. (a) Applicability complaints they receive that they lack Subparagraphs (2)(i) through (iv) the authority to resolve to the This paragraph explains that the outline the formal procedures for appropriate manager was added in procedures of part 255 apply to alleged sections 504 and 508. If the complainant section 255.6(c)(1)(i) where it logically violations of section 504 and section wishes to pursue the complaint beyond belongs. 508 brought by members of the public. the informal stage, s/he may file a Although 39 U.S.C. 410, exempts the formal complaint with the Vice (b) Employment Complaints Postal Service from the rulemaking President and Consumer Advocate. If notice and comment requirements of the Subparagraph (1) explains that the complainant files a formal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. complaints brought by applicants and complaint, s/he must exhaust the formal 553, the Postal Service, nevertheless, employees alleging violations of section procedures before filing suit in any invites public comment on the 504 with respect to employment will be other forum. The general exhaustion following proposed revisions to 39 CFR processed by the Postal Service in requirement of the former section part 255. accordance with the procedures 255.1(c)(5) was clarified in order to established by the Equal Employment prevent confusing and duplicative List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 255 Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 29 processing of one complaint. The Electronic and information CFR part 1614 under the authority of reference to the Postal Operations technology, Federal buildings and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. Manual was removed because the facilities, Individuals with disabilities. The Postal Service’s own procedures complaint procedures relating to the Accordingly, the Postal Service following part 1614 are found in Vice President and Consumer Advocate proposes to revise 39 CFR part 255 to Handbook EL–603, Equal Employment are now contained here. read as follows: Opportunity Complaint Processing. Previously, the section on Section 255.7 Special Arrangements PART 255—ACCESS OF PERSONS employment complaints was found at for Postal Services WITH DISABILITIES TO POSTAL section 255.1(d). The reference to the This section sets forth the types of SERVICE PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES, Employee and Labor Relations Manual arrangements that can be made for those FACILITIES, AND ELECTRONIC AND was deleted and replaced with the individuals eligible under postal INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY reference to Handbook EL–603 because regulations for obtaining postal services the complaint processing procedures under special conditions. Members of Sec. were removed from the manual and the public who are not disabled within 255.1 Purpose. 255.2 Definitions. placed into the handbook. The reference the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act 255.3 Nondiscrimination under any to part 1614 was added to clarify where may qualify for special arrangements program or activity conducted by the the EEOC regulations are found. The pursuant to the postal regulations listed Postal Service. term ‘‘handicapped’’ was removed and here. In accordance with section 504 or 255.4 Accessibility to electronic and replaced with ‘‘disability.’’ this part, individuals who are disabled information technology.
VerDate 11
255.5 Employment. (e) Individual with a disability. For by reason of his or her disability, be 255.6 Complaint procedures. purposes of this part, ‘‘individual with excluded from participation in, be 255.7 Special arrangements for postal a disability’’ means any person who denied the benefits of, or be subjected services. (1) Has a physical or mental to discrimination under, any program or 255.8 Access to postal facilities. impairment that substantially limits one 255.9 Other postal regulations; authority of activity conducted by the Postal Service. postal managers and employees. or more of such person’s major life activities; § 255.4 Accessibility to electronic and information technology. Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 1001, (2) Has a record of such an 1003, 3403, 3404; 29 U.S.C. 791, 794, 794d impairment; or (a) In accordance with section 508 of § 255.1 Purpose. (3) Is regarded as having such an the Rehabilitation Act, the Postal Service shall ensure, absent an undue (a) This part implements section 504 impairment. (f) Information technology means any burden, that the electronic and of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as information technology the agency amended. Section 504 prohibits equipment, or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used in procures allows: discrimination on the basis of disability (1) Individuals with disabilities who in programs or activities conducted by the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, are Postal Service employees or executive agencies or by the Postal applicants to have access to and use of Service. This part also implements control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information and data that is comparable section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of to the access to and use of information 1973, as amended. Section 508 requires information. (g) Postal manager. As used in this and data by Postal Service employees or that executive agencies and the Postal part, ‘‘postal manager’’ means the applicants who are not individuals with Service ensure, absent an undue burden, manager or official responsible for a disabilities; and that individuals with disabilities have service, facility, program, or activity. (2) Individuals with disabilities who access to electronic and information (h) Qualified individual with a are members of the public seeking technology that is comparable to the disability. For purposes of this part, information or services from the Postal access of individuals who are not ‘‘qualified individual with a disability’’ Service to have access to and use of disabled. means information and data that is comparable (b) The standards relating to (1) With respect to any Postal Service to the access to and use of information electronic and information technology program or activity under which a and data by members of the public who expressed here are intended to be person is required to perform services or are not individuals with disabilities. consistent with the standards to achieve a level of accomplishment, an (b) When procurement of electronic announced by the Architectural and individual with a disability who meets and information technology that meets Transportation Barriers Compliance the essential eligibility requirements the standards published by the Board. Those standards are codified at and who can achieve the purpose of the Architectural and Transportation 36 CFR part 1194. program or activity without Barriers Compliance Board would pose § 255.2 Definitions. modifications in the program or activity an undue burden, the Postal Service shall provide individuals with (a) Agency as used in this part means that the agency can demonstrate would disabilities covered by paragraph (a) of the Postal Service. result in a fundamental alteration in its nature; or this section with the information and (b) Area/functional vice president also data by an alternative means of access includes his or her designee. (2) With respect to any other program or activity, an individual with a that allows the individuals to use the (c) Electronic and information information and data. technology (EIT) includes ‘‘information disability who meets the essential eligibility requirements for participation technology’’ and any equipment or § 255.5 Employment. in, or receipt of benefits from, that interconnected system or subsystem of No qualified individual with a equipment that is used in the creation, program or activity. (i) Section 501 means section 501 of disability shall, on the basis of conversion, or duplication of data or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as disability, be subjected to information. The term does not include amended. Section 501 is codified at 29 discrimination in employment with the any equipment that contains embedded U.S.C. 791. Postal Service. The definitions, information technology that is used as (j) Section 504 means section 504 of requirements, and procedures of section an integral part of the product, but the the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as principal function of which is not the amended. Section 504 is codified at 29 established by the Equal Employment acquisition, storage, manipulation, U.S.C. 794. Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part management, movement, control, (k) Section 508 means section 508 of 1614 shall apply to employment within display, switching, interchange, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as the Postal Service. transmission, or reception of data or amended. Section 508 is codified at 29 information. § 255.6 Complaint procedures. U.S.C. 794d. (d) Formal complaint means a written (l) Undue burden means significant (a) Applicability. Except as provided statement that contains the difficulty or expense. in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, this complainant’s name, address, and (m) Vice President and Consumer section applies to all section 504 telephone number; sets forth the nature Advocate also includes his or her allegations of discrimination based of the complainant’s disability; and designee. upon disability in the programs or describes the agency’s alleged activities conducted by the Postal discriminatory action in sufficient detail § 255.3 Nondiscrimination under any Service. Except as provided in to inform the agency of the nature of the program or activity conducted by the Postal paragraph (b)(2) of this section, this alleged violation of section 504 or of Service. section applies to all allegations of section 508. It shall be signed by the In accordance with section 504 of the section 508 violations. complainant or by someone authorized Rehabilitation Act, no qualified (b) Employment complaints. (1) The to do so on the complainant’s behalf. individual with a disability shall, solely Postal Service shall process complaints
VerDate 11
of employees and applicants alleging complaint and the reasons for that over which the agency has jurisdiction, violations of section 504 with respect to disposition. the Vice President and Consumer employment according to the (iii) Automatic review. The Advocate shall notify the complainant procedures established by the Equal responsible postal manager’s proposed of the results of the investigation of the Employment Opportunity Commission disposition of the informal complaint formal complaint. The notice shall be a in 29 CFR part 1614 pursuant to section shall be submitted to the appropriate written decision stating whether or not 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as district/program manager for review. relief is being granted and the reasons amended, 29 U.S.C. 791. In accordance The district/program manager shall for granting or denying relief. The notice with 29 CFR part 1614, the Postal forward the proposed disposition to the shall state that it is the final decision of Service has established procedures for area/functional vice president for the Postal Service on the formal processing complaints of alleged review and issuance of the written complaint. employment discrimination, based upon decision. This automatic review process disability, in the agency’s Handbook shall be completed such that the written § 255.7 Special arrangements for postal EL–603, Equal Employment decision of the area/functional vice services. Opportunity Complaint Processing. president shall be issued no later than Members of the public who are unable (2) The agency shall process the 60th day. to use or who have difficulty using complaints of employees and applicants (2) Formal complaints. If an informal certain postal services may be eligible alleging violations of section 508 and complaint filed under paragraph (c)(1) under postal regulations for special involving employment in accordance of this section is not resolved within 60 arrangements. Some of the special with the section 508 procedures which days of its receipt, the complainant may arrangements that the Postal Service has have been added to Handbook EL–603. seek relief in any other appropriate authorized are listed below. No one is Section 508 complaints shall be forum, including the right to file a required to use any special arrangement processed to provide the remedies formal complaint with the Vice offered by the Postal Service, but an required by section 508 of the President and Consumer Advocate in individual’s refusal to make use of a Rehabilitation Act. accordance with the following particular special arrangement does not (c) Complaints by members of the procedures. If the complainant files a require the Postal Service to offer other public. Any individual with a disability formal complaint with the Vice special arrangements to that individual. who believes that he or she has been President and Consumer Advocate, the (a) The Postal Operations Manual subjected to discrimination prohibited complainant shall exhaust the formal offers information on special by this part or by the alleged failure of complaint procedures before filing suit arrangements for the following postal the agency to provide access to in any other forum. services. electronic and information technology (i) Where to file. Formal complaints (1) Carrier delivery services and may file a complaint by following the relating to programs or activities programs. procedures described herein. A conducted by the Postal Service or to (2) Postal retail services and complainant shall first exhaust informal access of Postal Service EIT may be filed programs. administrative procedures before filing a with the Vice President and Consumer (3) Retail service from rural carriers. formal complaint. Advocate, United States Postal Service, (4) Self-service postal centers. Self- (1) Informal complaints relating to 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, service postal centers contain deposit Postal Service programs or activities DC 20260. boxes for parcels and letter mail, and and to EIT. (i) A complainant initiates (ii) When to file. A formal complaint vending equipment for the sale of the informal process by informing the shall be filed within 30 days of the date stamps and stamp items. Many centers responsible postal manager of the the complainant receives the decision of are accessible to individuals in alleged discrimination or inaccessibility the area/functional vice president to wheelchairs. Information regarding the of Postal Service programs, activities, or deny relief. For purposes of determining location of the nearest center may be EIT. Postal managers or employees who when a formal complaint is timely filed obtained from a local Post Office. receive informal complaints that they under this paragraph (c)(2)(ii), a formal (b) The Domestic Mail Manual, the lack the authority to resolve must complaint mailed to the agency shall be Administrative Support Manual, and promptly refer any such informal deemed filed on the date it is the International Mail Manual contain complaint to the appropriate postal postmarked. Any other formal information regarding postage-free manager, and at the same time must complaint shall be deemed filed on the mailing for mailings that qualify. notify the complainant of the name, date it is received by the Vice President (c) Inquiries and requests. Members of address, and telephone number of the and Consumer Advocate. the public wishing further information person handling the complaint. (iii) Acceptance of the formal about special arrangements for (ii) Resolution of the informal complaint. The Vice President and particular postal services may contact complaint and time limits. Within 15 Consumer Advocate shall accept a their local postal manager. days of receipt of the informal timely filed formal complaint that meets (d) Response to a request or complaint complaint, the responsible postal the requirements of § 255.2(d), is filed regarding a special arrangement for manager must send the complainant a after fulfilling the informal exhaustion postal services. A local postal manager written acknowledgement of the procedures of § 255.6(c)(1), and over receiving a request or complaint about informal complaint. If the matter cannot which the agency has jurisdiction. The a special arrangement for postal services be resolved within 30 days of its receipt, Vice President and Consumer Advocate must provide any arrangement as the complainant must be sent a written shall notify the complainant of receipt required by postal regulations. If no interim report which explains the status and acceptance of the formal complaint special arrangements are required by of the informal complaint and the within 15 days of the date the Vice postal regulations, the local postal proposed resolution of the matter. On or President and Consumer Advocate manager, in consultation with the before the 60th day from receipt of the received the formal complaint. district manager or area manager, as informal complaint, the agency shall (iv) Resolution of the formal needed, may provide a special issue a written decision detailing the complaint. Within 180 days of receipt arrangement or take any action that will final disposition of the informal and acceptance of a formal complaint accommodate an individual with a
VerDate 11
disability as required by section 504 or modification to meet ABA design are taking comments on this proposal by this part. standards is not required, a and plan to follow with a final action. discretionary alteration may be made on § 255.8 Access to postal facilities. DATES: Comments must be received by a case-by-case basis in accordance with March 27, 2002. (a) Legal requirements and policy (1) the criteria listed in paragraph (a)(2) of ABA Standards. Where the design this section. If a discretionary alteration ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy standards of the Architectural Barriers is not made, the local postal manager Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR– Act (ABA) of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et should determine if a special 4), U.S. Environmental Protection seq., do not apply, the Postal Service arrangement for postal services under Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne may perform a discretionary retrofit to § 255.7 can be provided. Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. a facility in accordance with this part to You can inspect copies of the accommodate individuals with § 255.9 Other postal regulations; authority submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s disabilities. of postal managers and employees. technical support documents (TSDs) at (2) Discretionary modifications. The This part supplements all other postal our Region IX office during normal Postal Service may modify facilities not regulations. Nothing in this part is business hours. You may also see copies legally required to conform to ABA intended either to repeal, modify, or of the submitted SIP revisions at the standards when it determines that doing amend any other postal regulation, to following locations: so would be consistent with efficient authorize any postal manager or California Air Resources Board, postal operations. In determining employee to violate or exceed any Stationary Source Division, Rule whether modifications not legally regulatory limit, or to confer any Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, required should be made, due regard is budgetary authority on any postal Sacramento, CA 95814; and, to be given to: official or employee outside normal South Coast Air Quality Management (i) The cost of the discretionary budgetary procedures. District, 21865 East Copley Drive, modification; Stanley F. Mires, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. (ii) The number of individuals to be Chief Counsel, Legislative. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: benefited by the modification; [FR Doc. 02–4212 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office (iii) The inconvenience, if any, to the BILLING CODE 7710–12–P (AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection general public; Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4111. (iv) The anticipated useful life of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: modification to the Postal Service; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ (v) Any requirement to restore a AGENCY and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. leased premises to its original condition at the expiration of the lease, and the 40 CFR Part 52 Table of Contents cost of such restoration; I. The State’s Submittal (vi) The historic or architectural [CA247–0308; FRL–7149–3] A. What rule did the State submit? significance of the property in B. Are there other versions of this rule? accordance with the National Historic Revisions to the California State C. What is the purpose of the submitted Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. Implementation Plan; South Coast Air rule? § 470 et seq.; Quality Management District II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? (vii) The availability of other options AGENCY: Environmental Protection B. Does the rule meet the evaluation to foster service accessibility; and Agency (EPA). criteria? (viii) Any other factor that is relevant ACTION: Proposed rule. C. What are the rule’s deficiencies? and appropriate to the decision. D. EPA recommendations to further (b) Inquiries and requests. (1) SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited improve the rule. Inquiries concerning access to postal approval and limited disapproval of E. Proposed action and public comment. facilities, and requests for discretionary revisions to the South Coast Air Quality III. Background Information alterations of postal facilities not Management District (SCAQMD) portion Why was this rule submitted? IV. Administrative Requirements covered by the design standards of the of the California State Implementation ABA, may be made to the local postal Plan (SIP). These revisions concern I. The State’s Submittal manager of the facility involved. volatile organic compound (VOC) A. What Rule Did the State Submit? (2) The local postal manager’s emissions from food product response to a request or complaint manufacturing and processing Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this regarding an alteration to a facility will operations. We are proposing action on proposal with the dates that it was be made after consultation with the a local rule that regulates these emission adopted by the SCAQMD and submitted district manager or the area manager. If sources under the Clean Air Act as by the California Air Resources Board the determination is made that amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We (CARB).
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted
SCAQMD ...... 1131 Food Product Manufacturing and Processing Oper- 09/15/00 05/08/01 ations.
VerDate 11
On July 20, 2001, Rule 1131 was and RACT requirements include the D. EPA Recommendations To Further found to meet the completeness criteria following: Improve the Rule in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which 1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 In this case, the EPA does not suggest must be met before formal EPA review. ozone and carbon monoxide policy that additional rule revisions that might B. Are There Other Versions of This concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November improve the rule. 24, 1987. Rule? E. Proposed Action and Public There is no previous version of Rule 2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Comment 1131 in the SIP. Since Rule 1131 is a Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) new rule, SCAQMD has not submitted Clarification to Appendix D of and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing previous versions of Rule 1131 to EPA. November 24,1987 Federal Register a limited approval of SCAQMD Rule document,’’ (Blue Book), notice of C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 1131 to improve the SIP. If finalized, availability published in the May 25, Rule? this action would incorporate this 1988 Federal Register. Rule 1131 is designed to reduce submitted rule into the SIP, including emissions of VOCs from solvents used B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation those provisions identified as deficient. in food product manufacturing and Criteria? This approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited processing operations. Emissions are Rule 1131 improves the SIP by reduced by a specific VOC content limit, disapproval of the rule under section establishing more stringent emission 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is use of emission control devices, or a limits and by clarifying monitoring, combination of these methods and other finalized, sanctions will be imposed recording, and recordkeeping innovations. Rule 1131 includes the under section 179 of the Act unless EPA provisions. This rule is largely following general provisions: approves subsequent SIP revisions that consistent with the relevant policy and —Applicability of the rule; correct the rule’s deficiencies within 18 —Definitions of terms under the rule; guidance regarding enforceability, months. These sanctions would be —Requirements of the rule; RACT and SIP relaxations. Rule imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A —Recordkeeping requirements of the provisions which do not meet the final disapproval would also trigger the rule; evaluation criteria are summarized federal implementation plan (FIP) —Test methods for determining below and discussed further in the TSD. requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rule has been compliance; C. What Are the Rule’s Deficiencies? —Rule 442 applicability; and, adopted by the SCAQMD, and EPA’s —Exemptions from the rule. A portion of Rule 1131 conflicts with final limited disapproval would not The TSD has more detailed section 110 and part D of the Act and prevent the local agency from enforcing information about this rule. prevent full approval of these SIP it. We will accept comments from the II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action revisions. The deficiency exists within subsection (c)(1)(C). This subsection public on this proposed limited A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? allows ‘‘director’s discretion’’ in the approval and limited disapproval for the Generally, SIP rules must be review and approval of compliance next 30 days. enforceable (see section 110(a) of the plans. The rule does not specify the III. Background Information Act), must require Reasonably Available emission estimation protocols needed to Control Technology (RACT) for major avoid a broad and ungoverned Why Was This Rule Submitted? sources in nonattainment areas (see application of ‘‘director’s discretion’’ VOCs help produce ground-level section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax when reviewing the compliance plans. ozone and smog, which harm human existing requirements (see sections This deficiency is inconsistent with the health and the environment. Section 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD regulates CAA section 110(a) requirement that the 110(a) of the CAA requires states to an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 SIP be federally enforceable. A facility submit regulations that control VOC CFR part 81), so Rule 1131 must fulfill may take any number of actions to emissions. Table 2 lists some of the RACT. reduce VOC emissions to a level national milestones leading to the Guidance and policy documents that equivalent with the requirements of the submittal of these local agency VOC we used to define specific enforceability rule. rules.
TABLE 2.—OZONE NONATTAINMENT MILESTONES
Date Event
March 3, 1978 ...... EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305. May 26, 1988 ...... EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA’s SIP–Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act. November 15, 1990 ...... Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. May 15, 1991 ...... Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that ozone nonattainment areas correct deficient RACT rules by this date.
VerDate 11
IV. Administrative Requirements government provides the funds F. Regulatory Flexibility Act necessary to pay the direct compliance A. Executive Order 12866 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) costs incurred by State and local generally requires an agency to conduct The Office of Management and Budget governments, or EPA consults with has exempted this regulatory action a regulatory flexibility analysis of any State and local officials early in the rule subject to notice and comment from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory process of developing the proposed Planning and Review. rulemaking requirements unless the regulation. EPA also may not issue a agency certifies that the rule will not B. Executive Order 13211 regulation that has federalism have a significant economic impact on This proposed rule is not subject to implications and that preempts State a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions law unless the Agency consults with Small entities include small businesses, Concerning Regulations That State and local officials early in the small not-for-profit enterprises, and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, process of developing the proposed small governmental jurisdictions. Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May regulation. This proposed rule will not have a 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant This proposed rule will not have significant impact on a substantial regulatory action under Executive Order substantial direct effects on the States, number of small entities because SIP 12866. on the relationship between the national approvals under section 110 and government and the States, or on the subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act C. Executive Order 13045 distribution of power and do not create any new requirements but Executive Order 13045, entitled responsibilities among the various simply act on requirements that the Protection of Children from levels of government, as specified in State is already imposing. Therefore, Environmental Health Risks and Safety Executive Order 13132, because it because the Federal SIP approval does Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), merely acts on a state rule implementing not create any new requirements, I applies to any rule that: (1) Is a federal standard, and does not alter certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a determined to be ‘‘economically the relationship or the distribution of substantial number of small entities. significant’’ as defined under Executive power and responsibilities established EPA’s proposed disapproval of the Order 12866, and (2) concerns an in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the state request under section 110 and environmental health or safety risk that requirements of section 6 of the subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act EPA has reason to believe may have a Executive Order do not apply to this disproportionate effect on children. If does not affect any existing proposed rule. the regulatory action meets both criteria, requirements applicable to small the Agency must evaluate the E. Executive Order 13175 entities. Any pre-existing federal environmental health or safety effects of requirements remain in place after this the planned rule on children, and Executive Order 13175, entitled disapproval. Federal disapproval of the explain why the planned regulation is ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with state submittal does not affect state preferable to other potentially effective Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s and reasonably feasible alternatives 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA disapproval of the submittal does not considered by the Agency. to develop an accountable process to impose any new Federal requirements. This rule is not subject to Executive ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Therefore, I certify that this action will Order 13045 because it does not involve tribal officials in the development of not have a significant economic impact decisions intended to mitigate regulatory policies that have tribal on a substantial number of small environmental health or safety risks. implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal entities. implications’’ is defined in the Moreover, due to the nature of the D. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order to include regulations Federal-State relationship under the Executive Order 13132, entitled that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, one or more Indian tribes, on the analysis would constitute Federal 1999) revokes and replaces Executive relationship between the Federal inquiry into the economic Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, government and the Indian tribes, or on reasonableness of state action. The Enhancing the Intergovernmental the distribution of power and Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its Partnership. Executive Order 13132 responsibilities between the Federal actions concerning SIPs on such requires EPA to develop an accountable government and Indian tribes.’’ grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. timely input by State and local officials This proposed rule does not have 7410(a)(2). in the development of regulatory tribal implications. It will not have policies that have federalism substantial direct effects on tribal G. Unfunded Mandates implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have governments, on the relationship Under section 202 of the Unfunded federalism implications’’ is defined in between the Federal government and Mandates Reform Act of 1995 the Executive Order to include Indian tribes, or on the distribution of (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct power and responsibilities between the into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must effects on the States, on the relationship Federal government and Indian tribes, prepare a budgetary impact statement to between the national government and as specified in Executive Order 13175. accompany any proposed or final rule the States, or on the distribution of Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not that includes a Federal mandate that power and responsibilities among the apply to this rule. In the spirit of may result in estimated costs to State, various levels of government.’’ Under Executive Order 13175, and consistent local, or tribal governments in the Executive Order 13132, EPA may not with EPA policy to promote aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 issue a regulation that has federalism communications between EPA and million or more. Under section 205, implications, that imposes substantial tribal governments, EPA specifically EPA must select the most cost-effective direct compliance costs, and that is not solicits additional comment on this and least burdensome alternative that required by statute, unless the Federal proposed rule from tribal officials. achieves the objectives of the rule and
VerDate 11
is consistent with statutory ACTION: Proposed rule. February 20, 2001, for the control of air requirements. Section 203 requires EPA emissions from HMIWIs. When EPA to establish a plan for informing and SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection developed the New Source Performance advising any small governments that Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Standard (NSPS) for HMIWI, it also may be significantly or uniquely the Section 111(d)/129 Plan submitted developed Emission Guidelines (EG) to impacted by the rule. by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico control air emissions from existing EPA has determined that the for the purpose of implementing and HMIWI. (See 62 FR 48379, September proposed action does not include a enforcing the Emission Guidelines (EG) 15, 1997, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce Federal mandate that may result in for existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious [Emission Guidelines and Compliance estimated costs of $100 million or more Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) units. The Times for HMIWIs] and Subpart Ec to either State, local, or tribal plan was submitted to fulfill [Standards of Performance for HMIWIs requirements of the Clean Air Act. The governments in the aggregate, or to the for Which Construction is Commenced Puerto Rico (PR) plan establishes private sector. This proposed Federal After June 20, 1996]). The Puerto Rico emission limits for existing HMIWI and action acts on pre-existing requirements Environmental Quality Board (EQB) provides for the implementation and under State or local law, and imposes developed a plan, as required by enforcement of those limits. no new requirements. Accordingly, no Sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air additional costs to State, local, or tribal DATES: Comments must be received on Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d) and 7429, governments, or to the private sector, or before March 27, 2002. to adopt the EG into its body of result from this action. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to regulations, and EPA is proposing Raymond W. Werner, Chief, Air H. National Technology Transfer and action today to fully approve it. Programs Branch, Environmental Advancement Act Protection Agency, Region II, 290 II. The HMIWI State Plan Requirement Section 12 of the National Technology Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY What Is a HMIWI State Plan? Transfer and Advancement Act 10007–1866. Copies of the documents (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal relevant to this action are available for A HMIWI state plan is a plan to agencies to evaluate existing technical public inspection during normal control air pollutant emissions from standards when developing a new business hours at the following existing incinerators which burn regulation. To comply with NTTAA, locations: Division of Environmental hospital waste or medical/infectious EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary Planning and Protection, Air Programs waste. consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available Branch, Environmental Protection Why Are We Requiring Puerto Rico To and applicable when developing Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, 25th Submit a HMIWI Plan? programs and policies unless doing so Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866; would be inconsistent with applicable Environmental Protection Agency, States are required under Sections law or otherwise impractical. Region II, Caribbean Environmental 111(d) and 129 of the CAA to submit EPA believes that VCS are Protection Division, Centro Europa plans to control emissions from existing inapplicable to today’s proposed action Building, Suite 417, 1492 Ponce De HMIWI in the State. The state plan because it does not require the public to Leon Avenue, Stop 22, San Juan, Puerto requirement was triggered when EPA perform activities conducive to the use Rico 00907–4127; and the Puerto Rico published the EG for HMIWI under 40 of VCS. Environmental Quality Board, National CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce (See 62 FR 48379, September 15, 1997). For the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Plaza Building, 431 Ponce De Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. purposes of the Clean Air Act, Puerto Environmental protection, Air Rico is treated as a state. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Under Section 129 of the CAA, EPA Demian P. Ellis at (212) 637–3713, or by Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, was required to promulgate EGs for e-mail at [email protected]. Particulate matter, Reporting and several types of existing solid waste SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: recordkeeping requirements, Volatile incinerators. These EGs establish organic compound. Table of Contents emission standards that states must Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. I. What action is being taken by the adopt to comply with the CAA. The Dated: February 8, 2002. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) HMIWI EG also establishes today? requirements for monitoring, operator Wayne Nastri, II. The HMIWI state plan requirement training, permits, and a waste Regional Administrator, Region IX. • What is a HMIWI state plan? • management plan that must be included [FR Doc. 02–4406 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Why are we requiring Puerto Rico to in HMIWI plans. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P submit a HMIWI plan? • Why do we need to regulate air The intent of the HMIWI plan emissions from HMIWI? requirement is to reduce several types of • air pollutants associated with waste ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION What criteria must a HMIWI plan meet to be approved? incineration. AGENCY • What does the Puerto Rico plan contain? III. Which HMIWIs are subject to these Why Do We Need To Regulate Air 40 CFR Part 62 regulations? Emissions From HMIWI? [Region II Docket No. PR7–236, FRL–7149– IV. What steps do HMIWIs need to take? The HMIWI plan establishes control 5] V. Is the Puerto Rico HMIWI plan approvable? requirements which reduce the Approval and Promulgation of State VI. Administrative Requirements following emissions from HMIWI: Plans for Designated Facilities and particulate matter; sulfur dioxide; I. What Action Is Being Taken by the hydrogen chloride; nitrogen oxides; Pollutants: Commonwealth of Puerto Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Rico carbon monoxide; lead; cadmium; Today? mercury; and dioxin/furans. These AGENCY: Environmental Protection EPA is proposing to fully approve the pollutants can cause adverse effects to Agency. Puerto Rico plan, as submitted on public health and the environment.
VerDate 11
Dioxin, lead, and mercury authority to implement the Section 6. The facility’s operator must be bioaccumulate through the food web. 111(d)/129 HMIWI plan; certified, as discussed in 5 above, no Serious developmental and adult effects 2. Revisions to Commonwealth rules later than one year after EPA approval in humans, primarily damage to the 102 (definitions) and 405(b) of the HMIWI plan or after publication nervous system, have been associated (Incineration), as the enforceable date of EPA’s federal plan, whichever is with exposures to mercury. Exposure to mechanism; sooner. Please see Rule 405(b)(9)(G) for dioxin and furans can cause skin 3. An inventory of six (6) known further details. disorders. Dioxin may also pose risks to designated facilities, along with 7. The facility must develop and the reproductive and immune systems estimates of their air emissions; submit to EQB a waste management and is a likely human carcinogen. Acid 4. Emission limits that are as plan. This plan must be developed gases affect the respiratory tract, as well protective as the EG; under guidance provided by the as contribute to the acid rain that 5. A final compliance date no later American Hospital Association damages lakes and harms forests and than September 15, 2002; publication, ‘‘An Ounce of Prevention: buildings. Exposure to particulate 6. Testing, monitoring, inspection, Waste Reduction Strategies for Health matter has been linked with adverse reporting and record keeping Care Facilities,’’ 1993, and must be health effects, including aggravation of requirements for the designated submitted to EQB no later than 60 days existing respiratory and cardiovascular facilities; following the initial performance test for disease and increased risk of premature 7. Documentation from the public the affected unit. Please see Rule death. Nitrogen oxide emissions hearing on the HMIWI plan; and, 405(b)(4) for further details. contribute to the formation of ground 8. Provisions to make progress reports 8. The facility must conduct an initial level ozone, which is associated with a to EPA. performance test to determine the number of adverse health and The reader is referred to the Technical incinerator’s compliance with these environmental effects. Support Document for further details on emission limits. This performance test Puerto Rico’s plan. must be completed no later than 180 What Criteria Must a HMIWI Plan Meet days after final compliance is achieved, IV. Which HMIWIs Are Subject to To Be Approved? and as required under 40 CFR 60.37e These Regulations? The criteria for approving a HMIWI and Rule 405(b)(9)(E). The EG for existing HMIWI affect any plan include requirements from 9. The facility must install, calibrate, HMIWI built on or before June 20, 1996. Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA and maintain, and operate devices to If a facility meets this criterion, it is 40 CFR part 60, Subpart B. Under the monitor the parameters listed under subject to these regulations. requirements of Sections 111(d) and 129 Rule 405(b)(7). 10. The facility must document and of the CAA, a HMIWI plan must be at V. What Steps Do HMIWIs Need To maintain information concerning: least as protective as the EG regarding Take? Calendar date of each record; records of: applicability, emission limits, A facility must meet the requirements (a) Pollutant concentrations or opacity compliance schedules, performance listed in Puerto Rico Rule 405(b) of the measurements (as determined by the testing, monitoring and inspections, Regulations for the Control of continuous emissions monitoring operator training and certification, Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP), system); (b) HMIWI charge dates, times, waste management plans, and record summarized as follows: and weights and hourly charge rates; keeping and reporting. Under Section 1. Determine the size of the facility’s and other operational data. This 129(e), HMIWI plans must ensure that incinerator by establishing its maximum information must be maintained for a affected HMIWI facilities submit Title V design capacity. period of five years. Please see Rule permit applications to the state by 2. Each size category of HMIWI has 405(b)(8) for further details. September 15, 2000. Under the certain emission limits established 11. The facility must submit an requirements of 40 CFR part 60, Subpart which the facility’s incinerator must annual report to EQB containing records B, the criteria for an approvable Section meet. [Rule 405(b)] Please refer to EQB’s of annual equipment inspections, any 111(d) plan must include a Rule 405(b), Table 1 to determine the required maintenance, and unscheduled demonstration of adequate legal specific emission limits which apply to repairs. This annual report must be authority, enforceable mechanisms, the facility. The emission limits apply at signed by the facility’s manager. public participation documentation, all times, except during startup, source and emission inventories, and a shutdown, or malfunctions, provided VI. Is the Puerto Rico HMIWI Plan state progress report commitment. that no waste has been charged during Approvable? III. What Does the Puerto Rico HMIWI these events. EPA compared the Puerto Rico Rule Plan Contain? 3. There are provisions to address 405(b) of the Regulations for the Control small rural incinerators (if your unit is of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP) with EQB amended its Rules 102 and applicable). Please see Rule 405(b)(5) for our HMIWI EG. EPA finds the Puerto 405(b) of the Regulations for the Control further details. Rico rules to be at least as protective as of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP) to 4. The facility must meet a 10 percent the EG. The Puerto Rico HMIWI plan incorporate the requirements for opacity limit on its discharge, averaged was reviewed for approval compared to implementing the HMIWI EG covered over a six-minute block. Please see Rule the following criteria: 40 CFR 60.23 under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the 405(b)(2) for further details. through 60.26, Subpart B—Adoption CAA, and codified in the 40 CFR part 5. The facility must have a fully and Submittal of State plans for 60, Subpart Ce. Revisions to the trained and qualified HMIWI operator Designated Facilities; 40 CFR 60.30e Commonwealth rules became effective available to supervise the operation of through 60.39e, Subpart Ce—Emission on April 20, 2001. the incinerator. This operator must be Guidelines and Compliance Times for The Puerto Rico HMIWI plan trained and qualified through a state- Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste contains: approved program, or a training Incinerators; and, 40 CFR 62.14400 1. A demonstration by the Attorney program that meets the requirements through 62.14495, Subpart HHH— General of the Commonwealth’s legal listed in Rule 405(b)(3). Federal Plan Requirements for Hospital/
VerDate 11
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators regulatory policies that have federalism distribution of power and Constructed on or before June 20, 1996. implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have responsibilities between the Federal It should be noted that Puerto Rico is federalism implications’’ is defined in government and Indian tribes, as currently subject to the federal plan the Executive Order to include specified in Executive Order 13175. requirements for Hospital/Medical/ regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not Infectious Waste Incinerators, 40 CFR effects on the states, on the relationship apply to this rule. 62.14400 through 62.14495. between the national government and Regulatory Flexibility The EPA finds that the Puerto Rico the states, or on the distribution of HMIWI plan satisfies the requirements power and responsibilities among the The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) for an approvable Section 111(d)/129 various levels of government.’’ generally requires an agency to conduct plan under Subparts B and Ce of 40 CFR Under section 6(b) of Executive Order a regulatory flexibility analysis of any Part 60 and Subpart HHH of 40 CFR Part 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation rule subject to notice and comment 62 and is therefore, proposing to that has federalism implications, that rulemaking requirements unless the approve the Puerto Rico HMIWI plan. imposes substantial direct compliance agency certifies that the rule will not costs, and that is not required by statute, have a significant economic impact on VII. Administrative Requirements unless the Federal government provides a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12866 the funds necessary to pay the direct Small entities include small businesses, The Office of Management and Budget compliance costs incurred by state and small not-for-profit enterprises, and (OMB) has exempted this regulatory local governments, or EPA consults with small governmental jurisdictions. action from Executive Order 12866, state and local officials early in the This rule will not have a significant entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and process of developing the proposed impact on a substantial number of small Review.’’ regulation. Under section 6(c) of entities because such businesses have Executive Order 13132, EPA may not already been subject to the federal plan, Paperwork Reduction Act issue a regulation that has federalism which mirrors this rule. Therefore, This action will not impose any implications and that preempts state because the Federal approval does not collection information subject to the law, unless the Agency consults with create any new requirements, I certify provisions of the Paperwork Reduction state and local officials early in the that this action will not have a Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than process of developing the proposed significant economic impact on a those previously approved and assigned regulation. substantial number of small entities. EPA has concluded that this rule may OMB control number 2060–0363. For Unfunded Mandates additional information concerning these have federalism implications. The only requirements, See 40 CFR 60.38e. An reason why this rule may have Under sections 202 of the Unfunded agency may not conduct or sponsor, and federalism implications is if in the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 a person is not required to respond to, future a HMIWI source is found in the (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed a collection of information unless it Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must displays a currently valid OMB control case the source will become subject to prepare a budgetary impact statement to number. the federal plan until a Puerto Rico accompany any proposed or final rule HMIWI plan is approved by EPA. that includes a Federal mandate that Executive Order 13045 However, it will not impose substantial may result in estimated costs to state, Protection of Children from direct compliance costs on state or local local, or tribal governments in the Environmental Health Risks and Safety governments, nor will it preempt state aggregate; or to the private sector, of Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), law. Thus, the requirements of sections $100 million or more. Under section applies to any rule that: (1) Is 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do 205, EPA must select the most cost- determined to be ‘‘economically no apply to this rule. effective and least burdensome significant’’ as defined under Executive alternative that achieves the objectives Executive Order 13175 Order 12866, and (2) concerns an of the rule and is consistent with environmental health or safety risk that Executive Order 13175, entitled statutory requirements. Section 203 EPA has reason to believe may have a ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with requires EPA to establish a plan for disproportionate effect on children. If Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR informing and advising any small the regulatory action meets both criteria, 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA governments that may be significantly the Agency must evaluate the to develop an accountable process to or uniquely impacted by the rule. environmental health or safety effects of ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by EPA has determined that the approval the planned rule on children, and tribal officials in the development of action promulgated does not include a explain why the planned regulation is regulatory policies that have tribal Federal mandate that may result in preferable to other potentially effective implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal estimated costs of $100 million or more and reasonably feasible alternatives implications’’ is defined in the to either state, local, or tribal considered by the Agency. Executive Order to include regulations governments in the aggregate, or to the This rule is not subject to Executive that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on private sector. This Federal action Order 13045 because it does not involve one or more Indian tribes, on the approves pre-existing requirements decisions intended to mitigate relationship between the Federal under state or local law, and imposes no environmental health or safety risks. government and the Indian tribes, or on new requirements. Accordingly, no the distribution of power and additional costs to state, local, or tribal Executive Order 13132 responsibilities between the Federal governments, or to the private sector, Executive Order 13132, entitled government and Indian tribes.’’ result from this action. ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, This rule does not have tribal 1999), requires EPA to develop an implications. It will not have substantial National Technology Transfer and accountable process to ensure direct effects on tribal governments, on Advancement Act ‘‘meaningful and timely input by state the relationship between the Federal Section 12 of the National Technology and local officials in the development of government and Indian tribes, or on the Transfer and Advancement Act
VerDate 11
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal ADDRESSES: The complete file for this 1990, Jodice 1990, Humphrey and agencies to evaluate existing technical finding, including comments and Jodice 1992). standards when developing a new information submitted, is available for Fox squirrel research specific to regulation. To comply with NTTAA, public inspection, by appointment, Florida was only begun in the 1950s EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary during normal business hours at the (Wooding 1990). Therefore, very little consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South information regarding Big Cypress fox and applicable when developing Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 squirrels is available from prior to that programs and policies unless doing so 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960. time. Studies of the Big Cypress fox would be inconsistent with applicable squirrel in its natural habitat are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: law or otherwise impractical. virtually nonexistent. Available reports David Martin (see ADDRESSES section; The EPA believes that VCS are specific to the Big Cypress fox squirrel telephone 561/562–3909 extension 230; provide limited details regarding the inapplicable to this action. Today’s facsimile 561/562–4288). action does not require the public to biology of, population status of, and perform activities conducive to the use SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: threats faced by this fox squirrel range- of VCS. wide. In addition, no recent studies or Background evaluations of the Big Cypress fox List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires squirrel have been conducted. The only Environmental protection, that, for any petition to revise the List recent analysis was conducted on Administrative practice and procedure, of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife potential Big Cypress fox squirrel Air pollution control, Intergovernmental and Plants that presents substantial habitat (WilsonMiller Inc. 2002). The relations, Reporting and recordkeeping scientific and commercial information, previous range-wide report by Cox et al. requirements, waste treatment and we must make a finding within 12 (1994) on habitat used 1985–1989 disposal. months of the date of receipt of the Landsat imagery. petition as to whether the petitioned The State has protected the Big Dated: February 11, 2002. Cypress fox squirrel since 1973, when Jane M. Kenny, action is (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but the Florida Fish and Wildlife Regional Administrator, Region 2. precluded from immediate proposal by Commission (Commission) listed it as [FR Doc. 02–4405 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] other pending proposals of higher endangered. The State reclassified the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P priority. Upon making a 12-month Big Cypress fox squirrel to threatened in finding, we must promptly publish 1979; the species retained protection as notice of such finding in the Federal a nongame species. As a threatened Register. species, Big Cypress fox squirrels and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR their nests cannot be taken or possessed The Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus without authorization from the Fish and Wildlife Service niger avicennia) is a subspecies of the Commission. fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), which Our involvement with the Big Cypress 50 CFR Part 17 occurs over most of the eastern and fox squirrel began when we identified central United States, extending into the Big Cypress fox squirrel as a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife south-central Canada (Koprowski 1994). category 2 candidate species in Notices and Plants; 12-month Finding for a The Big Cypress fox squirrel is restricted of Review published in the Federal Petition To List the Big Cypress Fox to southwest Florida. Its historic range Register on December 30, 1982 (47 FR Squirrel was southwest Florida from south of the 58454), September 18, 1985 (50 FR Caloosahatchee River, west of the AGENCY: 37958), January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), Fish and Wildlife Service, Everglades, to as far south as Cape Sable Interior. November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and (Williams and Humphrey 1979, Moore November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Prior ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 1956). Despite human development and to 1996, a category 2 species was one finding. changes in land use in the southwestern that we were considering for possible Florida peninsula, the current range of addition to the Federal Lists of SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife the Big Cypress fox squirrel, based on its Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month description in the best available and Plants, but for which conclusive finding for a petition to list the Big information, is essentially unchanged data on biological vulnerability and Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger (Humphrey and Jodice 1992, Williams threats were not available to support a avicennia) under the Endangered and Humphrey 1979, and Moore 1956). proposed rule. We identified the Big Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Big Cypress fox squirrels have been Cypress fox squirrel’s status as ‘‘D’’ or After a review of all available scientific reported present in Hendry and Lee ‘‘Declining’’ in the 1991 and 1994 and commercial information, we find Counties south of the Caloosahatchee Notices of Review. This designation that listing of the Big Cypress fox River, Collier County, the mainland of indicates decreasing numbers or squirrel is not warranted at this time. Monroe County, and extreme western increasing threats. In addition, we We will continue to seek new Miami-Dade County (a strip of land on identified a priority for this subspecies information on the biology, ecology, the western side of the true Everglades, and most of our other category 2 distribution, and habitat of the Big largely in Big Cypress National candidates during the completion of the Cypress fox squirrel, as well as potential Preserve) (Humphrey and Jodice 1992, 1991 and 1994 Notices of Review. In threats to its continued existence. If Jodice 1990, Wooding 1990, and 1991, the Big Cypress fox squirrel was additional data become available in the Williams and Humphrey 1979). The Big identified as a priority 9. Based on the future, we may reassess the need for Cypress fox squirrel is, however, absent listing priority system detailed in the listing. from a few areas of its historic range like Federal Register in 1983 (48 FR 43103), DATES: The finding announced in this the Cape Sable coast of Everglades this priority indicated that the Big document was made on February 15, National Park in the vicinity of Cypress fox squirrel faced a moderate to 2002. Flamingo, Monroe County. (Wooding low magnitude of imminent threats. In
VerDate 11
1994, the Big Cypress fox squirrel was available and after taking into account for Hendry County as estimated and identified as a low-priority category 2 any efforts being made by any State or projected gradually decreases between candidate. We discontinued designation foreign nation to protect the species. We 1990 and 2030. (For all human of category 2 species in the February 28, have examined each of the five listing population figures, 1990 and 2000 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 7596). factors under the Act for their figures from U.S. Census, available at This notice redefined candidate to application to the Big Cypress fox http://swfloridabusiness.com; include only species for which we have squirrel as follows: ‘‘Projections of Florida Population by information needed to propose them for 1. The present or threatened County, 2000–2030,’’ produced by the listing. destruction, modification, or Bureau of Economic and Business On January 5, 1998, we received a curtailment of its habitat or range. The Research, University of Florida. Data petition from the Biodiversity Legal Big Cypress fox squirrel’s current range, presented at website of Southwest Foundation, Sidney Maddock, Florida as described in the best available Florida Regional Planning Council (see Biodiversity Project, Brian Scherf, and information, remains essentially Literature Cited)). Rosalyn Scherf, to list the Big Cypress unchanged (Humphrey and Jodice 1992, fox squirrel as a threatened species and Williams and Humphrey 1979, Moore Lee County designate critical habitat concurrently 1956) from its historic range. This In eastern Lee County, land with listing. The petitioners stated that subspecies of fox squirrel has been ownership is similar to Hendry County. the Big Cypress fox squirrel is found to use most types of forests A notable Big Cypress fox squirrel threatened by several factors, including within its range, including open population in a medium-sized area of habitat loss, fragmentation, and pinelands (wet or dry), mixed open habitat was found on a ranch in this part modification; exclusion of fire; pine-cypress, mixed open pine of the county (Wooding 1997). Wooding predation; road mortality; and poaching. hardwoods, open hardwood, seasonally also reported Big Cypress fox squirrels After considering the petition and used cypress strand and edges of from golf courses and ranchettes reviewing all available scientific and cypress dome strands, interiors of adjacent to this area. Western Lee commercial information, we made a 90- cypress domes and strands, prairie with County is mostly urban or residential in day finding that the petition to list the interspersed pines or adjacent pineland, and near Ft. Myers and Naples, Big Cypress fox squirrel presented live oak savannas, and mangrove, including the corridor of I–75. However, substantial information indicating that cypress, and hardwood swamps. areas of habitat that Big Cypress fox the requested action may be warranted. Although many questions remain about squirrels use exist in this area, like We published a notice announcing our habitat use and requirements for this Estero Bay State Buffer Preserve and finding in the Federal Register on squirrel, the Big Cypress fox squirrel Koreshan State Historic Site. Lee September 9, 1998 (63 FR 48165), and seems to prefer an open understory in County, between 2000 and 2010, will initiated a status review on the the habitat types that it frequents gain the greatest number of people subspecies. (Ditigen 1999, Wooding 1990, and (98,412) of all the counties within the On December 11, 2000, the petitioners Brown 1978). We also believe the Big range of the Big Cypress fox squirrel. We filed a complaint in the U.S. District Cypress fox squirrel is opportunistic in expect this population growth will be Court for the Southern District of its use of available habitat. For example, focused around the I–75 corridor. Florida, Key West Division, against the in addition to the habitat types listed Collier County U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), above, Big Cypress fox squirrels also the Director of the Service, and the persist in urban settings where native The northwestern edge of Collier Secretary of the Department of the vegetation is present (Ditigen 1999, Cox County is similar to western Lee Interior, alleging the Service failed to et al. 1994, and Williams and Humphrey County, with mostly urban or make a 12-month finding on the petition 1979). These settings include golf residential areas in and near the Naples to list the Big Cypress fox squirrel. On courses, city parks, and residential areas area and the end of the I–75 corridor. September 25, 2001, the U.S. that contain or have adjacent pine We expect population growth in the Department of Justice entered into a flatwoods, upland fringes of cypress county to be focused in this area. settlement agreement with the domes, and tropical hardwood forests. Wooding (1997) found Big Cypress fox petitioners in which the Service agreed Habitat for the Big Cypress fox squirrels to be common on some golf to complete a 12-month finding for the squirrel exists on both private land and courses around Naples. In addition, Big Cypress fox squirrel and submit this conservation lands within this Rookery Bay National Estuarine finding to the Federal Register by subspecies’ range. We provide a brief Research Reserve, which has reported February 18, 2002. county-by-county analysis: fox squirrels (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2001a), is in Summary of Factors Affecting the Hendry County this area. The remainder of Collier Species The land ownership is mostly private County to the south and east is mostly Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a and land use is mainly agriculture and in public ownership as conservation species may be determined to be ranching. Most Big Cypress fox squirrel lands. Big Cypress fox squirrels have threatened or endangered for any one of habitat is in the northwestern part of the been reported from all conservation the following reasons: (1) Present or county on several ranches. These areas lands in this county and one ranch. threatened destruction, modification, or are all medium-sized (1,000–4,000 ha) curtailment of habitat or range; (2) with existing Big Cypress fox squirrel Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties overutilization for commercial, sporting, populations (Wooding 1997). Fox Monroe County and extreme western scientific, or educational purposes; (3) squirrels use both pine and cypress Miami-Dade County are largely disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of habitats, as well as improved cattle composed of Everglades National Park, existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) pastures that have live oaks, on where the squirrel is a resident and can other natural or manmade factors ranchlands in Hendry County (Williams be found in mangroves, pinelands, and affecting its continued existence. Listing and Humphrey 1979). Okaloacoochee cypress swamp (http://www.nps.gov/ determinations are made solely on the Slough State Forest is also in this ever/eco/mammals.htm). We believe best scientific and commercial data county. The rate of population growth that residential and urban land uses in
VerDate 11
this part of the Big Cypress fox squirrel’s range. Among other reasons, native fox Hendry County and eastern Lee range are insignificant. squirrel habitat is often too dense to County, where Wooding (1997) found make behavioral observations (or the largest areas of Big Cypress fox Summary sightings) from farther away than a few squirrel habitat and where WilsonMiller Within the geographic range of the Big meters. (Maehr 1993) Inc. (2002) found only 10 percent of the Cypress fox squirrel, 58 percent of the We believe the majority of population total potential Big Cypress fox squirrel potential habitat for this subspecies growth in the Big Cypress fox squirrel’s habitat, are under private ownership exists in conservation lands (551,855 ac) range will occur in or near the I–75 and are not under high pressure to be and a little under 400,000 ac exists on corridor, mostly in and around the developed for residential purposes nonconservation lands, for a total of south Ft. Myers and Naples areas. (though native Big Cypress fox squirrel 949,000 ac (WilsonMiller Inc. 2002). Big Growth and development will generally habitat here may be converted for Cypress fox squirrels occur in nearly all occur west of the majority of Big different land uses, such as citrus conservation lands within their range. Cypress fox squirrel potential habitat production). Big Cypress fox squirrels Recently, WilsonMiller Inc. (2002) (WilsonMiller Inc. 2002). Habitat have been reported to occur on ranches. evaluated the amount of potential important to the Big Cypress fox squirrel In fact, much of the habitat described by habitat available to the Big Cypress fox in this area is under the greatest Wooding (1997) is on ranches in squirrel in southwest Florida, especially pressure to be developed for residential southern Florida, and grazing by cattle in Collier, Hendry, Lee, and Monroe or commercial purposes. The highest may enhance the understory, improving counties. It noted that the basis of Cox density of roads in the Big Cypress fox the habitat for squirrels (Williams and et al.’s (1994) report, especially their squirrel’s range occurs in this area. Humphrey 1979). Even if we assume choice to use pineland and dry prairie Roads, depending on the type, level of that Big Cypress fox squirrels are not as the principal components of Big able to use lands converted for citrus Cypress fox squirrel habitat and their traffic, and location, may fragment Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat or hinder production or other agricultural subsequent analysis based on these purposes, the best available information cover types, was inconsistent with Big squirrel movement. However, no research has been conducted to does not indicate that the rate of Cypress fox squirrel habitat types conversion of native habitat in Hendry described in current literature determine to what degree roads may fragment squirrel habitat or hinder County poses a threat to this subspecies. (Humphrey and Jodice 1992), did not According to WilsonMiller (2002), fully account for the occurrence data squirrel movement. We cannot conclude based on current information if road Collier, Lee, and Monroe counties, reported by Williams and Humphrey which contain 90 percent of the total 1979, and underestimated the total fragmentation constitutes a threat to this subspecies’ habitat. Based on recorded Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat, nearly amount of Big Cypress fox squirrel all of which is in conservation lands, potential habitat. In its analysis, sightings, we do believe squirrels cross some roads and are found near them. An have not undergone a significant WilsonMiller Inc. used 1995 data to agricultural expansion. Therefore, we map, with a minimum map unit size of area around the I–75 corridor that has been heavily studied includes golf also cannot conclude, based on the best 5 acres, habitat types utilized by the fox available information, that the rate of courses, which have been found to squirrel and consistent with Humphrey land conversion in these counties poses provide a better green space than most and Jodice (1992). The mapped results a threat to this subspecies. indicate that more than twice as much development projects, but Big Cypress Mining for rock and sand also occurs Big Cypress fox squirrel potential fox squirrels will persist on them only in Collier and Lee Counties. Some of habitat (949,000 ac) exists than what as long as suitable native habitat is these operations destroy pine flatwoods was estimated by Cox et al. (about contiguous to the golf courses (Ditigen or mixed pine-cypress areas. In some 414,000 ac). The WilsonMiller Inc. map 1999). cases, it may be difficult to separate also indicates large, interconnected, A large portion of the Big Cypress fox losses to mining from those due to forested patches of Big Cypress fox squirrel’s range consists of lands agriculture, because lands are often squirrel habitat that may allow purchased for conservation purposes. cleared under agricultural permits prior movement and genetic interchange. These lands are mostly in Collier, to mining. Mines are an allowed use in According to WilsonMiller Inc., its Monroe, and extreme western Miami- agriculturally zoned areas in Lee and analysis and map correlates well with Dade Counties and are protected from Collier Counties (K. Dryden and A. available occurrence data for the Big development and have a low density of Eller, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cypress fox squirrel and includes roads bisecting natural habitat. Our personal communication 2000). Mining conservation lands with known Big available information does not is not a compatible land use if it Cypress fox squirrel residents and conclusively suggest that current destroys native squirrel habitat. habitat that was not accounted for by management practices on these Our best available information Cox et al. (1994). conservation lands constitute a threat to indicates the Big Cypress fox squirrel In general, we believe—based on the Big Cypress fox squirrel. For has lost habitat in some areas to WilsonMiller Inc’s (2002) study—that example, Humphrey and Jodice (1992) urbanization, agriculture, and mining. the Big Cypress fox squirrel has more explain that ground fires apparently are Nevertheless, conservation lands do potential habitat than outlined by Cox et valuable to the habitats of Big Cypress cover 58 percent of this subspecies’ al. (1994) (over 900,000 acres) and has fox squirrels because they slow plant historic range, and areas of habitat exist additional larger patches of habitat than succession, but this specific relationship on private ranches and other urban those classified by Wooding (1997). We has not been studied. We are areas. Based on the best available also believe similar to Wooding (1997) encouraged by the efforts of both State information, potential Big Cypress fox that smaller, isolated, fragmented and Federal agencies in fire planning squirrel habitat appears to be more than pockets of squirrels are surviving in and prescribed burning. This should twice what was previously estimated. In strips and patches of habitat, such as result in a more open understory for the addition, the Big Cypress fox squirrel golf courses and fringes of residential Big Cypress fox squirrel if burning is not still occupies most of its historic range areas. We believe the Big Cypress fox hampered by drought conditions for in southwest Florida and has shown squirrel has been difficult to assess in its continuous years. itself to be adaptable, by residing in
VerDate 11
altered habitats such as golf courses and which only affects squirrels. No known regulatory protections for wildlife. On residential areas where native habitat is treatment or vaccine is available. At this many State lands managed by agencies preserved, and mobile in its native time, we have no evidence that pox is other than the Commission, the hunting habitat. Furthermore, quantitative or likely to pose a threat to the Big Cypress season, including permits, is managed substantial information on the Big fox squirrel. In addition, Big Cypress fox by the Commission under its Wildlife Cypress fox squirrel, its status, and its squirrels, like other fox squirrels, are Management Area program. Such habitat use and requirements is lacking. susceptible to parasites, but we have no properties include Picayune Strand and Therefore, based on uncertainties about evidence that parasites pose a threat to Okaloacoochee State Forests. On these how this fox squirrel uses its native the Big Cypress fox squirrel. As the properties, the Commission has the lead habitat and on the actual status of the petitioners state, based on a study of fox responsibility for activities that involve Big Cypress fox squirrel population, and squirrel parasites, the prevalences and the take of wildlife. due to the amount of available potential intensities were much lower in Big Under the Environmental Resources habitat to this fox squirrel, we cannot Cypress fox squirrels. Permitting program (ERP) implemented conclude that the Big Cypress fox Predation may limit the sizes of Big by the South Florida Water Management squirrel is threatened or endangered due Cypress fox squirrel populations. All fox District (SFLWMD), Big Cypress fox to the destruction or curtailment of its squirrels spend much of their time on squirrels and Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat or range. the ground, where they are more habitat on private lands receive 2. Overutilization for commercial, vulnerable to predation than when in protection. The Big Cypress fox squirrel recreational, scientific, or educational trees (Humphrey and Jodice 1992). has been designated under this program purposes. The Big Cypress fox squirrel Known predators of Big Cypress fox as an aquatic or wetland-dependent has been protected from hunting since squirrels include bobcats (Felis rufus), species that uses upland habitat for 1973, when the State listed it as an gray and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and nesting. In order to get a permit from endangered species. The State later domestic cats (Felis sylvestris) (Ditgen SFLWMD to begin an activity, like reclassified the Big Cypress fox squirrel 1999). Small mammals are inherently converting land for agricultural to threatened in 1979, but it retained subject to predation. However, the best purposes, the landowner must provide protection as a nongame species. available information does not lead us assurances that the activity will not Elsewhere in Florida, fox squirrel to the conclusion that disease or adversely impact the value of wetlands hunting formerly was a popular activity, predation has caused the species to and other surface waters for Big Cypress but interest dropped off (Wooding meet the definition of threatened or fox squirrels, the value of uplands for 1990), which is one factor that led to the endangered. nesting (foraging areas or wildlife closure of fox squirrel hunting statewide 4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory corridors are not included), and will not as of the 1996–1997 hunting season mechanisms. The Big Cypress fox cause adverse secondary impacts to the (Wooding 1997). Despite concerns that squirrel is listed as threatened by the Big Cypress fox squirrel. (Basis of ‘‘people were still shooting’’ fox Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Review for ERP applications, January squirrels as discussed in the petition, Commission (Commission) under Rule 2001, as referenced in Chapter 40E–4, we do not have evidence that poaching 68A–27.004 (formerly 39–27.004) of the Florida Administrative Code). As such, of fox squirrels constitutes a threat to Florida Administrative Code. This rule its upland nest and wetland areas this subspecies. Also, no information is provides that no one may take, possess, receive consideration during the available to confirm that Big Cypress fox transport, molest, harass, or sell any wetland permitting review. Projects squirrel populations may have suffered threatened species, their parts, or their where this subspecies or its habitat have long-term reduction in size due to legal nests except as authorized by a permit been observed through surveys are hunting. from the Commission. Permits are required to preserve onsite habitat, 3. Disease or predation. A skin fungus issued for conservation purposes or implement a Big Cypress fox squirrel has been identified as a source of scientific purposes only after the management plan, and minimize the mortality for Big Cypress fox squirrels applicant shows the activity will not spread of exotic plants onsite. found in urban areas. During Ditgen’s have a negative impact on the survival On all properties under jurisdiction of (1999) study of fox squirrels on golf of the threatened species. The the Florida Division of Recreation and courses in southwest Florida, she noted Commission typically has not Parks, collection of specimens is at least eight individuals with a fungus authorized the take of animals, but does allowed only by permit. This includes causing heavy fur loss and a blackened authorize take of nest trees and nests Collier-Seminole State Park and crusting of the skin. Ditgen reported that outside of nesting season when the nest Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve Park. two Big Cypress fox squirrels died as a is not active (J. Beever, Florida Fish and This prohibition is in addition to the result of the skin fungus during her Wildlife Conservation Commission, statewide prohibition of take of Big study. One collared individual survived personal communication 2000). The Cypress fox squirrels imposed by the the fungus infestation and regained a Commission also provides technical Commission. Other State land-managing thick, healthy coat. No researchers have assistance and recommendations to agencies have similar authority to suggested that this fungus threatens other government agencies that regulate regulate public access and to manage urban Big Cypress fox squirrel development activities in the Big the vegetation and other natural populations. A pox outbreak was Cypress fox squirrel range. According to resources. Lands managed by the reported in eight counties in southeast Section 372.0725 of the Florida Statutes, Florida Department of Environmental and central Florida outside the range of it is unlawful for anyone to kill or Protection (FLDEP) are protected by the Big Cypress fox squirrel during the wound a Big Cypress fox squirrel or to State park regulations. Also, Big Cypress 1990’s. Although no cases have been intentionally destroy the nest of a Big fox squirrels and other resources on reported affecting Big Cypress fox Cypress fox squirrel, except as provided Federal conservation lands are protected squirrels, one infected Sherman’s fox for in the rules by the Commission. by rules imposed by land management squirrel was observed (T. Regen, Florida Most other State agencies have not agencies, such as the National Park Fish and Wildlife Conservation promulgated specific regulations to Service for Big Cypress National Commission, personal communication protect this or other animals, but instead Preserve, to generally protect resources. 1999). Mosquitoes transmit the disease, help enforce the Commission’s In both cases, use of motor vehicles is
VerDate 11
regulated or restricted, and take of Big periodic hurricane disturbances, the educational purposes (i.e., poaching), Cypress fox squirrels is prohibited. most important of which for fox nor by disease or predation. We also Substantial areas of Big Cypress fox squirrels is probably large-scale have no data to show that inadequacies squirrel habitat are on conservation destruction of trees. Therefore, we do in the existing regulatory mechanisms lands or on private lands not currently not believe that hurricanes are a threat may threaten the survival of the Big threatened by development. Regulatory to the continued existence of the Big Cypress fox squirrel. Thus, we cannot mechanisms exist that prevent direct Cypress fox squirrel. conclude that the Big Cypress fox take, and ERP rules provide some Finding squirrel qualifies for listing as an protection to the species’ habitat. endangered or threatened species due to Therefore, the available information We have reviewed the petition, the any of the five factors as defined in the does not lead us to conclude that the literature cited in the petition, other Act. Because the available information species is threatened or endangered due available literature and information, and does not demonstrate that the Big to inadequacy of existing regulatory consulted with species experts and Cypress fox squirrel meets the definition mechanisms. other individuals familiar with the Big of threatened or endangered, we find 5. Other natural or manmade factors Cypress fox squirrel. On the basis of the that listing the Big Cypress fox squirrel affecting its continued existence. Fox best available scientific and commercial (Sciurus niger avicennia) as threatened squirrel reproduction varies greatly from information, we find that the petitioned is not warranted at the present time. year to year in response to food action is not warranted at this time. The supplies. There are few data on how Big status review revealed a lack of reliable References Cited Cypress fox squirrels utilize their native data and information on the current A complete list of all references cited habitats and on how many squirrels status and any trend in density and in this document, as well as others, is exist in these habitats. Based on the best abundance of Big Cypress fox squirrels available upon request from the South available information, we do not believe in natural or seminatural habitats over Florida Ecological Services Office (see that food availability is currently a time. In particular, we have no reliable ADDRESSES section). threat that could lead the fox squirrel information on the sizes of Big Cypress toward extinction. fox squirrel populations on conservation Author Based on current information and lands or private lands in southwest The primary author of this document recorded sightings, we believe Big Florida, and the most recent information is David L. Martin (see ADDRESSES Cypress fox squirrels cross roads and are on Big Cypress fox squirrels on privately section). found near them. Road mortality is owned ranches in Lee and Hendry Authority: The authority for this action is documented for the Big Cypress fox Counties is from a very brief survey the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 squirrel, but a very large portion of this conducted in 1989 (Wooding 1997). et seq.). subspecies’ habitat has few, if any roads, Studies as described in this finding and so road mortality in these areas is likely in our available literature indicate the Dated: February 15, 2002. to be minimal. While road mortality Big Cypress fox squirrel has lost habitat Steve Williams, may cause declines in numbers of in some areas to urbanization, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. squirrels in certain urban areas or other agriculture, and mining. Nevertheless, [FR Doc. 02–4336 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] areas with roads, in the absence of conservation lands cover 58 percent of BILLING CODE 4310–55–P demographic data, we have no evidence this subspecies’ historic range, and areas that the subspecies is threatened by road of habitat exist on private ranches and mortality. other urban areas. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE No studies have documented the Based on the best available effects of pesticides on Big Cypress fox information, potential Big Cypress fox National Oceanic and Atmospheric squirrels, and we have no evidence that squirrel habitat appears to be more than Administration poisoning is a major cause of mortality twice what was previously estimated. In for big Cypress fox squirrels on golf addition, the Big Cypress fox squirrel 50 CFR Part 622 courses. Poisoning has not been still occupies most of its historic range [Docket No. 011018255–1255–01; I.D. documented sufficiently for us to in southwest Florida and has shown 071001F] consider it a threat to the continued itself to be adaptable, by residing in existence of the species. altered habitats such as golf courses and RIN 0648–AO51 Hurricanes in 1935 (Labor Day), 1960 residential areas where native habitat is (Donna), and 1992 (Andrew) extensively preserved, and mobile in its native Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of damaged squirrel habitat (Moore 1956, habitat. Furthermore, quantitative or Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Brown 1971). The 1960 hurricane substantial information on the Big Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; toppled nearly all the suitable nesting Cypress fox squirrel, its status, and its Amendment 11 trees in Everglades City and virtually habitat use and requirements is lacking. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries eliminated a Big Cypress fox squirrel Therefore, based on uncertainties about Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and population that inhabited a public park how this fox squirrel uses its native Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (Brown 1971, Humphrey and Jodice habitat and on the actual status of the Commerce. 1992). None of the three catastrophic Big Cypress fox squirrel population, and ACTION: Proposed rule; request for hurricanes since 1930 impacted more due to the amount of available potential comments. than a fraction of the squirrel’s range. habitat to this fox squirrel, we cannot The range of the subspecies is large conclude that the Big Cypress fox SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed enough to ensure that catastrophic squirrel is threatened or endangered due rule to implement Amendment 11 to the hurricane damage is unlikely to the destruction or curtailment of its Fishery Management Plan for the throughout the range in any 1 year. The habitat or range. Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico Big Cypress fox squirrel and other We found no evidence that the (Amendment 11), as prepared and southeastern fox squirrel subspecies species is threatened by overutilization submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery have evolved under conditions of for commercial, recreational, or Management Council. This proposed
VerDate 11
rule would require owners or operators Magnuson-Stevens Fishery enumeration of the vessels that would of all vessels harvesting shrimp in the Conservation and Management Act be authorized to fish for shrimp in the exclusive economic zone of the Gulf of (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations EEZ on an annual basis. A Federal Mexico (Gulf EEZ) to obtain a at 50 CFR part 622. permit system is a prerequisite tool for commercial vessel permit for Gulf Need for a Federal Commercial Vessel designing a statistically robust data shrimp; prohibit the use of traps to Permit for Gulf Shrimp collection program to canvass or harvest royal red shrimp in the Gulf randomly sample the activities of the EEZ; and prohibit the transfer of royal The shrimp fishery is the largest shrimp fishery in the EEZ. Previous data red shrimp at sea. The permit fishery in terms of numbers of fishing collection programs were hampered by requirement would provide an accurate vessels and participants in the Gulf of the inability to specifically identify the and efficient method of identifying and Mexico, but is one of the few federally universe of vessels fishing for shrimp in quantifying the number of vessels in the managed fisheries with no fishing the Gulf EEZ. The results of NMFS’ Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery. The permit requirement. Some data 1992–1996 incidental harvest research prohibition of the use of traps for royal collection and vessel identification program, as well as the Council’s red shrimp is intended to prevent gear systems exist through either state or subsequent actions implemented in Federal programs, but none is conflict and potential overfishing. The Amendment 9, which were based on the comprehensive or specifically identifies prohibition on transfer of royal red results of that program, have been shrimp fishing vessels that fish in the shrimp at sea is intended to enhance questioned because the sampling was EEZ. NMFS maintains two record enforceability of the prohibition on use not conducted through a stratified systems, each with a limited purpose. of traps in the fishery. random sampling effort. Similarly, DATES: Comments must be received no The Shrimp Landing File (SLF) contains landings by individual shrimp vessels during the summer 1998 Red Snapper/ later than 4:30 p.m., eastern standard Shrimp Research Program, the time, on April 11, 2002. over the course of a year. The Vessel Operating Units File (VOUF) is similar, Southeast Fisheries Science Center ADDRESSES: Written comments on the but the purpose of this file is to (SEFSC) attempted to implement a trial proposed rule should be sent to Dr. logbook program. That attempt was only Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional maintain a record of vessel characteristics (i.e., length, age, partially successful because it failed to Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center reach many of the intended participants Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. horsepower, etc.) for all active shrimp fishing vessels during a particular year. in a timely manner. Without Comments also may be sent via fax to information to identify readily the 727–570–5583. Comments will not be Neither the SLF nor VOUF contains contact information for the owner, and participants in the fishery, sampling accepted if submitted via e-mail or programs have depended on non- Internet. neither indicates whether the vessel fishes in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. random sampling. A more robust Requests for copies of Amendment 11, analysis of the shrimp fishery is only which includes an environmental Similarly, state licensing files list active fishing vessels, but these files do not possible through stratified random assessment and regulatory impact sampling of the existing fleet, and that review (RIR), should be sent to the Gulf provide information on whether vessels fish in state or Federal waters, or both. kind of sampling is only possible where of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the specific vessels are readily 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite In some instances, these vessel licenses are not specific to a fishery; thus, they identifiable. The permit system will 1000, Tampa, FL 33619–2266; serve as a source to identify a telephone: 813–228–2815; fax: 813– do not readily identify shrimp fishing vessels as opposed to vessels operating representative stratified random sample 225–7015; e-mail: of shrimp vessels. Once the Agency has [email protected]. Copies of in other fisheries. Trip ticket systems are not used by all the states, nor is the more accurately determined the number the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management of fishery participants through the Council’s Minority Report on data collection uniform among those states that do have a trip ticket system. permit system, sample groups will be Amendment 11 may also be obtained Although the GulfFIN program, as used to conduct research to collect from the same address. biological, fishery, social, and economic Comments regarding the collection-of- administered by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, will standardize data on the fishery, through use of information requirements contained in observers, vessel monitoring systems, or this proposed rule should be sent to this information, this program is still under development. NMFS has other data collection methods. Robert Sadler, Southeast Regional Anticipated improvements from the Office, NMFS, and to the Office of supported the development of a national Vessel Identification System under the permitting and subsequent sampling Information and Regulatory Affairs, procedures would include more precise Office of Management and Budget auspices of the US Coast Guard (USCG). However, the USCG is still reviewing red snapper bycatch estimation and (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 options to implement this system, and more accurate determinations of (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer). its implementation is not anticipated in economic and community impacts. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. the near future. Information collected under such future Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727–570– Because existing vessel identification programs would aid in the formulation 5305, fax: 727–570–5583, e-mail: systems are not comprehensive nor do of sound management measures for the [email protected]. they specifically identify shrimp fishing shrimp fishery and those finfish SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The vessels that fish in the EEZ, the Council fisheries that are affected by bycatch fishery for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ is concluded that a Federal vessel permit and bycatch mortality arising from the managed under the Fishery requirement for the shrimp fishery of shrimp fishery. Therefore, the Council Management Plan for the Shrimp the Gulf of Mexico was necessary to concluded that a requirement for a Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). identify accurately the universe of Federal commercial vessel permit for The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of vessels that fish for shrimp in the Gulf the shrimp fishery in the Gulf EEZ Mexico Fishery Management Council of Mexico EEZ and, thereby, to facilitate should enhance the capability to (Council), approved by NMFS, and scientific assessments of annual fishing achieve and maintain sustainable implemented under the authority of the effort. The database would provide an fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
VerDate 11
Two Council members submitted a effective. However, given the large the date of the RA’s letter of minority report expressing opposition to volume of permit applications notification, the application would be the implementation of Amendment 11. anticipated for the Gulf shrimp fishery, considered abandoned. Their opposition was based on their NMFS would strongly encourage Duration belief that the permit requirements in applicants to submit completed Amendment 11 are inconsistent with applications as soon as possible after A permit would remain valid for the national standards 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the publication of the final rule period specified on it unless it was Magnuson-Stevens Act, are devoid of implementing Amendment 11. Any revoked, suspended, or modified adequate rationale, and will result in delay in submitting a completed pursuant to subpart D of 15 CFR part additional bureaucracy and costs. application could result in an inability 904 or unless the vessel was sold. Copies of the minority report are to issue a permit prior to the deadline Transfer available from the Council (see for the permit requirement and, thus, ADDRESSES). preclude legal fishing for Gulf shrimp A vessel permit for Gulf shrimp Commercial Vessel Permit Requirement until the permit is issued. would not be transferable or assignable. The application for a commercial A person who acquired a vessel and This proposed rule would require an vessel permit would have to be desired to conduct activities for which owner or operator of a vessel that fishes submitted by the owner (in the case of a Gulf shrimp vessel permit would be for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ or possesses a corporation, an officer or shareholder; required would need to apply for a shrimp in or from the Gulf EEZ to have in the case of a partnership, a general permit. If the acquired vessel was a valid commercial vessel permit for partner) or operator of the vessel. All already permitted, the application Gulf shrimp on board. If Amendment 11 vessel permits would be mailed to would need to be accompanied by the is approved, the permit requirement owners, whether the applicant is an original permit and a copy of a signed would become effective 90 days after owner or an operator. An applicant bill of sale or equivalent acquisition the effective date of the final rule would have to provide the following: papers. implementing the amendment. No (1) A copy of the vessel’s valid USCG qualifying criteria (e.g., documentation certificate of documentation or, if not Renewal of landings, earned income from fishing, documented, a copy of its valid state Although a permit would be issued on or other participation requirements) are registration certificate. an annual basis, an application for its proposed for the Gulf shrimp permit. If (2) Vessel name and official number. renewal would be required only every 2 the permit requirement is approved, it (3) Name, address, telephone number, years. In the interim years, renewal would provide an accurate and other identifying information of the would be automatic (without identification of the universe of vessels vessel owner and of the applicant, if application) for a vessel owner who had authorized to fish for shrimp in the Gulf other than the owner. met the specific requirements for the EEZ. Establishing this known universe (4) Any other information concerning permit, had submitted all reports of vessels would provide the basis for the vessel, gear characteristics, principal required under the Magnuson-Stevens future development of additional data fisheries engaged in, or fishing areas, as Act, and was not subject to a permit collection programs to evaluate, more specified on the application form. sanction or denial of a permit (5) Any other information that may be comprehensively, the biological, application in accordance with the necessary for the issuance or economic, and social characteristics of procedures governing enforcement- administration of the permit, as the fishery. When this information related permit sanctions and denials specified on the application form. becomes available, the Council would found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904. be in a better position to evaluate Permit Fees An owner whose permit was expiring whether any restrictive criteria for A fee would be charged for each would be mailed a notification by the participation in the shrimp fishery RA approximately 2 months prior to its should be considered in the future. application for a permit and for each request for replacement of such permit. expiration. That notification would Permit Procedures The amount of each fee would be advise the status of the renewal. That is, Required permitting procedures that calculated in accordance with the the notification would advise that the apply to all Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures of the NOAA Finance renewal would be issued without permits issued by the Administrator, Handbook, available from the RA, for further action by the owner (automatic Southeast Region, NMFS, (RA) and that determining the administrative costs of renewal); that the permit was ineligible would apply to a Gulf shrimp permit are each special product or service. The fee for automatic renewal; or that a new specified in 50 CFR 622.4. These may not exceed such costs and would application would be required. procedures include requirements related be specified with each application form. If the RA’s notification indicates that to the following: application, fees, The appropriate fee would have to the owner’s permit would be eligible for initial issuance, transferability, permit accompany each permit application or automatic renewal, the RA would mail renewal, permit display, and other request for permit replacement. the automatically renewed permit permit-related provisions. Basic approximately 1 month prior to Initial Permit Issuance requirements and procedures are expiration of the old permit. summarized here for the convenience of The RA would issue an initial permit If the RA’s notification indicates that the reader. at any time to an applicant if the the owner’s permit would be ineligible application was complete. An for automatic renewal, the notification Permit Application application would be complete when all would specify the reasons and would Permit application forms would be requested forms, information, and provide an opportunity for correction of available from the RA. Completed documentation had been received. Upon any deficiencies. If the owner or dealer application forms would have to be receipt of an incomplete application, the did not correct such deficiencies within submitted to the RA at least 30 days RA would notify the applicant of the 60 days after the date of the RA’s prior to the date on which the applicant deficiency. If the applicant failed to notification, the renewal would be requests to have the permit made correct the deficiency within 30 days of considered abandoned.
VerDate 11
If the RA’s notification indicates that of the resource. Since 1993, landings require licenses for shrimp vessels while a new application would be required, from the traditional trawl fishery have others only license the activity (commercial the notification would include a ranged from 200,000 to 335,000 lb landings). These data sources do not provide preprinted renewal application. If the (90,719 to 151,953 kg), which is an accurate and direct means of determining the numbers of vessels participating in the RA receives an incomplete application, approaching the maximum sustainable shrimp fishery in the Gulf EEZ. the RA would notify the applicant of the yield of 392,000 lb (177,808 kg) for the Mandatory vessel permitting proved to be deficiency. If the applicant failed to fishery. The prohibition of the transfer an effective way of obtaining information on correct the deficiency within 30 days of of royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ and the number of potentially active vessels and the date of the RA’s letter of of royal red shrimp taken in the Gulf participants in other commercial and for-hire notification, the application would be EEZ regardless of where the transfer fisheries operating in the Gulf EEZ, including considered abandoned. takes place is necessary to enhance the the reef fish and coastal migratory pelagics A vessel owner or dealer who did not enforceability of the prohibition of the fisheries. These data combined with logbook receive a notification from the RA use of traps in the fishery. reporting, observer reports, and other surveys regarding status of renewal of a permit provided managers with essential Additional Information information on effort, catch, bycatch, and by 45 days prior to expiration of the other important parameters regarding these current permit would have to contact Additional background and rationale fisheries. Having a known universe of vessels the RA. for the measures discussed here are operating in the Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery will contained in Amendment 11, the Display help provide the same opportunities for availability of which was announced in scientists and managers to collect data on The vessel permit would have to be the Federal Register (66 FR 37634; July effort, catch, bycatch, and other important carried on board the vessel. The 19, 2001). The public comment period parameters of both targeted shrimp stocks, as operator of a vessel would have to on Amendment 11 expired on well as bycatch species that may or may not present the permit for inspection upon September 17, 2001. All comments be under separate management regimes. the request of an authorized officer. Presently, without permits, the numbers of received on Amendment 11 or on this vessels that operate in the Gulf EEZ shrimp Prohibition on the Use of Traps in the proposed rule during their respective fishery can only be estimated using the SLF, Royal Red Shrimp Fishery and on comment periods will be addressed in VOUF, and/or state license files. Transfer of Royal Red Shrimp At Sea the preamble to the final rule. The royal red shrimp fishery in the Gulf traditionally operated as a trawl fishery. Royal red shrimp have been a small Classification Traps are not included on the list of component of the Gulf of Mexico On October 17, 2001, NMFS approved allowable gear for the royal red shrimp shrimp fishery since the early 1960s, Amendment 11 based on a fishery, or the penaeid shrimp fishery in and are traditionally harvested using determination that it was consistent general. However, a recent request to allow modified shrimp trawls at depths with the national standards of the trap gear was considered and denied due to exceeding 100 fathoms (183 meters). Magnuson-Stevens Act and other potential gear conflicts and the increased possibility of exceeding maximum The Council concluded that allowing applicable law. In making that trap gear in this fishery would likely sustainable yield as a result of this new determination, NMFS took into account effort. The prohibition on the use of traps lead to gear conflicts and could lead to the data, views, and comments received was implemented through an emergency overfishing. An emergency interim rule during the comment period on interim rule which expired on September 14, prohibiting the use of trap gear in the Amendment 11. 2001. Consequently, unless a more royal red shrimp fishery within the EEZ This proposed rule has been permanent prohibition through a plan of the Gulf of Mexico was promulgated determined to be significant for amendment is implemented, future use of on September 19, 2000, (65 FR 56500), purposes of Executive Order 12866 trap gear could occur legally under 50 CFR, and extended until September 14, 2001 because of its controversial nature. Part 600.747. The prohibition on the transfer (66 FR 14862, March 14, 2001). The Copies of the RIR are available (see of royal red shrimp at sea is intended to Council requested that NMFS take that enhance enforceability of the prohibition of ADDRESSES). the use of traps in the fishery. The transfer emergency action until regulations The Chief Counsel for Regulation of prohibition is not expected to impact fishery could be implemented through the the Department of Commerce has participants using authorized gear, i.e. trawls, proposed amendment to the FMP. certified to the Chief Counsel for since transfer at sea has not been and is not The intended effect of the proposed Advocacy of the Small Business a customary practice in the royal red shrimp rule to prohibit the use of traps in this Administration that this proposed rule, fishery. fishery is to prevent gear conflict that if adopted, would not have a significant Generally, a fish-harvesting business is could compromise vessel safety and to economic impact on a substantial considered a small business if it is prevent overfishing in the royal red number of small entities as follows: independently owned and operated and not shrimp fishery. Gear conflicts would The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the dominant in its field of operation, and if it otherwise be likely to occur between the statutory basis for the rule. The proposed rule has annual receipts not in excess of $3.0 million. Although there are several fleet traditional trawl fishery and the would: require all vessels (including boats) harvesting shrimp in the Gulf EEZ to obtain operations in the Gulf shrimp fishery, their proposed trap line fishery on the royal actual number is not known, in part due to red shrimp fishing grounds. This could a commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp; prohibit the use of traps to harvest royal red the lack of permit data. Considering the low result in substantial damage and loss of shrimp in the Gulf EEZ; and prohibit the likelihood that these operations are dominant fishing gears and an increase in cost for transfer of royal red shrimp at sea. in the harvesting sector of the shrimp fishery, participants in the fishery. Gear This permit requirement is needed to the gross receipts criterion may be used to conflicts also would introduce vessel identify and quantify the number of vessels define a small business in the shrimp fishery. safety issues because of the depth of the in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf EEZ. Under Based on SLF and VOUF, the number of fishing effort, the weight of the the existing FMP, shrimp vessels in the Gulf shrimp vessels in the Gulf ranges from approximately 3,500 to 5,000. State license deployed gears (especially if they EEZ are not required to have federal permits. Consequently, the only means of determining files indicate that there are 13,163 shrimp become tangled), and the fact that the the numbers of vessels operating in the Gulf boats in the Gulf. The proposed Gulf shrimp fishing grounds are far offshore. EEZ are through NMFS’ shrimp landings file vessel permit would be required on all Additionally, the introduction of new (SLF), NMFS’ vessel operating units file shrimp vessels fishing in the EEZ. This fishing effort could lead to overfishing (VOUF), and state license files. Some states would affect practically all shrimp vessels
VerDate 11
and at least some shrimp boats. The number percent for Mississippi vessels, and 0.4 Multiple Fishery Vessel Application of affected shrimp boats is unknown, but will percent for Texas vessels. (Application) that will be used for the ultimately depend on the number of boats Traps have not been an allowable gear in Gulf shrimp permit and is used for other that prosecute the EEZ component of the the royal red shrimp fishery prior to this rule, fishery permits issued by the NMFS fishery. due to, first, their exclusion from the Southeast Regional Office. NMFS Ward et al. (1995) reported that the average allowable gear list for this fishery and, gross revenues for shrimp vessels are second, an emergency interim rule intends to add data fields for the approximately $82,000 (converted to 1999 prohibiting their use that expired on applicant’s birth date, street address, prices, based on the producer price index September 14, 2001. Although only one and county; vessel net tonnage; vessel (PPI) for all commodities). One standard fisherman has petitioned to use trap gear in gross tonnage, and vessel hull deviation from this average provides a range the royal red shrimp fishery, designation of identification number. The permit of $16,000 to $425,000. Considering that even the gear as allowable for this fishery, which application requirement and the new the upper limit of the revenue range is well will occur automatically without application data field requirements have below the $3.0 million threshold, all shrimp promulgation of this rule, would make it been submitted to OMB for approval. vessel operations, and thus undoubtedly all available to all fishermen. It is indeterminate, shrimp boat operations as well, are small The public reporting burden for the however, how many fishermen might elect to collection of information related to the business entities. Thus, the substantial utilize the gear or how said use would affect number criterion would be met. Within these the economic performance of the fishing Gulf shrimp permit application and the small entities, significant variations of operations. Although it can probably be additional data elements on the revenues occur by size of vessels and by presumed that the petitioning fisherman may Application is estimated to average 20 home port state. Ward et al. (1995) estimated have intended to test the gear, extension of minutes per response. This estimate of that average annual revenues of shrimp same to any portion of other fishermen is the public reporting burden includes the vessels in the Gulf (as adjusted by the PPI in without empirical basis. Further, in the time for reviewing instructions, 1999) by length of vessel are: $4,000 for absence of economic data on the use of trap searching existing data sources, vessels less than 25 ft (7.6 m), $23,000 for gear in this fishery, it is not possible to gathering and maintaining the data vessels between 25 and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 precisely characterize potential foregone m) and, $198,000 for vessels greater than 50 needed, and completing and reviewing opportunity. The historical lack of interest in the collections of information. The ft (15.2 m). Broken down by homeport state, the use of trap gear in the royal red shrimp the average annual revenues of shrimp fishery, as evidenced by the single petition vessel identification requirement was vessels are: $112,000 for Alabama, $106,000 for allowance, suggests that the economic previously approved by OMB under for Florida, $9,000 for Louisiana, $45,000 for rationale for its use is not strong, leading to control number 0648–0358, with an Mississippi, and $192,000 for Texas. a conclusion that continued prohibition estimated response time of 45 minutes For purposes of NMFS’ rules, the would not generate significant adverse total per vessel. determination whether a ‘‘significant economic impacts in terms of foregone Public comment is sought regarding: economic impact’’ results is determined by opportunity. Further, although it is not whether this proposed collection of examining two issues: disproportionality and known whether the petitioning fisherman information is necessary for the proper profitability. To determine disproportionate made investments in the gear prior to either impacts, the pertinent question is whether performance of the functions of the it’s approval or testing, significant agency, including whether the the regulations place a substantial number of investment prior to such would not have small entities at a significant competitive been financially sound and is unlikely to information shall have practical utility; disadvantage compared to large entities. All have occurred. With regard to transfer at sea, the accuracy of the burden estimate; the commercial entities potentially affected since this practice does not occur in the royal ways to enhance the quality, utility, and by the proposed rule are considered small red shrimp fishery, this prohibition will not clarity of the information to be entities so that the issue of disproportionality generate any adverse impacts. The permit collected; and ways to minimize the does not arise in the present case. The costs, $50.00 per vessel, and burden time, burden of the collection of information, pertinent question in determining $4.00 per vessel, (estimated at 20 minutes per including through the use of automated profitability is whether the regulations permit application) are the only costs significantly reduce profit for a substantial collection techniques or other forms of imposed by the permitting requirement. The information technology. Send comments number of small entities. Ward et al. (1995) estimated vessel cost is $54.00 per vessel and estimated the profits (total revenues less total $378,000 for the industry for the first year. regarding this burden estimate or any costs) of shrimp vessels in the Gulf. The As such, the proposed rule would not effect other aspect of the collection-of- average net revenues (profits) for a shrimp a significant reduction in vessel profits. information requirements, including vessel in the Gulf are approximately $12,000 Therefore, the proposed rule would not have suggestions for reducing the burden, to (converted to 1999 prices, based on the a significant economic impact on a NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES). producer price index (PPI) for all substantial number of small entities. As a commodities). Average profit for vessels by result, an initial regulatory flexibility List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 vessel length are: $1,598 for vessels less than analysis was not required. Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 25 ft (7.6 m), $7,949 for vessels between 25 Notwithstanding any other provision Reporting and recordkeeping and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 m), and $8,457 for of law, no person is required to respond requirements, Virgin Islands. vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 m). Broken to, nor shall a person be subject to a down by homeport state, average profits are: Dated: February 19, 2002. $4,769 for Alabama, $29,832 for Florida, penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the Rebecca Lent, $3,286 for Louisiana, $13,876 for Mississippi, Deputy Assistant Administrator for and $11,452 for Texas. The cost of a vessel requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that Regulatory Programs,National Marine permit is $50. Thus, the permit costs as a Fisheries Service. percent of profit would be approximately 0.4 collection of information displays a percent per vessel on average. By vessel size currently valid Office of Management For the reasons set out in the category, permit costs as a percentage of and Budget (OMB) control number. preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed profits would be 3.1 percent for vessels less This proposed rule contains to be amended as follows: than 25 ft (7.6 m), 0.6 percent for vessels collection-of-information requirements between 25 and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 m), and PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE subject to the PRA--namely, a 0.6 percent for vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH m). By homeport state, permit costs as a requirement to submit an application for ATLANTIC percentage of profits would be 1.0 percent for a Gulf shrimp commercial vessel permit Alabama vessels, 0.2 percent for Florida and a vessel identification requirement. 1. The authority citation for part 622 vessels, 1.5 percent for Louisiana vessels, 0.4 In addition, NMFS intends to revise the continues to read as follows:
VerDate 11
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. § 622.4 Permits and fees. 5. In § 622.31, paragraph (k) is added 2. In § 622.2, the definition of (a) * * * to read as follows: ‘‘Shrimp’’ is revised to read as follows: (2) * * * § 622.31 Prohibited gear and methods. (xi) Gulf shrimp. For a person aboard § 622.2 Definitions and acronyms. a vessel to fish for shrimp in the Gulf * * * * * * * * * * EEZ or possess shrimp in or from the (k) Traps for royal red shrimp in the Shrimp means one or more of the Gulf EEZ, a valid commercial vessel Gulf EEZ and transfer at sea. A trap may following species, or a part thereof: permit for Gulf shrimp must have been not be used to fish for royal red shrimp (1) Brown shrimp, Farfantepenaeus issued to the vessel and must be on in the Gulf EEZ. Possession of a trap and aztecus. board. royal red shrimp on board a vessel is (2) White shrimp, Litopenaeus * * * * * prohibited. A trap used to fish for royal setiferus. 4. In § 622.6, paragraph (a)(1)(i) red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ may be (3) Pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus introductory text is revised to read as disposed of in any appropriate manner duorarum. follows: by the Assistant Administrator or an (4) Royal red shrimp, Hymenopenaeus authorized officer. In addition, royal red robustus. § 622.6 Vessel and gear identification. shrimp cannot be transferred in the Gulf (5) Rock shrimp, Sicyonia brevirostris. (a) * * * EEZ, and royal red shrimp taken in the (6) Seabob shrimp, Xiphopenaeus (1) * * * Gulf EEZ cannot be transferred at sea kroyeri. (i) Official number. A vessel for which regardless of where the transfer takes * * * * * a permit has been issued under § 622.4 place. 3. In § 622.4, paragraph (a)(2)(xi) is must display its official number-- [FR Doc. 02–4451 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] added to read as follows: * * * * * BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
VerDate 11
Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER or other electronic means must ensure contracting officers are reviewable by contains notices to the public of the proposed that the necessary equipment at GAO’s the Court of Federal Claims under the issuance of rules and regulations. The Procurement Law Group is operational. ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ standard purpose of these notices is to give interested GAO is not aware that there has been applicable under the Administrative persons an opportunity to participate in the any significant confusion regarding Procedures Act. In light of the Federal rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. acceptable means of filing protests and Circuit’s decision, GAO is considering other documents. However, in light of whether to revise its Regulations in this our experience that documents area. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE commonly are filed by facsimile GAO welcomes comments on these transmission, and our recent initiative considerations, as well as suggestions 4 CFR Part 21 to permit electronic filing, we believe for changes to other areas of the this paragraph should clarify that filing Regulations that may enhance the General Accounting Office, by facsimile transmission is permitted efficiency and overall effectiveness of Administrative Practice and Procedure, (and, in fact, is commonplace), and that the bid protest process. Bid Protest Regulations, Government electronic filing (E-mail) of protest Comments may be submitted by hand Contracts documents is permitted under certain delivery or mail to the address in the AGENCY: General Accounting Office. circumstances. address line, by e-mail at Alternate dispute resolution (ADR) is BidProtestRegs.gao.gov, or by facsimile ACTION: Advance notice of proposed utilized regularly by GAO as a means of at 202–512–9749. rulemaking. resolving bid protests in an efficient, Anthony H. Gamboa, expeditious manner, but there is no SUMMARY: The General Accounting General Counsel. Office (GAO) is reviewing, and will be language in the Bid Protest Regulations [FR Doc. 02–4337 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] revising, its Bid Protest Regulations, identifying it as such. Since a promulgated in accordance with the substantial number of cases have been BILLING CODE 1610–02–P Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. found to be suitable for resolution using GAO last revised Part 21 in 1996, and ADR, and it is anticipated that this will believes that developments since that remain the case, GAO is considering DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION time warrant updating the Regulations adding language to reflect this practice. to reflect current practice. In connection Under the timeliness provisions of Federal Aviation Administration with this effort, GAO also is soliciting § 21.2(a)(2), where a debriefing is comments on how its Regulations requested and required, any protest 14 CFR Part 25 should be revised to improve the overall basis that is known or should have been known, either before or as a result of the [Docket No. NM205; Special Conditions No. efficiency and effectiveness of the bid 25–01–05–SC] protest process at GAO. debriefing, shall not be filed prior to the debriefing date offered to the protester. DATES: Comments must be submitted on Special Conditions: Fairchild Dornier This rule has had the unintended result, or before April 1, 2002. GmbH, Model 728–100; Sudden Engine in a very few cases, of leading protesters Stoppage ADDRESSES: Comments should be to delay—until after a debriefing— addressed to: John M. Melody, Assistant protesting a matter that arose during the AGENCY: Federal Aviation General Counsel, General Accounting procurement (for example, an alleged Administration (FAA), DOT. Office, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, Procurement Integrity Act violation), DC 20548. ACTION: Notice of proposed special prior to award. As it has long been conditions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John GAO’s view that it is beneficial to the M. Melody (Assistant General Counsel) procurement system to have alleged SUMMARY: This notice proposes special or David A. Ashen (Deputy Assistant procurement deficiencies resolved, conditions for the Fairchild Dornier General Counsel), 202–512–9732. where possible, at the time the alleged GmbH Model 728–100 airplane. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GAO is deficiency arises, GAO is considering airplane will have a novel or unusual considering revising its Bid Protest revising § 21.2(a)(2) to provide guidance design feature when compared to the Regulations, in accordance with the in this area. state of technology envisioned in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, Section 21.5(c) provides that GAO airworthiness standards for transport 31 U.S.C. 3555(a). Revisions are being will consider affirmative determinations category airplanes, associated with considered in several areas to take into of responsibility only under very engine size and torque load which account legal developments and limited circumstances, reflecting GAO’s affects sudden engine stoppage. The changes in practice that have occurred long held view that such determinations applicable airworthiness regulations do since the 1996 revision. Among the are so subjective that they do not lend not contain adequate or appropriate changes being considered are the themselves to reasoned review. In safety standards for this design feature. following: January 2001, the Court of Appeals for These special conditions contain the Section 21.0(g) currently states that a the Federal Circuit, in its decision additional safety standards that the document may be filed by hand Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Administrator considers necessary to delivery, mail, or commercial carrier, Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 establish a level of safety equivalent to and then goes on to state that parties (Fed. Cir. 2001) held that affirmative that established by the existing wishing to file by facsimile transmission determinations of responsibility by airworthiness standards.
VerDate 11
DATES: Comments must be received on their new Model 728–100 airplane. The as compressor jamming) has been a or before April 11, 2002. Model 728–100 airplane is a 70–85 specific requirement for transport ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal passenger twin-engine regional jet with category airplanes since 1957. The size, may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal a maximum takeoff weight of 77,600 configuration, and failure modes of jet Aviation Administration, Transport pounds. engines have changed considerably from those envisioned when the engine Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Type Certification Basis Docket (ANM–113), Docket No. NM205, seizure requirement of § 25.361(b) was 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, first adopted. Current engines are much Washington 98055–4056; or delivered in Fairchild Dornier must show that the larger and are now designed with large duplicate to the Transport Airplane Model 728–100 airplane meets the bypass fans capable of producing much Directorate at the above address. All applicable provisions of part 25, as larger torque loads if they become comments must be marked: Docket No. amended by Amendments 25–1 through jammed. It is evident from service NM205. Comments may be inspected in 25–96. Fairchild Dornier GmbH has also history that the frequency of occurrence the Rules Docket weekdays, except applied to extend the certification basis of the most severe sudden engine Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and to include Amendments 25–97, 25–98, stoppage events are rare. 4 p.m. and 25–104. Relative to the engine configurations If the Administrator finds that the that existed when the rule was FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom applicable airworthiness regulations developed in 1957, the present Groves, FAA, International Branch, (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain generation of engines are sufficiently ANM–116, Transport Airplane adequate or appropriate safety standards different and novel to justify issuance of Directorate, Aircraft Certification for the Model 728–100 airplane because special conditions to establish Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., of a novel or unusual design feature, appropriate design standards. The latest Renton, Washington 98055–4056; special conditions are prescribed under generation of jet engines are capable of telephone (425) 227–1503; facsimile the provisions of § 21.16. producing, during failure, transient (425) 227–1149. Special conditions, as defined in 14 loads that are significantly higher and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance more complex than the generation of Comments Invited with § 11.38 and become part of the type engines that were present when the certification basis in accordance with 14 existing standard was developed. The FAA invites interested persons to CFR 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are Therefore, the FAA has determined that participate in this rulemaking by initially applicable to the model for special conditions are needed for the submitting written comments, data, or which they are issued. Should the type Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model 728–100 views. The most helpful comments certificate for that model be amended airplane. reference a specific portion of the later to include any other model that In order to maintain the level of safety proposal, explain the reason for any incorporates the same novel or unusual envisioned in § 25.361(b), a more recommended change, and include design feature, the special conditions comprehensive criteria is needed for the supporting data. We ask that you send would also apply to the other model new generation of high bypass engines. us two copies of written comments. under the provisions of 14 CFR The proposed special conditions would We will file in the docket all 21.101(a)(1). distinguish between the more common comments we receive, as well as a In addition to the applicable seizure events and those rarer seizure report summarizing each substantive airworthiness regulations and special events resulting from structural failures. public contact with FAA personnel conditions, the Model 728–100 airplane For these rarer but severe seizure events, concerning these proposed special must comply with the fuel vent and the proposed criteria could allow some conditions. The docket is available for exhaust emission requirements of 14 deformation in the engine supporting public inspection before and after the CFR part 34 and the noise certification structure (ultimate load design) in order comment closing date. If you wish to requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the to absorb the higher energy associated review the docket in person, go to the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory with the high bypass engines, while at address in the ADDRESSES section of this adequacy pursuant to section 611 of the same time protecting the adjacent notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise Control primary structure in the wing and Monday through Friday, except Federal Act of 1972.’’ fuselage by providing a higher safety holidays. factor. The criteria for the more severe We will consider all comments we Novel or Unusual Design Features events would no longer be a pure static receive on or before the closing date for The Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model torque load condition, but would comments. We will consider comments 728–100 airplane will incorporate novel account for the full spectrum of filed late if it is possible to do so or unusual design features involving transient dynamic loads developed from without incurring expense or delay. We engine size and torque load that affect the engine failure condition. may change the proposed special sudden engine stoppage conditions. Applicability conditions in light of the comments we Fairchild Dornier GmbH proposes to receive. treat the sudden engine stoppage As discussed above, these special If you want the FAA to acknowledge condition resulting from structural conditions are applicable to the receipt of your comments on this failure as an ultimate load condition. Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model 728–100 proposal, include with your comments Section 25.361(b)(1) of part 25 airplane. Should Fairchild Dornier a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on specifically defines the seizure torque apply at a later date for a change to the which the docket number appears. We load, resulting from structural failure, as type certificate to include another will stamp the date on the postcard and a limit load condition. model incorporating the same novel or mail it back to you. unusual design feature, these special Discussion conditions would apply to that model as Background The limit engine torque load imposed well under the provisions of section On May 5, 1998, Fairchild Dornier by sudden engine stoppage due to 21.101(a)(1). Fairchild Dornier has GmbH applied for a type certificate for malfunction or structural failure (such submitted applications for certification
VerDate 11
of both increased and reduced passenger considered that combines 1g flight loads Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket capacity derivatives of the Model 728– with the transient dynamic loads (ANM–113), Docket No. NM212, 1601 100 airplane. These derivative models resulting from each of the following: Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, are designated the Model 928–100 (1) The loss of any fan, compressor, or 98055–4056; or delivered in duplicate to airplane and the Model 528–100 turbine blade. the Transport Airplane Directorate at airplane, respectively. As currently (2) Where applicable to a specific the above address. All comments must proposed, these derivative models share engine design, and separately from the be marked: Docket No. NM212. the same design feature of a high-bypass conditions specified in paragraph Comments may be inspected in the ratio fan jet engine as the Model 728– 1.(c)(1), any other engine structural Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal 100 airplane, and it is anticipated that failure that results in higher loads. holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 they will be included in the d. The ultimate loads developed from p.m. applicability of these proposed special the conditions specified in paragraphs FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim conditions. (c)(1) and (c)(2) above are to be Backman, FAA, ANM–116, Transport multiplied by a factor of 1.0 when Conclusion Airplane Directorate, Aircraft applied to engine mounts and pylons Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue This action affects only certain novel and multiplied by a factor of 1.25 when SW., Renton, Washington, 98055–4056; or unusual design features on the applied to adjacent supporting airframe telephone (425) 227–2797; facsimile Fairchild Dornier GmbH Model 728–100 structure. (425) 227–1149. airplane. It is not a rule of general Issued in Renton, Washington, on February SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: applicability, and it affects only the 13, 2002. applicant who applied to the FAA for Comments Invited Ali Bahrami, approval of these features on the The FAA invites interested persons to airplane. Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. participate in this rulemaking by List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 [FR Doc. 02–4411 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting reference a specific portion of the and recordkeeping requirements. proposal, explain the reason for any The authority citation for these DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION recommended change, and include special conditions is as follows: supporting data. We ask that you send Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, Federal Aviation Administration us two copies of written comments. 44702, 44704. We will file in the docket all 14 CFR Part 25 comments we receive, as well as a The Proposed Special Conditions report summarizing each substantive Accordingly, the Federal Aviation [Docket No. NM212; Notice No. 25–02–04– public contact with FAA personnel Administration (FAA) proposes the SC] concerning these proposed special following special conditions as part of Special Conditions: Airbus Industrie, conditions. The docket is available for the type certification basis for Fairchild Model A340–500 and –600 Airplanes; public inspection before and after the Dornier GmbH Model 728–100 Sudden Engine Stoppage comments closing date. If you wish to airplanes. review the docket in person, go to the 1. Sudden Engine Stoppage. In lieu of AGENCY: Federal Aviation address in the ADDRESSES section of this compliance with 14 CFR 25.361(b), the Administration (FAA), DOT. preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 following special conditions apply: ACTION: Notice of proposed special p.m., Monday through Friday, except a. For turbine engine installations, the conditions. Federal holidays. engine mounts, pylons and adjacent We will consider all comments we supporting airframe structure must be SUMMARY: This notice proposes special receive on or before the closing date for designed to withstand 1g level flight conditions for Airbus Industries Model comments. We will consider comments loads acting simultaneously with the A340–500 and –600 airplanes. These filed late if it is possible to do so maximum limit torque loads imposed airplanes will have a novel or unusual without incurring expenses or delay. We by each of the following: design feature when compared to the may change this proposal for special (1) Sudden engine deceleration due to state of technology envisioned in the conditions in light of the comments we a malfunction which could result in a airworthiness standards for transport receive. temporary loss of power or thrust. category airplanes, associated with If you want the FAA to acknowledge (2) The maximum acceleration of the engine size and torque load, which receipt of your comments on this engine. affects sudden engine stoppage. The proposal, include with your comments b. For auxiliary power unit applicable airworthiness regulations do a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on installations, the power unit mounts not contain adequate or appropriate which the docket number appears. We and adjacent supporting airframe safety standards for this design feature. will stamp the date on the postcard and structure must be designed to withstand These proposed special conditions mail it back to you. 1g level flight loads acting contain the additional safety standards Background simultaneously with the maximum limit that the Administrator considers On November 14, 1996, Airbus torque loads imposed by the each of the necessary to establish a level of safety Industries applied for an amendment to following: equivalent to that established by the (1) Sudden auxiliary power unit U.S. type certificate (TC) A43NM to existing airworthiness standards. deceleration due to malfunction or include the new Models A340–500 and structural failure. EFFECTIVE DATE: Comments must be –600. These models are derivatives of (2) The maximum acceleration of the received on or before March 27, 2002. the A340–300 airplane, which is auxiliary power unit. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal approved under the same TC. c. For engine supporting structure, an may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal The Model A340–500 fuselage is a 6- ultimate loading condition must be Aviation Administration, Transport frame stretch of the Model A340–300
VerDate 11
and is powered by 4 Rolls Royce Trent conditions, the Airbus Industrie Model loads that are significantly higher and 553 engines, each rated at 53,000 A340–500 and –600 must comply with more complex than the generation of pounds of thrust. The airplane has the fuel vent and exhaust emission engines that were present when the interior seating arrangements for up to requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the existing standard was developed. 375 passengers, with a maximum takeoff noise certification requirements of 14 Therefore, the FAA has determined that weight (MTOW) of 820,000 pounds. The CFR part 36. special conditions are needed for the Model 340–500 is intended for long- Special conditions, as defined in 14 Model A340–500 and –600 airplanes. range operations and has additional fuel CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance In order to maintain the level of safety capacity over that of the model A340– with § 11.38 and become part of the type envisioned in § 25.361(b), a more 600. certification basis in accordance with 14 comprehensive criteria is needed for the The Model A340–600 fuselage is a 20- CFR 21.101(b)(2). new generation of high bypass engines. frame stretch of the Model A340–300 Special conditions are initially The proposed special conditions would and is powered by 4 Roll Royce Trend applicable to the model for which they distinguish between the more common 556 engines, each rated at 56,000 are issued. Should the type certificate seizure events and those rarer seizure pounds of thrust. The airplane has for that model be amended later to events resulting from structural failures. interior seating arrangements for up to include any other model that For these rarer but severe seizure events, 440 passengers, with a MTOW of incorporates the same novel or unusual the proposed criteria could allow some 804,500 pounds. design feature, or should any other deformation in the engine supporting model already included on the same Type Certificate Basis structure (ultimate load design) in order type certificate be modified to to absorb the higher energy associated Under the provisions of 14 CFR incorporate the same novel or unusual with the high bypass engines, while at § 21.101, Airbus Industrie must show design feature, the special conditions the same time protecting the adjacent that the Model A340–500 and –600 would also apply to the other model primary structure in the wing and airplanes meet the applicable provisions under the provisions of 14 CFR fuselage by providing a higher safety of the regulations incorporated by 21.101(a)(1). factor. The criteria for the more severe reference in TC A43NM or the Novel or Unusual Design Features events would no longer be a pure static applicable regulations in effect on the torque load condition, but would date on the date of application for the The Airbus Model A340–500 and account for the full spectrum of change to the type certificate. The A340–600 airplanes will incorporate transient dynamic loads developed from regulations incorporated by reference in novel or unusual design features the engine failure condition. the type certificate are commonly involving engine size and torque load referred to as the ‘‘original type that affect sudden engine stoppage Applicability certification basis.’’ The regulations conditions. Airbus Industrie proposes to These special conditions are incorporated by reference in TC A43NM treat the sudden engine stoppage applicable to the Airbus Model A340– are 14 CFR part 25 effective February 1, condition resulting from structural 500 and –600 ailplanes. Should Airbus 1965, including Amendments 25–1 failure as an ultimate load condition. Industries apply at a later date for a through 25–63 and Amendments 25–64, Section 25.361(b)(1) of part 25 change to the type certificate to include 25–65, 25–66, and 25–77, with certain specifically defines the seizure torque another model incorporating the same exceptions that are not relevant to these load resulting from structural failure as novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions. a limit load condition. special conditions would apply to that In addition, if the regulations Discussion model as well under the provisions of incorporated by reference do not § 21.101(a)(1). provide adequate standards with respect The limit engine torgue load imposed to the change, the applicant must by sudden engine stoppage due to Conclusion comply with certain regulations in effect malfunction or structural failure (such This action affects certain novel or on the date of application for the as compressor jamming) has been a unusual design features on the Model change. The FAA has determined that specific requirement for transport A340–500 and A340–600 airplanes. It is the Model A340–500 and –600 airplanes category airplanes since 1957. The size, not a rule of general applicability, and must be shown to comply with 14 CFR configuration, and failure modes of jet it affects only the applicant who applied 25–1 through 25–91, with certain FAA- engines have changed considerably from to the FAA for approval of these features allowed reversions for specific part 25 those envisioned when the engine on the airplane. seizure requirement of § 25.361(b) was regulations to the part 25 amendment List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 levels of the original type certification first adopted. Current engines are much basis. larger and are now designed with large Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting Airbus has also chosen to comply bypass fans capable of producing much and recordkeeping requirements. with part 25 as amended by larger torque loads if they become The authority citation for these Amendments 25–92,–93,–94,–95,–97,– jammed. It is evident from service special conditions is as follows: 98, and –104. history that the frequency of occurrence Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, If the Administrator finds that the of the most severe sudden engine 44702, 44704. applicable airworthiness regulations stoppage events are rare. (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain Relative to the engine configurations The Proposed Special Conditions adequate or appropriate safety standards that existed when the rule was Accordingly, The Federal Aviation for the Airbus Industrie Model A340– developed in 1957, the present Administration (FAA) proposes the 500 and–600 because of a novel or generation of engines are sufficiently following special conditions as part of unusual design feature, special different and novel to justify issuance of the type certification basis for Airbus conditions are prescribed under the special conditions to establish Industrie Model A340–500 and –600 provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. appropriate design standards. The latest airplanes. In addition to the applicable generation of jet engines are capable of The following special conditions are airworthiness regulations and special producing, during failure, transient proposed in lieu of compliance with 14
VerDate 11
CFR 25.361(b) and in lieu of the POSTAL SERVICE Board to publish its final standards by previously issued special conditions, February 7, 2000. Limit Engine Torque,’’ recorded as item 39 CFR Part 255 On July 13, 2000, the Military 9 of Special Conditions No. 25–ANM– Access of Persons with Disabilities to Construction Appropriations Act for 69 (Docket No. NM–75), Airbus Postal Service Programs, Activities, Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. 106–246, industrie Model A340 Series Airplanes. Facilities, and Electronic and which contained an amendment to 1. Sudden Engine Stoppage. Information Technology section 508, was signed into law. Public Law No. 106–246 delayed the effective (a) For turbine engine installations, AGENCY: Postal Service. date for enforcement of section 508 to 6 the engine mounts, pylons and adjacent ACTION: Proposed rule with request for months from the publication of the supporting airframe structure must be comments. Access Board’s final standards. The designed to withstand 1g level flight Access Board’s final standards were loads acting simultaneously with the SUMMARY: The Postal Service is published on December 21, 2000, in 65 maximum limit torque loads imposed proposing to amend its regulations in FR 80500–80528. The effective date for by each of the following: order to implement section 508 of the enforcement of section 508 became June Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. (1) Sudden engine deceleration due to 21, 2001. In accordance with the Section 508 requires Federal agencies to statutory requirements outlined above, a malfunction which could result in a ensure that the electronic and temporary loss of power or thrust. the Postal Service is initiating this information technology (EIT) they notice of proposed rulemaking adding a (2) The maximum acceleration of the procure allows individuals with complaint process for section 508 to its engine. disabilities access to EIT comparable to regulations. (b) For auxiliary power unit the access of those who are not disabled, Section-by-Section Analysis installations, the power unit mounts unless the agency would incur an undue hardship. The statute was amended by and adjacent supporting airframe Section 255.1 Purpose the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to structure must be designed to withstand add enforcement provisions and to This new section is added to describe 1g level flight loads acting require agencies to add a complaint the purposes of part 255. These simultaneously with the maximum limit process for section 508. The complaint purposes are to implement sections 504 torque loads imposing by each of the process for members of the public who and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of following: are disabled is outlined here in part 255. 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, (1) Sudden auxiliary power unit The complaint process for employees 794d. Another purpose is to state that deceleration due to malfunction or and applicants who are disabled is set the EIT standards set forth in part 255 structural failure. forth in the Postal Service’s Handbook are intended to be consistent with the (2) The maxium acceleration of the EL–603, Equal Employment standards of the Access Board Opportunity Complaint Processing. auxiliary power unit. announced in the Federal Register on DATES: Written comments must be December 21, 2000. (c) For engine supporting structure, an received on or before March 27, 2002. Former Section 255.1 ultimate loading condition must be ADDRESSES: Written comments should Discrimination against handicapped considered that combines 1g flight loads be mailed to Office of the Consumer persons has been renamed and with the transient dynamic loads Advocate, United States Postal Service, renumbered as Section 255.3 resulting from each of the following: 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 5801, Nondiscrimination under any program (1) The loss of any fan, compressor, or Washington, DC 20260–2200. Copies of or activity conducted by the Postal turbine blade. all written comments will be available Service. for inspection and photocopying (2) Where applicable to a specific Section 255.2 Definitions engine design, and separately from the between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Corporate Library, conditions specified in paragraph This new section has been added to United States Postal Service, 475 1.(c)(1), any other engine structural provide definitions of the terms used in L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 11800, failure that results in higher loads. part 255. A number of definitions have Washington, DC 20260, (202) 268–2900. been added to clarify words and (d) The ultimate loads developed from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan concepts already in part 255. New the conditions specified in paragraphs C. Goodrich, (202) 268–3047 or definitions were added for the new (c)(1) and (c)(2) above are to be Christine M. Taylor, (202) 268–3017. terms associated with section 508. There multiplied by a factor of 1.0 when SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The is a change in terms from ‘‘handicapped applied to engine mounts and pylons Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. person’’ to ‘‘individual with a and multiplied by a factor of 1.25 when L. 105–220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998), disability,’’ but the definition of who is applied to adjacent supporting airframe amending section 508 of the ‘‘disabled’’ remains the same. This structure. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. change was made to reflect the change Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 794d, was signed into law on August 7, in terminology in the Rehabilitation Act. 13, 2002. 1998. In addition to the provisions Prior Section 255.2 Special outlined above, the act required the Arrangements for postal services is now Ali Bahrami, Architectural and Transportation Section 255.7 Special arrangements Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Barriers Compliance Board (Access for postal services. Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. Board) to publish standards defining [FR Doc. 02–4410 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Section 255.3 Nondiscrimination EIT and setting forth the technical and Under any Program or Activity BILLING CODE 4910–13–M functional performance criteria Conducted by the Postal Service necessary to accessibility for such technology. The act, which was effective This section states the prohibition August 7, 2000, also required the Access against discrimination based upon
VerDate 11
disability in federally conducted Subparagraph (2) is new and explains may be provided with special programs or activities that is contained that complaints brought by applicants arrangements as a reasonable in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. and employees alleging violations of accommodation. It originally appeared in former section section 508 and involving employment The section, previously found at 255.1(a). The words ‘‘handicapped’’ and will be processed in accordance with section 255.2, is essentially unchanged ‘‘handicap’’ have been removed and the new section 508 procedures added with the exception of editing for clarity replaced with ‘‘disability.’’ to Handbook EL–603. and the addition of language on reasonable accommodation under Section 255.4 Accessibility to (c) Complaints by Members of the Public section 504. Specific section numbers Electronic and Information Technology Section 508 has been added to the contained in the cited manuals were This section is new. It states the former complaint process for section removed because manual revisions have standards set forth in section 508 of the 504. The former process, previously changed where the topics are now Rehabilitation Act which apply to found at section 255.1(c), has been found. making EIT accessible to individuals modified to include an informal stage with disabilities. It also specifics the and a formal stage. A requirement that Section 255.8 Access to Postal obligations of the Postal Service where a complainant shall first exhaust Facilities providing access to EIT would pose an informal administrative procedures This section is essentially unchanged undue burden. before filing a formal complaint has except for editing for clarity and the been added. addition of legal citations to make the Section 255.5 Employment Subparagraphs (1) (i) through (iii) cited authorities easier to identify and This section states the prohibition outline the informal procedures for locate. It was previously found at against discrimination in employment sections 504 and 508. The procedures section 255.3. based upon disability that is contained retain the 60-day requirement for in section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, resolution of a complaint at the informal Section 255.9 Other Postal as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791. It was stage. The informal process focuses on Regulations; Authority of Postal previously found at section 255.1(d). resolution of the complaint at the local Managers and Employees The word ‘‘handicapped’’ has been level and provides an automatic review This section is the same as the removed and replaced with ‘‘disability.’’ by higher level managers. A written original previously found at section decision on the informal complaint 255.4 except that ‘‘official’’ was changed Section 255.6 Complaint Procedures must be issued on or before the 60th day to ‘‘manager’’ and the last sentence This section adds section 508 to the by the area/functional vice president. referring to misdirected informal existing complaint process for section Addition of the area/functional vice complaints was deleted. A similar 504. It revises and clarifies the president as the final level of review requirement that postal managers or complaint process. was added to ensure accountability at employees promptly refer informal the highest level. (a) Applicability complaints they receive that they lack Subparagraphs (2)(i) through (iv) the authority to resolve to the This paragraph explains that the outline the formal procedures for appropriate manager was added in procedures of part 255 apply to alleged sections 504 and 508. If the complainant section 255.6(c)(1)(i) where it logically violations of section 504 and section wishes to pursue the complaint beyond belongs. 508 brought by members of the public. the informal stage, s/he may file a Although 39 U.S.C. 410, exempts the formal complaint with the Vice (b) Employment Complaints Postal Service from the rulemaking President and Consumer Advocate. If notice and comment requirements of the Subparagraph (1) explains that the complainant files a formal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. complaints brought by applicants and complaint, s/he must exhaust the formal 553, the Postal Service, nevertheless, employees alleging violations of section procedures before filing suit in any invites public comment on the 504 with respect to employment will be other forum. The general exhaustion following proposed revisions to 39 CFR processed by the Postal Service in requirement of the former section part 255. accordance with the procedures 255.1(c)(5) was clarified in order to established by the Equal Employment prevent confusing and duplicative List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 255 Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 29 processing of one complaint. The Electronic and information CFR part 1614 under the authority of reference to the Postal Operations technology, Federal buildings and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. Manual was removed because the facilities, Individuals with disabilities. The Postal Service’s own procedures complaint procedures relating to the Accordingly, the Postal Service following part 1614 are found in Vice President and Consumer Advocate proposes to revise 39 CFR part 255 to Handbook EL–603, Equal Employment are now contained here. read as follows: Opportunity Complaint Processing. Previously, the section on Section 255.7 Special Arrangements PART 255—ACCESS OF PERSONS employment complaints was found at for Postal Services WITH DISABILITIES TO POSTAL section 255.1(d). The reference to the This section sets forth the types of SERVICE PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES, Employee and Labor Relations Manual arrangements that can be made for those FACILITIES, AND ELECTRONIC AND was deleted and replaced with the individuals eligible under postal INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY reference to Handbook EL–603 because regulations for obtaining postal services the complaint processing procedures under special conditions. Members of Sec. were removed from the manual and the public who are not disabled within 255.1 Purpose. 255.2 Definitions. placed into the handbook. The reference the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act 255.3 Nondiscrimination under any to part 1614 was added to clarify where may qualify for special arrangements program or activity conducted by the the EEOC regulations are found. The pursuant to the postal regulations listed Postal Service. term ‘‘handicapped’’ was removed and here. In accordance with section 504 or 255.4 Accessibility to electronic and replaced with ‘‘disability.’’ this part, individuals who are disabled information technology.
VerDate 11
255.5 Employment. (e) Individual with a disability. For by reason of his or her disability, be 255.6 Complaint procedures. purposes of this part, ‘‘individual with excluded from participation in, be 255.7 Special arrangements for postal a disability’’ means any person who denied the benefits of, or be subjected services. (1) Has a physical or mental to discrimination under, any program or 255.8 Access to postal facilities. impairment that substantially limits one 255.9 Other postal regulations; authority of activity conducted by the Postal Service. postal managers and employees. or more of such person’s major life activities; § 255.4 Accessibility to electronic and information technology. Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 1001, (2) Has a record of such an 1003, 3403, 3404; 29 U.S.C. 791, 794, 794d impairment; or (a) In accordance with section 508 of § 255.1 Purpose. (3) Is regarded as having such an the Rehabilitation Act, the Postal Service shall ensure, absent an undue (a) This part implements section 504 impairment. (f) Information technology means any burden, that the electronic and of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as information technology the agency amended. Section 504 prohibits equipment, or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used in procures allows: discrimination on the basis of disability (1) Individuals with disabilities who in programs or activities conducted by the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, are Postal Service employees or executive agencies or by the Postal applicants to have access to and use of Service. This part also implements control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information and data that is comparable section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of to the access to and use of information 1973, as amended. Section 508 requires information. (g) Postal manager. As used in this and data by Postal Service employees or that executive agencies and the Postal part, ‘‘postal manager’’ means the applicants who are not individuals with Service ensure, absent an undue burden, manager or official responsible for a disabilities; and that individuals with disabilities have service, facility, program, or activity. (2) Individuals with disabilities who access to electronic and information (h) Qualified individual with a are members of the public seeking technology that is comparable to the disability. For purposes of this part, information or services from the Postal access of individuals who are not ‘‘qualified individual with a disability’’ Service to have access to and use of disabled. means information and data that is comparable (b) The standards relating to (1) With respect to any Postal Service to the access to and use of information electronic and information technology program or activity under which a and data by members of the public who expressed here are intended to be person is required to perform services or are not individuals with disabilities. consistent with the standards to achieve a level of accomplishment, an (b) When procurement of electronic announced by the Architectural and individual with a disability who meets and information technology that meets Transportation Barriers Compliance the essential eligibility requirements the standards published by the Board. Those standards are codified at and who can achieve the purpose of the Architectural and Transportation 36 CFR part 1194. program or activity without Barriers Compliance Board would pose § 255.2 Definitions. modifications in the program or activity an undue burden, the Postal Service shall provide individuals with (a) Agency as used in this part means that the agency can demonstrate would disabilities covered by paragraph (a) of the Postal Service. result in a fundamental alteration in its nature; or this section with the information and (b) Area/functional vice president also data by an alternative means of access includes his or her designee. (2) With respect to any other program or activity, an individual with a that allows the individuals to use the (c) Electronic and information information and data. technology (EIT) includes ‘‘information disability who meets the essential eligibility requirements for participation technology’’ and any equipment or § 255.5 Employment. in, or receipt of benefits from, that interconnected system or subsystem of No qualified individual with a equipment that is used in the creation, program or activity. (i) Section 501 means section 501 of disability shall, on the basis of conversion, or duplication of data or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as disability, be subjected to information. The term does not include amended. Section 501 is codified at 29 discrimination in employment with the any equipment that contains embedded U.S.C. 791. Postal Service. The definitions, information technology that is used as (j) Section 504 means section 504 of requirements, and procedures of section an integral part of the product, but the the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as principal function of which is not the amended. Section 504 is codified at 29 established by the Equal Employment acquisition, storage, manipulation, U.S.C. 794. Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part management, movement, control, (k) Section 508 means section 508 of 1614 shall apply to employment within display, switching, interchange, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as the Postal Service. transmission, or reception of data or amended. Section 508 is codified at 29 information. § 255.6 Complaint procedures. U.S.C. 794d. (d) Formal complaint means a written (l) Undue burden means significant (a) Applicability. Except as provided statement that contains the difficulty or expense. in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, this complainant’s name, address, and (m) Vice President and Consumer section applies to all section 504 telephone number; sets forth the nature Advocate also includes his or her allegations of discrimination based of the complainant’s disability; and designee. upon disability in the programs or describes the agency’s alleged activities conducted by the Postal discriminatory action in sufficient detail § 255.3 Nondiscrimination under any Service. Except as provided in to inform the agency of the nature of the program or activity conducted by the Postal paragraph (b)(2) of this section, this alleged violation of section 504 or of Service. section applies to all allegations of section 508. It shall be signed by the In accordance with section 504 of the section 508 violations. complainant or by someone authorized Rehabilitation Act, no qualified (b) Employment complaints. (1) The to do so on the complainant’s behalf. individual with a disability shall, solely Postal Service shall process complaints
VerDate 11
of employees and applicants alleging complaint and the reasons for that over which the agency has jurisdiction, violations of section 504 with respect to disposition. the Vice President and Consumer employment according to the (iii) Automatic review. The Advocate shall notify the complainant procedures established by the Equal responsible postal manager’s proposed of the results of the investigation of the Employment Opportunity Commission disposition of the informal complaint formal complaint. The notice shall be a in 29 CFR part 1614 pursuant to section shall be submitted to the appropriate written decision stating whether or not 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as district/program manager for review. relief is being granted and the reasons amended, 29 U.S.C. 791. In accordance The district/program manager shall for granting or denying relief. The notice with 29 CFR part 1614, the Postal forward the proposed disposition to the shall state that it is the final decision of Service has established procedures for area/functional vice president for the Postal Service on the formal processing complaints of alleged review and issuance of the written complaint. employment discrimination, based upon decision. This automatic review process disability, in the agency’s Handbook shall be completed such that the written § 255.7 Special arrangements for postal EL–603, Equal Employment decision of the area/functional vice services. Opportunity Complaint Processing. president shall be issued no later than Members of the public who are unable (2) The agency shall process the 60th day. to use or who have difficulty using complaints of employees and applicants (2) Formal complaints. If an informal certain postal services may be eligible alleging violations of section 508 and complaint filed under paragraph (c)(1) under postal regulations for special involving employment in accordance of this section is not resolved within 60 arrangements. Some of the special with the section 508 procedures which days of its receipt, the complainant may arrangements that the Postal Service has have been added to Handbook EL–603. seek relief in any other appropriate authorized are listed below. No one is Section 508 complaints shall be forum, including the right to file a required to use any special arrangement processed to provide the remedies formal complaint with the Vice offered by the Postal Service, but an required by section 508 of the President and Consumer Advocate in individual’s refusal to make use of a Rehabilitation Act. accordance with the following particular special arrangement does not (c) Complaints by members of the procedures. If the complainant files a require the Postal Service to offer other public. Any individual with a disability formal complaint with the Vice special arrangements to that individual. who believes that he or she has been President and Consumer Advocate, the (a) The Postal Operations Manual subjected to discrimination prohibited complainant shall exhaust the formal offers information on special by this part or by the alleged failure of complaint procedures before filing suit arrangements for the following postal the agency to provide access to in any other forum. services. electronic and information technology (i) Where to file. Formal complaints (1) Carrier delivery services and may file a complaint by following the relating to programs or activities programs. procedures described herein. A conducted by the Postal Service or to (2) Postal retail services and complainant shall first exhaust informal access of Postal Service EIT may be filed programs. administrative procedures before filing a with the Vice President and Consumer (3) Retail service from rural carriers. formal complaint. Advocate, United States Postal Service, (4) Self-service postal centers. Self- (1) Informal complaints relating to 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, service postal centers contain deposit Postal Service programs or activities DC 20260. boxes for parcels and letter mail, and and to EIT. (i) A complainant initiates (ii) When to file. A formal complaint vending equipment for the sale of the informal process by informing the shall be filed within 30 days of the date stamps and stamp items. Many centers responsible postal manager of the the complainant receives the decision of are accessible to individuals in alleged discrimination or inaccessibility the area/functional vice president to wheelchairs. Information regarding the of Postal Service programs, activities, or deny relief. For purposes of determining location of the nearest center may be EIT. Postal managers or employees who when a formal complaint is timely filed obtained from a local Post Office. receive informal complaints that they under this paragraph (c)(2)(ii), a formal (b) The Domestic Mail Manual, the lack the authority to resolve must complaint mailed to the agency shall be Administrative Support Manual, and promptly refer any such informal deemed filed on the date it is the International Mail Manual contain complaint to the appropriate postal postmarked. Any other formal information regarding postage-free manager, and at the same time must complaint shall be deemed filed on the mailing for mailings that qualify. notify the complainant of the name, date it is received by the Vice President (c) Inquiries and requests. Members of address, and telephone number of the and Consumer Advocate. the public wishing further information person handling the complaint. (iii) Acceptance of the formal about special arrangements for (ii) Resolution of the informal complaint. The Vice President and particular postal services may contact complaint and time limits. Within 15 Consumer Advocate shall accept a their local postal manager. days of receipt of the informal timely filed formal complaint that meets (d) Response to a request or complaint complaint, the responsible postal the requirements of § 255.2(d), is filed regarding a special arrangement for manager must send the complainant a after fulfilling the informal exhaustion postal services. A local postal manager written acknowledgement of the procedures of § 255.6(c)(1), and over receiving a request or complaint about informal complaint. If the matter cannot which the agency has jurisdiction. The a special arrangement for postal services be resolved within 30 days of its receipt, Vice President and Consumer Advocate must provide any arrangement as the complainant must be sent a written shall notify the complainant of receipt required by postal regulations. If no interim report which explains the status and acceptance of the formal complaint special arrangements are required by of the informal complaint and the within 15 days of the date the Vice postal regulations, the local postal proposed resolution of the matter. On or President and Consumer Advocate manager, in consultation with the before the 60th day from receipt of the received the formal complaint. district manager or area manager, as informal complaint, the agency shall (iv) Resolution of the formal needed, may provide a special issue a written decision detailing the complaint. Within 180 days of receipt arrangement or take any action that will final disposition of the informal and acceptance of a formal complaint accommodate an individual with a
VerDate 11
disability as required by section 504 or modification to meet ABA design are taking comments on this proposal by this part. standards is not required, a and plan to follow with a final action. discretionary alteration may be made on § 255.8 Access to postal facilities. DATES: Comments must be received by a case-by-case basis in accordance with March 27, 2002. (a) Legal requirements and policy (1) the criteria listed in paragraph (a)(2) of ABA Standards. Where the design this section. If a discretionary alteration ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy standards of the Architectural Barriers is not made, the local postal manager Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR– Act (ABA) of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et should determine if a special 4), U.S. Environmental Protection seq., do not apply, the Postal Service arrangement for postal services under Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne may perform a discretionary retrofit to § 255.7 can be provided. Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. a facility in accordance with this part to You can inspect copies of the accommodate individuals with § 255.9 Other postal regulations; authority submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s disabilities. of postal managers and employees. technical support documents (TSDs) at (2) Discretionary modifications. The This part supplements all other postal our Region IX office during normal Postal Service may modify facilities not regulations. Nothing in this part is business hours. You may also see copies legally required to conform to ABA intended either to repeal, modify, or of the submitted SIP revisions at the standards when it determines that doing amend any other postal regulation, to following locations: so would be consistent with efficient authorize any postal manager or California Air Resources Board, postal operations. In determining employee to violate or exceed any Stationary Source Division, Rule whether modifications not legally regulatory limit, or to confer any Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, required should be made, due regard is budgetary authority on any postal Sacramento, CA 95814; and, to be given to: official or employee outside normal South Coast Air Quality Management (i) The cost of the discretionary budgetary procedures. District, 21865 East Copley Drive, modification; Stanley F. Mires, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. (ii) The number of individuals to be Chief Counsel, Legislative. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: benefited by the modification; [FR Doc. 02–4212 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office (iii) The inconvenience, if any, to the BILLING CODE 7710–12–P (AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection general public; Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4111. (iv) The anticipated useful life of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: modification to the Postal Service; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ (v) Any requirement to restore a AGENCY and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. leased premises to its original condition at the expiration of the lease, and the 40 CFR Part 52 Table of Contents cost of such restoration; I. The State’s Submittal (vi) The historic or architectural [CA247–0308; FRL–7149–3] A. What rule did the State submit? significance of the property in B. Are there other versions of this rule? accordance with the National Historic Revisions to the California State C. What is the purpose of the submitted Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. Implementation Plan; South Coast Air rule? § 470 et seq.; Quality Management District II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? (vii) The availability of other options AGENCY: Environmental Protection B. Does the rule meet the evaluation to foster service accessibility; and Agency (EPA). criteria? (viii) Any other factor that is relevant ACTION: Proposed rule. C. What are the rule’s deficiencies? and appropriate to the decision. D. EPA recommendations to further (b) Inquiries and requests. (1) SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited improve the rule. Inquiries concerning access to postal approval and limited disapproval of E. Proposed action and public comment. facilities, and requests for discretionary revisions to the South Coast Air Quality III. Background Information alterations of postal facilities not Management District (SCAQMD) portion Why was this rule submitted? IV. Administrative Requirements covered by the design standards of the of the California State Implementation ABA, may be made to the local postal Plan (SIP). These revisions concern I. The State’s Submittal manager of the facility involved. volatile organic compound (VOC) A. What Rule Did the State Submit? (2) The local postal manager’s emissions from food product response to a request or complaint manufacturing and processing Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this regarding an alteration to a facility will operations. We are proposing action on proposal with the dates that it was be made after consultation with the a local rule that regulates these emission adopted by the SCAQMD and submitted district manager or the area manager. If sources under the Clean Air Act as by the California Air Resources Board the determination is made that amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We (CARB).
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted
SCAQMD ...... 1131 Food Product Manufacturing and Processing Oper- 09/15/00 05/08/01 ations.
VerDate 11
On July 20, 2001, Rule 1131 was and RACT requirements include the D. EPA Recommendations To Further found to meet the completeness criteria following: Improve the Rule in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which 1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 In this case, the EPA does not suggest must be met before formal EPA review. ozone and carbon monoxide policy that additional rule revisions that might B. Are There Other Versions of This concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November improve the rule. 24, 1987. Rule? E. Proposed Action and Public There is no previous version of Rule 2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Comment 1131 in the SIP. Since Rule 1131 is a Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) new rule, SCAQMD has not submitted Clarification to Appendix D of and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing previous versions of Rule 1131 to EPA. November 24,1987 Federal Register a limited approval of SCAQMD Rule document,’’ (Blue Book), notice of C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 1131 to improve the SIP. If finalized, availability published in the May 25, Rule? this action would incorporate this 1988 Federal Register. Rule 1131 is designed to reduce submitted rule into the SIP, including emissions of VOCs from solvents used B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation those provisions identified as deficient. in food product manufacturing and Criteria? This approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited processing operations. Emissions are Rule 1131 improves the SIP by reduced by a specific VOC content limit, disapproval of the rule under section establishing more stringent emission 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is use of emission control devices, or a limits and by clarifying monitoring, combination of these methods and other finalized, sanctions will be imposed recording, and recordkeeping innovations. Rule 1131 includes the under section 179 of the Act unless EPA provisions. This rule is largely following general provisions: approves subsequent SIP revisions that consistent with the relevant policy and —Applicability of the rule; correct the rule’s deficiencies within 18 —Definitions of terms under the rule; guidance regarding enforceability, months. These sanctions would be —Requirements of the rule; RACT and SIP relaxations. Rule imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A —Recordkeeping requirements of the provisions which do not meet the final disapproval would also trigger the rule; evaluation criteria are summarized federal implementation plan (FIP) —Test methods for determining below and discussed further in the TSD. requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rule has been compliance; C. What Are the Rule’s Deficiencies? —Rule 442 applicability; and, adopted by the SCAQMD, and EPA’s —Exemptions from the rule. A portion of Rule 1131 conflicts with final limited disapproval would not The TSD has more detailed section 110 and part D of the Act and prevent the local agency from enforcing information about this rule. prevent full approval of these SIP it. We will accept comments from the II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action revisions. The deficiency exists within subsection (c)(1)(C). This subsection public on this proposed limited A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? allows ‘‘director’s discretion’’ in the approval and limited disapproval for the Generally, SIP rules must be review and approval of compliance next 30 days. enforceable (see section 110(a) of the plans. The rule does not specify the III. Background Information Act), must require Reasonably Available emission estimation protocols needed to Control Technology (RACT) for major avoid a broad and ungoverned Why Was This Rule Submitted? sources in nonattainment areas (see application of ‘‘director’s discretion’’ VOCs help produce ground-level section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax when reviewing the compliance plans. ozone and smog, which harm human existing requirements (see sections This deficiency is inconsistent with the health and the environment. Section 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD regulates CAA section 110(a) requirement that the 110(a) of the CAA requires states to an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 SIP be federally enforceable. A facility submit regulations that control VOC CFR part 81), so Rule 1131 must fulfill may take any number of actions to emissions. Table 2 lists some of the RACT. reduce VOC emissions to a level national milestones leading to the Guidance and policy documents that equivalent with the requirements of the submittal of these local agency VOC we used to define specific enforceability rule. rules.
TABLE 2.—OZONE NONATTAINMENT MILESTONES
Date Event
March 3, 1978 ...... EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305. May 26, 1988 ...... EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA’s SIP–Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act. November 15, 1990 ...... Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. May 15, 1991 ...... Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that ozone nonattainment areas correct deficient RACT rules by this date.
VerDate 11
IV. Administrative Requirements government provides the funds F. Regulatory Flexibility Act necessary to pay the direct compliance A. Executive Order 12866 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) costs incurred by State and local generally requires an agency to conduct The Office of Management and Budget governments, or EPA consults with has exempted this regulatory action a regulatory flexibility analysis of any State and local officials early in the rule subject to notice and comment from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory process of developing the proposed Planning and Review. rulemaking requirements unless the regulation. EPA also may not issue a agency certifies that the rule will not B. Executive Order 13211 regulation that has federalism have a significant economic impact on This proposed rule is not subject to implications and that preempts State a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions law unless the Agency consults with Small entities include small businesses, Concerning Regulations That State and local officials early in the small not-for-profit enterprises, and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, process of developing the proposed small governmental jurisdictions. Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May regulation. This proposed rule will not have a 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant This proposed rule will not have significant impact on a substantial regulatory action under Executive Order substantial direct effects on the States, number of small entities because SIP 12866. on the relationship between the national approvals under section 110 and government and the States, or on the subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act C. Executive Order 13045 distribution of power and do not create any new requirements but Executive Order 13045, entitled responsibilities among the various simply act on requirements that the Protection of Children from levels of government, as specified in State is already imposing. Therefore, Environmental Health Risks and Safety Executive Order 13132, because it because the Federal SIP approval does Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), merely acts on a state rule implementing not create any new requirements, I applies to any rule that: (1) Is a federal standard, and does not alter certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a determined to be ‘‘economically the relationship or the distribution of substantial number of small entities. significant’’ as defined under Executive power and responsibilities established EPA’s proposed disapproval of the Order 12866, and (2) concerns an in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the state request under section 110 and environmental health or safety risk that requirements of section 6 of the subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act EPA has reason to believe may have a Executive Order do not apply to this disproportionate effect on children. If does not affect any existing proposed rule. the regulatory action meets both criteria, requirements applicable to small the Agency must evaluate the E. Executive Order 13175 entities. Any pre-existing federal environmental health or safety effects of requirements remain in place after this the planned rule on children, and Executive Order 13175, entitled disapproval. Federal disapproval of the explain why the planned regulation is ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with state submittal does not affect state preferable to other potentially effective Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s and reasonably feasible alternatives 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA disapproval of the submittal does not considered by the Agency. to develop an accountable process to impose any new Federal requirements. This rule is not subject to Executive ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Therefore, I certify that this action will Order 13045 because it does not involve tribal officials in the development of not have a significant economic impact decisions intended to mitigate regulatory policies that have tribal on a substantial number of small environmental health or safety risks. implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal entities. implications’’ is defined in the Moreover, due to the nature of the D. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order to include regulations Federal-State relationship under the Executive Order 13132, entitled that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, one or more Indian tribes, on the analysis would constitute Federal 1999) revokes and replaces Executive relationship between the Federal inquiry into the economic Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, government and the Indian tribes, or on reasonableness of state action. The Enhancing the Intergovernmental the distribution of power and Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its Partnership. Executive Order 13132 responsibilities between the Federal actions concerning SIPs on such requires EPA to develop an accountable government and Indian tribes.’’ grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. timely input by State and local officials This proposed rule does not have 7410(a)(2). in the development of regulatory tribal implications. It will not have policies that have federalism substantial direct effects on tribal G. Unfunded Mandates implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have governments, on the relationship Under section 202 of the Unfunded federalism implications’’ is defined in between the Federal government and Mandates Reform Act of 1995 the Executive Order to include Indian tribes, or on the distribution of (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct power and responsibilities between the into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must effects on the States, on the relationship Federal government and Indian tribes, prepare a budgetary impact statement to between the national government and as specified in Executive Order 13175. accompany any proposed or final rule the States, or on the distribution of Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not that includes a Federal mandate that power and responsibilities among the apply to this rule. In the spirit of may result in estimated costs to State, various levels of government.’’ Under Executive Order 13175, and consistent local, or tribal governments in the Executive Order 13132, EPA may not with EPA policy to promote aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 issue a regulation that has federalism communications between EPA and million or more. Under section 205, implications, that imposes substantial tribal governments, EPA specifically EPA must select the most cost-effective direct compliance costs, and that is not solicits additional comment on this and least burdensome alternative that required by statute, unless the Federal proposed rule from tribal officials. achieves the objectives of the rule and
VerDate 11
is consistent with statutory ACTION: Proposed rule. February 20, 2001, for the control of air requirements. Section 203 requires EPA emissions from HMIWIs. When EPA to establish a plan for informing and SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection developed the New Source Performance advising any small governments that Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Standard (NSPS) for HMIWI, it also may be significantly or uniquely the Section 111(d)/129 Plan submitted developed Emission Guidelines (EG) to impacted by the rule. by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico control air emissions from existing EPA has determined that the for the purpose of implementing and HMIWI. (See 62 FR 48379, September proposed action does not include a enforcing the Emission Guidelines (EG) 15, 1997, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce Federal mandate that may result in for existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious [Emission Guidelines and Compliance estimated costs of $100 million or more Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) units. The Times for HMIWIs] and Subpart Ec to either State, local, or tribal plan was submitted to fulfill [Standards of Performance for HMIWIs requirements of the Clean Air Act. The governments in the aggregate, or to the for Which Construction is Commenced Puerto Rico (PR) plan establishes private sector. This proposed Federal After June 20, 1996]). The Puerto Rico emission limits for existing HMIWI and action acts on pre-existing requirements Environmental Quality Board (EQB) provides for the implementation and under State or local law, and imposes developed a plan, as required by enforcement of those limits. no new requirements. Accordingly, no Sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air additional costs to State, local, or tribal DATES: Comments must be received on Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d) and 7429, governments, or to the private sector, or before March 27, 2002. to adopt the EG into its body of result from this action. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to regulations, and EPA is proposing Raymond W. Werner, Chief, Air H. National Technology Transfer and action today to fully approve it. Programs Branch, Environmental Advancement Act Protection Agency, Region II, 290 II. The HMIWI State Plan Requirement Section 12 of the National Technology Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY What Is a HMIWI State Plan? Transfer and Advancement Act 10007–1866. Copies of the documents (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal relevant to this action are available for A HMIWI state plan is a plan to agencies to evaluate existing technical public inspection during normal control air pollutant emissions from standards when developing a new business hours at the following existing incinerators which burn regulation. To comply with NTTAA, locations: Division of Environmental hospital waste or medical/infectious EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary Planning and Protection, Air Programs waste. consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available Branch, Environmental Protection Why Are We Requiring Puerto Rico To and applicable when developing Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, 25th Submit a HMIWI Plan? programs and policies unless doing so Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866; would be inconsistent with applicable Environmental Protection Agency, States are required under Sections law or otherwise impractical. Region II, Caribbean Environmental 111(d) and 129 of the CAA to submit EPA believes that VCS are Protection Division, Centro Europa plans to control emissions from existing inapplicable to today’s proposed action Building, Suite 417, 1492 Ponce De HMIWI in the State. The state plan because it does not require the public to Leon Avenue, Stop 22, San Juan, Puerto requirement was triggered when EPA perform activities conducive to the use Rico 00907–4127; and the Puerto Rico published the EG for HMIWI under 40 of VCS. Environmental Quality Board, National CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce (See 62 FR 48379, September 15, 1997). For the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Plaza Building, 431 Ponce De Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. purposes of the Clean Air Act, Puerto Environmental protection, Air Rico is treated as a state. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Under Section 129 of the CAA, EPA Demian P. Ellis at (212) 637–3713, or by Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, was required to promulgate EGs for e-mail at [email protected]. Particulate matter, Reporting and several types of existing solid waste SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: recordkeeping requirements, Volatile incinerators. These EGs establish organic compound. Table of Contents emission standards that states must Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. I. What action is being taken by the adopt to comply with the CAA. The Dated: February 8, 2002. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) HMIWI EG also establishes today? requirements for monitoring, operator Wayne Nastri, II. The HMIWI state plan requirement training, permits, and a waste Regional Administrator, Region IX. • What is a HMIWI state plan? • management plan that must be included [FR Doc. 02–4406 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Why are we requiring Puerto Rico to in HMIWI plans. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P submit a HMIWI plan? • Why do we need to regulate air The intent of the HMIWI plan emissions from HMIWI? requirement is to reduce several types of • air pollutants associated with waste ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION What criteria must a HMIWI plan meet to be approved? incineration. AGENCY • What does the Puerto Rico plan contain? III. Which HMIWIs are subject to these Why Do We Need To Regulate Air 40 CFR Part 62 regulations? Emissions From HMIWI? [Region II Docket No. PR7–236, FRL–7149– IV. What steps do HMIWIs need to take? The HMIWI plan establishes control 5] V. Is the Puerto Rico HMIWI plan approvable? requirements which reduce the Approval and Promulgation of State VI. Administrative Requirements following emissions from HMIWI: Plans for Designated Facilities and particulate matter; sulfur dioxide; I. What Action Is Being Taken by the hydrogen chloride; nitrogen oxides; Pollutants: Commonwealth of Puerto Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Rico carbon monoxide; lead; cadmium; Today? mercury; and dioxin/furans. These AGENCY: Environmental Protection EPA is proposing to fully approve the pollutants can cause adverse effects to Agency. Puerto Rico plan, as submitted on public health and the environment.
VerDate 11
Dioxin, lead, and mercury authority to implement the Section 6. The facility’s operator must be bioaccumulate through the food web. 111(d)/129 HMIWI plan; certified, as discussed in 5 above, no Serious developmental and adult effects 2. Revisions to Commonwealth rules later than one year after EPA approval in humans, primarily damage to the 102 (definitions) and 405(b) of the HMIWI plan or after publication nervous system, have been associated (Incineration), as the enforceable date of EPA’s federal plan, whichever is with exposures to mercury. Exposure to mechanism; sooner. Please see Rule 405(b)(9)(G) for dioxin and furans can cause skin 3. An inventory of six (6) known further details. disorders. Dioxin may also pose risks to designated facilities, along with 7. The facility must develop and the reproductive and immune systems estimates of their air emissions; submit to EQB a waste management and is a likely human carcinogen. Acid 4. Emission limits that are as plan. This plan must be developed gases affect the respiratory tract, as well protective as the EG; under guidance provided by the as contribute to the acid rain that 5. A final compliance date no later American Hospital Association damages lakes and harms forests and than September 15, 2002; publication, ‘‘An Ounce of Prevention: buildings. Exposure to particulate 6. Testing, monitoring, inspection, Waste Reduction Strategies for Health matter has been linked with adverse reporting and record keeping Care Facilities,’’ 1993, and must be health effects, including aggravation of requirements for the designated submitted to EQB no later than 60 days existing respiratory and cardiovascular facilities; following the initial performance test for disease and increased risk of premature 7. Documentation from the public the affected unit. Please see Rule death. Nitrogen oxide emissions hearing on the HMIWI plan; and, 405(b)(4) for further details. contribute to the formation of ground 8. Provisions to make progress reports 8. The facility must conduct an initial level ozone, which is associated with a to EPA. performance test to determine the number of adverse health and The reader is referred to the Technical incinerator’s compliance with these environmental effects. Support Document for further details on emission limits. This performance test Puerto Rico’s plan. must be completed no later than 180 What Criteria Must a HMIWI Plan Meet days after final compliance is achieved, IV. Which HMIWIs Are Subject to To Be Approved? and as required under 40 CFR 60.37e These Regulations? The criteria for approving a HMIWI and Rule 405(b)(9)(E). The EG for existing HMIWI affect any plan include requirements from 9. The facility must install, calibrate, HMIWI built on or before June 20, 1996. Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA and maintain, and operate devices to If a facility meets this criterion, it is 40 CFR part 60, Subpart B. Under the monitor the parameters listed under subject to these regulations. requirements of Sections 111(d) and 129 Rule 405(b)(7). 10. The facility must document and of the CAA, a HMIWI plan must be at V. What Steps Do HMIWIs Need To maintain information concerning: least as protective as the EG regarding Take? Calendar date of each record; records of: applicability, emission limits, A facility must meet the requirements (a) Pollutant concentrations or opacity compliance schedules, performance listed in Puerto Rico Rule 405(b) of the measurements (as determined by the testing, monitoring and inspections, Regulations for the Control of continuous emissions monitoring operator training and certification, Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP), system); (b) HMIWI charge dates, times, waste management plans, and record summarized as follows: and weights and hourly charge rates; keeping and reporting. Under Section 1. Determine the size of the facility’s and other operational data. This 129(e), HMIWI plans must ensure that incinerator by establishing its maximum information must be maintained for a affected HMIWI facilities submit Title V design capacity. period of five years. Please see Rule permit applications to the state by 2. Each size category of HMIWI has 405(b)(8) for further details. September 15, 2000. Under the certain emission limits established 11. The facility must submit an requirements of 40 CFR part 60, Subpart which the facility’s incinerator must annual report to EQB containing records B, the criteria for an approvable Section meet. [Rule 405(b)] Please refer to EQB’s of annual equipment inspections, any 111(d) plan must include a Rule 405(b), Table 1 to determine the required maintenance, and unscheduled demonstration of adequate legal specific emission limits which apply to repairs. This annual report must be authority, enforceable mechanisms, the facility. The emission limits apply at signed by the facility’s manager. public participation documentation, all times, except during startup, source and emission inventories, and a shutdown, or malfunctions, provided VI. Is the Puerto Rico HMIWI Plan state progress report commitment. that no waste has been charged during Approvable? III. What Does the Puerto Rico HMIWI these events. EPA compared the Puerto Rico Rule Plan Contain? 3. There are provisions to address 405(b) of the Regulations for the Control small rural incinerators (if your unit is of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP) with EQB amended its Rules 102 and applicable). Please see Rule 405(b)(5) for our HMIWI EG. EPA finds the Puerto 405(b) of the Regulations for the Control further details. Rico rules to be at least as protective as of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP) to 4. The facility must meet a 10 percent the EG. The Puerto Rico HMIWI plan incorporate the requirements for opacity limit on its discharge, averaged was reviewed for approval compared to implementing the HMIWI EG covered over a six-minute block. Please see Rule the following criteria: 40 CFR 60.23 under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the 405(b)(2) for further details. through 60.26, Subpart B—Adoption CAA, and codified in the 40 CFR part 5. The facility must have a fully and Submittal of State plans for 60, Subpart Ce. Revisions to the trained and qualified HMIWI operator Designated Facilities; 40 CFR 60.30e Commonwealth rules became effective available to supervise the operation of through 60.39e, Subpart Ce—Emission on April 20, 2001. the incinerator. This operator must be Guidelines and Compliance Times for The Puerto Rico HMIWI plan trained and qualified through a state- Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste contains: approved program, or a training Incinerators; and, 40 CFR 62.14400 1. A demonstration by the Attorney program that meets the requirements through 62.14495, Subpart HHH— General of the Commonwealth’s legal listed in Rule 405(b)(3). Federal Plan Requirements for Hospital/
VerDate 11
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators regulatory policies that have federalism distribution of power and Constructed on or before June 20, 1996. implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have responsibilities between the Federal It should be noted that Puerto Rico is federalism implications’’ is defined in government and Indian tribes, as currently subject to the federal plan the Executive Order to include specified in Executive Order 13175. requirements for Hospital/Medical/ regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not Infectious Waste Incinerators, 40 CFR effects on the states, on the relationship apply to this rule. 62.14400 through 62.14495. between the national government and Regulatory Flexibility The EPA finds that the Puerto Rico the states, or on the distribution of HMIWI plan satisfies the requirements power and responsibilities among the The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) for an approvable Section 111(d)/129 various levels of government.’’ generally requires an agency to conduct plan under Subparts B and Ce of 40 CFR Under section 6(b) of Executive Order a regulatory flexibility analysis of any Part 60 and Subpart HHH of 40 CFR Part 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation rule subject to notice and comment 62 and is therefore, proposing to that has federalism implications, that rulemaking requirements unless the approve the Puerto Rico HMIWI plan. imposes substantial direct compliance agency certifies that the rule will not costs, and that is not required by statute, have a significant economic impact on VII. Administrative Requirements unless the Federal government provides a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12866 the funds necessary to pay the direct Small entities include small businesses, The Office of Management and Budget compliance costs incurred by state and small not-for-profit enterprises, and (OMB) has exempted this regulatory local governments, or EPA consults with small governmental jurisdictions. action from Executive Order 12866, state and local officials early in the This rule will not have a significant entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and process of developing the proposed impact on a substantial number of small Review.’’ regulation. Under section 6(c) of entities because such businesses have Executive Order 13132, EPA may not already been subject to the federal plan, Paperwork Reduction Act issue a regulation that has federalism which mirrors this rule. Therefore, This action will not impose any implications and that preempts state because the Federal approval does not collection information subject to the law, unless the Agency consults with create any new requirements, I certify provisions of the Paperwork Reduction state and local officials early in the that this action will not have a Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than process of developing the proposed significant economic impact on a those previously approved and assigned regulation. substantial number of small entities. EPA has concluded that this rule may OMB control number 2060–0363. For Unfunded Mandates additional information concerning these have federalism implications. The only requirements, See 40 CFR 60.38e. An reason why this rule may have Under sections 202 of the Unfunded agency may not conduct or sponsor, and federalism implications is if in the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 a person is not required to respond to, future a HMIWI source is found in the (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed a collection of information unless it Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must displays a currently valid OMB control case the source will become subject to prepare a budgetary impact statement to number. the federal plan until a Puerto Rico accompany any proposed or final rule HMIWI plan is approved by EPA. that includes a Federal mandate that Executive Order 13045 However, it will not impose substantial may result in estimated costs to state, Protection of Children from direct compliance costs on state or local local, or tribal governments in the Environmental Health Risks and Safety governments, nor will it preempt state aggregate; or to the private sector, of Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), law. Thus, the requirements of sections $100 million or more. Under section applies to any rule that: (1) Is 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do 205, EPA must select the most cost- determined to be ‘‘economically no apply to this rule. effective and least burdensome significant’’ as defined under Executive alternative that achieves the objectives Executive Order 13175 Order 12866, and (2) concerns an of the rule and is consistent with environmental health or safety risk that Executive Order 13175, entitled statutory requirements. Section 203 EPA has reason to believe may have a ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with requires EPA to establish a plan for disproportionate effect on children. If Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR informing and advising any small the regulatory action meets both criteria, 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA governments that may be significantly the Agency must evaluate the to develop an accountable process to or uniquely impacted by the rule. environmental health or safety effects of ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by EPA has determined that the approval the planned rule on children, and tribal officials in the development of action promulgated does not include a explain why the planned regulation is regulatory policies that have tribal Federal mandate that may result in preferable to other potentially effective implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal estimated costs of $100 million or more and reasonably feasible alternatives implications’’ is defined in the to either state, local, or tribal considered by the Agency. Executive Order to include regulations governments in the aggregate, or to the This rule is not subject to Executive that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on private sector. This Federal action Order 13045 because it does not involve one or more Indian tribes, on the approves pre-existing requirements decisions intended to mitigate relationship between the Federal under state or local law, and imposes no environmental health or safety risks. government and the Indian tribes, or on new requirements. Accordingly, no the distribution of power and additional costs to state, local, or tribal Executive Order 13132 responsibilities between the Federal governments, or to the private sector, Executive Order 13132, entitled government and Indian tribes.’’ result from this action. ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, This rule does not have tribal 1999), requires EPA to develop an implications. It will not have substantial National Technology Transfer and accountable process to ensure direct effects on tribal governments, on Advancement Act ‘‘meaningful and timely input by state the relationship between the Federal Section 12 of the National Technology and local officials in the development of government and Indian tribes, or on the Transfer and Advancement Act
VerDate 11
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal ADDRESSES: The complete file for this 1990, Jodice 1990, Humphrey and agencies to evaluate existing technical finding, including comments and Jodice 1992). standards when developing a new information submitted, is available for Fox squirrel research specific to regulation. To comply with NTTAA, public inspection, by appointment, Florida was only begun in the 1950s EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary during normal business hours at the (Wooding 1990). Therefore, very little consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South information regarding Big Cypress fox and applicable when developing Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 squirrels is available from prior to that programs and policies unless doing so 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960. time. Studies of the Big Cypress fox would be inconsistent with applicable squirrel in its natural habitat are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: law or otherwise impractical. virtually nonexistent. Available reports David Martin (see ADDRESSES section; The EPA believes that VCS are specific to the Big Cypress fox squirrel telephone 561/562–3909 extension 230; provide limited details regarding the inapplicable to this action. Today’s facsimile 561/562–4288). action does not require the public to biology of, population status of, and perform activities conducive to the use SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: threats faced by this fox squirrel range- of VCS. wide. In addition, no recent studies or Background evaluations of the Big Cypress fox List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires squirrel have been conducted. The only Environmental protection, that, for any petition to revise the List recent analysis was conducted on Administrative practice and procedure, of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife potential Big Cypress fox squirrel Air pollution control, Intergovernmental and Plants that presents substantial habitat (WilsonMiller Inc. 2002). The relations, Reporting and recordkeeping scientific and commercial information, previous range-wide report by Cox et al. requirements, waste treatment and we must make a finding within 12 (1994) on habitat used 1985–1989 disposal. months of the date of receipt of the Landsat imagery. petition as to whether the petitioned The State has protected the Big Dated: February 11, 2002. Cypress fox squirrel since 1973, when Jane M. Kenny, action is (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but the Florida Fish and Wildlife Regional Administrator, Region 2. precluded from immediate proposal by Commission (Commission) listed it as [FR Doc. 02–4405 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] other pending proposals of higher endangered. The State reclassified the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P priority. Upon making a 12-month Big Cypress fox squirrel to threatened in finding, we must promptly publish 1979; the species retained protection as notice of such finding in the Federal a nongame species. As a threatened Register. species, Big Cypress fox squirrels and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR their nests cannot be taken or possessed The Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus without authorization from the Fish and Wildlife Service niger avicennia) is a subspecies of the Commission. fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), which Our involvement with the Big Cypress 50 CFR Part 17 occurs over most of the eastern and fox squirrel began when we identified central United States, extending into the Big Cypress fox squirrel as a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife south-central Canada (Koprowski 1994). category 2 candidate species in Notices and Plants; 12-month Finding for a The Big Cypress fox squirrel is restricted of Review published in the Federal Petition To List the Big Cypress Fox to southwest Florida. Its historic range Register on December 30, 1982 (47 FR Squirrel was southwest Florida from south of the 58454), September 18, 1985 (50 FR Caloosahatchee River, west of the AGENCY: 37958), January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), Fish and Wildlife Service, Everglades, to as far south as Cape Sable Interior. November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and (Williams and Humphrey 1979, Moore November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Prior ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 1956). Despite human development and to 1996, a category 2 species was one finding. changes in land use in the southwestern that we were considering for possible Florida peninsula, the current range of addition to the Federal Lists of SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife the Big Cypress fox squirrel, based on its Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month description in the best available and Plants, but for which conclusive finding for a petition to list the Big information, is essentially unchanged data on biological vulnerability and Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger (Humphrey and Jodice 1992, Williams threats were not available to support a avicennia) under the Endangered and Humphrey 1979, and Moore 1956). proposed rule. We identified the Big Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Big Cypress fox squirrels have been Cypress fox squirrel’s status as ‘‘D’’ or After a review of all available scientific reported present in Hendry and Lee ‘‘Declining’’ in the 1991 and 1994 and commercial information, we find Counties south of the Caloosahatchee Notices of Review. This designation that listing of the Big Cypress fox River, Collier County, the mainland of indicates decreasing numbers or squirrel is not warranted at this time. Monroe County, and extreme western increasing threats. In addition, we We will continue to seek new Miami-Dade County (a strip of land on identified a priority for this subspecies information on the biology, ecology, the western side of the true Everglades, and most of our other category 2 distribution, and habitat of the Big largely in Big Cypress National candidates during the completion of the Cypress fox squirrel, as well as potential Preserve) (Humphrey and Jodice 1992, 1991 and 1994 Notices of Review. In threats to its continued existence. If Jodice 1990, Wooding 1990, and 1991, the Big Cypress fox squirrel was additional data become available in the Williams and Humphrey 1979). The Big identified as a priority 9. Based on the future, we may reassess the need for Cypress fox squirrel is, however, absent listing priority system detailed in the listing. from a few areas of its historic range like Federal Register in 1983 (48 FR 43103), DATES: The finding announced in this the Cape Sable coast of Everglades this priority indicated that the Big document was made on February 15, National Park in the vicinity of Cypress fox squirrel faced a moderate to 2002. Flamingo, Monroe County. (Wooding low magnitude of imminent threats. In
VerDate 11
1994, the Big Cypress fox squirrel was available and after taking into account for Hendry County as estimated and identified as a low-priority category 2 any efforts being made by any State or projected gradually decreases between candidate. We discontinued designation foreign nation to protect the species. We 1990 and 2030. (For all human of category 2 species in the February 28, have examined each of the five listing population figures, 1990 and 2000 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 7596). factors under the Act for their figures from U.S. Census, available at This notice redefined candidate to application to the Big Cypress fox http://swfloridabusiness.com; include only species for which we have squirrel as follows: ‘‘Projections of Florida Population by information needed to propose them for 1. The present or threatened County, 2000–2030,’’ produced by the listing. destruction, modification, or Bureau of Economic and Business On January 5, 1998, we received a curtailment of its habitat or range. The Research, University of Florida. Data petition from the Biodiversity Legal Big Cypress fox squirrel’s current range, presented at website of Southwest Foundation, Sidney Maddock, Florida as described in the best available Florida Regional Planning Council (see Biodiversity Project, Brian Scherf, and information, remains essentially Literature Cited)). Rosalyn Scherf, to list the Big Cypress unchanged (Humphrey and Jodice 1992, fox squirrel as a threatened species and Williams and Humphrey 1979, Moore Lee County designate critical habitat concurrently 1956) from its historic range. This In eastern Lee County, land with listing. The petitioners stated that subspecies of fox squirrel has been ownership is similar to Hendry County. the Big Cypress fox squirrel is found to use most types of forests A notable Big Cypress fox squirrel threatened by several factors, including within its range, including open population in a medium-sized area of habitat loss, fragmentation, and pinelands (wet or dry), mixed open habitat was found on a ranch in this part modification; exclusion of fire; pine-cypress, mixed open pine of the county (Wooding 1997). Wooding predation; road mortality; and poaching. hardwoods, open hardwood, seasonally also reported Big Cypress fox squirrels After considering the petition and used cypress strand and edges of from golf courses and ranchettes reviewing all available scientific and cypress dome strands, interiors of adjacent to this area. Western Lee commercial information, we made a 90- cypress domes and strands, prairie with County is mostly urban or residential in day finding that the petition to list the interspersed pines or adjacent pineland, and near Ft. Myers and Naples, Big Cypress fox squirrel presented live oak savannas, and mangrove, including the corridor of I–75. However, substantial information indicating that cypress, and hardwood swamps. areas of habitat that Big Cypress fox the requested action may be warranted. Although many questions remain about squirrels use exist in this area, like We published a notice announcing our habitat use and requirements for this Estero Bay State Buffer Preserve and finding in the Federal Register on squirrel, the Big Cypress fox squirrel Koreshan State Historic Site. Lee September 9, 1998 (63 FR 48165), and seems to prefer an open understory in County, between 2000 and 2010, will initiated a status review on the the habitat types that it frequents gain the greatest number of people subspecies. (Ditigen 1999, Wooding 1990, and (98,412) of all the counties within the On December 11, 2000, the petitioners Brown 1978). We also believe the Big range of the Big Cypress fox squirrel. We filed a complaint in the U.S. District Cypress fox squirrel is opportunistic in expect this population growth will be Court for the Southern District of its use of available habitat. For example, focused around the I–75 corridor. Florida, Key West Division, against the in addition to the habitat types listed Collier County U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), above, Big Cypress fox squirrels also the Director of the Service, and the persist in urban settings where native The northwestern edge of Collier Secretary of the Department of the vegetation is present (Ditigen 1999, Cox County is similar to western Lee Interior, alleging the Service failed to et al. 1994, and Williams and Humphrey County, with mostly urban or make a 12-month finding on the petition 1979). These settings include golf residential areas in and near the Naples to list the Big Cypress fox squirrel. On courses, city parks, and residential areas area and the end of the I–75 corridor. September 25, 2001, the U.S. that contain or have adjacent pine We expect population growth in the Department of Justice entered into a flatwoods, upland fringes of cypress county to be focused in this area. settlement agreement with the domes, and tropical hardwood forests. Wooding (1997) found Big Cypress fox petitioners in which the Service agreed Habitat for the Big Cypress fox squirrels to be common on some golf to complete a 12-month finding for the squirrel exists on both private land and courses around Naples. In addition, Big Cypress fox squirrel and submit this conservation lands within this Rookery Bay National Estuarine finding to the Federal Register by subspecies’ range. We provide a brief Research Reserve, which has reported February 18, 2002. county-by-county analysis: fox squirrels (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2001a), is in Summary of Factors Affecting the Hendry County this area. The remainder of Collier Species The land ownership is mostly private County to the south and east is mostly Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a and land use is mainly agriculture and in public ownership as conservation species may be determined to be ranching. Most Big Cypress fox squirrel lands. Big Cypress fox squirrels have threatened or endangered for any one of habitat is in the northwestern part of the been reported from all conservation the following reasons: (1) Present or county on several ranches. These areas lands in this county and one ranch. threatened destruction, modification, or are all medium-sized (1,000–4,000 ha) curtailment of habitat or range; (2) with existing Big Cypress fox squirrel Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties overutilization for commercial, sporting, populations (Wooding 1997). Fox Monroe County and extreme western scientific, or educational purposes; (3) squirrels use both pine and cypress Miami-Dade County are largely disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of habitats, as well as improved cattle composed of Everglades National Park, existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) pastures that have live oaks, on where the squirrel is a resident and can other natural or manmade factors ranchlands in Hendry County (Williams be found in mangroves, pinelands, and affecting its continued existence. Listing and Humphrey 1979). Okaloacoochee cypress swamp (http://www.nps.gov/ determinations are made solely on the Slough State Forest is also in this ever/eco/mammals.htm). We believe best scientific and commercial data county. The rate of population growth that residential and urban land uses in
VerDate 11
this part of the Big Cypress fox squirrel’s range. Among other reasons, native fox Hendry County and eastern Lee range are insignificant. squirrel habitat is often too dense to County, where Wooding (1997) found make behavioral observations (or the largest areas of Big Cypress fox Summary sightings) from farther away than a few squirrel habitat and where WilsonMiller Within the geographic range of the Big meters. (Maehr 1993) Inc. (2002) found only 10 percent of the Cypress fox squirrel, 58 percent of the We believe the majority of population total potential Big Cypress fox squirrel potential habitat for this subspecies growth in the Big Cypress fox squirrel’s habitat, are under private ownership exists in conservation lands (551,855 ac) range will occur in or near the I–75 and are not under high pressure to be and a little under 400,000 ac exists on corridor, mostly in and around the developed for residential purposes nonconservation lands, for a total of south Ft. Myers and Naples areas. (though native Big Cypress fox squirrel 949,000 ac (WilsonMiller Inc. 2002). Big Growth and development will generally habitat here may be converted for Cypress fox squirrels occur in nearly all occur west of the majority of Big different land uses, such as citrus conservation lands within their range. Cypress fox squirrel potential habitat production). Big Cypress fox squirrels Recently, WilsonMiller Inc. (2002) (WilsonMiller Inc. 2002). Habitat have been reported to occur on ranches. evaluated the amount of potential important to the Big Cypress fox squirrel In fact, much of the habitat described by habitat available to the Big Cypress fox in this area is under the greatest Wooding (1997) is on ranches in squirrel in southwest Florida, especially pressure to be developed for residential southern Florida, and grazing by cattle in Collier, Hendry, Lee, and Monroe or commercial purposes. The highest may enhance the understory, improving counties. It noted that the basis of Cox density of roads in the Big Cypress fox the habitat for squirrels (Williams and et al.’s (1994) report, especially their squirrel’s range occurs in this area. Humphrey 1979). Even if we assume choice to use pineland and dry prairie Roads, depending on the type, level of that Big Cypress fox squirrels are not as the principal components of Big able to use lands converted for citrus Cypress fox squirrel habitat and their traffic, and location, may fragment Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat or hinder production or other agricultural subsequent analysis based on these purposes, the best available information cover types, was inconsistent with Big squirrel movement. However, no research has been conducted to does not indicate that the rate of Cypress fox squirrel habitat types conversion of native habitat in Hendry described in current literature determine to what degree roads may fragment squirrel habitat or hinder County poses a threat to this subspecies. (Humphrey and Jodice 1992), did not According to WilsonMiller (2002), fully account for the occurrence data squirrel movement. We cannot conclude based on current information if road Collier, Lee, and Monroe counties, reported by Williams and Humphrey which contain 90 percent of the total 1979, and underestimated the total fragmentation constitutes a threat to this subspecies’ habitat. Based on recorded Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat, nearly amount of Big Cypress fox squirrel all of which is in conservation lands, potential habitat. In its analysis, sightings, we do believe squirrels cross some roads and are found near them. An have not undergone a significant WilsonMiller Inc. used 1995 data to agricultural expansion. Therefore, we map, with a minimum map unit size of area around the I–75 corridor that has been heavily studied includes golf also cannot conclude, based on the best 5 acres, habitat types utilized by the fox available information, that the rate of courses, which have been found to squirrel and consistent with Humphrey land conversion in these counties poses provide a better green space than most and Jodice (1992). The mapped results a threat to this subspecies. indicate that more than twice as much development projects, but Big Cypress Mining for rock and sand also occurs Big Cypress fox squirrel potential fox squirrels will persist on them only in Collier and Lee Counties. Some of habitat (949,000 ac) exists than what as long as suitable native habitat is these operations destroy pine flatwoods was estimated by Cox et al. (about contiguous to the golf courses (Ditigen or mixed pine-cypress areas. In some 414,000 ac). The WilsonMiller Inc. map 1999). cases, it may be difficult to separate also indicates large, interconnected, A large portion of the Big Cypress fox losses to mining from those due to forested patches of Big Cypress fox squirrel’s range consists of lands agriculture, because lands are often squirrel habitat that may allow purchased for conservation purposes. cleared under agricultural permits prior movement and genetic interchange. These lands are mostly in Collier, to mining. Mines are an allowed use in According to WilsonMiller Inc., its Monroe, and extreme western Miami- agriculturally zoned areas in Lee and analysis and map correlates well with Dade Counties and are protected from Collier Counties (K. Dryden and A. available occurrence data for the Big development and have a low density of Eller, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cypress fox squirrel and includes roads bisecting natural habitat. Our personal communication 2000). Mining conservation lands with known Big available information does not is not a compatible land use if it Cypress fox squirrel residents and conclusively suggest that current destroys native squirrel habitat. habitat that was not accounted for by management practices on these Our best available information Cox et al. (1994). conservation lands constitute a threat to indicates the Big Cypress fox squirrel In general, we believe—based on the Big Cypress fox squirrel. For has lost habitat in some areas to WilsonMiller Inc’s (2002) study—that example, Humphrey and Jodice (1992) urbanization, agriculture, and mining. the Big Cypress fox squirrel has more explain that ground fires apparently are Nevertheless, conservation lands do potential habitat than outlined by Cox et valuable to the habitats of Big Cypress cover 58 percent of this subspecies’ al. (1994) (over 900,000 acres) and has fox squirrels because they slow plant historic range, and areas of habitat exist additional larger patches of habitat than succession, but this specific relationship on private ranches and other urban those classified by Wooding (1997). We has not been studied. We are areas. Based on the best available also believe similar to Wooding (1997) encouraged by the efforts of both State information, potential Big Cypress fox that smaller, isolated, fragmented and Federal agencies in fire planning squirrel habitat appears to be more than pockets of squirrels are surviving in and prescribed burning. This should twice what was previously estimated. In strips and patches of habitat, such as result in a more open understory for the addition, the Big Cypress fox squirrel golf courses and fringes of residential Big Cypress fox squirrel if burning is not still occupies most of its historic range areas. We believe the Big Cypress fox hampered by drought conditions for in southwest Florida and has shown squirrel has been difficult to assess in its continuous years. itself to be adaptable, by residing in
VerDate 11
altered habitats such as golf courses and which only affects squirrels. No known regulatory protections for wildlife. On residential areas where native habitat is treatment or vaccine is available. At this many State lands managed by agencies preserved, and mobile in its native time, we have no evidence that pox is other than the Commission, the hunting habitat. Furthermore, quantitative or likely to pose a threat to the Big Cypress season, including permits, is managed substantial information on the Big fox squirrel. In addition, Big Cypress fox by the Commission under its Wildlife Cypress fox squirrel, its status, and its squirrels, like other fox squirrels, are Management Area program. Such habitat use and requirements is lacking. susceptible to parasites, but we have no properties include Picayune Strand and Therefore, based on uncertainties about evidence that parasites pose a threat to Okaloacoochee State Forests. On these how this fox squirrel uses its native the Big Cypress fox squirrel. As the properties, the Commission has the lead habitat and on the actual status of the petitioners state, based on a study of fox responsibility for activities that involve Big Cypress fox squirrel population, and squirrel parasites, the prevalences and the take of wildlife. due to the amount of available potential intensities were much lower in Big Under the Environmental Resources habitat to this fox squirrel, we cannot Cypress fox squirrels. Permitting program (ERP) implemented conclude that the Big Cypress fox Predation may limit the sizes of Big by the South Florida Water Management squirrel is threatened or endangered due Cypress fox squirrel populations. All fox District (SFLWMD), Big Cypress fox to the destruction or curtailment of its squirrels spend much of their time on squirrels and Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat or range. the ground, where they are more habitat on private lands receive 2. Overutilization for commercial, vulnerable to predation than when in protection. The Big Cypress fox squirrel recreational, scientific, or educational trees (Humphrey and Jodice 1992). has been designated under this program purposes. The Big Cypress fox squirrel Known predators of Big Cypress fox as an aquatic or wetland-dependent has been protected from hunting since squirrels include bobcats (Felis rufus), species that uses upland habitat for 1973, when the State listed it as an gray and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and nesting. In order to get a permit from endangered species. The State later domestic cats (Felis sylvestris) (Ditgen SFLWMD to begin an activity, like reclassified the Big Cypress fox squirrel 1999). Small mammals are inherently converting land for agricultural to threatened in 1979, but it retained subject to predation. However, the best purposes, the landowner must provide protection as a nongame species. available information does not lead us assurances that the activity will not Elsewhere in Florida, fox squirrel to the conclusion that disease or adversely impact the value of wetlands hunting formerly was a popular activity, predation has caused the species to and other surface waters for Big Cypress but interest dropped off (Wooding meet the definition of threatened or fox squirrels, the value of uplands for 1990), which is one factor that led to the endangered. nesting (foraging areas or wildlife closure of fox squirrel hunting statewide 4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory corridors are not included), and will not as of the 1996–1997 hunting season mechanisms. The Big Cypress fox cause adverse secondary impacts to the (Wooding 1997). Despite concerns that squirrel is listed as threatened by the Big Cypress fox squirrel. (Basis of ‘‘people were still shooting’’ fox Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Review for ERP applications, January squirrels as discussed in the petition, Commission (Commission) under Rule 2001, as referenced in Chapter 40E–4, we do not have evidence that poaching 68A–27.004 (formerly 39–27.004) of the Florida Administrative Code). As such, of fox squirrels constitutes a threat to Florida Administrative Code. This rule its upland nest and wetland areas this subspecies. Also, no information is provides that no one may take, possess, receive consideration during the available to confirm that Big Cypress fox transport, molest, harass, or sell any wetland permitting review. Projects squirrel populations may have suffered threatened species, their parts, or their where this subspecies or its habitat have long-term reduction in size due to legal nests except as authorized by a permit been observed through surveys are hunting. from the Commission. Permits are required to preserve onsite habitat, 3. Disease or predation. A skin fungus issued for conservation purposes or implement a Big Cypress fox squirrel has been identified as a source of scientific purposes only after the management plan, and minimize the mortality for Big Cypress fox squirrels applicant shows the activity will not spread of exotic plants onsite. found in urban areas. During Ditgen’s have a negative impact on the survival On all properties under jurisdiction of (1999) study of fox squirrels on golf of the threatened species. The the Florida Division of Recreation and courses in southwest Florida, she noted Commission typically has not Parks, collection of specimens is at least eight individuals with a fungus authorized the take of animals, but does allowed only by permit. This includes causing heavy fur loss and a blackened authorize take of nest trees and nests Collier-Seminole State Park and crusting of the skin. Ditgen reported that outside of nesting season when the nest Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve Park. two Big Cypress fox squirrels died as a is not active (J. Beever, Florida Fish and This prohibition is in addition to the result of the skin fungus during her Wildlife Conservation Commission, statewide prohibition of take of Big study. One collared individual survived personal communication 2000). The Cypress fox squirrels imposed by the the fungus infestation and regained a Commission also provides technical Commission. Other State land-managing thick, healthy coat. No researchers have assistance and recommendations to agencies have similar authority to suggested that this fungus threatens other government agencies that regulate regulate public access and to manage urban Big Cypress fox squirrel development activities in the Big the vegetation and other natural populations. A pox outbreak was Cypress fox squirrel range. According to resources. Lands managed by the reported in eight counties in southeast Section 372.0725 of the Florida Statutes, Florida Department of Environmental and central Florida outside the range of it is unlawful for anyone to kill or Protection (FLDEP) are protected by the Big Cypress fox squirrel during the wound a Big Cypress fox squirrel or to State park regulations. Also, Big Cypress 1990’s. Although no cases have been intentionally destroy the nest of a Big fox squirrels and other resources on reported affecting Big Cypress fox Cypress fox squirrel, except as provided Federal conservation lands are protected squirrels, one infected Sherman’s fox for in the rules by the Commission. by rules imposed by land management squirrel was observed (T. Regen, Florida Most other State agencies have not agencies, such as the National Park Fish and Wildlife Conservation promulgated specific regulations to Service for Big Cypress National Commission, personal communication protect this or other animals, but instead Preserve, to generally protect resources. 1999). Mosquitoes transmit the disease, help enforce the Commission’s In both cases, use of motor vehicles is
VerDate 11
regulated or restricted, and take of Big periodic hurricane disturbances, the educational purposes (i.e., poaching), Cypress fox squirrels is prohibited. most important of which for fox nor by disease or predation. We also Substantial areas of Big Cypress fox squirrels is probably large-scale have no data to show that inadequacies squirrel habitat are on conservation destruction of trees. Therefore, we do in the existing regulatory mechanisms lands or on private lands not currently not believe that hurricanes are a threat may threaten the survival of the Big threatened by development. Regulatory to the continued existence of the Big Cypress fox squirrel. Thus, we cannot mechanisms exist that prevent direct Cypress fox squirrel. conclude that the Big Cypress fox take, and ERP rules provide some Finding squirrel qualifies for listing as an protection to the species’ habitat. endangered or threatened species due to Therefore, the available information We have reviewed the petition, the any of the five factors as defined in the does not lead us to conclude that the literature cited in the petition, other Act. Because the available information species is threatened or endangered due available literature and information, and does not demonstrate that the Big to inadequacy of existing regulatory consulted with species experts and Cypress fox squirrel meets the definition mechanisms. other individuals familiar with the Big of threatened or endangered, we find 5. Other natural or manmade factors Cypress fox squirrel. On the basis of the that listing the Big Cypress fox squirrel affecting its continued existence. Fox best available scientific and commercial (Sciurus niger avicennia) as threatened squirrel reproduction varies greatly from information, we find that the petitioned is not warranted at the present time. year to year in response to food action is not warranted at this time. The supplies. There are few data on how Big status review revealed a lack of reliable References Cited Cypress fox squirrels utilize their native data and information on the current A complete list of all references cited habitats and on how many squirrels status and any trend in density and in this document, as well as others, is exist in these habitats. Based on the best abundance of Big Cypress fox squirrels available upon request from the South available information, we do not believe in natural or seminatural habitats over Florida Ecological Services Office (see that food availability is currently a time. In particular, we have no reliable ADDRESSES section). threat that could lead the fox squirrel information on the sizes of Big Cypress toward extinction. fox squirrel populations on conservation Author Based on current information and lands or private lands in southwest The primary author of this document recorded sightings, we believe Big Florida, and the most recent information is David L. Martin (see ADDRESSES Cypress fox squirrels cross roads and are on Big Cypress fox squirrels on privately section). found near them. Road mortality is owned ranches in Lee and Hendry Authority: The authority for this action is documented for the Big Cypress fox Counties is from a very brief survey the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 squirrel, but a very large portion of this conducted in 1989 (Wooding 1997). et seq.). subspecies’ habitat has few, if any roads, Studies as described in this finding and so road mortality in these areas is likely in our available literature indicate the Dated: February 15, 2002. to be minimal. While road mortality Big Cypress fox squirrel has lost habitat Steve Williams, may cause declines in numbers of in some areas to urbanization, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. squirrels in certain urban areas or other agriculture, and mining. Nevertheless, [FR Doc. 02–4336 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] areas with roads, in the absence of conservation lands cover 58 percent of BILLING CODE 4310–55–P demographic data, we have no evidence this subspecies’ historic range, and areas that the subspecies is threatened by road of habitat exist on private ranches and mortality. other urban areas. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE No studies have documented the Based on the best available effects of pesticides on Big Cypress fox information, potential Big Cypress fox National Oceanic and Atmospheric squirrels, and we have no evidence that squirrel habitat appears to be more than Administration poisoning is a major cause of mortality twice what was previously estimated. In for big Cypress fox squirrels on golf addition, the Big Cypress fox squirrel 50 CFR Part 622 courses. Poisoning has not been still occupies most of its historic range [Docket No. 011018255–1255–01; I.D. documented sufficiently for us to in southwest Florida and has shown 071001F] consider it a threat to the continued itself to be adaptable, by residing in existence of the species. altered habitats such as golf courses and RIN 0648–AO51 Hurricanes in 1935 (Labor Day), 1960 residential areas where native habitat is (Donna), and 1992 (Andrew) extensively preserved, and mobile in its native Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of damaged squirrel habitat (Moore 1956, habitat. Furthermore, quantitative or Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Brown 1971). The 1960 hurricane substantial information on the Big Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; toppled nearly all the suitable nesting Cypress fox squirrel, its status, and its Amendment 11 trees in Everglades City and virtually habitat use and requirements is lacking. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries eliminated a Big Cypress fox squirrel Therefore, based on uncertainties about Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and population that inhabited a public park how this fox squirrel uses its native Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (Brown 1971, Humphrey and Jodice habitat and on the actual status of the Commerce. 1992). None of the three catastrophic Big Cypress fox squirrel population, and ACTION: Proposed rule; request for hurricanes since 1930 impacted more due to the amount of available potential comments. than a fraction of the squirrel’s range. habitat to this fox squirrel, we cannot The range of the subspecies is large conclude that the Big Cypress fox SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed enough to ensure that catastrophic squirrel is threatened or endangered due rule to implement Amendment 11 to the hurricane damage is unlikely to the destruction or curtailment of its Fishery Management Plan for the throughout the range in any 1 year. The habitat or range. Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico Big Cypress fox squirrel and other We found no evidence that the (Amendment 11), as prepared and southeastern fox squirrel subspecies species is threatened by overutilization submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery have evolved under conditions of for commercial, recreational, or Management Council. This proposed
VerDate 11
rule would require owners or operators Magnuson-Stevens Fishery enumeration of the vessels that would of all vessels harvesting shrimp in the Conservation and Management Act be authorized to fish for shrimp in the exclusive economic zone of the Gulf of (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations EEZ on an annual basis. A Federal Mexico (Gulf EEZ) to obtain a at 50 CFR part 622. permit system is a prerequisite tool for commercial vessel permit for Gulf Need for a Federal Commercial Vessel designing a statistically robust data shrimp; prohibit the use of traps to Permit for Gulf Shrimp collection program to canvass or harvest royal red shrimp in the Gulf randomly sample the activities of the EEZ; and prohibit the transfer of royal The shrimp fishery is the largest shrimp fishery in the EEZ. Previous data red shrimp at sea. The permit fishery in terms of numbers of fishing collection programs were hampered by requirement would provide an accurate vessels and participants in the Gulf of the inability to specifically identify the and efficient method of identifying and Mexico, but is one of the few federally universe of vessels fishing for shrimp in quantifying the number of vessels in the managed fisheries with no fishing the Gulf EEZ. The results of NMFS’ Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery. The permit requirement. Some data 1992–1996 incidental harvest research prohibition of the use of traps for royal collection and vessel identification program, as well as the Council’s red shrimp is intended to prevent gear systems exist through either state or subsequent actions implemented in Federal programs, but none is conflict and potential overfishing. The Amendment 9, which were based on the comprehensive or specifically identifies prohibition on transfer of royal red results of that program, have been shrimp fishing vessels that fish in the shrimp at sea is intended to enhance questioned because the sampling was EEZ. NMFS maintains two record enforceability of the prohibition on use not conducted through a stratified systems, each with a limited purpose. of traps in the fishery. random sampling effort. Similarly, DATES: Comments must be received no The Shrimp Landing File (SLF) contains landings by individual shrimp vessels during the summer 1998 Red Snapper/ later than 4:30 p.m., eastern standard Shrimp Research Program, the time, on April 11, 2002. over the course of a year. The Vessel Operating Units File (VOUF) is similar, Southeast Fisheries Science Center ADDRESSES: Written comments on the but the purpose of this file is to (SEFSC) attempted to implement a trial proposed rule should be sent to Dr. logbook program. That attempt was only Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional maintain a record of vessel characteristics (i.e., length, age, partially successful because it failed to Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center reach many of the intended participants Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. horsepower, etc.) for all active shrimp fishing vessels during a particular year. in a timely manner. Without Comments also may be sent via fax to information to identify readily the 727–570–5583. Comments will not be Neither the SLF nor VOUF contains contact information for the owner, and participants in the fishery, sampling accepted if submitted via e-mail or programs have depended on non- Internet. neither indicates whether the vessel fishes in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. random sampling. A more robust Requests for copies of Amendment 11, analysis of the shrimp fishery is only which includes an environmental Similarly, state licensing files list active fishing vessels, but these files do not possible through stratified random assessment and regulatory impact sampling of the existing fleet, and that review (RIR), should be sent to the Gulf provide information on whether vessels fish in state or Federal waters, or both. kind of sampling is only possible where of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the specific vessels are readily 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite In some instances, these vessel licenses are not specific to a fishery; thus, they identifiable. The permit system will 1000, Tampa, FL 33619–2266; serve as a source to identify a telephone: 813–228–2815; fax: 813– do not readily identify shrimp fishing vessels as opposed to vessels operating representative stratified random sample 225–7015; e-mail: of shrimp vessels. Once the Agency has [email protected]. Copies of in other fisheries. Trip ticket systems are not used by all the states, nor is the more accurately determined the number the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management of fishery participants through the Council’s Minority Report on data collection uniform among those states that do have a trip ticket system. permit system, sample groups will be Amendment 11 may also be obtained Although the GulfFIN program, as used to conduct research to collect from the same address. biological, fishery, social, and economic Comments regarding the collection-of- administered by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, will standardize data on the fishery, through use of information requirements contained in observers, vessel monitoring systems, or this proposed rule should be sent to this information, this program is still under development. NMFS has other data collection methods. Robert Sadler, Southeast Regional Anticipated improvements from the Office, NMFS, and to the Office of supported the development of a national Vessel Identification System under the permitting and subsequent sampling Information and Regulatory Affairs, procedures would include more precise Office of Management and Budget auspices of the US Coast Guard (USCG). However, the USCG is still reviewing red snapper bycatch estimation and (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 options to implement this system, and more accurate determinations of (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer). its implementation is not anticipated in economic and community impacts. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. the near future. Information collected under such future Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727–570– Because existing vessel identification programs would aid in the formulation 5305, fax: 727–570–5583, e-mail: systems are not comprehensive nor do of sound management measures for the [email protected]. they specifically identify shrimp fishing shrimp fishery and those finfish SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The vessels that fish in the EEZ, the Council fisheries that are affected by bycatch fishery for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ is concluded that a Federal vessel permit and bycatch mortality arising from the managed under the Fishery requirement for the shrimp fishery of shrimp fishery. Therefore, the Council Management Plan for the Shrimp the Gulf of Mexico was necessary to concluded that a requirement for a Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). identify accurately the universe of Federal commercial vessel permit for The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of vessels that fish for shrimp in the Gulf the shrimp fishery in the Gulf EEZ Mexico Fishery Management Council of Mexico EEZ and, thereby, to facilitate should enhance the capability to (Council), approved by NMFS, and scientific assessments of annual fishing achieve and maintain sustainable implemented under the authority of the effort. The database would provide an fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
VerDate 11
Two Council members submitted a effective. However, given the large the date of the RA’s letter of minority report expressing opposition to volume of permit applications notification, the application would be the implementation of Amendment 11. anticipated for the Gulf shrimp fishery, considered abandoned. Their opposition was based on their NMFS would strongly encourage Duration belief that the permit requirements in applicants to submit completed Amendment 11 are inconsistent with applications as soon as possible after A permit would remain valid for the national standards 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the publication of the final rule period specified on it unless it was Magnuson-Stevens Act, are devoid of implementing Amendment 11. Any revoked, suspended, or modified adequate rationale, and will result in delay in submitting a completed pursuant to subpart D of 15 CFR part additional bureaucracy and costs. application could result in an inability 904 or unless the vessel was sold. Copies of the minority report are to issue a permit prior to the deadline Transfer available from the Council (see for the permit requirement and, thus, ADDRESSES). preclude legal fishing for Gulf shrimp A vessel permit for Gulf shrimp Commercial Vessel Permit Requirement until the permit is issued. would not be transferable or assignable. The application for a commercial A person who acquired a vessel and This proposed rule would require an vessel permit would have to be desired to conduct activities for which owner or operator of a vessel that fishes submitted by the owner (in the case of a Gulf shrimp vessel permit would be for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ or possesses a corporation, an officer or shareholder; required would need to apply for a shrimp in or from the Gulf EEZ to have in the case of a partnership, a general permit. If the acquired vessel was a valid commercial vessel permit for partner) or operator of the vessel. All already permitted, the application Gulf shrimp on board. If Amendment 11 vessel permits would be mailed to would need to be accompanied by the is approved, the permit requirement owners, whether the applicant is an original permit and a copy of a signed would become effective 90 days after owner or an operator. An applicant bill of sale or equivalent acquisition the effective date of the final rule would have to provide the following: papers. implementing the amendment. No (1) A copy of the vessel’s valid USCG qualifying criteria (e.g., documentation certificate of documentation or, if not Renewal of landings, earned income from fishing, documented, a copy of its valid state Although a permit would be issued on or other participation requirements) are registration certificate. an annual basis, an application for its proposed for the Gulf shrimp permit. If (2) Vessel name and official number. renewal would be required only every 2 the permit requirement is approved, it (3) Name, address, telephone number, years. In the interim years, renewal would provide an accurate and other identifying information of the would be automatic (without identification of the universe of vessels vessel owner and of the applicant, if application) for a vessel owner who had authorized to fish for shrimp in the Gulf other than the owner. met the specific requirements for the EEZ. Establishing this known universe (4) Any other information concerning permit, had submitted all reports of vessels would provide the basis for the vessel, gear characteristics, principal required under the Magnuson-Stevens future development of additional data fisheries engaged in, or fishing areas, as Act, and was not subject to a permit collection programs to evaluate, more specified on the application form. sanction or denial of a permit (5) Any other information that may be comprehensively, the biological, application in accordance with the necessary for the issuance or economic, and social characteristics of procedures governing enforcement- administration of the permit, as the fishery. When this information related permit sanctions and denials specified on the application form. becomes available, the Council would found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904. be in a better position to evaluate Permit Fees An owner whose permit was expiring whether any restrictive criteria for A fee would be charged for each would be mailed a notification by the participation in the shrimp fishery RA approximately 2 months prior to its should be considered in the future. application for a permit and for each request for replacement of such permit. expiration. That notification would Permit Procedures The amount of each fee would be advise the status of the renewal. That is, Required permitting procedures that calculated in accordance with the the notification would advise that the apply to all Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures of the NOAA Finance renewal would be issued without permits issued by the Administrator, Handbook, available from the RA, for further action by the owner (automatic Southeast Region, NMFS, (RA) and that determining the administrative costs of renewal); that the permit was ineligible would apply to a Gulf shrimp permit are each special product or service. The fee for automatic renewal; or that a new specified in 50 CFR 622.4. These may not exceed such costs and would application would be required. procedures include requirements related be specified with each application form. If the RA’s notification indicates that to the following: application, fees, The appropriate fee would have to the owner’s permit would be eligible for initial issuance, transferability, permit accompany each permit application or automatic renewal, the RA would mail renewal, permit display, and other request for permit replacement. the automatically renewed permit permit-related provisions. Basic approximately 1 month prior to Initial Permit Issuance requirements and procedures are expiration of the old permit. summarized here for the convenience of The RA would issue an initial permit If the RA’s notification indicates that the reader. at any time to an applicant if the the owner’s permit would be ineligible application was complete. An for automatic renewal, the notification Permit Application application would be complete when all would specify the reasons and would Permit application forms would be requested forms, information, and provide an opportunity for correction of available from the RA. Completed documentation had been received. Upon any deficiencies. If the owner or dealer application forms would have to be receipt of an incomplete application, the did not correct such deficiencies within submitted to the RA at least 30 days RA would notify the applicant of the 60 days after the date of the RA’s prior to the date on which the applicant deficiency. If the applicant failed to notification, the renewal would be requests to have the permit made correct the deficiency within 30 days of considered abandoned.
VerDate 11
If the RA’s notification indicates that of the resource. Since 1993, landings require licenses for shrimp vessels while a new application would be required, from the traditional trawl fishery have others only license the activity (commercial the notification would include a ranged from 200,000 to 335,000 lb landings). These data sources do not provide preprinted renewal application. If the (90,719 to 151,953 kg), which is an accurate and direct means of determining the numbers of vessels participating in the RA receives an incomplete application, approaching the maximum sustainable shrimp fishery in the Gulf EEZ. the RA would notify the applicant of the yield of 392,000 lb (177,808 kg) for the Mandatory vessel permitting proved to be deficiency. If the applicant failed to fishery. The prohibition of the transfer an effective way of obtaining information on correct the deficiency within 30 days of of royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ and the number of potentially active vessels and the date of the RA’s letter of of royal red shrimp taken in the Gulf participants in other commercial and for-hire notification, the application would be EEZ regardless of where the transfer fisheries operating in the Gulf EEZ, including considered abandoned. takes place is necessary to enhance the the reef fish and coastal migratory pelagics A vessel owner or dealer who did not enforceability of the prohibition of the fisheries. These data combined with logbook receive a notification from the RA use of traps in the fishery. reporting, observer reports, and other surveys regarding status of renewal of a permit provided managers with essential Additional Information information on effort, catch, bycatch, and by 45 days prior to expiration of the other important parameters regarding these current permit would have to contact Additional background and rationale fisheries. Having a known universe of vessels the RA. for the measures discussed here are operating in the Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery will contained in Amendment 11, the Display help provide the same opportunities for availability of which was announced in scientists and managers to collect data on The vessel permit would have to be the Federal Register (66 FR 37634; July effort, catch, bycatch, and other important carried on board the vessel. The 19, 2001). The public comment period parameters of both targeted shrimp stocks, as operator of a vessel would have to on Amendment 11 expired on well as bycatch species that may or may not present the permit for inspection upon September 17, 2001. All comments be under separate management regimes. the request of an authorized officer. Presently, without permits, the numbers of received on Amendment 11 or on this vessels that operate in the Gulf EEZ shrimp Prohibition on the Use of Traps in the proposed rule during their respective fishery can only be estimated using the SLF, Royal Red Shrimp Fishery and on comment periods will be addressed in VOUF, and/or state license files. Transfer of Royal Red Shrimp At Sea the preamble to the final rule. The royal red shrimp fishery in the Gulf traditionally operated as a trawl fishery. Royal red shrimp have been a small Classification Traps are not included on the list of component of the Gulf of Mexico On October 17, 2001, NMFS approved allowable gear for the royal red shrimp shrimp fishery since the early 1960s, Amendment 11 based on a fishery, or the penaeid shrimp fishery in and are traditionally harvested using determination that it was consistent general. However, a recent request to allow modified shrimp trawls at depths with the national standards of the trap gear was considered and denied due to exceeding 100 fathoms (183 meters). Magnuson-Stevens Act and other potential gear conflicts and the increased possibility of exceeding maximum The Council concluded that allowing applicable law. In making that trap gear in this fishery would likely sustainable yield as a result of this new determination, NMFS took into account effort. The prohibition on the use of traps lead to gear conflicts and could lead to the data, views, and comments received was implemented through an emergency overfishing. An emergency interim rule during the comment period on interim rule which expired on September 14, prohibiting the use of trap gear in the Amendment 11. 2001. Consequently, unless a more royal red shrimp fishery within the EEZ This proposed rule has been permanent prohibition through a plan of the Gulf of Mexico was promulgated determined to be significant for amendment is implemented, future use of on September 19, 2000, (65 FR 56500), purposes of Executive Order 12866 trap gear could occur legally under 50 CFR, and extended until September 14, 2001 because of its controversial nature. Part 600.747. The prohibition on the transfer (66 FR 14862, March 14, 2001). The Copies of the RIR are available (see of royal red shrimp at sea is intended to Council requested that NMFS take that enhance enforceability of the prohibition of ADDRESSES). the use of traps in the fishery. The transfer emergency action until regulations The Chief Counsel for Regulation of prohibition is not expected to impact fishery could be implemented through the the Department of Commerce has participants using authorized gear, i.e. trawls, proposed amendment to the FMP. certified to the Chief Counsel for since transfer at sea has not been and is not The intended effect of the proposed Advocacy of the Small Business a customary practice in the royal red shrimp rule to prohibit the use of traps in this Administration that this proposed rule, fishery. fishery is to prevent gear conflict that if adopted, would not have a significant Generally, a fish-harvesting business is could compromise vessel safety and to economic impact on a substantial considered a small business if it is prevent overfishing in the royal red number of small entities as follows: independently owned and operated and not shrimp fishery. Gear conflicts would The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the dominant in its field of operation, and if it otherwise be likely to occur between the statutory basis for the rule. The proposed rule has annual receipts not in excess of $3.0 million. Although there are several fleet traditional trawl fishery and the would: require all vessels (including boats) harvesting shrimp in the Gulf EEZ to obtain operations in the Gulf shrimp fishery, their proposed trap line fishery on the royal actual number is not known, in part due to red shrimp fishing grounds. This could a commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp; prohibit the use of traps to harvest royal red the lack of permit data. Considering the low result in substantial damage and loss of shrimp in the Gulf EEZ; and prohibit the likelihood that these operations are dominant fishing gears and an increase in cost for transfer of royal red shrimp at sea. in the harvesting sector of the shrimp fishery, participants in the fishery. Gear This permit requirement is needed to the gross receipts criterion may be used to conflicts also would introduce vessel identify and quantify the number of vessels define a small business in the shrimp fishery. safety issues because of the depth of the in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf EEZ. Under Based on SLF and VOUF, the number of fishing effort, the weight of the the existing FMP, shrimp vessels in the Gulf shrimp vessels in the Gulf ranges from approximately 3,500 to 5,000. State license deployed gears (especially if they EEZ are not required to have federal permits. Consequently, the only means of determining files indicate that there are 13,163 shrimp become tangled), and the fact that the the numbers of vessels operating in the Gulf boats in the Gulf. The proposed Gulf shrimp fishing grounds are far offshore. EEZ are through NMFS’ shrimp landings file vessel permit would be required on all Additionally, the introduction of new (SLF), NMFS’ vessel operating units file shrimp vessels fishing in the EEZ. This fishing effort could lead to overfishing (VOUF), and state license files. Some states would affect practically all shrimp vessels
VerDate 11
and at least some shrimp boats. The number percent for Mississippi vessels, and 0.4 Multiple Fishery Vessel Application of affected shrimp boats is unknown, but will percent for Texas vessels. (Application) that will be used for the ultimately depend on the number of boats Traps have not been an allowable gear in Gulf shrimp permit and is used for other that prosecute the EEZ component of the the royal red shrimp fishery prior to this rule, fishery permits issued by the NMFS fishery. due to, first, their exclusion from the Southeast Regional Office. NMFS Ward et al. (1995) reported that the average allowable gear list for this fishery and, gross revenues for shrimp vessels are second, an emergency interim rule intends to add data fields for the approximately $82,000 (converted to 1999 prohibiting their use that expired on applicant’s birth date, street address, prices, based on the producer price index September 14, 2001. Although only one and county; vessel net tonnage; vessel (PPI) for all commodities). One standard fisherman has petitioned to use trap gear in gross tonnage, and vessel hull deviation from this average provides a range the royal red shrimp fishery, designation of identification number. The permit of $16,000 to $425,000. Considering that even the gear as allowable for this fishery, which application requirement and the new the upper limit of the revenue range is well will occur automatically without application data field requirements have below the $3.0 million threshold, all shrimp promulgation of this rule, would make it been submitted to OMB for approval. vessel operations, and thus undoubtedly all available to all fishermen. It is indeterminate, shrimp boat operations as well, are small The public reporting burden for the however, how many fishermen might elect to collection of information related to the business entities. Thus, the substantial utilize the gear or how said use would affect number criterion would be met. Within these the economic performance of the fishing Gulf shrimp permit application and the small entities, significant variations of operations. Although it can probably be additional data elements on the revenues occur by size of vessels and by presumed that the petitioning fisherman may Application is estimated to average 20 home port state. Ward et al. (1995) estimated have intended to test the gear, extension of minutes per response. This estimate of that average annual revenues of shrimp same to any portion of other fishermen is the public reporting burden includes the vessels in the Gulf (as adjusted by the PPI in without empirical basis. Further, in the time for reviewing instructions, 1999) by length of vessel are: $4,000 for absence of economic data on the use of trap searching existing data sources, vessels less than 25 ft (7.6 m), $23,000 for gear in this fishery, it is not possible to gathering and maintaining the data vessels between 25 and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 precisely characterize potential foregone m) and, $198,000 for vessels greater than 50 needed, and completing and reviewing opportunity. The historical lack of interest in the collections of information. The ft (15.2 m). Broken down by homeport state, the use of trap gear in the royal red shrimp the average annual revenues of shrimp fishery, as evidenced by the single petition vessel identification requirement was vessels are: $112,000 for Alabama, $106,000 for allowance, suggests that the economic previously approved by OMB under for Florida, $9,000 for Louisiana, $45,000 for rationale for its use is not strong, leading to control number 0648–0358, with an Mississippi, and $192,000 for Texas. a conclusion that continued prohibition estimated response time of 45 minutes For purposes of NMFS’ rules, the would not generate significant adverse total per vessel. determination whether a ‘‘significant economic impacts in terms of foregone Public comment is sought regarding: economic impact’’ results is determined by opportunity. Further, although it is not whether this proposed collection of examining two issues: disproportionality and known whether the petitioning fisherman information is necessary for the proper profitability. To determine disproportionate made investments in the gear prior to either impacts, the pertinent question is whether performance of the functions of the it’s approval or testing, significant agency, including whether the the regulations place a substantial number of investment prior to such would not have small entities at a significant competitive been financially sound and is unlikely to information shall have practical utility; disadvantage compared to large entities. All have occurred. With regard to transfer at sea, the accuracy of the burden estimate; the commercial entities potentially affected since this practice does not occur in the royal ways to enhance the quality, utility, and by the proposed rule are considered small red shrimp fishery, this prohibition will not clarity of the information to be entities so that the issue of disproportionality generate any adverse impacts. The permit collected; and ways to minimize the does not arise in the present case. The costs, $50.00 per vessel, and burden time, burden of the collection of information, pertinent question in determining $4.00 per vessel, (estimated at 20 minutes per including through the use of automated profitability is whether the regulations permit application) are the only costs significantly reduce profit for a substantial collection techniques or other forms of imposed by the permitting requirement. The information technology. Send comments number of small entities. Ward et al. (1995) estimated vessel cost is $54.00 per vessel and estimated the profits (total revenues less total $378,000 for the industry for the first year. regarding this burden estimate or any costs) of shrimp vessels in the Gulf. The As such, the proposed rule would not effect other aspect of the collection-of- average net revenues (profits) for a shrimp a significant reduction in vessel profits. information requirements, including vessel in the Gulf are approximately $12,000 Therefore, the proposed rule would not have suggestions for reducing the burden, to (converted to 1999 prices, based on the a significant economic impact on a NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES). producer price index (PPI) for all substantial number of small entities. As a commodities). Average profit for vessels by result, an initial regulatory flexibility List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 vessel length are: $1,598 for vessels less than analysis was not required. Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 25 ft (7.6 m), $7,949 for vessels between 25 Notwithstanding any other provision Reporting and recordkeeping and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 m), and $8,457 for of law, no person is required to respond requirements, Virgin Islands. vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 m). Broken to, nor shall a person be subject to a down by homeport state, average profits are: Dated: February 19, 2002. $4,769 for Alabama, $29,832 for Florida, penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the Rebecca Lent, $3,286 for Louisiana, $13,876 for Mississippi, Deputy Assistant Administrator for and $11,452 for Texas. The cost of a vessel requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that Regulatory Programs,National Marine permit is $50. Thus, the permit costs as a Fisheries Service. percent of profit would be approximately 0.4 collection of information displays a percent per vessel on average. By vessel size currently valid Office of Management For the reasons set out in the category, permit costs as a percentage of and Budget (OMB) control number. preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed profits would be 3.1 percent for vessels less This proposed rule contains to be amended as follows: than 25 ft (7.6 m), 0.6 percent for vessels collection-of-information requirements between 25 and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 m), and PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE subject to the PRA--namely, a 0.6 percent for vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH m). By homeport state, permit costs as a requirement to submit an application for ATLANTIC percentage of profits would be 1.0 percent for a Gulf shrimp commercial vessel permit Alabama vessels, 0.2 percent for Florida and a vessel identification requirement. 1. The authority citation for part 622 vessels, 1.5 percent for Louisiana vessels, 0.4 In addition, NMFS intends to revise the continues to read as follows:
VerDate 11
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. § 622.4 Permits and fees. 5. In § 622.31, paragraph (k) is added 2. In § 622.2, the definition of (a) * * * to read as follows: ‘‘Shrimp’’ is revised to read as follows: (2) * * * § 622.31 Prohibited gear and methods. (xi) Gulf shrimp. For a person aboard § 622.2 Definitions and acronyms. a vessel to fish for shrimp in the Gulf * * * * * * * * * * EEZ or possess shrimp in or from the (k) Traps for royal red shrimp in the Shrimp means one or more of the Gulf EEZ, a valid commercial vessel Gulf EEZ and transfer at sea. A trap may following species, or a part thereof: permit for Gulf shrimp must have been not be used to fish for royal red shrimp (1) Brown shrimp, Farfantepenaeus issued to the vessel and must be on in the Gulf EEZ. Possession of a trap and aztecus. board. royal red shrimp on board a vessel is (2) White shrimp, Litopenaeus * * * * * prohibited. A trap used to fish for royal setiferus. 4. In § 622.6, paragraph (a)(1)(i) red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ may be (3) Pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus introductory text is revised to read as disposed of in any appropriate manner duorarum. follows: by the Assistant Administrator or an (4) Royal red shrimp, Hymenopenaeus authorized officer. In addition, royal red robustus. § 622.6 Vessel and gear identification. shrimp cannot be transferred in the Gulf (5) Rock shrimp, Sicyonia brevirostris. (a) * * * EEZ, and royal red shrimp taken in the (6) Seabob shrimp, Xiphopenaeus (1) * * * Gulf EEZ cannot be transferred at sea kroyeri. (i) Official number. A vessel for which regardless of where the transfer takes * * * * * a permit has been issued under § 622.4 place. 3. In § 622.4, paragraph (a)(2)(xi) is must display its official number-- [FR Doc. 02–4451 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] added to read as follows: * * * * * BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
VerDate 11
Notices Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER V. Report of the Federal Agency Programs ACTION: Notice. contains documents other than rules or Committee proposed rules that are applicable to the A. Implementation of Council’s Policy SUMMARY: We are advising the public public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Statement on Balancing Cultural and that an environmental assessment has committee meetings, agency decisions and Natural Values on Federal Lands been prepared for a proposed decision B. Federal Program Improvement Priorities rulings, delegations of authority, filing of to extend to additional canola events petitions and applications and agency and Initiatives statements of organization and functions are VI. Report of the Communications, our determination that certain canola examples of documents appearing in this Education, and Outreach Committee events developed by Aventis section. A. Recommendations Regarding Council CropScience, which have been Communications Audit genetically engineered for male sterility, B. Presidential Historic Preservation fertility restoration, and tolerance to the ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC Awards herbicide glufosinate, are no longer C. Preservation Leadership Conference considered regulated articles under our PRESERVATION VII. Report of the Historic Preservation and Security Task Force regulations governing the introduction Meeting A. Status of National Capital Planning of certain genetically engineered organisms. We are making this AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Commission Report on Designing for Preservation. Security in the Nation’s Capital environmental assessment available to B. Report on Washington Monument the public for review and comment. ACTION: Notice of meeting. Section 106 Review VIII. Report of the Missouri River Task Force DATES: We will consider all comments SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that IX. Executive Director’s Report we receive that are postmarked, the Advisory Council on Historic A. Council FY 2003 Budget Request delivered, or e-mailed by March 27, Preservation will meet on Friday, March B. Reorganization of Council Staff 2002. 1, 2002. The meeting will be held in C. Section 106 Exemption for Historic Room M09 at the Old Post Office Pipelines ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, X. New Business by postal mail/commercial delivery or NW., Washington, DC beginning at 8:30 XI. Adjourn by e-mail. If you use postal mail/ commercial delivery, please send four a.m. Note: The meetings of the Council are open The Council was established by the to the public. If you need special copies of your comment (an original and National Historic Preservation Act of accommodations due to a disability, please three copies) to: Docket No. 01–100–1, 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470) to advise the contact the Advisory Council on Historic Regulatory Analysis and Development, President and the Congress on matters Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River relating to historic preservation and to Room 809, Washington, DC, 202–606–8503, Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737– comment upon Federal, federally at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. 1238. Please state that your comment assisted, and federally licensed For further information contact: refers to Docket No. 01–100–1. If you undertakings having an effect upon Additional information concerning the use e-mail, address your comment to properties listed in or eligible for meeting is available from the Executive [email protected]. Your inclusion in the National Register of Director, Advisory Council on Historic comment must be contained in the body Historic Places. The Council’s members Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., of your message; do not send attached are the Architect of the Capitol; the NW., #809, Washington, DC 20004. files. Please include your name and Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Dated: February 20, 2002. address in your message and ‘‘Docket Defense, and Transportation; the John M. Fowler, No. 01–100–1’’ on the subject line. Administrators of the Environmental Executive Director. You may read the extension request, Protection Agency and General Services [FR Doc. 02–4439 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the environmental assessment, and any Administration; the Chairman of the comments that we receive on this BILLING CODE 4310–10–M National Trust for Historic Preservation; docket in our reading room. The reading the President of the National Conference room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and of State Historic Preservation Officers; a DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Governor; a Mayor, a Native Hawaiian; Independence Avenue SW., and eight non-Federal members Animal and Plant Health Inspection Washington, DC. Normal reading room appointed by the President. Service hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday The agenda for the meeting includes through Friday, except holidays. To be the following: [Docket No. 01–100–1] sure someone is there to help you, I. Chairman’s Welcome please call (202) 690–2817 before Aventis CropScience; Availability of coming. II. Chairman’s Report Environmental Assessment for III. Report of Executive Committee Extension of Determination of APHIS documents published in the A. Revision Council Mission Statement Federal Register, and related B. Technical Amendments to Section 106 Nonregulated Status for Canola Genetically Engineered for Male information, including the names of Regulations organizations and individuals who have IV. Report of the Preservation Initiatives Sterility, Fertility Restoration, and Committee Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance commented on APHIS dockets, are A. Preservation Executive Order available on the Internet at http:// B. Preservation America Initiative AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/ C. Heritage Tourism Initiatives Inspection Service, USDA. webrepor.html.
VerDate 11
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. requests a determination that MS1 and numerous countries, including the James White, Plant Protection and RF1 and RF2 do not present a plant pest United States and Canada, and after Quarantine, APHIS, Suite 5B05, 4700 risk and, therefore, are not regulated having received the appropriate River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD articles under APHIS’ regulations in 7 Canadian approvals, have been 20737–1236; (301) 734–5490. To obtain CFR part 340. marketed commercially in Canada since a copy of the extension request or the Analysis 1996 with no reports of adverse effects environmental assessment, contact Ms. on human health or the environment. Kay Peterson at (301) 734–4885; e-mail: Like the antecedent organisms, canola Should APHIS approve Aventis’ [email protected]. events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 have been request for an extension of a genetically engineered to contain a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The determination of nonregulated status, barnase gene (MS1) for male sterility or regulations in 7 CFR part 340, canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 a barstar gene (RF1 and RF2) for fertility ‘‘Introduction of Organisms and would no longer be considered restoration. The barnase gene expresses Products Altered or Produced Through regulated articles under APHIS’ a ribonuclease that blocks pollen regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant development and results in a male- Pests or Which There is Reason to Therefore, the requirements pertaining sterile plant, and the barstar gene to regulated articles under those Believe Are Plant Pests,’’ regulate, encodes a specific inhibitor of this among other things, the introduction regulations would no longer apply to ribonuclease and restores fertility. The the field testing, importation, or (importation, interstate movement, or barnase and barstar genes were derived release into the environment) of interstate movement of the subject from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, and canola events or their progeny. organisms and products altered or are linked to in the subject produced through genetic engineering transformation events to the bar gene National Environmental Policy Act that are plant pests or that there is derived from Streptomyces An environmental assessment (EA) reason to believe are plant pests. Such hygroscopicus. The bar gene encodes genetically engineered organisms and has been prepared to examine any the enzyme phosphinothricin-N- potential environmental impacts products are considered ‘‘regulated acetyltransferase (PAT), which confers articles.’’ associated with the proposed extension tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. of a determination of nonregulated The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide The subject canola events and the that any person may submit a petition status for the subject canola events. The antecedent organisms were developed EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) to the Animal and Plant Health through use of the Agrobacterium Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a The National Environmental Policy Act tumefaciens method, and expression of of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. determination that an article should not the added genes in MS1 and RF1 and be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the RF2 and the antecedent organisms is Council on Environmental Quality for Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) controlled in part by gene sequences provide that a person may request that implementing the procedural provisions derived from the plant pathogen A. of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) APHIS extend a determination of tumefaciens. In summary, the Aventis nonregulated status to other organisms. USDA regulations implementing NEPA extension request states that canola (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA Such a request must include events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 and the information to establish the similarity of Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part antecedent organisms contain the same 372). Copies of the Aventis extension the antecedent organism and the genetic elements with the exception of regulated article in question. request and the EA are available from the antibiotic resistance marker gene the individual listed under FOR FURTHER nptII in MS1 and RF1 and RF2, which Background INFORMATION CONTACT. was used as a transformant selection On September 9, 2001, APHIS tool during the developmental process. Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of received a request for an extension of a The parental variety Drakkar was used February 2002. determination of nonregulated status to develop both the antecedent W. Ron DeHaven, (APHIS No. 01–206–01p) from Aventis organisms and MS1 and RF1 and RF2. Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant CropScience (Aventis) of Research Canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 Health Inspection Service. Triangle Park, NC, for canola (Brassica and the antecedent organisms were [FR Doc. 02–4385 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] napus L.) transformation events genetically engineered using the same BILLING CODE 3410–34–P designated as MS1 and RF1 and RF2, transformation method and contain the which have been genetically engineered same enzymes for male sterility, fertility for male sterility (MS1), fertility restoration, and glufosinate herbicide DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE restoration (RF1 and RF2), and tolerance tolerance. Accordingly, we have to the herbicide glufosinate (MS1, RF1, determined that canola events MS1 and Forest Service and RF2). The Aventis request seeks an RF1 and RF2 are similar to the Silver Pearl Land Exchange; Eldorado extension of a determination of antecedent organisms in APHIS petition National Forest, El Dorado and Placer nonregulated status issued in response number 98–278–01p, and we are Counties, California to APHIS petition number 98–278–01p proposing that canola events MS1 and for male sterile canola transformation RF1 and RF2 should no longer be AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. event MS8 and fertility restoration regulated under the regulations in 7 CFR ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an canola transformation event RF3, the part 340. environmental impact statement. antecedent organisms (see 64 FR 15337– The subject canola events have been 15338, Docket No. 98–114–2, published considered regulated articles under SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, March 31, 1999). Both MS8 and RF3 are APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part 340 will prepare an environmental impact also tolerant to the herbicide because they contain gene sequences statement (EIS) on a proposal to acquire glufosinate. Based on the similarity of derived from a plant pathogen. approximately 3,994 acres of Sierra canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 to However, canola events MS1 and RF1 Pacific Industries Corporation land in the antecedent organisms, Aventis and RF2 have been field tested in exchange for 2,126 acres of National
VerDate 11
Forest System land. The purpose of the public objectives served by the non- Headquarters at 100 Forni Road exchange is to improve land federal lands and interests to be Placerville, CA on December 13, 2001. management efficiencies by acquired are equal or exceed the Notification of the additional public consolidating land ownership, while resource values and the public scoping periods will be published in the obtaining lands providing a variety of objectives served by the federal lands to Mountain Democrat, Placerville, CA. public benefits, including ecological be disposed; and (2) the intended use of The DEIS is scheduled to be available in and recreational values; and to the disposed federal land will not June 2002 and the Forest will host eliminate the need to provide access to substantially conflict with established another public meeting after the draft is a private parcel within a roadless (RARE management objectives on adjacent mailed to interested parties. II) area. It is believed that the integrity federal lands. Comments submitted during the of recreational, ecological and economic Lands will be exchanged on a value scoping process should be in writing values will be improved by the for value basis, based on current fair and should be specific to the proposed consolidation of ownership resulting market value appraisals. The appraisal action. The comments should describe from a land exchange. The values of the is prepared in accordance with the as clearly and completely as possible lands exchanged must be equal. Uniform Standards for Federal Land any issues the commenter has with the DATES: The draft Environmental Impact Acquisition. The appraisal prepared for proposal. The scoping process includes: Statement (EIS) is scheduled to be the land exchange is reviewed by a (a) Identifying potential issues; completed in June 2002 for public qualified review appraiser to ensure that (b) Identifying issues to be analyzed review and comment. The final EIS is it is fair and complies with the in depth. scheduled to be completed by December appropriate standards. Under the (c) Eliminating nonsignificant issues 2002. Federal Land Policy and Management or those previously covered by a relevant previous environmental ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Act of 1976, all exchanges must be equal analysis; Elaine Gee, Project Leader, Eldorado in value. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 254.3(c) require that exchanges (d) Exploring additional alternatives; National Forest, 7600 Wentworth (e) Identifying potential Springs Road, Georgetown, CA 95634. must be of equal value or equalized pursuant to 35 CFR 254.12 by cash environmental effects of the proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: payment after making all reasonable action and alternatives. Questions and comments about this EIS efforts to equalize values by adding or The draft EIS is expected to be filed should be directed to Elaine Gee, at the deleting lands. If lands proposed for with the Environmental Protection above address, or call her at 530–333– exchange are not equal in value, either Agency (EPA) and to be available for 4312. party may make them equal by cash public review by June 2002. EPA will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest payment not to exceed 25 percent of the publish a notice of availability of the Service is initiating this action in order federal land value. draft EIS in the Federal Register. The to exchange lands that will provide a The decision to be made is what comment period on the draft EIS will be balance in public benefits while lands, if any, should be exchanged as 45 days from the date the EPA notice improving management opportunities. part of this proposal. The proposed appears in the Federal Register. At that Lands within the Rubicon River Canyon action is to exchange approximately time, copies of the draft EIS will be (recommended for Wild and Scenic 2,126 acres of National Forest System distributed to interested and affected River status), the Silver Fork of the land for approximately 3,994 acres of agencies, organizations, and members of American River (a Wild and Scenic Sierra Pacific Industries Corporation the public for their review and eligible river) and the Pyramid-Bassi land, adjusted for equal value as comment. It is very important that those Roadless Area (RARE II); lands along the required by law. Other alternatives will interested in the management of the Pony Express National Historic Trail are be developed based on significant issues Eldorado National Forest participate at proposed for acquisition; along with identified during the scoping process for that time. other lands containing unique the environmental impact statement. All The Forest Service believes it is ecological values, valuable timber alternatives will need to respond to the important to give reviewers notice at resources and important recreational specific condition of providing benefits this early stage of several court rulings opportunities. The lands to be equal to or better than the current related to public participation in the exchanged also contain important condition. Alternatives being environmental review process. First, resource values, including lands considered at this time include: (1) no reviewers of a draft EIS must structure suitable for growth and harvest of action and (2) exchanging lands as their participation in the environmental commercial conifers and areas that identified in the proposed action. review of the proposal so that it is contain quality wildlife habitat. Also Public participation will be especially meaningful and alerts an agency to the considered is the opportunity to important at several points during the reviewer’s position and contentions, consolidate lands into contiguous analysis. The Forest Service will be Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. blocks that can be more efficiently and seeking information, comments, and NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, economically managed, thereby assistance from the Federal, State, and environmental objections that could be facilitating the ownership objectives of local agencies and other individuals or raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are both the Forest Service and Sierra organizations who may be interested in not raised until after completion of the Pacific Industries Corporation. All or affected by the proposed action. To final EIS may be waived or dismissed by federal lands proposed for exchange are facilitate public participation the courts, City of Angoon v. Hodel, on the Eldorado National Forest and are information about the proposed action 803f. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir, 1986) and in compliance with the land adjustment was mailed to all who expressed interest Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 management direction in the 1989 in the proposed action based on F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Eldorado National Forest Land and publication in the Eldorado National Because of these court rulings, it is very Resources Management Plan. Forest Schedule of Proposed Action. important that those interested in this The exchange meets the public The Forest Service hosted a public proposed action participate by the close interest requirements in 36 CFR meeting/open house to present the of the comment period so that 254.3(b): (1) The resource values and the proposal at the Eldorado National Forest substantive comments and objections
VerDate 11
are made available to the Forest Service publishing and distribution of this draft Development could include the at a time when it can meaningfully EIS is cancelled. installation of tanks and treatment consider them and respond to them in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don equipment on the wellsite and a the final EIS. Errington, Project Leader, Pacific Ranger pipeline to transport the product. The To assist the Forest Service in Station, 7887 Highway 50, Pollock project proposal also includes a plan for identifying and considering issues and Pines, California, 95726, Phone (530) abandonment of the well. If oil and/or concerns on the proposed action, 644–2349. gas are not present in quantities that comments on the draft EIS should be as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice justify completion and production, the specific as possible. It is also helpful if of Intent to prepare an environmental well would be abandoned and the site comments refer to specific pages or impact statement for the Airport Forest and access road reclaimed immediately. chapters of the draft EIS. Comments Health Timber Sale was published in If the well is put into production, well may also address the adequacy of the the Federal Register on June 27, 2000 abandonment and reclamation of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives (Volume 65, Number 124, pp 39594– well site and access road would be formulated and discussed in the 39596) announcing the intent to prepare performed to achieve a pre-project statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer and release a draft EIS in August 2000 condition after the reservoir is depleted. to the Council on Environmental with a final EIS scheduled for The proposed well would be located in Quality Regulations for implementing September 2000. the Duck Creek Inventoried Roadless the procedural provisions of the The original notice of intent informed Area. If approved as proposed, the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 the public of the agency’s intention to decision would permit road CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points). document the analysis in an EIS. The construction and reconstruction to The final EIS is scheduled to be primary reason for the cancellation is a occur in the roadless area. The EIS will completed in December 2002. In the change in management direction for the comply with the requirements of the final EIS, The Forest Service is required project area. National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. sections 4321–4370a), the to respond to substantive comments Dated: February 19, 2002. received during the comment period National Forest Management Act (16 John Berry, U.S.C. 1600–1614), and the Mineral that pertain to the environmental Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest. consequences discussed in the draft EIS Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and [FR Doc. 02–4369 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] and applicable laws, regulations, and supplemented (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), policies considered in making the BILLING CODE 3410–11–M and their implementing regulations. decision regarding this proposal. DATES: Comments concerning the proposal and the scope of the analysis John Berry, Forest Supervisor, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Eldorado National Forest is the will be accepted and considered at any responsible official. As the responsible Forest Service time after publication of this notice in official he will document the decision the Federal Register and prior to a and reasons for the decision in the Yates Duck Creek Federal Oil Well #1 decision being made. Record of Decision. That decision will Environmental Impact Statement: ADDRESSES: Send written comments to be subject to Forest Service appeal Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Liz Moncrief, Medicine Bow-Routt regulations (36 CFR part 215). and Thunder Basin National Grassland National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 2486 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming Dated: February 19, 2002. AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. John D. Berry, 82070. Electronic mail may be sent to: ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an [email protected], FAX may be sent to Forest Supervisor. Environmental Impact Statement. 307–745–2398. [FR Doc. 02–4368 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: The Forest Service will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz BILLING CODE 3410–11–M prepare an Environmental Impact Moncrief, Forest Service Project Leader, Statement (EIS) on a proposal to drill for 307–745–2456. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and develop conventional oil and gas SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Yates resources with one (1) well on National Petroleum Corporation has filed an Forest Service Forest System lands in Campbell application with the Bureau of Land County, Wyoming. The well would be Management for a permit to drill and Airport Forest Health Timber Sale, located on Federal Lease #WYW– complete one exploration well. Drilling Eldorado National Forest, Pacific 141191, issued in 1997, in section 30, and completion of the well requires Ranger District, El Dorado County, T.55N.,R.69W., 6th P.M. construction of access roads, and may California The purpose of the project is to include installation of testing and determine the potential for oil and gas production equipment. As surface AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. development, by drilling one management agency, the Forest Service ACTION: Cancellation of Notice of Intent. exploratory well in the Duck Creek area. proposes to permit surface operations The project potentially includes three associated with the development of oil SUMMARY: This document provides phases: drilling, development and/or and/or gas resources with the drilling of notice of cancellation of the intent to production of oil and/or gas if one (1) well including construction of prepare an environmental impact discovered in producible quantities, and access roads and production facilities. statement (EIS) on a proposal to harvest abandonment. The initial phase of the The Forest Service will prepare an timber, prescribe burn, and improve project would include constructing Environmental Impact Statement. This wildlife habitat on the Pacific Ranger access to the drill site, constructing a EIS will disclose the environmental District. well pad, and drilling and testing the effects of the proposed oil and gas DATES: The draft environmental impact well. If results of testing indicate that oil development. statement was originally scheduled for and/or gas are present in producible In 1994, the Forest Service prepared August 2000 with a 45-day public quantities, production equipment and the Thunder Basin Oil and Gas Leasing review and comment period. The facilities would be installed. EIS and issued a Record of Decision
VerDate 11
(ROD) for future oil and gas location could alter the character of Impact Statements must structure their development on NFS lands on the portions of the Creek Inventoried participation in the environmental Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Roadless Area. review of the proposal so that it is This development authorized the meaningful and alerts an agency to the Public Involvement Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reviewer’s position and contentions. lease Federal oil and gas resources in At this time, the Forest Service is Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. the Duck Creek area subject to certain seeking information, comments and NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, stipulations described in the ROD, and other assistance from Federal, State and environmental objections that could be pertinent to the surface use of the NFS local agencies, and other individuals or raised during the Draft Environmental lands. Subsequent to this decision, the organizations who have an interest in, Impact Statement stage, but are not BLM offered the Federal lease for sale. or could be affected by the proposed raised until after completion of the Final Yates Petroleum purchased the lease in action. The public is encouraged to take Environmental Impact Statement, may 1997. Pursuant to 43 CFR 3101.1–2 part in this process and to visit with be waived or dismissed by the courts. Surface Use Rights, the lessee has a right Forest Service officials at any time City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, to develop the oil and gas resources on during the analysis, and prior to the 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin that lease area, subject to stipulations decision. While public comments are Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. attached to the lease and other welcome at any time, comments 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). As a result provisions as described. received within 30 days of the of these previous court rulings, it is very The Medicine Bow National Forest publication of this notice in the Federal important that those interested in this and Thunder Basin National Grassland Register will be most useful for the proposed action participate by the close Land and Resource Management Plan of identification of issues and the analysis of the 45-day comment period so that 1985, as amended by the April 22, 1994, of alternatives. Comments may be sent substantive comments and objections Record of Decision for the by electronic mail (e-mail) to are made available to the Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) [email protected]. Written comments at a time when it can meaningfully for Oil and Gas Leasing on the Thunder may be mailed to the Medicine Row— consider them and respond to them in Basin National Grassland, provides Routt National Forest Supervisors the Final Environmental Impact stipulations for oil and gas leases, and Office, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Statement. standards and guidelines for oil and gas Wyoming 82070–6535, attention Liz To assist the Forest Service in development on NFS lands. This Moncrief. Please reference the Yates- identifying and considering issues and proposal is consistent with the 1985 Duck Creek O&G Well EIS on the subject concerns related to the proposed action, Land and Resource Management Plan. line. The name and mailing address of comments on this Draft Environmental The Thunder Basin National the commenter should be provided with Impact Statement should be as specific Grassland portion of the 1985 Plan is their comments so that future as possible. It is also helpful if being revised through the Northern documents pertaining to this comments refer to specific pages or Great Plains Management Plan Revision environmental analysis and the decision chapters of the draft document. process. The Final EIS and 2001 Revised can be provided to interested parties. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Thunder Basin National Grassland Plan Estimated Dates for Filing are completed. A record of decision is Impact Statement or the merits of the expected to be approved soon. This The draft EIS is expected to be filed alternatives displayed in the document. proposal is consistent with the 2001 with the Environmental Protection Reviewers should refer to the Council Revised Thunder Basin National Agency (EPA) and available for public on Environmental Quality Regulations Grassland Plan and the preferred review during March 2002. At that time, at 40 CFR 1503.3 for implementing the alternative in the Final EIS. the EPA will publish a Notice of procedural provisions of the National Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in Environmental Policy Act for addressing Decision To Be Made the Federal Register. The comment these points. Please note that any The Responsible Official will consider period on the draft EIS will be for a comments that are submitted in relation the results of the analysis and its period of not less than 45 days from the to this DEIS will be considered as public findings and then document the final date the EPA publishes the NOA in the information. Federal Register. It is important that decision in a Record of Decision (ROD). Release of Names The decision will include a those interested in the management of determination of the terms, conditions, this area to comment at that time. The Comments received in response to and mitigation measures under which final EIS is expected to be available in this solicitation, including names and the proponent may develop the oil and/ July 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest addresses of those who comment, will or gas resources while also protecting Service will respond to any comments be considered part of the public record the surface natural resources in the area received during the public comment on this Proposed Action and will be and providing for public safety. period that pertain to the environmental available for public inspection. analysis. Those comments and the Comments submitted anonymously will Responsible Official Forest Service responses will be be accepted and considered; however, Rick Cables, Regional Forester, USDA disclosed and discussed in the draft EIS, those whose submit anonymous Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, which will be considered when making comments will not have standing to 740 Simms St., Golden, Colorado, 80401 the final decision about this proposal. appeal the subsequent decision under is the official responsible for making the 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, The Public’s Obligation To Comment Forest Service decision on this action. pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person He will document his decision and The Forest Service believes it is may request the agency to withhold a rationale in a Record of Decision. important to give reviewers an early submission from the public record by notice of several court rulings related to showing how the Freedom of Preliminary Issues public participation in the Information Act (FOIA) permits such Proposed construction/reconstruction environmental review process. First, confidentiality. Persons requesting such of access roads to the proposed well reviewers of Draft Environmental confidentiality should be aware that,
VerDate 11
under the FOIA, confidentiality may be ACTION: Notice of meeting. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade SUMMARY: An Opal Creek Scenic Forest Service secrets. The Forest Service will inform Recreation Area Advisory Council the requester of the agency’s decision meeting will convene in Stayton, Siuslaw Resource Advisory Committee regarding the request for confidentiality, Oregon on Monday, March 18, 2002. Meeting The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 and where the request is denied, the AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. p.m., and will conclude at agency will return the submissions and ACTION: Notice of meeting. notify the requester that the comments approximately 8:30 p.m. The meeting may be resubmitted with or without will be held in the South Room of the SUMMARY: The Siuslaw Resource name and address within ten (10) days. Stayton Community Center located on Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet on 400 West Virginia Street in Stayton, Dated: February 11, 2002. March 8, 2002. The meeting will begin Oregon. at 9:00 a.m., in the Hatfield Marine M.M. Underwood, Jr., The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Sciences Center, Room 9, at 2030 SW Director, Physical Resources, USDA Forest Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act of Marine Sciences Drive, Newport, OR. Service Rocky Mountain Region. 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (P.L. 104–208) Agenda item will include: a review of [FR Doc. 02–4109 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] directed the Secretary of Agriculture to projects submitted by entities other than BILLING CODE 3410–11–M establish the Opal Creek Scenic the Forest Service; a continuation of the Recreation Area Advisory Council. The review of Forest Service projects that Advisory Council is comprised of may be recommended to the Forest DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE thirteen members representing state, Supervisor for funding with Title II Forest Service county and city governments, and dollars; consideration of the draft representatives of various organizations, bylaws for the Siuslaw RAC; and, a Deschutes Provincial Advisory which include mining industry, public comment period. The meeting is Committee (PAC) environmental organizations, inholders expected to adjourn at 4:00 p.m. in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, Interested citizens are encouraged to AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture. economic development, Indian tribes, attend. ACTION: Notice of meeting. adjacent landowners and recreation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: interests. The council provides advice to SUMMARY: The Deschutes Provincial Linda Stanley, Community the Secretary of Agriculture on Development Specialist, Siuslaw Advisory Committee will meet on preparation of a comprehensive Opal March 14, 2002 at the Crook County National Forest, 541/750–7210 or write Creek Management Plan for the SRA, to Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Library, Broughton Room, 200 E. 2nd and consults on a periodic and regular Street in Prineville, Oregon. A business Forest, P.O. Box 1148, Corvallis, OR basis on the management of the area. 97339. meeting will begin at 9:00 am and finish Tentative agenda items include the Dated: February 19, 2002. at 4:00 pm. Agenda items will include following topics: a discussion on PAC recommendations Gloria D. Brown, Discuss Opal Creek SRA Environmental regarding the Northwest Forest Plan, Forest Supervisor. Analysis decision Empowering Counties/Communities, [FR Doc. 02–4363 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Transition of the Council membership and update on Timber Sales in Central BILLING CODE 3410–11–M Oregon, Trout Creek update, an update in accordance with provisions of the on the local Noxious Weed Program, an Council Charter update on the Hosmer, Metolius Basin Discuss future topics and meeting DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and the Upper Deschutes Resource schedule for the Council Management Plan Subcommittees, Info A direct public comment period is Forest Service Sharing and a Public Forum from 3:30 tentatively scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. pm till 4:00 pm. All Deschutes Province Time allotted for individual Madera County Resource Advisory Advisory Committee Meetings are open presentations will be limited to 3 Committee Meeting to the public. minutes. Written comments are AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: encouraged, particularly if the material ACTION: Notice of Resource Advisory Chris Mickle, Province Liaison, USDA, cannot be presented within the time Meeting. Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District, 1230 NE., limits of the comment period. Written 3rd, Bend, OR, 97701, Phone (541) 383– comments may be submitted prior to the SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in 4769. March 18 meeting by sending them to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of Designated Federal Official Stephanie 1972 (Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Dated: February 16, 2002. Phillips at the address given below. secure Rural Schools and Community Leslie A.C. Weldon, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. Forest Supervisor. more information regarding this 106–393) the Sierra National Forest’s [FR Doc. 02–4364 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] meeting, contact Designated Federal Resource Advisory Committee for BILLING CODE 3410–11–M Official Stephanie Phillips; Willamette Madera County will meet on Monday, National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, March 18, 2002. The Madera Resource HC 73 Box 320, Mill City, OR 97360; Advisory Committee will meet at the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (503) 854–3366. Spring Valley Elementary School in O’Neals, CA. The purpose of the Forest Service Dated: February 15, 2002. meeting is to review Committee ground Y. Robert Iwamoto, rules and goals, project evaluation and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Acting Forest Supervisor. (SRA) Advisory Council project list timetables, public [FR Doc. 02–4366 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] involvement strategies, and the project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. BILLING CODE 3410–11–M application process.
VerDate 11
DATES: The Madera Resource Advisory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section upon written request. You may submit Committee meeting will be held 343 of the Federal Agriculture electronic requests and comments to Monday, February 18, 2002. The Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 [email protected]. meeting will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 states that revisions made after p.m. enactment of the law to NRCS state FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ADDRESSES: The Madera County RAC technical guides used to carry out Mark Moseley, 405–742–1235. highly erodible land and wetland meeting will be held at the Spring SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section provisions of the law shall be made Valley Elementary School, 46655 Road 343 of the Federal Agriculture available for public review and 200, O’Neals, CA, two and one half Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 comment. For the next 30 days, the miles from State Highway 41. states that revisions made after NRCS in Delaware will receive enactment of the law, to NRCS state FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments relative to the proposed Dave Martin, USDA, Sierra National changes. Following that period, a technical guides used to carry out Forest, 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA determination will be made by the highly erodible land and wetland 93643 (559) 877–2218 ext. 3100; e-mail: NRCS in Delaware regarding disposition provisions of the law, shall be made [email protected]. of those comments and a final available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda determination of change will be made. NRCS in Oklahoma will receive items to be covered include: (1) Review Dated: February 1, 2002. comments relative to the proposed committee ground rules and goals; (2) Elesa K. Cottrell, change. Following that period, a review project evaluations and project State Conservationist. determination will be made by the list timetables; (3) review goals and [FR Doc. 02–4396 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] NRCS in Oklahoma regarding objectives; (4) discuss public BILLING CODE 3410–16–P disposition of those comments and a involvement strategies and the final determination of change will be application process. The meeting is made. open to the public. Public input DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE opportunity will be provided and Dated: February 1, 2002. individuals will have the opportunity to Natural Resources Conservation M. Darrel Dominick, address the Committee at that time. Service State Conservationist, Stillwater, Oklahoma. Dated: February 19, 2002. [FR Doc. 02–4395 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Notice of Proposed Changes to David W. Martin, BILLING CODE 3410–16–P Section IV of the Field Office Technical District Ranger. Guide (FOTG) of the Natural Resources [FR Doc. 02–4370 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Conservation Service in Oklahoma DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BILLING CODE 3410–11–M AGENCY: Natural Resources Rural Business-Cooperative Service Conservation Service (NRCS) in DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Oklahoma, U.S. Department of Inviting Applications for Rural Agriculture. Business Opportunity Grants Natural Resources Conservation ACTION: Notice of availability of a Service proposed change in Section IV of the AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative FOTG of the NRCS in Oklahoma for Service, USDA. Notice of Proposed Change to Section review and comment. IV of the Field Office Technical Guide ACTION: Notice. (FOTG) of the Natural Resources SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in Conservation Service in Delaware Oklahoma to issue new and revised SUMMARY: The Rural Business- conservation practice standards in Cooperative Service (RBS), an Agency AGENCY: Natural Resources Section IV of the FOTG. The standards within the Rural Development mission Conservation Service, Delaware, USDA. are Deep Tillage (324), Riparian area, announces the availability of ACTION: Notice of availability of Herbaceous Cover (390), and Riparian grants of up to $50,000 per application proposed changes in Section IV of the Forest Buffer (391), Waste Utilization from the Rural Business Opportunity FOTG for review and comment. (633), Vegetative Barrier (601), Nutrient Grant (RBOG) Program for fiscal year Management (590), Tree-Shrub Pruning (FY) 2002, to be competitively awarded. SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in (660), Windbreak/Shelterbelt For multi-state projects, grant funds of Delaware to issue the following new and Renovation (650), Windbreak/ up to $150,000 will be available on a revised conservation practice standard Shelterbelt Establishment (380), Anionic competitive basis. in Section IV of the FOTG: Nutrient Polyacrylamide (PAM) Erosion Control Management (Code 590). (450), Grassed Waterway (412), Pipeline DATES: Any applications received in the Rural Development State Office after the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (516), Watering Facility (614), Forest Elesa K. Cottrell, State Conservationist, Site Preparation (490), and Tree/Shrub date of this notice will be considered for Natural Resources Conservation Service Establishment (612). funding after June 30, 2002. (NRCS), Suite 101, 1203 College Park DATES: Comments will be received on or ADDRESSES: For further information, Dr., Dover, Delaware 19904–8713, before March 27, 2002. entities wishing to apply for assistance telephone (302) 678–4160. Copies of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: should contact a Rural Development practice standard will be made available Inquire in writing to Mark Moseley, State Office to receive further upon written request. Acting ASTC (Ecological Sciences), information and copies of the Notice of Proposed Change to Section Natural Resources Conservation Service application package. Potential IV of the Field Office Technical Guide (NRCS), 100 USDA, Suite 206 applicants located in the District of (FOTG) of the Natural Resources Stillwater, OK 74074–2655. Copies of Columbia must send their applications Conservation Service in Delaware. these standards will be made available to the National Office at:
VerDate 11
District of Columbia Federal Building, Room 311 410 AgriBank Building Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 154 Waianuenue Avenue 375 Jackson Street USDA Hilo, HI 96720 St. Paul, MN 55101–1853 Specialty Lenders Division (808) 933–8380 (651) 602–7800 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room Idaho Mississippi 6867 Washington, DC 20250–3225 USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office (202) 720–1400 9173 West Barnes Dr., Suite A1 Federal Building, Suite 831 Boise, ID 83709 100 West Capitol Street A list of Rural Development State (208) 378–5600 Jackson, MS 39269 Offices follows: Illinois (601) 965–4316 Alabama USDA Rural Development State Office Missouri USDA Rural Development State Office 2118 West Park Court, Suite A Sterling Center, Suite 601 USDA Rural Development State Office Champaign, IL 61821 601 Business Loop 70 West 4121 Carmichael Road (217) 403–6202 Montgomery, AL 36106–3683 Parkade Center, Suite 235 (334) 279–3400 Indiana Columbia, MO 65203 (573) 876–0976 Alaska USDA Rural Development State Office 5975 Lakeside Boulevard Montana USDA Rural Development State Office Indianapolis, IN 46278 USDA Rural Development State Office 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201 (317) 290–3100 Palmer, AK 99645–6539 P. O. Box 771 (907) 761–7705 Iowa 900 Technology Blvd., Unit 1, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 Arizona USDA Rural Development State Office (406) 585–2580 Federal Building, Room 873 USDA Rural Development State Office 210 Walnut Street Nebraska 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 900 Des Moines, IA 50309–2196 Phoenix, AZ 85012–2906 USDA Rural Development State Office (515) 284–4663 (602) 280–8700 Federal Building, Room 152 Kansas 100 Centennial Mall North Arkansas Lincoln, NE 68508 USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office (402) 437–5551 Suite 100 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416 1303 SW First American Place Little Rock, AR 72201–3225 Nevada Topeka, KS 66604 (501) 301–3200 USDA Rural Development State Office (785) 271–2700 1390 South Curry Street California Kentucky Carson City, NV 89703–9910 USDA Rural Development State Office (775) 887–1222 430 G Street, Agency 4169 USDA Rural Development State Office Davis, CA 95616–4169 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200 New Jersey (530) 792–5800 Lexington, KY 40503 (859) 224–7300 USDA Rural Development State Office Colorado Tarnsfield Plaza, Suite 22 Louisiana 790 Woodlane Road USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office Mt. Holly, NJ 08060 655 Parfet Street, Room E–100 (609) 265–3600 Lakewood, CO 80215 3727 Government Street (720) 544–2903 Alexandria, LA 71302 New Mexico (318) 473–7921 Delaware-Maryland USDA Rural Development State Office Maine 6200 Jefferson Street, NE. USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office Room 255 P. O. Box 400 Albuquerque, NM 87109 4607 South DuPont Highway P. O. Box 405 (505) 761–4950 Camden, DE 19934–9998 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4 (302) 697–4300 Bangor, ME 04402–0405 New York (207) 990–9106 Florida/Virgin Islands USDA Rural Development State Office Massachusetts/Rhode Island/ The Galleries of Syracuse USDA Rural Development State Office Connecticut P. O. Box 147010 441 South Salina Street, Suite 357 4440 NW. 25th Place USDA Rural Development State Office Syracuse, NY 13202–2541 Gainesville, FL 32606 451 West Street, Suite 2 (315) 477–6400 (352) 338–3402 Amherst, MA 01002–2999 North Carolina (413) 253–4300 Georgia USDA Rural Development State Office Michigan USDA Rural Development State Office 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260 Stephens Federal Building USDA Rural Development State Office Raleigh, NC 27609 355 E. Hancock Avenue 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200 (919) 873–2000 East Lansing, MI 48823 Athens, GA 30601–2768 North Dakota (706) 546–2162 (517) 324–5100 USDA Rural Development State Office Hawaii Minnesota P. O. Box 1737 USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office Federal Building, Room 208
VerDate 11
220 East Rosser Avenue (801) 524–4321 the opportunity to benefit from the Bismarck, ND 58502–1737 available funds, no grant will exceed Vermont/New Hampshire (701) 530–2037 $50,000, unless it is a multi-state project USDA Rural Development State Office where funds may not exceed $150,000. Ohio City Center, 3rd Floor 89 Main Street Pursuant to the Agriculture, Rural USDA Rural Development State Office Montpelier, VT 05602 Development, Food and Drug Federal Building, Room 507 (802) 828–6010 Administration, and Related Agencies 200 North High Street Virginia Appropriation Act, 2002 (Pub. L. No. Columbus, OH 43215–2418 107–76) a total of $3,000,000 has been USDA Rural Development State Office (614) 255–2500 earmarked for Native Americans, the Culpeper Building, Suite 238 Mississippi Delta area, and Oklahoma 1606 Santa Rosa Road Empowerment Zones, Enterprise USDA Rural Development State Richmond, VA 23229–5014 Communities, and Rural Economic Area Office 100 USDA, Suite 108 (804) 287–1550 Partnerships. There is no project dollar Stillwater, OK 74074–2654 Washington amount limitation on applications for (405) 742–1000 earmarked funds. Awards are made on USDA Rural Development State Office a competitive basis using specific Oregon 1835 Black Lake Boulevard, SW. selection criteria contained in 7 CFR USDA Rural Development State Office Suite B part 4284, subpart G. 7 CFR part 4284, 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1410 Olympia, WA 98512–5715 subpart G, also contains the information Portland, OR 97204–3222 (360) 704–7740 required to be in the application (503) 414–3300 West Virginia package. The State Director may assign up to 15 discretionary points to an Pennsylvania USDA Rural Development State Office application, and the Agency USDA Rural Development State Office Federal Building 75 High Street, Room 320 Administrator may assign up to 20 One Credit Union Place, Suite 330 additional discretionary points based on Harrisburg, PA 17110–2996 Morgantown, WV 26505–7500 (304) 284–4860 geographic distribution of funds, special (717) 237–2299 importance for implementation of a Puerto Rico Wisconsin strategic plan in partnership with other organizations, or extraordinary potential USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office 4949 Kirschling Court for success due to superior project plans 654 Munoz Rivera Avenue or qualifications of the grantee. The IBM Plaza, Suite 601 Stevens Point, WI 54481 (715) 345–7610 projects that score the greatest number Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918–6106 of points based on the selection criteria (787) 766–5095 Wyoming and discretionary points will be South Carolina USDA Rural Development State Office selected. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices USDA Rural Development State Office Federal Building, Room 1005 100 East B Street and submitted to the National Office for Strom Thurmond Federal Building P. O. Box 820 review, final scoring, and selection. 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007 Casper, WY 82602 The National Office will review the Columbia, SC 29201 (307) 261–6300 scores based on the grant selection (803) 765–5163 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON: criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR South Dakota part 4284, subpart G. All applicants will Paperwork Reduction Act be notified by RBS of the Agency USDA Rural Development State Office decision on the awards. Federal Building, Room 210 In accordance with the Paperwork 200 4th Street, SW. Reduction Act of 1995, the information Dated: February 14, 2002. Huron, SD 57350 collection requirements pertaining to John Rosso, (605) 352–1100 this Notice are approved by the Office Acting Administrator, Rural Business- of Management and Budget (OMB) and Cooperative Service. Tennessee were assigned OMB control number [FR Doc. 02–4407 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] USDA Rural Development State Office 0570–0024. BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300 The RBOG program is authorized Nashville, TN 37203–1084 under section 306 of the Consolidated (615) 783–1300 Farm and Rural Development Act DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONACT) (7 USC 1926(a)(11)). The Texas Rural Development State Offices Rural Utilities Service USDA Rural Development State Office administer the RBOG program on behalf Federal Building, Suite 102 of RBS at the state level. The primary Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, 101 South Main Street objective of the program is to improve Inc.; Notice of Finding of No Temple, TX 76501 the economic conditions of rural areas. Significant Impact (254) 742–9700 Assistance provided to rural areas under AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. this program may include technical Utah ACTION: Notice of finding of no assistance for business development and significant impact. USDA Rural Development State Office economic development planning. Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building A total of $2,100,000 of non- SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 125 South State Street, Room 4311 earmarked funds is available for the the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has P. O. Box 11350 RBOG program for FY 2002. To ensure made a finding of no significant impact Salt Lake City, UT 84147–0350 that a broad range of communities have (FONSI) with respect to a request from
VerDate 11
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Civil Rights, that a meeting of the (AEPCO) for assistance from RUS to 11:00 a.m.–Noon Delaware Advisory Committee to the finance the construction and operation Ad Hoc Committee—Public Rights-of- Commission will convene at 11 a.m. and of a 40 MW gas turbine generation Way (Closed Meeting) adjourn at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March facility at the Apache Generating Station 1:30 p.m.–5:00 13, 2002, at the Metropolitan located in Cochise County, Arizona. Ad Hoc Committee—Public Rights-of- Wilmington Urban League, 100 W. 10th FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Way (Closed Meeting) Street, Conference Room, Wilmington, Dennis E. Rankin, Environmental Delaware 19801. The Advisory Wednesday, March 13, 2002 Protection Specialist, RUS, Engineering Committee will provide an orientation and Environmental Staff, Stop 1571, 9:00 a.m.–10:00 to members in administrative matters, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Planning and Budget Committee disseminate newly revised copies of its Washington, DC 20250–1571, telephone: 10:00 a.m.–11:00 report, Delaware Citizens Guide to Civil (202) 720–1953 or e-mail: Technical Programs Committee Rights and Supporting Services, and [email protected]. 11:00 a.m.–Noon hold a briefing session to hear from Nominating Committee invited speakers on civil rights issues SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AEPCO is 1:30 a.m.–3:00 affecting the state. proposing to install a 40 MW GE model Board Meeting Persons desiring additional LM6000 Sprint gas combustion turbine ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at information, or planning a presentation generation facility and modify the the Marriott at Metro Center Hotel, 775 to the Committee, should contact Ed switchyard at their existing Apache 12th Street, NW, Washington, DC. Darden of the Eastern Regional Office, Generating Station which is located at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 202–376–7533 (TDD 202–376–8116). 3525 North Highway 191 South near further information regarding the Hearing-impaired persons who will Cochise, Arizona. Gas Turbine #4 will meetings, please contact Lawrence W. attend the meeting and require the be configured to operate in the simple Roffee, Executive Director, (202) 272– services of a sign language interpreter cycle mode. A new 100-foot tall stack 0001 (voice) and (202) 272–5449 (TTY). should contact the Regional Office at will be required. Approximately 0.5 least ten (10) working days before the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the acres of the existing Apache Generation scheduled date of the meeting. site will be needed for the proposed Board meeting, the Access Board will The meeting will be conducted project. The existing plant infrastructure consider the following agenda items. pursuant to the provisions of the rules will be utilized for the new generation Open Meeting and regulations of the Commission. addition including gas lines, cooling • Executive Director’s report Dated at Washington, DC, February 19, water and transmission facilities. • Approval of the minutes of the 2002. Copies of the Environmental January 9, 2002 board meeting Ivy L. Davis, Assessment and FONSI are available at, • Technical Programs Committee: On- Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. or can be obtained from, RUS at the going research and technical assistance [FR Doc. 02–4453 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am] address provided herein, or from Ms. projects. BILLING CODE 6335–01–P Teri McCaulou, AEPCO, 1000 South • Planning and Budget Committee: Highway 80, Benson, Arizona 85602, Budget spending plan for fiscal year telephone: (520) 586–5122. 2002; fiscal year 2003; and out-of-town COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Dated: January 31, 2002. meetings. Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting Blaine D. Stockton, • Nominating Committee: Review of of the Louisiana Advisory Committee Assistant Administrator, Electric Program, the Nominating Committee charter. Rural Utilities Service. Closed Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to [FR Doc. 02–4408 Filed 2–25–02; 8:45 am] the provisions of the rules and • Ad Hoc Committee on Public BILLING CODE 3410–15–P regulations of the U.S. Commission on Rights-of-Way Civil Rights, that a meeting of the All meetings are accessible to persons Louisiana Advisory Committee to the with disabilities. Sign language Commission will convene at 6 p.m. and ARCHITECTURAL AND interpreters and an assistive listening adjourn at 8 p.m. on March 19, 2002, at TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS system are available at all meetings. the Radisson Hotel & Conference Center, COMPLIANCE BOARD Persons attending Board meetings are 4728 Constitution Avenue, Baton Rouge, requested to refrain from using perfume, Louisiana 70808. The purpose of the Meeting cologne, and other fragrances for the meeting is to plan future activities. comfort of other participants. Persons desiring additional AGENCY: Architectural and Lawrence W. Roffee, information, or planning a presentation Transportation Barriers Compliance to the Committee, should contact Board. Executive Director. [FR Doc. 02–4430 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the ACTION: Notice of meeting. Central Regional Office, 913–551–1400 BILLING CODE 8150–01–P (TDD 913–551–1414). Hearing-impaired SUMMARY: The Architectural and persons who will attend the meeting Transportation Barriers Compliance and require the services of a sign COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Board (Access Board) has scheduled its language interpreter should contact the regular business meetings to take place Regional Office at least ten (10) working in Washington, DC on Tuesday and Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Delaware Advisory Committee days before the scheduled date of the Wednesday, March 12–13, 2002, at the meeting. times and location noted below. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to The meeting will be conducted DATES: The schedule of events is as the provisions of the rules and pursuant to the provisions of the rules follows: regulations of the U.S. Commission on and regulations of the Commission.
VerDate 11
Dated at Washington, DC, February 19, 82H), at the location described in the 45278, 8/28/01), requesting the 2002. application, subject to the FTZ Act and establishment of a foreign-trade zone at Ivy L. Davis, the Board’s regulations, including sites in Butte County, California, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. Section 400.28, and subject to the adjacent to the San Francisco/Oakland/ [FR Doc. 02–4454 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] following special conditions: Sacramento, California Customs port of BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 1. Any foreign steel mill product admitted entry; to the subzone, including plate, angles, Whereas, notice inviting public shapes, channels, rolled steel stock, bars, comment has been given in the Federal DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE pipes and tubes, not incorporated into Register (66 FR 10668, 2/16/01); and, merchandise otherwise classified, and which Whereas, the Board adopts the Foreign-Trade Zones Board is used in manufacturing, shall be subject to findings and recommendations of the Customs duties in accordance with examiner’s report, and finds that the [Order No. 1210] applicable law, unless the Executive Secretary determines that the same item is requirements of the FTZ Act and the not then being produced by a domestic steel Board’s regulations are satisfied, and Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; that approval of the application is in the Austal USA, LLC (Shipbuilding); mill. 2. In addition to the annual report, Austal public interest; Mobile, AL shall advise the Board’s Executive Secretary Now, therefore, the Board hereby Pursuant to its authority under the (§ 400.28(a)(3)) as to significant new contracts grants to the Grantee the privilege of Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, with appropriate information concerning establishing a foreign-trade zone, foreign purchases otherwise dutiable, so that designated on the records of the Board 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Board may consider whether any foreign the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the dutiable items are being imported for as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 253, at the Board) adopts the following Order: manufacturing in the subzone primarily sites described in the application, and WHEREAS, by an Act of Congress because of subzone status and whether the subject to the Act and the Board’s approved June 18, 1934, an Act ‘‘To Board should consider requiring Customs regulations, including Section 400.28, provide for the establishment . . . of duties to be paid on such items. and subject to the Board’s standard foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of 3. All foreign-origin quota-class 2,000-acre activation limit. the United States, to expedite and merchandise must be admitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board. subzone under privileged domestic status (19 encourage foreign commerce, and for CFR 146.43(a)(2)). Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of other purposes,’’ as amended (19 U.S.C. February, 2002. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of 81a–81u) (the FTZ Act), the Foreign- Donald L. Evans, Trade Zones Board (the Board) is February 2002. Faryar Shirzad, Secretary of Commerce, Chairman and authorized to grant to qualified Executive Officer. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import corporations the privilege of [FR Doc. 02–4427 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] establishing foreign-trade zones in or Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign- BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; Trade Zones Board. WHEREAS, the Board’s regulations [FR Doc. 02–4429 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P (15 CFR part 400) provide for the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities Foreign-Trade Zones Board cannot serve the specific use involved, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Order No. 1209] and when the activity results in a Foreign-Trade Zones Board significant public benefit and is in the Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; [Order No. 1207] public interest; Rolls-Royce Corporation (Gas Turbine WHEREAS, an application from the Engines), Indianapolis, IN City of Mobile, Alabama, grantee of FTZ Grant of Authority; Establishment of a 82, for authority to establish special- Foreign-Trade Zone, Butte County, Pursuant to its authority under the purpose subzone status for the California Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, shipbuilding facility of Austal USA, Pursuant to its authority under the 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), LLC (Austal), in Mobile, Alabama, was Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the filed by the Board on January 9, 2001, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), Board) adopts the following Order: and notice inviting public comment was the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the WHEREAS, the Foreign-Trade Zones given in the Federal Register (FTZ Board) adopts the following Order: Act provides for ‘‘ . . . the establishment Docket 1–2001, 66 FR 3984, 1–17–2001); Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of and, provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment entry of the United States, to expedite WHEREAS, the Board adopts the * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of and encourage foreign commerce, and findings and recommendations of the entry of the United States, to expedite for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the examiner’s report, and finds that the and encourage foreign commerce, and Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to requirements of the FTZ Act and for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the qualified corporations the privilege of Board’s regulations would be satisfied, Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to establishing foreign-trade zones in or and that approval of the application qualified corporations the privilege of adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; would be in the public interest if establishing foreign-trade zones in or WHEREAS, the Board’s regulations approval were given subject to the adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; (15 CFR part 400) provide for the standard shipyard restriction on foreign Whereas, the Oroville Economic establishment of special-purpose steel mill products; Development Corporation, a California subzones when existing zone facilities NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby non-profit corporation (the Grantee), has cannot serve the specific use involved, grants authority for subzone status at the made application to the Board (FTZ and when the activity results in a shipbuilding facility of Austal USA, Docket 9–2001, filed 2/6/01) and significant public benefit and is in the LLC, in Mobile, Alabama (Subzone amended on August 21, 2001 (66 FR public interest;
VerDate 11
WHEREAS, the Indianapolis Airport bearings and parts thereof. The period of accordance with the CIT’s instructions, Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade review is May 1, 1993, through April 30, we reconsidered our calculation of Zone 72, has made application to the 1994. At the time of our December 19th FAG’s general and administrative Board for authority to establish special- notice, one matter, relating to the above expenses, and we recalculated FAG’s purpose subzone status at the firm and the reviews of the orders on margins accordingly. As there is now a manufacturing facilities (gas turbine antifriction bearings and parts thereof final and conclusive court decision in engines) of Rolls-Royce Corporation, from Germany, was pending before the this action, we are amending our final located in Indianapolis, Indiana (FTZ United States Court of Appeals for the results of reviews in this matter, and we Docket 38–2001, filed 9/18/2001); Federal Circuit. As there is now a final will subsequently instruct the Customs WHEREAS, notice inviting public and conclusive court decision in this Service to liquidate entries subject to comment has been given in the Federal action, we are amending our final these reviews. Register (66 FR 49161, 9/26/2001); and, results of the reviews and we will Amendment to Final Results WHEREAS, the Board adopts the subsequently instruct the Customs findings and recommendations of the Service to liquidate entries subject to Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the examiner’s report, and finds that the these reviews. Tariff Act, we are now amending the requirements of the FTZ Act and the EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. final results of administrative reviews of Board’s regulations are satisfied, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the antidumping duty orders on that approval of the application would Jennifer Moats or Richard Rimlinger, antifriction bearings (other than tapered be in the public interest; roller bearings) and parts thereof from NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department Germany, for the period May 1, 1993, grants authority for subzone status at the through April 30, 1994. The revised gas-turbine engine manufacturing of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, weighted-average margins are as facilities of Rolls-Royce Corporation follows: located in Indianapolis, Indiana DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4733. (Subzone 72Q), at the location described Applicable Statute Company BBs CRBs SPBs in the application, subject to the FTZ Unless otherwise indicated, all Germany: FAG Act and the Board’s regulations, citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as including § 400.28. Kugelfischer amended (the Tariff Act), are references Georg Schafer Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of to the provisions in effect as of AG ...... 12.33 12.50 2.10 February 2002. December 31, 1994. In addition, unless Faryar Shirzad, otherwise indicated, all citations to the Accordingly, the Department will Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Department of Commerce’s (the determine and the Customs Service will Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign- Department’s) regulations are to the assess appropriate antidumping duties Trade Zones Board. regulations as codified at 19 CFR part on entries of the subject merchandise [FR Doc. 02–4428 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] 353 (1995). made by the firm covered by these BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reviews. Individual differences between United States price and foreign market Background value may vary from the percentages DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE On December 19, 2000, the listed above. For the company covered International Trade Administration Department of Commerce published a by these amended results, the retraction of the amended final results Department will issue appraisement [A–428–801] of reviews for the respondent-company instructions to the Customs Service after FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer AG publication of these amended final Antifriction Bearings (Other Than (FAG) with respect to the antidumping results of reviews. Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts duty orders on antifriction bearings This notice is published pursuant to Thereof From Germany; Amended (other than tapered roller bearings) and section 751(a) of the Tariff Act. Results of Antidumping Duty parts thereof from Germany (see 65 FR Dated: February 19, 2002. Administrative Reviews 79341). The classes or kinds of Faryar Shirzad, AGENCY: Import Administration, merchandise covered by these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof, Assistant Secretary for Import International Trade Administration, Administration. Department of Commerce. cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and spherical plain bearings [FR Doc. 02–4425 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice of amended final results BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P of antidumping duty administrative and parts thereof. The period of review reviews. is May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994. At the time of our December 19th DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUMMARY: On December 19, 2000, the notice, one matter, relating to the Department of Commerce published a reviews of the orders on antifriction International Trade Administration retraction of the amended final results bearings and parts thereof from of reviews for the respondent-company Germany, was pending before the [A–570–822] FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer AG United States Court of Appeals for the with respect to the antidumping duty Federal Circuit. Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers orders on antifriction bearings (other Pursuant to the remand order from the From the People’s Republic of China; than tapered roller bearings) and parts U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) Final Results of Antidumping Duty thereof from Germany. The classes or in SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Administrative Review kinds of merchandise covered by these Consol. Court No. 97–01–00054-S, Slip reviews are ball bearings and parts Op. 01–86 (CIT July 16, 2001), the AGENCY: Import Administration, thereof, cylindrical roller bearings and Department of Commerce prepared the International Trade Administration, parts thereof, and spherical plain final results of redetermination. In Department of Commerce.
VerDate 11
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We received hydrofluoric acid, caustic soda-lye, Antidumping Administrative Duty surrogate value information from the caustic soda, sodium hydroxide, Review. petitioner, Shakeproof Assembly chromicacid, sodium nitrate, barium Components Division of Illinois Tool carbonate, sodium cyanide, potassium SUMMARY: On July 11, 2001, the Works Inc. (‘‘petitioner’’), and the chromate, methalymine, potassium Department of Commerce published the respondent, Hang Zhou Spring Washer aluminum sulfate, adhesive tape, preliminary results of the administrative Co., Ltd. also known as Zhejiang packing sheet, plastic bags, cartons, review of the antidumping duty order Wanxin Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hangzhou’’), steel scrap, packing strips, nails, and on certain helical spring lock washers on July 31, 2001. The petitioner and the zinc dust from the People’s Republic of China. We respondent submitted case briefs and 2. We used an Indonesian import gave interested parties an opportunity to rebuttal briefs on August 10 and 15, comment. Based upon our analysis of value for hydrochloric acid. 2001, respectively. The Department has the comments and information received, 3. We revised the value for inland now completed the antidumping duty we have made changes to the margin shipping, using a different source and administrative review in accordance calculations presented in the final data more contemporaneous with the with section 751 of the Act. results of the review. We find that POR. We corrected errors in our helical spring lock washers from the Scope of Order calculation of shipping distances. 4. We corrected an error in the sales People’s Republic of China are not being The products covered by this review database. sold in the United States below normal are HSLWs of carbon steel, of carbon value by the company reviewed. The alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat- 5. For labor, we used the regression- final weighted-average dumping margin treated or non-heat-treated, plated or based wage rate for the PRC, revised is listed below in the section entitled non-plated, with ends that are off-line. September, 2001, in ‘‘Expected Wages of Final Results of the Review. HSLWs are designed to: (1) Function as Selected NME Countries’’ located on the EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. a spring to compensate for developed Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: looseness between the component parts 99wages/99wages/htm. Sally Hastings, Import Administration, of a fastened assembly; (2) distribute the Analysis of Comments Received International Trade Administration, load over a larger area for screws or All issues raised in the case and U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and bolts; and, (3) provide a hardened rebuttal briefs by parties to this Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, bearing surface. The scope does not proceeding are addressed in the DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3464. include internal or external tooth February 15, 2002, Issues and Decision SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: washers, nor does it include spring lock Memorandum (‘‘Decision washers made of other metals, such as The Applicable Statute Memorandum’’) which is hereby copper. Unless otherwise indicated, all HSLWs subject to this review are adopted by this notice. Attached to this citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as currently classifiable under subheading notice as an appendix is a list of the amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff issues which parties have raised and to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, Schedule of the United States which we have responded in the the effective date of the amendments (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS Decision Memorandum. Parties can find made to the Act by the Uruguay Round subheading is provided for convenience a complete discussion of all issues Agreements Act. In addition, unless and customs purposes, the written raised in this review and the otherwise indicated, all citations to the description of the scope of this corresponding recommendations in this Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the proceeding is dispositive. public memorandum which is on file in Department’’) regulations are to 19 CFR the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 part 351 (2000). Period of Review of the Department. In addition, a The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is from complete version of the Decision Background October 1, 1999 through September 30, Memorandum can be accessed directly On July 11, 2001, the Department 2000. on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ published in the Federal Register the summary/list.htm. The paper copy and preliminary results of its administrative Comparisons electronic version of the Decision review of helical spring lock washers We calculated export price and Memorandum are identical in content. (‘‘HSLWs’’) from the People’s Republic normal value based on the same Final Results of the Review of China (‘‘PRC’’) (Certain Helical methodology used in the Preliminary Spring Lock Washers from the People’s Results with the following exceptions: The weighted-average dumping Republic of China; Preliminary Results 1. We used values that were more margin for the period October 1, 1999 of Antidumping Duty Administrative contemporaneous with the POR for through September 30, 2000, is as Review, 66 FR 36251 (July 11, 2001) steam coal, lubricating oil, nitric acid, follows:
Margin Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent) (de minimis)
Hang Zhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd/Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd ...... 10/01/99–09/30/00 0.01
Because the duty assessment rates for regard to antidumping duties for subject antidumping rate in place at the time of Hangzhou are zero or de minimis (i.e., merchandise exported by Hangzhou. All entry. less than 0.5 percent), we will instruct other entries of the subject merchandise Furthermore, the following deposit the Customs Service to liquidate entries during the POR will be liquidated at the rates will be effective upon publication made during this review period without of these final results for all shipments of
VerDate 11
HSLWs from the PRC entered, or Comment 4: Valuation of Hydrochloric Acid the effective date of the amendments withdrawn from warehouse, for Comment 5: Valuation of Inland Shipping made to the Act by the Uruguay Round consumption on or after the publication Rate Agreements Act. In addition, unless date, as provided for by section Comment 6: Valuation of Potassium otherwise indicated, all citations to the Aluminum Sulphate 751(a)(1) of the Act: Comment 7: Calculation of Factory Overhead Department of Commerce’s (1) For Hangzhou, which has had a Net of Scrap (‘‘Department’’) regulations are to 19 separate rate in the investigation and all CFR part 351 (2001). reviews, no deposit will be required [FR Doc. 02–4423 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] because the company had a de minimis BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Background rate in this review; (2) for all other PRC On September 4, 1996, the exporters, the cash deposit rate will be Department issued the antidumping the PRC-wide rate, 128.63 percent, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE duty orders on LNPPs from Japan (61 FR which is the All Other PRC International Trade Administration 46621) and Germany (61 FR 46623). Manufacturers, Producers and Exporters Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act rate from the Final Determination of [A–588–837, A–428–821] and 19 CFR 351.218, the Department Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain initiated sunset reviews of these orders Helical Spring Lock Washers from the Large Newspaper Printing Presses and by publishing a notice of the initiation PRC, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993); Components Thereof, Whether in the Federal Register August 1, 2001 and, (3) for non-PRC exporters of subject Assembled or Unassembled, from (66 FR 39731). In addition, as a courtesy merchandise from the PRC, the cash Japan (A–588–837) and Germany (A– to interested parties, the Department deposit rate will be the rate applicable 428–821): Notice of Final Results of sent letters, via certified and registered to the PRC supplier of that exporter. Five-Year Sunset Reviews and mail, to each party listed on the These deposit rates shall remain in Revocation of Antidumping Duty Department’s most current service list effect until publication of the final Orders. for this proceeding to inform them of results of the next administrative AGENCY: Import Administration, the automatic initiation of sunset review. International Trade Administration, reviews of these orders. This notice also serves as a final Department of Commerce. On August 16, 2001, within the reminder to importers of their ACTION: Notice of final results of five- applicable deadline, the Department responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) year sunset reviews and revocation of received notice of intent to participate to file a certificate regarding the antidumping duty orders on large from Goss Graphic Systems, Inc. reimbursement of antidumping duties newspaper printing presses and (‘‘Goss’’), the only domestic interested prior to liquidation of the relevant components thereof, whether assembled party in the sunset proceedings. As entries during this review period. or unassembled, from Japan (A–588– such, the Department concluded that Failure to comply with this requirement 837) and Germany (A–428–821). Goss provided an adequate response to could result in the Secretary’s participate in the sunset reviews on presumption that reimbursement of SUMMARY: On August 1, 2001, the LNPPs from Japan and Germany. On antidumping duties occurred and the Department of Commerce (‘‘the August 31, 2001, Goss filed substantive subsequent assessment of double Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of responses with respect to LNPPs from antidumping duties. the antidumping duty orders on Large Japan and Germany. In the sunset This notice also serves as a reminder Newspaper Printing Presses (‘‘LNPPs’’) review on LNPPs from Japan, the to parties subject to administrative and Components Thereof, Whether Department did not receive any protective order (APO) of their Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan response from respondent interested responsibility concerning the and Germany. One domestic interested parties; therefore, we determined to disposition of proprietary information party responded to the sunset review conduct an expedited sunset review. In disclosed under APO in accordance notice of initiation in these proceedings. the sunset review on LNPPs from with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely However, on December 21, 2001, the Germany, the Department determined written notification of the return/ domestic interested party withdrew its that domestic and respondent interested destruction of APO materials or interest in these proceedings. Therefore, parties provided adequate response to conversion to judicial protective order is the Department is revoking the conduct a full sunset review under hereby requested. Failure to comply antidumping duty orders on LNPPs section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and with the regulations and the terms of an from Japan and Germany. §§ 351.218(e)(1)(i) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii). APO is a sanctionable violation. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 2001. However, over the course of these This administrative review and notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: reviews significant questions were are in accordance with sections raised concerning Goss’ claim as to 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Martha V. Douthit or James P. Maeder, Office of Policy, Import Administration, whether it was actually a domestic Dated: February 15, 2002. International Trade Administration, manufacturer of the subject Faryar Shirzad, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th merchandise. Consequently, in order to Assistant Secretary for Import Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., investigate this issue more fully, on Administration. Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) November 19, 2001, the Department Appendix 482–5050 or (202) 482–3330, aligned the sunset review on LNPPs respectively. from Japan with the sunset review of the List of Comments in the Issues and Decision antidumping duty order on LNPPs from SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Memorandum Germany. See 66 FR 58713 (November Comment 1: Use of Import Prices to Value All The Applicable Statue 23, 2001).1 On December 21, 2001, Goss Steel Wire Rod Inputs Unless otherwise indicated, all Comment 2: Plating Operations: Factory 1 In this notice, the Department announced its Overhead, SG&A Expenses and Profit citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as intent to issue the preliminary results on LNPPs Comment 3: Representativeness of Plating amended (the ‘‘Act’’), are references to from Japan along with the preliminary results on Factors of Production the provisions effective January 1, 1995, LNPPs from Germany not later than February 19,
VerDate 11
withdrew its participation in these will complete any pending The Applicable Statute proceedings. We interpret Goss’ administrative reviews of these orders Unless otherwise indicated, all withdrawal of participation as a and will conduct administrative reviews citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as withdrawal of interest. Because Goss of subject merchandise entered prior to amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to (the only domestic interested party in the effective date of revocation in the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the sunset proceeding) withdrew its response to appropriately filed requests the effective date of the amendments interest in these reviews, the for review. made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Department has determined to treat this Dated: February 19, 2002. Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition, situation as if no domestic interested Faryar Shirzad, unless otherwise indicated, all citations party responded to the notice of to the Department of Commerce’s initiation of these sunset reviews. Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. (‘‘Department’s’’) regulations are to the Therefore, we are not publishing [FR Doc. 02–4426 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (April preliminary determinations and are 2001). hereby revoking the antidumping duty BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P orders on LNPPs from Japan and Background Germany. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE On January 30, 2002, the petitioner, Determination to Revoke Columbian Home Products, LLC International Trade Administration (‘‘Columbian’’), requested that the Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Department revoke the antidumping Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), [A–201–504] duty order on porcelain–on–steel if no domestic interested party responds cookware from Mexico as of December Porcelain–On–Steel Cookware From to the notice of initiation, the 1, 1995, stating that it no longer has an Mexico: Initiation and Preliminary Department shall issue a final interest in maintaining this order. Results of Changed–Circumstances determination, within 90 days after the Columbian is a domestic interested Antidumping Duty Administrative initiation of the review, revoking the party and is the successor company to 2 Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke order. Because the only domestic the petitioner in the less–than–fair– the Order and to Rescind interested party withdrew its interest in value investigation. Columbian stated Administrative Reviews both proceedings (see 351.218(d)(1)(i) that it is the only U.S. producer of and 351.218(e)(1)(i)(C)(1) of the Sunset AGENCY: Import Administration, porcelain–on–steel cookware, and Regulations), consistent with the International Trade Administration, therefore, it accounts for ‘‘substantially provision of section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Department of Commerce. all of the production of the domestic Act, we are revoking these antidumping ACTION: like product,’’ within the meaning of duty orders. Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed– section 782(h)(2) of the Act. Effective Date of Revocation Circumstances Antidumping Duty Scope of the Order Administrative Review and Notice of In accordance with sections The products covered by this order Intent to Revoke the Order and to 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, are porcelain–on–steel cookware, Rescind Administrative Reviews. and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the including tea kettles, which do not have Department will instruct the Customs SUMMARY: In response to a request from self–contained electric heating Service to terminate the suspension of the petitioner, Columbian Home elements. All of the foregoing are liquidation of the merchandise subject Products, LLC, that the Department of constructed of steel and are enameled or to the orders entered, or withdrawn Commerce revoke the antidumping duty glazed with vitreous glasses. This from warehouse, on or after September order on porcelain–on–steel cookware merchandise is currently classifiable 4, 2001. The instructions for entries of from Mexico, we are initiating a under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of LNPPs from Germany will not be issued changed–circumstances administrative the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) until either the conclusion of the review and are issuing this notice of subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware ongoing litigation with respect to the preliminary results and intent to revoke currently classifiable under HTSUS final determination of the Department’s the antidumping duty order as of subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject less-than-fair value investigation of December 1, 1995. If these preliminary to the order. Although the HTSUS LNPPs from Germany, pursuant to results become final, we intend to subheadings are provided for which entries have been enjoined from rescind the current antidumping duty convenience and customs purposes, the liquidation, or the injunction has been administrative reviews, covering the written description of the scope of this lifted or amended. (See Koenig & Bauer periods December 1, 1999 through proceeding is dispositive. Albert v. United States, Fed. Cir. Court November 30, 2000, and December 1, Initiation and Preliminary Results of No. 00–1387 (CIT 96–10–02298).) This 2000 through November 30, 2001. injunction does not cover entries of Changed–Circumstances Review and Interested parties are invited to Intent to Revoke Order subject merchandise from Japan. Entries comment on these preliminary results. of subject merchandise prior to the Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the EFFECTIVE DATE: effective date of revocation will February 25, 2002. Act, the Department may revoke, in continue to be subject to suspension of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: whole or in part, an antidumping duty liquidation and antidumping duty Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, Office order based on a review under section deposit requirements. The Department of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a changed– Administration, International Trade circumstances review). The 2002, and its final results on both reviews on June Administration, U.S. Department of Department’s regulations at 19 CFR 27, 2002. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 351.216(d) require the Department to 2 Although the statute requires revocation of an Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; conduct a changed–circumstances order within 90 days of initiating the sunset review telephone (202) 482–4007 and (202) when no party responds to the notice of initiation, review in accordance with 19 CFR in this case, Goss withdrew its participation after 482–4929, respectively. 351.221 if it decides that changed the 90-day period had expired. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: circumstances sufficient to warrant a
VerDate 11
review exist. Section 782(h)(2) of the for consumption on or after December 1, ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide 1995, in accordance with section 778 of Limits. that the Department may revoke an the Act. The current requirement for a order (in whole or in part) if it cash deposit of estimated antidumping SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce determines that producers accounting duties will continue until publication of (the Department) is extending the time for substantially all of the production of the final results of this changed– limits for the preliminary results of the the domestic like product have no circumstances review. 2000–2001 administrative review of the further interest in the order. In addition, Public Comment antidumping duty order on stainless in the event that the Department steel sheet and strip in coils from concludes that expedited action is Interested parties are invited to Germany. This review covers one warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3) permits comment on these preliminary results. manufacturer/exporter of the subject the Department to combine the notices Parties who submit argument in this merchandise to the United States and of initiation and preliminary results. proceeding are requested to submit with the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, The petitioner is a domestic interested the argument (1) a statement of the 2001. party as defined by section 771(9)(C) of issue, and (2) a brief summary of the the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b). argument. Any interested party may EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. Columbian is the only U.S. producer of request a hearing within 10 days of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: porcelain–on–steel cookware and date of publication of this notice. Any Patricia Tran at (202) 482–1121 or therefore represents at least 85 percent hearing, if requested, will be held no Robert James at (202) 482–0649, of the domestic production of the later than 21 days after the date of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty domestic like product to which this publication of this notice, or the first Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, order pertains, and thus accounts for workday thereafter. Case briefs may be Import Administration, International ‘‘substantially all’’ of the production of submitted by interested parties not later Trade Administration, U.S. Department the domestic like product. Therefore, than 7 days after the date of publication of Commerce, 14th Street and based on the lack of interest by the of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, domestic industry in the continued the issues raised in the case briefs, may DC 20230. application of the antidumping duty be filed not later than 12 days after the order on porcelain–on–steel cookware date of publication of this notice. All SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August from Mexico, we are initiating this written comments shall be submitted in 20, 2001, in response to requests from changed–circumstances review. Because accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and the respondent and petitioners, we of the on–going and pending shall be served on all interested parties published a notice of initiation of this administrative reviews, we have on the Department’s service list in administrative review in the Federal determined that expedited action is accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Register. See Initiation of Antidumping warranted, and we are combining the Persons interested in attending the and Countervailing Duty Administrative notices of initiation and preliminary hearing should contact the Department Reviews and Requests for Revocation in results. We have preliminarily for the date and time of the hearing. The Part, 66 FR 43570. Pursuant to the time determined that the petitioner’s Department will publish the final limits for administrative reviews set statement of no interest in the results of this changed–circumstances forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff continuation of the order constitutes review, including the results of its Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the changed circumstances sufficient to analysis of issues raised in any written current deadlines are April 2, 2002 for warrant revocation of the order in comments. the preliminary results and July 31, whole. We are hereby notifying the We are issuing and publishing this 2002 for the final results. It is not public of our intent to revoke the determination and notice in accordance practicable to complete this review antidumping duty order on porcelain– with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of within the normal statutory time limit on–steel cookware from Mexico as of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222. due to a number of significant case December 1, 1995. issues, such as major inputs purchased If these preliminary results become February 14, 2002 from affiliated and unaffiliated final, we intend to rescind the current Faryar Shirzad, suppliers and the use of downstream antidumping duty administrative Assistant Secretary for Import sales. Therefore, the Department is reviews, covering the periods December Administration. extending the time limits for completion 1, 1999 through November 30, 2000, and [FR Doc. 02–4421 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] of the preliminary results until July 31, December 1, 2000 through November BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 2002 in accordance with section 30, 2001. If final revocation of the order occurs, 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The deadline for we intend to instruct the Customs DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the final results of this review will Service to discontinue the suspension of continue to be 120 days after liquidation and to refund any estimated International Trade Administration publication of the preliminary results. antidumping duties collected for all This extension is in accordance with [A–428–825] unliquidated entries of porcelain–on– section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. steel cookware from Mexico entered, or Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils February 15, 2002 withdrawn from warehouse, for from Germany; Antidumping Duty Joseph A. Spetrini consumption on or after December 1, Administrative Review; Time Limits 1995. We will also instruct the Customs Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Service to pay interest on any refunds AGENCY: Import Administration, Administration, Group III with respect to the subject merchandise International Trade Administration, [FR Doc. 02–4422 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Department of Commerce. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE both investigations on identical the Council will hear public testimony schedules. on the Red Grouper Amendment, final International Trade Administration For the reasons identified by the action will not be taken until the July 8- [A–437–804, A–471–806] petitioner, and because there are no 12, 2002 Council meeting in Sarasota, compelling reasons to deny the request, FL. Notice of Postponement of Preliminary we are postponing the preliminary 1:30 p.m.- 5:30 p.m.--Continue public Determinations of Antidumping determinations under section 733(c)(1) testimony if necessary. of the Act. We will make our Investigations: Sulfanilic Acid from March 14 Hungary and Portugal preliminary determinations no later than April 8, 2002. 8:30 a.m.-- 9:30 a.m.--Receive a report AGENCY: Import Administration, This notice is published pursuant to of the Shrimp Management Committee. International Trade Administration, sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act. 9:30 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.--Receive the Department of Commerce. report of the Reef Fish Management February 15, 2002 EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. Committee. Faryar Shirzad, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: March 15 Jarrod Goldfeder (Hungary) at (202) Assistant Secretary for Import 482–0189 or Anthony Grasso (Portugal) Administration. 8:30 a.m. - 9 a.m.--Receive a report of at (202) 482–3853, Import [FR Doc. 02–4424 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the Personnel Committee. Administration, International Trade BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 9 a.m. - 9:30 a.m--Receive a report of Administration, U.S. Department of the Mackerel Management Committee. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.--Receive a report Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas APPLICABLE STATUTE AND National Oceanic and Atmospheric Advisory Committee. REGULATIONS: Administration 9:45 a.m. - 10 a.m.--Receive a report Unless otherwise indicated, all [I.D. 022002A] of the South Atlantic Fishery citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as Management Council Liaison. amended (the Act), are references to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 10 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.--Receive provisions effective January 1, 1995, the Council; Public Meetings Enforcement Reports. effective date of the amendments made 10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.--Receive the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries to the Act by the Uruguay Round NMFS Regional Administrator’s Report. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, 10:30 a.m. - 11 a.m.--Receive Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), unless otherwise indicated, all citations Director’s Reports. Commerce. to the Department of Commerce’s (the 11 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.--Other Business. Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR ACTION: Notice of public meeting. March 11 part 351 (April 2001). SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 10:30 a.m. - 12 noon--Convene the POSTPONEMENT OF PRELIMINARY Management Council will convene Mackerel Management Committee to DETERMINATIONS: public meetings. develop recommendations for mackerel On October 26, 2001, the Department DATES: The meetings will be held on and cobia status determination criteria. published the initiation of the March 11-15, 2002. The full Council will consider these antidumping duty investigations of ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held recommendations on Friday morning. imports of sulfanilic acid from Hungary at the Adam’s Mark Hotel, 64 South 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.--Convene the and Portugal. See Notice of Initiation of Water Street, Mobile, AL 36602; Shrimp Management Committee to hear Antidumping Duty Investigations: telephone: 251–438–4000. a staff presentation on a revised Draft Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary and Council address: Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Amendment 10/EA/RIR and Portugal, 66 FR 54214, 54218 (October Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. develop recommendations for final 26, 2001). The notice of initiation stated Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, action by the full Council on Thursday that we would make our preliminary FL 33619. morning. determinations for these antidumping FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.--(CLOSED duty investigations no later than 140 Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, SESSION) Briefing on litigation. days after the date of issuance of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management March 12 initiation (i.e., March 7, 2002). Council; telephone: (813) 228-2815. On February 14, 2002, the Nation 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon--Convene the Reef SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ford Chemical Company (‘‘the Fish Management Committee to review petitioner’’) made a timely request Council a draft Red Grouper Amendment pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 30– containing alternatives for rebuilding of day postponement of the preliminary March 13 the red grouper stock. The committee determinations, or until April 8, 2002. 8:30 a.m.--Convene. will also discuss TAC recommendations The petitioner requested postponement 8:45 a.m.-- 12 noon--Receive public for gag, and a greater amberjack of the preliminary determinations testimony on Draft Shrimp Amendment rebuilding program. The full Council because it believes that the Department 10/Environmental Assessment/ will consider these recommendations on will need additional time than allotted Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), the Thursday. under the current schedule to collect Red Grouper Amendment, total 1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m.--Continue the Reef from the respondents the information allowable catch (TAC) Fish Management Committee. necessary to make accurate preliminary recommendations for gag grouper, a Although non-emergency issues not determinations. Additionally, the greater amberjack rebuilding program, contained in the agenda may come petitioner made this request for both and a coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) before the Council for discussion, in Hungary and Portugal in order to keep status determination criteria. Although accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
VerDate 11
Fishery Conservation and Management modification request. Comments will Modification #3 would also allow the Act (MSFCMA), those issues may not be not be accepted if submitted via e-mail use of trawling for the purpose of the subject of formal Council action or the Internet. The application and capturing shortnose sturgeon less than 8 during this meeting. Council action will related documents are available for years old. be restricted to those issues specifically review in the indicated office, by Dated: February 19, 2002. identified in this notice and any issues appointment: Ann Terbush, arising after publication of this notice Permits, Conservation and Education Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education that require emergency action under Division, F/PR1, 1315 East West Division, Office of Protected Resources, section 305 (c) of the MSFCMA, Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 National Marine Fisheries Service. provided the public has been notified of (phone:301–713–2289, fax: 301–713– [FR Doc. 02–4448 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the Council’s intent to take final action 0376). BILLING CODE 3510–22–S to address the emergency. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the Committee schedule Lillian Becker, Silver Spring, MD and agenda can be obtained by calling (phone: 301–713–2319, fax: 301–713– DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (813) 228–2815. 0376, e-mail: [email protected]). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Special Accommodations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Administration These meetings are physically Authority accessible to people with disabilities. [I.D. 021402E] Requests for sign language Issuance of permits and permit interpretation or other auxiliary aids modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 Marine Mammals; File Application No. should be directed to Anne Alford at the 1004–1656 Council (see ADDRESSES) by March 4, U.S.C. 1531–1543) (ESA), is based on a 2002. finding that such permits/modifications: AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) Dated: February 20, 2002. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and would not operate to the disadvantage Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), William D. Chappell, of the listed species which are the Commerce. Acting Director, Office of Sustainable subject of the permits; and (3) are ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. consistent with the purposes and period. [FR Doc. 02–4450 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] policies set forth in section 2 of the BILLING CODE 3510–22–S ESA. Scientific research and/or SUMMARY: The National Marine enhancement permits are issued under Fisheries Service is reopening the section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the ESA. comment period for the application DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Authority to take listed species is submitted by Funtime, Inc. d/b/a Six subject to conditions set forth in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Flags Worlds of Adventure, 1060 North permits. Permits and modifications are Administration Aurora Road, Aurora, OH 44202, to issued in accordance with and are import two killer whales (Orcinus orca) [I.D. 021402A] subject to the ESA and NMFS for the purposes of public display. regulations governing listed fish and DATES: Written or telefaxed comments Endangered Species; Permits wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222–226). must be received on or before March 27, Those individuals requesting a AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 2002. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific ADDRESSES: The application and related Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), documents are available for review Commerce. reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see upon written request or by appointment ACTION: Receipt of request to modify ADDRESSES). The holding of such in the following office(s): research Permit 1189. hearing is at the discretion of the Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room following actions regarding permits for 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/ takes of endangered and threatened contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant 713–2289); species for the purposes of scientific Regional Administrator, Northeast research and/or enhancement under the and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS. Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Endangered Species Act (ESA): NMFS Glouster, MA, 01930–2298 (978/281– has received a request to modify Permit Species Covered in This Notice 9116). (1189) from Dr. James Kirk, of USAE Written comments or requests should Waterways Experiment Station. The following species are covered in this notice: be submitted to the Chief, Permits, DATES: Comments or requests for a Conservation and Education Division, public hearing on any of the new Fish F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, applications or modification requests Endangered Shortnose Sturgeon NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room must be received at the appropriate (Acipenser brevirostrum) 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. address or fax number no later than 5 Comments may also be submitted by p.m. eastern standard time on March 27, Modification Requests Received facsimile at (301) 713-0376, provided 2002. The applicant requests a modification the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy ADDRESSES: Written comments on the to Permit 1189. Permit 1189 authorizes submitted by mail and postmarked no modification request should be sent to the capture of up to 300 juvenile later than the closing date of the the appropriate office as indicated shortnose sturgeon by gill net and trot comment period. Please note that below. Comments may also be sent via line. Up to 20 of these may be surgically comments will not be accepted by e- fax to the number indicated for the implanted with radio/sonic tags. mail or other electronic media.
VerDate 11
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: clarity of the information to be survey will take about 20 minutes to Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan,(301/ collected; and (d) ways to minimize the complete, and we expect to have about 713–2289). burden of the information collection on 400 responses. Survey results will be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The respondents, including the use of compiled and evaluated at the subject permit is requested under the automated collection techniques or Community College of the Air Force authority of the Marine Mammal other forms of information technology. Administrative Center at Maxwell Air Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 DATES: Considerations will be given to Force Base, Alabama. While results will U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations all comments received by April 26, be used primarily in-house to make Governing the Taking and Importing of 2002. program improvements, findings may be Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216). publicized in the Air Force and civilian ADDRESSES: Written comments and A notice of receipt of this application education communities. recommendations on the proposed was published on November 30, 2001 information collection should be sent to Pamela D. Fitzgerald, (66 FR 59781). The comment period the Plans and Research Division, closed on December 31, 2001. Based on Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. substantive comments received during Community College of the Air Force, [FR Doc. 02–4361 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] CCAF/DFI, 130 W. Maxwell Blvd., the initial comment period, NMFS BILLING CODE 5001–05–P requested additional information from Maxwell AFB, AL 36112–6613. the applicant. On February 12, 2002, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To applicant submitted additional request more information on this DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE information in support of their proposed information collection or to Department of the Air Force application. This action, reopening of obtain a copy of the proposed and associated collection instruments, the comment period, will allow all Community College of the Air Force interested parties to review the new please write to the above address, or call information and provide NMFS with the Community College of the Air Force AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, any additional comments regarding this Institutional Effectiveness Division at DoD. application. In reopening this comment (334) 953–2703. ACTION: Notice of meeting. period NMFS finds that a public hearing Title, Associated Form, and OMB is not warranted because NMFS has Number: Community College of the Air SUMMARY: The Community College of determined that the issues raised by the Force Alumni Survey, OMB Number the Air Force (CCAF) Board of Visitors comments can be clarified in writing. 0701–0136. will hold a meeting to review and However, NMFS is providing through Needs and Uses: The information discuss academic policies and issues this action an opportunity for additional collection requirement is necessary to relative to the operation of the college. written comments or requests. determine how effectively the Agenda items include a review of the institution is meeting its mission and operations of the CCAF and an update Dated: February 19, 2002. also identify areas needing on the activities of the CCAF Policy Ann D. Terbush, improvement. Survey results will Council. Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education provide data on the usefulness and Members of the public who wish to Division, Office of Protected Resources, acceptance of the Community College of make oral or written statements at the National Marine Fisheries Service. the Air Force degree in the civilian meeting should contact Second [FR Doc. 02–4449 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] sector. Documenting the institution’s Lieutenant Richard W. Randolph, BILLING CODE 3510–22–S effectiveness is also required to Designated Federal Officer for the maintain the Community College of the Board, at the address below no later Air Force’s regional accreditation. than 4 p.m. on March 19, 2002. Please DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Affected Public: Separated and retired mail or electronically mail all requests. Community College of the Air Force Department of the Air Force Telephone requests will not be honored. graduates. The request should identify the name of Annual Burden Hours: 133. Proposed Collection; Comment the individual who will make the Number of Respondents: 400. Request presentation and an outline of the issues Responses per Respondent: 1. to be addressed. At least 35 copies of the AGENCY: Headquarters Air Force Average Burden Per Response: 20 presentation materials must be given to Personnel Center. minutes. Second Lieutenant Richard Randolph Frequency: Biennial. ACTION: Notice. no later than three days prior to the time SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of the board meeting for distribution. In compliance with section Visual aids must be submitted to 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Summary of Information Collection Second Lieutenant Richard Randolph Reduction Act of 1995, the Community Respondents will be separated and on a 3 1⁄2″ computer disc in Microsoft College of the Air force announces the retired Community College of the Air PowerPoint format no later than 4 p.m. proposed reinstatement of a public Force graduates. Approximately 2,000 on March 19, 2002 to allow sufficient information collection and seeks public Community College of the Air Force time for virus scanning and formatting comment on the provisions thereof. graduates will be surveyed biennially to of the slides. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether determine the effectiveness of the the proposed collection of information institution and the usefulness of the DATES: April 9, 2002. is necessary for the proper performance Community College of the Air Force ADDRESSES: Commanders Conference of the functions of the agency, including degree in the civilian sector. A Center [Building 905], First Floor whether the information shall have notification letter will be mailed Conference Room, Randolph Air Force practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the directly to respondents’ home addresses Base, San Antonio, Texas 78150–4324. agency’s estimate of the burden of the inviting them to complete the Alumni FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposed information collection; (c) Survey on the Community College of the Second Lieutenant Richard Randolph, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Air Force’s Internet homepage. The (334) 953–7322, Community College of
VerDate 11
the Air Force, 130 West Maxwell (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507(j)), since public respondents, including through the use Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, harm is reasonably likely to result if of information technology. Alabama, 36112–6613, or through normal clearance procedures are Dated: February 19, 2002. followed. Approval by the Office of electronic mail at John D. Tressler, [email protected]. Management and Budget (OMB) has been requested by March 18, 2002. A Leader, Regulatory Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer. Pamela D. Fitzgerald, regular clearance process is also Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. beginning. Interested persons are Office of Elementary and Secondary [FR Doc. 02–4362 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] invited to submit comments on or before Education BILLING CODE 5001–05–U April 26, 2002. Type of Review: New. ADDRESSES: Written comments Title: Application for State Grants for regarding the emergency review should DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Reading First. be addressed to the Office of Abstract: This application will be Corps of Engineer, Department of the Information and Regulatory Affairs, used to award grants to State Army Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer: educational agencies to improve K–3 Department of Education, Office of reading instruction and student Intent To Prepare A Draft Tier II Management and Budget; 725 17th achievement through the application of Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) Street, NW., Room 10235, New scientifically based reading research, for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Executive Office Building, Washington, and the proven instructional and Project, Savannah, Georgia D.C. 20503 or should be electronically _ _ assessment tools consistent with this mailed to the internet address Karen F. research. AGENCY: US Army Corps of Engineers, [email protected]. DOD. Additional Information: The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Department of Education is requesting ACTION: Notice of Intent—Correction. 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of emergency processing for the Reading 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires SUMMARY OF THE ACTION: The U.S. Army First Application by March 18 due to an that the Director of OMB provide unanticipated event and possibly Corps of Engineers published a Notice interested Federal agencies and the Of Intent to Prepare a Draft Tier II causing public harm. The late passage public an early opportunity to comment and signing of this legislation leaves the Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) on information collection requests. The for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Department with no choice but to Office of Management and Budget request an emergency collection if it is Project, Savannah, Georgia in the (OMB) may amend or waive the Federal Register on January 22, 2002. A to meet the goal of awarding grant funds requirement for public consultation to to states with approved applications on portion of the address contained in the extent that public participation in contact information was incorrect. The July 1. If normal processing were to be the approval process would defeat the followed, States would not have correct information is as follows: purpose of the information collection, Questions or written comments about sufficient time to prepare high quality violate State or Federal law, or applications and make revisions as the proposed action and DEIS should be substantially interfere with any agency’s provided by March 7, 2002 to: Mr. necessary before July 1, 2002, and funds ability to perform its statutory would not be received in time. William Bailey at 912–652–5781, e-mail obligations. The Leader, Information address [email protected], or Frequency: Other: Grants awarded for Management Group, Office of the Chief a period of six years; SEAs not required at US Army Corps of Engineers, Information Officer, publishes this Savannah District, ATTN: PD–E, Post to reapply until that period ends. notice containing proposed information Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Office Box 889, Savannah, Georgia collection requests at the beginning of 31402. Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. the Departmental review of the Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Dated: February 19, 2002. information collection. Each proposed Burden: Responses: 57; Burden Hours: David V. Schmidt, information collection, grouped by 3,306. office, contains the following: (1) Type Chief, Planning Division. Requests for copies of the proposed of review requested, e.g., new, revision, [FR Doc. 02–4365 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] information collection request should be extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) BILLING CODE 3710–HP–M addressed to Vivian Reese, Department Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, Description of the need for, and SW., Room 4050, Regional Office proposed use of, the information; (5) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Building 3, Washington, DC 20202– Respondents and frequency of 4651, [email protected], or should be collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Notice of Proposed Information electronically mailed to the internet Recordkeeping burden. ED invites Collection Requests address [email protected], or should public comment. The Department of be faxed to 202–708–9346. AGENCY: Department of Education. Education is especially interested in Comments regarding burden and/or ACTION: public comment addressing the Notice of Proposed Information the collection activity requirements, following issues: (1) Is this collection Collection Requests. contact Kathy Axt at (540) 776–7742 or necessary to the proper functions of the via her internet address SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory Department; (2) will this information be [email protected]. Individuals who use Information Management, Office of the processed and used in a timely manner; a telecommunications device for the Chief Information Officer, invites (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; deaf (TDD) may call the Federal comments on the proposed information (4) how might the Department enhance Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– collection requests as required by the the quality, utility, and clarity of the 800–877–8339. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. information to be collected; and (5) how DATES: An emergency review has been might the Department minimize the [FR Doc. 02–4351 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] requested in accordance with the Act burden of this collection on BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 921–107, U.S. Department of Energy, mining/pdfs/vision.pdf. No fiscal year National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2002 (FY02) funds are available for this National Energy Technology Acquisition and Assistance Division solicitation; selection and negotiation of Laboratory; Notice of Availability of a (BL–10), P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA successful offers leading to award of Financial Assistance Solicitation 15236–0940, E-mail Address: cost-shared financial assistance [email protected] cooperative agreements is subject to AGENCY: National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Department of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DOE availability of funding in FY03 and Energy (DOE). Office of Industrial Technologies does beyond. An estimated $3.9 million in DOE funds is planned for this initiative ACTION: not fund product development R&D. Notice of availability of a as follows: approximately $1.3 million financial assistance solicitation. Applications submitted in response to this solicitation will only be funded if in FY03; $1.4 million in FY04; and $1.2 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the the proposed research and development million in FY05. Selection of successful intent to issue Financial Assistance addresses improving the energy offers are expected to be made on or Solicitation No. DE-PS26–02NT41450 efficiency of mineral processing before January 1, 2003, subject to entitled Mining Industry of the Future/ technologies. Applications for literature availability of funding, with completion mineral Processing Technologies. The reviews only will not be considered. of negotiations and issuance of awards U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Additionally, applications offering anticipated to occur within a reasonable timeframe thereafter. Multiple (three to of Industrial Technologies (OIT) in emissions or waste disposal, ten) awards are contemplated. collaboration with the National Mining remediation, or treatment as a primary Association (NMA) is seeking industry- A minimum fifty percent (50%) cost- focus are not eligible for funding under share is required, i.e., if the total led proposals for cost-shared research this solicitation. This limitation does and development of technologies which proposed project cost is estimated as $2 not include applications that target million, the government’s share would will reduce energy consumption, materials recycling or by-product enhance economic competitiveness and be no more than $1 million and the utilization as their primary focus. recipient’s share would be no less than reduce environmental impacts of the The U. S. Congress looks to the domestic mining industry. The research $1 million. Department of Energy (DOE) to work Any for-profit or non-profit is to address research priorities toward improving the energy efficiency identified by the Mining Industry of the organization, university or other of America’s most energy-intensive institution of higher education, or non- Future Mineral Processing Technology industries with special interest on Roadmap (the Roadmap can be accessed federal agency or entity is eligible to industrial processing. DOE, through its apply, unless otherwise restricted by the on the Internet at: http:// Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT), www.oit.doe.gov/mining/pdfs/ Simpson-Craig amendment. Applicants supports industries in their efforts to for financial assistance under this mptroadmap.pdf). In particular, the increase energy efficiency, reduce roadmap identifies three (3) areas of solicitation are subject to the eligibility waste, and increase productivity. The requirements of section 2306 of the mineral processing technology where goal of OIT is to accelerate the the most impact and the greatest Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), development and use of advanced, Foreign Company Participation. EPAct progress towards the mining vision energy efficient, renewable, and goals can be expected: (1) Mineral provides further guidelines for pollution prevention technologies that companies who apply for financial Preparation—typical processes include benefit industry, the environment, and communition, makedown, assistance herein where the company’s U.S. energy security. OIT’s core program participation is to be in the economic classification, and, to some extent, is the Industries of the Future (IOF) blasting and drilling; (2) Physical interest of the U.S. and the company Program that focuses on basic materials must either be U.S.-owned or Separations—typical processes include and processing industries such as the flotation, dewatering, thickening or incorporated in the U.S. with its parent Mining Industry. In June 1998, the company incorporated in a country that settling, filtering, drying, flocculation, National Mining Association (NMA) and screening, magnetic separation, provides similar protections and the Secretary of Energy signed a privileges under U.S. law. Applications classification and washing; and (3) Compact pledging to work together Chemical Separations—typical submitted by or on behalf of (1) Another through research and development Federal agency, a Federally-funded processes include pelletizing or partnerships. The objective of briquetting, smelting, refining, leaching, Research and Development Center Solicitation No. DE–PS26–02NT41450 is (FFRDC) or (3) a DOE Management and solvent extraction, bioleaching and another step in continuing to support electrowinning. Operating (M&O) contractor will not be this pledge by funding research and eligible for award under this DATES: The solicitation will be available development projects which address solicitation. However, these on the ‘‘Industry Interactive research needs described in the Mineral organizations may be proposed as team Procurement System’’ (IIPS) Web page Processing Technology Roadmap. The members subject to the guidelines at http://e-center.doe.gov on or about three key industry-identified areas, as provided in the solicitation. Applicants February 27, 2002. It is further presented in the Mineral Processing must include at least two (2) mining anticipated that applications will be due Technology Roadmap and which form companies as members of the multi- approximately ninety (90) days from the the bases for the areas of interest under disciplinary team. Multi-partner date the solicitation is released. this solicitation, are: Mineral collaborations are encouraged. Applicants can download the preparation, physical separations, and Once released, the solicitation will be solicitation from the IIPS Internet chemical separations. Additional available for downloading from the address above or obtain access through background information is provided in Industry Interactive Procurement DOE/NETL’s Web site at http:// the National Mining Association’s System (IIPS) Internet page (http://e- www.netl.doe.gov/business. Paper Report, ‘‘The Future Begins with center.doe.gov). You must register with copies are not available. Mining, A Vision of the Mining Industry IIPS, to enable you to submit an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the Future (Sept. 1998)’’, which can application. If you need technical Donna Jaskolka, Contract Specialist, MS be accessed at: http://www.oit.doe.gov/ assistance in registering, or for any other
VerDate 11
IIPS function, call the IIPS Help Desk at 912, ‘‘Weekly Underground Natural Gas (OMB) under section 3507(h)(1) of the (800) 683–0751 or E-mail the Help Desk Storage Report.’’ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. _ personnel at IIPS HelpDesk@e- DATES: Comments must be filed by April The natural gas surveys included in center.doe.gov (do not contact the 26, 2002. If you anticipate difficulty in the Natural Gas Data Collection Program Contract Specialist). The solicitation submitting comments within that Package collect information on natural will only be made available through period, contact the person listed below gas production, underground storage, IIPS, no hard (paper) copies of the as soon as possible. transmission, distribution, consumption solicitation and related documents will by sector, and wellhead and consumer ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sylvia prices. This information is used to be distributed. Norris, Natural Gas Division, Office of Prospective applicants who would support public policy analyses of the Oil and Gas, Energy Information like to be notified as soon as the natural gas industry and is posted to the Administration. To ensure receipt of the solicitation is available should subscribe EIA Web site (www.eia.doe.gov) in comments by the due date, submission to the Business Alert Mailing List at various EIA products, including the by fax (202–586–4420) or e-mail http://www.netl.doe.gov/business. Once Natural Gas Weekly Update, Natural ([email protected]) is you subscribe, you will receive an Gas Monthly, Natural Gas Annual, recommended. The mailing address is announcement by E-mail that the Monthly Energy Review, and Annual Sylvia Norris, Energy Information solicitation has been released to the Energy Review. Respondents to natural Administration, U.S. Department of public. Telephone requests, written gas surveys include State agencies, Energy, P.O. Box 8279, Silver Spring, requests, e-mail requests, or facsimile underground storage operators, MD 20907. Also, Ms. Norris may be requests for a copy of the solicitation transporters, marketers, and contacted by telephone at 202–586– package will not be accepted and/or distributors. The forms are discussed in 6106. honored. Applications must be prepared detail below. and submitted in accordance with the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EIA–176, ‘‘Annual Report of Natural instructions and forms referenced in the Requests for additional information or and Supplemental Gas Supply and solicitation. The actual solicitation copies of any forms and instructions Disposition’’ document will allow for requests for should be directed to Ms. Norris at the explanation and/or interpretation. address listed above. The Form EIA–176 provides EIA with the major elements of information Issued in Pittsburgh, PA, on February 14, Also, the draft forms and instructions 2002. are available on the EIA Web site at required in conjunction with data _ collected in other EIA surveys to Dale A. Siciliano, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil gas/fwd/ proposed.html. develop annual gas supply and Deputy Director, Acquisition and Assistance disposition balances and relevant cost, Division. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: price, and related information at the I. Background [FR Doc. 02–4393 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] State level. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P II. Current Actions The information collected on the III. Request for Comments Form EIA–176 is needed and used for I. Background the following purposes: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (1) To develop and make available to The Federal Energy Administration Congress, the States, and the public an Energy Information Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275, 15 U.S.C. accurate quantified overview of the 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Agency informaiton collection supply of natural and supplemental gas Act (Pub. L. 95–91, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et available to each of the States from all activities: proposed collection; seq.) require the EIA to carry out a comment request sources both internal and external to the centralized, comprehensive, and unified State, and the manner in which such AGENCY: Energy Information energy information program. This supply was utilized or otherwise Administration (EIA), Department of program collects, evaluates, assembles, disposed of, Energy (DOE). analyzes, and disseminates information (2) To determine the quantity of ACTION: Agency information collection on energy resource reserves, production, natural and supplemental gas consumed activities: proposed collection; comment demand, technology, and related within each of the States by market request. economic and statistical information. sector, the average sales prices for such This information is used to assess the gas, and the changes in consumption SUMMARY: The EIA is soliciting adequacy of energy resources to meet and price patterns over time, and comments on the proposed revision and near and longer-term domestic (3) For dissemination in various EIA three-year extension under section demands. data products including the Natural Gas 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction The EIA, as part of its effort to comply Annual (NGA), Natural Gas Monthly Act of 1995 of the surveys in the Natural with the Paperwork Reduction Act of (NGM), Annual Energy Review (AER), Gas Data Collection Program Package. 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), Short- The surveys covered by this request for 35), provides the general public and Term Energy Outlook (STEO), Winter comment include Form EIA–176, other Federal agencies with Fuels Report, and Monthly Energy ‘‘Annual Report of Natural and opportunities to comment on collections Review (MER), which are widely used Supplemental Gas Supply and of energy information conducted by or by both public and private organizations Disposition;’’ EIA–191, ‘‘Monthly in conjunction with the EIA. Any and individuals. Underground Gas Storage Report,’’ EIA– comments received help the EIA to 857, ‘‘Monthly Report of Natural Gas prepare data requests that maximize the EIA–191, ‘‘Monthly Underground Gas Purchases and Deliveries to utility of the information collected, and Storage Report’’ Consumers;’’ EIA-895, ‘‘Monthly to assess the impact of collection Form EIA–191 requests monthly data Quantity and Value of Natural Gas requirements on the public. Also, the on the location, capacity, and operations Production Report;’’ EIA–910, ‘‘Monthly EIA will later seek approval by the of all active underground natural gas Natural Gas Marketer Survey;’’ and EIA– Office of Management and Budget storage fields. Storage data are a critical
VerDate 11
link in understanding the deliverability are published in the NGM, NGA, MER, Form EIA–176, ‘‘Annual Report of of the natural gas system of the United Winter Fuels Report, and AER. Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply States and overall system operations. and Disposition’’ EIA–910, ‘‘Monthly Natural Gas The information collected on Form Marketer Survey’’ EIA is proposing significant revisions EIA–191 will be used in the following to the Form EIA–176. Those revisions Form EIA–910 collects monthly ways: included elimination of the ‘‘Company information for developing accurate (1) To provide State-level data on Activities’’ and ‘‘Continuations’’ estimates of State-level prices paid by underground natural gas storage with sections of the Form. Numerous line residential and commercial consumers respect to injections, withdrawals, items have been eliminated or combined of natural gas. Data from the EIA–910 inventories, type of storage facility, to simplify reporting requirements and are combined with data from other EIA location, and capacity. These data will reduce respondent burden. One new natural gas surveys to produce more be made available to EIA’s NGM, NGA, reporting item has been added. The line complete and accurate price estimates MER, and AER. Monthly data collection item will collect volume of liquefied than are currently available from data also provides reliable baseline data on natural gas (LNG) in inventory as of based on the EIA–857. The data are storage operations necessary for December 31 of the report year. The incorporated into EIA’s monthly analyses, modeling, and comparison Form has also been extensively publications, used by modelers and with normal industry operations in reformatted and the instructions have analysts, and used to answer questions cases of severe weather, natural disaster, been simplified and reviewed for from policymakers, Congress, and the or other extreme circumstances, increased clarity. general public. (2) To provide data on underground Form EIA–191, ‘‘Monthly Underground natural gas storage inventories for EIA’s EIA–912, ‘‘Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report’’ AEO and STEO, and Gas Storage Report’’ The Form EIA–191 has been (3) To provide data on all aspects of EIA has developed a survey reformatted and several data elements underground natural gas storage to instrument and report format to provide have been eliminated in order to reduce enable EIA and other elements of DOE a weekly data series on underground respondent burden. The instructions to identify and assess the supplies of gas storage of natural gas similar to that have been reviewed and edited to in storage by geographic location. currently published by the American provide greater clarity and simplicity. EIA–857, ‘‘Monthly Report of Natural Gas Association. AGA has announced Gas Purchases and Deliveries to that it will discontinue its data Form EIA–857, ‘‘Monthly Report of Consumers’’ collection by May 1, 2002. The EIA–912 Natural Gas Purchases and Deliveries to data collection responds to requests to Consumers’’ Monthly State-level data collected on provide weekly measures of natural gas No significant changes are proposed the Form EIA–857 consist of average underground storage operations. EIA price of natural gas purchased by local for the Form EIA–857, although EIA did has received emergency clearance for add items on total gas deliveries for distribution companies at their city the operation of the new series and will gates, consumption of natural gas by reporting in 2002, and is interested in release data from the survey on May 9, receiving comments about that revision. sector, and average sales price by sector. 2002. However, EIA must obtain a These data are necessary to provide The instructions have been redrafted to standard (3-year) clearance for the provide simplicity and clarity. timely information needed to measure survey and will include a request for a the combined impact of government, standard (non-emergency) clearance in Form EIA–895, ‘‘Monthly Quantity and industry, and consumer actions; its Natural Gas Data Collection Program Value of Natural Gas Production geographic location; climatic Package to be sent to OMB for approval Report’’ conditions; and other factors on the in September 2002. EIA is adding the word ‘‘Production’’ natural gas industry and natural gas EIA will use the data to prepare to the survey title for clarity. The consumers. analytical products assessing storage proposed Form EIA–895 will include an The data collected on the Form EIA– operations in the three AGA regions and additional category for reporting 857 are used to develop information for their impact on supplies available for monthly production of natural gas from publication in EIA’s STEO, NGM, the winter heating season and in more coalbed wells. Winter Fuels Report, and MER, and to detailed analyses correlating demand, make the data available to Congress, heating-degree-days, and prior Form EIA–910, ‘‘Monthly Natural Gas State governments, industry, and the inventory levels. Such correlations will Marketer Survey’’ public. help EIA to understand the impact of EIA is requesting extended clearance EIA–895, ‘‘Monthly Quantity and Value storage operations on natural gas supply of the currently approved EIA–910 in of Natural Gas Production Report’’ and demand. order to align the expiration dates for all forms in the Natural Gas Data Collection II. Current Actions Form EIA–895 collects monthly Program Package. No changes are information from the appropriate State EIA will be requesting a three-year proposed for either the survey form or agencies concerning natural gas extension of the collection authority for instructions. EIA is requesting production. It provides details on gross each of the above-referenced surveys. In comments on whether the sample withdrawals from gas and oil wells and addition, EIA proposes the changes population (currently five States) from coalbed methane wells, volumes outlined below that affect the EIA–176, covered by the EIA–910 should be vented and flared, volumes of EIA–191, EIA–857, and EIA–895. The expanded. nonhydrocarbon gases removed, gas request for extension of collection used as fuel on leases, and the amount authority will include two surveys, Form EIA–912, ‘‘Weekly Underground of natural gas available for market. Forms EIA–910 and EIA–912 cited Natural Gas Storage Report’’ These data are routinely collected by the above, which received approvals for The EIA–912 was recently approved States for taxation, conservation, or implementation in separate clearance to operate for six months under an statistical purposes. The aggregate data requests to OMB. emergency clearance under section
VerDate 11
3507(j)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction (2) Form EIA–191, ‘‘Monthly DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Act of 1995. EIA will request further Underground Gas Storage Report’’; 3.6 clearance to conduct the survey until hours per response. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the end of 2002. In this collection (3) Form EIA–857, ‘‘Monthly Report request, EIA will ask for approval to of Natural Gas Purchases and Deliveries [Docket No. EG02–86–000, et al.] conduct the survey for three years to Consumers’’; 3.5 hours per response. beginning January 2003. The emergency LG&E Trust No. 2001–A, et al.; Electric (4) Form EIA–895, ‘‘Monthly Quantity clearances and continued approval are Rate and Corporate Regulation Filings intended to continue the weekly data and Value of Natural Gas Production series (produced by the American Gas Report’’; .5 hour per response. February 14, 2002. Association until May 2002) without (5) Form EIA–910, ‘‘Monthly Natural Take notice that the following filings interruption. Including the EIA–912 in Gas Marketer Survey’’; 2 hours per have been made with the Commission. the Fall 2002 clearance proposal will response. Any comments should be submitted in keep all Forms in the Natural Gas Data accordance with Standard Paragraph E Collection Program Package on the same (6) Form EIA–912, ‘‘Weekly at the end of this notice. schedule. EIA is also requesting Underground Natural Gas Storage 1. LG&E Trust No. 2001–A comments on the timing of Report’’; .5 hour per response. dissemination of the information D. The agency estimates that the only [Docket No. EG02–86–000] collected on Form EIA–912. Copies of cost to a respondent is for the time it Take notice that on February 5, 2002, the draft forms and instructions are will take to complete the collection. LG&E Trust No. 2001–A (Applicant) available on the EIA Web site http:// Will a respondent incur any start-up filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory www.eia.doe.gov/oillgas/fwd/ costs for reporting, or any recurring Commission (Commission) an proposed.html. annual costs for operation, maintenance, application for determination of exempt III. Request for Comments and purchase of services associated with wholesale generator status pursuant to the information collection? Part 365 of the Commission’s Prospective respondents and other regulations. E. What additional actions could be interested parties should comment on Pursuant to a synthetic lease taken to minimize the burden of this the actions discussed in item II. The arrangement, Applicant states that it following guidelines are provided to collection of information? Such actions holds legal title to two 152 MW assist in the preparation of comments. may involve the use of automated, (summer rating) combustion turbine Please indicate to which form(s) your electronic, mechanical, or other electric generating units in Trimble comments apply. technological collection techniques or County, Kentucky. LG&E Capital other forms of information technology. General Issues Trimble County LLC is the beneficial F. Does any other Federal, State, or owner of (and will operate) the units A. Is the proposed collection of upon their completion, which is information necessary for the proper local agency collect similar information? If so, specify the agency, the data expected in March 2002. All capacity performance of the functions of the and energy from the plant will be sold agency and does the information have element(s), and the methods of collection. exclusively at wholesale. practical utility? Practical utility is Comment Date: March 7, 2002. defined as the actual usefulness of As a Potential User of the Information information to or for an agency, taking to be Collected 2. Covanta Energy India (Samalpatti) into account its accuracy, adequacy, Limited reliability, timeliness, and the agency’s A. Is the information useful at the [Docket No. EG02–87–000] ability to process the information it levels of detail to be collected? Take notice that on February 5, 2002, collects. B. For what purpose(s) would the B. What enhancements can be made Covanta Energy India (Samalpatti) information be used? Be specific. to the quality, utility, and clarity of the Limited (Covanta Samalpatti) filed with information to be collected? C. Are there alternate sources for the the Federal Energy Regulatory information and are they useful? If so, Commission (Commission), an As a Potential Respondent to the what are their weaknesses and/or application for determination of exempt Request for Information strengths? wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission’s A. Are the instructions and Comments submitted in response to definitions clear and sufficient? If not, regulations. this notice will be summarized and/or which instructions need clarification? Covanta Samalpatti states that it B. Can the information be submitted included in the request for OMB indirectly owns an interest in a 106 MW by the due date? approval of the form. They also will heavy oil driven facility (Facility) in the C. Public reporting burden for the become a matter of public record. State of Tamil Nadu, India. The energy surveys included in the Natural Gas Authority: Sec. 3507(h)(1) of the produced by the Facility is sold at Data Collection Program Package is Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. wholesale under a long-term power shown below as an average hour(s) per 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). purchase agreement to the Tamil Nadu response. The estimated burden Electricity Board, a state-owned entity, Issued in Washington, DC, February 19, whose performance under that includes the total time necessary to 2002. provide the requested information. In agreement is guaranteed by the your opinion, how accurate is this Jay Casselberry, Government of the State of Tamil Nadu estimate for the proposed forms? Agency Clearance Officer, Statistics and (a political subdivision of the country of (1) Form EIA–176, ‘‘Annual Report of Methods Group, Energy Information India). Covanta Samalpatti does not Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply Administration. anticipate that retail sales will be made and Disposition’’; 12 hours per [FR Doc. 02–4392 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] from the Facility. response. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Comment Date: March 7, 2002.
VerDate 11
3. Covanta Energy India (Madurai) own, and operate a natural gas fired 6. Bluegrass Generation Company, Limited combined-cycle fuel conversion facility L.L.C., Cabrillo Power I LLC, Cabrillo [Docket No. EG02–88–000] (the Facility) to be constructed and Power II LLC, Calcasieu Power, LLC, Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C., Dynegy Take notice that on February 5, 2002, located near Palmyra, Virginia, in Midwest Generation, Inc., Dynegy Covanta Energy India (Madurai) Limited Fluvanna County. The Facility will consist of three ‘‘F’’ Class combustion Power Marketing, Inc., Dynegy Power (Covanta Madurai) filed with the Services, Inc., Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission turbine-generators and one steam turbine-generator, and will use natural El Segundo Power, L.L.C., Foothills (Commission) an application for Generating, L.L.C., Heard County determination of exempt wholesale gas as the primary fuel and may use fuel oil as backup fuel for the combustion Power, L.L.C., Illinova Energy Partners, generator status pursuant to Part 365 of Inc., Long Beach Generation LLC, Nicor turbines. The Facility will also include the Commission’s regulations. Energy, L.L.C., Renaissance Power, Covanta Madurai states that it natural gas receipt facilities and a L.L.C., Riverside Generating Company, indirectly owns an interest in a 105 MW switchyard, and may include fuel oil L.L.C., Rockingham Power, L.L.C., heavy oil driven facility (Facility) storage facilities and fuel oil unloading Rocky Road Power, L.L.C., Rolling Hills located in the State of Tamil Nadu, facilities. The nominal net electric Generating, L.L.C. India. The energy produced by the output of the facility will be 885 MW Facility is sold at wholesale under a when operating at summer conditions. [Docket Nos. ER02–506–002, ER99–1115– 005, ER99–1116–005, ER00–1049–003, long-term power purchase agreement to The Facility will include related the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, a ER01–140–002, ER00–1895–002, ER99– transmission interconnection 4160–003, ER94–1612–026, ER01–141–002, state-owned entity, whose performance components necessary to interconnect ER98–1127–005, ER02–554–001, ER01–943– under that agreement is guaranteed by the Facility with Virginia Electric and 002, ER94–1475–021, ER98–1796–004, the Government of the State of Tamil Power Company. The Facility will be ER01–1169–002, ER01–3109–002, ER01– Nadu (a political subdivision of the used exclusively for the generation of 1044–002, ER99–1567–002, ER99–2157–002, country of India). Covanta Madurai does ER02–553–001] electric energy to be delivered to an not anticipate that retail sales will be Take notice that on February 8, 2002, unaffiliated third-party customer. made from the Facility. the subsidiaries of Dynegy Inc. that have Comment Date: March 7, 2002. Comment Date: March 7, 2002. been granted blanket market-based rate 4. West Generating Company, LLC 5. New York Independent System authority to sell energy and capacity Operator, Inc. pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal [Docket No. EG02–89–000] Power Act submitted an updated market Take notice that on February 8, 2002, [Docket No. ER01–2536–003] power study. West Generating Company, LLC, 410 Comment Date: March 1, 2002. South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, NC Take notice that on February 11, 2002, 7. Virginia Electric and Power 27602, filed with the Federal Energy New York Independent System Company Regulatory Commission an application Operator, Inc. (NYISO) submitted rates for determination of exempt wholesale for mitigated in-city generators for the [Docket No. ER02–511–001] generator status pursuant to part 365 of 24-month period of September 1999 to Take notice that on February 11, 2002, the Commission’s regulations. The August 2001 and for the 36-month Virginia Electric and Power Company, applicant is a limited liability company period of September 1998 to August doing business as Dominion Virginia that will engage directly or indirectly 2001. Our January 18, 2002 letter Power, tendered for filing with the and exclusively in the business of explained that the rates provided Federal Energy Regulatory Commission owning and/or operating eligible reflected the fact that the NYISO did not (Commission) an executed Generator facilities in the United States and selling have data available for all mitigated in- Interconnection and Operating electric energy at wholesale. The city generators for the period September Agreement (Interconnection Agreement) applicant proposes to own and operate 1999 to December 1999. with Southeastern Public Service a gas-fired combustion turbine to be Comment Date: March 4, 2002. Authority of Virginia (SPSA) that located in the Southeastern United complies with the Commission’s States. The applicant seeks a January 30, 2002 Order in this docket. determination of its exempt wholesale Dominion Virginia Power respectfully generator status. All electric energy sold requests that the Commission accept by the applicant will be sold exclusively this filing to make the Interconnection at wholesale. Agreement effective as of December 11, Comment Date: March 7, 2002. 2001, the same date the Commission originally made the Interconnection 4a. Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P. Agreement effective in its January 30 [Docket No. EG02–90–000] Order. Copies of the filing were served Take notice that on February 12, 2002, upon SPSA and the Virginia State Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P., 1044 Corporation Commission. North 115th Street, Suite 400, Omaha, Comment Date: March 4, 2002. Nebraska 68154 (Tenaska Virginia), filed 8. Entergy Services, Inc. with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an [Docket No. ER02–324–002] application for determination of exempt Take notice that on February 11, 2002, wholesale generator status pursuant to Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of part 365 of the Commission’s Entergy Gulf States, Inc., tendered for regulations. filing with the Federal Energy Tenaska Virginia, a Delaware limited Regulatory Commission (Commission), a partnership, states that it will construct, compliance Interconnection and
VerDate 11
Operating Agreement with Amelia filing its triennial market analysis Commission’s regulations. Energy Center, LP, in response to the update in compliance with the MidAmerican requests that the Commission’s January 11, 2002, order in Commission order issued in this docket following rate schedule be cancelled Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 98 FERC ¶ on February 11, 1999. effective as of January 31, 2002. 61,014 (2002). Comment Date: March 4, 2002. MidAmerican a copy of this filing has Comment Date: March 4, 2002. been sent to the City of Livermore, the Standard Paragraph Iowa Utilities Board, the Illinois 9. The Montana Power Company E. Any person desiring to be heard or Commerce Commission and the South [Docket No. ER02–321–000] to protest such filing should file a Dakota Public Utilities Commission. Take notice that on February 11, 2002, motion to intervene or protest with the Comment Date: March 4, 2002. The Montana Power Company Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2. Mint Farm Generation, LLC (Montana) tendered for filing with the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 [Docket No. EG02–91–000] in compliance with the letter order and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Take notice that on February 12, 2002, dated January 11, 2002 in Docket No. Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Mint Farm Generation, LLC (Mint Farm ER02–321–000, Montana Power and 385.214). All such motions or Generation) filed with the Federal Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 175 protests should be filed on or before the Energy Regulatory Commission an paginated and designated as required by comment date. Protests will be application for determination of exempt Order No. 614. considered by the Commission in wholesale generator status pursuant to A copy of the filing was served upon determining the appropriate action to be part 365 of the Commission’s Bonneville Power Administration. taken, but will not serve to make regulations. Comment Date: March 4, 2002. protestants parties to the proceeding. Mint Farm Generation proposes to own a 298 MW generating facility 10. Reliant Energy Desert Basin, LLC Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies located in the city of Longview, [Docket No. ER02–310–001] of this filing are on file with the Washington (Facility). The proposed Take notice that on February 11, 2002, Commission and are available for public Facility is expected to commence pursuant to the letter order issued in the inspection. This filing may also be commercial operation in June, 2003. All captioned docket on January 11, 2002, viewed on the web at http:// output from the Facility will be sold by Reliant Energy Desert Basin, LLC (RE www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link, Mint Farm exclusively at wholesale. Desert Basin) submitted to the Federal select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the Comment Date: March 8, 2002. Energy Regulatory Commission a instructions (call 202–208–2222 for 3. PacifiCorp Power Marketing, Inc., revised filing of an umbrella service assistance). Comments, protests and PacifiCorp agreement under RE Desert Basin’s interventions may be filed electronically FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 [Docket Nos. ER95–1096–022, ER97–2801– 003] No. 1, with the service agreement CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the properly designated as required by instructions on the Commission’s web Take notice that on February 12, 2002, Order No. 614. site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. PacifiCorp Power Marketing, Inc. and Comment Date: March 4, 2002. PacifiCorp tendered for filing an Magalie R. Salas, updated generation market power study 11. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Secretary. in support of sales of electric energy at [Docket No. ER01–1115–002] [FR Doc. 02–4347 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] market based prices. Take notice that on February 8, 2002, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Copies of this filing were supplied to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) the Washington Utilities and submitted a withdrawal of its Notice of Transportation Commission and the Cancellation and Amended Notice of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Public Utility Commission of Oregon. Cancellation filed in this docket on Comment Date: March 5, 2002. Federal Energy Regulatory January 30, 2001 and March 5, 2001, 4. Midwest Independent Transmission Commission respectively, to cancel the System Operator, Inc. Interconnection Agreement between the [Docket No. ER02–998–000, et al.] PJM Group and the NYPP Group, [Docket No. ER02–107–001] designated as PJM Group Rate Schedule MidAmerican Energy Company, et al.; Take notice that on February 12, 2002, FERC No. 5 and NYPP Group Rate Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation the Midwest Independent Transmission Schedule FERC No. 3 (Interconnection Filings System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) Agreement). PJM is not withdrawing the tendered for filing, in compliance with Unscheduled Transmission Services February 15, 2002. the Order of the Federal Energy Agreement between PJM and the New Take notice that the following filings Regulatory Commission (Commission) York Independent System Operator, Inc. have been made with the Commission. in Midwest Independent Transmission filed in this docket and reiterates its Any comments should be submitted in System Operator Inc., 97 FERC ¶ 61,270 request for a January 1, 2001 effective accordance with Standard Paragraph E (2001) and pursuant to Section 205 of date. at the end of this notice. the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 USC Copies of the filing have been served 1. MidAmerican Energy Company 824d (2000) and Section 385.205 of the on all parties on the official service list Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR in Docket Number ER01–1115–000. [Docket No. ER02–998–000] 385.205 (2001), proposed revisions to Comment Date: March 1, 2002. Take notice that on February 11, 2002, the Midwest ISO Agreement of the MidAmerican Energy Company Transmission Facilities Owners To 12. RockGen Energy, LLC (MidAmerican) filed with the Federal Organize The Midwest Independent [Docket No. ER99–970–002] Energy Regulatory Commission Transmission System Operator, Inc. Take notice that on February 11, 2002, (Commission) a Notice of Cancellation (Midwest ISO Agreement), First Revised RockGen Energy, LLC submitted for pursuant to Section 35.15 of the Rate Schedule FERC No. 1.
VerDate 11
Pursuant to the Commission’s L.P. resulting from a transaction has been served on the Florida Public regulations, 18 CFR 385.2010 (2001), the involving Duke Energy Corporation and Service Commission. Midwest ISO has served this filing on Westcoast Energy Inc. Comment Date: March 4, 2002. all parties on the official service list in Copies of the filing were served upon 11. Michigan Electric Transmission this proceeding. In addition, the all parties on the official service lists Company LLC Midwest ISO has electronically served a compiled by the Secretary of the Federal copy of this filing, with attachments, Energy Regulatory Commission in these [Docket No. ES02–24–000] upon all Midwest ISO Members, proceedings. Take notice that on February 13, 2002, Member representatives of Transmission Comment Date: March 5, 2002. Trans-Elect, Inc., on behalf of Michigan Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, 8. Southern California Edison Company Electric Transmission Company LLC the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee (Michigan Electric) submitted an participants, Policy Subcommittee [Docket No. ER02–925–001] application seeking authorization for participants, as well as all state Take notice that on February 13, 2002, Michigan Electric to issue and sell no commissions within the region. In Southern California Edison Company more than $235 million of secured addition, the filing has been (SCE) tendered for filing several securities in the form of notes and loan electronically posted on the Midwest corrections to the revisions to its obligations under a credit agreement ISO’s website at www.midwestiso.org Transmission Owner Tariff (TO Tariff), with banks and other lenders as more under the heading ‘‘Filings to FERC’’ for FERC Electric Tariff, Substitute First fully described in the application. other interested parties in this matter. Revised Original Volume No. 6, SCE Comment Date: March 1, 2002. The Midwest ISO will provide hard requested in a filing on January 31, 2002 Standard Paragraph copies to any interested parties upon in Docket No. ER02–925–000. The request. revisions result in a proposed increase E. Any person desiring to be heard or Comment Date: March 5, 2002. in revenues from TO Tariff transmission to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the 5. GNE, LLC customers by $63.6 million based on the 12-month period ending December 31, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, [Docket No. ER02–159–003] 2002. 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Take notice that on February 12, 2002, Copies of this filing were served upon 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 GNE, LLC (GNE) tendered for filing with the Public Utilities Commission of the and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of the Federal Energy Regulatory State of California, the California Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Commission (Commission) a revised Independent System Operator and 385.214). All such motions or tariff sheets with respect to the Corporation (ISO), the California protests should be filed on or before the Commission’s Order issued December Electricity Oversight Board, and all ISO- comment date. Protests will be 19, 2001 herein granting its application certified Scheduling Coordinators. considered by the Commission in for authorization to sell and to broker Comment Date: March 5, 2002. determining the appropriate action to be electric power at market based rates, taken, but will not serve to make 9. Unitil Power Corp. and the Commission’s Order issued protestants parties to the proceeding. January 30, 2002, herein directing GNE [Docket No. ER02–999–000] Any person wishing to become a party to resubmit revised tariff sheets. Take notice that on February 11, 2002, must file a motion to intervene. Copies Comment Date: March 5, 2002. Unitil Power Corp. (Unitil Power) of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 6. Armstrong Energy Limited tendered for filing with the Federal inspection. This filing may also be Partnership, LLLP, Troy Energy, LLC Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a market-based rate tariff, viewed on the web at http:// [Docket Nos. ER02–300–003, ER02–301–003] including a form of umbrella service www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link, Take notice that on February 12, 2002, agreement. The proposed market-based select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the Armstrong Energy Limited Partnership, rate tariff does not replace Unitil instructions (call 202–208–2222 for LLLP (Armstrong) and Troy Energy, LLC Power’s existing market-based rate tariff, assistance). Comments, protests and (Troy), have modified their January 18, FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 3, and interventions may be filed electronically 2002 deficiency correction by modifying service provided thereunder will not be via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 the price cap and treating the rate affected. Unitil Power requests waiver of CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the authorizations as independent rate the Commission’s notice of filing instructions on the Commission’s web schedules. requirements to allow the proposed site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Copies of the filing were served upon market-based rate tariff to become Magalie R. Salas, Ohio Public Utilities Commission, the effective on March 13, 2002. Secretary. Pennsylvania Public Service A copy of the filing was served upon Commission, the North Carolina the New Hampshire Public Utilities [FR Doc. 02–4348 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Utilities Commission, and the Virginia Commission. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P State Corporation Commission. Comment Date: March 4, 2002. Comment Date: March 5, 2002. 10. TECO-PANDA Generating 7. Duke Energy Enterprise, LLC Company, L.P. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [Docket No. ER02–565–001] [Docket No. ER02–1000–000] AGENCY Take notice that on February 12, 2002, Take notice that on February 11, 2002, Duke Energy Enterprise, LLC filed a TECO–PANDA Generating Company, [FRL–7149–1] notice of status change with the Federal L.P. tendered for filing an application Proposed Settlement, Clean Air Act Energy Regulatory Commission in for authorization to sell energy, capacity Citizen Suit connection with the pending change in and ancillary services at market-based upstream control of Engage Energy rates pursuant to section 205 of the AGENCY: Environmental Protection America LLC and Frederickson Power Federal Power Act. A copy of this filing Agency.
VerDate 11
ACTION: Notice of proposed consent taking final action pursuant to section describes both the allegations in the decree; request for public comment. 110(k) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). complaint previously issued and the From 1993 through 1998, CARB also terms of the consent order—embodied SUMMARY: In accordance with section submitted six rules adopted by the San in the consent agreement—that would 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended Joaquin Valley Unified Control District settle these allegations. (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is for the control of PM–10 and NOX in the DATES: hereby given of a proposed consent Comments must be received on SJV and EPA found them to be complete or before March 15, 2002. decree which was lodged with the pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B), 42 United States District Court for the U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B) as follows: Rules ADDRESSES: Comments filed in paper Northern District of California by the 4201 (1992), 4901 (1994), 4351 (1996), form should be directed to: FTC/Office United States Environmental Protection 4305 (1997), 4701 (1998) and 4703 of the Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 Agency (‘‘EPA’’) on January 15, 2002 to (1998). EPA has proposed action on Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., address a lawsuit filed by the Medical these rules pursuant to section 110(k) of Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed Alliance for Healthy Air, Sierra Club, the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). The in electronic form should be directed to: Latino Issues Forum and Center on proposed consent decree provides that [email protected], as Race, Poverty and the Environment, a the Administrator or her delegatee shall prescribed below. project of the California Rural Legal sign no later than January 15, 2002, a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistance Foundation. This lawsuit, notice or notices for publication in the David Pender, Bureau of Competition, which was filed pursuant to section Federal Register taking final action on 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 304(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7604(a), Rules 4901, 4351, 4305, 4701 and 4703 Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–2549. addresses EPA’s alleged failure to meet and shall sign such a notice taking final SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant mandatory deadlines under section action on Rule 4201 no later than April to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 110(k) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), to 7, 2002. The Administrator signed Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. take final actions to approve or notices by January 15, 2002, taking final 46(f), and §3.25(f) of the Commission’s disapprove the 1997 PM–10 Attainment action on Rules 4901, 4351, 4305, 4701 rules of practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), notice Demonstration Plan for the San Joaquin and 4703. is hereby given that the above-captioned Valley (‘‘SJV’’) in California and six For a period of thirty (30) days consent agreement containing a consent individual rules for the control of PM– following the date of publication of this order to cease and desist, having been 10 and nitrogen oxide (NOX) in the SJV. notice, EPA will receive written filed with and accepted, subject to final Medical Alliance for Healthy Air et al. comments relating to the proposed approval, by the Commission, has been v. EPA, Case No. C–01–4086 JCS (N.D. consent decree from persons who were placed on the public record for a period Cal.). not named as parties to the litigation in of thirty (30) days. The following DATES: Written comments on the question. EPA or the Department of Analysis to Aid Public Comment proposed consent decree must be Justice may withhold or withdraw describes the terms of the consent received by March 27, 2002. consent to the proposed consent decree agreement, and the allegations in the ADDRESSES: Written comments should if the comments disclose facts or complaint. An electronic copy of the be sent to Jan Taradash, Office of circumstances that indicate that such full text of the consent agreement Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental consent is inappropriate, improper, package can be obtained from the FTC Protection Agency Region 9, 75 inadequate, or inconsistent with the Home Page (for February 19, 2002), on Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http:// 94105. Copies of the proposed consent the Department of Justice determines, www.ftc.gov/os/2002/02/index.htm.’’ A decree are available from Jan Taber, following the comment period, that paper copy can be obtained from the (415) 972–3900. consent is inappropriate, the final FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean consent decree will then be executed by H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Air Act requires EPA to take action to the parties. Washington, DC 20580, either in person approve or disapprove a State Dated: February 15, 2002. or by calling (202) 326–2222. implementation plan revision within 12 Alan W. Eckert, Public comments are invited, and may months of a determination by the Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation be filed with the Commission in either Administrator that such revision is Law Office. paper or electronic form. Comments complete. See section 110(k)(1)–(4), 42 [FR Doc. 02–4404 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] filed in paper form should be directed U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)–(4). In 1997, the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room California Air Resources Board 159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (‘‘CARB’’) submitted to EPA the PM–10 Washington, DC 20580. If a comment Attainment Demonstration Plan (‘‘1997 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION contains nonpublic information, it must Plan’’) for the SJV as a proposed be filed in paper form, and the first page revision to the California State [Docket No. 9297] of the document must be clearly labeled Implementation Plan (‘‘SIP’’). This SIP ‘‘confidential.’’ Comments that do not revision was deemed complete by American Home Products Corp.; contain any nonpublic information may operation of law in 1998 pursuant to Analysis To Aid Public Comment instead be filed in electronic form (in section 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft 7410(k)(1)(B). The proposed consent ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. Word) as part of or as an attachment to decree provides that the Administrator e-mail messages directed to the or her delegatee shall sign no later than SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this following e-mail box: March 1, 2002, a notice for publication matter settles alleged violations of [email protected]. Such in the Federal Register proposing action federal law prohibiting unfair or comments will be considered by the on the 1997 Plan and shall sign no later deceptive acts or practices or unfair Commission and will be available for than August 16, 2002 a notice for methods of competition. The attached inspection and copying at its principal publication in the Federal Register Analysis to Aid Public Comment office in accordance with §4.9(b)(6)(ii)
VerDate 11
of the Commission’s rules of practice, 16 The Drug Price Competition and exclusivity right is relinquished, CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, forfeited or otherwise expired. commonly referred to as ‘‘the Hatch- Analysis To Aid Public Comment ESI was the second company to file an Waxman Act,’’ establishes certain rights ANDA for K-Dur 20. ESI also filed a The Federal Trade Commission has and procedures in situations where a paragraph IV certification with the FDA accepted for public comment an company, such as AHP or Upsher, seeks stating that its product did not infringe agreement and proposed consent order FDA approval to market a generic any valid patent held by Schering with American Home Products product prior to the expiration of a covering K-Dur 20. In 1996, Schering Corporation. The proposed consent patent or patents relating to a brand sued ESI for patent infringement. order would settle charges that AHP name drug upon which the generic is unlawfully agreed with Schering-Plough based. In such cases, the applicant must: The Challenged Agreements Corporation to delay selling its generic (1) Certify to the FDA that the patent in The complaint challenges unlawful version of Schering’s K-Dur 20, in question is invalid or is not infringed by agreements between Schering and exchange for payments from Schering. the generic product (known as a Upsher-Smith and among Schering, The proposed consent order has been ‘‘paragraph IV certification’’); and (2) AHP and ESI to delay the entry of low- placed on the public record for 30 days notify the patent holder of the filing of cost generic competition to Schering’s to receive comments by interested the certification. If the holder of patent highly profitable prescription drug K- persons. The proposed consent order rights files a patent infringement suit Dur 20. According to the complaint, has been entered into for settlement within 45 days of the notification, FDA when confronted with the prospect of purposes only and does not constitute approval to market the generic drug is competition to K-Dur 20 through generic an admission by AHP that it violated the automatically stayed for 30 months, entry by Upsher-Smith and ESI, law or that the facts alleged in the unless before that time the patent Schering entered into these agreements complaint, other than the jurisdictional expires or is judicially determined to be that kept Upsher, ESI and all other facts, are true. In July 2001, AHP invalid or not infringed. This automatic potential generic competitors out of the advised its customers that it intends to 30-month stay allows the patent holder market. The complaint alleges that the phase out its oral generic drug product time to seek judicial protection of its Upsher-Smith/Schering agreement line. patent rights before a generic competitor delayed the start of Upsher-Smith’s 180- is permitted to market its product. Background day Exclusivity Period until September In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Act 2001 and, as a result, the entry of Schering develops and markets brand provides an incentive for generic drug competition from other generic name and generic drugs, as well as over- companies to bear the cost of patent manufacturers until March 2002. litigation that may arise when they the-counter health care and animal care With respect to AHP and ESI, the challenge invalid patents or design products. Schering manufactures and complaint alleges that in January 1998, around valid ones. The Act, as currently markets an extended-release micro- Schering, AHP, and ESI reached an interpreted, grants the first company to encapsulated potassium chloride agreement to settle their patent file an ANDA in such cases a 180-day product, K-Dur 20. K-Dur 20, marketed litigation. Pursuant to that agreement: as a brand name drug, has sales over period during which it has the exclusive right to market a generic version of the Schering agreed to pay ESI up to $30 $200 million per year. K-Dur 20 is used million; AHP and ESI agreed to refrain to treat patients who suffer from brand name drug. No other generic manufacturer may obtain FDA approval from marketing the allegedly infringing insufficient levels of potassium, a generic version of K-Dur 20 or any other condition that can lead to serious to market its product until the first filer’s 180-day exclusivity period has generic version of K-Dur 20, regardless cardiac problems. of whether such product would infringe AHP develops and markets brand expired. Schering’s patents, until January 2004; name and generic drugs, as well as over- Upsher-Smith was the first company AHP and ESI agreed to refrain from the-counter medications. ESI Lederle, to file an ANDA for a generic version of marketing more than one generic Incorporated, a division of AHP, Schering’s K-Dur 20. Upsher-Smith filed version of K-Dur 20 between January received tentative approval from the a paragraph IV certification with the 2004 and September 2006, when the K- Food and Drug Administration in May FDA, stating that its product did not Dur 20 patent will expire; and AHP and 1999 for a generic version of Schering’s infringe any valid patent held by ESI agreed not to conduct, sponsor, file K-Dur 20. Schering covering K-Dur 20. In 1995, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. Schering sued Upsher-Smith for patent or support a study of the bio- develops and markets brand name and infringement. The complaint alleges that equivalence of any product to K-Dur 20 generic drugs. Upsher-Smith received at all times relevant herein, FDA final prior to September 2006. Schering final approval from the Food and Drug approval of an ANDA for a generic agreed to pay ESI $5 million up front; Administration in November 1998 for a version of K-Dur 20 for anyone other an additional $10 million if ESI could generic version of Schering’s K-Dur 20. than Upsher-Smith was blocked. demonstrate that its generic version of Generic drugs are chemically Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, K-Dur 20 was able to be approved by the identical to their branded counterparts, Upsher-Smith was eligible for the right FDA under an ANDA on or before June but typically are sold at substantial to a 180-day Exclusivity Period for the 30, 1999; and another $15 million for discounts from the branded price. A sale of a generic version of K-Dur 20. licenses to two generic products that ESI Congressional Budget Office Report The complaint further alleges that as a was developing. estimates that purchasers saved an result, no company could obtain final The complaint further alleges that the estimated $8–10 billion on prescriptions FDA approval of an ANDA to market or patent litigation between Schering and at retail pharmacies in 1994 by sell a generic version of K-Dur 20 until ESI was dismissed. Schering has paid purchasing generic drugs instead of the 180 days after Upsher-Smith first sold ESI over $20 million and continues to brand name product. 1 its product, or until Upsher-Smith’s make payments under the terms of their agreement. Schering has made no sales 1 Congressional Budget Office, How Increased Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry to date of the two products it licensed Competition from Generic Drugs Has Affected at xiii, 13 (July 1998). from ESI.
VerDate 11
Competitive Analysis customers that it intends to phase out its license to sell the ANDA product, there Generic drugs can have a swift oral generic pharmaceutical product is no payment to distort the generic’s marketplace impact, because line. It will continue to develop, incentive to seek the earliest possible pharmacists generally are permitted, manufacture, and market brand name entry date. In the case of the first ANDA and in some instances are required, to drugs and injectable generic drugs. filer, however, any agreement with an substitute lower-priced generic drugs for Notwithstanding AHP’s plans to phase NDA holder that involves a promise by their branded counterparts, unless the out its oral generic products—the line of the generic firm not to enter the market business that includes its generic risks blocking entry by other potential prescribing physician directs otherwise. version of K–Dur 20—an order is generic competitors, and therefore such In addition, there is a ready market for appropriate here to prevent a recurrent agreements are subject to the general generic products because certain third- violation. prohibition of Paragraph II of the party payers of prescription drugs (e.g., Paragraph II of the order covers proposed order. state Medicaid programs and many agreements to resolve patent As noted above, the proposed order private health plans) encourage or insist infringement disputes. It bars would create a limited exception to on the use of generic drugs wherever agreements wherein (1) The NDA holder Paragraph II’s ban on giving value for possible. makes payments or otherwise transfers delayed entry. This exception addresses The complaint charges that the something of value to the ANDA filer the possibility that there might be some challenged agreement among Schering, and (2) the ANDA filer agrees not to agreements that fall within the terms of AHP and ESI injured competition by market its product for some period of the prohibition in Paragraph II that the preventing or discouraging the entry of time, except under certain limited Commission would not wish to prohibit. generic K-Dur 20. The complaint also circumstances described below. The ban For example, as was previously alleges that by making cash payments to in Paragraph II includes not only discussed, the proposed order would ESI, Schering induced it to agree to settlements of ongoing patent ban not only agreements involving cash delay launching its generic version of K- infringement litigation, but also payments of the type that the Dur 20. According to the complaint, agreements resolving claims of patent Commission has challenged to date, but absent those payments, ESI would not infringement that have not resulted in a also the giving of other things of value. have agreed to delay its entry for so lawsuit (see Paragraph I.O.). In addition, It is possible, however, that the giving long. The complaint charges that by by virtue of the definition of of some non-cash items in a settlement making cash payments to ESI, Schering ‘‘Agreement’’ in Paragraph I.D., the that did not provide for immediate entry protected itself from competition from order makes it clear that the prohibition by the ANDA filer could promote ESI until 2004. The complaint also on payments for delayed generic entry competition. Thus, the order includes a alleges that without lower-priced would cover such arrangements even if mechanism that would permit generic competition from Upsher-Smith they are achieved through separate consideration of such arrangements. and ESI, consumers, pharmacies, agreements (for example, where one The exception that has been crafted in hospitals, insurers, wholesalers, agreement resolves the patent this matter could arise only in situations government agencies, managed care infringement dispute and another where Respondent AHP presents the organizations, and others are forced to provides for the payment for delayed agreement to a court in connection with purchase Schering’s more expensive K- entry). a joint stipulation for a permanent Dur 20 product. The order prohibits not merely cash injunction. In that circumstance, The Proposed Order payments to induce delayed entry, but, Paragraph II will not bar an otherwise more broadly, agreements in which the prohibited agreement, if the following The proposed order is designed to NDA holder provides something of conditions are met: remedy the unlawful conduct charged value to the potential generic entrant, • First, Respondent must follow against AHP in the complaint and and the ANDA filer agrees in some certain procedures designed to provide prevent recurrence of such conduct. As fashion not to sell its product. Although notice and information both to the described more fully below, the all of the pharmaceutical agreements Commission and the court: (1) Along proposed order would essentially that the Commission has challenged to with the joint stipulation for permanent prohibit two categories of conduct: date have involved cash payments, a injunction and the proposed agreement, • Agreements in which the NDA company could easily evade a Respondent must provide the court with holder makes payments to an ANDA prohibition on such agreements by a copy of the Commission’s complaint, filer and the ANDA filer agrees not to substituting other things of value for order, and the Analysis to Aid Public market its product for some period of cash payments. Thus, to protect against Comment in this matter; (2) at least 30 time (except in certain limited a recurrent violation, the order is not days before submitting the stipulation to circumstances) (Paragraph II deals with limited to cash payments. the court, Respondent must provide agreements that resolve a patent The proposed order distinguishes written notice (as set forth in Paragraph infringement dispute and Paragraph IV between the first ANDA filer (the party V of the order) to the Commission; and covers ‘‘interim’’ agreements that apply eligible for the 180-day market (3) Respondent may not oppose during the pendency of ongoing patent exclusivity period under the Hatch- Commission participation in the court’s litigation); and Waxman Act) and later filers. It bars consideration of the request for • Agreements between the NDA giving ‘‘anything of value’’ to the first permanent injunction; and holder and an ANDA filer in which the ANDA filer, but would permit NDA • Second, either: (1) The court issues generic competitor agrees not to enter holders to grant other ANDA filers a a permanent injunction and the parties’ the market with a non-infringing generic delayed license to manufacture the agreement conforms to the court’s product (Paragraph III). ANDA product. The proposed order permanent injunction order; or (2) the The proposed order would apply to makes this distinction because an Commission determines that the AHP whether it is acting as potential agreement by a later filer to refrain from agreement does not raise issues under generic competitor (an ANDA filer) or as entering does not block entry by other section 5 of the FTC Act. a branded drug seller (an NDA holder). potential competitors. Where the only The proviso to Paragraph II also As noted above, AHP has advised its value granted by the NDA holder is the makes it clear that the order would not
VerDate 11
prevent Respondent AHP from filer agrees not to enter the market for proposed consent order, or to modify unilaterally seeking relief from the a period of time, but the patent their terms in any way. court. The proviso sets forth conditions infringement litigation continues. AHP By direction of the Commission, Chairman under which AHP could seek to avoid, would be barred from entering into such Muris not participating. though court action, the bar on interim agreements. As in Paragraph II, Donald S. Clark, agreements that is set forth in the core it extends beyond cash payments to Secretary. prohibition of Paragraph II of the cover the NDA holder’s providing proposed order. These conditions would ‘‘anything of value’’ to the ANDA filer, [FR Doc. 02–4374 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] not affect AHP’s ability to take action and provides an exception in limited BILLING CODE 6750–01–P that did not involve an agreement circumstances, similar to those otherwise prohibited in Paragraph II. described in connection with Paragraph FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION The Commission recognizes that, II of the proposed order. Although the outside of the class action context, final challenged conduct here was an [File No. 992 3034] settlements between private litigants agreement in connection with a final ordinarily are not scrutinized by courts. settlement of litigation, rather than an TechnoBrands, Inc., et al.; Analysis To Unlike the case of a court-ordered interim agreement, this provision is Aid Public Comment preliminary injunction based on a appropriate in light of the serious AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. stipulation of the parties (the situation antitrust concerns raised by interim addressed in Paragraph IV, discussed agreements and the need to impose an ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. below), the court in the final settlement order to prevent recurrence of violations SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this context has no express legal mandate to similar to that with which AHP is matter settles alleged violations of consider the public interest. Thus, there charged. federal law prohibiting unfair or remains some degree of risk that an The form of notice that Respondent deceptive acts or practices or unfair anticompetitive agreement could escape AHP must provide to the Commission methods of competition. The attached the prohibition of Paragraph II if the under Paragraphs II and IV of the order Analysis to Aid Public Comment parties were able to persuade a court to is set forth in Paragraph V. In addition describes both the allegations in the issue their agreement as a permanent to supplying a copy of the proposed draft complaint that accompanies the injunction. On the other hand, it is also agreement, AHP is required to provide consent agreement and the terms of the relatively rare for courts in ordinary certain other information to assist the private litigation to issue settlement Commission in assessing the potential consent order—embodied in the consent agreements as permanent injunction competitive impact of the agreement. agreement—that would settle these orders. This is likely to reduce the risk Accordingly, the order requires allegations. that an anticompetitive agreement Respondent to identify, among other DATES: Comments must be received on would evade the order, because, as things, all others known by AHP to have or before March 30, 2002. noted above, the exception to the filed an ANDA for a product containing ADDRESSES: Comments filed in paper prohibitions of Paragraph II does not the same chemical entities as the form should be directed to: FTC/Office arise unless the court issues a product at issue, as well as the court of the Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 permanent injunction order. On that is hearing any relevant legal Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,. balance, in light of all the circumstances proceedings involving Respondent. In Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed of this proposed consent order addition, Respondent AHP must in electronic form should be directed to: (including that it is the first involving a provide the Commission with certain [email protected], as challenge to a final settlement with a documents that evaluate the proposed prescribed below. second ANDA filer), the Commission agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: believes that the exception contained in The proposed order also contains James Dolan or Heather Hippsley, Paragraph II is appropriate here. certain reporting and other provisions Paragraph III prohibits agreements Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 that are designed to assist the Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., between an NDA holder and an ANDA Commission in monitoring compliance filer in which the ANDA filer agrees not Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3292 with the order and are standard or 326–3285. to develop or market a generic drug provisions in Commission orders. product that is not the subject of a claim The proposed order would expire in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant of patent infringement. The Commission 10 years. to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade has previously considered this type of Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. restraint in the context of an agreement Opportunity for Public Comment 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission’s between an NDA holder and an ANDA The proposed order has been placed rules of practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is first filer (that is, the party possessing an on the public record for 30 days in order hereby given that the above-captioned unexpired right to Hatch-Waxman 180- to receive comments from interested consent agreement containing a consent day exclusivity), and had limited the persons. Comments received during this order to cease and desist, having been bans in previous orders to that context. period will become part of the public filed with and accepted, subject to final Having now considered a similar record. After 30 days, the Commission approval, by the Commission, has been restraint in an agreement involving a will again review the agreement and the placed on the public record for a period later ANDA filer, the Commission comments received and will decide of thirty (30) days. The following believes it is appropriate to extend this whether it should withdraw from the Analysis to Aid Public Comment prohibition to agreements between an agreement or make the proposed order describes the terms of the consent NDA holder and any ANDA filer. final. agreement, and the allegations in the Paragraph IV addresses what are The purpose of this analysis is to complaint. An electronic copy of the sometimes referred to as interim facilitate public comment on the full text of the consent agreement settlement agreements. It covers agreement. The analysis is not intended package can be obtained from the FTC agreements that involve payment to an to constitute an official interpretation of Home Page (for February 19, 2002), on ANDA filer and in which the ANDA the agreement, the complaint, or the the World Wide Web, at http://
VerDate 11
www.ftc.gov/os/2002/02/index.htm. A seq., by making numerous Fan, or any substantially similar paper copy can be obtained from the representations that were false and/or product, eliminates dust mites and pet FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130– for which they lacked a reasonable basis dander from the user’s environment, or H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., of substantiation. These representations that consumers who use the product Washington, DC 20580, either in person concerned: the weight loss that will experience relief from allergies and or by calling (202) 326–2222. consumers can achieve with the other respiratory problems, unless Public comments are invited, and may Hollywood Diet and Enforma; the pain respondents possess competent and be filed with the Commission in either relief that can be achieved with the BMI reliable scientific evidence that paper or electronic form. Comments Magnetic Kit; the effectiveness of Nisim substantiates the representations. filed in paper form should be directed in stopping hair loss and stimulating Part VI of the proposed order to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room hair growth; the ability of the air prohibits representations that the Sila 159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., cleaners to eliminate various pollutants Air Purifier, or any substantially similar Washington, DC 20580. If a comment from indoor space; the health benefits of product, eliminates mold, mildew, contains nonpublic information, it must using the Clarion Fan; the scientific bacteria, chemicals, and other pollutants be filed in paper form, and the first page evidence for the efficacy of some of from a user’s environment, unless of the document must be clearly labeled these products; the comparative efficacy respondents possess competent and ‘‘confidential.’’ Comments that do not of some of these products; and the reliable scientific evidence that contain any nonpublic information may experiences of consumers and substantiates the representations. instead be filed in electronic form (in celebrities who purportedly have used Part VII of the proposed order ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft some of these products. prohibits unsubstantiated Word) as part of or as an attachment to Part I of the proposed order prohibits representations about the comparative email messages directed to the following a representation that consumers who or absolute benefits, performance, or e-mail box: [email protected]. use the Hollywood Diet, or any efficacy of any product or service. Such comments will be considered by substantially similar product, can lose Part VIII of the proposed order the Commission and will be available 10 lbs. in 48 hours, unless respondents prohibits misrepresentations about the for inspection and copying at its possess competent and reliable existence, contents, validity, results, principal office in accordance with scientific evidence that substantiates the conclusions, or interpretations of any § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s rules representation. In addition, Part I test, study, or research. of practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). prohibits representations that Part IX of the proposed order celebrities, such as actors and actresses prohibits representations that any user Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To in popular television programs, have testimonial or endorsement of a product Aid Public Comment lost substantial weight by using the reflects the actual experience of the user The Federal Trade Commission has product, unless the respondents possess or that the user’s experience is the accepted, subject to final approval, an competent and reliable evidence that typical experience of members of the agreement to a proposed consent order substantiates the representations. public using the product, unless: (1) The from respondents TechnoBrands, Inc., Part II of the proposed order prohibits representation is true and substantiated and Charles J. Anton, individually and representations that by using Enforma, by competent and reliable scientific as president of the corporate or any substantially similar product, evidence; or (2) there is a disclosure of respondent. consumers can achieve substantial either the generally expected results for The proposed consent order has been weight loss, or avoid weight gain, users of the product, or that consumers placed on the public record for thirty without a restricted calorie diet or should not expect to experience similar (30) days for reception of comments by exercise, unless respondents possess results. interested persons. Comments received competent and reliable scientific Part X of the proposed order requires during this period will become part of evidence that substantiates the that respondents pay to the Federal the public record. After thirty (30) days, representations. Trade Commission the sum of $200,000. the Commission will again review the Part III of the proposed order Part XI of the proposed order is a agreement and the comments received prohibits representations that use of the record keeping provision that requires and will decide whether it should BMI Magnetic Kit, or any substantially the respondents to maintain certain withdraw from the agreement and take similar product, relieves severe pain; records for three (3) years after the last other appropriate action or make final relieves pain more effectively than other date of dissemination of any the agreement’s proposed order. kinds of treatment; and relieves pain by representation covered by the order. This matter concerns practices related enlarging blood vessels, increasing These records include: (1) All to the advertising, offering for sale, sale, blood flow, reducing inflammation, or advertisements and promotional and distribution of various products to suppressing the body’s production of materials containing the representation; the public, including the Hollywood pain-causing chemicals, unless (2) all materials relied upon in 48–Hour Miracle Diet, a liquid diet; the respondents possess competent and disseminating the representation; and Enforma System, a diet product reliable scientific evidence that (3) all evidence in respondents’ combination consisting primarily of substantiates the representations. possession or control that contradicts, chitosan and pyruvate; the BMI Part IV of the proposed order qualifies, or calls into question the Magnetic Kit, a set of magnets with prohibits representations that Nisim, or representation or the basis for it. purported analgesic properties; the any substantially similar product, stops Part XII of the proposed order requires Nisim New Hair Biofactors System, a hair loss in a matter of days or distribution of the order to current and purported hair-growth product; the stimulates hair growth as effectively as future principals, officers, directors, and Clarion Ionic Filter Ceiling Fan, an air- prescription products, unless managers of the corporation. cleaning device; and the Sila Ionic Air respondents possess competent and Part XIII of the proposed order Purifier, another air-cleaning device. reliable scientific evidence that requires distribution of Attachment A to The Commission’s complaint charges substantiates the representations. the order to current and future that respondents violated the Federal Part V of the proposed order prohibits employees, agents, and representatives Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et representations that the Clarion Ceiling having responsibilities with respect to
VerDate 11
the advertising and sale of products to plans to review medical Standard/ ELECTRONIC ELEMENTS FOR SF the public. Attachment A is entitled Optional forms which are commonly 519A—Continued ‘‘Legal Notice’’ and is a summary of the used and/or commonly computer- injunction provisions of the proposed generated. We will identify those fields Item Placement 1 order. which are required, those (if any) which Part XIV of the proposed order are optional, and the required format (if Specific reason(s) for requires that the Commission be necessary). Activities may not add or Request (Com- notified of any change in the delete data elements that would change plaints and find- ings) corporation that might affect the meaning of the form. This would Date of examination compliance obligations under the order. require written approval from the ICMR. (Month, day, year) Part XV of the proposed order requires Using the process by which overprints Date of report (Month, that for a period of three (3) years, the are approved for paper Standard/ day, year) individual respondent notify the Optional forms, activities may add other Date of transcription Commission of the discontinuance of data entry elements to those required by (Month, day, year) his current business or employment or the committee. With this decision, Radiologic report of his affiliation with any new business activities at the local or headquarters Signature or employment involving the sale of level should be able to develop Location of radiologic facility consumer products and/or services. electronic versions which meet the Part XVI of the proposed order committee’s requirements. This 1 If no specific placement, data element may requires the respondents to file a guideline controls the ‘‘image’’ or be in any order. compliance report with the required fields but not the actual data FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR Commission. entered into the field. Katherine Ciacco Palatianos, Indian Part XVII of the proposed order states SUMMARY: With GSA’s approval, the Health Service, Department of Health that, absent certain circumstance, the Interagency Committee of Medical and Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, order will terminate twenty (20) years Records (ICMR) eliminated the Room 6A–55, Rockville, MD 20857 or from the date it is issued. requirement that every electronic E–Mail at [email protected]. The purpose of this analysis is to version of a medical Standard/Optional DATES: facilitate public comment on the form be reviewed and granted an Effective February 25, 2002. proposed consent order. It is not exception. The following fields must Dated: February 12, 2002. intended to constitute an official appear on the electronic version of the CDR Katherine Ciacco Palatianos, interpretation of the agreement and following form: Chairperson, Interagency Committee on proposed order or to modify their terms Medical Records. in any way. ELECTRONIC ELEMENTS FOR SF 519A [FR Doc. 02–4452 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] By direction of the Commission. BILLING CODE 6820–34–M Item Placement 1 Donald S. Clark, Secretary. Radiologic consulta- Top of form. [FR Doc. 02–4375 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] tion request/report. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BILLING CODE 6750–01–P Standard Form 519A Bottom right corner of HUMAN SERVICES (Rev. 8/1983)(Form form. ID). Centers for Disease Control and 1-Medical Record ...... Bottom left corner of Prevention GENERAL SERVICES form. ADMINISTRATION 2-Physician ...... Bottom left corner of [60 Day–02–28] form. Interagency Committee for Medical 3-Radiology ...... Bottom left corner of Proposed Data Collections Submitted Records (ICMR); Automation of form. for Public Comment and Medical Standard Form 519A Data Entry Fields: Recommendations Patient information Above below listed AGENCY: Office of Communications, (Text) items. In compliance with the requirement GSA. Last name of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the ACTION: Guideline on Automating First name Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for Medical Standard Forms. Middle name opportunity for public comment on Medical facility proposed data collection projects, the Background: The Interagency Age Centers for Disease Control and Sex Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic Committee on Medical Records (ICMR) SSN (Sponsor) is aware of numerous activities using Ward/clinic summaries of proposed projects. To computer-generated medical forms, Register No. request more information on the many of which are not mirror-like Examination re- proposed projects or to obtain a copy of images of the genuine paper Standard/ quested (Use SF the data collection plans and Optional Form. With GSA’s approval 519B for multiple instruments, call the CDC Reports the ICMR eliminated the requirement exams) Clearance Officer on (404) 639–7090. that every electronic version of a Requested by Comments are invited on: (a) Whether medical Standard/Optional form be Telephone number the proposed collection of information Location of medical is necessary for the proper performance reviewed and granted an exception. The records committee proposed to set required Film number of the functions of the agency, including fields standards and that activities Date requested whether the information shall have developing computer-generated versions Pregnant—Yes practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the adhere to the required fields but not (Checkbox) agency’s estimate of the burden of the necessarily to the image. The ICMR Pregnant—No (No) proposed collection of information; (c)
VerDate 11
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and has convened workgroups with the provide a framework for local boards of clarity of the information to be National Association of County and City health to evaluate their effectiveness. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Health Officials (NACCHO), the Electronic data submission will be the burden of the collection of information Association of State and Territorial method of choice. If computer on respondents, including through the Health Officials (ASTHO), the National technology in local jurisdictions does use of automated collection techniques Association of Local Boards of Health not support electronic submission, hard or other forms of information (NALBOH), the American Public Health copy survey instruments will be technology. Send comments to Anne Association (APHA), and the Public available. Local jurisdictions using hard O’Connor, CDC Assistant Reports Health Foundation (PHF) to develop copy survey instruments will receive Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, performance standards for public health assistance from State or local level field MS–D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written systems based on the ten Essential coordinators for web-based data entry. comments should be received within 60 Services of Public Health. In the Spring Local boards of health will respond to days of this notice. of 2001, CDC conducted field tests with Proposed Project: National Public the survey. An estimated 33% of the local public health governance Health Performance Standards Program approximately 3,200 United States local instruments in the state of Local Public Health Governance boards are expected to participate in the Massachusetts. Performance Assessment Instrument— National Performance Standards New—Public Health Practice Program CDC is now proposing to implement Program per year. a voluntary data collection to assess the Office (PHPPO), Centers for Disease There are no costs to respondents. Control and Prevention (CDC). capacity of local boards of health to Since 1998, the CDC National Public deliver the Essential Public Health The burden hours are estimated to be Health Performance Standards Program Services. This data collection will 30,198.
Number of re- Average bur- Respondents Number of re- sponses/re- den/response Total burden spondents spondent (in hrs.) (in hrs.)
Local Boards of Health Year 1 ...... 1,066 1 10 10,660 Local Boards of Health Year 2 ...... 1,066 1 10 10,660 Local Boards of Health Year 3 ...... 1,066 1 10 10,660
Total ...... 30,198
Dated: February 13, 2002. necessity and utility of the proposed Affected Public: Business or other for- John Moore, information collection for the proper profit, and Not-for-profit institutions; Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning performance of the agency’s functions; Number of Respondents: 359,000; and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control (2) the accuracy of the estimated Total Annual Responses: 359,000; and Prevention. burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, [FR Doc. 02–4371 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] utility, and clarity of the information to Total Annual Hours: 269,250. BILLING CODE 4163–18–P be collected; and (4) the use of To obtain copies of the supporting automated collection techniques or statement and any related forms for the other forms of information technology to proposed paperwork collections DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND minimize the information collection referenced above, access CMS’s Web site HUMAN SERVICES burden. address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/ Type of Information Collection prdact95.htm, or e-mail your request, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Request: Revision of a currently including your address, phone number, Services approved collection; OMB number, and CMS document Title of Information Collection: [Document Identifier: CMS–10036] identifier, to [email protected], or Inpatient Rehabilitation Assessment call the Reports Clearance Office on Instrument and Data Set for PPS for Agency Information Collection (410) 786–1326. Written comments and Activities: Proposed Collection; Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and recommendations for the proposed Comment Request Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR, Parts 412 and 413; information collections must be mailed AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and Form No.: CMS–10036 (OMB# 0938– within 60 days of this notice directly to Medicaid Services. 0842); the CMS Paperwork Clearance Officer In compliance with the requirement Use: This is a request to use the IRF– designated at the following address: of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PAI and its supporting manual for the CMS, Office of Information Services, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the implementation phase of the inpatient Security and Standards Group, Division Centers for Medicare and Medicaid rehabilitation PPS. There have been no of CMS Enterprise Standards, Attention: Services (CMS) (formerly known as the revisions or modifications to the Dawn Willinghan, CMS–10036, Room Health Care Financing Administration instrument; however, this submission N2–14–26, 7500 Security Boulevard, (HCFA)), Department of Health and includes the current manual/ Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. Human Services, is publishing the instructions which has been revised. Dated: February 14, 2002. following summary of proposed Use of this instrument will enable CMS collections for public comment. to implement a classification system John P. Burke, III, Interested persons are invited to send and payment system for the Reports Clearance Officer, Security and comments regarding this burden Legislatively mandated inpatient Standards Group, Division of CMS Enterprise estimate or any other aspect of this rehabilitation hospital and exempt units Standards. collection of information, including any Prospective Payment System (PPS); [FR Doc. 02–4358 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] of the following subjects: (1) The Frequency: On occasion; BILLING CODE 4120–03–P
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Affected Public: Individuals or (2) the accuracy of the estimated HUMAN SERVICES Households, Business or other for-profit, burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, and Not-for-profit institutions; utility, and clarity of the information to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Number of Respondents: 11,356; be collected; and (4) the use of Services Total Annual Responses: 11,356; automated collection techniques or Total Annual Hours: 5,465. other forms of information technology to [Document Identifier: CMS–10061] To obtain copies of the supporting minimize the information collection statement and any related forms for the burden. Agency Information Collection proposed paperwork collections Activities: Proposed Collection; referenced above, access CMS’s Web site Type of Information Collection Comment Request address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/ Request: Extension of a currently prdact95.htm, or e-mail your request, approved collection; AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and including your address, phone number, Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Services. OMB number, and CMS document Payment Adjustment for Sole In compliance with the requirement identifier, to [email protected], or Community Hospitals and Supporting of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the call the Reports Clearance Office on Regulations in 42 CFR, Section 412.92; Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the (410) 786–1326. Written comments and Form No.: CMS–R–79 (OMB# 0938– Centers for Medicare and Medicaid recommendations for the proposed Services (CMS) (formerly known as the information collections must be mailed 0477); Health Care Financing Administration within 60 days of this notice directly to Use: Hospitals designated ‘‘sole (HCFA)), Department of Health and the CMS Paperwork Clearance Officer community hospitals’’ that experience a Human Services, is publishing the designated at the following address: 5 percent decrease in discharges in one following summary of proposed CMS, Office of Information Services, cost reporting period, as compared to collections for public comment. Security and Standards Group, Division the previous period, due to unusual Interested persons are invited to send of CMS Enterprise Standards, Attention: circumstances beyond its control, may comments regarding this burden Dawn Willinghan, CMS–10061, Room request an adjustment to its Medicare estimate or any other aspect of this N2–14–26, 7500 Security Boulevard, payment amount; collection of information, including any Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. of the following subjects: (1) The Frequency: On Occasion; Dated: February 14, 2002. necessity and utility of the proposed Affected Public; Not-for-profit John P. Burke, III, information collection for the proper institutions, Business or other for-profit, Reports Clearance Officer, Security and performance of the agency’s functions; and State, Local or Tribal Gov.; (2) the accuracy of the estimated Standards Group, Division of CMS Enterprise burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, Standards. Number of Respondents: 40; utility, and clarity of the information to [FR Doc. 02–4359 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Total Annual Responses: 40; BILLING CODE 4120–03–P be collected; and (4) the use of Total Annual Hours: 160. automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to To obtain copies of the supporting DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND minimize the information collection statement and any related forms for the HUMAN SERVICES burden. proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS’s Web site Type of Information Collection Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Request: New Collection; Services address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/ Title of Information Collection: prdact95.htm, of e-mail your request, Evaluation of Programs of Coordinated [Document Identifier: CMS–R–79] including your address, phone number, Care and Disease Management; OMB number, and CMS document Agency Information Collection Form No.: CMS–10061 (OMB# 0938– identifier, to [email protected], or Activities: Proposed Collection; NEW); call the Reports Clearance Office on Comment Request Use: CMS is currently conducting two (410) 786–1326. Written comments and demonstration programs to determine AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and recommendations for the proposed the impact of programs of coordinated Medicaid Services DHHS. In information collections must be mailed care and disease management on health compliance with the requirement of within 60 days of this notice directly to outcomes and costs of care for Medicare section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork the CMS Paperwork Clearance Officer beneficiaries. The purpose of this Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for designated at the following address: evaluation is to provide an independent Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) CMS, Office of Information Services, assessment of the effectiveness of these (formerly known as the Health Care Security and Standards Group, Division programs, and to provide the basis for Financing Administration (HCFA)), of CMS Enterprise Standards, Attention: the Reports to Congress required for the Department of Health and Human Dawn Willinghan, CMS–R–79, Room care coordination demonstration. To Services, is publishing the following N2–14–26, 7500 Security Boulevard, provide this information, the evaluation summary of proposed collections for Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. must generate both rigorous quantitative public comment. Interested persons are Dated: February 14, 2002. estimates of the programs’ impacts and invited to send comments regarding this qualitative analyses of the programs’ burden estimate or any other aspect of John P. Burke, III, processes. Surveys of demonstration this collection of information, including Reports Clearance Officer, Security and participants and their health care any of the following subjects: (1) The Standards Group, Division of CMS Enterprise providers are an integral part of this necessity and utility of the proposed Standards. evaluation.; information collection for the proper [FR Doc. 02–4360 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Frequency: Other: One-time; performance of the agency’s functions; BILLING CODE 4120–03–M
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Type of Information Collection information collections must be mailed HUMAN SERVICES Request: Extension of a currently within 30 days of this notice directly to approved collection; the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Center for Medicare and Medicaid Title of Information Collection: Real Resources and Housing Branch, Services Choice Systems Change Grants; Nursing Attention: Brenda Aguilar, New Facility Transition/Access Housing Executive Office Building, Room 10235, [Document Identifier: CMS–10037] Grants; Community Personal Assistance Washington, DC 20503. Service and Supports Grants, National Dated: November 13, 2001. Agency Information Collection Technical Assistance and Learning Julie Brown, Activities: Submission for OMB Collaborative Grants to Support Systems Review; Comment Request Change for Community Living; Acting CMS Reports Clearance Officer, CMS Form No.: CMS–10037 (OMB# 0938– Office of Information Services, Security and AGENCY: Center for Medicare and Standards Group, Division of CMS Enterprise 0836); Standards. Medicaid Services DHHS. In Use: Information sought by CMSO/ [FR Doc. 02–4357 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] compliance with the requirement of DEHPG is needed to award competitive section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork grants to States and other eligible BILLING CODE 4120–03–P Reduction Act of 1995, the Center for entities for the purposes of designing Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and implementing effective and (formerly known as the Health Care DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND enduring improvements in consumer- HUMAN SERVICES Financing Administration (HCFA), directed long term service and support Department of Health and Human systems; Administration for Children and Services, is publishing the following Frequency: Annually; Families summary of proposed collections for Affected Public: State, local or tribal public comment. Interested persons are gov.; Proposed Projects invited to send comments regarding this Number of Respondents: 76; burden estimate or any other aspect of Total Annual Responses: 76; Title: Grants to states for access and this collection of information, including Total Annual Hours: 7600. visitation programs. any of the following subjects: (1) The To obtain copies of the supporting OMB No.: 0970–0204. necessity and utility of the proposed statement and any related forms for the information collection for the proper proposed paperwork collections Description: States are required to performance of the agency’s functions; referenced above, access CMS’ Web site provide descriptions of grant funded (2) the accuracy of the estimated address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/ local and/or state access and visitation burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, prdact95.htm, or e-mail your request, programs and data on these programs utility, and clarity of the information to including your address, phone number, with regard to numbers of participants, be collected; and (4) the use of OMB number, and CMS document referral sources, project goals, services automated collection techniques or identifier, to [email protected], or delivered, and other relevant data. other forms of information technology to call the Reports Clearance Office on Respondents: State access and minimize the information collection (410) 786–1326. Written comments and visitation program monitors; local burden. recommendations for the proposed project administrators.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of re- Average bur- Number of sponses den Total Instrument respondents per respond- hours per re- burden hours ent sponse
Program survey ...... 324 1 20 6,480 Estimated total annual burden hours ...... 6,480
In compliance with the requirements Reports Clearance Officer. All requests ways to minimize the burden of the of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the should be identified by the title of the collection of information on Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection. respondents, including through the use Administration for Children and The Department specifically requests of automated collection techniques or Families is soliciting public comment comments on: (a) Whether the proposed other forms of information technology. on the specific aspects of the collection of information is necessary Consideration will be given to information collection described above. for the proper performance of the comments and suggestions submitted Copies of the proposed collection of functions of the agency, including within 60 days of this publication. information can be obtained and whether the information shall have Dated: February 13, 2002. comments may be forwarded by writing practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Bob Sargis, to the Administration for Children and agency’s estimate of the burden of the Reports Clearance Officer. Families, Office of Information Services, proposed collections of information; (c) 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW., the quality, utility, and clarity of the [FR Doc. 02–4341 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF information to be collected; and (d) BILLING CODE 4184–01–M
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests reports of all foreign or domestic HUMAN SERVICES or requirements that members of the adverse experiences as well as those public submit reports, keep records, or obtained in scientific literature and from Food and Drug Administration provide information to a third party. postmarketing epidemiological/ Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 [Docket No. 02N–0012] surveillance studies. Under U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal § 314.80(c)(2) applicants must provide Agency Information Collection agencies to provide a 60-day notice in periodic reports of adverse drug Activities; Proposed Collection; the Federal Register concerning each experiences. A periodic report includes, Comment Request; Postmarketing proposed collection of information, for the reporting interval, reports of Adverse Drug Experience Reporting including each proposed extension of an serious, expected adverse drug existing collection of information, experiences and all nonserious adverse AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, before submitting the collection to OMB drug experiences, a narrative summary HHS. for approval. To comply with this and analysis of adverse drug ACTION: Notice. requirement, FDA is publishing notice experiences and a history of actions of the proposed collection of taken because of adverse drug SUMMARY: The Food and Drug information set forth in this document. experiences. Under § 314.80(i) Administration (FDA) is announcing an With respect to the following applicants must keep for 10 years opportunity for public comment on the collection of information, FDA invites records of all adverse drug experience proposed collection of certain comments on: (1) Whether the proposed reports known to the applicant. information by the agency. Under the collection of information is necessary Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the for the proper performance of FDA’s For marketed prescription drug PRA), Federal agencies are required to functions, including whether the products without approved new drug publish notice in the Federal Register information will have practical utility; applications or abbreviated new drug concerning each proposed collection of (2) the accuracy of FDA’s estimate of the applications, manufacturers, packers, information, including each proposed burden of the proposed collection of and distributors are required to report to extension of an existing collection of information, including the validity of FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug information, and to allow 60 days for the methodology and assumptions used; experiences as well as followup reports public comment in response to the (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, when needed (§ 310.305(c)). Under notice. This notice solicits comments on and clarity of the information to be § 310.305(f) each manufacturer, packer, postmarketing adverse drug experience collected; and (4) ways to minimize the and distributor shall maintain for 10 reporting and recordkeeping burden of the collection of information years records of all adverse drug requirements. on respondents, including through the experiences required to be reported. DATES: Submit written or electronic use of automated collection techniques, The primary purpose of FDA’s comments on the collection of when appropriate, and other forms of adverse drug experience reporting information by April 26, 2002. information technology. system is to provide a signal for ADDRESSES: Submit electronic Postmarketing Adverse Drug potentially serious safety problems with comments on the collection of Experience Reporting—21 CFR 310.305 marketed drugs. Although premarket information to http:// and 314.80 (OMB Control No. 0910– testing discloses a general safety profile www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/ 0230)—Extension of a new drug’s comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more dockets/edockethome.cfm. Submit Sections 201, 502, 505, and 701 of the diverse patient populations exposed to written comments on the collection of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act the marketed drug provides, for the first information to the Dockets Management (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321, 352, 355, and Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug 371) require that marketed drugs be safe time, the opportunity to collect Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. and effective. In order to know whether information on rare, latent, and long- 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All drugs that are not safe and effective are term effects. Signals are obtained from comments should be identified with the on the market, FDA must be promptly a variety of sources, including reports docket number found in brackets in the informed of adverse experiences from patients, treating physicians, heading of this document. occasioned by the use of marketed foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: drugs. In order to help ensure this, FDA investigators. Information derived from Karen L. Nelson, Office of Information issued regulations (§§ 310.305 and the adverse drug experience reporting Resources Management (HFA–250), 314.80 (21 CFR 310.305 and 314.80)) to system contributes directly to increased Food and Drug Administration, 5600 impose reporting and recordkeeping public health protection because the Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, requirements on the drug industry that information enables FDA to make 301–827–1482. would enable FDA to take action important changes to the product’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the necessary for protection of the public labeling (such as adding a new warning) PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal health from adverse drug experiences. and when necessary, to initiate removal agencies must obtain approval from the All applicants who have received of a drug from the market. Office of Management and Budget marketing approval of drug products are Respondents to this collection of (OMB) for each collection of required to report to FDA serious, information are manufacturers, packers, information they conduct or sponsor. unexpected adverse drug experiences, distributors, and applicants. FDA ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined as well as followup reports when estimates the burden of this collection in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR needed (§ 314.80(c)(1)). This includes of information as follows:
VerDate 11
TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1
No. of Annual Frequency Total Annual Hours per 21 CFR Section Respondents per Response Responses Response Total Hours
310.305(c)(5) ...... 1 1 1 1 1 314.80(c)(1)(iii) ...... 5 1 5 1 5 314.80(c)(2) ...... 683 15 10,245 5 286,860
Total ...... 286,866 1 The reporting burden for §§310.305(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3), and 314.80(c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii)(c) was reported under OMB Control No. 0910– 0291. There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING BURDEN1
No. of Annual Frequency per Total Annual Hours per 21 CFR Section Recordkeepers Recordkeeping Records Recordkeeper Total Hours
310.305(f) ...... 25 1 25 1 25 314.80(i) ...... 683 1 683 1 683
Total ...... 708 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
Dated: February 12, 2002. to provide for the safe use of Submit electronic comments to http:// Margaret M. Dotzel, cyclohexylsulfamic acid as a catalyst in www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. Associate Commissioner for Policy. resinous and polymeric coatings. Abbott FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laboratories has now withdrawn the [FR Doc. 02–4456 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Claudia V. Grillo, Office of Regulatory BILLING CODE 4160–01–S petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7). Policy (HFD–007), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Dated: January 29, 2002. Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594–5645. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Leslye M. Fraser, HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acting Director of Regulations and Policy, The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. [FR Doc. 02–4381 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98– 417) and the Generic Animal Drug and [Docket No. 81F–0387] BILLING CODE 4160–01–S Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Abbott Laboratories; Withdrawal of Law 100–670) generally provide that a Food Additive Petition DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND patent may be extended for a period of AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HUMAN SERVICES up to 5 years so long as the patented HHS. item (human drug product, animal drug Food and Drug Administration product, medical device, food additive, ACTION: Notice. or color additive) was subject to SUMMARY: The Food and Drug [Docket No. 98E–1221] regulatory review by FDA before the Administration (FDA) is announcing the item was marketed. Under these acts, a Determination of Regulatory Review withdrawal, without prejudice to a product’s regulatory review period Period for Purposes of Patent future filing, of a food additive petition forms the basis for determining the Extension; Celexa (FAP 2B3593), filed by Abbott amount of extension an applicant may Laboratories, proposing that the food AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, receive. additive regulations be amended to HHS. A regulatory review period consists of provide for the safe use of ACTION: Notice. two periods of time: A testing phase and cyclohexylsulfamic acid as a catalyst in an approval phase. For human drug resinous and polymeric coatings. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug products, the testing phase begins when FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration (FDA) has determined the exemption to permit the clinical Julius Smith, Center for Food Safety and the regulatory review period for Celexa investigations of the drug becomes Applied Nutrition (HFS–215), Food and and is publishing this notice of that effective and runs until the approval Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch determination as required by law. FDA phase begins. The approval phase starts Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 202– has made the determination because of with the initial submission of an 418–3091. the submission of an application to the application to market the human drug SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice Commissioner of Patents and product and continues until FDA grants published in the Federal Register of Trademarks, Department of Commerce, permission to market the drug product. January 19, 1982 (47 FR 2791), FDA for the extension of a patent that claims Although only a portion of a regulatory announced that a food additive petition that human drug product. review period may count toward the (FAP 2B3593) had been filed by Abbott ADDRESSES: Submit written comments actual amount of extension that the Laboratories, North Chicago, IL 60064 and petitions to the Dockets Commissioner of Patents and (now 100 Abbott Park Rd., Abbott Park, Management Branch (HFA–305), Food Trademarks may award (for example, IL 60064–6091). The petition proposed and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers half the testing phase must be to amend the food additive regulations Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. subtracted, as well as any time that may
VerDate 11
have occurred before the patent was this applicant seeks 1,826 days of patent Management Branch (HFA–305), Food issued), FDA’s determination of the term extension. and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers length of a regulatory review period for Anyone with knowledge that any of Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. a human drug product will include all the dates as published is incorrect may Submit electronic comments to http:// of the testing phase and approval phase submit to the Dockets Management www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B). Branch (address above) written or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA recently approved for marketing electronic comments and ask for a Claudia V. Grillo, Office of Regulatory the human drug product Celexa redetermination by April 26, 2002. Policy (HFD–007), Food and Drug (citalopram hydrobromide). Celexa is Furthermore, any interested person may Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, indicated for the treatment of petition FDA for a determination Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594–2041. depression. Subsequent to this approval, regarding whether the applicant for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug the Patent and Trademark Office extension acted with due diligence Price Competition and Patent Term received a patent term restoration during the regulatory review period by Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98– application for Celexa (U.S. Patent No. August 26, 2002. To meet its burden, the 417) and the Generic Animal Drug and 4,650,884) from H. Lundbeck A/S, and petition must contain sufficient facts to Patent Term Restoration Act (Public the Patent and Trademark Office merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Law 100–670) generally provide that a requested FDA’s assistance in Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., patent may be extended for a period of determining this patent’s eligibility for pp. 41–42, 1984.) Petitions should be in up to 5 years so long as the patented patent term restoration. In a letter dated the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. item (human drug product, animal drug December 19, 2000, FDA advised the Comments and petitions should be product, medical device, food additive, Patent and Trademark Office that this submitted to the Dockets Management or color additive) was subject to human drug product had undergone a Branch. Three copies of any information regulatory review by FDA before the regulatory review period and that the are to be submitted, except that item was marketed. Under these acts, a approval of Celexa represented the first individuals may submit one copy. product’s regulatory review period permitted commercial marketing or use Comments are to be identified with the forms the basis for determining the of the product. Shortly thereafter, the docket number found in brackets in the amount of extension an applicant may Patent and Trademark Office requested heading of this document. Comments receive. that FDA determine the product’s and petitions may be seen in the A regulatory review period consists of regulatory review period. Dockets Management Branch between 9 two periods of time: A testing phase and FDA has determined that the a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through an approval phase. For medical devices, applicable regulatory review period for Friday. the testing phase begins with a clinical Celexa is 5,498 days. Of this time, 5,061 Dated: January 24, 2002. investigation of the device and runs days occurred during the testing phase Jane A. Axelrad, until the approval phase begins. The of the regulatory review period, while Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug approval phase starts with the initial 437 days occurred during the approval Evaluation and Research. submission of an application to market phase. These periods of time were [FR Doc. 02–4382 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the device and continues until derived from the following dates: BILLING CODE 4160–01–S permission to market the device is 1. The date an exemption under granted. Although only a portion of a section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, regulatory review period may count and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND toward the actual amount of extension 355(i)) became effective: July 30, 1983. HUMAN SERVICES that the Commissioner of Patents and The applicant claims August 4, 1983, as Trademarks may award (half the testing the date the investigational new drug Food and Drug Administration phase must be subtracted as well as any application (IND) became effective. [Docket No. 01E–0099] time that may have occurred before the However, FDA records indicate that the patent was issued), FDA’s determination IND effective date was July 30, 1983, Determination of Regulatory Review of the length of a regulatory review which was 30 days after FDA receipt of Period for Purposes of Patent period for a medical device will include the IND. Extension; Menicon Z Rigid Gas all of the testing phase and approval 2. The date the application was Permeable Contact Lens phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. initially submitted with respect to the 156(g)(3)(B). human drug product under section AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, FDA recently approved for marketing 505(b) of the act: May 7, 1997. FDA has HHS. the medical device Menicon Z Rigid Gas verified the applicant’s claim that the ACTION: Notice. Permeable Contact Lens. This product is new drug application (NDA) for Celexa indicated for extended wear (from 1 to (NDA 20–822) was initially submitted SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 7 days between removals for cleaning on May 7, 1997. Administration (FDA) has determined and disinfection of the lenses, as 3. The date the application was the regulatory review period for recommended by the eyecare approved: July 17, 1998. FDA has Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact practitioner) for the correction of verified the applicant’s claim that NDA Lens and is publishing this notice of refractive error (myopia, hyperopia, 20–822 was approved on July 17, 1998. that determination as required by law. presbyopia and/or astigmatism) in non- This determination of the regulatory FDA has made the determination aphakic persons with non-diseased review period establishes the maximum because of the submission of an eyes. Subsequent to this approval, the potential length of a patent extension. application to the Commissioner of Patent and Trademark Office received a However, the U.S. Patent and Patents and Trademarks, Department of patent term restoration application for Trademark Office applies several Commerce, for the extension of a patent Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact statutory limitations in its calculations which claims that medical device. Lens (U.S. Patent No. 4,594,401) from of the actual period for patent extension. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Menicon Co., and the Patent and In its application for patent extension, and petitions to the Dockets Trademark Office requested FDA’s
VerDate 11
assistance in determining this patent’s during the regulatory review period by Agenda: The committee will discuss eligibility for patent term restoration. In August 26, 2002. To meet its burden, the new drug application (NDA) 21–245, a letter dated September 6, 2001, FDA petition must contain sufficient facts to Picovir (pleconaril), ViroPharma Inc., advised the Patent and Trademark merit an FDA investigation. (See H. proposed for treatment of acute viral Office that this medical device had Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., respiratory infection (the common cold) undergone a regulatory review period pp. 41–42, 1984.) Petitions should be in in adults. and that the approval of Menicon Z the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Procedure: Interested persons may Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens Comments and petitions should be present data, information, or views, represented the first permitted submitted to the Dockets Management orally or in writing, on issues pending commercial marketing or use of the Branch. Three copies of any information before the committee. Written product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent are to be submitted, except that submissions may be made to the contact and Trademark Office requested that individuals may submit one copy. person by March 12, 2002. Oral FDA determine the product’s regulatory Comments are to be identified with the presentations from the public will be review period. docket number found in brackets in the scheduled between approximately 1 FDA has determined that the heading of this document. Comments p.m. and 2 p.m. Time allotted for each applicable regulatory review period for and petitions may be seen in the presentation may be limited. Those Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Dockets Management Branch between 9 desiring to make formal oral Lens is 1,917 days. Of this time, 1,435 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through presentations should notify the contact days occurred during the testing phase Friday. person before March 12, 2002, and of the regulatory review period, while Dated: January 24, 2002. submit a brief statement of the general 482 days occurred during the approval nature of the evidence or arguments phase. These periods of time were Jane A. Axelrad, Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug they wish to present, the names and derived from the following dates: addresses of proposed participants, and 1. The date a clinical investigation Evaluation and Research. an indication of the approximate time involving this device was begun: April [FR Doc. 02–4383 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] requested to make their presentation. 14, 1995. The applicant claims that the BILLING CODE 4160–01–S investigational device exemption (IDE) Persons attending FDA’s advisory required under section 520(g) of the committee meetings are advised that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND agency is not responsible for providing (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) for human HUMAN SERVICES access to electrical outlets. tests to begin became effective on April FDA welcomes the attendance of the 4, 1995. However, FDA records indicate Food and Drug Administration public at its advisory committee that the IDE was determined meetings and will make every effort to Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee; accommodate persons with physical substantially complete for clinical Notice of Meeting studies to have begun on April 14, 1995, disabilities or special needs. If you which represents the IDE effective date. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, require special accommodations due to 2. The date the application was HHS. a disability, please contact Tara P. initially submitted with respect to the ACTION: Notice. Turner at least 7 days in advance of the device under section 515 of the act (21 meeting. U.S.C. 360e): March 18, 1999. FDA has This notice announces a forthcoming Notice of this meeting is given under verified the applicant’s claim that the meeting of a public advisory committee the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 premarket approval application (PMA) of the Food and Drug Administration U.S.C. app. 2). for Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable (FDA). The meeting will be open to the Dated: February 17, 2002. public. Contact Lens (PMA P990018) was Linda A. Suydam, initially submitted March 18, 1999. Name of Committee: Antiviral Drugs 3. The date the application was Advisory Committee. Senior Associate Commissioner for Communications and Constituent Relations. approved: July 11, 2000. FDA has General Function of the Committee: verified the applicant’s claim that PMA To provide advice and [FR Doc. 02–4455 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] P990018 was approved on July 11, 2000. recommendations to the agency on BILLING CODE 4160–01–S This determination of the regulatory FDA’s regulatory issues. review period establishes the maximum Date and Time: The meeting will be potential length of a patent extension. held on March 19, 2002, from 8 a.m. to DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND However, the U.S. Patent and 5 p.m. HUMAN SERVICES Trademark Office applies several Location: Holiday Inn, The Ballrooms, Health Resources and Services statutory limitations in its calculations Two Montgomery Village Ave., Administration of the actual period for patent extension. Gaithersburg, MD. In its application for patent extension, Contact Person: Tara P. Turner, Childhood Vaccines Advisory this applicant seeks 1,205 days of patent Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Commission; Notice of Meeting term extension. (HFD–21), Food and Drug Anyone with knowledge that any of Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for In accordance with section 10(a) (2) of the dates as published are incorrect may express delivery 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. the Federal Advisory Committee Act submit to the Dockets Management 1093), Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827– (Public Law 92–463), announcement is Branch (address above) written or 7001, e-mail: [email protected], or made of the following National electronic comments and ask for a FDA Advisory Committee Information Advisory body scheduled to meet redetermination by April 26, 2002. Line, 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 during the month of March. Furthermore, any interested person may in the Washington, DC area), code Name: Advisory Commission on petition FDA by for a determination 12531. Please call the Information Line Childhood Vaccines (ACCV). regarding whether the applicant for for up-to-date information on this Date and Time: March 6, 2002; 9 a.m.–3 extension acted with due diligence meeting. p.m., March 7, 2002; 9 a.m.–12 p.m.
VerDate 11
Place: The Ramada Inn, Georgetown Programs, Health Resources and Services DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Conference Room, 1775 Rockville Pike, Administration, Room 8A–46, 5600 Fishers HUMAN SERVICES Rockville, Maryland 20852, and Audio Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone Conference Call. (301) 443–2124 or e-mail: [email protected]. National Institutes of Health The full ACCV will meet on Wednesday, Agenda items are subject to change as March 6, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and priorities dictate. National Institute on Drug Abuse; Thursday, March 7, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Notice of Closed Meeting The public can join the meeting in person at Dated: February 19, 2002. the address listed above or by audio Jane M. Harrison, Pursuant to section 10(d) of the conference call by dialing 1–888–566–5772 Federal Advisory Committee Act, as on March 6, and dialing 1–888–458–9977 on Director, Division of Policy Review and March 7, and providing the following Coordination. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice information on both days: [FR Doc. 02–4458 Filed 2–20–02; 3:34 pm] is hereby given of the following Leader’s Name: Thomas E. Balbier, Jr. BILLING CODE 4165–15–P meeting. Password: ACCV. The meeting will be closed to the The agenda items for March 6 will include, public in accordance with the but not limited to: comments from the public DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND provisions set forth in sections on the legislative proposals to change the HUMAN SERVICES 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., National Vaccine Injury Compensation as amended. The contract proposals and Program (VICP), such as the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proposed revisions to National Institutes of Health the discussions could disclose the VICP, and the House Committee on confidential trade secrets or commercial Government Reform bill titled, ‘‘National National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed property such as patentable material, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Meeting and personal information concerning Improvement Act of 2002,’’ an update on the individuals associated with the grant Vaccine Safety Data Link, a presentation of Pursuant to section 10(d) of the applications, the disclosure of which the Institute of Medicine’s Report entitled, Federal Advisory Committee Act, as would constitute a clearly unwarranted ‘‘Multiple Immunizations and Immune amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice invasion of personal privacy. System Dysfunction,’’ and updates from the is hereby given of the following Name of Committee: National Institute on Office of Special Programs, the VICP, the meeting. Department of Justice, and the National Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Vaccine Program Office. The meeting will be closed to the ‘‘Develop New Technologies for Drug Abuse The agenda items on March 7 will include, public in accordance with the Prevention Delivery’’. but not limited to: a discussion of provisions set forth in sections Date: March 14, 2002. recommendations from the ACCV Workgroup 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Time: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. on Proposed Legislative Changes to the VICP, Agenda: To review and evaluate contract as amended. The grant applications and proposals. and a discussion of reversionary trusts. the discussions could disclose Persons interested in obtaining a copy of Place: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville the American Academy of Pediatrics’ confidential trade secrets or commercial Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. proposed revisions to the VICP, and the property such as patentable material, Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Contract Review proposed bill titled, ‘‘National Vaccine Injury and personal information concerning Specialist, Office of Extramural Affairs, Compensation Program Improvement Act of individuals associated with the grant National Institute on Drug Abuse, National 2002’’ may contact Ms. Cheryl Lee by applications, the disclosure of which Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive telephone at (301) 443–2124 or by e-mail at would constitute a clearly unwarranted Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547, Bethesda, [email protected] prior to March 6. invasion of personal privacy. MD 20892–9547, (301) 435–1439. Persons interested in providing an oral (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance presentation should submit a written request, Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist along with a copy of their presentation to: Special Emphasis Panel. Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Ms. Cheryl Lee, Principal Staff Liaison, Date: March 14–15, 2002. Development Awards, and Research Scientist Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Time: March 14, 2002, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Office of Special Programs, Health Resources Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Research Service Awards for Research and Services Administration, Room 8A–46, applications. Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse Research 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857 or Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS) by e-mail at [email protected]. Requests should Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, Dated: February 19, 2002. contain the name, address, telephone Time: March 15, 2002, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 number, and any business or professional LaVerne Y. Stringfield, p.m. affiliation of the person desiring to make an Director, Office of Federal Advisory oral presentation. Groups having similar Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Committee Policy. applications. interests are requested to combine their [FR Doc. 02–4442 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin comments and present them through a single BILLING CODE 4140–01–M representative. The allocation of time may be Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. adjusted to accommodate the level of Contact Person: Samuel Rawlings, PhD, expressed interest. The Division of Vaccine Chief, Scientific Review Branch, Division of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Injury Compensation will notify each Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, HUMAN SERVICES presenter by mail or telephone of their Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–496–5561. assigned presentation time. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance National Institutes of Health Persons who do not file an advance request Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, for a presentation, but desire to make an oral National Institutes of Health, HHS) statement, may sign-up in the Georgetown National Institute of Mental Health; Conference Room on March 6 and March 7. Dated: February 19, 2002. Notice of Closed Meetings These persons will be allocated time as time LaVerne Y. Stringfield, permits. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Director, Office of Federal Advisory Anyone requiring information regarding Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Committee Policy. the ACCV should contact Ms. Cheryl Lee, amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Principal Staff Liaison, Division of Vaccine [FR Doc. 02–4441 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] is hereby given of the following Injury Compensation, Office of Special BILLING CODE 4140–01–M meetings.
VerDate 11
The meetings will be closed to the Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, individuals associated with the grant public in accordance with the 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6149, MSC9606, applications, the disclosure of which provisions set forth in sections Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–6102, would constitute a clearly unwarranted 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., [email protected]. invasion of personal privacy. Name of Committee: National Institute of as amended. The grant applications and Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. the discussions could disclose Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. Date: March 25, 2002. confidential trade secrets or commercial Date: March 7, 2002. Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Time: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. property such as patentable material, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant and personal information concerning applications. applications. individuals associated with the grant Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Place: Neuroscience Center, National applications, the disclosure of which Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Contact Person: Joel Sherrill, PhD, constitute a clearly unwarranted Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Scientific Review Administrator, Division of invasion of personal privacy. Call) Name of Committee: National Institute of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Contact Person: David I. Sommers, PhD., Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Date: March 7–8, 2002. 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC9606, Extramural Activities, National Institute of Time: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–6102, Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant [email protected]. 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6144, MSC 9606, applications. Name of Committee: National Institute of Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–6470, Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. [email protected]. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Date: April 5, 2002. This notice is being published less than 15 Contact Person: Peter J. Sheridan, PhD, Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant limitations imposed by the review and Extramural Activities, National Institute of applications. funding cycle. Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Name of Committee: National institute of 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6142, MSC 9606, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. Bethesda, MD, 20892–9606, 301–443–1513, Contact Person: Richard E. Weise, PhD, Date: March 21, 2002. [email protected]. Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Time: 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM. This notice is being published less than 15 Extramural Activities, National Institute of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant days prior to the meeting due to the timing Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, applications. limitations imposed by the review and 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6140, Place: Nueroscience Center, National funding cycle. MSC9606, Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301– Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Name of Committee: National Institute of 443–1225, [email protected]. Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Call) Date: March 15, 2002. Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Contact Person: David I. Sommers, PhD., Time: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Award, Scientist Development Award for Extramural Activities, National institute of applications. Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award, Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 93.282, Mental Health National Research 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6144, MSC 9606, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Service Awards for Research Training, Bethesda, MD, 20892–9606, 301–443–6470, Contact Person: Richard E. Weise, PhD, National Institutes of Health, HHS) [email protected]. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Dated: February 19, 2002. Extramural Activities, National Institute of Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC9606, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Award, Scientist Development Award for Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–1225, Committee Policy. Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; [email protected]. [FR Doc. 02–4443 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Name of Committee: National Institute of National Institutes of Health, HHS) Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. Date: March 18, 2002. Dated: February 19, 2002. Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant HUMAN SERVICES Director, Office of Federal Advisory applications. Committee Policy. Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 National Institutes of Health [FR Doc. 02–4444 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Contact Person: Joel Sherrill, PhD, National Institute of Mental Health; BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Notice of Closed Meetings Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Pursuant to section 10(d) of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6149, Federal Advisory Committee Act, as HUMAN SERVICES MSC9606, Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301– amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 443–6102, [email protected]. is hereby given of the following National Institutes of Health Name of Committee: National Institute of meetings. National Institutes of Nursing Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. The meetings will be closed to the Research; Notice of Closed Meeting Date: March 20, 2002. public in accordance with the Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. provisions set forth in sections Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., applications. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 as amended. The grant applications and amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. the discussions could disclose is hereby given of the following Contact Person: Richard E. Weise, PhD, confidential trade secrets or commercial meeting. Scientific Review Administrator, Division of property such as patentable material, The meeting will be closed to the Extramural Activities, National Institute of and personal information concerning public in accordance with the
VerDate 11
provisions set forth in sections Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Place: Best Western University Tower, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., applications. 4507 Brooklyn Avenue NE., Seattle, WA as amended. The grant applications and Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD 98105. the discussions could disclose 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) Contact Person: Nadarajen A. Vydelingum, Contact Person: George W. Chacko, PhD, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, confidential trade secrets or commercial Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Special Study Section-8, Center for Scientific property such as patentable material, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 and personal information concerning Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room: 4202, Rockledge Drive, MSC 7854, Rm 5122, individuals associated with the grant MSC: 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1176, applications, the disclosure of which 1220, [email protected]. [email protected]. would constitute a clearly unwarranted This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 invasion of personal privacy. days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: National Institute of funding cycle. funding cycle. Nursing Research Initial Review Group. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Date: February 21–22, 2002. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Time: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Date: March 1, 2002. Date: March 4–5, 2002. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 3 pm to 5 pm. Time: 8 am to 6 pm. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Place: Doubletree Hotel & Executive applications. applications. Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Place: La Jolla Coves Suites, 1155 Coast Place: Holiday Inn Mission Bay/Sea World Rockville, MD 20852. Blvd., La Jolla, CA 92037. Area, 3737 Sports Arena Blvd., San Diego, Contact Person: John E. Richters, PhD, Contact Person: Tracy E. Orr, PhD, CA 92110. Scientific Review Administrator, National Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Priscilla B. Chen, PhD, Institute of Nursing Research, National Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Room 5118, Scientific Review, National Institutes of 3AN32, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594– Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1259, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4104, 5971. [email protected]. MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 1787. days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing funding cycle. funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Name of Committee: Biophysical and funding cycle. Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, Chemical Sciences Integrated Review Group, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific National Institutes of Health, HHS) Physical Biochemistry Study Section. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Dated: February 19, 2002. Date: March 3–5, 2002. Date: March 4–5, 2002. LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Time: 8:30 am to 2 pm. Time: 8 am to 4:30 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Director, Office of Federal Advisory applications. applications. Committee Policy. Place: Pooks Hill Marriot, 5151 Pooks Hill Place: Hyatt Regency Suites, 285 North [FR Doc. 02–4445 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Road, Bethesda, MD 20814. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Contact Person: Gopa Rakhit, PhD, Contact Person: Ranga V. Srinivas, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4154, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, HUMAN SERVICES MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 1721, [email protected]. 1167, [email protected]. National Institutes of Health This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing Enter for Scientific Review; Notice of limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Closed Meetings funding cycle. Name of Committee: Oncological Sciences Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Integrated Review Group, Clinical Oncology Research Integrated Review Group, AIDS and Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Study Section. Related Research 2. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Date: March 3–5, 2002. Date: March 4–5, 2002. Time: 7 pm to 5 pm. Time: 8 am to 4 pm. is hereby given of the following Agenda: To review and evaluate grant meetings. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. applications. The meetings will be closed to the Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., public in accordance with the Place: Hyatt Regency Suites, 285 North Washington, DC 20007–3701. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. provisions set forth in sections Contact Person: Sharon K. Pulfer, PhD, Contact Person: Abraham P. Bautista, PhD, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review Administrator, Center for as amended. The grant applications and Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of the discussions could disclose Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5102, confidential trade secrets or commercial MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– property such as patentable material, 1767. 1506. and personal information concerning This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 individuals associated with the grant days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and applications, the disclosure of which funding cycle. funding cycle. would constitute a clearly unwarranted Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific invasion of personal privacy. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Date: March 3–5, 2002. Date: March 4–5, 2002. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Time: 7 pm to 11 am. Time: 8:30 am to 1 pm. Date: March 1, 2002. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 10:30 am to 11:30 am. applications. applications.
VerDate 11
Place: River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW, Contact Person: Michael A Oxman, PhD, Date: March 6, 2002. Washington, DC 20037. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Time: 2 pm to 5 pm. Contact Person: Stephen M. Nigida, PhD, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4112, applications. Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435– Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4112, 3565, [email protected]. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– This notice is being published less than 15 3565. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, This notice is being published less than 15 limitations imposed by the review and Scientific Review Administrator, Center for days prior to the meeting due to the timing funding cycle. Scientific Review, National Institutes of limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, funding cycle. Review Special Emphasis Panel. MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Date: March 5, 2002. 435–1177, [email protected]. Research Integrated Review Group, AIDS and Time: 10 am to 5 pm. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Related Research 3. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Review Special Emphasis Panel. Date: March 4, 2002. applications. Date: March 6, 2002. Time: 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. Place: Hyatt Regency Suites, 285 North Time: 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. applications. Contact Person: Eduardo A. Montalvo, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Place: Hyatt Regency Suites, 285 North PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center applications. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Contact Person: Eduardo A. Montalvo, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435– Contact Person: Jo Pelham, BA, Scientific for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 1168. Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, This notice is being published less than 15 Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– days prior to the meeting due to the timing 1168. Rockledge Drive, Room 4102, MSC 7814, limitations imposed by the review and Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1786. This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific limitations imposed by the review and Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. funding cycle. Date: March 5, 2002. Date: March 6–8, 2002. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 2 pm to 3 pm. Time: 6:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Date: March 4, 2002. applications. applications. Time: 3 pm to 5 pm. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Place: Wyndham Washington, Hotel, 1400 Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) M Street NW, Washington, DC 20005–2750. applications. Contact Person: Jo Pelham, BA, Scientific Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Contact Person: Anita Miller Sostek, PhD, Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Scientific Review, National Institutes of Contact Person: Sally Ann Amero, PhD, Rockledge Drive, Room 4102, MSC 7814, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3176, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1786. Scientific Review, Genetic Sciences This notice is being published less than 15 MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892 (301) 435– Integrated Review Group, National Institutes days prior to the meeting due to the timing 1260. of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2206, limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: Center for Scientific MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892–7890, 301– funding cycle. 435–1159, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel. This notice is being published less than 15 Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Date: March 6–8, 2002. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Review Special Emphasis Panel. Time: 6:00 pm to 5:00 pm. limitations imposed by the review and Date: March 6, 2002. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant funding cycle. Time: 8 am to 12 pm. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Place: Radisson Barcelo, 2121 P Street, applications. Review Special Emphasis Panel. NW, Washington, DC 20037. Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Date: March 5, 2002. Contact Person: David L. Simpson, PhD, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Time: 8 am to 3 pm. Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5192, Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, 1278, [email protected]. Contact Person: N. Krish Krishnan, PhD, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) 435–1177, [email protected]. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Scientific Review, National Institutes of Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, Review Special Emphasis Panel. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6164, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, Date: March 6, 2002. MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 1041. Time: 1 pm to 2 pm. 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National This notice is being published less than 15 Agenda: To review and evaluate grant days prior to the meeting due to the timing applications. Institutes of Health, HHS) limitations imposed by the review and Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Dated: February 19, 2002. funding cycle. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Director, Office of Federal Advisory Review Special Emphasis Panel. Committee Policy. Date: March 5, 2002. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Time: 9 am to 5 pm. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, [FR Doc. 02–4446 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Agenda: To review and evaluate grant MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) BILLING CODE 4140–01–M applications. 435–1177, [email protected]. Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Review Special Emphasis Panel.
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Contact Person: John L. Bowers, PhD, Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, HUMAN SERVICES Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of National Institutes of Health Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4168, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 208982, (301) 435– MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) Center for Scientific Review; Notice of 1725. 435–1177, [email protected]. Closed Meetings This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing Pursuant to section 10(d) of the limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and Federal Advisory Committee Act, as funding cycle. funding cycle. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Name of Committee: Cardiovascular Name of Committee: Center for Scientific is hereby given of the following Sciences Integrated Review Group, Review Special Emphasis Panel. meetings. Cardiovascular Study Section. Date: March 7–8, 2002. The meetings will be closed to the Date: March 7–8, 2002. Time: 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant public in accordance with the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. provisions set forth in sections applications. Place: The River Inn, 924 25th Street, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Washington, DC 20037. as amended. The grant applications and Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Contact Person: Gloria B. Levin, PhD, the discussions could disclose Contact Person: Gordon L. Johnson, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for confidential trade secrets or commercial Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of property such as patentable material, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3166, and personal information concerning Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4136, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– individuals associated with the grant MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 1017, [email protected]. 1212, [email protected]. This notice is being published less than 15 applications, the disclosure of which This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing would constitute a clearly unwarranted days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and invasion of personal privacy. limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Cardiovascular funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Sciences Integrated Review Group, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel. Experimental Cardiovascular Sciences Study Review Special Emphasis Panel. Date: March 7–8, 2002. Section. Date: March 7–8, 2002. Time: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. Date: March 4–5, 2002. Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8 am to 3 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania applications. Place: The Westin Fairfax, 2100 Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., Massachusetts Ave. NW., Washington, DC Contact Person: Jeffrey W. Elias, PhD, Washington, DC 20007–3701. 20008. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Anshumali Chaudhari, Contact Person: Gillian Einstein, PhD, Scientific Review, National Institutes of PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3170, for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4124, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5198, 0913. MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 435– This notice is being published less than 15 1210. 4433, [email protected]. days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: Center for Scientific funding cycle. funding cycle. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Cardiovascular Date: March 7–8, 2002. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Sciences Integrated Review Group, Time: 10:00 am to 6:00 pm. Date: March 5, 2002. Pharmacology Study Section. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm. Date: March 7–8, 2002. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8 am to 12 pm. Place: Holiday Inn—Silver Spring, 8777 applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., applications. Contact Person: Nancy Shinowara, PhD, Washington, DC 20007–3701. Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Anshumali Chaudhari, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Scientific Review, National Institutes of PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center Contact Person: Joyce C. Gibson, DSC, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4208, for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review Administrator, Center for MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892–7814, (301) Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4124, Scientific Review, National Institutes of 435–1173, [email protected]. MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4172, This notice is being published less than 15 1210. MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 4522, [email protected]. limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Center for Scientific funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and Review Special Emphasis Panel. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific funding cycle. Date: March 7–8, 2002. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 11:30 am to 5:00 pm. Date: March 7–8, 2002. Review and Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Date: March 7, 2002. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8:00 am to 11:00 am. Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Place: The Melrose Hotel, 2430 applications. Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 20037. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Scientific Review, National Institutes of
VerDate 11
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, This notice is being published less than 15 Place: Hilton Hotel, 8727 Colesville Road, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) days prior to the meeting due to the timing Silver Spring, MD 20910. 435–1177, [email protected]. limitations imposed by the review and Contact Person: Janet Nelson, PhD, This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Scientific Review, National Institutes of limitations imposed by the review and Review Special Emphasis Panel. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4158, funding cycle. Date: March 8, 2002. MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 11 am to 12:30 pm. 1723, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal and Date: March 7, 2002. applications. Dental Sciences Integrated Review Group, Time: 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Orthopedics and Musculoskeletal Study Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Section. applications. Contact Person: Jerrold Fried, PhD, Date: March 11–12, 2002. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Time: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Contact Person: Martin L. Padarathsingh, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4126, applications. PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 1777. Wisconsin Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20007. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4146, This notice is being published less than 15 Contact Person: Daniel F. McDonald, PhD, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– days prior to the meeting due to the timing Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 1717. limitations imposed by the review and Scientific Review, National Institutes of This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, days prior to the meeting due to the timing MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific limitations imposed by the review and 1215, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel. funding cycle. Date: March 8, 2002. Name of Committee: Pathophysiological Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 2 am to 3:30 pm. Sciences Integrated Review Group, Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Respiratory Physiology Study Section. Date: March 7, 2002. applications. Date: March 11, 2002. Time: 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Time: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. applications. Contact Person: Cathleen L. Cooper, PhD, Place: The Governor’s House Hotel, 1615 Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Scientific Review, National Institutes of 20036. Contact Person: Weijia Ni, PhD, Scientific Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4208, Contact Person: Everett E. Sinnett, PhD, Review Administrator, Center for Scientific MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 3566, [email protected]. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Rockledge Drive, Room 3190, MSC 7848, This notice is being published less than 15 Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2178, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1507, days prior to the meeting due to the timing MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– [email protected]. limitations imposed by the review and 1016, [email protected]. This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Pathophysiological Name of Committee: Center for Scientific limitations imposed by the review and Sciences Integrated Review Group, General Review Special Emphasis Panel. funding cycle. Medicine A Subcommittee 2. Date: March 11, 2002. Date: March 11–13, 2002. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 7 am to 5 pm. Time: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Date: March 8, 2002. applications. applications. Time: 7 am to 5 pm. Place: Embassy Suites, Chevy Chase Place: The Washington Monarch Hotel, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Pavilion, 4300 Military Rd., Wisconsin at 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037. applications. Western Ave., Washington, DC 20015. Contact Person: Mushtaq A. Khan, DVM, Place: Holiday Inn—Silver Spring, 8777 Contact Person: Michael A. Lang, PhD, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Contact Person: Ann Hardy, DRPH, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2176, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 1778, [email protected]. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, 1265, [email protected]. MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 0695. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. This notice is being published less than 15 Date: March 11, 2002. Date: March 11, 2002. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Time: 1:00 am to 3:00 pm. limitations imposed by the review and Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant funding cycle. applications. applications. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Place: Georgetown Suites, 1000 29th St., Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Review Special Emphasis Panel. NW., Washington, DC 20007. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Date: March 8, 2002. Contact Person: Daniel McPherson, PhD, Contact Person: Martin L. Padarathsingh, Time: 9 am to 3 pm. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review, National Institutes of for Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4146, Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Washington, DC 20007–3701. 1175, [email protected]. 1717. Contact Person: Noni Byrnes, PhD, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Date: March 11, 2002. Date: March 11, 2002. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4196, Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Time: 1:30 am to 2:30 pm. MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 1217, [email protected]. applications. applications.
VerDate 11
Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD The meeting will be open to the of next proposed meeting, assignment of 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). public, however, facilities and space of tasks). The Commission will also Contact Person: Luci Roberts, PhD, accommodating members of the public discuss organizational and Scientific Review Administrator, Center for are limited and persons will be administrative needs. Scientific Review, National Institutes of accommodated on a first-come first- Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3188, Dated: February 19, 2002. served basis. MSC, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–0692. Steve Williams, (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Assistance to Individuals With Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, Disabilities at the Public Meeting [FR Doc. 02–4536 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, The meeting site is accessible to BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, individuals with disabilities. If you plan 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National to attend and will need an auxiliary aid Institutes of Health, HHS) or service to participate in the meeting DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Dated: February 19, 2002. (e.g., interpreting service, assistive LaVerne Y. Stringfield, listening device or materials in an Geological Survey Director, Office of Federal Advisory alternate format), notify the contact Committee Policy. Application Notice Describing the person listed in this notice at least 2 Areas of Interest and Establishing the [FR Doc. 02–4447 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] weeks before the scheduled meeting Closing Date for Receipt of BILLING CODE 4140–01–M date. We will make attempts to meet any Applications Under the National request(s) received after that date, Earthquake Hazards Reduction however, the requested auxiliary aid or Program (NEHRP) for Fiscal Year (FY) service may not be available due to 2003 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR insufficient time. Anyone may file with the Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY: Department of the Interior, U.S. Commission a written statement Geological Survey. National Wildlife Refuge System; concerning matters to be discussed. The ACTION: Notice. National Wildlife Refuge System Commission may also permit attendees Centennial Commission Meeting to address the Commission but may SUMMARY: Applications are invited for restrict the length of the presentations, research projects under the NEHRP. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, as necessary, to allow the Commission The purpose of this Program is to Interior. to complete its agenda within the support the USGS Earthquake Hazards ACTION: Notice of meeting of National allotted time. Program by providing products for Wildlife Refuge Centennial Interested persons may make oral/ earthquake loss reduction to the public Commission. written presentations to the Commission and private sectors and by carrying out during the business meeting or file research on earthquake occurrence and SUMMARY: In accordance with the written statements. Make requests to the effects. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Applications may be submitted by L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App1, attention: Centennial Commission educational institutions, private firms, section 10), notice is hereby given that Coordinator at least 7 days prior to the private foundations, individuals, and the National Wildlife Refuge System meeting. Further information regarding agencies of state and local governments. Centennial Commission will hold its the meeting may be obtained from the ADDRESSES: The program announcement first meeting. Division of Visitor Services and is expected to be available on or about DATES: The meeting will be held March Communications, National Wildlife February 19, 2002. You may obtain a 12, 13, 2002, in Washington, DC. The Refuge System, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, copy of Announcement No. meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. Arlington, VA 22203. Telephone: 703– 03HQPA0001 from the USGS Contracts ending each day at approximately 4:30 358–2035. and Grants Information Site at http:// p.m. Draft minutes of the meeting will be www.usgs.gov/contracts/nehrp/ or by available for public inspection writing to Sherri Newman, U.S. ADDRESSES: The meeting is scheduled to approximately 6 weeks after the meeting be held at: The American Geophysical Geological Survey, Office of Acquisition in Room 600, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, and Grants—Mail Stop 205G, 12201 Union Building, 2000 Florida Avenue, Arlington, VA 22203. NW., Washington, DC 20009. Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, or by fax (703) 648–7901. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matters To Be Considered Laurie Shaffer, 703–358–2035. Major topics for discussion during DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications will be on or about May 1, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The this meeting include: 2002. The actual closing date will be Centennial Commission was established Welcome specified in Announcement No. by Title III, Section 303 of the Fish and Objectives of the meeting 03HQPA0001. Wildlife Programs Improvement and Addition and corrections to the National Wildlife Refuge System agenda FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Business: Unger, Earthquake Hazards Reduction Centennial Act of 2000 (H.R. 3671). The 1. Introduction to the National Program—U.S. Geological Survey, Mail purpose of the Commission is to Wildlife Refuge System Stop 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, prepare, in cooperation with Federal, 2. Commission—Purpose, Objectives, Reston, Virginia 20192. Telephone: State, local, and nongovernmental Rules, Staffing, Budget, Other Resources partners, a plan to commemorate the 3. Centennial Events and Plans (703) 648–6701. centennial of the National Wildlife 4. Conference Proposal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority Refuge System beginning on March 14, 5. Funding opportunities and for this program is contained in the 2003. They are also charged with partnerships Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of planning a conference for the Closing remarks (including summary 1977, Public Law 95–124 (42 U.S.C. Centennial year. of accomplishments of the meeting, date 7701, et. seq.). The Office of
VerDate 11
Management and Budget Catalog of 3. This withdrawal will expire 20 comments and ask questions on any Federal Domestic Assistance Number is years from the effective date of this park activity. 15.807. order, unless, as a result of a review FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Dated: February 5, 2002. conducted before the expiration date A. Latschar, Superintendent, Gettysburg Patricia P. Dunham, pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal National Military Park, 97 Taneytown Land Policy and Management Act of Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325. Deputy, Chief, Office of Administrative Policy 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the and Services. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary determines that the meeting will be open to the public. Any [FR Doc. 02–4334 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] withdrawal shall be extended. BILLING CODE 4310–Y7–M member of the public may file with the Dated: November 2, 2001. Commission a written statement J. Steven Griles, concerning agenda items. The statement DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Deputy Secretary. should be addressed to the Gettysburg [FR Doc. 02–4373 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] National Military Park Advisory Bureau of Land Management BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P Commission, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325. [NV–930–1430–ET; NVN–66423 Public Land Order No. 7505] Dated: February 4, 2002. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR John A. Latschar, Withdrawal of Public Land for Bureau Superintendent, Gettysburg NMP/Eisenhower of Land Management Wildland Fire National Park Service NHS. Station Site; Nevada Gettysburg National Military Park [FR Doc. 02–4338 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Advisory Commission BILLING CODE 4310–70–P Interior. AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Public Land Order. ACTION: Notice of March 14, 2002 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL SUMMARY: This order withdraws a 0.57- meeting. TRADE COMMISSION acre parcel of public land from surface SUMMARY: [Investigation No. 731–TA–920 (Final)] entry and mining to protect a Bureau of This notice sets forth the date Land Management wildland fire station of the March 14, 2002 meeting of the Gettysburg National Military Park Certain Welded Large Diameter Line site. The land is located within the Pipe From Mexico incorporated city of Carlin, Nevada, and Advisory Commission. is not subject to the Mineral Leasing Act DATES: The public meeting will be held Determination on March 14, 2002 from 7:00 p.m. to of 1920 (43 CFR 3100.0–3(a)(2)(iii)). 1 9:00 p.m. On the basis of the record developed EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. in the subject investigation, the United LOCATION: The meeting will be held at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: States International Trade Commission the Cyclorama Auditorium, 125 Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State determines, pursuant to section 735(b) Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Pennsylvania 17325. 89520, 775–861–6532. Agenda: The March 14, 2002 meeting 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By virtue will consist of the Election of Officers the United States is materially injured of the authority vested in the Secretary which will be the election of by reason of imports from Mexico of of the Interior by Section 204 of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for certain welded large diameter line pipe, Federal Land Policy and Management the 2002 year; Sub-Committee reports provided for in subheadings 7305.11.10, Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is from the Historical, Executive, and 7305.11.50, 7305.12.10, 7305.12.50, ordered as follows: Interpretive Committees; Federal 7305.19.10, and 7305.19.50 of the 1. Subject to valid existing rights, the Consistency Reports Within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the following described public land is Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District; United States, that have been found by hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, Operational Updates on Park Activities the Department of Commerce to be sold location, or entry under the general land which consist of a briefing by the in the United States at less than fair laws, including the United States Museum Foundation on the conceptual value (LTFV). mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2, (1994)), to design of the new Museum/Visitor Background protect a Bureau of Land Management Center complex; the Historic Landscape wildland fire station site: The Commission instituted this Rehabilitation which consists of the tree investigation effective January 10, 2001, Mount Diablo Meridian reduction in the Codori, Codori-Trostle, following receipt of a petition filed with T. 33 N., R. 52 E., Trostle and Herbst woodlots; updating the Commission and Commerce by Berg Sec. 27, lots 8 to17, inclusive in Block 6, on the schedule of repairs for Steel Pipe Corp. (Panama City, FL); Town of Carlin, as shown on the map Pennsylvania Monument; American Steel Pipe Division of filed in the office of the County Recorder Construction—consisting of the Fire American Cast Iron Pipe Co. of Elko County, Nevada, on March 6, Suppression for 50 historic structures; 1919. (Birmingham, AL); and Stupp Corp. the Sewer Project and the Waterline (Baton Rouge, LA). The final phase of The area described contains 0.57 acres in project; Transportation—consisting of Elko County. the investigation was scheduled by the the National Park Service and the Commission following notification of a 2. The withdrawal made by this order Gettysburg Borough working on the preliminary determination by does not alter the applicability of those shuttle system, update of the Commerce that imports of certain public land laws governing the use of Willoughby Run Bridge located on welded large diameter line pipe from the land under lease, license, or permit, Route 30; update on land acquisition or governing the disposal of the mineral within the park boundary or in the 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the or vegetative resources other than under historic district; and the Citizens Open Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 the mining laws. Forum where the public can make CFR 207.2(f)).
VerDate 11
Mexico were being sold at LTFV within The Settling Defendants and Third-party There is a charge for the copy (25 the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act Defendants are CSX Transportation, cents per page reproduction cost). Upon (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the Lucent Technologies, Thompson Tractor requesting a copy, please mail a check scheduling of the Commission’s Company, BellSouth Corporation, payable to the ‘‘U.S. Treasury’’ in the investigation and of a public hearing to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., amount of $7.00, to: Consent Decree be held in connection therewith was and Jefferson County, Alabama. The Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. given by posting copies of the notice in settling federal agencies are the U.S. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, including the The check should refer to U.S. v. CSX International Trade Commission, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Transp., D.J. No. 90–11–3–1758/1. Washington, DC, and by publishing the Service (‘‘DRMS’’). Under the proposed Ellen M. Mahan, notice in the Federal Register of July 9, Consent Decree, the settlors collectively Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 2001 (66 FR 35811). The hearing was agree to pay a total of $978,214.68. The Enforcement Section. held in Washington, DC, on October 9, settling Defendants and Third-party [FR Doc. 02–4433 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] 2001, and all persons who requested the Defendants have agreed to pay a total of opportunity were permitted to appear in $608,666.91. The settling federal BILLING CODE 4410–15–M person or by counsel. agencies have agreed to pay The Commission transmitted its $369,547.75. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE determination in the investigation to the The Department of Justice will receive Secretary of Commerce on February 19, comment relating to the proposed Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 2002. The views of the Commission are Consent Decree for a period of thirty Under the Comprehensive contained in USITC Publication 3487 (30) days from the date of this Environmental Response, (February 2002), entitled Certain publication. As a result of the discovery Compensation and Liability Act Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from of anthrax contamination at the District (CERCLA) Mexico: Investigation No. 731–TA–920 of Columbia mail processing center in (Final). mid-October, 2001, the delivery of Under section 122(d)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Issued: February 19, 2002. regular first-class mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service has been disrupted. Response, Compensation and Liability By order of the Commission. Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), Consequently, public comments which Marilyn R. Abbott, and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given are addressed to the Department of Acting Secretary. that on January 12, 2002, a proposed Justice in Washington, D.C. and sent by Consent Decree in United States v. [FR Doc. 02–4346 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] regular, first-class mail through the U.S. Franc Motors, et al., Civil Action No. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Postal Service are not expected to be 3:02CV71(AWT), was lodged with the received in timely manner. Therefore, United States District Court for the comments should be addressed to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE District of Connecticut. Assistant Attorney General, In this action, the United States Environment and Natural Resources Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree sought recovery of over $1.6 million of Division, Department of Justice, and costs incurred by the United States Under the Comprehensive sent: (1) By regular, first-class mail Environmental Response, Environmental Protection Agency in through the U.S. Postal Service, c/o conducting a removal action at the Compensation and Liability Act Karen Singer, U.S. Environmental (CERCLA) National Oil Service Superfund Site in Protection Agency, Region 4, EAD, 61 West Haven, Connecticut. The United Under section 122(d)(2) of CERCLA, Forsyth Street, S.E., Atlanta, Georgia, States filed its complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), and 28 CFR 50.7, 30303; and/or (2) by facsimile to (202) section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. notice is hereby given that on January 9, 353–0296; and/or (3) by overnight 9607(a), seeking recovery of over $1.6 2002, a proposed Consent Decree in two delivery, other than through the U.S. million. The complaint named 8 consolidated cases, United States v. Postal Service, to Chief, Environmental defendants which arranged for the Allied Battery Co., Civil No. CV–98–N– Enforcement Section, 1425 New York disposal of waste oil at the Site. The 0446–S, and United States v. CSX Avenue, NW, 13th Floor, Washington, proposed Consent Decree resolves the Transportation, Inc., CV–98–N–2561–S, DC 20005. United States’ cost recovery claims was lodged with the United States Each communication should refer on against all of those defendants. Under District Court for the Northern District its face the U.S. v. CSX Transp., CV98– the proposed Consent Decree, settling of Alabama. N–2561–S, and D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–1758/ defendants collectively agree to pay The United States’ Complaints in 1. over $300,000 in partial reimbursement these actions seek recovery of over $2.1 The proposed Consent Decree may be of the United States’ response costs. million in costs incurred by the United examined at the office of the United The Department of Justice will receive States Environmental Protection Agency States Attorney for the Northern District comments relating to the proposed in conducting a soil cleanup removal of Alabama, 200 Fed. Bldg., 1800 Fifth Consent Decree for a period of thirty action at the Carlie Lee Superfund Site Avenue North, Room 200, Birmingham, (30) days from the date of this near Birmingham, Alabama. The United Alabama, and also at the Region 4 Office publication. As a result of the discovery States filed its Complaints pursuant to of the Environmental Protection of anthrax contamination at the District section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, of Columbia mail processing center in Environmental Response, Compensation SE., Atlanta, Georgia. mid-October, 2001, the delivery of and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. A copy of the proposed Consent regular mail sent through the U.S. Postal 9607(a). Decree may also be obtained by faxing Service has been disrupted. The proposed Consent Decree a request to Tonia Fleetwood, Consequently, public comments which contains a settlement with the Department of Justice Consent Decree are addressed to the Department of remaining Defendants, two Third-party Library, fax no. (202) 616–6584; phone Justice in Washington, DC and sent by Defendants, and two federal agencies. confirmation no. (202) 514–1547. regular, first-class mail through the U.S.
VerDate 11
Postal Service are not expected to be 301 and 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 delivery, other than through the U.S. received in a timely manner. Therefore, U.S.C. 1251, et seq., against the Board of Postal Service, to Chief, Environmental comments should be addressed to the Water and Sewer Commissioners of the Enforcement Section, 1425 New York Assistant Attorney General, City of Mobile, Alabama (‘‘Board’’), Avenue, NW, 13th Floor, Washington, Environment and Natural Resources through the performance of injunctive DC 20005. Each communication should Division, Department of Justice, and measures, the payment of a civil refer on its face to United States v. The sent (1) C/O Eve Vaudo, U.S. E.P.A. penalty, and the performance of Board of Water and Sewer Region 1, One Congress Street, Boston, Supplemental Environmental Projects Commissioners of the City of Mobile, MA 02114–2023; (2) by facsimile to (‘‘SEPs’’). The United States, the State of Alabama, DJ No. 90–5–1–1–06985. (202) 353–0296; and/or (3) by overnight Alabama and Mobile Bay Watch, Inc., The proposed Consent Decree may be delivery, other than through the U.S. allege that the Board is liable as a examined at the office of the United Postal Service, to Chief, Environmental person who has discharged a pollutant States Attorney for the Southern District Enforcement Section, 1425 New York from a point source to navigable waters of Alabama, 63 South Royal Street, Avenue, NW, 13th Floor, Washington, of the United States without a permit Mobile, AL 36602, and at the Region 4 DC 20005. Each communication should and, in some cases, in excess of permit Office of the Environmental Protection refer on its face to United States v. limitations. Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Franc Motors, et al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–3– The proposed Consent Decree would Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta GA 30303. 07333/3. resolve the liability of the Board for the A copy of the proposed Consent Decree The proposed Consent Decree may be violations alleged in the complaints may also be obtained by faxing a request examined at the Office of the United filed in these matters. The proposed to Tonia Fleetwood, Department of States Attorney, Connecticut Financial Consent Decree would release claims Justice Consent Decree Library, fax no. Center, New Haven, CT, and at the against the Board for performance of (202) 616–6584; phone confirmation no. Region 1 office of the Environmental injunctive measures to remedy the (202) 514–1547. There is a charge for the Protection Agency, One Congress Stree, alleged violations, and for penalties for copy (25 cents per page reproduction Boston, MA. A copy of the proposed the violations alleged in the complaints. cost). Upon requesting a copy, please Consent Decree may also be obtained by To resolve these claims, the Board mail a check payable to the ‘‘U.S. faxing a request to Tonia Fleetwood, would perform the injunctive measures Treasury’’, in the amount of $25.75, to: Department of Justice Consent Decree described in the proposed Consent Consent Decree Library, U.S. Library, fax no. (202) 616–6584; phone Decree, including the implementation of Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, confirmation no. (202) 514–1547. There a capacity assurance program, a grease Washington, DC 20044–7611. The check is a charge for the copy (25 cents per control program, and a water quality should refer to United States v. The page reproduction cost). Upon monitoring program; would pay a civil Board of Water and Sewer requesting a copy, please mail a check penalty of $114,000 ($99,000 to the Commissioners of the City of Mobile, payable to the ‘‘U.S. Treasury,’’ in the United States Treasury and $15,000 to Alabama, DJ No. 90–5–1–1–06985. amount of amount of five dollars ($5.00) the State of Alabama); and would Walker Smith, to the Consent Decree Library, U.S. perform four SEPs valued at $2.5 Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, million collectively, including the Principal Deputy Chief, Environmental installation of new private sewer laterals Enforcement Section, Environment and Washington, DC 20044–7611. The check Natural Resources Division. should refer to United States v. Franc in low-income households within the [FR Doc. 02–4431 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Motors, et al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–07333/ Board’s service area, the acquisition of 3. environmentally beneficial parcels of BILLING CODE 4410–15–M land, and the creation of a water quality Ronald G. Gluck, monitoring database. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement The Department of Justice will receive Section, Environment and Natural Resources comments relating to the proposed Notice of Lodging of Amendment To Division. Consent Decree for a period of thirty [FR Doc. 02–4432 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Consent Decree in Accordance With (30) days from the date of this the Comprehensive Environmental BILLING CODE 4410–15–M application. As a result of the discovery Response, Compensation, and Liability of anthrax contamination at the District Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) of Columbia mail processing center in DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE mid-October, 2001, the delivery of In accordance with Department of Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree regular first-class mail sent through the Justice Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR Pursuant to the Clean Water Act U.S. Postal Service has been disrupted. 19029, and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is Consequently, public comments which hereby given that on January 17, 2002, Notice is hereby given that a proposed are addressed to the Department of a proposed Order to Amend Consent Consent Decree in United States of Justice in Washington, DC and sent by Decree was lodged with the United America and the State of Alabama v. regular, first-class mail through the U.S. States District Court for the Eastern The Board of Water and Sewer Postal Service are not expected to be District of Pennsylvania in United states Commissioners of the City of Mobile, received in timely manner. Therefore, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Alabama, Civ. No. 02–0058–CB–S, and comments should be addressed to the v. Settling Defendants, Civil Action No. Mobile Bay Watch, Inc. v. The Board of Assistant Attorney General, 99–4402. Water and Sewer Commissioners of the Environment and Natural Resources In 1999, the United States and City of Mobile, Alabama, Civ. No. CV– Division, Department of Justice, and Settling Defendants entered into a 99–0595–CB–S, was lodged on January sent: (1) c/o Melissa Heath, Assistant Consent Decree in this case concerning 24, 2002, with the United States District Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental the Malvern TCE Superfund Site Court for the Southern District of Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal (‘‘Site’’) in Chester County, Alabama. Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Pennsylvania, for conduct of certain The proposed Consent Decree would Georgia 30303; and/or (2) by facsimile to response actions at the Site and the resolve certain claims under sections (202) 353–0296; and/or (3) by overnight payment of certain response costs
VerDate 11
therefore. This Consent Decree was Natural Resources Division, continued to be bound by the Final entered by the Court on December 13, Environmental Defense Section, and Judgment as the successor to the joint 1999. should refer to the proposed Order to venture. In July 2001 Global One was The Consent Decree contains a Amend Consent Decree in United States acquired by Equant N.V., and FT reservation of rights by the Settling and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acquired majority ownership and Defendants as to, among other things, v. Settling Defendants, DOJ. Ref. No. 90– control of Equant. Therefore, Equant, as claims against the United States ‘‘based 11–6–80. the successor to Global One, is now on the discovery of information or identified as the defendant that was Letitia J. Grishaw, documentation that * * * the volume of referred to as Joint Venture Co. in the hazardous substances attributable to the Chief, Environment & Natural Resources Final Judgment, and is substituted for Division, Environmental Defense Section. United states exceeds the amount agreed Joint Venture Co. in the proposed to by the Settling Parties * * *.’’ Decree [FR Doc. 02–4434 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Modified Final Judgment. paragraph 109(c). Appendix F to the BILLING CODE 4410–15–M The Final Judgment, which was Decree provides a procedure and entered by consent of the parties on payment schedule that specifies the February 16, 1996, includes various response costs on a per-drum basis for DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE restrictions affecting Sprint and such additional waste attributable to the Antitrust Division Equant’s relationship to FT and DT. United States. These restrictions operated in two Additional drums of waste United States v. Sprint Corp. and Joint distinct phases, lessening over time as attributable to the United States Venture Co., Civil No. 95–1304 (D.D.C.); competition developed in France and in Department of the Army (‘‘Army’’) and United States’ Notice of Proposed Germany. The Phase I restrictions, to the National Institutes of Health Medication of the Final Judgment contained in Section III of the Final (‘‘NIH’’) have been identified. Judgment, were terminated by the Court Accordingly, the United States and Notice is hereby given that the United on November 2, 1998, pursuant to a Settling Defendants have agreed to States and both Sprint Corporation stipulation between the United States amendments to the Consent Decree to: (‘‘Sprint’’) and Equant N.V. (‘‘Equant’’), and the defendants, in recognition of (1) Add the Army and NIH as parties to defendants in the above-captioned competitive developments in France the Consent Decree, thereby resolving matter, have entered into a Stipulation and Germany. Defendants continue to potential claims against these Agencies to modify the Final Judgment entered by be subject to the substantive obligations for cleanup costs relating to drums of the United States District Court for the of Section II of the Final Judgment until hazardous waste discovered at the Site; District of Columbia on February 16, January 1, 2003. The Section II and to (2) reflect that 203 drums have 1996. In this Stipulation filed with the obligations, which are intended to been attributed to the Army, and that Court, the United States has prevent Equant and Sprint from 165.60 drums have been attributed to provisionally consented to modification receiving competitive advantages from NIH, with a total proposed payment by of the Final Judgment, but has reserved their association with FT and DT: (1) the United States to the Settling the right to withdraw its consent Require Equant and Sprint to disclose Performing Defendants of $464,506.90, pending receipt of public comments. certain information related to prices, on behalf of these Agencies as their On July 13, 1995, the United States terms and conditions of certain FT and respective shares of the performance filed the complaint in this case. The DT telecommunications products and and payment obligations to be incurred complaint alleged that the sale of 20% services that are provided in France or by Settling Defendants in carrying out of the voting shares of Sprint to France in Germany or between France and response actions required by the Telecom (‘‘FT’’) and Deutsche Telekom Germany and the United States and are Consent Decree. Consistent with the A.G. (‘‘DT’’) and the formation of a joint used by Equant or Sprint; (2) preclude applicable requirement of the Consent venture among Sprint, FT and DT to Equant and Sprint from receiving Decree, the Commonwealth of provide certain international competitively sensitive information Pennsylvania has been consulted and telecommunications services, would from FT and DT that FT and DT obtain has concurred in the amendments. violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, as from the competitors of Equant and The Department of Justice will receive amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, in the markets Sprint; and (3) prohibit Equant and written comments by facsimile for international telecommunications Sprint from offering certain services transmission (‘‘FAX’’) relating to the services between the United States and between the United States and France proposed Order to Amend Consent France and the United States and and Germany unless other United States Decree for thirty (30) days from the date Germany, and in the markets for providers also have or can readily of publication of this Notice. Comments seamless international obtain licenses from the French and should be sent by FAX to (202) 514– telecommunications services. At the German governments to offer the same 8865, and should be addressed to D. same time as it filed the Complaint, the service. Judith Keith, Environment and Natural United States filed a proposed Final The United States and defendants Resources Division, Environmental Judgment to resolve the competitive Sprint and Equant have provisionally Defense Section, U.S. Department of concerns alleged in the Complaint, and agreed to modify the Final Judgment Justice, Washington, DC, and should a stipulation by defendants and the because of changed circumstances in the refer to United States and the United States consenting thereto. relationship between Equant and Sprint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. At the time of the entry of the Final and FT and DT. In June 2001, FT and Settling Defendants, DOJ. Ref. No. 90– Judgment, Joint Venture Co. was the DT sold their ownership interests in 11–6–80. proposed joint venture of Sprint, FT and Sprint’s FON stock, which formed the A copy of the proposed Order to DT. Subsequently, the joint venture was basis of the United States’ concern about Amend Consent Decree may be obtained formed and given the name Global One. FT’s and DT’s acquisition of 10% by request. Requests should be sent by In January 2000, Sprint, FT and DT interests in Sprint, and Sprint sold its FAX to (202) 514–8865, and should be agreed to terminate their joint venture, Global One ownership interest to FT on addressed to Allison Booker, U.S. with FT acquiring sole ownership of the February 22, 2000. These events form Department of Justice, Environment and former joint venture, but Global One the basis for the proposed termination of
VerDate 11
the Final Judgment with respect to Department of Justice, 1401 H. St., NW., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Sprint. Furthermore, DT ceased to be an Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530. owner of Global One even before Global Antitrust Division Constance K. Robinson, One was acquired by Equant, having Notice Pursuant to the National sold its interest to FT pursuant to an Director of Operations & Merger Enforcement. [FR Doc. 02–4435 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Cooperative Research and Production agreement reached on January 26, 2000. Act of 1993; National Center for BILLING CODE 4410–11–M Therefore, the Final Judgment is also Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS): proposed to be modified to eliminate Advanced Embedded Passives any obligations related to DT’s Technology relationship with Equant. Certain DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice is hereby given that, on provisions of the Final Judgment Antitrust Division applicable to Equant’s relationship with January 7, 2002, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research FT will remain in force, in order to Notice Pursuant to the National safeguard against anticompetitive and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. Cooperative Research and Production 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), National Center conduct by FT favoring Equant. Other Act of 1993; Financial Services for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS): provisions of the Final Judgment Technology Consortium, Inc. Advanced Embedded Passives relating to FT’s relationship to Equant Technology has filed written will be terminated because they are Notice is hereby given that, on notifications simultaneously with the redundant of other regulatory December 31, 2001, pursuant to section Attorney General and the Federal Trade requirements or superfluous in light of 6(a) of the National Cooperative Commission disclosing changes in its market developments. The provisions Research and Production Act of 1993, membership status. The notifications that will remain are the reporting 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), were filed for the purpose of extending requirements of certain information Financial Services Technology the Act’s provisions limiting the related to the prices, terms and Consortium, Inc. has filed written recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual conditions of FT products and services notifications simultaneously with the damages under specified circumstances. sold by FT to Equant. Attorney General and the Federal Trade Specifically, E.I. DuPont de Nemours The United States has filed a Commission disclosing changes in its Company, Circleville, OH and memorandum with the Court setting membership status. The notifications Interconnect Technology Research Institute, Austin, TX have been dropped forth the reasons it believes were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the as parties to this venture. modification of the Final Judgment No other changes have been made in recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual would serve the public interest. Copies either the membership or planned damages under specified circumstances. of the joint Judgment, the stipulation activity of the group research project. containing the United States’ Specifically, DirectAdvice, Inc., Membership in this group research provisional consent to modification of Hartford, CT has been dropped as a project remains open, and National the Final Judgment, the supporting party to this venture. Center for Manufacturing Sciences memorandum, and all additional papers No other changes have been made in (NCMS): Advanced Embedded Passives filed with the Court in connection with either the membership or planned disclosing all changes in membership. this motion are available for inspection activity of the group research project. On October 7, 1998, National Center as the Antitrust Documents Group of the Membership in this group research for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS): Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of project remains open, and Financial Advanced embedded Passives Justice, 325 7th Street, NW., Room 215 Services Technology Consortium, Inc. Technology filed its original notification North, Liberty Place Building, intends to file additional written pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Washington, DC 20530, and at the Office notification disclosing all changes in Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to of the Clerk of the United States District membership. Section 6(b) of the Act on January 22, Court for the District of Columbia, 333 On October 21, 1993, Financial Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 1999 (64 FR 3571). Services Technology Consortium, Inc. The last notification was filed with DC 2001. Copies of these materials may filed its original notification pursuant to the Department on May 23, 2001. A be obtained from the Antitrust Division section 6(a) of the Act. The Department notice was published in the Federal upon request and payment of the of Justice published a notice in the Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the duplicating fee set out in Department of Federal Register pursuant to section Act on June 22, 2001 (66 FR 33563). Justice regulations. 6(b) of the Act on December 14, 1993 Constance K. Robinson, Interested persons may submit (58 FR 65399). Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. comments regarding the proposed The last notification was filed with termination to the Department of [FR Doc. 02–4436 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the Department on September 28, 2001. BILLING CODE 4410–11–M Justice. Such comments must be A notice was published in the Federal received by the Antitrust Division Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the within sixty (60) days of the last Act on November 2, 2001 (66 FR 65882). DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE publication of notices appearing in the Wall Street Journal and Constance K. Robinson, Antitrust Division Communications Week International, Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. and will be filed with the Court by the [FR Doc. 02–4438 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Department. Comments should be BILLING CODE 4410–11–M addressed to Lawrence M. Frankel, Act of 1993; PKI Forum, Inc Acting Chief, Telecommunications Task Notice is hereby given that, no Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. January 2, 2002, pursuant to section 6(a)
VerDate 11
of the National Cooperative Research ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent archival holdings choose a subject and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. to: Office of Information and Regulatory heading to help describe their request. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), PKI Forum, Inc. Affairs, Office of Management and The form entails no burden other than has filed written notifications Budget, Attn: Ms. Brooke Dickson, Desk that necessary to identify the customer, simultaneously with the Attorney Officer for NARA, Washington, DC the date, the customer’s address, and the General and the Federal Trade 20503. nature of the request. This information Commission disclosing changes in its FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: is used only to facilitate answering the membership status. The notifications Requests for additional information or request and is not retained after the were filed for the purpose of extending copies of the proposed information request is completed, in accordance the Act’s provisions limiting the collection and supporting statement with approved record schedules. The recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm information is not used for any damages under specified circumstances. at telephone number 301–713–6730 or subsequent purpose. Specifically, DOD/Federal PKI PMO, Ft. fax number 301–713–6913. Dated: February 14, 2002. Meade, MD; and e-Scotia, Toronto, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant L. Reynolds Cahoon, Ontario, Canada have been added as to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Assistant Archivist for Human Resources and parties to this venture. Also, Odyssey (Public Law 104–13), NARA invites the Information Services. Technologies, Ltd., Chennai, India; general public and other Federal [FR Doc. 02–4394 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Protegrity, Inc., Stamford, CT; Securify, agencies to comment on proposed BILLING CODE 7515–01–P Inc., Waltham, MA; and Thinkpulse, information collections. NARA Inc., San Jose, CA have been dropped as published a notice of proposed parties to this venture. No other changes have been made in collection for this information collection NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS either the membership or planned on December 3, 2001 (66 FR 60225). No SYSTEM activity of the group research project. comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information Membership in this group research National Security Telecommunications project remains open, and PKI Forum, collection to OMB for approval. In response to this notice, comments Advisory Committee Inc. intends to file additional written and suggestions should address one or notification disclosing all changes in AGENCY: National Communications more of the following points: (a) membership. System (NCS). Whether the proposed information On April 2, 2001, PKI Forum, Inc. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. filed its original notification pursuant to collection is necessary for the proper section 6(a) of the Act. The Department performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA’s estimate of SUMMARY: A meeting of the President’s of Justice published a notice in the National Security Telecommunications Federal Register pursuant to section the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the Advisory Committee will be held on 6(b) of the Act on May 3, 2001 (66 FR Wednesday, March 13, 2002, from 9:00 22260). quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The Business Session The last notification was filed with will be held at the Department of State, the Department on September 27, 2001. ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on Washington, DC. A notice has not yet been published in The agenda is as follows: the Federal Register. respondents, including the use of information technology. In this notice, —Call to Order/Welcoming Remarks Constance K. Robinson, NARA is soliciting comments —Briefings on Lessons Learned from Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. concerning the following information September 11, 2001, Evolving Threat [FR Doc. 02–4437 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] collection: to National Infrastructures, and BILLING CODE 4410–11–M Title: Customer Request for Wireless Priority Access Service Information and Order Forms. —National Communications System OMB number: 3095–NEW. Manager’s Report NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS Agency form number: NA Form —NSTAC XXV Cycle in Review ADMINISTRATION 14116. —Adjournment Type of review: Regular. Agency Information Collection Affected public: Individuals and Due to the potential requirement to Activities: Submission for OMB households. discuss classified information in Review; Comment Request Estimated number of respondents: conjunction with the issues listed 130,000. above, the meeting will be closed to the AGENCY: National Archives and Records Estimated time per response: 5 public in the interest of National Administration (NARA). minutes. Defense. ACTION: Notice. Frequency of response: On occasion. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Estimated total annual burden hours: Telephone Ms. Marilyn Witcher, (703) SUMMARY: NARA is giving public notice 10,833 hours. that the agency has submitted to OMB 607–6214, or write the Manager, Abstract: The form is a web-based National Communications System, 701 for approval the information collection form to be completed by members of the described in this notice. The public is South Court House Road, Arlington, public who wish to either request Virginia 22204–2198. invited to comment on the proposed printed order forms for copies of information collection pursuant to the genealogical records or to obtain Peter Fonash, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. information about NARA’s archival Federal Register Liaison Officer, Technology DATES: Written comments must be holdings or services. Customers who and Programs Division, National submitted to OMB at the address below request printed forms indicate the type Communications System. on or before March 27, 2002 to be and quantity of form wanted. Those [FR Doc. 02–4353 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] assured of consideration. who need information about NARA’s BILLING CODE 5001–08–M
VerDate 11
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION in science and engineering research and Comments are invited on: (a) Whether education) about the quality and kind of the proposed collection of information Notice of Intent to Seek Approval to services it provides and use that is necessary for the proper performance Renew an Information Collection information to help improve agency of the functions of the Agency, operations and services. including whether the information shall AGENCY: National Science Foundation. have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of ACTION: Use of the Information Notice and Request for the Agency’s estimate of the burden of Comments. Estimate of Burden: The burden on the proposed collection of information; SUMMARY: The National Science the public will change according to the (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans needs of each individual customer and clarity of the information on to request clearance of this collection. In satisfaction survey; however, each respondents, including through the use accordance with the requirement of survey is estimated to take of automated collection techniques or Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork approximately 30 minutes per response. other forms of information technology; Respondents: Will vary among Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), and (d) ways to minimize the burden of individuals or households; business or we are providing opportunity for public the collection of information on other for-profit; not-for-profit comment on this action. After obtaining respondents, including through the use institutions; farms; Federal government; and considering public comment, NSF of automated collections techniques or State, local or tribal governments. will prepare the submission requesting other forms of information technology. Estimated Number of Responses per that OMB approve clearance of this DATES: Written comments should be Survey: This will vary by survey. received by April 26, 2002, to be collection for no longer than three years. Comments:Comments are invited on assured of consideration. Comments DATES: Written comments on this notice (a) whether the proposed collection of received after that date will be must be received by April 26, 2002 to information is necessary for the proper considered to the extent practicable. be assured of consideration. Comments performance of the functions of the received after that date will be Agency, including whether the ADDRESSES: Written comments considered to the extent practicable. information shall have practical utility; regarding the information collection and FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR (b) the accuracy of the Agency’s requests for copies of the proposed COMMENTS: Contact Suzanne H. estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection request should be Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, collection of information; (c) ways to addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports National Science Foundation, 4201 enhance the quality, utility, and clarity Clearance Officer, National Science Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, of the information on respondents, Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292– including through the use of automated 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail 7556; or send email to collection techniques or other forms of to splimpto@msf/gpv/ [email protected]. Individuals who use information technology; and (d) ways to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a telecommunications device for the minimize the burden of the collection of Suzanne Plimpton at (703) 292–7556 or deaf (TDD) may call the Federal information on those who are to send e-mail to [email protected]. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– respond, including through the use of Individuals who use a 800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 appropriate automated, electronic, telecommunications device for the deaf p.m., Eastern time, Monday through mechanical, or other technological (TDD) may call the Federal Information Friday. You also may obtain a copy of collection techniques or other forms of Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 the data collection instrument and information technology. between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern time, instructions from Ms. Plimpton. Monday through Friday. Dated: February 19, 2002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Suzanne H. Plimpton, Title of Collection: NSF Surveys to Title of Collection: ‘‘National Science Measure Customer Service Satisfaction. Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation Applicant Survey.’’ OMB Number: 3145–0157. Foundation. OMB Approval Number: 3145–0096. Expiration Date of Approval: [FR Doc. 02–4349 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Expiration Date of Approval: August September 30, 2002. BILLING CODE 7555–01–M 31, 2002. Type of Request: Intent to seek Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to renew an information approval to extend with revision an collection. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION information collection for three years. Proposed Project: The current Comment Request: National Science Abstract National Science Foundation Applicant Foundation—Applicant Survey Proposed Project: On September 11, survey has been in use for several years. 1993, President Clinton issued AGENCY: National Science Foundation. Data are collected from applicant pools Executive Order 12862, ‘‘Setting ACTION: Notice. to examine the racial/sexual/disability Customer Service Standards,’’ which composition and to determine the calls for Federal agencies to provide SUMMARY: The National Science source of information about NSF service that matches or exceeds the best Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans vacancies. service available in the private sector. to request renewed clearance of this Use of the Information: Analysis of Section 1(b) of that order requires collection. In accordance with the the applicant pools is necessary to agencies to ‘‘survey customers to requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of determine if NSF’s targeted recruitment determine the kind and quality of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, efforts are reaching groups that are services they want and their level of we are providing opportunity for public underrepresented in the Agency’s satisfaction with existing services.’’ The comment on this action. After obtaining workforce and/or to defend the National Science Foundation (NSF) has and considering public comment, NSF Foundation’s practices in an ongoing need to collect information will prepare the submission requesting discrimination cases. from its customer community (primarily OMB clearance of this collection for no Burden on the Public: The Foundation individuals and organizations engaged longer than 3 years. estimates about 5,000 responses
VerDate 11
annually at 3 minutes per response; this engineering, social, and other sciences Estimated Number of Responses: computes to approximately 250 hours at appropriate nonprofit American or 13,000. annually. nonprofit foreign institutions selected Estimated Total Annual Burden on Dated: February 20, 2002. by the recipient of such aid, for stated Respondents: 156,000 hours. Frequency of Responses: Annually. Suzanne H. Plimpton, periods of time.’’ The Foundation Fellowship Programs Comments: Comments are invited on Reports Clearance Officer, National Science are designed to meet the following (a) whether the proposed collection of Foundation. objectives: information is necessary for the proper [FR Doc. 02–4390 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] • To assure that some of the Nation’s performance of the functions of the BILLING CODE 7555–01–M most talented students in the sciences Agency, including whether the obtain the education necessary to information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency’s NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION become creative and productive scientific researchers. estimate of the burden of the proposed • collection of information; (c) ways to Notice of Intent of Seek Approval to To train or upgrade advanced enhance the quality, utility, and clarity Extend without Revision a Current scientific personnel to enhance their of the information on respondents, Information Collection abilities as teachers and researchers. • To promote graduate education in including through the use of automated AGENCY: National Science Foundation. the sciences, mathematics, and collection techniques or other forms of ACTION: Notice and request for engineering at institutions that have information technology; (d) ways to comments. traditionally served ethnic minorities. minimize the burden of the collection of • To encourage pursuit of advanced information on those who are to SUMMARY: The National Science science degrees by students who are respond, including through the use of Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans members of ethnic groups traditionally appropriate automated, electronic, to request renewal of this collection. In under-represented in the Nation’s mechanical, or other technological accordance with the requirement of advanced science personnel pool. collection techniques or other forms of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork The list of fellowship award programs information technology. Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), sponsored by the Foundation includes, Dated: February 20, 2002. we are providing opportunity for public but may not be limited to, the following: Suzanne H. Plimpton, comment on this action. After obtaining NSF Graduate Research Fellowships Reports Clearance Officer, National Science and considering public comment, NSF Foundation. will prepare the submission requesting Graduate Fellowships [FR Doc. 02–4391 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] that OMB approve clearance of this Minority Graduate Fellowships BILLING CODE 7555–01–M collection for no longer than 3 years. Women in Engineering and Computer & DATES: Written comments on this notice Information Science Earth Sciences Postdoctoral Research must be received by April 26, 2002, to NUCLEAR REGULATORY Fellowships be assured of consideration. Comments COMMISSION received after that date witll be Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in considered to the extent practicable. Chemistry Enforcement Program and Alternative Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dispute Resolution; Workshop and Research Fellowships Contact Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Extension of Comment Period NSF–NATO Postdoctoral Fellowships Clearance Officer, National Science and Supporting Engineering AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Foundation, 4201 Wison Boulevard, Minority Postdoctoral Research Commission. Suite 295, Arlingon, Virginia 22230; Fellowships and Supporting ACTION: telephone 703–292–7556; or send email Notice of workshop and Activities extension of comment period. ot [email protected]. You also may Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in obtain a copy of the data collection Microbial Biology SUMMARY: The NRC is convening a instrument and instructions from Ms. Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in workshop to more fully explore the Plimpton. Biological Informatics potential use of Alternative Dispute SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ridge Inter-Disciplinary Global Resolution (ADR) in its enforcement Title of Collection: Fellowship Experiments program. This workshop is in response Applications and Award Forms. Advanced Study Institute Travel to the notice published in the Federal OMB Approval Number: 3145–0023. Awards Register on December 14, 2001; 66 FR Expiration Date of Approval: 64890, that announced NRC’s intent to September 30, 2002. International Opportunities for evaluate the use of ADR in its Type of Request: Intent to seek Scientists and Engineers enforcement program. This notice also approval to extend without revision an Japan Research Fellows announces that NRC is extending the information collection for three years. North American Research fellows comment period for the December 14, International Research fellows Ethics 2001, notice to March 29, 2002. The Abstract and Values Fellowship Awards. objectives of the workshop will be to Section 10 of the National Science Estimate of Burden: These are annual develop a better understanding of the Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 award programs with application range of ADR techniques, how they et seq.), as amended, states that ‘‘The deadlines varying according to the might apply to specific NRC Foundation is authorized to award, fellowship program. Public burden may enforcement scenarios, and the potential within the limits of funds made also vary according to program, advantages and disadvantages of the use available * * * scholarships and however, it is estimated that each of ADR in various parts of the NRC graduate fellowships for scientific study submission is averaged to be 12 hours enforcement process. The format of the or scientific work in the mathematical per respondent. workshop will be a facilitated physical, medical, biological, Respondents: Individuals. discussion among the invited
VerDate 11
participants of interests that may be Specialist, Office of Enforcement, U.S. use of ADR in NRC enforcement affected by the use of ADR in the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission, activities? enforcement process, as well as expert Washington, DC 20555–0001 (301) 415– 2. What are the potential benefits of ADR practitioners from other agencies 3281, e-mail [email protected] or Francis X. using ADR in the NRC enforcement and private practice. The list of invited Cameron, NRC ADR Specialist, Office of process? participants, as well as the agenda for the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 3. What are the potential detriments the workshop, will be posted at the NRC Regulatory Commission, Washington, of using ADR in the NRC enforcement Web site (www.nrc.gov) at url http:// DC 20555–0001, (301) 415–1642, e-mail process? www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/ [email protected]. 4. What would be the scope of enforcement/public-involvement.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘ADR’’ is disputes for which ADR techniques Invited participants currently include a term that refers to a number of could be utilized? representatives from the Union of voluntary processes, such as mediation 5. At what points in the existing Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear and facilitated dialogues, that can be enforcement process might ADR be Energy Institute, the Environmental used to assist parties in resolving used? 6. What types of ADR techniques Protection Agency’s Conflict Prevention disputes and potential conflicts. The might most effectively be used in the and Resolution Center, ADR experts Administrative Dispute Resolution Act NRC enforcement process? from other federal agencies and private of 1996 (ADRA) encourages the use of practice, and participants from the 7. Does the nature of the existing ADR by Federal agencies, and defines enforcement process for either reactor or nuclear energy bar and the ADR as ‘‘any procedure that is used to whistleblower protection bar. materials licensees limit the resolve issues in controversy, including Representatives from the NRC Office of effectiveness of ADR? but not limited to, conciliation, Enforcement will also participate in the 8. Would any need for confidentiality facilitation, mediation, fact finding, discussion. The workshop will be open in the ADR process be perceived mini trials, arbitration, and use of an to the public. Although the focus of the negatively by the public? ombudsman, or any combination discussion will be among the invited 9. For policy reasons, are there any thereof.’’ 5 U.S.C. 571(3). These participants, the audience will be able enforcement areas where it shouldn’t be techniques involve the use of a neutral to engage in the discussion at selected used, e.g., wrongdoing, precedent- third party, either from within the points during the workshop. setting areas? agency or from outside the agency, and 10. What factors should be considered DATES: The workshop will be held on are typically voluntary processes in March 12, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in instituting an ADR process for the terms of the decision to participate, the enforcement area? The comment period is extended to type of process used, and the content of March 29, 2002. 11. What should serve as the source the final agreement. Federal agency of neutrals for use in the ADR process ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held experience with ADR has demonstrated for enforcement? at the Kentlands Mansion, 320 Kent that the use of these techniques can Several responses have been received Square Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. result in the more efficient resolution of on these and other issues in response to Directions to Kentlands Mansion will be issues, more effective outcomes, and the request for public comment. The available at the NRC Web site address improved relationships between the NRC is now taking two actions: cited above. In order to optimize the agency and the other party. 1. The NRC is extending the public limited space at the facility, it would be The NRC has a general ADR Policy, 57 comment period on the original helpful if those planning to attend the FR 36678, August 14, 1992 that supports (December 14, 2001) Federal Register workshop would notify Mr. Terrence and encourages the use of ADR in NRC Notice to March 29, 2002; and Reis, Senior Enforcement Specialist, activities. In addition, the NRC has used 2. The NRC is convening a workshop Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear ADR effectively in a variety of to more fully explore the potential use Regulatory Commission, by March 4, circumstances, including rulemaking of ADR in its enforcement program. The 2002. Mr. Reis’s contact information is and policy development, and EEO objectives and format for the workshop contained below in the FOR FURTHER disputes. There has been no systematic are stated in the SUMMARY section of this INFORMATION CONTACT section. evaluation of the need for ADR in the notice. In terms of the extended public enforcement process. As part of the Francis X. Cameron, the comment period, submit written NRC’s participation in an interagency Commission’s Alternative Dispute responses to the notice published on process in 1998 by the Clinton Resolution Specialist, will be the December 14, 2001, to Mr. Michael Administration to encourage a broader convener and facilitator for the Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives use of ADR by Federal agencies, and an workshops. Questions about Branch, Division of Administrative inquiry in regard to the use of ADR in participation may be directed to the Services, Office of Administration, Mail a specific enforcement case, have facilitator, Francis X. Cameron. Copies Stop T–6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory caused the NRC to consider whether a of the original Federal Register Notice Commission, Washington, DC 20555– new, specific ADR policy would be requesting comment on the potential 0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 beneficial in the enforcement area. use of ADR in the NRC enforcement Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, The Commission previously requested process, the NRC’s existing ADR policy between 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on public comment on the potential use of statement, the public comments Federal workdays. Copies of comments ADR in the Commission’s enforcement received, the agenda for the workshop, received may be examined at the NRC process at 66 FR 64890, on December and the roundtable participants, can be Public Document Room, 11555 14, 2001. In that Notice, the obtained at the NRC Web site Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Commission identified a number of (www.nrc.gov) at url http:// Comments also may be sent issues on which it specifically requested www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/ electronically to Mr. Lesar, e-mail comment: enforcement/public-involvement.html [email protected]. 1. Is there a need to provide for Copies also can be obtained from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: additional avenues, other than that either of the NRC contacts identified at Terrence Reis, Senior Enforcement provided for in 10 CFR 2.203, for the the beginning of this notice. The
VerDate 11
workshop commentary will be SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Commission, and recording secretaries transcribed and made available to the COMMISSION will attend the closed meetings. Certain participants and the public. staff members who have an interest in Sunshine Act Meeting the matters may also be present. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day The General Counsel of the of February, 2002. FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS Commission, or his designee, has For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ANNOUNCEMENT. [67 FR 7208, February certified that, in his opinion, one or Frank J. Congel, 15, 2002] more of the exemptions set forth in 5 Director, Office of Enforcement. STATUS: Closed Meeting. U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and [FR Doc. 02–4380 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, NW., (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), BILLING CODE 7590–01–M Washington, DC. (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED of the scheduled matters at the closed MEETING: Thursday, February 21, 2002, meetings. at 10 a.m. The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Additional Item. GOVERNORS The following item has been added to February 27, 2002, will be: Post- the closed meeting scheduled for argument discussion. Sunshine Act Meeting Thursday, February 21, 2002: The subject matter of the closed Consideration of amicus participation. meeting scheduled for Thursday, TIMES AND DATES: 8 a.m., Monday, March Commissioner Glassman, as duty February 28, 2002, will be: Inspection 4, 2002; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 5, officer, determined that Commission report; institution and settlement of 2002. business required the above change and injunctive actions; institution and that no earlier notice thereof was settlement of administrative PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal possible. proceedings of an enforcement nature; Service Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant At times, changes in Commission and formal orders of investigation. Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin priorities require alterations in the At times, changes in Commission Room. scheduling of meeting items. For further priorities require alterations in the STATUS: March 4–8 a.m. (Closed); March information and to ascertain what, if scheduling of meeting items. For further 5–8:30 a.m. (Open). any, matters have been added, deleted information and to ascertain what, if or postponed, please contact: The Office any, matters have been added, deleted MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED of the Secretary at (202) 942–7070. or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942–7070. Monday, March 4–8 a.m. (Closed) Dated: February 20, 2002. Dated: February 20, 2002. Jonathan G. Katz, 1. Financial Performance. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. Secretary. 2. Strategic Planning. [FR Doc. 02–4509 Filed 2–21–02; 8:47 am] [FR Doc. 02–4510 Filed 2–21–02; 11:47 am] 3. Preliminary Annual Performance BILLING CODE 8010–01–M Plan Targets FY 2003. BILLING CODE 8010–01–M 4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Tuesday, March 5–8:30 a.m. (Open) COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings [Release No. 34–45457; File No. SR–NASD– 1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, 2002–24] February 4–5, 2002. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 2. Remarks of the Postmaster General Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the and CEO. of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by Securities and Exchange Commission the National Association of Securities Fiscal Year 2001 Comprehensive will hold the following meetings during Dealers, Inc. Relating to Anti-Money Statement on Postal Operations. the week of February 25, 2002: An open Laundering Compliance Programs 4. Consideration of Borrowing meeting will be held on Wednesday, Resolution. February 27, 2002 at 10 a.m., in Room February 19, 2002. 1C30, the William O. Douglas Room, Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 5. Capital Investment. and closed meetings will be held on Securities Exchange Act of 1934 a. Burlingame, California, Peninsula Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 11 (‘‘Act’’), 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, 2 Delivery Distribution Center. a.m. and Thursday, February 28, 2002 at notice is hereby given that on February 6. Tentative Agenda for the April 8– 10 a.m. 15, 2002, the National Association of 9, 2002, meeting in Washington, DC. The subject matter of the open Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’ or meeting scheduled for Wednesday, ‘‘Association’’), through its subsidiary, CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: February 27, 2002, will be: The NASD Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NASD William T. Johnstone, Secretary of the Commission will hear oral argument on Regulation’’) filed with the Securities Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant an appeal by Sandra K. Simpson, and Exchange Commission Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260– formerly an associated person with a (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 1000. Telephone (202) 268–4800. registered broker-dealer, from the change as described in Items I, II, and decision of an administrative law judge. William T. Johnstone, III below, which Items have been For further information, contact Roy prepared by NASD Regulation. The Secretary. Sheetz at (202) 942–0950. [FR Doc. 02–4537 Filed 2–21–02; 8:45 am] Commissioners, Counsel to the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). BILLING CODE 7710–12–M Commissioners, the Secretary to the 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate 11
Commission is publishing this notice to II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s new know-your-customer procedures. solicit comments on the proposed rule Statement of the Purpose of, and Broker-dealers will be required to change from interested persons. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule comply with these new obligations in Change addition to continuing to comply with I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s existing BSA reporting and Statement of the Terms of Substance of In its filing with the Commission, recordkeeping requirements. 5 the Proposed Rule Change NASD Regulation included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for Anti-Money Laundering Programs NASD Regulation proposes to the proposed rule change and discussed Section 352 of the Money Laundering establish NASD Rule 3011, Anti-Money any comments it received on the Act requires all financial institutions, Laundering Compliance Program. As proposed rule change. The text of these including broker-dealers, to develop and further discussed below, the USA statements may be examined at the implement anti-money laundering PATRIOT Act requires financial places specified in Item IV below. institutions, including broker-dealers, compliance programs on or before April NASD Regulation has prepared 24, 2002. Section 352 requires the by April 24, 2002, to establish and summaries, set forth in sections A, B, implement anti-money laundering compliance programs, at a minimum, to and C below, of the most significant establish (1) the development of internal compliance programs designed to aspects of such statements. ensure ongoing compliance with the policies, procedures, and controls, (2) requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the designation of a compliance officer and the regulations promulgated Statement of the Purpose of, and with responsibility for a firm’s anti- thereunder. The proposed rule change Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule money laundering program, (3) an prescribes the minimum standards Change ongoing employee training program, and (4) an independent audit function to test required for each member firm’s anti- 1. Purpose money laundering program. The text of the effectiveness of the anti-money the proposed rule change is below. Introduction laundering compliance program. Proposed new language is in italics. The purpose of the proposed rule Section 352 further allows the Secretary change is to establish minimum of the Department of Treasury, at its 3011. Anti-Money Laundering standards for the anti-money laundering discretion, to establish minimum Compliance Program programs that broker-dealers are standards for the anti-money laundering On or before April 24, 2002, each required to develop and implement programs. The legislative history of the USA member shall develop and implement a under section 352 of the Uniting and PATRIOT Act explains that the written anti-money laundering program Strengthening America by Providing requirement to have an anti-money reasonably designed to achieve and Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept laundering compliance program is not a monitor the member’s compliance with and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ requirement. The the requirements of the Bank Secrecy (‘‘USA PATRIOT Act’’). 3 The USA general nature of the requirements Act (31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq.), and the PATRIOT Act, which was signed into reflects Congress’ intent that each implementing regulations promulgated law by President Bush on October 26, financial institution should have the thereunder by the Department of the 2001, is designed to deter and punish flexibility to tailor the anti-money Treasury. Each member organization’s terrorists in the United States and laundering programs to fit its business, anti-money laundering program must be abroad and to enhance law enforcement taking into account factors such as size, approved, in writing, by a member of investigating tools by prescribing, location, activities of the firm’s senior management. The anti-money among other things, new surveillance business, and the risks or vulnerabilities laundering programs required by this procedures, new immigration laws, and to money laundering in the firm. This Rule shall, at a minimum, new and more stringent anti-money laundering laws. flexibility is designed to ensure that all (a) Establish and implement policies entities covered by the statute, from the and procedures that can be reasonably Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act, referred to as the International Money very large financial institutions to the expected to detect and cause the small firms, have in place policies and reporting of transactions required under Laundering Abatement and Anti- Terrorist Financing Act of 2001 procedures to monitor for anti-money 31 U.S.C. 5318(g) and the implementing laundering compliance. 6 regulations thereunder; (‘‘Money Laundering Act’’), focuses on strengthening the anti-money The proposed rule change, consistent (b) Establish and implement policies, laundering provisions put into place by with Section 352, would require procedures, and internal controls earlier legislation, particularly with member firms to implement anti-money reasonably designed to achieve respect to crimes by foreign nationals laundering programs and would set compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and foreign financial institutions. The and the implementing regulations 5 Rule 17a–8 under the Act requires broker- Money Laundering Act imposes certain thereunder; dealers to comply with the recordkeeping and obligations on broker-dealers through reporting requirements of the BSA and related (c) Provide for independent testing for new anti-money laundering provisions regulations, including the obligation to file reports compliance to be conducted by member and amendments to the Bank Secrecy and make and preserve records in connection with personnel or by a qualified outside Act (‘‘BSA’’). 4 Among other things, certain transactions generally exceeding $10,000 party; and involving currency or the physical transport of broker-dealers will have to implement currency into or out of the United States. 17 CFR (d) Designate an individual or anti-money laundering programs (as 240.17a–8. individuals responsible for described below), prepare and file 6 See USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: Consideration implementing and monitoring the day- suspicious activity reports, and follow of H.R. 3162 Before the Senate (October 25, 2001) (statement of Sen. Sarbanes); Financial Anti- to-day operations and internal controls Terrorism Act of 2001: Consideration Under of the program; and 3 Uniting and Strengthening America by Suspension of Rules of H.R. 3004 Before the House (e) Provide ongoing training for Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept of Representatives (October 17, 2001) (statement of and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. Rep. Kelly) (provisions of the Financial Anti- appropriate personnel. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). Terrorism Act of 2001 were incorporated as Title III * * * * * 4 31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq. in the USA PATRIOT Act.).
VerDate 11
forth minimum standards for such requirements for anti-money laundering SR-NASD–2002–24 and should be programs. The standards established by compliance programs of member firms. submitted by March 18, 2002. the proposed rule change are These programs are designed to help For the Commission, by the Division of substantially equivalent to those found identify and prevent money laundering Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated in the existing bank anti-money abuses that can affect the integrity of the authority.10 laundering program rules. 7 Consistent U.S. capital markets. Margaret H. McFarland, with the USA PATRIOT Act, the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Deputy Secretary. proposed rule change would require [FR Doc. 02–4345 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] firms to develop and implement a Statement on Burden on Competition BILLING CODE 8010–01–P written anti-money laundering NASD Regulation does not believe compliance program by April 24, 2002. that the proposed rule change will result The program would need to be in any burden on competition that is not SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE approved in writing by a member of necessary or appropriate in furtherance COMMISSION senior management and be reasonably of the purposes of the Act, as amended. designed to achieve and monitor the [Release No. 34–45454; File No. SR–NYSE– 2001–43] member’s ongoing compliance with the C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the requirements of the BSA and the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order implementing regulations promulgated Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others Approving a Proposed Rule Change by thereunder. The proposed rule change the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. would require firms, at a minimum, to Written comments were neither Amending Paragraph (1) of the (1) establish and implement policies solicited nor received. Guidelines to Exchange Rule 105 to and procedures that can be reasonably III. Date of Effectiveness of the Permit Approved Persons of expected to detect and cause the Specialists To Act as a Specialist With reporting of suspicious transactions, (2) Proposed Rule Change and Timing For Commission Action Respect To an Option on a Specialty establish and implement policies, Stock procedures, and internal controls Within 35 days of the date of reasonably designed to assure publication of this notice in the Federal February 15, 2002. compliance with the BSA and Register or within such longer period (i) I. Introduction implementing regulations, (3) provide as the Commission may designate up to for independent testing for compliance 90 days of such date if it finds such On August 21, 2001, the New York to be conducted by member personnel longer period to be appropriate and Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or or by a qualified outside party, (4) publishes its reasons for so finding or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities designate an individual or individuals (ii) as to which the NASD consents, the and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or responsible for implementing and Commission will: ‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act monitoring the day-to-day operations A. by order approve such proposed of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 and internal controls of the program, rule change, or thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to and (5) provide ongoing training for B. institute proceedings to determine appropriate personnel. amend paragraph (1) of the Guidelines whether the proposed rule change to NYSE Rule 105 to permit an Prior to implementation of the should be disapproved. proposed rule change, NASD Regulation approved person of a specialist to act as anticipates providing guidance in a IV. Solicitation of Comments a specialist or primary market maker with respect to an option on a stock in Notice to Members to assist member Interested persons are invited to firms in developing an anti-money which the NYSE specialist is registered submit written data, views and as such on the Exchange (‘‘specialty laundering program that fits their arguments concerning the foregoing, business model and needs. 8 stock’’), provided that the requirements including whether the proposed rule of the NYSE Rule 98 exemption program 2. Statutory Basis change is consistent with the Act. are met. The Exchange filed Persons making written submissions NASD Regulation believes that the Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule should file six copies thereof with the proposed rule change is consistent with change on December 4, 2001.3 The Secretary, Securities and Exchange the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of proposed rule change, as amended by Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, the Act, 9 which requires among other Amendment No. 1, was published for Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of things, that the Association’s rules must comment in the Federal Register on the submission, all subsequent be designed to prevent fraudulent and December 12, 2001.4 The Commission amendments, all written statements manipulative acts and practices, to received two comment letters on the with respect to the proposed rule promote just and equitable principles of proposed rule change.5 This order change that are filed with the trade, and, in general, to protect Commission, and all written 10 investors and the public interest. NASD 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). communications relating to the 1 Regulation believes that the proposed 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). proposed rule change between the 2 rule change is designed to accomplish 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Commission and any person, other than 3 See letter from James E. Buck, Senior Vice these ends by establishing the minimum those that may be withheld from the President and Secretary, NYSE, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation, 7 See e.g., 12 CFR 208.63. public in accordance with the Commission, dated December 3, 2001 8 On February 12, 2002, the Securities Industry provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Association Anti-Money Laundering Committee available for inspection and copying in 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45136 released a Preliminary Guidance for Deterring the Commission’s Public Reference (December 6, 2001), 66 FR 64328. Money Laundering Activity. In general, the Room. Copies of such filing will also be 5 See letters to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, guidance discusses key elements for a broker-dealer Commission, from Edward J. Joyce, President and to consider in developing an effective anti-money available for inspection and copying at Chief Operating Officer, Chicago Board of Options laundering program. the principal office of the NASD. All Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’), dated January 17, 2002 9 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). submissions should refer to file number Continued
VerDate 11
approves the proposed rule change, as separation’’ between the options mechanism of a free and open market, amended. specialist firm and the NYSE specialist and to protect investors and the public firm. CBOE believes that this strict interest. II. Description of the Proposal separation between the options Last year, the Commission approved Currently, NYSE Rule 105 provides specialist firm and the NYSE specialist an NYSE proposal to permit NYSE that an ‘‘approved person’’ (i.e., an firm should prevent side-by-side specialists to act as competitive or non- affiliate in a control relationship) of a trading 7 in a stock and its overlying primary market makers in options based NYSE specialist organization may trade option. on the NYSE specialist’s specialty stock options based on a specialty stock only Knight generally supports the so long as NYSE Rule 98 information for hedging purposes. If the approved proposed rule change and agrees with barriers were established and person establishes a system of internal NYSE that ‘‘consolidation within the approved.10 In that order, the controls and information barriers securities industry makes it likely that Commission noted the regulatory pursuant to NYSE Rule 98, however, the large, well-capitalized, well-regulated concerns that arise with integrated approved person may engage in organizations may seek to conduct market making. Specifically, the proprietary trading of options based on distinct business operations among Commission noted that integrated the specialist’s specialty stock without several affiliated entities.’’ However, market making raises the concern that being restricted solely to hedging Knight does not believe that (1) an integrated entity could unfairly use transactions. In addition, pursuant to information barriers between the NYSE non-public market information to its Guideline (1) to NYSE Rule 105, specialist and its approved person advantage, or that an integrated entity approved persons of NYSE specialists regarding trading and position could easily engage in improper may act as competitive or non-primary information; (2) the separation of each conduct, such as manipulating the price market makers in options based on a entity’s daily business activities with its of either the stock or the option to create specialty stock if NYSE-approved Rule own staff; and (3) trade decisions unfair advantages that would be hard, if 98 information barriers have been independent of the other entity should not impossible, to surveil.11 Further, the established. An approved person of a be preconditions for an approved person Commission noted concerns about the specialist may not, however, act as a to act in a primary market maker potential conflicts of interest that may specialist or primary market maker with capacity on options based on the arise when an integrated entity has an respect to an option based on a specialty specialist’s specialty stock. Instead, obligation to make markets in both an stock. Knight believes that communication option and its underlying equity. The Exchange now proposes to amend between separate but affiliated business Finally, the Commission noted its paragraph (1) of the Guidelines to NYSE units engaged in both stock and option concern about an exchange’s ability to Rule 105 to permit an approved person market making would grant a firm the effectively surveil the trading practices of a specialist to act as a specialist or ability to better risk manage its of integrated entities. primary market maker with respect to inventory and thus enable the firms to When considering an integration an option based on a specialty stock, make deeper and more liquid markets. proposal, the Commission must balance provided that NYSE Rule 98 Further, Knight believes that the NYSE the potential improvements in the information barriers are established and and the five national options exchanges quality of the markets for the stocks and approved by the Exchange. are equipped with the necessary their related options against the III. Summary of Comments regulatory processes to monitor for any competitive, regulatory, and potential wrongdoing that could result surveillance concerns.12 In this regard, The Commission received two from an entity’s market making in a the Commission must consider whether comment letters on the proposed rule stock and its option. an integrated market making proposal change.6 Both commenters, CBOE and would permit the integrated entities to Knight, support the general objective of IV. Discussion possess undetectable, material non- the proposed rule change, but disagree After careful review, the Commission public market information, which could on whether an approved person’s ability finds that the proposed rule change is give either the stock specialist or the to act in a market making capacity with consistent with the requirements of the related options specialist or market regards to options based on a specialty Act and the rules and regulations maker a trading advantage over other stock should be predicated on thereunder applicable to a national market participants. Thus, the establishing Exchange-approved securities exchange.8 In particular, the Commission must evaluate the extent of internal controls and information Commission believes that the proposed the proposed integration, as well as the barriers under NYSE Rule 98. rule change is consistent with Section characteristics of the market center CBOE supports the proposed rule 6(b)(5) of the Act,9 which requires, putting forth the proposal. change because it could: (1) enable among other things, that the rules of an In the present proposed rule change, CBOE’s designated primary market exchange be designed to promote just the Exchange seeks to permit its makers (‘‘DPMs’’) to acquire more and equitable principles of trade, to capital through combinations with 10 remove impediments to and perfect the Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44175 broker-dealers that own NYSE (April 11, 2001), 66 FR 19825 (April 17, 2001). specialists firms; and (2) enable NYSE 11 Previously, Commission staff has noted that 7 The Commission notes that side-by-side trading specialists to become better capitalized substantial profits could be made from options generally refers to the practice of trading an equity positions as a result of small movements in the through combinations with firms security and its related option at the same physical price of the underlying stock. Further, the staff has containing large options specialist firms. location. The proposed rule change also implicates noted the relative ease by which the price of the CBOE predicates its support for the the practice of integrated market making, which underlying security could be moved and the refers to the practice of the same person or firm difficulty in detecting improprieties associated with proposed rule change upon the ‘‘strict making markets in an equity security and its related small price movements. SEC, Report of the Special options. Study of the Options Markets, H.R. Rep. No. IFC 3, (‘‘CBOE Letter’’); and Mathew D. Wayne, Chief 8 In approving this proposed rule change, the 96th Cong. 1st sess. (Comm. Print 1978) (‘‘Options Legal Officer, Knight Financial Products LLC Commission has considered the proposed rule’s Study’’). (‘‘Knight’’), dated December 21, 2001 (‘‘Knight impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 12 See Options Study, supra note 11. See also Letter’’). formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Securities Exchange Act Release No. 22026 (May 8, 6 Id. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 1985), 50 FR 20310 (May 15, 1985).
VerDate 11
specialists to be affiliated with use their affiliations to their advantage. be permitted to act in this capacity. This specialists and market makers that act as In addition, the Exchange has verified could lead to increased competition and such with regards to options based on that organizational separation and liquidity in the options market. the NYSE specialist’s specialty stock. information barriers must be established In conclusion, the Commission The NYSE’s proposal seeks to permit a and maintained between an Exchange believes that the Exchange has more extensive form of integrated specialist, any approved person of the sufficiently minimized the potential for market making. The NYSE, however, specialist that acts as a market maker in manipulative and improper trading seeks to limit the concerns raised by an option based on the specialist’s conduct by requiring strict integrated market making by requiring specialty stock, and any other persons organizational separation and the affiliated entities to establish strict affiliated with them.13 information barriers. Therefore, the information barriers designed to prevent The Commission continues to expect Commission believes that the potential the flow of non-public information. the Exchange to assess, as it gains improvements to liquidity and quality These information barriers must be experience with integrated market of the markets outweigh the potential approved by the NYSE and are subject making, whether any other regulatory concerns. to annual review by the NYSE. informational barriers are necessary to For these reasons, the Commission Specifically, the related entities must prevent the flow of market information finds that the proposed rule change is organize their respective operations in between the related entities. Of course, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the such a way that the activities of each any new information barriers proposed Act.14 entity are clearly separate and distinct. would have to be submitted to the V. Conclusion The Guidelines to Exchange Rule 98 set Commission for approval. The forth the requirements to be followed by Commission also expects that the For the foregoing reasons, the the related entities to be considered Exchange will continue to surveil the Commission finds that the proposed clearly separate and distinct. For integrated entities to ensure that the rule change, as amended, is consistent example, Guideline (b)(i) requires information barriers and organizational with the requirements of the Act and organizational separation of the structure continue to prevent the flow of rules and regulations thereunder. specialist and approved person and that It is therefore ordered, pursuant to non-public market information. 15 the specialist must function as an In the previous order, the Commission Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the entirely freestanding entity responsible noted that because the NYSE is the proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–2001– for its own trading decisions. Guideline primary market for many equity 43), as amended, is approved. (b)(ii) requires the respective securities underlying options, concerns For the Commission, by the Division of management structures of the specialist were raised about an integrated Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 16 and the approved person to be organization being able to dominate the authority. organized in such a manner as to markets of both the specialty stock and Margaret H. McFarland, prevent the management of the its related options. Specifically, an Deputy Secretary. approved person from exerting any integrated entity may by virtue of its [FR Doc. 02–4344 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] influence on particular trading decision positions as specialists in a stock and its BILLING CODE 8010–01–P of the specialist. Guidelines (b)(iii) and related options could control the pricing (b)(iv) require the establishment of and liquidity of both markets. The procedures to preserve confidentiality of Commission believes the requirement SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE trading information. In addition, that the related entities maintain COMMISSION Guideline (b)(iii) specifically requires complete organizational separation and [Release No. 35–27492] the establishment of procedures to prohibit the sharing of market ensure the confidentiality of the information should prevent either entity Filings Under the Public Utility Holding specialist’s book. Finally, the Guidelines from using its affiliation to control the Company Act of 1935, as Amended require that the specialist and approved pricing and liquidity of either market. (‘‘Act’’) person maintain, among other things, The Commission believes that the separate books and records, financial proposal should provide benefits to the February 15, 2002. accounting and capital requirements. markets. For example, the number of Notice is hereby given that the The Commission believes that the entities that may act as specialists or following filing(s) has/have been made Exchange has established appropriate primary market makers in options based with the Commission pursuant to procedures in the Guidelines to address on a specialist’s specialty stock may provisions of the Act and rules the regulatory issues raised by the increase as a result of this proposal. promulgated under the Act. All proposed rule change. The requirement Now, entities that have been prohibited interested persons are referred to the of clearly separate and distinct from acting as primary options market application(s) and/or declaration(s) for organizations, along with the other makers because of the restrictions in complete statements of the proposed informational barriers and restrictions, Paragraph (1) of NYSE Rule 105 would transaction(s) summarized below. The should prevent Exchange specialists and application(s) and/or declaration(s) and their related options market makers 13 A specialist may be associated with more than any amendment(s) is/are available for from sharing restricted, non-public one approved person. For example, a specialist may public inspection through the market information. Further, NYSE Rule be controlled by a parent organization, which may Commission’s Branch of Public 98 requires the Exchange to review and also control other organizations. If any other Reference. approve the organizational structure and organization controlled by the parent acts as a specialist or engages in market making activities in Interested persons wishing to information barriers of the integrated options based on the specialist’s specialty stock, comment or request a hearing on the entities. The Commission notes that the organizational separation and information barriers application(s) and/or declaration(s) Exchange has had extensive experience would have to be established between all entities, should submit their views in writing by reviewing its Rule 98’s organizational i.e., the specialist, the parent company and the related options market making entities. See requirements and information barriers Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44175 (April 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). and thus should be able to ensure that 11, 2001), 66 FR 19825, 19827, n. 14 (April 17, 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). the integrated entities do not improperly 2001). 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate 11
March 12, 2002, to the Secretary, and that the Bus Service serves Progress requests authority to modify Securities and Exchange Commission, important State and/or community existing financing orders to: (1) Increase Washington, DC 20549–0609, and serve interests. from $5 billion to $7.5 billion the a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/ In its post-effective amendment, aggregate amount of common stock, or declarant(s) at the address(es) SCANA states that it has been preferred stock or other forms of specified below. Proof of service (by negotiating for the City to take over the preferred securities and unsecured long- affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at Bus System. The company states that an term debentures having maturities of up law, by certificate) should be filed with agreement has been reached regarding to 50 years (collectively, ‘‘Long-term the request. Any request for hearing the basic terms for the transfer, and they Securities’’) that Progress may issue and should identify specifically the issues of are as follows: have outstanding at any time through facts or law that are disputed. A person • The City will discharge SCE&G’s September 30, 2003 (‘‘Authorization who so requests will be notified of any obligation to provide a public transit Period’’); (2) eliminate a $6 billion hearing, if ordered, and will receive a system in Columbia, South Carolina, overall limit for the aggregate principal copy of any notice or order issued in the and the assets of the Bus System will be amount that Progress may have matter. After March 12, 2002, the transferred to the City; outstanding at any time for short-term • application(s) and/or declaration(s), as SCE&G and the City will enter into debt, debentures, and indebtedness a thirty-year electric and gas franchise; incurred by Progress to finance its filed or as amended, may be granted • and/or permitted to become effective. SCE&G will pay the City for the acquisition of the issued and franchise an initial fee of $15 million in outstanding common stock of Florida SCANA Corporation, et al. four quarterly installments beginning at Progress (‘‘Acquisition Debt’’) [70–9521] the time of the transfer of the Bus (collectively, ‘‘Overall Indebtedness SCANA Corporation (‘‘SCANA’’), a System and an additional annual fee of Limit’’) (short-term debt will remain registered holding company, and South $2.47 million for the first seven years of limited by $2.5 billion as authorized in Carolina Electric & Gas Company the franchise; the Financing Orders, acquisition debt • SCE&G will convey 6.98 acres of (‘‘SCE&G’’), one of its public-utility will remain $3.5 billion, and debentures property currently used in connection company subsidiaries, both at 1426 will be included in the $7.5 billion limit with the transit system as a parking Main Street, Columbia, South Carolina for Long-term Securities requested in facility for the buses, in a condition 29201, have filed a post-effective this Amendment); and (3) increase from compliant with current state and federal amendment to a previously submitted $750 million to $2 billion the principal regulations; application-declaration (‘‘Prior or stated amount of guarantees that • SCE&G will convey the historic Application’’) under section 11(b)(1) of Progress may provide at any one time Columbia Canal and Hydroelectric Plant the Act. with respect to the obligations of its (‘‘Plant’’) to the City, and enter into By order dated February 9, 2000,1 the subsidiaries. collateral agreements regarding the Commission authorized SCANA, then a By previous orders dated December Plant; and public-utility holding company 12, 2000 and September 20, 2001 • SCE&G and the City will enter into claiming an exemption from registration (HCAR Nos. 27297 and 27440, a new water contract for withdrawals under section 3(a)(1) of Act, to acquire respectively) (‘‘Financing Orders’’), from Lake Murray for the terms of the Public Service Company of North Progress, its direct and indirect electric and gas franchise. Carolina, Incorporated, a gas public- nonutility subsidiaries, and its utility SCANA requests that the Commission subsidiaries, which are CP&L, NCNG, utility company operating in North grant the company a one-year extension Carolina. In the Prior Order, the and Florida Power, (collectively, of time to divest the Bus System. The ‘‘Utility Subsidiaries’’), are authorized Commission allowed SCANA to retain company states that this additional time all of the combined company’s to engage in a program of external is necessary to allow: (1) the City to financing and intrasystem financing, to nonutility operations except for a bus complete due diligence regarding the transit system (‘‘Bus Service’’) being organize and acquire the equity transaction; (2) final agreements to be securities of specified types of new operated in South Carolina by SCE&G executed by SCANA, SCE&G, and the and a forty-nine percent membership subsidiaries, to pay dividends out of City; and (3) SCANA to obtain the capital or unearned surplus, and to interest in Palmetto Lyme, LLC, a necessary state and federal approvals. company engaged in the sale of lime.2 engage in other related financial and SCANA conceded that retention of the Progress Energy Inc., et al. structural transactions from time to time through the Authorization Period. Bus Service would not be consistent [70–9909] with the standards of section 11(b)(1) of Except for the modifications described Progress Energy Inc. (‘‘Progress’’), a above, Applicants do not seek any other the Act, and proposed to divest it. registered holding company, Carolina On February 24, 2000, the City of changes or modifications to the terms, Power & Light Company (‘‘CP&L’’) and Columbia, South Carolina (‘‘City’’) filed conditions or limitations applicable North Carolina Natural Gas Corporation a Petition for Clarification or Review of under the Financing Orders. (‘‘NCNG’’), both public utility Progress states that it will maintain the Prior Order (‘‘Petition’’). In the subsidiaries of Progress, all located at common equity as a percentage of Petition, and its subsequently filed 410 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, consolidated capitalization (inclusive of pleadings, the City questions only the North Carolina 27602, and Florida short-term debt) at 30% or above during Commission’s decision to require the Power Corporation (‘‘Florida Power’’), a the Authorization Period. Accordingly, divestiture of the Bus System. utility subsidiary of Progress, One Progress will not issue any securities Specifically, the City contends that Progress Plaza, St. Petersburg, Florida unless, on a pro forma basis to take into SCANA is required under South 33701 (collectively, ‘‘Applicants’’), have account the issuance of such securities Carolina law to operate the Bus System filed a post effective amendment and the application of proceeds, (‘‘Amendment’’) under sections 6(a), 7, common equity as a percentage of 1 HCAR No. 27133 (‘‘Prior Order’’). 2 The Commission reserved jurisdiction over the and 12(b) of the Act and rules 45, 53 consolidated capitalization will remain retention of Palmetto, pending completion of the and 54 under the Act to an application- at or above 30%. In addition, Progress record. See Prior Order. declaration previously filed. will maintain common equity as a
VerDate 11
percentage of capitalization of each of coal-fired generating plants.3 These will continue to claim an exemption its three Utility Subsidiaries at 30% or railcars were acquired for Applicants’ under section 3(a)(1) by rule 2. above during the Authorization Period. use based upon their anticipated coal DCC Project Finance, a Delaware As of September 30, 2001, Progress’s needs. Applicants state that, at any corporation, is a single purpose entity (‘‘SPE’’) and has a 60% beneficial consolidated capitalization (on a pro given time, an Applicant may have a ownership interest in the Eastern forma basis in order to take into account need for a lesser or greater number of Interconnection Project (‘‘EIP’’). The EIP the issuance of long-term debt securities railcars than is currently available, and consists of a 216 mile, 345 kV after September 30, 2001) consisted of that during surplus periods it may be desirable and economically transmission line between PNM’s bulk 38.0% common equity, 0.6% preferred advantageous to lease or sublease excess power switching station north of stock, 56.6% long-term debt and 4.8% railcars to nonaffiliates. Bernalillo, New Mexico and a high short-term debt. As of September 30, Applicants request authority, through voltage DC converter station, called the 2001, common equity as a percentage of December 31, 2007, to lease or sublease Blackwater Station, located in the capitalization of CP&L, Florida Power to nonaffiliates, railcars that are not Clovis-Portales area of eastern New and NCNG was equal to 45.5%, 55.3% needed to transport their fuel. All of the Mexico, plus associated switching and 68.6%, respectively. proposed leases or subleases would be equipment and the Blackwater Station Progress states that the increase in at market rates for a duration of one year DC converter facilities. The EIP was Long-term Securities is needed because or less and give the respective Applicant constructed in 1984–1985 to it had as of November 30, 2001, issued the right of termination, upon interconnect PNM’s transmission a total of $4,534,800,000 of long-term reasonable notice, permitting the return system to that of Southwestern Public securities ($528,100,000 of common of the cars to customer service, if Service Company (‘‘SPS’’). As of stock and $4,006,700,000 of long-term necessary. No more than 2,500 railcars February 5, 1985, the EIP had an debt, including $3,200,000,000 of term would be leased or subleased at any one appraised fair market value of not less notes issued to refinance debt incurred time. than $73,000,000. by Progress in connection with the Revenues realized from the proposed PNM is party (‘‘Lessee’’) to a acquisition of Florida Progress). transactions would be credited against leveraged lease transaction under which Progress contemplates the need to issue the respective Applicant’s costs as it leases a 60% undivided interest in EIP additional Long-Term Securities during owner or lessee (as applicable) of the from DCC Project Finance (‘‘Lessor’’). the remainder of the Authorization railcars, and reflected accordingly in its Applicants are exercising their rights to Period to retire short-term debt, to fund ratemaking provisions, except to the purchase under the lease, as stated in capital programs of its subsidiaries, to extent the regulatory authority having section 14 of the amended and restated finance investments in new nonutility jurisdiction over the matter authorizes a lease as of September 1, 1993: (a) Unless a Default or Event of ventures (including, in particular, different treatment. Default shall have occurred and be exempt wholesale generators (‘‘EWGs’’) PNM Resources Inc. continuing, the Lessee shall have the that are under development or planned), [70–10043] right to exercise one of the following and for other general corporate options to purchase the Undivided purposes. Progress forecasts the need for PNM Resources, Inc. (‘‘PNM Resources’’), a public utility holding Interest: additional long-term financing of at company exempt under section 3(a)(1) (1) On the date of expiration of the least $1.75 billion through the end of by rule 2 and its wholly owned public Basic Term, the Fixed Rent Renewal 2003. utility subsidiary company, Public Term or any then applicable Fair Market Alabama Power Company, et al. Service Company of New Mexico Renewal Term, the Lessee shall have the (‘‘PNM’’) (collectively, ‘‘Applicants’’) right upon not less than two years’ prior [70–10009] both located at Alvarado Square, written notice, to purchase the Alabama Power Company Albuquerque, NM 87158, request Undivided Interest on the date of (‘‘Alabama’’), 600 North 18th Street, authority under sections 9(a)(2) and 10 expiration of such Term at a purchase Birmingham, Alabama 35291, Georgia of the Act to acquire the voting price equal to the Fair Market Value Power Company (‘‘Georgia’’), 241 Ralph securities of DCC Project Finance Two, thereof; or McGill Boulevard, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia Inc. (‘‘DCC Project Finance’’) 4 from (2) On the Basic Rent Payment Date 30308, Gulf Power Company (‘‘Gulf’’), Dana Commercial Credit Corporation designated in a written notice given at One Energy Place, Pensacola, Florida (‘‘DCCC’’).5 PNM Resources states that it least two years prior to such Basic Rent 32520, Mississippi Power Company Payment Date (which date may only be (‘‘Mississippi’’), 2992 West Beach, 3 Currently, Alabama has approximately 4,300 a Basic Rent Payment Date during the railcars that transport coal to two of its plants. Gulfport, Mississippi 39501, and Basic Term occurring on or after the Georgia has approximately 4,400 railcars that thirtieth Basic Rent Payment Date), at a Savannah Electric and Power Company transport coal to nine of its plants. Gulf does not (‘‘Savannah’’), 600 East Bay Street, have any railcars, but Mississippi has leased 800 purchase price equal to the greater of Savannah, Georgia 31401 (collectively, railcars on behalf of itself and Gulf that transport the Early Purchase Value applicable on coal to Plant Daniel, which is owned by Mississippi the date of purchase and the Fair Market ‘‘Applicants’’), all wholly owned direct and Gulf as tenants in common. Mississippi has public-utility subsidiary companies of approximately 1,000 railcars that transport coal to Value of the Undivided Interest on such The Southern Company, a registered two of its plants. Savannah has approximately ninety-four railcars that transport coal to one of its Commercial Credit Corporation, a Delaware holding company, have filed an plants. corporation, is a subsidiary of Dana Corporation, application with the Commission under 4 Prior to this proposed transaction, DCC Project one of the world’s largest suppliers to vehicle sections 9(a) and 10 of the Act. Finance has claimed the exclusion under rule manufacturers and their related aftermarkets. DCCC, 7(d)(1)(ii) promulgated under the Act because all of either directly or through subsidiary companies, is Previously, Applicants acquired, the equity interest in the DCC Project Finance is primarily engaged in one or more businesses other through purchases and leases, coal owned by a company, DCCC, that is otherwise than the business of a public utility company. DCC hopper railroad cars for use in primarily engaged in one or more businesses other Project Finance is a direct, wholly owned transporting coal in dedicated unit train than the business of a public utility company. subsidiary of DCCC. DCCC owns all of the issued 5 Dana Commercial Credit Corporation’s Annual and outstanding capital stock of DCC Project service to the respective company’s Report for the year 2000 states that Dana Finance.
VerDate 11
date, plus an amount equal to the sum SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of any Basic Rent then owing and any Denise Edmonds at (202) 205–6673 or premium due on prepayment of the Federal Assistance to Provide [email protected]. Notes. Financial Counseling, Technical Assistance and Long-term Training to Wilma Goldstein, Under a purchase agreement between Women in the State of Vermont Assistant Administrator, SBA/Office of DCCC 6 and PNM dated as of January Women’s Business Ownership. 15, 2002 (‘‘Purchase Agreement’’), the AGENCY: U.S. Small Business [FR Doc. 02–4352 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Applicants will purchase 100% of the Administration. BILLING CODE 8025–01–P issued and outstanding common stock of DCCC Project Finance (‘‘Subject ACTION: Program Announcement No. Stock’’), to be renamed PNM Project OWBO–99–012, as amended by OWBO– DEPARTMENT OF STATE Finance Two, Inc., immediately upon 2000–015. consummation of the transaction. The Office of the Secretary SUMMARY Applicants will purchase the Subject : The Small Business [Public Notice 3920] Stock from DCCC for $5,672,000.7 Administration (SBA) plans to issue program announcement No. OWBO–99– PNM Resources states that it will Extension of the Restriction on the Use 012, as amended by OWBO–2000–15, to maintains its qualification for a section of United States Passports for Travel invite applications from private, not-for- To, In or Through Iraq 3(a)(1) exemption by rule 2. PNM is an profit organizations to conduct a integrated public utility primarily Women’s Business Center (WBC) project On February 1, 1991, pursuant to the engaged in the generation, transmission, in the State of Vermont. The authorizing authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a and distribution and sale of electricity and legislation is the Small Business Act, Executive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603), in the transmission, distribution and Section 29, 15 U.S.C. 631(h) and 656. and in accordance with 22 CFR sale of natural gas within the State of The selection process is competitive. 51.73(a)(2) and (a)(3), all United States New Mexico, will continue to be a The successful applicant’s WBC project passports, with certain exceptions, were wholly owned subsidiary of PNM will serve as a replacement for a declared invalid for travel to, in, or Resources. PNM Project Finance Two previous project in the State of Vermont through Iraq unless specifically (previously DCC Project Finance), a that ended after its 2nd year. The validated for such travel. The restriction Delaware corporation, will be a wholly replacement WBC is to carry out a was originally imposed because armed owned subsidiary of PNM. PNM project for the remaining 3 years of a 5- hostilities then were taking place in Iraq Resources states that it will not derive, year term. and Kuwait, and because there was an directly or indirectly, any material part imminent danger to the safety of United The Women’s Business Center project States travelers to Iraq. American of its income from PNM Project Finance must provide long-term training, citizens then residing in Iraq and (in any event, the gross revenues counseling and technical assistance to American professional reporters and derived from PNM Project Finance will women who are in and starting journalists on assignment there were not exceed $200,000). PNM Resources businesses. Service and assistance areas exempted from the restriction on the does not own directly any utility must include financial, management, ground that such exemptions were in properties or perform any utility marketing, government procurement the national interest. The restriction has operations. and loan packaging. The applicant must been extended for additional one-year For the Commission, by the Division of submit a plan for each remaining year periods since then, and was last Investment Management, pursuant to of the project term, i.e., 7/01/02–06/30/ extended through February 28, 2002. delegated authority. 03; 07/01/03–06/30/04; and 07/01/04– Conditions in Iraq remain hazardous Margaret H. McFarland, 06/30/05. The applicant’s proposal must for Americans. Iraq continues to refuse include a scope of work and a budget to comply with UN Security Council Deputy Secretary. not exceeding the Federal grant amount resolutions to fully declare and destroy [FR Doc. 02–4343 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] of $150,000 plus 100% match. Also, the its weapons of mass destruction and BILLING CODE 8010–01–P proposal must include a plan to target missiles while mounting a virulent women who are socially and public campaign in which the United economically challenged and a plan to States is blamed for maintenance of contribute content and services to the U.N. sanctions. The United Nations has SBA Online Women’s Business Center withdrawn all U.S. citizen UN web site at www.onlinewbc.gov. humanitarian workers from Iraq because of the Government of Iraq’s stated 6 SBA will issue an annual award to the The institutional equity investor, DCCC is the inability to protect their safety. Iraq sole beneficiary of the grantor trust which holds successful recipient for each project legal title to the 60% interest and leases the interest year, without re-competition. The award regularly fires anti-aircraft artillery and to PNM. The DCCC maintains its investment in the recipient must provide non-Federal surface-to-air missiles at U.S. and leased assets through a wholly owned, single- matching funds at 100%, i.e., one non- coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly purpose Delaware corporation DCC Finance Project. Federal dollar for each Federal dollar. zones over northern and southern Iraq, 7 If the closing date shall occur after February 28, At least half of the non-Federal match and regularly illuminates U.S. and 2002, interest on the cash payment of $5,672,000 coalition aircraft with target-acquisition will be computed at the lower of DCCC’s 60-day must be in cash. The remainder may be in the form of in-kind contributions. radar. funding cost or 5% per annum for the actual U.S. citizens and other foreigners number of days elapsed from, but excluding January DATES: SBA will mail program working inside Kuwait near the Iraqi 15, 2002, to and including the closing date. Such interest (if due) shall be an upward adjustment the announcements to interested parties borders have been detained by Iraqi cash purchase price. No other pricing adjustment is immediately, upon request. The opening authorities in the past and sentenced to applicable to the purchase or sale of the Subject date will be March 5, 2002 and the lengthy jail terms for alleged illegal Stock. closing date will be April 11, 2002. entry into the country. Although our
VerDate 11
interests are represented by the Embassy part of the study, TVA will prepare a Clinch River projects pass rainfall of Poland in Baghdad, its ability to programmatic environmental impact runoff, generate electric power, and obtain consular access to detained U.S. statement (EIS). TVA will use the EIS maintain minimum levels for citizens and to perform emergency process to elicit and prioritize the commercial navigation; (3) single services is constrained by Iraqi values and concerns of stakeholders; purpose power projects which generate unwillingness to cooperate. In light of identify issues, trends, events, and hydroelectric power; and (4) smaller these circumstances, and pursuant to tradeoffs affecting reservoir operating non-power projects which provide local the authorities set forth in 22 U.S.C. policies; formulate, evaluate, and flood relief, water supply, water quality, 211a, Executive Order 11295, and 22 compare alternative reservoir operating and/or recreation. CFR 51.73, I have determined that Iraq policies; provide opportunities for The drainage area of the Tennessee continues to be a country ‘‘where there public review and comment; and ensure River system covers about 41,000 square is imminent danger to the public health that any decision to change its operating miles. This area includes 125 counties or physical safety of United States policies reflect a full range of within much of Tennessee and parts of travelers’’. stakeholder input. Public comments are six other states: Alabama, Kentucky, Accordingly, United States passports invited concerning both the scope of the Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, shall continue to be invalid for travel to, environmental issues and the alternative and Virginia. The larger TVA Power or for use in, Iraq unless specifically operating policies that should be Service Area includes 201 counties and validated for such travel under the addressed in the EIS. about 80,000 square mile in the same authority of the Secretary of State. The DATES: Comments on the scope of the seven states. TVA manages the reservoir system, proposed extension will continue to issues and alternatives to be addressed which includes 14 navigation locks exclude from its coverage persons in the EIS must be postmarked or e- operated by the U.S. Army Corps of resident in Iraq since February 1, 1991, mailed by April 26, 2002. and professional journalists. In the Engineers, to provide an 800-mile TO COMMENT ON THE STUDY OR FOR commercial navigation channel from the absence of the exclusion, those FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David journalists and long-time residents mouth of the Tennessee River at Nye, ROS Project Manager, Tennessee Paducah, Kentucky, to the headwaters would have to apply for specific Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill validations; we would expect to grant of the Tennessee River at Knoxville, Drive, WT 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee Tennessee, and downstream parts of the any such requests, and therefore see no 37902–1499; call the TVA ROS EIS toll reason to revisit the exclusion. Clinch and Hiwassee Rivers. TVA free number (1–888–882–7675); fax to maintains water levels sufficient to The Public Notice shall be effective 865–632–3146; or access the TVA web from the date it is published in the provide a minimum navigation channel site at www.tva.com. depth of nine feet (with a two-foot Federal Register and shall expire at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: overdraft) throughout this navigable midnight on February 28, 2003, unless Background waterway. sooner extended or revoked by Public Thirteen multipurpose tributary Notice. A wholly owned corporation of the projects, built to reduce the risk of flood Dated: February 13, 2002. U.S. Government, TVA was established damage along the river, are operated to Colin L. Powell, by an act of Congress in 1933 to foster regulate flood crests and store runoff for Secretary of State, Department of State. the social and economic welfare of the later hydroelectric generation. [FR Doc. 02–4419 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] people of the Tennessee Valley region Powerhouses were built at 30 TVA and to promote the wise use and BILLING CODE 4710–10–P dams, including its Raccoon Mountain development of the region’s natural Pumped-Storage Facility, which now resources. Section 9a of the TVA Act provides approximately 5,000 provides the historical and legal context megawatts of hydro generation capacity. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY for TVA’s reservoir operating policies. Although the powerhouses were Programmatic Environmental Impact Added by Congress as an amendment in initially built to provide base-load Statement on Reservoir Operating 1935, Section 9a directs TVA to manage capacity, the demand for power in the Policies the reservoir system primarily to Tennessee Valley exceeded the promote navigation and control floods hydropower capacity of the reservoir AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. and, to the extent consistent with these system during the 1950s. As fossil and ACTION: Notice of Intent. purposes, for the generation of nuclear base-load generating sources electricity. were added, operation of the hydro SUMMARY: This notice is provided in In carrying out its mandate, TVA system was modified to take advantage accordance with the Council on developed an integrated system that of the versatility and dependability of Environmental Quality (CEQ) includes 49 dams and reservoirs; 48 of hydropower to meet peak power regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) which were built on the Tennessee demands and improve power system and the Tennessee Valley Authority River and its tributaries and one, Great reliability. Today, depending on annual (TVA) procedures implementing the Falls, is located on a tributary of the rainfall and runoff, the hydro system National Environmental Policy Act. In Cumberland River. The dams and produces 10 to 15 percent of TVA’s response to recommendations from its reservoirs, also referred to as projects, annual average system generation citizen advisory group, the Regional differ in age, size, and specific output. Resource Stewardship Council, and authorized purposes. Based on the The annual rainfall and runoff other individuals and stakeholder authorized purpose(s), TVA dams and patterns in the Tennessee Valley govern groups, TVA is conducting a reservoirs fall into one of four groups: the operation of the reservoir system. comprehensive reservoir operations (1) Multipurpose tributary projects Operating guides, developed from long- study (ROS). The purpose of the ROS is which provide seasonal stream flow term stream-flow records and project to determine if changes in TVA’s regulation for flood control, navigation, requirements and constraints, identify reservoir operating policies would and hydroelectric power generation; (2) water levels that should be met in each produce greater overall public value. As multipurpose main Tennessee and reservoir at various times during the
VerDate 11
year. December through early April is • Identify key measures for judging higher or lower reservoir pool levels, (2) the major flood season in the Tennessee future reservoir operating performance; increasing or decreasing the amount and Valley because storms tend to be larger • Identify issues, trends, events, and duration of releases from TVA dams to and more runoff occurs during this part tradeoffs which should be considered in provide increased minimum flows, (3) of the year. During this period, TVA formulating alternative reservoir increasing or decreasing the depth of the tributary reservoirs are lowered to a operating policies; commercial navigation channel, and (4) minimum level to provide storage • Develop clear reservoir operating increasing or decreasing the amount of capacity that reduces the risk of policy alternatives not constrained by water in reservoir storage potentially flooding at major damage centers, present operating policies; affecting flood risk. including Chattanooga, Tennessee, and • Provide factual information on the Water quality, flood risk, and weekly other communities along the Tennessee environmental, social, and economic scheduling models of the reservoir River and its tributaries while allowing effects of those alternatives; and system will be used to determine the • for hydroelectric power production Provide opportunities for flexibility of present reservoir during periods of peak power demand. stakeholders to actively participate in operations and to maximize operating Beginning in April, when flood risks the process. objectives with a minimum of typically diminish, tributary reservoirs Preliminary Identification of Issues to constraints. Model results will be used are allowed to fill to reach their summer Be Addressed to bracket the potential effects of the recreation level by June 1. During June alternative operating policies evaluated Based on internal and interagency and July, drawdown of the tributary in the EIS. The EIS will also present a discussions, TVA anticipates that the reservoirs is limited to maintaining review of the changes made in 1991, major issues to be addressed in the ROS downstream minimum flows, navigation when the last evaluation of TVA’s EIS will be navigation, flood risk, power channel depths, hydro power reservoir operating policies was production, water quality, water supply, generation, cooling water for fossil and conducted. That part of the study will threatened and endangered species, nuclear plants, and recreational provide a baseline for evaluating wetlands, adjacent land use, recreation, benefits. Between August 1 and January impacts of the alternatives selected for and social and economic considerations. 1, the reservoirs are drawn down to detailed analysis in this EIS. The results Issues related to air quality, climate, flood storage capacity levels based on of the evaluation of specific alternatives geology, groundwater, aquatic plants, the economic use of the water to meet on environmental, cultural, and invasive species, vector control, and power generation and water quality socioeconomic resources, together with terrestrial ecology also will be objectives. engineering and economic addressed; however, it is expected that In addition to the main objectives, considerations, will be used to select a these latter issues may not require preferred alternative operating policy. TVA operates the dams and reservoirs detailed evaluation. This list of issues is as a truly integrated system for the preliminary and is intended to facilitate Scoping Process benefit of the Valley to provide for such public comment on the scope of this CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) purposes as mosquito control, aquatic EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive require the use of an early and open plant management, water quality, nor does it imply any predetermination process for determining the scope of an recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, of potential impacts. TVA invites EIS and for identifying the significant municipal and industrial water supply, suggestions concerning the list of issues issues related to the proposed action. commercial and industrial which should be addressed. Scoping is integral to the EIS process. It development, and flows for power plant is a procedure that solicits public input cooling. The Proposed Action to ensure that: (1) All pertinent issues TVA evaluated its reservoir operating The proposed action is to implement are identified early and properly policies in the late 1980s and, in reservoir operation policies that create studied; (2) issues of little significance February 1991, the TVA Board approved greater overall public value. do not consume substantial time and the Tennessee River and Reservoir effort; (3) the draft EIS is thorough and System Operation and Planning Review Alternatives balanced; and (4) delays caused by an EIS. Policy changes recommended in As required by CEQ regulations (40 inadequate EIS are avoided. To ensure that EIS focused primarily on restricting CFR 1502.2(e)), TVA will evaluate a that the full range of issues and lake level drawdown at multipurpose reasonable range of alternatives, alternatives related to this proposal are tributary projects to increase recreation including the present operating policies addressed, TVA invites Federal opportunities and setting targets to as a No Action Alternative. Alternatives agencies, state and local governments, improve water quality. The scope of the will address TVA’s major reservoir the general public, and others to ROS EIS presently in progress will be operating objectives—the purposes for comment on the scope of the ROS EIS. more comprehensive in its approach which TVA manages the river and In addition to the Regional Resource and will evaluate all aspects of TVA’s reservoir system. These include Stewardship Council, TVA will also rely reservoir operating policies. The ROS navigation, flood risk reduction, power on individuals in a public review group EIS will identify and address alternative production, water quality, water supply, and an interagency team, as well as ways TVA could operate the reservoir recreation, and economic development. selected external subject matter experts, system to use the available water in At this time, alternative reservoir for input to the study. Agencies invited ways which would create greater value operating policies are likely to include to participate as part of the interagency for stakeholders. Consistent with the increasing or decreasing seasonal team include U.S. Army Corps of recommendations of the Regional reservoir pool levels depending on Engineers; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Resource Stewardship Council and hydrology and project constraints, and Service; U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Coast other groups and individuals, the increasing or decreasing the timing and Guard, National Weather Service, objectives of this study include but are amount of releases from the reservoirs. National Park Service, Native American not limited to: For example, alternatives might include: Tribal representatives, a representative • Clarify the values stakeholders have (1) Extending or shortening drawdown from each of the Valley states; and about the river and reservoir system; dates for tributary projects to provide others.
VerDate 11
TVA will hold 21 public information SUMMARY: In accordance with the On October 29, 2001 (66 FR 54616), meetings about the ROS EIS at locations Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 the Department published in the throughout the region between March U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), this Federal Register a final rule and request 21 and April 18, 2002. The dates and notice announces the Department of for comments to establish procedures locations of the information meetings Transportation’s (DOT) intention to for air carriers who had received or will be posted on the ROS EIS web site request the extension of a previously wished to receive compensation under (www.tva.com) and published in local approved collection. the Act. The rule covered such subjects and regional newspapers. Notices about DATES: Comments on this notice must be as eligibility, deadlines for application, these meetings will also be sent directly received April 26, 2002. information and forms required of to members of the public who have applicants, and audit requirements. The ADDRESSES: Comments should be previously indicated an interest in Department has received submissions directed to the Competition and Policy TVA’s reservoir operating policy from many carriers pursuant to this rule Analysis Division (X–55), Office of through attendance at public meetings and is continuing to process requests for Aviation Analysis, Office of the and through correspondence with compensation. Secretary, U.S. Department of Congress and TVA. TVA will continue Respondents: U.S. air carriers. Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, to develop and maintain a mailing list Estimated Number of Respondents: SW., Washington, DC 20590. of individuals, agencies, organizations, 430. and groups who have requested notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Estimated Total Burden on and updates of the ROS process. TVA Schmidt, Competition and Policy Respondents: 5,320 hours. will also maintain a public reference file Analysis Division (X–55), Office of Comments are invited on: (a) Whether at selected libraries across the region, Aviation Analysis, Office of the the proposed collection of Information which will include copies of all written Secretary, U.S. Department of is necessary for the proper performance correspondence, documents, meeting Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, of the functions of the Department, notices, agendas, and summaries. SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366– including whether the information will After consideration of the comments 5420. have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of received during this scoping period, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Department’s estimate of the burden TVA will develop and distribute a Title: Procedures For Compensation of of the proposed information collection; document which will summarize public Air Carriers. (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and agency comments that were OMB Control Number: 2105–0546. and clarity of the information to be received, the issues and alternatives to Type of Request: Authority for the collected, and (d) ways to minimize the be addressed in the EIS, and the currently approved data collection burden of the collection of information schedule for completing the EIS process. expires on February 28, 2002. By this of respondents, including the use of The scoping document should be notice, the Department is requesting an automated collection techniques or available in late spring 2002. It will be extension until February 28, 2003. other forms of information technology. distributed to public libraries, loaded on Abstract: As a consequence of the All responses to this notice will be the TVA EIS web site, and mailed out terrorist attacks on the United States on summarized and included in the request upon request. September 11, 2001, the U.S. for OMB approval. All comments will After evaluating the issues and the commercial aviation industry suffered also become a matter of public record. potential environmental consequences severe financial losses. These losses Issued in Washington, DC, on February 14, of each alternative, TVA will issue a placed the financial survival of many air 2002. draft EIS for public review and carriers at risk. Acting rapidly to Randall D. Bennett, comment. The draft EIS will be preserve the continued viability of the transmitted to the Environmental Director, Office of Aviation Analysis. U.S. air transportation system, President [FR Doc. 02–4414 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Protection Agency for publication of a Bush sought and Congress enacted the BILLING CODE 4910–62–P Notice of Availability in the Federal Air Transportation Safety and System Register. TVA will solicit written Stabilization Act (‘‘the Act’’), Pub. L. comments on the draft EIS and hold a 107–42. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION series of public information meetings to Under section 101(a)(2)(A–B) of the receive comments. TVA plans to issue Act, a total of $5 billion in Federal Aviation Administration the draft EIS in spring 2003. compensation is provided for ‘‘direct Dated: February 15, 2002. losses incurred beginning on September [Policy Statement Number PS–ACE100– Kathryn J. Jackson, 11, 2001, by air carriers as a result of 2001–02] Executive Vice President, River System any Federal ground stop order issued by Small Airplane Directorate Policy on Operations & Environment. the Secretary of Transportation or any Flammability Testing [FR Doc. 02–4320 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] subsequent order which continue or BILLING CODE 8120–08–U renews such stoppage; and the AGENCY: Federal Aviation incremental losses incurred beginning Administration, DOT. September 11, 2001 and ending ACTION: Notice of issuance and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 31, 2001, by air carriers as a availability. direct result of such attacks.’’ The Office of the Secretary Department of Transportation SUMMARY: This notice announces a previously disbursed initial estimated Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Procedures for Compensation of Air payments of nearly $2.5 billion of the $5 policy on flammability testing of Carriers billion amount that Congress materials used in small airplanes. This AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. authorized, using procedures set forth in notice advises the public, especially the Department’s Program Guidance manufacturers of normal, utility, and ACTION: Notice and request for Letters that were widely distributed and acrobatic category airplanes, and comments. posted on the Department’ Web site. commuter category airplanes used in
VerDate 11
non-scheduled service and their collection is described as well as its A comment to OMB is best assured of suppliers, that the FAA has adopted a expected burden. The Federal Register having its full effect if OMB receives it new policy concerning flammability Notice with a 60-day comment period within 30 days of publication. testing. This notice is necessary to soliciting comments on the following Issued in Washington, DC on February 20, advise the public of methods to obtain collection of information was published 2002. copies of this final FAA policy. on December 4, 2001. No comments Joel C. Richard, EFFECTIVE DATE: The subject final policy were received. Secretary, Maritime Administration. was issued on January 23, 2002, and DATES: Comments must be submitted on [FR Doc. 02–4409 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] became effective on that date. or before March 27, 2002. BILLING CODE 4910–81–P DISCUSSION: On August 3, 2001, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Small Airplane Directorate issued a Murray A. Bloom, Maritime proposed policy statement. We made Administration, MAR–222, 400 Seventh DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the proposed policy statement available Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. to the public (66 FR 42703, August 14, Telephone 202–366–5320 or FAX 202– National Highway Traffic Safety 2001) and to all manufacturers for their 366–7485. Administration comments. The comment period closed Copies of this collection can also be [Docket No. NHTSA–2001–10900; Notice 2] September 13, 2001, and all comments obtained from that office. were considered before the final policy Decision that Nonconforming 1998 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: was issued. Chrysler Grand Voyager Multi-Purpose ADDRESSES: Copies of the final policy Maritime Administration (MARAD) Passenger Vehicles are Eligible for statement, PS–ACE100–2001–02, may Title: Application for Designation of Importation be requested from the following: Small Vessels as American Great Lakes AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Airplane Directorate, Standards Office Vessels. Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. (ACE–110), Aircraft Certification Office, OMB Control Number: 2133–0521. ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Type or Request: Extension of that nonconforming 1998 Chrysler Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO currently approved collection. Grand Voyager multi-purpose passenger 64106. The policy statement is also Affected Public: Shipowners of vehicles (MPVs) are eligible for available on the Internet at the following merchant vessels. importation. address http://www.faa.gov/ Form (s): None. certification/aircraft/ SUMMARY: This notice announces the _ _ Abstract: In accordance with Public small airplanes advisory.html. Law 101–624, the Secretary of decision by NHTSA that 1998 Chrysler FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Transportation issued requirements for Grand Voyager MPVs not originally Leslie B. Taylor, Federal Aviation the submission of applications for manufactured to comply with all Administration, Small Airplane designation of vessels as American applicable Federal motor vehicle safety Directorate, Regulations & Policy, ACE– Great Lakes Vessels. Owners who wish standards are eligible for importation 111, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, to have this designation must certify into the United States because they are Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329– that their vessel(s) meets certain criteria substantially similar to vehicles 4134; fax: 816–329–4090; e-mail: established in 46 CFR part 380. This originally manufactured for sale in the [email protected]. collection of information is mandated United States and certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on January by statute to establish that a vessel 29, 2002. meets statutory criteria for obtaining the safety standards (the U.S. certified version of the 1998 Chrysler Grand Marvin Nuss, benefit of eligibility to carry preference cargoes. Voyager), and they are capable of being Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, readily altered to conform to the Aircraft Certification Service. Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 1.25 standards. [FR Doc. 02–4412 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] hours. DATES: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ADDRESSES: Send comments to the This decision is effective as of Office of Information and Regulatory February 25, 2002. Affairs, Office of Management and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle Washington, DC 20503, Attention Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366– Maritime Administration MARAD Desk Officer. 5306). Comments Are Invited on: (a) Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Whether the proposed collection of Requirements; Agency Information information is necessary for the proper Background Collection Activity Under OMB Review performance of the functions of the Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. agency, including whether the motor vehicle that was not originally ACTION: Notice and request for information will have practical utility; manufactured to conform to all comments. (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate applicable Federal motor vehicle safety of the burden of the proposed standards shall be refused admission SUMMARY: In compliance with the information collection; (c) ways to into the United States unless NHTSA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 enhance the quality, utility and clarity has decided that the motor vehicle is U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice of the information to be collected; and substantially similar to a motor vehicle announces that the Information (d) ways to minimize the burden of the originally manufactured for importation Collection abstracted below has been collection of information on into and sale in the United States, forwarded to the Office of Management respondents, including the use of certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of and Budget (OMB) for review and automated collection techniques or the same model year as the model of the comment. The nature of the information other forms of information technology. motor vehicle to be compared, and is
VerDate 11
capable of being readily altered to Issued on: February 20, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You conform to all applicable Federal motor Marilynne Jacobs, can request additional information or a vehicle safety standards. Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. copy of the collection from Jessie Petitions for eligibility decisions may [FR Doc. 02–4413 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Dunaway, OCC Clearance Officer, or be submitted by either manufacturers or BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Camille Dixon, (202) 874–5090, importers who have registered with Legislative and Regulatory Activities NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY publishes notice in the Federal Register Washington, DC 20219. of each petition that it receives, and Office of the Comptroller of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC affords interested persons an Currency is proposing to extend OMB approval of opportunity to comment on the petition. the following information collection: At the close of the comment period, Agency Information Collection Title: (MA)-Loans in Areas Having NHTSA decides, on the basis of the Activities: Submission for OMB Special Flood Hazards (12 CFR 22). petition and any comments that it has Review; Comment Request OMB Number: 1557–0202. received, whether the vehicle is eligible Description: This submission covers AGENCY: for importation. The agency then Office of the Comptroller of the an existing regulation and involves no publishes this decision in the Federal Currency (OCC), Treasury. change to the regulation or to the Register. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. information collection. The OCC requests only that OMB extend its Wallace Environmental Testing SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas approval of the information collection. continuing effort to reduce paperwork This regulation requires national banks (‘‘WETL’’) (Registered Importer 90–005) and respondent burden, invites the petitioned NHTSA to decide whether to make disclosures and keep records general public and other Federal regarding whether a property securing a 1998 Chrysler Grand Voyager MPVs agencies to take this opportunity to originally manufactured for sale in the loan is located in a special flood hazard comment on a continuing information area. European market are eligible for collection, as required by the Paperwork importation into the United States. This information collection is Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may required by section 303(a) and title V of NHTSA published notice of the petition not conduct or sponsor, and a on November 19, 2001 (66 FR 58003) to the Riegle Community Development and respondent is not required to respond Regulatory Improvement Act, Pub. L. afford an opportunity for public to, an information collection unless the comment. The reader is referred to that 103–325, title V, 108 Stat. 2160, the information collection displays a National Flood Insurance Reform Act of notice for a thorough description of the currently valid OMB control number. petition. No comments were received in 1994 amendments to the National Flood The OCC is soliciting comment Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104a response to the notice of the petition. concerning its information collection Based on its review of the information and 4104b), the Flood Disaster titled, ‘‘(MA)-Loans in Areas Having Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a submitted by the petitioner, NHTSA has Special Flood Hazards (12 CFR 22).’’ decided to grant the petition. and 4106(b)), and by OCC regulations The OCC also gives notice that it has implementing those statutes. The Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject sent the information collection to OMB information collection requirements are Vehicles for review and approval. contained in 12 CFR part 22. DATES: You should submit your Section 22.6 requires a national bank The importer of a vehicle admissible comments to the OCC and the OMB to use and maintain a copy of the under any final decision must indicate Desk Officer by March 27, 2002. Standard Flood Hazard Determination on the form HS–7 accompanying entry ADDRESSES: You should direct Form developed by the Federal the appropriate vehicle eligibility comments to: Emergency Management Agency number indicating that the vehicle is Communications Division, Office of (FEMA). eligible for entry. VSP–373 is the the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Section 22.7 requires a national bank vehicle eligibility number assigned to Information Room, Mailstop 1–5, or its loan servicer, if a borrower has not vehicles admissible under this notice of Attention: 1557–0202, 250 E Street, SW, obtained flood insurance, to notify the final decision. Washington, DC 20219. Due to recent, borrower to obtain adequate flood Final Decision temporary disruptions in the OCC’s mail insurance coverage or the bank or service, commenters are encouraged to servicer will purchase flood insurance Accordingly, on the basis of the submit comments by fax or e-mail. on the borrower’s behalf. foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that Comments may be sent by fax to (202) Section 22.9 requires a national bank 1998 Chrysler Grand Voyager MPVs that 874–4448, or by e-mail to making a loan secured by a building or were not originally manufactured to [email protected]. You can a mobile home located in a special flood comply with all applicable Federal inspect and photocopy the comments at hazard area to advise the borrower and motor vehicle safety standards are the OCC’s Public Information Room, 250 the loan servicer whether the property substantially similar to 1998 Chrysler E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. located in a special flood hazard area, Grand Voyager MPVs originally You can make an appointment to whether flood insurance on the property manufactured for sale in the United inspect the comments by calling (202) securing the loan is required, whether States and certified under 49 U.S.C. 874–5043. flood insurance is available under the 30115, and are capable of being readily Alexander T. Hunt, OMB Desk Officer National Flood Insurance Program, and altered to conform to all applicable for the OCC, Office of Information and if Federal disaster relief may be Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Regulatory Affairs, Office of available in the event of flooding. The Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and Management and Budget, New bank must maintain a record of the (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority Executive Office Building, Room 3208, borrower and loan servicer’s receipts of at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Washington, DC 20503. these notices.
VerDate 11
Section 22.10 requires a national bank DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS NW, Washington, DC, 20420, (202) 273– making a loan secured by a building or AFFAIRS 9702. a mobile home located in a special flood SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hazard area to notify FEMA of the Enhanced-Use Lease Development for 38 U.S.C. identity of the servicer, and of any a New Department of Veterans Affairs 8161 et. seq., specifically provides that change in servicers. (VA) Veterans Assistance Office (VAO), the Secretary may enter into an These information collection Las Vegas, NV Enhanced-Use lease if he determines requirements ensure bank compliance that at least part of the use of the with applicable Federal law, further AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. property under the lease will be to bank safety and soundness, provide ACTION: Notice of Designation. provide appropriate space for an activity protections for banks and the public, contributing to the mission of the and further public policy interests. SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department. The lease will not be Type of Review: Extension of OMB Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is inconsistent with and will not adversely approval. designating VA-controlled property affect the mission of the Department. Affected Public: Businesses or other adjacent to the VA Ambulatory Care The lease will enhance the use of the for-profit (national banks). Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, as a site property or the Secretary must Estimated Number of Respondents: for Enhance-Use development. The determine that the project will result in 2,300. Department intends to enter into a long- a demonstrable improvement of services Estimated Total Annual Responses: term (up to 75 years) lease of real 230,000. property with a competitively selected to veterans. This project meets these Frequency of Response: On occasion. developer who will finance, develop, requirements. Estimated Total Annual Burden: and operate office space needed for VA Approved: February 11, 2002. 58,650 hours. administrative purposes. VA will Anthony J. Principi, Dated: February 15, 2002. improve services, reduce operating Secretary. costs, and optimize capital investments. Mark J. Tenhundfeld, [FR Doc. 02–4328 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : BILLING CODE 8320–01–M Activities Division. Brian McDaniel, Asset Enterprise [FR Doc. 02–4342 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Management (004B), Department of BILLING CODE 4810–33–P Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
VerDate 11
Notices Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER V. Report of the Federal Agency Programs ACTION: Notice. contains documents other than rules or Committee proposed rules that are applicable to the A. Implementation of Council’s Policy SUMMARY: We are advising the public public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Statement on Balancing Cultural and that an environmental assessment has committee meetings, agency decisions and Natural Values on Federal Lands been prepared for a proposed decision B. Federal Program Improvement Priorities rulings, delegations of authority, filing of to extend to additional canola events petitions and applications and agency and Initiatives statements of organization and functions are VI. Report of the Communications, our determination that certain canola examples of documents appearing in this Education, and Outreach Committee events developed by Aventis section. A. Recommendations Regarding Council CropScience, which have been Communications Audit genetically engineered for male sterility, B. Presidential Historic Preservation fertility restoration, and tolerance to the ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC Awards herbicide glufosinate, are no longer C. Preservation Leadership Conference considered regulated articles under our PRESERVATION VII. Report of the Historic Preservation and Security Task Force regulations governing the introduction Meeting A. Status of National Capital Planning of certain genetically engineered organisms. We are making this AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Commission Report on Designing for Preservation. Security in the Nation’s Capital environmental assessment available to B. Report on Washington Monument the public for review and comment. ACTION: Notice of meeting. Section 106 Review VIII. Report of the Missouri River Task Force DATES: We will consider all comments SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that IX. Executive Director’s Report we receive that are postmarked, the Advisory Council on Historic A. Council FY 2003 Budget Request delivered, or e-mailed by March 27, Preservation will meet on Friday, March B. Reorganization of Council Staff 2002. 1, 2002. The meeting will be held in C. Section 106 Exemption for Historic Room M09 at the Old Post Office Pipelines ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, X. New Business by postal mail/commercial delivery or NW., Washington, DC beginning at 8:30 XI. Adjourn by e-mail. If you use postal mail/ commercial delivery, please send four a.m. Note: The meetings of the Council are open The Council was established by the to the public. If you need special copies of your comment (an original and National Historic Preservation Act of accommodations due to a disability, please three copies) to: Docket No. 01–100–1, 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470) to advise the contact the Advisory Council on Historic Regulatory Analysis and Development, President and the Congress on matters Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River relating to historic preservation and to Room 809, Washington, DC, 202–606–8503, Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737– comment upon Federal, federally at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. 1238. Please state that your comment assisted, and federally licensed For further information contact: refers to Docket No. 01–100–1. If you undertakings having an effect upon Additional information concerning the use e-mail, address your comment to properties listed in or eligible for meeting is available from the Executive [email protected]. Your inclusion in the National Register of Director, Advisory Council on Historic comment must be contained in the body Historic Places. The Council’s members Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., of your message; do not send attached are the Architect of the Capitol; the NW., #809, Washington, DC 20004. files. Please include your name and Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Dated: February 20, 2002. address in your message and ‘‘Docket Defense, and Transportation; the John M. Fowler, No. 01–100–1’’ on the subject line. Administrators of the Environmental Executive Director. You may read the extension request, Protection Agency and General Services [FR Doc. 02–4439 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the environmental assessment, and any Administration; the Chairman of the comments that we receive on this BILLING CODE 4310–10–M National Trust for Historic Preservation; docket in our reading room. The reading the President of the National Conference room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and of State Historic Preservation Officers; a DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Governor; a Mayor, a Native Hawaiian; Independence Avenue SW., and eight non-Federal members Animal and Plant Health Inspection Washington, DC. Normal reading room appointed by the President. Service hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday The agenda for the meeting includes through Friday, except holidays. To be the following: [Docket No. 01–100–1] sure someone is there to help you, I. Chairman’s Welcome please call (202) 690–2817 before Aventis CropScience; Availability of coming. II. Chairman’s Report Environmental Assessment for III. Report of Executive Committee Extension of Determination of APHIS documents published in the A. Revision Council Mission Statement Federal Register, and related B. Technical Amendments to Section 106 Nonregulated Status for Canola Genetically Engineered for Male information, including the names of Regulations organizations and individuals who have IV. Report of the Preservation Initiatives Sterility, Fertility Restoration, and Committee Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance commented on APHIS dockets, are A. Preservation Executive Order available on the Internet at http:// B. Preservation America Initiative AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/ C. Heritage Tourism Initiatives Inspection Service, USDA. webrepor.html.
VerDate 11
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. requests a determination that MS1 and numerous countries, including the James White, Plant Protection and RF1 and RF2 do not present a plant pest United States and Canada, and after Quarantine, APHIS, Suite 5B05, 4700 risk and, therefore, are not regulated having received the appropriate River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD articles under APHIS’ regulations in 7 Canadian approvals, have been 20737–1236; (301) 734–5490. To obtain CFR part 340. marketed commercially in Canada since a copy of the extension request or the Analysis 1996 with no reports of adverse effects environmental assessment, contact Ms. on human health or the environment. Kay Peterson at (301) 734–4885; e-mail: Like the antecedent organisms, canola Should APHIS approve Aventis’ [email protected]. events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 have been request for an extension of a genetically engineered to contain a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The determination of nonregulated status, barnase gene (MS1) for male sterility or regulations in 7 CFR part 340, canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 a barstar gene (RF1 and RF2) for fertility ‘‘Introduction of Organisms and would no longer be considered restoration. The barnase gene expresses Products Altered or Produced Through regulated articles under APHIS’ a ribonuclease that blocks pollen regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant development and results in a male- Pests or Which There is Reason to Therefore, the requirements pertaining sterile plant, and the barstar gene to regulated articles under those Believe Are Plant Pests,’’ regulate, encodes a specific inhibitor of this among other things, the introduction regulations would no longer apply to ribonuclease and restores fertility. The the field testing, importation, or (importation, interstate movement, or barnase and barstar genes were derived release into the environment) of interstate movement of the subject from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, and canola events or their progeny. organisms and products altered or are linked to in the subject produced through genetic engineering transformation events to the bar gene National Environmental Policy Act that are plant pests or that there is derived from Streptomyces An environmental assessment (EA) reason to believe are plant pests. Such hygroscopicus. The bar gene encodes genetically engineered organisms and has been prepared to examine any the enzyme phosphinothricin-N- potential environmental impacts products are considered ‘‘regulated acetyltransferase (PAT), which confers articles.’’ associated with the proposed extension tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. of a determination of nonregulated The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide The subject canola events and the that any person may submit a petition status for the subject canola events. The antecedent organisms were developed EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) to the Animal and Plant Health through use of the Agrobacterium Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a The National Environmental Policy Act tumefaciens method, and expression of of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. determination that an article should not the added genes in MS1 and RF1 and be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the RF2 and the antecedent organisms is Council on Environmental Quality for Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) controlled in part by gene sequences provide that a person may request that implementing the procedural provisions derived from the plant pathogen A. of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) APHIS extend a determination of tumefaciens. In summary, the Aventis nonregulated status to other organisms. USDA regulations implementing NEPA extension request states that canola (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA Such a request must include events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 and the information to establish the similarity of Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part antecedent organisms contain the same 372). Copies of the Aventis extension the antecedent organism and the genetic elements with the exception of regulated article in question. request and the EA are available from the antibiotic resistance marker gene the individual listed under FOR FURTHER nptII in MS1 and RF1 and RF2, which Background INFORMATION CONTACT. was used as a transformant selection On September 9, 2001, APHIS tool during the developmental process. Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of received a request for an extension of a The parental variety Drakkar was used February 2002. determination of nonregulated status to develop both the antecedent W. Ron DeHaven, (APHIS No. 01–206–01p) from Aventis organisms and MS1 and RF1 and RF2. Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant CropScience (Aventis) of Research Canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 Health Inspection Service. Triangle Park, NC, for canola (Brassica and the antecedent organisms were [FR Doc. 02–4385 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] napus L.) transformation events genetically engineered using the same BILLING CODE 3410–34–P designated as MS1 and RF1 and RF2, transformation method and contain the which have been genetically engineered same enzymes for male sterility, fertility for male sterility (MS1), fertility restoration, and glufosinate herbicide DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE restoration (RF1 and RF2), and tolerance tolerance. Accordingly, we have to the herbicide glufosinate (MS1, RF1, determined that canola events MS1 and Forest Service and RF2). The Aventis request seeks an RF1 and RF2 are similar to the Silver Pearl Land Exchange; Eldorado extension of a determination of antecedent organisms in APHIS petition National Forest, El Dorado and Placer nonregulated status issued in response number 98–278–01p, and we are Counties, California to APHIS petition number 98–278–01p proposing that canola events MS1 and for male sterile canola transformation RF1 and RF2 should no longer be AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. event MS8 and fertility restoration regulated under the regulations in 7 CFR ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an canola transformation event RF3, the part 340. environmental impact statement. antecedent organisms (see 64 FR 15337– The subject canola events have been 15338, Docket No. 98–114–2, published considered regulated articles under SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, March 31, 1999). Both MS8 and RF3 are APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part 340 will prepare an environmental impact also tolerant to the herbicide because they contain gene sequences statement (EIS) on a proposal to acquire glufosinate. Based on the similarity of derived from a plant pathogen. approximately 3,994 acres of Sierra canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 to However, canola events MS1 and RF1 Pacific Industries Corporation land in the antecedent organisms, Aventis and RF2 have been field tested in exchange for 2,126 acres of National
VerDate 11
Forest System land. The purpose of the public objectives served by the non- Headquarters at 100 Forni Road exchange is to improve land federal lands and interests to be Placerville, CA on December 13, 2001. management efficiencies by acquired are equal or exceed the Notification of the additional public consolidating land ownership, while resource values and the public scoping periods will be published in the obtaining lands providing a variety of objectives served by the federal lands to Mountain Democrat, Placerville, CA. public benefits, including ecological be disposed; and (2) the intended use of The DEIS is scheduled to be available in and recreational values; and to the disposed federal land will not June 2002 and the Forest will host eliminate the need to provide access to substantially conflict with established another public meeting after the draft is a private parcel within a roadless (RARE management objectives on adjacent mailed to interested parties. II) area. It is believed that the integrity federal lands. Comments submitted during the of recreational, ecological and economic Lands will be exchanged on a value scoping process should be in writing values will be improved by the for value basis, based on current fair and should be specific to the proposed consolidation of ownership resulting market value appraisals. The appraisal action. The comments should describe from a land exchange. The values of the is prepared in accordance with the as clearly and completely as possible lands exchanged must be equal. Uniform Standards for Federal Land any issues the commenter has with the DATES: The draft Environmental Impact Acquisition. The appraisal prepared for proposal. The scoping process includes: Statement (EIS) is scheduled to be the land exchange is reviewed by a (a) Identifying potential issues; completed in June 2002 for public qualified review appraiser to ensure that (b) Identifying issues to be analyzed review and comment. The final EIS is it is fair and complies with the in depth. scheduled to be completed by December appropriate standards. Under the (c) Eliminating nonsignificant issues 2002. Federal Land Policy and Management or those previously covered by a relevant previous environmental ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Act of 1976, all exchanges must be equal analysis; Elaine Gee, Project Leader, Eldorado in value. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 254.3(c) require that exchanges (d) Exploring additional alternatives; National Forest, 7600 Wentworth (e) Identifying potential Springs Road, Georgetown, CA 95634. must be of equal value or equalized pursuant to 35 CFR 254.12 by cash environmental effects of the proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: payment after making all reasonable action and alternatives. Questions and comments about this EIS efforts to equalize values by adding or The draft EIS is expected to be filed should be directed to Elaine Gee, at the deleting lands. If lands proposed for with the Environmental Protection above address, or call her at 530–333– exchange are not equal in value, either Agency (EPA) and to be available for 4312. party may make them equal by cash public review by June 2002. EPA will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest payment not to exceed 25 percent of the publish a notice of availability of the Service is initiating this action in order federal land value. draft EIS in the Federal Register. The to exchange lands that will provide a The decision to be made is what comment period on the draft EIS will be balance in public benefits while lands, if any, should be exchanged as 45 days from the date the EPA notice improving management opportunities. part of this proposal. The proposed appears in the Federal Register. At that Lands within the Rubicon River Canyon action is to exchange approximately time, copies of the draft EIS will be (recommended for Wild and Scenic 2,126 acres of National Forest System distributed to interested and affected River status), the Silver Fork of the land for approximately 3,994 acres of agencies, organizations, and members of American River (a Wild and Scenic Sierra Pacific Industries Corporation the public for their review and eligible river) and the Pyramid-Bassi land, adjusted for equal value as comment. It is very important that those Roadless Area (RARE II); lands along the required by law. Other alternatives will interested in the management of the Pony Express National Historic Trail are be developed based on significant issues Eldorado National Forest participate at proposed for acquisition; along with identified during the scoping process for that time. other lands containing unique the environmental impact statement. All The Forest Service believes it is ecological values, valuable timber alternatives will need to respond to the important to give reviewers notice at resources and important recreational specific condition of providing benefits this early stage of several court rulings opportunities. The lands to be equal to or better than the current related to public participation in the exchanged also contain important condition. Alternatives being environmental review process. First, resource values, including lands considered at this time include: (1) no reviewers of a draft EIS must structure suitable for growth and harvest of action and (2) exchanging lands as their participation in the environmental commercial conifers and areas that identified in the proposed action. review of the proposal so that it is contain quality wildlife habitat. Also Public participation will be especially meaningful and alerts an agency to the considered is the opportunity to important at several points during the reviewer’s position and contentions, consolidate lands into contiguous analysis. The Forest Service will be Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. blocks that can be more efficiently and seeking information, comments, and NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, economically managed, thereby assistance from the Federal, State, and environmental objections that could be facilitating the ownership objectives of local agencies and other individuals or raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are both the Forest Service and Sierra organizations who may be interested in not raised until after completion of the Pacific Industries Corporation. All or affected by the proposed action. To final EIS may be waived or dismissed by federal lands proposed for exchange are facilitate public participation the courts, City of Angoon v. Hodel, on the Eldorado National Forest and are information about the proposed action 803f. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir, 1986) and in compliance with the land adjustment was mailed to all who expressed interest Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 management direction in the 1989 in the proposed action based on F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Eldorado National Forest Land and publication in the Eldorado National Because of these court rulings, it is very Resources Management Plan. Forest Schedule of Proposed Action. important that those interested in this The exchange meets the public The Forest Service hosted a public proposed action participate by the close interest requirements in 36 CFR meeting/open house to present the of the comment period so that 254.3(b): (1) The resource values and the proposal at the Eldorado National Forest substantive comments and objections
VerDate 11
are made available to the Forest Service publishing and distribution of this draft Development could include the at a time when it can meaningfully EIS is cancelled. installation of tanks and treatment consider them and respond to them in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don equipment on the wellsite and a the final EIS. Errington, Project Leader, Pacific Ranger pipeline to transport the product. The To assist the Forest Service in Station, 7887 Highway 50, Pollock project proposal also includes a plan for identifying and considering issues and Pines, California, 95726, Phone (530) abandonment of the well. If oil and/or concerns on the proposed action, 644–2349. gas are not present in quantities that comments on the draft EIS should be as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice justify completion and production, the specific as possible. It is also helpful if of Intent to prepare an environmental well would be abandoned and the site comments refer to specific pages or impact statement for the Airport Forest and access road reclaimed immediately. chapters of the draft EIS. Comments Health Timber Sale was published in If the well is put into production, well may also address the adequacy of the the Federal Register on June 27, 2000 abandonment and reclamation of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives (Volume 65, Number 124, pp 39594– well site and access road would be formulated and discussed in the 39596) announcing the intent to prepare performed to achieve a pre-project statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer and release a draft EIS in August 2000 condition after the reservoir is depleted. to the Council on Environmental with a final EIS scheduled for The proposed well would be located in Quality Regulations for implementing September 2000. the Duck Creek Inventoried Roadless the procedural provisions of the The original notice of intent informed Area. If approved as proposed, the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 the public of the agency’s intention to decision would permit road CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points). document the analysis in an EIS. The construction and reconstruction to The final EIS is scheduled to be primary reason for the cancellation is a occur in the roadless area. The EIS will completed in December 2002. In the change in management direction for the comply with the requirements of the final EIS, The Forest Service is required project area. National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. sections 4321–4370a), the to respond to substantive comments Dated: February 19, 2002. received during the comment period National Forest Management Act (16 John Berry, U.S.C. 1600–1614), and the Mineral that pertain to the environmental Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest. consequences discussed in the draft EIS Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and [FR Doc. 02–4369 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] and applicable laws, regulations, and supplemented (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), policies considered in making the BILLING CODE 3410–11–M and their implementing regulations. decision regarding this proposal. DATES: Comments concerning the proposal and the scope of the analysis John Berry, Forest Supervisor, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Eldorado National Forest is the will be accepted and considered at any responsible official. As the responsible Forest Service time after publication of this notice in official he will document the decision the Federal Register and prior to a and reasons for the decision in the Yates Duck Creek Federal Oil Well #1 decision being made. Record of Decision. That decision will Environmental Impact Statement: ADDRESSES: Send written comments to be subject to Forest Service appeal Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Liz Moncrief, Medicine Bow-Routt regulations (36 CFR part 215). and Thunder Basin National Grassland National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 2486 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming Dated: February 19, 2002. AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. John D. Berry, 82070. Electronic mail may be sent to: ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an [email protected], FAX may be sent to Forest Supervisor. Environmental Impact Statement. 307–745–2398. [FR Doc. 02–4368 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: The Forest Service will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz BILLING CODE 3410–11–M prepare an Environmental Impact Moncrief, Forest Service Project Leader, Statement (EIS) on a proposal to drill for 307–745–2456. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and develop conventional oil and gas SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Yates resources with one (1) well on National Petroleum Corporation has filed an Forest Service Forest System lands in Campbell application with the Bureau of Land County, Wyoming. The well would be Management for a permit to drill and Airport Forest Health Timber Sale, located on Federal Lease #WYW– complete one exploration well. Drilling Eldorado National Forest, Pacific 141191, issued in 1997, in section 30, and completion of the well requires Ranger District, El Dorado County, T.55N.,R.69W., 6th P.M. construction of access roads, and may California The purpose of the project is to include installation of testing and determine the potential for oil and gas production equipment. As surface AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. development, by drilling one management agency, the Forest Service ACTION: Cancellation of Notice of Intent. exploratory well in the Duck Creek area. proposes to permit surface operations The project potentially includes three associated with the development of oil SUMMARY: This document provides phases: drilling, development and/or and/or gas resources with the drilling of notice of cancellation of the intent to production of oil and/or gas if one (1) well including construction of prepare an environmental impact discovered in producible quantities, and access roads and production facilities. statement (EIS) on a proposal to harvest abandonment. The initial phase of the The Forest Service will prepare an timber, prescribe burn, and improve project would include constructing Environmental Impact Statement. This wildlife habitat on the Pacific Ranger access to the drill site, constructing a EIS will disclose the environmental District. well pad, and drilling and testing the effects of the proposed oil and gas DATES: The draft environmental impact well. If results of testing indicate that oil development. statement was originally scheduled for and/or gas are present in producible In 1994, the Forest Service prepared August 2000 with a 45-day public quantities, production equipment and the Thunder Basin Oil and Gas Leasing review and comment period. The facilities would be installed. EIS and issued a Record of Decision
VerDate 11
(ROD) for future oil and gas location could alter the character of Impact Statements must structure their development on NFS lands on the portions of the Creek Inventoried participation in the environmental Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Roadless Area. review of the proposal so that it is This development authorized the meaningful and alerts an agency to the Public Involvement Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reviewer’s position and contentions. lease Federal oil and gas resources in At this time, the Forest Service is Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. the Duck Creek area subject to certain seeking information, comments and NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, stipulations described in the ROD, and other assistance from Federal, State and environmental objections that could be pertinent to the surface use of the NFS local agencies, and other individuals or raised during the Draft Environmental lands. Subsequent to this decision, the organizations who have an interest in, Impact Statement stage, but are not BLM offered the Federal lease for sale. or could be affected by the proposed raised until after completion of the Final Yates Petroleum purchased the lease in action. The public is encouraged to take Environmental Impact Statement, may 1997. Pursuant to 43 CFR 3101.1–2 part in this process and to visit with be waived or dismissed by the courts. Surface Use Rights, the lessee has a right Forest Service officials at any time City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, to develop the oil and gas resources on during the analysis, and prior to the 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin that lease area, subject to stipulations decision. While public comments are Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. attached to the lease and other welcome at any time, comments 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). As a result provisions as described. received within 30 days of the of these previous court rulings, it is very The Medicine Bow National Forest publication of this notice in the Federal important that those interested in this and Thunder Basin National Grassland Register will be most useful for the proposed action participate by the close Land and Resource Management Plan of identification of issues and the analysis of the 45-day comment period so that 1985, as amended by the April 22, 1994, of alternatives. Comments may be sent substantive comments and objections Record of Decision for the by electronic mail (e-mail) to are made available to the Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) [email protected]. Written comments at a time when it can meaningfully for Oil and Gas Leasing on the Thunder may be mailed to the Medicine Row— consider them and respond to them in Basin National Grassland, provides Routt National Forest Supervisors the Final Environmental Impact stipulations for oil and gas leases, and Office, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Statement. standards and guidelines for oil and gas Wyoming 82070–6535, attention Liz To assist the Forest Service in development on NFS lands. This Moncrief. Please reference the Yates- identifying and considering issues and proposal is consistent with the 1985 Duck Creek O&G Well EIS on the subject concerns related to the proposed action, Land and Resource Management Plan. line. The name and mailing address of comments on this Draft Environmental The Thunder Basin National the commenter should be provided with Impact Statement should be as specific Grassland portion of the 1985 Plan is their comments so that future as possible. It is also helpful if being revised through the Northern documents pertaining to this comments refer to specific pages or Great Plains Management Plan Revision environmental analysis and the decision chapters of the draft document. process. The Final EIS and 2001 Revised can be provided to interested parties. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Thunder Basin National Grassland Plan Estimated Dates for Filing are completed. A record of decision is Impact Statement or the merits of the expected to be approved soon. This The draft EIS is expected to be filed alternatives displayed in the document. proposal is consistent with the 2001 with the Environmental Protection Reviewers should refer to the Council Revised Thunder Basin National Agency (EPA) and available for public on Environmental Quality Regulations Grassland Plan and the preferred review during March 2002. At that time, at 40 CFR 1503.3 for implementing the alternative in the Final EIS. the EPA will publish a Notice of procedural provisions of the National Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in Environmental Policy Act for addressing Decision To Be Made the Federal Register. The comment these points. Please note that any The Responsible Official will consider period on the draft EIS will be for a comments that are submitted in relation the results of the analysis and its period of not less than 45 days from the to this DEIS will be considered as public findings and then document the final date the EPA publishes the NOA in the information. Federal Register. It is important that decision in a Record of Decision (ROD). Release of Names The decision will include a those interested in the management of determination of the terms, conditions, this area to comment at that time. The Comments received in response to and mitigation measures under which final EIS is expected to be available in this solicitation, including names and the proponent may develop the oil and/ July 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest addresses of those who comment, will or gas resources while also protecting Service will respond to any comments be considered part of the public record the surface natural resources in the area received during the public comment on this Proposed Action and will be and providing for public safety. period that pertain to the environmental available for public inspection. analysis. Those comments and the Comments submitted anonymously will Responsible Official Forest Service responses will be be accepted and considered; however, Rick Cables, Regional Forester, USDA disclosed and discussed in the draft EIS, those whose submit anonymous Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, which will be considered when making comments will not have standing to 740 Simms St., Golden, Colorado, 80401 the final decision about this proposal. appeal the subsequent decision under is the official responsible for making the 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, The Public’s Obligation To Comment Forest Service decision on this action. pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person He will document his decision and The Forest Service believes it is may request the agency to withhold a rationale in a Record of Decision. important to give reviewers an early submission from the public record by notice of several court rulings related to showing how the Freedom of Preliminary Issues public participation in the Information Act (FOIA) permits such Proposed construction/reconstruction environmental review process. First, confidentiality. Persons requesting such of access roads to the proposed well reviewers of Draft Environmental confidentiality should be aware that,
VerDate 11
under the FOIA, confidentiality may be ACTION: Notice of meeting. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade SUMMARY: An Opal Creek Scenic Forest Service secrets. The Forest Service will inform Recreation Area Advisory Council the requester of the agency’s decision meeting will convene in Stayton, Siuslaw Resource Advisory Committee regarding the request for confidentiality, Oregon on Monday, March 18, 2002. Meeting The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 and where the request is denied, the AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. p.m., and will conclude at agency will return the submissions and ACTION: Notice of meeting. notify the requester that the comments approximately 8:30 p.m. The meeting may be resubmitted with or without will be held in the South Room of the SUMMARY: The Siuslaw Resource name and address within ten (10) days. Stayton Community Center located on Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet on 400 West Virginia Street in Stayton, Dated: February 11, 2002. March 8, 2002. The meeting will begin Oregon. at 9:00 a.m., in the Hatfield Marine M.M. Underwood, Jr., The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Sciences Center, Room 9, at 2030 SW Director, Physical Resources, USDA Forest Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act of Marine Sciences Drive, Newport, OR. Service Rocky Mountain Region. 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (P.L. 104–208) Agenda item will include: a review of [FR Doc. 02–4109 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] directed the Secretary of Agriculture to projects submitted by entities other than BILLING CODE 3410–11–M establish the Opal Creek Scenic the Forest Service; a continuation of the Recreation Area Advisory Council. The review of Forest Service projects that Advisory Council is comprised of may be recommended to the Forest DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE thirteen members representing state, Supervisor for funding with Title II Forest Service county and city governments, and dollars; consideration of the draft representatives of various organizations, bylaws for the Siuslaw RAC; and, a Deschutes Provincial Advisory which include mining industry, public comment period. The meeting is Committee (PAC) environmental organizations, inholders expected to adjourn at 4:00 p.m. in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, Interested citizens are encouraged to AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture. economic development, Indian tribes, attend. ACTION: Notice of meeting. adjacent landowners and recreation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: interests. The council provides advice to SUMMARY: The Deschutes Provincial Linda Stanley, Community the Secretary of Agriculture on Development Specialist, Siuslaw Advisory Committee will meet on preparation of a comprehensive Opal March 14, 2002 at the Crook County National Forest, 541/750–7210 or write Creek Management Plan for the SRA, to Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Library, Broughton Room, 200 E. 2nd and consults on a periodic and regular Street in Prineville, Oregon. A business Forest, P.O. Box 1148, Corvallis, OR basis on the management of the area. 97339. meeting will begin at 9:00 am and finish Tentative agenda items include the Dated: February 19, 2002. at 4:00 pm. Agenda items will include following topics: a discussion on PAC recommendations Gloria D. Brown, Discuss Opal Creek SRA Environmental regarding the Northwest Forest Plan, Forest Supervisor. Analysis decision Empowering Counties/Communities, [FR Doc. 02–4363 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Transition of the Council membership and update on Timber Sales in Central BILLING CODE 3410–11–M Oregon, Trout Creek update, an update in accordance with provisions of the on the local Noxious Weed Program, an Council Charter update on the Hosmer, Metolius Basin Discuss future topics and meeting DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and the Upper Deschutes Resource schedule for the Council Management Plan Subcommittees, Info A direct public comment period is Forest Service Sharing and a Public Forum from 3:30 tentatively scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. pm till 4:00 pm. All Deschutes Province Time allotted for individual Madera County Resource Advisory Advisory Committee Meetings are open presentations will be limited to 3 Committee Meeting to the public. minutes. Written comments are AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: encouraged, particularly if the material ACTION: Notice of Resource Advisory Chris Mickle, Province Liaison, USDA, cannot be presented within the time Meeting. Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District, 1230 NE., limits of the comment period. Written 3rd, Bend, OR, 97701, Phone (541) 383– comments may be submitted prior to the SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in 4769. March 18 meeting by sending them to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of Designated Federal Official Stephanie 1972 (Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Dated: February 16, 2002. Phillips at the address given below. secure Rural Schools and Community Leslie A.C. Weldon, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. Forest Supervisor. more information regarding this 106–393) the Sierra National Forest’s [FR Doc. 02–4364 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] meeting, contact Designated Federal Resource Advisory Committee for BILLING CODE 3410–11–M Official Stephanie Phillips; Willamette Madera County will meet on Monday, National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, March 18, 2002. The Madera Resource HC 73 Box 320, Mill City, OR 97360; Advisory Committee will meet at the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (503) 854–3366. Spring Valley Elementary School in O’Neals, CA. The purpose of the Forest Service Dated: February 15, 2002. meeting is to review Committee ground Y. Robert Iwamoto, rules and goals, project evaluation and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Acting Forest Supervisor. (SRA) Advisory Council project list timetables, public [FR Doc. 02–4366 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] involvement strategies, and the project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. BILLING CODE 3410–11–M application process.
VerDate 11
DATES: The Madera Resource Advisory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section upon written request. You may submit Committee meeting will be held 343 of the Federal Agriculture electronic requests and comments to Monday, February 18, 2002. The Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 [email protected]. meeting will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 states that revisions made after p.m. enactment of the law to NRCS state FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ADDRESSES: The Madera County RAC technical guides used to carry out Mark Moseley, 405–742–1235. highly erodible land and wetland meeting will be held at the Spring SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section provisions of the law shall be made Valley Elementary School, 46655 Road 343 of the Federal Agriculture available for public review and 200, O’Neals, CA, two and one half Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 comment. For the next 30 days, the miles from State Highway 41. states that revisions made after NRCS in Delaware will receive enactment of the law, to NRCS state FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments relative to the proposed Dave Martin, USDA, Sierra National changes. Following that period, a technical guides used to carry out Forest, 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA determination will be made by the highly erodible land and wetland 93643 (559) 877–2218 ext. 3100; e-mail: NRCS in Delaware regarding disposition provisions of the law, shall be made [email protected]. of those comments and a final available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda determination of change will be made. NRCS in Oklahoma will receive items to be covered include: (1) Review Dated: February 1, 2002. comments relative to the proposed committee ground rules and goals; (2) Elesa K. Cottrell, change. Following that period, a review project evaluations and project State Conservationist. determination will be made by the list timetables; (3) review goals and [FR Doc. 02–4396 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] NRCS in Oklahoma regarding objectives; (4) discuss public BILLING CODE 3410–16–P disposition of those comments and a involvement strategies and the final determination of change will be application process. The meeting is made. open to the public. Public input DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE opportunity will be provided and Dated: February 1, 2002. individuals will have the opportunity to Natural Resources Conservation M. Darrel Dominick, address the Committee at that time. Service State Conservationist, Stillwater, Oklahoma. Dated: February 19, 2002. [FR Doc. 02–4395 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Notice of Proposed Changes to David W. Martin, BILLING CODE 3410–16–P Section IV of the Field Office Technical District Ranger. Guide (FOTG) of the Natural Resources [FR Doc. 02–4370 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Conservation Service in Oklahoma DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BILLING CODE 3410–11–M AGENCY: Natural Resources Rural Business-Cooperative Service Conservation Service (NRCS) in DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Oklahoma, U.S. Department of Inviting Applications for Rural Agriculture. Business Opportunity Grants Natural Resources Conservation ACTION: Notice of availability of a Service proposed change in Section IV of the AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative FOTG of the NRCS in Oklahoma for Service, USDA. Notice of Proposed Change to Section review and comment. IV of the Field Office Technical Guide ACTION: Notice. (FOTG) of the Natural Resources SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in Conservation Service in Delaware Oklahoma to issue new and revised SUMMARY: The Rural Business- conservation practice standards in Cooperative Service (RBS), an Agency AGENCY: Natural Resources Section IV of the FOTG. The standards within the Rural Development mission Conservation Service, Delaware, USDA. are Deep Tillage (324), Riparian area, announces the availability of ACTION: Notice of availability of Herbaceous Cover (390), and Riparian grants of up to $50,000 per application proposed changes in Section IV of the Forest Buffer (391), Waste Utilization from the Rural Business Opportunity FOTG for review and comment. (633), Vegetative Barrier (601), Nutrient Grant (RBOG) Program for fiscal year Management (590), Tree-Shrub Pruning (FY) 2002, to be competitively awarded. SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in (660), Windbreak/Shelterbelt For multi-state projects, grant funds of Delaware to issue the following new and Renovation (650), Windbreak/ up to $150,000 will be available on a revised conservation practice standard Shelterbelt Establishment (380), Anionic competitive basis. in Section IV of the FOTG: Nutrient Polyacrylamide (PAM) Erosion Control Management (Code 590). (450), Grassed Waterway (412), Pipeline DATES: Any applications received in the Rural Development State Office after the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (516), Watering Facility (614), Forest Elesa K. Cottrell, State Conservationist, Site Preparation (490), and Tree/Shrub date of this notice will be considered for Natural Resources Conservation Service Establishment (612). funding after June 30, 2002. (NRCS), Suite 101, 1203 College Park DATES: Comments will be received on or ADDRESSES: For further information, Dr., Dover, Delaware 19904–8713, before March 27, 2002. entities wishing to apply for assistance telephone (302) 678–4160. Copies of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: should contact a Rural Development practice standard will be made available Inquire in writing to Mark Moseley, State Office to receive further upon written request. Acting ASTC (Ecological Sciences), information and copies of the Notice of Proposed Change to Section Natural Resources Conservation Service application package. Potential IV of the Field Office Technical Guide (NRCS), 100 USDA, Suite 206 applicants located in the District of (FOTG) of the Natural Resources Stillwater, OK 74074–2655. Copies of Columbia must send their applications Conservation Service in Delaware. these standards will be made available to the National Office at:
VerDate 11
District of Columbia Federal Building, Room 311 410 AgriBank Building Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 154 Waianuenue Avenue 375 Jackson Street USDA Hilo, HI 96720 St. Paul, MN 55101–1853 Specialty Lenders Division (808) 933–8380 (651) 602–7800 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room Idaho Mississippi 6867 Washington, DC 20250–3225 USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office (202) 720–1400 9173 West Barnes Dr., Suite A1 Federal Building, Suite 831 Boise, ID 83709 100 West Capitol Street A list of Rural Development State (208) 378–5600 Jackson, MS 39269 Offices follows: Illinois (601) 965–4316 Alabama USDA Rural Development State Office Missouri USDA Rural Development State Office 2118 West Park Court, Suite A Sterling Center, Suite 601 USDA Rural Development State Office Champaign, IL 61821 601 Business Loop 70 West 4121 Carmichael Road (217) 403–6202 Montgomery, AL 36106–3683 Parkade Center, Suite 235 (334) 279–3400 Indiana Columbia, MO 65203 (573) 876–0976 Alaska USDA Rural Development State Office 5975 Lakeside Boulevard Montana USDA Rural Development State Office Indianapolis, IN 46278 USDA Rural Development State Office 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201 (317) 290–3100 Palmer, AK 99645–6539 P. O. Box 771 (907) 761–7705 Iowa 900 Technology Blvd., Unit 1, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 Arizona USDA Rural Development State Office (406) 585–2580 Federal Building, Room 873 USDA Rural Development State Office 210 Walnut Street Nebraska 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 900 Des Moines, IA 50309–2196 Phoenix, AZ 85012–2906 USDA Rural Development State Office (515) 284–4663 (602) 280–8700 Federal Building, Room 152 Kansas 100 Centennial Mall North Arkansas Lincoln, NE 68508 USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office (402) 437–5551 Suite 100 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416 1303 SW First American Place Little Rock, AR 72201–3225 Nevada Topeka, KS 66604 (501) 301–3200 USDA Rural Development State Office (785) 271–2700 1390 South Curry Street California Kentucky Carson City, NV 89703–9910 USDA Rural Development State Office (775) 887–1222 430 G Street, Agency 4169 USDA Rural Development State Office Davis, CA 95616–4169 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200 New Jersey (530) 792–5800 Lexington, KY 40503 (859) 224–7300 USDA Rural Development State Office Colorado Tarnsfield Plaza, Suite 22 Louisiana 790 Woodlane Road USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office Mt. Holly, NJ 08060 655 Parfet Street, Room E–100 (609) 265–3600 Lakewood, CO 80215 3727 Government Street (720) 544–2903 Alexandria, LA 71302 New Mexico (318) 473–7921 Delaware-Maryland USDA Rural Development State Office Maine 6200 Jefferson Street, NE. USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office Room 255 P. O. Box 400 Albuquerque, NM 87109 4607 South DuPont Highway P. O. Box 405 (505) 761–4950 Camden, DE 19934–9998 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4 (302) 697–4300 Bangor, ME 04402–0405 New York (207) 990–9106 Florida/Virgin Islands USDA Rural Development State Office Massachusetts/Rhode Island/ The Galleries of Syracuse USDA Rural Development State Office Connecticut P. O. Box 147010 441 South Salina Street, Suite 357 4440 NW. 25th Place USDA Rural Development State Office Syracuse, NY 13202–2541 Gainesville, FL 32606 451 West Street, Suite 2 (315) 477–6400 (352) 338–3402 Amherst, MA 01002–2999 North Carolina (413) 253–4300 Georgia USDA Rural Development State Office Michigan USDA Rural Development State Office 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260 Stephens Federal Building USDA Rural Development State Office Raleigh, NC 27609 355 E. Hancock Avenue 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200 (919) 873–2000 East Lansing, MI 48823 Athens, GA 30601–2768 North Dakota (706) 546–2162 (517) 324–5100 USDA Rural Development State Office Hawaii Minnesota P. O. Box 1737 USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office Federal Building, Room 208
VerDate 11
220 East Rosser Avenue (801) 524–4321 the opportunity to benefit from the Bismarck, ND 58502–1737 available funds, no grant will exceed Vermont/New Hampshire (701) 530–2037 $50,000, unless it is a multi-state project USDA Rural Development State Office where funds may not exceed $150,000. Ohio City Center, 3rd Floor 89 Main Street Pursuant to the Agriculture, Rural USDA Rural Development State Office Montpelier, VT 05602 Development, Food and Drug Federal Building, Room 507 (802) 828–6010 Administration, and Related Agencies 200 North High Street Virginia Appropriation Act, 2002 (Pub. L. No. Columbus, OH 43215–2418 107–76) a total of $3,000,000 has been USDA Rural Development State Office (614) 255–2500 earmarked for Native Americans, the Culpeper Building, Suite 238 Mississippi Delta area, and Oklahoma 1606 Santa Rosa Road Empowerment Zones, Enterprise USDA Rural Development State Richmond, VA 23229–5014 Communities, and Rural Economic Area Office 100 USDA, Suite 108 (804) 287–1550 Partnerships. There is no project dollar Stillwater, OK 74074–2654 Washington amount limitation on applications for (405) 742–1000 earmarked funds. Awards are made on USDA Rural Development State Office a competitive basis using specific Oregon 1835 Black Lake Boulevard, SW. selection criteria contained in 7 CFR USDA Rural Development State Office Suite B part 4284, subpart G. 7 CFR part 4284, 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1410 Olympia, WA 98512–5715 subpart G, also contains the information Portland, OR 97204–3222 (360) 704–7740 required to be in the application (503) 414–3300 West Virginia package. The State Director may assign up to 15 discretionary points to an Pennsylvania USDA Rural Development State Office application, and the Agency USDA Rural Development State Office Federal Building 75 High Street, Room 320 Administrator may assign up to 20 One Credit Union Place, Suite 330 additional discretionary points based on Harrisburg, PA 17110–2996 Morgantown, WV 26505–7500 (304) 284–4860 geographic distribution of funds, special (717) 237–2299 importance for implementation of a Puerto Rico Wisconsin strategic plan in partnership with other organizations, or extraordinary potential USDA Rural Development State Office USDA Rural Development State Office 4949 Kirschling Court for success due to superior project plans 654 Munoz Rivera Avenue or qualifications of the grantee. The IBM Plaza, Suite 601 Stevens Point, WI 54481 (715) 345–7610 projects that score the greatest number Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918–6106 of points based on the selection criteria (787) 766–5095 Wyoming and discretionary points will be South Carolina USDA Rural Development State Office selected. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices USDA Rural Development State Office Federal Building, Room 1005 100 East B Street and submitted to the National Office for Strom Thurmond Federal Building P. O. Box 820 review, final scoring, and selection. 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007 Casper, WY 82602 The National Office will review the Columbia, SC 29201 (307) 261–6300 scores based on the grant selection (803) 765–5163 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON: criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR South Dakota part 4284, subpart G. All applicants will Paperwork Reduction Act be notified by RBS of the Agency USDA Rural Development State Office decision on the awards. Federal Building, Room 210 In accordance with the Paperwork 200 4th Street, SW. Reduction Act of 1995, the information Dated: February 14, 2002. Huron, SD 57350 collection requirements pertaining to John Rosso, (605) 352–1100 this Notice are approved by the Office Acting Administrator, Rural Business- of Management and Budget (OMB) and Cooperative Service. Tennessee were assigned OMB control number [FR Doc. 02–4407 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] USDA Rural Development State Office 0570–0024. BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300 The RBOG program is authorized Nashville, TN 37203–1084 under section 306 of the Consolidated (615) 783–1300 Farm and Rural Development Act DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONACT) (7 USC 1926(a)(11)). The Texas Rural Development State Offices Rural Utilities Service USDA Rural Development State Office administer the RBOG program on behalf Federal Building, Suite 102 of RBS at the state level. The primary Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, 101 South Main Street objective of the program is to improve Inc.; Notice of Finding of No Temple, TX 76501 the economic conditions of rural areas. Significant Impact (254) 742–9700 Assistance provided to rural areas under AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. this program may include technical Utah ACTION: Notice of finding of no assistance for business development and significant impact. USDA Rural Development State Office economic development planning. Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building A total of $2,100,000 of non- SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 125 South State Street, Room 4311 earmarked funds is available for the the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has P. O. Box 11350 RBOG program for FY 2002. To ensure made a finding of no significant impact Salt Lake City, UT 84147–0350 that a broad range of communities have (FONSI) with respect to a request from
VerDate 11
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Civil Rights, that a meeting of the (AEPCO) for assistance from RUS to 11:00 a.m.–Noon Delaware Advisory Committee to the finance the construction and operation Ad Hoc Committee—Public Rights-of- Commission will convene at 11 a.m. and of a 40 MW gas turbine generation Way (Closed Meeting) adjourn at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March facility at the Apache Generating Station 1:30 p.m.–5:00 13, 2002, at the Metropolitan located in Cochise County, Arizona. Ad Hoc Committee—Public Rights-of- Wilmington Urban League, 100 W. 10th FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Way (Closed Meeting) Street, Conference Room, Wilmington, Dennis E. Rankin, Environmental Delaware 19801. The Advisory Wednesday, March 13, 2002 Protection Specialist, RUS, Engineering Committee will provide an orientation and Environmental Staff, Stop 1571, 9:00 a.m.–10:00 to members in administrative matters, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Planning and Budget Committee disseminate newly revised copies of its Washington, DC 20250–1571, telephone: 10:00 a.m.–11:00 report, Delaware Citizens Guide to Civil (202) 720–1953 or e-mail: Technical Programs Committee Rights and Supporting Services, and [email protected]. 11:00 a.m.–Noon hold a briefing session to hear from Nominating Committee invited speakers on civil rights issues SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AEPCO is 1:30 a.m.–3:00 affecting the state. proposing to install a 40 MW GE model Board Meeting Persons desiring additional LM6000 Sprint gas combustion turbine ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at information, or planning a presentation generation facility and modify the the Marriott at Metro Center Hotel, 775 to the Committee, should contact Ed switchyard at their existing Apache 12th Street, NW, Washington, DC. Darden of the Eastern Regional Office, Generating Station which is located at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 202–376–7533 (TDD 202–376–8116). 3525 North Highway 191 South near further information regarding the Hearing-impaired persons who will Cochise, Arizona. Gas Turbine #4 will meetings, please contact Lawrence W. attend the meeting and require the be configured to operate in the simple Roffee, Executive Director, (202) 272– services of a sign language interpreter cycle mode. A new 100-foot tall stack 0001 (voice) and (202) 272–5449 (TTY). should contact the Regional Office at will be required. Approximately 0.5 least ten (10) working days before the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the acres of the existing Apache Generation scheduled date of the meeting. site will be needed for the proposed Board meeting, the Access Board will The meeting will be conducted project. The existing plant infrastructure consider the following agenda items. pursuant to the provisions of the rules will be utilized for the new generation Open Meeting and regulations of the Commission. addition including gas lines, cooling • Executive Director’s report Dated at Washington, DC, February 19, water and transmission facilities. • Approval of the minutes of the 2002. Copies of the Environmental January 9, 2002 board meeting Ivy L. Davis, Assessment and FONSI are available at, • Technical Programs Committee: On- Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. or can be obtained from, RUS at the going research and technical assistance [FR Doc. 02–4453 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am] address provided herein, or from Ms. projects. BILLING CODE 6335–01–P Teri McCaulou, AEPCO, 1000 South • Planning and Budget Committee: Highway 80, Benson, Arizona 85602, Budget spending plan for fiscal year telephone: (520) 586–5122. 2002; fiscal year 2003; and out-of-town COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Dated: January 31, 2002. meetings. Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting Blaine D. Stockton, • Nominating Committee: Review of of the Louisiana Advisory Committee Assistant Administrator, Electric Program, the Nominating Committee charter. Rural Utilities Service. Closed Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to [FR Doc. 02–4408 Filed 2–25–02; 8:45 am] the provisions of the rules and • Ad Hoc Committee on Public BILLING CODE 3410–15–P regulations of the U.S. Commission on Rights-of-Way Civil Rights, that a meeting of the All meetings are accessible to persons Louisiana Advisory Committee to the with disabilities. Sign language Commission will convene at 6 p.m. and ARCHITECTURAL AND interpreters and an assistive listening adjourn at 8 p.m. on March 19, 2002, at TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS system are available at all meetings. the Radisson Hotel & Conference Center, COMPLIANCE BOARD Persons attending Board meetings are 4728 Constitution Avenue, Baton Rouge, requested to refrain from using perfume, Louisiana 70808. The purpose of the Meeting cologne, and other fragrances for the meeting is to plan future activities. comfort of other participants. Persons desiring additional AGENCY: Architectural and Lawrence W. Roffee, information, or planning a presentation Transportation Barriers Compliance to the Committee, should contact Board. Executive Director. [FR Doc. 02–4430 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the ACTION: Notice of meeting. Central Regional Office, 913–551–1400 BILLING CODE 8150–01–P (TDD 913–551–1414). Hearing-impaired SUMMARY: The Architectural and persons who will attend the meeting Transportation Barriers Compliance and require the services of a sign COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Board (Access Board) has scheduled its language interpreter should contact the regular business meetings to take place Regional Office at least ten (10) working in Washington, DC on Tuesday and Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Delaware Advisory Committee days before the scheduled date of the Wednesday, March 12–13, 2002, at the meeting. times and location noted below. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to The meeting will be conducted DATES: The schedule of events is as the provisions of the rules and pursuant to the provisions of the rules follows: regulations of the U.S. Commission on and regulations of the Commission.
VerDate 11
Dated at Washington, DC, February 19, 82H), at the location described in the 45278, 8/28/01), requesting the 2002. application, subject to the FTZ Act and establishment of a foreign-trade zone at Ivy L. Davis, the Board’s regulations, including sites in Butte County, California, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. Section 400.28, and subject to the adjacent to the San Francisco/Oakland/ [FR Doc. 02–4454 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] following special conditions: Sacramento, California Customs port of BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 1. Any foreign steel mill product admitted entry; to the subzone, including plate, angles, Whereas, notice inviting public shapes, channels, rolled steel stock, bars, comment has been given in the Federal DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE pipes and tubes, not incorporated into Register (66 FR 10668, 2/16/01); and, merchandise otherwise classified, and which Whereas, the Board adopts the Foreign-Trade Zones Board is used in manufacturing, shall be subject to findings and recommendations of the Customs duties in accordance with examiner’s report, and finds that the [Order No. 1210] applicable law, unless the Executive Secretary determines that the same item is requirements of the FTZ Act and the not then being produced by a domestic steel Board’s regulations are satisfied, and Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; that approval of the application is in the Austal USA, LLC (Shipbuilding); mill. 2. In addition to the annual report, Austal public interest; Mobile, AL shall advise the Board’s Executive Secretary Now, therefore, the Board hereby Pursuant to its authority under the (§ 400.28(a)(3)) as to significant new contracts grants to the Grantee the privilege of Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, with appropriate information concerning establishing a foreign-trade zone, foreign purchases otherwise dutiable, so that designated on the records of the Board 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Board may consider whether any foreign the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the dutiable items are being imported for as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 253, at the Board) adopts the following Order: manufacturing in the subzone primarily sites described in the application, and WHEREAS, by an Act of Congress because of subzone status and whether the subject to the Act and the Board’s approved June 18, 1934, an Act ‘‘To Board should consider requiring Customs regulations, including Section 400.28, provide for the establishment . . . of duties to be paid on such items. and subject to the Board’s standard foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of 3. All foreign-origin quota-class 2,000-acre activation limit. the United States, to expedite and merchandise must be admitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board. subzone under privileged domestic status (19 encourage foreign commerce, and for CFR 146.43(a)(2)). Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of other purposes,’’ as amended (19 U.S.C. February, 2002. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of 81a–81u) (the FTZ Act), the Foreign- Donald L. Evans, Trade Zones Board (the Board) is February 2002. Faryar Shirzad, Secretary of Commerce, Chairman and authorized to grant to qualified Executive Officer. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import corporations the privilege of [FR Doc. 02–4427 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] establishing foreign-trade zones in or Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign- BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; Trade Zones Board. WHEREAS, the Board’s regulations [FR Doc. 02–4429 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P (15 CFR part 400) provide for the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities Foreign-Trade Zones Board cannot serve the specific use involved, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Order No. 1209] and when the activity results in a Foreign-Trade Zones Board significant public benefit and is in the Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; [Order No. 1207] public interest; Rolls-Royce Corporation (Gas Turbine WHEREAS, an application from the Engines), Indianapolis, IN City of Mobile, Alabama, grantee of FTZ Grant of Authority; Establishment of a 82, for authority to establish special- Foreign-Trade Zone, Butte County, Pursuant to its authority under the purpose subzone status for the California Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, shipbuilding facility of Austal USA, Pursuant to its authority under the 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), LLC (Austal), in Mobile, Alabama, was Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the filed by the Board on January 9, 2001, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), Board) adopts the following Order: and notice inviting public comment was the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the WHEREAS, the Foreign-Trade Zones given in the Federal Register (FTZ Board) adopts the following Order: Act provides for ‘‘ . . . the establishment Docket 1–2001, 66 FR 3984, 1–17–2001); Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of and, provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment entry of the United States, to expedite WHEREAS, the Board adopts the * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of and encourage foreign commerce, and findings and recommendations of the entry of the United States, to expedite for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the examiner’s report, and finds that the and encourage foreign commerce, and Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to requirements of the FTZ Act and for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the qualified corporations the privilege of Board’s regulations would be satisfied, Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to establishing foreign-trade zones in or and that approval of the application qualified corporations the privilege of adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; would be in the public interest if establishing foreign-trade zones in or WHEREAS, the Board’s regulations approval were given subject to the adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; (15 CFR part 400) provide for the standard shipyard restriction on foreign Whereas, the Oroville Economic establishment of special-purpose steel mill products; Development Corporation, a California subzones when existing zone facilities NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby non-profit corporation (the Grantee), has cannot serve the specific use involved, grants authority for subzone status at the made application to the Board (FTZ and when the activity results in a shipbuilding facility of Austal USA, Docket 9–2001, filed 2/6/01) and significant public benefit and is in the LLC, in Mobile, Alabama (Subzone amended on August 21, 2001 (66 FR public interest;
VerDate 11
WHEREAS, the Indianapolis Airport bearings and parts thereof. The period of accordance with the CIT’s instructions, Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade review is May 1, 1993, through April 30, we reconsidered our calculation of Zone 72, has made application to the 1994. At the time of our December 19th FAG’s general and administrative Board for authority to establish special- notice, one matter, relating to the above expenses, and we recalculated FAG’s purpose subzone status at the firm and the reviews of the orders on margins accordingly. As there is now a manufacturing facilities (gas turbine antifriction bearings and parts thereof final and conclusive court decision in engines) of Rolls-Royce Corporation, from Germany, was pending before the this action, we are amending our final located in Indianapolis, Indiana (FTZ United States Court of Appeals for the results of reviews in this matter, and we Docket 38–2001, filed 9/18/2001); Federal Circuit. As there is now a final will subsequently instruct the Customs WHEREAS, notice inviting public and conclusive court decision in this Service to liquidate entries subject to comment has been given in the Federal action, we are amending our final these reviews. Register (66 FR 49161, 9/26/2001); and, results of the reviews and we will Amendment to Final Results WHEREAS, the Board adopts the subsequently instruct the Customs findings and recommendations of the Service to liquidate entries subject to Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the examiner’s report, and finds that the these reviews. Tariff Act, we are now amending the requirements of the FTZ Act and the EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. final results of administrative reviews of Board’s regulations are satisfied, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the antidumping duty orders on that approval of the application would Jennifer Moats or Richard Rimlinger, antifriction bearings (other than tapered be in the public interest; roller bearings) and parts thereof from NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department Germany, for the period May 1, 1993, grants authority for subzone status at the through April 30, 1994. The revised gas-turbine engine manufacturing of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, weighted-average margins are as facilities of Rolls-Royce Corporation follows: located in Indianapolis, Indiana DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4733. (Subzone 72Q), at the location described Applicable Statute Company BBs CRBs SPBs in the application, subject to the FTZ Unless otherwise indicated, all Germany: FAG Act and the Board’s regulations, citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as including § 400.28. Kugelfischer amended (the Tariff Act), are references Georg Schafer Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of to the provisions in effect as of AG ...... 12.33 12.50 2.10 February 2002. December 31, 1994. In addition, unless Faryar Shirzad, otherwise indicated, all citations to the Accordingly, the Department will Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Department of Commerce’s (the determine and the Customs Service will Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign- Department’s) regulations are to the assess appropriate antidumping duties Trade Zones Board. regulations as codified at 19 CFR part on entries of the subject merchandise [FR Doc. 02–4428 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] 353 (1995). made by the firm covered by these BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reviews. Individual differences between United States price and foreign market Background value may vary from the percentages DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE On December 19, 2000, the listed above. For the company covered International Trade Administration Department of Commerce published a by these amended results, the retraction of the amended final results Department will issue appraisement [A–428–801] of reviews for the respondent-company instructions to the Customs Service after FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer AG publication of these amended final Antifriction Bearings (Other Than (FAG) with respect to the antidumping results of reviews. Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts duty orders on antifriction bearings This notice is published pursuant to Thereof From Germany; Amended (other than tapered roller bearings) and section 751(a) of the Tariff Act. Results of Antidumping Duty parts thereof from Germany (see 65 FR Dated: February 19, 2002. Administrative Reviews 79341). The classes or kinds of Faryar Shirzad, AGENCY: Import Administration, merchandise covered by these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof, Assistant Secretary for Import International Trade Administration, Administration. Department of Commerce. cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and spherical plain bearings [FR Doc. 02–4425 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice of amended final results BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P of antidumping duty administrative and parts thereof. The period of review reviews. is May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994. At the time of our December 19th DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUMMARY: On December 19, 2000, the notice, one matter, relating to the Department of Commerce published a reviews of the orders on antifriction International Trade Administration retraction of the amended final results bearings and parts thereof from of reviews for the respondent-company Germany, was pending before the [A–570–822] FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer AG United States Court of Appeals for the with respect to the antidumping duty Federal Circuit. Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers orders on antifriction bearings (other Pursuant to the remand order from the From the People’s Republic of China; than tapered roller bearings) and parts U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) Final Results of Antidumping Duty thereof from Germany. The classes or in SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Administrative Review kinds of merchandise covered by these Consol. Court No. 97–01–00054-S, Slip reviews are ball bearings and parts Op. 01–86 (CIT July 16, 2001), the AGENCY: Import Administration, thereof, cylindrical roller bearings and Department of Commerce prepared the International Trade Administration, parts thereof, and spherical plain final results of redetermination. In Department of Commerce.
VerDate 11
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We received hydrofluoric acid, caustic soda-lye, Antidumping Administrative Duty surrogate value information from the caustic soda, sodium hydroxide, Review. petitioner, Shakeproof Assembly chromicacid, sodium nitrate, barium Components Division of Illinois Tool carbonate, sodium cyanide, potassium SUMMARY: On July 11, 2001, the Works Inc. (‘‘petitioner’’), and the chromate, methalymine, potassium Department of Commerce published the respondent, Hang Zhou Spring Washer aluminum sulfate, adhesive tape, preliminary results of the administrative Co., Ltd. also known as Zhejiang packing sheet, plastic bags, cartons, review of the antidumping duty order Wanxin Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hangzhou’’), steel scrap, packing strips, nails, and on certain helical spring lock washers on July 31, 2001. The petitioner and the zinc dust from the People’s Republic of China. We respondent submitted case briefs and 2. We used an Indonesian import gave interested parties an opportunity to rebuttal briefs on August 10 and 15, comment. Based upon our analysis of value for hydrochloric acid. 2001, respectively. The Department has the comments and information received, 3. We revised the value for inland now completed the antidumping duty we have made changes to the margin shipping, using a different source and administrative review in accordance calculations presented in the final data more contemporaneous with the with section 751 of the Act. results of the review. We find that POR. We corrected errors in our helical spring lock washers from the Scope of Order calculation of shipping distances. 4. We corrected an error in the sales People’s Republic of China are not being The products covered by this review database. sold in the United States below normal are HSLWs of carbon steel, of carbon value by the company reviewed. The alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat- 5. For labor, we used the regression- final weighted-average dumping margin treated or non-heat-treated, plated or based wage rate for the PRC, revised is listed below in the section entitled non-plated, with ends that are off-line. September, 2001, in ‘‘Expected Wages of Final Results of the Review. HSLWs are designed to: (1) Function as Selected NME Countries’’ located on the EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. a spring to compensate for developed Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: looseness between the component parts 99wages/99wages/htm. Sally Hastings, Import Administration, of a fastened assembly; (2) distribute the Analysis of Comments Received International Trade Administration, load over a larger area for screws or All issues raised in the case and U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and bolts; and, (3) provide a hardened rebuttal briefs by parties to this Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, bearing surface. The scope does not proceeding are addressed in the DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3464. include internal or external tooth February 15, 2002, Issues and Decision SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: washers, nor does it include spring lock Memorandum (‘‘Decision washers made of other metals, such as The Applicable Statute Memorandum’’) which is hereby copper. Unless otherwise indicated, all HSLWs subject to this review are adopted by this notice. Attached to this citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as currently classifiable under subheading notice as an appendix is a list of the amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff issues which parties have raised and to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, Schedule of the United States which we have responded in the the effective date of the amendments (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS Decision Memorandum. Parties can find made to the Act by the Uruguay Round subheading is provided for convenience a complete discussion of all issues Agreements Act. In addition, unless and customs purposes, the written raised in this review and the otherwise indicated, all citations to the description of the scope of this corresponding recommendations in this Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the proceeding is dispositive. public memorandum which is on file in Department’’) regulations are to 19 CFR the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 part 351 (2000). Period of Review of the Department. In addition, a The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is from complete version of the Decision Background October 1, 1999 through September 30, Memorandum can be accessed directly On July 11, 2001, the Department 2000. on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ published in the Federal Register the summary/list.htm. The paper copy and preliminary results of its administrative Comparisons electronic version of the Decision review of helical spring lock washers We calculated export price and Memorandum are identical in content. (‘‘HSLWs’’) from the People’s Republic normal value based on the same Final Results of the Review of China (‘‘PRC’’) (Certain Helical methodology used in the Preliminary Spring Lock Washers from the People’s Results with the following exceptions: The weighted-average dumping Republic of China; Preliminary Results 1. We used values that were more margin for the period October 1, 1999 of Antidumping Duty Administrative contemporaneous with the POR for through September 30, 2000, is as Review, 66 FR 36251 (July 11, 2001) steam coal, lubricating oil, nitric acid, follows:
Margin Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent) (de minimis)
Hang Zhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd/Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd ...... 10/01/99–09/30/00 0.01
Because the duty assessment rates for regard to antidumping duties for subject antidumping rate in place at the time of Hangzhou are zero or de minimis (i.e., merchandise exported by Hangzhou. All entry. less than 0.5 percent), we will instruct other entries of the subject merchandise Furthermore, the following deposit the Customs Service to liquidate entries during the POR will be liquidated at the rates will be effective upon publication made during this review period without of these final results for all shipments of
VerDate 11
HSLWs from the PRC entered, or Comment 4: Valuation of Hydrochloric Acid the effective date of the amendments withdrawn from warehouse, for Comment 5: Valuation of Inland Shipping made to the Act by the Uruguay Round consumption on or after the publication Rate Agreements Act. In addition, unless date, as provided for by section Comment 6: Valuation of Potassium otherwise indicated, all citations to the Aluminum Sulphate 751(a)(1) of the Act: Comment 7: Calculation of Factory Overhead Department of Commerce’s (1) For Hangzhou, which has had a Net of Scrap (‘‘Department’’) regulations are to 19 separate rate in the investigation and all CFR part 351 (2001). reviews, no deposit will be required [FR Doc. 02–4423 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] because the company had a de minimis BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Background rate in this review; (2) for all other PRC On September 4, 1996, the exporters, the cash deposit rate will be Department issued the antidumping the PRC-wide rate, 128.63 percent, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE duty orders on LNPPs from Japan (61 FR which is the All Other PRC International Trade Administration 46621) and Germany (61 FR 46623). Manufacturers, Producers and Exporters Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act rate from the Final Determination of [A–588–837, A–428–821] and 19 CFR 351.218, the Department Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain initiated sunset reviews of these orders Helical Spring Lock Washers from the Large Newspaper Printing Presses and by publishing a notice of the initiation PRC, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993); Components Thereof, Whether in the Federal Register August 1, 2001 and, (3) for non-PRC exporters of subject Assembled or Unassembled, from (66 FR 39731). In addition, as a courtesy merchandise from the PRC, the cash Japan (A–588–837) and Germany (A– to interested parties, the Department deposit rate will be the rate applicable 428–821): Notice of Final Results of sent letters, via certified and registered to the PRC supplier of that exporter. Five-Year Sunset Reviews and mail, to each party listed on the These deposit rates shall remain in Revocation of Antidumping Duty Department’s most current service list effect until publication of the final Orders. for this proceeding to inform them of results of the next administrative AGENCY: Import Administration, the automatic initiation of sunset review. International Trade Administration, reviews of these orders. This notice also serves as a final Department of Commerce. On August 16, 2001, within the reminder to importers of their ACTION: Notice of final results of five- applicable deadline, the Department responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) year sunset reviews and revocation of received notice of intent to participate to file a certificate regarding the antidumping duty orders on large from Goss Graphic Systems, Inc. reimbursement of antidumping duties newspaper printing presses and (‘‘Goss’’), the only domestic interested prior to liquidation of the relevant components thereof, whether assembled party in the sunset proceedings. As entries during this review period. or unassembled, from Japan (A–588– such, the Department concluded that Failure to comply with this requirement 837) and Germany (A–428–821). Goss provided an adequate response to could result in the Secretary’s participate in the sunset reviews on presumption that reimbursement of SUMMARY: On August 1, 2001, the LNPPs from Japan and Germany. On antidumping duties occurred and the Department of Commerce (‘‘the August 31, 2001, Goss filed substantive subsequent assessment of double Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of responses with respect to LNPPs from antidumping duties. the antidumping duty orders on Large Japan and Germany. In the sunset This notice also serves as a reminder Newspaper Printing Presses (‘‘LNPPs’’) review on LNPPs from Japan, the to parties subject to administrative and Components Thereof, Whether Department did not receive any protective order (APO) of their Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan response from respondent interested responsibility concerning the and Germany. One domestic interested parties; therefore, we determined to disposition of proprietary information party responded to the sunset review conduct an expedited sunset review. In disclosed under APO in accordance notice of initiation in these proceedings. the sunset review on LNPPs from with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely However, on December 21, 2001, the Germany, the Department determined written notification of the return/ domestic interested party withdrew its that domestic and respondent interested destruction of APO materials or interest in these proceedings. Therefore, parties provided adequate response to conversion to judicial protective order is the Department is revoking the conduct a full sunset review under hereby requested. Failure to comply antidumping duty orders on LNPPs section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and with the regulations and the terms of an from Japan and Germany. §§ 351.218(e)(1)(i) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii). APO is a sanctionable violation. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 2001. However, over the course of these This administrative review and notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: reviews significant questions were are in accordance with sections raised concerning Goss’ claim as to 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Martha V. Douthit or James P. Maeder, Office of Policy, Import Administration, whether it was actually a domestic Dated: February 15, 2002. International Trade Administration, manufacturer of the subject Faryar Shirzad, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th merchandise. Consequently, in order to Assistant Secretary for Import Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., investigate this issue more fully, on Administration. Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) November 19, 2001, the Department Appendix 482–5050 or (202) 482–3330, aligned the sunset review on LNPPs respectively. from Japan with the sunset review of the List of Comments in the Issues and Decision antidumping duty order on LNPPs from SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Memorandum Germany. See 66 FR 58713 (November Comment 1: Use of Import Prices to Value All The Applicable Statue 23, 2001).1 On December 21, 2001, Goss Steel Wire Rod Inputs Unless otherwise indicated, all Comment 2: Plating Operations: Factory 1 In this notice, the Department announced its Overhead, SG&A Expenses and Profit citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as intent to issue the preliminary results on LNPPs Comment 3: Representativeness of Plating amended (the ‘‘Act’’), are references to from Japan along with the preliminary results on Factors of Production the provisions effective January 1, 1995, LNPPs from Germany not later than February 19,
VerDate 11
withdrew its participation in these will complete any pending The Applicable Statute proceedings. We interpret Goss’ administrative reviews of these orders Unless otherwise indicated, all withdrawal of participation as a and will conduct administrative reviews citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as withdrawal of interest. Because Goss of subject merchandise entered prior to amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to (the only domestic interested party in the effective date of revocation in the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the sunset proceeding) withdrew its response to appropriately filed requests the effective date of the amendments interest in these reviews, the for review. made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Department has determined to treat this Dated: February 19, 2002. Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition, situation as if no domestic interested Faryar Shirzad, unless otherwise indicated, all citations party responded to the notice of to the Department of Commerce’s initiation of these sunset reviews. Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. (‘‘Department’s’’) regulations are to the Therefore, we are not publishing [FR Doc. 02–4426 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (April preliminary determinations and are 2001). hereby revoking the antidumping duty BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P orders on LNPPs from Japan and Background Germany. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE On January 30, 2002, the petitioner, Determination to Revoke Columbian Home Products, LLC International Trade Administration (‘‘Columbian’’), requested that the Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Department revoke the antidumping Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), [A–201–504] duty order on porcelain–on–steel if no domestic interested party responds cookware from Mexico as of December Porcelain–On–Steel Cookware From to the notice of initiation, the 1, 1995, stating that it no longer has an Mexico: Initiation and Preliminary Department shall issue a final interest in maintaining this order. Results of Changed–Circumstances determination, within 90 days after the Columbian is a domestic interested Antidumping Duty Administrative initiation of the review, revoking the party and is the successor company to 2 Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke order. Because the only domestic the petitioner in the less–than–fair– the Order and to Rescind interested party withdrew its interest in value investigation. Columbian stated Administrative Reviews both proceedings (see 351.218(d)(1)(i) that it is the only U.S. producer of and 351.218(e)(1)(i)(C)(1) of the Sunset AGENCY: Import Administration, porcelain–on–steel cookware, and Regulations), consistent with the International Trade Administration, therefore, it accounts for ‘‘substantially provision of section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Department of Commerce. all of the production of the domestic Act, we are revoking these antidumping ACTION: like product,’’ within the meaning of duty orders. Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed– section 782(h)(2) of the Act. Effective Date of Revocation Circumstances Antidumping Duty Scope of the Order Administrative Review and Notice of In accordance with sections The products covered by this order Intent to Revoke the Order and to 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, are porcelain–on–steel cookware, Rescind Administrative Reviews. and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the including tea kettles, which do not have Department will instruct the Customs SUMMARY: In response to a request from self–contained electric heating Service to terminate the suspension of the petitioner, Columbian Home elements. All of the foregoing are liquidation of the merchandise subject Products, LLC, that the Department of constructed of steel and are enameled or to the orders entered, or withdrawn Commerce revoke the antidumping duty glazed with vitreous glasses. This from warehouse, on or after September order on porcelain–on–steel cookware merchandise is currently classifiable 4, 2001. The instructions for entries of from Mexico, we are initiating a under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of LNPPs from Germany will not be issued changed–circumstances administrative the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) until either the conclusion of the review and are issuing this notice of subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware ongoing litigation with respect to the preliminary results and intent to revoke currently classifiable under HTSUS final determination of the Department’s the antidumping duty order as of subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject less-than-fair value investigation of December 1, 1995. If these preliminary to the order. Although the HTSUS LNPPs from Germany, pursuant to results become final, we intend to subheadings are provided for which entries have been enjoined from rescind the current antidumping duty convenience and customs purposes, the liquidation, or the injunction has been administrative reviews, covering the written description of the scope of this lifted or amended. (See Koenig & Bauer periods December 1, 1999 through proceeding is dispositive. Albert v. United States, Fed. Cir. Court November 30, 2000, and December 1, Initiation and Preliminary Results of No. 00–1387 (CIT 96–10–02298).) This 2000 through November 30, 2001. injunction does not cover entries of Changed–Circumstances Review and Interested parties are invited to Intent to Revoke Order subject merchandise from Japan. Entries comment on these preliminary results. of subject merchandise prior to the Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the EFFECTIVE DATE: effective date of revocation will February 25, 2002. Act, the Department may revoke, in continue to be subject to suspension of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: whole or in part, an antidumping duty liquidation and antidumping duty Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, Office order based on a review under section deposit requirements. The Department of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a changed– Administration, International Trade circumstances review). The 2002, and its final results on both reviews on June Administration, U.S. Department of Department’s regulations at 19 CFR 27, 2002. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 351.216(d) require the Department to 2 Although the statute requires revocation of an Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; conduct a changed–circumstances order within 90 days of initiating the sunset review telephone (202) 482–4007 and (202) when no party responds to the notice of initiation, review in accordance with 19 CFR in this case, Goss withdrew its participation after 482–4929, respectively. 351.221 if it decides that changed the 90-day period had expired. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: circumstances sufficient to warrant a
VerDate 11
review exist. Section 782(h)(2) of the for consumption on or after December 1, ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide 1995, in accordance with section 778 of Limits. that the Department may revoke an the Act. The current requirement for a order (in whole or in part) if it cash deposit of estimated antidumping SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce determines that producers accounting duties will continue until publication of (the Department) is extending the time for substantially all of the production of the final results of this changed– limits for the preliminary results of the the domestic like product have no circumstances review. 2000–2001 administrative review of the further interest in the order. In addition, Public Comment antidumping duty order on stainless in the event that the Department steel sheet and strip in coils from concludes that expedited action is Interested parties are invited to Germany. This review covers one warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3) permits comment on these preliminary results. manufacturer/exporter of the subject the Department to combine the notices Parties who submit argument in this merchandise to the United States and of initiation and preliminary results. proceeding are requested to submit with the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, The petitioner is a domestic interested the argument (1) a statement of the 2001. party as defined by section 771(9)(C) of issue, and (2) a brief summary of the the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b). argument. Any interested party may EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. Columbian is the only U.S. producer of request a hearing within 10 days of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: porcelain–on–steel cookware and date of publication of this notice. Any Patricia Tran at (202) 482–1121 or therefore represents at least 85 percent hearing, if requested, will be held no Robert James at (202) 482–0649, of the domestic production of the later than 21 days after the date of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty domestic like product to which this publication of this notice, or the first Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, order pertains, and thus accounts for workday thereafter. Case briefs may be Import Administration, International ‘‘substantially all’’ of the production of submitted by interested parties not later Trade Administration, U.S. Department the domestic like product. Therefore, than 7 days after the date of publication of Commerce, 14th Street and based on the lack of interest by the of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, domestic industry in the continued the issues raised in the case briefs, may DC 20230. application of the antidumping duty be filed not later than 12 days after the order on porcelain–on–steel cookware date of publication of this notice. All SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August from Mexico, we are initiating this written comments shall be submitted in 20, 2001, in response to requests from changed–circumstances review. Because accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and the respondent and petitioners, we of the on–going and pending shall be served on all interested parties published a notice of initiation of this administrative reviews, we have on the Department’s service list in administrative review in the Federal determined that expedited action is accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Register. See Initiation of Antidumping warranted, and we are combining the Persons interested in attending the and Countervailing Duty Administrative notices of initiation and preliminary hearing should contact the Department Reviews and Requests for Revocation in results. We have preliminarily for the date and time of the hearing. The Part, 66 FR 43570. Pursuant to the time determined that the petitioner’s Department will publish the final limits for administrative reviews set statement of no interest in the results of this changed–circumstances forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff continuation of the order constitutes review, including the results of its Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the changed circumstances sufficient to analysis of issues raised in any written current deadlines are April 2, 2002 for warrant revocation of the order in comments. the preliminary results and July 31, whole. We are hereby notifying the We are issuing and publishing this 2002 for the final results. It is not public of our intent to revoke the determination and notice in accordance practicable to complete this review antidumping duty order on porcelain– with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of within the normal statutory time limit on–steel cookware from Mexico as of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222. due to a number of significant case December 1, 1995. issues, such as major inputs purchased If these preliminary results become February 14, 2002 from affiliated and unaffiliated final, we intend to rescind the current Faryar Shirzad, suppliers and the use of downstream antidumping duty administrative Assistant Secretary for Import sales. Therefore, the Department is reviews, covering the periods December Administration. extending the time limits for completion 1, 1999 through November 30, 2000, and [FR Doc. 02–4421 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] of the preliminary results until July 31, December 1, 2000 through November BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 2002 in accordance with section 30, 2001. If final revocation of the order occurs, 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The deadline for we intend to instruct the Customs DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the final results of this review will Service to discontinue the suspension of continue to be 120 days after liquidation and to refund any estimated International Trade Administration publication of the preliminary results. antidumping duties collected for all This extension is in accordance with [A–428–825] unliquidated entries of porcelain–on– section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. steel cookware from Mexico entered, or Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils February 15, 2002 withdrawn from warehouse, for from Germany; Antidumping Duty Joseph A. Spetrini consumption on or after December 1, Administrative Review; Time Limits 1995. We will also instruct the Customs Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Service to pay interest on any refunds AGENCY: Import Administration, Administration, Group III with respect to the subject merchandise International Trade Administration, [FR Doc. 02–4422 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Department of Commerce. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE both investigations on identical the Council will hear public testimony schedules. on the Red Grouper Amendment, final International Trade Administration For the reasons identified by the action will not be taken until the July 8- [A–437–804, A–471–806] petitioner, and because there are no 12, 2002 Council meeting in Sarasota, compelling reasons to deny the request, FL. Notice of Postponement of Preliminary we are postponing the preliminary 1:30 p.m.- 5:30 p.m.--Continue public Determinations of Antidumping determinations under section 733(c)(1) testimony if necessary. of the Act. We will make our Investigations: Sulfanilic Acid from March 14 Hungary and Portugal preliminary determinations no later than April 8, 2002. 8:30 a.m.-- 9:30 a.m.--Receive a report AGENCY: Import Administration, This notice is published pursuant to of the Shrimp Management Committee. International Trade Administration, sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act. 9:30 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.--Receive the Department of Commerce. report of the Reef Fish Management February 15, 2002 EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. Committee. Faryar Shirzad, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: March 15 Jarrod Goldfeder (Hungary) at (202) Assistant Secretary for Import 482–0189 or Anthony Grasso (Portugal) Administration. 8:30 a.m. - 9 a.m.--Receive a report of at (202) 482–3853, Import [FR Doc. 02–4424 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the Personnel Committee. Administration, International Trade BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 9 a.m. - 9:30 a.m--Receive a report of Administration, U.S. Department of the Mackerel Management Committee. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.--Receive a report Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas APPLICABLE STATUTE AND National Oceanic and Atmospheric Advisory Committee. REGULATIONS: Administration 9:45 a.m. - 10 a.m.--Receive a report Unless otherwise indicated, all [I.D. 022002A] of the South Atlantic Fishery citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as Management Council Liaison. amended (the Act), are references to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 10 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.--Receive provisions effective January 1, 1995, the Council; Public Meetings Enforcement Reports. effective date of the amendments made 10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.--Receive the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries to the Act by the Uruguay Round NMFS Regional Administrator’s Report. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, 10:30 a.m. - 11 a.m.--Receive Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), unless otherwise indicated, all citations Director’s Reports. Commerce. to the Department of Commerce’s (the 11 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.--Other Business. Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR ACTION: Notice of public meeting. March 11 part 351 (April 2001). SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 10:30 a.m. - 12 noon--Convene the POSTPONEMENT OF PRELIMINARY Management Council will convene Mackerel Management Committee to DETERMINATIONS: public meetings. develop recommendations for mackerel On October 26, 2001, the Department DATES: The meetings will be held on and cobia status determination criteria. published the initiation of the March 11-15, 2002. The full Council will consider these antidumping duty investigations of ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held recommendations on Friday morning. imports of sulfanilic acid from Hungary at the Adam’s Mark Hotel, 64 South 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.--Convene the and Portugal. See Notice of Initiation of Water Street, Mobile, AL 36602; Shrimp Management Committee to hear Antidumping Duty Investigations: telephone: 251–438–4000. a staff presentation on a revised Draft Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary and Council address: Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Amendment 10/EA/RIR and Portugal, 66 FR 54214, 54218 (October Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. develop recommendations for final 26, 2001). The notice of initiation stated Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, action by the full Council on Thursday that we would make our preliminary FL 33619. morning. determinations for these antidumping FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.--(CLOSED duty investigations no later than 140 Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, SESSION) Briefing on litigation. days after the date of issuance of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management March 12 initiation (i.e., March 7, 2002). Council; telephone: (813) 228-2815. On February 14, 2002, the Nation 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon--Convene the Reef SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ford Chemical Company (‘‘the Fish Management Committee to review petitioner’’) made a timely request Council a draft Red Grouper Amendment pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 30– containing alternatives for rebuilding of day postponement of the preliminary March 13 the red grouper stock. The committee determinations, or until April 8, 2002. 8:30 a.m.--Convene. will also discuss TAC recommendations The petitioner requested postponement 8:45 a.m.-- 12 noon--Receive public for gag, and a greater amberjack of the preliminary determinations testimony on Draft Shrimp Amendment rebuilding program. The full Council because it believes that the Department 10/Environmental Assessment/ will consider these recommendations on will need additional time than allotted Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), the Thursday. under the current schedule to collect Red Grouper Amendment, total 1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m.--Continue the Reef from the respondents the information allowable catch (TAC) Fish Management Committee. necessary to make accurate preliminary recommendations for gag grouper, a Although non-emergency issues not determinations. Additionally, the greater amberjack rebuilding program, contained in the agenda may come petitioner made this request for both and a coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) before the Council for discussion, in Hungary and Portugal in order to keep status determination criteria. Although accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
VerDate 11
Fishery Conservation and Management modification request. Comments will Modification #3 would also allow the Act (MSFCMA), those issues may not be not be accepted if submitted via e-mail use of trawling for the purpose of the subject of formal Council action or the Internet. The application and capturing shortnose sturgeon less than 8 during this meeting. Council action will related documents are available for years old. be restricted to those issues specifically review in the indicated office, by Dated: February 19, 2002. identified in this notice and any issues appointment: Ann Terbush, arising after publication of this notice Permits, Conservation and Education Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education that require emergency action under Division, F/PR1, 1315 East West Division, Office of Protected Resources, section 305 (c) of the MSFCMA, Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 National Marine Fisheries Service. provided the public has been notified of (phone:301–713–2289, fax: 301–713– [FR Doc. 02–4448 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the Council’s intent to take final action 0376). BILLING CODE 3510–22–S to address the emergency. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the Committee schedule Lillian Becker, Silver Spring, MD and agenda can be obtained by calling (phone: 301–713–2319, fax: 301–713– DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (813) 228–2815. 0376, e-mail: [email protected]). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Special Accommodations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Administration These meetings are physically Authority accessible to people with disabilities. [I.D. 021402E] Requests for sign language Issuance of permits and permit interpretation or other auxiliary aids modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 Marine Mammals; File Application No. should be directed to Anne Alford at the 1004–1656 Council (see ADDRESSES) by March 4, U.S.C. 1531–1543) (ESA), is based on a 2002. finding that such permits/modifications: AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) Dated: February 20, 2002. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and would not operate to the disadvantage Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), William D. Chappell, of the listed species which are the Commerce. Acting Director, Office of Sustainable subject of the permits; and (3) are ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. consistent with the purposes and period. [FR Doc. 02–4450 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] policies set forth in section 2 of the BILLING CODE 3510–22–S ESA. Scientific research and/or SUMMARY: The National Marine enhancement permits are issued under Fisheries Service is reopening the section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the ESA. comment period for the application DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Authority to take listed species is submitted by Funtime, Inc. d/b/a Six subject to conditions set forth in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Flags Worlds of Adventure, 1060 North permits. Permits and modifications are Administration Aurora Road, Aurora, OH 44202, to issued in accordance with and are import two killer whales (Orcinus orca) [I.D. 021402A] subject to the ESA and NMFS for the purposes of public display. regulations governing listed fish and DATES: Written or telefaxed comments Endangered Species; Permits wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222–226). must be received on or before March 27, Those individuals requesting a AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 2002. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific ADDRESSES: The application and related Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), documents are available for review Commerce. reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see upon written request or by appointment ACTION: Receipt of request to modify ADDRESSES). The holding of such in the following office(s): research Permit 1189. hearing is at the discretion of the Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room following actions regarding permits for 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/ takes of endangered and threatened contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant 713–2289); species for the purposes of scientific Regional Administrator, Northeast research and/or enhancement under the and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS. Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Endangered Species Act (ESA): NMFS Glouster, MA, 01930–2298 (978/281– has received a request to modify Permit Species Covered in This Notice 9116). (1189) from Dr. James Kirk, of USAE Written comments or requests should Waterways Experiment Station. The following species are covered in this notice: be submitted to the Chief, Permits, DATES: Comments or requests for a Conservation and Education Division, public hearing on any of the new Fish F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, applications or modification requests Endangered Shortnose Sturgeon NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room must be received at the appropriate (Acipenser brevirostrum) 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. address or fax number no later than 5 Comments may also be submitted by p.m. eastern standard time on March 27, Modification Requests Received facsimile at (301) 713-0376, provided 2002. The applicant requests a modification the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy ADDRESSES: Written comments on the to Permit 1189. Permit 1189 authorizes submitted by mail and postmarked no modification request should be sent to the capture of up to 300 juvenile later than the closing date of the the appropriate office as indicated shortnose sturgeon by gill net and trot comment period. Please note that below. Comments may also be sent via line. Up to 20 of these may be surgically comments will not be accepted by e- fax to the number indicated for the implanted with radio/sonic tags. mail or other electronic media.
VerDate 11
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: clarity of the information to be survey will take about 20 minutes to Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan,(301/ collected; and (d) ways to minimize the complete, and we expect to have about 713–2289). burden of the information collection on 400 responses. Survey results will be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The respondents, including the use of compiled and evaluated at the subject permit is requested under the automated collection techniques or Community College of the Air Force authority of the Marine Mammal other forms of information technology. Administrative Center at Maxwell Air Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 DATES: Considerations will be given to Force Base, Alabama. While results will U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations all comments received by April 26, be used primarily in-house to make Governing the Taking and Importing of 2002. program improvements, findings may be Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216). publicized in the Air Force and civilian ADDRESSES: Written comments and A notice of receipt of this application education communities. recommendations on the proposed was published on November 30, 2001 information collection should be sent to Pamela D. Fitzgerald, (66 FR 59781). The comment period the Plans and Research Division, closed on December 31, 2001. Based on Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. substantive comments received during Community College of the Air Force, [FR Doc. 02–4361 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] CCAF/DFI, 130 W. Maxwell Blvd., the initial comment period, NMFS BILLING CODE 5001–05–P requested additional information from Maxwell AFB, AL 36112–6613. the applicant. On February 12, 2002, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To applicant submitted additional request more information on this DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE information in support of their proposed information collection or to Department of the Air Force application. This action, reopening of obtain a copy of the proposed and associated collection instruments, the comment period, will allow all Community College of the Air Force interested parties to review the new please write to the above address, or call information and provide NMFS with the Community College of the Air Force AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, any additional comments regarding this Institutional Effectiveness Division at DoD. application. In reopening this comment (334) 953–2703. ACTION: Notice of meeting. period NMFS finds that a public hearing Title, Associated Form, and OMB is not warranted because NMFS has Number: Community College of the Air SUMMARY: The Community College of determined that the issues raised by the Force Alumni Survey, OMB Number the Air Force (CCAF) Board of Visitors comments can be clarified in writing. 0701–0136. will hold a meeting to review and However, NMFS is providing through Needs and Uses: The information discuss academic policies and issues this action an opportunity for additional collection requirement is necessary to relative to the operation of the college. written comments or requests. determine how effectively the Agenda items include a review of the institution is meeting its mission and operations of the CCAF and an update Dated: February 19, 2002. also identify areas needing on the activities of the CCAF Policy Ann D. Terbush, improvement. Survey results will Council. Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education provide data on the usefulness and Members of the public who wish to Division, Office of Protected Resources, acceptance of the Community College of make oral or written statements at the National Marine Fisheries Service. the Air Force degree in the civilian meeting should contact Second [FR Doc. 02–4449 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] sector. Documenting the institution’s Lieutenant Richard W. Randolph, BILLING CODE 3510–22–S effectiveness is also required to Designated Federal Officer for the maintain the Community College of the Board, at the address below no later Air Force’s regional accreditation. than 4 p.m. on March 19, 2002. Please DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Affected Public: Separated and retired mail or electronically mail all requests. Community College of the Air Force Department of the Air Force Telephone requests will not be honored. graduates. The request should identify the name of Annual Burden Hours: 133. Proposed Collection; Comment the individual who will make the Number of Respondents: 400. Request presentation and an outline of the issues Responses per Respondent: 1. to be addressed. At least 35 copies of the AGENCY: Headquarters Air Force Average Burden Per Response: 20 presentation materials must be given to Personnel Center. minutes. Second Lieutenant Richard Randolph Frequency: Biennial. ACTION: Notice. no later than three days prior to the time SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of the board meeting for distribution. In compliance with section Visual aids must be submitted to 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Summary of Information Collection Second Lieutenant Richard Randolph Reduction Act of 1995, the Community Respondents will be separated and on a 3 1⁄2″ computer disc in Microsoft College of the Air force announces the retired Community College of the Air PowerPoint format no later than 4 p.m. proposed reinstatement of a public Force graduates. Approximately 2,000 on March 19, 2002 to allow sufficient information collection and seeks public Community College of the Air Force time for virus scanning and formatting comment on the provisions thereof. graduates will be surveyed biennially to of the slides. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether determine the effectiveness of the the proposed collection of information institution and the usefulness of the DATES: April 9, 2002. is necessary for the proper performance Community College of the Air Force ADDRESSES: Commanders Conference of the functions of the agency, including degree in the civilian sector. A Center [Building 905], First Floor whether the information shall have notification letter will be mailed Conference Room, Randolph Air Force practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the directly to respondents’ home addresses Base, San Antonio, Texas 78150–4324. agency’s estimate of the burden of the inviting them to complete the Alumni FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposed information collection; (c) Survey on the Community College of the Second Lieutenant Richard Randolph, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Air Force’s Internet homepage. The (334) 953–7322, Community College of
VerDate 11
the Air Force, 130 West Maxwell (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507(j)), since public respondents, including through the use Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, harm is reasonably likely to result if of information technology. Alabama, 36112–6613, or through normal clearance procedures are Dated: February 19, 2002. followed. Approval by the Office of electronic mail at John D. Tressler, [email protected]. Management and Budget (OMB) has been requested by March 18, 2002. A Leader, Regulatory Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer. Pamela D. Fitzgerald, regular clearance process is also Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. beginning. Interested persons are Office of Elementary and Secondary [FR Doc. 02–4362 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] invited to submit comments on or before Education BILLING CODE 5001–05–U April 26, 2002. Type of Review: New. ADDRESSES: Written comments Title: Application for State Grants for regarding the emergency review should DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Reading First. be addressed to the Office of Abstract: This application will be Corps of Engineer, Department of the Information and Regulatory Affairs, used to award grants to State Army Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer: educational agencies to improve K–3 Department of Education, Office of reading instruction and student Intent To Prepare A Draft Tier II Management and Budget; 725 17th achievement through the application of Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) Street, NW., Room 10235, New scientifically based reading research, for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Executive Office Building, Washington, and the proven instructional and Project, Savannah, Georgia D.C. 20503 or should be electronically _ _ assessment tools consistent with this mailed to the internet address Karen F. research. AGENCY: US Army Corps of Engineers, [email protected]. DOD. Additional Information: The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Department of Education is requesting ACTION: Notice of Intent—Correction. 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of emergency processing for the Reading 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires SUMMARY OF THE ACTION: The U.S. Army First Application by March 18 due to an that the Director of OMB provide unanticipated event and possibly Corps of Engineers published a Notice interested Federal agencies and the Of Intent to Prepare a Draft Tier II causing public harm. The late passage public an early opportunity to comment and signing of this legislation leaves the Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) on information collection requests. The for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Department with no choice but to Office of Management and Budget request an emergency collection if it is Project, Savannah, Georgia in the (OMB) may amend or waive the Federal Register on January 22, 2002. A to meet the goal of awarding grant funds requirement for public consultation to to states with approved applications on portion of the address contained in the extent that public participation in contact information was incorrect. The July 1. If normal processing were to be the approval process would defeat the followed, States would not have correct information is as follows: purpose of the information collection, Questions or written comments about sufficient time to prepare high quality violate State or Federal law, or applications and make revisions as the proposed action and DEIS should be substantially interfere with any agency’s provided by March 7, 2002 to: Mr. necessary before July 1, 2002, and funds ability to perform its statutory would not be received in time. William Bailey at 912–652–5781, e-mail obligations. The Leader, Information address [email protected], or Frequency: Other: Grants awarded for Management Group, Office of the Chief a period of six years; SEAs not required at US Army Corps of Engineers, Information Officer, publishes this Savannah District, ATTN: PD–E, Post to reapply until that period ends. notice containing proposed information Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Office Box 889, Savannah, Georgia collection requests at the beginning of 31402. Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. the Departmental review of the Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Dated: February 19, 2002. information collection. Each proposed Burden: Responses: 57; Burden Hours: David V. Schmidt, information collection, grouped by 3,306. office, contains the following: (1) Type Chief, Planning Division. Requests for copies of the proposed of review requested, e.g., new, revision, [FR Doc. 02–4365 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] information collection request should be extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) BILLING CODE 3710–HP–M addressed to Vivian Reese, Department Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, Description of the need for, and SW., Room 4050, Regional Office proposed use of, the information; (5) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Building 3, Washington, DC 20202– Respondents and frequency of 4651, [email protected], or should be collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Notice of Proposed Information electronically mailed to the internet Recordkeeping burden. ED invites Collection Requests address [email protected], or should public comment. The Department of be faxed to 202–708–9346. AGENCY: Department of Education. Education is especially interested in Comments regarding burden and/or ACTION: public comment addressing the Notice of Proposed Information the collection activity requirements, following issues: (1) Is this collection Collection Requests. contact Kathy Axt at (540) 776–7742 or necessary to the proper functions of the via her internet address SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory Department; (2) will this information be [email protected]. Individuals who use Information Management, Office of the processed and used in a timely manner; a telecommunications device for the Chief Information Officer, invites (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; deaf (TDD) may call the Federal comments on the proposed information (4) how might the Department enhance Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– collection requests as required by the the quality, utility, and clarity of the 800–877–8339. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. information to be collected; and (5) how DATES: An emergency review has been might the Department minimize the [FR Doc. 02–4351 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] requested in accordance with the Act burden of this collection on BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 921–107, U.S. Department of Energy, mining/pdfs/vision.pdf. No fiscal year National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2002 (FY02) funds are available for this National Energy Technology Acquisition and Assistance Division solicitation; selection and negotiation of Laboratory; Notice of Availability of a (BL–10), P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA successful offers leading to award of Financial Assistance Solicitation 15236–0940, E-mail Address: cost-shared financial assistance [email protected] cooperative agreements is subject to AGENCY: National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Department of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DOE availability of funding in FY03 and Energy (DOE). Office of Industrial Technologies does beyond. An estimated $3.9 million in DOE funds is planned for this initiative ACTION: not fund product development R&D. Notice of availability of a as follows: approximately $1.3 million financial assistance solicitation. Applications submitted in response to this solicitation will only be funded if in FY03; $1.4 million in FY04; and $1.2 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the the proposed research and development million in FY05. Selection of successful intent to issue Financial Assistance addresses improving the energy offers are expected to be made on or Solicitation No. DE-PS26–02NT41450 efficiency of mineral processing before January 1, 2003, subject to entitled Mining Industry of the Future/ technologies. Applications for literature availability of funding, with completion mineral Processing Technologies. The reviews only will not be considered. of negotiations and issuance of awards U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Additionally, applications offering anticipated to occur within a reasonable timeframe thereafter. Multiple (three to of Industrial Technologies (OIT) in emissions or waste disposal, ten) awards are contemplated. collaboration with the National Mining remediation, or treatment as a primary Association (NMA) is seeking industry- A minimum fifty percent (50%) cost- focus are not eligible for funding under share is required, i.e., if the total led proposals for cost-shared research this solicitation. This limitation does and development of technologies which proposed project cost is estimated as $2 not include applications that target million, the government’s share would will reduce energy consumption, materials recycling or by-product enhance economic competitiveness and be no more than $1 million and the utilization as their primary focus. recipient’s share would be no less than reduce environmental impacts of the The U. S. Congress looks to the domestic mining industry. The research $1 million. Department of Energy (DOE) to work Any for-profit or non-profit is to address research priorities toward improving the energy efficiency identified by the Mining Industry of the organization, university or other of America’s most energy-intensive institution of higher education, or non- Future Mineral Processing Technology industries with special interest on Roadmap (the Roadmap can be accessed federal agency or entity is eligible to industrial processing. DOE, through its apply, unless otherwise restricted by the on the Internet at: http:// Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT), www.oit.doe.gov/mining/pdfs/ Simpson-Craig amendment. Applicants supports industries in their efforts to for financial assistance under this mptroadmap.pdf). In particular, the increase energy efficiency, reduce roadmap identifies three (3) areas of solicitation are subject to the eligibility waste, and increase productivity. The requirements of section 2306 of the mineral processing technology where goal of OIT is to accelerate the the most impact and the greatest Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), development and use of advanced, Foreign Company Participation. EPAct progress towards the mining vision energy efficient, renewable, and goals can be expected: (1) Mineral provides further guidelines for pollution prevention technologies that companies who apply for financial Preparation—typical processes include benefit industry, the environment, and communition, makedown, assistance herein where the company’s U.S. energy security. OIT’s core program participation is to be in the economic classification, and, to some extent, is the Industries of the Future (IOF) blasting and drilling; (2) Physical interest of the U.S. and the company Program that focuses on basic materials must either be U.S.-owned or Separations—typical processes include and processing industries such as the flotation, dewatering, thickening or incorporated in the U.S. with its parent Mining Industry. In June 1998, the company incorporated in a country that settling, filtering, drying, flocculation, National Mining Association (NMA) and screening, magnetic separation, provides similar protections and the Secretary of Energy signed a privileges under U.S. law. Applications classification and washing; and (3) Compact pledging to work together Chemical Separations—typical submitted by or on behalf of (1) Another through research and development Federal agency, a Federally-funded processes include pelletizing or partnerships. The objective of briquetting, smelting, refining, leaching, Research and Development Center Solicitation No. DE–PS26–02NT41450 is (FFRDC) or (3) a DOE Management and solvent extraction, bioleaching and another step in continuing to support electrowinning. Operating (M&O) contractor will not be this pledge by funding research and eligible for award under this DATES: The solicitation will be available development projects which address solicitation. However, these on the ‘‘Industry Interactive research needs described in the Mineral organizations may be proposed as team Procurement System’’ (IIPS) Web page Processing Technology Roadmap. The members subject to the guidelines at http://e-center.doe.gov on or about three key industry-identified areas, as provided in the solicitation. Applicants February 27, 2002. It is further presented in the Mineral Processing must include at least two (2) mining anticipated that applications will be due Technology Roadmap and which form companies as members of the multi- approximately ninety (90) days from the the bases for the areas of interest under disciplinary team. Multi-partner date the solicitation is released. this solicitation, are: Mineral collaborations are encouraged. Applicants can download the preparation, physical separations, and Once released, the solicitation will be solicitation from the IIPS Internet chemical separations. Additional available for downloading from the address above or obtain access through background information is provided in Industry Interactive Procurement DOE/NETL’s Web site at http:// the National Mining Association’s System (IIPS) Internet page (http://e- www.netl.doe.gov/business. Paper Report, ‘‘The Future Begins with center.doe.gov). You must register with copies are not available. Mining, A Vision of the Mining Industry IIPS, to enable you to submit an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the Future (Sept. 1998)’’, which can application. If you need technical Donna Jaskolka, Contract Specialist, MS be accessed at: http://www.oit.doe.gov/ assistance in registering, or for any other
VerDate 11
IIPS function, call the IIPS Help Desk at 912, ‘‘Weekly Underground Natural Gas (OMB) under section 3507(h)(1) of the (800) 683–0751 or E-mail the Help Desk Storage Report.’’ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. _ personnel at IIPS HelpDesk@e- DATES: Comments must be filed by April The natural gas surveys included in center.doe.gov (do not contact the 26, 2002. If you anticipate difficulty in the Natural Gas Data Collection Program Contract Specialist). The solicitation submitting comments within that Package collect information on natural will only be made available through period, contact the person listed below gas production, underground storage, IIPS, no hard (paper) copies of the as soon as possible. transmission, distribution, consumption solicitation and related documents will by sector, and wellhead and consumer ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sylvia prices. This information is used to be distributed. Norris, Natural Gas Division, Office of Prospective applicants who would support public policy analyses of the Oil and Gas, Energy Information like to be notified as soon as the natural gas industry and is posted to the Administration. To ensure receipt of the solicitation is available should subscribe EIA Web site (www.eia.doe.gov) in comments by the due date, submission to the Business Alert Mailing List at various EIA products, including the by fax (202–586–4420) or e-mail http://www.netl.doe.gov/business. Once Natural Gas Weekly Update, Natural ([email protected]) is you subscribe, you will receive an Gas Monthly, Natural Gas Annual, recommended. The mailing address is announcement by E-mail that the Monthly Energy Review, and Annual Sylvia Norris, Energy Information solicitation has been released to the Energy Review. Respondents to natural Administration, U.S. Department of public. Telephone requests, written gas surveys include State agencies, Energy, P.O. Box 8279, Silver Spring, requests, e-mail requests, or facsimile underground storage operators, MD 20907. Also, Ms. Norris may be requests for a copy of the solicitation transporters, marketers, and contacted by telephone at 202–586– package will not be accepted and/or distributors. The forms are discussed in 6106. honored. Applications must be prepared detail below. and submitted in accordance with the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EIA–176, ‘‘Annual Report of Natural instructions and forms referenced in the Requests for additional information or and Supplemental Gas Supply and solicitation. The actual solicitation copies of any forms and instructions Disposition’’ document will allow for requests for should be directed to Ms. Norris at the explanation and/or interpretation. address listed above. The Form EIA–176 provides EIA with the major elements of information Issued in Pittsburgh, PA, on February 14, Also, the draft forms and instructions 2002. are available on the EIA Web site at required in conjunction with data _ collected in other EIA surveys to Dale A. Siciliano, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil gas/fwd/ proposed.html. develop annual gas supply and Deputy Director, Acquisition and Assistance disposition balances and relevant cost, Division. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: price, and related information at the I. Background [FR Doc. 02–4393 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] State level. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P II. Current Actions The information collected on the III. Request for Comments Form EIA–176 is needed and used for I. Background the following purposes: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (1) To develop and make available to The Federal Energy Administration Congress, the States, and the public an Energy Information Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275, 15 U.S.C. accurate quantified overview of the 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Agency informaiton collection supply of natural and supplemental gas Act (Pub. L. 95–91, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et available to each of the States from all activities: proposed collection; seq.) require the EIA to carry out a comment request sources both internal and external to the centralized, comprehensive, and unified State, and the manner in which such AGENCY: Energy Information energy information program. This supply was utilized or otherwise Administration (EIA), Department of program collects, evaluates, assembles, disposed of, Energy (DOE). analyzes, and disseminates information (2) To determine the quantity of ACTION: Agency information collection on energy resource reserves, production, natural and supplemental gas consumed activities: proposed collection; comment demand, technology, and related within each of the States by market request. economic and statistical information. sector, the average sales prices for such This information is used to assess the gas, and the changes in consumption SUMMARY: The EIA is soliciting adequacy of energy resources to meet and price patterns over time, and comments on the proposed revision and near and longer-term domestic (3) For dissemination in various EIA three-year extension under section demands. data products including the Natural Gas 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction The EIA, as part of its effort to comply Annual (NGA), Natural Gas Monthly Act of 1995 of the surveys in the Natural with the Paperwork Reduction Act of (NGM), Annual Energy Review (AER), Gas Data Collection Program Package. 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), Short- The surveys covered by this request for 35), provides the general public and Term Energy Outlook (STEO), Winter comment include Form EIA–176, other Federal agencies with Fuels Report, and Monthly Energy ‘‘Annual Report of Natural and opportunities to comment on collections Review (MER), which are widely used Supplemental Gas Supply and of energy information conducted by or by both public and private organizations Disposition;’’ EIA–191, ‘‘Monthly in conjunction with the EIA. Any and individuals. Underground Gas Storage Report,’’ EIA– comments received help the EIA to 857, ‘‘Monthly Report of Natural Gas prepare data requests that maximize the EIA–191, ‘‘Monthly Underground Gas Purchases and Deliveries to utility of the information collected, and Storage Report’’ Consumers;’’ EIA-895, ‘‘Monthly to assess the impact of collection Form EIA–191 requests monthly data Quantity and Value of Natural Gas requirements on the public. Also, the on the location, capacity, and operations Production Report;’’ EIA–910, ‘‘Monthly EIA will later seek approval by the of all active underground natural gas Natural Gas Marketer Survey;’’ and EIA– Office of Management and Budget storage fields. Storage data are a critical
VerDate 11
link in understanding the deliverability are published in the NGM, NGA, MER, Form EIA–176, ‘‘Annual Report of of the natural gas system of the United Winter Fuels Report, and AER. Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply States and overall system operations. and Disposition’’ EIA–910, ‘‘Monthly Natural Gas The information collected on Form Marketer Survey’’ EIA is proposing significant revisions EIA–191 will be used in the following to the Form EIA–176. Those revisions Form EIA–910 collects monthly ways: included elimination of the ‘‘Company information for developing accurate (1) To provide State-level data on Activities’’ and ‘‘Continuations’’ estimates of State-level prices paid by underground natural gas storage with sections of the Form. Numerous line residential and commercial consumers respect to injections, withdrawals, items have been eliminated or combined of natural gas. Data from the EIA–910 inventories, type of storage facility, to simplify reporting requirements and are combined with data from other EIA location, and capacity. These data will reduce respondent burden. One new natural gas surveys to produce more be made available to EIA’s NGM, NGA, reporting item has been added. The line complete and accurate price estimates MER, and AER. Monthly data collection item will collect volume of liquefied than are currently available from data also provides reliable baseline data on natural gas (LNG) in inventory as of based on the EIA–857. The data are storage operations necessary for December 31 of the report year. The incorporated into EIA’s monthly analyses, modeling, and comparison Form has also been extensively publications, used by modelers and with normal industry operations in reformatted and the instructions have analysts, and used to answer questions cases of severe weather, natural disaster, been simplified and reviewed for from policymakers, Congress, and the or other extreme circumstances, increased clarity. general public. (2) To provide data on underground Form EIA–191, ‘‘Monthly Underground natural gas storage inventories for EIA’s EIA–912, ‘‘Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report’’ AEO and STEO, and Gas Storage Report’’ The Form EIA–191 has been (3) To provide data on all aspects of EIA has developed a survey reformatted and several data elements underground natural gas storage to instrument and report format to provide have been eliminated in order to reduce enable EIA and other elements of DOE a weekly data series on underground respondent burden. The instructions to identify and assess the supplies of gas storage of natural gas similar to that have been reviewed and edited to in storage by geographic location. currently published by the American provide greater clarity and simplicity. EIA–857, ‘‘Monthly Report of Natural Gas Association. AGA has announced Gas Purchases and Deliveries to that it will discontinue its data Form EIA–857, ‘‘Monthly Report of Consumers’’ collection by May 1, 2002. The EIA–912 Natural Gas Purchases and Deliveries to data collection responds to requests to Consumers’’ Monthly State-level data collected on provide weekly measures of natural gas No significant changes are proposed the Form EIA–857 consist of average underground storage operations. EIA price of natural gas purchased by local for the Form EIA–857, although EIA did has received emergency clearance for add items on total gas deliveries for distribution companies at their city the operation of the new series and will gates, consumption of natural gas by reporting in 2002, and is interested in release data from the survey on May 9, receiving comments about that revision. sector, and average sales price by sector. 2002. However, EIA must obtain a These data are necessary to provide The instructions have been redrafted to standard (3-year) clearance for the provide simplicity and clarity. timely information needed to measure survey and will include a request for a the combined impact of government, standard (non-emergency) clearance in Form EIA–895, ‘‘Monthly Quantity and industry, and consumer actions; its Natural Gas Data Collection Program Value of Natural Gas Production geographic location; climatic Package to be sent to OMB for approval Report’’ conditions; and other factors on the in September 2002. EIA is adding the word ‘‘Production’’ natural gas industry and natural gas EIA will use the data to prepare to the survey title for clarity. The consumers. analytical products assessing storage proposed Form EIA–895 will include an The data collected on the Form EIA– operations in the three AGA regions and additional category for reporting 857 are used to develop information for their impact on supplies available for monthly production of natural gas from publication in EIA’s STEO, NGM, the winter heating season and in more coalbed wells. Winter Fuels Report, and MER, and to detailed analyses correlating demand, make the data available to Congress, heating-degree-days, and prior Form EIA–910, ‘‘Monthly Natural Gas State governments, industry, and the inventory levels. Such correlations will Marketer Survey’’ public. help EIA to understand the impact of EIA is requesting extended clearance EIA–895, ‘‘Monthly Quantity and Value storage operations on natural gas supply of the currently approved EIA–910 in of Natural Gas Production Report’’ and demand. order to align the expiration dates for all forms in the Natural Gas Data Collection II. Current Actions Form EIA–895 collects monthly Program Package. No changes are information from the appropriate State EIA will be requesting a three-year proposed for either the survey form or agencies concerning natural gas extension of the collection authority for instructions. EIA is requesting production. It provides details on gross each of the above-referenced surveys. In comments on whether the sample withdrawals from gas and oil wells and addition, EIA proposes the changes population (currently five States) from coalbed methane wells, volumes outlined below that affect the EIA–176, covered by the EIA–910 should be vented and flared, volumes of EIA–191, EIA–857, and EIA–895. The expanded. nonhydrocarbon gases removed, gas request for extension of collection used as fuel on leases, and the amount authority will include two surveys, Form EIA–912, ‘‘Weekly Underground of natural gas available for market. Forms EIA–910 and EIA–912 cited Natural Gas Storage Report’’ These data are routinely collected by the above, which received approvals for The EIA–912 was recently approved States for taxation, conservation, or implementation in separate clearance to operate for six months under an statistical purposes. The aggregate data requests to OMB. emergency clearance under section
VerDate 11
3507(j)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction (2) Form EIA–191, ‘‘Monthly DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Act of 1995. EIA will request further Underground Gas Storage Report’’; 3.6 clearance to conduct the survey until hours per response. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the end of 2002. In this collection (3) Form EIA–857, ‘‘Monthly Report request, EIA will ask for approval to of Natural Gas Purchases and Deliveries [Docket No. EG02–86–000, et al.] conduct the survey for three years to Consumers’’; 3.5 hours per response. beginning January 2003. The emergency LG&E Trust No. 2001–A, et al.; Electric (4) Form EIA–895, ‘‘Monthly Quantity clearances and continued approval are Rate and Corporate Regulation Filings intended to continue the weekly data and Value of Natural Gas Production series (produced by the American Gas Report’’; .5 hour per response. February 14, 2002. Association until May 2002) without (5) Form EIA–910, ‘‘Monthly Natural Take notice that the following filings interruption. Including the EIA–912 in Gas Marketer Survey’’; 2 hours per have been made with the Commission. the Fall 2002 clearance proposal will response. Any comments should be submitted in keep all Forms in the Natural Gas Data accordance with Standard Paragraph E Collection Program Package on the same (6) Form EIA–912, ‘‘Weekly at the end of this notice. schedule. EIA is also requesting Underground Natural Gas Storage 1. LG&E Trust No. 2001–A comments on the timing of Report’’; .5 hour per response. dissemination of the information D. The agency estimates that the only [Docket No. EG02–86–000] collected on Form EIA–912. Copies of cost to a respondent is for the time it Take notice that on February 5, 2002, the draft forms and instructions are will take to complete the collection. LG&E Trust No. 2001–A (Applicant) available on the EIA Web site http:// Will a respondent incur any start-up filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory www.eia.doe.gov/oillgas/fwd/ costs for reporting, or any recurring Commission (Commission) an proposed.html. annual costs for operation, maintenance, application for determination of exempt III. Request for Comments and purchase of services associated with wholesale generator status pursuant to the information collection? Part 365 of the Commission’s Prospective respondents and other regulations. E. What additional actions could be interested parties should comment on Pursuant to a synthetic lease taken to minimize the burden of this the actions discussed in item II. The arrangement, Applicant states that it following guidelines are provided to collection of information? Such actions holds legal title to two 152 MW assist in the preparation of comments. may involve the use of automated, (summer rating) combustion turbine Please indicate to which form(s) your electronic, mechanical, or other electric generating units in Trimble comments apply. technological collection techniques or County, Kentucky. LG&E Capital other forms of information technology. General Issues Trimble County LLC is the beneficial F. Does any other Federal, State, or owner of (and will operate) the units A. Is the proposed collection of upon their completion, which is information necessary for the proper local agency collect similar information? If so, specify the agency, the data expected in March 2002. All capacity performance of the functions of the and energy from the plant will be sold agency and does the information have element(s), and the methods of collection. exclusively at wholesale. practical utility? Practical utility is Comment Date: March 7, 2002. defined as the actual usefulness of As a Potential User of the Information information to or for an agency, taking to be Collected 2. Covanta Energy India (Samalpatti) into account its accuracy, adequacy, Limited reliability, timeliness, and the agency’s A. Is the information useful at the [Docket No. EG02–87–000] ability to process the information it levels of detail to be collected? Take notice that on February 5, 2002, collects. B. For what purpose(s) would the B. What enhancements can be made Covanta Energy India (Samalpatti) information be used? Be specific. to the quality, utility, and clarity of the Limited (Covanta Samalpatti) filed with information to be collected? C. Are there alternate sources for the the Federal Energy Regulatory information and are they useful? If so, Commission (Commission), an As a Potential Respondent to the what are their weaknesses and/or application for determination of exempt Request for Information strengths? wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission’s A. Are the instructions and Comments submitted in response to definitions clear and sufficient? If not, regulations. this notice will be summarized and/or which instructions need clarification? Covanta Samalpatti states that it B. Can the information be submitted included in the request for OMB indirectly owns an interest in a 106 MW by the due date? approval of the form. They also will heavy oil driven facility (Facility) in the C. Public reporting burden for the become a matter of public record. State of Tamil Nadu, India. The energy surveys included in the Natural Gas Authority: Sec. 3507(h)(1) of the produced by the Facility is sold at Data Collection Program Package is Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. wholesale under a long-term power shown below as an average hour(s) per 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). purchase agreement to the Tamil Nadu response. The estimated burden Electricity Board, a state-owned entity, Issued in Washington, DC, February 19, whose performance under that includes the total time necessary to 2002. provide the requested information. In agreement is guaranteed by the your opinion, how accurate is this Jay Casselberry, Government of the State of Tamil Nadu estimate for the proposed forms? Agency Clearance Officer, Statistics and (a political subdivision of the country of (1) Form EIA–176, ‘‘Annual Report of Methods Group, Energy Information India). Covanta Samalpatti does not Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply Administration. anticipate that retail sales will be made and Disposition’’; 12 hours per [FR Doc. 02–4392 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] from the Facility. response. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Comment Date: March 7, 2002.
VerDate 11
3. Covanta Energy India (Madurai) own, and operate a natural gas fired 6. Bluegrass Generation Company, Limited combined-cycle fuel conversion facility L.L.C., Cabrillo Power I LLC, Cabrillo [Docket No. EG02–88–000] (the Facility) to be constructed and Power II LLC, Calcasieu Power, LLC, Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C., Dynegy Take notice that on February 5, 2002, located near Palmyra, Virginia, in Midwest Generation, Inc., Dynegy Covanta Energy India (Madurai) Limited Fluvanna County. The Facility will consist of three ‘‘F’’ Class combustion Power Marketing, Inc., Dynegy Power (Covanta Madurai) filed with the Services, Inc., Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission turbine-generators and one steam turbine-generator, and will use natural El Segundo Power, L.L.C., Foothills (Commission) an application for Generating, L.L.C., Heard County determination of exempt wholesale gas as the primary fuel and may use fuel oil as backup fuel for the combustion Power, L.L.C., Illinova Energy Partners, generator status pursuant to Part 365 of Inc., Long Beach Generation LLC, Nicor turbines. The Facility will also include the Commission’s regulations. Energy, L.L.C., Renaissance Power, Covanta Madurai states that it natural gas receipt facilities and a L.L.C., Riverside Generating Company, indirectly owns an interest in a 105 MW switchyard, and may include fuel oil L.L.C., Rockingham Power, L.L.C., heavy oil driven facility (Facility) storage facilities and fuel oil unloading Rocky Road Power, L.L.C., Rolling Hills located in the State of Tamil Nadu, facilities. The nominal net electric Generating, L.L.C. India. The energy produced by the output of the facility will be 885 MW Facility is sold at wholesale under a when operating at summer conditions. [Docket Nos. ER02–506–002, ER99–1115– 005, ER99–1116–005, ER00–1049–003, long-term power purchase agreement to The Facility will include related the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, a ER01–140–002, ER00–1895–002, ER99– transmission interconnection 4160–003, ER94–1612–026, ER01–141–002, state-owned entity, whose performance components necessary to interconnect ER98–1127–005, ER02–554–001, ER01–943– under that agreement is guaranteed by the Facility with Virginia Electric and 002, ER94–1475–021, ER98–1796–004, the Government of the State of Tamil Power Company. The Facility will be ER01–1169–002, ER01–3109–002, ER01– Nadu (a political subdivision of the used exclusively for the generation of 1044–002, ER99–1567–002, ER99–2157–002, country of India). Covanta Madurai does ER02–553–001] electric energy to be delivered to an not anticipate that retail sales will be Take notice that on February 8, 2002, unaffiliated third-party customer. made from the Facility. the subsidiaries of Dynegy Inc. that have Comment Date: March 7, 2002. Comment Date: March 7, 2002. been granted blanket market-based rate 4. West Generating Company, LLC 5. New York Independent System authority to sell energy and capacity Operator, Inc. pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal [Docket No. EG02–89–000] Power Act submitted an updated market Take notice that on February 8, 2002, [Docket No. ER01–2536–003] power study. West Generating Company, LLC, 410 Comment Date: March 1, 2002. South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, NC Take notice that on February 11, 2002, 7. Virginia Electric and Power 27602, filed with the Federal Energy New York Independent System Company Regulatory Commission an application Operator, Inc. (NYISO) submitted rates for determination of exempt wholesale for mitigated in-city generators for the [Docket No. ER02–511–001] generator status pursuant to part 365 of 24-month period of September 1999 to Take notice that on February 11, 2002, the Commission’s regulations. The August 2001 and for the 36-month Virginia Electric and Power Company, applicant is a limited liability company period of September 1998 to August doing business as Dominion Virginia that will engage directly or indirectly 2001. Our January 18, 2002 letter Power, tendered for filing with the and exclusively in the business of explained that the rates provided Federal Energy Regulatory Commission owning and/or operating eligible reflected the fact that the NYISO did not (Commission) an executed Generator facilities in the United States and selling have data available for all mitigated in- Interconnection and Operating electric energy at wholesale. The city generators for the period September Agreement (Interconnection Agreement) applicant proposes to own and operate 1999 to December 1999. with Southeastern Public Service a gas-fired combustion turbine to be Comment Date: March 4, 2002. Authority of Virginia (SPSA) that located in the Southeastern United complies with the Commission’s States. The applicant seeks a January 30, 2002 Order in this docket. determination of its exempt wholesale Dominion Virginia Power respectfully generator status. All electric energy sold requests that the Commission accept by the applicant will be sold exclusively this filing to make the Interconnection at wholesale. Agreement effective as of December 11, Comment Date: March 7, 2002. 2001, the same date the Commission originally made the Interconnection 4a. Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P. Agreement effective in its January 30 [Docket No. EG02–90–000] Order. Copies of the filing were served Take notice that on February 12, 2002, upon SPSA and the Virginia State Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P., 1044 Corporation Commission. North 115th Street, Suite 400, Omaha, Comment Date: March 4, 2002. Nebraska 68154 (Tenaska Virginia), filed 8. Entergy Services, Inc. with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an [Docket No. ER02–324–002] application for determination of exempt Take notice that on February 11, 2002, wholesale generator status pursuant to Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of part 365 of the Commission’s Entergy Gulf States, Inc., tendered for regulations. filing with the Federal Energy Tenaska Virginia, a Delaware limited Regulatory Commission (Commission), a partnership, states that it will construct, compliance Interconnection and
VerDate 11
Operating Agreement with Amelia filing its triennial market analysis Commission’s regulations. Energy Center, LP, in response to the update in compliance with the MidAmerican requests that the Commission’s January 11, 2002, order in Commission order issued in this docket following rate schedule be cancelled Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 98 FERC ¶ on February 11, 1999. effective as of January 31, 2002. 61,014 (2002). Comment Date: March 4, 2002. MidAmerican a copy of this filing has Comment Date: March 4, 2002. been sent to the City of Livermore, the Standard Paragraph Iowa Utilities Board, the Illinois 9. The Montana Power Company E. Any person desiring to be heard or Commerce Commission and the South [Docket No. ER02–321–000] to protest such filing should file a Dakota Public Utilities Commission. Take notice that on February 11, 2002, motion to intervene or protest with the Comment Date: March 4, 2002. The Montana Power Company Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2. Mint Farm Generation, LLC (Montana) tendered for filing with the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 [Docket No. EG02–91–000] in compliance with the letter order and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Take notice that on February 12, 2002, dated January 11, 2002 in Docket No. Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Mint Farm Generation, LLC (Mint Farm ER02–321–000, Montana Power and 385.214). All such motions or Generation) filed with the Federal Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 175 protests should be filed on or before the Energy Regulatory Commission an paginated and designated as required by comment date. Protests will be application for determination of exempt Order No. 614. considered by the Commission in wholesale generator status pursuant to A copy of the filing was served upon determining the appropriate action to be part 365 of the Commission’s Bonneville Power Administration. taken, but will not serve to make regulations. Comment Date: March 4, 2002. protestants parties to the proceeding. Mint Farm Generation proposes to own a 298 MW generating facility 10. Reliant Energy Desert Basin, LLC Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies located in the city of Longview, [Docket No. ER02–310–001] of this filing are on file with the Washington (Facility). The proposed Take notice that on February 11, 2002, Commission and are available for public Facility is expected to commence pursuant to the letter order issued in the inspection. This filing may also be commercial operation in June, 2003. All captioned docket on January 11, 2002, viewed on the web at http:// output from the Facility will be sold by Reliant Energy Desert Basin, LLC (RE www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link, Mint Farm exclusively at wholesale. Desert Basin) submitted to the Federal select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the Comment Date: March 8, 2002. Energy Regulatory Commission a instructions (call 202–208–2222 for 3. PacifiCorp Power Marketing, Inc., revised filing of an umbrella service assistance). Comments, protests and PacifiCorp agreement under RE Desert Basin’s interventions may be filed electronically FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 [Docket Nos. ER95–1096–022, ER97–2801– 003] No. 1, with the service agreement CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the properly designated as required by instructions on the Commission’s web Take notice that on February 12, 2002, Order No. 614. site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. PacifiCorp Power Marketing, Inc. and Comment Date: March 4, 2002. PacifiCorp tendered for filing an Magalie R. Salas, updated generation market power study 11. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Secretary. in support of sales of electric energy at [Docket No. ER01–1115–002] [FR Doc. 02–4347 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] market based prices. Take notice that on February 8, 2002, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Copies of this filing were supplied to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) the Washington Utilities and submitted a withdrawal of its Notice of Transportation Commission and the Cancellation and Amended Notice of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Public Utility Commission of Oregon. Cancellation filed in this docket on Comment Date: March 5, 2002. Federal Energy Regulatory January 30, 2001 and March 5, 2001, 4. Midwest Independent Transmission Commission respectively, to cancel the System Operator, Inc. Interconnection Agreement between the [Docket No. ER02–998–000, et al.] PJM Group and the NYPP Group, [Docket No. ER02–107–001] designated as PJM Group Rate Schedule MidAmerican Energy Company, et al.; Take notice that on February 12, 2002, FERC No. 5 and NYPP Group Rate Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation the Midwest Independent Transmission Schedule FERC No. 3 (Interconnection Filings System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) Agreement). PJM is not withdrawing the tendered for filing, in compliance with Unscheduled Transmission Services February 15, 2002. the Order of the Federal Energy Agreement between PJM and the New Take notice that the following filings Regulatory Commission (Commission) York Independent System Operator, Inc. have been made with the Commission. in Midwest Independent Transmission filed in this docket and reiterates its Any comments should be submitted in System Operator Inc., 97 FERC ¶ 61,270 request for a January 1, 2001 effective accordance with Standard Paragraph E (2001) and pursuant to Section 205 of date. at the end of this notice. the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 USC Copies of the filing have been served 1. MidAmerican Energy Company 824d (2000) and Section 385.205 of the on all parties on the official service list Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR in Docket Number ER01–1115–000. [Docket No. ER02–998–000] 385.205 (2001), proposed revisions to Comment Date: March 1, 2002. Take notice that on February 11, 2002, the Midwest ISO Agreement of the MidAmerican Energy Company Transmission Facilities Owners To 12. RockGen Energy, LLC (MidAmerican) filed with the Federal Organize The Midwest Independent [Docket No. ER99–970–002] Energy Regulatory Commission Transmission System Operator, Inc. Take notice that on February 11, 2002, (Commission) a Notice of Cancellation (Midwest ISO Agreement), First Revised RockGen Energy, LLC submitted for pursuant to Section 35.15 of the Rate Schedule FERC No. 1.
VerDate 11
Pursuant to the Commission’s L.P. resulting from a transaction has been served on the Florida Public regulations, 18 CFR 385.2010 (2001), the involving Duke Energy Corporation and Service Commission. Midwest ISO has served this filing on Westcoast Energy Inc. Comment Date: March 4, 2002. all parties on the official service list in Copies of the filing were served upon 11. Michigan Electric Transmission this proceeding. In addition, the all parties on the official service lists Company LLC Midwest ISO has electronically served a compiled by the Secretary of the Federal copy of this filing, with attachments, Energy Regulatory Commission in these [Docket No. ES02–24–000] upon all Midwest ISO Members, proceedings. Take notice that on February 13, 2002, Member representatives of Transmission Comment Date: March 5, 2002. Trans-Elect, Inc., on behalf of Michigan Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, 8. Southern California Edison Company Electric Transmission Company LLC the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee (Michigan Electric) submitted an participants, Policy Subcommittee [Docket No. ER02–925–001] application seeking authorization for participants, as well as all state Take notice that on February 13, 2002, Michigan Electric to issue and sell no commissions within the region. In Southern California Edison Company more than $235 million of secured addition, the filing has been (SCE) tendered for filing several securities in the form of notes and loan electronically posted on the Midwest corrections to the revisions to its obligations under a credit agreement ISO’s website at www.midwestiso.org Transmission Owner Tariff (TO Tariff), with banks and other lenders as more under the heading ‘‘Filings to FERC’’ for FERC Electric Tariff, Substitute First fully described in the application. other interested parties in this matter. Revised Original Volume No. 6, SCE Comment Date: March 1, 2002. The Midwest ISO will provide hard requested in a filing on January 31, 2002 Standard Paragraph copies to any interested parties upon in Docket No. ER02–925–000. The request. revisions result in a proposed increase E. Any person desiring to be heard or Comment Date: March 5, 2002. in revenues from TO Tariff transmission to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the 5. GNE, LLC customers by $63.6 million based on the 12-month period ending December 31, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, [Docket No. ER02–159–003] 2002. 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Take notice that on February 12, 2002, Copies of this filing were served upon 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 GNE, LLC (GNE) tendered for filing with the Public Utilities Commission of the and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of the Federal Energy Regulatory State of California, the California Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Commission (Commission) a revised Independent System Operator and 385.214). All such motions or tariff sheets with respect to the Corporation (ISO), the California protests should be filed on or before the Commission’s Order issued December Electricity Oversight Board, and all ISO- comment date. Protests will be 19, 2001 herein granting its application certified Scheduling Coordinators. considered by the Commission in for authorization to sell and to broker Comment Date: March 5, 2002. determining the appropriate action to be electric power at market based rates, taken, but will not serve to make 9. Unitil Power Corp. and the Commission’s Order issued protestants parties to the proceeding. January 30, 2002, herein directing GNE [Docket No. ER02–999–000] Any person wishing to become a party to resubmit revised tariff sheets. Take notice that on February 11, 2002, must file a motion to intervene. Copies Comment Date: March 5, 2002. Unitil Power Corp. (Unitil Power) of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 6. Armstrong Energy Limited tendered for filing with the Federal inspection. This filing may also be Partnership, LLLP, Troy Energy, LLC Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a market-based rate tariff, viewed on the web at http:// [Docket Nos. ER02–300–003, ER02–301–003] including a form of umbrella service www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link, Take notice that on February 12, 2002, agreement. The proposed market-based select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the Armstrong Energy Limited Partnership, rate tariff does not replace Unitil instructions (call 202–208–2222 for LLLP (Armstrong) and Troy Energy, LLC Power’s existing market-based rate tariff, assistance). Comments, protests and (Troy), have modified their January 18, FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 3, and interventions may be filed electronically 2002 deficiency correction by modifying service provided thereunder will not be via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 the price cap and treating the rate affected. Unitil Power requests waiver of CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the authorizations as independent rate the Commission’s notice of filing instructions on the Commission’s web schedules. requirements to allow the proposed site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Copies of the filing were served upon market-based rate tariff to become Magalie R. Salas, Ohio Public Utilities Commission, the effective on March 13, 2002. Secretary. Pennsylvania Public Service A copy of the filing was served upon Commission, the North Carolina the New Hampshire Public Utilities [FR Doc. 02–4348 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Utilities Commission, and the Virginia Commission. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P State Corporation Commission. Comment Date: March 4, 2002. Comment Date: March 5, 2002. 10. TECO-PANDA Generating 7. Duke Energy Enterprise, LLC Company, L.P. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [Docket No. ER02–565–001] [Docket No. ER02–1000–000] AGENCY Take notice that on February 12, 2002, Take notice that on February 11, 2002, Duke Energy Enterprise, LLC filed a TECO–PANDA Generating Company, [FRL–7149–1] notice of status change with the Federal L.P. tendered for filing an application Proposed Settlement, Clean Air Act Energy Regulatory Commission in for authorization to sell energy, capacity Citizen Suit connection with the pending change in and ancillary services at market-based upstream control of Engage Energy rates pursuant to section 205 of the AGENCY: Environmental Protection America LLC and Frederickson Power Federal Power Act. A copy of this filing Agency.
VerDate 11
ACTION: Notice of proposed consent taking final action pursuant to section describes both the allegations in the decree; request for public comment. 110(k) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). complaint previously issued and the From 1993 through 1998, CARB also terms of the consent order—embodied SUMMARY: In accordance with section submitted six rules adopted by the San in the consent agreement—that would 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended Joaquin Valley Unified Control District settle these allegations. (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is for the control of PM–10 and NOX in the DATES: hereby given of a proposed consent Comments must be received on SJV and EPA found them to be complete or before March 15, 2002. decree which was lodged with the pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B), 42 United States District Court for the U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B) as follows: Rules ADDRESSES: Comments filed in paper Northern District of California by the 4201 (1992), 4901 (1994), 4351 (1996), form should be directed to: FTC/Office United States Environmental Protection 4305 (1997), 4701 (1998) and 4703 of the Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 Agency (‘‘EPA’’) on January 15, 2002 to (1998). EPA has proposed action on Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., address a lawsuit filed by the Medical these rules pursuant to section 110(k) of Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed Alliance for Healthy Air, Sierra Club, the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). The in electronic form should be directed to: Latino Issues Forum and Center on proposed consent decree provides that [email protected], as Race, Poverty and the Environment, a the Administrator or her delegatee shall prescribed below. project of the California Rural Legal sign no later than January 15, 2002, a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistance Foundation. This lawsuit, notice or notices for publication in the David Pender, Bureau of Competition, which was filed pursuant to section Federal Register taking final action on 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 304(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7604(a), Rules 4901, 4351, 4305, 4701 and 4703 Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–2549. addresses EPA’s alleged failure to meet and shall sign such a notice taking final SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant mandatory deadlines under section action on Rule 4201 no later than April to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 110(k) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), to 7, 2002. The Administrator signed Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. take final actions to approve or notices by January 15, 2002, taking final 46(f), and §3.25(f) of the Commission’s disapprove the 1997 PM–10 Attainment action on Rules 4901, 4351, 4305, 4701 rules of practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), notice Demonstration Plan for the San Joaquin and 4703. is hereby given that the above-captioned Valley (‘‘SJV’’) in California and six For a period of thirty (30) days consent agreement containing a consent individual rules for the control of PM– following the date of publication of this order to cease and desist, having been 10 and nitrogen oxide (NOX) in the SJV. notice, EPA will receive written filed with and accepted, subject to final Medical Alliance for Healthy Air et al. comments relating to the proposed approval, by the Commission, has been v. EPA, Case No. C–01–4086 JCS (N.D. consent decree from persons who were placed on the public record for a period Cal.). not named as parties to the litigation in of thirty (30) days. The following DATES: Written comments on the question. EPA or the Department of Analysis to Aid Public Comment proposed consent decree must be Justice may withhold or withdraw describes the terms of the consent received by March 27, 2002. consent to the proposed consent decree agreement, and the allegations in the ADDRESSES: Written comments should if the comments disclose facts or complaint. An electronic copy of the be sent to Jan Taradash, Office of circumstances that indicate that such full text of the consent agreement Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental consent is inappropriate, improper, package can be obtained from the FTC Protection Agency Region 9, 75 inadequate, or inconsistent with the Home Page (for February 19, 2002), on Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http:// 94105. Copies of the proposed consent the Department of Justice determines, www.ftc.gov/os/2002/02/index.htm.’’ A decree are available from Jan Taber, following the comment period, that paper copy can be obtained from the (415) 972–3900. consent is inappropriate, the final FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean consent decree will then be executed by H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Air Act requires EPA to take action to the parties. Washington, DC 20580, either in person approve or disapprove a State Dated: February 15, 2002. or by calling (202) 326–2222. implementation plan revision within 12 Alan W. Eckert, Public comments are invited, and may months of a determination by the Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation be filed with the Commission in either Administrator that such revision is Law Office. paper or electronic form. Comments complete. See section 110(k)(1)–(4), 42 [FR Doc. 02–4404 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] filed in paper form should be directed U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)–(4). In 1997, the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room California Air Resources Board 159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (‘‘CARB’’) submitted to EPA the PM–10 Washington, DC 20580. If a comment Attainment Demonstration Plan (‘‘1997 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION contains nonpublic information, it must Plan’’) for the SJV as a proposed be filed in paper form, and the first page revision to the California State [Docket No. 9297] of the document must be clearly labeled Implementation Plan (‘‘SIP’’). This SIP ‘‘confidential.’’ Comments that do not revision was deemed complete by American Home Products Corp.; contain any nonpublic information may operation of law in 1998 pursuant to Analysis To Aid Public Comment instead be filed in electronic form (in section 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft 7410(k)(1)(B). The proposed consent ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. Word) as part of or as an attachment to decree provides that the Administrator e-mail messages directed to the or her delegatee shall sign no later than SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this following e-mail box: March 1, 2002, a notice for publication matter settles alleged violations of [email protected]. Such in the Federal Register proposing action federal law prohibiting unfair or comments will be considered by the on the 1997 Plan and shall sign no later deceptive acts or practices or unfair Commission and will be available for than August 16, 2002 a notice for methods of competition. The attached inspection and copying at its principal publication in the Federal Register Analysis to Aid Public Comment office in accordance with §4.9(b)(6)(ii)
VerDate 11
of the Commission’s rules of practice, 16 The Drug Price Competition and exclusivity right is relinquished, CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, forfeited or otherwise expired. commonly referred to as ‘‘the Hatch- Analysis To Aid Public Comment ESI was the second company to file an Waxman Act,’’ establishes certain rights ANDA for K-Dur 20. ESI also filed a The Federal Trade Commission has and procedures in situations where a paragraph IV certification with the FDA accepted for public comment an company, such as AHP or Upsher, seeks stating that its product did not infringe agreement and proposed consent order FDA approval to market a generic any valid patent held by Schering with American Home Products product prior to the expiration of a covering K-Dur 20. In 1996, Schering Corporation. The proposed consent patent or patents relating to a brand sued ESI for patent infringement. order would settle charges that AHP name drug upon which the generic is unlawfully agreed with Schering-Plough based. In such cases, the applicant must: The Challenged Agreements Corporation to delay selling its generic (1) Certify to the FDA that the patent in The complaint challenges unlawful version of Schering’s K-Dur 20, in question is invalid or is not infringed by agreements between Schering and exchange for payments from Schering. the generic product (known as a Upsher-Smith and among Schering, The proposed consent order has been ‘‘paragraph IV certification’’); and (2) AHP and ESI to delay the entry of low- placed on the public record for 30 days notify the patent holder of the filing of cost generic competition to Schering’s to receive comments by interested the certification. If the holder of patent highly profitable prescription drug K- persons. The proposed consent order rights files a patent infringement suit Dur 20. According to the complaint, has been entered into for settlement within 45 days of the notification, FDA when confronted with the prospect of purposes only and does not constitute approval to market the generic drug is competition to K-Dur 20 through generic an admission by AHP that it violated the automatically stayed for 30 months, entry by Upsher-Smith and ESI, law or that the facts alleged in the unless before that time the patent Schering entered into these agreements complaint, other than the jurisdictional expires or is judicially determined to be that kept Upsher, ESI and all other facts, are true. In July 2001, AHP invalid or not infringed. This automatic potential generic competitors out of the advised its customers that it intends to 30-month stay allows the patent holder market. The complaint alleges that the phase out its oral generic drug product time to seek judicial protection of its Upsher-Smith/Schering agreement line. patent rights before a generic competitor delayed the start of Upsher-Smith’s 180- is permitted to market its product. Background day Exclusivity Period until September In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Act 2001 and, as a result, the entry of Schering develops and markets brand provides an incentive for generic drug competition from other generic name and generic drugs, as well as over- companies to bear the cost of patent manufacturers until March 2002. litigation that may arise when they the-counter health care and animal care With respect to AHP and ESI, the challenge invalid patents or design products. Schering manufactures and complaint alleges that in January 1998, around valid ones. The Act, as currently markets an extended-release micro- Schering, AHP, and ESI reached an interpreted, grants the first company to encapsulated potassium chloride agreement to settle their patent file an ANDA in such cases a 180-day product, K-Dur 20. K-Dur 20, marketed litigation. Pursuant to that agreement: as a brand name drug, has sales over period during which it has the exclusive right to market a generic version of the Schering agreed to pay ESI up to $30 $200 million per year. K-Dur 20 is used million; AHP and ESI agreed to refrain to treat patients who suffer from brand name drug. No other generic manufacturer may obtain FDA approval from marketing the allegedly infringing insufficient levels of potassium, a generic version of K-Dur 20 or any other condition that can lead to serious to market its product until the first filer’s 180-day exclusivity period has generic version of K-Dur 20, regardless cardiac problems. of whether such product would infringe AHP develops and markets brand expired. Schering’s patents, until January 2004; name and generic drugs, as well as over- Upsher-Smith was the first company AHP and ESI agreed to refrain from the-counter medications. ESI Lederle, to file an ANDA for a generic version of marketing more than one generic Incorporated, a division of AHP, Schering’s K-Dur 20. Upsher-Smith filed version of K-Dur 20 between January received tentative approval from the a paragraph IV certification with the 2004 and September 2006, when the K- Food and Drug Administration in May FDA, stating that its product did not Dur 20 patent will expire; and AHP and 1999 for a generic version of Schering’s infringe any valid patent held by ESI agreed not to conduct, sponsor, file K-Dur 20. Schering covering K-Dur 20. In 1995, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. Schering sued Upsher-Smith for patent or support a study of the bio- develops and markets brand name and infringement. The complaint alleges that equivalence of any product to K-Dur 20 generic drugs. Upsher-Smith received at all times relevant herein, FDA final prior to September 2006. Schering final approval from the Food and Drug approval of an ANDA for a generic agreed to pay ESI $5 million up front; Administration in November 1998 for a version of K-Dur 20 for anyone other an additional $10 million if ESI could generic version of Schering’s K-Dur 20. than Upsher-Smith was blocked. demonstrate that its generic version of Generic drugs are chemically Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, K-Dur 20 was able to be approved by the identical to their branded counterparts, Upsher-Smith was eligible for the right FDA under an ANDA on or before June but typically are sold at substantial to a 180-day Exclusivity Period for the 30, 1999; and another $15 million for discounts from the branded price. A sale of a generic version of K-Dur 20. licenses to two generic products that ESI Congressional Budget Office Report The complaint further alleges that as a was developing. estimates that purchasers saved an result, no company could obtain final The complaint further alleges that the estimated $8–10 billion on prescriptions FDA approval of an ANDA to market or patent litigation between Schering and at retail pharmacies in 1994 by sell a generic version of K-Dur 20 until ESI was dismissed. Schering has paid purchasing generic drugs instead of the 180 days after Upsher-Smith first sold ESI over $20 million and continues to brand name product. 1 its product, or until Upsher-Smith’s make payments under the terms of their agreement. Schering has made no sales 1 Congressional Budget Office, How Increased Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry to date of the two products it licensed Competition from Generic Drugs Has Affected at xiii, 13 (July 1998). from ESI.
VerDate 11
Competitive Analysis customers that it intends to phase out its license to sell the ANDA product, there Generic drugs can have a swift oral generic pharmaceutical product is no payment to distort the generic’s marketplace impact, because line. It will continue to develop, incentive to seek the earliest possible pharmacists generally are permitted, manufacture, and market brand name entry date. In the case of the first ANDA and in some instances are required, to drugs and injectable generic drugs. filer, however, any agreement with an substitute lower-priced generic drugs for Notwithstanding AHP’s plans to phase NDA holder that involves a promise by their branded counterparts, unless the out its oral generic products—the line of the generic firm not to enter the market business that includes its generic risks blocking entry by other potential prescribing physician directs otherwise. version of K–Dur 20—an order is generic competitors, and therefore such In addition, there is a ready market for appropriate here to prevent a recurrent agreements are subject to the general generic products because certain third- violation. prohibition of Paragraph II of the party payers of prescription drugs (e.g., Paragraph II of the order covers proposed order. state Medicaid programs and many agreements to resolve patent As noted above, the proposed order private health plans) encourage or insist infringement disputes. It bars would create a limited exception to on the use of generic drugs wherever agreements wherein (1) The NDA holder Paragraph II’s ban on giving value for possible. makes payments or otherwise transfers delayed entry. This exception addresses The complaint charges that the something of value to the ANDA filer the possibility that there might be some challenged agreement among Schering, and (2) the ANDA filer agrees not to agreements that fall within the terms of AHP and ESI injured competition by market its product for some period of the prohibition in Paragraph II that the preventing or discouraging the entry of time, except under certain limited Commission would not wish to prohibit. generic K-Dur 20. The complaint also circumstances described below. The ban For example, as was previously alleges that by making cash payments to in Paragraph II includes not only discussed, the proposed order would ESI, Schering induced it to agree to settlements of ongoing patent ban not only agreements involving cash delay launching its generic version of K- infringement litigation, but also payments of the type that the Dur 20. According to the complaint, agreements resolving claims of patent Commission has challenged to date, but absent those payments, ESI would not infringement that have not resulted in a also the giving of other things of value. have agreed to delay its entry for so lawsuit (see Paragraph I.O.). In addition, It is possible, however, that the giving long. The complaint charges that by by virtue of the definition of of some non-cash items in a settlement making cash payments to ESI, Schering ‘‘Agreement’’ in Paragraph I.D., the that did not provide for immediate entry protected itself from competition from order makes it clear that the prohibition by the ANDA filer could promote ESI until 2004. The complaint also on payments for delayed generic entry competition. Thus, the order includes a alleges that without lower-priced would cover such arrangements even if mechanism that would permit generic competition from Upsher-Smith they are achieved through separate consideration of such arrangements. and ESI, consumers, pharmacies, agreements (for example, where one The exception that has been crafted in hospitals, insurers, wholesalers, agreement resolves the patent this matter could arise only in situations government agencies, managed care infringement dispute and another where Respondent AHP presents the organizations, and others are forced to provides for the payment for delayed agreement to a court in connection with purchase Schering’s more expensive K- entry). a joint stipulation for a permanent Dur 20 product. The order prohibits not merely cash injunction. In that circumstance, The Proposed Order payments to induce delayed entry, but, Paragraph II will not bar an otherwise more broadly, agreements in which the prohibited agreement, if the following The proposed order is designed to NDA holder provides something of conditions are met: remedy the unlawful conduct charged value to the potential generic entrant, • First, Respondent must follow against AHP in the complaint and and the ANDA filer agrees in some certain procedures designed to provide prevent recurrence of such conduct. As fashion not to sell its product. Although notice and information both to the described more fully below, the all of the pharmaceutical agreements Commission and the court: (1) Along proposed order would essentially that the Commission has challenged to with the joint stipulation for permanent prohibit two categories of conduct: date have involved cash payments, a injunction and the proposed agreement, • Agreements in which the NDA company could easily evade a Respondent must provide the court with holder makes payments to an ANDA prohibition on such agreements by a copy of the Commission’s complaint, filer and the ANDA filer agrees not to substituting other things of value for order, and the Analysis to Aid Public market its product for some period of cash payments. Thus, to protect against Comment in this matter; (2) at least 30 time (except in certain limited a recurrent violation, the order is not days before submitting the stipulation to circumstances) (Paragraph II deals with limited to cash payments. the court, Respondent must provide agreements that resolve a patent The proposed order distinguishes written notice (as set forth in Paragraph infringement dispute and Paragraph IV between the first ANDA filer (the party V of the order) to the Commission; and covers ‘‘interim’’ agreements that apply eligible for the 180-day market (3) Respondent may not oppose during the pendency of ongoing patent exclusivity period under the Hatch- Commission participation in the court’s litigation); and Waxman Act) and later filers. It bars consideration of the request for • Agreements between the NDA giving ‘‘anything of value’’ to the first permanent injunction; and holder and an ANDA filer in which the ANDA filer, but would permit NDA • Second, either: (1) The court issues generic competitor agrees not to enter holders to grant other ANDA filers a a permanent injunction and the parties’ the market with a non-infringing generic delayed license to manufacture the agreement conforms to the court’s product (Paragraph III). ANDA product. The proposed order permanent injunction order; or (2) the The proposed order would apply to makes this distinction because an Commission determines that the AHP whether it is acting as potential agreement by a later filer to refrain from agreement does not raise issues under generic competitor (an ANDA filer) or as entering does not block entry by other section 5 of the FTC Act. a branded drug seller (an NDA holder). potential competitors. Where the only The proviso to Paragraph II also As noted above, AHP has advised its value granted by the NDA holder is the makes it clear that the order would not
VerDate 11
prevent Respondent AHP from filer agrees not to enter the market for proposed consent order, or to modify unilaterally seeking relief from the a period of time, but the patent their terms in any way. court. The proviso sets forth conditions infringement litigation continues. AHP By direction of the Commission, Chairman under which AHP could seek to avoid, would be barred from entering into such Muris not participating. though court action, the bar on interim agreements. As in Paragraph II, Donald S. Clark, agreements that is set forth in the core it extends beyond cash payments to Secretary. prohibition of Paragraph II of the cover the NDA holder’s providing proposed order. These conditions would ‘‘anything of value’’ to the ANDA filer, [FR Doc. 02–4374 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] not affect AHP’s ability to take action and provides an exception in limited BILLING CODE 6750–01–P that did not involve an agreement circumstances, similar to those otherwise prohibited in Paragraph II. described in connection with Paragraph FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION The Commission recognizes that, II of the proposed order. Although the outside of the class action context, final challenged conduct here was an [File No. 992 3034] settlements between private litigants agreement in connection with a final ordinarily are not scrutinized by courts. settlement of litigation, rather than an TechnoBrands, Inc., et al.; Analysis To Unlike the case of a court-ordered interim agreement, this provision is Aid Public Comment preliminary injunction based on a appropriate in light of the serious AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. stipulation of the parties (the situation antitrust concerns raised by interim addressed in Paragraph IV, discussed agreements and the need to impose an ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. below), the court in the final settlement order to prevent recurrence of violations SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this context has no express legal mandate to similar to that with which AHP is matter settles alleged violations of consider the public interest. Thus, there charged. federal law prohibiting unfair or remains some degree of risk that an The form of notice that Respondent deceptive acts or practices or unfair anticompetitive agreement could escape AHP must provide to the Commission methods of competition. The attached the prohibition of Paragraph II if the under Paragraphs II and IV of the order Analysis to Aid Public Comment parties were able to persuade a court to is set forth in Paragraph V. In addition describes both the allegations in the issue their agreement as a permanent to supplying a copy of the proposed draft complaint that accompanies the injunction. On the other hand, it is also agreement, AHP is required to provide consent agreement and the terms of the relatively rare for courts in ordinary certain other information to assist the private litigation to issue settlement Commission in assessing the potential consent order—embodied in the consent agreements as permanent injunction competitive impact of the agreement. agreement—that would settle these orders. This is likely to reduce the risk Accordingly, the order requires allegations. that an anticompetitive agreement Respondent to identify, among other DATES: Comments must be received on would evade the order, because, as things, all others known by AHP to have or before March 30, 2002. noted above, the exception to the filed an ANDA for a product containing ADDRESSES: Comments filed in paper prohibitions of Paragraph II does not the same chemical entities as the form should be directed to: FTC/Office arise unless the court issues a product at issue, as well as the court of the Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 permanent injunction order. On that is hearing any relevant legal Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,. balance, in light of all the circumstances proceedings involving Respondent. In Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed of this proposed consent order addition, Respondent AHP must in electronic form should be directed to: (including that it is the first involving a provide the Commission with certain [email protected], as challenge to a final settlement with a documents that evaluate the proposed prescribed below. second ANDA filer), the Commission agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: believes that the exception contained in The proposed order also contains James Dolan or Heather Hippsley, Paragraph II is appropriate here. certain reporting and other provisions Paragraph III prohibits agreements Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 that are designed to assist the Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., between an NDA holder and an ANDA Commission in monitoring compliance filer in which the ANDA filer agrees not Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3292 with the order and are standard or 326–3285. to develop or market a generic drug provisions in Commission orders. product that is not the subject of a claim The proposed order would expire in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant of patent infringement. The Commission 10 years. to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade has previously considered this type of Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. restraint in the context of an agreement Opportunity for Public Comment 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission’s between an NDA holder and an ANDA The proposed order has been placed rules of practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is first filer (that is, the party possessing an on the public record for 30 days in order hereby given that the above-captioned unexpired right to Hatch-Waxman 180- to receive comments from interested consent agreement containing a consent day exclusivity), and had limited the persons. Comments received during this order to cease and desist, having been bans in previous orders to that context. period will become part of the public filed with and accepted, subject to final Having now considered a similar record. After 30 days, the Commission approval, by the Commission, has been restraint in an agreement involving a will again review the agreement and the placed on the public record for a period later ANDA filer, the Commission comments received and will decide of thirty (30) days. The following believes it is appropriate to extend this whether it should withdraw from the Analysis to Aid Public Comment prohibition to agreements between an agreement or make the proposed order describes the terms of the consent NDA holder and any ANDA filer. final. agreement, and the allegations in the Paragraph IV addresses what are The purpose of this analysis is to complaint. An electronic copy of the sometimes referred to as interim facilitate public comment on the full text of the consent agreement settlement agreements. It covers agreement. The analysis is not intended package can be obtained from the FTC agreements that involve payment to an to constitute an official interpretation of Home Page (for February 19, 2002), on ANDA filer and in which the ANDA the agreement, the complaint, or the the World Wide Web, at http://
VerDate 11
www.ftc.gov/os/2002/02/index.htm. A seq., by making numerous Fan, or any substantially similar paper copy can be obtained from the representations that were false and/or product, eliminates dust mites and pet FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130– for which they lacked a reasonable basis dander from the user’s environment, or H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., of substantiation. These representations that consumers who use the product Washington, DC 20580, either in person concerned: the weight loss that will experience relief from allergies and or by calling (202) 326–2222. consumers can achieve with the other respiratory problems, unless Public comments are invited, and may Hollywood Diet and Enforma; the pain respondents possess competent and be filed with the Commission in either relief that can be achieved with the BMI reliable scientific evidence that paper or electronic form. Comments Magnetic Kit; the effectiveness of Nisim substantiates the representations. filed in paper form should be directed in stopping hair loss and stimulating Part VI of the proposed order to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room hair growth; the ability of the air prohibits representations that the Sila 159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., cleaners to eliminate various pollutants Air Purifier, or any substantially similar Washington, DC 20580. If a comment from indoor space; the health benefits of product, eliminates mold, mildew, contains nonpublic information, it must using the Clarion Fan; the scientific bacteria, chemicals, and other pollutants be filed in paper form, and the first page evidence for the efficacy of some of from a user’s environment, unless of the document must be clearly labeled these products; the comparative efficacy respondents possess competent and ‘‘confidential.’’ Comments that do not of some of these products; and the reliable scientific evidence that contain any nonpublic information may experiences of consumers and substantiates the representations. instead be filed in electronic form (in celebrities who purportedly have used Part VII of the proposed order ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft some of these products. prohibits unsubstantiated Word) as part of or as an attachment to Part I of the proposed order prohibits representations about the comparative email messages directed to the following a representation that consumers who or absolute benefits, performance, or e-mail box: [email protected]. use the Hollywood Diet, or any efficacy of any product or service. Such comments will be considered by substantially similar product, can lose Part VIII of the proposed order the Commission and will be available 10 lbs. in 48 hours, unless respondents prohibits misrepresentations about the for inspection and copying at its possess competent and reliable existence, contents, validity, results, principal office in accordance with scientific evidence that substantiates the conclusions, or interpretations of any § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s rules representation. In addition, Part I test, study, or research. of practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). prohibits representations that Part IX of the proposed order celebrities, such as actors and actresses prohibits representations that any user Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To in popular television programs, have testimonial or endorsement of a product Aid Public Comment lost substantial weight by using the reflects the actual experience of the user The Federal Trade Commission has product, unless the respondents possess or that the user’s experience is the accepted, subject to final approval, an competent and reliable evidence that typical experience of members of the agreement to a proposed consent order substantiates the representations. public using the product, unless: (1) The from respondents TechnoBrands, Inc., Part II of the proposed order prohibits representation is true and substantiated and Charles J. Anton, individually and representations that by using Enforma, by competent and reliable scientific as president of the corporate or any substantially similar product, evidence; or (2) there is a disclosure of respondent. consumers can achieve substantial either the generally expected results for The proposed consent order has been weight loss, or avoid weight gain, users of the product, or that consumers placed on the public record for thirty without a restricted calorie diet or should not expect to experience similar (30) days for reception of comments by exercise, unless respondents possess results. interested persons. Comments received competent and reliable scientific Part X of the proposed order requires during this period will become part of evidence that substantiates the that respondents pay to the Federal the public record. After thirty (30) days, representations. Trade Commission the sum of $200,000. the Commission will again review the Part III of the proposed order Part XI of the proposed order is a agreement and the comments received prohibits representations that use of the record keeping provision that requires and will decide whether it should BMI Magnetic Kit, or any substantially the respondents to maintain certain withdraw from the agreement and take similar product, relieves severe pain; records for three (3) years after the last other appropriate action or make final relieves pain more effectively than other date of dissemination of any the agreement’s proposed order. kinds of treatment; and relieves pain by representation covered by the order. This matter concerns practices related enlarging blood vessels, increasing These records include: (1) All to the advertising, offering for sale, sale, blood flow, reducing inflammation, or advertisements and promotional and distribution of various products to suppressing the body’s production of materials containing the representation; the public, including the Hollywood pain-causing chemicals, unless (2) all materials relied upon in 48–Hour Miracle Diet, a liquid diet; the respondents possess competent and disseminating the representation; and Enforma System, a diet product reliable scientific evidence that (3) all evidence in respondents’ combination consisting primarily of substantiates the representations. possession or control that contradicts, chitosan and pyruvate; the BMI Part IV of the proposed order qualifies, or calls into question the Magnetic Kit, a set of magnets with prohibits representations that Nisim, or representation or the basis for it. purported analgesic properties; the any substantially similar product, stops Part XII of the proposed order requires Nisim New Hair Biofactors System, a hair loss in a matter of days or distribution of the order to current and purported hair-growth product; the stimulates hair growth as effectively as future principals, officers, directors, and Clarion Ionic Filter Ceiling Fan, an air- prescription products, unless managers of the corporation. cleaning device; and the Sila Ionic Air respondents possess competent and Part XIII of the proposed order Purifier, another air-cleaning device. reliable scientific evidence that requires distribution of Attachment A to The Commission’s complaint charges substantiates the representations. the order to current and future that respondents violated the Federal Part V of the proposed order prohibits employees, agents, and representatives Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et representations that the Clarion Ceiling having responsibilities with respect to
VerDate 11
the advertising and sale of products to plans to review medical Standard/ ELECTRONIC ELEMENTS FOR SF the public. Attachment A is entitled Optional forms which are commonly 519A—Continued ‘‘Legal Notice’’ and is a summary of the used and/or commonly computer- injunction provisions of the proposed generated. We will identify those fields Item Placement 1 order. which are required, those (if any) which Part XIV of the proposed order are optional, and the required format (if Specific reason(s) for requires that the Commission be necessary). Activities may not add or Request (Com- notified of any change in the delete data elements that would change plaints and find- ings) corporation that might affect the meaning of the form. This would Date of examination compliance obligations under the order. require written approval from the ICMR. (Month, day, year) Part XV of the proposed order requires Using the process by which overprints Date of report (Month, that for a period of three (3) years, the are approved for paper Standard/ day, year) individual respondent notify the Optional forms, activities may add other Date of transcription Commission of the discontinuance of data entry elements to those required by (Month, day, year) his current business or employment or the committee. With this decision, Radiologic report of his affiliation with any new business activities at the local or headquarters Signature or employment involving the sale of level should be able to develop Location of radiologic facility consumer products and/or services. electronic versions which meet the Part XVI of the proposed order committee’s requirements. This 1 If no specific placement, data element may requires the respondents to file a guideline controls the ‘‘image’’ or be in any order. compliance report with the required fields but not the actual data FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR Commission. entered into the field. Katherine Ciacco Palatianos, Indian Part XVII of the proposed order states SUMMARY: With GSA’s approval, the Health Service, Department of Health that, absent certain circumstance, the Interagency Committee of Medical and Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, order will terminate twenty (20) years Records (ICMR) eliminated the Room 6A–55, Rockville, MD 20857 or from the date it is issued. requirement that every electronic E–Mail at [email protected]. The purpose of this analysis is to version of a medical Standard/Optional DATES: facilitate public comment on the form be reviewed and granted an Effective February 25, 2002. proposed consent order. It is not exception. The following fields must Dated: February 12, 2002. intended to constitute an official appear on the electronic version of the CDR Katherine Ciacco Palatianos, interpretation of the agreement and following form: Chairperson, Interagency Committee on proposed order or to modify their terms Medical Records. in any way. ELECTRONIC ELEMENTS FOR SF 519A [FR Doc. 02–4452 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] By direction of the Commission. BILLING CODE 6820–34–M Item Placement 1 Donald S. Clark, Secretary. Radiologic consulta- Top of form. [FR Doc. 02–4375 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] tion request/report. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BILLING CODE 6750–01–P Standard Form 519A Bottom right corner of HUMAN SERVICES (Rev. 8/1983)(Form form. ID). Centers for Disease Control and 1-Medical Record ...... Bottom left corner of Prevention GENERAL SERVICES form. ADMINISTRATION 2-Physician ...... Bottom left corner of [60 Day–02–28] form. Interagency Committee for Medical 3-Radiology ...... Bottom left corner of Proposed Data Collections Submitted Records (ICMR); Automation of form. for Public Comment and Medical Standard Form 519A Data Entry Fields: Recommendations Patient information Above below listed AGENCY: Office of Communications, (Text) items. In compliance with the requirement GSA. Last name of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the ACTION: Guideline on Automating First name Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for Medical Standard Forms. Middle name opportunity for public comment on Medical facility proposed data collection projects, the Background: The Interagency Age Centers for Disease Control and Sex Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic Committee on Medical Records (ICMR) SSN (Sponsor) is aware of numerous activities using Ward/clinic summaries of proposed projects. To computer-generated medical forms, Register No. request more information on the many of which are not mirror-like Examination re- proposed projects or to obtain a copy of images of the genuine paper Standard/ quested (Use SF the data collection plans and Optional Form. With GSA’s approval 519B for multiple instruments, call the CDC Reports the ICMR eliminated the requirement exams) Clearance Officer on (404) 639–7090. that every electronic version of a Requested by Comments are invited on: (a) Whether medical Standard/Optional form be Telephone number the proposed collection of information Location of medical is necessary for the proper performance reviewed and granted an exception. The records committee proposed to set required Film number of the functions of the agency, including fields standards and that activities Date requested whether the information shall have developing computer-generated versions Pregnant—Yes practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the adhere to the required fields but not (Checkbox) agency’s estimate of the burden of the necessarily to the image. The ICMR Pregnant—No (No) proposed collection of information; (c)
VerDate 11
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and has convened workgroups with the provide a framework for local boards of clarity of the information to be National Association of County and City health to evaluate their effectiveness. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Health Officials (NACCHO), the Electronic data submission will be the burden of the collection of information Association of State and Territorial method of choice. If computer on respondents, including through the Health Officials (ASTHO), the National technology in local jurisdictions does use of automated collection techniques Association of Local Boards of Health not support electronic submission, hard or other forms of information (NALBOH), the American Public Health copy survey instruments will be technology. Send comments to Anne Association (APHA), and the Public available. Local jurisdictions using hard O’Connor, CDC Assistant Reports Health Foundation (PHF) to develop copy survey instruments will receive Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, performance standards for public health assistance from State or local level field MS–D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written systems based on the ten Essential coordinators for web-based data entry. comments should be received within 60 Services of Public Health. In the Spring Local boards of health will respond to days of this notice. of 2001, CDC conducted field tests with Proposed Project: National Public the survey. An estimated 33% of the local public health governance Health Performance Standards Program approximately 3,200 United States local instruments in the state of Local Public Health Governance boards are expected to participate in the Massachusetts. Performance Assessment Instrument— National Performance Standards New—Public Health Practice Program CDC is now proposing to implement Program per year. a voluntary data collection to assess the Office (PHPPO), Centers for Disease There are no costs to respondents. Control and Prevention (CDC). capacity of local boards of health to Since 1998, the CDC National Public deliver the Essential Public Health The burden hours are estimated to be Health Performance Standards Program Services. This data collection will 30,198.
Number of re- Average bur- Respondents Number of re- sponses/re- den/response Total burden spondents spondent (in hrs.) (in hrs.)
Local Boards of Health Year 1 ...... 1,066 1 10 10,660 Local Boards of Health Year 2 ...... 1,066 1 10 10,660 Local Boards of Health Year 3 ...... 1,066 1 10 10,660
Total ...... 30,198
Dated: February 13, 2002. necessity and utility of the proposed Affected Public: Business or other for- John Moore, information collection for the proper profit, and Not-for-profit institutions; Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning performance of the agency’s functions; Number of Respondents: 359,000; and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control (2) the accuracy of the estimated Total Annual Responses: 359,000; and Prevention. burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, [FR Doc. 02–4371 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] utility, and clarity of the information to Total Annual Hours: 269,250. BILLING CODE 4163–18–P be collected; and (4) the use of To obtain copies of the supporting automated collection techniques or statement and any related forms for the other forms of information technology to proposed paperwork collections DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND minimize the information collection referenced above, access CMS’s Web site HUMAN SERVICES burden. address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/ Type of Information Collection prdact95.htm, or e-mail your request, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Request: Revision of a currently including your address, phone number, Services approved collection; OMB number, and CMS document Title of Information Collection: [Document Identifier: CMS–10036] identifier, to [email protected], or Inpatient Rehabilitation Assessment call the Reports Clearance Office on Instrument and Data Set for PPS for Agency Information Collection (410) 786–1326. Written comments and Activities: Proposed Collection; Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and recommendations for the proposed Comment Request Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR, Parts 412 and 413; information collections must be mailed AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and Form No.: CMS–10036 (OMB# 0938– within 60 days of this notice directly to Medicaid Services. 0842); the CMS Paperwork Clearance Officer In compliance with the requirement Use: This is a request to use the IRF– designated at the following address: of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PAI and its supporting manual for the CMS, Office of Information Services, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the implementation phase of the inpatient Security and Standards Group, Division Centers for Medicare and Medicaid rehabilitation PPS. There have been no of CMS Enterprise Standards, Attention: Services (CMS) (formerly known as the revisions or modifications to the Dawn Willinghan, CMS–10036, Room Health Care Financing Administration instrument; however, this submission N2–14–26, 7500 Security Boulevard, (HCFA)), Department of Health and includes the current manual/ Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. Human Services, is publishing the instructions which has been revised. Dated: February 14, 2002. following summary of proposed Use of this instrument will enable CMS collections for public comment. to implement a classification system John P. Burke, III, Interested persons are invited to send and payment system for the Reports Clearance Officer, Security and comments regarding this burden Legislatively mandated inpatient Standards Group, Division of CMS Enterprise estimate or any other aspect of this rehabilitation hospital and exempt units Standards. collection of information, including any Prospective Payment System (PPS); [FR Doc. 02–4358 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] of the following subjects: (1) The Frequency: On occasion; BILLING CODE 4120–03–P
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Affected Public: Individuals or (2) the accuracy of the estimated HUMAN SERVICES Households, Business or other for-profit, burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, and Not-for-profit institutions; utility, and clarity of the information to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Number of Respondents: 11,356; be collected; and (4) the use of Services Total Annual Responses: 11,356; automated collection techniques or Total Annual Hours: 5,465. other forms of information technology to [Document Identifier: CMS–10061] To obtain copies of the supporting minimize the information collection statement and any related forms for the burden. Agency Information Collection proposed paperwork collections Activities: Proposed Collection; referenced above, access CMS’s Web site Type of Information Collection Comment Request address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/ Request: Extension of a currently prdact95.htm, or e-mail your request, approved collection; AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and including your address, phone number, Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Services. OMB number, and CMS document Payment Adjustment for Sole In compliance with the requirement identifier, to [email protected], or Community Hospitals and Supporting of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the call the Reports Clearance Office on Regulations in 42 CFR, Section 412.92; Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the (410) 786–1326. Written comments and Form No.: CMS–R–79 (OMB# 0938– Centers for Medicare and Medicaid recommendations for the proposed Services (CMS) (formerly known as the information collections must be mailed 0477); Health Care Financing Administration within 60 days of this notice directly to Use: Hospitals designated ‘‘sole (HCFA)), Department of Health and the CMS Paperwork Clearance Officer community hospitals’’ that experience a Human Services, is publishing the designated at the following address: 5 percent decrease in discharges in one following summary of proposed CMS, Office of Information Services, cost reporting period, as compared to collections for public comment. Security and Standards Group, Division the previous period, due to unusual Interested persons are invited to send of CMS Enterprise Standards, Attention: circumstances beyond its control, may comments regarding this burden Dawn Willinghan, CMS–10061, Room request an adjustment to its Medicare estimate or any other aspect of this N2–14–26, 7500 Security Boulevard, payment amount; collection of information, including any Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. of the following subjects: (1) The Frequency: On Occasion; Dated: February 14, 2002. necessity and utility of the proposed Affected Public; Not-for-profit John P. Burke, III, information collection for the proper institutions, Business or other for-profit, Reports Clearance Officer, Security and performance of the agency’s functions; and State, Local or Tribal Gov.; (2) the accuracy of the estimated Standards Group, Division of CMS Enterprise burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, Standards. Number of Respondents: 40; utility, and clarity of the information to [FR Doc. 02–4359 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Total Annual Responses: 40; BILLING CODE 4120–03–P be collected; and (4) the use of Total Annual Hours: 160. automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to To obtain copies of the supporting DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND minimize the information collection statement and any related forms for the HUMAN SERVICES burden. proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS’s Web site Type of Information Collection Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Request: New Collection; Services address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/ Title of Information Collection: prdact95.htm, of e-mail your request, Evaluation of Programs of Coordinated [Document Identifier: CMS–R–79] including your address, phone number, Care and Disease Management; OMB number, and CMS document Agency Information Collection Form No.: CMS–10061 (OMB# 0938– identifier, to [email protected], or Activities: Proposed Collection; NEW); call the Reports Clearance Office on Comment Request Use: CMS is currently conducting two (410) 786–1326. Written comments and demonstration programs to determine AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and recommendations for the proposed the impact of programs of coordinated Medicaid Services DHHS. In information collections must be mailed care and disease management on health compliance with the requirement of within 60 days of this notice directly to outcomes and costs of care for Medicare section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork the CMS Paperwork Clearance Officer beneficiaries. The purpose of this Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for designated at the following address: evaluation is to provide an independent Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) CMS, Office of Information Services, assessment of the effectiveness of these (formerly known as the Health Care Security and Standards Group, Division programs, and to provide the basis for Financing Administration (HCFA)), of CMS Enterprise Standards, Attention: the Reports to Congress required for the Department of Health and Human Dawn Willinghan, CMS–R–79, Room care coordination demonstration. To Services, is publishing the following N2–14–26, 7500 Security Boulevard, provide this information, the evaluation summary of proposed collections for Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. must generate both rigorous quantitative public comment. Interested persons are Dated: February 14, 2002. estimates of the programs’ impacts and invited to send comments regarding this qualitative analyses of the programs’ burden estimate or any other aspect of John P. Burke, III, processes. Surveys of demonstration this collection of information, including Reports Clearance Officer, Security and participants and their health care any of the following subjects: (1) The Standards Group, Division of CMS Enterprise providers are an integral part of this necessity and utility of the proposed Standards. evaluation.; information collection for the proper [FR Doc. 02–4360 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Frequency: Other: One-time; performance of the agency’s functions; BILLING CODE 4120–03–M
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Type of Information Collection information collections must be mailed HUMAN SERVICES Request: Extension of a currently within 30 days of this notice directly to approved collection; the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Center for Medicare and Medicaid Title of Information Collection: Real Resources and Housing Branch, Services Choice Systems Change Grants; Nursing Attention: Brenda Aguilar, New Facility Transition/Access Housing Executive Office Building, Room 10235, [Document Identifier: CMS–10037] Grants; Community Personal Assistance Washington, DC 20503. Service and Supports Grants, National Dated: November 13, 2001. Agency Information Collection Technical Assistance and Learning Julie Brown, Activities: Submission for OMB Collaborative Grants to Support Systems Review; Comment Request Change for Community Living; Acting CMS Reports Clearance Officer, CMS Form No.: CMS–10037 (OMB# 0938– Office of Information Services, Security and AGENCY: Center for Medicare and Standards Group, Division of CMS Enterprise 0836); Standards. Medicaid Services DHHS. In Use: Information sought by CMSO/ [FR Doc. 02–4357 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] compliance with the requirement of DEHPG is needed to award competitive section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork grants to States and other eligible BILLING CODE 4120–03–P Reduction Act of 1995, the Center for entities for the purposes of designing Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and implementing effective and (formerly known as the Health Care DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND enduring improvements in consumer- HUMAN SERVICES Financing Administration (HCFA), directed long term service and support Department of Health and Human systems; Administration for Children and Services, is publishing the following Frequency: Annually; Families summary of proposed collections for Affected Public: State, local or tribal public comment. Interested persons are gov.; Proposed Projects invited to send comments regarding this Number of Respondents: 76; burden estimate or any other aspect of Total Annual Responses: 76; Title: Grants to states for access and this collection of information, including Total Annual Hours: 7600. visitation programs. any of the following subjects: (1) The To obtain copies of the supporting OMB No.: 0970–0204. necessity and utility of the proposed statement and any related forms for the information collection for the proper proposed paperwork collections Description: States are required to performance of the agency’s functions; referenced above, access CMS’ Web site provide descriptions of grant funded (2) the accuracy of the estimated address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/ local and/or state access and visitation burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, prdact95.htm, or e-mail your request, programs and data on these programs utility, and clarity of the information to including your address, phone number, with regard to numbers of participants, be collected; and (4) the use of OMB number, and CMS document referral sources, project goals, services automated collection techniques or identifier, to [email protected], or delivered, and other relevant data. other forms of information technology to call the Reports Clearance Office on Respondents: State access and minimize the information collection (410) 786–1326. Written comments and visitation program monitors; local burden. recommendations for the proposed project administrators.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of re- Average bur- Number of sponses den Total Instrument respondents per respond- hours per re- burden hours ent sponse
Program survey ...... 324 1 20 6,480 Estimated total annual burden hours ...... 6,480
In compliance with the requirements Reports Clearance Officer. All requests ways to minimize the burden of the of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the should be identified by the title of the collection of information on Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection. respondents, including through the use Administration for Children and The Department specifically requests of automated collection techniques or Families is soliciting public comment comments on: (a) Whether the proposed other forms of information technology. on the specific aspects of the collection of information is necessary Consideration will be given to information collection described above. for the proper performance of the comments and suggestions submitted Copies of the proposed collection of functions of the agency, including within 60 days of this publication. information can be obtained and whether the information shall have Dated: February 13, 2002. comments may be forwarded by writing practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Bob Sargis, to the Administration for Children and agency’s estimate of the burden of the Reports Clearance Officer. Families, Office of Information Services, proposed collections of information; (c) 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW., the quality, utility, and clarity of the [FR Doc. 02–4341 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF information to be collected; and (d) BILLING CODE 4184–01–M
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests reports of all foreign or domestic HUMAN SERVICES or requirements that members of the adverse experiences as well as those public submit reports, keep records, or obtained in scientific literature and from Food and Drug Administration provide information to a third party. postmarketing epidemiological/ Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 [Docket No. 02N–0012] surveillance studies. Under U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal § 314.80(c)(2) applicants must provide Agency Information Collection agencies to provide a 60-day notice in periodic reports of adverse drug Activities; Proposed Collection; the Federal Register concerning each experiences. A periodic report includes, Comment Request; Postmarketing proposed collection of information, for the reporting interval, reports of Adverse Drug Experience Reporting including each proposed extension of an serious, expected adverse drug existing collection of information, experiences and all nonserious adverse AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, before submitting the collection to OMB drug experiences, a narrative summary HHS. for approval. To comply with this and analysis of adverse drug ACTION: Notice. requirement, FDA is publishing notice experiences and a history of actions of the proposed collection of taken because of adverse drug SUMMARY: The Food and Drug information set forth in this document. experiences. Under § 314.80(i) Administration (FDA) is announcing an With respect to the following applicants must keep for 10 years opportunity for public comment on the collection of information, FDA invites records of all adverse drug experience proposed collection of certain comments on: (1) Whether the proposed reports known to the applicant. information by the agency. Under the collection of information is necessary Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the for the proper performance of FDA’s For marketed prescription drug PRA), Federal agencies are required to functions, including whether the products without approved new drug publish notice in the Federal Register information will have practical utility; applications or abbreviated new drug concerning each proposed collection of (2) the accuracy of FDA’s estimate of the applications, manufacturers, packers, information, including each proposed burden of the proposed collection of and distributors are required to report to extension of an existing collection of information, including the validity of FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug information, and to allow 60 days for the methodology and assumptions used; experiences as well as followup reports public comment in response to the (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, when needed (§ 310.305(c)). Under notice. This notice solicits comments on and clarity of the information to be § 310.305(f) each manufacturer, packer, postmarketing adverse drug experience collected; and (4) ways to minimize the and distributor shall maintain for 10 reporting and recordkeeping burden of the collection of information years records of all adverse drug requirements. on respondents, including through the experiences required to be reported. DATES: Submit written or electronic use of automated collection techniques, The primary purpose of FDA’s comments on the collection of when appropriate, and other forms of adverse drug experience reporting information by April 26, 2002. information technology. system is to provide a signal for ADDRESSES: Submit electronic Postmarketing Adverse Drug potentially serious safety problems with comments on the collection of Experience Reporting—21 CFR 310.305 marketed drugs. Although premarket information to http:// and 314.80 (OMB Control No. 0910– testing discloses a general safety profile www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/ 0230)—Extension of a new drug’s comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more dockets/edockethome.cfm. Submit Sections 201, 502, 505, and 701 of the diverse patient populations exposed to written comments on the collection of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act the marketed drug provides, for the first information to the Dockets Management (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321, 352, 355, and Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug 371) require that marketed drugs be safe time, the opportunity to collect Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. and effective. In order to know whether information on rare, latent, and long- 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All drugs that are not safe and effective are term effects. Signals are obtained from comments should be identified with the on the market, FDA must be promptly a variety of sources, including reports docket number found in brackets in the informed of adverse experiences from patients, treating physicians, heading of this document. occasioned by the use of marketed foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: drugs. In order to help ensure this, FDA investigators. Information derived from Karen L. Nelson, Office of Information issued regulations (§§ 310.305 and the adverse drug experience reporting Resources Management (HFA–250), 314.80 (21 CFR 310.305 and 314.80)) to system contributes directly to increased Food and Drug Administration, 5600 impose reporting and recordkeeping public health protection because the Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, requirements on the drug industry that information enables FDA to make 301–827–1482. would enable FDA to take action important changes to the product’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the necessary for protection of the public labeling (such as adding a new warning) PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal health from adverse drug experiences. and when necessary, to initiate removal agencies must obtain approval from the All applicants who have received of a drug from the market. Office of Management and Budget marketing approval of drug products are Respondents to this collection of (OMB) for each collection of required to report to FDA serious, information are manufacturers, packers, information they conduct or sponsor. unexpected adverse drug experiences, distributors, and applicants. FDA ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined as well as followup reports when estimates the burden of this collection in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR needed (§ 314.80(c)(1)). This includes of information as follows:
VerDate 11
TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1
No. of Annual Frequency Total Annual Hours per 21 CFR Section Respondents per Response Responses Response Total Hours
310.305(c)(5) ...... 1 1 1 1 1 314.80(c)(1)(iii) ...... 5 1 5 1 5 314.80(c)(2) ...... 683 15 10,245 5 286,860
Total ...... 286,866 1 The reporting burden for §§310.305(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3), and 314.80(c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii)(c) was reported under OMB Control No. 0910– 0291. There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING BURDEN1
No. of Annual Frequency per Total Annual Hours per 21 CFR Section Recordkeepers Recordkeeping Records Recordkeeper Total Hours
310.305(f) ...... 25 1 25 1 25 314.80(i) ...... 683 1 683 1 683
Total ...... 708 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
Dated: February 12, 2002. to provide for the safe use of Submit electronic comments to http:// Margaret M. Dotzel, cyclohexylsulfamic acid as a catalyst in www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. Associate Commissioner for Policy. resinous and polymeric coatings. Abbott FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laboratories has now withdrawn the [FR Doc. 02–4456 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Claudia V. Grillo, Office of Regulatory BILLING CODE 4160–01–S petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7). Policy (HFD–007), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Dated: January 29, 2002. Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594–5645. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Leslye M. Fraser, HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acting Director of Regulations and Policy, The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. [FR Doc. 02–4381 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98– 417) and the Generic Animal Drug and [Docket No. 81F–0387] BILLING CODE 4160–01–S Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Abbott Laboratories; Withdrawal of Law 100–670) generally provide that a Food Additive Petition DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND patent may be extended for a period of AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HUMAN SERVICES up to 5 years so long as the patented HHS. item (human drug product, animal drug Food and Drug Administration product, medical device, food additive, ACTION: Notice. or color additive) was subject to SUMMARY: The Food and Drug [Docket No. 98E–1221] regulatory review by FDA before the Administration (FDA) is announcing the item was marketed. Under these acts, a Determination of Regulatory Review withdrawal, without prejudice to a product’s regulatory review period Period for Purposes of Patent future filing, of a food additive petition forms the basis for determining the Extension; Celexa (FAP 2B3593), filed by Abbott amount of extension an applicant may Laboratories, proposing that the food AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, receive. additive regulations be amended to HHS. A regulatory review period consists of provide for the safe use of ACTION: Notice. two periods of time: A testing phase and cyclohexylsulfamic acid as a catalyst in an approval phase. For human drug resinous and polymeric coatings. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug products, the testing phase begins when FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration (FDA) has determined the exemption to permit the clinical Julius Smith, Center for Food Safety and the regulatory review period for Celexa investigations of the drug becomes Applied Nutrition (HFS–215), Food and and is publishing this notice of that effective and runs until the approval Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch determination as required by law. FDA phase begins. The approval phase starts Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 202– has made the determination because of with the initial submission of an 418–3091. the submission of an application to the application to market the human drug SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice Commissioner of Patents and product and continues until FDA grants published in the Federal Register of Trademarks, Department of Commerce, permission to market the drug product. January 19, 1982 (47 FR 2791), FDA for the extension of a patent that claims Although only a portion of a regulatory announced that a food additive petition that human drug product. review period may count toward the (FAP 2B3593) had been filed by Abbott ADDRESSES: Submit written comments actual amount of extension that the Laboratories, North Chicago, IL 60064 and petitions to the Dockets Commissioner of Patents and (now 100 Abbott Park Rd., Abbott Park, Management Branch (HFA–305), Food Trademarks may award (for example, IL 60064–6091). The petition proposed and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers half the testing phase must be to amend the food additive regulations Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. subtracted, as well as any time that may
VerDate 11
have occurred before the patent was this applicant seeks 1,826 days of patent Management Branch (HFA–305), Food issued), FDA’s determination of the term extension. and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers length of a regulatory review period for Anyone with knowledge that any of Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. a human drug product will include all the dates as published is incorrect may Submit electronic comments to http:// of the testing phase and approval phase submit to the Dockets Management www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B). Branch (address above) written or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA recently approved for marketing electronic comments and ask for a Claudia V. Grillo, Office of Regulatory the human drug product Celexa redetermination by April 26, 2002. Policy (HFD–007), Food and Drug (citalopram hydrobromide). Celexa is Furthermore, any interested person may Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, indicated for the treatment of petition FDA for a determination Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594–2041. depression. Subsequent to this approval, regarding whether the applicant for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug the Patent and Trademark Office extension acted with due diligence Price Competition and Patent Term received a patent term restoration during the regulatory review period by Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98– application for Celexa (U.S. Patent No. August 26, 2002. To meet its burden, the 417) and the Generic Animal Drug and 4,650,884) from H. Lundbeck A/S, and petition must contain sufficient facts to Patent Term Restoration Act (Public the Patent and Trademark Office merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Law 100–670) generally provide that a requested FDA’s assistance in Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., patent may be extended for a period of determining this patent’s eligibility for pp. 41–42, 1984.) Petitions should be in up to 5 years so long as the patented patent term restoration. In a letter dated the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. item (human drug product, animal drug December 19, 2000, FDA advised the Comments and petitions should be product, medical device, food additive, Patent and Trademark Office that this submitted to the Dockets Management or color additive) was subject to human drug product had undergone a Branch. Three copies of any information regulatory review by FDA before the regulatory review period and that the are to be submitted, except that item was marketed. Under these acts, a approval of Celexa represented the first individuals may submit one copy. product’s regulatory review period permitted commercial marketing or use Comments are to be identified with the forms the basis for determining the of the product. Shortly thereafter, the docket number found in brackets in the amount of extension an applicant may Patent and Trademark Office requested heading of this document. Comments receive. that FDA determine the product’s and petitions may be seen in the A regulatory review period consists of regulatory review period. Dockets Management Branch between 9 two periods of time: A testing phase and FDA has determined that the a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through an approval phase. For medical devices, applicable regulatory review period for Friday. the testing phase begins with a clinical Celexa is 5,498 days. Of this time, 5,061 Dated: January 24, 2002. investigation of the device and runs days occurred during the testing phase Jane A. Axelrad, until the approval phase begins. The of the regulatory review period, while Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug approval phase starts with the initial 437 days occurred during the approval Evaluation and Research. submission of an application to market phase. These periods of time were [FR Doc. 02–4382 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the device and continues until derived from the following dates: BILLING CODE 4160–01–S permission to market the device is 1. The date an exemption under granted. Although only a portion of a section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, regulatory review period may count and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND toward the actual amount of extension 355(i)) became effective: July 30, 1983. HUMAN SERVICES that the Commissioner of Patents and The applicant claims August 4, 1983, as Trademarks may award (half the testing the date the investigational new drug Food and Drug Administration phase must be subtracted as well as any application (IND) became effective. [Docket No. 01E–0099] time that may have occurred before the However, FDA records indicate that the patent was issued), FDA’s determination IND effective date was July 30, 1983, Determination of Regulatory Review of the length of a regulatory review which was 30 days after FDA receipt of Period for Purposes of Patent period for a medical device will include the IND. Extension; Menicon Z Rigid Gas all of the testing phase and approval 2. The date the application was Permeable Contact Lens phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. initially submitted with respect to the 156(g)(3)(B). human drug product under section AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, FDA recently approved for marketing 505(b) of the act: May 7, 1997. FDA has HHS. the medical device Menicon Z Rigid Gas verified the applicant’s claim that the ACTION: Notice. Permeable Contact Lens. This product is new drug application (NDA) for Celexa indicated for extended wear (from 1 to (NDA 20–822) was initially submitted SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 7 days between removals for cleaning on May 7, 1997. Administration (FDA) has determined and disinfection of the lenses, as 3. The date the application was the regulatory review period for recommended by the eyecare approved: July 17, 1998. FDA has Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact practitioner) for the correction of verified the applicant’s claim that NDA Lens and is publishing this notice of refractive error (myopia, hyperopia, 20–822 was approved on July 17, 1998. that determination as required by law. presbyopia and/or astigmatism) in non- This determination of the regulatory FDA has made the determination aphakic persons with non-diseased review period establishes the maximum because of the submission of an eyes. Subsequent to this approval, the potential length of a patent extension. application to the Commissioner of Patent and Trademark Office received a However, the U.S. Patent and Patents and Trademarks, Department of patent term restoration application for Trademark Office applies several Commerce, for the extension of a patent Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact statutory limitations in its calculations which claims that medical device. Lens (U.S. Patent No. 4,594,401) from of the actual period for patent extension. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Menicon Co., and the Patent and In its application for patent extension, and petitions to the Dockets Trademark Office requested FDA’s
VerDate 11
assistance in determining this patent’s during the regulatory review period by Agenda: The committee will discuss eligibility for patent term restoration. In August 26, 2002. To meet its burden, the new drug application (NDA) 21–245, a letter dated September 6, 2001, FDA petition must contain sufficient facts to Picovir (pleconaril), ViroPharma Inc., advised the Patent and Trademark merit an FDA investigation. (See H. proposed for treatment of acute viral Office that this medical device had Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., respiratory infection (the common cold) undergone a regulatory review period pp. 41–42, 1984.) Petitions should be in in adults. and that the approval of Menicon Z the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Procedure: Interested persons may Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens Comments and petitions should be present data, information, or views, represented the first permitted submitted to the Dockets Management orally or in writing, on issues pending commercial marketing or use of the Branch. Three copies of any information before the committee. Written product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent are to be submitted, except that submissions may be made to the contact and Trademark Office requested that individuals may submit one copy. person by March 12, 2002. Oral FDA determine the product’s regulatory Comments are to be identified with the presentations from the public will be review period. docket number found in brackets in the scheduled between approximately 1 FDA has determined that the heading of this document. Comments p.m. and 2 p.m. Time allotted for each applicable regulatory review period for and petitions may be seen in the presentation may be limited. Those Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Dockets Management Branch between 9 desiring to make formal oral Lens is 1,917 days. Of this time, 1,435 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through presentations should notify the contact days occurred during the testing phase Friday. person before March 12, 2002, and of the regulatory review period, while Dated: January 24, 2002. submit a brief statement of the general 482 days occurred during the approval nature of the evidence or arguments phase. These periods of time were Jane A. Axelrad, Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug they wish to present, the names and derived from the following dates: addresses of proposed participants, and 1. The date a clinical investigation Evaluation and Research. an indication of the approximate time involving this device was begun: April [FR Doc. 02–4383 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] requested to make their presentation. 14, 1995. The applicant claims that the BILLING CODE 4160–01–S investigational device exemption (IDE) Persons attending FDA’s advisory required under section 520(g) of the committee meetings are advised that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND agency is not responsible for providing (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) for human HUMAN SERVICES access to electrical outlets. tests to begin became effective on April FDA welcomes the attendance of the 4, 1995. However, FDA records indicate Food and Drug Administration public at its advisory committee that the IDE was determined meetings and will make every effort to Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee; accommodate persons with physical substantially complete for clinical Notice of Meeting studies to have begun on April 14, 1995, disabilities or special needs. If you which represents the IDE effective date. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, require special accommodations due to 2. The date the application was HHS. a disability, please contact Tara P. initially submitted with respect to the ACTION: Notice. Turner at least 7 days in advance of the device under section 515 of the act (21 meeting. U.S.C. 360e): March 18, 1999. FDA has This notice announces a forthcoming Notice of this meeting is given under verified the applicant’s claim that the meeting of a public advisory committee the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 premarket approval application (PMA) of the Food and Drug Administration U.S.C. app. 2). for Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable (FDA). The meeting will be open to the Dated: February 17, 2002. public. Contact Lens (PMA P990018) was Linda A. Suydam, initially submitted March 18, 1999. Name of Committee: Antiviral Drugs 3. The date the application was Advisory Committee. Senior Associate Commissioner for Communications and Constituent Relations. approved: July 11, 2000. FDA has General Function of the Committee: verified the applicant’s claim that PMA To provide advice and [FR Doc. 02–4455 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] P990018 was approved on July 11, 2000. recommendations to the agency on BILLING CODE 4160–01–S This determination of the regulatory FDA’s regulatory issues. review period establishes the maximum Date and Time: The meeting will be potential length of a patent extension. held on March 19, 2002, from 8 a.m. to DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND However, the U.S. Patent and 5 p.m. HUMAN SERVICES Trademark Office applies several Location: Holiday Inn, The Ballrooms, Health Resources and Services statutory limitations in its calculations Two Montgomery Village Ave., Administration of the actual period for patent extension. Gaithersburg, MD. In its application for patent extension, Contact Person: Tara P. Turner, Childhood Vaccines Advisory this applicant seeks 1,205 days of patent Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Commission; Notice of Meeting term extension. (HFD–21), Food and Drug Anyone with knowledge that any of Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for In accordance with section 10(a) (2) of the dates as published are incorrect may express delivery 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. the Federal Advisory Committee Act submit to the Dockets Management 1093), Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827– (Public Law 92–463), announcement is Branch (address above) written or 7001, e-mail: [email protected], or made of the following National electronic comments and ask for a FDA Advisory Committee Information Advisory body scheduled to meet redetermination by April 26, 2002. Line, 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 during the month of March. Furthermore, any interested person may in the Washington, DC area), code Name: Advisory Commission on petition FDA by for a determination 12531. Please call the Information Line Childhood Vaccines (ACCV). regarding whether the applicant for for up-to-date information on this Date and Time: March 6, 2002; 9 a.m.–3 extension acted with due diligence meeting. p.m., March 7, 2002; 9 a.m.–12 p.m.
VerDate 11
Place: The Ramada Inn, Georgetown Programs, Health Resources and Services DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Conference Room, 1775 Rockville Pike, Administration, Room 8A–46, 5600 Fishers HUMAN SERVICES Rockville, Maryland 20852, and Audio Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone Conference Call. (301) 443–2124 or e-mail: [email protected]. National Institutes of Health The full ACCV will meet on Wednesday, Agenda items are subject to change as March 6, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and priorities dictate. National Institute on Drug Abuse; Thursday, March 7, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Notice of Closed Meeting The public can join the meeting in person at Dated: February 19, 2002. the address listed above or by audio Jane M. Harrison, Pursuant to section 10(d) of the conference call by dialing 1–888–566–5772 Federal Advisory Committee Act, as on March 6, and dialing 1–888–458–9977 on Director, Division of Policy Review and March 7, and providing the following Coordination. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice information on both days: [FR Doc. 02–4458 Filed 2–20–02; 3:34 pm] is hereby given of the following Leader’s Name: Thomas E. Balbier, Jr. BILLING CODE 4165–15–P meeting. Password: ACCV. The meeting will be closed to the The agenda items for March 6 will include, public in accordance with the but not limited to: comments from the public DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND provisions set forth in sections on the legislative proposals to change the HUMAN SERVICES 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., National Vaccine Injury Compensation as amended. The contract proposals and Program (VICP), such as the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proposed revisions to National Institutes of Health the discussions could disclose the VICP, and the House Committee on confidential trade secrets or commercial Government Reform bill titled, ‘‘National National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed property such as patentable material, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Meeting and personal information concerning Improvement Act of 2002,’’ an update on the individuals associated with the grant Vaccine Safety Data Link, a presentation of Pursuant to section 10(d) of the applications, the disclosure of which the Institute of Medicine’s Report entitled, Federal Advisory Committee Act, as would constitute a clearly unwarranted ‘‘Multiple Immunizations and Immune amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice invasion of personal privacy. System Dysfunction,’’ and updates from the is hereby given of the following Name of Committee: National Institute on Office of Special Programs, the VICP, the meeting. Department of Justice, and the National Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Vaccine Program Office. The meeting will be closed to the ‘‘Develop New Technologies for Drug Abuse The agenda items on March 7 will include, public in accordance with the Prevention Delivery’’. but not limited to: a discussion of provisions set forth in sections Date: March 14, 2002. recommendations from the ACCV Workgroup 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Time: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. on Proposed Legislative Changes to the VICP, Agenda: To review and evaluate contract as amended. The grant applications and proposals. and a discussion of reversionary trusts. the discussions could disclose Persons interested in obtaining a copy of Place: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville the American Academy of Pediatrics’ confidential trade secrets or commercial Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. proposed revisions to the VICP, and the property such as patentable material, Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Contract Review proposed bill titled, ‘‘National Vaccine Injury and personal information concerning Specialist, Office of Extramural Affairs, Compensation Program Improvement Act of individuals associated with the grant National Institute on Drug Abuse, National 2002’’ may contact Ms. Cheryl Lee by applications, the disclosure of which Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive telephone at (301) 443–2124 or by e-mail at would constitute a clearly unwarranted Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547, Bethesda, [email protected] prior to March 6. invasion of personal privacy. MD 20892–9547, (301) 435–1439. Persons interested in providing an oral (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance presentation should submit a written request, Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist along with a copy of their presentation to: Special Emphasis Panel. Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Ms. Cheryl Lee, Principal Staff Liaison, Date: March 14–15, 2002. Development Awards, and Research Scientist Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Time: March 14, 2002, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Office of Special Programs, Health Resources Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Research Service Awards for Research and Services Administration, Room 8A–46, applications. Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse Research 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857 or Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS) by e-mail at [email protected]. Requests should Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, Dated: February 19, 2002. contain the name, address, telephone Time: March 15, 2002, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 number, and any business or professional LaVerne Y. Stringfield, p.m. affiliation of the person desiring to make an Director, Office of Federal Advisory oral presentation. Groups having similar Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Committee Policy. applications. interests are requested to combine their [FR Doc. 02–4442 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin comments and present them through a single BILLING CODE 4140–01–M representative. The allocation of time may be Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. adjusted to accommodate the level of Contact Person: Samuel Rawlings, PhD, expressed interest. The Division of Vaccine Chief, Scientific Review Branch, Division of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Injury Compensation will notify each Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, HUMAN SERVICES presenter by mail or telephone of their Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–496–5561. assigned presentation time. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance National Institutes of Health Persons who do not file an advance request Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, for a presentation, but desire to make an oral National Institutes of Health, HHS) statement, may sign-up in the Georgetown National Institute of Mental Health; Conference Room on March 6 and March 7. Dated: February 19, 2002. Notice of Closed Meetings These persons will be allocated time as time LaVerne Y. Stringfield, permits. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Director, Office of Federal Advisory Anyone requiring information regarding Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Committee Policy. the ACCV should contact Ms. Cheryl Lee, amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Principal Staff Liaison, Division of Vaccine [FR Doc. 02–4441 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] is hereby given of the following Injury Compensation, Office of Special BILLING CODE 4140–01–M meetings.
VerDate 11
The meetings will be closed to the Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, individuals associated with the grant public in accordance with the 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6149, MSC9606, applications, the disclosure of which provisions set forth in sections Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–6102, would constitute a clearly unwarranted 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., [email protected]. invasion of personal privacy. Name of Committee: National Institute of as amended. The grant applications and Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. the discussions could disclose Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. Date: March 25, 2002. confidential trade secrets or commercial Date: March 7, 2002. Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Time: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. property such as patentable material, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant and personal information concerning applications. applications. individuals associated with the grant Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Place: Neuroscience Center, National applications, the disclosure of which Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Contact Person: Joel Sherrill, PhD, constitute a clearly unwarranted Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Scientific Review Administrator, Division of invasion of personal privacy. Call) Name of Committee: National Institute of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Contact Person: David I. Sommers, PhD., Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Date: March 7–8, 2002. 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC9606, Extramural Activities, National Institute of Time: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–6102, Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant [email protected]. 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6144, MSC 9606, applications. Name of Committee: National Institute of Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–6470, Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. [email protected]. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Date: April 5, 2002. This notice is being published less than 15 Contact Person: Peter J. Sheridan, PhD, Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant limitations imposed by the review and Extramural Activities, National Institute of applications. funding cycle. Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Name of Committee: National institute of 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6142, MSC 9606, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. Bethesda, MD, 20892–9606, 301–443–1513, Contact Person: Richard E. Weise, PhD, Date: March 21, 2002. [email protected]. Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Time: 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM. This notice is being published less than 15 Extramural Activities, National Institute of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant days prior to the meeting due to the timing Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, applications. limitations imposed by the review and 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6140, Place: Nueroscience Center, National funding cycle. MSC9606, Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301– Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Name of Committee: National Institute of 443–1225, [email protected]. Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Call) Date: March 15, 2002. Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Contact Person: David I. Sommers, PhD., Time: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Award, Scientist Development Award for Extramural Activities, National institute of applications. Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award, Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 93.282, Mental Health National Research 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6144, MSC 9606, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Service Awards for Research Training, Bethesda, MD, 20892–9606, 301–443–6470, Contact Person: Richard E. Weise, PhD, National Institutes of Health, HHS) [email protected]. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Dated: February 19, 2002. Extramural Activities, National Institute of Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC9606, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Award, Scientist Development Award for Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301–443–1225, Committee Policy. Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; [email protected]. [FR Doc. 02–4443 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Name of Committee: National Institute of National Institutes of Health, HHS) Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. Date: March 18, 2002. Dated: February 19, 2002. Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant HUMAN SERVICES Director, Office of Federal Advisory applications. Committee Policy. Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 National Institutes of Health [FR Doc. 02–4444 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Contact Person: Joel Sherrill, PhD, National Institute of Mental Health; BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Notice of Closed Meetings Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Pursuant to section 10(d) of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6149, Federal Advisory Committee Act, as HUMAN SERVICES MSC9606, Bethesda, MD 20892–9606, 301– amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 443–6102, [email protected]. is hereby given of the following National Institutes of Health Name of Committee: National Institute of meetings. National Institutes of Nursing Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. The meetings will be closed to the Research; Notice of Closed Meeting Date: March 20, 2002. public in accordance with the Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. provisions set forth in sections Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., applications. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 as amended. The grant applications and amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. the discussions could disclose is hereby given of the following Contact Person: Richard E. Weise, PhD, confidential trade secrets or commercial meeting. Scientific Review Administrator, Division of property such as patentable material, The meeting will be closed to the Extramural Activities, National Institute of and personal information concerning public in accordance with the
VerDate 11
provisions set forth in sections Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Place: Best Western University Tower, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., applications. 4507 Brooklyn Avenue NE., Seattle, WA as amended. The grant applications and Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD 98105. the discussions could disclose 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) Contact Person: Nadarajen A. Vydelingum, Contact Person: George W. Chacko, PhD, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, confidential trade secrets or commercial Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Special Study Section-8, Center for Scientific property such as patentable material, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 and personal information concerning Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room: 4202, Rockledge Drive, MSC 7854, Rm 5122, individuals associated with the grant MSC: 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1176, applications, the disclosure of which 1220, [email protected]. [email protected]. would constitute a clearly unwarranted This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 invasion of personal privacy. days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: National Institute of funding cycle. funding cycle. Nursing Research Initial Review Group. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Date: February 21–22, 2002. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Time: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Date: March 1, 2002. Date: March 4–5, 2002. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 3 pm to 5 pm. Time: 8 am to 6 pm. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Place: Doubletree Hotel & Executive applications. applications. Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Place: La Jolla Coves Suites, 1155 Coast Place: Holiday Inn Mission Bay/Sea World Rockville, MD 20852. Blvd., La Jolla, CA 92037. Area, 3737 Sports Arena Blvd., San Diego, Contact Person: John E. Richters, PhD, Contact Person: Tracy E. Orr, PhD, CA 92110. Scientific Review Administrator, National Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Priscilla B. Chen, PhD, Institute of Nursing Research, National Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Room 5118, Scientific Review, National Institutes of 3AN32, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594– Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1259, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4104, 5971. [email protected]. MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 1787. days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing funding cycle. funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Name of Committee: Biophysical and funding cycle. Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, Chemical Sciences Integrated Review Group, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific National Institutes of Health, HHS) Physical Biochemistry Study Section. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Dated: February 19, 2002. Date: March 3–5, 2002. Date: March 4–5, 2002. LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Time: 8:30 am to 2 pm. Time: 8 am to 4:30 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Director, Office of Federal Advisory applications. applications. Committee Policy. Place: Pooks Hill Marriot, 5151 Pooks Hill Place: Hyatt Regency Suites, 285 North [FR Doc. 02–4445 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Road, Bethesda, MD 20814. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Contact Person: Gopa Rakhit, PhD, Contact Person: Ranga V. Srinivas, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4154, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, HUMAN SERVICES MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 1721, [email protected]. 1167, [email protected]. National Institutes of Health This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing Enter for Scientific Review; Notice of limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Closed Meetings funding cycle. Name of Committee: Oncological Sciences Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Integrated Review Group, Clinical Oncology Research Integrated Review Group, AIDS and Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Study Section. Related Research 2. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Date: March 3–5, 2002. Date: March 4–5, 2002. Time: 7 pm to 5 pm. Time: 8 am to 4 pm. is hereby given of the following Agenda: To review and evaluate grant meetings. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. applications. The meetings will be closed to the Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., public in accordance with the Place: Hyatt Regency Suites, 285 North Washington, DC 20007–3701. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. provisions set forth in sections Contact Person: Sharon K. Pulfer, PhD, Contact Person: Abraham P. Bautista, PhD, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review Administrator, Center for as amended. The grant applications and Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of the discussions could disclose Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5102, confidential trade secrets or commercial MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– property such as patentable material, 1767. 1506. and personal information concerning This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 individuals associated with the grant days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and applications, the disclosure of which funding cycle. funding cycle. would constitute a clearly unwarranted Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific invasion of personal privacy. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Date: March 3–5, 2002. Date: March 4–5, 2002. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Time: 7 pm to 11 am. Time: 8:30 am to 1 pm. Date: March 1, 2002. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 10:30 am to 11:30 am. applications. applications.
VerDate 11
Place: River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW, Contact Person: Michael A Oxman, PhD, Date: March 6, 2002. Washington, DC 20037. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Time: 2 pm to 5 pm. Contact Person: Stephen M. Nigida, PhD, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4112, applications. Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435– Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4112, 3565, [email protected]. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– This notice is being published less than 15 3565. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, This notice is being published less than 15 limitations imposed by the review and Scientific Review Administrator, Center for days prior to the meeting due to the timing funding cycle. Scientific Review, National Institutes of limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, funding cycle. Review Special Emphasis Panel. MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Date: March 5, 2002. 435–1177, [email protected]. Research Integrated Review Group, AIDS and Time: 10 am to 5 pm. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Related Research 3. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Review Special Emphasis Panel. Date: March 4, 2002. applications. Date: March 6, 2002. Time: 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. Place: Hyatt Regency Suites, 285 North Time: 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. applications. Contact Person: Eduardo A. Montalvo, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Place: Hyatt Regency Suites, 285 North PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center applications. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262. for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Contact Person: Eduardo A. Montalvo, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435– Contact Person: Jo Pelham, BA, Scientific for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 1168. Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, This notice is being published less than 15 Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– days prior to the meeting due to the timing 1168. Rockledge Drive, Room 4102, MSC 7814, limitations imposed by the review and Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1786. This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific limitations imposed by the review and Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. funding cycle. Date: March 5, 2002. Date: March 6–8, 2002. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 2 pm to 3 pm. Time: 6:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Date: March 4, 2002. applications. applications. Time: 3 pm to 5 pm. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Place: Wyndham Washington, Hotel, 1400 Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) M Street NW, Washington, DC 20005–2750. applications. Contact Person: Jo Pelham, BA, Scientific Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Contact Person: Anita Miller Sostek, PhD, Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Scientific Review, National Institutes of Contact Person: Sally Ann Amero, PhD, Rockledge Drive, Room 4102, MSC 7814, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3176, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1786. Scientific Review, Genetic Sciences This notice is being published less than 15 MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892 (301) 435– Integrated Review Group, National Institutes days prior to the meeting due to the timing 1260. of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2206, limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: Center for Scientific MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892–7890, 301– funding cycle. 435–1159, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel. This notice is being published less than 15 Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Date: March 6–8, 2002. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Review Special Emphasis Panel. Time: 6:00 pm to 5:00 pm. limitations imposed by the review and Date: March 6, 2002. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant funding cycle. Time: 8 am to 12 pm. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Place: Radisson Barcelo, 2121 P Street, applications. Review Special Emphasis Panel. NW, Washington, DC 20037. Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Date: March 5, 2002. Contact Person: David L. Simpson, PhD, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Time: 8 am to 3 pm. Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5192, Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, 1278, [email protected]. Contact Person: N. Krish Krishnan, PhD, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) 435–1177, [email protected]. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Scientific Review, National Institutes of Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, Review Special Emphasis Panel. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6164, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, Date: March 6, 2002. MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 1041. Time: 1 pm to 2 pm. 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National This notice is being published less than 15 Agenda: To review and evaluate grant days prior to the meeting due to the timing applications. Institutes of Health, HHS) limitations imposed by the review and Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Dated: February 19, 2002. funding cycle. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Director, Office of Federal Advisory Review Special Emphasis Panel. Committee Policy. Date: March 5, 2002. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Time: 9 am to 5 pm. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, [FR Doc. 02–4446 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Agenda: To review and evaluate grant MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) BILLING CODE 4140–01–M applications. 435–1177, [email protected]. Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Review Special Emphasis Panel.
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Contact Person: John L. Bowers, PhD, Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, HUMAN SERVICES Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of National Institutes of Health Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4168, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 208982, (301) 435– MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) Center for Scientific Review; Notice of 1725. 435–1177, [email protected]. Closed Meetings This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing Pursuant to section 10(d) of the limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and Federal Advisory Committee Act, as funding cycle. funding cycle. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Name of Committee: Cardiovascular Name of Committee: Center for Scientific is hereby given of the following Sciences Integrated Review Group, Review Special Emphasis Panel. meetings. Cardiovascular Study Section. Date: March 7–8, 2002. The meetings will be closed to the Date: March 7–8, 2002. Time: 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant public in accordance with the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. provisions set forth in sections applications. Place: The River Inn, 924 25th Street, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Washington, DC 20037. as amended. The grant applications and Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Contact Person: Gloria B. Levin, PhD, the discussions could disclose Contact Person: Gordon L. Johnson, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for confidential trade secrets or commercial Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of property such as patentable material, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3166, and personal information concerning Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4136, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– individuals associated with the grant MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 1017, [email protected]. 1212, [email protected]. This notice is being published less than 15 applications, the disclosure of which This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing would constitute a clearly unwarranted days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and invasion of personal privacy. limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. Name of Committee: Cardiovascular funding cycle. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Sciences Integrated Review Group, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel. Experimental Cardiovascular Sciences Study Review Special Emphasis Panel. Date: March 7–8, 2002. Section. Date: March 7–8, 2002. Time: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. Date: March 4–5, 2002. Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8 am to 3 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania applications. Place: The Westin Fairfax, 2100 Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., Massachusetts Ave. NW., Washington, DC Contact Person: Jeffrey W. Elias, PhD, Washington, DC 20007–3701. 20008. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Anshumali Chaudhari, Contact Person: Gillian Einstein, PhD, Scientific Review, National Institutes of PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3170, for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4124, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5198, 0913. MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 435– This notice is being published less than 15 1210. 4433, [email protected]. days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 This notice is being published less than 15 limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing days prior to the meeting due to the timing funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: Center for Scientific funding cycle. funding cycle. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Cardiovascular Date: March 7–8, 2002. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Sciences Integrated Review Group, Time: 10:00 am to 6:00 pm. Date: March 5, 2002. Pharmacology Study Section. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm. Date: March 7–8, 2002. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8 am to 12 pm. Place: Holiday Inn—Silver Spring, 8777 applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., applications. Contact Person: Nancy Shinowara, PhD, Washington, DC 20007–3701. Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Anshumali Chaudhari, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Scientific Review, National Institutes of PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center Contact Person: Joyce C. Gibson, DSC, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4208, for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review Administrator, Center for MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892–7814, (301) Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4124, Scientific Review, National Institutes of 435–1173, [email protected]. MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4172, This notice is being published less than 15 1210. MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 4522, [email protected]. limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Center for Scientific funding cycle. limitations imposed by the review and Review Special Emphasis Panel. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific funding cycle. Date: March 7–8, 2002. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 11:30 am to 5:00 pm. Date: March 7–8, 2002. Review and Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Date: March 7, 2002. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8:00 am to 11:00 am. Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Place: The Melrose Hotel, 2430 applications. Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 20037. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Scientific Review, National Institutes of
VerDate 11
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, This notice is being published less than 15 Place: Hilton Hotel, 8727 Colesville Road, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) days prior to the meeting due to the timing Silver Spring, MD 20910. 435–1177, [email protected]. limitations imposed by the review and Contact Person: Janet Nelson, PhD, This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Scientific Review, National Institutes of limitations imposed by the review and Review Special Emphasis Panel. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4158, funding cycle. Date: March 8, 2002. MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 11 am to 12:30 pm. 1723, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal and Date: March 7, 2002. applications. Dental Sciences Integrated Review Group, Time: 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Orthopedics and Musculoskeletal Study Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Section. applications. Contact Person: Jerrold Fried, PhD, Date: March 11–12, 2002. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Time: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Contact Person: Martin L. Padarathsingh, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4126, applications. PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 1777. Wisconsin Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20007. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4146, This notice is being published less than 15 Contact Person: Daniel F. McDonald, PhD, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– days prior to the meeting due to the timing Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 1717. limitations imposed by the review and Scientific Review, National Institutes of This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, days prior to the meeting due to the timing MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific limitations imposed by the review and 1215, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel. funding cycle. Date: March 8, 2002. Name of Committee: Pathophysiological Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 2 am to 3:30 pm. Sciences Integrated Review Group, Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Respiratory Physiology Study Section. Date: March 7, 2002. applications. Date: March 11, 2002. Time: 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Time: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. applications. Contact Person: Cathleen L. Cooper, PhD, Place: The Governor’s House Hotel, 1615 Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Scientific Review, National Institutes of 20036. Contact Person: Weijia Ni, PhD, Scientific Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4208, Contact Person: Everett E. Sinnett, PhD, Review Administrator, Center for Scientific MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 3566, [email protected]. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Rockledge Drive, Room 3190, MSC 7848, This notice is being published less than 15 Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2178, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1507, days prior to the meeting due to the timing MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– [email protected]. limitations imposed by the review and 1016, [email protected]. This notice is being published less than 15 funding cycle. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Pathophysiological Name of Committee: Center for Scientific limitations imposed by the review and Sciences Integrated Review Group, General Review Special Emphasis Panel. funding cycle. Medicine A Subcommittee 2. Date: March 11, 2002. Date: March 11–13, 2002. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 7 am to 5 pm. Time: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Date: March 8, 2002. applications. applications. Time: 7 am to 5 pm. Place: Embassy Suites, Chevy Chase Place: The Washington Monarch Hotel, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Pavilion, 4300 Military Rd., Wisconsin at 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037. applications. Western Ave., Washington, DC 20015. Contact Person: Mushtaq A. Khan, DVM, Place: Holiday Inn—Silver Spring, 8777 Contact Person: Michael A. Lang, PhD, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Contact Person: Ann Hardy, DRPH, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2176, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 1778, [email protected]. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, 1265, [email protected]. MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 0695. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. This notice is being published less than 15 Date: March 11, 2002. Date: March 11, 2002. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Time: 1:00 am to 3:00 pm. limitations imposed by the review and Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant funding cycle. applications. applications. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Place: Georgetown Suites, 1000 29th St., Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD Review Special Emphasis Panel. NW., Washington, DC 20007. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Date: March 8, 2002. Contact Person: Daniel McPherson, PhD, Contact Person: Martin L. Padarathsingh, Time: 9 am to 3 pm. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review, National Institutes of for Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4146, Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Washington, DC 20007–3701. 1175, [email protected]. 1717. Contact Person: Noni Byrnes, PhD, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Date: March 11, 2002. Date: March 11, 2002. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4196, Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Time: 1:30 am to 2:30 pm. MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 1217, [email protected]. applications. applications.
VerDate 11
Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD The meeting will be open to the of next proposed meeting, assignment of 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). public, however, facilities and space of tasks). The Commission will also Contact Person: Luci Roberts, PhD, accommodating members of the public discuss organizational and Scientific Review Administrator, Center for are limited and persons will be administrative needs. Scientific Review, National Institutes of accommodated on a first-come first- Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3188, Dated: February 19, 2002. served basis. MSC, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–0692. Steve Williams, (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Assistance to Individuals With Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, Disabilities at the Public Meeting [FR Doc. 02–4536 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, The meeting site is accessible to BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, individuals with disabilities. If you plan 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National to attend and will need an auxiliary aid Institutes of Health, HHS) or service to participate in the meeting DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Dated: February 19, 2002. (e.g., interpreting service, assistive LaVerne Y. Stringfield, listening device or materials in an Geological Survey Director, Office of Federal Advisory alternate format), notify the contact Committee Policy. Application Notice Describing the person listed in this notice at least 2 Areas of Interest and Establishing the [FR Doc. 02–4447 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] weeks before the scheduled meeting Closing Date for Receipt of BILLING CODE 4140–01–M date. We will make attempts to meet any Applications Under the National request(s) received after that date, Earthquake Hazards Reduction however, the requested auxiliary aid or Program (NEHRP) for Fiscal Year (FY) service may not be available due to 2003 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR insufficient time. Anyone may file with the Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY: Department of the Interior, U.S. Commission a written statement Geological Survey. National Wildlife Refuge System; concerning matters to be discussed. The ACTION: Notice. National Wildlife Refuge System Commission may also permit attendees Centennial Commission Meeting to address the Commission but may SUMMARY: Applications are invited for restrict the length of the presentations, research projects under the NEHRP. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, as necessary, to allow the Commission The purpose of this Program is to Interior. to complete its agenda within the support the USGS Earthquake Hazards ACTION: Notice of meeting of National allotted time. Program by providing products for Wildlife Refuge Centennial Interested persons may make oral/ earthquake loss reduction to the public Commission. written presentations to the Commission and private sectors and by carrying out during the business meeting or file research on earthquake occurrence and SUMMARY: In accordance with the written statements. Make requests to the effects. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Applications may be submitted by L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App1, attention: Centennial Commission educational institutions, private firms, section 10), notice is hereby given that Coordinator at least 7 days prior to the private foundations, individuals, and the National Wildlife Refuge System meeting. Further information regarding agencies of state and local governments. Centennial Commission will hold its the meeting may be obtained from the ADDRESSES: The program announcement first meeting. Division of Visitor Services and is expected to be available on or about DATES: The meeting will be held March Communications, National Wildlife February 19, 2002. You may obtain a 12, 13, 2002, in Washington, DC. The Refuge System, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, copy of Announcement No. meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. Arlington, VA 22203. Telephone: 703– 03HQPA0001 from the USGS Contracts ending each day at approximately 4:30 358–2035. and Grants Information Site at http:// p.m. Draft minutes of the meeting will be www.usgs.gov/contracts/nehrp/ or by available for public inspection writing to Sherri Newman, U.S. ADDRESSES: The meeting is scheduled to approximately 6 weeks after the meeting be held at: The American Geophysical Geological Survey, Office of Acquisition in Room 600, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, and Grants—Mail Stop 205G, 12201 Union Building, 2000 Florida Avenue, Arlington, VA 22203. NW., Washington, DC 20009. Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, or by fax (703) 648–7901. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matters To Be Considered Laurie Shaffer, 703–358–2035. Major topics for discussion during DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications will be on or about May 1, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The this meeting include: 2002. The actual closing date will be Centennial Commission was established Welcome specified in Announcement No. by Title III, Section 303 of the Fish and Objectives of the meeting 03HQPA0001. Wildlife Programs Improvement and Addition and corrections to the National Wildlife Refuge System agenda FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Business: Unger, Earthquake Hazards Reduction Centennial Act of 2000 (H.R. 3671). The 1. Introduction to the National Program—U.S. Geological Survey, Mail purpose of the Commission is to Wildlife Refuge System Stop 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, prepare, in cooperation with Federal, 2. Commission—Purpose, Objectives, Reston, Virginia 20192. Telephone: State, local, and nongovernmental Rules, Staffing, Budget, Other Resources partners, a plan to commemorate the 3. Centennial Events and Plans (703) 648–6701. centennial of the National Wildlife 4. Conference Proposal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority Refuge System beginning on March 14, 5. Funding opportunities and for this program is contained in the 2003. They are also charged with partnerships Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of planning a conference for the Closing remarks (including summary 1977, Public Law 95–124 (42 U.S.C. Centennial year. of accomplishments of the meeting, date 7701, et. seq.). The Office of
VerDate 11
Management and Budget Catalog of 3. This withdrawal will expire 20 comments and ask questions on any Federal Domestic Assistance Number is years from the effective date of this park activity. 15.807. order, unless, as a result of a review FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Dated: February 5, 2002. conducted before the expiration date A. Latschar, Superintendent, Gettysburg Patricia P. Dunham, pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal National Military Park, 97 Taneytown Land Policy and Management Act of Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325. Deputy, Chief, Office of Administrative Policy 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the and Services. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary determines that the meeting will be open to the public. Any [FR Doc. 02–4334 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] withdrawal shall be extended. BILLING CODE 4310–Y7–M member of the public may file with the Dated: November 2, 2001. Commission a written statement J. Steven Griles, concerning agenda items. The statement DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Deputy Secretary. should be addressed to the Gettysburg [FR Doc. 02–4373 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] National Military Park Advisory Bureau of Land Management BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P Commission, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325. [NV–930–1430–ET; NVN–66423 Public Land Order No. 7505] Dated: February 4, 2002. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR John A. Latschar, Withdrawal of Public Land for Bureau Superintendent, Gettysburg NMP/Eisenhower of Land Management Wildland Fire National Park Service NHS. Station Site; Nevada Gettysburg National Military Park [FR Doc. 02–4338 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Advisory Commission BILLING CODE 4310–70–P Interior. AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Public Land Order. ACTION: Notice of March 14, 2002 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL SUMMARY: This order withdraws a 0.57- meeting. TRADE COMMISSION acre parcel of public land from surface SUMMARY: [Investigation No. 731–TA–920 (Final)] entry and mining to protect a Bureau of This notice sets forth the date Land Management wildland fire station of the March 14, 2002 meeting of the Gettysburg National Military Park Certain Welded Large Diameter Line site. The land is located within the Pipe From Mexico incorporated city of Carlin, Nevada, and Advisory Commission. is not subject to the Mineral Leasing Act DATES: The public meeting will be held Determination on March 14, 2002 from 7:00 p.m. to of 1920 (43 CFR 3100.0–3(a)(2)(iii)). 1 9:00 p.m. On the basis of the record developed EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. in the subject investigation, the United LOCATION: The meeting will be held at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: States International Trade Commission the Cyclorama Auditorium, 125 Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State determines, pursuant to section 735(b) Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Pennsylvania 17325. 89520, 775–861–6532. Agenda: The March 14, 2002 meeting 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By virtue will consist of the Election of Officers the United States is materially injured of the authority vested in the Secretary which will be the election of by reason of imports from Mexico of of the Interior by Section 204 of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for certain welded large diameter line pipe, Federal Land Policy and Management the 2002 year; Sub-Committee reports provided for in subheadings 7305.11.10, Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is from the Historical, Executive, and 7305.11.50, 7305.12.10, 7305.12.50, ordered as follows: Interpretive Committees; Federal 7305.19.10, and 7305.19.50 of the 1. Subject to valid existing rights, the Consistency Reports Within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the following described public land is Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District; United States, that have been found by hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, Operational Updates on Park Activities the Department of Commerce to be sold location, or entry under the general land which consist of a briefing by the in the United States at less than fair laws, including the United States Museum Foundation on the conceptual value (LTFV). mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2, (1994)), to design of the new Museum/Visitor Background protect a Bureau of Land Management Center complex; the Historic Landscape wildland fire station site: The Commission instituted this Rehabilitation which consists of the tree investigation effective January 10, 2001, Mount Diablo Meridian reduction in the Codori, Codori-Trostle, following receipt of a petition filed with T. 33 N., R. 52 E., Trostle and Herbst woodlots; updating the Commission and Commerce by Berg Sec. 27, lots 8 to17, inclusive in Block 6, on the schedule of repairs for Steel Pipe Corp. (Panama City, FL); Town of Carlin, as shown on the map Pennsylvania Monument; American Steel Pipe Division of filed in the office of the County Recorder Construction—consisting of the Fire American Cast Iron Pipe Co. of Elko County, Nevada, on March 6, Suppression for 50 historic structures; 1919. (Birmingham, AL); and Stupp Corp. the Sewer Project and the Waterline (Baton Rouge, LA). The final phase of The area described contains 0.57 acres in project; Transportation—consisting of Elko County. the investigation was scheduled by the the National Park Service and the Commission following notification of a 2. The withdrawal made by this order Gettysburg Borough working on the preliminary determination by does not alter the applicability of those shuttle system, update of the Commerce that imports of certain public land laws governing the use of Willoughby Run Bridge located on welded large diameter line pipe from the land under lease, license, or permit, Route 30; update on land acquisition or governing the disposal of the mineral within the park boundary or in the 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the or vegetative resources other than under historic district; and the Citizens Open Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 the mining laws. Forum where the public can make CFR 207.2(f)).
VerDate 11
Mexico were being sold at LTFV within The Settling Defendants and Third-party There is a charge for the copy (25 the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act Defendants are CSX Transportation, cents per page reproduction cost). Upon (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the Lucent Technologies, Thompson Tractor requesting a copy, please mail a check scheduling of the Commission’s Company, BellSouth Corporation, payable to the ‘‘U.S. Treasury’’ in the investigation and of a public hearing to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., amount of $7.00, to: Consent Decree be held in connection therewith was and Jefferson County, Alabama. The Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. given by posting copies of the notice in settling federal agencies are the U.S. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, including the The check should refer to U.S. v. CSX International Trade Commission, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Transp., D.J. No. 90–11–3–1758/1. Washington, DC, and by publishing the Service (‘‘DRMS’’). Under the proposed Ellen M. Mahan, notice in the Federal Register of July 9, Consent Decree, the settlors collectively Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 2001 (66 FR 35811). The hearing was agree to pay a total of $978,214.68. The Enforcement Section. held in Washington, DC, on October 9, settling Defendants and Third-party [FR Doc. 02–4433 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] 2001, and all persons who requested the Defendants have agreed to pay a total of opportunity were permitted to appear in $608,666.91. The settling federal BILLING CODE 4410–15–M person or by counsel. agencies have agreed to pay The Commission transmitted its $369,547.75. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE determination in the investigation to the The Department of Justice will receive Secretary of Commerce on February 19, comment relating to the proposed Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 2002. The views of the Commission are Consent Decree for a period of thirty Under the Comprehensive contained in USITC Publication 3487 (30) days from the date of this Environmental Response, (February 2002), entitled Certain publication. As a result of the discovery Compensation and Liability Act Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from of anthrax contamination at the District (CERCLA) Mexico: Investigation No. 731–TA–920 of Columbia mail processing center in (Final). mid-October, 2001, the delivery of Under section 122(d)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Issued: February 19, 2002. regular first-class mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service has been disrupted. Response, Compensation and Liability By order of the Commission. Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), Consequently, public comments which Marilyn R. Abbott, and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given are addressed to the Department of Acting Secretary. that on January 12, 2002, a proposed Justice in Washington, D.C. and sent by Consent Decree in United States v. [FR Doc. 02–4346 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] regular, first-class mail through the U.S. Franc Motors, et al., Civil Action No. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Postal Service are not expected to be 3:02CV71(AWT), was lodged with the received in timely manner. Therefore, United States District Court for the comments should be addressed to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE District of Connecticut. Assistant Attorney General, In this action, the United States Environment and Natural Resources Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree sought recovery of over $1.6 million of Division, Department of Justice, and costs incurred by the United States Under the Comprehensive sent: (1) By regular, first-class mail Environmental Response, Environmental Protection Agency in through the U.S. Postal Service, c/o conducting a removal action at the Compensation and Liability Act Karen Singer, U.S. Environmental (CERCLA) National Oil Service Superfund Site in Protection Agency, Region 4, EAD, 61 West Haven, Connecticut. The United Under section 122(d)(2) of CERCLA, Forsyth Street, S.E., Atlanta, Georgia, States filed its complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), and 28 CFR 50.7, 30303; and/or (2) by facsimile to (202) section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. notice is hereby given that on January 9, 353–0296; and/or (3) by overnight 9607(a), seeking recovery of over $1.6 2002, a proposed Consent Decree in two delivery, other than through the U.S. million. The complaint named 8 consolidated cases, United States v. Postal Service, to Chief, Environmental defendants which arranged for the Allied Battery Co., Civil No. CV–98–N– Enforcement Section, 1425 New York disposal of waste oil at the Site. The 0446–S, and United States v. CSX Avenue, NW, 13th Floor, Washington, proposed Consent Decree resolves the Transportation, Inc., CV–98–N–2561–S, DC 20005. United States’ cost recovery claims was lodged with the United States Each communication should refer on against all of those defendants. Under District Court for the Northern District its face the U.S. v. CSX Transp., CV98– the proposed Consent Decree, settling of Alabama. N–2561–S, and D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–1758/ defendants collectively agree to pay The United States’ Complaints in 1. over $300,000 in partial reimbursement these actions seek recovery of over $2.1 The proposed Consent Decree may be of the United States’ response costs. million in costs incurred by the United examined at the office of the United The Department of Justice will receive States Environmental Protection Agency States Attorney for the Northern District comments relating to the proposed in conducting a soil cleanup removal of Alabama, 200 Fed. Bldg., 1800 Fifth Consent Decree for a period of thirty action at the Carlie Lee Superfund Site Avenue North, Room 200, Birmingham, (30) days from the date of this near Birmingham, Alabama. The United Alabama, and also at the Region 4 Office publication. As a result of the discovery States filed its Complaints pursuant to of the Environmental Protection of anthrax contamination at the District section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, of Columbia mail processing center in Environmental Response, Compensation SE., Atlanta, Georgia. mid-October, 2001, the delivery of and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. A copy of the proposed Consent regular mail sent through the U.S. Postal 9607(a). Decree may also be obtained by faxing Service has been disrupted. The proposed Consent Decree a request to Tonia Fleetwood, Consequently, public comments which contains a settlement with the Department of Justice Consent Decree are addressed to the Department of remaining Defendants, two Third-party Library, fax no. (202) 616–6584; phone Justice in Washington, DC and sent by Defendants, and two federal agencies. confirmation no. (202) 514–1547. regular, first-class mail through the U.S.
VerDate 11
Postal Service are not expected to be 301 and 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 delivery, other than through the U.S. received in a timely manner. Therefore, U.S.C. 1251, et seq., against the Board of Postal Service, to Chief, Environmental comments should be addressed to the Water and Sewer Commissioners of the Enforcement Section, 1425 New York Assistant Attorney General, City of Mobile, Alabama (‘‘Board’’), Avenue, NW, 13th Floor, Washington, Environment and Natural Resources through the performance of injunctive DC 20005. Each communication should Division, Department of Justice, and measures, the payment of a civil refer on its face to United States v. The sent (1) C/O Eve Vaudo, U.S. E.P.A. penalty, and the performance of Board of Water and Sewer Region 1, One Congress Street, Boston, Supplemental Environmental Projects Commissioners of the City of Mobile, MA 02114–2023; (2) by facsimile to (‘‘SEPs’’). The United States, the State of Alabama, DJ No. 90–5–1–1–06985. (202) 353–0296; and/or (3) by overnight Alabama and Mobile Bay Watch, Inc., The proposed Consent Decree may be delivery, other than through the U.S. allege that the Board is liable as a examined at the office of the United Postal Service, to Chief, Environmental person who has discharged a pollutant States Attorney for the Southern District Enforcement Section, 1425 New York from a point source to navigable waters of Alabama, 63 South Royal Street, Avenue, NW, 13th Floor, Washington, of the United States without a permit Mobile, AL 36602, and at the Region 4 DC 20005. Each communication should and, in some cases, in excess of permit Office of the Environmental Protection refer on its face to United States v. limitations. Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Franc Motors, et al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–3– The proposed Consent Decree would Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta GA 30303. 07333/3. resolve the liability of the Board for the A copy of the proposed Consent Decree The proposed Consent Decree may be violations alleged in the complaints may also be obtained by faxing a request examined at the Office of the United filed in these matters. The proposed to Tonia Fleetwood, Department of States Attorney, Connecticut Financial Consent Decree would release claims Justice Consent Decree Library, fax no. Center, New Haven, CT, and at the against the Board for performance of (202) 616–6584; phone confirmation no. Region 1 office of the Environmental injunctive measures to remedy the (202) 514–1547. There is a charge for the Protection Agency, One Congress Stree, alleged violations, and for penalties for copy (25 cents per page reproduction Boston, MA. A copy of the proposed the violations alleged in the complaints. cost). Upon requesting a copy, please Consent Decree may also be obtained by To resolve these claims, the Board mail a check payable to the ‘‘U.S. faxing a request to Tonia Fleetwood, would perform the injunctive measures Treasury’’, in the amount of $25.75, to: Department of Justice Consent Decree described in the proposed Consent Consent Decree Library, U.S. Library, fax no. (202) 616–6584; phone Decree, including the implementation of Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, confirmation no. (202) 514–1547. There a capacity assurance program, a grease Washington, DC 20044–7611. The check is a charge for the copy (25 cents per control program, and a water quality should refer to United States v. The page reproduction cost). Upon monitoring program; would pay a civil Board of Water and Sewer requesting a copy, please mail a check penalty of $114,000 ($99,000 to the Commissioners of the City of Mobile, payable to the ‘‘U.S. Treasury,’’ in the United States Treasury and $15,000 to Alabama, DJ No. 90–5–1–1–06985. amount of amount of five dollars ($5.00) the State of Alabama); and would Walker Smith, to the Consent Decree Library, U.S. perform four SEPs valued at $2.5 Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, million collectively, including the Principal Deputy Chief, Environmental installation of new private sewer laterals Enforcement Section, Environment and Washington, DC 20044–7611. The check Natural Resources Division. should refer to United States v. Franc in low-income households within the [FR Doc. 02–4431 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Motors, et al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–07333/ Board’s service area, the acquisition of 3. environmentally beneficial parcels of BILLING CODE 4410–15–M land, and the creation of a water quality Ronald G. Gluck, monitoring database. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement The Department of Justice will receive Section, Environment and Natural Resources comments relating to the proposed Notice of Lodging of Amendment To Division. Consent Decree for a period of thirty [FR Doc. 02–4432 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Consent Decree in Accordance With (30) days from the date of this the Comprehensive Environmental BILLING CODE 4410–15–M application. As a result of the discovery Response, Compensation, and Liability of anthrax contamination at the District Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) of Columbia mail processing center in DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE mid-October, 2001, the delivery of In accordance with Department of Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree regular first-class mail sent through the Justice Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR Pursuant to the Clean Water Act U.S. Postal Service has been disrupted. 19029, and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is Consequently, public comments which hereby given that on January 17, 2002, Notice is hereby given that a proposed are addressed to the Department of a proposed Order to Amend Consent Consent Decree in United States of Justice in Washington, DC and sent by Decree was lodged with the United America and the State of Alabama v. regular, first-class mail through the U.S. States District Court for the Eastern The Board of Water and Sewer Postal Service are not expected to be District of Pennsylvania in United states Commissioners of the City of Mobile, received in timely manner. Therefore, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Alabama, Civ. No. 02–0058–CB–S, and comments should be addressed to the v. Settling Defendants, Civil Action No. Mobile Bay Watch, Inc. v. The Board of Assistant Attorney General, 99–4402. Water and Sewer Commissioners of the Environment and Natural Resources In 1999, the United States and City of Mobile, Alabama, Civ. No. CV– Division, Department of Justice, and Settling Defendants entered into a 99–0595–CB–S, was lodged on January sent: (1) c/o Melissa Heath, Assistant Consent Decree in this case concerning 24, 2002, with the United States District Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental the Malvern TCE Superfund Site Court for the Southern District of Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal (‘‘Site’’) in Chester County, Alabama. Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Pennsylvania, for conduct of certain The proposed Consent Decree would Georgia 30303; and/or (2) by facsimile to response actions at the Site and the resolve certain claims under sections (202) 353–0296; and/or (3) by overnight payment of certain response costs
VerDate 11
therefore. This Consent Decree was Natural Resources Division, continued to be bound by the Final entered by the Court on December 13, Environmental Defense Section, and Judgment as the successor to the joint 1999. should refer to the proposed Order to venture. In July 2001 Global One was The Consent Decree contains a Amend Consent Decree in United States acquired by Equant N.V., and FT reservation of rights by the Settling and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acquired majority ownership and Defendants as to, among other things, v. Settling Defendants, DOJ. Ref. No. 90– control of Equant. Therefore, Equant, as claims against the United States ‘‘based 11–6–80. the successor to Global One, is now on the discovery of information or identified as the defendant that was Letitia J. Grishaw, documentation that * * * the volume of referred to as Joint Venture Co. in the hazardous substances attributable to the Chief, Environment & Natural Resources Final Judgment, and is substituted for Division, Environmental Defense Section. United states exceeds the amount agreed Joint Venture Co. in the proposed to by the Settling Parties * * *.’’ Decree [FR Doc. 02–4434 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Modified Final Judgment. paragraph 109(c). Appendix F to the BILLING CODE 4410–15–M The Final Judgment, which was Decree provides a procedure and entered by consent of the parties on payment schedule that specifies the February 16, 1996, includes various response costs on a per-drum basis for DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE restrictions affecting Sprint and such additional waste attributable to the Antitrust Division Equant’s relationship to FT and DT. United States. These restrictions operated in two Additional drums of waste United States v. Sprint Corp. and Joint distinct phases, lessening over time as attributable to the United States Venture Co., Civil No. 95–1304 (D.D.C.); competition developed in France and in Department of the Army (‘‘Army’’) and United States’ Notice of Proposed Germany. The Phase I restrictions, to the National Institutes of Health Medication of the Final Judgment contained in Section III of the Final (‘‘NIH’’) have been identified. Judgment, were terminated by the Court Accordingly, the United States and Notice is hereby given that the United on November 2, 1998, pursuant to a Settling Defendants have agreed to States and both Sprint Corporation stipulation between the United States amendments to the Consent Decree to: (‘‘Sprint’’) and Equant N.V. (‘‘Equant’’), and the defendants, in recognition of (1) Add the Army and NIH as parties to defendants in the above-captioned competitive developments in France the Consent Decree, thereby resolving matter, have entered into a Stipulation and Germany. Defendants continue to potential claims against these Agencies to modify the Final Judgment entered by be subject to the substantive obligations for cleanup costs relating to drums of the United States District Court for the of Section II of the Final Judgment until hazardous waste discovered at the Site; District of Columbia on February 16, January 1, 2003. The Section II and to (2) reflect that 203 drums have 1996. In this Stipulation filed with the obligations, which are intended to been attributed to the Army, and that Court, the United States has prevent Equant and Sprint from 165.60 drums have been attributed to provisionally consented to modification receiving competitive advantages from NIH, with a total proposed payment by of the Final Judgment, but has reserved their association with FT and DT: (1) the United States to the Settling the right to withdraw its consent Require Equant and Sprint to disclose Performing Defendants of $464,506.90, pending receipt of public comments. certain information related to prices, on behalf of these Agencies as their On July 13, 1995, the United States terms and conditions of certain FT and respective shares of the performance filed the complaint in this case. The DT telecommunications products and and payment obligations to be incurred complaint alleged that the sale of 20% services that are provided in France or by Settling Defendants in carrying out of the voting shares of Sprint to France in Germany or between France and response actions required by the Telecom (‘‘FT’’) and Deutsche Telekom Germany and the United States and are Consent Decree. Consistent with the A.G. (‘‘DT’’) and the formation of a joint used by Equant or Sprint; (2) preclude applicable requirement of the Consent venture among Sprint, FT and DT to Equant and Sprint from receiving Decree, the Commonwealth of provide certain international competitively sensitive information Pennsylvania has been consulted and telecommunications services, would from FT and DT that FT and DT obtain has concurred in the amendments. violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, as from the competitors of Equant and The Department of Justice will receive amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, in the markets Sprint; and (3) prohibit Equant and written comments by facsimile for international telecommunications Sprint from offering certain services transmission (‘‘FAX’’) relating to the services between the United States and between the United States and France proposed Order to Amend Consent France and the United States and and Germany unless other United States Decree for thirty (30) days from the date Germany, and in the markets for providers also have or can readily of publication of this Notice. Comments seamless international obtain licenses from the French and should be sent by FAX to (202) 514– telecommunications services. At the German governments to offer the same 8865, and should be addressed to D. same time as it filed the Complaint, the service. Judith Keith, Environment and Natural United States filed a proposed Final The United States and defendants Resources Division, Environmental Judgment to resolve the competitive Sprint and Equant have provisionally Defense Section, U.S. Department of concerns alleged in the Complaint, and agreed to modify the Final Judgment Justice, Washington, DC, and should a stipulation by defendants and the because of changed circumstances in the refer to United States and the United States consenting thereto. relationship between Equant and Sprint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. At the time of the entry of the Final and FT and DT. In June 2001, FT and Settling Defendants, DOJ. Ref. No. 90– Judgment, Joint Venture Co. was the DT sold their ownership interests in 11–6–80. proposed joint venture of Sprint, FT and Sprint’s FON stock, which formed the A copy of the proposed Order to DT. Subsequently, the joint venture was basis of the United States’ concern about Amend Consent Decree may be obtained formed and given the name Global One. FT’s and DT’s acquisition of 10% by request. Requests should be sent by In January 2000, Sprint, FT and DT interests in Sprint, and Sprint sold its FAX to (202) 514–8865, and should be agreed to terminate their joint venture, Global One ownership interest to FT on addressed to Allison Booker, U.S. with FT acquiring sole ownership of the February 22, 2000. These events form Department of Justice, Environment and former joint venture, but Global One the basis for the proposed termination of
VerDate 11
the Final Judgment with respect to Department of Justice, 1401 H. St., NW., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Sprint. Furthermore, DT ceased to be an Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530. owner of Global One even before Global Antitrust Division Constance K. Robinson, One was acquired by Equant, having Notice Pursuant to the National sold its interest to FT pursuant to an Director of Operations & Merger Enforcement. [FR Doc. 02–4435 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Cooperative Research and Production agreement reached on January 26, 2000. Act of 1993; National Center for BILLING CODE 4410–11–M Therefore, the Final Judgment is also Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS): proposed to be modified to eliminate Advanced Embedded Passives any obligations related to DT’s Technology relationship with Equant. Certain DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice is hereby given that, on provisions of the Final Judgment Antitrust Division applicable to Equant’s relationship with January 7, 2002, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research FT will remain in force, in order to Notice Pursuant to the National safeguard against anticompetitive and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. Cooperative Research and Production 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), National Center conduct by FT favoring Equant. Other Act of 1993; Financial Services for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS): provisions of the Final Judgment Technology Consortium, Inc. Advanced Embedded Passives relating to FT’s relationship to Equant Technology has filed written will be terminated because they are Notice is hereby given that, on notifications simultaneously with the redundant of other regulatory December 31, 2001, pursuant to section Attorney General and the Federal Trade requirements or superfluous in light of 6(a) of the National Cooperative Commission disclosing changes in its market developments. The provisions Research and Production Act of 1993, membership status. The notifications that will remain are the reporting 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), were filed for the purpose of extending requirements of certain information Financial Services Technology the Act’s provisions limiting the related to the prices, terms and Consortium, Inc. has filed written recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual conditions of FT products and services notifications simultaneously with the damages under specified circumstances. sold by FT to Equant. Attorney General and the Federal Trade Specifically, E.I. DuPont de Nemours The United States has filed a Commission disclosing changes in its Company, Circleville, OH and memorandum with the Court setting membership status. The notifications Interconnect Technology Research Institute, Austin, TX have been dropped forth the reasons it believes were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the as parties to this venture. modification of the Final Judgment No other changes have been made in recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual would serve the public interest. Copies either the membership or planned damages under specified circumstances. of the joint Judgment, the stipulation activity of the group research project. containing the United States’ Specifically, DirectAdvice, Inc., Membership in this group research provisional consent to modification of Hartford, CT has been dropped as a project remains open, and National the Final Judgment, the supporting party to this venture. Center for Manufacturing Sciences memorandum, and all additional papers No other changes have been made in (NCMS): Advanced Embedded Passives filed with the Court in connection with either the membership or planned disclosing all changes in membership. this motion are available for inspection activity of the group research project. On October 7, 1998, National Center as the Antitrust Documents Group of the Membership in this group research for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS): Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of project remains open, and Financial Advanced embedded Passives Justice, 325 7th Street, NW., Room 215 Services Technology Consortium, Inc. Technology filed its original notification North, Liberty Place Building, intends to file additional written pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Washington, DC 20530, and at the Office notification disclosing all changes in Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to of the Clerk of the United States District membership. Section 6(b) of the Act on January 22, Court for the District of Columbia, 333 On October 21, 1993, Financial Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 1999 (64 FR 3571). Services Technology Consortium, Inc. The last notification was filed with DC 2001. Copies of these materials may filed its original notification pursuant to the Department on May 23, 2001. A be obtained from the Antitrust Division section 6(a) of the Act. The Department notice was published in the Federal upon request and payment of the of Justice published a notice in the Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the duplicating fee set out in Department of Federal Register pursuant to section Act on June 22, 2001 (66 FR 33563). Justice regulations. 6(b) of the Act on December 14, 1993 Constance K. Robinson, Interested persons may submit (58 FR 65399). Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. comments regarding the proposed The last notification was filed with termination to the Department of [FR Doc. 02–4436 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] the Department on September 28, 2001. BILLING CODE 4410–11–M Justice. Such comments must be A notice was published in the Federal received by the Antitrust Division Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the within sixty (60) days of the last Act on November 2, 2001 (66 FR 65882). DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE publication of notices appearing in the Wall Street Journal and Constance K. Robinson, Antitrust Division Communications Week International, Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. and will be filed with the Court by the [FR Doc. 02–4438 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Department. Comments should be BILLING CODE 4410–11–M addressed to Lawrence M. Frankel, Act of 1993; PKI Forum, Inc Acting Chief, Telecommunications Task Notice is hereby given that, no Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. January 2, 2002, pursuant to section 6(a)
VerDate 11
of the National Cooperative Research ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent archival holdings choose a subject and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. to: Office of Information and Regulatory heading to help describe their request. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), PKI Forum, Inc. Affairs, Office of Management and The form entails no burden other than has filed written notifications Budget, Attn: Ms. Brooke Dickson, Desk that necessary to identify the customer, simultaneously with the Attorney Officer for NARA, Washington, DC the date, the customer’s address, and the General and the Federal Trade 20503. nature of the request. This information Commission disclosing changes in its FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: is used only to facilitate answering the membership status. The notifications Requests for additional information or request and is not retained after the were filed for the purpose of extending copies of the proposed information request is completed, in accordance the Act’s provisions limiting the collection and supporting statement with approved record schedules. The recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm information is not used for any damages under specified circumstances. at telephone number 301–713–6730 or subsequent purpose. Specifically, DOD/Federal PKI PMO, Ft. fax number 301–713–6913. Dated: February 14, 2002. Meade, MD; and e-Scotia, Toronto, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant L. Reynolds Cahoon, Ontario, Canada have been added as to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Assistant Archivist for Human Resources and parties to this venture. Also, Odyssey (Public Law 104–13), NARA invites the Information Services. Technologies, Ltd., Chennai, India; general public and other Federal [FR Doc. 02–4394 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Protegrity, Inc., Stamford, CT; Securify, agencies to comment on proposed BILLING CODE 7515–01–P Inc., Waltham, MA; and Thinkpulse, information collections. NARA Inc., San Jose, CA have been dropped as published a notice of proposed parties to this venture. No other changes have been made in collection for this information collection NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS either the membership or planned on December 3, 2001 (66 FR 60225). No SYSTEM activity of the group research project. comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information Membership in this group research National Security Telecommunications project remains open, and PKI Forum, collection to OMB for approval. In response to this notice, comments Advisory Committee Inc. intends to file additional written and suggestions should address one or notification disclosing all changes in AGENCY: National Communications more of the following points: (a) membership. System (NCS). Whether the proposed information On April 2, 2001, PKI Forum, Inc. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. filed its original notification pursuant to collection is necessary for the proper section 6(a) of the Act. The Department performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA’s estimate of SUMMARY: A meeting of the President’s of Justice published a notice in the National Security Telecommunications Federal Register pursuant to section the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the Advisory Committee will be held on 6(b) of the Act on May 3, 2001 (66 FR Wednesday, March 13, 2002, from 9:00 22260). quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The Business Session The last notification was filed with will be held at the Department of State, the Department on September 27, 2001. ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on Washington, DC. A notice has not yet been published in The agenda is as follows: the Federal Register. respondents, including the use of information technology. In this notice, —Call to Order/Welcoming Remarks Constance K. Robinson, NARA is soliciting comments —Briefings on Lessons Learned from Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. concerning the following information September 11, 2001, Evolving Threat [FR Doc. 02–4437 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] collection: to National Infrastructures, and BILLING CODE 4410–11–M Title: Customer Request for Wireless Priority Access Service Information and Order Forms. —National Communications System OMB number: 3095–NEW. Manager’s Report NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS Agency form number: NA Form —NSTAC XXV Cycle in Review ADMINISTRATION 14116. —Adjournment Type of review: Regular. Agency Information Collection Affected public: Individuals and Due to the potential requirement to Activities: Submission for OMB households. discuss classified information in Review; Comment Request Estimated number of respondents: conjunction with the issues listed 130,000. above, the meeting will be closed to the AGENCY: National Archives and Records Estimated time per response: 5 public in the interest of National Administration (NARA). minutes. Defense. ACTION: Notice. Frequency of response: On occasion. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Estimated total annual burden hours: Telephone Ms. Marilyn Witcher, (703) SUMMARY: NARA is giving public notice 10,833 hours. that the agency has submitted to OMB 607–6214, or write the Manager, Abstract: The form is a web-based National Communications System, 701 for approval the information collection form to be completed by members of the described in this notice. The public is South Court House Road, Arlington, public who wish to either request Virginia 22204–2198. invited to comment on the proposed printed order forms for copies of information collection pursuant to the genealogical records or to obtain Peter Fonash, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. information about NARA’s archival Federal Register Liaison Officer, Technology DATES: Written comments must be holdings or services. Customers who and Programs Division, National submitted to OMB at the address below request printed forms indicate the type Communications System. on or before March 27, 2002 to be and quantity of form wanted. Those [FR Doc. 02–4353 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] assured of consideration. who need information about NARA’s BILLING CODE 5001–08–M
VerDate 11
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION in science and engineering research and Comments are invited on: (a) Whether education) about the quality and kind of the proposed collection of information Notice of Intent to Seek Approval to services it provides and use that is necessary for the proper performance Renew an Information Collection information to help improve agency of the functions of the Agency, operations and services. including whether the information shall AGENCY: National Science Foundation. have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of ACTION: Use of the Information Notice and Request for the Agency’s estimate of the burden of Comments. Estimate of Burden: The burden on the proposed collection of information; SUMMARY: The National Science the public will change according to the (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans needs of each individual customer and clarity of the information on to request clearance of this collection. In satisfaction survey; however, each respondents, including through the use accordance with the requirement of survey is estimated to take of automated collection techniques or Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork approximately 30 minutes per response. other forms of information technology; Respondents: Will vary among Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), and (d) ways to minimize the burden of individuals or households; business or we are providing opportunity for public the collection of information on other for-profit; not-for-profit comment on this action. After obtaining respondents, including through the use institutions; farms; Federal government; and considering public comment, NSF of automated collections techniques or State, local or tribal governments. will prepare the submission requesting other forms of information technology. Estimated Number of Responses per that OMB approve clearance of this DATES: Written comments should be Survey: This will vary by survey. received by April 26, 2002, to be collection for no longer than three years. Comments:Comments are invited on assured of consideration. Comments DATES: Written comments on this notice (a) whether the proposed collection of received after that date will be must be received by April 26, 2002 to information is necessary for the proper considered to the extent practicable. be assured of consideration. Comments performance of the functions of the received after that date will be Agency, including whether the ADDRESSES: Written comments considered to the extent practicable. information shall have practical utility; regarding the information collection and FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR (b) the accuracy of the Agency’s requests for copies of the proposed COMMENTS: Contact Suzanne H. estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection request should be Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, collection of information; (c) ways to addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports National Science Foundation, 4201 enhance the quality, utility, and clarity Clearance Officer, National Science Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, of the information on respondents, Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292– including through the use of automated 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail 7556; or send email to collection techniques or other forms of to splimpto@msf/gpv/ [email protected]. Individuals who use information technology; and (d) ways to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a telecommunications device for the minimize the burden of the collection of Suzanne Plimpton at (703) 292–7556 or deaf (TDD) may call the Federal information on those who are to send e-mail to [email protected]. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– respond, including through the use of Individuals who use a 800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 appropriate automated, electronic, telecommunications device for the deaf p.m., Eastern time, Monday through mechanical, or other technological (TDD) may call the Federal Information Friday. You also may obtain a copy of collection techniques or other forms of Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 the data collection instrument and information technology. between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern time, instructions from Ms. Plimpton. Monday through Friday. Dated: February 19, 2002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Suzanne H. Plimpton, Title of Collection: NSF Surveys to Title of Collection: ‘‘National Science Measure Customer Service Satisfaction. Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation Applicant Survey.’’ OMB Number: 3145–0157. Foundation. OMB Approval Number: 3145–0096. Expiration Date of Approval: [FR Doc. 02–4349 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Expiration Date of Approval: August September 30, 2002. BILLING CODE 7555–01–M 31, 2002. Type of Request: Intent to seek Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to renew an information approval to extend with revision an collection. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION information collection for three years. Proposed Project: The current Comment Request: National Science Abstract National Science Foundation Applicant Foundation—Applicant Survey Proposed Project: On September 11, survey has been in use for several years. 1993, President Clinton issued AGENCY: National Science Foundation. Data are collected from applicant pools Executive Order 12862, ‘‘Setting ACTION: Notice. to examine the racial/sexual/disability Customer Service Standards,’’ which composition and to determine the calls for Federal agencies to provide SUMMARY: The National Science source of information about NSF service that matches or exceeds the best Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans vacancies. service available in the private sector. to request renewed clearance of this Use of the Information: Analysis of Section 1(b) of that order requires collection. In accordance with the the applicant pools is necessary to agencies to ‘‘survey customers to requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of determine if NSF’s targeted recruitment determine the kind and quality of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, efforts are reaching groups that are services they want and their level of we are providing opportunity for public underrepresented in the Agency’s satisfaction with existing services.’’ The comment on this action. After obtaining workforce and/or to defend the National Science Foundation (NSF) has and considering public comment, NSF Foundation’s practices in an ongoing need to collect information will prepare the submission requesting discrimination cases. from its customer community (primarily OMB clearance of this collection for no Burden on the Public: The Foundation individuals and organizations engaged longer than 3 years. estimates about 5,000 responses
VerDate 11
annually at 3 minutes per response; this engineering, social, and other sciences Estimated Number of Responses: computes to approximately 250 hours at appropriate nonprofit American or 13,000. annually. nonprofit foreign institutions selected Estimated Total Annual Burden on Dated: February 20, 2002. by the recipient of such aid, for stated Respondents: 156,000 hours. Frequency of Responses: Annually. Suzanne H. Plimpton, periods of time.’’ The Foundation Fellowship Programs Comments: Comments are invited on Reports Clearance Officer, National Science are designed to meet the following (a) whether the proposed collection of Foundation. objectives: information is necessary for the proper [FR Doc. 02–4390 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] • To assure that some of the Nation’s performance of the functions of the BILLING CODE 7555–01–M most talented students in the sciences Agency, including whether the obtain the education necessary to information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency’s NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION become creative and productive scientific researchers. estimate of the burden of the proposed • collection of information; (c) ways to Notice of Intent of Seek Approval to To train or upgrade advanced enhance the quality, utility, and clarity Extend without Revision a Current scientific personnel to enhance their of the information on respondents, Information Collection abilities as teachers and researchers. • To promote graduate education in including through the use of automated AGENCY: National Science Foundation. the sciences, mathematics, and collection techniques or other forms of ACTION: Notice and request for engineering at institutions that have information technology; (d) ways to comments. traditionally served ethnic minorities. minimize the burden of the collection of • To encourage pursuit of advanced information on those who are to SUMMARY: The National Science science degrees by students who are respond, including through the use of Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans members of ethnic groups traditionally appropriate automated, electronic, to request renewal of this collection. In under-represented in the Nation’s mechanical, or other technological accordance with the requirement of advanced science personnel pool. collection techniques or other forms of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork The list of fellowship award programs information technology. Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), sponsored by the Foundation includes, Dated: February 20, 2002. we are providing opportunity for public but may not be limited to, the following: Suzanne H. Plimpton, comment on this action. After obtaining NSF Graduate Research Fellowships Reports Clearance Officer, National Science and considering public comment, NSF Foundation. will prepare the submission requesting Graduate Fellowships [FR Doc. 02–4391 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] that OMB approve clearance of this Minority Graduate Fellowships BILLING CODE 7555–01–M collection for no longer than 3 years. Women in Engineering and Computer & DATES: Written comments on this notice Information Science Earth Sciences Postdoctoral Research must be received by April 26, 2002, to NUCLEAR REGULATORY Fellowships be assured of consideration. Comments COMMISSION received after that date witll be Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in considered to the extent practicable. Chemistry Enforcement Program and Alternative Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dispute Resolution; Workshop and Research Fellowships Contact Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Extension of Comment Period NSF–NATO Postdoctoral Fellowships Clearance Officer, National Science and Supporting Engineering AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Foundation, 4201 Wison Boulevard, Minority Postdoctoral Research Commission. Suite 295, Arlingon, Virginia 22230; Fellowships and Supporting ACTION: telephone 703–292–7556; or send email Notice of workshop and Activities extension of comment period. ot [email protected]. You also may Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in obtain a copy of the data collection Microbial Biology SUMMARY: The NRC is convening a instrument and instructions from Ms. Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in workshop to more fully explore the Plimpton. Biological Informatics potential use of Alternative Dispute SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ridge Inter-Disciplinary Global Resolution (ADR) in its enforcement Title of Collection: Fellowship Experiments program. This workshop is in response Applications and Award Forms. Advanced Study Institute Travel to the notice published in the Federal OMB Approval Number: 3145–0023. Awards Register on December 14, 2001; 66 FR Expiration Date of Approval: 64890, that announced NRC’s intent to September 30, 2002. International Opportunities for evaluate the use of ADR in its Type of Request: Intent to seek Scientists and Engineers enforcement program. This notice also approval to extend without revision an Japan Research Fellows announces that NRC is extending the information collection for three years. North American Research fellows comment period for the December 14, International Research fellows Ethics 2001, notice to March 29, 2002. The Abstract and Values Fellowship Awards. objectives of the workshop will be to Section 10 of the National Science Estimate of Burden: These are annual develop a better understanding of the Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 award programs with application range of ADR techniques, how they et seq.), as amended, states that ‘‘The deadlines varying according to the might apply to specific NRC Foundation is authorized to award, fellowship program. Public burden may enforcement scenarios, and the potential within the limits of funds made also vary according to program, advantages and disadvantages of the use available * * * scholarships and however, it is estimated that each of ADR in various parts of the NRC graduate fellowships for scientific study submission is averaged to be 12 hours enforcement process. The format of the or scientific work in the mathematical per respondent. workshop will be a facilitated physical, medical, biological, Respondents: Individuals. discussion among the invited
VerDate 11
participants of interests that may be Specialist, Office of Enforcement, U.S. use of ADR in NRC enforcement affected by the use of ADR in the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission, activities? enforcement process, as well as expert Washington, DC 20555–0001 (301) 415– 2. What are the potential benefits of ADR practitioners from other agencies 3281, e-mail [email protected] or Francis X. using ADR in the NRC enforcement and private practice. The list of invited Cameron, NRC ADR Specialist, Office of process? participants, as well as the agenda for the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 3. What are the potential detriments the workshop, will be posted at the NRC Regulatory Commission, Washington, of using ADR in the NRC enforcement Web site (www.nrc.gov) at url http:// DC 20555–0001, (301) 415–1642, e-mail process? www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/ [email protected]. 4. What would be the scope of enforcement/public-involvement.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘ADR’’ is disputes for which ADR techniques Invited participants currently include a term that refers to a number of could be utilized? representatives from the Union of voluntary processes, such as mediation 5. At what points in the existing Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear and facilitated dialogues, that can be enforcement process might ADR be Energy Institute, the Environmental used to assist parties in resolving used? 6. What types of ADR techniques Protection Agency’s Conflict Prevention disputes and potential conflicts. The might most effectively be used in the and Resolution Center, ADR experts Administrative Dispute Resolution Act NRC enforcement process? from other federal agencies and private of 1996 (ADRA) encourages the use of practice, and participants from the 7. Does the nature of the existing ADR by Federal agencies, and defines enforcement process for either reactor or nuclear energy bar and the ADR as ‘‘any procedure that is used to whistleblower protection bar. materials licensees limit the resolve issues in controversy, including Representatives from the NRC Office of effectiveness of ADR? but not limited to, conciliation, Enforcement will also participate in the 8. Would any need for confidentiality facilitation, mediation, fact finding, discussion. The workshop will be open in the ADR process be perceived mini trials, arbitration, and use of an to the public. Although the focus of the negatively by the public? ombudsman, or any combination discussion will be among the invited 9. For policy reasons, are there any thereof.’’ 5 U.S.C. 571(3). These participants, the audience will be able enforcement areas where it shouldn’t be techniques involve the use of a neutral to engage in the discussion at selected used, e.g., wrongdoing, precedent- third party, either from within the points during the workshop. setting areas? agency or from outside the agency, and 10. What factors should be considered DATES: The workshop will be held on are typically voluntary processes in March 12, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in instituting an ADR process for the terms of the decision to participate, the enforcement area? The comment period is extended to type of process used, and the content of March 29, 2002. 11. What should serve as the source the final agreement. Federal agency of neutrals for use in the ADR process ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held experience with ADR has demonstrated for enforcement? at the Kentlands Mansion, 320 Kent that the use of these techniques can Several responses have been received Square Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. result in the more efficient resolution of on these and other issues in response to Directions to Kentlands Mansion will be issues, more effective outcomes, and the request for public comment. The available at the NRC Web site address improved relationships between the NRC is now taking two actions: cited above. In order to optimize the agency and the other party. 1. The NRC is extending the public limited space at the facility, it would be The NRC has a general ADR Policy, 57 comment period on the original helpful if those planning to attend the FR 36678, August 14, 1992 that supports (December 14, 2001) Federal Register workshop would notify Mr. Terrence and encourages the use of ADR in NRC Notice to March 29, 2002; and Reis, Senior Enforcement Specialist, activities. In addition, the NRC has used 2. The NRC is convening a workshop Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear ADR effectively in a variety of to more fully explore the potential use Regulatory Commission, by March 4, circumstances, including rulemaking of ADR in its enforcement program. The 2002. Mr. Reis’s contact information is and policy development, and EEO objectives and format for the workshop contained below in the FOR FURTHER disputes. There has been no systematic are stated in the SUMMARY section of this INFORMATION CONTACT section. evaluation of the need for ADR in the notice. In terms of the extended public enforcement process. As part of the Francis X. Cameron, the comment period, submit written NRC’s participation in an interagency Commission’s Alternative Dispute responses to the notice published on process in 1998 by the Clinton Resolution Specialist, will be the December 14, 2001, to Mr. Michael Administration to encourage a broader convener and facilitator for the Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives use of ADR by Federal agencies, and an workshops. Questions about Branch, Division of Administrative inquiry in regard to the use of ADR in participation may be directed to the Services, Office of Administration, Mail a specific enforcement case, have facilitator, Francis X. Cameron. Copies Stop T–6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory caused the NRC to consider whether a of the original Federal Register Notice Commission, Washington, DC 20555– new, specific ADR policy would be requesting comment on the potential 0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 beneficial in the enforcement area. use of ADR in the NRC enforcement Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, The Commission previously requested process, the NRC’s existing ADR policy between 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on public comment on the potential use of statement, the public comments Federal workdays. Copies of comments ADR in the Commission’s enforcement received, the agenda for the workshop, received may be examined at the NRC process at 66 FR 64890, on December and the roundtable participants, can be Public Document Room, 11555 14, 2001. In that Notice, the obtained at the NRC Web site Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Commission identified a number of (www.nrc.gov) at url http:// Comments also may be sent issues on which it specifically requested www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/ electronically to Mr. Lesar, e-mail comment: enforcement/public-involvement.html [email protected]. 1. Is there a need to provide for Copies also can be obtained from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: additional avenues, other than that either of the NRC contacts identified at Terrence Reis, Senior Enforcement provided for in 10 CFR 2.203, for the the beginning of this notice. The
VerDate 11
workshop commentary will be SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Commission, and recording secretaries transcribed and made available to the COMMISSION will attend the closed meetings. Certain participants and the public. staff members who have an interest in Sunshine Act Meeting the matters may also be present. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day The General Counsel of the of February, 2002. FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS Commission, or his designee, has For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ANNOUNCEMENT. [67 FR 7208, February certified that, in his opinion, one or Frank J. Congel, 15, 2002] more of the exemptions set forth in 5 Director, Office of Enforcement. STATUS: Closed Meeting. U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and [FR Doc. 02–4380 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, NW., (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), BILLING CODE 7590–01–M Washington, DC. (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED of the scheduled matters at the closed MEETING: Thursday, February 21, 2002, meetings. at 10 a.m. The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Additional Item. GOVERNORS The following item has been added to February 27, 2002, will be: Post- the closed meeting scheduled for argument discussion. Sunshine Act Meeting Thursday, February 21, 2002: The subject matter of the closed Consideration of amicus participation. meeting scheduled for Thursday, TIMES AND DATES: 8 a.m., Monday, March Commissioner Glassman, as duty February 28, 2002, will be: Inspection 4, 2002; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 5, officer, determined that Commission report; institution and settlement of 2002. business required the above change and injunctive actions; institution and that no earlier notice thereof was settlement of administrative PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal possible. proceedings of an enforcement nature; Service Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant At times, changes in Commission and formal orders of investigation. Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin priorities require alterations in the At times, changes in Commission Room. scheduling of meeting items. For further priorities require alterations in the STATUS: March 4–8 a.m. (Closed); March information and to ascertain what, if scheduling of meeting items. For further 5–8:30 a.m. (Open). any, matters have been added, deleted information and to ascertain what, if or postponed, please contact: The Office any, matters have been added, deleted MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED of the Secretary at (202) 942–7070. or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942–7070. Monday, March 4–8 a.m. (Closed) Dated: February 20, 2002. Dated: February 20, 2002. Jonathan G. Katz, 1. Financial Performance. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. Secretary. 2. Strategic Planning. [FR Doc. 02–4509 Filed 2–21–02; 8:47 am] [FR Doc. 02–4510 Filed 2–21–02; 11:47 am] 3. Preliminary Annual Performance BILLING CODE 8010–01–M Plan Targets FY 2003. BILLING CODE 8010–01–M 4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Tuesday, March 5–8:30 a.m. (Open) COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings [Release No. 34–45457; File No. SR–NASD– 1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, 2002–24] February 4–5, 2002. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 2. Remarks of the Postmaster General Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the and CEO. of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by Securities and Exchange Commission the National Association of Securities Fiscal Year 2001 Comprehensive will hold the following meetings during Dealers, Inc. Relating to Anti-Money Statement on Postal Operations. the week of February 25, 2002: An open Laundering Compliance Programs 4. Consideration of Borrowing meeting will be held on Wednesday, Resolution. February 27, 2002 at 10 a.m., in Room February 19, 2002. 1C30, the William O. Douglas Room, Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 5. Capital Investment. and closed meetings will be held on Securities Exchange Act of 1934 a. Burlingame, California, Peninsula Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 11 (‘‘Act’’), 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, 2 Delivery Distribution Center. a.m. and Thursday, February 28, 2002 at notice is hereby given that on February 6. Tentative Agenda for the April 8– 10 a.m. 15, 2002, the National Association of 9, 2002, meeting in Washington, DC. The subject matter of the open Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’ or meeting scheduled for Wednesday, ‘‘Association’’), through its subsidiary, CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: February 27, 2002, will be: The NASD Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NASD William T. Johnstone, Secretary of the Commission will hear oral argument on Regulation’’) filed with the Securities Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant an appeal by Sandra K. Simpson, and Exchange Commission Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260– formerly an associated person with a (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 1000. Telephone (202) 268–4800. registered broker-dealer, from the change as described in Items I, II, and decision of an administrative law judge. William T. Johnstone, III below, which Items have been For further information, contact Roy prepared by NASD Regulation. The Secretary. Sheetz at (202) 942–0950. [FR Doc. 02–4537 Filed 2–21–02; 8:45 am] Commissioners, Counsel to the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). BILLING CODE 7710–12–M Commissioners, the Secretary to the 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate 11
Commission is publishing this notice to II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s new know-your-customer procedures. solicit comments on the proposed rule Statement of the Purpose of, and Broker-dealers will be required to change from interested persons. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule comply with these new obligations in Change addition to continuing to comply with I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s existing BSA reporting and Statement of the Terms of Substance of In its filing with the Commission, recordkeeping requirements. 5 the Proposed Rule Change NASD Regulation included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for Anti-Money Laundering Programs NASD Regulation proposes to the proposed rule change and discussed Section 352 of the Money Laundering establish NASD Rule 3011, Anti-Money any comments it received on the Act requires all financial institutions, Laundering Compliance Program. As proposed rule change. The text of these including broker-dealers, to develop and further discussed below, the USA statements may be examined at the implement anti-money laundering PATRIOT Act requires financial places specified in Item IV below. institutions, including broker-dealers, compliance programs on or before April NASD Regulation has prepared 24, 2002. Section 352 requires the by April 24, 2002, to establish and summaries, set forth in sections A, B, implement anti-money laundering compliance programs, at a minimum, to and C below, of the most significant establish (1) the development of internal compliance programs designed to aspects of such statements. ensure ongoing compliance with the policies, procedures, and controls, (2) requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the designation of a compliance officer and the regulations promulgated Statement of the Purpose of, and with responsibility for a firm’s anti- thereunder. The proposed rule change Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule money laundering program, (3) an prescribes the minimum standards Change ongoing employee training program, and (4) an independent audit function to test required for each member firm’s anti- 1. Purpose money laundering program. The text of the effectiveness of the anti-money the proposed rule change is below. Introduction laundering compliance program. Proposed new language is in italics. The purpose of the proposed rule Section 352 further allows the Secretary change is to establish minimum of the Department of Treasury, at its 3011. Anti-Money Laundering standards for the anti-money laundering discretion, to establish minimum Compliance Program programs that broker-dealers are standards for the anti-money laundering On or before April 24, 2002, each required to develop and implement programs. The legislative history of the USA member shall develop and implement a under section 352 of the Uniting and PATRIOT Act explains that the written anti-money laundering program Strengthening America by Providing requirement to have an anti-money reasonably designed to achieve and Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept laundering compliance program is not a monitor the member’s compliance with and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ requirement. The the requirements of the Bank Secrecy (‘‘USA PATRIOT Act’’). 3 The USA general nature of the requirements Act (31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq.), and the PATRIOT Act, which was signed into reflects Congress’ intent that each implementing regulations promulgated law by President Bush on October 26, financial institution should have the thereunder by the Department of the 2001, is designed to deter and punish flexibility to tailor the anti-money Treasury. Each member organization’s terrorists in the United States and laundering programs to fit its business, anti-money laundering program must be abroad and to enhance law enforcement taking into account factors such as size, approved, in writing, by a member of investigating tools by prescribing, location, activities of the firm’s senior management. The anti-money among other things, new surveillance business, and the risks or vulnerabilities laundering programs required by this procedures, new immigration laws, and to money laundering in the firm. This Rule shall, at a minimum, new and more stringent anti-money laundering laws. flexibility is designed to ensure that all (a) Establish and implement policies entities covered by the statute, from the and procedures that can be reasonably Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act, referred to as the International Money very large financial institutions to the expected to detect and cause the small firms, have in place policies and reporting of transactions required under Laundering Abatement and Anti- Terrorist Financing Act of 2001 procedures to monitor for anti-money 31 U.S.C. 5318(g) and the implementing laundering compliance. 6 regulations thereunder; (‘‘Money Laundering Act’’), focuses on strengthening the anti-money The proposed rule change, consistent (b) Establish and implement policies, laundering provisions put into place by with Section 352, would require procedures, and internal controls earlier legislation, particularly with member firms to implement anti-money reasonably designed to achieve respect to crimes by foreign nationals laundering programs and would set compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and foreign financial institutions. The and the implementing regulations 5 Rule 17a–8 under the Act requires broker- Money Laundering Act imposes certain thereunder; dealers to comply with the recordkeeping and obligations on broker-dealers through reporting requirements of the BSA and related (c) Provide for independent testing for new anti-money laundering provisions regulations, including the obligation to file reports compliance to be conducted by member and amendments to the Bank Secrecy and make and preserve records in connection with personnel or by a qualified outside Act (‘‘BSA’’). 4 Among other things, certain transactions generally exceeding $10,000 party; and involving currency or the physical transport of broker-dealers will have to implement currency into or out of the United States. 17 CFR (d) Designate an individual or anti-money laundering programs (as 240.17a–8. individuals responsible for described below), prepare and file 6 See USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: Consideration implementing and monitoring the day- suspicious activity reports, and follow of H.R. 3162 Before the Senate (October 25, 2001) (statement of Sen. Sarbanes); Financial Anti- to-day operations and internal controls Terrorism Act of 2001: Consideration Under of the program; and 3 Uniting and Strengthening America by Suspension of Rules of H.R. 3004 Before the House (e) Provide ongoing training for Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept of Representatives (October 17, 2001) (statement of and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. Rep. Kelly) (provisions of the Financial Anti- appropriate personnel. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). Terrorism Act of 2001 were incorporated as Title III * * * * * 4 31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq. in the USA PATRIOT Act.).
VerDate 11
forth minimum standards for such requirements for anti-money laundering SR-NASD–2002–24 and should be programs. The standards established by compliance programs of member firms. submitted by March 18, 2002. the proposed rule change are These programs are designed to help For the Commission, by the Division of substantially equivalent to those found identify and prevent money laundering Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated in the existing bank anti-money abuses that can affect the integrity of the authority.10 laundering program rules. 7 Consistent U.S. capital markets. Margaret H. McFarland, with the USA PATRIOT Act, the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Deputy Secretary. proposed rule change would require [FR Doc. 02–4345 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] firms to develop and implement a Statement on Burden on Competition BILLING CODE 8010–01–P written anti-money laundering NASD Regulation does not believe compliance program by April 24, 2002. that the proposed rule change will result The program would need to be in any burden on competition that is not SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE approved in writing by a member of necessary or appropriate in furtherance COMMISSION senior management and be reasonably of the purposes of the Act, as amended. designed to achieve and monitor the [Release No. 34–45454; File No. SR–NYSE– 2001–43] member’s ongoing compliance with the C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the requirements of the BSA and the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order implementing regulations promulgated Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others Approving a Proposed Rule Change by thereunder. The proposed rule change the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. would require firms, at a minimum, to Written comments were neither Amending Paragraph (1) of the (1) establish and implement policies solicited nor received. Guidelines to Exchange Rule 105 to and procedures that can be reasonably III. Date of Effectiveness of the Permit Approved Persons of expected to detect and cause the Specialists To Act as a Specialist With reporting of suspicious transactions, (2) Proposed Rule Change and Timing For Commission Action Respect To an Option on a Specialty establish and implement policies, Stock procedures, and internal controls Within 35 days of the date of reasonably designed to assure publication of this notice in the Federal February 15, 2002. compliance with the BSA and Register or within such longer period (i) I. Introduction implementing regulations, (3) provide as the Commission may designate up to for independent testing for compliance 90 days of such date if it finds such On August 21, 2001, the New York to be conducted by member personnel longer period to be appropriate and Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or or by a qualified outside party, (4) publishes its reasons for so finding or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities designate an individual or individuals (ii) as to which the NASD consents, the and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or responsible for implementing and Commission will: ‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act monitoring the day-to-day operations A. by order approve such proposed of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 and internal controls of the program, rule change, or thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to and (5) provide ongoing training for B. institute proceedings to determine appropriate personnel. amend paragraph (1) of the Guidelines whether the proposed rule change to NYSE Rule 105 to permit an Prior to implementation of the should be disapproved. proposed rule change, NASD Regulation approved person of a specialist to act as anticipates providing guidance in a IV. Solicitation of Comments a specialist or primary market maker with respect to an option on a stock in Notice to Members to assist member Interested persons are invited to firms in developing an anti-money which the NYSE specialist is registered submit written data, views and as such on the Exchange (‘‘specialty laundering program that fits their arguments concerning the foregoing, business model and needs. 8 stock’’), provided that the requirements including whether the proposed rule of the NYSE Rule 98 exemption program 2. Statutory Basis change is consistent with the Act. are met. The Exchange filed Persons making written submissions NASD Regulation believes that the Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule should file six copies thereof with the proposed rule change is consistent with change on December 4, 2001.3 The Secretary, Securities and Exchange the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of proposed rule change, as amended by Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, the Act, 9 which requires among other Amendment No. 1, was published for Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of things, that the Association’s rules must comment in the Federal Register on the submission, all subsequent be designed to prevent fraudulent and December 12, 2001.4 The Commission amendments, all written statements manipulative acts and practices, to received two comment letters on the with respect to the proposed rule promote just and equitable principles of proposed rule change.5 This order change that are filed with the trade, and, in general, to protect Commission, and all written 10 investors and the public interest. NASD 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). communications relating to the 1 Regulation believes that the proposed 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). proposed rule change between the 2 rule change is designed to accomplish 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Commission and any person, other than 3 See letter from James E. Buck, Senior Vice these ends by establishing the minimum those that may be withheld from the President and Secretary, NYSE, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation, 7 See e.g., 12 CFR 208.63. public in accordance with the Commission, dated December 3, 2001 8 On February 12, 2002, the Securities Industry provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Association Anti-Money Laundering Committee available for inspection and copying in 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45136 released a Preliminary Guidance for Deterring the Commission’s Public Reference (December 6, 2001), 66 FR 64328. Money Laundering Activity. In general, the Room. Copies of such filing will also be 5 See letters to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, guidance discusses key elements for a broker-dealer Commission, from Edward J. Joyce, President and to consider in developing an effective anti-money available for inspection and copying at Chief Operating Officer, Chicago Board of Options laundering program. the principal office of the NASD. All Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’), dated January 17, 2002 9 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). submissions should refer to file number Continued
VerDate 11
approves the proposed rule change, as separation’’ between the options mechanism of a free and open market, amended. specialist firm and the NYSE specialist and to protect investors and the public firm. CBOE believes that this strict interest. II. Description of the Proposal separation between the options Last year, the Commission approved Currently, NYSE Rule 105 provides specialist firm and the NYSE specialist an NYSE proposal to permit NYSE that an ‘‘approved person’’ (i.e., an firm should prevent side-by-side specialists to act as competitive or non- affiliate in a control relationship) of a trading 7 in a stock and its overlying primary market makers in options based NYSE specialist organization may trade option. on the NYSE specialist’s specialty stock options based on a specialty stock only Knight generally supports the so long as NYSE Rule 98 information for hedging purposes. If the approved proposed rule change and agrees with barriers were established and person establishes a system of internal NYSE that ‘‘consolidation within the approved.10 In that order, the controls and information barriers securities industry makes it likely that Commission noted the regulatory pursuant to NYSE Rule 98, however, the large, well-capitalized, well-regulated concerns that arise with integrated approved person may engage in organizations may seek to conduct market making. Specifically, the proprietary trading of options based on distinct business operations among Commission noted that integrated the specialist’s specialty stock without several affiliated entities.’’ However, market making raises the concern that being restricted solely to hedging Knight does not believe that (1) an integrated entity could unfairly use transactions. In addition, pursuant to information barriers between the NYSE non-public market information to its Guideline (1) to NYSE Rule 105, specialist and its approved person advantage, or that an integrated entity approved persons of NYSE specialists regarding trading and position could easily engage in improper may act as competitive or non-primary information; (2) the separation of each conduct, such as manipulating the price market makers in options based on a entity’s daily business activities with its of either the stock or the option to create specialty stock if NYSE-approved Rule own staff; and (3) trade decisions unfair advantages that would be hard, if 98 information barriers have been independent of the other entity should not impossible, to surveil.11 Further, the established. An approved person of a be preconditions for an approved person Commission noted concerns about the specialist may not, however, act as a to act in a primary market maker potential conflicts of interest that may specialist or primary market maker with capacity on options based on the arise when an integrated entity has an respect to an option based on a specialty specialist’s specialty stock. Instead, obligation to make markets in both an stock. Knight believes that communication option and its underlying equity. The Exchange now proposes to amend between separate but affiliated business Finally, the Commission noted its paragraph (1) of the Guidelines to NYSE units engaged in both stock and option concern about an exchange’s ability to Rule 105 to permit an approved person market making would grant a firm the effectively surveil the trading practices of a specialist to act as a specialist or ability to better risk manage its of integrated entities. primary market maker with respect to inventory and thus enable the firms to When considering an integration an option based on a specialty stock, make deeper and more liquid markets. proposal, the Commission must balance provided that NYSE Rule 98 Further, Knight believes that the NYSE the potential improvements in the information barriers are established and and the five national options exchanges quality of the markets for the stocks and approved by the Exchange. are equipped with the necessary their related options against the III. Summary of Comments regulatory processes to monitor for any competitive, regulatory, and potential wrongdoing that could result surveillance concerns.12 In this regard, The Commission received two from an entity’s market making in a the Commission must consider whether comment letters on the proposed rule stock and its option. an integrated market making proposal change.6 Both commenters, CBOE and would permit the integrated entities to Knight, support the general objective of IV. Discussion possess undetectable, material non- the proposed rule change, but disagree After careful review, the Commission public market information, which could on whether an approved person’s ability finds that the proposed rule change is give either the stock specialist or the to act in a market making capacity with consistent with the requirements of the related options specialist or market regards to options based on a specialty Act and the rules and regulations maker a trading advantage over other stock should be predicated on thereunder applicable to a national market participants. Thus, the establishing Exchange-approved securities exchange.8 In particular, the Commission must evaluate the extent of internal controls and information Commission believes that the proposed the proposed integration, as well as the barriers under NYSE Rule 98. rule change is consistent with Section characteristics of the market center CBOE supports the proposed rule 6(b)(5) of the Act,9 which requires, putting forth the proposal. change because it could: (1) enable among other things, that the rules of an In the present proposed rule change, CBOE’s designated primary market exchange be designed to promote just the Exchange seeks to permit its makers (‘‘DPMs’’) to acquire more and equitable principles of trade, to capital through combinations with 10 remove impediments to and perfect the Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44175 broker-dealers that own NYSE (April 11, 2001), 66 FR 19825 (April 17, 2001). specialists firms; and (2) enable NYSE 11 Previously, Commission staff has noted that 7 The Commission notes that side-by-side trading specialists to become better capitalized substantial profits could be made from options generally refers to the practice of trading an equity positions as a result of small movements in the through combinations with firms security and its related option at the same physical price of the underlying stock. Further, the staff has containing large options specialist firms. location. The proposed rule change also implicates noted the relative ease by which the price of the CBOE predicates its support for the the practice of integrated market making, which underlying security could be moved and the refers to the practice of the same person or firm difficulty in detecting improprieties associated with proposed rule change upon the ‘‘strict making markets in an equity security and its related small price movements. SEC, Report of the Special options. Study of the Options Markets, H.R. Rep. No. IFC 3, (‘‘CBOE Letter’’); and Mathew D. Wayne, Chief 8 In approving this proposed rule change, the 96th Cong. 1st sess. (Comm. Print 1978) (‘‘Options Legal Officer, Knight Financial Products LLC Commission has considered the proposed rule’s Study’’). (‘‘Knight’’), dated December 21, 2001 (‘‘Knight impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 12 See Options Study, supra note 11. See also Letter’’). formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Securities Exchange Act Release No. 22026 (May 8, 6 Id. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 1985), 50 FR 20310 (May 15, 1985).
VerDate 11
specialists to be affiliated with use their affiliations to their advantage. be permitted to act in this capacity. This specialists and market makers that act as In addition, the Exchange has verified could lead to increased competition and such with regards to options based on that organizational separation and liquidity in the options market. the NYSE specialist’s specialty stock. information barriers must be established In conclusion, the Commission The NYSE’s proposal seeks to permit a and maintained between an Exchange believes that the Exchange has more extensive form of integrated specialist, any approved person of the sufficiently minimized the potential for market making. The NYSE, however, specialist that acts as a market maker in manipulative and improper trading seeks to limit the concerns raised by an option based on the specialist’s conduct by requiring strict integrated market making by requiring specialty stock, and any other persons organizational separation and the affiliated entities to establish strict affiliated with them.13 information barriers. Therefore, the information barriers designed to prevent The Commission continues to expect Commission believes that the potential the flow of non-public information. the Exchange to assess, as it gains improvements to liquidity and quality These information barriers must be experience with integrated market of the markets outweigh the potential approved by the NYSE and are subject making, whether any other regulatory concerns. to annual review by the NYSE. informational barriers are necessary to For these reasons, the Commission Specifically, the related entities must prevent the flow of market information finds that the proposed rule change is organize their respective operations in between the related entities. Of course, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the such a way that the activities of each any new information barriers proposed Act.14 entity are clearly separate and distinct. would have to be submitted to the V. Conclusion The Guidelines to Exchange Rule 98 set Commission for approval. The forth the requirements to be followed by Commission also expects that the For the foregoing reasons, the the related entities to be considered Exchange will continue to surveil the Commission finds that the proposed clearly separate and distinct. For integrated entities to ensure that the rule change, as amended, is consistent example, Guideline (b)(i) requires information barriers and organizational with the requirements of the Act and organizational separation of the structure continue to prevent the flow of rules and regulations thereunder. specialist and approved person and that It is therefore ordered, pursuant to non-public market information. 15 the specialist must function as an In the previous order, the Commission Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the entirely freestanding entity responsible noted that because the NYSE is the proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–2001– for its own trading decisions. Guideline primary market for many equity 43), as amended, is approved. (b)(ii) requires the respective securities underlying options, concerns For the Commission, by the Division of management structures of the specialist were raised about an integrated Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 16 and the approved person to be organization being able to dominate the authority. organized in such a manner as to markets of both the specialty stock and Margaret H. McFarland, prevent the management of the its related options. Specifically, an Deputy Secretary. approved person from exerting any integrated entity may by virtue of its [FR Doc. 02–4344 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] influence on particular trading decision positions as specialists in a stock and its BILLING CODE 8010–01–P of the specialist. Guidelines (b)(iii) and related options could control the pricing (b)(iv) require the establishment of and liquidity of both markets. The procedures to preserve confidentiality of Commission believes the requirement SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE trading information. In addition, that the related entities maintain COMMISSION Guideline (b)(iii) specifically requires complete organizational separation and [Release No. 35–27492] the establishment of procedures to prohibit the sharing of market ensure the confidentiality of the information should prevent either entity Filings Under the Public Utility Holding specialist’s book. Finally, the Guidelines from using its affiliation to control the Company Act of 1935, as Amended require that the specialist and approved pricing and liquidity of either market. (‘‘Act’’) person maintain, among other things, The Commission believes that the separate books and records, financial proposal should provide benefits to the February 15, 2002. accounting and capital requirements. markets. For example, the number of Notice is hereby given that the The Commission believes that the entities that may act as specialists or following filing(s) has/have been made Exchange has established appropriate primary market makers in options based with the Commission pursuant to procedures in the Guidelines to address on a specialist’s specialty stock may provisions of the Act and rules the regulatory issues raised by the increase as a result of this proposal. promulgated under the Act. All proposed rule change. The requirement Now, entities that have been prohibited interested persons are referred to the of clearly separate and distinct from acting as primary options market application(s) and/or declaration(s) for organizations, along with the other makers because of the restrictions in complete statements of the proposed informational barriers and restrictions, Paragraph (1) of NYSE Rule 105 would transaction(s) summarized below. The should prevent Exchange specialists and application(s) and/or declaration(s) and their related options market makers 13 A specialist may be associated with more than any amendment(s) is/are available for from sharing restricted, non-public one approved person. For example, a specialist may public inspection through the market information. Further, NYSE Rule be controlled by a parent organization, which may Commission’s Branch of Public 98 requires the Exchange to review and also control other organizations. If any other Reference. approve the organizational structure and organization controlled by the parent acts as a specialist or engages in market making activities in Interested persons wishing to information barriers of the integrated options based on the specialist’s specialty stock, comment or request a hearing on the entities. The Commission notes that the organizational separation and information barriers application(s) and/or declaration(s) Exchange has had extensive experience would have to be established between all entities, should submit their views in writing by reviewing its Rule 98’s organizational i.e., the specialist, the parent company and the related options market making entities. See requirements and information barriers Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44175 (April 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). and thus should be able to ensure that 11, 2001), 66 FR 19825, 19827, n. 14 (April 17, 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). the integrated entities do not improperly 2001). 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate 11
March 12, 2002, to the Secretary, and that the Bus Service serves Progress requests authority to modify Securities and Exchange Commission, important State and/or community existing financing orders to: (1) Increase Washington, DC 20549–0609, and serve interests. from $5 billion to $7.5 billion the a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/ In its post-effective amendment, aggregate amount of common stock, or declarant(s) at the address(es) SCANA states that it has been preferred stock or other forms of specified below. Proof of service (by negotiating for the City to take over the preferred securities and unsecured long- affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at Bus System. The company states that an term debentures having maturities of up law, by certificate) should be filed with agreement has been reached regarding to 50 years (collectively, ‘‘Long-term the request. Any request for hearing the basic terms for the transfer, and they Securities’’) that Progress may issue and should identify specifically the issues of are as follows: have outstanding at any time through facts or law that are disputed. A person • The City will discharge SCE&G’s September 30, 2003 (‘‘Authorization who so requests will be notified of any obligation to provide a public transit Period’’); (2) eliminate a $6 billion hearing, if ordered, and will receive a system in Columbia, South Carolina, overall limit for the aggregate principal copy of any notice or order issued in the and the assets of the Bus System will be amount that Progress may have matter. After March 12, 2002, the transferred to the City; outstanding at any time for short-term • application(s) and/or declaration(s), as SCE&G and the City will enter into debt, debentures, and indebtedness a thirty-year electric and gas franchise; incurred by Progress to finance its filed or as amended, may be granted • and/or permitted to become effective. SCE&G will pay the City for the acquisition of the issued and franchise an initial fee of $15 million in outstanding common stock of Florida SCANA Corporation, et al. four quarterly installments beginning at Progress (‘‘Acquisition Debt’’) [70–9521] the time of the transfer of the Bus (collectively, ‘‘Overall Indebtedness SCANA Corporation (‘‘SCANA’’), a System and an additional annual fee of Limit’’) (short-term debt will remain registered holding company, and South $2.47 million for the first seven years of limited by $2.5 billion as authorized in Carolina Electric & Gas Company the franchise; the Financing Orders, acquisition debt • SCE&G will convey 6.98 acres of (‘‘SCE&G’’), one of its public-utility will remain $3.5 billion, and debentures property currently used in connection company subsidiaries, both at 1426 will be included in the $7.5 billion limit with the transit system as a parking Main Street, Columbia, South Carolina for Long-term Securities requested in facility for the buses, in a condition 29201, have filed a post-effective this Amendment); and (3) increase from compliant with current state and federal amendment to a previously submitted $750 million to $2 billion the principal regulations; application-declaration (‘‘Prior or stated amount of guarantees that • SCE&G will convey the historic Application’’) under section 11(b)(1) of Progress may provide at any one time Columbia Canal and Hydroelectric Plant the Act. with respect to the obligations of its (‘‘Plant’’) to the City, and enter into By order dated February 9, 2000,1 the subsidiaries. collateral agreements regarding the Commission authorized SCANA, then a By previous orders dated December Plant; and public-utility holding company 12, 2000 and September 20, 2001 • SCE&G and the City will enter into claiming an exemption from registration (HCAR Nos. 27297 and 27440, a new water contract for withdrawals under section 3(a)(1) of Act, to acquire respectively) (‘‘Financing Orders’’), from Lake Murray for the terms of the Public Service Company of North Progress, its direct and indirect electric and gas franchise. Carolina, Incorporated, a gas public- nonutility subsidiaries, and its utility SCANA requests that the Commission subsidiaries, which are CP&L, NCNG, utility company operating in North grant the company a one-year extension Carolina. In the Prior Order, the and Florida Power, (collectively, of time to divest the Bus System. The ‘‘Utility Subsidiaries’’), are authorized Commission allowed SCANA to retain company states that this additional time all of the combined company’s to engage in a program of external is necessary to allow: (1) the City to financing and intrasystem financing, to nonutility operations except for a bus complete due diligence regarding the transit system (‘‘Bus Service’’) being organize and acquire the equity transaction; (2) final agreements to be securities of specified types of new operated in South Carolina by SCE&G executed by SCANA, SCE&G, and the and a forty-nine percent membership subsidiaries, to pay dividends out of City; and (3) SCANA to obtain the capital or unearned surplus, and to interest in Palmetto Lyme, LLC, a necessary state and federal approvals. company engaged in the sale of lime.2 engage in other related financial and SCANA conceded that retention of the Progress Energy Inc., et al. structural transactions from time to time through the Authorization Period. Bus Service would not be consistent [70–9909] with the standards of section 11(b)(1) of Except for the modifications described Progress Energy Inc. (‘‘Progress’’), a above, Applicants do not seek any other the Act, and proposed to divest it. registered holding company, Carolina On February 24, 2000, the City of changes or modifications to the terms, Power & Light Company (‘‘CP&L’’) and Columbia, South Carolina (‘‘City’’) filed conditions or limitations applicable North Carolina Natural Gas Corporation a Petition for Clarification or Review of under the Financing Orders. (‘‘NCNG’’), both public utility Progress states that it will maintain the Prior Order (‘‘Petition’’). In the subsidiaries of Progress, all located at common equity as a percentage of Petition, and its subsequently filed 410 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, consolidated capitalization (inclusive of pleadings, the City questions only the North Carolina 27602, and Florida short-term debt) at 30% or above during Commission’s decision to require the Power Corporation (‘‘Florida Power’’), a the Authorization Period. Accordingly, divestiture of the Bus System. utility subsidiary of Progress, One Progress will not issue any securities Specifically, the City contends that Progress Plaza, St. Petersburg, Florida unless, on a pro forma basis to take into SCANA is required under South 33701 (collectively, ‘‘Applicants’’), have account the issuance of such securities Carolina law to operate the Bus System filed a post effective amendment and the application of proceeds, (‘‘Amendment’’) under sections 6(a), 7, common equity as a percentage of 1 HCAR No. 27133 (‘‘Prior Order’’). 2 The Commission reserved jurisdiction over the and 12(b) of the Act and rules 45, 53 consolidated capitalization will remain retention of Palmetto, pending completion of the and 54 under the Act to an application- at or above 30%. In addition, Progress record. See Prior Order. declaration previously filed. will maintain common equity as a
VerDate 11
percentage of capitalization of each of coal-fired generating plants.3 These will continue to claim an exemption its three Utility Subsidiaries at 30% or railcars were acquired for Applicants’ under section 3(a)(1) by rule 2. above during the Authorization Period. use based upon their anticipated coal DCC Project Finance, a Delaware As of September 30, 2001, Progress’s needs. Applicants state that, at any corporation, is a single purpose entity (‘‘SPE’’) and has a 60% beneficial consolidated capitalization (on a pro given time, an Applicant may have a ownership interest in the Eastern forma basis in order to take into account need for a lesser or greater number of Interconnection Project (‘‘EIP’’). The EIP the issuance of long-term debt securities railcars than is currently available, and consists of a 216 mile, 345 kV after September 30, 2001) consisted of that during surplus periods it may be desirable and economically transmission line between PNM’s bulk 38.0% common equity, 0.6% preferred advantageous to lease or sublease excess power switching station north of stock, 56.6% long-term debt and 4.8% railcars to nonaffiliates. Bernalillo, New Mexico and a high short-term debt. As of September 30, Applicants request authority, through voltage DC converter station, called the 2001, common equity as a percentage of December 31, 2007, to lease or sublease Blackwater Station, located in the capitalization of CP&L, Florida Power to nonaffiliates, railcars that are not Clovis-Portales area of eastern New and NCNG was equal to 45.5%, 55.3% needed to transport their fuel. All of the Mexico, plus associated switching and 68.6%, respectively. proposed leases or subleases would be equipment and the Blackwater Station Progress states that the increase in at market rates for a duration of one year DC converter facilities. The EIP was Long-term Securities is needed because or less and give the respective Applicant constructed in 1984–1985 to it had as of November 30, 2001, issued the right of termination, upon interconnect PNM’s transmission a total of $4,534,800,000 of long-term reasonable notice, permitting the return system to that of Southwestern Public securities ($528,100,000 of common of the cars to customer service, if Service Company (‘‘SPS’’). As of stock and $4,006,700,000 of long-term necessary. No more than 2,500 railcars February 5, 1985, the EIP had an debt, including $3,200,000,000 of term would be leased or subleased at any one appraised fair market value of not less notes issued to refinance debt incurred time. than $73,000,000. by Progress in connection with the Revenues realized from the proposed PNM is party (‘‘Lessee’’) to a acquisition of Florida Progress). transactions would be credited against leveraged lease transaction under which Progress contemplates the need to issue the respective Applicant’s costs as it leases a 60% undivided interest in EIP additional Long-Term Securities during owner or lessee (as applicable) of the from DCC Project Finance (‘‘Lessor’’). the remainder of the Authorization railcars, and reflected accordingly in its Applicants are exercising their rights to Period to retire short-term debt, to fund ratemaking provisions, except to the purchase under the lease, as stated in capital programs of its subsidiaries, to extent the regulatory authority having section 14 of the amended and restated finance investments in new nonutility jurisdiction over the matter authorizes a lease as of September 1, 1993: (a) Unless a Default or Event of ventures (including, in particular, different treatment. Default shall have occurred and be exempt wholesale generators (‘‘EWGs’’) PNM Resources Inc. continuing, the Lessee shall have the that are under development or planned), [70–10043] right to exercise one of the following and for other general corporate options to purchase the Undivided purposes. Progress forecasts the need for PNM Resources, Inc. (‘‘PNM Resources’’), a public utility holding Interest: additional long-term financing of at company exempt under section 3(a)(1) (1) On the date of expiration of the least $1.75 billion through the end of by rule 2 and its wholly owned public Basic Term, the Fixed Rent Renewal 2003. utility subsidiary company, Public Term or any then applicable Fair Market Alabama Power Company, et al. Service Company of New Mexico Renewal Term, the Lessee shall have the (‘‘PNM’’) (collectively, ‘‘Applicants’’) right upon not less than two years’ prior [70–10009] both located at Alvarado Square, written notice, to purchase the Alabama Power Company Albuquerque, NM 87158, request Undivided Interest on the date of (‘‘Alabama’’), 600 North 18th Street, authority under sections 9(a)(2) and 10 expiration of such Term at a purchase Birmingham, Alabama 35291, Georgia of the Act to acquire the voting price equal to the Fair Market Value Power Company (‘‘Georgia’’), 241 Ralph securities of DCC Project Finance Two, thereof; or McGill Boulevard, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia Inc. (‘‘DCC Project Finance’’) 4 from (2) On the Basic Rent Payment Date 30308, Gulf Power Company (‘‘Gulf’’), Dana Commercial Credit Corporation designated in a written notice given at One Energy Place, Pensacola, Florida (‘‘DCCC’’).5 PNM Resources states that it least two years prior to such Basic Rent 32520, Mississippi Power Company Payment Date (which date may only be (‘‘Mississippi’’), 2992 West Beach, 3 Currently, Alabama has approximately 4,300 a Basic Rent Payment Date during the railcars that transport coal to two of its plants. Gulfport, Mississippi 39501, and Basic Term occurring on or after the Georgia has approximately 4,400 railcars that thirtieth Basic Rent Payment Date), at a Savannah Electric and Power Company transport coal to nine of its plants. Gulf does not (‘‘Savannah’’), 600 East Bay Street, have any railcars, but Mississippi has leased 800 purchase price equal to the greater of Savannah, Georgia 31401 (collectively, railcars on behalf of itself and Gulf that transport the Early Purchase Value applicable on coal to Plant Daniel, which is owned by Mississippi the date of purchase and the Fair Market ‘‘Applicants’’), all wholly owned direct and Gulf as tenants in common. Mississippi has public-utility subsidiary companies of approximately 1,000 railcars that transport coal to Value of the Undivided Interest on such The Southern Company, a registered two of its plants. Savannah has approximately ninety-four railcars that transport coal to one of its Commercial Credit Corporation, a Delaware holding company, have filed an plants. corporation, is a subsidiary of Dana Corporation, application with the Commission under 4 Prior to this proposed transaction, DCC Project one of the world’s largest suppliers to vehicle sections 9(a) and 10 of the Act. Finance has claimed the exclusion under rule manufacturers and their related aftermarkets. DCCC, 7(d)(1)(ii) promulgated under the Act because all of either directly or through subsidiary companies, is Previously, Applicants acquired, the equity interest in the DCC Project Finance is primarily engaged in one or more businesses other through purchases and leases, coal owned by a company, DCCC, that is otherwise than the business of a public utility company. DCC hopper railroad cars for use in primarily engaged in one or more businesses other Project Finance is a direct, wholly owned transporting coal in dedicated unit train than the business of a public utility company. subsidiary of DCCC. DCCC owns all of the issued 5 Dana Commercial Credit Corporation’s Annual and outstanding capital stock of DCC Project service to the respective company’s Report for the year 2000 states that Dana Finance.
VerDate 11
date, plus an amount equal to the sum SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of any Basic Rent then owing and any Denise Edmonds at (202) 205–6673 or premium due on prepayment of the Federal Assistance to Provide [email protected]. Notes. Financial Counseling, Technical Assistance and Long-term Training to Wilma Goldstein, Under a purchase agreement between Women in the State of Vermont Assistant Administrator, SBA/Office of DCCC 6 and PNM dated as of January Women’s Business Ownership. 15, 2002 (‘‘Purchase Agreement’’), the AGENCY: U.S. Small Business [FR Doc. 02–4352 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Applicants will purchase 100% of the Administration. BILLING CODE 8025–01–P issued and outstanding common stock of DCCC Project Finance (‘‘Subject ACTION: Program Announcement No. Stock’’), to be renamed PNM Project OWBO–99–012, as amended by OWBO– DEPARTMENT OF STATE Finance Two, Inc., immediately upon 2000–015. consummation of the transaction. The Office of the Secretary SUMMARY Applicants will purchase the Subject : The Small Business [Public Notice 3920] Stock from DCCC for $5,672,000.7 Administration (SBA) plans to issue program announcement No. OWBO–99– PNM Resources states that it will Extension of the Restriction on the Use 012, as amended by OWBO–2000–15, to maintains its qualification for a section of United States Passports for Travel invite applications from private, not-for- To, In or Through Iraq 3(a)(1) exemption by rule 2. PNM is an profit organizations to conduct a integrated public utility primarily Women’s Business Center (WBC) project On February 1, 1991, pursuant to the engaged in the generation, transmission, in the State of Vermont. The authorizing authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a and distribution and sale of electricity and legislation is the Small Business Act, Executive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603), in the transmission, distribution and Section 29, 15 U.S.C. 631(h) and 656. and in accordance with 22 CFR sale of natural gas within the State of The selection process is competitive. 51.73(a)(2) and (a)(3), all United States New Mexico, will continue to be a The successful applicant’s WBC project passports, with certain exceptions, were wholly owned subsidiary of PNM will serve as a replacement for a declared invalid for travel to, in, or Resources. PNM Project Finance Two previous project in the State of Vermont through Iraq unless specifically (previously DCC Project Finance), a that ended after its 2nd year. The validated for such travel. The restriction Delaware corporation, will be a wholly replacement WBC is to carry out a was originally imposed because armed owned subsidiary of PNM. PNM project for the remaining 3 years of a 5- hostilities then were taking place in Iraq Resources states that it will not derive, year term. and Kuwait, and because there was an directly or indirectly, any material part imminent danger to the safety of United The Women’s Business Center project States travelers to Iraq. American of its income from PNM Project Finance must provide long-term training, citizens then residing in Iraq and (in any event, the gross revenues counseling and technical assistance to American professional reporters and derived from PNM Project Finance will women who are in and starting journalists on assignment there were not exceed $200,000). PNM Resources businesses. Service and assistance areas exempted from the restriction on the does not own directly any utility must include financial, management, ground that such exemptions were in properties or perform any utility marketing, government procurement the national interest. The restriction has operations. and loan packaging. The applicant must been extended for additional one-year For the Commission, by the Division of submit a plan for each remaining year periods since then, and was last Investment Management, pursuant to of the project term, i.e., 7/01/02–06/30/ extended through February 28, 2002. delegated authority. 03; 07/01/03–06/30/04; and 07/01/04– Conditions in Iraq remain hazardous Margaret H. McFarland, 06/30/05. The applicant’s proposal must for Americans. Iraq continues to refuse include a scope of work and a budget to comply with UN Security Council Deputy Secretary. not exceeding the Federal grant amount resolutions to fully declare and destroy [FR Doc. 02–4343 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] of $150,000 plus 100% match. Also, the its weapons of mass destruction and BILLING CODE 8010–01–P proposal must include a plan to target missiles while mounting a virulent women who are socially and public campaign in which the United economically challenged and a plan to States is blamed for maintenance of contribute content and services to the U.N. sanctions. The United Nations has SBA Online Women’s Business Center withdrawn all U.S. citizen UN web site at www.onlinewbc.gov. humanitarian workers from Iraq because of the Government of Iraq’s stated 6 SBA will issue an annual award to the The institutional equity investor, DCCC is the inability to protect their safety. Iraq sole beneficiary of the grantor trust which holds successful recipient for each project legal title to the 60% interest and leases the interest year, without re-competition. The award regularly fires anti-aircraft artillery and to PNM. The DCCC maintains its investment in the recipient must provide non-Federal surface-to-air missiles at U.S. and leased assets through a wholly owned, single- matching funds at 100%, i.e., one non- coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly purpose Delaware corporation DCC Finance Project. Federal dollar for each Federal dollar. zones over northern and southern Iraq, 7 If the closing date shall occur after February 28, At least half of the non-Federal match and regularly illuminates U.S. and 2002, interest on the cash payment of $5,672,000 coalition aircraft with target-acquisition will be computed at the lower of DCCC’s 60-day must be in cash. The remainder may be in the form of in-kind contributions. radar. funding cost or 5% per annum for the actual U.S. citizens and other foreigners number of days elapsed from, but excluding January DATES: SBA will mail program working inside Kuwait near the Iraqi 15, 2002, to and including the closing date. Such interest (if due) shall be an upward adjustment the announcements to interested parties borders have been detained by Iraqi cash purchase price. No other pricing adjustment is immediately, upon request. The opening authorities in the past and sentenced to applicable to the purchase or sale of the Subject date will be March 5, 2002 and the lengthy jail terms for alleged illegal Stock. closing date will be April 11, 2002. entry into the country. Although our
VerDate 11
interests are represented by the Embassy part of the study, TVA will prepare a Clinch River projects pass rainfall of Poland in Baghdad, its ability to programmatic environmental impact runoff, generate electric power, and obtain consular access to detained U.S. statement (EIS). TVA will use the EIS maintain minimum levels for citizens and to perform emergency process to elicit and prioritize the commercial navigation; (3) single services is constrained by Iraqi values and concerns of stakeholders; purpose power projects which generate unwillingness to cooperate. In light of identify issues, trends, events, and hydroelectric power; and (4) smaller these circumstances, and pursuant to tradeoffs affecting reservoir operating non-power projects which provide local the authorities set forth in 22 U.S.C. policies; formulate, evaluate, and flood relief, water supply, water quality, 211a, Executive Order 11295, and 22 compare alternative reservoir operating and/or recreation. CFR 51.73, I have determined that Iraq policies; provide opportunities for The drainage area of the Tennessee continues to be a country ‘‘where there public review and comment; and ensure River system covers about 41,000 square is imminent danger to the public health that any decision to change its operating miles. This area includes 125 counties or physical safety of United States policies reflect a full range of within much of Tennessee and parts of travelers’’. stakeholder input. Public comments are six other states: Alabama, Kentucky, Accordingly, United States passports invited concerning both the scope of the Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, shall continue to be invalid for travel to, environmental issues and the alternative and Virginia. The larger TVA Power or for use in, Iraq unless specifically operating policies that should be Service Area includes 201 counties and validated for such travel under the addressed in the EIS. about 80,000 square mile in the same authority of the Secretary of State. The DATES: Comments on the scope of the seven states. TVA manages the reservoir system, proposed extension will continue to issues and alternatives to be addressed which includes 14 navigation locks exclude from its coverage persons in the EIS must be postmarked or e- operated by the U.S. Army Corps of resident in Iraq since February 1, 1991, mailed by April 26, 2002. and professional journalists. In the Engineers, to provide an 800-mile TO COMMENT ON THE STUDY OR FOR commercial navigation channel from the absence of the exclusion, those FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David journalists and long-time residents mouth of the Tennessee River at Nye, ROS Project Manager, Tennessee Paducah, Kentucky, to the headwaters would have to apply for specific Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill validations; we would expect to grant of the Tennessee River at Knoxville, Drive, WT 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee Tennessee, and downstream parts of the any such requests, and therefore see no 37902–1499; call the TVA ROS EIS toll reason to revisit the exclusion. Clinch and Hiwassee Rivers. TVA free number (1–888–882–7675); fax to maintains water levels sufficient to The Public Notice shall be effective 865–632–3146; or access the TVA web from the date it is published in the provide a minimum navigation channel site at www.tva.com. depth of nine feet (with a two-foot Federal Register and shall expire at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: overdraft) throughout this navigable midnight on February 28, 2003, unless Background waterway. sooner extended or revoked by Public Thirteen multipurpose tributary Notice. A wholly owned corporation of the projects, built to reduce the risk of flood Dated: February 13, 2002. U.S. Government, TVA was established damage along the river, are operated to Colin L. Powell, by an act of Congress in 1933 to foster regulate flood crests and store runoff for Secretary of State, Department of State. the social and economic welfare of the later hydroelectric generation. [FR Doc. 02–4419 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] people of the Tennessee Valley region Powerhouses were built at 30 TVA and to promote the wise use and BILLING CODE 4710–10–P dams, including its Raccoon Mountain development of the region’s natural Pumped-Storage Facility, which now resources. Section 9a of the TVA Act provides approximately 5,000 provides the historical and legal context megawatts of hydro generation capacity. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY for TVA’s reservoir operating policies. Although the powerhouses were Programmatic Environmental Impact Added by Congress as an amendment in initially built to provide base-load Statement on Reservoir Operating 1935, Section 9a directs TVA to manage capacity, the demand for power in the Policies the reservoir system primarily to Tennessee Valley exceeded the promote navigation and control floods hydropower capacity of the reservoir AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. and, to the extent consistent with these system during the 1950s. As fossil and ACTION: Notice of Intent. purposes, for the generation of nuclear base-load generating sources electricity. were added, operation of the hydro SUMMARY: This notice is provided in In carrying out its mandate, TVA system was modified to take advantage accordance with the Council on developed an integrated system that of the versatility and dependability of Environmental Quality (CEQ) includes 49 dams and reservoirs; 48 of hydropower to meet peak power regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) which were built on the Tennessee demands and improve power system and the Tennessee Valley Authority River and its tributaries and one, Great reliability. Today, depending on annual (TVA) procedures implementing the Falls, is located on a tributary of the rainfall and runoff, the hydro system National Environmental Policy Act. In Cumberland River. The dams and produces 10 to 15 percent of TVA’s response to recommendations from its reservoirs, also referred to as projects, annual average system generation citizen advisory group, the Regional differ in age, size, and specific output. Resource Stewardship Council, and authorized purposes. Based on the The annual rainfall and runoff other individuals and stakeholder authorized purpose(s), TVA dams and patterns in the Tennessee Valley govern groups, TVA is conducting a reservoirs fall into one of four groups: the operation of the reservoir system. comprehensive reservoir operations (1) Multipurpose tributary projects Operating guides, developed from long- study (ROS). The purpose of the ROS is which provide seasonal stream flow term stream-flow records and project to determine if changes in TVA’s regulation for flood control, navigation, requirements and constraints, identify reservoir operating policies would and hydroelectric power generation; (2) water levels that should be met in each produce greater overall public value. As multipurpose main Tennessee and reservoir at various times during the
VerDate 11
year. December through early April is • Identify key measures for judging higher or lower reservoir pool levels, (2) the major flood season in the Tennessee future reservoir operating performance; increasing or decreasing the amount and Valley because storms tend to be larger • Identify issues, trends, events, and duration of releases from TVA dams to and more runoff occurs during this part tradeoffs which should be considered in provide increased minimum flows, (3) of the year. During this period, TVA formulating alternative reservoir increasing or decreasing the depth of the tributary reservoirs are lowered to a operating policies; commercial navigation channel, and (4) minimum level to provide storage • Develop clear reservoir operating increasing or decreasing the amount of capacity that reduces the risk of policy alternatives not constrained by water in reservoir storage potentially flooding at major damage centers, present operating policies; affecting flood risk. including Chattanooga, Tennessee, and • Provide factual information on the Water quality, flood risk, and weekly other communities along the Tennessee environmental, social, and economic scheduling models of the reservoir River and its tributaries while allowing effects of those alternatives; and system will be used to determine the • for hydroelectric power production Provide opportunities for flexibility of present reservoir during periods of peak power demand. stakeholders to actively participate in operations and to maximize operating Beginning in April, when flood risks the process. objectives with a minimum of typically diminish, tributary reservoirs Preliminary Identification of Issues to constraints. Model results will be used are allowed to fill to reach their summer Be Addressed to bracket the potential effects of the recreation level by June 1. During June alternative operating policies evaluated Based on internal and interagency and July, drawdown of the tributary in the EIS. The EIS will also present a discussions, TVA anticipates that the reservoirs is limited to maintaining review of the changes made in 1991, major issues to be addressed in the ROS downstream minimum flows, navigation when the last evaluation of TVA’s EIS will be navigation, flood risk, power channel depths, hydro power reservoir operating policies was production, water quality, water supply, generation, cooling water for fossil and conducted. That part of the study will threatened and endangered species, nuclear plants, and recreational provide a baseline for evaluating wetlands, adjacent land use, recreation, benefits. Between August 1 and January impacts of the alternatives selected for and social and economic considerations. 1, the reservoirs are drawn down to detailed analysis in this EIS. The results Issues related to air quality, climate, flood storage capacity levels based on of the evaluation of specific alternatives geology, groundwater, aquatic plants, the economic use of the water to meet on environmental, cultural, and invasive species, vector control, and power generation and water quality socioeconomic resources, together with terrestrial ecology also will be objectives. engineering and economic addressed; however, it is expected that In addition to the main objectives, considerations, will be used to select a these latter issues may not require preferred alternative operating policy. TVA operates the dams and reservoirs detailed evaluation. This list of issues is as a truly integrated system for the preliminary and is intended to facilitate Scoping Process benefit of the Valley to provide for such public comment on the scope of this CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) purposes as mosquito control, aquatic EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive require the use of an early and open plant management, water quality, nor does it imply any predetermination process for determining the scope of an recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, of potential impacts. TVA invites EIS and for identifying the significant municipal and industrial water supply, suggestions concerning the list of issues issues related to the proposed action. commercial and industrial which should be addressed. Scoping is integral to the EIS process. It development, and flows for power plant is a procedure that solicits public input cooling. The Proposed Action to ensure that: (1) All pertinent issues TVA evaluated its reservoir operating The proposed action is to implement are identified early and properly policies in the late 1980s and, in reservoir operation policies that create studied; (2) issues of little significance February 1991, the TVA Board approved greater overall public value. do not consume substantial time and the Tennessee River and Reservoir effort; (3) the draft EIS is thorough and System Operation and Planning Review Alternatives balanced; and (4) delays caused by an EIS. Policy changes recommended in As required by CEQ regulations (40 inadequate EIS are avoided. To ensure that EIS focused primarily on restricting CFR 1502.2(e)), TVA will evaluate a that the full range of issues and lake level drawdown at multipurpose reasonable range of alternatives, alternatives related to this proposal are tributary projects to increase recreation including the present operating policies addressed, TVA invites Federal opportunities and setting targets to as a No Action Alternative. Alternatives agencies, state and local governments, improve water quality. The scope of the will address TVA’s major reservoir the general public, and others to ROS EIS presently in progress will be operating objectives—the purposes for comment on the scope of the ROS EIS. more comprehensive in its approach which TVA manages the river and In addition to the Regional Resource and will evaluate all aspects of TVA’s reservoir system. These include Stewardship Council, TVA will also rely reservoir operating policies. The ROS navigation, flood risk reduction, power on individuals in a public review group EIS will identify and address alternative production, water quality, water supply, and an interagency team, as well as ways TVA could operate the reservoir recreation, and economic development. selected external subject matter experts, system to use the available water in At this time, alternative reservoir for input to the study. Agencies invited ways which would create greater value operating policies are likely to include to participate as part of the interagency for stakeholders. Consistent with the increasing or decreasing seasonal team include U.S. Army Corps of recommendations of the Regional reservoir pool levels depending on Engineers; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Resource Stewardship Council and hydrology and project constraints, and Service; U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Coast other groups and individuals, the increasing or decreasing the timing and Guard, National Weather Service, objectives of this study include but are amount of releases from the reservoirs. National Park Service, Native American not limited to: For example, alternatives might include: Tribal representatives, a representative • Clarify the values stakeholders have (1) Extending or shortening drawdown from each of the Valley states; and about the river and reservoir system; dates for tributary projects to provide others.
VerDate 11
TVA will hold 21 public information SUMMARY: In accordance with the On October 29, 2001 (66 FR 54616), meetings about the ROS EIS at locations Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 the Department published in the throughout the region between March U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), this Federal Register a final rule and request 21 and April 18, 2002. The dates and notice announces the Department of for comments to establish procedures locations of the information meetings Transportation’s (DOT) intention to for air carriers who had received or will be posted on the ROS EIS web site request the extension of a previously wished to receive compensation under (www.tva.com) and published in local approved collection. the Act. The rule covered such subjects and regional newspapers. Notices about DATES: Comments on this notice must be as eligibility, deadlines for application, these meetings will also be sent directly received April 26, 2002. information and forms required of to members of the public who have applicants, and audit requirements. The ADDRESSES: Comments should be previously indicated an interest in Department has received submissions directed to the Competition and Policy TVA’s reservoir operating policy from many carriers pursuant to this rule Analysis Division (X–55), Office of through attendance at public meetings and is continuing to process requests for Aviation Analysis, Office of the and through correspondence with compensation. Secretary, U.S. Department of Congress and TVA. TVA will continue Respondents: U.S. air carriers. Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, to develop and maintain a mailing list Estimated Number of Respondents: SW., Washington, DC 20590. of individuals, agencies, organizations, 430. and groups who have requested notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Estimated Total Burden on and updates of the ROS process. TVA Schmidt, Competition and Policy Respondents: 5,320 hours. will also maintain a public reference file Analysis Division (X–55), Office of Comments are invited on: (a) Whether at selected libraries across the region, Aviation Analysis, Office of the the proposed collection of Information which will include copies of all written Secretary, U.S. Department of is necessary for the proper performance correspondence, documents, meeting Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, of the functions of the Department, notices, agendas, and summaries. SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366– including whether the information will After consideration of the comments 5420. have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of received during this scoping period, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Department’s estimate of the burden TVA will develop and distribute a Title: Procedures For Compensation of of the proposed information collection; document which will summarize public Air Carriers. (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and agency comments that were OMB Control Number: 2105–0546. and clarity of the information to be received, the issues and alternatives to Type of Request: Authority for the collected, and (d) ways to minimize the be addressed in the EIS, and the currently approved data collection burden of the collection of information schedule for completing the EIS process. expires on February 28, 2002. By this of respondents, including the use of The scoping document should be notice, the Department is requesting an automated collection techniques or available in late spring 2002. It will be extension until February 28, 2003. other forms of information technology. distributed to public libraries, loaded on Abstract: As a consequence of the All responses to this notice will be the TVA EIS web site, and mailed out terrorist attacks on the United States on summarized and included in the request upon request. September 11, 2001, the U.S. for OMB approval. All comments will After evaluating the issues and the commercial aviation industry suffered also become a matter of public record. potential environmental consequences severe financial losses. These losses Issued in Washington, DC, on February 14, of each alternative, TVA will issue a placed the financial survival of many air 2002. draft EIS for public review and carriers at risk. Acting rapidly to Randall D. Bennett, comment. The draft EIS will be preserve the continued viability of the transmitted to the Environmental Director, Office of Aviation Analysis. U.S. air transportation system, President [FR Doc. 02–4414 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Protection Agency for publication of a Bush sought and Congress enacted the BILLING CODE 4910–62–P Notice of Availability in the Federal Air Transportation Safety and System Register. TVA will solicit written Stabilization Act (‘‘the Act’’), Pub. L. comments on the draft EIS and hold a 107–42. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION series of public information meetings to Under section 101(a)(2)(A–B) of the receive comments. TVA plans to issue Act, a total of $5 billion in Federal Aviation Administration the draft EIS in spring 2003. compensation is provided for ‘‘direct Dated: February 15, 2002. losses incurred beginning on September [Policy Statement Number PS–ACE100– Kathryn J. Jackson, 11, 2001, by air carriers as a result of 2001–02] Executive Vice President, River System any Federal ground stop order issued by Small Airplane Directorate Policy on Operations & Environment. the Secretary of Transportation or any Flammability Testing [FR Doc. 02–4320 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] subsequent order which continue or BILLING CODE 8120–08–U renews such stoppage; and the AGENCY: Federal Aviation incremental losses incurred beginning Administration, DOT. September 11, 2001 and ending ACTION: Notice of issuance and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 31, 2001, by air carriers as a availability. direct result of such attacks.’’ The Office of the Secretary Department of Transportation SUMMARY: This notice announces a previously disbursed initial estimated Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Procedures for Compensation of Air payments of nearly $2.5 billion of the $5 policy on flammability testing of Carriers billion amount that Congress materials used in small airplanes. This AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. authorized, using procedures set forth in notice advises the public, especially the Department’s Program Guidance manufacturers of normal, utility, and ACTION: Notice and request for Letters that were widely distributed and acrobatic category airplanes, and comments. posted on the Department’ Web site. commuter category airplanes used in
VerDate 11
non-scheduled service and their collection is described as well as its A comment to OMB is best assured of suppliers, that the FAA has adopted a expected burden. The Federal Register having its full effect if OMB receives it new policy concerning flammability Notice with a 60-day comment period within 30 days of publication. testing. This notice is necessary to soliciting comments on the following Issued in Washington, DC on February 20, advise the public of methods to obtain collection of information was published 2002. copies of this final FAA policy. on December 4, 2001. No comments Joel C. Richard, EFFECTIVE DATE: The subject final policy were received. Secretary, Maritime Administration. was issued on January 23, 2002, and DATES: Comments must be submitted on [FR Doc. 02–4409 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] became effective on that date. or before March 27, 2002. BILLING CODE 4910–81–P DISCUSSION: On August 3, 2001, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Small Airplane Directorate issued a Murray A. Bloom, Maritime proposed policy statement. We made Administration, MAR–222, 400 Seventh DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the proposed policy statement available Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. to the public (66 FR 42703, August 14, Telephone 202–366–5320 or FAX 202– National Highway Traffic Safety 2001) and to all manufacturers for their 366–7485. Administration comments. The comment period closed Copies of this collection can also be [Docket No. NHTSA–2001–10900; Notice 2] September 13, 2001, and all comments obtained from that office. were considered before the final policy Decision that Nonconforming 1998 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: was issued. Chrysler Grand Voyager Multi-Purpose ADDRESSES: Copies of the final policy Maritime Administration (MARAD) Passenger Vehicles are Eligible for statement, PS–ACE100–2001–02, may Title: Application for Designation of Importation be requested from the following: Small Vessels as American Great Lakes AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Airplane Directorate, Standards Office Vessels. Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. (ACE–110), Aircraft Certification Office, OMB Control Number: 2133–0521. ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Type or Request: Extension of that nonconforming 1998 Chrysler Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO currently approved collection. Grand Voyager multi-purpose passenger 64106. The policy statement is also Affected Public: Shipowners of vehicles (MPVs) are eligible for available on the Internet at the following merchant vessels. importation. address http://www.faa.gov/ Form (s): None. certification/aircraft/ SUMMARY: This notice announces the _ _ Abstract: In accordance with Public small airplanes advisory.html. Law 101–624, the Secretary of decision by NHTSA that 1998 Chrysler FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Transportation issued requirements for Grand Voyager MPVs not originally Leslie B. Taylor, Federal Aviation the submission of applications for manufactured to comply with all Administration, Small Airplane designation of vessels as American applicable Federal motor vehicle safety Directorate, Regulations & Policy, ACE– Great Lakes Vessels. Owners who wish standards are eligible for importation 111, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, to have this designation must certify into the United States because they are Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329– that their vessel(s) meets certain criteria substantially similar to vehicles 4134; fax: 816–329–4090; e-mail: established in 46 CFR part 380. This originally manufactured for sale in the [email protected]. collection of information is mandated United States and certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on January by statute to establish that a vessel 29, 2002. meets statutory criteria for obtaining the safety standards (the U.S. certified version of the 1998 Chrysler Grand Marvin Nuss, benefit of eligibility to carry preference cargoes. Voyager), and they are capable of being Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, readily altered to conform to the Aircraft Certification Service. Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 1.25 standards. [FR Doc. 02–4412 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] hours. DATES: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ADDRESSES: Send comments to the This decision is effective as of Office of Information and Regulatory February 25, 2002. Affairs, Office of Management and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle Washington, DC 20503, Attention Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366– Maritime Administration MARAD Desk Officer. 5306). Comments Are Invited on: (a) Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Whether the proposed collection of Requirements; Agency Information information is necessary for the proper Background Collection Activity Under OMB Review performance of the functions of the Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. agency, including whether the motor vehicle that was not originally ACTION: Notice and request for information will have practical utility; manufactured to conform to all comments. (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate applicable Federal motor vehicle safety of the burden of the proposed standards shall be refused admission SUMMARY: In compliance with the information collection; (c) ways to into the United States unless NHTSA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 enhance the quality, utility and clarity has decided that the motor vehicle is U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice of the information to be collected; and substantially similar to a motor vehicle announces that the Information (d) ways to minimize the burden of the originally manufactured for importation Collection abstracted below has been collection of information on into and sale in the United States, forwarded to the Office of Management respondents, including the use of certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of and Budget (OMB) for review and automated collection techniques or the same model year as the model of the comment. The nature of the information other forms of information technology. motor vehicle to be compared, and is
VerDate 11
capable of being readily altered to Issued on: February 20, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You conform to all applicable Federal motor Marilynne Jacobs, can request additional information or a vehicle safety standards. Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. copy of the collection from Jessie Petitions for eligibility decisions may [FR Doc. 02–4413 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Dunaway, OCC Clearance Officer, or be submitted by either manufacturers or BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Camille Dixon, (202) 874–5090, importers who have registered with Legislative and Regulatory Activities NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY publishes notice in the Federal Register Washington, DC 20219. of each petition that it receives, and Office of the Comptroller of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC affords interested persons an Currency is proposing to extend OMB approval of opportunity to comment on the petition. the following information collection: At the close of the comment period, Agency Information Collection Title: (MA)-Loans in Areas Having NHTSA decides, on the basis of the Activities: Submission for OMB Special Flood Hazards (12 CFR 22). petition and any comments that it has Review; Comment Request OMB Number: 1557–0202. received, whether the vehicle is eligible Description: This submission covers AGENCY: for importation. The agency then Office of the Comptroller of the an existing regulation and involves no publishes this decision in the Federal Currency (OCC), Treasury. change to the regulation or to the Register. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. information collection. The OCC requests only that OMB extend its Wallace Environmental Testing SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas approval of the information collection. continuing effort to reduce paperwork This regulation requires national banks (‘‘WETL’’) (Registered Importer 90–005) and respondent burden, invites the petitioned NHTSA to decide whether to make disclosures and keep records general public and other Federal regarding whether a property securing a 1998 Chrysler Grand Voyager MPVs agencies to take this opportunity to originally manufactured for sale in the loan is located in a special flood hazard comment on a continuing information area. European market are eligible for collection, as required by the Paperwork importation into the United States. This information collection is Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may required by section 303(a) and title V of NHTSA published notice of the petition not conduct or sponsor, and a on November 19, 2001 (66 FR 58003) to the Riegle Community Development and respondent is not required to respond Regulatory Improvement Act, Pub. L. afford an opportunity for public to, an information collection unless the comment. The reader is referred to that 103–325, title V, 108 Stat. 2160, the information collection displays a National Flood Insurance Reform Act of notice for a thorough description of the currently valid OMB control number. petition. No comments were received in 1994 amendments to the National Flood The OCC is soliciting comment Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104a response to the notice of the petition. concerning its information collection Based on its review of the information and 4104b), the Flood Disaster titled, ‘‘(MA)-Loans in Areas Having Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a submitted by the petitioner, NHTSA has Special Flood Hazards (12 CFR 22).’’ decided to grant the petition. and 4106(b)), and by OCC regulations The OCC also gives notice that it has implementing those statutes. The Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject sent the information collection to OMB information collection requirements are Vehicles for review and approval. contained in 12 CFR part 22. DATES: You should submit your Section 22.6 requires a national bank The importer of a vehicle admissible comments to the OCC and the OMB to use and maintain a copy of the under any final decision must indicate Desk Officer by March 27, 2002. Standard Flood Hazard Determination on the form HS–7 accompanying entry ADDRESSES: You should direct Form developed by the Federal the appropriate vehicle eligibility comments to: Emergency Management Agency number indicating that the vehicle is Communications Division, Office of (FEMA). eligible for entry. VSP–373 is the the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Section 22.7 requires a national bank vehicle eligibility number assigned to Information Room, Mailstop 1–5, or its loan servicer, if a borrower has not vehicles admissible under this notice of Attention: 1557–0202, 250 E Street, SW, obtained flood insurance, to notify the final decision. Washington, DC 20219. Due to recent, borrower to obtain adequate flood Final Decision temporary disruptions in the OCC’s mail insurance coverage or the bank or service, commenters are encouraged to servicer will purchase flood insurance Accordingly, on the basis of the submit comments by fax or e-mail. on the borrower’s behalf. foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that Comments may be sent by fax to (202) Section 22.9 requires a national bank 1998 Chrysler Grand Voyager MPVs that 874–4448, or by e-mail to making a loan secured by a building or were not originally manufactured to [email protected]. You can a mobile home located in a special flood comply with all applicable Federal inspect and photocopy the comments at hazard area to advise the borrower and motor vehicle safety standards are the OCC’s Public Information Room, 250 the loan servicer whether the property substantially similar to 1998 Chrysler E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. located in a special flood hazard area, Grand Voyager MPVs originally You can make an appointment to whether flood insurance on the property manufactured for sale in the United inspect the comments by calling (202) securing the loan is required, whether States and certified under 49 U.S.C. 874–5043. flood insurance is available under the 30115, and are capable of being readily Alexander T. Hunt, OMB Desk Officer National Flood Insurance Program, and altered to conform to all applicable for the OCC, Office of Information and if Federal disaster relief may be Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Regulatory Affairs, Office of available in the event of flooding. The Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and Management and Budget, New bank must maintain a record of the (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority Executive Office Building, Room 3208, borrower and loan servicer’s receipts of at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Washington, DC 20503. these notices.
VerDate 11
Section 22.10 requires a national bank DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS NW, Washington, DC, 20420, (202) 273– making a loan secured by a building or AFFAIRS 9702. a mobile home located in a special flood SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hazard area to notify FEMA of the Enhanced-Use Lease Development for 38 U.S.C. identity of the servicer, and of any a New Department of Veterans Affairs 8161 et. seq., specifically provides that change in servicers. (VA) Veterans Assistance Office (VAO), the Secretary may enter into an These information collection Las Vegas, NV Enhanced-Use lease if he determines requirements ensure bank compliance that at least part of the use of the with applicable Federal law, further AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. property under the lease will be to bank safety and soundness, provide ACTION: Notice of Designation. provide appropriate space for an activity protections for banks and the public, contributing to the mission of the and further public policy interests. SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department. The lease will not be Type of Review: Extension of OMB Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is inconsistent with and will not adversely approval. designating VA-controlled property affect the mission of the Department. Affected Public: Businesses or other adjacent to the VA Ambulatory Care The lease will enhance the use of the for-profit (national banks). Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, as a site property or the Secretary must Estimated Number of Respondents: for Enhance-Use development. The determine that the project will result in 2,300. Department intends to enter into a long- a demonstrable improvement of services Estimated Total Annual Responses: term (up to 75 years) lease of real 230,000. property with a competitively selected to veterans. This project meets these Frequency of Response: On occasion. developer who will finance, develop, requirements. Estimated Total Annual Burden: and operate office space needed for VA Approved: February 11, 2002. 58,650 hours. administrative purposes. VA will Anthony J. Principi, Dated: February 15, 2002. improve services, reduce operating Secretary. costs, and optimize capital investments. Mark J. Tenhundfeld, [FR Doc. 02–4328 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : BILLING CODE 8320–01–M Activities Division. Brian McDaniel, Asset Enterprise [FR Doc. 02–4342 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Management (004B), Department of BILLING CODE 4810–33–P Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
VerDate 11
Corrections Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS § 1511.7 [Corrected] contains editorial corrections of previously COMMISSION 1. On page 7930, in §1511.7, in the published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule, third column, the third paragraph and Notice documents. These corrections are 47 CFR Part 95 designation ‘‘(a)’’ should read ‘‘(c)’’ . prepared by the Office of the Federal Register. Agency prepared corrections are 2. On page 7930, in §1511.7, in the issued as signed documents and appear in [ET Docket No. 00–221; ET Docket No. 99– third column, the fourth paragraph the appropriate document categories 255;PR Docket No. 92–235; WT Docket 97– designation ‘‘(b)’’ should read ‘‘(d)’’ . elsewhere in the issue. 153; FCC 01–382] 3. On page 7930, in §1511.7, in the third column, the seventh paragraph Reallocation of 27 MHz of Spectrum designation ‘‘(a)’’ should read ‘‘(e)’’. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Correction [FR Doc. C2–4148 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] In final rule document 02–2170 BILLING CODE 1505–01–D Department of the Army, Corps of beginning on page 6172 in the issue of Engineers Monday, February 11, 2002, make the DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY Issuance of Nationwide Permits; following correction: Notice; Correction § 95.639 [Corrected] Internal Revenue Service Correction On page 6193, in the third column, in 26 CFR Part 1 the first line of § 95.639, ‘‘(a)’’ should In notice document 02–3555 read, ‘‘(g)’’. [TD 8960] beginning on page 6692 in the issue of [FR Doc. C2–2170 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] RIN 1545–BA01 Wednesday, February 13, 2002, make BILLING CODE 1505–01–D the following corrections: Guidance Under §355(e); Recognition 1. On page 6693, in the second of Gain on Certain Distributions of column, in paragraph a., in the second DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stock or Securities in Connection With line ‘‘1⁄12’’ should read ‘‘1⁄2’’. an Acquisition Transportation Security Administration 2. On the same page, in the third Correction column, in paragraph i. in the 11th line 49 CFR Part 1511 In rule document 01–19353 beginning ‘‘1⁄2’’ should read ‘‘1⁄12’’. on page 40590 in the issue of Friday, 3. On the same page, in the third [Docket No. TSA-2002-11334] August 3, 2001, make the following column, in paragraph i. in the 15th line correction: ‘‘1⁄2’’ should read ‘‘1⁄12’’. RIN 2110-AA02 §1.355-7T [Corrected] [FR Doc. C2–3555 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees On page 40596, in the third column, BILLING CODE 1505–01–D the third paragraph should read Correction ‘‘(n) Effective date. This section applies to distributions occurring after In rule document 02–4148 beginning August 3, 2001.’’ on page 7926 in the issue of Wednesday, February 20, 2002, make the following [FR Doc. C1–19353 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] corrections: BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
VerDate 11
Corrections Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37
Monday, February 25, 2002
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS § 1511.7 [Corrected] contains editorial corrections of previously COMMISSION 1. On page 7930, in §1511.7, in the published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule, third column, the third paragraph and Notice documents. These corrections are 47 CFR Part 95 designation ‘‘(a)’’ should read ‘‘(c)’’ . prepared by the Office of the Federal Register. Agency prepared corrections are 2. On page 7930, in §1511.7, in the issued as signed documents and appear in [ET Docket No. 00–221; ET Docket No. 99– third column, the fourth paragraph the appropriate document categories 255;PR Docket No. 92–235; WT Docket 97– designation ‘‘(b)’’ should read ‘‘(d)’’ . elsewhere in the issue. 153; FCC 01–382] 3. On page 7930, in §1511.7, in the third column, the seventh paragraph Reallocation of 27 MHz of Spectrum designation ‘‘(a)’’ should read ‘‘(e)’’. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Correction [FR Doc. C2–4148 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] In final rule document 02–2170 BILLING CODE 1505–01–D Department of the Army, Corps of beginning on page 6172 in the issue of Engineers Monday, February 11, 2002, make the DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY Issuance of Nationwide Permits; following correction: Notice; Correction § 95.639 [Corrected] Internal Revenue Service Correction On page 6193, in the third column, in 26 CFR Part 1 the first line of § 95.639, ‘‘(a)’’ should In notice document 02–3555 read, ‘‘(g)’’. [TD 8960] beginning on page 6692 in the issue of [FR Doc. C2–2170 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] RIN 1545–BA01 Wednesday, February 13, 2002, make BILLING CODE 1505–01–D the following corrections: Guidance Under §355(e); Recognition 1. On page 6693, in the second of Gain on Certain Distributions of column, in paragraph a., in the second DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stock or Securities in Connection With line ‘‘1⁄12’’ should read ‘‘1⁄2’’. an Acquisition Transportation Security Administration 2. On the same page, in the third Correction column, in paragraph i. in the 11th line 49 CFR Part 1511 In rule document 01–19353 beginning ‘‘1⁄2’’ should read ‘‘1⁄12’’. on page 40590 in the issue of Friday, 3. On the same page, in the third [Docket No. TSA-2002-11334] August 3, 2001, make the following column, in paragraph i. in the 15th line correction: ‘‘1⁄2’’ should read ‘‘1⁄12’’. RIN 2110-AA02 §1.355-7T [Corrected] [FR Doc. C2–3555 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees On page 40596, in the third column, BILLING CODE 1505–01–D the third paragraph should read Correction ‘‘(n) Effective date. This section applies to distributions occurring after In rule document 02–4148 beginning August 3, 2001.’’ on page 7926 in the issue of Wednesday, February 20, 2002, make the following [FR Doc. C1–19353 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] corrections: BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
VerDate 11
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 432 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category; Proposed Rule
VerDate 11
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION least 53 million pounds per year and submit comments, see SUPPLEMENTARY AGENCY would cost an estimated $80 million INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments. (year 1999 $, pre-tax) on an annual The first public hearing on this 40 CFR Part 432 basis. In addition, EPA expects that proposal will be held at the Hilton KCI [FRL–7137–9] discharges of conventional pollutants Airport Hotel, 8801 NW 112th Street, would be reduced by at least 32 million Kansas City, Missouri. The second RIN 2040–AD56 pounds per year. EPA has estimated that public hearing on this proposal will be held at the U.S. EPA auditorium, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and the annual quantifiable benefits of the Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., New Source Performance Standards proposal would be approximately $37 Washington, DC. for the Meat and Poultry Products million. Point Source Category The public record for this proposed DATES: EPA must receive comments on rulemaking has been established under AGENCY: Environmental Protection the proposal by midnight of April 26, docket number W–01–06 and is located Agency (EPA). 2002. EPA will conduct two public in the Water Docket East Tower ACTION: Proposed rule. hearings on March 14, 2002 at 1 p.m. Basement, Room EB57, 401 M St. SW., (Kansas City, MO) and April 9, 2002 at Washington, DC 20460. The record is SUMMARY: This action presents the 9 a.m. (Washington, DC). For available for inspection from 9 a.m. to Agency’s proposed effluent limitations information on the location of the 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, guidelines and standards for wastewater public hearings, see ADDRESSES. excluding legal holidays. For access to discharges from meat and poultry ADDRESSES: Submit written comments the docket materials, call (202) 260– processing facilities. The proposed 3027 to schedule an appointment. You regulation revises technology-based to Ms. Samantha Lewis, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division may have to pay a reasonable fee for effluent limitations guidelines and copying. standards for wastewater discharges (4303T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania associated with the operation of new Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For and existing meat processing and For hand-deliveries or Federal Express, technical information concerning independent rendering facilities, please send comments to Ms. Samantha today’s proposed rule, contact Ms. proposes new effluent limitations Lewis, Office of Water, Engineering and Samantha Lewis at (202) 566–1058. For guidelines for poultry slaughtering and Analysis Division, Room 6233L, 1201 economic information contact Dr. poultry further processing facilities that Constitution Avenue, NW., 6th Floor, William Wheeler at (202) 566–1078. discharge wastewater, and revises the Connecting Wing, Washington, DC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: name of the regulation. 20460. Comments may be sent by e-mail EPA estimates that compliance with to the following e-mail address: Regulated Entities this regulation as proposed would ‘‘[email protected]’’. For Entities potentially regulated by this reduce the discharge of nutrients by at additional information on how to action include:
Primary SIC and Category Examples of regulated entities NAICS codes
Industry ...... Facilities engaged in first processing, further processing, or rendering of meat and poultry products, which may include the following sectors: Meat Packing Plants ...... 2011 (SIC). Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering ...... 311611 (NAICS). Meat Processed from Carcasses ...... 311612 (NAICS). Sausages and Other Prepared Meat Products ...... 2013 (SIC). Poultry Slaughtering and Processing ...... 2015 (SIC). Poultry Processing ...... 311615 (NAICS). Rendering and Meat By-Product Processing ...... 311613 (NAICS). Support Activities for Animal Production ...... 11521 (NAICS). Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except Dogs and Cats ...... 2048 (SIC). Dog and Cat Food ...... 2047 (SIC). Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing ...... 311111 (NAICS). Other Animal Food Manufacturing ...... 311119 (NAICS). All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing ...... 311999 (NAICS). Animal and Marine Fats and Oils ...... 2077 (SIC). Poultry Hatcheries and ...... 11234 (NAICS). Livestock Services, Except Veterinary ...... 0751 (SIC).
The preceding table is not intended to promulgation of this proposed rule, you in the preceding FOR FURTHER be exhaustive, but rather provides a should carefully examine the INFORMATION CONTACT section. guide for readers regarding entities applicability subsection of each How To Submit Comments likely to be regulated by this action. proposed subpart of part 432. You This table lists the types of entities that should also examine the description of EPA requests an original and three EPA is now aware could potentially be the proposed scope of each subpart in copies of your comments and enclosures regulated by promulgation of this Section VI.B of this document. If you (including references). Commenters who proposed rule. Other types of entities have questions regarding the want EPA to acknowledge receipt of not listed in the table could also be applicability of this proposed action to their comments should enclose a self- regulated. To determine whether your a particular entity, please contact the addressed, stamped envelope. No facility would be regulated by person listed for technical information facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
VerDate 11
Please submit any references cited in 1. ‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed Table of Contents your comments. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and I. Legal Authority Comments may also be sent via e- Standards for the Meat and Poultry II. Legislative Background mail, see ADDRESSES. Electronic Products Industry Point Source A. Clean Water Act comments must specify docket number Category’’ (EPA–821–B–01–006). B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree W–01–06 and must be submitted as an Hereafter referred to as the MPP III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file Economic Analysis, this document Regulation avoiding the use of special characters A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 432 presents the analysis of compliance B. Poultry Slaughtering and Further and any form of encryption. Electronic costs; facility, firm, small business and Processing Facilities comments on this proposal may be filed market impacts; and benefits. In IV. Rulemaking History and Industry Profile online at many Federal Depository addition, this document presents an A. Meat Products Effluent Guideline Libraries. No confidential business analysis of cost-effectiveness. Rulemaking History information (CBI) should be sent via e- 2. ‘‘Development Document for B. Industry Profile mail. Proposed Effluent Limitations V. Summary of Data Collection Guidelines and Standards for the Meat A. Secondary Sources of Data and Protection of Confidential Business and Poultry Products Industry Point Information Information (CBI) Source Category’’ (EPA–821–B–01–007). B. Industry Surveys EPA notes that certain information C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Hereafter referred to as the MPP D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical and data in the record supporting the Development Document, the document Methods proposed rule have been claimed as CBI presents EPA’s technical conclusions E. Other Data Collection and, therefore, are not included in the concerning the MPP proposal. This F. Summary of Public Participation record that is available to the public in document describes, among other VI. Subcategorization the Water Docket. Pursuant to EPA things, the data collection activities, the A. Factors Considered in Developing regulations at 40 CFR 2.203 and 2.211, wastewater treatment technology Proposed Subcategories EPA treats all information for which a options, effluent characterization, B. Proposed Subcategories claim of confidentiality is made as effluent reduction of the wastewater VII. Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater confidential unless and until it makes a Characteristics, and Pollutant Reductions treatment technology options, estimate A. Wastewater Treatment Technologies in determination to the contrary under 40 of costs to the industry, and estimate of the MPP Industry CFR 2.205. Further, the Agency has not effects on non-water quality B. Wastewater Sources, Water Use, and included in the docket some data not environmental impacts. Wastewater Characteristics claimed as CBI because release of this 3. ‘‘Environmental Assessment of C. Pollutants of Concern information would indirectly reveal Proposed Effluent Limitations D. Approach to Estimating Compliance information claimed to be confidential. Guidelines and Standards for the Meat Costs To provide the public with as much and Poultry Products Industry Point E. Approach to Estimating Pollutant information as possible in support of the Source Category’’ (EPA–821–B–01–008). Reductions proposed rulemaking, EPA is presenting VIII. Economic Analysis Hereafter referred to as the MPP A. Introduction in the public record certain information Environmental Assessment, the B. Economic Data Collection Activities in aggregated form or, alternatively, is document presents the analysis of water C. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates masking facility identities or employing quality impacts and potential benefits D. Economic Impact Methodologies other strategies in order to preserve for each regulatory option. E. Costs and Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT confidentiality claims. This approach Options ensures that the information in the How to Obtain Supporting Documents F. Results of BCT Cost Test public record both explains the basis for All documents are available from the G. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES today’s proposal and allows for a National Service Center for Options H. Economic Impacts for New Sources meaningful opportunity for public Environmental Publications, P.O. Box I. Firm Level Impacts comment, without compromising CBI 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242–2419, J. Community Impacts claims. (800) 490–9198 and the EPA Water K. Market and Foreign Trade Impacts Some tabulations and analyses of Docket. The supporting technical L. Cost-Reasonableness and Cost- facility-specific data claimed as CBI are documentation (e.g., MPP Development Effectiveness Analysis available to the company that submitted Document, Economic Analysis and M. Small Business Analysis. the information. To ensure that all data Environmental Assessment) can be IX. Water Quality Analysis and or information claimed as CBI is obtained on the Internet, located at Environmental Benefits protected in accordance with EPA http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/ A. Qualitative Description of Water Quality Benefits regulations, any requests for release of meatproducts/. This website also links B. Facilities Modeled such company-specific data should be to an electronic version of today’s C. Pollutants of Concern submitted to EPA on company proposed rule. D. Benefits Modeling Methodology letterhead and signed by a responsible Overview E. Modeled Technology Option Scenarios official authorized to receive such data. F. Documented Impacts and Permit The request must list the specific data The preamble describes the legal Violations requested and include the following authority for the proposal; a summary of G. Modeled Water Quality Impacts statement, ‘‘I certify that EPA is the proposal; background information; H. Monetized Water Quality Benefits authorized to transfer confidential the technical and economic X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts A. Energy Requirements business information submitted by my methodologies used by the Agency to develop these proposed regulations and, B. Air Emissions Impacts company, and that I am authorized to C. Solid Waste Generation receive it.’’ in an appendix, the definitions, XI. Options Selected for Proposal acronyms, and abbreviations used in Supporting Documentation A. Introduction this document. This preamble also B. Pretreatment Standards The rules proposed today are solicits comment and data generally, C. Meat Facilities (Subcategories A, B, C, supported by several documents: and on specific areas of interest. D, F, G, H and I)
VerDate 11
D. Independent Rendering Facilities reliance, however, is on establishing (including energy requirements), and (Subcategory J) restrictions on the types and amounts of such other factors as the Administrator E. Poultry Facilities (Subcategories K and pollutants discharged from various deems appropriate. See CWA L) industrial, commercial, and public 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA F. Regulatory Alternatives for Meat and sources of wastewater. establishes BPT effluent limitations Poultry Products Industry XII. Regulatory Implementation Direct dischargers must comply with based on the average of the best A. Implementation of Part 432 through the effluent limitations in National performances of facilities within the NPDES Permit Program and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System industry, grouped to reflect various Pretreatment Program (NPDES) permits; indirect dischargers ages, sizes, processes, or other common B. Upset and Bypass Provisions must comply with pretreatment characteristics. Where, however, C. Variances and Modifications standards. Effluent limitations in existing performance is uniformly D. Production Basis for Calculation of NPDES permits are derived from inadequate, EPA may establish Permit Limitations effluent limitations guidelines and new limitations based on higher levels of E. Best Management Practices source performance standards control than currently in place in an XIII. Administrative Requirements promulgated by EPA, as well as from industrial category if the Agency A. Executive Order 12866: ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ water quality standards. The effluent determines that the technology is B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as limitations guidelines and standards are available in another category or amended by the Small Business established by regulation for categories subcategory, and can be practically Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of of industrial dischargers and are based applied. 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. on the degree of control that can be 2. Best Control Technology for C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act achieved using various levels of D. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of pollution control technology. Conventional Pollutants (BCT)—Sec. Children from Environmental Health Congress recognized that regulating 304(b)(4) of the CWA Risks and Safety Risks’’ only those sources that discharge The 1977 amendments to the CWA E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation effluent directly into the nation’s waters required EPA to identify additional and Coordination With Indian Tribal would not be sufficient to achieve the levels of effluent reduction for Governments conventional pollutants associated with F. Paperwork Reduction Act CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA G. Executive Order 13132: ‘‘Federalism’’ requires EPA to promulgate nationally BCT technology for discharges from H. Executive Order 12898: ‘‘Federal applicable pretreatment standards that existing industrial point sources. In Actions to Address Environmental restrict pollutant discharges from addition to other factors specified in Justice in Minority Populations and Low- facilities that discharge wastewater section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires Income Populations’’ indirectly through sewers flowing to that EPA establish BCT limitations after I. National Technology Transfer and publicly owned treatment works consideration of a two part ‘‘cost- Advancement Act (POTWs). See section 307(b) and (c), 33 reasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its J. Executive Order 13211: ‘‘Energy Effects’’ U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). National methodology for the development of K. Plain Language pretreatment standards are established BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments A. General and Specific Comment for those pollutants in wastewater from 24974). Solicitation indirect dischargers that may pass Section 304(a)(4) designates the B. Regulatory Alternative to Potential through, interfere with or are otherwise following as conventional pollutants: Numerical Pretreatment Standards incompatible with POTW operations. biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Generally, pretreatment standards are total suspended solids (TSS), fecal Data designed to ensure that wastewaters coliform, pH, and any additional A. Types of Data Requested from direct and indirect industrial pollutants defined by the Administrator B. Analytes Requested dischargers are subject to similar levels as conventional. The Administrator C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/ of treatment. In addition, POTWs are designated oil and grease as an QC) Requirements required to implement local treatment additional conventional pollutant on Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and limits applicable to their industrial July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). Abbreviations Used in This Document indirect dischargers to satisfy any local 3. Best Available Technology requirements. See 40 CFR 403.5. I. Legal Authority Economically Achievable (BAT)—Sec. These regulations are proposed under 1. Best Practicable Control Technology 304(b)(2) of the CWA the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, Currently Available (BPT)—Sec. In general, BAT effluent limitations 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean 304(b)(1) of the CWA guidelines represent the best Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, EPA may promulgate BPT effluent economically achievable performance of 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361. limits for conventional, toxic, and non- facilities in the industrial subcategory or II. Legislative Background conventional pollutants. For toxic category. The CWA establishes BAT as pollutants, EPA typically regulates a principal national means of A. Clean Water Act priority pollutants which consist of a controlling the direct discharge of toxic Congress adopted the Clean Water Act specified list of toxic pollutants. In and nonconventional pollutants. The (CWA) to ‘‘restore and maintain the specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number factors considered in assessing BAT chemical, physical, and biological of factors. EPA first considers the cost include the cost of achieving BAT integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ of achieving effluent reductions in effluent reductions, the age of Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To relation to the effluent reduction equipment and facilities involved, the achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the benefits. The Agency also considers the process employed, potential process discharge of pollutants into navigable age of the equipment and facilities, the changes, and non-water quality waters except in compliance with the processes employed, engineering environmental impacts including energy statute. The Clean Water Act confronts aspects of the control technologies, any requirements, and such other factors as the problem of water pollution on a required process changes, non-water the Administrator deems appropriate. number of different fronts. Its primary quality environmental impacts The Agency retains considerable
VerDate 11
discretion in assigning the weight to be 6. Pretreatment Standards for New settlement of that action in a consent accorded these factors. An additional Sources (PSNS)—Sec. 307(c) of the decree entered on January 31, 1992. The statutory factor considered in setting CWA consent decree, which has been BAT is economic achievability. Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA modified several times, established a Generally, EPA determines economic to promulgate pretreatment standards schedule by which EPA is to propose achievability on the basis of total costs for new sources at the same time it and take final action for eleven point to the industry and the effect of promulgates new source performance source categories identified by name in compliance with BAT limitations on standards. Such pretreatment standards the decree and for eight other point overall industry and subcategory must prevent the discharge of any source categories identified only as new financial conditions. As with BPT, pollutant into a POTW that may or revised rules, numbered 5 through where existing performance is interfere with, pass through, or may 12. EPA selected the meat and poultry uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect otherwise be incompatible with the products industry as the subject for New a higher level of performance than is POTW. EPA promulgates categorical or Revised Rule #11. Under the decree, currently being achieved based on pretreatment standards for existing as modified, the Administrator was technology transferred from a different sources based principally on BAT required to sign a proposed rule for the subcategory or category. BAT may be technology for existing sources. EPA meat and poultry products industry no based upon process changes or internal promulgates pretreatment standards for later than January 30, 2002, and must controls, even when these technologies new sources based on best available take final action on that proposal no are not common industry practice. demonstrated technology for new later than December 31, 2003. 4. New Source Performance Standards sources. New indirect dischargers have III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed (NSPS)—Sec. 306 of the CWA the opportunity to incorporate into their Regulation facilities the best available New Source Performance Standards demonstrated technologies. The Agency EPA solicits comments on various reflect effluent reductions that are considers the same factors in issues specifically identified in the achievable based on the best available promulgating PSNS as it considers in preamble as well as any other demonstrated control technology. New promulgating NSPS. applicability issues that are not specifically addressed in today’s notice. facilities have the opportunity to install B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree the best and most efficient production The following discussion of processes and wastewater treatment Section 304(m) requires EPA to applicability begins with the proposed technologies. As a result, NSPS should publish a plan every two years that revisions to the existing subcategories. represent the most stringent controls consists of three elements. First, under Section III.B presents the applicability attainable through the application of the section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is required to for two new subcategories for poultry best available demonstrated control establish a schedule for the annual facilities. review and revision of existing effluent technology for all pollutants (that is, A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 432 conventional, nonconventional, and guidelines in accordance with section priority pollutants). In establishing 304(b). Section 304(b) applies to effluent EPA is proposing new or revised NSPS, EPA is directed to take into limitations guidelines for direct effluent limitations guidelines and consideration the cost of achieving the dischargers and requires EPA to revise standards for nine of the ten effluent reduction and any non-water such regulations as appropriate. Second, subcategories of the meat and poultry quality environmental impacts and under Section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA must products industry including: simple energy requirements. identify categories of sources slaughterhouse, complex discharging toxic or nonconventional slaughterhouse, low processing 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing pollutants for which EPA has not packinghouse, high processing Sources (PSES)—Sec. 307(b) of the CWA published BAT effluent limitations packinghouse, meat cutter, sausage and guidelines under 304(b)(2) or new luncheon meats processor, ham Pretreatment Standards for Existing source performance standards under processor, canned meats processor, and Sources are designed to prevent the section 306. Finally, under 304(m)(1)(C), renderer. EPA is also proposing to discharge of pollutants that pass EPA must establish a schedule for the change the name of the category since through, interfere with, or are otherwise promulgation of BAT and NSPS for the poultry processing facilities are covered incompatible with the operation of categories identified under by the proposed requirements. No new publicly owned treatment works subparagraph (B) not later than three or revised effluent limitations (POTW). Categorical pretreatment years after being identified in the guidelines or pretreatment standards are standards are technology-based and are 304(m) plan. Section 304(m) does not being proposed for the small processor analogous to BAT effluent limitations apply to pretreatment standards for category. guidelines. indirect dischargers, which EPA The technology options which serve The General Pretreatment promulgates pursuant to Sections 307(b) as the basis for the proposed effluent Regulations, which set forth the and 307(c) of the Clean Water Act. limitations guidelines and standards for framework for the implementation of On October 30, 1989, Natural the meat subcategories are summarized categorical pretreatment standards, are Resources Defense Council, Inc., and in Table III.A–1. For descriptions and found at 40 CFR part 403. These Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action discussion of the subcategories, see regulations establish pretreatment against EPA in which they alleged, Section VI; for the technologies, see standards that apply to all non-domestic among other things, that EPA had failed Section VII.D; and for a discussion of dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14, to comply with CWA Section 304(m). the process wastewater generated by 1987). Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a these subcategories, see Section VII.B.
VerDate 11
TABLE III.A–1.—SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Regulatory Technology Subcategory Technical components 2 level option 1
Subpart A: Simple Slaughterhouse; Subpart B: Com- BPT ...... 2 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- plex Slaughterhouse; Subpart C: Low-Processing logical treatment with nitrification. Packinghouse; and Subpart D: High-Processing Packinghouse. BAT; NSPS .... 3 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification and denitrification. BCT ...... No Action ...... No revised limitations are proposed. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. Subpart E: Small Processors ...... BPT; BCT; No Action ...... No revised limitations or standards are proposed. BAT; NSPS. PSES;PSNS ... No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. Subpart F: Meat Cutter; Subpart G: Sausage and BPT ...... 2 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- Luncheon Meats Processor; Subpart H: Ham Proc- logical treatment with nitrification. essor; and Subpart I: Canned Meats Processor. BAT; NSPS .... 3 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification and denitrification. BCT ...... No Action ...... No revised limitations are proposed. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. Subpart J: Renderer ...... BPT; BCT ...... 2 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification. BAT; NSPS .... 2 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. 1 See Section VII.D for a discussion of the technology options. 2 See Section XI.C and XI.D for a discussion of the Agency’s rationale on selecting options.
1. Meat (or Red Meat) Facilities meat further processors that produce up EPA developed these new production EPA established regulations which to 6,000 pounds of finished product per rate thresholds based on current apply to the meat (or red meat) day. screener survey data available prior to slaughterhouses and packinghouses (40 EPA is not proposing to change the proposal. EPA ordered the annual CFR part 432 subcategories A through existing production rate thresholds in production screener survey data from D) in 1974. EPA established regulations subparts E through I in this proposed highest to lowest annual production for which apply to meat further processing rule for existing limitations and each of the regulatory groupings (e.g., facilities (40 CFR part 432 subcategories standards. Also, EPA is proposing new A–D, F–I, J, K, and L), then divided each E through I) in 1975. Although there is production rate thresholds in Subparts of the regulatory groupings into four no definition of ‘‘red meat’’ or ‘‘meat’’ A through D and F through I for the size classifications (e.g., small, medium, in the existing 40 CFR part 432 proposed limitations and standards large, and very large) based on regulations, EPA defined these terms in based on current data collected for this employment and annual production the previous technical development rulemaking (see Section III of the MPP data. EPA performed this size documents associated with these prior Development Document). These new classification task in order to more rules as all animal products from cattle, production rate thresholds do not affect accurately estimate costs, loadings, calves, hogs, sheep, and lambs and any subpart E (Small Processors) meat NWQIs, and economic impacts of the meat that is not listed under the facilities as these proposed new proposed limitations and standards on definition of poultry. EPA is using the production rate thresholds are all higher this industry. That is, rather than term ‘‘meat’’ as synonymous with the than the subpart E production rate assume one model facility for each of term ‘‘red meat.’’ EPA proposes to threshold (i.e., 6,000 pounds of finished the five regulatory groupings, EPA used include a similar definition in the product per day). EPA defines the four model facilities for each of the five revised regulations (see Appendix A of following facilities which are currently regulatory groupings for better accuracy this document). covered under 40 CFR part 432 as small: in its analyses (see also MPP The current regulations for meat cover • Facilities in Subcategories A, B, C Development Document for further all aspects of producing meat products and D that slaughter less than 50 million details on how these production based from the slaughter of the animal to pounds (LWK) per year; thresholds were developed). In producing final consumer products (e.g. • evaluating the screener data related to cooked, seasoned or smoked products, All facilities in Subcategory E; facility annual production, several such as luncheon meat or hams.) For • Facilities in Subcategories F, G, H variables were identified. These were subparts F, G, H and I of the existing and I that produce less than 50 million meat and poultry type processed, type regulations, EPA established a pounds of finished product per year; of facility operation (i.e., first processing production rate threshold of greater than and (slaughtering), further processing, or 6,000 pounds of finished product per • Facilities in Subcategory J that rendering), number of facility day, below which the regulations do not render less than 10 million pounds per employees, annual wastewater apply. Subpart E of the existing year of raw material (see Section generation, and type of wastewater regulations (Small Processors) applies to III.A.2). management (e.g., direct discharger,
VerDate 11
indirect discharger, land applied on the screener data available for this lowering this production threshold site). Because EPA had only a limited proposal. EPA will be re-evaluating this based on data collected for this amount of detailed information on data in preparation for the NODA. EPA rulemaking. See Section III.A.1 for a facilities, the number of facility is also soliciting comment on alternative description of EPA’s reasons for setting employees was selected as an indicator definitions of small facilities at higher production thresholds and exempting of facility size for modeling (e.g., costs, production levels (representing facilities most small MPP facilities (including loads, economic impacts, NWQIs). EPA with more than 100 employees). A small rendering facilities that render identified facilities with 100 employees supplemental analysis in the record less than 10 million pounds per year of or less as small and then identified the (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. raw material) from today’s revisions to corresponding annual production 25010) compares the alternative 40 CFR part 432. thresholds. It is important to note for the definitions in terms of costs, pollutant Subpart J applies to the rendering of purposes of estimating costs, loads, removals, and economic impacts on the any meat or poultry raw material. When economic impacts and NWQIs, EPA affected facilities. For example, in rendering is done in conjunction with a used facility level employment data for Subpart K, there are no ‘‘small’’ meat slaughterhouse or packinghouse, developing one threshold between facilities, as defined by EPA, whereas the rendering wastewater is regulated ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘non-small’’ facilities. The there are 35 medium facilities and 60 under the limitations for the appropriate SBA size standard for these industries is large and very large facilities (using meat slaughtering or packinghouse 500 employees at the company level. currently available data). Thirty-one of subcategory (i.e., under subpart A, B, C, EPA divided the remaining non-small the 35 facilities defined as ‘‘medium’’ or D). facilities (i.e., medium, large, and very facilities are owned by small businesses B. Poultry Slaughtering and Further large) into equal thirds based on annual (defined as firms with less than 500 Processing Facilities production. employees). EPA specifically is requesting comment on whether the EPA is proposing to establish effluent EPA is using the results of the revised limitations guidelines and new source production rate thresholds to exclude medium facilities in the various Subparts should be included in the performance standards for the poultry most smaller MPP facilities from today’s first processing (i.e. slaughtering) and proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 432 ‘‘small’’ facility category, particularly in Subpart K which has no ‘‘small further processing subcategories, and to because the technologies on which the facilities.’’ In assessing alternate small revise the category title accordingly. options were based are not cost-effective facility definitions, EPA shall consider Poultry includes broilers, other young for the facilities with the lowest the same factors discussed above (e.g. chickens, hens, fowl, mature chickens, production threshold (i.e., the smallest economic impact, small pollutant turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, exotic facilities). However, these production loadings, etc.) and requests comment on poultry (e.g., ostriches), and small game based thresholds for the proposal are how alternative thresholds might be such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits based on available screener survey data. justified using these factors. (see Appendix A of this document). A more detailed evaluation of these The existing regulations apply to all EPA proposed regulations for this thresholds, along with the model facility sizes of meat direct dischargers (except segment of the meat and poultry identification will be made following for renderers processing less than products industry in 1975, but did not evaluation of the detailed survey 75,000 pound raw material per day—see finalize them. EPA has reanalyzed this responses and may warrant a change in Section III.A.2). The revisions to 40 CFR segment of the meat and poultry the production based thresholds. Most part 432 being proposed today apply to products industry and is proposing smaller MPP facilities are excluded from meat facilities (see Section III.A.1) above today to establish BPT, BCT, and BAT the scope of today’s proposal for a the new production based thresholds limitations for existing facilities and number of reasons: (1) Small MPP and all poultry facilities that discharge new source performance standards. EPA facilities as group discharge less than directly to a receiving stream or other proposes to create two new 3% of the conventional pollutants (or 35 waters of the United States (see Section subcategories which would apply to million lbs/year), 1% of the toxic III.B for a discussion of poultry poultry processing facilities. The first pollutants (or 1.3 million lbs/year), 4% facilities). new poultry subcategory is the ‘‘poultry of the nutrients (or 7.5 million lbs/year), first processing’’ subcategory which and less than 1.5% of the pathogens (or 2. Rendering includes the slaughtering and 47 x 109 CFU/year) as compared to all In 1975, EPA established regulations evisceration of the bird or animal and discharges from the entire MPP (40 CFR part 432, Subcategory J) which dressing the carcass for shipment either industry; (2) EPA determined that only apply to independent renderers, defined whole or in parts, such as leg, quarters, a limited amount of loadings removal as independent or off-site operations breasts and boneless pieces. These would be accomplished by improved that manufacture meat meal, dried facilities are commonly known as ‘‘ice treatment; and (3) EPA determined that animal by-product residues (tankage), pack facilities.’’ The second new poultry ‘‘small’’ MPP facilities would discharge animal fats or oils, grease and tallow, subcategory is the ‘‘poultry further a very small portion of the total industry perhaps including hide curing, by a processing’’ subcategory which includes discharge. Therefore, EPA is not renderer. The existing regulations additional preparation of the meat revising current limitations and establish a size threshold of 75,000 including further cutting, cooking, standards for small meat facilities. The pounds of raw material per day seasoning and smoking to produce existing regulations, however, will processed. Facilities which process less ready to be eaten or reheated servings. continue to apply to those facilities. than this amount are not subject to the The additions to 40 CFR part 432 for EPA is, however, setting limitations and existing regulations. EPA is proposing to poultry being proposed today apply to standards for small poultry direct lower this production threshold so that facilities that discharge directly to a discharging facilities (for whom there subpart J applies to facilities that render receiving stream and other waters of the are no existing standards) based on more than 10 million pounds per year United States. EPA is proposing to set current performance (see Section III.B). of raw material (or approximately less stringent effluent limitations As explained above, EPA’s proposed 27,000 pounds per day for a facility that guidelines for direct dischargers definition of ‘small’ facility is based on operates 365 days per year). EPA is slaughtering up to 10 million pounds
VerDate 11
per year than on facilities which processing facilities are economically limitations guidelines and standards slaughter over 10 million pounds per unachievable for small poultry being for the poultry portion of the year and for further processors slaughtering and further processing industry are summarized in Table III.B– producing 7 million pounds per year facilities. Rendering performed in 1. For descriptions and discussion of the than on facilities which produce over 7 conjunction with a poultry first subcategories, see Section VI.D; for the million pounds per year. See Section processing facility would be subject to technologies, see Section VII.D; and for III.A.1 for a description of EPA’s reasons the appropriate regulations under the a discussion of the process wastewater for setting production thresholds. The poultry slaughtering (Subpart K). generated by these subcategories, see treatment options proposed for larger The technology options which serve section VII.B. poultry slaughtering and further as the basis for the proposed effluent
TABLE III.B–1.—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR POULTRY FIRST AND FURTHER PROCESSORS
Regulatory Technology Subcategory Technical components 2 level option1
Subpart K: Poultry First Processing (facilities which BPT; BCT ...... 1 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- slaughter up to 10 million pounds per year); and, logical treatment with less efficient nitrification. Subpart L: Poultry Further Processing (facilities which produce up to 7,000 pounds per year of fin- ished product). BAT; NSPS .... 1 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with less efficient nitrification. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. Subpart K: Poultry First Processing (facilities which BPT; BCT ...... 3 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- slaughter more than 10 million pounds per year); logical treatment with nitrification and and, Subpart L: Poultry Further Processing (facili- denitrification. ties which produce more than 7,000 pounds per year of finished product). BAT; NSPS .... 3 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification and denitirification. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. 1 See Section VII.D for a discussion of the technology options. 2 See Section XI.E for a discussion of the Agency’s rationale on selecting options.
IV. Rulemaking History and Industry established effluent limitations and subject of litigation in National Profile standards for existing and new sources Renderers Association et al., v. EPA, et for six additional types of facilities: al., 541 F. 2d 1281 (8th Cir. 1976). The A. Meat Products Effluent Guideline Small Processor, Meat Cutter, Sausage Court remanded the regulations to the Rulemaking History and Luncheon Meats Processor, Ham Agency to reconsider the economic The effluent limitations guidelines Processor, Canned Meats Processor, and impact of the costs associated with these and standards for the meat products Independent Renderer (40 CFR part 432, requirements. The BAT limitations for industry were developed and Subcategories E–J). independent renderers were not promulgated in the 1970’s. The existing BCT limitations were promulgated on remanded, but EPA reevaluated these regulations for the meat slaughtering August 29, 1979 (44 FR 50732) for all limitations nonetheless. On October 6, and processing subcategories and meat subcategories and independent 1977 (42 FR 54417), EPA promulgated a independent rendering were issued in rendering (40 CFR part 432, final rule which revised the BAT phases and are grouped together under Subcategories A–J). limitations and new source performance 40 CFR part 432. EPA did not establish pretreatment standards for this subcategory. In that EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS standards (neither PSES nor PSNS) for final rule, the BAT limitations for limitations and standards for existing any of meat subcategories and ammonia, BOD5, and TSS are less and new meat slaughterhouses and independent rendering (40 CFR part stringent than the original BAT packinghouses on February 28, 1974 (39 432, Subcategories A–J) in the 1974 or limitations; however, the NSPS are more FR 7894). The 1974 regulation 1975 regulations. stringent than the original NSPS established effluent limitations and The BPT and BAT limitations standards. In the final rule, EPA standards for existing and new sources established in the February 28, 1974 retained an exclusion for small facilities for four types of meat slaughterhouses notice were the subject of litigation in (less than 75,000 pounds of raw material and packinghouses: Simple American Meat Institute v. EPA, 526 per day) from BPT, BAT, and NSPS. Slaughterhouse, Complex F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975). The Seventh EPA proposed BPT, BAT, NSPS, Slaughterhouse, Low Processing Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the PSNS limitations and standards for Packinghouse, and High Processing effluent limitations and remanded existing and new poultry slaughterers Packinghouse (40 CFR part 432, selected portions of those regulations. and processors on April 24, 1975 (40 FR Subcategories A–D). The BPT and BAT regulations remanded 18150). EPA proposed to subcategorize EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS by the court were subsequently revised the poultry processing sector into five limitations and standards for existing or withdrawn (see 44 FR 50732, August subcategories, distinguished by the and new meat further processing 29, 1979; 45 FR 82253, December 15, animal or bird being processed and an subcategories and the independent 1980). additional subcategory which applied to rendering subcategory on January 3, The regulations in the independent further processing. These regulations 1975 (40 FR 902). The 1975 regulation rendering subcategory were also the were never finalized as the 1977
VerDate 11
amendments to the Clean Water Act re- into consumer products (i.e., calves, processing (e.g., de-fleshing, de- focused the Agency’s attention on hogs, sheep, and lambs). Slaughterhouse feathering). establishing effluent limitations operations typically encompass the The meat further processing industry guidelines for industry sectors with following steps: (1) Receiving and sector includes 1,164 companies, which effluents containing toxic metals and holding of live animals for slaughter; (2) own and operate about 1,300 facilities. organics. stunning of animals prior to slaughter; This sector employs about 88,000 (3) slaughter (exsanguination) of people, and the value of shipments is B. Industry Profile animals; and (4) initial processing of more than $25 billion, of which $9 The meat and poultry products animals. Slaughterhouse facilities are billion is value added by manufacture. industry includes facilities which designed to accommodate the multi-step California, Illinois, New York and slaughter livestock (e.g., cattle, calves, process of slaughtering. In most Texas have the highest concentration of hogs, sheep and lambs) and/or poultry slaughterhouses, the major steps are meat further processing facilities, each or process meat and/or poultry into carried out in separate rooms. with more than 90 meat further products for further processing or sale to In addition, many first processing processing facilities. However the consumers. The industry is often facilities further process carcasses on- highest levels of employment are found described in terms of three categories: site and/or perform rendering in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas and (1) Meat slaughtering and processing; (2) operations. These facilities may also Wisconsin, which together generate one- poultry slaughtering and processing; (3) process meat products into prepared third of the meat further processing and rendering. Facilities may perform foods and feed ingredients for animals employment. In Wisconsin more than slaughtering operations, processing (except dog and cat food). Otherwise the half of the meat further processing operations from carcasses slaughtered at carcasses are shipped to other facilities facilities employ more than 20 workers, other facilities, or both. Companies that for further processing into finished and the State also accounts for the own meat or poultry product facilities products such as hams, sausages, largest share of both total shipments and may also own facilities that either raise ground meat, and canned products. value added in the industry. the animals or further process the meat Based on the 1997 U.S. Census of As with the animal slaughtering or poultry products into final consumer Manufactures, the animal slaughtering sector, more than half of the meat products. These other enterprises are industry sector includes 1,300 further processing facilities employ not covered by the meat and poultry companies which operate fewer than 20 workers. The bulk of the products industry effluent limitations approximately 1,400 facilities. The employment (54 percent), value added guidelines. industry sector employs 142,000 people (55 percent) and total shipments (57 Since the 1970’s when EPA issued the and generates a total value of shipments percent) is accounted for by meat existing regulations for meat and of $54 billion. Twelve States reported further processing facilities employing rendering industry sectors, the meat and shipments in excess of $1 billion, with between 100 and 500 workers. The poultry products industry has become Texas, California, Illinois, Iowa and difference between the animal increasingly concentrated or vertically Wisconsin containing the largest slaughtering sector and the meat further integrated through alliances, number of slaughtering establishments processing sector is that while the value acquisitions, mergers, and other (at least 60 establishments in each of shipments in the animal slaughtering relationships. This vertical integration is State). Nebraska ranks seventh in the industry sector is heavily concentrated particularly pronounced in the broiler number of facilities located in the State, in the largest facilities, the value of sector of the poultry industry. Most of but has the highest number of shipments in the meat further the broiler and other chicken products employees engaged in animal processing sector is more evenly which reach the consumer have been slaughtering of any State. Nebraska distributed across meat further under the control of the same company accounts for almost 17 percent of the processing facilities of all different from the hatching of the flocks through value added and 16 percent of total sizes. the processing of the birds. Vertical shipments in this industry sector. Poultry Processing (NAICS 311615) integration is not seen to the same Industry activity is most heavily includes the slaughter of poultry, small extent in the meat sector, although there concentrated in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa game animals (e.g., quails, pheasants, is increasing vertical integration, and Texas. and rabbits), and exotic poultry (e.g., particularly in the hog sector. The Animal Slaughtering sector is ostriches) and the processing and The meat and poultry products comprised of a large number of facilities preparing of these products and their industry encompasses four North (72 percent of the sector) which have byproducts. The 1997 U.S. Census of American Industry Classification fewer than twenty employees. These Manufactures reported 260 companies System (NAICS) codes which are facilities employ less than 5 percent of engaged in poultry slaughtering. These developed by the Department of the sector workforce and contribute an companies own or operate 470 facilities, Commerce. These NAICS codes include: even smaller percentage of value added employ 224,000 employees, and Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) and value of shipments. Thirty-nine produces about $32 billion in value of (NAICS 311611); Meat Processed from facilities employ between 1,000 and shipments. Carcasses (NAICS 311612); Poultry 2,500 employees and while comprising The poultry slaughtering sector has Processing (NAICS 311615); and only 3 percent of the total number of relatively few facilities with less than 20 Rendering and Meat Byproduct establishments, provide 43 percent of employees but like the meat sectors it is Processing (NAICS 311613). the industry employment and 46 dominated by a few very large facilities. Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) percent of the value of shipments. Almost 50 percent of the sector (NAICS 311611), includes meat first Meat Processed from Carcasses employment and over 40 percent of the processing facilities which slaughter (NAICS 311612) includes facilities value of shipments were accounted for cattle, hogs, sheep, lambs, calves, engaged in processing or preserving by 75 facilities which employ more than horses, goats, and exotic livestock (e.g., meat and meat by-products (but not 1,000 workers each. Eighty percent of elk, deer, buffalo) for human poultry or small game) from purchased employment and 74 percent of total consumption. Slaughtering is the first meats. These facilities do not slaughter shipments are produced by facilities step in the processing of meat animals animals or perform any initial that employ more than 500 workers. Yet
VerDate 11
these facilities comprise only 36 percent products and meat product equipment The majority of facilities in the meat of the poultry processing industry. require acceptable levels of cleanliness. and poultry products industry are Products produced by the poultry The U.S. Department of Agriculture indirect dischargers (an estimated 5,298 processing sector can be divided into Food Safety and Inspection Service facilities). There are an estimated 359 two major categories: broilers and (USDA FSIS) is responsible for facilities which discharge directly to turkeys. Broilers comprise more than regulating and inspecting meat and waters of the U.S. and 242 of these are half of the industry’s shipments. poultry slaughtering and processing larger facilities which often will have a Processed poultry accounts for about 30 facilities and facilities engaged in edible variety of further processing operations percent of this sectors shipments and rendering (i.e., suitable for human on-site. There are 1,113 facilities which turkey products accounts for about 12 consumption) to ensure food safety. The report storing water in on-site lagoons or percent. U.S. Food and Drug Administration land applying their wastewater (see Poultry processing is largely (FDA) covers inedible rendering MPP Development Document). concentrated in the southeastern States operations which produce products The untreated wastewater contains with Arkansas and Georgia having the suitable for pet food, animal feed, high concentrations of BOD5, TSS, oil largest number of facilities, employment chemical products, and fuel blending. and grease, pathogens, especially fecal and value of shipments. Alabama and Water is used to clean the product, coliforms and nutrients, including North Carolina rank third and fourth in clean and sanitize the production nitrogen (including ammonia) and all of these measures. California is the equipment and as a transport phosphorus. EPA’s sampling data only State in the top ten poultry mechanism for carrying the waste away collected from meat and poultry producing States which is not in the from the production area. Water can products facilities found treatable southeast. California ranks tenth in also be used as a part of the process concentrations of some metals (e.g., terms of employment and value of such as scalding birds to facilitate copper and zinc). Some of these metals shipments and ranks eighth in number feather removal or chilling the animal or are fed to the animals as feed additives, of facilities. meat to reduce its temperature. The which therefore is assumed to be the The Rendering and Meat Byproduct meat and poultry processing industry Processing (NAICS 311613) sector source for these pollutants in the (excluding rendering) uses an estimated wastewater. includes facilities engaged in the 150 billion gallons of water per year. Treatment for meat and poultry rendering of inedible stearin, grease, The meat and poultry products industry and tallow from animal fat, bones and ranks in the top third of all three digit processing wastewater varies depending meat scraps and the manufacturing of SIC manufacturing sectors with regard on whether the facility is a direct or animal oils, including fish oil, and fish to overall water consumption (Docket indirect discharger. Direct dischargers and animal meal. Many facilities not No. W–01–06, Record No. 10025). generally have biological treatment-in- classified as rendering facilities perform Industry sources have estimated that place; most facilities use a combination rendering operations but are not the implementation of USDA’s Hazard of anaerobic and aerobic treatment, they classified as such because they are also Analysis and Critical Control Points also have nitrification to reduce engaged in slaughtering (these are often (HACCP) program has increased water ammonia concentrations in the effluent. on-site rendering facilities that are part usage by 20 to 25 percent (Docket No. Some facilities have denitrification to of an animal or poultry slaughtering W–01–06, Record No. 10021). USDA reduce nitrogen (nitrate) concentrations, facility). FSIS disagrees with industry’s assertion although some facilities have a The rendering sector consists of 137 that implementation of HACCP has polishing filter to achieve additional companies that own or operate 240 necessarily required greater use of water reductions of other suspended facilities. The sector employs 8,800 (Docket No. W–01–06, Record pollutants. All facilities use some form workers and generates $2.6 billion in No.10027). Furthermore, USDA FSIS of disinfection (e.g., chlorine contact shipments. Texas and California have asserts that its regulatory performance tank, ultraviolet radiation) to destroy or the largest number of rendering standards provide for numerous water render pathogens inactive. Dissolved facilities. Unlike the meat or poultry reuse opportunities (see 9 CFR 416.2(g)). Air Flotation (DAF) is also commonly industry sectors, the rendering industry Many facilities in the meat and used to reduce oil and grease prior to sector includes few large facilities (i.e., poultry processing sector have the biological treatment. The indirect only 11 rendering facilities employed employed water reuse programs for dischargers are mostly removing solids more than 100 workers per facility in many years. Some large facilities even from their effluent through the use of 1997). The 132 rendering facilities have installed onsite advanced screens or settling basins. Many of the which employ between 20 and 99 wastewater treatment systems which indirect discharge facilities surveyed workers account for the largest share of treat facility effluent allowing this water also report using an equalization basin the industry shipments (66 percent). to be reused for some applications and DAF to reduce the oil and grease Because the meat and poultry within the facility. Other facilities have concentrations in their effluent. products industry produces products for changed sanitation practices to reduce Industry representatives have indicated human consumption (with the water use and effluence in general. For that facilities avoid adding flocculants exception of rendering), the industry as example, one independent renderer or treatment aids to their wastewaters a whole is very conscious of cleanliness noted during an EPA site visit that his prior to DAF or settling, because these and hygiene. Meat and poultry facility fully converted from a wet additives prevent them from sending the processing facilities use disinfectants to cleaning method to a dry cleaning sludge to a renderer. EPA identified that clean and sanitize equipment between method in the product shipment area in raw materials with high concentrations production. The industry reports order to minimize water pollution of ferric chloride are also often rejected avoiding the use of pesticides which (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. by independent renderers due to their could contaminate their products, 10042). EPA solicits comment on the corrosive nature. EPA solicits comment although EPA sampling data did detect potential of MPP facilities to reduce on other types of flocculants or several pesticides in raw wastewaters. water consumption and new treatment aids and their concentrations Water is a very important part of meat technologies or practices that can that are commonly not accepted by products manufacturing as meat effectively reuse water. independent renderers.
VerDate 11
EPA also examined the impact of reports, and analyses published by Renderers Association, American Meat different religious meat and poultry government agencies; reports and Institute, BCR Foods, and U.S. Poultry production (e.g., kosher, halal, analyses published by the meat and and Egg Association. EPA made minor Buddhist) on raw wastewater poultry products industry and its clarifying revisions to the survey characteristics in terms of wastewater associated organizations; and publicly methodology and questionnaires as a flow and pollutant concentrations available financial information result of public comments. (Docket No. W–01–06, Record compiled by both government and EPA made every reasonable attempt to No.10028; Record No. 10029). EPA private organizations. ensure that the meat and poultry identified that kosher and halal poultry EPA used the listings of beef products industry ICR did not request producers pack the birds (inside and processing facilities from Cattle-Fax, the data and information currently available out) in salt for one hour to absorb any National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, through less burdensome mechanisms. residual blood or juices. The birds are Iowa State University, and North Dakota Prior to publishing the May 1, 2000 then rinsed and shipped to kosher/halal State University to identify the location notice, EPA met with and distributed meat distributers. An industry of individual beef slaughtering facilities, draft copies of the survey questionnaires representative reported that on an their parent corporation, and, in some to three trade associations representing average day a kosher poultry facility cases, the operational capacity of the the meat and poultry products industry would use 80,000 pounds of salt in their individual facility. EPA used the (American Meat Institute, National operations with a wastewater generation National Pork Producers Council Chicken Council, National Renderers of approximately 2 million gallons publication to identify the location of Association). EPA obtained approval wastewater per day. The industry hog slaughtering facilities, the name of from OMB for the use and distribution representative stated that the use of salt their parent corporation, and the of two survey questionnaires: a short makes the kosher poultry wastewaters operational capacity of the facility. EPA screener survey and a more detailed very different from non-kosher poultry used WATT PoultryUSA’s publications survey. to locate individual poultry slaughtering wastewaters with kosher poultry 1. Description of the Surveys wastewaters having an increased total facilities, the types of processes at those dissolved solids (TDS) concentration. facilities, and the name of their parent In February 2001, EPA mailed a short The industry representative also stated corporation. EPA consulted the screener survey, entitled ‘‘2001 Meat that most kosher operations (meat and American Meat Institute, the National Products Industry Screener Survey’’ to poultry) are located in urban areas with Renderers Association and the U.S. 1,650 meat and poultry products facilities. A copy of the screener is sewer connections. EPA also identified Poultry & Egg Association for lists of all included in the record (Docket No. W– that Buddhist and Confucian poultry member companies and facilities. The 01–06, Record No. 00178). The screener facilities probably do not exhibit Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory survey consisted of seven questions that wastewater characteristics that differ 2000 provided information on location, elicited site-specific information such as from non-religious poultry facilities parent company, and types of processes type of animal processed and processing (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. at the facility for all three sectors operation, wastewater disposal method, 10029). Finally, industry representatives (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. and the number of full-time employees identified that there should be no 25001). at the site and company. EPA used the differences, other than salt content, in The documents cited above were all used by EPA in developing the industry information collected from the screener MPP wastewater characteristics between survey to describe industry operations, kosher or halal and other meat facilities profile, a survey sampling frame, and for stratifying the survey sampling frame. In wastewater generation rates, and because the main difference between wastewater disposal practices. EPA also religious and non-religious meat addition to these publications, EPA examined many other documents that used the responses to the site production is the method of slaughter employment question for classifying (exsanguination) (Docket No. W–01–06, provided useful overviews and analysis of the meat processing industry. EPA each facility as small or not-small Record No. Record No. 10031). EPA according to the Small Business solicits comment on any other also conducted general Internet searches by company name. Administration regulations at 13 CFR differences in production and part 121. wastewater generation and B. Industry Surveys EPA designed the second survey to characteristics between non-religious EPA developed two survey collect detailed site-specific technical and religious meat and poultry facilities. questionnaires to collect site-specific and financial information. In March V. Summary of Data Collection technical and economic information as 2001, EPA mailed the second survey, the above mentioned sources of entitled ‘‘2001 Meat Products Industry A. Secondary Sources of Data and information did not have sufficiently Survey,’’ to 350 meat and poultry Information detailed technical and economic products facilities. A copy of the The Agency evaluated the following information required for the detailed survey is included in the record databases online to locate data and development of regulatory options. (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. information to support regulatory EPA published a notice in the Federal 00179). The detailed survey is divided development: The Agency’s PCS Register on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25325) into five parts. The first four parts database, USDA’s Food Safety and announcing the Agency’s intent to collect general facility and technical Inspection Service’s HACCP Databases, submit the meat and poultry products data. The first set of questions request USDA’s Packers and Stockyards industry Survey Information Collection general facility site information. The Statistical Report, SEC’s EDGAR Request (ICR) to OMB. The May 1, 2000 general facility information questions Database, the 1997 U.S. Census of notice requested comment on the draft asked the site to identify itself, Manufactures, Dun & Bradstreet Million ICR and the survey questionnaires. EPA characterize itself by certain parameters Dollar Directory and Hoover’s database. received five sets of comments during (including meat and poultry products In addition, the Agency conducted a the 60 day public comment period. operations, age, and location), and thorough collection and review of Commentors on the ICR included: confirm that it was engaged in meat secondary sources, which include data, National Chicken Council, National and/or poultry processing operations.
VerDate 11
Respondents also indicated whether monitoring data. The Agency used this by the National Renderers Association they use trisodium phosphate (TSP) as information to calculate the effluent (NRA). The HACCP database provided a a biocide. Substituting other non- limitations guidelines and standards list of 7,981 federally or State-inspected phosphorus based biocides with TSP and pollutant loadings associated with meat and poultry facilities. The HACCP has the potential to lower overall the regulatory options that EPA database is dated March 9, 2000 for the phosphorus concentrations in the raw considered for this proposal. The federally inspected facilities and May wastewater and treated effluent. The Agency also used data received in 10, 2000 for the State-inspected second set of questions requested response to these questions to identify facilities. The entire HACCP database is analytical and production data treatment technologies in place, to classified into Large, Small, and Very including: (1) Detailed daily analytical determine the feasibility of regulatory Small facilities, corresponding to more and flow rate data for selected sampling options and potential future than 500 employees, 10–500 employees, points; (2) monthly production data; subcategorization of the meat and and less than 10 employees at the and (3) operating hours for selected poultry products industry, and to facility level, respectively. The 236 manufacturing operations. Survey estimate compliance costs, the pollutant renderers from the NRA list were not respondents were required to provide reductions associated with the likely classified by size. The Urner Barry Meat already obtained sampling data and technology-based options, and potential and Poultry Directory 2000 identified information. The Agency used the environmental impacts associated with production information (i.e., whether a analytical data to estimate baseline the regulatory options EPA considered facility was a slaughterer or further pollutant loadings and pollutant for this proposal. processor) for at least 240 of the 292 removals from facilities with treatment- The fifth part of the detailed survey large facilities (82 percent) and 1,120 of in-place resembling projected regulatory elicited site-specific financial and the 2,381 small facilities (47 percent). options and to evaluate the variability economic data. EPA used this No such information was available for associated with meat and poultry information to characterize the the remaining large and small facilities products industry discharges. The economic status of the industry and to or for any of the 5,308 very small Agency used the production data estimate potential economic impacts of facilities. collected to evaluate the production wastewater regulations. The financial basis for applying today’s proposed rule and economic information collected in 3. Sample Selection in NPDES permits. the survey was necessary to complete the economic analysis of the proposed EPA grouped the facilities into seven The next two sections focus on effluent limitations guidelines and strata by the size and the type of meat wastewater characteristics and current standards for the meat and poultry and poultry processing operation that treatment practices, respectively. products industry. EPA requested takes place in each facility so that each Questions regarding wastewater and financial and economic information for stratum would encompass facilities with treatment were designed to gather: (1) the fiscal years ending 1997, 1998, and similar operations. This grouping (also Information on the wastewater 1999— the most recent years for which known as stratification) increases treatment systems (including diagrams) data are available. precision (reducing one source of and discharge flow rates; (2) analytical uncertainty) for estimates of costs, monitoring data; and (3) operating and 2. Development of Survey Mailing List benefits and other quantities. Table maintenance cost data (including EPA sent the two meat and poultry V.B–1 lists the stratification of the meat treatment chemical usage). The outfall products industry survey questionnaires and poultry products industry which is information questions covered permit to a random sample of facilities from the based on employment and other information such as: (1) Discharge USDA Food Safety and Inspection information from USDA’s HACCP location; (2) wastewater sources to the Service (FSIS) Hazard Analysis and program, Urner Barry Meat and Poultry outfall; (3) flow rates; (4) regulated Critical Control Points (HACCP) Directory 2000, and the National parameters and limits; and (5) permit database and a list of renderers provided Renderers Association.
TABLE V.B–1.—MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INDUSTRY STRATA
Number of fa- Screener sur- Detailed sur- Stratum cilities in stra- vey sample vey sample (No. of employees) tum size size
Certainty ...... 65 0 65 Large Processor (≥500) ...... 43 31 3 Large Slaughterer (≥500) ...... 190 100 52 Small Processor (10–499) ...... 1,878 688 62 Small Slaughterer (10–499) ...... 498 130 69 Very Small Processor (<10) ...... 5,308 649 57 Renderer ...... 235 52 42
Total ...... 8,217 1,650 350
Various meat and poultry processors ‘‘certainty’’ facilities to obtain site- characteristics of larger facilities were randomly selected within each specific information on the top because indirect and direct small grouping. EPA weighted each survey producers for all types of meat and facilities as a group (see Section III.A.1 response to account for facilities not poultry products as well as facilities for descriptions of ‘‘small facilities’’) surveyed and to develop national identified as good performers by State discharge less than 3% of the estimates from the survey responses. and Regional environmental personnel. conventional pollutants, 1% of the toxic EPA deliberately selected the 65 EPA focused much of its analysis on the pollutants, 4% of the nutrients, and less
VerDate 11
than 1.5% of the pathogens as compared In selecting candidates for site visits, performed the multi-day sampling on to all discharges from all indirect and EPA attempted to identify facilities behalf of EPA. For the nine facilities direct MPP facilities. Moreover, most of representative of various MPP that performed the sampling, EPA these small facilities are discharging processing operations, as well as both developed sampling plans that detailed small volumes of wastewater into large direct and indirect dischargers. EPA the procedures for sample collection, urban POTW systems which process specifically considered the type of meat including the pollutants to be sampled, significantly higher wastewater and poultry processing operations, age location of sampling points, and sample volumes, which helps minimize of the facility, size of facility (in terms collection, preservation, and shipment impacts. Thus, there is minimal impact of production), wastewater treatment techniques. EPA assisted the nine on POTW operations or the passing of processes employed, and best facilities as necessary (e.g., provided MPP pollutants of concern through management practices/pollution sample bottle labels, provided POTWs into waters of the United States. prevention techniques used. EPA also assistance in shipping, and in one Consequently, larger facilities were solicited recommendations for good- instance, provided on-site contractor oversampled in the sample design. The performing facilities (e.g. facilities with support during the sampling event). oversampling rate is approximately advanced wastewater treatment During each multi-day sampling 6:3:1, meaning that the large facilities technologies) from EPA Regional offices episode, facility influent and effluent were sampled at 6 times the rate of the and State agencies. The site-specific wastestreams were sampled. EPA did very small facilities, and the small selection criteria are discussed in site not collect source water information but facilities at 3 times the rate of the very visit reports prepared for each site will collect additional source water data small. In addition, many of the very visited by EPA (Docket No. W–01–06, after proposal. EPA will use the post- small facilities were not eligible for the Record No.00156). proposal source water data to better survey as they were no longer in During each site visit, EPA collected characterize wastewater characteristics operation. information on the facility and its for each of the facilities sampled. At operations, including: (1) General some facilities, samples were also 4. Survey Response production data and information; (2) the collected at intermediate points Of the 8,217 meat and poultry types of meat and poultry processing throughout the wastewater treatment products facilities generating wastewaters generated and treated on- system to assess the performance of wastewater, 2,000 facilities were mailed site; (3) water source and use; (4) individual treatment units. Some of the wastewater treatment and disposal facilities chosen for sampling perform either a detailed survey or a screener operations; (5) potential sampling rendering and/or further processing survey. As of October 4, 2001, 1,365 of locations for wastewater (raw influent, operations in addition to meat and/or the 1,650 screener surveys and 300 of within the treatment system, and final poultry processing. For facilities that the 350 detailed surveys were returned effluent); and (6) other information also performed rendering operations or to EPA. EPA used 961 of the screener necessary for developing a sampling further processing, wastewater from the surveys (those received before April 24, plan for possible multi-day sampling rendering and/or further processing 2001) and 241 of the detailed surveys episodes. EPA also collected wastewater operations was sampled separately, (those received before May 29, 2001) for samples of influent and effluent at 7 of when possible. the development of regulatory options. the 15 facilities for screening purposes Sampling episodes were conducted EPA chose the cut-off dates in order to only. over either a 3-day or 5-day period. process, synthesize, and analyze the Based on data collected from the site Samples were obtained using a collected data and develop regulatory visits, EPA selected 11 facilities for combination of 24-hour composite and options in a timely fashion and still use multi-day sampling. The purpose of the grab samples, depending upon the as much data as possible. EPA will use multi-day sampling was to characterize pollutant parameter to be analyzed. all surveys, including those collected pollutants in raw wastewaters prior to Depending on the type of wastewater after the deadlines, in upcoming treatment as well as document processed and the treatment technology analyses for the forthcoming Notice of wastewater treatment plant performance being evaluated, EPA analyzed Data Availability (NODA) and final rule. (including selected unit processes). wastewater for up to 53 parameters C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Selection of facilities for multi-day including conventional (BOD5, TSS, oil sampling was based on an analysis of and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH), During 2000 and 2001, EPA information collected during the site toxic (selected metals and pesticides), conducted site visits at 15 MPP visits as well as the following criteria: and nonconventional (e.g., nutrients, facilities. Six of these site visits were • The facility performed meat and/or microbiologicals) pollutants. When conducted at meat facilities, seven at poultry slaughtering and/or further possible for a given parameter, EPA poultry facilities, and two at rendering- processing operations representative of collected 24-hour composite samples in only facilities. The purposes of these MPP facilities; order to capture the variability in the site visits were to: (1) Collect • The facility utilized in-process waste streams generated throughout the information on meat and poultry treatment and/or end-of-pipe treatment day (e.g. production wastewater versus processing operations; (2) collect technologies that EPA was considering clean-up wastewater.) information on wastewater generation for technology option selection; and Data collected from the influent and waste management practices used • Compliance monitoring data for the samples contributed to characterization by the MPP facilities; and (3) evaluate facility indicated that it was among the of the industry, development of the list each facility as a candidate for multi- better performing treatment systems or of pollutants of concern, and day sampling. In addition, EPA that it employed wastewater treatment development of raw wastewater conducted limited sampling during process for which EPA sought data for characteristics. EPA used the data several of the site visits to screen for option selection. collected from the influent, potential contaminants that may be Multi-day sampling occurred at six intermediate, and effluent points to found in wastewaters from the different meat facilities and five poultry facilities. analyze the efficacy of treatment at the types of meat and poultry processing EPA performed multi-day sampling at facilities, and to develop current operations. two facilities, and nine facilities discharge concentrations, loadings, and
VerDate 11
the treatment technology options for the D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical laboratories. EPA or facility staff meat and poultry products industry. Methods collected field measurements of EPA used effluent data to calculate the The Agency (or facilities, as directed temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH long-term averages (LTAs) and by the Agency) collected, preserved, and at the sampling site. The analytical limitations for each of the proposed transported all samples according to chemistry methods used, as well as the regulatory options. EPA also used EPA protocols as specified in EPA’s sample volume requirements, detection industry-provided data from the MPP Sampling and Analysis Procedures for limits, and holding times, were Survey to complement the sampling Screening of Industrial Effluents for consistent with the laboratory’s quality data for these calculations. During each Priority Pollutants and in the MPP assurance and quality control plan. sampling episode, EPA also collected QAPP. Laboratories contracted for MPP sample flow rate data corresponding to each EPA collected composite samples for analysis followed EPA approved sample collected and production most parameters because the Agency analysis methods for all parameters. information from each associated expected the wastewater composition to The EPA contract laboratories manufacturing operation for use in vary over the course of a day. The reported data on their standard report calculating pollutant loadings and Agency collected grab samples from sheet and submitted them to EPA’s production-normalized flow rates. EPA unit operations for oil and grease and sample control center (SCC). The SCC has included in the public record all microbiologicals. Composite samples reviewed the report sheets for information collected for which the were collected either manually or by completeness and reasonableness. EPA facility has not asserted a claim of using an automated sampler. Individual reviewed all reports from the laboratory Confidential Business Information (CBI) aliquots for the composite samples were to verify that the data were consistent or which would indirectly reveal collected at a minimum of once every with requirements, reported in the information claimed to be CBI. four hours over each 24-hour period. Oil proper units, and the data are in EPA used the site visit reports to and grease samples were collected every compliance with the applicable prepare multi-day sampling and four hours and microbiologicals were protocol. analysis plans (SAPs) for each facility collected once a day. Quality control measures used in that would undergo multi-day sampling. Table V.D–1 lists the parameters performing all analyses complied with The Agency collected the following sampled at the majority of the facilities, the guidelines specified in the analytical types of information during each some of which have not been identified methods and in the MPP Quality sampling episode: as pollutants of concern. Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). EPA • reviewed all analytical data to ensure Dates and times of sample Table V.D–1. MPP Sampled Parameters collection; that these measures were followed and that the resulting data were within the • Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) Flow data corresponding to each Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen QAPP-specified acceptance criteria for sample; demand (CBOD5) accuracy and precision. • Production data corresponding to Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act each sample; (DBOD5) directs EPA to promulgate guidelines • Design and operating parameters for Chemical oxygen demand (COD) establishing test procedures (methods) source reduction, recycling, and Total organic carbon (TOC) for the analysis of pollutants. These treatment; technologies characterized Total suspended solids (TSS) methods allow the analyst to determine during sampling; Total dissolved solids (TDS) the presence and concentration of Total volatile solids (TVS) pollutants in wastewater, and are used • Information about site operations Chloride for compliance monitoring and for filing that had changed since the site visit or Total residual chlorine (TRC) applications for the NPDES program that were not included in the Site visit Ammonia as nitrogen under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44, report; and Nitrate/nitrite and 123.25, and for the implementation • Temperature, pH, and dissolved Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) of the pretreatment standards under 40 oxygen (DO) of the sampled Total phosphorus (TP) CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA wastestreams. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) has promulgated methods for all After the conclusion of the sampling Orthophosphate conventional and toxic pollutants and episodes, EPA prepared sampling Oil and grease for several nonconventional pollutants. episode reports for each facility which Metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium, copper, Table 1–B at 40 CFR 136.3 lists the included descriptions of the wastewater mercury, zinc) analytical methods approved for four of treatment processes, sampling Carbamate pesticide (carbaryl) the five conventional pollutants and procedures, and analytical results. EPA Permethrin (cis-and trans-) Table 1–A at 40 CFR 136.3 lists the fifth, documented all data collected during Malathion fecal coliform. Part 136 also sets forth sampling episodes in the sampling Stirofos the analytical methods for toxic episode report for each sampled site Dichlorvos pollutants. EPA has listed, pursuant to which are located in the MPP Total coliform Section 307(a)(1) of the Act, 65 metals Administrative Record. Non- Fecal coliform and organic pollutants and classes of confidential business information from Escherichia coli pollutants as ‘‘toxic pollutants’’ at 40 these reports is available in the public Fecal streptococci CFR 401.15. From the list of 65 classes record for this proposal. For detailed Salmonella of toxic pollutants, EPA identified a list information on sampling and Aeromonas of 126 ‘‘Priority Pollutants.’’ This list of preservation procedures, analytical Cryptosporidium (meat facilities only) Priority Pollutants is shown at 40 CFR methods, and quality assurance/quality All wastewater sample analyses, part 423, appendix A. The list includes control procedures see the MPP except for the field measurements of non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal Development Document for today’s temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH pollutants, cyanides, asbestos, and proposed rule. were completed by EPA contract pesticide pollutants.
VerDate 11
Currently approved methods for approved under 40 CFR 136.3, where 136, the discharger must use the test metals and cyanides are included in the available, to monitor pollutant procedure specified in the permit or, in table of approved inorganic test discharges from the meat and poultry the case of indirect dischargers, other procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I–B. products industry, unless specified validated methods or applicable Table I–C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved otherwise in part 432 or by the procedures. See 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv) methods for measurement of non- permitting authority. See 40 CFR 401.13 and 403.12(b)(5)(vi). pesticide organic pollutants, and Table and 403.12(b)(5)(vi). Sometimes, I–D lists approved methods for the toxic methods in part 136 apply to only waste Table V.D–2 provides a list of analytes pesticide pollutants and for other streams from specified point source from EPA MPP sampling that were pesticide pollutants. Direct and indirect categories. For pollutants with no analyzed by methods that were not dischargers must use the test methods methods approved under 40 CFR part approved at 40 CFR part 136.
TABLE V.D–2: METHODS FOR MPP ANALYTES NOT APPROVED AT 40 CFR PART 136
Analyte Method Frequency
Chloride ...... 300.0 77 samples out of 217 samples. Nitrate/Nitrite ...... 300.0 62 samples out of 217 samples. Total Orthophosphate ...... 300.0 77 samples out of 217 samples. Carbaryl ...... 632 all samples. Dichlorvos ...... 1657 all samples. Malathion ...... 1657 all samples. Tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos) ...... 1657 all samples. cis-Permethrin ...... 1660 all samples. trans-Permethrin ...... 1660 all samples. E. coli ...... 9221F all samples. Aeromonas ...... 9260L all samples. Salmonella ...... FDA–BAM all samples. Metals ...... 1620 all samples.
The use of Method 300.0 for chloride, • EPA 1600-series methods were experts and the general public. The nitrate/nitrite, and total orthophosphate developed specifically for the effluent main purpose of these other data was necessary because the analytical guidelines program; therefore, they have collection efforts was to obtain methods normally used for these more stringent quality control information on documented analytes are subject to interferences requirements than Standard Methods; environmental impacts of meat and such as color, turbidity, and/or and poultry processing industry facilities, particulates. These interferences were • Method 1657 is approved for additional data on animal processing sometimes present in the samples, given compliance monitoring of malathion in waste characteristics, pollution the difficult matrices associated with the pesticide chemical point source prevention practices, wastewater the meat and poultry products industry category (see Table 7 in 40 CFR part treatment technology innovation, and (samples that contain blood, animal 455). facility management practices. These tissue, and/or other particulates). • Two other parameters were other data collection activities included Laboratories used Method 300.0 for analyzed using EPA Method 1657 in a literature search, a review of current those samples that contained the addition to malathion [dichlorvos and NPDES permits, and NPDES Discharge interferents, which were a subset of the tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos)]. Monitoring Reports. samples collected, as shown in the table Performance of one method for three 1. Literature Search on Environmental above under the ‘‘Frequency’’ column. analytes was the most economical Impacts The pesticides carbaryl, cis- approach. permethrin, trans-permethrin, The biological parameters E.coli, EPA conducted a literature search to dichlorvos, and tetrachlorvinphos Aeromonas, and Salmonella are not obtain information on various aspects of (stirofos) are not included in Table 1D- listed at 40 CFR part 136. Therefore, the animal processing industry, List of Approved Test Procedures for there are no 40 CFR part 136-approved including documented environmental Pesticides at 40 CFR Part 136. Therefore, methods for these analytes, however, impacts, wastewater treatment there are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved EPA proposed methods for E.coli on technology, waste generation and methods for these analytes. However, August 30, 2001 (66 FR 169, pages facility management, and pollution the methods are approved for 45811–45829). Metals were analyzed prevention. EPA performed extensive compliance monitoring of these using EPA Method 1620 because this internet and library searches for pollutants in the Pesticide Chemicals method was developed specifically for applicable information. The Agency Point Source Category (see Table 7 in 40 the effluent guidelines program and used the resources of its own CFR part 455). [Note: Method 1660 is contains more stringent quality control environmental library and the U.S. approved for permethrin; however, cis- requirements than other 40 CFR part Department of Agriculture’s National permethrin and trans-permethrin are 136-approved methods. Research Library to obtain technical structurally similar to permethrin.] articles on environmental issues relating There is one approved method for E. Other Data Collection to the animal processing industry. malathion at 40 CFR part 136: Standard EPA conducted a number of other Several university libraries and industry Method 6630C. EPA Method 1657 was data collection efforts to supplement experts were also consulted during the selected for analysis of malathion information gathered through the survey literature search. As a result, EPA was instead, for a couple of reasons, process, facility sampling activities, site able to compile a list of environmental including: visits, and meetings with industry impacts associated with the meat and
VerDate 11
poultry processing industry. The scope 3. Discharge Monitoring Reports the detailed survey, EPA requested that of the literature search included In addition, the Agency collected facilities provide the individual daily government reports of permit violations long-term effluent data from facility measurements from their monitoring and any associated environmental Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) (for DMR or the control authority) with impacts. EPA also compiled technical via the PCS database in an effort to detailed information about their studies on innovative treatment perform a ‘‘real world’’ check on the treatment systems and processes. After technologies for meat and poultry achievability of today’s proposed limits. further evaluation of the detailed processing wastewater. EPA has DMRs summarize the quality and surveys, EPA intends to use the self- included a summary of the case studies volume of wastewater discharged from a monitoring data corresponding to the in the public docket (Docket No. W–01– facility under a National Pollution proposed treatment options to calculate 06, Record No. 00167) associated with Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) the final limits and to reassess the today’s proposal. The primary sources permit. DMRs are critical for monitoring achievability of the limits by well- for the case studies include newspaper compliance with NPDES permit operated BAT systems. In cases where and technical journal articles, provisions and for generating national EPA determines that improved system government reports, and papers trends on Clean Water Act compliance. operation will allow the limits to be included in industry and academic DMRs may be submitted monthly, consistently achieved it will include conference proceedings. quarterly, or annually depending on the additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost estimations for the 2. Current NPDES Permits requirements of the NPDES permit. EPA extracted discharge data and final rule where EPA has not already EPA extracted information from the permit limits from these DMRs (via the done so. EPA concludes, in following Agency’s Permit Compliance System PCS database) and from the MPP the approach described above, that it (PCS) to identify meat and poultry surveys to help identify regulated will address issues related to the processing industry point source pollutants, to identify better performing achievability of the numerical limits by dischargers with NPDES permits. This facilities, and to set limitations in a few well-operated and economically initial extraction was performed by cases where sampling data was not achievable treatment systems. EPA searching the PCS using reported available. Specifically, EPA identified solicits comments on this method of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) the amount of discharged ammonia in performing a ‘‘real world’’ check on the codes used to describe the primary relation to the respective permit limits. achievability of its proposed limits. activities occurring at the site. EPA conducted this analysis in part to F. Summary of Public Participation Specifically, the following SIC Codes identify potential facilities for future were used: sampling as well as to assist in EPA encouraged the participation of • identifying a selection of facilities for all interested parties throughout the 2011 Meat Packing Facilities. development of the proposed meat and • the certainty component of the detailed 2013 Sausages and Other Prepared survey exercise, and limitations were set poultry products effluent limitations Meats. for TSS, Oil and Grease(HEM) and COD guidelines and standards. EPA • 2015 Poultry Slaughtering and based on DMR data from the MPP conducted outreach to the following Processing. surveys. trade associations (which represent the • EPA was able to collect DMR vast majority of the facilities that will be 2077 Animal and Marine Fats and affected by this guideline): American Oils. information on a total of 176 facilities from four MPP sectors: 77 meat packing Meat Institute (AMI), American EPA identified 359 active meat and facilities; 17 facilities producing Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), poultry product facilities with NPDES sausages and other prepared meat National Renderers Association (NRA), permits in the PCS database. The PCS products; 65 poultry slaughtering and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, and estimate of MPP direct dischargers is processing facilities; and 17 animal and National Chicken Council. EPA met on approximately equivalent to the marine fat and oils facilities. EPA several occasions with various industry screener survey estimate of direct collected 31,311 data points on 83 representatives to discuss aspects of the dischargers. EPA will refine its separate pollutant parameters. regulation development. EPA also estimates of direct dischargers to Indirect dischargers file compliance participated in industry meetings and incorporate information from both the monitoring reports with their control gave presentations on the status of the PCS database and the screener survey. authority (e.g., POTW) at least twice per regulation development. EPA also met EPA selected a sample from this year as required under the General with environmental groups including universe of dischargers. The Agency Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403) the Natural Resources Defense Council then reviewed NPDES permits and while direct dischargers file discharge concerning this proposal. permit applications to obtain monitoring reports with their permitting EPA met with the industry information on treatment technologies authority at least once per year. EPA did associations and environmental groups and wastewater characteristics for each not collect compliance monitoring and representatives from State and local of the animal processing and rendering reports for MPP facilities that are governments when this industry was sectors. EPA used this information as indirect dischargers as: (1) A vast first identified as a candidate for part of its initial screening process to majority of MPP indirect dischargers are rulemaking to seek their opinions on the identify the universe of processing small facilities (i.e., small volumes of issues that the Agency should consider facilities that would be covered under wastewater); and (2) this information is as it moved forward for rulemaking. the proposal. In addition, this less centralized and harder to collect. In the development of the surveys information was used to better define Because DMR and indirect discharger which were used to gather facility the scope of the information collection compliance monitoring reports do not specific information on this industry, requests and to supplement other provide information about processes EPA consulted with the industry groups information collected on meat and and production, EPA was not able to use and several of their members to ensure poultry processing waste management these data directly in calculating the that the information being requested practices. limitations and standards. Instead, in was asked for in such a way as to be
VerDate 11
understandable and that it would be EPA used industry survey data and carcasses are washed and chilled, and available in the form requested. EPA sampling data for the areas where carcasses are trimmed and EPA conducted site visits to 15 subcategorization analysis. Various cut to produce the whole carcasses or facilities: 6 meat processors, 7 poultry subcategorization criteria were analyzed carcass parts. As a result of these processors and 2 independent rendering for trends in discharge flow rates, operations, wastewaters are generated facilities and conducted sampling at 11 pollutant concentrations, and that contain varying levels of blood, facilities which provided samples from treatability to determine where animals parts, viscera, fats, bones, etc. slaughtering operations, first and further subcategorization was warranted. In addition, federal food safety concerns processing and rendering. The facilities Equipment and facility age and facility require frequent and extensive clean-up visited and sampled were identified by location were not found to impact of slaughtering operations, which also industry experts and State or EPA wastewater generation or wastewater contributes to wastewater generation. regional personnel as exemplifying the characteristics; therefore, age and These clean-up wastewaters will best performance and treatment in the location were not used as a basis for contain not only slaughtering residues industry. subcategorization. An analysis of non- and particulate matter, but also contain water quality environmental products used for cleaning and EPA also met with representatives characteristics (e.g., solid waste and air disinfection (detergents and sanitizing from USDA to discuss this regulation emission effects) showed that these agents). and how it might be affected or affect characteristics also did not constitute a Alternatively, most further processing requirements on the meat and poultry basis for subcategorization (see Section operations generate wastewaters from processing industry implemented by the X). sources different than slaughtering Food Safety and Inspection Service of Even though size (e.g., acreage, operations. These sources, and the USDA. EPA has met with number of employees, production rates) resulting wastewater characteristics, are representatives from State and local of a facility does not have an influence highly dependent on the type of governments to discuss their concerns on production-normalized wastewater finished product desired. Further with meat and poultry processing flow rates or pollutant loadings, size operations can include, but are not facilities and how EPA should approach was used as a basis for subcategorization limited to, cutting and deboning, these facilities in regulation. because more stringent limitations cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning, VI. Subcategorization would not be cost effective for smaller grinding, chopping, dicing, forming or poultry facilities (see Sections III.A.1 breading. Unlike slaughtering A. Factors Considered in Developing and III.B for definition of ‘‘small’’ and operations, most further processing Proposed Subcategories ‘‘non-small’’ facilities for each operations, except for clean-up, do not subcategory). See Section III.A.1 for a utilize significant amounts of water. The CWA requires EPA, when description on how and why EPA Wastewaters generated from further developing effluent limitations established production based standards processing operations will contain some guidelines and pretreatment standards, for small MPP facilities. further processing residues and to consider a number of different EPA also identified types of meat particulate matter (e.g., breading, spices, factors. For example, when developing products manufacturing processes (e.g., etc.), as well as products used for limitations that represent the best slaughtering, further processing, cleaning and disinfection (detergents available technology economically rendering) as a determinative factor for and sanitizing agents). achievable for a particular industry subcategorization due to variations in Rendering operations are used category, EPA must consider, among production-normalized wastewater flow primarily to process slaughtering by- other factors, the age of the equipment rates (PNFs) and estimated pollutant products (e.g., animal fat, bone, blood, and facilities in the category, location, loadings. For meat facilities: the PNF for hair, feathers, dead animals, etc.). The manufacturing processes employed, slaughtering is 322.8 gal/1000 lb. Live amount of water used and the types of treatment technology to reduce Weight Killed; the PNF for further characteristics of wastewater generated effluent discharges, the cost of effluent processing 555.4 gal/1000 lb. Finished by rendering operations are highly reductions and non-water quality Product; the PNF for meat cutters in dependent on a number of factors, environmental impacts. See Section subcategory F only is 130.4 gal/1000 lb. including the type of product desired 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Finished Product; and the PNF for (e.g., edible v. inedible), the rendering 1314(b)(2)(B). The statute also rendering is 346.0 gal/1000 lb. Raw process used (batch v. continuous; wet authorizes EPA to take into account Material. For Poultry facilities: the PNF process v. dry process), and the source other factors that the Administrator for slaughtering is 1,289 gal/1000 lb. and type of raw materials used (e.g., deems appropriate and requires the BAT Live Weight Killed; the PNF for further poultry processors, slaughterhouses, model technology chosen by EPA to be processing is 315.7 gal/1000 lb. butcher shops, supermarkets, economically achievable, which Finished Product; and, the PNF for restaurants, fast-food chains, farms, generally involves consideration of both rendering is 346.0 gal/1000 lb. Raw ranches, feedlots, animal shelters, etc.). compliance costs and the overall Material. In general, rendering operations involve financial condition of the industry. EPA Most slaughtering operations utilize cooking the raw materials to recover took these factors into account in significant amounts of water to process fats, oil, and grease; remaining residue considering whether to establish an animal. Slaughtering operations is dried and then granulated or ground subcategories and found that dividing generally involve taking the live animal into a meal. A significant portion of the industry into subcategories leads to and producing whole or cut-up meat wastewater pollutant loadings generated better tailored regulatory standards, carcasses (which are then further from rendering operations is condensed thereby increasing regulatory processed). Wastewaters from steam from cooking operations. Unlike predictability and diminishing the need slaughtering operations are generated slaughtering and further processing to address variations among facilities from a variety of sources that generally operations, rendering clean-up through a variance process. See include the areas where animals are operations are generally less rigorous, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d killed and bled, hides or feathers are generating a smaller proportion of the 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978). removed, animals are eviscerated, total expected wastewater flow.
VerDate 11
The following section describes the different for each of the subcategories, characteristics and treatability for three proposed meat and poultry products the subcategories themselves are being of the four subcategories are sufficiently industry subcategorization. maintained. EPA believes that retaining similar to group them together for the the existing subcategorization scheme purpose of revising or setting new B. Proposed Subcategories will simplify implementation for the limitations and standards. However, In today’s notice, EPA proposes to permit writers as well as generate subpart F limitations will be based on keep the current subcategorization appropriate limitations and standards a lower production-normalized flow scheme for small facilities, but for larger for the facilities. EPA requests than subpart G, H and I limitations facilities, we are proposing new comments on this approach. because subpart F facilities generate limitations and collapsing the existing The proposed regulation would substantially less water per pound of subcategories. Specifically, EPA require all meat direct dischargers that finished product than the other three proposes new limitations and standards slaughter more than 50 million pounds subparts. Moreover, EPA believes there that are the same for facilities in the live weight per year to achieve the same are no significant differences between following MPP subcategories: Simple production-based effluent limitations. these four subcategories in terms of age, Slaughterhouses (subpart A); Complex EPA finds that the slaughtering and location, and size of these MPP Slaughterhouses (subpart B); Low- initial processing operations found in facilities. EPA believes that this Processing Packinghouses (subpart C); all four of these subcategories are the subcategorization scheme will simplify and High-Processing Packinghouses key factors in determining wastewater implementation for the permit writers as (subpart D). Also, EPA proposes new characteristics and treatability. well as generate appropriate limitations limitations and standards that are the Moreover, EPA believes there are no and standards for the facilities. same for facilities in the following MPP significant differences between these subcategories: Meat Cutters (subpart F); four subcategories in terms of age, 3. Renderers—Subpart J Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors location, and size of facilities. In Subpart J applies to independent (subpart G); Ham Processors (subpart H); addition to slaughtering and initial rendering facilities which are facilities and Canned Meats Processors (subpart processing, EPA is proposing to that only render raw materials and I). EPA is also retaining the Renderers establish allowances to account for the process hides and do no first or further (subpart J) subcategory and proposing additional processes that may also occur processing. The proposed new limitations and standards for on-site. The proposed effluent subcategorization scheme requires all facilities in this subcategory. This limitations guidelines would provide independent rendering facilities that proposal does not revise the existing allowances for discharges from each of render more than 10 million pounds per limitations and standards for smaller the following processes: slaughtering year of raw material to be regulated by facilities in subparts A–J (see Section (which includes initial processing), the same production-based effluent III.A.1). Finally, EPA proposes adding further processing, and rendering. These limitations guidelines. This is a change two MPP subcategories in 40 CFR part allowances would be the same for all from the current guidelines, which only 432: Poultry First Processing (subpart K) four subcategories and are related to the apply to independent renderers that and Poultry Further Processing (subpart volume of production as follows: The render more than approximately 27.4 L). These two new subcategories will amount of live weight killed for the million pounds raw material per year cover both small and larger poultry slaughtering process, the amount of (or 75,000 pounds raw material per day processing facilities, although, the finished product that is further for a facility that operates 365 days per smaller facilities in each of the processed on site, and the amount of year). See Section III.A.1 for a subcategories are required to meet less raw material that is rendered on-site. description on how and why EPA stringent requirements than larger Because of the similarities in established production based standards poultry facilities (see Section III.B and wastewater characteristics across all for small MPP facilities. The limitations Table III.B–1). EPA chose less stringent meat slaughter and packinghouses, EPA and standards allow discharges based limitations for smaller poultry also requests comment on an alternate on the amount of raw material that is processing facilities because more approach to subcategorizing the meat rendered on site. slaughtering sector. This alternative stringent limits would not be cost 4. Poultry First Processing—Subpart K effective for smaller poultry facilities would incorporate all meat slaughtering (see Section III.A.1). activities in one subcategory. This EPA divided the poultry first Each subcategory is described in more subcategory would retain the individual processors into two segments: Small and detail immediately below in terms of its BPT allowances for simple and complex not-small (see Table III.B–1). Small manufacturing processes and slaughterhouses and low and high poultry first processors slaughter 10 wastewater characteristics. All processing packinghouses for facilities million pounds of poultry per year or subcategories are further segmented which slaughter 50 million pounds or less while non-small poultry first based on the amount of meat and less per year. processors slaughter more than 10 poultry products they slaughter, further million pounds of poultry per year. See 2. Meat Further Processing—Subparts F, process or render. Section III.B for a description on how G, H and I and why EPA established production 1. Meat Slaughterhouses and The proposed subcategorization based standards for small poultry Packinghouses—Subparts A, B, C and D scheme requires all facilities that processing facilities. EPA is proposing EPA is proposing to retain the existing generate more than 50 million pounds that the technology-based effluent subcategories. EPA is not proposing to per year of meat finished products limitations guidelines for small poultry revise the existing BPT requirements for without performing slaughtering to be first processors (both new and existing) facilities which slaughter 50 million regulated by the same production-based be based on the less efficient pounds per year or less for the reasons effluent limitations guidelines (see nitrification technology option (Direct described in Section III.A.1. of this Section III). The limitations guidelines Option 1). EPA is proposing that the notice. Since the existing limitations for allow discharges based on the amount of technology-based effluent limitations smaller meat facilities (which EPA finished product that is further guidelines for non-small poultry first believes should be maintained) are processed on site. The wastewater processors (both new and existing) be
VerDate 11
based on the nitrification/denitrification VII.D for a discussion of the technology the wastewaters, there are virtually no technology option (Direct Option 3). See options. See the MPP Development differences between the meat and Section VII.D for a discussion of the Document and MPP Economic Analysis poultry sectors in the types of treatment technology options. See the MPP for more details on how EPA developed technologies used. The unit processes Development Document and MPP the two segments and specific that are used in treatment of meat and Economic Analysis for more details on requirements for each segment. The poultry processing wastewater are also how EPA developed the two segments effluent limitations guidelines allow similar to that normally used in the and specific requirements for each discharges based on the amount of treatment of domestic wastewater. The segment. finished product that is produced on wastewater treatment falls into three The effluent limitations guidelines site and also include provisions for main categories: primary treatment, allow discharges for all activities that those poultry further processors that secondary treatment, and tertiary may be performed on-site including perform on-site rendering operations. treatment. Primary treatment focuses on further processing and rendering based VII. Technology Options, Costs, the removal of floating and settleable on: (1) The amount of live weight killed; Wastewater Characteristics, and solids; secondary treatment provides (2) the amount of finished product that Pollutant Reductions removal of most organic matter; and is further processed on site; and (3) the tertiary treatment is used for the amount of raw material that is rendered A. Wastewater Treatment Technologies removal of nitrogen and/or phosphorus on site. in the MPP Industry and/or suspended solids. Meat and EPA developed a series of technology poultry processing facilities that 5. Poultry Further Processing—Subpart discharge to a publicly owned treatment L option alternatives for the proposed rule based on the volumes and works (POTW) typically employ only EPA divided the poultry further characteristics of wastewater generated primary treatment; however, some processors into two segments: small and at MPP facilities and the types of facilities also provide secondary non-small. Small poultry further treatment technologies currently used treatment. Facilities that discharge processors generate 7 million pounds of by the industry to treat these directly to navigable waters under the finished product per year or less while wastewaters. Evaluation and selection of authority of a National Pollutant non-small poultry further processors technology options was based primarily Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) generate more than 7 million pounds of on information provided in the MPP permit, at a minimum apply both finished product per year. See Section detailed surveys (see Section V.B for a primary and secondary treatment. Many III.B for a description on how and why description of the MPP detailed survey.) direct dischargers also apply tertiary EPA established production based The detailed surveys requested treatment to wastewater discharged standards for small poultry processing extensive data on wastewater under the NPDES permit system. facilities. EPA is proposing that the characteristics, including both raw and A variety of unit processes are used technology-based effluent limitations treated wastewasters, treatment-in-place by MPP facilities to provide primary, guidelines for small poultry further technologies, as well as information on secondary, and tertiary wastewater processors (both new and existing) be production processes. The technology treatment. Table VII.A–1 summarizes based on a less efficient nitrification options presented in today’s proposal the relative frequency of treatment units technology option (Direct Option 1). are based on various factors including, used in the industry, based on a EPA is proposing that the technology- but not limited to, the frequency of preliminary assessment of information based effluent limitations guidelines for occurrence, technical performance of provided in the detailed survey. The non-small poultry further processors unit processes in reducing pollutant unit processes most commonly used for (both new and existing) be based on the loads, and economic achievability. the treatment of meat and poultry nitrification/denitrification technology Because of the similarities in the processing wastewater are described option (Direct Option 3). See Section physical and chemical characteristics of below.
TABLE VII.A–1.—DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT UNITS IN MPP INDUSTRY
Percent of direct/indirect dis- charging facilities having the treatment unit in place Treatment category Treatment unit Direct Indirect Discharger Discharger (percent) (percent)
Primary treatment ...... Screen ...... 98 64 Oil and Grease Removal ...... 83 77 Dissolved Air Floatation ...... 81 46 Flow Equalization ...... 75 34 Secondary and Tertiary Treatment ...... Biological Treatment 1 ...... 100 13 Filtration ...... 23 0 Disinfection ...... 92 0 Note 1: Biological Treatment includes any combination of the following: aerobic lagoon, anaerobic lagoon, facultative lagoon, any activated sludge process, and/or other biological treatment processes (e.g., trickling filter). Source: Detailed Survey Data.
1. Primary Treatment high concentrations of BOD. Most MPP primary treatment to remove floating facilities, whether they are direct or and settleable solids. The typical unit MPP industry raw wastewaters have indirect dischargers employ some sort of processes used for primary treatment are high levels of suspended solids and
VerDate 11
screens followed by dissolved air necessary prior to discharge into a sequencing batch reactors, extended flotation (DAF) and flow equalization receiving water body. This additional aeration, and oxidation ditch are tanks. Some facilities use chemicals to removal can be accomplished through commonly used for denitrification. Very improve suspended solids and secondary biological treatment. few facilities in the industry have biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Commonly used systems secondary biological phosphorous removal removal. Primary treatment serves to biological treatment of wastewater systems. A biological phosphorous reduce suspended solids and BOD loads include activated sludge systems, removal system consists of an anaerobic to subsequent unit processes. Primary lagoons, oxidation ditch, extended tank before the nitrification and treatment can also be used to recover aeration, and sequencing batch reactors. denitrification system. The system can materials that can be converted into In addition, a sequence of anaerobic and achieve a very low effluent marketable products through rendering. aerobic biological processes is concentration of phosphorous. Screening is typically the first and commonly used for secondary Simple clarification after secondary most inexpensive form of primary treatment. wastewater treatment may not reduce treatment. Screening removes large solid Anaerobic lagoons are the most the concentration of suspended solids to particles from the waste stream that commonly used anaerobic unit the desired level. Therefore, filtration could otherwise damage or interfere processes. Five-day biochemical oxygen systems are used to reduce the effluent with downstream equipment and demand (BOD5) reductions by anaerobic concentration of suspended solids. treatment processes. Generally all lagoons can be as high as 90 percent. During the filtration cycle, wastewater is wastewater generated in meat and In the treatment of meat and poultry passed through a bed of granular media poultry processing facilities is screened processing wastewaters, aerobic which traps the suspended solids thus before discharge to subsequent treatment may directly follow primary producing high quality effluent. The treatment processes. In poultry treatment or more typically follow some filtration unit is regenerated processing facilities, use of screens aids form of anaerobic treatment to reduce periodically by backwashing. Filtration in recovery of both feathers and offal BOD and suspended solids units use various types of media as filter (viscera and meat particles), that are concentrations to levels required for bed. The sand filtration systems are valuable by-products for the poultry direct discharge. Aerobic processes can most commonly found in the industry. rendering industry. In meat processing also remove more than 90 percent of the The final step in the treatment of meat facilities, screening is generally limited influent BOD5. In addition, the aerobic and poultry processing wastewaters is to processing and cleanup water since systems partially nitrify the wastewater disinfection with the objective of viscera (usually) is not transported by converting ammonia to nitrates. destroying remaining pathogenic hydraulically. Based on detailed survey responses all microorganisms. Disinfection systems Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is also the direct discharging MPP facilities are found in the majority of the direct used extensively in the primary employ at least some kind of aerobic dischargers; very few (if any) indirect treatment of meat and poultry treatment prior to discharging the final dischargers disinfect their wastewater processing wastewater to remove effluent. The most common aerobic because of additional treatment at the suspended solids. The principal treatments units used by MPP facilities POTW accomplishes the pathogen advantage of DAF over gravity settling is are activated sludge, aerated lagoons, destruction. the ability to remove very small or light oxidation ditch, extended aeration, and B. Wastewater Sources, Water Use, and particles including grease more sequencing batch reactors. Wastewater Characteristics completely and in a shorter period of 3. Tertiary Treatment time. Once particles have been floated 1. Meat Products Facilities Some MPP facilities also employ to the surface, removal is done by a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use skimming. Chemicals, including, tertiary treatment to obtain further aluminum or iron salts or synthetic removal of suspended solids and to Most steps in the slaughtering process organic polymers are often added to reduce nutrient loadings, especially generate pollutants that flow into improve the performance of DAF units. nitrogen and phosphorus levels. wastewater. Animal urine and fecal Most meat and poultry processing Although, primary and secondary matter, and hair, which accumulate in facilities operate on a five-day per week treatment significantly reduce BOD, the animal holding pens are washed schedule, resulting in a weekly variation suspended solids, and nitrogen down into floor drains, and of wastewater flow (and load). Also, compounds (e.g., ammonia), tertiary subsequently enter the wastewater during the operation of the facilities, treatment can provide significant further stream. Significant amounts of blood are daily fluctuation in the wastewater flow removals of nitrogen (conversion of generated in the stunning and killing (and load) is very common. Flow nitrates to nitrogen gas) and especially areas. Although it is usually saved for equalization tanks are used to eliminate phosphorus, which is not significantly rendering purposes, some blood often the need for sizing subsequent treatment addressed by most secondary biological enters wastewater. Blood, in addition to units to handle peak flows and to treatment systems. other meat and tissue waste and hide provide continuous constant flow (and Nitrogen can be largely eliminated particles, is generated during cattle de- load) to the subsequent treatment units, from the wastewater by the combined hiding. These particles also can in-line flow. nitrification and denitrification process. contaminate water if they are not Nitrates formed during the nitrification collected properly. Wastewater from 2. Secondary Biological Treatment process in secondary treatment are both the scalding tub and the de-hairing Because MPP wastewaters have a high converted to nitrogen gas in the anoxic machine can contain hair, soil, mineral organic content, it is not usually denitrification unit. Normally, the oil and manure. BOD levels from these possible for a direct discharger to meet denitrification unit is placed before the areas can be as high as 3,000 mg/L. permit limits without employing nitrification unit to utilize the influent Additional blood and tissue pieces can secondary treatment. Although effective BOD as the carbon source for be produced during the evisceration primary treatment can significantly denitrification. The nitrates formed in process. Large amounts of wastewater reduce the BOD load of a MPP facility, the nitrification unit are recycled to the typically come from washing carcasses. typically more organic removal is denitrification unit. Bardenpho process, This water contains high levels of
VerDate 11
grease, and small amounts of blood, processor. Wastewater from these products. The operations involved in tissue solids, and other fluids. As operations generally contain meat, fat, ham production use more water than carcasses are cut into smaller pieces, and bone particles as well as soluble the typical meat processing operations; small pieces of tissues and fluids can constituents such as salts, blood, and and because of the direct water-ham enter wastewater. At the end of each pickling, preserving, and preparation contact, the wastewater load is day, equipment is cleaned and materials (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and increased. Ham processors rely on sanitized. This washdown contains nitrate, spices). Current MPP effluent pickling, preserving, and preparation bone dust and other fluids such as blood guidelines divide the meat further materials (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and and cleaning fluids (Docket No. W–01– processors into five separate industry nitrate, spices) to cure and prepare the 06, Record No. 00132). groups: Small Processors (40 CFR part ham products. The production Facility clean up and sanitation can 432, subpart E); Meat Cutters (40 CFR operations and cleanup in the rest of the contribute significantly to the overall part 432, subpart F); Sausage and ham processing facility is fairly volume and pollutant load for meat first Luncheon Meat Processors (40 CFR part comparable in both practice and and further processing facilities. The 432, subpart G); Ham Processors (40 resulting waste load to that of the volume and pollutant load of this CFR part 432, subpart H); and Meat sausage and luncheon meat processors. wastewater varies significantly from Canners (40 CFR part 432, subpart I). Meat canners that produce more than facility to facility, and is dependent on Small processors, defined as 6,000 pounds of finished product per several factors including efficiency of operations producing up to 2730 day (i.e., non-small processors) are processing facility, housekeeping kilograms (6000 pounds) per day of any currently regulated under subpart I of 40 practices, the extent to which dry type or combination of meat product, CFR part 432. These facilities generally cleaning processes are used, and the are currently regulated under subpart E require a number of processing steps volume of water used in washing of 40 CFR part 432. They may produce such as size reduction, mixing and facility equipment. Improper use of a wide range of products but most of the blending, and cooking. These operations water hoses, for example, could lead to these facilities prepare fresh meat cuts, require special equipment and generate unnecessary use of water and result in sausage and wieners, and hams. The more wastewater flows and pollutant the production of excess wastewater. wastewater source for this subcategory loading than other meat further Industrial practices within the meat is generally from cleanup and sanitation processors per pound of finished further processing industry sector are operations (approximately 50–90 product. Meat canners also use pickling, diverse and produce variable waste percent of total wastewater flow). The preserving, and preparation materials loads. Meat further processing facilities scale of production and the typically (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and nitrate, purchase animal carcasses, meat parts, limited finished product mix preclude spices) to cure and prepare the canned and other materials and produce the need for substantial quantities of meat products. water during the production day. sausages, cooked meats, cured meats, b. Wastewater Characterization smoked meats, canned meats, frozen Further processors that produce more and fresh meat cuts, natural sausage than 6,000 pounds of meat cuts as Organic materials are the primary sources of pollutants in meat first and casings, and other prepared meats and finished products per day (i.e., non- further processing wastewater. These meat specialties. None of these facilities small processors) are currently regulated substances cause a reduction in oxygen engage in any slaughtering on the same under subpart F of 40 CFR part 432. levels as microorganisms consume premises as the processing activity. These facilities require virtually no The product mix of these facilities process water but do generate oxygen for decomposition processes. includes many combinations of wastewaters during cleanup and For this reason these organic substances are evaluated by biochemical oxygen products. There are facilities that sanitation operations. Facilities in this demand (BOD), which measures the specialize in one or two types of industry grouping generally break, trim, amount of oxygen required by bacteria processed meats products, such as and cut the large meat parts into single- and other microorganisms to decompose hams, fresh sausages, canned meat portion meat cuts. Very little equipment the organic matter, and BOD which products, or meat cuts, and facilities (other than saws, knives and work 5, calculates the amount of oxygen used in that produce a number of products up surfaces) comes in contact with the meat the first five days of decomposition. to the full line of processed meat products. The relative simplicity of Although levels vary between facilities, products. Meat further processing operation and equipment results in typical BOD values in the raw operations include: small quantities of process water and a 5 wastewater influent to be treated range • Raw material storage, shipping, small waste load in the cleanup water. Sausage and luncheon meat from 1,600 mg/L to 3,000 mg/L (Docket receiving, and thawing (wet, dry, processors that produce more than 6,000 No. W–01–06, Record No. 00128). chipping); • Carcass/meat handling and pounds of finished product per day (i.e., Primary sources of high BOD5 levels preparation (breaking, trimming, non-small processors) are currently include blood, stomach contents, cutting, boning, tempering, skinning, regulated under subpart G of 40 CFR greases and fats, and pickling, slicing); part 432. These facilities have an preserving, and cooking materials. • Seasoning, spicing, and sauce extensive product mix and tend to Bacteria are also present in meat first preparation; require more intensive meat processing and further processing wastewater in • Weighing and batching; (e.g., seasoning, cuttings, molding, quantities of between 2 to 4 million • Grinding, mixing, emulsifying; packing) than meat cutters. Wastewater fecal coliform colony forming units per • Extruding, stuffing, molding, sources include meat processing and 100 mL based on the most probable linking, casing peeling; cleanup operations. number (MPN) technique for estimating • Pickling, smoking, cooking; Ham processors that produce more microbial populations. There is also the • Can preparation, filling, covering, than 6,000 pounds of finished product potential for viruses and parasite eggs to and retorting; and per day (i.e., non-small processors) are be present in the water. The amounts • Cleanup operations. currently regulated under subpart H of and types of pollutants that Many of these operations contribute 40 CFR part 432. These facilities slaughterhouses generate greatly to the raw waste load of a meat further produce hams and other ham-related depends upon the particular step
VerDate 11
considered in the slaughter process. extracts. These organic materials also slaughterhouses and further processors Tables VII.B–1 and VII.B–2 give are sources of biochemical oxygen can generate significant quantities of oil characteristics of raw wastewaters at demand, nitrogen, and phosphorus. and grease. Characteristics of first meat product facilities. Other contaminants that can directly processing and further processing Wastewater generated from meat enter the wastewater from further wastewaters are shown in Tables VII.B– further processors (e.g., meat cutters, processing facilities include salts, 1 and VII.B–2. Hog and cattle operations sausage producers, ham processors, pickling, preserving, and preparation are presented separately to highlight meat canners) are also dominated by materials (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and differences in generation rates of organic materials originating from nitrate, spices), lubricating oils, and pollutants of concern. blood, meat, fatty tissue, and meat cleaning compounds. Both
TABLE VII.B–1.—CHARACTERISTICS OF HOG PROCESSING RAW WASTEWATER
Raw waste characteristics Meat operations Suspended Daily flow BOD5 solids Grease TKN TP Fecal coliform MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CFU/100 ml
First Processing and Rendering: Average ...... 1.95 2,220 3,314 674 229 73 1.6E6 Range, low-high .... 0.43–4.21 2,014–2,462 2,896–3,732 406–941 NA 67–78 NA Further Processing: Average ...... 0.30 1,492 363 162 24 82 1.38E6 Source: Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00176
TABLE VII.B–2.—CHARACTERISTICS OF CATTLE PROCESSING RAW WASTEWATER
Raw waste characteristics Meat operations Suspended Daily flow BOD5 solids Grease TKN TP Fecal coliform MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CFU/100 ml
First Processing and Rendering and Hide Processing: Average ...... 1.60 5,771 1,998 1,262 150 41 1.2E6 Range, low-high ...... 0.74–2.18 3,673–7,237 1,153–3,332 146–3,021 67–306 30–58 7.3E5–1.6E6 Source: Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00177
2. Poultry Facilities removed during trimming and cutting, The pollutant load generated from this a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use bone, urine and feces, soil from feathers, step is dependent on the cleanliness of and a variety of cleaning and sanitizing the birds, the effectiveness of blood As with the meat processing sector, compounds. Further processing and recovery, the type of scalding process, poultry first and further processing rendering can be additional sources of and the quantity of water used. The facilities are significant consumers of fat and other soft tissue as well as scalded birds are then defeathered by water and generators of wastewaters. substances such as cooking oils. plucking machines. The feathers, Poultry first processing (slaughtering) The poultry first processing volume typically collected on screens, contain wastewaters are generated at each stage and pollutant load from the reception soil particles, grit, and some blood. of the process, beginning with waste area depends on several factors Feathers, like blood, are treated as a generated at the bird reception area from including bird throughput and extent of valuable by-product and are cooked, crate cleaning and ending with wastes dry cleaning employed to sanitize and grounded to form a high protein generated from equipment cleaning transport vehicles, crates, and unloading meal. during the grading and packing stage. areas. Minimizing the wait period prior The evisceration process involves the The poultry first processing wastewaters to slaughter reduces manure production removal of both edible offal (e.g., heart, generated at each stage of poultry first and ultimately the volume of water gizzard, and liver) and inedible offal processing differ in volume and needed to clean the crates and (head, guts) either by a vacuum pollutant loads. unloading areas. conveyor or by a water mediated The principal sources of wastes in The first processing (slaughtering) of transport (flow-away) system in larger poultry processing are from live bird poultry generates blood, grease, and facilities, or by hand (edible offal such holding (reception area) and receiving, cleaning water. Similar to meat as feet which are captured for Asian killing, defeathering, eviscerating, facilities, the blood is collected and markets) and flow-away (inedible offal) carcass washing, chilling, cut-up, and removed for processing as a by-product in small facilities. Screens are used in cleanup operations. When present, for use in feed or fertilizer. the flow away system to separate out further processing and rendering Scalding is performed to loosen the solids. After evisceration, the carcasses operations also are significant sources of feathers from the slaughtered birds. are usually washed to remove any wastes. These wastes include blood not Scalding also results in the removal of remaining blood and extraneous tissue. collected, feathers, viscera, soft tissue some suspended solids, blood, and grit. Viscera are captured for inedible
VerDate 11
rendering. Evisceration is estimated to birds, such as wings and legs, and then BOD for turkey processing operations contribute about a third of the total remove the remaining meat from the than for broiler processing operations. pollutant load (Docket No. W–01–06, skeletal structure of the birds. Cooking Primarily because of immersion Record Nos. 00133–00137). may precede or follow this cutting chilling, fat is a more significant source In a wet chilling process, carcasses are operation. The meat is used in large of BOD in poultry processing in immersed in cold water or unstatic pieces or reduced in size by using comparison to meat processing slush ice to retard bacterial growth and special equipment. Various ingredients wastewaters. Additional sources of BOD thus spoiling of the meat. The primary are mixed with the poultry meat and the in poultry processing wastewaters are pollutants generated in this process are numerous types of finished products are the feather and skin oils desorbed organic matter, body fluids, and fats and formed, cooked, breaded, packaged, and during scalding for feather removal. grease. Pollutant loads are relatively usually frozen. The relative quantities of Thus, the oil and grease content of small and the wastewater can be reused water and waste load are substantially poultry processing wastewaters in the chilling process or in other less in these further processing facilities typically is higher than that in meat poultry processing operations (e.g., than in poultry first processing processing wastewaters. scalding tank) after treatment. USDA (slaughtering) facilities. FSIS regulations govern water re-use Blood not collected as well as urine b. Wastewater Characterization practices from a food safety perspective. and feces also are significant sources of USDA FSIS provides an online The principal constituents of poultry nitrogen in poultry processing ‘‘Sanitation Performance Standards processing wastewaters are a variety of wastewaters. The principal form of Compliance Guide’’ as suggested means readily biodegradable organic nitrogen in these wastewaters before or examples by which water can be compounds, primarily fats and proteins, treatment is organic nitrogen with some safely re-used in various applications, present in both particulate and ammonia nitrogen produced by the meeting all regulatory requirements dissolved forms. To reduce wastewater microbially mediated mineralization of (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. treatment requirements, poultry organic nitrogen during collection. 10029). These USDA FSIS sanitation processing wastewaters also are Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen generally are guidelines are not regulatory but are screened to reduce concentrations of present only in trace concentrations, intended for didactic purposes only. particulate matter before treatment. An less than 1 mg/L. The phosphorus in Clean up and sanitation can added benefit of this practice again is poultry processing wastewaters also is contribute significantly to the overall increased production of rendered by- primarily from blood, manure, and volume and pollutant load of a poultry products. Because feathers are not cleaning and sanitizing compounds. rendered with soft tissue, wastewater- first processing facility. The volume and Due to the presence of manure in containing feathers is not commingled pollutant load of this wastewater varies poultry processing wastewaters, with other wastewater; instead, it is significantly from facility to facility, and densities of the total and fecal coliform screened separately and then combined is dependent on several factors and fecal streptococcus groups of with wastewater screened to recover soft including, efficiency of the processing bacteria generally are on the order of facility, housekeeping practices, the tissue before treatment. Poultry processing wastewaters several million colony forming units per extent to which dry cleaning processes 100 mL. Members of these groups of are used, and the volume of water used remain high strength wastes even after screening in comparison to domestic microorganisms generally are not in washing facility equipment. Improper pathogenic; but they do indicate the use of water hoses, for example, could wastewaters based on concentrations of BOD, COD, TSS, nitrogen, and possible presence of pathogens of lead to unnecessary use of water and the enteric origin such as Salmonella ssp. resulting production of excess phosphorus. Blood not collected, solubilized fat, and urine and feces are and Campylobacter jejuni, wastewater. gastrointestinal parasites, and The main poultry further processing the principal sources of BOD in poultry processing wastewaters. As with meat pathogenic enteric viruses. Giardia operations contribute in varying degrees lamblia, and Cryptosporidium parvum to the raw waste load and flow. These processing wastewaters, the efficacy of blood collection is a significant factor in are not of concern in poultry processing poultry further processing operations wastewaters. include: determining BOD concentration in • Receiving, storage, thawing; poultry processing wastewaters. Poultry processing wastewaters also • Cutting, deboning, dicing, grinding, Another significant factor in contain a variety of mineral elements, and chopping; determining the BOD5 of poultry some of which are present in the potable • Cooking, batter, breading; mixing processing wastewaters is the degree water used. Water supply systems and and blending; and that manure (urine and feces), especially mechanical equipment may be • Stuffing and canning. from receiving areas, is handled significant sources of metals including Poultry further processors do no separately as a solid waste. Chicken and copper, chromium, molybdenum, slaughtering but instead produce turkey manures have BOD5 in excess of nickel, titanium, and vanadium. In finished poultry products. Many of the 40,000 mg/kg on an as excreted basis addition, manure is a significant source operations performed in poultry further (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. of arsenic and zinc. Although pesticides processing facilities are similar to those 00160). Although the cages and trucks also are commonly used in the of meat further processing operations; used to transport broilers to processing production of poultry to control external therefore, sources of wastewater are facilities usually are not washed, cages parasites, mandated withdrawal periods similar for both meat and poultry and trucks used to transport live turkeys before slaughter typically should limit further processors. Cooking is involved to processing facilities are washed to concentrations in wastewater to non- in almost all poultry further processing prevent disease transmission from farm detectable or trace levels. Table VII.B– operations. These poultry processing to farm. Thus, manure probably is a 3 gives characteristics of poultry operations remove specific parts of the more significant source of wastewater processing raw wastewaters.
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.B–3.—CHARACTERISTICS OF POULTRY PROCESSING RAW WASTEWATER
Raw waste characteristics Poultry meat operations Suspended Daily flow BOD5 solids Grease TKN TP Fecal coliform MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CFU/100 ml
First Processing: Average ...... 0.89 1,662 760 665 54 12 9.8E5 Range, low-high .... 0.60–1.10 948–2,166 510–1,040 243–1,501 14–102 6–17 2.6E5—1.6E6 Further Processing and Rendering: Average ...... 1.10 3,293 1,657 793 80 72 8.6E5 Source: Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00161.
3. Independent Rendering Facilities each year (Docket No. W–01–06, Record on a seven day per week schedule. The a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use No. 00141). wastewater generated during cleanup Water scrubbers commonly are used operations usually accounts for about 30 Rendering operations are intensive to control emissions of noxious odors percent of total rendering facility users of water and significant generators from the condensation of evaporated wastewater flow (Docket W–01–06, of wastewater. Water is used throughout moisture produced during cooking and Record No. 00141). the rendering process, for raw material drying. These scrubbers can contribute b. Wastewater Characterization sterilization, condensing cooking up to 75 percent of the volume of vapors, facility cleanup, truck and barrel wastewater discharged from these Although a rendering facility’s washing, odor control and boiler cooking and drying operations (Docket wastewater pollutant concentration can makeup (Docket No. W–01–06, Record W–01–06, Record No. 00141). vary with the quantity and state of the No. 00141). Most of these activities also Condensates recovered from cooking animal material delivered to the facility generate wastewater. Rendering and drying processes contain high (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. facilities produce approximately one- concentrations of volatile organic acids, 00126), the wastewater constituents are half ton (120 gallons) of water for each amines, and mercaptans, and other generally the same for all facilities malodorous compounds. Thus, ton of rendered material (Docket No. W– (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. rendering facility condensers can be 01–06, Record No. 00122). Variations in 00141). For example, a 1975 EPA survey sources of significant emissions of wastewater flow per unit of raw material found that the average and range of noxious odors to the atmosphere processed are largely attributable to the BOD wastewater values for facilities without water scrubbing for emission 5 type of condensers used for condensing processing greater than 50 percent control. Recycled final effluent is used the cooking vapors and, to a lesser poultry by-products could not be for the scrubber operation; therefore, extent, to the initial moisture content of differentiated from those facilities little increase in final effluent volume is the raw material. processing less than 50 percent poultry produced by the scrubber operation. The National Rendering Association Liquid drainage from raw material by-products or from those for the total (NRA) collected data from its receiving areas can contribute industry. Additionally, the study found membership to provide a general significantly to the total raw waste load that facility size did not have an effect characterization of rendering (Docket W–01–06, Record No. 00141). on the levels of pollutants in the waste wastewaters. Results from an NRA Large amounts of raw materials stream. Facility practices are the survey of its members indicates that the commonly accumulate in receiving determining factor for raw wasteload average rendering facility (in terms of areas (in bins or on floors). Fluids from (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. production) generates about 215,000 these raw materials drain off and enter 00141). During the summer, if raw gallons/day of process wastewater and the internal facility sewers (Docket W– materials are received by the rendering an average of 34,000 gallons/day from 01–06, Record No. 00141). At rendering operation in an advanced state of decay, other sources (Docket No. W–01–06, facilities that process poultry, drainage ammonium levels in the effluents could Record No. 00122). The NRA estimates of liquids can be significant because of increase. that the average sized facility discharges the use of fluming to transport feathers In a typical rendering facility the raw about 243,300 gallons/day or 169 and viscera in the processing facility. In materials that are processed include gallons per minute (Docket No. W–01– such facilities, liquid drainage may body fluids (including blood), fat, 06, Record No. 00122). account for approximately 20 percent of manure, hide curing solutions, tallow Condensates resulting from cooking the original raw material weight. and grease, and animal tissue (including and drying are the largest contributors The other important source of meal products such as meat, meat and to the total wastewater in terms of wastewater from rendering operations is bone, blood, feathers, hair and poultry volume and pollutant load (Docket No. water used for cleaning equipment and meal) (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. W–01–06, Record No. 00127). At those interior building surfaces, the cleanup 00126; Record No. 00141). All of these rendering facilities where hide curing is of spills, and trucks when materials are products can enter the wastewater, and also performed as an ancillary received from off-site locations for as a result, the wastewater typically operation, additional wastewater flow is rendering. Cleanup of rendering contains organic materials such as generated. Wastewaters from these equipment and facilities is less protein (soluble and insoluble), grease, operations are high in pollutant intensive than for processing facilities suspended solids, which are sources of concentrations, but relatively low in and usually occurs only once per day, biochemical oxygen demand, volume, particularly when the curing even though rendering usually is a 24- nitrogenous compounds, phosphorus, solution is only dumped a few times hour operation and commonly occurs salts.
VerDate 11
As mentioned above, wastewater is grinding and cooking of raw materials presents the pollutant concentrations generated at each step of the rendering and product separation with water, found in samples collected from a process. Condensates formed during the usually occurs at the end of a day’s continuous dry rendering facility in cooking/drying process are extremely operation when rendering has been Columbus, Ohio (Docket No. W–01–06, polluted and contain high completed. The volume of water used Record No. 00126). Samples from concentrations of volatile organic acids, for cleanup can be a significant portion cooker condensate, raw blood, and amines, mercaptans, and other noxious of the flow per unit of raw material washdown water were analyzed. The compounds. Most of the organic processed; usually, clean up water cooker condensate was mostly compounds detected in rendering accounts for 30 percent of the total composed of condensed volatile fats and wastewater are volatile fatty acids wastewater flow (Docket No. W–01–06, oils with some ammonia. The (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. Record No. 00141). Other areas are washdown water was facility clean-up 00127). typically dry cleaned. Washdown can water mixed with drainage from the raw Washdown in inedible rendering also follow an accidental spill, further facilities is less intensive than in meat contributing to the wastewater load. product storage hopper (the relative and poultry processing facilities because Each step in the rendering process proportions were not measured). the same degree of sanitation is not contributes to the overall pollutant load Although the blood accounted for only required (Docket No. W–01–06, Record and volume of wastewater. The relative a small percentage of the total volume No. 00141). Washdown, the process of contributions of each step in the process of wastewater, it was very high in cleaning the areas for receiving, can be seen in Table VII.B–4. The table chemical oxygen demand (COD).
TABLE VII.B–4.—POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR A DRY CONTINUOUS RENDERING FACILITY
Cooker con- Wash-up Raw blood 1 Parameter densate 1,2 water 3 (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Total COD ...... 150,000 2,400–6,000 7,600 Soluble COD ...... 136,000 2,400–6,000 3,200 Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN–N) ...... 16,500 430–740 270 Crude Protein (Org-N*6.25) ...... 81,250 0 1,440 Ammonia Nitrogen ...... 3,500 430–740 40 COD: TKN ...... 9.1 5.6–8.1 28.1 Total Phosphorus (P) ...... 183 <4 15.1 COD:P ...... 820 >1500 503 Freon Extractables (Fats, Oils, and Grease) ...... 620 110–260 35 Potassium ...... 798 <6 20.9 Calcium ...... 55 <1 26.4 Magnesium ...... 27 <1 7.3 Iron ...... 164 2 9.4 Sodium ...... 818 0.1 37.1 Copper ...... 0.7 <0.2 0.1 Zinc ...... 1.3 <0.15 0.46 Manganese ...... 0.05 0.05 0.01 Lead ...... <0.6 <3 <1.3 Chromium ...... 0.3 <0.2 0.12 Cadmium ...... 0.05 <0.01 <0.04 Nickel ...... <0.2 <1 <0.4 Cobalt ...... <0.02 <0.01 <0.04 Sulfate (SO4–S) ...... 300 <2 4.6 Total Chloride ...... 1700 <2 86 Source: Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00126. Note 1: Each point is the mean of three samples analyzed in duplicate. Note 2: Two batches of influent were used in the research. A range in concentration levels is shown for some cooker condensate parameters because of variability in strength between winter and summer batches. Cold ambient temperatures around the forced air condensers affected the COD strength of the cooker condensate. The COD strength of the blood and wash-up water was similar for both batches, so only one concentra- tion level is presented. Note 3: ‘‘ < ’’ and ‘‘ > ’’ symbols both indicate the limits of the analyses were exceeded.
The National Rendering Association effluent loadings, and do not identify bacterial counts of 250,000,000 colony (NRA) collected data from its specific sources of generated forming units per milliliter for generated membership to provide a general wastewater. The final effluent data wastewaters and 45,000 colony forming characterization of rendering represent pollutant loads after treatment units per milliliter for discharged wastewaters. Table VII.B–5 presents the has been applied. The NRA did not wastewaters. results of this survey. The data represent collect data on nutrients or metals. Fecal only wastewater generated and final coliform bacteria were detected at
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.B–5.—WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION OF ‘‘TYPICAL’’ NRA MEMBER RENDER FACILITY
Generated Discharged wastewater wastewater Parameter concentration concentration (mg/L) (mg/L)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ...... 123,000 8,000 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) ...... 80,000 5,100 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ...... 8,400 268 Fats, Oils, and Greases (FOG) ...... 3,200 116 Metals (Average Zinc) ...... NA 0.68 Source: NRA, 2000.
C. Pollutants of Concern value to ensure that pollutants detected instead transferred data from on-site EPA determined pollutants of concern at only trace amounts would not be rendering facilities. Consequently, EPA for the meat and poultry products selected. EPA obtained the pollutants of is using all the pollutants of concern industry by assessing EPA sampling concern by establishing which from Tables VII.C–1 and VII.C–2 for data. To establish the pollutant of parameters were detected at treatable independent rendering facilities. EPA is concern, EPA reviewed the analytical levels in at least 10 percent of all the planning further sampling at data from influent wastewater samples influent wastewater samples. Tables independent rendering facilities after to determine the pollutants which were VII.C–1 and VII.C–2 show the result of proposal to better refine the list of detected at treatable levels. EPA set this analysis. EPA did not sample at pollutants of concern list for treatable levels at five times the baseline independent rendering facilities but independent renderers.
TABLE VII.C–1.—POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR MEAT PROCESSING FACILITIES
Number of Pollutant group Pollutant CAS No. times ana- Number of lyzed detects
Classicals or Biologicals ..... Aeromonas ...... C2101 36 36 Ammonia as Nitrogen ...... 7664417 46 46 Biochemical Oxygen Demand ...... C003 46 45 BOD 5-day (Carbonaceous) ...... C002 46 46 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ...... C004 46 46 Chloride ...... 16887006 46 46 Cryptosporidium ...... 137259508 6 6 Dissolved Biochemical Oxygen Demand ...... C003D 46 41 Dissolved Phosphorus ...... 14265442D 46 46 E. Coli ...... C050 36 36 Fecal Coliform ...... C2106 46 46 Fecal Streptococcus ...... C2107 46 46 Hexane Extractable Material ...... C036 46 46 Nitrate/Nitrite ...... C005 46 33 Total Coliform ...... E10606 46 46 Total Dissolved Solids ...... C010 46 46 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ...... C021 36 36 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ...... C012 46 46 Total Orthophosphate ...... C034 46 45 Total Phosphorus ...... 14265442 46 46 Total Suspended Solids ...... C009 46 46 Volatile Residue ...... C030 46 46 Metals ...... Chromium ...... 7440473 46 46 Copper ...... 7440508 46 46 Manganese ...... 7439965 46 46 Titanium ...... 7440326 46 46 Zinc ...... 7440666 46 46 Pesticides ...... Carbaryl ...... 63252 12 5 Cis-permethrin ...... 61949766 12 6 Trans-permethrin ...... 61949777 12 7
TABLE VII.C–2.—POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR POULTRY PROCESSING FACILITIES
Number of Pollutant group Pollutant CAS No. times Number of analyzed detects
Classicals or Biologicals ..... Aeromonas ...... C2101 17 17 Ammonia as Nitrogen ...... 7664417 48 47 Biochemical Oxygen Demand ...... C003 48 48 BOD 5-day (Carbonaceous) ...... C002 48 48 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ...... C004 48 48
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.C–2.—POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR POULTRY PROCESSING FACILITIES—Continued
Number of Pollutant group Pollutant CAS No. times Number of analyzed detects
Chloride ...... 16887006 48 48 Dissolved Biochemical Oxygen Demand ...... C003D 48 47 Dissolved Phosphorus ...... 14265442D 48 48 E. Coli ...... C050 17 17 Fecal Coliform ...... C2106 23 23 Fecal Streptococcus ...... C2107 23 23 Hexane Extractable Material ...... C036 48 48 Nitrate/Nitrite ...... C005 48 28 Salmonella ...... 68583357 17 3 Total Coliform ...... E10606 23 23 Total Dissolved Solids ...... C010 48 48 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ...... C021 47 47 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ...... C012 48 46 Total Orthophosphate ...... C034 48 44 Total Phosphorus ...... 14265442 48 48 Total Residual Chlorine ...... 7782505 48 14 Total Suspended Solids ...... C009 48 48 Volatile Residue ...... C030 48 48 Metals ...... Copper ...... 7440508 48 48 Manganese ...... 7439965 48 47 Zinc ...... 7440666 48 48 Pesticides ...... Carbaryl ...... 63252 21 12
D. Approach to Estimating Compliance Document (see Docket No. W–01–06, dry) and all possible combinations of Costs Record No. 00168). these processes. These classifications produced 19 groupings. Table VII.D–1 1. Overview 2. Methods for Estimating Compliance Costs details the 19 different groupings. This section describes EPA’s Finally, EPA divided each of the 19 a. Overview methodology for estimating engineering groupings into four size classes (small, compliance costs and pollutant loading This section presents EPA’s estimates medium, large, and very large) based on reductions associated with the of industry-wide compliance costs annual total production. These regulatory options proposed for the associated with the proposed rule. EPA groupings allow EPA to consider variations in: (1) Raw wastewater meat and poultry products industry. separated MPP facilities into groups based on the type of meat and poultry characteristics as determined by meat Costs and pollutant loading reductions processed (e.g., meat, poultry, or both type and processes performed; and (2) were estimated for each class of MPP meat and poultry). To ensure all size, which can determine wastewater facilities, including meat, poultry, and facilities are accounted for, and volumes generated and thus the size of meat and poultry (mixed) facilities. A variation in raw wastewater required treatment technology. EPA description of each of the technology characteristics are considered, EPA used these MPP operations, meat or options is provided below and the classified all meat and poultry poultry product types, and size rationale for selecting the proposed BAT processing operations as either first classifications to develop 76 model and NSPS options are provided in processing (e.g., slaughtering, carcass facilities (= 19 groupings x 4 size Section XI. Detailed information on preparation and quartering), further classes) in order to describe the broad estimated compliance costs are processing (e.g., deboning, cooking, range of potential MPP facilities in provided in the MPP Development sausage making), or rendering (wet or current operation.
TABLE VII.D–1.—DEFINITION OF 19 MPP MODEL FACILITY GROUPINGS
Model fa- Processes performed cility Number Product type grouping First proc- Further code essing processing Rendering
1 ...... Meat ...... R1 X ...... 2 ...... Meat ...... R2 ...... X ...... 3 ...... Meat ...... R12 X X ...... 4 ...... Meat ...... R13 X ...... X 5 ...... Meat ...... R23 ...... X X 6 ...... Meat ...... R123 X X X 7 ...... Poultry ...... P1 X ...... 8 ...... Poultry ...... P2 ...... X ...... 9 ...... Poultry ...... P12 X X ...... 10 ...... Poultry ...... P13 X ...... X 11 ...... Poultry ...... P23 ...... X X 12 ...... Poultry ...... P123 X X X 13 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M1 X ......
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.D–1.—DEFINITION OF 19 MPP MODEL FACILITY GROUPINGS—Continued
Model fa- Processes performed cility Number Product type grouping First proc- Further code essing processing Rendering
14 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M2 ...... X ...... 15 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M12 X X ...... 16 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M13 X ...... X 17 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M23 ...... X X 18 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M123 X X X 19 ...... Meat and/or Poultry ...... Render ...... X
EPA developed characteristics for • Use the MPP Screener Survey data annual costs of treatment units, each model facility based on the MPP to identify the median wastewater flow frequency of occurrence, and national Screener Survey, the MPP Detailed (model facility flow) and to estimate the estimate of MPP facilities for each of the Survey, and EPA’s sampling data. EPA number of MPP facilities nationally 76 model facilities; and used Computer Assisted Procedure For represented by each of the 76 model • Estimate the regulatory cost for each Design And Evaluation Of Wastewater facilities; subcategory based on the model facility Treatment Systems (CAPDET), a • Use the MPP Detailed Survey data computerized cost model, for to determine frequency of occurrence costs. developing construction cost and for treatment units in each of the 76 The Agency has developed a annual costs of a treatment unit (Docket model facilities; regulatory subcategorization scheme for No. W–01–06, Record No. 00129). The • Develop construction costs and the proposed rule, based on various capital cost of a treatment unit was annual costs of treatment units from combinations of the 76 model facility calculated using the construction costs CAPDET using model facility costs. Table VII.D–2 defines the 10 obtained from CAPDET. wastewater flows and typical influent regulatory groupings based on facility The step-by-step method for and effluent pollutant concentrations; type and size. See section 11 of the MPP • calculating the incremental cost for each Estimate capital costs of treatment Development Document for more details regulatory option is summarized below: units from construction costs; • • on how EPA developed size Use the MPP Screener Survey data Estimate capital and annual costs classifications for each of the 19 to establish production levels for each of for each regulatory option of the 76 groupings. the 76 model facilities; model facilities using capital and
TABLE VII.D–2.—DEFINITION OF 10 MPP REGULATORY GROUPINGS
40 CFR 1 subcategory Facility size Facility type Model facility grouping code
A, B, C, D ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Meat first ...... R1, R12, R13, R123. Small ...... Meat first processors ...... R1, R12, R13, R123. F, G, H, I ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Meat further processors ...... R2, R23, 0.61 *M2. Small 2 ...... Meat further processors ...... R2, R23, 0.59*M2, 0.5*M23. J ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Independent Renderers ...... Render. Small ...... Independent Renderers ...... Render. K ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Poultry first processors ...... P1, P12, P13, P123. Small ...... Poultry further processors ...... P1, P12, P13, P123. L ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Poultry further processors ...... P2, P23, 0.39*M2. Small ...... Poultry further processors ...... P2, P23, 0.41*M2, 0.5*M23. Note 1: The following abbreviations apply: R = Meat facilities; P = Poultry facilities; M = Facilities producing both meat and poultry products; 1 = First Processors; 2 = Further Processors; and 3 = Meat or Poultry facilities performing on-site rendering. Note 2: This group of small meat further processors includes all meat facilities that annually produce less than 50 million pounds of finished product and also includes all facilities currently covered under Subpart E (Small Processors) (see Section III.A.1).
The MPP Screener Survey only further processors regulatory grouping those processes or technologies in identified medium sized facilities (40 CFR part 432, Subcategory L) based treating the wastewater. Rather, the performing further processing on both on total annual production. EPA processes and technologies that would meat and poultry (Model Facility allocated the costs equally between the be used to treat meat and poultry Grouping Code = M2 and M23) and two groupings if production data were processing wastewater are left to the small facilities performing further not available. discretion of individual facilities; the processing, and further processing and proposed rule requires only the b. Available Technologies rendering on both meat and poultry numerical discharge limits be achieved. (Model Facility Grouping Code = M23). Although EPA is proposing In establishing these limits, however, EPA allocated the costs for facilities that limitations and standards based on the EPA evaluated a range of technology produce both meat and poultry products performance of specific processes and options that a facility could implement into the meat further processors treatment technologies in reducing to achieve the proposed limitations and regulatory grouping (40 CFR part 432, pollutant loadings, the Agency is not standards. The technology options Subcategory E through I) and poultry proposing to require a discharger to use evaluated for existing direct dischargers
VerDate 11
(BPT/BCT/BAT) and Pretreatment treatment units in-place according to the summary of these technology options Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) data supplied in the detailed surveys. A are shown in the Table VII.D–3. were selected based on an analysis of
TABLE VII.D–3.—BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MEAT AND POULTRY PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Technology options 1 Treatment units PSES PSES PSES PSES 123451 2 3 4
Screen ...... XXXXXXXXX Dissolved air floatation (DAF) ...... XXXXXXXXX Equalization tank ...... XXXX Anaerobic lagoon ...... XXXXX Biological treatment with nitrification ...... X 1 XXXX XXX Biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification .. X X X X X Biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification and phosphorous removal ...... X X X Filter ...... X Disinfection ...... XXXXX X: treatment unit is required for that option. 1 Nitrification is limited for Option 1. Note 1: EPA only considered Option5 for poultry facilities.
c. Treatment-in-Place Frequency of d. CAPDET Computer Model concentrations for a particular Occurrence The Computer Assisted Procedure For subcategory for each option were The frequency of occurrence for Design And Evaluation Of Wastewater determined from EPA sampling specific treatment units was an Treatment Systems (CAPDET) computer episodes and from detailed survey important factor in EPA’s cost estimates. model requires design specifications responses. EPA selected data from best To evaluate treatment-in-place, EPA and pollutant wastewater performing red meat, poultry, rendering, categorized MPP Detailed Survey concentrations as its input. Data and mixed facilities for each option responses into two size groups: small collected through survey responses, site based on effluent concentrations and the and non-small (medium, large, very visits, sampling episodes, and literature treatment scheme the facilities had in- large). Data provided in the MPP were used to run the CAPDET model. place. If data were not available, EPA Detailed Survey were not sufficiently The input wastewater flow for a derived data from similar operating detailed to allow further subdividing the particular subcategory was taken equal facilities having similar wastewater non-small grouping into individual to the model flow of that subcategory. characteristics. Remaining design groupings for medium, large, and very Although default influent concentration specifications were determined from large facilities. EPA also considered values are provided in CAPDET, EPA literature, survey responses, site visits, frequency of treatment units by used sampling and survey data from and sampling episodes. discharge status (direct or indirect). MPP facilities to extent available for The Agency evaluated the wastewater purposes of running the cost model. The e. Cost Components treatment systems of all the facilities influent concentrations for a particular Capital cost, annual cost, performance currently in the MPP Detailed Survey subcategory were determined through database. To determine the wastewater the use of EPA sampling data. In cost, and retrofit costs are the four major treatment upgrades necessary for the general, data from sampling locations components of costs used for estimating facilities to be in compliance with each that represent influent concentrations of the incremental industry-wide cost for regulatory option, the Agency compared the wastewater treatment system for the proposed regulation. the existing treatment system of the each regulatory option were selected. The construction costs of treatment facility to the list of treatment units for When data from multiple facilities were units for each subcategory were each regulatory option (Table VII.D–3). identified for a regulatory option, an obtained as an output from CAPDET EPA determined the treatment unit average of the concentrations was model runs. Based on the cost frequency of occurrence for each of the derived. EPA excluded a limited information obtained from the costing 76 model facilities. Treatment unit amount of sampling and survey data document for centralized waste frequency of occurrence is defined as that were considered outliers based on treatment industry (Docket No. W–01– the ratio of the number of facilities that engineering judgement. If data were not 06, Record No. 00138), the direct have the treatment unit in place (or available, EPA derived data from similar (excluding construction cost) and other treatment units that can perform operating facilities having similar indirect costs were estimated to be 69 the same function) to the total number wastewater characteristics. Default percent of the construction cost of the of facilities in that subcategory. The values provided in CAPDET were used treatment units. The break up of the frequency of occurrence distribution for several parameters for which no direct and indirect costs are provided in across medium, large, and very large sampling value was available (e.g., Table VII.D–4. The capital cost for a facilities was assumed to be identical. percent volatile solids, cations, anions, Facilities that do not have the treatment non-degradable fraction of VSS). treatment unit was obtained by using unit require upgrading costs to achieve Soluble COD and settleable solids the following equation: the performance of the proposed concentrations were derived based on Capital Cost of a treatment unit = 1.69 technology options. literature. Desired effluent × Construction cost of the treatment unit
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.D–4.—COST FACTORS treatment train similar to a regulatory denitrification and phosphorous USED TO ESTIMATE CAPITAL COSTS treatment option does not accrue any removal system were estimated to be 54 additional cost for that regulatory percent of the capital cost of a new Cost option. It is expected that the facilities nitrification system (ibid). For direct factor with a technology-in-place (TIP) dischargers, the Agency assumed that Cost item Cost type (% of comparable to an option should be able the retrofit costs to convert a construc- tion cost) to meet the proposed effluent limits of nitrification system to: (1) A that option. However, in reality, some of nitrification and denitrification system; Construction cost ...... Direct ..... 100 these facilities with TIP may not be able and (2) a nitrification and denitrification Piping ...... Direct ..... 17 to meet the proposed effluent limits and phosphorous removal system are 45 Instrumentation and Direct ..... 13 because of inadequate operational percent and 65 percent respectively of controls. practices compared to the proposed the cost of a nitrification and Engineering ...... Indirect ... 19.5 treatment unit. Therefore, to calculate denitrification system. See the MPP Contingency ...... Indirect ... 19.5 the cost of improving performance, the Development Document for more Total capital cost ...... 169 Agency assumed a 10 percent increase information on what assumptions EPA in the annual costs of all the facilities used in estimating retrofit costs. with TIP as performance cost. The annual (operations and g. Summary of Annualized Engineering Since many of the existing treatment maintenance) costs of the treatment Costs units for each subcategory were units in the facilities could be retrofitted obtained from the CAPDET model. The to meet stricter regulatory options, EPA The recommended options with incremental annual costs were investigated the costs required to annualized costs for the non-small size associated with the following cost items: upgrade such systems. The Agency category are shown in Table VII.D–5. • Labor (operation, maintenance, found that all nitrification systems These costs include the estimated laboratory, administrative and general), (Option2 and PSES2) could be capital investment costs annualized as • Maintenance (materials and retrofitted to a nitrification and described in Section VIII of this notice. vendors), denitrification system (Option3, PSES3). EPA used the retrofit costs to estimate • Chemical Costs, Similarly, all nitrification and the total compliance cost for this • Energy Costs, and denitrification systems could be industry ($80 million). EPA notes that • Sludge disposal costs. retrofitted to a nitrification, retrofit options are available to MPP denitrification, and phosphorous facilities and are less costly than f. Incremental Costs Calculation removal (Option4, Option5, PSES4) construction of new treatment units (e.g. EPA estimated the incremental cost system. Based on information provided tanks, piping) (Docket W–01–06, Record for each regulatory option by comparing by industry experts, EPA estimated that No. 00166.) EPA’s basis for selecting the the existing treatment system of the facilities with a nitrification system in retrofit costs is that operators will facility identified in the MPP Detailed place would incur 33 percent of the choose the less costly compliance Survey with that of the proposed capital cost of a new nitrification system option and retrofit their WWTP when regulatory option (see Table VII.D–3) to upgrade the system to a nitrification the retrofit option is available. EPA and costed for the additional treatment and denitrification system (Docket No. solicits comment on which costs (i.e., units needed to meet the regulatory W–01–06, Record No. 00130). Retrofit retrofit or upper bound) is most option. Therefore, a facility identified capital costs to convert a nitrification appropriate to consider for the final by the MPP Detailed Survey that has a system to a nitrification and rule.
TABLE VII.D–5.—ANNUALIZED COSTS (1999$) OF THE RECOMMENDED OPTIONS FOR NON-SMALL SIZE CLASS
Annualized Regulatory subcategory cost (RS) Discharge type Option (millions per year)
A, B, C, D ...... Direct ...... BAT3 ...... 42.2 F, G, H, I ...... Direct ...... BAT3 ...... 0.5 J ...... Direct ...... BAT2 ...... 0.6 K ...... Direct ...... BAT3 ...... 34.5 L ...... Direct ...... BAT3 ...... 2.2
E. Approach to Estimating Pollutant conducted at 11 MPP facilities. As the baseline loading analysis. When a Reductions previously stated, two facilities were facility did not provide average sampled by EPA and nine facilities concentrations but instead provided 1. Sources and Use of Available Data carried out self-sampling with technical non-averaged, self-monitoring data, EPA EPA used analytical data provided by oversight provided by EPA. calculated an average value to use as the baseline concentration. In calculating the industry in the detailed surveys and 2. Calculation of Average proposal average baseline analytical data from facilities sampled Concentrations from Analytical Data to estimate baseline and post- concentrations, EPA did not edit any compliance pollutant concentrations. For each facility that provided analytical data provided in the detailed Detailed Surveys for 48 direct analytical data as part of their detailed survey. In addition, EPA did not use dischargers and 103 indirect dischargers survey, EPA used the average sample detection limits or the maximum were used in the analysis. In addition, concentrations provided in the detailed and minimum concentration values EPA used data from the sampling efforts survey for each pollutant of concern in when average values were not available
VerDate 11
in the survey. However, for EPA processing category: (1) Direct, small; (2) EPA used typical flow values provided sampling episodes where concentrations direct, non-small; (3) indirect, small; in the detailed survey to determine the of pollutants were reported below the and (4) indirect non-small. When a percentage of flow attributable to each sample detection limit, EPA used the particular meat and poultry processing of the three processes (first, further and reported sample detection limit as the category was not represented by the rendering). The Agency used these flow concentration. Analytical data from the facilities in the detailed survey, EPA values and pollutant concentrations sampling episodes used for both used available data from similar meat from the above six subcategories to baseline and regulatory options loading and poultry processing categories in the derive average effluent concentrations calculations were averaged on a daily detailed survey to derive average for the various combinations of basis for each sample location. pollutant concentrations for the missing processes such as first and further, first and render, etc. Average effluent 3. Establishment of Baseline meat and poultry processing category. concentrations for the rendering Concentration Data Averages were comprised of meat subcategory averages that best represent subcategory (meat and poultry EPA derived baseline concentrations the subcategory without facilities. This combined) were derived by averaging for each POC for each of the 151 (= 48 calculation used both small and non- poultry rendering average effluent direct + 103 indirect) facilities used to small facilities. These estimates were concentrations with meat rendering generate pollutant load reduction then used to generate baseline pollutant average effluent concentrations. estimates. EPA used the following concentrations for each of the 19 meat Likewise, average effluent hierarchy of methods to calculate and poultry processing categories (see concentrations for further processing baseline concentrations for each of the Table VII.D–1) being analyzed by EPA. mixed subcategory were derived by 151 facilities: averaging average effluent • When a facility provided 4. Derivation Average Effluent concentrations from poultry further concentration data (average values Concentrations Representing processing with average effluent provided in the detailed survey and Implementation of Regulatory Options concentrations from meat further averages calculated by EPA as described For each regulatory option being processing. For regulatory option BAT1, previously) for any of the 37 POCs, EPA considered, EPA calculated average average effluent concentrations were used this average concentration. effluent concentrations for effluent based on those developed for regulatory • In the absence of any baseline pollutant concentrations that represent option BAT2 for all pollutants except concentration data in the detailed the best performing facilities (from the ammonia, nitrite-nitrate, and TKN. survey, EPA transferred analytical data respective of types of treatment in-place Because under regulatory option BAT1 from EPA sampling episodes for similar and degree of expected pollutant EPA assumed less efficient nitrification meat and poultry processors and similar removals). For purposes of proposal, was occurring and all of the sampled treatment in-place. When such sampling EPA relied on both EPA sampling facilities were categorized as operating data were available for more than one episode data and facility-submitted data at levels at least equivalent to BAT2, episode, EPA used an average to calculate average effluent EPA estimated average effluent concentration value of these episodes. concentrations for ammonia, nitrite- • concentrations. Average effluent For POCs where EPA sampling concentrations were calculated for the nitrate, and TKN. These estimates were episode data were not available to following six meat and poultry generally derived by calculating the transfer concentration data, the Agency processes: average ammonia effluent used average concentrations from both • first processing (meat); concentrations from facilities that detailed survey and EPA sampling • further processing (meat); submitted analytical data as part of their episode data from facilities with the • rendering (meat); detailed survey and that listed their same processing category and treatment • first processing (poultry); treatment system type as conventional option to calculate an average baseline • further processing (poultry); and (EPA assumed that these facilities are concentration for each pollutant in a • rendering (poultry). not operating their treatment systems to subcategory. Average effluent concentrations were specifically achieve nitrification, and • When data from facilities in the derived for each of the above six meat therefore would be representative of same meat and poultry processing and poultry processes from effluent performance of the BAT1 regulatory category were not available, an average concentration data collected during the option). EPA also assumed that the total concentration of facilities in similar sampling episodes. Specifically, for nitrogen for regulatory option BAT1 meat and poultry processing categories each regulatory option, effluent would be equal to the total nitrogen for was used instead. concentration data from representative regulatory option BAT2 (i.e., the total • When all of the above imputation facilities were used to derive average and organic nitrogen would not change methods failed to derive pollutant effluent concentrations for each POC. In from BAT1 to BAT2, just the form that concentrations, then facility data from the absence of data for a particular meat the nitrogen was in). Based on the total other, similar treatment options were and poultry process at a facility, nitrogen and ammonia concentrations, used. The size of the facility (small or pollutant concentration data from EPA then derived nitrite-nitrate and non-small) was not considered in another facility within the same TKN concentrations based on transferring data within similar meat grouping as well as applicable theoretical relationships between the and poultry processing categories and performance data (i.e., pollutant forms of nitrogen. treatment options. removal efficiencies from a facility After pollutant data were estimated representative of the regulatory option) 5. Calculation of Pollutant Loadings for each facility, EPA calculated average were used to derive appropriate EPA estimated baseline and baseline concentrations from the concentration data. These average regulatory option pollutant loadings for individual facilities, separating indirect effluent concentrations were derived all 37 POCs using the average dischargers from direct dischargers and irrespective of facility size. concentrations for each subcategory and small facilities from non-small facilities. In order to derive average effluent national flow (average) values derived This process yielded a total of four concentrations for the other 13 meat from the screener survey for small and averages for each meat and poultry groupings (other than the six above), non-small facilities. The following
VerDate 11
equation was used for conventional However, that data has not been fully post-proposal analyses and presented in pollutants, nutrients, metals and processed and, with some exceptions, is its forthcoming NODA. pesticides: generally not available for use in the c. Other Data Sources Load = Flow x Conc. x 8.345 analysis for today’s proposal. EPA has where: thus relied on secondary data sources, Although EPA relied primarily on its Load = Pollutant loading, lbs/day most importantly on data from the 1997 two surveys and the Census of Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per U.S. Census of Manufacturers. Manufacturers, other data sources day informed the analysis where a. Census of Manufacturers Data Conc. = Average pollutant appropriate. These other sources concentration, mg/L For the economic analysis used in include numerous journals, academic 8.345 = Conversion factor, lbs/gal and today’s proposal, EPA primarily used publications, data and reports from mg/L. data taken from the 1997 Census of USDA and other government agencies, For microbiological pollutants, the Manufacturers published by the U.S. and industry publications such as Meat loads were computed using the Census Bureau. These data are & Poultry and Meat Processing. published according to four NAICS following equation: C. Annualized Compliance Cost codes applicable to the meat and Estimates Load = Flow x Conc. x 37.8 poultry products industry: 311611 where: Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering, EPA estimates that 246 direct Load = Pollutant loading, Million cfu/ 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses, discharging meat and poultry products day 311613 Rendering and Meat Byproduct facilities would be regulated by this Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per Processing, and 311615 Poultry proposal. EPA also considered day Processing. The Census data contains a regulating the 731 largest indirect Conc. = Average pollutant large number of financial statistics that discharging facilities. EPA calculated concentration, cfu/100 mL are aggregated to the NAICS-code level. the economic impact on each of the 37.8 = Conversion factor, L/gal and The Census data also contains some facilities based on the cost of mL/L. information disaggregated by size of compliance using the technology basis For Cryptosporidium, the loads were establishment; this information is for each of the options considered for computed using the following equation employees, payroll, cost of materials, the proposal. For direct dischargers, by the following equation: value of shipments, and a handful of EPA calculated impacts for compliance Load = Flow x Conc. x 3.78 other statistics. Finally, EPA was able to with BPT/BCT/BAT; for indirect where: obtain from the Census Bureau the dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for Load = Pollutant loading, Million/day mean, standard deviation, covariance, compliance with PSES. As detailed in Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per and correlation of value of shipments, Section XI, EPA based the proposed day payroll, and cost of materials standards for direct discharges on Conc. = Pollutant concentration, per L disaggregated by size of establishment. Option 3 (except for the Rendering 3.78 = Conversion factor, L/gal. EPA used this information to create Subcategory, which are based on Option EPA estimated pollutant loading for model facilities that were matched to 2) and EPA is proposing no limitations the entire industry using the national the engineering model facilities (see or standards for indirect dischargers. Section VII). estimates of the number of facilities in EPA also calculated costs and impacts for the 4670 smallest facilities; these each meat subcategory multiplied by the b. MPP Screener and Detailed Survey subcategory loadings. results are presented in the EA. These EPA was able to use items from the small facilities are not included in the VIII. Economic Analysis screener and detailed survey in its estimates discussed in this section analysis for the proposal. The questions A. Introduction unless specifically noted. in both the screener and detailed The technologies that are the basis for EPA’s economic analysis assesses the surveys related to amount of production today’s proposal are estimated to have a costs and a variety of impacts of this (of various meat types and processing total pre-tax annualized cost of $80.0 proposal. This section reviews that operations), employees at the facility, million and a total post-tax annualized analysis while the record for the and employees at the company that cost of $50.5 million. The pre-tax proposal contains the detailed results of owns the facility are most relevant to annualized costs are the most complete this analysis. In particular, the MPP the economic analysis. The detailed estimates of annualized control costs, Economic Analysis (EA) presents the survey collected a large amount of but the post-tax costs more accurately results of the assessment. The MPP EA information about the individual reflect the costs businesses will incur estimates the economic and financial facilities and companies that own those because they net out tax savings. For costs of compliance with the proposal facilities, including general information that reason, both pre-tax or post-tax on individual facilities and companies. about the type of ownership, facility and costs are used in the economic impact The MPP EA also considers impacts on company employment, interest and analysis. Pre-tax costs, however, more new sources, foreign trade impacts and discount rates, and income statements accurately reflect the total cost to market impacts. The MPP EA also for 1997–1999 and balance sheets for society of the rule and are used in the includes an analysis detailing the effects 1999 (both income statement and EO 12866 analysis, the cost- on small meat products businesses. balance sheet information were effectiveness analysis, and elsewhere. Finally, the MPP EA contains the results collected for the facility and the of a cost-effectiveness analysis for the company). EPA utilized all of the D. Economic Impact Methodologies meat and poultry products industry. information from the screener survey in EPA’s analysis of the economic this proposal but was only able to use impacts of the proposed guidelines and B. Economic Data Collection Activities selected items from the detailed survey standards for the meat and poultry As noted above (see Section V.B), EPA due to the additional complexity and products industry examines the costs of sent a survey to a representative sample time required to process the detailed the proposed regulations on the of meat and poultry products facilities. surveys. This data will be used in EPA’s economic viability of facilities and firms
VerDate 11
using relatively standard financial payments; EPA then applied 1999 mix of both red meat and poultry analysis tools. A MPP firm is a business federal and an average of state corporate (approximately 70 percent of their unit or enterprise that owns or operates tax rates to EBIT. EPA estimated production is red meat). Facilities that a collection of MPP facilities. Since the industry level interest payments using a process poultry, with or without costs are estimated for model facilities, combination of ASM data on past slaughter, were assigned economic the economic impact analysis is also investment by industry, Census data on model facilities from NAICS 311615. performed on analogously constructed relative investment in buildings and Finally, facilities that only perform economic model facilities. This section equipment, and assumptions about rendering operations were classified as describes the construction of those investment behavior (e.g., all investment NAICS 311613. The model economic facilities and the impact analysis itself in each year was funded through bank facilities were further matched to the as well as a description of what the loans, the interest rate on those loans model engineering facilities by size. analysis will look like when the detailed was equal to the nominal prime rate for EPA used production from each survey data is available. that year plus 1 percent). Interest engineering model, combined with payments were then attributed to each representative meat product prices for 1. Economic Model Facilities employment class based on the 1999, to estimate model facility EPA based its economic model percentage of industry investment revenues. The engineering model was facilities on the U.S. Census Bureau’s accounted for by that employment class then assigned an economic model that 1997 Economic Census of the four in the 1997 Census. EPA estimated net most closely matched its estimated NAICS codes for meat and poultry income as EBIT less estimated tax and revenues. product industries (NAICS 311611, interest payments for each model The economic analysis is based on a 311612, 311613, and 311615). EPA used facility. Cash flow was then calculated wide variety of sources including the Census revenue and cost information at as net income plus depreciation. EPA screener survey and publicly available both the employment class (that is, inflated all model income measures data. However, the facility counts in disaggregated into size groupings based from the Census year, 1997, to the each class and subcategory are based on on annual production) and the industry baseline year, 1999, using the implicit estimates derived from the stratified level. At the employment class level, price deflator for the meat and poultry random sampling procedure used to EPA used the Census’ value of total products industry. determine survey recipients. Sixty-five shipments (a proxy for total revenues), However, the model facility in reality facilities were specifically selected to payroll and material costs data. (In some represents a distribution of facility receive surveys (‘‘certainty facilities’’). cases, value of total shipments may be incomes around the mean. Therefore, Information on these 65 certainty understated or overstated if survey EPA estimated this distribution of facilities was not available in time to respondents do not receive the full income around the model facility mean complete subcategorization and analysis value for their shipments, as may be the by obtaining from Census a special of these facilities because information case if one facility ships to another tabulation of the variances and on these facilities was collected in the facility owned by the same company. covariances for value of shipments, detailed survey and it could not be EPA did not, however, adjust these material costs, and payroll in each processed as quickly as the screener values.) EPA used industry level data on employment class. EPA assumed that survey. Therefore, to project potential benefits, depreciation, rent, and the distribution of each variable is impacts to these 65 certainty facilities, purchased services and attributed it to normal; given the relatively large EPA totaled impacts by subcategory (or the employment class level using a number of observations within each class) and discharge type, then inflated small number of reasonable employment class, this assumption is these impacts by 8 percent. EPA is thus assumptions (e.g., employment benefits reasonable. Because model facility EBIT implicitly assuming that the 65 certainty are proportionate to payroll, refuse is calculated as a linear function of the facilities are similar to the model removal costs are proportionate to means of its components, the variance facilities used in the remainder of the material costs). EPA divided each of EBIT for each employment class can analysis, and impacts are therefore component of facility income by the be calculated as a linear function of the proportionate to impacts projected for number of establishments in the variances and covariances of the other facilities. However, EPA could not employment class to calculate the components using well established identify the subcategories or classes in average for that class. EPA then formulae. Because the actual income which these impacts may occur in time estimated model facility earnings before measures differed from the approximate to include precise estimates for all interest and taxes (EBIT) in each class income measure (EBIT) on which aspects of the analysis. Instances where as the average value of shipments minus variance was estimated, EPA adjusted the certainty facilities are excluded from payroll, material costs, benefits, the variance of each income measure the analysis are indicated clearly. depreciation, rent, and purchased using standard rules concerning the 2. Methodology for Calculating Impacts services. Because revenues, payroll and expected value of mean and variance. cost of materials are the most significant In order to perform the economic EPA calculated economic impacts of components of EBIT, the relative error impact analysis, EPA matched its facilities and firms incurring the costs of introduced by attributing industry level economic model facilities to the compliance with the proposal. EPA data to the employment class level engineering model facilities used to estimated impacts at the facility-level in should be small. estimate costs. All red meat (or meat) several ways: using four financial ratios EPA used data from Census’ Annual facilities that perform animal slaughter, and by estimating closures in two Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), 1997 whether alone or in combination with different ways. EPA also estimated firm Economic Census, and the Internal other processes, were assigned impacts using return on assets (ROA) Revenue Service code combined with economic model facilities from NAICS and Altman’s Z’. EPA also estimated additional assumptions to estimate 311611. Red meat facilities that perform costs in two different ways (see Section model facility net income and cash flow further processing but no slaughtering VII): one estimate assumes that facilities from EBIT. EPA assumed model facility activities processes were assigned must install each individual technology EBIT is equal to business entity taxable economic model facilities from NAICS included in a given option, another income as the basis for calculating tax 311612, as were facilities that process a option assumes that facilities would be
VerDate 11
able to meet the limitations with some a shortcoming of the use of model especially important in a concentrated fraction of this full cost. More facilities. EPA has attempted to industry such as the meat and poultry specifically, facilities with nitrification ameliorate this shortcoming to a products industry, in which some firms (option 2) already in place would be practicable extent by using multiple own dozens of facilities. To examine able to upgrade their existing systems to model facilities within each subcategory firm-level impacts, EPA employed an denitrification and phosphorus removal and by being relatively conservative in Altman Z’-score analysis, which without incurring the full capital cost of its choice of average ratios that are employs a statistical technique called those technologies. These cost estimates deemed economically achievable. EPA multiple discriminant analysis to are referred to as retrofit costs. also considered using the probability predict company bankruptcy based on a EPA used four financial ratios to estimates discussed in the previous weighted combination of financial estimate impacts. Each of these is a ratio paragraph but is not relying on them for ratios. The Altman Z’-score is a widely- of annualized compliance cost to its economic achievability used tool used to predict firm ‘‘financial another measure: revenues, earnings determinations. EPA is considering, distress’’ or bankruptcy. It takes into before interest and taxes (EBIT), cash however, refined probability estimates. account a company’s total assets, total flow, and net income. (EPA used pretax As EPA continues to process the data liabilities and earnings, which are costs for the revenue and EBIT ratios from the detailed survey, we intend to influenced by total compliance capital and used the post-tax costs for the net use that data in the economic analysis costs incurred by a company because of income and cash flow ratios.) These for the final rule. The use of this more the proposal as well as pre-tax measures are listed in decreasing order detailed economic data will allow the annualized compliance costs. and their respective ratios will use of more facilities that better The score places firms into three correspondingly increase for a given represent financial conditions across the levels of financial health: where cost level. EPA found that these four industry and more sophisticated financial distress is unlikely, where cost ratios are highly correlated and do financial techniques such as discounted financial distress is indeterminate, and not individually provide unique cash flow models. These models are where financial distress is likely. EPA information. That is, for all model fully documented in the MPP EA. A considered firms that move from an facilities EPA found that the cost/ discounted cash flow model compares indeterminate or unlikely distress revenue ratio is smaller than the cost/ the present value of forecasted cash flow prediction to a likely distress prediction EBIT ratio, which is smaller than the (or, alternatively, net income) with the to be at risk of bankruptcy or other cost/cash flow ratio. (This correlation present value of the regulatory option. If serious financial disruption. The actual could be a factor of the highly the present value of the regulatory costs effects of financial distress are aggregated data on which model exceeds that of the projected cash flow, inherently unpredictable and a firm may facilities are based because this it does not make financial sense to avoid legal bankruptcy by taking other aggregated data masks variability across upgrade the facility. That is, if the measures such as laying off employees, facilities.) In order to simplify the present value of projected cash flow is closing facilities, or selling assets. These presentation, EPA chose the ratio of positive before, but negative after, the firms still may incur very significant cost/net income as its preferred (central) incurrence of regulatory costs, the impacts even if they do not file for measure of economic achievability (the facility is presumed to close. For the bankruptcy. results for all of the ratios are presented analysis, cash flow at the facility-level is EPA developed a market model to in the MPP EA). defined as the sum of net income and examine the impacts of the proposal on EPA also estimated the probability depreciation. Cash flow is widely used the price and output of various meat that a facility would close, because the within industry in evaluating capital and poultry products. The market cost of compliance exceeded one of the investment decisions because both net analysis for each product depends not other financial measures. In the income and depreciation (which is an only on the compliance costs for that analysis, EPA used both cash flow and accounting offset against income, but product but also on the impact of costs net income. EPA estimated these not an actual cash expenditure) are on the prices of the other three meat and probabilities by using the variance and potentially available to finance future poultry products because as prices for covariance information provided by the investment. However, assuming that one product rise, consumers will Census Bureau to derive the variance of total cash flow is available over an purchase less of that product and more both cash flow and net income. The extended time horizon to finance of the other three products. EPA probability that annualized compliance investments related to environmental selected a perfectly competitive costs are greater than either of these compliance could overstate a facility’s structure for the meat and poultry measures provides a rough estimate of ability to comply because depreciation products market model after performing the probability of that facility closing. is the facility’s way of accounting for the an extensive literature search. EPA While EPA believes this approach is cost of replacing existing capital. The developed standard domestic supply, promising, EPA has less confidence in facility may not be able to afford this domestic demand, import supply, and these closures estimates for several replacement if depreciation is instead export demand equations for each meat reasons which are discussed in detail in allocated to environmental compliance. and poultry product. Domestic demand the MPP EA. Primarily, these estimates EPA solicits comment on the economic for each meat and poultry product is predict that improbably large analysis in this proposal and the specified as a function of the price of percentages of facilities have negative methods it is considering for subsequent the other three meat and poultry net income at the baseline. Because EPA analyses, particularly the use of cash products in addition to its own price. has less confidence in these closure flow as a measure of resources available EPA used USDA data to determine numbers, they are not relied upon for to finance environmental compliance baseline market prices and quantities. economic achievability determinations, and suggestions for alternative Key model parameters (e.g., price but the estimates are presented in the methodologies. elasticities) were selected from existing MPP EA. EPA also estimated firm-level impacts published sources after an extensive EPA notes that the use of average to take into account the aggregate search. For each meat and poultry ratios could mask considerable impacts on firms that own multiple product market to be in equilibrium, variability in economic impacts. This is facilities. These impacts could be U.S. domestic demand plus foreign
VerDate 11
demand (exports) must equal U.S. these quantities for each meat and EPA is required to determine domestic supply plus foreign sales poultry product measure the market- economic achievability for individual (imports) at its current market price. level impacts of today’s proposal. subcategories and the industry as a Compliance costs shift the supply whole. Thus, impacts are presented by curve for each meat and poultry product E. Costs and Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT Options subcategory. This presentation by the average per-unit compliance cost necessarily masks variability in costs Tables VIII.E–1 through VIII.E–5 for that product. Given the supply shift and impacts across different types and present the cost and cost/net income for each product, EPA solves for the sizes of facilities in each subcategory. post-regulatory set of meat prices that results for the options considered by More detail on these results is presented results in equilibrium in all four EPA for BPT, BCT, and BAT. These are in Chapters 5 and 6 of the MPP EA. The markets. This solution provides options 2 through 4 for subcategories A– estimates of post-regulatory impacts. D, F–I, and J, and options 2 through 5 MPP EA also presents results for the Finally, the post-regulatory prices are for subcategories K and L. EPA was other measures of economic impact substituted back into the individual unable to identify any direct dischargers discussed in Section IV.E. The following component equations domestic supply, that did not have at least option 1 in 5 tables exclude the 65 certainty domestic demand, import supply, and current use. Costs for this option are facilities from both costs and facility export demand for each meat and therefore zero for direct dischargers and counts. poultry product. Changes in prices and are not presented.
TABLE VIII.E–1.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A–D, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—66 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net in- Post-tax Cost/net in- annualized come annualized come compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
2 ...... 4.86 0.25 5.49 0.28 3 ...... 24.7 1.30 36.3 1.90 4 ...... 42.4 2.38 72.3 4.11
TABLE VIII.E–2.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY F–I, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—19 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net in- Post-tax annualized come annualized Cost/net income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
2 ...... 0.210 0.13 0.221 0.14 3 ...... 0.310 0.29 0.4150.4 4 ...... 1.94 1.36 4.28 2.91
TABLE VIII.E–3.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY J, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—21 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net in- Post-tax Cost/net in- annualized come annualized come compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
2 ...... 0.304 0.68 0.304 0.68 3 ...... 2.51 5.70 3.55 8.03 4 ...... 2.97 6.74 3.87 8.78
TABLE VIII.E–4.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY K, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—88 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Post-tax Cost/net annualized income annualized income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
2 ...... 2.52 0.32 2.63 0.34 3 ...... 20.1 2.73 29.5 3.98 4 ...... 26.1 3.56 37.5 5.14 5 ...... 15.5 2.15 40.7 5.61
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.E–5.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY L, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—15 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Post-tax Option Post-tax Cost/net annualized Cost/net in- annualized income compliance come ompliance cost (%) cost (%)
2 ...... 0.156 0.36 0.17 0.39 3 ...... 1.28 3.01 1.79 4.23 4 ...... 1.78 4.12 2.65 6.04 5 ...... 1.00 2.83 2.37 6.71
F. Results of BCT Cost Test treatment (i.e., ‘‘the POTW test’’). The Table VIII.F–1 presents the upgrade cost to industry must be less calculations for the BCT cost test using In July 1986, EPA explained how it than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per both the retrofit and upper-bound costs developed its methodology for setting pound (in 1976 dollars) or $0.63 per for subcategories A–D, F–I, and J (those effluent limitations based on BCT (51 pound (in 1999 dollars). In the industry subcategories with existing BPT limits). FR 24974). EPA evaluates the cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the Option 2 passes the POTW test in reasonableness of BCT candidate cost per pound to go from BPT to BCT subcategories A–D and J, while no other technologies—those that remove more divided by the cost per pound to go option does in those subcategories, nor conventional pollutants than BPT—by from raw wastewater to BPT for the do any of the options in subcategory F– applying a two-part cost test: A POTW industry must be less than 1.29 (that is, I. Options 3 and 4 therefore do not pass test and an industry cost-effectiveness the cost increase must be less than 29 the BCT cost test and it is not necessary test. percent). to perform the industry cost- EPA first calculates the cost per For purposes of this analysis, EPA is effectiveness test for these options, nor pound of conventional pollutant assuming that for subcategories A–D, F– is it necessary to perform the industry removed by industrial dischargers in I, and J the existing BPT limits are cost-effectiveness test for subcategory F– upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate equivalent to the baseline. Thus, EPA is I. The choice of retrofit versus upper- technology, and then compares this cost considering only options 2 through 4 as bound costs does not affect the result of to the cost per pound of conventional BCT candidate options. All BCT the test (these two costs are identical for pollutants removed in upgrading analyses include the 65 certainty option 2, so the cost test result is the POTWs to advanced secondary facilities. same for either set of costs).
TABLE VIII.F–1.—POTW COST TEST CALCULATIONS, SUBCATEGORIES A–J
Retrofit costs Upper-bound cost Conventional pollutant Pre-tax total Pre-tax total Option removals annualized Ratio of costs Pass POTW annualized Ratio of costs Pass POTW (M lbs) costs to removals test? costs to removals test? ($1999 M) ($/lb.) ($1999 M) ($/ lb.)
Subcategory A–D
2 ...... 22.5 9.93 0.44 Y 9.93 0.44 Y 3 ...... 23.7 42.3 1.78 N 59.5 2.51 N 4 ...... 25.6 73.5 2.87 N 118 4.60 N
Subcategory F–I
2 ...... 0.461 0.404 0.88 N 0.404 0.88 N 3 ...... 0.503 0.537 1.07 N 0.692 1.38 N 4 ...... 0.545 3.53 6.47 N 7.01 12.86 N
Subcategory J
2 ...... 5.94 0.552 0.09 Y 0.552 0.09 Y 3 ...... 6.16 4.28 0.70 N 5.80 0.94 N 4 ...... 6.62 4.98 0.75 N 6.31 0.95 N
Table VIII.F–2 presents the industry cost-effectiveness test for option 2 for subcategories A–D and J. This option fails the test for subcategories A–D but passes the test for Subcategory J. Thus, BCT is not revised for subcategories A–D or F–I, but BCT is set equal to option 2 for subcategory J.
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.F–2.—INDUSTRY COST-EFFECTIVENESS TEST CALCULATIONS, SUBCATEGORIES A–D AND J
RAW–BPT RAW–BPT RAW–BPT BPT–BCT conventional pre-tax total ratio of costs ratio of costs BPT–BCT Pass industry BCT option pollutant re- annualized to removals to removals raw-BPT ratio cost- movals costs (1999$ M) (1999$/ lb.) [B]/[A] effectivenss (M lbs) (1999$ M) [A] [B] test?
Subcategory A–D
2 ...... 1,521 270,240,482 0.178 0.40 2.25 No.
Subcategory J
2 ...... 19.63 10,001,886 0.509 0.12 0.24 Yes.
Table VIII.F–3 presents the change. These calculations are test in these subcategories. Thus, BCT is calculations for the BCT cost test using presented in the MPP EA.) Neither set equal to BPT for these subcategories. both the retrofit and upper-bound costs option 4 or option 5, the only options More detail on the calculation and for subcategories K and L. The test is more stringent than BPT for these inputs of the BCT tests is contained in calculated from the proposed BPT subcategories, passes the POTW test. the record (Docket No. W–01–06, option, which is option 3. (If the test These options therefore do not pass the Record No. 25,002—BCT Analysis for were to be conducted from a less BCT cost test and it is not necessary to Meat and Poultry Products Point Source stringent option the outcome would not perform the industry cost-effectiveness Category).
TABLE VIII.F–3.—POTW COST TEST CALCULATIONS, SUBCATEGORIES K AND L
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Conventional pollutant remov- Pre-tax total Pre-tax total Option als annualized Ratio of costs Pass POTW annualized Ratio of costs Pass POTW (M lbs) costs to removals test? costs to removals test? ($1999 M) ($/ lb.) ($1999 M) ($/ lb.)
Subcategory K
3 ...... 2.44 34.5 N/A N/A 48.4 N/A N/A 4 ...... 3.95 44.2 11.20 N 61.3 15.52 N 5 ...... 4.79 66.1 13.80 N 66.1 13.80 N
Subcategory L
3 ...... 0.136 2.18 N/A N/A 2.95 N/A N/A 4 ...... 0.196 3.03 15.48 N 4.32 22.06 N 5 ...... 0.230 3.85 16.72 N 3.85 16.72 N
G. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES options 1 through 54 for subcategories K sizes of facilities in each subcategory. Options and L. EPA is required to determine More detail on these results is presented economic achievability for individual in Chapters 5 and 6 of the MPP EA. The Tables VIII.G–1 through VIII.G–5 subcategories and the industry as a MPP EA also presents results for the present the cost/net income results for whole. Thus, impacts are presented by other measures of economic impact the options considered by EPA for subcategory. This presentation discussed in Section IV.E. All figures in PSES. These are options 1 through 4 for necessarily masks variability in costs the following five tables exclude the 65 subcategories A–D, F–I, and J, and and impacts across different types and certainty facilities.
TABLE VIII.G–1.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A–D, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—60 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Post-Tax Cost/net annualized income annualized income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
1 ...... 1.83 0.27 4.30 0.57 2 ...... 43.3 5.28 91.3 10.4 3 ...... 52.4 6.53 59.0 7.21 4 ...... 64.4 7.36 74.3 8.14
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.G–2.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY F–I, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—234 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Post-tax Option Post-Tax Cost/net annualized Cost/net annualized income compliance income compliance cost (%) cost (%)
1 ...... 6.37 0.46 11.1 0.80 2 ...... 31.4 2.32 61.4 4.53 3 ...... 50.6 3.71 50.9 3.72 4 ...... 67.6 5.05 67.8 5.06
TABLE VIII.G–3.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY J, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—75 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Cost/net annualized income Post-tax income compliance cost (%) annualized (%)
1 ...... 0.511 0.33 0.78 0.50 2 ...... 7.59 4.77 14.0 8.78 3 ...... 13.9 8.74 17.1 10.79 4 ...... 15.0 9.47 18.0 11.36
TABLE VIII.G–4.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY K, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—138 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Post-tax Cost/net annualized income annualized income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
1 ...... 3.24 0.28 6.50 0.55 2 ...... 54.5 4.20 114 8.71 3 ...... 76.8 6.16 81.5 6.53 4 ...... 80.5 6.52 83.9 6.80
TABLE VIII.G–5.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY L, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—208 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Post-tax Cost/net annualized income annualized income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
1 ...... 5.17 0.87 9.12 1.50 2 ...... 34.2 5.23 63.3 9.63 3 ...... 45.4 6.99 45.6 7.00 4 ...... 58.0 8.95 58.1 8.96
H. Economic Impacts for New Sources to retrofit for those technologies. I. Firm-Level Impacts EPA is proposing NSPS limitations Therefore, NSPS limitations will not For those firms with available data, equivalent to the limitations that are present a barrier to entry for new EPA estimated a baseline Z’-score and a established for BPT/BCT/BAT for all facilities. corresponding score after the firm subcategories. These limitations are EPA is not proposing to establish incurred the costs of complying with the economically achievable for existing PSES or PSNS limitations for indirect proposal. EPA examined the company- sources. In general, EPA concludes that dischargers, so there will be no impacts level financial data in the detailed new sources will be able to comply at on new indirect dischargers. EPA survey for the companies with complete costs that are similar to, or less than, the solicits comment on whether EPA and consistent data. This effort yielded costs for existing sources. They may be should set more stringent standards for 20 companies with appropriate data. able to comply at lower cost since new either direct or indirect new sources. These firms include most of the largest sources can apply control technologies beef, pork, and poultry processing more efficiently than sources that need companies. These firms own 421
VerDate 11
facilities, or an average of 21 facilities K. Market and Foreign Trade Impacts from today’s proposed regulations will each. EPA estimated the number of Foreign trade impacts are difficult to have a significant impact on the facilities owned by each company using predict, since agricultural exports are competitiveness of U.S. poultry exports. publicly available information such as determined by economic conditions in As part of its market analysis, EPA trade publications and web sites as well foreign markets and changes in the evaluated the potential for changes in as information from the detailed survey. international exchange rate for the U.S. traded volumes, such as increases in Because EPA does not have an exact dollar. However, EPA predicts small imports and decreases in exports, and accounting of the type and size of the projected changes in overall supply and concluded that volume trade will not be facilities owned by each company, EPA demand for these products and a slight significantly impacts by today’s estimated total compliance costs for increase in market prices. Thus, foreign proposed regulations. EPA estimates each of these companies by constructing trade impacts as a result of the proposed that imports of beef will increase by a production-weighted average facility regulations will be minor. Using the 0.01 percent or less compared to compliance cost for red meat, poultry market model for meat and poultry baseline (pre-regulation) levels. In no and rendering facilities. This average products, EPA estimates that the other sector is there a measurable was constructed by multiplying the domestic supply and demand for beef, change in imports. EPA estimates that compliance cost for each model facility pork, chicken, and turkey all decrease exports decline by 0.14 percent in the by its production amount, summing by very slight amounts (all less than 0.1 chicken sector, 0.12 percent in the pork across a given product type (meat or percent). The decrease in domestic sector, 0.09 in the beef sector, and 0.05 poultry), and dividing by total supply ranges from 0.02 percent to 0.05 percent in the turkey sector. None of production in that product type. This percent and the decrease in domestic these decreases in exports are average was then multiplied by the demand ranges from 0.02 percent to considered to be significant. number of facilities owned by a 0.04 percent. L. Cost-Reasonableness and Cost- company to estimate the total costs for Despite its position as one of the Effectiveness Analysis a given company. The costs for the largest agricultural producers in the proposed option do not move any world, historically the U.S. has not been EPA compared the compliance costs companies from unlikely or a major player in world markets for red for the proposal against the following indeterminate distress to likely distress. meat (beef and pork) or poultry three different metrics: Removal of all products. In fact, until recently, the U.S. EPA notes that in its recent proposed pollutants in pounds, removal of only was a net importer of these products. rules concerning concentrated animal toxic pollutants in toxic pound- The presence of a large domestic market feeding operations (CAFOs), EPA equivalents, and removal of only for meat and poultry products has analyzed the potential impacts from nutrients in pounds. Although in limited U.S. reliance on developing costs passed on from the CAFO to the recently promulgated effluent export markets for its products. As the processor (66 FR 3092–30923). Many of guidelines, EPA has relied primarily on U.S. has taken steps to expand export these processors are the same the toxic pollutant cost-effectiveness markets for red meat and poultry companies that are considered in this measure for evaluating BAT, that products, one major obstacle has been proposal and EPA estimated that from measure is less appropriate for that it remains a relatively high cost comparing the relative cost-effectiveness $34 million to $306 million could be producer of these products compared to of options to control pollutants from the passed from the CAFO to the processor other net exporters, such as New meat and poultry products industry as a result of the CAFO proposal, but Zealand, Australia, and Latin American because it discharges relatively more EPA was unable to apportion these costs countries, as well as other more among specific companies. EPA intends established and government-subsidized conventional pollutants and nutrients to fully account for the potential costs exporting countries, including Canada than toxic pollutants. Furthermore, the of the final CAFO rule when the MPP and the countries in the European BCT cost test evaluates the cost- guidelines are promulgated. EPA solicits Union. Increasingly, however, reasonableness of the removal of comment on the most accurate method continued efficiency gains and low-cost conventional pollutants (see Section to include these potential costs in the feed are making the U.S. more VIII.G) a description of the MPP economic analysis. competitive in world markets for these methodology, data, and results of these analyses in more detail is contained in J. Community Impacts products, particularly for red meat. While today’s proposed regulations may the EA. The communities where the meat raise production costs and potentially a. BPT Cost-reasonableness products facilities are located may be reduce production quantities that would affected by the proposed regulation if otherwise be available for export, EPA Tables VIII.L–1 and VIII.L–2 present facilities cut back operations, local believes that any quantity and price the results of the BPT cost- employment and income may fall, changes resulting from the proposed reasonableness analysis for direct sending ripple effects throughout the requirements will not significantly alter dischargers in subcategories A–J and local community. Facility-level changes the competitiveness of U.S. export K&L, respectively. These results are in employment could be used to markets for red meat. presented separately because while the calculate total employment changes. In contrast, U.S. poultry products now cost-reasonableness test is useful for However, the model facilities used by account for a controlling share of world evaluating the options in subcategories EPA are not tied to any specific location trade and exports account for a sizable A–J, it is also a statutory criteria for and thus EPA does not have enough and growing share of annual U.S. evaluating the BPT options under information to estimate community production. Given the established consideration for subcategories K and L. impacts with any level of confidence. presence of the U.S. in world poultry EPA has historically considered cost/ EPA plans to conduct an analysis of markets and the relative strength in reasonableness ratios as high as $37/lb community-level impacts as part of its export demand for these products, EPA to be reasonable for BPT. Results are post-proposal activities and present does not expect that the predicted presented using both the retrofit and these results in a subsequent NODA. quantity and price changes resulting upper-bound costs.
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.L–1.—COST-REASONABLENESS ESTIMATES, SUBCATEGORIES A–J
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Pre-tax Option Removals total Ave. cost/ Pre-tax total Ave. cost/ (M lbs) annualized lb. removal annualized lb. removal costs ($/lb.) costs ($/lb.) ($1999 M) ($1999 M)
Subcategory A–D
2 ...... 12.3 9.9 0.81 9.9 0.81 3 ...... 38.7 42.2 1.09 59.5 1.54 4 ...... 41.0 73.5 1.79 118 2.88
Subcategory F–I
2 ...... 0.25 0.4 1.59 0.4 1.59 3 ...... 2.01 0.5 0.27 0.7 0.34 4 ...... 2.02 3.5 1.74 7.0 3.47
Subcategory J
2 ...... 18.3 0.6 0.03 0.6 0.03 3 ...... 18.3 4.3 0.23 5.8 0.32 4 ...... 18.1 5.0 0.27 6.3 0.35
TABLE VIII.L–2.—COST-REASONABLENESS ESTIMATES, SUBCATEGORIES K AND L
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Pre-tax Pre-tax Option Removals total Ave. cost/ total Ave. cost/ (M lbs) annualized lb. removal annualized lb. removal costs ($/lb.) costs ($/lb.) ($1999 M) ($1999 M)
Subcategory K
2 ...... 1.63 4.8 2.95 4.8 2.95 3 ...... 7.32 34.5 4.71 48.4 6.61 4 ...... 8.1 44.2 5.46 61.3 7.56 5 ...... 8.0 66.1 8.23 66.1 8.23
Subcategory L
2 ...... 09 0.3 3.28 0.3 3.28 3 ...... 0.31 2.2 7.11 2.9 9.60 4 ...... 0.32 3.0 9.54 4.3 13.59 5 ...... 0.32 3.9 11.97 3.9 11.97
For subcategories A–J, no option has b. Toxic Cost-Effectiveness removed by that option, and can be a cost-reasonableness greater than $ expressed as the average or incremental 3.47/lb using upper-bound costs, or The results of the toxic cost- cost-effectiveness for an option. greater than $ 1.79 using retrofit costs. effectiveness analysis are expressed in Average cost-effectiveness can be Subcategories K and L show similar terms of the costs (in 1981 dollars) per thought of as the ‘‘increment’’ between magnitudes. The least cost-reasonable pound-equivalent removed, where no regulation and the selected option for option for subcategory K is the most pounds-equivalent removed for a any given rule. Incremental cost- particular pollutant is determined by stringent option, option 5, with a cost- effectiveness measures the relative cost- multiplying the number of pounds of a reasonableness of $ 8.23. The cost- effectiveness for two options and is the pollutant removed by each option by a reasonableness for all of the other appropriate measure for comparing one toxic weighting factor. The toxic options for subcategory K are less than regulatory option to another regulatory weighting factors account for the $ 8.00/lb. The cost-reasonableness of the option for the same subcategory. Toxic differences in toxicity among pollutants cost-effectiveness results by subcategory options for subcategory L are slightly and are derived using ambient water and option are presented for direct higher, the least cost-reasonable is quality criteria. Cost effectiveness dischargers in Table VIII.L–3 and option 4 with upper-bound costs, at $ results are presented in 1981 dollars as indirect dischargers in Table VIII.L–4. 14/lb. All of these figures are well a reporting convention. Cost- The options are listed in order of within the cost-reasonableness of effectiveness is calculated as the ratio of increasing removals. Toxic cost- previously promulgated BPT standards. pre-tax annualized costs of an option to effectiveness is presented using both the annual pounds-equivalent (lb-eq) retrofit and upper-bound costs.
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.L–3.—TOXIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Pretax Pretax Incremental Option Total pounds annualized Average cost Incremental annualized Average cost cost effective- removed cost effectiveness cost effective- cost effectiveness ness (millions of ($1981/pounds ness (millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds $1999) equivalent) $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
Subcategory A Through D
BAT 2 ...... 93,586 NA NA NA $9.93 $62 $62 BAT 3 ...... 93,687 $42.25 $263 NA $59.52 $371 $286,414 BAT 4 ...... 94,195 $73.53 $455 $35,930.0 $117.98 $731 $67,154
Subcategory E Through I
BAT 2 ...... 2,609 NA NA NA $0.40 $90 $90 BAT 3 ...... 2,618 $0.54 $120 NA $0.69 $154 $18,512 BAT 4 ...... 2,615 $3.53 $787 ($597,188.0) $7.01 $1,564 ($1,216,372)
Subcategory J
BAT 2 ...... 1,550 NA NA NA $0.55 $208 $208 BAT 3 ...... 1,621 $4.28 $1,540 NA $5.80 $2,089 $43,028 BAT 4 ...... 1,553 $4.98 $1,871 (5,991.0) $6.31 $2,370 ($4,333)
Subcategory K
BAT 2 ...... 63,192 NA NA NA $4.82 $45 $45 BAT 3 ...... 64,094 $34.46 $314 NA $48.37 $440 $28,181 BAT 4 ...... 64,029 $44.21 $403 ($87,773.00) $61.25 $558 ($115,860) BAT 4 ...... 65,169 $66.09 $592 NA $66.09 $592 $2,479 Subcategory L
BAT 2 ...... 373 NA NA NA $0.30 $472 $472 BAT 3 ...... 383 $2.18 $3,329 NA $2.95 $4,494 $160,314 BAT 4 ...... 371 $3.03 $4,769 ($43,685.00) $4.32 $6,796 ($70,689) BAT 5 ...... 398 $3.85 $5,645 NA $3.85 $5,645 ($10,190)
TABLE VIII.L–4.—TOXIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Pretax Incremental Pretax Incremental Option Total pounds annualized Average cost cost effective- annualized Average cost cost effective- removed cost effectiveness ness cost effectiveness ness (Millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds (millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds $1999) equivalent) equivalent) $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
Subcategory A through D
PSES1 ...... 240,421 NA NA NA $7.05 $17 $17 PSES2 ...... 310,768 NA NA NA $151.49 $284 $1,198 PSES3 ...... 309,081 $86.42 $163 NA $96.25 $182 $19,107 PSES4 ...... 309,541 $105.86 $200 $24,671 $120.64 $227 $30,955
Subcategory E through I
PSES1 ...... 76,890 NA NA NA $18.79 $143 $143 PSES2 ...... 78,831 NA NA NA $102.09 $756 $25,036 PSES3 ...... 78,855 $83.25 $616 NA $83.68 $619 ($440,522) PSES4 ...... 78,813 $109.82 $813 ($368,189) $110.20 $816 ($367,437)
Subcategory J
PSES1 ...... 3,918 NA NA NA $1.33 $198 $198 PSES2 ...... 4,983 NA NA NA $23.25 $2,723 $12,011 PSES3 ...... 5,112 $23.09 $2,635 NA $27.91 $3,185 $21,075 PSES4 ...... 4,951 $24.78 $2,920 ($6,157) $29.22 $3,443 ($4,757)
Subcategory K
PSES1 ...... 377,651 NA NA NA $10.84 $17 $17 PSES2 ...... 382,550 NA NA NA $188.95 $288 $21,212 PSES3 ...... 382,735 $126.00 $192 NA $133.01 $203 ($176,292)
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.L–4.—TOXIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS—Continued
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Pretax Incremental Pretax Incremental Option Total pounds annualized Average cost cost effective- annualized Average cost cost effective- removed cost effectiveness ness cost effectiveness ness (Millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds (millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds $1999) equivalent) equivalent) $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
PSES4 ...... 381,751 $131.39 $201 ($3,196) $136.54 $209 ($2,093)
Subcategory L
PSES1 ...... 49,950 NA NA NA $15.26 $178 $178 PSES2 ...... 51,257 NA NA NA $105.33 $1,199 $40,224 PSES3 ...... 51,367 $74.25 $843 NA $74.56 $847 ($162,814) PSES4 ...... 51,237 $93.89 $1,069 ($88,323) $94.11 $1,072 ($87,885)
The average toxic cost-effectiveness not the main goal of the proposal. effectiveness of nutrient removal by values for the selected options generally Rather, EPA focused primarily on cost- POTWs with biological nutrient removal range from $120/lb-eq to $400/lb-eq. reasonableness (for total pounds) and is $4/lb for nitrogen and $10/lb for The average toxic cost-effectiveness nutrient cost-effectiveness in selecting phosphorus. values for subcategory L are an among options. Tables VIII.L–5 and VIII.L–6 present exception, and are estimated at $3,329/ the results of the nutrient cost- c. Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness lb-eq or $4,494/lb-eq. For all effectiveness analysis for direct and subcategories except J, the incremental EPA also has calculated the cost- indirect dischargers, respectively. The toxic cost-effectiveness is extremely effectiveness of the removal of nutrients options are listed in order of increasing high by historic standards (see for the options considered in today’s removals. Toxic cost-effectiveness is Appendix B of the EA for a comparison) proposal. As a basis of comparison, EPA presented using both retrofit and upper- however, control of toxic pollutants is has estimated that the average cost- bound costs.
TABLE VIII.L–5.—NUTRIENT COST-EFFECTIVENESS, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Pretax Incremental Pretax Incremental Option Total pounds annualized Average cost cost effective- annualized Average cost cost effective- removed cost effectiveness ness cost effectiveness ness (millions of ($1999/pounds ($1999/pounds (millions of ($1999/pounds ($1999/pounds $1999) eqivalent) equivalent) $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
Subcategory A Through D
BAT 2 ...... 1,972,012 NA NA NA $9.93 $5.0 $5.0 BAT 3 ...... 42,818,320 $42.25 $1.0 NA $59.52 $1.4 $1.2 BAT 4 ...... 44,916,551 $73.53 $1.6 $14.9 $117.98 $2.6 $27.9
Subcategory E through I
BAT 2 ...... 35,700 NA NA NA $0.40 $11.3 $11.3 BAT 3 ...... 2,115,639 $0.54 $0.3 NA $0.69 $0.3 $0.1 BAT 4 ...... 2,120,199 $3.53 $1.7 $656.1 $7.01 $3.3 $1,385.8
Subcategory J
BAT 2 ...... 86,772 NA NA NA $0.55 $6.4 $6.4 BAT 3 ...... 482,224 $4.28 $8.9 NA $5.80 $12.0 $13.3 BAT 4 ...... 531,196 $4.98 $9.4 $14.3 $6.31 $11.9 $10.3
Subcategory K
BAT 2 ...... 809,883 NA NA NA $4.82 $6.0 $6.0 BAT 3 ...... 8,371,827 $34.46 $4.1 NA $48.37 $5.8 $5.8 BAT 4 ...... 8,870,390 $44.21 $5.0 $19.6 $61.25 $6.9 $25.8 BAT 5 ...... 8,856,078 $66.09 $7.5 NA $66.09 $7.5 ($338.4)
Subcategory L
BAT 2 ...... 0 NA NA NA $0.30 NA NA BAT 3 ...... 320,160 $2.18 $6.8 NA $2.95 $9.2 $8.3 BAT 4 ...... 318,194 $3.03 $9.5 ($432.9) $4.32 $13.6 ($700.6) BAT 5 ...... 334,187 $3.85 $11.5 NA $3.85 $11.5 $29.5
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.L–6.—NUTRIENT COST-EFFECTIVENESS, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Incremental Incremental Option Total pounds Pretax Average cost cost effective- Pretax Average cost cost effective- removed annualized effectiveness ness annualized effectivess ness cost (millions ($1999/pounds ($1999/pounds cost (millions ($1999/pounds ($1999/pounds of $1999) equivalent) equivalent) of $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
Subcategory A Through D
PSES1 ...... 907,327 NA NA NA $7.05 $7.77 $7.77 PSES2 ...... 1,573,317 NA NA NA $151.49 $96.29 $216.88 PSES3 ...... 33,837,795 $86.42 $2.55 NA $96.25 $2.84 ($1.71) PSES4 ...... 35,215,559 $105.86 $3.01 $14.11 $120.64 $3.43 $17.70
Subcategory E Through I
PSES1 ...... 1,997,640 NA NA NA $18.79 $9.41 $9.41 PSES2 ...... 1,510,007 NA NA NA $102.09 $67.61 ($170.82) PSES3 ...... 4,616,635 $83.25 $18.03 NA $83.68 $18.13 ($5.93) PSES4 ...... 4,603,357 $109.82 $23.86 ($2,001.07) $110.20 $23.94 ($1,996.98)
Subcategory J
PSES1 ...... 8,233,864 NA NA NA $1.33 $0.16 $0.16 PSES2 ...... 146,708 NA NA NA $23.25 $158.51 ($2.71) PSES3 ...... 10,194,886 $23.09 $2.26 NA $27.91 $2.74 $0.46 PSES4 ...... 10,379,498 $24.78 $2.39 $9.18 $29.22 $2.82 $7.09
Subcategory K
PSES1 ...... 5,468,191 NA NA NA $10.84 $1.98 $1.98 PSES2 ...... 2,827,350 NA NA NA $188.95 $66.83 ($67.45) PSES3 ...... 18,404,976 $126.00 $6.85 NA $133.01 $7.23 ($3.59) PSES4 ...... 19,217,341 $131.39 $6.84 $6.63 $136.54 $7.11 $4.34
Subcategory L
PSES1 ...... 2,715,456 NA NA NA $15.26 $5.62 $5.62 PSES2 ...... 1,893,734 NA NA NA $105.33 $55.62 ($109.61) PSES3 ...... 5,911,953 $74.25 $12.56 NA $74.56 $12.61 ($7.66) PSES4 ...... 5,936,000 $93.89 $15.82 $769.90 $94.11 $15.85 $792.95
The nutrient cost-effectiveness for the Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Manufacturers. The second approach selected options varies by subcategory The RFA provides that the default relied on data from the screener survey. from $0.10/lb to $8.30/lb. These values definitions for small businesses are Using the SBA/Census data, EPA first are all within the approximate based on size standards determined by checked the employment class for each benchmarks determined by EPA for the Small Business Administration model facility. If the model facility was phosphorus. In fact, for Subcategories (SBA). The standards are for firms, not in an employment class exceeding 500, A–I, Option 3 is more cost-effective (in facilities, and are based on NAICS then all facilities controlled by the same terms of nutrients) than Option 2 and is codes. The size standard for all of the firm were assumed to be large business well within the benchmark for nitrogen NAICS codes in the meat and poultry owned. If not, then EPA assigned to that as well. For subcategories J, K, and L, products industry is 500 employees. the nutrient cost-effectiveness numbers model facility the ratio of facilities to The first step in the analysis was establishments for the corresponding for the proposed options range from determining how many facilities in the $5.80 to $9.20 per pound. These exceed employment class in the SBA/Census industry are owned by small businesses special study. Multiplying that ratio by the benchmark for nitrogen. When and how many are owned by large the number of facilities represented by broken out by nitrogen and phosphorus, businesses. EPA took two separate the model facility resulted in our Option 2 meets the individual approaches to make this determination estimate of small business owned benchmarks, but option 3 does not for and compared the estimates to facilities. subcategories K and L. These options information from other sources on the thus may not be cost-effective for number of facilities owned by large For example, suppose the model nutrient removal. businesses to determine which was facility for R12, medium was in the M. Small Business Analysis more accurate. The first approach relied 100–249 employee class, and the SBA/ on data from the SBA website on the Census special study tells us that for EPA analyzed the economic impacts number of firms and facilities of a NAICS 311611, there are 200 firms and on small businesses in order to comply certain size; this data was provided 210 facilities with 100–500 employees. with its obligations under the under a special contract with the Census In that case, we assumed 95% of R12, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Bureau and matches the employment medium facilities were stand alone amended by the Small Business classes used in the Census of small businesses, and 5% of R12,
VerDate 11
medium facilities were large business estimates and was used to generate the as the range of cost/sales ratios owned. numbers of small and large businesses. calculated for those facilities. Average As an alternative to the estimates from EPA used the screener survey to cost/net income ratios for facilities the SBA/Census data, EPA also generate this data for rendering owned by small businesses are examined responses from the screener facilities. EPA determined that none of presented in Table VIII.M–2 with the survey, which asks for facility and the certainty facilities are owned by range of cost/net income ratios company employment for each facility. small businesses. calculated for those facilities. The EPA then compared the resulting EPA estimates the 73 facilities owned ranges are generated by calculating the estimates of the numbers of businesses by small businesses will be affected by ratios for each of the model facilities from each alternative approach to this regulation: 69 nonsmall facilities in that make up each subcategory. The information from the various sources in subcategories A–K with new BPT/BCT/ the industry profile on the number of BAT requirements and 4 small facilities average ratio is thus a weighted average facilities owned by large businesses. For in Subcategory L subject to new BPT of the ratios for the model facilities. all the subcategories except rendering, requirements. Average cost/sales ratios Therefore, this average ratio may vary the SBA/Census data appeared to for facilities owned by small businesses from the ratio for the subcategory as a provide more accurate comparative are presented in Table VIII.M–1 as well whole.
TABLE VIII.M–1.—COST/SALES RATIOS FOR SMALL BUSINESS-OWNED FACILITIES, SELECTED OPTIONS
Number of Cost/net income small busi- (%) Subcategory ness-owned facilities Average Low High
A–D ...... 5 0.02 0.25 0.25 F–I ...... 10 0.07 0.01 0.27 J ...... 12 0.17 0.17 0.17 K ...... 28 0.58 0.37 1.00 L (nonsmall) ...... 12 0.55 0.27 0.59 L (small) ...... 4 0.20 0.20 0.20
TABLE VIII.M–2.—COST/NET INCOME RATIOS FOR SMALL BUSINESS-OWNED FACILITIES, SELECTED OPTIONS
Number of Cost/net income small busi- (%) Subcategory ness-owned facilities Average Low High
A–D ...... 5 0.25 0.25 0.25 F–I ...... 10 0.55 0.09 2.03 J ...... 12 0.68 0.68 0.68 K ...... 28 6.82 5.03 8.94 L (nonsmall) ...... 12 4.87 2.03 5.31 L (small) ...... 4 2.44 2.44 2.44
IX. Water Quality Analysis and swimmable; where swimmable waters environmental impacts of 97 facilities Environmental Benefits are most desirable. (36 direct dischargers and 61 indirect EPA modeled a sample set of 97 dischargers). EPA did not evaluate: (1) A. Qualitative Description of Water facilities. EPA estimates that the 79 facilities which report storing water Quality Benefits proposed rule will improve overall use in on-site lagoons or land applying their EPA evaluated the environmental of 17 to 28 reach miles for the sample wastewater; or (2) 65 facilities for which benefits of controlling the discharges of set. Scaling these results to represent the EPA had insufficient data to conduct the conventional pollutants from meat and nation level of 246 facilities, EPA water quality analysis. poultry production industry (MPP) estimates the national improvement in facilities to surface waters in national overall use to be 29 to 49 reach miles. C. Pollutants of Concern analyses of direct and indirect The national monetized benefits for this EPA identified 30 pollutants of discharges. EPA used the National overall use improvement range from concern for the meat processing segment Water Pollution Control Assessment $15.5 million to $16.1 million. of the industry and 27 pollutants of Model (NWPCAM version 1.1) to model concern for the poultry processing the instream Dissolved Oxygen (DO) B. Facilities Modeled segment of the industry (see Section concentration, as influenced by EPA estimates that 246 red meat, V.C). This list includes Ammonia as pollutant reductions of BOD5, Total poultry, and rendering facilities are Nitrogen, Carbonaceous BOD5, Chemical Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total covered under this proposed rule. EPA Oxygen Demand (COD), Nitrate +Nitrite Suspended Solids (TSS) and Fecal mailed out 350 detailed surveys to (as Nitrogen), Hexane Extractable Coliform (FC). Based upon each reach generate both environmental and Method (HEM), Oil and Grease, Total mile concentration of DO, BOD5, FC and economic data. EPA received 241 Recoverable Oil and Grease, pH, TSS, EPA estimated the change in each detailed surveys in time for data Temperature, Total Nitrogen and Total reaches’ use category. The use categories analysis of this proposed rule making Phosphorous (as PO4). ladder is as follows, from poorest to (see Section V.B). Of the 241 detailed Discharges of these pollutants of best: No use, boatable, fishable, and surveys, EPA was able to model the concern into freshwater and estuarine
VerDate 11
ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats fishable; and 3 = swimmable (where The regulatory options evaluated for and adversely affect aquatic biota. For swimmable waters are most desirable). direct dischargers were: example, habitat degradation can result The NWPCAM is a national-scale BAT2: Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) from increased suspended particulate water quality model that characterizes (advanced oil/water separation), matter that reduces light penetration, water quality conditions for the Nation’s Lagoon, and Disinfection (Oil and and thus primary productivity, or from network of river and streams. As of Grease, BOD5, TSS, Pathogen accumulation of suspended particles present, the NWPCAM v1.1 only models removal) + Nitrification (Ammonia that alter benthic spawning grounds and DO, BOD5, Fecal Coliform, TKN and (NH3) removal) feeding habitats. Nutrients, including TSS. EPA is presently working to BAT3: BAT2 + Denitrification (Nitrogen phosphorus and nitrogen are the modify the model to include the removal) primary causes of surface water following: (1) Modeling of nutrients for BAT4: BAT3 + (Phosphorus removal) eutrophication, which can reduce an eutrophication analysis of ponds and The regulatory Options evaluated for dissolved oxygen content of waterbodies lakes; and (2) modeling of other indirect dischargers were: to levels insufficient to support fish and pollutants for rivers and streams. This invertebrates. Eutrophication may also model update should be completed in PSES1: DAF, Equalization (Oil and increase the incidence of harmful algal time for the final rule. Grease, TSS, removal) blooms which release toxins as they die Since the meat and poultry processing F. Documented Impacts and Permit and can severely affect wildlife as well industry waste streams are mostly non- Violations as humans. toxic organic pollutants, EPA is satisfied EPA identified 10 articles BOD5 and COD are important that NWPCAM v1.1 models the majority measures of the organic content of an of pollutant pounds generated by the 97 documenting environmental impacts due to meat and poultry processing effluent. When effluents with high BOD5 MPP facilities included in this rule or COD are discharged to surface waters, making. However, for this reason, EPA facilities. Documented impacts include the process of microbial degradation of acknowledges that the environmental 4 reaches with nutrient loadings, 2 sites organic compounds can, under certain impacts and benefits are probably with contaminated well water, 1 site conditions, reduce dissolved oxygen underestimated. with contaminated ground water, and 1 levels in receiving water bodies below In addition, EPA did not evaluate the lake threatened by nutrient loadings. the threshold necessary to support impact on receiving waters from EPA also documented 20 permit violations by meat and poultry aquatic life. Additionally, meat and conventional pollutants (BOD5, TSS, Oil poultry processing raw wastewaters and Grease and Fecal Coliform) and processing facilities. The permit levels contain significant amounts of organic other pollutants (metals, nutrients) mostly violated are NH3–N, PO4, and nitrogen which rapidly breaks down which pass through the POTW (see TSS. into ammonia which, if left untreated, Section XI.B). EPA is, however, EPA identified 18 articles which are a direct toxicant to aquatic soliciting comment on whether document legal action in criminal cases communities. Oil and grease are known pretreatment standards are necessary for taken against meat and poultry to produce toxic effects on aquatic this industry and how EPA should processing facilities. Documented legal organisms (i.e., fish, crustacea, larvae model these potential benefits from action includes: (1) Conspiracy of 5 and eggs, gastropods, bivalves, controls on MPP indirect dischargers. facilities to violate the CWA; (2) one invertebrates, and flora). Pathogens are case of illegal dumping of waste; and (3) known to impact a variety of water uses E. Modeled Technology Option five cases of falsifying records, diluting including recreation, drinking water Scenarios waste samples and or destroying sources, and aquatic life and fisheries EPA estimated the benefits from the records. These legal actions resulting in (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. improvements in water quality expected 3 possible cases of incarceration and 10024). for 8 different scenarios of the various fines ranging from $0.25 million to regulatory options. $12.6 million. All of these articles and D. Benefits Modeling Methodology permit violations are documented in the EPA chose to use the National Water TABLE IX.E–1.—BENEFITS SCENARIOS record (Docket No. W–01–06, Record Pollution Control Assessment Model MODELED No. 10033). (NWPCAM) version 1.1 to estimate G. Modeled Water Quality Impacts environmental impacts to surface water Scenario Regulatory options 1 quality resulting from implementation The environmental analysis for 97 of various scenarios for regulating MPP 1 ...... BAT2 meat and poultry processing facilities is facilities. Specifically, EPA developed 2 ...... BAT3 presented in Table IX.G–1. EPA NWPCAM v1.1 to model instream 3 ...... BAT4 estimates that the proposed rule would Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration, 4 ...... BAT2 + PSES1 decrease end-of-pipe pollutant loadings as influenced by pollutant reductions of 5 ...... BAT3 + PSES1 10 percent for all subcategories. The 6 ...... BAT4 + PSES1 BOD5, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), 7 ...... BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2 baseline load of 49.9 million lbs/yr Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Fecal (rendering) (BOD5, TSS, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Coliform (FC). Based upon each reach 8 ...... BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2 TKN) would be reduced to 45.1 million mile concentration of DO, BOD5, FC and (rendering) + PSES1 lbs/yr. The recommended treatment TSS, EPA estimates the change in each option would result in the over-all use Note 1: BAT options apply to within scope reaches’ use category. The use categories direct dischargers and PSES options apply to improvement of 21 river miles at the ladder is as follows, from poorest to within scope indirect dischargers (see Section sample set, and approximately 36 miles best: 0 = no use; 1 = boatable; 2 = III). at the national level.
VerDate 11
TABLE IX.G–1.—MODELED ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS (97 FACILITIES)
2 1 Overall use improvement Pollutant Pollutant Re- (reach miles) Scenario Regulatory options Load duction (million lbs/yr) (percent) Sample National
Baseline ...... 49.9 ...... 1 ...... BAT2 ...... 47.5 5 17 29 2 ...... BAT3 ...... 45.0 10 21 36 3 ...... BAT4 ...... 44.8 10 21 36 4 ...... BAT2 + PSES1 ...... 36.2 27 24 41 5 ...... BAT3 + PSES1 ...... 33.7 32 28 48 6 ...... BAT4 + PSES1 ...... 33.5 33 21 36 7 ...... BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2 (Rendering) ...... 45.1 10 21 36 8 ...... BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2 (Rendering) + PSES1 ...... 33.7 32 28 48 Note 1: Baseline = 49.9 Million lbs/yr. Pound totals include BOD, TSS, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and TKN from 97 facilities. Some overlap be- tween categories may be occurring Note 2: Sample set represents 97 facilities. National set represents 246 facilities. Of the 246 facilities represented, 79 facilities are zero dis- chargers, and therefore do not contribute to these modeled water quality impacts/improvements.
H. Monetized Water Quality Benefits TABLE IX.H–1.—MODELED ENVIRON- MPP facilities. Section X.B presents the Economic benefits associated with the MENTAL BENEFITS (97 FACILITIES) impact of the proposed technologies on meat and poultry products scenarios are air emissions, and section X.C discusses based on incremental changes in water Monetized the impact on wastewater treatment Regulatory benefits sludge generation. quality use-support (i.e., boatable, Scenario options ($1999 fishable, swimmable) and the million) A. Energy Requirements population benefitting from the changes. Benefits are calculated state-by-state at 1 ...... BAT2 ...... 15.5 EPA estimates that compliance with the State (local) scale as well as at the 2 ...... BAT3 ...... 15.6 this rule will result in a small net national level. For each State, benefits at 3 ...... BAT4 ...... 15.6 decrease in energy consumption at non- 4 ...... BAT2 + PSES1 .... 15.9 the local-scale represent the value that small MPP facilities that are direct the State population is willing to pay for 5 ...... BAT3 + PSES1 .... 16.0 6 ...... BAT4 + PSES1 .... 16.1 dischargers and no change in energy improvements to waters within the State 7 ...... BAT3 (meat, poul- 15.6 consumption at all MPP facilities that or adjoining the State. For each State, try), BAT2 (Ren- are indirect dischargers (as EPA is benefits at the national-scale represent dering). proposing no PSES and PSNS for all the value that the State population is 8 ...... BAT3 (meat, poul- 16.0 MPP subcategories) (see Section III.A.1 willing to pay for improvements to try), BAT2 (Ren- for EPA’s definition of small and non- dering) + PSES1. waters in all other states in the small facilities). EPA did, however, continental United States. EPA solicits estimate the energy consumption at comment on additional methods for X. Non-Water Quality Environmental non-small MPP facilities that are estimating and monetizing benefits. Impacts Table IX.H–1 summarizes the indirect dischargers and noted a small resulting estimates of economic benefits Sections 304(b) and 306(b) of the net increase in energy consumption. for each of the six regulatory scenarios Clean Water Act require EPA to Table X.A–1 and X.A–2 present analyzed. Based on the subset of consider non-water quality estimates of energy usage by technology facilities included in the NWPCAM environmental impacts (including option for both non-small direct and analysis, the total national willingness- energy requirements) associated with indirect dischargers, respectively. For to-pay (WTP) benefits at the local-scale effluent limitations guidelines and the selected proposal technology for all water quality use-supports ranged standards. To comply with these options, EPA estimates that there will be from approximately $15.5 million for requirements, EPA considered the a reduction in total annual energy use BAT2 to $16.1 million for BAT4 + potential impact of the proposed MPP across all non-small direct dischargers PSES1. EPA estimates that the annual rule on energy consumption, air (a net reduction of 144 million KWH/ benefits of the proposed regulatory emissions, and solid waste generation. yr). This is a relatively small net action (i.e., Scenario 7) is $15.6 million A discussion of the proposed reduction in comparison with the total per year. Since these benefits are for a technology options is given in Section annual amount of energy purchased by subset of the facilities regulated by the VII of this preamble. Considering energy non-small direct facilities (2,929 million proposal, they should not be compared use and environmental impacts across KWH/yr). There are no incremental to the total costs of the rule. EPA all media, the Agency has determined energy use impacts for direct estimates that the costs for Scenario 7 that the impacts identified in this dischargers that are small poultry for the facilities included in the benefits section are justified by the benefits slaughterers (subpart K) or small poultry analysis are $33.7 million. If the ratio of associated with compliance with the further processors (subpart L) as all of costs to benefits for these facilities is the proposed limitations and standards. these small facilities are currently same as the ratio of costs to benefits for Section X.A discusses the energy implementing the proposed limitations all facilities, the total benefits of the rule requirements for implementing and standards (Docket No. W–01–06, would be $37.0 million. wastewater treatment technologies at Record No. 00168).
VerDate 11
TABLE X.A–1.—INCREMENTAL ENERGY USE FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Total Energy Incremental MPP WWTP energy use per non-small MPP facility purchased per in units of million KWH/fac.-yr and total energy usage percent In- 1 non-small crease per non-small MPP facility [% increase] 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings MPP facility (million KWH/ fac.-yr) BAT2 BAT3 BAT4 BAT5
A, B, C, D ...... 11.42 0.0221 ¥0.9324 ¥1.0759 NA [0.19%] [¥8.89%] [¥10.40%] F, G, H, I ...... 13.46 0.0017 ¥0.0239 ¥0.0354 NA [0.01%] [¥0.18%] [¥0.26%] J ...... 5.47 0 ¥0.2415 ¥0.261 NA [0.00%] [¥4.62%] [¥5.01%] K ...... 13.53 0.0031 ¥0.627 ¥0.6076 ¥0.6033 [0.02%] [¥4.86%] [¥4.70%] [¥4.67%] L ...... 13.46 0.0021 ¥0.1088 ¥0.1094 ¥0.1519 [0.02%] [¥0.81%] [¥0.82%] [¥1.14%] Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have any net incremental NWQIs (including energy usage).
TABLE X.A–2.—INCREMENTAL ENERGY USE FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Total energy Incremental MPP WWTP energy use per non-small MPP facility purchased per in units of million KWH/fac.-yr and total energy usage percent in- 1 non-small crease per non-small MPP facility 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings MPP facility [% Increase] (million KWH/ fac.-yr) PSES1 PSES2 PSES3 PSES4
A, B, C, D ...... 11.42 0.2644 4.5467 2.0473 1.6061 [2.26%] [28.48%] [15.20%] [12.33%] F, G, H, I ...... 13.46 0.1227 0.6021 0.3404 0.3137 [0.90%] [4.28%] [2.47%] [2.28%] J ...... 5.47 0.0243 0.4617 0.0061 ¥0.0547 [0.44%] [7.78%] [0.11%] [¥1.01%] K ...... 13.53 0.1423 2.6724 0.9385 0.8078 [1.04%] [16.49%] [6.49%] [5.63%] L ...... 13.46 0.0995 0.6519 0.3194 0.2933 [0.73%] [4.62%] [2.32%] [2.13%] Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have any net incremental NWQIs (including energy usage).
The Direct Option BAT3 results in a B. Air Emissions Impacts the few facilities that have odor net decrease in energy use. This is a The Agency believes that the end-of- problems without sulfate waters (Docket result of the nitrification/denitrification pipe technologies included in the No. W–01–06, Record No. 00162). process (BAT3) utilizing less oxygen technology options for this rule do not Facilities generally utilized a scum layer and less mixing than the nitrification generate significant incremental air on the anaerobic contact tank or pond process (BAT2). Oxygen transfer and emissions either directly from the to minimize odors (Docket No. W–01– mixing operations require energy to run facility or indirectly through increased 06, Record No. 10034). Additionally, blowers and mixers, respectively. The air emissions impact from the electric covers and collectors of off-gases from electrical energy costs of a fully power generation facilities providing tanks or ponds may also control odors. nitrifying wastewater treatment plant the additional energy. If the off-gas has sufficient methane (WWTP) can typically be reduced by Odors are the only significant air content it can then be recovered for approximately 20% by implementation pollution problem associated with MPP energy or burned in a flare. Dissolved air flotation systems can also generate of denitrification with influent BOD as facility wastewater treatment. localized odors if facilities do not: (1) the necessary organic carbon source Malodorous conditions usually occur in anaerobic waste treatment processes or Properly remove the skimmings or (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. grease-containing solids; or (2) provide 00166). localized anaerobic environments within aerobic systems. However, it is sufficient ventilation around the EPA used facility count, wastewater generally agreed that anaerobic tanks treatment system if it is located indoors. flow, and treatment-in-place data from and ponds will not create serious odor Odors can best be controlled by the Screener Survey and Detailed problems unless the process water has elimination, at the source, in preference Survey to develop the previous energy a high sulfate content. The proposed to treatment for odor control. use estimations. The MPP Development technology options will not significantly EPA visited several MPP facilities that Document provides more detailed increase odors as the proposed EPA considered to be operating the information on the development of technology options do not create selected proposal technology options. these energy use estimations. additional amounts of methane. None of these BAT facilities had odor The anaerobic contact tank or pond control problems. One MPP WWTP odor is unpredictable as evidenced by operator noted that his facility, which
VerDate 11
operates BAT5 technology (biological raw water reaches the headworks of the Record No. 10042). EPA estimates that nutrient removal with disc filter), has WWTP. These large-scale solids have compliance with this proposed rule will had no odor control problem since the economic value as inedible rendering result in a decrease in wastewater installation of his new WWTP even with raw material. treatment sludges at MPP facilities. 1 private residences located within ⁄4 The organic and inorganic solid For the selected proposal technology material separated from the MPP mile of the WWTP (Docket No. W–01– options, EPA estimates that there will be wastewater, including chemicals added 06, Record No. 00154). a 3.4% reduction in total annual sludge As previously stated, EPA estimates to aid solids separation, is called sludge. production across all non-small direct an annual net energy reduction of 144 Typically, this sludge contains 95 to 98 dischargers (a net reduction of million KWH for the selected proposal percent water before dewatering. The approximately 16,500 tons/yr). This is a technology options. EPA is proposing raw sludge can be concentrated, relatively small net reduction in no PSES or PSNS regulatory controls for digested, dewatered, dried, incinerated, comparison with the current total indirect dischargers. This annual net land-filled, or spread in sludge holding annual amount of sludge production by energy reduction, however, is small ponds. Facilities may use combinations non-small direct facilities compared with the amount of energy of these sludge management options for (approximately 500,000 tons/yr). Tables used by MPP direct dischargers (2,929 different periods of the year. A WWTP X.C–1 and X.C–2 present the amount of million KWH/yr) and trivial when operator for a poultry slaughtering wastewater treatment sludge expected to compared with the total electricity used facility, which utilizes BAT5 be reduced at non-small facilities as a by the entire United States in 1999 technology, noted that sludges from his result of implementing each of the (3,501 billion KWH) (Docket No. W–01– facility are used as a soil amendments technology options. There are no 06, Record No. 00139). via spray irrigation for crops raised on the facility’s property, while during the incremental sludge generation impacts C. Solid Waste Generation off-growing season (July through March) for direct dischargers that are small The most significant non-water these sludges are kept in a lagoon. The poultry slaughterers (subpart K) or small quality environmental impact (NWQI) is operator pays a fee for land application poultry further processors (subpart L) as the generation of additional solids from of the WWTP sludge. EPA noted during all of these small facilities are currently MPP WWTP. These additional solids are site visits to two independent rendering implementing the proposed limitations generally nonhazardous. Some solids operations that sludges from dissolved and standards (Docket No. W–01–06, are recovered for additional processing air floatation units which use chemical Record No. 00168). (rendering) and are not considered solid additions to promote solids separation EPA is proposing no PSES and PSNS wastes or NWQIs. Screening devices of are rendered, however, the chemical for all indirect dischargers in all MPP various design and operating principles bond between the organic matter and subcategories. EPA did, however, are used primarily for removal of large- the polymers requires that the sludges estimate the sludge generation at non- scale solids (e.g., feathers, large animal be processed (rendered) at higher small MPP facilities that are indirect particles) from the meat and poultry temperatures (260 °F) and longer dischargers and noted a small net processing facility raw water before the retention times (Docket No. W–01–06, increase in sludge generation.
TABLE X.C–1.—INCREMENTAL SLUDGE GENERATION FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Baseline total Incremental Sludge Generated—tons/yr and percent increase [% sludge gen- Increase] for non-small MPP facilities, direct dischargers erated at non- 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings1 small MPP fa- cilities, direct dischargers BAT2 BAT3 BAT4 BAT5 (tons/year)
A, B, C, D ...... 353,794 0 ¥5,976 ¥5,334 NA [0.0%] [¥1.7%] [¥1.5%] F, G, H, I ...... 6,564 0 ¥45 ¥26 NA [0.0%] [¥0.7%] [¥0.4%] J ...... 3,655 0 ¥124 ¥124 NA [0.0%] [¥3.4%] [¥3.4%] K ...... 129,917 0 ¥10,353 8,533 8,533 [0.0%] [¥8.0%] [6.6%] [6.6%] L ...... 3,326 0 ¥146 ¥137 ¥909 [0.0%] ¥4.4%] [¥4.1%] [¥27.3%] Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have any net incremental NWQIs (including sludge generation).
TABLE X.C–2.—INCREMENTAL SLUDGE GENERATION FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Baseline total Incremental sludge generated—tons/yr and percent increase [% sludge gen- Increase] for non-small MPP facilities, indirect dischargers erated at non- 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings1 small MPP fa- cilities, indirect dischargers PSES1 PSES2 PSES3 PSES4 (tons/year)
A, B, C, D ...... 63,466 0 227,567 187,011 189,695 [0.0%] [358.6%] [294.7%] [298.9%]
VerDate 11
TABLE X.C–2.—INCREMENTAL SLUDGE GENERATION FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS—Continued
Baseline total Incremental sludge generated—tons/yr and percent increase [% sludge gen- Increase] for non-small MPP facilities, indirect dischargers erated at non- 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings1 small MPP fa- cilities, indirect dischargers PSES1 PSES2 PSES3 PSES4 (tons/year)
F, G, H, I ...... 2,599 302 58,071 48,598 50,046 [11.6%] [2234.6%] [1870.1%] [1925.8%] J ...... 9,520 32 11,259 9,212 9,522 [0.3%] [118.3%] [96.8%] [100.0%] K ...... 38,422 97 188,012 162,621 162,589 [0.3%] [489.3%] [423.3%] [423.2%] L ...... 2,360 228 61,213 53,794 54,233 [9.6%] [2593.6%] [2279.2%] [2297.8%] Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have any net incremental NWQIs (including sludge generation).
As shown in Table X.C–1, Direct concern (POCs) identified for each chemicals are generally good Option BAT3 results in a net decrease subcategory. indicators of overall wastewater in sludge generation for non-small EPA selected a subset of pollutants for treatment performance. direct dischargers. This is a result of the which to establish numerical effluent Based on the methodology described nitrification/denitrification (BAT3) limitations from the list of POCs for above, EPA proposes to regulate metabolism which reduces sludge each regulated subcategory. Section pollutants in each subcategory that will production as compared with VII.C. discusses EPA’s methodology for ensure adequate control of a range of nitrification (BAT2) metabolism for the selecting POCs and identifies on a pollutants. same solids retention time (Docket No. subcategory basis the POCs relevant to W–01–06, Record No.00166). Full-scale this proposal. Generally, a chemical is 2. Selection of Proposed Regulated domestic WWTP have shown a 5 to 15% considered a POC if it was detected in Pollutants for Existing and New Direct reduction in waste sludge production the untreated process wastewater at 5 Dischargers after the inclusion of the nitrification/ times the minimum level (ML) in more The current regulation requires denitrification process (Docket No. W– than 10 percent of samples. facilities to maintain the pH between 6.0 Monitoring for all POCs is not 01–06, Record No. 10035). and 9.0 at all times. EPA intends to necessary to ensure that Meat and EPA also expects that water retain this limitation and proposes to Poultry Products wastewater pollution conservation and pollution prevention codify identical pH limitations for is adequately controlled, since many of technologies may result in a greater previously unregulated subcategories. the pollutants originate from similar sludge reduction. EPA expects these The pH shall be monitored at the point sources, have similar treatabilities, are technologies to reduce sludge of discharge from the wastewater removed by similar mechanisms, and generation for the following reasons: treatment facility to which effluent • Water conservation technologies are treated to similar levels. Therefore, limitations derived from this part apply. reduce the amount of source water used it may be sufficient to monitor for one and thus mass of pollutants in the pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of In addition, EPA is proposing to source water which reduces the amount several others. establish effluent limitations for MPP of sludge generated during treatment. Regulated pollutants are pollutants for facilities for the following pollutants of • Pollution prevention practices which the EPA would establish concern: BOD, COD, TSS, oil and reduce the mass of pollutants in numerical effluent limitations and grease, fecal coliforms, ammonia, total treatment system influent streams standards. EPA selected a POC for nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The which reduces the amount of WWTP regulation in a subcategory if it meets all specific justifications for the pollutants sludge. the following criteria: to be regulated for each subcategory are EPA used facility count, wastewater —Chemical is not used as a treatment provided below. In general, EPA flow, and treatment-in-place data from chemical in the selected technology selected these pollutants because they the MPP Screener Survey and Detailed option. are representative of the characteristics Survey to develop the previous sludge —Chemical is not considered a volatile of meat processing wastewaters generation estimations. The MPP compound. generated in the industry, and are key Development Document provides more —Chemical is effectively treated by the indicators of the performance of detailed information on the selected treatment technology option. treatment processes that serve as the development of these sludge generation —Chemical is detected in the untreated basis for the proposed effluent estimations. wastewater at treatable levels in a limitations. significant number of samples, e.g., A number of POCs evaluated by EPA XI. Options Selected for Proposal generally 5 times the minimum level are parameters that identify the quantity A. Introduction at more than 10 percent of the raw of material in an effluent that is likely wastewater samples. to consume oxygen as it breaks down in 1. Methodology for Proposed Selection —Chemicals whose control through surface waters after it has been of Regulated Pollutants treatment processes would lead to discharged. These parameters include EPA selects the pollutants for control of a wide range of pollutants total organic carbon, BOD, COD and regulation based on the pollutants of with similar properties; these dissolved BOD. Values for these POCs
VerDate 11
in meat poultry processing wastes are pollutant TKN) and inorganic nitrogen in many of the meat processing typically very high due to the (estimated by nitrate/nitrite) is operations. EPA is proposing the control wastewaters generated from killing, maintained, thus EPA is defining ‘‘total of oil and grease is necessary to ensure evisceration, further processing, and nitrogen’’ to be the sum of nitrate/nitrite that treatment systems are effective in rendering processes. EPA is proposing and TKN. EPA is also proposing to removing oil and grease. Excessive oil to regulate BOD and COD, which will be specifically regulate ammonia as and grease concentrations can be used as indicators of the performance of nitrogen because of the significant associated with high BOD demand in a biological treatment systems to remove oxygen demand it exerts, as well as its surface water and present other all oxygen-demanding pollutants. relatively high toxicity to aquatic life. In nuisance problems. In the proposed Total suspended solids (TSS), total conjunction with the proposed rule, these limitations and standards are dissolved solids (TDS), and total volatile regulations for total nitrogen, EPA listed as ‘‘O&G (HEM)’’ to indicate that solids are parameters that measure the proposes to approve EPA Method 300.0 the parameter should be measured as quantity of solids in a wastewater. Meat at 40 CFR part 432. Alternatively, EPA hexane extractable material (HEM). In processing facilities typically produce may amend 40 CFR part 136 to include contrast, EPA has retained the previous wastewaters high in organic solids Method 300.0 for determination of notation of ‘‘O&G’’ for the existing BPT including blood, carcass, feathers, and nitrate/nitrite from wastewaters in the limitations, but has included footnotes feces. These solids cause a high oxygen meat and poultry products point source that indicate it can be measured as demand (both chemical and category. The analytical methods for biochemical) and are high in protein HEM. EPA has used the two different nitrite/nitrate that are currently notations because the existing BPT and nitrogen content. Because some approved at 40 CFR part 136 include nutrients bind to solids, and solids often limitations and today’s proposed many that are based on colorimetric limitations were based upon analytical include oxygen-demanding organic techniques (i.e., adding reagents to a material, limiting the loading of solids testing methods that used two different sample that form a colored product extraction solvents: freon and n-hexane, will prevent degradation of surface when they react with the nitrate/nitrite respectively. EPA has determined that waters. EPA proposes to regulate TSS as and measuring the intensity of the the two methods are comparable (see an indicator of performance of colored product). Such methods can be ‘‘Approval of EPA Methods 1664, biological treatment systems to remove subject to interferences in the difficult Revision A, and 9071B for solids. EPA considered regulation of matrices associated with this industry Determination of Oil and Grease and TDS, however, as organic matter is where samples may contain blood, Non-polar Material in EPA’s Wastewater broken down in a biological system, animal tissue, and/or other particulates and Hazardous Waste Programs’’ (EPA– levels of TDS may increase, which which affect both the color development 821–F–98–005, February 23, 1999, makes regulation of TDS not feasible. and ability to pass light through the located at www.epa.gov/ost/methods/ EPA is considering setting TDS direct sample to measure the intensity of the 1664fs.html) and Analytical Method and/or indirect limitations and colored product. In contrast, Method standards for certain meat and poultry 300.0 employs the technique known as Guidance for EPA Method 1664A further processors (e.g., ham processors) ion chromatography to measure 10 Implementation and Use (EPA–821–R– that use significant amounts of brine or inorganic anions, including nitrate and 00–003, February 2000, located at pickling solutions for the final rule. EPA nitrite. Ion chromatography permits the www.epa.gov/ost/methods/ solicits comment on whether such TDS various inorganic anions to be separated 1664guide.pdf)). Because freon is an limitations and standards are necessary, from one another, as well as from other ozone-depleting agent and becoming what technologies would be appropriate materials and contaminants present in more expensive, EPA believes that for this industry for TDS removal, and the sample. Each anion can be identified facilities will prefer to measure oil and which industry subcategories (if any) on the basis of its characteristic grease as HEM for the existing BPT should be subject to these potential retention time (the time required to pass limitations. EPA solicits comments on limitations and standards. its notation for the two types of oil and Wastewaters from meat processing through the instrumentation). After separation, the anions are measured by grease limitations and standards in the facilities have high concentrations of proposed rule. nutrients associated primarily with a conductivity detector that responds to solids from feces wastes and facility changes in the effluent from the ion Chlorides measure the quantity of cleaning processes. In addition, those chromatograph that occur when the chloride ion dissolved in solution. In facilities employing advanced biological negatively charged anions (analytes) the meat processing industry, salts may treatment systems to remove ammonia elute at characteristic retention times, be used for cleaning and antimicrobial convert organic nitrogen to nitrate and thereby changing the conductivity of the purposes. The presence of chloride in nitrites. Due to the potential degrading solution. Thus, Method 300.0 offers discharges to surface waters may impact impacts to surface waters associated better specificity for nitrate and nitrite aquatic organisms because of their with the discharge of nutrients (e.g., in the presence of interferences sensitivity to concentrations of salt. eutrophication), EPA proposes to compared to the approved colorimetric Although EPA determined that regulate total nitrogen and total methods. Method 300.0 is located in the chlorides are a pollutant of concern, phosphorus. In regulating total nitrogen rulemaking record (Docket No. W–01– EPA is not proposing to regulate and total phosphorus, EPA will ensure 06, Record No. 10036). EPA requests chlorides because biological systems are that biological treatment systems used comment on the use of this method for not specifically designed and operated by facilities are effectively removing all the meat and poultry point source to treat chlorides. In fact, EPA observed forms of these nutrients including total category and whether the method in some instances an increase in kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate/nitrite, should be approved at 40 CFR part 432 chlorides within the biological ammonia as nitrogen, orthophosphate, or at 40 CFR part 136 or both. treatment system (i.e., from the influent and dissolved phosphorus. EPA Oil and grease (as n-hexane- to the effluent) at several facilities. As proposes to regulate total nitrogen to extractable material) is a parameter that a result, EPA believes that a facility will ensure that the relationship between measures oil and grease concentrations not be able to manage a biological organic nitrogen (estimated by the in effluents. Oil and grease is contained treatment process to consistently
VerDate 11
achieve effluent limitations for from deterioration of meat processing discharges’ over a calendar month, chlorides. machinery and equipment. Many metals calculated as the sum of all ‘daily Total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, are toxic to algae, aquatic invertebrates, discharges’ measured during a calendar fecal streptococci, Salmonella, and and/or fish. Although metals may serve month divided by the number of ‘daily Aeromonas were considered POCs useful purposes in meat processing discharges’ measured during that because they provide information on operations, most metals retain their month.’’ Daily discharge is defined as concentrations of potential bacterial and toxicity once they are discharged into the ‘discharge of a pollutant’ measured other pathogens in meat processing receiving waters. Although EPA during a calendar day or any 24-hour wastewaters. Meat processing observed that many of the biological period that reasonably represents the wastewaters are typically high in treatment systems used within the meat calendar day for purposes of sampling.’’ pathogens as they are associated with processing industry provide substantial EPA calculates the limitations based the organic solids such as feces, blood, reductions of most metals, biological upon percentiles chosen with the and internal organ wastes that are systems are not specifically designed intention, on one hand, to accommodate produced in many of the processes. The and operated to remove metals. As a reasonably anticipated variability control of pathogens is important to result, EPA believes that a facility will within the control of the facility and, on ensure efficient treatment to prevent not be able to manage a biological the other hand, to reflect a level of impairment of surface water uses such treatment process to consistently performance consistent with the Clean as a drinking water source or as a achieve effluent limitations. Therefore, Water Act requirement that these recreation water. EPA is proposing to EPA is not proposing to regulate metals. effluent limitations be based on the regulate fecal coliform as an indicator of Pesticides are used for controlling ‘‘best’’ technologies properly operated the efficacy of treatment processes to animal parasites and may be present in and maintained. The daily maximum control pathogens. Because analytical wastewaters from initial animal wash limitation is an estimate of the 99th methods require that fecal coliforms be and processing operations. Some percentile of the distribution of the measured within eight hours of sample pesticides are bioaccumulative and daily measurements. The maximum collection, EPA is currently conducting retain their toxicity once they are monthly average limitation is an a study to determine if longer holding discharged into receiving waters. estimate of the 95th percentile of the times affect the number of viable Similar to metals, although EPA distribution of the monthly averages of bacteria remaining in the sample during observed that many of the biological the daily measurements. The percentiles the eight hour holding time period. A treatment systems used within the meat for both types of limitations are number of organisms are being tested processing industry provide adequate estimated using the products of long- for, including fecal and total coliforms, reductions of pesticides, most biological term averages and variability factors. Escherichia coli, Aeromonas species, systems are not specifically designed In the first of two steps in estimating fecal streptococci, Salmonella species and operated to remove pesticides. As a both types of limitations, EPA and Enterococcus faecium. In addition, result, EPA believes that a facility will determines an average performance in developing the proposed limitations not be able to manage a biological level (the ‘‘long-term average’’) that a and standards, EPA measured fecal treatment process to consistently facility with well-designed and operated coliform counts in samples that had achieve effluent limitations for model technologies (which reflect the been retained longer than eight hours. pesticides. Therefore, EPA is not appropriate level of control) is capable The EPA study is testing for viable proposing to regulate pesticides. of achieving. This long-term average is organisms between 8 and 48 hours calculated from the data from the 3. Approach to Determining Long Term holding time. Thus, EPA will conduct facilities using the model technologies Averages, Variability Factors, and this holding time study for two for the option. EPA expects that all Effluent Limitations Guidelines and purposes: to evaluate the use of data in facilities subject to the limitations will Standards developing the limitations and design and operate their treatment standards; and for possible revisions to This subsection describes the systems to achieve the long-term currently approved methods. In the statistical methodology used to develop average performance level on a forthcoming NODA, EPA will provide long-term averages, variability factors, consistent basis because facilities with the data collected during the study and and limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT, and well-designed and operated model its evaluation of the results. NSPS. The same basic procedures apply technologies have demonstrated that In many instances, EPA found meat to the calculation of all effluent this can be done. In the second step of processing facilities utilizing chlorine to limitations guidelines and standards for developing a limitation, EPA determines disinfect treated wastewaters. As a this industry, regardless of whether the an allowance for the variation in disinfectant, chlorine is highly toxic to technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, or NSPS. pollutant concentrations when aquatic life. In light of the fact that EPA For simplicity, the following discussion processed through well designed and is proposing to regulate fecal coliform, refers only to effluent limitations operated treatment systems. This EPA is also considering regulating total guidelines; however, the discussion also allowance for variance incorporates all residual chlorine as means to control applies to new source standards. components of variability including the amount of chlorine that is The proposed limitations for process and wastewater generation, discharged to surface waters for the final pollutants for each option, as presented sample collection, shipping, storage, rule. However, EPA is not proposing to in today’s notice, are provided as and analytical variability. This regulate total residual chlorine at this maximum daily discharge limitations allowance is incorporated into the time. EPA solicits comment on this and maximum monthly average limitations through the use of the issue (see discussion on disinfection discharge limitations. Definitions variability factors, which are calculated techniques in Section XI.A.3). provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the from the data from the facilities using Metals may be present in meat ‘‘maximum daily discharge limitation’’ the model technologies. If a facility processing wastewaters due to a variety is the ‘‘highest allowable ‘daily operates its treatment system to meet of reasons. They are used as feed discharge’’’ and the ‘‘maximum average the relevant long-term average, EPA additives, they may be contained in for monthly discharge limitation’’ is the expects the facility to be able to meet sanitation products, or they may result ‘‘highest allowable average of ‘daily the limitations. Variability factors assure
VerDate 11
that normal fluctuations in a facility’s LTAs. In particular for regulatory internal controls are common industry treatment are accounted for in the option2 for poultry: practice. The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limitations. By accounting for these • The further processing portion for reasonable excursions above the long- limited balancing, committed to EPA’s TSS is estimated at 9.76 mg/L, which is term average, EPA’s use of variability discretion, which does not require the the largest value in survey data for factors results in limitations that are Agency to quantify the benefits in poultry facilities with further processing generally well above the actual long- monetary terms. In balancing costs in operations that has Option2 treatment in term averages. relation to effluent reduction benefits, EPA recognizes that, as a result of place, and EPA considers the volume and nature of modifications to 40 CFR part 432, some • The rendering portion for Oil and existing discharges expected after the dischargers may need to improve Grease(HEM) is estimated at 19.5 mg/L, application of BPT, the general treatment systems, process controls, which is the largest value in survey data environmental effects of the pollutants, and/or treatment system operations in for poultry facilities with rendering and the cost and economic impact of the order to consistently meet effluent operations that has Option2 treatment in required pollution controls. When limitations based on revised effluent place. setting BPT limitations, EPA is required limitations guidelines and standards. • For one conventional pollutant, under Section 304(b) to perform a EPA believes that this consequence is fecal coliform, the EPA sampling data limited cost-benefit balancing to ensure consistent with the Clean Water Act show that chlorine disinfection the costs are not wholly out of statutory framework, which requires followed by dechlorination is extremely proportion to the benefits achieved. See that discharge limitations reflect the effective treatment, and very low long- Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle, 590 best available technology. term averages were calculated for fecal F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978). While the actual monitoring coliform based on chlorine disinfection. a. New Subcategories/Segments. EPA requirements will be determined by the However, EPA has decided not to use proposes BPT limitations for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, permitting authority, the Agency has the long-term averages as calculated assumed thirty samples per month (i.e., fecal coliform, pH, and oil and grease) based on the fact that ultraviolet daily monitoring) in determining the and non-conventional pollutants disinfection (or other types of proposed maximum monthly average (ammonia as nitrogen, total nitrogen and disinfection) may overall be better for limitations. EPA recognizes that small total phosphorus) for the following the environment than chlorine poultry facilities are unlikely to operate subcategories or segments that have not disinfection because they don’t produce on weekends and is soliciting comment previously been regulated under part a residual effect that can be harmful to on whether their monthly limitations 432: Poultry First Processing and humans or aquatic life. Since ultraviolet should be based upon 20 days. Poultry Further Processing. There are no disinfection (or other types of Increasing or decreasing monitoring BPT limitations in the current disinfection) are not always as effective frequency does not affect the statistical regulation applicable to these types of properties of the underlying distribution as chlorine disinfection, EPA has facilities. of the data used to derive the decided to propose fecal coliform b. Existing Subcategories/Segments. limitations. However, monitoring less limitations equal to the existing ones, EPA is retaining the existing BPT frequently theoretically results in which are currently being met by MPP limitations (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, average values that are more variable. facilities with varying types of pH and oil and grease) for all facilities As a consequence, average values based disinfection. EPA intends to further currently covered under 40 CFR part on 20 monitoring samples per month assess ultraviolet and other disinfection 432. In addition, EPA proposes new from small poultry facilities technologies following proposal and BPT limitations for larger MPP facilities. theoretically could be numerically may set revised limitations for the final Specifically, larger than average values based upon rule. EPA solicits data on disinfection • For facilities in Subcategories A, B, 30 monitoring samples from non-small technologies and comments on this C and D that slaughter more than 50 facilities. Thus, operators of small decision. See MPP Development million pounds (LWK) per year, EPA poultry facilities may find they need to Document Section 11 for more proposes to add BPT limitations for one design treatment systems to achieve an information. non-conventional pollutant (COD) to average below the long term average 4. BPT reflect the better design and operation of basis of the proposed limitations and/or the existing BPT treatment technology. more control over variability of the In general, the BPT technology level The Agency is proposing the same COD discharges in order to maintain represents the average of the best BPT limitation for each of these compliance with the limitations. The existing performances of plants of subcategories (Subcategories A, B, C and MPP Development Document provides a various processes, ages, sizes or other D). list of both the proposed limitations and common characteristics. Where existing • For facilities in Subcategories F, G, those derived using a 20-day monitoring performance is considered uniformly H and I that produce more than 50 assumption. inadequate, BPT may be transferred million pounds of finished product per The long-term averages, variability from a different subcategory or industry. year, EPA proposes to add BPT factors, and limitations were based upon Limitations based upon transfer of limitations for one non-conventional pollutant concentrations collected from technology must be supported by a pollutant (COD) to reflect the better two data sources: EPA sampling conclusion that the technology is indeed design and operation of the existing BPT episodes and data submitted by transferable and a reasonable prediction treatment technology. The Agency is industry. When the data from the EPA that it will be capable of meeting the proposing the same COD BPT limitation sampling episodes at a facility met the prescribed effluent limits. See Tanners’ for each of these subcategories data editing criteria, EPA used the Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2nd (Subcategories F, G, H and I). sampling data and any monitoring data 1188 (4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuses on • For facilities in Subcategory J that provided by the facility. In the absence end-of-pipe treatment rather than render more than 10 million pounds per of transferable data, data received in the process changes or internal controls, year of raw material, EPA proposes to detailed surveys was used to develop except where the process changes or add a BPT limitation for one non-
VerDate 11
conventional pollutant (COD) to reflect (2) The industry cost-effectiveness the small meat processors subcategory the better design and operation of the test. (Subpart E). EPA survey data indicate existing BPT treatment technology. In the POTW test, EPA calculates the that there are approximately 107 small EPA is proposing the addition of COD cost per pound of conventional meat processing facilities that would to reflect the average of the best existing pollutant removed by industrial have been subject to any new performances based on new information discharges in upgrading from BPT to a limitations. EPA estimates that the collected for this proposal (see Section BCT candidate technology and then additional pollutant reductions V). Further, EPA has determined to compares this cost to the cost per pound achieved by establishing more stringent revise BPT for COD because the of conventional pollutant removed in limitations for these small facilities biological treatment technology used as upgrading POTWs from secondary would be minimal. For example, under a basis for the limitations really treatment. The upgrade cost to industry regulatory option BAT 3, pollutant load represents BPT technology and is must be less than the POTW benchmark reductions attributable to small facilities widely used in the industry. EPA of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars). is less than 0.1 percent of the total considers the control of COD as the In the industry cost-effectiveness test, expected pollutants load reductions. most appropriate parameter to represent the ratio of the incremental BPT to BCT In selecting its proposed NSPS the BPT level of control for non- cost divided by the BPT cost for the technology for these segments and conventional and conventional industry must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the subcategories, EPA considered all of the pollutants. The bulk parameter and cost increase must be less than 29 factors specified in CWA Section 306, nonconventional pollutant COD is an percent). See Section VIII.F for details including the costs of achieving effluent indicator of organic matter in the on the calculation of the BCT cost tests. reductions and the effect of costs on In developing BCT limits, EPA wastestream that is susceptible to strong new projects (barrier-to-entry). The considered whether there are oxidation, and as such would also Agency also considered energy technologies that achieve greater measure organic material susceptible to requirements and other non-water removals of conventional pollutants biochemical oxidation, as well as some quality environmental impacts for the than proposed for BPT, and whether that is more difficult to oxidize proposed NSPS options and concluded those technologies are cost-reasonable biochemically. While it is EPA’s view that these impacts were no greater than according to the prescribed BCT tests. for the proposed BAT technology that it can revise BPT limitations for For subcategories A–D, E–I, K and L, conventional pollutants without passing options and are acceptable. EPA EPA identified no technologies that can therefore concluded that the NSPS the BCT cost test (where the BPT achieve greater removals of effluent reduction ratio is favorable), the technology basis proposed constitutes conventional pollutants than the BPT the best available demonstrated control Agency is not generally inclined to do standards that also pass the BCT. technology for those segments. so unless the removals achieved by the Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish existing BPT limitations are BCT effluent limitations equal to the B. Pretreatment Standards significantly fewer than would be current BPT limitations for these National pretreatment standards are achieved through revision of BPT. That subcategories. In the Rendering established for those pollutants in was not the case here. Revising BPT to subcategory (subcategory J), EPA found wastewater from indirect dischargers incorporate COD will not only remove that Option 2 would achieve greater that may pass through, interfere with or large amounts of COD, but also achieve removal of conventional pollutants and are otherwise incompatible with POTW significant incidental removals of BOD5 was cost-reasonable under the BCT cost operations. Generally, pretreatment and TSS. For this reason, EPA has tests and therefore proposes this standards are designed to ensure that determined that it is not necessary to technology as BCT. wastewaters from direct and indirect separately revise the BPT limits for industrial dischargers are subject to 6. Consideration of Statutory Factors for BOD5 and TSS in this case. similar levels of treatment. In addition, EPA is retaining the existing BPT BAT and NSPS Technology Options many POTWs are required to develop limitations and proposing no new BPT Selection and implement local treatment limits limitations for ‘‘small’’ facilities. EPA Based on the record before it, EPA has applicable to their industrial indirect used production based thresholds to determined that each proposed model dischargers to satisfy any local subcategorized these small facilities (see technology is technically available. EPA requirements (see 40 CFR 403.5). Section III). EPA defines small MPP is also proposing that each is POTWs that are not required to facilities as MPP facilities that produce economically achievable for the segment implement approved programs, and less then the production based to which it applies. Further, EPA has have not had interference or pass thresholds defined above (and in determined, for the reasons set forth in through issues are not required to Section III). See also Section III.A.1 for Section X, that none of the proposed develop and implement local limits. a description of why and how EPA technology options has unacceptable There are approximately 1,500 POTWs developed these production based adverse non-water quality with approved Pretreatment Programs thresholds. environmental impacts. EPA also and 13,500 small POTWs that are not considered the age, size, processes, and 5. BCT required to develop and implement other engineering factors pertinent to approved Pretreatment Programs. The BCT methodology, promulgated facilities in the proposed segments for National pretreatment standards have in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses the the purpose of evaluating the three principal objectives: (1) Prevent Agency’s consideration of costs in technology options. EPA is proposing to the wide-scale introduction of establishing BCT effluent limitations establish separate limits for facilities on pollutants into publicly owned guidelines. EPA evaluates the the basis of size. As discussed in more treatment works (POTWs) that will reasonableness of BCT candidate detail in Section III.A.1 above, EPA is interfere with POTW operations, technologies (those that are not proposing to establish more including use or disposal of municipal technologically feasible) by applying a stringent limitations to small meat sludge; (2) prevent the introduction of two-part cost test: slaughterers nor is the Agency pollutants into POTWs which will pass (1) The POTW test; and proposing to revise the limitations for through the treatment works or will
VerDate 11
otherwise be incompatible with the This standard is based on the how overloadings of various parameters treatment works; and (3) improve performance of either of two (e.g., BOD5, Oil and Grease, TSS, opportunities to recycle and reclaim technologies (primary oil removal or Ammonia) and unequalized flows from municipal and industrial wastewaters DAF). EPA identified this pretreatment MPP indirect dischargers have resulted and sludges. standard as necessary to ‘‘minimize the in POTW interference incidents and Currently there are no categorical possibility of slug loadings of oil and POTW NPDES permit violations. pretreatment standards for the MPP grease being discharged to POTW,’’ It is not clear, however, whether these point source category. EPA is not (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. identified interference incidents proposing new pretreatment standards 00167). EPA notes that oil and grease represent an industry-wide problem or for existing or new MPP indirect from Petroleum Refineries is not the if they are site specific and more dischargers. While EPA has some same material as oil and grease from appropriately addressed by the general information regarding effluents from MPP facilities. EPA solicits comment on pretreatment prohibitions and local MPP indirect dischargers that may pass the use of the 100 mg/L standard for limits, or by POTW upgrades. Some of through, interfere with, or otherwise be preventing POTW interference by these instances do involve violations of incompatible with POTW operations, it vegetable/animal oil and grease local limits or were resolved by POTW is not clear that it justifies categorical discharges. upgrades, and therefore the general pretreatment standards for this industry. EPA previously identified that high pretreatment prohibitions and local The following sections discuss the organic loadings and grease remaining limits did work. However, EPA does not information EPA was able to collect and in the MPP facility effluent may cause know how frequently this was the case. what information EPA is soliciting in difficulty in the POTW treatment system More detailed information will be this proposal and planning to collect and that the performance of trickling gathered to determine whether these after proposal. filters appear to be particularly sensitive facilities were in violation of the local (Docket No. W–01–06, Record limits, POTWs have upgraded since the 1. POTW Interference No.00162; Record No.00140). High incident, or these were one-time As noted above, there are no loadings of oil and grease can also clog problems. EPA solicits more detailed categorical pretreatment standards for pipes and promote the growth of information on these identified MPP indirect dischargers, however, the filamentous bacteria which can inhibit interference incidents and other POTW national pretreatment standards prohibit the performance of the POTW interference and pass through incidents. the discharge of, ‘‘Any pollutant, (especially trickling filters which are EPA will collect more information from including oxygen demanding pollutants more often used at smaller POTWs) EPA and State pretreatment program (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. coordinators, POTWs, and MPP indirect flow rate and/or pollutant concentration 00085). A concentration of 100 dischargers after proposal to: (1) which will cause Interference with the mg/L for Oil and Grease is often cited Understand whether the general POTW ,’’ (see 40 CFR 403.5(b)(4)). All as a local limit and compliance with pretreatment prohibition is sufficient to indirect dischargers are prohibited from this limit may require an effective address POTW interference and pass introducing into a POTW any dissolved air floatation device in through incidents for this industry; and pollutant(s) which cause pass through addition to a catch basin and other (2) determine if reoccurrences of these or interference whether or not primary treatment system (Docket No. POTW interference and pass through categorical pretreatment standards or W–01–06, Record No.00162; Record incidents necessitate categorical any national, State, or local No.00140). EPA recognizes that much of pretreatment standards at the time of the pretreatment requirements apply (see 40 this data was developed in the 1970s final rule for non-small facilities. CFR 403.5(a)(1)). POTWs are required to but believes that it is still relevant Many POTWs are capable of develop and enforce Pretreatment today. controlling MPP indirect discharges Programs and/or set local limits to EPA also previously identified that oil through local limits or sufficient ensure renewed and continued and grease of petroleum origin has been dilution with domestic wastewaters. compliance with the POTW’s NPDES reported to interfere with the aerobic Most of the approximately 1,500 POTWs permit or sludge use or disposal processes of POTWs (Docket No. W–01– with approved Pretreatment Programs practices (see 40 CFR 403.5(c)). 06, Record No. 00167). It is believed that have numeric oil and grease limits and According to data provided in the the principal interference is caused by many POTWs without approved detailed surveys, approximately one- the attachment of oil and grease of Pretreatment Programs also have oil and third of the MPP facilities discharge to petroleum origin onto floc particles, grease limits. For example, EPA POTWs which discharge less than 5 resulting in a slower settling rate, loss identified approximately two dozen MGD. These POTWs are often not of solids by carryover out of the settling Pretreatment Programs with local limits required through their NPDES permits basin, and excessive release of BOD on oil and grease (Docket No. W–01–06, to implement Pretreatment Programs. from the POTW to the environment. Record No. 10037). Oil and grease limits EPA typically does not establish Additionally, EPA identified that oil were most often in the range of 50 mg/ pretreatment standards for conventional and grease of petroleum origin may coat L to 450 mg/L with 100 mg/L as the pollutants (e.g., BOD5, TSS, Oil and the biomass in activated sludge most common reported limit. Other Grease) since POTWs are designed to treatment units, thereby interfering with Pretreatment Programs use descriptive treat these pollutants, but EPA has oxygen transfer and reducing treatment requirements to limit interference from exercised its authority to establish efficiency. high oil and grease concentrations. categorical pretreatment standards for EPA Regional and State permit writers While most POTWs are not conventional pollutants. For example, and pretreatment coordinators significantly affected by MPP indirect EPA established categorical identified approximately twenty cases discharges, EPA notes that some, pretreatment standards for new and where MPP indirect dischargers primarily smaller POTWs, including existing sources with a one day interfered with POTW operations those not required to implement maximum concentration of 100 mg/L oil (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. approved Pretreatment Programs, may and grease in the Petroleum Refining 10037). While some specific details are have difficulty in properly treating MPP Point Source Category (40 CFR 419). lacking, these cases generally describe indirect discharges or in setting local
VerDate 11
limits. Some POTWs may be less toxic form of nitrogen) and are its operations. (Docket No. W–01–06, particularly susceptible to high and therefore unsuitable as a treatment step Record No. 10040). EPA also solicits variable organic and oil and grease to ensure that the receiving water information on whether MPP indirect loadings. If MPP indirect dischargers are doesn’t receive toxic amounts of dischargers are causing interference unable to reduce or equalize their high ammonia. In one such instance, a MPP issues on a national, on-going basis and organic and oil and grease facility was directed to establish whether POTWs are addressing these concentrations, some small POTWs biological pretreatment (by installing a interference issues in a timely manner receiving these discharges may be biological sequencing batch reactor) in once they are identified. Finally, EPA unable to dampen the peak loadings or order to discharge to the local POTW also solicits information on whether equalize high organic and oil and grease which has a simple anaerobic lagoon increased attention from Federal and concentrations from MPP indirect system (Docket No. W–01–06, Record State Pretreatment Programs and/or dischargers with domestic wastewater. No. 10039). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) MPP indirect discharges range from 3 to Industry and the Association of programs would sufficiently deal with 20 times in organic concentrations than Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies MPP indirect discharges that may cause typical domestic wastewater (Docket (AMSA) stated to EPA that cases of POTW interference in lieu of national No. W–01–06, Record No. 10038). Small POTW interference from MPP indirect categorical pretreatment standards. POTW facilities are generally more dischargers are relatively infrequent susceptible to high and variable occurrences and that they are best 2. POTW Pass Through loadings from large MPP indirect handled through local limits and proper dischargers. Small POTWs often use less enforcement (Docket No. W–01–06, As noted above, Federal categorical sophisticated wastewater treatment Record No. 10040). AMSA is a pretreatment standards are also systems (e.g., trickling filters, simple membership organization that designed to prevent the introduction of anaerobic lagoons) which may not be represents approximately 10% of the pollutants into POTWs which will pass able to operate properly during periods largest POTWs in the United States through the treatment works or will of high flow or handle slug loads (about 150 of the 1,500 POTWs with otherwise be incompatible with the discharged by MPP facilities after a Pretreatment Programs) and some small treatment works. Generally, to shut-down period (e.g., no or low MPP POTWs. However, none of the determine if pollutants pass through indirect loadings during weekend approximately 20 cases of interference POTWs, EPA compares the percentage operations when there are no or limited incidents identified in the record of the pollutant removed by well- MPP operations taking place). Trickling involve AMSA members. EPA solicits operated POTWs achieving secondary filters at small POTW facilities may be information on other potential positive treatment with the percentage of the unable to effectively process high and negative impacts on POTW pollutant removed by each of the organic and oil and grease operations if EPA were to set national indirect technology options. EPA concentrations and may allow categorical pretreatment standards for identified the following MPP pollutants, unacceptable amounts of BOD and oil the prevention of interference of POTW based on EPA sampling efforts, that EPA and grease concentrations to pass operations. AMSA has stated that any would normally determine to pass through if MPP indirect dischargers are attempt to reduce organic loadings from through using EPA’s standard not properly controlled. Anaerobic MPP facilities would also reduce the methodology (i.e., indirect technology lagoons at small POTW facilities may be amount of revenue collected by their option has a percent removal higher unable to convert ammonia to nitrate (a POTW and have a detrimental effect on than the POTW percent removal).
TABLE XI.B–1.—MEAT POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
PSES indirect POTW treat- MPP pollutant of concern CAS number option 1 treat- ment effi- ment efficiency ciency 1
Oil and Grease ...... C036 95 86 Copper ...... 7440508 91 84 Molybdenum ...... 7439987 82 19 Zinc ...... 7440666 91 79 Note 1: These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50-POTW study (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00180).
TABLE XI.B–2.—POULTRY POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
PSES indirect POTW treat- MPP pollutant of concern CAS number option treat- ment effi- ment efficiency ciency 1
Oil and Grease ...... C036 90 87 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) ...... C021 73 57 Total Phosphorus ...... 14265442 67 57 Barium ...... 7440393 78 16 Manganese ...... 7439965 60 36 Nickel ...... 7440020 65 51 Zinc ...... 7440666 53 79 Note 1: These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50–POTW study (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00180).
VerDate 11
PSES Indirect Option 1 (PSES1) is a how to examine current POTW 3. MPP Pretreatment Options physical-chemical treatment system performance for all pollutants including Considered [dissolved air floatation (DAF) with those pollutants in Tables XI.B–1 and chemical flocculant addition, XI.B–2. EPA will publish its revised Before determining no pass through or equalization tank] that primarily targets analysis of PSES1 treatment efficiencies, interference that justifies proposing conventional pollutants including oil loadings removals, and POTW removal additional regulations, EPA considered and grease. As the tables above indicate, efficiencies in the forthcoming NODA four pretreatment options for both PSES1 shows some metal and nutrient for public comment. EPA also solicits existing and new sources. Table XI.B–3 removals but it is not clear why a data regarding the POTW removal details the summary of EPA’s economic technology designed to control efficiencies for all pollutants identified analysis of the PSES1 pretreatment conventional pollutants also affects the in Tables VII.C–1 and VII.C–2 (see also option for the various MPP level of other pollutants. EPA notes that Section XV for data submission subcategories. EPA includes this many of these pollutants of concern that instructions). information here for public comment. If would normally be determined to EPA seeks information on any cases of information presented during the exhibit pass through do so in low significant pass through from MPP comment period following proposal or concentrations. For example metal indirect dischargers where the local the NODA shows that there is sufficient concentrations in MPP indirect limits were not set or exceeded and interference or pass through to justify dischargers are relatively low in comments on whether EPA should categorical pretreatment standards for comparison with conventional promulgate pretreatment standards for this industry, EPA will rely on the certain parameters (e.g., nutrients, TDS) pollutants concentrations (e.g., BOD, information provided here and in the TSS, and oil and grease). EPA will based on their potential pass through of record of this rulemaking to promulgate further investigate the data and POTWs into receiving waters. pretreatment standards. The public is potential mechanisms behind the Although some pollutants may pass encouraged to comment fully on the removals of metals and nutrients by through POTWs following fairly limited PSES1 to confirm the PSES1 treatment treatment, current information available following information. With respect to efficiencies and at the final regulation to EPA suggests that the overall levels preventing interference incidents, after may issue pretreatment standards based of these pollutants in MPP raw proposal EPA will evaluate comments on pass through for all or a sub-set of wastewater does not justify establishing and additional information to determine these pollutants. numeric categorical pretreatment whether another annual production size Further, EPA has received comments standards. EPA is not proposing to cut-off for MPP indirect dischargers from AMSA that the database used to establish pretreatment standards based should be established. Additionally, characterize POTW removal efficiencies on the difference between MPP EPA is soliciting comment on whether is outdated and current POTW pretreatment options and POTW it should exempt from categorical performance has improved. EPA is removal efficiencies because the Agency pretreatment standards MPP indirect considering different options on how to is uncertain that it accurately reflects discharges who are below 5% of POTW examine current POTW performance. the incidences of pass through for this dry weather hydraulic or organic One option is to evaluate removal industry as a whole. MPP Development capacity of the POTW treatment or efficiencies based on a subset of the 50– Document details the national estimates another percentage level that is POTW database that mainly includes of pollutants of concern that have appropriate to prevent interference those POTWs that receive large amounts greater removal efficiencies under each incidents if EPA decides to set of industrial and/or MPP indirect indirect technology option than POTWs categorical pretreatment standards for discharges. EPA solicits comment on for each of the MPP subcategories. non-small facilities in the final rule.
TABLE XI.B–3.—ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND TOXIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY TABLE FOR PSES OPTION 1, NON- SMALL FACILITIES
PSES option 1 toxic Cost/net in- Pre-tax cost-effectiveness MPP industry sector (40 CFR part 432, subcategory) come annualized (in percent) cost Removals ($1999 M) (lb-eq) $1981/lb-eq
Red Meat First Processors (A–D) ...... 0.57 $7.0 240,421 17 Red Meat Further Processors (F–I) ...... 0.80 $18.8 76,890 143 Independent Renderers (J) ...... 0.50 $1.3 3,918 198 Poultry First Processors (K) ...... 0.55 $10.8 377,651 17 Poultry Further Processors (L) ...... 1.50 $15.3 49,950 178
EPA notes that the PSES1 103 indirect MPP facilities utilize indirect facilities employing PSES1 pretreatment option cost is generally at PSES1. The MPP Detailed Survey also technology (equalization basin, DAF) is or below 1% of the facility’s net income identified the following breakdown of 99.5 mg/L. (profit). Also, based on detailed surveys treatment-in-place: (1) 64 facilities As previously stated, EPA is not received in time for EPA’s analysis, EPA utilize no pretreatment or pretreatment proposing new pretreatment standards notes that PSES1 is widely used in non- less effective than PSES1 (e.g., catch for existing or new MPP indirect small MPP pretreatment operations to basins); (2) 12 facilities utilize PSES2; dischargers because EPA did not have reduce BOD and oil and grease (3) 1 facility utilize PSES3; and (4) no sufficient information to demonstrate concentrations. Results from the MPP facilities utilize PSES4. Based on MPP that effluents from MPP indirect Detailed Survey used in estimating Detailed Survey data, the average oil dischargers interfere with, are compliance costs indicate that 26 of the and grease concentration from MPP incompatible with, or pass through
VerDate 11
POTW operations on enough of a wide- and EPA solicits comment on how EPA facilities are small facilities (see Section scale basis to justify national categorical should consider setting pretreatment III.A.1). pretreatment standards. Further, EPA standards for ammonia as nitrogen to 1. Subcategories A through D (Meat has received comments from AMSA that prevent interference. EPA is basing the Slaughtering Facilities) the database used to characterize POTW 100 mg/L potential pretreatment removal efficiencies is outdated and maximum daily standards on the a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT EPA current POTW performance has Petroleum Refining Industry oil and proposes establishing BPT limitations improved. EPA will work with States grease and ammonia standards because for COD. These pollutants are and pretreatment control authorities to those standards were designed to characteristic of meat slaughtering collect additional data on a more prevent POTW interference, which may wastewater. These proposed regulated systematic basis to determine whether be a problem for the meat and poultry pollutants are key indicators of the or not national categorical pretreatment products industry as well. The performance of the secondary biological standards are necessary. If the Petroleum Refining Industry oil and treatment process, which is the key additional and existing data indicate grease pretreatment standard of 100 mg/ component of the model BPT treatment that MPP indirect dischargers interfere L is based on the necessity to minimize systems for these subcategories. with or pass through POTW operations, POTW interference by minimizing the ii. BAT. EPA proposes establishing one or more of the following options possibility of slug loadings of oil and BAT limitations for ammonia-N, total may be used to establish national grease being discharged to POTWs. nitrogen and total phosphorus. These categorical pretreatment standards in (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. pollutants are characteristic of meat the final rule for non-small indirect 00167). Ammonia as nitrogen slaughtering wastewater. These dischargers. concentrations above 100 mg/L can proposed regulated pollutants are key • Establish numeric pretreatment exhibit inhibitory effects on the indicators of the performance of the standards for oil and grease and/or activated sludge process and cause tertiary biological treatment process, ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 POTW interference (Docket No. W–01– which is the technology basis for the (equalization and DAF) to prevent 06, Record No. 00167). EPA is also BAT and NSPS requirements for these POTW interference; soliciting comment on potential subcategories. • Establish numeric pretreatment concentration pretreatment maximum iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate standards for oil and grease and/or daily standards for oil and grease and the same pollutants for NSPS as those ammonia based on equalization alone to ammonia as nitrogen, respectively based for BAT, with the addition of BOD, TSS, reduce MPP indirect discharge variable on the performance of PSES1 oil and grease (measured as HEM) and loads which can, in some cases, prevent technology (DAF with chemical fecal coliform. POTW interference; flocculant addition, equalization tank). b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The • Establish numeric pretreatment These PSES1 concentration based Agency is proposing effluent limitations standards to prevent POTW pass standards are all below 100 mg/L for oil guidelines based on BPT–2 for through (e.g., oil and grease, nutrients, and grease with the exception of one Subcategories A through D. The and/or metals); limit for poultry facilities that do treatment technologies that serve as the • Establish narrative pretreatment slaughtering and rendering operations basis for the development of the standards for oil and grease and/or (see MPP Development Document). EPA proposed BPT limits are: equalization, ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 solicits comment on whether these dissolved air flotation, secondary (equalization and DAF) or equalization potential pretreatment maximum daily biological treatment including some along to prevent POTW interference; standards for oil and grease and degree of nitrification and chlorination/ • Allow POTWs to waive national ammonia as nitrogen would sufficiently dechlorination. BPT–2 represents an categorical pretreatment standards for prevent POTW interference. EPA is also improved version of the existing BPT MPP indirect dischargers that do not soliciting comment whether these technology. EPA has determined that interfere with POTW operation (e.g., standards should be presented as the cost and removal comparison for MPP indirect discharger below 5% of production based standards (e.g., lb- this option is reasonable. POTW dry weather hydraulic or organic pollutant/1000 lb-LWK) (see MPP As presented in Section VII, three capacity of the POTW treatment plant); Development Document). BPT options were considered. EPA • Allow a POTW to waive national estimated the costs and pollutant categorical pretreatment standards for C. Meat Facilities (Subcategories A, B, C, reductions that would be achieved if ammonia for any MPP indirect D, F, G, H and I) these options were applied to all 71 discharges it receives when that POTW After considering all of the technology facilities subject to today’s proposal. has nitrification capability (see 40 CFR options described in Section VII.A, in Limitations based on BPT–2 remove at 439 as an example of this type of light of the factors specified in Section least 12.3 million pounds of pollutants waiver); 304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water over current discharge at an annualized • Allow MPP indirect dischargers to Act, as appropriate, EPA proposed to compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999). demonstrate compliance with either select the technology options identified Limitations based on BPT–2 results in a numeric pretreatment standards or with below as BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS for cost to net income ratio of 0.28%, which EMS/BMP voluntary alternatives (see Subcategories A, B, C, D, F, G, H and I means that approximately 0.28% of a Section XI.F); of the proposed rule. The proposed facility’s profits would be spent on • Establish national categorical effluent limitations apply only to meat compliance if they were to implement pretreatment standards for MPP indirect facilities that slaughter more than 50 this option. Also, the results of the BPT dischargers based on compliance with million pounds per year (for cost to effluent reductions benefits is BMPs or a regulatory BMP alternative. Subcategories A, B, C and D) or produce $0.81 ($1999/pound). Thus, this option EPA is soliciting comment on 100 mg/ more than 50 million pounds per year is considered cost-reasonable. L as a potential pretreatment maximum of finished products (for Subcategories EPA also evaluated option 3 and daily standards for oil and grease and/ F, G, H and I). EPA is not revising option 4 as basis for establishing BPT or ammonia as nitrogen. EPA notes that limitations and standards for meat limitations that would be more stringent this is not completely a parallel case facilities in Subpart E as all of these than the level of control being proposed
VerDate 11
today. However, EPA believes that iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies As presented in Section VII.A, three Option 2 represent BPT (or ‘‘average of that serve as the basis for the BPT options were under consideration. the best’’) treatment for this industry development of the proposed NSPS BPT–2 removes at least 0.25 million subcategory. These options were limits are the same as the BAT for these pounds of pollutants over current evaluated in the BCT analysis. subcategories. As was the case for BAT, discharge at an annualized compliance ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing EPA did not pursue additional, more cost of $0.4 million ($1999). Option 2 effluent limitations guidelines based on stringent, options for NSPS because as results in a cost to net income ratio of BAT–3 for Subcategories A through D. with existing sources Option 4 is not 0.14%, which means that approximately The treatment technologies that serve as expected to achieve significant 0.14% of a facility’s profits would be the basis for the development of the incremental pollutant reductions. spent on compliance if they were to proposed BAT limits are: equalization, Further EPA does not expect the cost to implement this option. Also, the results dissolved air flotation and secondary construct the treatment system to of the BPT cost to effluent reductions biological treatment with nitrification achieve Option 4 performance would be benefits is $1.59 ($1999/pound). Thus, and denitrification. EPA has determined significantly less for a new source than this option is considered cost- that the cost for nutrient removal for if would be for an existing source to reasonable. this subcategory is cost effective; i.e. is retrofit their existing system. Therefore, EPA also evaluated option 3 and less than the cost for nutrient removal EPA proposes BAT–3 as the technology option 4 as basis for establishing BPT performed at a POTW. The Economic basis for NSPS for subcategories A–D more stringent than the level of control Analysis Section (see Section VIII) because EPA believes it represents the being proposed today. However, EPA presents the methodology for evaluating best demonstrated technology for this believes that Option 2 represent BPT (or cost effectiveness for nutrient subcategory. ‘‘average of the best’’) treatment for this pollutants. As presented in Section industry subcategory. These options are 2. Subcategories F through I (Meat considered in the evaluation of BCT VII.A, three BAT options were under Further Processing Facilities) consideration. Effluent limitations based controls. a. Regulated Pollutants. ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to on BAT–2 remove approximately 2.0 i. BPT EPA proposes establishing BPT establish effluent limitations based on million pounds of phosphorus over limitations for COD. These pollutants BAT–3 for Subcategories F, G, H and I. current discharge at an annualized are characteristic of meat further The treatment technologies that serve as compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999). processing wastewater. These proposed the basis for the development of the BAT–3 removes an additional 40 regulated pollutants are key indicators proposed BAT limits are: equalization, million pounds of nitrogen and of the performance of the secondary dissolved air flotation and secondary phosphorus over BAT–2 at an biological treatment process, which is biological treatment with nitrification additional annualized compliance cost the key component of the model BPT and denitrification. EPA has determined of $32.3 million ($1999). Both of these treatment systems for these that the cost for nutrient removal for options result in a cost to net income subcategories. this subcategory is cost effective and ratio of less than 1.5%, so both are ii. BAT. EPA proposes establishing less than the cost for nutrient removal considered economically achievable. BAT limitations for ammonia-N, total performed at a POTW. As presented in However, since BAT–3 removes more nitrogen and total phosphorus. These Section VII.A, three BAT options were pounds of nutrients at a cost that is pollutants are characteristic of meat under consideration. EPA estimates that economically achievable, EPA has further processing wastewater. These the 20 facilities in Subparts F through chosen to propose effluent limitations proposed regulated pollutants are key I would achieve a removal based on BAT–3. indicators of the performance of the approximately 0.04 million pounds of EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis tertiary biological treatment process, phosphorus over current discharge at an for establishing BAT more stringent which is the key component of the annualized compliance cost of $0.4 than the level of control being proposed model BAT and NSPS treatment system million ($1999) with BAT–2. BAT–3 today. As was the case for BAT–3, the for these subcategories. removes an additional 2.08 million cost to net income of less than 2.4% iii. NSPS EPA proposes to regulate the pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus shows that the option is economically same pollutants for NSPS as those for over BAT–2 at an additional annualized achievable. However, EPA is not BAT, with the addition of BOD, TSS, oil compliance cost of $0.1 million ($1999). proposing to establish limits based on and grease (measured as HEM) and fecal Both of these options result in a cost to BAT–4 because BAT–3 achieves nearly coliform. net income ratio of less than 0.5%, so equivalent reductions in nitrogen and b. Technology Selected. i. BPT The both are considered economically phosphorus for much less cost. EPA has Agency is proposing to establish achievable. However, since BAT–3 determined that BAT–3 would remove effluent limitations based on BPT–2 for removes more pounds of nutrients at a 42.8 million pounds of nitrogen and Subcategories F through I. The cost that is economically achievable, phosphorus per year at a total treatment technologies that serve as the EPA has chosen to propose effluent annualized cost of $42.2 million basis for the development of the limitations based on BAT–3. ($1999). In contrast, BAT–4 would proposed BPT limits are: Equalization, EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis remove 44.9 million pounds of nitrogen dissolved air flotation, secondary for establishing BAT more stringent and phosphorus per year at a total biological treatment and chlorination/ than the level of control being proposed annualized cost of $73.5 million dechlorination. As discussed above, the today. As was the case for BAT–3, the ($1999). In view of the fact that BAT– proposed BPT–2 limits for COD reflects cost to net income of less than 1.4% 4 appears to achieve an increase in average of the best performance of the shows that the option is economically removals of only 5.0% and yet would existing technology in place at meat achievable. However, EPA is not prompt annualized costs to increase by processing facilities, which also calls for proposing to establish limits based on 74%, EPA has determined that BAT–3, secondary biological treatment. EPA has BAT–4 because it determined that BAT– not BAT–4 is the ‘‘best available’’ determined that the cost and removal 3 achieves nearly equivalent reductions technology economically achievable for comparison for this option is in nitrogen and phosphorus for much Subcategories A, B, C and D. reasonable. less cost. EPA has determined that
VerDate 11
BAT–3 would remove 2.12 million 2. Technology Selected effluent limitations based on BAT–2 for pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per a. BPT. The Agency is proposing to Subcategory J. year at a total annualized cost of $0.5 establish effluent limitations based on EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis million ($1999). In contrast, BAT–4 BPT–2 for Subcategory J. The treatment for establishing BAT more stringent would remove only 4,530 additional technologies that serve as the basis for than the level of control being proposed today. The cost to net income of more pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per the development of the proposed BPT than 6.7% for BAT–4 is even greater year at a total annualized cost of $3.5 limits are: Equalization, dissolved air than the ratio for Option 3. Since the million ($1999). In view of the fact that flotation and secondary biological Agency is not proposing Option 3 on the BAT–4 appears to achieve an increase in treatment with nitrification. Since basis of the potential economic impact, removals of only 0.2% and yet would secondary biological treatment already EPA is not proposing Option 4 which prompt annualized costs to increase by accomplishes some nitrification, EPA has a greater potential impact. Thus, 600%, EPA has determined that BAT– believes that the proposed BPT is an EPA has determined that BAT–2 is the 3, not BAT–4 is the ‘‘best available’’ improved version of the existing BPT ‘‘best available’’ technology technology economically achievable for technology basis which calls for Subcategories F, G, H and I. economically achievable for secondary biological treatment. Option Subcategory J. iii. NSPS. As was the case for BAT, 2 results in a cost to net income ratio of c. NSPS. The treatment technologies EPA did not pursue additional, more 0.68%, which means that approximately that serve as the basis for the stringent, options for NSPS because as 0.68% of a facility’s profits would be development of the proposed NSPS with existing sources Option 4 is not spent on compliance if they were to limits are the same as the BAT and BPT expected to achieve significant implement this option. Also, the results for this subcategory. EPA does not incremental pollutant reductions. of the BPT cost to effluent reductions expect a substantial cost savings for new Further EPA does not expect the cost to benefits is $0.03 ($1999/pound). Thus, facilities to design and construct a construct the treatment system to this option is considered cost- treatment system to achieve more achieve Option 4 performance would be reasonable. stringent effluent standards consistent significantly less for a new source than EPA also evaluated option 3 and with either Option 3 or 4. Thus, EPA if would be for an existing source to option 4 as basis for establishing BPT believes Options 3 and 4 could pose a retrofit their existing system. Therefore, more stringent than the level of control barrier to entry for new sources in this EPA proposes BAT–3 as the technology being proposed today. However, EPA Subcategory. Therefore, EPA proposes basis for NSPS for Subcategories F–I believes that Option 2 represent BPT (or BAT–2 as the technology basis for NSPS because EPA believes it represents the ‘‘average of the best’’) treatment for this for Subcategory J because EPA believes best demonstrated technology for this industry subcategory. These options it represents the best demonstrated subcategory. were considered as possible options for technology economically achievable for revising the BCT limitations. this subcategory. D. Independent Rendering Facilities b. BAT. The Agency is proposing to (Subcategory J) establish effluent limitations based on E. Poultry Facilities (Subcategories K After considering all of the technology BAT–2 for Subcategory J. The treatment and L) options described in Section VII.A, in technologies that serve as the basis for EPA is proposing to establish different light of the factors specified in section the development of the proposed BPT effluent limitations to apply only to 304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water limits are: Equalization, dissolved air Poultry facilities that slaughter more Act, as appropriate, EPA proposed to flotation and secondary biological than 10 million pounds per year (for select the technology options identified treatment with nitrification. EPA has Subcategory K) or produce more than 7 below as BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS for determined that this option is cost- million pounds per year of finished Subcategory J of the proposed rule. effective and economically achievable. products (for Subcategory L). As presented in Section VII.A, three 1. Regulated Pollutants. a. BPT. EPA BAT options were under consideration. 1. Poultry First Processing Facilities proposes establishing BPT limitations EPA estimates that the 23 existing (Subcategory K) for COD. These pollutants are facilities that would be subject to characteristic of meat rendering After considering all of the technology today’s proposal would achieve wastewater. These proposed regulated options described in Section VII.A, in removals of approximately 87,000 pollutants are key indicators of the light of the factors specified in section pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus performance of the secondary biological 304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water over current levels discharged at an treatment process, which is the key Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to annualized compliance cost of $0.6 component of the model BPT treatment select the technology options identified million ($1999) under BAT–2. BAT–3 systems for these subcategories. below as BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS for removes an additional 396,000 pounds Subcategory K of the proposed rule. b. BAT. EPA proposes to revise BAT of phosphorus over BAT–2 at an a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT. EPA limitations for ammonia-N. This additional annualized compliance cost proposes establishing BPT limitations pollutant is characteristic of meat of $3.7 million ($1999). BAT–2 results for BOD, TSS , Oil and Grease rendering wastewater. The proposed in a cost to net income ratio of less than (measured as HEM), and ammonia as N regulated pollutant is a key indicator of 0.7%, so this option is considered for facilities that slaughter no more than the performance of the secondary economically achievable. BAT–3 results 10 million pounds per year (small biological treatment process, which is in a cost to net income ratio of greater facilities). EPA proposes establishing the key component of the model BPT, than 5.5%, which is also considered BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, Oil and BAT and NSPS treatment system for this economically achievable. However, Grease (measured as HEM), fecal subcategory. since EPA has determined that the cost coliform, ammonia as N, total nitrogen c. NSPS. EPA proposes to revise the for nutrient removal for BAT–3 is not and total phosphorus for facilities that new source performance standards for cost effective and is more than the cost slaughter more than 10 million pounds BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as for nutrient removal performed at a per year (large facilities). These HEM), fecal coliform and ammonia. POTW, EPA has chosen to propose pollutants are characteristic of poultry
VerDate 11
slaughtering wastewater. These EPA also evaluated option 4 as basis today. The cost to net income of more proposed regulated pollutants are key for establishing BPT more stringent than than 3.6% for BAT–4 shows that the indicators of the performance of the the level of control being proposed option is economically achievable. secondary and tertiary biological today. EPA estimates that BPT–4 results However, EPA is not proposing to treatment process, which are the key in a cost to net income ratio of 3.56% establish BAT limits based on BPT–4 components of the model BPT treatment and the ratio of cost to effluent because it determined that BPT–3 systems for the small and large facilities, reduction benefits is 5.46. However, achieves nearly equivalent pollutant respectively. EPA is not proposing to establish BPT reductions at less cost. EPA has ii. BAT. EPA proposes to regulate the limits based on BPT–4 because it determined that BPT–3 would remove at same pollutants for BAT as those for determined that BPT–3 achieves nearly least 8.37 million pounds of total BPT. equivalent pollutant reductions at less nitrogen and total phosphorus per year iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate cost. EPA has determined that BPT–3 at a total annualized cost of $34.5 the same pollutants for NSPS as those would remove at least 7.32 million million ($1999). In contrast BPT–4 for BAT. pounds of pollutants per year at a total would remove only 8.87 pounds of total b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The annualized cost of $34.5 million nitrogen and total phosphorus at an Agency is proposing to establish ($1999). In contrast BPT–4 would additional cost of 28%. In view of the effluent limitations based on BPT–1 for remove an additional 10.7% of fact that BPT–4 achieves similar small facilities in Subcategory K. This pollutants at an additional cost of 28%. pollutant removals and yet would option is based on the current practices In view of the fact that BPT–4 appears prompt additional total annualized costs in place at facilities as reported to EPA to achieve minimal additional pollutant of $9.7 million ($1999), EPA has through the detailed surveys. Option 1 removals and yet would prompt selected BPT–3, not BPT–4, for this assumes a less aggressive nitrification additional total annualized costs of $9.7 Subcategory. Thus, EPA has determined treatment than Option 2. Based on the million ($1999), EPA has selected BPT– that BAT–3, not BAT–4 is the ‘‘best survey responses the Agency has 3, not BPT–4, for this Subcategory. available’’ technology economically reviewed to date we do not believe that ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to achievable for large facilities in there are any small poultry first set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities Subcategory K. processors, however, in the event that a in Subcategory K EPA was unable to iii. NSPS. EPA did not pursue small number of facilities exist which determine whether or not there is an additional, more stringent, options for were not captured through EPA’s survey economically achievable BAT treatment small facilities in Subcategory K for efforts, EPA is proposing to establish technology more stringent than NSPS because EPA does not expect the BPT limits. proposed for BPT because no small cost to construct the treatment system to The Agency is proposing to establish poultry first processors were identified. achieve Option 2 performance would be effluent limitations based on BPT–3 for EPA based it’s decision on the fact that significantly less for a new source than large facilities in Subcategory K. The there is no economically achievable if would be for an existing source to treatment technologies that serve as the BAT treatment technology more retrofit their existing system. Therefore, basis for the development of the stringent than proposed for BPT for EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology proposed BPT limits are: Equalization, poultry further processors. basis for NSPS for small facilities in dissolved air flotation and secondary The Agency is proposing to set BAT Subcategory K because EPA believes it biological treatment with nitrification equal to BPT for large facilities in represents the best demonstrated and denitrification. As presented in Subcategory K because EPA has technology for this subcategory. Section VII.A, three BPT options were determined that there is no As was the case for BAT, EPA did not under consideration. EPA has estimated economically achievable BAT treatment pursue additional, more stringent, the costs and pollutant reductions technology more stringent than the options for large facilities in associated with each technology option proposed BPT treatments. Also, EPA has Subcategory K for NSPS because, as as it would apply to the 95 facilities that determined that the cost for nutrient with existing sources, Option 4 is not would be subject to these proposed removal for this subcategory is cost expected to achieve significant requirements. BPT–2 removes at least effective; it is less than the cost for incremental pollutant reductions. 1.63 million pounds of pollutants over nutrient removal performed at a POTW. Further EPA does not expect the cost to current discharge at an annualized cost As presented in Section VII.A, three construct the treatment system to of $4.8 million ($1999). BPT–3 removes BAT options were under consideration. achieve Option 4 performance would be at least an additional 5.7 million pounds BAT–2 removes approximately 810,000 significantly less for a new source than of pollutants over BPT–2, at an pounds of phosphorus over current it would be for an existing source to additional annualized compliance cost discharge at an annualized compliance retrofit their existing system. Therefore, of $29.7 million. BPT Option 2 results cost of $4.8 million ($1999). BAT–3 EPA proposes BAT–3 as the technology in a cost to net income ratio of 0.34%, removes an additional 7.7 million basis for NSPS for large facilities in which means that approximately 0.34% pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus Subcategory K because EPA believes it of a facility’s profits would be spent on over BAT–2 at an additional annualized represents the best demonstrated compliance if they were to implement compliance cost of $29.7 million technology for this subcategory. this option. Also, the results of the BPT ($1999). BAT–2 results in a cost to net cost to effluent reductions benefits is income ratio of less than 0.4%, so this 2. Poultry Further Processing Facilities $2.95 ($1999/pound). Option 3 results option is considered economically (Subcategory L) in a cost to net income of 2.73%, and achievable. Since BAT–3 results in a After considering all of the technology the results of the BPT cost to effluent cost to net income ratio of less than options described in Section VII.A, in reduction benefits is $4.71 ($1999/ 2.8%, which is also economically light of the factors specified in Section pound). Thus, both of these options are achievable, EPA has chosen to set BAT 304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water considered cost-reasonable. However, equal to BPT for Subcategory K. Act, as appropriate, EPA proposed to since Option 3 removes more pollutants EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis select the technology options identified at a cost that is reasonable, BPT–3 was for establishing BAT more stringent below as BPT, BAT, BCT and NSPS for selected for this subcategory. than the level of control being proposed Subcategory L of the proposed rule.
VerDate 11
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT. EPA since Option 3 removes more pollutants chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for proposes establishing BPT limitations at a cost that is reasonable, BPT–3 was Subcategory L. for BOD, TSS , Oil and Grease selected for this subcategory. EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis EPA also evaluated option 4 as basis (measured as HEM), and ammonia as N for establishing BAT more stringent for facilities that slaughter no more than for establishing BPT more stringent than than the level of control being proposed 7 million pounds per year (small the level of control being proposed today. The cost to net income of more facilities). EPA proposes establishing today. EPA estimates that BPT–4 results BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, Oil and in a cost to net income ratio of 6.04% than 6% for BAT–4 shows that the Grease (measured as HEM), fecal and the ratio of cost to effluent option would cause significant coliform, ammonia as N, total nitrogen reduction benefits is 9.54. EPA is not economic impacts. Also, EPA is not and total phosphorus for facilities that proposing to establish BPT limits based proposing to establish BAT limits based slaughter more than 7 million pounds on BPT–4 because it determined that on BPT–4 because it determined that per year (large facilities). These BPT–3 achieves nearly equivalent BAT–3 achieves nearly equivalent pollutants are characteristic of poultry pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA further processing wastewater. These has determined that BPT–3 would has determined that BAT–3 would proposed regulated pollutants are key remove at least 0.31 million pounds of remove at least 0.32 million pounds of indicators of the performance of the pollutants per year at a total annualized total nitrogen and total phosphorus per secondary and tertiary biological cost of $2.2 million ($1999). In contrast year at a total annualized cost of $2.2 treatment process, which are the key BPT–4 would remove at least 0.32 million ($1999). In contrast BPT–4 components of the model BPT treatment million pounds of pollutants at an would remove only 0.318 pounds of systems for the small and large facilities, additional cost of 36%. In view of the total nitrogen and total phosphorus at respectively. fact that BPT–4 appears to achieve less an additional cost of 36%. In view of the ii. BAT. EPA proposes to regulate the pollutant removals and yet would fact that BPT–4 appears to achieve same pollutants for BAT as those for prompt additional total annualized costs reduced pollutant removals and yet BPT. of $1.9 million ($1999), EPA has would prompt additional total iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate selected BPT–3, not BPT–4, for this the same pollutants for NSPS as those Subcategory. annualized costs of $0.8 million for BAT. ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to ($1999), EPA has selected BPT–3, not b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities BPT–4, for this Subcategory. Thus, EPA Agency is proposing to establish BPT– in Subcategory L because EPA has has determined that BAT–3, not BAT– 1 for small facilities in Subcategory L. determined that there is no 4 is the ‘‘best available’’ technology This is the same technology as economically achievable BAT treatment economically achievable for large described above for Subcategoy K. EPA technology more stringent than the facilities in Subcategory L. estimates that there are four small proposed BPT treatment. BAT–2 results iii. NSPS. EPA did not pursue facilities that could be affected by these in a cost to net income ratio of greater additional, more stringent, options for proposed requirements and these than 20%, which would cause small facilities in Subcategory L for requirements could cost $2,600. significant economic impacts for these NSPS because EPA does not expect the The Agency is proposing to establish facilities, so EPA has chosen to set BAT cost to construct the treatment system to BPT–3 for large facilities in Subcategory equal to BPT for small facilities in achieve Option 2 performance would be L. The treatment technologies that serve Subcategory L. as the basis for the development of the The Agency is proposing to establish significantly less for a new source than proposed BPT limits are: equalization, effluent limitations based on BAT–3 for if would be for an existing source to dissolved air flotation and secondary large facilities in Subcategory L. The retrofit their existing system. Therefore, biological treatment with nitrification treatment technologies that serve as the EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology and denitrification. As presented in basis for the development of the basis for NSPS for small facilities in Section VII.A, three BPT options were proposed BAT limits are: equalization, Subcategory L because EPA believes it under consideration. For the sixteen dissolved air flotation and secondary represents the best demonstrated facilities that would be subject to these biological treatment with nitrification technology for this subcategory. proposed requirements EPA estimates and denitrification. EPA has determined The treatment technologies that serve that BPT–2 removes at least 0.09 million that there is no economically achievable as the basis for the development of the pounds of pollutants over current BAT treatment technology more proposed NSPS limits are the same as discharge at an annualized cost of $0.3 stringent than the proposed BPT the BAT for this subcategory. As was the million ($1999). BPT–3 removes at least treatment. As presented in Section case for BAT, EPA did not pursue an additional 0.22 million pounds of VII.A, three BAT options were under additional, more stringent, options for pollutants over BPT–2, at an additional consideration. BAT–2 removes annualized compliance cost of $1.9 approximately zero pounds of NSPS because, as with existing sources, million. BPT Option 2 results in a cost phosphorus over current discharge at an Option 4 is not expected to achieve to net income ratio of 0.39%, which annualized compliance cost of $0.3 significant incremental pollutant means that approximately 0.39% of a million ($1999). BAT–3 removes an reductions. Further, EPA does not facility’s profits would be spent on additional 0.32 million pounds of expect the cost to construct the compliance if they were to implement nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT–2 at treatment system to achieve Option 4 this option. Also, the results of the BPT an additional annualized compliance performance would be significantly less cost to effluent reductions benefits is cost of $1.9 million ($1999). BAT–2 for a new source than it would be for $3.28 ($1999/pound). Option 3 results results in a cost to net income ratio of and existing source to retrofit their in a cost to net income of 4.23%, and less than 0.4%, so this option is system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT– the results of the BPT cost to effluent considered economically achievable. 3 as the technology basis for NSPS for reduction benefits is $7.11 ($1999/ BAT–3 results in a cost to net income subcategory L because EPA believes it pound). Thus, both of these options are ratio of less than 4.25%, which is also represents the best demonstrated considered cost-reasonable. However, economically achievable, so EPA has technology for this subcategory.
VerDate 11
F. Regulatory Alternatives for Meat and reported having any significant amount solicits comment on whether the burden Poultry Products Industry of wastewater treatment to reduce for ensuring compliance with this EMS EPA is soliciting comment on nutrient pollutants. Although the regulatory alternative would fall on the alternative approaches that the Agency Agency is not proposing to establish States or EPA Regions as control is considering for the meat and poultry nutrient standards for indirect authorities and whether such products industry. EPA primarily dischargers, the Agency believes that a evaluations would be much more considered these approaches as significant reduction of nutrients can be difficult to perform on a national basis than a numeric standard. EPA also alternatives to potential numeric achieved through the implementation of solicits comment on what requirements pretreatment standards before the an EMS or an EAP and the can prevent facilities, which use the Agency determined that it did not have implementation of specific BMPs. Each EMS regulatory alternative and still enough information necessary to of these (EMS, EAP and specific BMPs) cause pass through or interference at a establish categorical pretreatment will be described in more detail in POTW, from causing such pass through standards for this industry (see Section subsequent discussions. Implementation or interference again. EPA also solicits XI.B). The purpose of any alternative of an EMS or EAP by meat and poultry comments on implementation of a would be to help facilities in this products facilities could also result in a voluntary EMS, perhaps as part of the industry comply with regulations or range of other environmental benefits (e.g., reduced odor, noise, energy and or Performance Partnership (see below). foster voluntary adoption of EPA also solicits comment on how environmental management systems water consumption). Given the potential benefits of an EMS, EPA is considering this compliance alternative can be that could help organizations reduce applied to direct dischargers. Most environmental impacts from an approach in which no pretreatment standards would be developed for meat direct dischargers have already installed unregulated activities through pollution wastewater treatment to comply with prevention and other approaches. and poultry products indirect dischargers rather, EPA would initiate their NPDES Permits. Depending on the Specifically, the Agency is considering effectiveness of the BMPs, EPA may the following two options. an expanded program to work in partnerships with meat industry consider offering reduced requirements Under the first option, EPA would not for monitoring wastewater requirements issue pretreatment standards for indirect facilities, organizations, and other interested parties to promote the for direct dischargers which implement dischargers in the final rule. Rather, an EMS. This could include reduction EPA would work with the industry to adoption and implementation of EMSs by these facilities. EPA would develop in the frequency of monitoring, or develop and implement voluntary monitoring for a reduced list of specific environmental management systems guidance on how to develop EMSs for meat and poultry product indirect pollutants. EPA solicits comments on (EMSs). In a few years, EPA would plan how an EMS compliance alternative to evaluate the performance of the dischargers and then work with our partners at the State Permitting and could be applied to direct dischargers voluntary program and either conclude and whether EPA should consider this that the voluntary program is sufficient, Control Authorities to inform them and the meat and poultry processors about as a compliance alternative for direct revisit the issue of pretreatment dischargers. standards for indirect dischargers, and/ the potential benefits of implementing or consider other appropriate steps. an EMS. EPA would monitor actions 2. Performance Improvement Under the second option, EPA would toward the development of EMSs by Partnership With the Meat and Poultry promulgate pretreatment standards for meat and poultry processors and Processing Industry non-small indirect dischargers. evaluate the improvements to water In parallel with the development of However, indirect dischargers would quality and the environment that result. the MPP ELGS proposal, EPA is working also receive the option of meeting Not later than five years after in partnership with the meat and regulatory obligations by implementing promulgation of this regulation, EPA poultry processing industry, State and EMSs that include environmental audit would issue a report providing a local government agencies, USDA, and programs (EAPs). Each of these options comprehensive evaluation of the EMS other stakeholders to promote improved is discussed below. initiative. The EMS or EAP alternatives environmental performance in the meat EPA is also considering whether an EPA is considering would allow indirect and poultry products industry. This EMS-based compliance alternative dischargers the opportunity to avoid partnership has been developed under similar to the second option could be installing wastewater treatment and the Agency’s Sustainable Industries applied also to direct dischargers. This could, therefore, be less costly. Partnership Program. Through the option is also discussed further below. EPA notes that allowing operators the Sustainable Industries program, part of use of an EMS to demonstrate the Agency’s overall innovations 1. Application of Regulatory or EMS compliance with potential pretreatment agenda, EPA works with selected Alternatives to Meat and Poultry standards assumes that the POTW or the industry sectors to voluntarily set Processors controlling authority is knowledgeable industry-wide performance EPA believes these EMS-based and available. EPA also notes that the improvement objectives, develop the alternatives would be attractive to many MPP indirect dischargers of greatest right tools and incentives to beneficially meat and poultry processors that concern are frequently in smaller affect facility performance, address discharge wastewater to Publicly communities where the POTW typically sector-specific regulatory reform needs, Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) if operates without an approved and measure results. EPA establishes categorical pretreatment pretreatment program or the POTW is The voluntary partnership program standards. The majority of the meat and typically a small-scale operation. EPA for the meat and poultry processing poultry products facilities are solicits comment on whether these rural industry is still under development as of discharging wastewater indirectly or small POTW operations are in a the date of this proposed rule. The through POTWs and besides the use of position to adequately assess purpose of the program is to bring Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) or other compliance with the EMS regulatory environmental improvements that will types of oil and grease treatment and option and to effectively respond to benefit meat and poultry processing equalization, few of these facilities significant deficiencies. EPA also facilities and their surrounding
VerDate 11
communities while maintaining broadly implement corporate/facility- environmental groups, and other extremely high levels of food safety. The appropriate EMSs. The project team has Federal and State agencies, has program has industry-generated drafted an EMS Guide for the Meat and established a ‘‘virtual’’ (web-based) performance objectives, plus four Poultry Processing Industry, on the national Compliance Assistance Center project elements that were identified as plan-do-check-act continuous known as the National Agriculture important actions to assist and promote improvement model. This EMS Guide Compliance Assistance Center (Ag better environmental performance by consists of 10 modules covering policy, Center: http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ag/). The meat and poultry processing facilities planning, implementation and Ag Center offers comprehensive, easy- and others. operation, checking and corrective to-understand information on Participants in developing this action, and management review. environmentally protective and program include the American Meat This voluntary EMS tailored for meat agriculturally sound approaches to Institute (AMI), the American and poultry processors can be used by compliance. EPA will use the Ag Center Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), both small and large meat and poultry as one of its tools for publicizing the the U.S. Department of Agriculture processors to implement an EMS. final Effluent Limitation Guideline and (USDA), several State agencies, EPA Currently, EPA is partnering with the related voluntary approaches. programs and regions, and other Iowa Waste Reduction Center (IWRC) c. External stewardship program with interested constituent groups. and the Iowa Department of Natural livestock suppliers. Nutrient Combined, the AMI and AAMP Resources (IDNR) to pilot test the Guide management by livestock producers is membership totals approximately 2,500 with five companies. IWRC and IDNR the most important environmental issue members and represents more than 75% are providing technical assistance and facing the overall industry. EPA is of the total production volume for the implementation consulting to the five developing a replicable external meat and poultry processing industry. companies. The pilot will be completed stewardship program for meat and Although the elements of the in July 2002 and then EPA will evaluate poultry processors to work with their voluntary partnership are under the pilot and incorporate lessons suppliers on pilot projects to test and development, AMI and AAMP have learned into the final draft of the EMS measure the impact of environmental stated their commitment to the pursuit Guide for Meat and Poultry Processors. best management practices (BMPs), with of continuous environmental The final guide is expected to be a focus on nutrient management. Project improvement and compliance with completed by September 2002, at which teams in Iowa and other midwest States environmental regulations at the facility point this tool will be widely marketed are working to design and voluntarily level and in the industry at large. throughout the meat and poultry implement BMPs and nutrient Elements of this commitment may processing industry with the direct management plans for livestock include the following, performance- involvement of the industry’s two major producers, building on existing related actions: trade groups. processor-supplier relationships. The (1) To work in partnership with This EMS project is strictly a goal of this project is to demonstrate Federal and State government agencies voluntary approach that is part of the that voluntary environmental to promote nationwide industry larger partnership program with the stewardship by livestock producers can compliance; meat and poultry processing industry. be defined, documented, measured, and (2) To expand education on best The project is designed to develop and progress achieved. Project results will practices, including the promotion of market a tool tailored to the needs of help demonstrate whether voluntary appropriate environmental management this specific industry, to be used by the programs can be used to augment systems (EMS); industry itself to promote improved existing regulations and eliminate the (3) To reduce environmental impacts, performance by individual facilities. need for expanded regulatory actions. including wastewater discharges and The Agency is also seeking comment on d. Best management practice tools. solid waste, associated with facility the option of using a standardized EMS Reducing, chloride, nitrogen and operations; as a stand-alone alternative to the phosphorus pollutants in meat and (4) To work with suppliers and setting of national numeric pretreatment poultry processing wastewater while customers to identify and promote standards (see Section XI.B). maintaining high food quality standards pollution prevention practices to b. Customer-oriented’’ compliance poses a challenge to many meat and achieve cleaner production and reduced assistance tools. Program partners are poultry processors. In addition, the waste; developing tools to assist meat and disposal of meat and poultry processing (5) To develop guidance for poultry processors in maintaining biosolids and renderable materials such communicating with employees, compliance with Federal, State and as offal poses a serious threat to the suppliers, customers, and the public local environmental requirements. economic viability of small meat and about the environmental impacts of the Many meat and poultry processors have poultry processors. To address these industry; and indicated that they have difficulty in environmental impacts through non- (6) To conserve and protect natural keeping up with the many regulatory means, EPA and its partners resources. environmental regulations surrounding are developing BMP guidance materials In support of the voluntary their facilities. Currently, the project for handling and disposal of rendering performance objectives, the Meat and team is developing a custom checklist of materials, and for chloride, nitrogen, Poultry Processing Partnership Program regulatory requirements, designed and phosphorus discharges. The project includes a set of four projects, currently specifically for meat and poultry team will evaluate these management underway, that will help to enable the processing facilities. Guidance is also practices and develop measures of their meat industry as a whole to achieve the being developed to help small effectiveness. Long-term deployment of voluntary performance objectives. The processors dispose of solid waste and the final tools will occur through the projects are described briefly. biosolids. active leadership of the industry’s trade a. Environmental Management System The Office of Compliance in EPA’s associations. (EMS). Program partners drafted Office of Enforcement and Compliance The Meat and Poultry Processing guidance materials and a training Assurance, in partnership with Partnership Program is intended to help program for the meat industry to industry, academic institutions, improve the environmental performance
VerDate 11
of meat and poultry processors across The use of environmental Partnership EMS program. As described the entire industry and, in the case of management systems is increasing previously under the Sustainable the external stewardship project, the throughout the world, especially since Industries Programs, EPA is partnering performance of livestock suppliers as the publication of the ISO 14001 with IWRC and IDNR and five meat and well. This innovative, non-regulatory International EMS Standard in 1996. poultry companies to pilot test the program has the potential to affect the ISO standards are developed by an ‘‘EMS Guide for the Meat and Poultry practices of all 6,000-plus meat and International Body with the goal of Processing Industry.’’ poultry products facilities, thereby establishing standardized product goals. fostering environmental improvement ISO 14001 established a standardized Contents of an EMS among facilities that are excluded from procedure for developing The factors described in more detail the proposed ELGS standards. In that Environmental Management Systems. below would be included in EMSs regard, it is a reflection of EPA’s Approximately 16,000 organizations, developed voluntarily under the commitment, along with its partners, to including approximately 1,500 alternative being considered by the achieve continuous performance organizations in the U.S. have adopted Agency: improvement and environmental EMSs based on ISO 14001, including Environmental Policy—a written stewardship on an industry-wide scale, certification to the standard through statement of policy, defined by top above and beyond what is intended to independent third party audits, and the facility management that includes be accomplished with this rule. rate of adoption is increasing rapidly. A commitments to: Compliance with both This voluntary program was not much larger number of organizations legal requirements and voluntary intended, when designed, specifically as have adopted EMSs consistent with the commitments; pollution prevention, and a regulatory alternative to the proposed overall approach embodied in ISO continual improvement of ELGS, but rather as a complement to the 14001, but tailored to their own environmental performance in order to proposed standards. Nevertheless, EPA particular operations. Implementation of reduce negative impacts on the solicits public comment on whether this an EMS, while it has the potential to environment over time; involving the program would be an adequate enhance compliance with regulatory public in an appropriate fashion in EMS replacement for any potential national requirements, does not expressly development and implementation, and numeric pretreatment standards and, if constitute or ensure compliance with sharing information about so, whether specific program legal requirements. Compliance environmental performance of the EMS modifications or enhancements should assurance, however, is an express public with the community and sharing be adopted in response to the issues policy and regulatory goal. information about environmental discussed in this preamble. That In addition, concerns have been performance of the EMS with the determination would be based, in part, expressed that ISO 14001 may not be public. on results that are yet to be achieved by appropriate for certain industries or Environmental Planning—identify the voluntary partnership. EPA and its certain small and medium-sized and document all environmental aspects partners therefore will evaluate and organizations. Several industry groups and impacts of the facility and share publicly the environmental results have developed, or are in the process of determine which of these are most achieved to date, and during the time developing, voluntary programs which significant. period preceding promulgation of the use EMSs. These include, but are not • Document both applicable final rule, by the meat and poultry limited to, egg production, biosolids environmental legal requirements and processing industry through its management, and water/wastewater voluntary commitments. participation in this program, to help utilities. Other industry groups, such as • Set and document measurable determine whether this voluntary the American Chemical Council objectives and measurable targets to performance-based approach should be (formerly the Chemical Manufacturer’s meet policy commitments and legal considered a viable alternative to Association), have had similar programs requirements and to reduce the facility’s national numeric pretreatment in place for a number of years. significant environmental impacts. standards. Information is available at EPA has been involved in strategically • Describe and document programs to www.SectorStar.org. promoting the voluntary adoption of achieve the objectives, targets and EMSs for several years. The Agency’s commitments in the EMS, including the 3. Environmental Management Systems policy in this area was clearly described means and time frames for their (EMSs) in our 1999 Report entitled ‘‘Aiming for completion. A simple definition of an EMS is ‘‘a Excellence’’. This report states that ‘‘we Implementation of Policy and Plan— continual cycle of planning, will encourage organizations to use The following actions provide implementing, reviewing, and EMSs that improve compliance, mechanisms for implementing and improving the actions an organization pollution prevention, and other maintaining the EMS policy and plan. takes to meet its environmental measures of environmental • Establish roles and responsibilities obligations.’’ These obligations include, performance’’. Copies of this report are for meeting objectives and targets of the but are in no way limited to regulated available at www.epa.gov/reinvent/ overall EMS and compliance with legal activities. EMSs are a potentially taskforce/report99. EPA has also requirements, including a top powerful tool to reduce the range of developed an action plan that identifies management representative with environmental impacts that may not be a wide range of activities the Agency is authority and responsibility for the amenable to regulation (e.g., odor, noise, or expects to undertake to follow up on EMS. energy consumption, or water the recommendations of the Aiming for • Define procedures for: (1) consumption). In conjunction with Excellence Report dealing with EMSs. Communicating relevant information reducing environmental impacts, EMSs Some of the key EMS-based programs regarding the EMS, including the offer other benefits including cost EPA is supporting, in partnership with facility’s environmental performance, savings, increased operational industry and others, are the National throughout the organization; (2) efficiency, risk reduction, improved Environmental Performance Track providing appropriate incentives for internal communication, and improved (NEPT), the United Egg Producers XL personnel to meet the EMS relations with external parties. Project, and the National Biosolids requirements; and (3) document and
VerDate 11
record control, including where poultry processing industry. EMSs can violation was corrected and steps taken documents related to the EMS will be provide significant internal benefits to to prevent recurrence. EPA may also located and who will maintain them. organizations such as improved internal wish to specify that persons whose • Provide for general environmental communication and better integration of compliance history includes certain training programs for all employees, and environmental considerations into types of serious violations (e.g., criminal specific training for those whose jobs business decisions. However, EPA is violations) must comply with numeric and responsibilities involve activities also interested in considering whether effluent limits. The regulatory authority directly related to achieving objectives EMSs could serve as method of may be in the best position to determine and targets and to compliance with legal promoting overall environmental at the outset whether a facility’s requirements. accountability to ensure real pollution compliance history should exclude it • Establish operation and reductions external. One potential from participation. EPA solicits maintenance programs for equipment method of ensuring greater comments on whether all facilities and for other operations that are related accountability and confidence is to should be allowed to participate or on to legal compliance and other include independent third party other potentially appropriate criteria, as significant environmental aspects. auditing as a component of an EMS well as on the timing of the screening. • Develop a documented emergency program. Third party auditing is EPA also wants to know whether the preparedness and response program. designed to provide facilities with an regulatory authority has the time and Community Involvement/External independent evaluation of their EMSs, resources to research these facilities and Communications—The following based on a particular set of EMS whether the need for the review merits actions provide mechanisms for elements or standards. the resources required. incorporating community involvement While third party EMS audits are Frequency of Third Party Auditing and external communications. primarily designed to evaluate the • Ensure that interested community overall suitability of a management EPA is considering requiring facilities members and others are given the system, as opposed to particular metrics to complete an initial and follow up opportunity to provide input to the related to regulatory compliance or audits in the range from each year to facility as it sets objectives and targets environmental performance, they do every three years, but solicits comment in its EMS examine how and if an organization is on other frequencies. EPA is also • Maintain regular communications meeting the environmental objectives it seeking comment on whether a facility’s with these stakeholders on the has set for its own operations, including internal audit might substitute for a performance of the EMS as it is compliance and reduced impacts from third party audit in certain years if the implemented and address relevant unregulated activities. previous third party audit indicated that issues raised by these stakeholders. Therefore, EPA is also considering the facility was making good progress • Report publicly on EMS establishing in the final regulation an on implementing its EMS. EPA also performance by, for example, making option that would allow the meat and solicits comment on how to define information from self and third party poultry products industry to develop an ‘making good progress’ in such audits available to the public. EPA Environmental Management System situations. Finally, at some point, each solicits comment on the most (EMS) program that would also include facility would need to complete a full appropriate method of sharing the audit independent third party audits by a reaudit of its environmental results, including website publication, qualified organization. Indirect management plan by an independent as well as their content and frequency. dischargers would have the option of third party. EPA solicits comment on Corrective Action—The following meeting potential pretreatment the frequency of these full reaudits. standards or agreeing to participate in actions provide mechanisms for Qualifications of Third Party Auditors identifying and correcting operation the EMS/Audit Program. Third party controls and procedures to ensure EMS auditing could substitute for a review by For any third party EMS auditing effectiveness. the control authority. Facilities program to be successful, all parties • Adoption of necessary operational participating in the program would must have confidence in the individuals controls and procedures to ensure that develop EMSs with the elements conducting the audits. Under this the EMS is effectively implemented. described above. proposal, third party auditors could be • certified by EPA or another organization Implementation of an active Eligibility Criteria program for assessing performance and as lead auditors under the relevant ISO preventing and detecting non- EPA could offer the EMS regulatory guidelines with sufficient additional conformance with legal and other alternative to all facilities. Alternatively, experience in the field of food safety or requirements (including regulatory EPA could limit the alternative’s wastewater management to enable the compliance) of the EMS availability to facilities meeting certain auditors to, among other things, • Maintain records that document criteria. EPA solicits comment on competently assess facility conformance EMS implementation and compliance eligibility criteria for determining with objectives and requirements and Management Review—Operators whether facilities should be allowed to applicable BMPs. A similar approach is should document management review adopt EMSs in lieu of installing being used in the biosolids industry, of performance against the established otherwise required wastewater where third party auditors must hold objectives and targets and the treatment. The purpose of the criteria credentials as an ISO 14001 lead auditor effectiveness of the EMS in meeting would be to screen the facilities to and have a minimum of 5 years policy commitments. ensure they can demonstrate an experience in biosolids and wastewater appropriate compliance history and management. Environmental Management System and commitment. For example, EPA could Alternatively, EPA could develop a Audit Program specify in the final rule that if the separate set of qualifications for As discussed earlier in this proposal, facility has had a particular type of auditors. We are seeking comment on EPA is interested in considering the violation within a certain number of the relevant qualifications for third possible use of EMSs in various aspects years (e.g., five) the owner/operator party auditors and suggestions for of its relationships with the meat and would have to demonstrate that the existing organizations that might be in
VerDate 11
a position to manage an auditing Correction of Nonconformance/Return 3 years. EPA solicits comment on types program. to Regulatory Coverage of records and reports that might be EPA assumes that facilities wishing to appropriate for this purpose and where Content of Audit Reports and Sharing of and how long they would be Information take advantage of this alternative will make a good faith effort to successfully maintained, including their availability Third party audit information is implement their environmental to regulators and/or the public. essential to maintain ongoing management programs. However, some Best Management Practices communications with the community facilities will inevitably experience Both the EMS and EAP alternative and other key stakeholders. However, serious nonconformance, potentially approaches include commitments to EPA recognizes the burden that including noncompliance with meeting meeting effluent standards through providing this information may pose to the goals of the EMS including BMPs to treatment or commitments to individual facilities. EPA also control pollutant discharges. Such implementation of BMPs. EPA has recognizes that some of the information problems can range from minor identified several BMPs that are in the audit may be considered CBI by deficiencies with implementation of believed to be effective at reducing the the facility. Therefore, we are seeking environmental management programs pollutant loads discharged in process comment on the most efficient way to that have minimal environmental wastewater from meat and poultry make this information available to the impact and can be easily corrected to products facilities. Implementation of public and on what limits if any should serious problems which lead to these BMPs would be a mandatory be placed on this information. For imminent and substantial component of the EAP when it serves as example, the information could be made endangerments, have significant a compliance alternative to potential available through the web site of the environmental impacts, or reflect pretreatment standards. The BMPs that control authority or State regulatory criminal conduct. are described below are currently being agency, as opposed to requiring the EPA’s intent is to balance the need to used at meat and poultry processing facility to make it available. The content provide facilities with incentives to seek facilities and were identified by of this information is also an important the third party alternative described in industry representatives as having the consideration. EPA proposes to limit the this proposal with the need to ensure greatest potential to reduce nutrient scope of this information to information that regulatory authorities can react pollutants from the effluent at meat and derived from the EMS audit, including promptly and effectively to serious poultry processing facilities. that which relates to the BMPs designed problems that may result in a facility Many of these best management to control pollutants discharged in being returned to regulatory coverage. practices simply prevent raw materials wastewater, and not necessarily There are a number of options EPA or by-products from coming in contact information about all aspects of facility could consider to address this issue. with wastewater, thus reducing the operations. Some of the information that These are not mutually exclusive and pollutant load which reaches the water is contained in actual audit reports may include (1) allowing facilities with stream. All meat and poultry processing be of little interest to the community. In minor audit nonconformance and/or and rendering facilities must use water contrast, information that focuses on the noncompliance to correct these to clean their equipment and facilities to areas of strength and needed problems in lieu of returning to maintain a clean, hygienic environment improvement as a result of the audit regulatory coverage, (2) requiring and keep food safe from bacterial may be quite useful. EPA solicits facilities with major nonconformance contamination. Prior to the disinfecting comment on the specific information and/or noncompliance to address the water cleaning, collecting as much of from audits that should be publicly issue within a specified period of time the solid by-products that may have available as well as the most efficient and have the corrective action reviewed accumulated around work areas will and effective way of accomplishing this. by the auditor or regulatory agency, or reduce the pollutants that reach water. (3) requiring that any major Many of these by-products have value as Ensuring Auditor Consistency and noncompliance with the EMS result in rendered product and, thus, should not Integrity a return to regulatory coverage. EPA become a solid waste requiring disposal solicits comment on the best approach to land. Ensuring that auditors perform their or combination of approaches from EPA believes that preventing solid duties in a consistent and objective those listed above or any other approach raw materials and byproducts such as manner is essential. A May 2001 for addressing nonconformance and offal from entering the wastewater National Academy of Public noncompliance with regulatory stream has the potential to greatly Administrators (NAPA) report on third requirements, including, for example, reduce the loading of nitrogen that is party auditing of EMS under ISO 14001, determining who is responsible for discharged from meat and poultry for example, noted that, given public noncompliance when there are actual products facilities. The nitrogen is still policy implications, it is important to discharges, and when such discharges in organic form and does not have the ensure credible and consistent results so will be treated as violations of the Clean opportunity to begin the biochemical that all who rely on the EMSs, including Water Act. EPA also solicits comment breakdown that occurs in wastewater the public, have appropriate on whether, when, and how related which releases ammonia. Once the expectations of what it represents information should be shared with the nitrogen has been converted to ammonia (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. public. it is much more difficult to remove from 10041). EPA believes there should be a the wastewater stream. Likewise mechanism for periodically evaluating Reporting and Recordkeeping phosphorus loadings in wastewater the effectiveness of the third party audit To assure compliance with regulatory should also be reduced when solid program and considering appeals to alternatives to numerical effluent limits, materials are kept out of the wastewater. auditor decisions. The Agency solicits EPA believes it must be able to monitor The implementation of some of the comment on how this can best be EMS/EAP implementation and BMPs described herein may require accomplished and the roles that various performance. EPA’s preferred approach reconfiguring equipment or work areas parties, including States, should play. would be to maintain records on-site for within the facility to facilitate dry clean-
VerDate 11
up methods. These reconfigurations can reduce the volume and pollutant loads also solicits concentration information probably be done over time as there will when a batch requires disposal. These on Hexane Extractable Material which be some trade-off between labor practices include collection, screening, measures oil and grease (HEM method requirements necessary to conduct the and reuse of spent pickle from injection for oil and grease), 5-day Biochemical dry clean-up in the more difficult areas or tumbler machines. EPA is also Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Biochemical and the costs associated with retrofitting considering ways that the product could Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended these areas with equipment that be removed and packaged following this Solids (TSS). In addition to the facilitates this dry clean-up. However, process in such a way as to minimize concentration information, EPA needs as a compliance alternative to potential the loss of the solution. Facilities would to know the production practices, the pretreatment standards, the regulation also be asked to develop a protocol for wastewater flow and production rates would specify that the facility operator determining when a solution requires associated with the concentration must be able to demonstrate disposal to maximize the usefulness of measurements. The longer the time implementation of the required BMPs in these solutions and reduce the overall period during which data is collected order to be eligible for this EAP volume disposed. Facilities should also both before and after implementation of alternative. examine and maintain the equipment BMPs the more helpful the data will be Some of the BMPs identified by EPA used in these processes to minimize to EPA. are specific to a particular aspect of the spills and leaks. EPA will also need to evaluate the production, such as slaughtering. Finally, specific best management costs associated with implementing the Slaughtering facilities can accomplish practices that are being considered for BMPs and the EMS or EAP to determine reductions in the nutrient pollutants the rendering sector include managing whether they are comparable to costs discharged by maximizing blood the raw materials to prevent leaks and estimated for compliance with today’s collection and using dry clean-up spills especially for materials that may wastewater treatment that are being techniques prior to sanitation. Dry be entering the rendering facility as a considered for possible pretreatment collection and handling of other offal liquid such as blood or oil and grease. standards. EPA encourages the industry and by-products are also effective Losses of rendered product following and the public to provide information practices. Some meat and poultry the cooking process should be avoided on the costs associated with processing facilities use water to by providing and maintaining traps in implementing an EMS or EAP, transport offal and other by-products the cooking vapor lines and controlling including costs to hire consultants and away from the processing area either to pressure reduction and agitation after staff time necessary to develop and the on-site rendering facility or to trucks cooking. implement an EMS or EAP. EPA has for transport to an off-site renderer. This All meat and poultry products included some cost and estimates of can result in loss of these by-products facilities should minimize water usage labor requirements for the when the material is separated from the and employ water conservation implementation of EMS that were wastewater and promote chemical break practices including installing operator provided to EPA and reflect the down of these by-products which controlled nozzles on hoses and other implementation of EMSs to manage converts organic nitrogen to water sources of water. Facilities should also biosolids. EPA is also interested in data soluble ammonia. examine the chemicals used to sanitize that documents materials necessary to Manure management can also be a equipment. Whenever possible the use implement the BMPs. Facilities are consideration at slaughter facilities. of sanitizers containing phosphorus asked to also provide data which Facilities should ensure that manure is should be avoided. documents cost savings such as reduced properly handled and when possible EPA will continue to evaluate these water usage resulting in lower water handled as a solid waste rather than management practices and work with bills. adding it to the facilities wastewater stakeholders to identify measures, EPA would also welcome any data on stream. Practices would include dry monitoring or recordkeeping that EPA the actual performance of EMSs. This cleaning of pens and trucks prior to wet could use to ensure the proper could include data that demonstrates cleaning and sanitizing. In addition, implementation of these BMPs. EPA other environmental benefits associated there may be pollution prevention expects to fully describe these measures with implementing EMSs or EAPs such practices that can be implemented in in a subsequent notice and seek public as reductions in energy or water usage, association with manure management comment on them. improvements in food safety or involving removing the animals from reductions in odor or air emissions, or Assessment of Alternatives feed at some point prior to shipping data on EMS limitations. EPA is also them to the slaughterhouse. To assess the extent to which an EMS interested in knowing about other BMPs Facilities that do not slaughter or an EAP alternative can achieve that would be as effective as those animals, but do further processing of comparable pollutant reduction identified in today’s notice. meat and poultry products should also performance as the end-of-pipe effluent In summary, EPA is soliciting maximize the use of dry collection and standard, EPA needs data which comment on a variety of alternative cleaning of the facilities prior to document the pollutant reductions approaches that can be implemented in sanitation. There are also concerns with achieved by implementing the BMPs. the meat and poultry products industry some of the specific processes such as The specific performance data that EPA to beneficially affect industry-wide and pickling, spicing and marinating which is seeking includes effluent facility performance and measure are used to make meat and poultry concentrations taken from wastewater results. Through the Sustainable products. These processes involve discharges prior to and after Industries Program, stakeholders will preparing a solution containing salts, implementing the BMPs for nutrient identify and test the best methodologies sugars, phosphates and nitrites among pollutants. The nutrient pollutants and approaches to collecting other things. These solutions should be should be analyzed using EPA’s information and data to measure managed to minimize waste and loss. approved methods, found at 40 CFR part environmental results of various Some of the practices that EPA is 136 for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), voluntary concepts (i.e. BMP’s, EAP’s considering include using multiple, Ammonia, Nitrates, Dissolved and EMS). This effort will begin during smaller batches of these solutions to Phosphorus and Total Phosphorus. EPA the initial period immediately following
VerDate 11
proposal of this regulation. The results proposed regulation contains the limited universe of new sources. and an evaluation of various alternative technology-based effluent limitations Specifically, following promulgation of approaches will be included in a guidelines and standards applicable to any revised NSPS, the existing NSPS subsequent Notice of Data Availability the meat and poultry processing would continue to apply for a limited (NODA), which will also describe in industry to be used by permit writers to period of time to new sources that detail an alternative approach and derive NPDES permit technology-based commenced discharging MPP process solicit comment. effluent limitations. Water quality-based wastewater within the time period effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based beginning ten years before the effective XII. Regulatory Implementation on receiving water characteristics and date of a final rule revising part 432. A. Implementation of Part 432 Through ambient water quality standards, Thus, if EPA promulgates revised NSPS the NPDES Permit Program and the including designated water uses. They for part 432 in December 2003, and National Pretreatment Program are derived independently from the those regulations take effect in January technology-based effluent limitations set 2004, any direct discharging new source Under sections 301, 304, 306 and 307 out in this proposed regulation. The that commenced discharge after January of the CWA, EPA promulgates national CWA requires that NPDES permits must 1994 but before February 2004 would be effluent limitations guidelines and contain for a given discharge, the more subject to the currently codified NSPS standards of performance for major stringent of the applicable technology- for ten years from the date it industrial categories for three classes of based and water quality-based effluent commenced discharge or during the pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants limitations. period of depreciation or amortization (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA provides of such facility, whichever comes first. grease, biochemical oxygen demand, that in the absence of promulgated See CWA section 306(d). After that ten fecal coliform, and pH); (2) toxic effluent limitations guidelines or year period expires, any new or revised pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as standards, the Administrator, or her BAT limitations would apply with chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic designee, may establish technology- respect to toxics and nonconventional organic pollutants such as benzene, based effluent limitations for specific pollutants. Limitations on conventional benzo-a-pyrene, and naphthalene); and dischargers on a case-by-case basis. pollutants would be based on the (3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., Federal NPDES permit regulations current NSPS for conventional ammonia-N, fluoride, iron, total provide that these limits may be pollutants unless EPA promulgates phenols, and 2,3,7,8– established using ‘‘best professional revisions to BPT/BCT for conventional tetrachlorodibenzofuran). judgment’’ (BPJ) taking into account any pollutants that are more stringent than As discussed in Section II, EPA proposed effluent limitations guidelines these NSPS requirements. EPA is considers development of six types of and standards and other relevant reproducing in the MPP Development effluent limitations guidelines and scientific, technical and economic Document the NSPS codified in the standards for each major industrial information. 2001 edition of the Code of Federal category, as appropriate: Section 301 of the CWA, as amended Regulations for use during the Abbreviation/Effluent Limitation by the Water Quality Act of 1987, applicable ten-year period. Guideline or Standard requires that BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants are to have been 3. National Pretreatment Standards BPT—Best Practicable Control achieved as expeditiously as possible, 40 CFR Part 403 sets out national Technology Currently Available but not later than three years from date pretreatment standards which have BAT—Best Available Technology of promulgation of such limitations and three principal objectives: (1) To Economically Achievable in no case later than March 31, 1989. prevent the introduction of pollutants BCT—Best Control Technology for See 301(b)(2). Because the proposed into publicly owned treatment works Conventional Pollutants revisions to 40 CFR part 432 will be (POTWs) that will interfere with POTW NSPS—New Source Performance promulgated after March 31, 1989, operations, including use or disposal of Standards NPDES permit effluent limitations based municipal sludge; (2) to prevent the PSES—Pretreatment Standards for on the revised effluent limitations introduction of pollutants into POTWs Existing Sources guidelines must be included in the next which will pass through the treatment PSNS—Pretreatment Standards for New NPDES permit issued after works or will otherwise be incompatible Sources promulgation of the regulation and the with the treatment works; and (3) to Pretreatment standards apply to permit must require immediate improve opportunities to recycle and industrial facilities with wastewater compliance. reclaim municipal and industrial discharges to POTWs. The effluent wastewaters and sludges. limitations guidelines and new source 2. New Source Performance Standards The national pretreatment and performance standards apply to New sources must comply with the categorical standards comprise a series industrial facilities with direct new source performance standards and of prohibited discharges to prevent the discharges to navigable waters. limitations of the MPP rule (once it is discharge of ‘‘any pollutant(s) which finalized) at the time they commence cause Pass Through or Interference.’’ 1. NPDES Permit Program discharging MPP process wastewater. (see 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1)) Local control Section 402 of the CWA establishes Because the final rule is not expected authorities are required to implement the National Pollutant Discharge within 120 days of the proposed rule, the national pretreatment program Elimination System (NPDES) permit the Agency considers a discharger a new including application of the federal program. The NPDES permit program is source if construction of the source categorical pretreatment standards to designed to limit the discharge of begins after promulgation of the final their industrial users that are subject to pollutants into navigable waters of the rule (40 CFR 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA such categorical pretreatment standards, United States through a combination of expects to take final action on this as well as any pretreatment standards various requirements including proposal in December 2003. derived locally (i.e., local limits) that are technology-based and water quality- However, the currently codified NSPS more restrictive than the federal based effluent limitations. This continue to have force and effect for a standards. This proposed regulation
VerDate 11
does not revise federal categorical 1. Fundamentally Different Factors in question is fundamentally different pretreatment standards (PSES and Variances from the facilities and factors PSNS) applicable to meat and poultry EPA will develop effluent limitations considered by EPA in developing the processing facilities regulated by 40 CFR or standards different from the nationally applicable effluent part 432. otherwise applicable requirements if an guidelines. The regulation also lists four The federal categorical pretreatment individual discharging facility is other factors (e.g., infeasibility of standards for existing sources must be fundamentally different with respect to installation within the time allowed or achieved not later than three years factors considered in establishing the a discharger’s ability to pay) that may following the date of publication of the limitation of standards applicable to the not provide a basis for an FDF variance. final standards. If EPA were to individual facility. Such a modification In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), promulgate PSNS in the final rule, MPP is known as a ‘‘fundamentally different a request for limitations less stringent new sources would be required to factors’’ (FDF) variance. than the national limitation may be comply with the new source Early on, EPA, by regulation provided performance standards of the MPP rule approved only if compliance with the for the FDF modifications from the BPT (once it is finalized) at the time they national limitations would result in effluent limitations, BAT limitations for commence discharging MPP process either (a) a removal cost wholly out of toxic and nonconventional pollutants wastewater. Because the final rule is not proportion to the removal cost and BPT limitations for conventional expected within 120 days of the considered during development of the pollutants for direct dischargers. For proposed rule, the Agency considers an national limitations, or (b) a non-water indirect discharger a new source if its indirect dischargers, EPA provide for quality environmental impact construction commences following modifications from pretreatment (including energy requirements) promulgation of the final rule (40 CFR standards. FDF variances for toxic fundamentally more adverse than the 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA expects to pollutants were challenged judicially impact considered during development take final action on this proposal in and ultimately sustained by the of the national limits. EPA regulations December 2003. Supreme Court. (Chemical provide for an FDF variance for indirect In addition, § 403.7 of the Clean Water Manufacturers Assn v. NRDC, 479 U.S. dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The Act provides the criteria and procedures 116 (1985)). conditions for approval of a request to Subsequently, in the Water Quality to be used by a Control Authority to modify applicable pretreatment grant a categorical industrial user (CIU) Act of 1987, Congress added new section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to standards and factors considered are the variance from a pollutant limit specified same as those for direct dischargers. in a categorical pretreatment standard to authorize modifications of the otherwise reflect removal by the POTW treatment applicable BAT effluent limitations or The legislative history of section plant of the pollutant. Procedures for categorical pretreatment standards for 301(n) underscores the necessity for the granting removal credits are specified in existing sources if a facility is FDF variance applicant to establish 40 CFR 403.11. fundamentally different with respect to eligibility for the variance. EPA’s the factors specified in section 304 regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are B. Upset and Bypass Provisions (other than costs) from those considered explicit in imposing this burden upon A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion by EPA in establishing the effluent the applicant. The applicant must show of the streams from any portion of a limitations or pretreatment standard. that the factors relating to the discharge treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an Section 301(n) also defined the controlled by the applicant’s permit exceptional incident in which there is conditions under which EPA may which are claimed to be fundamentally unintentional and temporary establish alternative requirements. different are, in fact, fundamentally noncompliance with technology-based Under Section 301(n), an application for different from those factors considered permit effluent limitations because of approval of a FDF variance must be by EPA in establishing the applicable factors beyond the reasonable control of based solely on (1) information guidelines. The criteria for applying for the permittee. EPA’s regulations submitted during rulemaking raising the and evaluating applications for concerning bypasses and upsets for factors that are fundamentally different variances from categorical pretreatment direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR or (2) information the applicant did not standards are included in the 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect have an opportunity to submit. The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and alternate limitation or standard must be 403.13(h)(9). An FDF variance is not 403.17. no less stringent than justified by the available to a new source performance difference and must not result in subject to NSPS or PSNS. C. Variances and Modifications markedly more adverse non-water The CWA requires application of quality environmental impacts than the 2. Economic Variances effluent limitations established pursuant national limitation or standard. to section 301 or pretreatment standards EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes of section 307 to all direct and indirect subpart D, authorizing the Regional a variance from the otherwise applicable dischargers. However, the statute Administrators to establish alternative BAT effluent guidelines for provides for the modification of these limitations and standards, further detail nonconventional pollutants due to national requirements in a limited the substantive criteria used to evaluate economic factors. The request for a number of circumstances. Moreover, the FDF variance requests for direct variance from effluent limitations Agency has established administrative dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) developed from BAT guidelines must mechanisms to provide an opportunity identifies six factors (e.g., volume of normally be filed by the discharger for relief from the application of the process wastewater, age and size of a during the public notice period for the national effluent limitations guidelines discharger’s facility) that may be draft permit. Other filing time periods and pretreatment standards for considered in determining if a facility is may apply, as specified in 40 CFR categories of existing sources for toxic, fundamentally different. The Agency 122.21(1)(2). Specific guidance for this conventional, and nonconventional must determine whether, on the basis of type of variance is available from EPA’s pollutants. one or more of these factors, the facility Office of Wastewater Management.
VerDate 11
3. Water Quality Variances rule from survey questionnaire these periods of high production. To Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes responses from MPP facilities. (The accomplish this, facilities would likely a variance from BAT effluent guidelines production-normalized flows are have to develop more efficient treatment for certain nonconventional pollutants provided in Section VI.A.) systems and better water conservation due to localized environmental factors. A facility subject to today’s proposed and waste management practices during These pollutants include ammonia, regulation can use a combination of these periods. The Agency solicits chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols. various treatment alternatives and/or comments on related costs and any water conservation practices to achieve technical difficulties that meat and D. Production Basis for Calculation of a particular effluent limitation or poultry processing facilities might have Permit Limitations standard. The model treatment systems in meeting limits during short periods of 1. Background (see Section XI) illustrate at least one high production. EPA also solicits other means available to achieve the proposed options for consideration. The effluent limitations guidelines effluent limitations guidelines and and standards for BPT, BAT, and NSPS The proposed limitations neither standards. require the installation of any specific proposed today are expressed as mass As discussed above in Section XII.D.1, limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per control technology nor the attainment of both the NPDES permit regulations and any specific flow rate or effluent 1000 pounds (of production unit). EPA the General Pretreatment Regulations is soliciting comment on PSES and concentration. A facility subject to discuss the use of mass-based today’s proposed regulation can use PSNS numeric standards that are limitations and standards. In order to concentration-based. The NPDES various treatment alternatives or water convert the proposed effluent conservation practices to achieve a regulations (40 CFR 122.45(f)) require limitations and standards expressed as permit writers to implement mass-based particular effluent limitation or pounds/1,000 pounds of product to a standard. The model treatment systems limitations for direct dischargers, but monthly average or daily maximum described here illustrate at least one allows an exception when the limits are permit limit, the permitting or control means available to achieve the proposed expressed in terms of other units of authority would use a production rate effluent limitations guidelines and measurement (e.g., concentration) and with units of 1,000 pounds/day. The standards. the General Pretreatment Standards (40 NPDES permit regulations (40 CFR CFR 403.6(d)) provide that the control 122.45(b)(2)) require that NPDES permit E. Best Management Practices authority may impose mass limitations limits be based on a ‘‘* * * reasonable Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and on industrial users which are using measure of actual production.’’ A 501(a) of the CWA authorize the dilution to meet applicable pretreatment similar requirement is found in the Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part requirements or where mass limitations General Pretreatment regulations (40 are appropriate. EPA believes that MPP CFR 403.6(c)(3)). The production rates of effluent limitations guidelines and facilities that have been using the best used for NPDES permitting for the MPP standards or as part of a permit. EPA’s pollution prevention and water industry have commonly been the BMP regulations are found at 40 CFR conservation practices may also request highest annual average production from 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA that the permit writer or POTW use the prior five year period prorated to a authorizes EPA to include BMPs in mass-based limits in their permits or daily basis. effluent limitations guidelines for control mechanism. The Agency is The objective in determining a certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for providing detailed information on water production estimate for a facility is to the purpose of controlling ‘‘plant site use levels for specific unit operations in develop a measure of production which runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste Section 6 of the MPP Development can reasonably be expected to prevail disposal, and drainage from raw Document for today’s proposal. EPA during the next term of the permit. This material storage.’’ Section 402(a)(1) and believes this information will be useful is used in combination with the NPDES regulations (40 CFR 122.44(k)) to permit writers and control authorities production-based limitations to also provide for best management in those instances where they deem it establish a maximum mass of pollutant practices to control or abate the appropriate to set mass-based limits. that may be discharged each day and discharge of pollutants when numeric month. However, if the permit limitations and standards are infeasible. 2. Mass-Based Limitations and production rate is based on the In addition, Section 402(a)(2), read in Standards maximum month, then the permit could concert with Section 501(a), authorizes The effluent limitations guidelines allow excessive discharges of pollutants EPA to prescribe as wide a range of and standards for BPT, BAT, and NSPS during significant portions of the life of permit conditions as the Administrator proposed today are expressed as mass the permit. These excessive allowances deems appropriate in order to ensure limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per may discourage facilities from ensuring compliance with applicable effluent 1000 pounds (of production unit). optimal waste management, water limitations and standards and such Production units include Live Weight conservation, and wastewater treatment other requirements as the Administrator Killed (LWK), Equivalent Live Weight practices during lower production deems appropriate. Killed (ELWK), Finished Product (FP) periods. On the other hand, if the Dikes, curbs, and other control and Raw Material (RM). The mass average permit production rate is based measures are being used at some MPP limitation is derived by multiplying an on an average derived from the highest facilities to contain leaks and spills as effluent concentration (determined from year of production over the past five part of good ‘‘housekeeping’’ practices.’’ the analysis of treatment system years, then facilities may have trouble However, on a facility-by-facility basis a performance) by an appropriate ensuring that their waste management, permit writer may choose to incorporate wastewater volume (‘‘production- water conservation, and wastewater BMPs into the permit. See MPP normalized flow’’) determined for each treatment practices can accommodate Development Document for this MPP operation expressed in gallons/ shorter periods of higher production. proposed rule for a detailed discussion 1000 pounds of product. EPA developed This might require facilities to target a of pollution prevention and best the production normalized flows used more stringent treatment level than that management practices used in the MPP to develop the limits in the proposed on which the limits were based during industry.
VerDate 11
As described elsewhere in today’s based on full time employees (FTEs) or serious economic impacts if notice, EPA is considering an alternative annual revenues established by SBA; (2) requirements were imposed. EPA to potential numeric pretreatment a small governmental jurisdiction that is considered regulating an additional limitations and standards that would a government of a city, county, town, subset of this group of 5411 facilities, involve implementing BMPs as part of school district or special district with a the 731 largest indirect discharging an Environmental Management System population of less than 50,000; and (3) facilities, 462 of which are owned by (EMS) (see Section XI.B). a small organization that is any not-for- small businesses. If the costs of Option profit enterprise which is independently 1 for PSES standards were imposed on XIII. Administrative Requirements owned and operated and is not these facilities, EPA estimates that 235 A. Executive Order 12866: ‘‘Regulatory dominant in its field. of the 462 facilities owned by small Planning and Review’’ The definitions of small business for companies would have a cost/net the meat products industries are in income ratio between one and two Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR SBA’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. percent while the other 227 facilities 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency These size standards were updated owned by small companies would have must determine whether the regulatory effective October 1, 2000. SBA size a cost/net income ratio of less than one action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore standards for the meat and poultry percent. Thus, even if EPA had subject to OMB review and the products industry (that is, for NAICS proposed Option 1 PSES standards for requirements of the Executive Order. codes 311611, 311612, 311613, and indirect dischargers the combined The Order defines ‘‘significant 311615) define a ‘‘small business’’ as proposal would not have had a regulatory action’’ as one that is likely one which has 500 or fewer employees. significant impact on a substantial to result in a rule that may: EPA estimates that small businesses number of small entities. (1) Have an annual effect on the own 71 facilities out of 246 facilities EPA has held several teleconferences economy of $100 million or more or that would be regulated under the rule with representatives of the American adversely affect in a material way the as proposed. EPA based this estimate on Association of Meat Processors (AAMP) economy, a sector of the economy, information from the screener survey which has almost a third of its productivity, competition, jobs, the and SBA as described in Section VIII.M. association members with less than 10 environment, public health or safety, or EPA assumes that it is unlikely that any FTE at the company level. We continue State, local, or tribal governments or small company owns more than one to be interested in the potential impacts communities; facility. EPA has fully evaluated the of the proposed rule on small entities (2) Create a serious inconsistency or economic impact of the proposed rule and welcome comments on issues otherwise interfere with an action taken on the affected small companies. None related to such impacts. or planned by another agency; of the facilities owned by small (3) Materially alter the budgetary companies have a cost/sales ratio greater C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, than one percent. For this proposal, EPA Title II of the Unfunded Mandates or loan programs or the rights and is using the ratio of annualized Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L. obligations of recipients thereof; or compliance costs to net income as its 104–4, establishes requirements for (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues central measure of economic Federal agencies to assess the effects of arising out of legal mandates, the achievability (see Section VIII.E for a their regulatory actions on State, local, President’s priorities, or the principles definition of this measure). EPA and tribal governments and the private set forth in the Executive Order. estimates that, based on its model sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, It has been determined that this facilities, 38 of the 71 facilities owned EPA generally must prepare a written proposed rule is a ‘‘significant by small companies have cost/net statement, including a cost-benefit regulatory action’’ under the terms of income ratios between five and nine analysis, for proposed and final rules Executive Order 12866. As such, this percent, eight facilities have cost/net with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may action was submitted to OMB for income ratios between two and three result in expenditures to State, local, review. Changes made in response to percent, while the other 25 facilities and tribal governments, in the aggregate, OMB suggestions or recommendations owned by small companies have cost/ or to the private sector, of $100 million will be documented in the public net income ratios less than one percent. or more in any one year. record. EPA also calculated the ratio of cost to Before promulgating an EPA rule for sales as a supplement to the cost/net which a written statement is needed, B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as income ratio. (More detail on these Section 205 of the UMRA generally Amended by the Small Business estimates is provided in the EA.) After requires EPA to identify and consider a Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of considering the economic impact of reasonable number of regulatory 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. today’s proposed rule on small entities, alternatives and adopt the least costly, The RFA generally requires an agency including consideration of alternative most cost-effective or least burdensome to prepare a regulatory flexibility regulatory approaches being proposed, I alternative that achieves the objectives analysis for any rule subject to notice certify that this action will not have of the rule. The provisions of section and comment rulemaking requirements significant economic impact on a 205 do not apply when they are under the Administrative Procedure Act substantial number of small entities. inconsistent with applicable law. or any other statute unless the agency Although this proposed rule will not Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to certifies that the rule will not have a have a significant economic impact on adopt an alternative other than the least significant economic impact on a a substantial number of small entities, costly, most cost-effective or least substantial number of small entities. EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the burdensome alternative, if the Small entities include small businesses, impact of this rule on small entities. Administrator publishes with the final small organizations, and small EPA is not proposing any new rule an explanation why that alternative governmental jurisdictions. requirements on 5411 (or the vast was not adopted. For purposes of assessing the impacts majority of) facilities. Most of these are Before EPA establishes any regulatory of today’s rule on small entities, small owned by small businesses and many of requirements that may significantly or entity is defined as: (1) A small business the smallest could likely experience uniquely affect small governments,
VerDate 11
including tribal governments, it must the Agency must evaluate the Therefore, this rule is not subject to the have developed under section 203 of the environmental health and safety effects Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has UMRA a small government agency plan. of the planned rule on children, and previously approved information The plan must provide for notifying explain why the planned regulation is collection requirements for CWA direct potentially affected small governments, preferable to other potentially effective dischargers to comply with their NPDES enabling officials of affected small and reasonably feasible alternatives permits and for indirect dischargers to governments to have meaningful and considered by the Agency. comply with pretreatment requirements. timely input in the development of EPA This proposed rule is not subject to Burden estimates for direct dischargers regulatory proposals with significant E.O. 13045 because it is not to comply with this rule are contained Federal intergovernmental mandates, economically significant under E.O. in the ‘‘National Pollutant Discharge and informing, educating, and advising 12866, nor does it concern an Elimination System (NPDES)/ small governments on compliance with environmental health or safety risk that Compliance Assessment/Certification the regulatory requirements. may have a disproportionate effect on Information’’ ICR (OMB control no. EPA has determined that this rule children. 2040–0110). Burden estimates for does not contain a Federal mandate that E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation indirect discharging facilities to comply may result in expenditures of $100 and Coordination with Indian Tribal with 40 CFR Part 403 are included in million or more for State, local, and Governments the ‘‘National Pretreatment Program (40 tribal governments, in the aggregate, or CFR part 403)’’ ICR (OMB control no. the private sector in any one year. The Executive Order 13175, entitled 2040–0009). ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with total annual cost of this rule is estimated Copies of the ICR document(s) may be Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR to be $80 million. Thus, today’s rule is obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA not subject to the requirements of the Office of Environmental to develop an accountable process to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The Information, Collection Strategies ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by facilities which are affected by today’s Division; U.S. Environmental Protection tribal officials in the development of proposal are direct dischargers engaged Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., regulatory policies that have tribal in the slaughtering or processing of meat NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail implications.’’ This proposed rule does and poultry and the rendering of by- at [email protected], or by calling not have tribal implications, as specified products resulting from these activities. (202) 260–2740. A copy may also be in Executive Order 13175. This These facilities would be subject to downloaded off the internet at http:// proposed rule will not have substantial today’s proposed requirements through www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR and direct effects on tribal governments, on the issuance or renewal of an NPDES /or OMB number in any the relationship between the Federal permit either from the Federal EPA or correspondence. authorized State governments. These government and Indian tribes, or on the Burden means the total time, effort, or facilities should already have NPDES distribution of power and financial resources expended by persons permits as the Clean Water Act requires responsibilities between the Federal to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose a permit be held by any point source government and Indian tribes, as or provide information to or for a discharger before that facility may specified in Executive Order 13175. Federal agency. This includes the time discharge wastewater pollutants into Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not needed to review instructions; develop, surface waters. Therefore, today’s apply to this rule. proposal could require these permits to EPA specifically solicits additional acquire, install, and utilize technology be revised to comply with revised comment on this proposed rule from and systems for the purposes of federal standards, but should not tribal officials. collecting, validating, and verifying require a new permit program be EPA has compared 492 tribal zip information, processing and implemented. codes obtained from EPA’s America maintaining information, and disclosing EPA is not proposing to establish Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) to and providing information; adjust the pretreatment standards for this point the 5,270 zip codes from EPA’s Hazard existing ways to comply with any source category which are applied to Analysis and Critical Control Points previously applicable instructions and indirect dischargers and overseen by (HACCP) database. EPA identified requirements; train personnel to be able Control Authorities. Local governments approximately 64 MPP facilities located to respond to a collection of are frequently the Control Authority but in 36 tribal zip codes. Of these 64 MPP information; search data sources; since this regulation proposes no facilities, 50 are classified as very small complete and review the collection of pretreatment standards, there would be (<10 employees), 13 as small (10–499 information; and transmit or otherwise no impact imposed on local employees), and only one facility as disclose the information. governments. Thus, today’s rule is not large (≥500 employees). EPA expects the However, should EPA proceed with subject to the requirements of section proposed rule would not affect any of the Regulatory Alternative for indirect 203 of UMRA. the very small facilities. It would only dischargers there could be new cover some of the facilities employing information collection requirements. D. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection 10 to 499 employees and the one facility The Agency will develop an Information of Children From Environmental Health employing greater than or equal to 500 Collection Request seeking clearance for Risks and Safety Risks’’ employees. (EPA cannot determine from any additional information collection Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, the HACCP database which of these requirements when we have fully April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: facilities are indirect dischargers and evaluated and developed this (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically which are direct dischargers, although alternative. significant’’ as defined under E.O. the large majority of these facilities are An Agency may not conduct or 12866, and (2) concerns an indirect dischargers.) sponsor, and a person is not required to environmental health or safety risk that respond to a collection of information EPA has reason to believe may have a F. Paperwork Reduction Act unless it displays a currently valid OMB disproportionate effect on children. If This proposed rule contains no new control number. The OMB control the regulatory action meets both criteria, information collection requirements. numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
VerDate 11
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter technology-based effluent limitations Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 15. guidelines are uniformly applied 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have nationally irrespective of geographic G. Executive Order 13132: ‘‘Federalism’’ a significant adverse effect on the location. The proposed regulation will supply, distribution, or use of energy. Executive Order 13132, entitled reduce the negative effects of meat and As part of the Agency’s consideration of ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, poultry products industry waste in our Non-Water Quality Impacts, EPA has 1999), requires EPA to develop an nation’s waters to benefit all of society, estimated the energy consumption accountable process to ensure including minority and low-income associated with today’s proposed ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State communities. The cost impacts of the requirements. EPA estimates that meat and local officials in the development of rule should likewise not and poultry processing facilities will regulatory policies that have federalism disproportionately affect low-income decrease their energy consumption by implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have communities given the relatively low federalism implications’’ is defined in economic impacts of the rule. 144 million KWH/yr which is the Executive Order to include approximately 6 percent of current regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct I. National Technology Transfer and energy used by this industrial sector. effects on the States, on the relationship Advancement Act The decrease is associated with the between the national government and Section 12(d) of the National proposed BAT technologies for the the States, or on the distribution of Technology Transfer and Advancement poultry and meat subcategories, which power and responsibilities among the Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub L. 104–113 would result in treatment to remove various levels of government.’’ Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs nitrogen prior to discharge. This proposed rule does not have EPA to use voluntary consensus Denitrification, following nitrification, Federalism implications. It will not standards in its regulatory activities which most direct discharging facilities have substantial direct effects on the unless to do so would be inconsistent currently have in place, will reduce States, on the relationship between the with applicable law or otherwise energy usage. To remove the nitrates national government and the States, or impractical. Voluntary consensus and nitrites generated by nitrifying on the distribution of power and standards are technical standards (e.g., ammonia, a typical facility is likely to responsibilities among the various materials specifications, test methods, use the oxygen attached to the nitrogen levels of government, as specified in sampling procedures, and business compounds to further break down the Executive Order 13132. EPA estimates practices) that are developed or adopted BOD, which means that the facility can that, when promulgated, these revised by voluntary consensus standard bodies. effluent guidelines and standards will The NTTAA directs EPA to provide actually reduce the need to add oxygen be incorporated into NPDES permits Congress, through the Office of to the system through aeration of the without any additional costs to Management and Budget (OMB), wastewater. Shutting off the aeration authorized States. explanations when the Agency decides equipment will reduce the energy used Further, the revised regulations would not to use available and applicable in operating the treatment system. EPA not alter the basic State-Federal scheme voluntary consensus standards. estimates that there will be no change in established in the Clean Water Act This rulemaking involves technical the energy requirements to operate the under which EPA authorizes States to standards. The proposed rule requires treatment system for the rendering carry out the NPDES permitting certain facilities that produce meat or subcategory as a result of today’s program. EPA expects the revised poultry products to monitor for fecal proposed rule as the proposed rule does regulations to have little effect, if any, coliform, COD, BOD5, TSS, oil & grease, not change the technology basis on the relationship between, or the ammonia, total phosphorus, and total (nitrification) for rendering facilities. distribution of power and nitrogen (sum of nitrate/nitrite and See Section X.A of today’s notice for responsibilities among, the Federal, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)). EPA more discussion of how these energy State and local governments. Thus, performed a search to identify usages were determined. Therefore, we Executive Order 13132 does not apply potentially voluntary consensus have concluded that this rule is not to this rule. standards that could be used to measure likely to have any adverse energy the parameters in today’s proposed H. Executive Order 12898: ‘‘Federal effects. guideline. EPA’s search revealed that Actions To Address Environmental consensus standards for these K. Plain Language Justice in Minority Populations and paramenters exist and are already Low-Income Populations’’ specified in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. Executive Order 12866 requires each The requirements of the In addition, EPA is proposing to add a agency to write all rules in plain Environmental Justice Executive Order voluntary consensus standard (Method language. We invite your comments on are that EPA will review the 300.0) for measuring nitrate/nitrite. EPA how to make this proposed rule easier environmental effects of major Federal welcomes comments on this aspect of to understand. For example, have we actions significantly affecting the the proposed rulemaking and, organized the material to suit your quality of the human environment. For specifically, invites the public to needs? Are the requirements in the rule such actions, EPA reviewers will focus identify potentially-applicable clearly stated? Does the rule contain on the spatial distribution of human voluntary consensus standards and to technical language or jargon that is not health, social and economic effects to explain why such standards should be clear? Would a different format ensure that agency decision makers are used in this regulation. (grouping and order of sections, use of aware of the extent to which those headings, paragraphing) make the rule impacts fall disproportionately on J. Executive Order 13211: ‘‘Energy Effects’’ easier to understand? Would more (but covered communities.’’ This is not a shorter) sections be better? Could we major action. Further, EPA does not This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy improve clarity by adding tables, lists, believe this rulemaking will have a action’’ as defined in Executive Order or diagrams? What else could we do to disproportionate effect on minority or 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations make the rule easier to understand? low income communities because the That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
VerDate 11
XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments • Information on whether or not EPA development process. To ensure that should regulate indirect dischargers (see commenter data may be effectively A. General and Specific Comment Section XI.B); evaluated by the Agency, EPA has Solicitation • Additional data and information developed the following guidelines for EPA solicits comments on various related to MPP facilities implementing submission of data. issues specifically identified in the EMSs or BMPs (see Section XI.F); preamble as well as any other issues • Information on whether or not EPA A. Types of Data Requested that are not specifically addressed in should establish regulatory alternatives EPA requests paired influent and today’s notice. Specifically, EPA solicits to potential pretreatment standards for effluent treatment data for each of the information, data, and comment on the indirect dischargers (see Section XI.F). technologies identified in the following topics: • Additional data and information on technology options (see Section VII.A) • Additional information and data on exotic and other meat and poultry as well as any additional technologies the performance and associated costs of product facilities (e.g., horse, goats, elk, applicable to the treatment of MPP all wastewater treatment technologies deer, buffalo, ostriches, quail, wastewater. EPA prefers paired influent currently or potentially capable of pheasants, rabbits, and other small and effluent treatment data, but also treating MPP wastewaters; game). EPA is soliciting additional data solicits unpaired data as well. Data from • EPA’s intended use of data (e.g, and information on the industry profile systems treating only non-process MPP monitoring data) to perform a ‘‘real- for these meat and poultry product wastewater (e.g., sanitary wastewater or world’’ check on the achievability of the facilities including type of operations, non-contact cooling water) will not be limitations and standards; evaluated by EPA. • annual production, number of The potential of MPP facilities to employees per facility, typical For the systems treating MPP process reduce water consumption and new wastewater characteristics, typical wastewater, EPA requests paired technologies or practices that can methods of wastewater management and influent and effluent treatment data effectively reuse water; treatment. from 24-hour composite samples of • Description of all types of flowing wastewater streams (except for flocculants or treatment aids used in B. Regulatory Alternative to Potential analyses requiring grab samples, such as MPP WWTP and their concentrations Numerical Pretreatment Standards oil and grease). This includes end-of- that are commonly not accepted by EPA is describing a regulatory pipe treatment technologies and in- independent renderers; process treatment, recycling, or water • alternative to numerical pretreatment Differences in production and standards which would require meat reuse. Submission of effluent data alone wastewater generation and and poultry products facilities to is acceptable, but the commenters characteristics between non-religious implement specific BMPs as part of a should provide evidence that the and religious meat and poultry facilities; facility-wide Environmental influent concentrations contain treatable • Whether EPA should approve the Management System. See Section XI.F levels of the pollutants. If commenters use of Method 300.0 for the meat and for the discussion of this regulatory sample their wastewaters to respond to poultry industry; • alternative. EPA solicits comments on this proposal, EPA encourages them to EPA’s notation for oil and grease sample both the influent and effluent limitations and standards in the this alternative. Would it be a protective of the environment? Would meat and wastestreams. proposed rule; EPA prefers that the data be submitted • Whether EPA should regulate total poultry products facilities choose this regulatory alternative? in an electronic format. In addition to residual chlorine; providing the measurement of the • EPA’s methodology for determining EPA is also seeking data and pollutant in each sample, EPA requests LTAs and variability factors used in this information on the costs and burdens that sites provide the detection limit proposal; and even cost savings associated with • Need for a different monthly implementing an EMS and the specific (rather than specifying zero or ‘ND’) if average limitations for small and non- BMPs. Environmental improvements the pollutant is non-detected in the small facilities; associated with implementing the wastestream. Each measurement should • Whether EPA should set more BMPs, expressed in terms of pollutant be identified with a sample collection stringent standards for either direct or reductions in wastewater discharges and date, the sampling point location, and indirect new sources; other environmental improvements the flow rate at that location. For each • Additional methods for estimating associated with the implementation of sample or pollutant, EPA requests that and monetizing benefits associated with an EMS. the chemical analytical method be the proposed rule; EPA solicits comments on the identified. • The economic analysis in this establishment of pretreatment standards In support of the treatment data, proposal and the methods it is for oil & grease on the basis of commenters should submit the considering for subsequent analyses, interferences of POTW performance. As following items if they are available: A particularly the use of cash flow as a discussed in Section XI.B, EPA has process diagram of the treatment system measure of resources available to identified a number of instances where that includes the sampling point finance environmental compliance and the discharge of untreated meat and locations; treatment chemical addition suggestions for alternative poultry products wastewater has led to rates; laboratory reports; influent and methodologies; interference with a POTW treatment effluent flow rates for each treatment • Whether TDS limitations and system. unit during the sampling period; standards are necessary and which production in each subcategory (daily industry subcategories (if any) should be XV. Guidelines for Submission of values are preferred, but either subject to these potential limitations Analytical Data production or estimated production and standards; EPA requests that commenters to during the sampling period are also • Additional data and information today’s proposed rule submit analytical, acceptable); sludge or waste oil related to instances of MPP indirect flow, and production data to generation rates; a brief discussion of dischargers causing POTW interference supplement data collected by the the treatment technology sampled; and or pass through (see Section XI.B); Agency during the regulatory a list of MPP operations contributing to
VerDate 11
the sampled wastestream. If available, organic pollutants when automatic BCT—The best control technology for information on capital cost, annual compositors are used to collect samples. conventional pollutants, applicable to (operation and maintenance) cost, and discharges of conventional pollutants from treatment capacity should be included TABLE XV.C–1.—ANALYTICAL METH- existing industrial point sources, as defined by Section 304(b)(4) of the CWA for each treatment unit within the ODS FOR USE WITH MPP BOD5—Biochemical Oxygen Demand system. WASTEWATERS measured over a five day period. B. Analytes Requested BPJ—Best Professional Judgment Method used BPT—The best practicable control EPA considered metal, organic, in EPA sam- technology currently available, applicable Parameter pling to effluent limitations, for industrial conventional, and other (alternative nonconventional pollutant parameters discharges to surface waters, as defined by methods) Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA. for regulation. Based on analytical data CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Aeromonas ...... 9260L collected, EPA initially identified 30 Clean Water Act (CWA)—The Federal Water Acidity ...... 305.1 pollutants of concern for the meat Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 Alkalinity ...... 310.1 processing segment of the industry and (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended. Ammonia as Nitrogen ...... 350.2 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 27 pollutants of concern for the poultry BOD 5-Day ...... 405.1 Questionnaire—A questionnaire sent to processing segment of the industry (see BOD 5-Day (Carbonaceous) .. 405.1, facilities under the authority of Section 308 Section VII.C and MPP Development SM5210 of the CWA, which requests information to Document). The Agency requests Carbaryl ...... 632 be used in the development of national analytical data for any of the pollutants Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.1 (COD). effluent guidelines and standards. of concern and for any other pollutant Conventional Pollutants—Constituents of parameters that commentors believe are 410.2 410.4 wastewater as determined by section of concern in the MPP industry. Of 5220B 304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA particular interest are BOD5, TSS, Chloride ...... 300.0 regulations), i.e., pollutants classified as Ammonia as Nitrogen, and pH data. 325.3 biochemical oxygen demand, total Commentors should use the methods Dichlorvos ...... 1657 suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal listed in Table XV.C–1 or equivalent E. coli ...... 9221F coliform, and pH. methods (generally, those approved at Metals ...... 1620 (200.7, Daily Discharge—The discharge of a 245.1) pollutant measured during any calendar 40 CFR 136 for compliance monitoring), day or any 24-hour period that reasonably and should document the method used Volatile Organics ...... 1624 (624) Semivolatile Organics ...... 1625 (625) represents a calendar day. for all data submissions. The methods Malathion ...... 1657 Direct Discharger—A facility that discharges are described in more detail in the MPP Nitrate/Nitrite ...... 300.0 or may discharge treated or untreated Development Document. 353.1 wastewaters into waters of the United States. C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control 353.2 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl ...... 351.2 DMR—Discharge Monitoring Report. (QA/QC) Requirements 351.3 Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELGS)—Under CWA section 502(11), any restriction, EPA based today’s proposed Oil and Grease ...... 413.2 Oil and Grease (as HEM) ...... 1664 including schedules of compliance, regulations on analytical data collected cis-Permethrin ...... 1660 established by a State or the Administrator by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks trans-Permethrin ...... 1660 on quantities, rates, and concentrations of specified in the analytical methods pH ...... 150.1 (SM chemical, physical, biological, and other listed in Table XV.C–1. These QA/QC 4500 H∂ constituents which are discharged from checks include procedures specified in B) point sources into navigable waters, the each of the analytical methods, as well Phosphorus, Total ...... 365.2 waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean as procedures used for the MPP 365.3 (CWA sections 301(b) and 304(b)). sampling program in accordance with Salmonella ...... FDA–BAM Existing Source—For this rule, any facility from which there is or may be a discharge EPA sampling and analysis protocols. Tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos) ... 1657 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 160.1 of pollutants, the construction of which is These QA/QC procedures include Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 415.1 commenced before the publication of the sample preservation and the use of Total Orthophosphate ...... 300.0 final regulations prescribing a standard of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix 365.2 performance under section 306 of the spike duplicates, laboratory duplicate Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 160.2 CWA. samples, and QC standard checks (e.g., Facility—All contiguous property and Note: Standard Method (SM). continuing calibration blanks). Because equipment owned, operated, leased, or of these rigorous checks, EPA has high Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, under the control of the same person or confidence in its data. Thus, EPA and Abbreviations Used in This entity. FDF—Fundamentally Different Factor requests that submissions of analytical Document Finished Product—The final manufactured data include any available AAMP—The American Association of Meat product produced on site, including documentation of QA/QC procedures. Processors products intended for consumption with However, EPA will still consider data Administrator—The Administrator of the no additional processing as well as submitted without detailed QA/QC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. products intended for further processing, information. If commenters sample their Agency—The U.S. Environmental Protection when applicable. wastewaters to respond to this proposal, Agency First Processing—Operations which receive EPA encourages them to provide AMI—American Meat Institute live meat animals or poultry and produce detailed documentation of the QA/QC AMSA—Association of Metropolitan a raw, dressed meat or poultry product, Sewerage Agencies either whole or in parts. checks for each sample. EPA also BAT—The best available technology FTE—Full Time Equivalent Employee requests that sites collect and analyze 10 economically achievable, applicable to Further Processing—Operations which percent field duplicate samples to assess effluent limitations for industrial utilize whole carcasses or cut-up meat or sampling variability, and sites provide discharges to surface waters, as defined by poultry products for the production of data for equipment blanks for volatile Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA. fresh or frozen products, and may include
VerDate 11
the following types of processing: cutting Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact— owned by a State or municipality (as and deboning, cooking, seasoning, Deleterious aspects of control and defined by section 502(4) of the Clean smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, treatment technologies applicable to point Water Act). This definition includes any dicing, forming or breading. source category wastes, including, but not devices and systems used in the storage, Hazardous Waste—Any waste, including limited to air pollution, noise, radiation, treatment, recycling and reclamation of wastewater, defined as hazardous under sludge and solid waste generation, and municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a RCRA, TSCA, or any State law. energy used. liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes HEM—A measure of oil and grease in NRA—National Renderers Association and other conveyances only if they convey wastewater by mixing the wastewater with NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant. hexane and measuring the oils and greases NSPS—New Sources Performance Standards, The term also means the municipality as that are removed from the wastewater with applicable to industrial facilities whose defined in section 502(4) of the Clean n-hexane. Specifically EPA Method 1664, construction is begun after the effective Water Act, which has jurisdiction over the see 40 CFR 136.3, Table IB. date of the final regulations (if those Indirect Discharges to and the discharges Indirect Discharger—A facility that regulations are promulgated after June 25, from such a treatment works. discharges or may discharge wastewaters 2002). EPA is scheduled to take final action Raw Material—The basic input materials to into a publicly-owned treatment works. on this proposal in December 2003. See 40 a renderer composed of animal and poultry LTA (Long-Term Average)—For purposes of CFR 122.2. trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead the effluent guidelines, average pollutant NTTA—National Technology Transfer and animals, feathers and related usable by- levels achieved over a period of time by a Advancement Act products. facility, subcategory, or technology option. NWPCAM—The National Water Pollution RCRA—The Resource Conservation and LTAs were used in developing the effluent Control Assessment Model (version 1.1) is Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. limitations guidelines and standards in a computer model to model the instream 6901 et seq.), which regulates the today’s proposed regulation. dissolved oxygen concentration, as generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or Live Weight Killed (LWK)—The total weight influenced by pollutant reductions of recycling of solid and hazardous wastes. of the total number of animals slaughtered BOD5, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total RED MEAT—See the definition for ‘‘MEAT’. during a specific time period. Suspended Solids, and Fecal Coliform. RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act Maximum Monthly Discharge Limitation— LWK and ELWK—Live Weight Killed and the SAP—Sampling and Analysis Plan The highest allowable average of ‘‘daily Equivalent Live Weight Killed SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory discharges’’ over a calendar month, Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains and Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 calculated as the sum of all ‘‘daily other conduits from which a facility SCC—Sample Control Center discharges’’ measured during the calendar effluent discharges into receiving waters. SER—Small Entity Representative month divided by the number of ‘‘daily Pass Through—The term ‘‘Pass Through’’ SIC—Standard Industrial Classification discharges’’ measured during the month. means a Discharge which exits the POTW (SIC)—A numerical categorization system Meat—The term ‘‘meat’’ includes all animal into waters of the United States in used by the U.S. Department of Commerce products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, quantities or concentrations which, alone to catalogue economic activity. SIC codes lambs, horses, goats and exotic livestock or in conjunction with a discharge or refer to the products, or group of products, (e.g. elk, buffalo, deer) etc., except those discharges from other sources, is a cause of produced or distributed, or to services defined as Poultry for human a violation of any requirement of the rendered by an operating establishment. consumption. This category may include POTW’s NPDES permit (including an SIC codes are used to group establishments certain species not classified as ‘‘meat’’ by increase in the magnitude or duration of a by the economic activities in which they USDA FSIS and that may or may not be violation). are engaged. SIC codes often denote a under USDA FSIS voluntary inspection. Point Source—Any discernable, confined, facility’s primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. MPP—Meat and Poultry Products and discrete conveyance from which economic activities. Minimum Level—The level at which an pollutants are or may be discharged. See Stearin—An ester of glycerol and stearic acid analytical system gives recognizable CWA section 502(14). found in MPP wastewaters. signals and an acceptable calibration point. Pollutants of Concern (POCs)—Pollutants Total Nitrogen—Sum of nitrate/nitrite and NAICS—North American Industry commonly found in meat and poultry TKN. Classification System. NAICS was processing wastewaters. Generally, a TKN—Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and chemical is considered as a POC if it was TSS—Total Suspended Solids Mexico to provide new comparability in detected in untreated process wastewater statistics about business activity across at 5 times a baseline value in more than List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 432 North America. 10% of the samples. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Poultry—Broilers, other young chickens, Environmental protection; Meat and System (NPDES) Permit—A permit to hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, meat products; Poultry and poultry discharge wastewater into waters of the capons, geese, ducks, exotic poultry (e.g. products; Waste treatment and disposal; United States issued under the National ostriches), and small game such as quail, Water pollution control. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, pheasants, and rabbits. This category may Dated: January 30, 2002. authorized by section 402 of the CWA. include species not classified as ‘‘poultry’’ Christine Todd Whitman, Nitrification Capability—The capability of a by USDA FSIS and that may or may not be POTW treatment system to oxidize under USDA FSIS voluntary inspection. Administrator. ammonia or ammonium salts initially to Priority Pollutant—One hundred twenty-six For the reasons set forth in this nitrites (via Nitrosomonas bacteria) and compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic preamble, 40 CFR part 432 is proposed subsequently to nitrates (via Nitrobacter pollutants and classes of pollutants to be revised to read as follows: bacteria). Criteria for determining the outlined pursuant to section 307 of the nitrification capability of a POTW CWA. PART 432—MEAT AND POULTRY treatment system are: bioassays confirming PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE the presence of nitrifying bacteria; and sources of indirect discharges, under CATEGORY analyses of the nitrogen balance Section 307(b) of the CWA, applicable (for demonstrating a reduction in the this rule) to indirect dischargers that Sec. concentration of ammonia or ammonium commenced construction prior to 432.1 General applicability. salts and an increase in the concentrations promulgation of the final rule. 432.2 General definitions. of nitrites and nitrates. PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new 432.3 General pretreatment standards. Non-Conventional Pollutants—Pollutants sources under section 307(c) of the CWA. 432.4 General limitation or standard for pH. that are neither conventional pollutants Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)— nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR A treatment works as defined by section Subpart A—Simple Slaughterhouses 401.15 and part 423 appendix A. 212 of the Clean Water Act, which is 432.10 Applicability.
VerDate 11
432.11 Special definitions. control technology currently available 432.97 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the (BPT). application of the best control application of the best practicable 432.55 New source performance standards technology for conventional pollutants control technology currently available (NSPS). (BCT). (BPT). 432.57 Effluent limitations attainable by the Subpart J—Renderers 432.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best control application of the best available technology for conventional pollutants 432.100 Applicability. technology economically achievable (BCT). 432.101 Special definitions. (BAT). 432.102 Effluent limitations attainable by Subpart F—Meat Cutters 432.15 New source performance standards the application of the best practicable (NSPS). 432.60 Applicability. control technology currently available 432.17 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.61 Special definitions. (BPT). application of the best control 432.62 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.103 Effluent limitations attainable by technology for conventional pollutants application of the best practicable the application of the best available (BCT). control technology currently available technology economically achievable (BPT). (BAT). Subpart B—Complex Slaughterhouses 432.63 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.105 New source performance standards 432.20 Applicability. application of the best available (NSPS). 432.21 Special definitions. technology economically achievable 432.107 Effluent limitations attainable by 432.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the (BAT). the application of the best control application of the best practicable 432.65 New source performance standards technology for conventional pollutants control technology currently available (NSPS). (BCT). (BPT). 432.67 Effluent limitations attainable by the Subpart K—Poultry First Processing 432.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best control application of the best available technology for conventional pollutants 432.110 Applicability. technology economically achievable (BCT). 432.111 Special definitions. (BAT). 432.112 Effluent limitations attainable by Subpart G—Sausage and Luncheon Meats 432.25 New source performance standards the application of the best practicable Processors (NSPS). control technology currently available 432.27 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.70 Applicability. (BPT). application of the best control 432.71 Special definitions. 432.113 Effluent limitations attainable by technology for conventional pollutants 432.72 Effluent limitations attainable by the the application of the best available (BCT). application of the best practicable technology economically achievable control technology currently available (BAT). Subpart C—Low-Processing (BPT). 432.115 New source performance standards Packinghouses 432.73 Effluent limitations attainable by the (NSPS). 432.30 Applicability. application of the best available 432.117 Effluent limitations attainable by 432.31 Special definitions. technology economically achievable the application of the best control 432.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the (BAT). technology for conventional pollutants application of the best practicable 432.75 New source performance standards (BCT). control technology currently available (NSPS). Subpart L—Poultry Further Processing (BPT). 432.77 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best control 432.120 Applicability. application of the best available technology for conventional pollutants 432.121 Special definitions. technology economically achievable (BCT). 432.122 Effluent limitations attainable by (BAT). the application of the best practicable Subpart H—Ham Processors 432.35 New source performance standards control technology currently available (NSPS). 432.80 Applicability. (BPT). 432.37 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.81 Special definitions. 432.123 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best control 432.82 Effluent limitations attainable by the the application of the best available technology for conventional pollutants application of the best practicable technology economically achievable (BCT). control technology currently available (BAT). (BPT). 432.125 New source performance standards Subpart D—High-Processing 432.83 Effluent limitations attainable by the (NSPS). Packinghouses application of the best available 432.127 Effluent limitations attainable by 432.40 Applicability. technology economically achievable the application of the best control 432.41 Special definitions. (BAT). technology for conventional pollutants 432.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.85 New source performance standards (BCT). application of the best practicable (NSPS). control technology currently available 432.87 Effluent limitations attainable by the Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, (BPT). application of the best control 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, as 432.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the technology for conventional pollutants amended; 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, application of the best available (BCT). 1318, 1342 and 1361. technology economically achievable Subpart I—Canned Meats Processors § 432.1 General applicability. (BAT). 432.45 New source performance standards 432.90 Applicability. As defined more specifically in each (NSPS). 432.91 Special definitions. subpart, this part applies to discharges 432.47 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.92 Effluent limitations attainable by the of process wastewater resulting from application of the best control application of the best practicable sources engaged in the slaughtering, technology for conventional pollutants control technology currently available dressing and packing of mammals, (BCT). (BPT). including cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, 432.93 Effluent limitations attainable by the lambs, and poultry, including chickens, Subpart E—Small Processors application of the best available 432.50 Applicability. technology economically achievable turkeys, fowl and ducks; production of 432.51 Special definitions. (BAT). sausages, luncheon meats, cured, 432.52 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.95 New source performance standards smoked and canned or other prepared application of the best practicable (NSPS). meat and poultry products from
VerDate 11
purchased carcasses and other (j) Raw Material means the basic input § 432.12 Effluent limitations attainable by materials; or production of animal oils, materials to a renderer composed of the application of the best practicable meat meal and the rendering of grease animal and poultry trimmings, bones, control technology currently available and tallow from animal fat, bones and blood, meat scraps, dead animals, (BPT). meat scraps. These manufacturing feathers and related usable by-products. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point activities are generally reported under (k) The other parameters regulated in source subject to this subpart must one or more of the following Standard this part are listed with approved achieve the following effluent Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: methods of analysis in Table 1B at 40 limitations representing the application 0751, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2047, 2048 and CFR 136.3, and are defined as follows: 2077 (1987 Manual) and under one or of BPT: (1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia (a) Facilities that slaughter no more more of the following North American measured as nitrogen. Industry Classification System (NAICS) than 50 million pounds per year (in (2) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or codes: 311611, 311612, 311615, 311613, oxygen demand. subsequent meat, meat product or by- 311111, 311119, 311999 and 11234. (3) COD means chemical oxygen product processing of carcasses of § 432.2 General definitions. demand. animals slaughtered on-site: As used in this part: (4) O&G means total recoverable oil (a) The general definitions and and grease. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 shall (5) O&G (as HEM) means total apply. Maximum recoverable oil and grease measured as Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 (b) ELWK (equivalent live weight n-hexane extractable material. avg. 1 killed) means the total weight of the (6) Total Nitrogen means the total of total number of animals slaughtered at BOD ...... 0.24 0.12 nitrate/nitrite and total kjeldahl 5 locations other than the slaughterhouse Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) nitrogen. 3 or packinghouse, which animals O&G ...... 0.12 0.06 provide hides, blood, viscera or (7) Total Phosphorus means all of the TSS ...... 0.40 0.20 phosphorus present in the sample, renderable materials for processing at 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. that slaughterhouse, in addition to those regardless of form, as measured by the 2 Maximum of 400 most probable number derived from animals slaughtered on persulfate digestion procedure. (MPN) per 100 ml at any time. (8) TSS means total suspended solids. 3 May be measured as hexane extractable site. material (HEM). (c) Fecal coliform means the bacterial (l) Slaughterhouse means a facility count, as determined by approved that slaughters animals and has as its (2) Processing (defleshing, washing methods of analysis for Parameter 1 in main product fresh meat as whole, half and curing) of hides derived from Table 1A at 40 CFR 136.3. or quarter carcasses or small meat cuts. animals slaughtered at locations off site: The following supplemental limitations (d) Finished Product means the final (m) The nitrate/nitrite part of total apply in addition to the corresponding fresh or frozen products resulting from nitrogen may be measured by EPA limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) the further processing of meat or poultry Method 300.0. whole or cut-up carcasses. of this section: (e) Further processing means § 432.3 General pretreatment standards. SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) operations which utilize whole Any source subject to this part that carcasses or cut-up meat or poultry introduces process wastewater Maximum products for the production of fresh or pollutants into a publicly owned Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 frozen products, and may include the treatment works (POTW) must comply avg. 1 following types of processing: cutting with 40 CFR part 403. and deboning, cooking, seasoning, BOD5 ...... 0.04 0.02 smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, § 432.4 General limitation or standard for TSS ...... 0.08 0.04 pH. dicing, forming and/or breading. 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. (f) LWK (live weight killed) means the The pH must remain within the range (3) Processing of blood derived from total weight of the total number of 6 to 9 in any discharge subject to BPT, animals slaughtered at locations off site: animals slaughtered during the time BAT, NSPS, or BCT limitations or The same limitations for BOD and TSS period to which the limitations or standards in this part. 5 standards apply, i.e. daily or monthly. specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this (g) Meat means products derived from Subpart A—Simple Slaughterhouses section apply in addition to the the slaughter and processing of cattle, corresponding limitation specified in calves, hogs, sheep, lambs, and any § 432.10 Applicability. paragraph (a)(1) of this section. meat that is not listed under the This part applies to discharges of (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering definition of poultry. process wastewater resulting from the of material derived from animals (h) Packinghouse means a plant that production of meat carcasses, in whole slaughtered at locations off site: The both slaughters animals and or in part, by simple slaughterhouses. following supplemental limitations subsequently processes carcasses into apply in addition to the corresponding cured, smoked, canned or other § 432.11 Special definitions. limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) prepared meat products. For the purpose of this subpart: of this section: (i) Poultry means products derived Simple slaughterhouse means a from the slaughter and processing of slaughterhouse which accomplishes SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) broilers, other young chickens, mature very limited by-product processing, if Maximum Maximum chickens, hens, turkeys, capons, geese, any, usually no more than two Regulated parameter monthly daily 1 ducks, small game fowl such as quail or operations such as rendering, paunch avg.1 pheasants, and small game such as and viscera handling, or processing of rabbits. blood, hide or hair. BOD5 ...... 0.06 0.03
VerDate 11
SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT)— COD applies in addition to the COD EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) Continued limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Maximum daily 1 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.1 daily 1 SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) avg.1 Maximum Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0655 0.0143 TSS ...... 0.12 0.06 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0561 0.0230 daily 1 avg.1 Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0497 0.0238 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. (5) Dry rendering of material derived COD ...... 0.1550 0.1260 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. from animals slaughtered at locations 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw (b) Further processing of animals off site: The following supplemental material. slaughtered on site, or at locations off limitations apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in (5) Dry rendering of material derived site: The following supplemental paragraph (a)(1) of this section: from animals slaughtered at locations limitations apply in addition to the off site: The supplemental limitations corresponding limitation specified in SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) for BOD5 and TSS specified in paragraph (a) of this section: paragraph (a)(5) of this section apply in Maximum addition to the corresponding limitation SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BAT) Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this avg.1 section and the supplemental Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly limitations for COD specified in daily 1 BOD5 ...... 0.02 0.01 avg.1 TSS ...... 0.04 0.02 paragraph (b)(4) of this section apply in addition to the COD limitation specified Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0704 0.0153 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0965 0.0396 (b) Facilities that slaughter more than (6) Further processing of animals Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0917 0.0439 50 million pounds per year (in units of slaughtered on site, or at locations off LWK). site: The following supplemental 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: limitations apply in addition to the COD product. limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and (c) Rendering of by-products from of this section: fecal coliform are the same as the animals slaughtered on site, or at corresponding limitation specified in locations off site: The following SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and a supplemental limitations apply in limitation for COD is as follows: Maximum addition to the corresponding limitation Regulated parameter Maximum monthly specified in paragraph (a) of this EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) daily 1 avg.1 section: Maximum COD ...... 0.278 0.226 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BAT) daily 1 avg.1 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished product. Maximum COD ...... 0.1450 0.1180 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 (7) Rendering of raw materials from avg.1 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. animals slaughtered on-site: The (2) Processing (defleshing, washing following supplemental limitations for Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0438 0.0096 and curing) of hides derived from COD apply in addition to the COD Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0601 0.0247 animals slaughtered at locations off site: limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0472 0.0226 The supplemental limitations for BOD of this section: 5 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw and TSS specified in paragraph (a)(2) of material. this section apply in addition to the SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) corresponding limitation specified in § 432.15 New source performance Maximum standards (NSPS). paragraph (a)(1) of this section: Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 (3) Processing of blood derived from avg.1 Any new source subject to this animals slaughtered at locations off site: subpart must achieve the following The same supplemental limitations for COD ...... 0.1550 0.1260 performance standards: BOD and TSS specified in paragraph 5 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw (a)(2) of this section apply in addition material. (a) Facilities that slaughter no more to the corresponding limitation than 50 million pounds per year (in specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this § 432.13 Effluent limitations attainable by units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or section. the application of the best available subsequent meat, meat product or by- (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering technology economically achievable (BAT). product processing of carcasses of of material derived from animals Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 animals slaughtered on-site: The slaughtered at locations off site: The through 125.32, any existing point standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal supplemental limitations for BOD5 and source subject to this subpart that coliform are the same as the TSS specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this slaughters more than 50 million pounds corresponding limitation specified in section apply in addition to the per year (in units of LWK) must achieve § 432.12(a)(1); and standards for corresponding limitation specified in the following effluent limitations ammonia (as N) are as follows: paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the representing the application of BAT: following supplemental limitation for (a) Animals slaughtered on-site:
VerDate 11
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) are the same as the corresponding limitations specified in § 432.12. Maximum Maximum Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Regulated parameter monthly Subpart B—Complex Slaughterhouses daily 1 daily 1 avg.1 avg.1 § 432.20 Applicability. Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.34 0.17 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0655 0.0143 This part applies to discharges of BOD5 ...... 0.0442 0.0208 process wastewater resulting from the 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. 2 2 Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() production of meat carcasses, in whole O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.0835 0.0210 (2) Processing of blood derived from Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0561 0.0230 or in part, by complex slaughterhouses. animals slaughtered at locations off site: Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0497 0.0238 § 432.21 Special definitions. The supplemental standards for BOD TSS ...... 0.0178 0.0137 5 For the purpose of this subpart: and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) and 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. Complex slaughterhouse means a the following supplemental standards 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any slaughterhouse which accomplishes for ammonia (as N), apply in addition to time. extensive by-product processing, the corresponding standard specified in (2) Further processing of animals usually at least three operations such as paragraph (a)(1) of this section: slaughtered on site, or at locations off rendering, paunch and viscera handling, site: The following supplemental or processing of blood, hide or hair. SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) standards apply in addition to the corresponding standard specified in § 432.22 Effluent limitations attainable by Maximum the application of the best practicable Regulated parameter Maximum monthly paragraph (b)(1) of this section: daily 1 control technology currently available avg.1 (BPT). SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.06 0.03 through 125.32, any existing point Maximum 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. Regulated parameter Maximum monthly source subject to this subpart must daily 1 avg.1 achieve the following effluent (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering limitations representing the application of material derived from animals Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0704 0.0153 of BPT: slaughtered at locations off site: The BOD5 ...... 0.0520 0.0245 (a) Facilities that slaughter no more O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.1430 0.0362 supplemental standards for BOD5 and than 50 million pounds per year (in TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) and the Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0965 0.0396 units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or following supplemental standards for Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0917 0.0439 TSS ...... 0.0262 0.0201 subsequent meat, meat product or by- ammonia (as N) apply in addition to the product processing of carcasses of corresponding standard specified in 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished animals slaughtered on-site: paragraph (a)(1) of this section: product. (3) Rendering of by-products from EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) animals slaughtered on site, or at locations off site: The following Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Maximum supplemental standards apply in daily 1 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.1 daily 1 avg.1 addition to the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this BOD5 ...... 0.42 0.21 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.10 0.05 section: Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) O&G 3 ...... 0.16 0.08 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) TSS ...... 0.50 0.25 (4) Dry rendering of material derived 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. Maximum 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any from animals slaughtered at locations Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 time. off site: The supplemental standards for avg.1 3 May be measured as hexane extractable BOD5 and TSS specified in material (HEM). Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0438 0.0096 § 432.12(a)(5) and the following (2) Processing (defleshing, washing supplemental standards for ammonia (as BOD5 ...... 0.0578 0.0272 O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.1170 0.0297 and curing) of hides derived from N) apply in addition to the Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0601 0.0247 animals slaughtered at locations off site: corresponding standard specified in Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0472 0.0226 The supplemental limitations for BOD5 paragraph (a)(1) of this section: TSS ...... 0.0163 0.0125 and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2)
1 apply in addition to the corresponding SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw material. limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Maximum Maximum § 432.17 Effluent limitations attainable by (3) Processing of blood derived from Regulated parameter 1 monthly the application of the best control daily 1 animals slaughtered at locations off site: avg. technology for conventional pollutants The supplemental limitations for BOD5 (BCT). Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.04 0.02 and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 apply in addition to the corresponding 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. through 125.32, any existing point limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) source subject to this subpart must of this section. (b) Facilities that slaughter more than achieve the following effluent (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering 50 million pounds per year (in units of limitations representing the application of material derived from animals LWK) of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, slaughtered at locations off site: The (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: O&G, O&G (as HEM) and fecal coliform supplemental limitations for BOD5 and
VerDate 11
TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) apply in § 432.23 Effluent limitations attainable by supplemental standards for ammonia (as addition to the corresponding limitation the application of the best available N) specified in § 432.15(a)(3) apply in specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this technology economically achievable (BAT). addition to the corresponding standard section. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this (5) Dry rendering of material derived through 125.32, any existing point section. from animals slaughtered at locations source subject to this subpart that (4) Dry rendering of material derived off site: The supplemental limitations slaughters more than 50 million pounds from animals slaughtered at locations for BOD5 and TSS specified in per year (in units of LWK) must achieve off site: The supplemental limitations § 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the the following effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in corresponding limitation specified in representing the application of BAT: § 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The standards for ammonia (as N) specified (b) Facilities that slaughter more than effluent limitations for Ammonia (as N), in § 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to the 50 million pounds per year (in units of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus corresponding standard specified in LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: specified in § 432.13(a) apply. paragraph (a)(1) of this section: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and (b) Further processing of animals (b) Facilities that slaughter more than fecal coliform are the same as the slaughtered on site, or at locations off 50 million pounds per year (in units of corresponding limitation specified in site: The supplemental limitations for LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site, paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and the effluent standards for BOD5, TSS, effluent limitations for COD specified in Total Phosphorus specified in O&G (as HEM), fecal coliform, Ammonia § 432.12(b)(1) apply. § 432.13(b) apply in addition to the (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total (2) Processing (defleshing, washing corresponding limitation specified in Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(1) and curing) of hides derived from § 432.13(a). apply. animals slaughtered at locations off site: (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered (2) Further processing of animals The supplemental limitations for BOD5 on site, or at locations off site: The slaughtered on site, or at locations off and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) supplemental limitations for Ammonia site: The supplemental standards for apply in addition to the corresponding (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) Phosphorus specified in § 432.13(c) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total of this section. apply in addition to the corresponding Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(2) (3) Processing of blood derived from limitation specified in § 432.13(a). apply in addition to the corresponding animals slaughtered at locations off site: standard specified in § 432.15(b)(1). § 432.25 New source performance The supplemental limitations for BOD5 (3) Rendering of by-products from standards (NSPS). and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) animals slaughtered on site, or at apply in addition to the corresponding Any new source subject to this locations off site: The supplemental subpart must achieve the following limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as of this section. performance standards: HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering (a) Facilities that slaughter no more and Total Phosphorus specified in of material derived from animals than 50 million pounds per year (in § 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to the slaughtered at locations off site: The units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or corresponding standard specified in supplemental limitations specified in subsequent meat, meat product or by- § 432.15(b)(1). § 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the product processing of carcasses of corresponding limitation specified in animals slaughtered on-site: The § 432.27 Effluent limitations attainable by paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal the application of the best control coliform are the same as the technology for conventional pollutants supplemental limitations for COD (BCT). specified in § 432.12(b)(4) apply in corresponding limitation specified in addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.22(a)(1); and the standards for Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 specified in § 432.12(b)(1). ammonia (as N) are as follows: through 125.32, any existing point (5) Dry rendering of material derived source subject to this subpart must from animals slaughtered at locations PERFORMANCE STANDARDS achieve the following effluent off site: The supplemental limitations limitations representing the application specified in § 432.12(a)(5) apply in Maximum of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 O&G and fecal coliform are the same as addition to the corresponding limitation avg.1 specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this the corresponding limitations specified section; and the supplemental Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.48 0.24 in § 432.22. limitations for COD specified in 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. Subpart C—Low-processing § 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to the Packinghouses corresponding limitation specified in (2) Processing of blood derived from § 432.12(b)(1). animals slaughtered at locations off site: § 432.30 Applicability. (6) Further processing of animals The supplemental limitations for BOD5 This part applies to discharges of slaughtered on site, or at locations off and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) and process wastewater resulting from the site: The supplemental limitations for the supplemental standards for production of meat carcasses, in whole COD specified in § 432.12(b)(6) apply in ammonia (as N) specified in or in part, by low-processing addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to the packinghouses. specified in § 432.12(b)(1). corresponding standard specified in (7) Rendering of raw materials from paragraph (a)(1) of this section. § 432.31 Special definitions. animals slaughtered on-site: (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering For the purpose of this subpart: Low- supplemental limitations for COD of material derived from animals processing packinghouse means a specified in § 432.12(b)(7) apply in slaughtered at locations off site: The packinghouse that processes no more, addition to the corresponding limitation supplemental limitations for BOD5 and and usually less, that the total animals specified in § 432.12(b)(1). TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) and the killed at that plant.
VerDate 11
§ 432.32 Effluent limitations attainable by effluent limitations for COD specified in Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and the application of the best practicable § 432.12(b)(1) apply. Total Phosphorus specified in control technology currently available (2) Processing (defleshing, washing § 432.13(b) apply in addition to the (BPT). and curing) of hides derived from corresponding limitation specified in Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 animals slaughtered at locations off site: § 432.13(a). through 125.32, any existing point The supplemental limitations for BOD5 (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered source subject to this subpart must and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) on site, or at locations off site: The achieve the following effluent apply in addition to the corresponding supplemental limitations for Ammonia limitations representing the application limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total of BPT: of this section. Phosphorus specified in § 432.13(c) (a) Facilities that slaughter no more (3) Processing of blood derived from apply in addition to the corresponding than 50 million pounds per year (in animals slaughtered at locations off site: limitation specified in § 432.13(a). units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or The supplemental limitations for BOD5 subsequent meat, meat product or by- and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) § 432.35 New source performance standards (NSPS). product processing of carcasses of apply in addition to the corresponding animals slaughtered on-site: limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) Any new source subject to this of this section. subpart must achieve the following EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering performance standards: of material derived from animals (a) Facilities that slaughter no more Maximum slaughtered at locations off site: The than 50 million pounds per year (in Regulated parameter Maximum monthly units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or daily 1 supplemental limitations specified in avg.1 § 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the subsequent meat, meat product or by- corresponding limitation specified in product processing of carcasses of BOD5 ...... 0.34 0.17 animals slaughtered on-site: Limitations 2 2 paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() for BOD , TSS, O&G and fecal coliform O&G 3 ...... 0.16 0.08 supplemental limitations for COD 5 TSS ...... 0.48 0.24 specified in § 432.12(b)(4) apply in are the same as the corresponding addition to the corresponding limitation limitation specified in § 432.32(a)(1); 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. and standards for ammonia (as N) are as 2 specified in § 432.12(b)(1). Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any follows: time. (5) Dry rendering of material derived 3 May be measured as hexane extractable from animals slaughtered at locations material (HEM). off site: The supplemental limitations PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) specified in § 432.12(a)(5) apply in (2) Processing (defleshing, washing Maximum and curing) of hides derived from addition to the corresponding limitation Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily1 animals slaughtered at locations off site: specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this avg.1 The supplemental limitations for BOD5 section; and the supplemental and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) limitations for COD specified in Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.48 0.24 apply in addition to the corresponding § 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to the 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. corresponding limitation specified in limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (2) Processing of blood derived from of this section. § 432.12(b)(1). (6) Further processing of animals animals slaughtered at locations off site: (3) Processing of blood derived from The supplemental limitations for BOD animals slaughtered at locations off site: slaughtered on site, or at locations off 5 site: The supplemental limitations for and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) and The supplemental limitations for BOD5 the supplemental standards for and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) COD specified in § 432.12(b)(6) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation ammonia (as N) specified in apply in addition to the corresponding § 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to the limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) specified in § 432.12(b)(1). (7) Rendering of raw materials from corresponding standard specified in of this section. paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering animals slaughtered on-site: supplemental limitations for COD (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from animals of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The specified in § 432.12(b)(7) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 and specified in § 432.12(b)(1). supplemental limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) apply in TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) and the addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.33 Effluent limitations attainable by supplemental standards for ammonia (as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this the application of the best available N) specified in § 432.15(a)(3) apply in section. technology economically achievable (BAT) addition to the corresponding standard (5) Dry rendering of material derived Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this from animals slaughtered at locations through 125.32, any existing point section. off site: The supplemental limitations source subject to this subpart that (4) Dry rendering of material derived for BOD5 and TSS specified in slaughters more than 50 million pounds from animals slaughtered at locations § 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the per year (in units of LWK) must achieve off site: The supplemental limitations corresponding limitation specified in the following effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. representing the application of BAT: § 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental (b) Facilities that slaughter more than (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The standards for ammonia (as N) specified 50 million pounds per year (in units of effluent limitations for Ammonia (as N), in § 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to the LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus corresponding standard specified in Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and specified in § 432.13(a) apply. paragraph (a)(1) of this section: fecal coliform are the same as the (b) Further processing of animals (b) Facilities that slaughter more than corresponding limitation specified in slaughtered on site, or at locations off 50 million pounds per year (in units of paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the site: The supplemental limitations for LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site:
VerDate 11
The effluent standards for BOD5, TSS, product processing of carcasses of apply in addition to the corresponding O&G (as HEM), fecal coliform, Ammonia animals slaughtered on-site: limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total of this section. Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) (3) Processing of blood derived from apply. animals slaughtered at locations off site: (2) Further processing of animals Maximum The supplemental limitations for BOD5 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) slaughtered on site, or at locations off avg.1 site: The supplemental standards for apply in addition to the corresponding 2 BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia BOD5 ...... 0.48 0.24 limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Fecal Coliform ...... (3)(3) of this section. Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(2) O&G 4 ...... 0.26 0.13 (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering 2 apply in addition to the corresponding TSS ...... 0.62 0.31 of material derived from animals standard specified in § 432.15(b)(1). 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. slaughtered at locations off site: The 2 (3) Rendering of by-products from The values for BOD5 and TSS are for av- supplemental limitations specified in animals slaughtered on site, or at erage plants, i.e., plants where the ratio: § 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the avg.wt. of processed meat products/avg. LWK corresponding limitation specified in locations off site: The supplemental is 0.55. Adjustments can be made for high- paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as processing packinghouses operating at other HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen such ratios according to the following equa- supplemental limitations for COD and Total Phosphorus specified in tions: lbs BOD5/1000 lbs LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 specified in § 432.12(b)(4) apply in (v ¥ 0.4) and lbs TSS/1000 lbs LWK = 0.28 + addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to the 0.3 (v ¥ 0.4), where v equals the following corresponding standard specified in ratio: lbs processed meat products/lbs LWK. specified in § 432.12(b)(1). § 432.15(b)(1). 3 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any (5) Dry rendering of material derived time. from animals slaughtered at locations § 432.37 Effluent limitations attainable by 4 May be measured as hexane extractable off site: The supplemental limitations material (HEM). the application of the best control specified in § 432.12(a)(5) apply in technology for conventional pollutants (2) Processing (defleshing, washing addition to the corresponding limitation (BCT). and curing) of hides derived from specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 animals slaughtered at locations off site: section; and the supplemental through 125.32, any existing point The supplemental limitations for BOD5 limitations for COD specified in source subject to this subpart must and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) § 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to the achieve the following effluent apply in addition to the corresponding corresponding limitation specified in limitations representing the application limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) § 432.12(b)(1). of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G of this section. (6) Further processing of animals and fecal coliform are the same as the (3) Processing of blood derived from slaughtered on site, or at locations off corresponding limitations specified in animals slaughtered at locations off site: site: The supplemental limitations for § 433.32. The supplemental limitations for BOD5 COD specified in § 432.12(b)(6) apply in and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) addition to the corresponding limitation Subpart D—High-Processing apply in addition to the corresponding specified in § 432.12(b)(1). Packinghouse limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (7) Rendering of raw materials from of this section. animals slaughtered on-site: The § 432.40 Applicability. (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering supplemental limitations for COD and This part applies to discharges of of material derived from animals specified in § 432.12(b)(7) apply in process wastewater resulting from the slaughtered at locations off site: The addition to the corresponding limitation production of meat carcasses, in whole supplemental limitations for BOD5 and specified in § 432.12(b)(1). or in part, by high-processing TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) apply in packinghouses. addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.43 Effluent limitations attainable by specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this the application of the best available § 432.41 Special definitions. section. technology economically achievable (BAT). For the purpose of this subpart: High- (5) Dry rendering of material derived Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 processing packinghouse means a from animals slaughtered at locations through 125.32, any existing point packinghouse which processes both off site: The supplemental limitations source subject to this subpart that animals slaughtered at the site and for BOD5 and TSS specified in slaughters more that 50 million pounds additional carcasses from outside § 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the per year (in units of LWK) must achieve sources. corresponding limitation specified in the following effluent limitations paragraph (a)(1) of this section. representing the application of BAT: § 432.42 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Facilities that slaughter more than (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The the application of the best practicable 50 million pounds per year (in units of limitations for Ammonia (as N), Total control technology currently available LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (BPT). Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and specified in § 432.13(a). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 fecal coliform are the same as the (b) Further processing of animals through 125.32, any existing point corresponding limitation specified in slaughtered on site, or at locations off source subject to this subpart must paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the site: The supplemental limitations for achieve the following effluent effluent limitations for COD specified in Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and limitations representing the application § 432.12(b)(1) apply. Total Phosphorus specified in of BPT: (2) Processing (defleshing, washing § 432.13(b) apply in addition to the (a) Facilities that slaughter no more and curing) of hides derived from corresponding limitation specified in than 50 million pounds per year (in animals slaughtered at locations off site: § 432.13(a). units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or The supplemental limitations for BOD5 (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered subsequent meat, meat product or by- and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) on site, or at locations off site: The
VerDate 11
supplemental limitations for Ammonia (2) Further processing of animals EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total slaughtered on site, or at locations off Phosphorus specified in § 432.13(c) site: The supplemental standards for Maximum Regulated Parameter Maximum monthly apply in addition to the corresponding daily 1 BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia avg.1 limitation specified in § 432.13(a). (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total § 432.45 New source performance Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(2) BOD5 ...... 2.0 1 2 2 standards (NSPS). apply in addition to the corresponding Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() standard specified in § 432.15(b)(1). O&G3 ...... 1.0 0.5 Any new source subject to this TSS ...... 2.4 1.2 subpart must achieve the following (3) Rendering of of by-products from animals slaughtered on site, or at 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. performance standards: 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any (a) Facilities that slaughter no more locations off site: The supplemental time. than 50 million pounds per year (in standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as 3 May be measured as hexane extractable units of LWK): (1) On-site slaughter or HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen material (HEM). subsequent meat, meat product or by- and Total Phosphorus specified in § 432.55 New source performance product processing of carcasses of § 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to the standards (NSPS). animals slaughtered on-site: The corresponding standard specified in Any new source subject to this standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal § 432.15(b)(1). subpart must achieve the following: coliform are the same as the § 432.47 Effluent limitations attainable by corresponding limitation specified in PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) § 432.42(a)(1); and standards for the application of the best control technology for conventional pollutants ammonia (as N) are as follows: Maximum (BCT). Maximum Regulated parameter 1 monthly daily 1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 avg. through 125.32, any existing point Maximum BOD5 ...... 1.0 0.5 source subject to this subpart must 2 2 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() daily 1 3 avg.1 achieve the following effluent O&G ...... 0.5 0.25 limitations representing the application TSS ...... 1.2 0.6 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.80 0.40 of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, 1 Pound per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. O&G and fecal coliform are the same as 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any the corresponding limitations specified time. 3 (2) Processing of blood derived from in § 432.42. May be measured as hexane extractable animals slaughtered at locations off site: material (HEM). The supplemental limitations for BOD5 Subpart E—Small Processors § 432.57 Effluent limitations attainable by and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) and the application of the best control the supplemental standards for § 432.50 Applicability. technology for conventional pollutants ammonia (as N) specified in This part applies to discharges of (BCT). § 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to the process wastewater resulting from the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 corresponding standards specified in production of finished meat products through 125.32, any existing point paragraph (a)(1) of this section. such as fresh meat cuts, smoked source subject to this subpart must (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering products, canned products, hams, achieve the following effluent of material derived from animals limitations representing the application sausages, luncheon meats, or similar slaughtered at locations off site: The of BCT: The limitations for BOD , TSS products by a small processor. 5 supplemental limitations for BOD5 and and O&G are the same as the TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) and the § 432.51 Special definitions. corresponding standard specified in supplemental standards for ammonia (as § 432.55. N) specified in § 432.15(a)(3) apply in For the purpose of this subpart: addition to the corresponding standard (a) Finished product means the final Subpart F—Meat Cutters specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this product, such as fresh meat cuts, hams, § 432.60 Applicability. section. bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, This part applies to discharges of (4) Dry rendering of material derived luncheon meats, stew, canned meats or process wastewater resulting from the from animals slaughtered at locations related products. fabrication or production of fresh meat off site: The supplemental limitations (b) Small processor means an cuts, such as steaks, roasts, chops, etc. for BOD and TSS specified in 5 by a meat cutter. § 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental operation that produces up to 6000 lbs (2730 kg) per day of any type or standards for ammonia (as N) specified § 432.61 Special definitions. combination of finished products. in § 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to the For the purpose of this subpart: corresponding standard specified in § 432.52 Effluent limitations attainable by (a) Finished product means the final paragraph (a)(1) of this section: the application of the best practicable product, such as fresh meat cuts (b) Facilities that slaughter more than control technology currently available including, but not limited to, steaks, 50 million pounds per year (in units of (BPT). roasts, chops, or boneless meats. LWK). (b) Meat cutter means an operation (1) Animals slaughtered on-site, the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 which fabricates, cuts, or otherwise through 125.32, any existing point effluent standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G produces fresh meat cuts and related (as HEM), fecal coliform, Ammonia (as source subject to this subpart must finished products from larger pieces of N), Total Nitrogen and Total achieve the following effluent meat (carcasses or not carcasses), at Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(1) limitations representing the application rates greater than 6000 lbs (2730 kg) per apply. of BPT: day.
VerDate 11
§ 432.62 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Facilities that generate more than Subpart G—Sausage and Luncheon the application of the best practicable 50 million pounds per year of finished Meats Processors control technology currently available products: (BPT). § 432.70 Applicability. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) This part applies to discharges of through 125.32, any existing point process wastewater resulting from the source subject to this subpart must Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly production of fresh meat cuts, sausage, daily 1 achieve the following effluent avg.1 bologna and other luncheon meats by a limitations representing the application sausage and luncheon meat processor. of BPT: Ammonia ...... 0.0165 0.0036 (a) Facilities that generate no more Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0226 0.0093 § 432.71 Special definitions. Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0215 0.0103 than 50 million pounds per year of For the purpose of this subpart: finished products: 1 mg/L (ppm). (a) Finished product means the final § 432.65 New source performance EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) product as fresh meat cuts, which standards (NSPS). includes steaks, roasts, chops or Maximum Any new source subject to this boneless meat, bacon or other smoked Regulated parameter Maximum monthly subpart must achieve the following daily 1 meats (except hams) such as sausage, avg.1 performance standards: (a) Facilities bologna or other luncheon meats, or that generate no more than 50 million related products (except canned meats). BOD5 ...... 0.036 0.018 pounds per year of finished products: Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) (b) Sausage and luncheon meat O&G 3 ...... 0.012 0.006 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) processor means an operation which TSS ...... 0.044 0.022 cuts fresh meats, grinds, mixes, seasons, 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished Maximum smokes or otherwise produces finished Regulated parameter Maximum monthly product. daily 1 products such as sausage, bologna and 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any avg.1 luncheon meats at rates greater than time. 3 6000 lbs (2730 kg) per day. May be measured as hexane extractable BOD5 ...... 0.030 0.015 material (HEM). 2 2 Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() § 432.72 Effluent limitations attainable by O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.012 0.006 the application of the best practicable (b) Facilities that generate more than TSS ...... 0.036 0.018 50 million pounds per year of finished control technology currently available 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished (BPT). products: The limitations for BOD5, product. TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 same as the corresponding limitation time. through 125.32, any existing point specified in paragraph (a) of this (b) Facilities that generate more than source subject to this subpart must section; and limitations for COD are as 50 million pounds per year of finished achieve the following effluent follows. products: limitations representing the application of BPT: EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) (a) Facilities that generate no more Maximum than 50 million pounds per year of Maximum Maximum Maximum Regulated parameter 1 monthly Regulated parameter monthly finished products: daily 1 daily 1 avg. avg.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) COD ...... 0.0654 0.0531 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0165 0.0036 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished BOD5 ...... 0.0122 0.0058 Maximum Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) Regulated parameter Maximum monthly product. daily 1 O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.0337 0.0085 avg.1 § 432.63 Effluent limitations attainable by Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0226 0.0093 the application of the best available Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0215 0.0103 BOD5 ...... 0.56 0.28 technology economically achievable (BAT). TSS ...... 0.0062 0.0047 Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) O&G 3 ...... 0.2 0.10 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished TSS ...... 0.68 0.34 through 125.32, any existing point product. 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any source subject to this subpart must time. 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished achieve the following effluent product. limitations representing the application § 432.67 Effluent limitations attainable by 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any the application of the best control time. of BAT: (a) Facilities that generate no 3 technology for conventional pollutants May be measured as hexane extractable more than 50 million pounds per year material (HEM). of finished products: (BCT). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (b) Facilities that generate more than EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) through 125.32, any existing point 50 million pounds per year of finished source subject to this subpart must products: The limitations for BOD5, Maximum achieve the following effluent TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 limitations representing the application avg.1 same as the corresponding limitation of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, specified in paragraph (a) of this O&G and fecal coliform are the same as Ammonia ...... 8.0 4.0 section; and limitations for COD are as the corresponding limitation specified follows. 1 mg/L (ppm). in § 432.62.
VerDate 11
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS):— EFFLUENT LIMITATION (BPT) Continued Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Regulated parameter 1 monthly Regulated parameter 1 monthly daily 1 Maximum daily 1 avg. Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg. daily 1 avg.1 COD ...... 0.2780 0.2260 BOD 5 ...... 0.62 0.31 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) product. O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.1430 0.0362 O&G 3 ...... 0.22 0.11 Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0965 0.0396 TSS ...... 0.74 0.37 § 432.73 Effluent limitations attainable by Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0917 0.0439 1Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished the application of the best available TSS ...... 0.0262 0.0201 technology economically achievable (BAT) product. 2 Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any product. time. through 125.32, any existing point 3 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any May be measured as hexane extractable source subject to this subpart must time. material (HEM). achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application § 432.77 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Facilities that generate more than of BAT: (a) Facilities that generate no the application of the best control 50 million pounds per year of finished more than 50 million pounds per year technology for conventional pollutants products: The limitations for BOD5, of finished products: The limitations for (BCT). TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the ammonia (as N) are the same as Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 same as the corresponding limitation specified in § 432.63(a). through 125.32, any existing point specified in paragraph (a) of this (b) Facilities that generate more than source subject to this subpart must section; and limitations for COD are the 50 million pounds per year of finished same as the COD limitations specified in products: achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application § 432.62(b). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, § 432.83 Effluent limitations attainable by O&G and fecal coliform are the same as the application of the best available Maximum the corresponding limitation specified technology economically achievable (BAT) Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 in § 432.72. avg.1 Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 Subpart H—Ham Processors through 125.32, any existing point Ammonia ...... 0.0704 0.0153 source subject to this subpart must Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0965 0.0396 § 432.80 Applicability. achieve the following effluent Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0917 0.0439 limitations representing the application This part applies to discharges of 1 mg/L (ppm). of BAT: process wastewater resulting from the § 432.75 New source performance production of hams, alone or in (a) Facilities that generate no more standards (NSPS). combination with other finished than 50 million pounds per year of Any new source subject to this products, by a ham processor. finished products: The limitations for subpart must achieve the following ammonia (as N) are the same as performance standards: (a) Facilities § 432.81 Special definitions. specified in § 432.63(a). that generate no more than 50 million For the purpose of this subpart: (b) Facilities that generate more than pounds per year of finished products: (a) Finished products means the final 50 million pounds per year of finished product as fresh meat cuts, which products: The limitations for Ammonia PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) includes steaks, roasts, chops or (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the same as specified in Maximum boneless meat, smoked or cured hams, Regulated parameter Maximum monthly § 432.73(b). daily 1 bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, avg.1 bologna or other luncheon meats (except § 432.85 New source performance canned meats). standards (NSPS). BOD5 ...... 0.48 0.24 2 2 (b) Ham processor means an operation Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() Any new source subject to this O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.20 0.10 producing hams, alone or in subpart must achieve the following TSS ...... 0.58 0.29 combination with other finished performance standards: (a) Facilities 1 products, at rates greater than 6000 lbs Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished that generate no more than 50 million product. (2730 kg) per day. 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any pounds per year of finished products: time. § 432.82 Effluent limitations attainable by The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and (b) Facilities that generate more than the application of the best practicable Fecal Coliform are the same as the 50 million pounds per year of finished control technology currently available corresponding limitation specified in (BPT). products: § 432.82(a). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (b) Facilities that generate more than PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS): through 125.32, any existing point 50 million pounds per year of finished source subject to this subpart must products: The standards for BOD5, TSS, Maximum achieve the following effluent O&G (as HEM), Fecal Coliform, Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 avg.1 limitations representing the application Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and of BPT: (a) Facilities that generate no Total Phosphorus are the same as the Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0704 0.0153 more than 50 million pounds per year corresponding standard specified in BOD5 ...... 0.0520 0.0245 of finished products: § 432.75(b).
VerDate 11
§ 432.87 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Facilities that generate more than by-product residues (tankage), animal the application of the best control 50 million pounds per year of finished oils, grease and tallow, perhaps technology for conventional pollutants products: The limitations for BOD5, including hide curing, by a renderer. (BCT). TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the § 432.101 Special definitions. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 same as the corresponding limitation through 125.32, any existing point specified in paragraph (a) of this For the purpose of this subpart: source subject to this subpart must section; and limitations for COD are the (a) Raw material (RM) means the basic achieve the following effluent same as the COD limitations specified in input materials to a renderer composed limitations representing the application § 432.62(b). of animal and poultry trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals, feathers and of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the same as § 432.93 Effluent limitations attainable by related usable by-products. the application of the best available (b) Renderer means an independent or the corresponding limitation specified technology economically achievable (BAT) off-site rendering operation, which is in § 432.82. Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 conducted separate from a Subpart I—Canned Meats Processors through 125.32, any existing point slaughterhouse, packinghouse or source subject to this subpart must poultry dressing or processing § 432.90 Applicability. achieve the following effluent operation, uses raw material at rates This part applies to discharges of limitations representing the application greater than 10 million pounds per year, process wastewater resulting from the of BAT: (a) Facilities that generate no produces meat meal, tankage, animal production of canned meats, alone or in more than 50 million pounds per year fats or oils, grease, and tallow, and may combination with any other finished of finished products: The limitations for cure cattle hides, but excludes marine products, by a canned meats processor. ammonia (as N) are the same as oils, fish meal, and fish oils. specified in § 432.63(a). (c) Tankage means dried animal by- § 432.91 Special definitions. (b) Facilities that generate more than product residues used in feedstuffs. For the purpose of this subpart: 50 million pounds per year of finished (d) Tallow means a product made products: The limitations for Ammonia from beef cattle or sheep fat that has a (a) Canned meats processor means an melting point of 40°C or greater. operation which prepares and cans (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total meats (stew, sandwich spreads, or Phosphorus are the same as specified in § 432.102 Effluent limitations attainable by similar products), alone or in § 432.73(b). the application of the best practicable control technology currently available combination with other finished § 432.95 New source performance (BPT). products, at rates greater than 6000 lbs standards (NSPS). (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR (2730 kg) per day. Any new source subject to this 125.30 through 125.32, any existing (b) Finished products means the final subpart must achieve the following point source subject to this subpart must product, such as fresh meat cuts which performance standards: (a) Facilities achieve the following effluent includes steaks, roasts, chops or that generate no more than 50 million limitations representing the application boneless meat, smoked or cured hams, pounds per year of finished products: of BPT: bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and bologna or other luncheon meats, stews, fecal coliform are the same as the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) sandwich spreads or other canned corresponding limitation specified in meats. § 432.92(a). Maximum (b) Facilities that generate more than Regulated parameter Maximum monthly § 432.92 Effluent limitations attainable by daily 1 avg.1 the application of the best practicable 50 million pounds per year of finished products: The standards for BOD5, TSS, control technology currently available BOD ...... 0.34 0.17 (BPT). O&G (as HEM), Fecal Coliform, 5 Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and COD ...... 0.184 0.111 Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 Total Phosphorus are the same as the through 125.32, any existing point O&G3 ...... 0.20 0.10 corresponding standard specified in TSS ...... 0.42 0.21 source subject to this subpart must § 432.75(b) achieve the following effluent 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw ma- limitations representing the application § 432.97 Effluent limitations attainable by terial. 2 of BPT: (a) Facilities that generate no the application of the best control Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any technology for conventional pollutants time. more than 50 million pounds per year 3 May be measured as hexane extractable of finished products: (BCT). material (HEM). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (2) The limitations for BOD and TSS through 125.32, any existing point 5 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) specified in paragraph (a) of this section source subject to this subpart must were derived for a renderer which does Maximum achieve the following effluent Maximum no cattle hide curing as part of its Regulated parameter 1 monthly limitations representing the application daily 1 operations. If a renderer does conduct avg. of BCT: The limitations for BOD , TSS, 5 hide curing, the following empirical O&G and fecal coliform are the same as BOD5 ...... 0.74 0.37 formulas should be used to derive Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) the corresponding limitation specified supplemental limitations for BOD5 and 3 in § 432.92. O&G ...... 0.26 0.13 TSS which apply in addition to the TSS ...... 0.90 0.45 Subpart J—Renderers corresponding limitation specified in 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished paragraph (a) of this section: product. § 432.100 Applicability. lbs BOD /1000 lbs RM = 17.6 × (no. of 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any 5 This part applies to discharges of hides)/lbs RM time. × 3 May be measured as hexane extractable process wastewater resulting from the kg BOD5/kkg RM = 8 (no. of hides)/ material (HEM). production of meat meal, dried animal kg RM
VerDate 11
lbs TSS/1000 lbs RM = 24.2 × (no. of the corresponding limitation specified EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)— hides)/lbs RM in § 432.105(a). Continued kg TSS/kkg RM = 11 × (no. of hides)/kg (b) The limitations for BOD5 and TSS RM specified in paragraph (a) of this section Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly were derived for a renderer which does daily 1 § 432.103 Effluent limitations attainable by avg.1 the application of the best available no cattle hide curing as part of the plant operations. If a renderer does conduct technology economically achievable (BAT). TSS ...... 0.2120 0.0991 hide curing, the following empirical Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 formulas should be used to derive 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. through 125.32, any existing point 2 supplemental limitations for BOD5 and Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any source subject to this subpart must time. achieve the following effluent TSS which apply in addition to the limitations representing the application corresponding limitation specified in (2) Further processing of poultry of BAT: paragraph (a) of this section: slaughtered on site, or at locations off lbs BOD5/1000 lbs RM = 7.9 × (no. of site: The following supplemental EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) hides)/lbs RM limitations apply in addition to the kg BOD5/kkg RM = 3.6 × (no. of hides)/ corresponding limitation specified in Maximum kg RM paragraph (a)(1) of this section: Regulated parameter Maximum monthly lbs TSS/1000 lbs RM = 13.6 × (no. of daily 1 avg.1 hides)/lbs RM SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) kg TSS/kkg RM = 6.2 × (no. of hides)/ Ammonia ...... 0.0194 0.0103 Maximum kg RM Maximum 1 Regulated parameter 1 monthly Pounds per 1000 lbs (gm/kg) of raw mate- daily 1 rial (RM). Subpart K—Poultry First Processing avg. § 432.105 New source performance § 432.110 Applicability. Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0400 0.0087 standards (NSPS). This part applies to discharges of BOD5 ...... 0.0458 0.0215 (a) Any new source subject to this process wastewater resulting from the O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.5150 0.1290 subpart must achieve the following slaughtering of poultry, further TSS ...... 0.0623 0.0290 performance standards: processing of poultry and rendering of 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished material derived from slaughtered product. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) poultry. (3) Rendering of by-products from poultry slaughtered on site, or at Maximum § 432.111 Special definitions. Regulated parameter Maximum monthly locations off site: The following daily 1 For the purpose of this subpart: avg.1 Poultry first processing means supplemental limitations apply in slaughtering of poultry and producing addition to the corresponding limitation Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0194 0.0103 whole, half, quarter or smaller meat specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this BOD5 ...... 0.0436 0.0209 section: Fecal coliform ...... (2)(2) cuts. Poultry first processing also O&G3 ...... 0.2350 0.0594 includes cutting deboning and grinding TSS ...... 0.1780 0.0887 of poultry when these operations are SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) performed on site at a slaughtering 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (gm/kg) of raw mate- Maximum rial (RM). facility. However, when cutting, Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any deboning and grinding is performed at avg.1 time. locations off site, these operations are 3 May be measured as hexane extractable Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0771 0.0168 material (HEM). considered further processing operations. BOD5 ...... 0.0324 0.0152 (b) The standards for BOD5 and TSS O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.2950 0.0745 specified in paragraph (a) of this section § 432.112 Effluent limitations attainable by TSS ...... 0.2400 0.1120 the application of the best practicable were derived for a renderer which does 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw no cattle hide curing as part of the plant control technology currently available (BPT). material. operations. If a renderer does conduct hide curing, the same empirical Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (b) Facilities that slaughter more than formulas specified in § 432.102(b) through 125.32, any existing point 10 million pounds per year (in units of should be used to derive supplemental source subject to this subpart must LWK) (1) Poultry first processing: achieve the following effluent standards for BOD5 and TSS which apply in addition to the corresponding limitations representing the application EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) standard specified in paragraph (a) of of BPT: (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 10 million pounds per year Maximum this section. Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 (in units of LWK). avg.1 § 432.107 Effluent limitations attainable by (1) Poultry first processing: the application of the best control Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.163 0.0356 technology for conventional pollutants EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) BOD5 ...... 0.120 0.0568 (BCT). Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR Maximum Maximum O&G (as HEM) ...... 1.31 0.33 125.30 through 125.32, any existing Regulated parameter 1 monthly Total Nitrogen ...... 0.2239 0.0921 daily 1 point source subject to this subpart must avg. Total Phosphorus ..... 0.1760 0.0843 TSS ...... 0.0609 0.0467 achieve the following effluent Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.1630 0.0356 limitations representing the application BOD5 ...... 0.1200 0.0568 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. of BCT: The limitations for BOD,5 TSS, Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any O&G and fecal coliform are the same as O&G (as HEM) ...... 1.330 0.335 time.
VerDate 11
(2) Further processing of poultry performance standards: The standards EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) slaughtered on site, or at locations off for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Fecal site: The following supplemental Maximum Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total Maximum limitations apply in addition to the Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the Regulated parameter 1 monthly daily 1 corresponding limitation specified in same as the corresponding limitation avg. paragraph (b)(1) of this section: specified in § 432.112. Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0400 0.0087 BOD ...... 0.0453 0.0213 SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) § 432.117 Effluent limitations attainable by 5 the application of the best control Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) Maximum technology for conventional pollutants O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.229 0.0579 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly (BCT). Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0548 0.0226 daily 1 avg.1 Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0431 0.0206 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 TSS ...... 0.0149 0.0114 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0400 0.0087 through 125.32, any existing point 1 BOD5 ...... 0.0453 0.0213 source subject to this subpart must Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.2290 0.0579 achieve the following effluent product. Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0548 0.0226 limitations representing the application 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0431 0.0206 time. of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, TSS ...... 0.0149 0.0114 O&G (as HEM) and Fecal Coliform are § 432.123 Effluent limitations attainable by 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished the same as the corresponding the application of the best available product. limitation specified in § 432.112. technology economically achievable (BAT). (3) Rendering of by-products from Subpart L—Poultry Further Processing Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 poultry slaughtered on site, or at through 125.32, any existing point locations off site: The following § 432.120 Applicability source subject to this subpart must supplemental limitations apply in achieve the following effluent addition to the corresponding limitation This part applies to discharges of limitations representing the application specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this process wastewater resulting from section: further processing of poultry. of BCT: The limitations for Fecal Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) § 432.122 Effluent limitations attainable by Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the the application of the best practicable same as the corresponding limitation control technology currently available Maximum specified in § 432.122. Maximum (BPT). Regulated parameter 1 monthly daily 1 avg. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 432.125 New source performance standards (NSPS). Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0771 0.0168 through 125.32, any existing point BOD5 ...... 0.0324 0.0152 source subject to this subpart must Any new source subject to this O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.1980 0.0500 achieve the following effluent subpart must achieve the following Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0601 0.0247 limitations representing the application performance standards: The standards Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0472 0.0226 of BPT: (a) Facilities that further process for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Fecal TSS ...... 0.0271 0.0208 no more than 7 million pounds per year Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw (in units of finished product): Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the material. same as the corresponding limitation EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) § 432.113 Effluent limitations attainable by specified in § 432.122. the application of the best available § 432.127 Effluent limitations attainable by technology economically achievable (BAT). Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 the application of the best control Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 avg.1 technology for conventional pollutants through 125.32, any existing point (BCT). source subject to this subpart must Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0400 0.0087 achieve the following effluent BOD5 ...... 0.0458 0.0215 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 limitations representing the application Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) through 125.32, any existing point of BAT: The limitations for Ammonia O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.5150 0.1290 source subject to this subpart must (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total TSS ...... 0.0623 0.0290 achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application Phosphorus are the same as the 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished corresponding limitation specified in product. of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, § 432.112. 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any O&G (as HEM) and Fecal Coliform are time. the same as the corresponding § 432.115 New source performance limitation specified in § 432.122. standards (NSPS). (b) Facilities that further process more Any new source subject to this than 7 million pounds per year (in units [FR Doc. 02–2838 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] subpart must achieve the following of finished product): BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate 11
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 432 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category; Proposed Rule
VerDate 11
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION least 53 million pounds per year and submit comments, see SUPPLEMENTARY AGENCY would cost an estimated $80 million INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments. (year 1999 $, pre-tax) on an annual The first public hearing on this 40 CFR Part 432 basis. In addition, EPA expects that proposal will be held at the Hilton KCI [FRL–7137–9] discharges of conventional pollutants Airport Hotel, 8801 NW 112th Street, would be reduced by at least 32 million Kansas City, Missouri. The second RIN 2040–AD56 pounds per year. EPA has estimated that public hearing on this proposal will be held at the U.S. EPA auditorium, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and the annual quantifiable benefits of the Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., New Source Performance Standards proposal would be approximately $37 Washington, DC. for the Meat and Poultry Products million. Point Source Category The public record for this proposed DATES: EPA must receive comments on rulemaking has been established under AGENCY: Environmental Protection the proposal by midnight of April 26, docket number W–01–06 and is located Agency (EPA). 2002. EPA will conduct two public in the Water Docket East Tower ACTION: Proposed rule. hearings on March 14, 2002 at 1 p.m. Basement, Room EB57, 401 M St. SW., (Kansas City, MO) and April 9, 2002 at Washington, DC 20460. The record is SUMMARY: This action presents the 9 a.m. (Washington, DC). For available for inspection from 9 a.m. to Agency’s proposed effluent limitations information on the location of the 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, guidelines and standards for wastewater public hearings, see ADDRESSES. excluding legal holidays. For access to discharges from meat and poultry ADDRESSES: Submit written comments the docket materials, call (202) 260– processing facilities. The proposed 3027 to schedule an appointment. You regulation revises technology-based to Ms. Samantha Lewis, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division may have to pay a reasonable fee for effluent limitations guidelines and copying. standards for wastewater discharges (4303T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania associated with the operation of new Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For and existing meat processing and For hand-deliveries or Federal Express, technical information concerning independent rendering facilities, please send comments to Ms. Samantha today’s proposed rule, contact Ms. proposes new effluent limitations Lewis, Office of Water, Engineering and Samantha Lewis at (202) 566–1058. For guidelines for poultry slaughtering and Analysis Division, Room 6233L, 1201 economic information contact Dr. poultry further processing facilities that Constitution Avenue, NW., 6th Floor, William Wheeler at (202) 566–1078. discharge wastewater, and revises the Connecting Wing, Washington, DC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: name of the regulation. 20460. Comments may be sent by e-mail EPA estimates that compliance with to the following e-mail address: Regulated Entities this regulation as proposed would ‘‘[email protected]’’. For Entities potentially regulated by this reduce the discharge of nutrients by at additional information on how to action include:
Primary SIC and Category Examples of regulated entities NAICS codes
Industry ...... Facilities engaged in first processing, further processing, or rendering of meat and poultry products, which may include the following sectors: Meat Packing Plants ...... 2011 (SIC). Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering ...... 311611 (NAICS). Meat Processed from Carcasses ...... 311612 (NAICS). Sausages and Other Prepared Meat Products ...... 2013 (SIC). Poultry Slaughtering and Processing ...... 2015 (SIC). Poultry Processing ...... 311615 (NAICS). Rendering and Meat By-Product Processing ...... 311613 (NAICS). Support Activities for Animal Production ...... 11521 (NAICS). Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except Dogs and Cats ...... 2048 (SIC). Dog and Cat Food ...... 2047 (SIC). Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing ...... 311111 (NAICS). Other Animal Food Manufacturing ...... 311119 (NAICS). All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing ...... 311999 (NAICS). Animal and Marine Fats and Oils ...... 2077 (SIC). Poultry Hatcheries and ...... 11234 (NAICS). Livestock Services, Except Veterinary ...... 0751 (SIC).
The preceding table is not intended to promulgation of this proposed rule, you in the preceding FOR FURTHER be exhaustive, but rather provides a should carefully examine the INFORMATION CONTACT section. guide for readers regarding entities applicability subsection of each How To Submit Comments likely to be regulated by this action. proposed subpart of part 432. You This table lists the types of entities that should also examine the description of EPA requests an original and three EPA is now aware could potentially be the proposed scope of each subpart in copies of your comments and enclosures regulated by promulgation of this Section VI.B of this document. If you (including references). Commenters who proposed rule. Other types of entities have questions regarding the want EPA to acknowledge receipt of not listed in the table could also be applicability of this proposed action to their comments should enclose a self- regulated. To determine whether your a particular entity, please contact the addressed, stamped envelope. No facility would be regulated by person listed for technical information facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
VerDate 11
Please submit any references cited in 1. ‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed Table of Contents your comments. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and I. Legal Authority Comments may also be sent via e- Standards for the Meat and Poultry II. Legislative Background mail, see ADDRESSES. Electronic Products Industry Point Source A. Clean Water Act comments must specify docket number Category’’ (EPA–821–B–01–006). B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree W–01–06 and must be submitted as an Hereafter referred to as the MPP III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file Economic Analysis, this document Regulation avoiding the use of special characters A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 432 presents the analysis of compliance B. Poultry Slaughtering and Further and any form of encryption. Electronic costs; facility, firm, small business and Processing Facilities comments on this proposal may be filed market impacts; and benefits. In IV. Rulemaking History and Industry Profile online at many Federal Depository addition, this document presents an A. Meat Products Effluent Guideline Libraries. No confidential business analysis of cost-effectiveness. Rulemaking History information (CBI) should be sent via e- 2. ‘‘Development Document for B. Industry Profile mail. Proposed Effluent Limitations V. Summary of Data Collection Guidelines and Standards for the Meat A. Secondary Sources of Data and Protection of Confidential Business and Poultry Products Industry Point Information Information (CBI) Source Category’’ (EPA–821–B–01–007). B. Industry Surveys EPA notes that certain information C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Hereafter referred to as the MPP D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical and data in the record supporting the Development Document, the document Methods proposed rule have been claimed as CBI presents EPA’s technical conclusions E. Other Data Collection and, therefore, are not included in the concerning the MPP proposal. This F. Summary of Public Participation record that is available to the public in document describes, among other VI. Subcategorization the Water Docket. Pursuant to EPA things, the data collection activities, the A. Factors Considered in Developing regulations at 40 CFR 2.203 and 2.211, wastewater treatment technology Proposed Subcategories EPA treats all information for which a options, effluent characterization, B. Proposed Subcategories claim of confidentiality is made as effluent reduction of the wastewater VII. Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater confidential unless and until it makes a Characteristics, and Pollutant Reductions treatment technology options, estimate A. Wastewater Treatment Technologies in determination to the contrary under 40 of costs to the industry, and estimate of the MPP Industry CFR 2.205. Further, the Agency has not effects on non-water quality B. Wastewater Sources, Water Use, and included in the docket some data not environmental impacts. Wastewater Characteristics claimed as CBI because release of this 3. ‘‘Environmental Assessment of C. Pollutants of Concern information would indirectly reveal Proposed Effluent Limitations D. Approach to Estimating Compliance information claimed to be confidential. Guidelines and Standards for the Meat Costs To provide the public with as much and Poultry Products Industry Point E. Approach to Estimating Pollutant information as possible in support of the Source Category’’ (EPA–821–B–01–008). Reductions proposed rulemaking, EPA is presenting VIII. Economic Analysis Hereafter referred to as the MPP A. Introduction in the public record certain information Environmental Assessment, the B. Economic Data Collection Activities in aggregated form or, alternatively, is document presents the analysis of water C. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates masking facility identities or employing quality impacts and potential benefits D. Economic Impact Methodologies other strategies in order to preserve for each regulatory option. E. Costs and Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT confidentiality claims. This approach Options ensures that the information in the How to Obtain Supporting Documents F. Results of BCT Cost Test public record both explains the basis for All documents are available from the G. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES today’s proposal and allows for a National Service Center for Options H. Economic Impacts for New Sources meaningful opportunity for public Environmental Publications, P.O. Box I. Firm Level Impacts comment, without compromising CBI 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242–2419, J. Community Impacts claims. (800) 490–9198 and the EPA Water K. Market and Foreign Trade Impacts Some tabulations and analyses of Docket. The supporting technical L. Cost-Reasonableness and Cost- facility-specific data claimed as CBI are documentation (e.g., MPP Development Effectiveness Analysis available to the company that submitted Document, Economic Analysis and M. Small Business Analysis. the information. To ensure that all data Environmental Assessment) can be IX. Water Quality Analysis and or information claimed as CBI is obtained on the Internet, located at Environmental Benefits protected in accordance with EPA http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/ A. Qualitative Description of Water Quality Benefits regulations, any requests for release of meatproducts/. This website also links B. Facilities Modeled such company-specific data should be to an electronic version of today’s C. Pollutants of Concern submitted to EPA on company proposed rule. D. Benefits Modeling Methodology letterhead and signed by a responsible Overview E. Modeled Technology Option Scenarios official authorized to receive such data. F. Documented Impacts and Permit The request must list the specific data The preamble describes the legal Violations requested and include the following authority for the proposal; a summary of G. Modeled Water Quality Impacts statement, ‘‘I certify that EPA is the proposal; background information; H. Monetized Water Quality Benefits authorized to transfer confidential the technical and economic X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts A. Energy Requirements business information submitted by my methodologies used by the Agency to develop these proposed regulations and, B. Air Emissions Impacts company, and that I am authorized to C. Solid Waste Generation receive it.’’ in an appendix, the definitions, XI. Options Selected for Proposal acronyms, and abbreviations used in Supporting Documentation A. Introduction this document. This preamble also B. Pretreatment Standards The rules proposed today are solicits comment and data generally, C. Meat Facilities (Subcategories A, B, C, supported by several documents: and on specific areas of interest. D, F, G, H and I)
VerDate 11
D. Independent Rendering Facilities reliance, however, is on establishing (including energy requirements), and (Subcategory J) restrictions on the types and amounts of such other factors as the Administrator E. Poultry Facilities (Subcategories K and pollutants discharged from various deems appropriate. See CWA L) industrial, commercial, and public 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA F. Regulatory Alternatives for Meat and sources of wastewater. establishes BPT effluent limitations Poultry Products Industry XII. Regulatory Implementation Direct dischargers must comply with based on the average of the best A. Implementation of Part 432 through the effluent limitations in National performances of facilities within the NPDES Permit Program and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System industry, grouped to reflect various Pretreatment Program (NPDES) permits; indirect dischargers ages, sizes, processes, or other common B. Upset and Bypass Provisions must comply with pretreatment characteristics. Where, however, C. Variances and Modifications standards. Effluent limitations in existing performance is uniformly D. Production Basis for Calculation of NPDES permits are derived from inadequate, EPA may establish Permit Limitations effluent limitations guidelines and new limitations based on higher levels of E. Best Management Practices source performance standards control than currently in place in an XIII. Administrative Requirements promulgated by EPA, as well as from industrial category if the Agency A. Executive Order 12866: ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ water quality standards. The effluent determines that the technology is B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as limitations guidelines and standards are available in another category or amended by the Small Business established by regulation for categories subcategory, and can be practically Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of of industrial dischargers and are based applied. 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. on the degree of control that can be 2. Best Control Technology for C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act achieved using various levels of D. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of pollution control technology. Conventional Pollutants (BCT)—Sec. Children from Environmental Health Congress recognized that regulating 304(b)(4) of the CWA Risks and Safety Risks’’ only those sources that discharge The 1977 amendments to the CWA E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation effluent directly into the nation’s waters required EPA to identify additional and Coordination With Indian Tribal would not be sufficient to achieve the levels of effluent reduction for Governments conventional pollutants associated with F. Paperwork Reduction Act CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA G. Executive Order 13132: ‘‘Federalism’’ requires EPA to promulgate nationally BCT technology for discharges from H. Executive Order 12898: ‘‘Federal applicable pretreatment standards that existing industrial point sources. In Actions to Address Environmental restrict pollutant discharges from addition to other factors specified in Justice in Minority Populations and Low- facilities that discharge wastewater section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires Income Populations’’ indirectly through sewers flowing to that EPA establish BCT limitations after I. National Technology Transfer and publicly owned treatment works consideration of a two part ‘‘cost- Advancement Act (POTWs). See section 307(b) and (c), 33 reasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its J. Executive Order 13211: ‘‘Energy Effects’’ U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). National methodology for the development of K. Plain Language pretreatment standards are established BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments A. General and Specific Comment for those pollutants in wastewater from 24974). Solicitation indirect dischargers that may pass Section 304(a)(4) designates the B. Regulatory Alternative to Potential through, interfere with or are otherwise following as conventional pollutants: Numerical Pretreatment Standards incompatible with POTW operations. biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Generally, pretreatment standards are total suspended solids (TSS), fecal Data designed to ensure that wastewaters coliform, pH, and any additional A. Types of Data Requested from direct and indirect industrial pollutants defined by the Administrator B. Analytes Requested dischargers are subject to similar levels as conventional. The Administrator C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/ of treatment. In addition, POTWs are designated oil and grease as an QC) Requirements required to implement local treatment additional conventional pollutant on Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and limits applicable to their industrial July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). Abbreviations Used in This Document indirect dischargers to satisfy any local 3. Best Available Technology requirements. See 40 CFR 403.5. I. Legal Authority Economically Achievable (BAT)—Sec. These regulations are proposed under 1. Best Practicable Control Technology 304(b)(2) of the CWA the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, Currently Available (BPT)—Sec. In general, BAT effluent limitations 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean 304(b)(1) of the CWA guidelines represent the best Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, EPA may promulgate BPT effluent economically achievable performance of 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361. limits for conventional, toxic, and non- facilities in the industrial subcategory or II. Legislative Background conventional pollutants. For toxic category. The CWA establishes BAT as pollutants, EPA typically regulates a principal national means of A. Clean Water Act priority pollutants which consist of a controlling the direct discharge of toxic Congress adopted the Clean Water Act specified list of toxic pollutants. In and nonconventional pollutants. The (CWA) to ‘‘restore and maintain the specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number factors considered in assessing BAT chemical, physical, and biological of factors. EPA first considers the cost include the cost of achieving BAT integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ of achieving effluent reductions in effluent reductions, the age of Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To relation to the effluent reduction equipment and facilities involved, the achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the benefits. The Agency also considers the process employed, potential process discharge of pollutants into navigable age of the equipment and facilities, the changes, and non-water quality waters except in compliance with the processes employed, engineering environmental impacts including energy statute. The Clean Water Act confronts aspects of the control technologies, any requirements, and such other factors as the problem of water pollution on a required process changes, non-water the Administrator deems appropriate. number of different fronts. Its primary quality environmental impacts The Agency retains considerable
VerDate 11
discretion in assigning the weight to be 6. Pretreatment Standards for New settlement of that action in a consent accorded these factors. An additional Sources (PSNS)—Sec. 307(c) of the decree entered on January 31, 1992. The statutory factor considered in setting CWA consent decree, which has been BAT is economic achievability. Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA modified several times, established a Generally, EPA determines economic to promulgate pretreatment standards schedule by which EPA is to propose achievability on the basis of total costs for new sources at the same time it and take final action for eleven point to the industry and the effect of promulgates new source performance source categories identified by name in compliance with BAT limitations on standards. Such pretreatment standards the decree and for eight other point overall industry and subcategory must prevent the discharge of any source categories identified only as new financial conditions. As with BPT, pollutant into a POTW that may or revised rules, numbered 5 through where existing performance is interfere with, pass through, or may 12. EPA selected the meat and poultry uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect otherwise be incompatible with the products industry as the subject for New a higher level of performance than is POTW. EPA promulgates categorical or Revised Rule #11. Under the decree, currently being achieved based on pretreatment standards for existing as modified, the Administrator was technology transferred from a different sources based principally on BAT required to sign a proposed rule for the subcategory or category. BAT may be technology for existing sources. EPA meat and poultry products industry no based upon process changes or internal promulgates pretreatment standards for later than January 30, 2002, and must controls, even when these technologies new sources based on best available take final action on that proposal no are not common industry practice. demonstrated technology for new later than December 31, 2003. 4. New Source Performance Standards sources. New indirect dischargers have III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed (NSPS)—Sec. 306 of the CWA the opportunity to incorporate into their Regulation facilities the best available New Source Performance Standards demonstrated technologies. The Agency EPA solicits comments on various reflect effluent reductions that are considers the same factors in issues specifically identified in the achievable based on the best available promulgating PSNS as it considers in preamble as well as any other demonstrated control technology. New promulgating NSPS. applicability issues that are not specifically addressed in today’s notice. facilities have the opportunity to install B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree the best and most efficient production The following discussion of processes and wastewater treatment Section 304(m) requires EPA to applicability begins with the proposed technologies. As a result, NSPS should publish a plan every two years that revisions to the existing subcategories. represent the most stringent controls consists of three elements. First, under Section III.B presents the applicability attainable through the application of the section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is required to for two new subcategories for poultry best available demonstrated control establish a schedule for the annual facilities. review and revision of existing effluent technology for all pollutants (that is, A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 432 conventional, nonconventional, and guidelines in accordance with section priority pollutants). In establishing 304(b). Section 304(b) applies to effluent EPA is proposing new or revised NSPS, EPA is directed to take into limitations guidelines for direct effluent limitations guidelines and consideration the cost of achieving the dischargers and requires EPA to revise standards for nine of the ten effluent reduction and any non-water such regulations as appropriate. Second, subcategories of the meat and poultry quality environmental impacts and under Section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA must products industry including: simple energy requirements. identify categories of sources slaughterhouse, complex discharging toxic or nonconventional slaughterhouse, low processing 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing pollutants for which EPA has not packinghouse, high processing Sources (PSES)—Sec. 307(b) of the CWA published BAT effluent limitations packinghouse, meat cutter, sausage and guidelines under 304(b)(2) or new luncheon meats processor, ham Pretreatment Standards for Existing source performance standards under processor, canned meats processor, and Sources are designed to prevent the section 306. Finally, under 304(m)(1)(C), renderer. EPA is also proposing to discharge of pollutants that pass EPA must establish a schedule for the change the name of the category since through, interfere with, or are otherwise promulgation of BAT and NSPS for the poultry processing facilities are covered incompatible with the operation of categories identified under by the proposed requirements. No new publicly owned treatment works subparagraph (B) not later than three or revised effluent limitations (POTW). Categorical pretreatment years after being identified in the guidelines or pretreatment standards are standards are technology-based and are 304(m) plan. Section 304(m) does not being proposed for the small processor analogous to BAT effluent limitations apply to pretreatment standards for category. guidelines. indirect dischargers, which EPA The technology options which serve The General Pretreatment promulgates pursuant to Sections 307(b) as the basis for the proposed effluent Regulations, which set forth the and 307(c) of the Clean Water Act. limitations guidelines and standards for framework for the implementation of On October 30, 1989, Natural the meat subcategories are summarized categorical pretreatment standards, are Resources Defense Council, Inc., and in Table III.A–1. For descriptions and found at 40 CFR part 403. These Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action discussion of the subcategories, see regulations establish pretreatment against EPA in which they alleged, Section VI; for the technologies, see standards that apply to all non-domestic among other things, that EPA had failed Section VII.D; and for a discussion of dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14, to comply with CWA Section 304(m). the process wastewater generated by 1987). Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a these subcategories, see Section VII.B.
VerDate 11
TABLE III.A–1.—SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Regulatory Technology Subcategory Technical components 2 level option 1
Subpart A: Simple Slaughterhouse; Subpart B: Com- BPT ...... 2 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- plex Slaughterhouse; Subpart C: Low-Processing logical treatment with nitrification. Packinghouse; and Subpart D: High-Processing Packinghouse. BAT; NSPS .... 3 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification and denitrification. BCT ...... No Action ...... No revised limitations are proposed. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. Subpart E: Small Processors ...... BPT; BCT; No Action ...... No revised limitations or standards are proposed. BAT; NSPS. PSES;PSNS ... No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. Subpart F: Meat Cutter; Subpart G: Sausage and BPT ...... 2 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- Luncheon Meats Processor; Subpart H: Ham Proc- logical treatment with nitrification. essor; and Subpart I: Canned Meats Processor. BAT; NSPS .... 3 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification and denitrification. BCT ...... No Action ...... No revised limitations are proposed. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. Subpart J: Renderer ...... BPT; BCT ...... 2 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification. BAT; NSPS .... 2 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. 1 See Section VII.D for a discussion of the technology options. 2 See Section XI.C and XI.D for a discussion of the Agency’s rationale on selecting options.
1. Meat (or Red Meat) Facilities meat further processors that produce up EPA developed these new production EPA established regulations which to 6,000 pounds of finished product per rate thresholds based on current apply to the meat (or red meat) day. screener survey data available prior to slaughterhouses and packinghouses (40 EPA is not proposing to change the proposal. EPA ordered the annual CFR part 432 subcategories A through existing production rate thresholds in production screener survey data from D) in 1974. EPA established regulations subparts E through I in this proposed highest to lowest annual production for which apply to meat further processing rule for existing limitations and each of the regulatory groupings (e.g., facilities (40 CFR part 432 subcategories standards. Also, EPA is proposing new A–D, F–I, J, K, and L), then divided each E through I) in 1975. Although there is production rate thresholds in Subparts of the regulatory groupings into four no definition of ‘‘red meat’’ or ‘‘meat’’ A through D and F through I for the size classifications (e.g., small, medium, in the existing 40 CFR part 432 proposed limitations and standards large, and very large) based on regulations, EPA defined these terms in based on current data collected for this employment and annual production the previous technical development rulemaking (see Section III of the MPP data. EPA performed this size documents associated with these prior Development Document). These new classification task in order to more rules as all animal products from cattle, production rate thresholds do not affect accurately estimate costs, loadings, calves, hogs, sheep, and lambs and any subpart E (Small Processors) meat NWQIs, and economic impacts of the meat that is not listed under the facilities as these proposed new proposed limitations and standards on definition of poultry. EPA is using the production rate thresholds are all higher this industry. That is, rather than term ‘‘meat’’ as synonymous with the than the subpart E production rate assume one model facility for each of term ‘‘red meat.’’ EPA proposes to threshold (i.e., 6,000 pounds of finished the five regulatory groupings, EPA used include a similar definition in the product per day). EPA defines the four model facilities for each of the five revised regulations (see Appendix A of following facilities which are currently regulatory groupings for better accuracy this document). covered under 40 CFR part 432 as small: in its analyses (see also MPP The current regulations for meat cover • Facilities in Subcategories A, B, C Development Document for further all aspects of producing meat products and D that slaughter less than 50 million details on how these production based from the slaughter of the animal to pounds (LWK) per year; thresholds were developed). In producing final consumer products (e.g. • evaluating the screener data related to cooked, seasoned or smoked products, All facilities in Subcategory E; facility annual production, several such as luncheon meat or hams.) For • Facilities in Subcategories F, G, H variables were identified. These were subparts F, G, H and I of the existing and I that produce less than 50 million meat and poultry type processed, type regulations, EPA established a pounds of finished product per year; of facility operation (i.e., first processing production rate threshold of greater than and (slaughtering), further processing, or 6,000 pounds of finished product per • Facilities in Subcategory J that rendering), number of facility day, below which the regulations do not render less than 10 million pounds per employees, annual wastewater apply. Subpart E of the existing year of raw material (see Section generation, and type of wastewater regulations (Small Processors) applies to III.A.2). management (e.g., direct discharger,
VerDate 11
indirect discharger, land applied on the screener data available for this lowering this production threshold site). Because EPA had only a limited proposal. EPA will be re-evaluating this based on data collected for this amount of detailed information on data in preparation for the NODA. EPA rulemaking. See Section III.A.1 for a facilities, the number of facility is also soliciting comment on alternative description of EPA’s reasons for setting employees was selected as an indicator definitions of small facilities at higher production thresholds and exempting of facility size for modeling (e.g., costs, production levels (representing facilities most small MPP facilities (including loads, economic impacts, NWQIs). EPA with more than 100 employees). A small rendering facilities that render identified facilities with 100 employees supplemental analysis in the record less than 10 million pounds per year of or less as small and then identified the (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. raw material) from today’s revisions to corresponding annual production 25010) compares the alternative 40 CFR part 432. thresholds. It is important to note for the definitions in terms of costs, pollutant Subpart J applies to the rendering of purposes of estimating costs, loads, removals, and economic impacts on the any meat or poultry raw material. When economic impacts and NWQIs, EPA affected facilities. For example, in rendering is done in conjunction with a used facility level employment data for Subpart K, there are no ‘‘small’’ meat slaughterhouse or packinghouse, developing one threshold between facilities, as defined by EPA, whereas the rendering wastewater is regulated ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘non-small’’ facilities. The there are 35 medium facilities and 60 under the limitations for the appropriate SBA size standard for these industries is large and very large facilities (using meat slaughtering or packinghouse 500 employees at the company level. currently available data). Thirty-one of subcategory (i.e., under subpart A, B, C, EPA divided the remaining non-small the 35 facilities defined as ‘‘medium’’ or D). facilities (i.e., medium, large, and very facilities are owned by small businesses B. Poultry Slaughtering and Further large) into equal thirds based on annual (defined as firms with less than 500 Processing Facilities production. employees). EPA specifically is requesting comment on whether the EPA is proposing to establish effluent EPA is using the results of the revised limitations guidelines and new source production rate thresholds to exclude medium facilities in the various Subparts should be included in the performance standards for the poultry most smaller MPP facilities from today’s first processing (i.e. slaughtering) and proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 432 ‘‘small’’ facility category, particularly in Subpart K which has no ‘‘small further processing subcategories, and to because the technologies on which the facilities.’’ In assessing alternate small revise the category title accordingly. options were based are not cost-effective facility definitions, EPA shall consider Poultry includes broilers, other young for the facilities with the lowest the same factors discussed above (e.g. chickens, hens, fowl, mature chickens, production threshold (i.e., the smallest economic impact, small pollutant turkeys, capons, geese, ducks, exotic facilities). However, these production loadings, etc.) and requests comment on poultry (e.g., ostriches), and small game based thresholds for the proposal are how alternative thresholds might be such as quail, pheasants, and rabbits based on available screener survey data. justified using these factors. (see Appendix A of this document). A more detailed evaluation of these The existing regulations apply to all EPA proposed regulations for this thresholds, along with the model facility sizes of meat direct dischargers (except segment of the meat and poultry identification will be made following for renderers processing less than products industry in 1975, but did not evaluation of the detailed survey 75,000 pound raw material per day—see finalize them. EPA has reanalyzed this responses and may warrant a change in Section III.A.2). The revisions to 40 CFR segment of the meat and poultry the production based thresholds. Most part 432 being proposed today apply to products industry and is proposing smaller MPP facilities are excluded from meat facilities (see Section III.A.1) above today to establish BPT, BCT, and BAT the scope of today’s proposal for a the new production based thresholds limitations for existing facilities and number of reasons: (1) Small MPP and all poultry facilities that discharge new source performance standards. EPA facilities as group discharge less than directly to a receiving stream or other proposes to create two new 3% of the conventional pollutants (or 35 waters of the United States (see Section subcategories which would apply to million lbs/year), 1% of the toxic III.B for a discussion of poultry poultry processing facilities. The first pollutants (or 1.3 million lbs/year), 4% facilities). new poultry subcategory is the ‘‘poultry of the nutrients (or 7.5 million lbs/year), first processing’’ subcategory which and less than 1.5% of the pathogens (or 2. Rendering includes the slaughtering and 47 x 109 CFU/year) as compared to all In 1975, EPA established regulations evisceration of the bird or animal and discharges from the entire MPP (40 CFR part 432, Subcategory J) which dressing the carcass for shipment either industry; (2) EPA determined that only apply to independent renderers, defined whole or in parts, such as leg, quarters, a limited amount of loadings removal as independent or off-site operations breasts and boneless pieces. These would be accomplished by improved that manufacture meat meal, dried facilities are commonly known as ‘‘ice treatment; and (3) EPA determined that animal by-product residues (tankage), pack facilities.’’ The second new poultry ‘‘small’’ MPP facilities would discharge animal fats or oils, grease and tallow, subcategory is the ‘‘poultry further a very small portion of the total industry perhaps including hide curing, by a processing’’ subcategory which includes discharge. Therefore, EPA is not renderer. The existing regulations additional preparation of the meat revising current limitations and establish a size threshold of 75,000 including further cutting, cooking, standards for small meat facilities. The pounds of raw material per day seasoning and smoking to produce existing regulations, however, will processed. Facilities which process less ready to be eaten or reheated servings. continue to apply to those facilities. than this amount are not subject to the The additions to 40 CFR part 432 for EPA is, however, setting limitations and existing regulations. EPA is proposing to poultry being proposed today apply to standards for small poultry direct lower this production threshold so that facilities that discharge directly to a discharging facilities (for whom there subpart J applies to facilities that render receiving stream and other waters of the are no existing standards) based on more than 10 million pounds per year United States. EPA is proposing to set current performance (see Section III.B). of raw material (or approximately less stringent effluent limitations As explained above, EPA’s proposed 27,000 pounds per day for a facility that guidelines for direct dischargers definition of ‘small’ facility is based on operates 365 days per year). EPA is slaughtering up to 10 million pounds
VerDate 11
per year than on facilities which processing facilities are economically limitations guidelines and standards slaughter over 10 million pounds per unachievable for small poultry being for the poultry portion of the year and for further processors slaughtering and further processing industry are summarized in Table III.B– producing 7 million pounds per year facilities. Rendering performed in 1. For descriptions and discussion of the than on facilities which produce over 7 conjunction with a poultry first subcategories, see Section VI.D; for the million pounds per year. See Section processing facility would be subject to technologies, see Section VII.D; and for III.A.1 for a description of EPA’s reasons the appropriate regulations under the a discussion of the process wastewater for setting production thresholds. The poultry slaughtering (Subpart K). generated by these subcategories, see treatment options proposed for larger The technology options which serve section VII.B. poultry slaughtering and further as the basis for the proposed effluent
TABLE III.B–1.—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR POULTRY FIRST AND FURTHER PROCESSORS
Regulatory Technology Subcategory Technical components 2 level option1
Subpart K: Poultry First Processing (facilities which BPT; BCT ...... 1 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- slaughter up to 10 million pounds per year); and, logical treatment with less efficient nitrification. Subpart L: Poultry Further Processing (facilities which produce up to 7,000 pounds per year of fin- ished product). BAT; NSPS .... 1 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with less efficient nitrification. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. Subpart K: Poultry First Processing (facilities which BPT; BCT ...... 3 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- slaughter more than 10 million pounds per year); logical treatment with nitrification and and, Subpart L: Poultry Further Processing (facili- denitrification. ties which produce more than 7,000 pounds per year of finished product). BAT; NSPS .... 3 ...... Equalization, dissolved air flotation, secondary bio- logical treatment with nitrification and denitirification. PSES; PSNS .. No Action ...... No pretreatment standards are proposed. 1 See Section VII.D for a discussion of the technology options. 2 See Section XI.E for a discussion of the Agency’s rationale on selecting options.
IV. Rulemaking History and Industry established effluent limitations and subject of litigation in National Profile standards for existing and new sources Renderers Association et al., v. EPA, et for six additional types of facilities: al., 541 F. 2d 1281 (8th Cir. 1976). The A. Meat Products Effluent Guideline Small Processor, Meat Cutter, Sausage Court remanded the regulations to the Rulemaking History and Luncheon Meats Processor, Ham Agency to reconsider the economic The effluent limitations guidelines Processor, Canned Meats Processor, and impact of the costs associated with these and standards for the meat products Independent Renderer (40 CFR part 432, requirements. The BAT limitations for industry were developed and Subcategories E–J). independent renderers were not promulgated in the 1970’s. The existing BCT limitations were promulgated on remanded, but EPA reevaluated these regulations for the meat slaughtering August 29, 1979 (44 FR 50732) for all limitations nonetheless. On October 6, and processing subcategories and meat subcategories and independent 1977 (42 FR 54417), EPA promulgated a independent rendering were issued in rendering (40 CFR part 432, final rule which revised the BAT phases and are grouped together under Subcategories A–J). limitations and new source performance 40 CFR part 432. EPA did not establish pretreatment standards for this subcategory. In that EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS standards (neither PSES nor PSNS) for final rule, the BAT limitations for limitations and standards for existing any of meat subcategories and ammonia, BOD5, and TSS are less and new meat slaughterhouses and independent rendering (40 CFR part stringent than the original BAT packinghouses on February 28, 1974 (39 432, Subcategories A–J) in the 1974 or limitations; however, the NSPS are more FR 7894). The 1974 regulation 1975 regulations. stringent than the original NSPS established effluent limitations and The BPT and BAT limitations standards. In the final rule, EPA standards for existing and new sources established in the February 28, 1974 retained an exclusion for small facilities for four types of meat slaughterhouses notice were the subject of litigation in (less than 75,000 pounds of raw material and packinghouses: Simple American Meat Institute v. EPA, 526 per day) from BPT, BAT, and NSPS. Slaughterhouse, Complex F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975). The Seventh EPA proposed BPT, BAT, NSPS, Slaughterhouse, Low Processing Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the PSNS limitations and standards for Packinghouse, and High Processing effluent limitations and remanded existing and new poultry slaughterers Packinghouse (40 CFR part 432, selected portions of those regulations. and processors on April 24, 1975 (40 FR Subcategories A–D). The BPT and BAT regulations remanded 18150). EPA proposed to subcategorize EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS by the court were subsequently revised the poultry processing sector into five limitations and standards for existing or withdrawn (see 44 FR 50732, August subcategories, distinguished by the and new meat further processing 29, 1979; 45 FR 82253, December 15, animal or bird being processed and an subcategories and the independent 1980). additional subcategory which applied to rendering subcategory on January 3, The regulations in the independent further processing. These regulations 1975 (40 FR 902). The 1975 regulation rendering subcategory were also the were never finalized as the 1977
VerDate 11
amendments to the Clean Water Act re- into consumer products (i.e., calves, processing (e.g., de-fleshing, de- focused the Agency’s attention on hogs, sheep, and lambs). Slaughterhouse feathering). establishing effluent limitations operations typically encompass the The meat further processing industry guidelines for industry sectors with following steps: (1) Receiving and sector includes 1,164 companies, which effluents containing toxic metals and holding of live animals for slaughter; (2) own and operate about 1,300 facilities. organics. stunning of animals prior to slaughter; This sector employs about 88,000 (3) slaughter (exsanguination) of people, and the value of shipments is B. Industry Profile animals; and (4) initial processing of more than $25 billion, of which $9 The meat and poultry products animals. Slaughterhouse facilities are billion is value added by manufacture. industry includes facilities which designed to accommodate the multi-step California, Illinois, New York and slaughter livestock (e.g., cattle, calves, process of slaughtering. In most Texas have the highest concentration of hogs, sheep and lambs) and/or poultry slaughterhouses, the major steps are meat further processing facilities, each or process meat and/or poultry into carried out in separate rooms. with more than 90 meat further products for further processing or sale to In addition, many first processing processing facilities. However the consumers. The industry is often facilities further process carcasses on- highest levels of employment are found described in terms of three categories: site and/or perform rendering in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas and (1) Meat slaughtering and processing; (2) operations. These facilities may also Wisconsin, which together generate one- poultry slaughtering and processing; (3) process meat products into prepared third of the meat further processing and rendering. Facilities may perform foods and feed ingredients for animals employment. In Wisconsin more than slaughtering operations, processing (except dog and cat food). Otherwise the half of the meat further processing operations from carcasses slaughtered at carcasses are shipped to other facilities facilities employ more than 20 workers, other facilities, or both. Companies that for further processing into finished and the State also accounts for the own meat or poultry product facilities products such as hams, sausages, largest share of both total shipments and may also own facilities that either raise ground meat, and canned products. value added in the industry. the animals or further process the meat Based on the 1997 U.S. Census of As with the animal slaughtering or poultry products into final consumer Manufactures, the animal slaughtering sector, more than half of the meat products. These other enterprises are industry sector includes 1,300 further processing facilities employ not covered by the meat and poultry companies which operate fewer than 20 workers. The bulk of the products industry effluent limitations approximately 1,400 facilities. The employment (54 percent), value added guidelines. industry sector employs 142,000 people (55 percent) and total shipments (57 Since the 1970’s when EPA issued the and generates a total value of shipments percent) is accounted for by meat existing regulations for meat and of $54 billion. Twelve States reported further processing facilities employing rendering industry sectors, the meat and shipments in excess of $1 billion, with between 100 and 500 workers. The poultry products industry has become Texas, California, Illinois, Iowa and difference between the animal increasingly concentrated or vertically Wisconsin containing the largest slaughtering sector and the meat further integrated through alliances, number of slaughtering establishments processing sector is that while the value acquisitions, mergers, and other (at least 60 establishments in each of shipments in the animal slaughtering relationships. This vertical integration is State). Nebraska ranks seventh in the industry sector is heavily concentrated particularly pronounced in the broiler number of facilities located in the State, in the largest facilities, the value of sector of the poultry industry. Most of but has the highest number of shipments in the meat further the broiler and other chicken products employees engaged in animal processing sector is more evenly which reach the consumer have been slaughtering of any State. Nebraska distributed across meat further under the control of the same company accounts for almost 17 percent of the processing facilities of all different from the hatching of the flocks through value added and 16 percent of total sizes. the processing of the birds. Vertical shipments in this industry sector. Poultry Processing (NAICS 311615) integration is not seen to the same Industry activity is most heavily includes the slaughter of poultry, small extent in the meat sector, although there concentrated in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa game animals (e.g., quails, pheasants, is increasing vertical integration, and Texas. and rabbits), and exotic poultry (e.g., particularly in the hog sector. The Animal Slaughtering sector is ostriches) and the processing and The meat and poultry products comprised of a large number of facilities preparing of these products and their industry encompasses four North (72 percent of the sector) which have byproducts. The 1997 U.S. Census of American Industry Classification fewer than twenty employees. These Manufactures reported 260 companies System (NAICS) codes which are facilities employ less than 5 percent of engaged in poultry slaughtering. These developed by the Department of the sector workforce and contribute an companies own or operate 470 facilities, Commerce. These NAICS codes include: even smaller percentage of value added employ 224,000 employees, and Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) and value of shipments. Thirty-nine produces about $32 billion in value of (NAICS 311611); Meat Processed from facilities employ between 1,000 and shipments. Carcasses (NAICS 311612); Poultry 2,500 employees and while comprising The poultry slaughtering sector has Processing (NAICS 311615); and only 3 percent of the total number of relatively few facilities with less than 20 Rendering and Meat Byproduct establishments, provide 43 percent of employees but like the meat sectors it is Processing (NAICS 311613). the industry employment and 46 dominated by a few very large facilities. Animal Slaughtering (Except Poultry) percent of the value of shipments. Almost 50 percent of the sector (NAICS 311611), includes meat first Meat Processed from Carcasses employment and over 40 percent of the processing facilities which slaughter (NAICS 311612) includes facilities value of shipments were accounted for cattle, hogs, sheep, lambs, calves, engaged in processing or preserving by 75 facilities which employ more than horses, goats, and exotic livestock (e.g., meat and meat by-products (but not 1,000 workers each. Eighty percent of elk, deer, buffalo) for human poultry or small game) from purchased employment and 74 percent of total consumption. Slaughtering is the first meats. These facilities do not slaughter shipments are produced by facilities step in the processing of meat animals animals or perform any initial that employ more than 500 workers. Yet
VerDate 11
these facilities comprise only 36 percent products and meat product equipment The majority of facilities in the meat of the poultry processing industry. require acceptable levels of cleanliness. and poultry products industry are Products produced by the poultry The U.S. Department of Agriculture indirect dischargers (an estimated 5,298 processing sector can be divided into Food Safety and Inspection Service facilities). There are an estimated 359 two major categories: broilers and (USDA FSIS) is responsible for facilities which discharge directly to turkeys. Broilers comprise more than regulating and inspecting meat and waters of the U.S. and 242 of these are half of the industry’s shipments. poultry slaughtering and processing larger facilities which often will have a Processed poultry accounts for about 30 facilities and facilities engaged in edible variety of further processing operations percent of this sectors shipments and rendering (i.e., suitable for human on-site. There are 1,113 facilities which turkey products accounts for about 12 consumption) to ensure food safety. The report storing water in on-site lagoons or percent. U.S. Food and Drug Administration land applying their wastewater (see Poultry processing is largely (FDA) covers inedible rendering MPP Development Document). concentrated in the southeastern States operations which produce products The untreated wastewater contains with Arkansas and Georgia having the suitable for pet food, animal feed, high concentrations of BOD5, TSS, oil largest number of facilities, employment chemical products, and fuel blending. and grease, pathogens, especially fecal and value of shipments. Alabama and Water is used to clean the product, coliforms and nutrients, including North Carolina rank third and fourth in clean and sanitize the production nitrogen (including ammonia) and all of these measures. California is the equipment and as a transport phosphorus. EPA’s sampling data only State in the top ten poultry mechanism for carrying the waste away collected from meat and poultry producing States which is not in the from the production area. Water can products facilities found treatable southeast. California ranks tenth in also be used as a part of the process concentrations of some metals (e.g., terms of employment and value of such as scalding birds to facilitate copper and zinc). Some of these metals shipments and ranks eighth in number feather removal or chilling the animal or are fed to the animals as feed additives, of facilities. meat to reduce its temperature. The which therefore is assumed to be the The Rendering and Meat Byproduct meat and poultry processing industry Processing (NAICS 311613) sector source for these pollutants in the (excluding rendering) uses an estimated wastewater. includes facilities engaged in the 150 billion gallons of water per year. Treatment for meat and poultry rendering of inedible stearin, grease, The meat and poultry products industry and tallow from animal fat, bones and ranks in the top third of all three digit processing wastewater varies depending meat scraps and the manufacturing of SIC manufacturing sectors with regard on whether the facility is a direct or animal oils, including fish oil, and fish to overall water consumption (Docket indirect discharger. Direct dischargers and animal meal. Many facilities not No. W–01–06, Record No. 10025). generally have biological treatment-in- classified as rendering facilities perform Industry sources have estimated that place; most facilities use a combination rendering operations but are not the implementation of USDA’s Hazard of anaerobic and aerobic treatment, they classified as such because they are also Analysis and Critical Control Points also have nitrification to reduce engaged in slaughtering (these are often (HACCP) program has increased water ammonia concentrations in the effluent. on-site rendering facilities that are part usage by 20 to 25 percent (Docket No. Some facilities have denitrification to of an animal or poultry slaughtering W–01–06, Record No. 10021). USDA reduce nitrogen (nitrate) concentrations, facility). FSIS disagrees with industry’s assertion although some facilities have a The rendering sector consists of 137 that implementation of HACCP has polishing filter to achieve additional companies that own or operate 240 necessarily required greater use of water reductions of other suspended facilities. The sector employs 8,800 (Docket No. W–01–06, Record pollutants. All facilities use some form workers and generates $2.6 billion in No.10027). Furthermore, USDA FSIS of disinfection (e.g., chlorine contact shipments. Texas and California have asserts that its regulatory performance tank, ultraviolet radiation) to destroy or the largest number of rendering standards provide for numerous water render pathogens inactive. Dissolved facilities. Unlike the meat or poultry reuse opportunities (see 9 CFR 416.2(g)). Air Flotation (DAF) is also commonly industry sectors, the rendering industry Many facilities in the meat and used to reduce oil and grease prior to sector includes few large facilities (i.e., poultry processing sector have the biological treatment. The indirect only 11 rendering facilities employed employed water reuse programs for dischargers are mostly removing solids more than 100 workers per facility in many years. Some large facilities even from their effluent through the use of 1997). The 132 rendering facilities have installed onsite advanced screens or settling basins. Many of the which employ between 20 and 99 wastewater treatment systems which indirect discharge facilities surveyed workers account for the largest share of treat facility effluent allowing this water also report using an equalization basin the industry shipments (66 percent). to be reused for some applications and DAF to reduce the oil and grease Because the meat and poultry within the facility. Other facilities have concentrations in their effluent. products industry produces products for changed sanitation practices to reduce Industry representatives have indicated human consumption (with the water use and effluence in general. For that facilities avoid adding flocculants exception of rendering), the industry as example, one independent renderer or treatment aids to their wastewaters a whole is very conscious of cleanliness noted during an EPA site visit that his prior to DAF or settling, because these and hygiene. Meat and poultry facility fully converted from a wet additives prevent them from sending the processing facilities use disinfectants to cleaning method to a dry cleaning sludge to a renderer. EPA identified that clean and sanitize equipment between method in the product shipment area in raw materials with high concentrations production. The industry reports order to minimize water pollution of ferric chloride are also often rejected avoiding the use of pesticides which (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. by independent renderers due to their could contaminate their products, 10042). EPA solicits comment on the corrosive nature. EPA solicits comment although EPA sampling data did detect potential of MPP facilities to reduce on other types of flocculants or several pesticides in raw wastewaters. water consumption and new treatment aids and their concentrations Water is a very important part of meat technologies or practices that can that are commonly not accepted by products manufacturing as meat effectively reuse water. independent renderers.
VerDate 11
EPA also examined the impact of reports, and analyses published by Renderers Association, American Meat different religious meat and poultry government agencies; reports and Institute, BCR Foods, and U.S. Poultry production (e.g., kosher, halal, analyses published by the meat and and Egg Association. EPA made minor Buddhist) on raw wastewater poultry products industry and its clarifying revisions to the survey characteristics in terms of wastewater associated organizations; and publicly methodology and questionnaires as a flow and pollutant concentrations available financial information result of public comments. (Docket No. W–01–06, Record compiled by both government and EPA made every reasonable attempt to No.10028; Record No. 10029). EPA private organizations. ensure that the meat and poultry identified that kosher and halal poultry EPA used the listings of beef products industry ICR did not request producers pack the birds (inside and processing facilities from Cattle-Fax, the data and information currently available out) in salt for one hour to absorb any National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, through less burdensome mechanisms. residual blood or juices. The birds are Iowa State University, and North Dakota Prior to publishing the May 1, 2000 then rinsed and shipped to kosher/halal State University to identify the location notice, EPA met with and distributed meat distributers. An industry of individual beef slaughtering facilities, draft copies of the survey questionnaires representative reported that on an their parent corporation, and, in some to three trade associations representing average day a kosher poultry facility cases, the operational capacity of the the meat and poultry products industry would use 80,000 pounds of salt in their individual facility. EPA used the (American Meat Institute, National operations with a wastewater generation National Pork Producers Council Chicken Council, National Renderers of approximately 2 million gallons publication to identify the location of Association). EPA obtained approval wastewater per day. The industry hog slaughtering facilities, the name of from OMB for the use and distribution representative stated that the use of salt their parent corporation, and the of two survey questionnaires: a short makes the kosher poultry wastewaters operational capacity of the facility. EPA screener survey and a more detailed very different from non-kosher poultry used WATT PoultryUSA’s publications survey. to locate individual poultry slaughtering wastewaters with kosher poultry 1. Description of the Surveys wastewaters having an increased total facilities, the types of processes at those dissolved solids (TDS) concentration. facilities, and the name of their parent In February 2001, EPA mailed a short The industry representative also stated corporation. EPA consulted the screener survey, entitled ‘‘2001 Meat that most kosher operations (meat and American Meat Institute, the National Products Industry Screener Survey’’ to poultry) are located in urban areas with Renderers Association and the U.S. 1,650 meat and poultry products facilities. A copy of the screener is sewer connections. EPA also identified Poultry & Egg Association for lists of all included in the record (Docket No. W– that Buddhist and Confucian poultry member companies and facilities. The 01–06, Record No. 00178). The screener facilities probably do not exhibit Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory survey consisted of seven questions that wastewater characteristics that differ 2000 provided information on location, elicited site-specific information such as from non-religious poultry facilities parent company, and types of processes type of animal processed and processing (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. at the facility for all three sectors operation, wastewater disposal method, 10029). Finally, industry representatives (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. and the number of full-time employees identified that there should be no 25001). at the site and company. EPA used the differences, other than salt content, in The documents cited above were all used by EPA in developing the industry information collected from the screener MPP wastewater characteristics between survey to describe industry operations, kosher or halal and other meat facilities profile, a survey sampling frame, and for stratifying the survey sampling frame. In wastewater generation rates, and because the main difference between wastewater disposal practices. EPA also religious and non-religious meat addition to these publications, EPA examined many other documents that used the responses to the site production is the method of slaughter employment question for classifying (exsanguination) (Docket No. W–01–06, provided useful overviews and analysis of the meat processing industry. EPA each facility as small or not-small Record No. Record No. 10031). EPA according to the Small Business solicits comment on any other also conducted general Internet searches by company name. Administration regulations at 13 CFR differences in production and part 121. wastewater generation and B. Industry Surveys EPA designed the second survey to characteristics between non-religious EPA developed two survey collect detailed site-specific technical and religious meat and poultry facilities. questionnaires to collect site-specific and financial information. In March V. Summary of Data Collection technical and economic information as 2001, EPA mailed the second survey, the above mentioned sources of entitled ‘‘2001 Meat Products Industry A. Secondary Sources of Data and information did not have sufficiently Survey,’’ to 350 meat and poultry Information detailed technical and economic products facilities. A copy of the The Agency evaluated the following information required for the detailed survey is included in the record databases online to locate data and development of regulatory options. (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. information to support regulatory EPA published a notice in the Federal 00179). The detailed survey is divided development: The Agency’s PCS Register on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25325) into five parts. The first four parts database, USDA’s Food Safety and announcing the Agency’s intent to collect general facility and technical Inspection Service’s HACCP Databases, submit the meat and poultry products data. The first set of questions request USDA’s Packers and Stockyards industry Survey Information Collection general facility site information. The Statistical Report, SEC’s EDGAR Request (ICR) to OMB. The May 1, 2000 general facility information questions Database, the 1997 U.S. Census of notice requested comment on the draft asked the site to identify itself, Manufactures, Dun & Bradstreet Million ICR and the survey questionnaires. EPA characterize itself by certain parameters Dollar Directory and Hoover’s database. received five sets of comments during (including meat and poultry products In addition, the Agency conducted a the 60 day public comment period. operations, age, and location), and thorough collection and review of Commentors on the ICR included: confirm that it was engaged in meat secondary sources, which include data, National Chicken Council, National and/or poultry processing operations.
VerDate 11
Respondents also indicated whether monitoring data. The Agency used this by the National Renderers Association they use trisodium phosphate (TSP) as information to calculate the effluent (NRA). The HACCP database provided a a biocide. Substituting other non- limitations guidelines and standards list of 7,981 federally or State-inspected phosphorus based biocides with TSP and pollutant loadings associated with meat and poultry facilities. The HACCP has the potential to lower overall the regulatory options that EPA database is dated March 9, 2000 for the phosphorus concentrations in the raw considered for this proposal. The federally inspected facilities and May wastewater and treated effluent. The Agency also used data received in 10, 2000 for the State-inspected second set of questions requested response to these questions to identify facilities. The entire HACCP database is analytical and production data treatment technologies in place, to classified into Large, Small, and Very including: (1) Detailed daily analytical determine the feasibility of regulatory Small facilities, corresponding to more and flow rate data for selected sampling options and potential future than 500 employees, 10–500 employees, points; (2) monthly production data; subcategorization of the meat and and less than 10 employees at the and (3) operating hours for selected poultry products industry, and to facility level, respectively. The 236 manufacturing operations. Survey estimate compliance costs, the pollutant renderers from the NRA list were not respondents were required to provide reductions associated with the likely classified by size. The Urner Barry Meat already obtained sampling data and technology-based options, and potential and Poultry Directory 2000 identified information. The Agency used the environmental impacts associated with production information (i.e., whether a analytical data to estimate baseline the regulatory options EPA considered facility was a slaughterer or further pollutant loadings and pollutant for this proposal. processor) for at least 240 of the 292 removals from facilities with treatment- The fifth part of the detailed survey large facilities (82 percent) and 1,120 of in-place resembling projected regulatory elicited site-specific financial and the 2,381 small facilities (47 percent). options and to evaluate the variability economic data. EPA used this No such information was available for associated with meat and poultry information to characterize the the remaining large and small facilities products industry discharges. The economic status of the industry and to or for any of the 5,308 very small Agency used the production data estimate potential economic impacts of facilities. collected to evaluate the production wastewater regulations. The financial basis for applying today’s proposed rule and economic information collected in 3. Sample Selection in NPDES permits. the survey was necessary to complete the economic analysis of the proposed EPA grouped the facilities into seven The next two sections focus on effluent limitations guidelines and strata by the size and the type of meat wastewater characteristics and current standards for the meat and poultry and poultry processing operation that treatment practices, respectively. products industry. EPA requested takes place in each facility so that each Questions regarding wastewater and financial and economic information for stratum would encompass facilities with treatment were designed to gather: (1) the fiscal years ending 1997, 1998, and similar operations. This grouping (also Information on the wastewater 1999— the most recent years for which known as stratification) increases treatment systems (including diagrams) data are available. precision (reducing one source of and discharge flow rates; (2) analytical uncertainty) for estimates of costs, monitoring data; and (3) operating and 2. Development of Survey Mailing List benefits and other quantities. Table maintenance cost data (including EPA sent the two meat and poultry V.B–1 lists the stratification of the meat treatment chemical usage). The outfall products industry survey questionnaires and poultry products industry which is information questions covered permit to a random sample of facilities from the based on employment and other information such as: (1) Discharge USDA Food Safety and Inspection information from USDA’s HACCP location; (2) wastewater sources to the Service (FSIS) Hazard Analysis and program, Urner Barry Meat and Poultry outfall; (3) flow rates; (4) regulated Critical Control Points (HACCP) Directory 2000, and the National parameters and limits; and (5) permit database and a list of renderers provided Renderers Association.
TABLE V.B–1.—MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INDUSTRY STRATA
Number of fa- Screener sur- Detailed sur- Stratum cilities in stra- vey sample vey sample (No. of employees) tum size size
Certainty ...... 65 0 65 Large Processor (≥500) ...... 43 31 3 Large Slaughterer (≥500) ...... 190 100 52 Small Processor (10–499) ...... 1,878 688 62 Small Slaughterer (10–499) ...... 498 130 69 Very Small Processor (<10) ...... 5,308 649 57 Renderer ...... 235 52 42
Total ...... 8,217 1,650 350
Various meat and poultry processors ‘‘certainty’’ facilities to obtain site- characteristics of larger facilities were randomly selected within each specific information on the top because indirect and direct small grouping. EPA weighted each survey producers for all types of meat and facilities as a group (see Section III.A.1 response to account for facilities not poultry products as well as facilities for descriptions of ‘‘small facilities’’) surveyed and to develop national identified as good performers by State discharge less than 3% of the estimates from the survey responses. and Regional environmental personnel. conventional pollutants, 1% of the toxic EPA deliberately selected the 65 EPA focused much of its analysis on the pollutants, 4% of the nutrients, and less
VerDate 11
than 1.5% of the pathogens as compared In selecting candidates for site visits, performed the multi-day sampling on to all discharges from all indirect and EPA attempted to identify facilities behalf of EPA. For the nine facilities direct MPP facilities. Moreover, most of representative of various MPP that performed the sampling, EPA these small facilities are discharging processing operations, as well as both developed sampling plans that detailed small volumes of wastewater into large direct and indirect dischargers. EPA the procedures for sample collection, urban POTW systems which process specifically considered the type of meat including the pollutants to be sampled, significantly higher wastewater and poultry processing operations, age location of sampling points, and sample volumes, which helps minimize of the facility, size of facility (in terms collection, preservation, and shipment impacts. Thus, there is minimal impact of production), wastewater treatment techniques. EPA assisted the nine on POTW operations or the passing of processes employed, and best facilities as necessary (e.g., provided MPP pollutants of concern through management practices/pollution sample bottle labels, provided POTWs into waters of the United States. prevention techniques used. EPA also assistance in shipping, and in one Consequently, larger facilities were solicited recommendations for good- instance, provided on-site contractor oversampled in the sample design. The performing facilities (e.g. facilities with support during the sampling event). oversampling rate is approximately advanced wastewater treatment During each multi-day sampling 6:3:1, meaning that the large facilities technologies) from EPA Regional offices episode, facility influent and effluent were sampled at 6 times the rate of the and State agencies. The site-specific wastestreams were sampled. EPA did very small facilities, and the small selection criteria are discussed in site not collect source water information but facilities at 3 times the rate of the very visit reports prepared for each site will collect additional source water data small. In addition, many of the very visited by EPA (Docket No. W–01–06, after proposal. EPA will use the post- small facilities were not eligible for the Record No.00156). proposal source water data to better survey as they were no longer in During each site visit, EPA collected characterize wastewater characteristics operation. information on the facility and its for each of the facilities sampled. At operations, including: (1) General some facilities, samples were also 4. Survey Response production data and information; (2) the collected at intermediate points Of the 8,217 meat and poultry types of meat and poultry processing throughout the wastewater treatment products facilities generating wastewaters generated and treated on- system to assess the performance of wastewater, 2,000 facilities were mailed site; (3) water source and use; (4) individual treatment units. Some of the wastewater treatment and disposal facilities chosen for sampling perform either a detailed survey or a screener operations; (5) potential sampling rendering and/or further processing survey. As of October 4, 2001, 1,365 of locations for wastewater (raw influent, operations in addition to meat and/or the 1,650 screener surveys and 300 of within the treatment system, and final poultry processing. For facilities that the 350 detailed surveys were returned effluent); and (6) other information also performed rendering operations or to EPA. EPA used 961 of the screener necessary for developing a sampling further processing, wastewater from the surveys (those received before April 24, plan for possible multi-day sampling rendering and/or further processing 2001) and 241 of the detailed surveys episodes. EPA also collected wastewater operations was sampled separately, (those received before May 29, 2001) for samples of influent and effluent at 7 of when possible. the development of regulatory options. the 15 facilities for screening purposes Sampling episodes were conducted EPA chose the cut-off dates in order to only. over either a 3-day or 5-day period. process, synthesize, and analyze the Based on data collected from the site Samples were obtained using a collected data and develop regulatory visits, EPA selected 11 facilities for combination of 24-hour composite and options in a timely fashion and still use multi-day sampling. The purpose of the grab samples, depending upon the as much data as possible. EPA will use multi-day sampling was to characterize pollutant parameter to be analyzed. all surveys, including those collected pollutants in raw wastewaters prior to Depending on the type of wastewater after the deadlines, in upcoming treatment as well as document processed and the treatment technology analyses for the forthcoming Notice of wastewater treatment plant performance being evaluated, EPA analyzed Data Availability (NODA) and final rule. (including selected unit processes). wastewater for up to 53 parameters C. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Selection of facilities for multi-day including conventional (BOD5, TSS, oil sampling was based on an analysis of and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH), During 2000 and 2001, EPA information collected during the site toxic (selected metals and pesticides), conducted site visits at 15 MPP visits as well as the following criteria: and nonconventional (e.g., nutrients, facilities. Six of these site visits were • The facility performed meat and/or microbiologicals) pollutants. When conducted at meat facilities, seven at poultry slaughtering and/or further possible for a given parameter, EPA poultry facilities, and two at rendering- processing operations representative of collected 24-hour composite samples in only facilities. The purposes of these MPP facilities; order to capture the variability in the site visits were to: (1) Collect • The facility utilized in-process waste streams generated throughout the information on meat and poultry treatment and/or end-of-pipe treatment day (e.g. production wastewater versus processing operations; (2) collect technologies that EPA was considering clean-up wastewater.) information on wastewater generation for technology option selection; and Data collected from the influent and waste management practices used • Compliance monitoring data for the samples contributed to characterization by the MPP facilities; and (3) evaluate facility indicated that it was among the of the industry, development of the list each facility as a candidate for multi- better performing treatment systems or of pollutants of concern, and day sampling. In addition, EPA that it employed wastewater treatment development of raw wastewater conducted limited sampling during process for which EPA sought data for characteristics. EPA used the data several of the site visits to screen for option selection. collected from the influent, potential contaminants that may be Multi-day sampling occurred at six intermediate, and effluent points to found in wastewaters from the different meat facilities and five poultry facilities. analyze the efficacy of treatment at the types of meat and poultry processing EPA performed multi-day sampling at facilities, and to develop current operations. two facilities, and nine facilities discharge concentrations, loadings, and
VerDate 11
the treatment technology options for the D. Pollutants Sampled and Analytical laboratories. EPA or facility staff meat and poultry products industry. Methods collected field measurements of EPA used effluent data to calculate the The Agency (or facilities, as directed temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH long-term averages (LTAs) and by the Agency) collected, preserved, and at the sampling site. The analytical limitations for each of the proposed transported all samples according to chemistry methods used, as well as the regulatory options. EPA also used EPA protocols as specified in EPA’s sample volume requirements, detection industry-provided data from the MPP Sampling and Analysis Procedures for limits, and holding times, were Survey to complement the sampling Screening of Industrial Effluents for consistent with the laboratory’s quality data for these calculations. During each Priority Pollutants and in the MPP assurance and quality control plan. sampling episode, EPA also collected QAPP. Laboratories contracted for MPP sample flow rate data corresponding to each EPA collected composite samples for analysis followed EPA approved sample collected and production most parameters because the Agency analysis methods for all parameters. information from each associated expected the wastewater composition to The EPA contract laboratories manufacturing operation for use in vary over the course of a day. The reported data on their standard report calculating pollutant loadings and Agency collected grab samples from sheet and submitted them to EPA’s production-normalized flow rates. EPA unit operations for oil and grease and sample control center (SCC). The SCC has included in the public record all microbiologicals. Composite samples reviewed the report sheets for information collected for which the were collected either manually or by completeness and reasonableness. EPA facility has not asserted a claim of using an automated sampler. Individual reviewed all reports from the laboratory Confidential Business Information (CBI) aliquots for the composite samples were to verify that the data were consistent or which would indirectly reveal collected at a minimum of once every with requirements, reported in the information claimed to be CBI. four hours over each 24-hour period. Oil proper units, and the data are in EPA used the site visit reports to and grease samples were collected every compliance with the applicable prepare multi-day sampling and four hours and microbiologicals were protocol. analysis plans (SAPs) for each facility collected once a day. Quality control measures used in that would undergo multi-day sampling. Table V.D–1 lists the parameters performing all analyses complied with The Agency collected the following sampled at the majority of the facilities, the guidelines specified in the analytical types of information during each some of which have not been identified methods and in the MPP Quality sampling episode: as pollutants of concern. Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). EPA • reviewed all analytical data to ensure Dates and times of sample Table V.D–1. MPP Sampled Parameters collection; that these measures were followed and that the resulting data were within the • Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) Flow data corresponding to each Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen QAPP-specified acceptance criteria for sample; demand (CBOD5) accuracy and precision. • Production data corresponding to Dissolved biochemical oxygen demand Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act each sample; (DBOD5) directs EPA to promulgate guidelines • Design and operating parameters for Chemical oxygen demand (COD) establishing test procedures (methods) source reduction, recycling, and Total organic carbon (TOC) for the analysis of pollutants. These treatment; technologies characterized Total suspended solids (TSS) methods allow the analyst to determine during sampling; Total dissolved solids (TDS) the presence and concentration of Total volatile solids (TVS) pollutants in wastewater, and are used • Information about site operations Chloride for compliance monitoring and for filing that had changed since the site visit or Total residual chlorine (TRC) applications for the NPDES program that were not included in the Site visit Ammonia as nitrogen under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44, report; and Nitrate/nitrite and 123.25, and for the implementation • Temperature, pH, and dissolved Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) of the pretreatment standards under 40 oxygen (DO) of the sampled Total phosphorus (TP) CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA wastestreams. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) has promulgated methods for all After the conclusion of the sampling Orthophosphate conventional and toxic pollutants and episodes, EPA prepared sampling Oil and grease for several nonconventional pollutants. episode reports for each facility which Metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium, copper, Table 1–B at 40 CFR 136.3 lists the included descriptions of the wastewater mercury, zinc) analytical methods approved for four of treatment processes, sampling Carbamate pesticide (carbaryl) the five conventional pollutants and procedures, and analytical results. EPA Permethrin (cis-and trans-) Table 1–A at 40 CFR 136.3 lists the fifth, documented all data collected during Malathion fecal coliform. Part 136 also sets forth sampling episodes in the sampling Stirofos the analytical methods for toxic episode report for each sampled site Dichlorvos pollutants. EPA has listed, pursuant to which are located in the MPP Total coliform Section 307(a)(1) of the Act, 65 metals Administrative Record. Non- Fecal coliform and organic pollutants and classes of confidential business information from Escherichia coli pollutants as ‘‘toxic pollutants’’ at 40 these reports is available in the public Fecal streptococci CFR 401.15. From the list of 65 classes record for this proposal. For detailed Salmonella of toxic pollutants, EPA identified a list information on sampling and Aeromonas of 126 ‘‘Priority Pollutants.’’ This list of preservation procedures, analytical Cryptosporidium (meat facilities only) Priority Pollutants is shown at 40 CFR methods, and quality assurance/quality All wastewater sample analyses, part 423, appendix A. The list includes control procedures see the MPP except for the field measurements of non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal Development Document for today’s temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH pollutants, cyanides, asbestos, and proposed rule. were completed by EPA contract pesticide pollutants.
VerDate 11
Currently approved methods for approved under 40 CFR 136.3, where 136, the discharger must use the test metals and cyanides are included in the available, to monitor pollutant procedure specified in the permit or, in table of approved inorganic test discharges from the meat and poultry the case of indirect dischargers, other procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I–B. products industry, unless specified validated methods or applicable Table I–C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved otherwise in part 432 or by the procedures. See 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv) methods for measurement of non- permitting authority. See 40 CFR 401.13 and 403.12(b)(5)(vi). pesticide organic pollutants, and Table and 403.12(b)(5)(vi). Sometimes, I–D lists approved methods for the toxic methods in part 136 apply to only waste Table V.D–2 provides a list of analytes pesticide pollutants and for other streams from specified point source from EPA MPP sampling that were pesticide pollutants. Direct and indirect categories. For pollutants with no analyzed by methods that were not dischargers must use the test methods methods approved under 40 CFR part approved at 40 CFR part 136.
TABLE V.D–2: METHODS FOR MPP ANALYTES NOT APPROVED AT 40 CFR PART 136
Analyte Method Frequency
Chloride ...... 300.0 77 samples out of 217 samples. Nitrate/Nitrite ...... 300.0 62 samples out of 217 samples. Total Orthophosphate ...... 300.0 77 samples out of 217 samples. Carbaryl ...... 632 all samples. Dichlorvos ...... 1657 all samples. Malathion ...... 1657 all samples. Tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos) ...... 1657 all samples. cis-Permethrin ...... 1660 all samples. trans-Permethrin ...... 1660 all samples. E. coli ...... 9221F all samples. Aeromonas ...... 9260L all samples. Salmonella ...... FDA–BAM all samples. Metals ...... 1620 all samples.
The use of Method 300.0 for chloride, • EPA 1600-series methods were experts and the general public. The nitrate/nitrite, and total orthophosphate developed specifically for the effluent main purpose of these other data was necessary because the analytical guidelines program; therefore, they have collection efforts was to obtain methods normally used for these more stringent quality control information on documented analytes are subject to interferences requirements than Standard Methods; environmental impacts of meat and such as color, turbidity, and/or and poultry processing industry facilities, particulates. These interferences were • Method 1657 is approved for additional data on animal processing sometimes present in the samples, given compliance monitoring of malathion in waste characteristics, pollution the difficult matrices associated with the pesticide chemical point source prevention practices, wastewater the meat and poultry products industry category (see Table 7 in 40 CFR part treatment technology innovation, and (samples that contain blood, animal 455). facility management practices. These tissue, and/or other particulates). • Two other parameters were other data collection activities included Laboratories used Method 300.0 for analyzed using EPA Method 1657 in a literature search, a review of current those samples that contained the addition to malathion [dichlorvos and NPDES permits, and NPDES Discharge interferents, which were a subset of the tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos)]. Monitoring Reports. samples collected, as shown in the table Performance of one method for three 1. Literature Search on Environmental above under the ‘‘Frequency’’ column. analytes was the most economical Impacts The pesticides carbaryl, cis- approach. permethrin, trans-permethrin, The biological parameters E.coli, EPA conducted a literature search to dichlorvos, and tetrachlorvinphos Aeromonas, and Salmonella are not obtain information on various aspects of (stirofos) are not included in Table 1D- listed at 40 CFR part 136. Therefore, the animal processing industry, List of Approved Test Procedures for there are no 40 CFR part 136-approved including documented environmental Pesticides at 40 CFR Part 136. Therefore, methods for these analytes, however, impacts, wastewater treatment there are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved EPA proposed methods for E.coli on technology, waste generation and methods for these analytes. However, August 30, 2001 (66 FR 169, pages facility management, and pollution the methods are approved for 45811–45829). Metals were analyzed prevention. EPA performed extensive compliance monitoring of these using EPA Method 1620 because this internet and library searches for pollutants in the Pesticide Chemicals method was developed specifically for applicable information. The Agency Point Source Category (see Table 7 in 40 the effluent guidelines program and used the resources of its own CFR part 455). [Note: Method 1660 is contains more stringent quality control environmental library and the U.S. approved for permethrin; however, cis- requirements than other 40 CFR part Department of Agriculture’s National permethrin and trans-permethrin are 136-approved methods. Research Library to obtain technical structurally similar to permethrin.] articles on environmental issues relating There is one approved method for E. Other Data Collection to the animal processing industry. malathion at 40 CFR part 136: Standard EPA conducted a number of other Several university libraries and industry Method 6630C. EPA Method 1657 was data collection efforts to supplement experts were also consulted during the selected for analysis of malathion information gathered through the survey literature search. As a result, EPA was instead, for a couple of reasons, process, facility sampling activities, site able to compile a list of environmental including: visits, and meetings with industry impacts associated with the meat and
VerDate 11
poultry processing industry. The scope 3. Discharge Monitoring Reports the detailed survey, EPA requested that of the literature search included In addition, the Agency collected facilities provide the individual daily government reports of permit violations long-term effluent data from facility measurements from their monitoring and any associated environmental Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) (for DMR or the control authority) with impacts. EPA also compiled technical via the PCS database in an effort to detailed information about their studies on innovative treatment perform a ‘‘real world’’ check on the treatment systems and processes. After technologies for meat and poultry achievability of today’s proposed limits. further evaluation of the detailed processing wastewater. EPA has DMRs summarize the quality and surveys, EPA intends to use the self- included a summary of the case studies volume of wastewater discharged from a monitoring data corresponding to the in the public docket (Docket No. W–01– facility under a National Pollution proposed treatment options to calculate 06, Record No. 00167) associated with Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) the final limits and to reassess the today’s proposal. The primary sources permit. DMRs are critical for monitoring achievability of the limits by well- for the case studies include newspaper compliance with NPDES permit operated BAT systems. In cases where and technical journal articles, provisions and for generating national EPA determines that improved system government reports, and papers trends on Clean Water Act compliance. operation will allow the limits to be included in industry and academic DMRs may be submitted monthly, consistently achieved it will include conference proceedings. quarterly, or annually depending on the additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost estimations for the 2. Current NPDES Permits requirements of the NPDES permit. EPA extracted discharge data and final rule where EPA has not already EPA extracted information from the permit limits from these DMRs (via the done so. EPA concludes, in following Agency’s Permit Compliance System PCS database) and from the MPP the approach described above, that it (PCS) to identify meat and poultry surveys to help identify regulated will address issues related to the processing industry point source pollutants, to identify better performing achievability of the numerical limits by dischargers with NPDES permits. This facilities, and to set limitations in a few well-operated and economically initial extraction was performed by cases where sampling data was not achievable treatment systems. EPA searching the PCS using reported available. Specifically, EPA identified solicits comments on this method of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) the amount of discharged ammonia in performing a ‘‘real world’’ check on the codes used to describe the primary relation to the respective permit limits. achievability of its proposed limits. activities occurring at the site. EPA conducted this analysis in part to F. Summary of Public Participation Specifically, the following SIC Codes identify potential facilities for future were used: sampling as well as to assist in EPA encouraged the participation of • identifying a selection of facilities for all interested parties throughout the 2011 Meat Packing Facilities. development of the proposed meat and • the certainty component of the detailed 2013 Sausages and Other Prepared survey exercise, and limitations were set poultry products effluent limitations Meats. for TSS, Oil and Grease(HEM) and COD guidelines and standards. EPA • 2015 Poultry Slaughtering and based on DMR data from the MPP conducted outreach to the following Processing. surveys. trade associations (which represent the • EPA was able to collect DMR vast majority of the facilities that will be 2077 Animal and Marine Fats and affected by this guideline): American Oils. information on a total of 176 facilities from four MPP sectors: 77 meat packing Meat Institute (AMI), American EPA identified 359 active meat and facilities; 17 facilities producing Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), poultry product facilities with NPDES sausages and other prepared meat National Renderers Association (NRA), permits in the PCS database. The PCS products; 65 poultry slaughtering and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, and estimate of MPP direct dischargers is processing facilities; and 17 animal and National Chicken Council. EPA met on approximately equivalent to the marine fat and oils facilities. EPA several occasions with various industry screener survey estimate of direct collected 31,311 data points on 83 representatives to discuss aspects of the dischargers. EPA will refine its separate pollutant parameters. regulation development. EPA also estimates of direct dischargers to Indirect dischargers file compliance participated in industry meetings and incorporate information from both the monitoring reports with their control gave presentations on the status of the PCS database and the screener survey. authority (e.g., POTW) at least twice per regulation development. EPA also met EPA selected a sample from this year as required under the General with environmental groups including universe of dischargers. The Agency Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403) the Natural Resources Defense Council then reviewed NPDES permits and while direct dischargers file discharge concerning this proposal. permit applications to obtain monitoring reports with their permitting EPA met with the industry information on treatment technologies authority at least once per year. EPA did associations and environmental groups and wastewater characteristics for each not collect compliance monitoring and representatives from State and local of the animal processing and rendering reports for MPP facilities that are governments when this industry was sectors. EPA used this information as indirect dischargers as: (1) A vast first identified as a candidate for part of its initial screening process to majority of MPP indirect dischargers are rulemaking to seek their opinions on the identify the universe of processing small facilities (i.e., small volumes of issues that the Agency should consider facilities that would be covered under wastewater); and (2) this information is as it moved forward for rulemaking. the proposal. In addition, this less centralized and harder to collect. In the development of the surveys information was used to better define Because DMR and indirect discharger which were used to gather facility the scope of the information collection compliance monitoring reports do not specific information on this industry, requests and to supplement other provide information about processes EPA consulted with the industry groups information collected on meat and and production, EPA was not able to use and several of their members to ensure poultry processing waste management these data directly in calculating the that the information being requested practices. limitations and standards. Instead, in was asked for in such a way as to be
VerDate 11
understandable and that it would be EPA used industry survey data and carcasses are washed and chilled, and available in the form requested. EPA sampling data for the areas where carcasses are trimmed and EPA conducted site visits to 15 subcategorization analysis. Various cut to produce the whole carcasses or facilities: 6 meat processors, 7 poultry subcategorization criteria were analyzed carcass parts. As a result of these processors and 2 independent rendering for trends in discharge flow rates, operations, wastewaters are generated facilities and conducted sampling at 11 pollutant concentrations, and that contain varying levels of blood, facilities which provided samples from treatability to determine where animals parts, viscera, fats, bones, etc. slaughtering operations, first and further subcategorization was warranted. In addition, federal food safety concerns processing and rendering. The facilities Equipment and facility age and facility require frequent and extensive clean-up visited and sampled were identified by location were not found to impact of slaughtering operations, which also industry experts and State or EPA wastewater generation or wastewater contributes to wastewater generation. regional personnel as exemplifying the characteristics; therefore, age and These clean-up wastewaters will best performance and treatment in the location were not used as a basis for contain not only slaughtering residues industry. subcategorization. An analysis of non- and particulate matter, but also contain water quality environmental products used for cleaning and EPA also met with representatives characteristics (e.g., solid waste and air disinfection (detergents and sanitizing from USDA to discuss this regulation emission effects) showed that these agents). and how it might be affected or affect characteristics also did not constitute a Alternatively, most further processing requirements on the meat and poultry basis for subcategorization (see Section operations generate wastewaters from processing industry implemented by the X). sources different than slaughtering Food Safety and Inspection Service of Even though size (e.g., acreage, operations. These sources, and the USDA. EPA has met with number of employees, production rates) resulting wastewater characteristics, are representatives from State and local of a facility does not have an influence highly dependent on the type of governments to discuss their concerns on production-normalized wastewater finished product desired. Further with meat and poultry processing flow rates or pollutant loadings, size operations can include, but are not facilities and how EPA should approach was used as a basis for subcategorization limited to, cutting and deboning, these facilities in regulation. because more stringent limitations cooking, seasoning, smoking, canning, VI. Subcategorization would not be cost effective for smaller grinding, chopping, dicing, forming or poultry facilities (see Sections III.A.1 breading. Unlike slaughtering A. Factors Considered in Developing and III.B for definition of ‘‘small’’ and operations, most further processing Proposed Subcategories ‘‘non-small’’ facilities for each operations, except for clean-up, do not subcategory). See Section III.A.1 for a utilize significant amounts of water. The CWA requires EPA, when description on how and why EPA Wastewaters generated from further developing effluent limitations established production based standards processing operations will contain some guidelines and pretreatment standards, for small MPP facilities. further processing residues and to consider a number of different EPA also identified types of meat particulate matter (e.g., breading, spices, factors. For example, when developing products manufacturing processes (e.g., etc.), as well as products used for limitations that represent the best slaughtering, further processing, cleaning and disinfection (detergents available technology economically rendering) as a determinative factor for and sanitizing agents). achievable for a particular industry subcategorization due to variations in Rendering operations are used category, EPA must consider, among production-normalized wastewater flow primarily to process slaughtering by- other factors, the age of the equipment rates (PNFs) and estimated pollutant products (e.g., animal fat, bone, blood, and facilities in the category, location, loadings. For meat facilities: the PNF for hair, feathers, dead animals, etc.). The manufacturing processes employed, slaughtering is 322.8 gal/1000 lb. Live amount of water used and the types of treatment technology to reduce Weight Killed; the PNF for further characteristics of wastewater generated effluent discharges, the cost of effluent processing 555.4 gal/1000 lb. Finished by rendering operations are highly reductions and non-water quality Product; the PNF for meat cutters in dependent on a number of factors, environmental impacts. See Section subcategory F only is 130.4 gal/1000 lb. including the type of product desired 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Finished Product; and the PNF for (e.g., edible v. inedible), the rendering 1314(b)(2)(B). The statute also rendering is 346.0 gal/1000 lb. Raw process used (batch v. continuous; wet authorizes EPA to take into account Material. For Poultry facilities: the PNF process v. dry process), and the source other factors that the Administrator for slaughtering is 1,289 gal/1000 lb. and type of raw materials used (e.g., deems appropriate and requires the BAT Live Weight Killed; the PNF for further poultry processors, slaughterhouses, model technology chosen by EPA to be processing is 315.7 gal/1000 lb. butcher shops, supermarkets, economically achievable, which Finished Product; and, the PNF for restaurants, fast-food chains, farms, generally involves consideration of both rendering is 346.0 gal/1000 lb. Raw ranches, feedlots, animal shelters, etc.). compliance costs and the overall Material. In general, rendering operations involve financial condition of the industry. EPA Most slaughtering operations utilize cooking the raw materials to recover took these factors into account in significant amounts of water to process fats, oil, and grease; remaining residue considering whether to establish an animal. Slaughtering operations is dried and then granulated or ground subcategories and found that dividing generally involve taking the live animal into a meal. A significant portion of the industry into subcategories leads to and producing whole or cut-up meat wastewater pollutant loadings generated better tailored regulatory standards, carcasses (which are then further from rendering operations is condensed thereby increasing regulatory processed). Wastewaters from steam from cooking operations. Unlike predictability and diminishing the need slaughtering operations are generated slaughtering and further processing to address variations among facilities from a variety of sources that generally operations, rendering clean-up through a variance process. See include the areas where animals are operations are generally less rigorous, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d killed and bled, hides or feathers are generating a smaller proportion of the 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978). removed, animals are eviscerated, total expected wastewater flow.
VerDate 11
The following section describes the different for each of the subcategories, characteristics and treatability for three proposed meat and poultry products the subcategories themselves are being of the four subcategories are sufficiently industry subcategorization. maintained. EPA believes that retaining similar to group them together for the the existing subcategorization scheme purpose of revising or setting new B. Proposed Subcategories will simplify implementation for the limitations and standards. However, In today’s notice, EPA proposes to permit writers as well as generate subpart F limitations will be based on keep the current subcategorization appropriate limitations and standards a lower production-normalized flow scheme for small facilities, but for larger for the facilities. EPA requests than subpart G, H and I limitations facilities, we are proposing new comments on this approach. because subpart F facilities generate limitations and collapsing the existing The proposed regulation would substantially less water per pound of subcategories. Specifically, EPA require all meat direct dischargers that finished product than the other three proposes new limitations and standards slaughter more than 50 million pounds subparts. Moreover, EPA believes there that are the same for facilities in the live weight per year to achieve the same are no significant differences between following MPP subcategories: Simple production-based effluent limitations. these four subcategories in terms of age, Slaughterhouses (subpart A); Complex EPA finds that the slaughtering and location, and size of these MPP Slaughterhouses (subpart B); Low- initial processing operations found in facilities. EPA believes that this Processing Packinghouses (subpart C); all four of these subcategories are the subcategorization scheme will simplify and High-Processing Packinghouses key factors in determining wastewater implementation for the permit writers as (subpart D). Also, EPA proposes new characteristics and treatability. well as generate appropriate limitations limitations and standards that are the Moreover, EPA believes there are no and standards for the facilities. same for facilities in the following MPP significant differences between these subcategories: Meat Cutters (subpart F); four subcategories in terms of age, 3. Renderers—Subpart J Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors location, and size of facilities. In Subpart J applies to independent (subpart G); Ham Processors (subpart H); addition to slaughtering and initial rendering facilities which are facilities and Canned Meats Processors (subpart processing, EPA is proposing to that only render raw materials and I). EPA is also retaining the Renderers establish allowances to account for the process hides and do no first or further (subpart J) subcategory and proposing additional processes that may also occur processing. The proposed new limitations and standards for on-site. The proposed effluent subcategorization scheme requires all facilities in this subcategory. This limitations guidelines would provide independent rendering facilities that proposal does not revise the existing allowances for discharges from each of render more than 10 million pounds per limitations and standards for smaller the following processes: slaughtering year of raw material to be regulated by facilities in subparts A–J (see Section (which includes initial processing), the same production-based effluent III.A.1). Finally, EPA proposes adding further processing, and rendering. These limitations guidelines. This is a change two MPP subcategories in 40 CFR part allowances would be the same for all from the current guidelines, which only 432: Poultry First Processing (subpart K) four subcategories and are related to the apply to independent renderers that and Poultry Further Processing (subpart volume of production as follows: The render more than approximately 27.4 L). These two new subcategories will amount of live weight killed for the million pounds raw material per year cover both small and larger poultry slaughtering process, the amount of (or 75,000 pounds raw material per day processing facilities, although, the finished product that is further for a facility that operates 365 days per smaller facilities in each of the processed on site, and the amount of year). See Section III.A.1 for a subcategories are required to meet less raw material that is rendered on-site. description on how and why EPA stringent requirements than larger Because of the similarities in established production based standards poultry facilities (see Section III.B and wastewater characteristics across all for small MPP facilities. The limitations Table III.B–1). EPA chose less stringent meat slaughter and packinghouses, EPA and standards allow discharges based limitations for smaller poultry also requests comment on an alternate on the amount of raw material that is processing facilities because more approach to subcategorizing the meat rendered on site. slaughtering sector. This alternative stringent limits would not be cost 4. Poultry First Processing—Subpart K effective for smaller poultry facilities would incorporate all meat slaughtering (see Section III.A.1). activities in one subcategory. This EPA divided the poultry first Each subcategory is described in more subcategory would retain the individual processors into two segments: Small and detail immediately below in terms of its BPT allowances for simple and complex not-small (see Table III.B–1). Small manufacturing processes and slaughterhouses and low and high poultry first processors slaughter 10 wastewater characteristics. All processing packinghouses for facilities million pounds of poultry per year or subcategories are further segmented which slaughter 50 million pounds or less while non-small poultry first based on the amount of meat and less per year. processors slaughter more than 10 poultry products they slaughter, further million pounds of poultry per year. See 2. Meat Further Processing—Subparts F, process or render. Section III.B for a description on how G, H and I and why EPA established production 1. Meat Slaughterhouses and The proposed subcategorization based standards for small poultry Packinghouses—Subparts A, B, C and D scheme requires all facilities that processing facilities. EPA is proposing EPA is proposing to retain the existing generate more than 50 million pounds that the technology-based effluent subcategories. EPA is not proposing to per year of meat finished products limitations guidelines for small poultry revise the existing BPT requirements for without performing slaughtering to be first processors (both new and existing) facilities which slaughter 50 million regulated by the same production-based be based on the less efficient pounds per year or less for the reasons effluent limitations guidelines (see nitrification technology option (Direct described in Section III.A.1. of this Section III). The limitations guidelines Option 1). EPA is proposing that the notice. Since the existing limitations for allow discharges based on the amount of technology-based effluent limitations smaller meat facilities (which EPA finished product that is further guidelines for non-small poultry first believes should be maintained) are processed on site. The wastewater processors (both new and existing) be
VerDate 11
based on the nitrification/denitrification VII.D for a discussion of the technology the wastewaters, there are virtually no technology option (Direct Option 3). See options. See the MPP Development differences between the meat and Section VII.D for a discussion of the Document and MPP Economic Analysis poultry sectors in the types of treatment technology options. See the MPP for more details on how EPA developed technologies used. The unit processes Development Document and MPP the two segments and specific that are used in treatment of meat and Economic Analysis for more details on requirements for each segment. The poultry processing wastewater are also how EPA developed the two segments effluent limitations guidelines allow similar to that normally used in the and specific requirements for each discharges based on the amount of treatment of domestic wastewater. The segment. finished product that is produced on wastewater treatment falls into three The effluent limitations guidelines site and also include provisions for main categories: primary treatment, allow discharges for all activities that those poultry further processors that secondary treatment, and tertiary may be performed on-site including perform on-site rendering operations. treatment. Primary treatment focuses on further processing and rendering based VII. Technology Options, Costs, the removal of floating and settleable on: (1) The amount of live weight killed; Wastewater Characteristics, and solids; secondary treatment provides (2) the amount of finished product that Pollutant Reductions removal of most organic matter; and is further processed on site; and (3) the tertiary treatment is used for the amount of raw material that is rendered A. Wastewater Treatment Technologies removal of nitrogen and/or phosphorus on site. in the MPP Industry and/or suspended solids. Meat and EPA developed a series of technology poultry processing facilities that 5. Poultry Further Processing—Subpart discharge to a publicly owned treatment L option alternatives for the proposed rule based on the volumes and works (POTW) typically employ only EPA divided the poultry further characteristics of wastewater generated primary treatment; however, some processors into two segments: small and at MPP facilities and the types of facilities also provide secondary non-small. Small poultry further treatment technologies currently used treatment. Facilities that discharge processors generate 7 million pounds of by the industry to treat these directly to navigable waters under the finished product per year or less while wastewaters. Evaluation and selection of authority of a National Pollutant non-small poultry further processors technology options was based primarily Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) generate more than 7 million pounds of on information provided in the MPP permit, at a minimum apply both finished product per year. See Section detailed surveys (see Section V.B for a primary and secondary treatment. Many III.B for a description on how and why description of the MPP detailed survey.) direct dischargers also apply tertiary EPA established production based The detailed surveys requested treatment to wastewater discharged standards for small poultry processing extensive data on wastewater under the NPDES permit system. facilities. EPA is proposing that the characteristics, including both raw and A variety of unit processes are used technology-based effluent limitations treated wastewasters, treatment-in-place by MPP facilities to provide primary, guidelines for small poultry further technologies, as well as information on secondary, and tertiary wastewater processors (both new and existing) be production processes. The technology treatment. Table VII.A–1 summarizes based on a less efficient nitrification options presented in today’s proposal the relative frequency of treatment units technology option (Direct Option 1). are based on various factors including, used in the industry, based on a EPA is proposing that the technology- but not limited to, the frequency of preliminary assessment of information based effluent limitations guidelines for occurrence, technical performance of provided in the detailed survey. The non-small poultry further processors unit processes in reducing pollutant unit processes most commonly used for (both new and existing) be based on the loads, and economic achievability. the treatment of meat and poultry nitrification/denitrification technology Because of the similarities in the processing wastewater are described option (Direct Option 3). See Section physical and chemical characteristics of below.
TABLE VII.A–1.—DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT UNITS IN MPP INDUSTRY
Percent of direct/indirect dis- charging facilities having the treatment unit in place Treatment category Treatment unit Direct Indirect Discharger Discharger (percent) (percent)
Primary treatment ...... Screen ...... 98 64 Oil and Grease Removal ...... 83 77 Dissolved Air Floatation ...... 81 46 Flow Equalization ...... 75 34 Secondary and Tertiary Treatment ...... Biological Treatment 1 ...... 100 13 Filtration ...... 23 0 Disinfection ...... 92 0 Note 1: Biological Treatment includes any combination of the following: aerobic lagoon, anaerobic lagoon, facultative lagoon, any activated sludge process, and/or other biological treatment processes (e.g., trickling filter). Source: Detailed Survey Data.
1. Primary Treatment high concentrations of BOD. Most MPP primary treatment to remove floating facilities, whether they are direct or and settleable solids. The typical unit MPP industry raw wastewaters have indirect dischargers employ some sort of processes used for primary treatment are high levels of suspended solids and
VerDate 11
screens followed by dissolved air necessary prior to discharge into a sequencing batch reactors, extended flotation (DAF) and flow equalization receiving water body. This additional aeration, and oxidation ditch are tanks. Some facilities use chemicals to removal can be accomplished through commonly used for denitrification. Very improve suspended solids and secondary biological treatment. few facilities in the industry have biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Commonly used systems secondary biological phosphorous removal removal. Primary treatment serves to biological treatment of wastewater systems. A biological phosphorous reduce suspended solids and BOD loads include activated sludge systems, removal system consists of an anaerobic to subsequent unit processes. Primary lagoons, oxidation ditch, extended tank before the nitrification and treatment can also be used to recover aeration, and sequencing batch reactors. denitrification system. The system can materials that can be converted into In addition, a sequence of anaerobic and achieve a very low effluent marketable products through rendering. aerobic biological processes is concentration of phosphorous. Screening is typically the first and commonly used for secondary Simple clarification after secondary most inexpensive form of primary treatment. wastewater treatment may not reduce treatment. Screening removes large solid Anaerobic lagoons are the most the concentration of suspended solids to particles from the waste stream that commonly used anaerobic unit the desired level. Therefore, filtration could otherwise damage or interfere processes. Five-day biochemical oxygen systems are used to reduce the effluent with downstream equipment and demand (BOD5) reductions by anaerobic concentration of suspended solids. treatment processes. Generally all lagoons can be as high as 90 percent. During the filtration cycle, wastewater is wastewater generated in meat and In the treatment of meat and poultry passed through a bed of granular media poultry processing facilities is screened processing wastewaters, aerobic which traps the suspended solids thus before discharge to subsequent treatment may directly follow primary producing high quality effluent. The treatment processes. In poultry treatment or more typically follow some filtration unit is regenerated processing facilities, use of screens aids form of anaerobic treatment to reduce periodically by backwashing. Filtration in recovery of both feathers and offal BOD and suspended solids units use various types of media as filter (viscera and meat particles), that are concentrations to levels required for bed. The sand filtration systems are valuable by-products for the poultry direct discharge. Aerobic processes can most commonly found in the industry. rendering industry. In meat processing also remove more than 90 percent of the The final step in the treatment of meat facilities, screening is generally limited influent BOD5. In addition, the aerobic and poultry processing wastewaters is to processing and cleanup water since systems partially nitrify the wastewater disinfection with the objective of viscera (usually) is not transported by converting ammonia to nitrates. destroying remaining pathogenic hydraulically. Based on detailed survey responses all microorganisms. Disinfection systems Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is also the direct discharging MPP facilities are found in the majority of the direct used extensively in the primary employ at least some kind of aerobic dischargers; very few (if any) indirect treatment of meat and poultry treatment prior to discharging the final dischargers disinfect their wastewater processing wastewater to remove effluent. The most common aerobic because of additional treatment at the suspended solids. The principal treatments units used by MPP facilities POTW accomplishes the pathogen advantage of DAF over gravity settling is are activated sludge, aerated lagoons, destruction. the ability to remove very small or light oxidation ditch, extended aeration, and B. Wastewater Sources, Water Use, and particles including grease more sequencing batch reactors. Wastewater Characteristics completely and in a shorter period of 3. Tertiary Treatment time. Once particles have been floated 1. Meat Products Facilities Some MPP facilities also employ to the surface, removal is done by a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use skimming. Chemicals, including, tertiary treatment to obtain further aluminum or iron salts or synthetic removal of suspended solids and to Most steps in the slaughtering process organic polymers are often added to reduce nutrient loadings, especially generate pollutants that flow into improve the performance of DAF units. nitrogen and phosphorus levels. wastewater. Animal urine and fecal Most meat and poultry processing Although, primary and secondary matter, and hair, which accumulate in facilities operate on a five-day per week treatment significantly reduce BOD, the animal holding pens are washed schedule, resulting in a weekly variation suspended solids, and nitrogen down into floor drains, and of wastewater flow (and load). Also, compounds (e.g., ammonia), tertiary subsequently enter the wastewater during the operation of the facilities, treatment can provide significant further stream. Significant amounts of blood are daily fluctuation in the wastewater flow removals of nitrogen (conversion of generated in the stunning and killing (and load) is very common. Flow nitrates to nitrogen gas) and especially areas. Although it is usually saved for equalization tanks are used to eliminate phosphorus, which is not significantly rendering purposes, some blood often the need for sizing subsequent treatment addressed by most secondary biological enters wastewater. Blood, in addition to units to handle peak flows and to treatment systems. other meat and tissue waste and hide provide continuous constant flow (and Nitrogen can be largely eliminated particles, is generated during cattle de- load) to the subsequent treatment units, from the wastewater by the combined hiding. These particles also can in-line flow. nitrification and denitrification process. contaminate water if they are not Nitrates formed during the nitrification collected properly. Wastewater from 2. Secondary Biological Treatment process in secondary treatment are both the scalding tub and the de-hairing Because MPP wastewaters have a high converted to nitrogen gas in the anoxic machine can contain hair, soil, mineral organic content, it is not usually denitrification unit. Normally, the oil and manure. BOD levels from these possible for a direct discharger to meet denitrification unit is placed before the areas can be as high as 3,000 mg/L. permit limits without employing nitrification unit to utilize the influent Additional blood and tissue pieces can secondary treatment. Although effective BOD as the carbon source for be produced during the evisceration primary treatment can significantly denitrification. The nitrates formed in process. Large amounts of wastewater reduce the BOD load of a MPP facility, the nitrification unit are recycled to the typically come from washing carcasses. typically more organic removal is denitrification unit. Bardenpho process, This water contains high levels of
VerDate 11
grease, and small amounts of blood, processor. Wastewater from these products. The operations involved in tissue solids, and other fluids. As operations generally contain meat, fat, ham production use more water than carcasses are cut into smaller pieces, and bone particles as well as soluble the typical meat processing operations; small pieces of tissues and fluids can constituents such as salts, blood, and and because of the direct water-ham enter wastewater. At the end of each pickling, preserving, and preparation contact, the wastewater load is day, equipment is cleaned and materials (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and increased. Ham processors rely on sanitized. This washdown contains nitrate, spices). Current MPP effluent pickling, preserving, and preparation bone dust and other fluids such as blood guidelines divide the meat further materials (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and and cleaning fluids (Docket No. W–01– processors into five separate industry nitrate, spices) to cure and prepare the 06, Record No. 00132). groups: Small Processors (40 CFR part ham products. The production Facility clean up and sanitation can 432, subpart E); Meat Cutters (40 CFR operations and cleanup in the rest of the contribute significantly to the overall part 432, subpart F); Sausage and ham processing facility is fairly volume and pollutant load for meat first Luncheon Meat Processors (40 CFR part comparable in both practice and and further processing facilities. The 432, subpart G); Ham Processors (40 resulting waste load to that of the volume and pollutant load of this CFR part 432, subpart H); and Meat sausage and luncheon meat processors. wastewater varies significantly from Canners (40 CFR part 432, subpart I). Meat canners that produce more than facility to facility, and is dependent on Small processors, defined as 6,000 pounds of finished product per several factors including efficiency of operations producing up to 2730 day (i.e., non-small processors) are processing facility, housekeeping kilograms (6000 pounds) per day of any currently regulated under subpart I of 40 practices, the extent to which dry type or combination of meat product, CFR part 432. These facilities generally cleaning processes are used, and the are currently regulated under subpart E require a number of processing steps volume of water used in washing of 40 CFR part 432. They may produce such as size reduction, mixing and facility equipment. Improper use of a wide range of products but most of the blending, and cooking. These operations water hoses, for example, could lead to these facilities prepare fresh meat cuts, require special equipment and generate unnecessary use of water and result in sausage and wieners, and hams. The more wastewater flows and pollutant the production of excess wastewater. wastewater source for this subcategory loading than other meat further Industrial practices within the meat is generally from cleanup and sanitation processors per pound of finished further processing industry sector are operations (approximately 50–90 product. Meat canners also use pickling, diverse and produce variable waste percent of total wastewater flow). The preserving, and preparation materials loads. Meat further processing facilities scale of production and the typically (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and nitrate, purchase animal carcasses, meat parts, limited finished product mix preclude spices) to cure and prepare the canned and other materials and produce the need for substantial quantities of meat products. water during the production day. sausages, cooked meats, cured meats, b. Wastewater Characterization smoked meats, canned meats, frozen Further processors that produce more and fresh meat cuts, natural sausage than 6,000 pounds of meat cuts as Organic materials are the primary sources of pollutants in meat first and casings, and other prepared meats and finished products per day (i.e., non- further processing wastewater. These meat specialties. None of these facilities small processors) are currently regulated substances cause a reduction in oxygen engage in any slaughtering on the same under subpart F of 40 CFR part 432. levels as microorganisms consume premises as the processing activity. These facilities require virtually no The product mix of these facilities process water but do generate oxygen for decomposition processes. includes many combinations of wastewaters during cleanup and For this reason these organic substances are evaluated by biochemical oxygen products. There are facilities that sanitation operations. Facilities in this demand (BOD), which measures the specialize in one or two types of industry grouping generally break, trim, amount of oxygen required by bacteria processed meats products, such as and cut the large meat parts into single- and other microorganisms to decompose hams, fresh sausages, canned meat portion meat cuts. Very little equipment the organic matter, and BOD which products, or meat cuts, and facilities (other than saws, knives and work 5, calculates the amount of oxygen used in that produce a number of products up surfaces) comes in contact with the meat the first five days of decomposition. to the full line of processed meat products. The relative simplicity of Although levels vary between facilities, products. Meat further processing operation and equipment results in typical BOD values in the raw operations include: small quantities of process water and a 5 wastewater influent to be treated range • Raw material storage, shipping, small waste load in the cleanup water. Sausage and luncheon meat from 1,600 mg/L to 3,000 mg/L (Docket receiving, and thawing (wet, dry, processors that produce more than 6,000 No. W–01–06, Record No. 00128). chipping); • Carcass/meat handling and pounds of finished product per day (i.e., Primary sources of high BOD5 levels preparation (breaking, trimming, non-small processors) are currently include blood, stomach contents, cutting, boning, tempering, skinning, regulated under subpart G of 40 CFR greases and fats, and pickling, slicing); part 432. These facilities have an preserving, and cooking materials. • Seasoning, spicing, and sauce extensive product mix and tend to Bacteria are also present in meat first preparation; require more intensive meat processing and further processing wastewater in • Weighing and batching; (e.g., seasoning, cuttings, molding, quantities of between 2 to 4 million • Grinding, mixing, emulsifying; packing) than meat cutters. Wastewater fecal coliform colony forming units per • Extruding, stuffing, molding, sources include meat processing and 100 mL based on the most probable linking, casing peeling; cleanup operations. number (MPN) technique for estimating • Pickling, smoking, cooking; Ham processors that produce more microbial populations. There is also the • Can preparation, filling, covering, than 6,000 pounds of finished product potential for viruses and parasite eggs to and retorting; and per day (i.e., non-small processors) are be present in the water. The amounts • Cleanup operations. currently regulated under subpart H of and types of pollutants that Many of these operations contribute 40 CFR part 432. These facilities slaughterhouses generate greatly to the raw waste load of a meat further produce hams and other ham-related depends upon the particular step
VerDate 11
considered in the slaughter process. extracts. These organic materials also slaughterhouses and further processors Tables VII.B–1 and VII.B–2 give are sources of biochemical oxygen can generate significant quantities of oil characteristics of raw wastewaters at demand, nitrogen, and phosphorus. and grease. Characteristics of first meat product facilities. Other contaminants that can directly processing and further processing Wastewater generated from meat enter the wastewater from further wastewaters are shown in Tables VII.B– further processors (e.g., meat cutters, processing facilities include salts, 1 and VII.B–2. Hog and cattle operations sausage producers, ham processors, pickling, preserving, and preparation are presented separately to highlight meat canners) are also dominated by materials (e.g., sugar, sodium nitrite and differences in generation rates of organic materials originating from nitrate, spices), lubricating oils, and pollutants of concern. blood, meat, fatty tissue, and meat cleaning compounds. Both
TABLE VII.B–1.—CHARACTERISTICS OF HOG PROCESSING RAW WASTEWATER
Raw waste characteristics Meat operations Suspended Daily flow BOD5 solids Grease TKN TP Fecal coliform MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CFU/100 ml
First Processing and Rendering: Average ...... 1.95 2,220 3,314 674 229 73 1.6E6 Range, low-high .... 0.43–4.21 2,014–2,462 2,896–3,732 406–941 NA 67–78 NA Further Processing: Average ...... 0.30 1,492 363 162 24 82 1.38E6 Source: Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00176
TABLE VII.B–2.—CHARACTERISTICS OF CATTLE PROCESSING RAW WASTEWATER
Raw waste characteristics Meat operations Suspended Daily flow BOD5 solids Grease TKN TP Fecal coliform MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CFU/100 ml
First Processing and Rendering and Hide Processing: Average ...... 1.60 5,771 1,998 1,262 150 41 1.2E6 Range, low-high ...... 0.74–2.18 3,673–7,237 1,153–3,332 146–3,021 67–306 30–58 7.3E5–1.6E6 Source: Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00177
2. Poultry Facilities removed during trimming and cutting, The pollutant load generated from this a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use bone, urine and feces, soil from feathers, step is dependent on the cleanliness of and a variety of cleaning and sanitizing the birds, the effectiveness of blood As with the meat processing sector, compounds. Further processing and recovery, the type of scalding process, poultry first and further processing rendering can be additional sources of and the quantity of water used. The facilities are significant consumers of fat and other soft tissue as well as scalded birds are then defeathered by water and generators of wastewaters. substances such as cooking oils. plucking machines. The feathers, Poultry first processing (slaughtering) The poultry first processing volume typically collected on screens, contain wastewaters are generated at each stage and pollutant load from the reception soil particles, grit, and some blood. of the process, beginning with waste area depends on several factors Feathers, like blood, are treated as a generated at the bird reception area from including bird throughput and extent of valuable by-product and are cooked, crate cleaning and ending with wastes dry cleaning employed to sanitize and grounded to form a high protein generated from equipment cleaning transport vehicles, crates, and unloading meal. during the grading and packing stage. areas. Minimizing the wait period prior The evisceration process involves the The poultry first processing wastewaters to slaughter reduces manure production removal of both edible offal (e.g., heart, generated at each stage of poultry first and ultimately the volume of water gizzard, and liver) and inedible offal processing differ in volume and needed to clean the crates and (head, guts) either by a vacuum pollutant loads. unloading areas. conveyor or by a water mediated The principal sources of wastes in The first processing (slaughtering) of transport (flow-away) system in larger poultry processing are from live bird poultry generates blood, grease, and facilities, or by hand (edible offal such holding (reception area) and receiving, cleaning water. Similar to meat as feet which are captured for Asian killing, defeathering, eviscerating, facilities, the blood is collected and markets) and flow-away (inedible offal) carcass washing, chilling, cut-up, and removed for processing as a by-product in small facilities. Screens are used in cleanup operations. When present, for use in feed or fertilizer. the flow away system to separate out further processing and rendering Scalding is performed to loosen the solids. After evisceration, the carcasses operations also are significant sources of feathers from the slaughtered birds. are usually washed to remove any wastes. These wastes include blood not Scalding also results in the removal of remaining blood and extraneous tissue. collected, feathers, viscera, soft tissue some suspended solids, blood, and grit. Viscera are captured for inedible
VerDate 11
rendering. Evisceration is estimated to birds, such as wings and legs, and then BOD for turkey processing operations contribute about a third of the total remove the remaining meat from the than for broiler processing operations. pollutant load (Docket No. W–01–06, skeletal structure of the birds. Cooking Primarily because of immersion Record Nos. 00133–00137). may precede or follow this cutting chilling, fat is a more significant source In a wet chilling process, carcasses are operation. The meat is used in large of BOD in poultry processing in immersed in cold water or unstatic pieces or reduced in size by using comparison to meat processing slush ice to retard bacterial growth and special equipment. Various ingredients wastewaters. Additional sources of BOD thus spoiling of the meat. The primary are mixed with the poultry meat and the in poultry processing wastewaters are pollutants generated in this process are numerous types of finished products are the feather and skin oils desorbed organic matter, body fluids, and fats and formed, cooked, breaded, packaged, and during scalding for feather removal. grease. Pollutant loads are relatively usually frozen. The relative quantities of Thus, the oil and grease content of small and the wastewater can be reused water and waste load are substantially poultry processing wastewaters in the chilling process or in other less in these further processing facilities typically is higher than that in meat poultry processing operations (e.g., than in poultry first processing processing wastewaters. scalding tank) after treatment. USDA (slaughtering) facilities. FSIS regulations govern water re-use Blood not collected as well as urine b. Wastewater Characterization practices from a food safety perspective. and feces also are significant sources of USDA FSIS provides an online The principal constituents of poultry nitrogen in poultry processing ‘‘Sanitation Performance Standards processing wastewaters are a variety of wastewaters. The principal form of Compliance Guide’’ as suggested means readily biodegradable organic nitrogen in these wastewaters before or examples by which water can be compounds, primarily fats and proteins, treatment is organic nitrogen with some safely re-used in various applications, present in both particulate and ammonia nitrogen produced by the meeting all regulatory requirements dissolved forms. To reduce wastewater microbially mediated mineralization of (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. treatment requirements, poultry organic nitrogen during collection. 10029). These USDA FSIS sanitation processing wastewaters also are Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen generally are guidelines are not regulatory but are screened to reduce concentrations of present only in trace concentrations, intended for didactic purposes only. particulate matter before treatment. An less than 1 mg/L. The phosphorus in Clean up and sanitation can added benefit of this practice again is poultry processing wastewaters also is contribute significantly to the overall increased production of rendered by- primarily from blood, manure, and volume and pollutant load of a poultry products. Because feathers are not cleaning and sanitizing compounds. rendered with soft tissue, wastewater- first processing facility. The volume and Due to the presence of manure in containing feathers is not commingled pollutant load of this wastewater varies poultry processing wastewaters, with other wastewater; instead, it is significantly from facility to facility, and densities of the total and fecal coliform screened separately and then combined is dependent on several factors and fecal streptococcus groups of with wastewater screened to recover soft including, efficiency of the processing bacteria generally are on the order of facility, housekeeping practices, the tissue before treatment. Poultry processing wastewaters several million colony forming units per extent to which dry cleaning processes 100 mL. Members of these groups of are used, and the volume of water used remain high strength wastes even after screening in comparison to domestic microorganisms generally are not in washing facility equipment. Improper pathogenic; but they do indicate the use of water hoses, for example, could wastewaters based on concentrations of BOD, COD, TSS, nitrogen, and possible presence of pathogens of lead to unnecessary use of water and the enteric origin such as Salmonella ssp. resulting production of excess phosphorus. Blood not collected, solubilized fat, and urine and feces are and Campylobacter jejuni, wastewater. gastrointestinal parasites, and The main poultry further processing the principal sources of BOD in poultry processing wastewaters. As with meat pathogenic enteric viruses. Giardia operations contribute in varying degrees lamblia, and Cryptosporidium parvum to the raw waste load and flow. These processing wastewaters, the efficacy of blood collection is a significant factor in are not of concern in poultry processing poultry further processing operations wastewaters. include: determining BOD concentration in • Receiving, storage, thawing; poultry processing wastewaters. Poultry processing wastewaters also • Cutting, deboning, dicing, grinding, Another significant factor in contain a variety of mineral elements, and chopping; determining the BOD5 of poultry some of which are present in the potable • Cooking, batter, breading; mixing processing wastewaters is the degree water used. Water supply systems and and blending; and that manure (urine and feces), especially mechanical equipment may be • Stuffing and canning. from receiving areas, is handled significant sources of metals including Poultry further processors do no separately as a solid waste. Chicken and copper, chromium, molybdenum, slaughtering but instead produce turkey manures have BOD5 in excess of nickel, titanium, and vanadium. In finished poultry products. Many of the 40,000 mg/kg on an as excreted basis addition, manure is a significant source operations performed in poultry further (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. of arsenic and zinc. Although pesticides processing facilities are similar to those 00160). Although the cages and trucks also are commonly used in the of meat further processing operations; used to transport broilers to processing production of poultry to control external therefore, sources of wastewater are facilities usually are not washed, cages parasites, mandated withdrawal periods similar for both meat and poultry and trucks used to transport live turkeys before slaughter typically should limit further processors. Cooking is involved to processing facilities are washed to concentrations in wastewater to non- in almost all poultry further processing prevent disease transmission from farm detectable or trace levels. Table VII.B– operations. These poultry processing to farm. Thus, manure probably is a 3 gives characteristics of poultry operations remove specific parts of the more significant source of wastewater processing raw wastewaters.
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.B–3.—CHARACTERISTICS OF POULTRY PROCESSING RAW WASTEWATER
Raw waste characteristics Poultry meat operations Suspended Daily flow BOD5 solids Grease TKN TP Fecal coliform MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CFU/100 ml
First Processing: Average ...... 0.89 1,662 760 665 54 12 9.8E5 Range, low-high .... 0.60–1.10 948–2,166 510–1,040 243–1,501 14–102 6–17 2.6E5—1.6E6 Further Processing and Rendering: Average ...... 1.10 3,293 1,657 793 80 72 8.6E5 Source: Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00161.
3. Independent Rendering Facilities each year (Docket No. W–01–06, Record on a seven day per week schedule. The a. Wastewater Sources and Water Use No. 00141). wastewater generated during cleanup Water scrubbers commonly are used operations usually accounts for about 30 Rendering operations are intensive to control emissions of noxious odors percent of total rendering facility users of water and significant generators from the condensation of evaporated wastewater flow (Docket W–01–06, of wastewater. Water is used throughout moisture produced during cooking and Record No. 00141). the rendering process, for raw material drying. These scrubbers can contribute b. Wastewater Characterization sterilization, condensing cooking up to 75 percent of the volume of vapors, facility cleanup, truck and barrel wastewater discharged from these Although a rendering facility’s washing, odor control and boiler cooking and drying operations (Docket wastewater pollutant concentration can makeup (Docket No. W–01–06, Record W–01–06, Record No. 00141). vary with the quantity and state of the No. 00141). Most of these activities also Condensates recovered from cooking animal material delivered to the facility generate wastewater. Rendering and drying processes contain high (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. facilities produce approximately one- concentrations of volatile organic acids, 00126), the wastewater constituents are half ton (120 gallons) of water for each amines, and mercaptans, and other generally the same for all facilities malodorous compounds. Thus, ton of rendered material (Docket No. W– (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. rendering facility condensers can be 01–06, Record No. 00122). Variations in 00141). For example, a 1975 EPA survey sources of significant emissions of wastewater flow per unit of raw material found that the average and range of noxious odors to the atmosphere processed are largely attributable to the BOD wastewater values for facilities without water scrubbing for emission 5 type of condensers used for condensing processing greater than 50 percent control. Recycled final effluent is used the cooking vapors and, to a lesser poultry by-products could not be for the scrubber operation; therefore, extent, to the initial moisture content of differentiated from those facilities little increase in final effluent volume is the raw material. processing less than 50 percent poultry produced by the scrubber operation. The National Rendering Association Liquid drainage from raw material by-products or from those for the total (NRA) collected data from its receiving areas can contribute industry. Additionally, the study found membership to provide a general significantly to the total raw waste load that facility size did not have an effect characterization of rendering (Docket W–01–06, Record No. 00141). on the levels of pollutants in the waste wastewaters. Results from an NRA Large amounts of raw materials stream. Facility practices are the survey of its members indicates that the commonly accumulate in receiving determining factor for raw wasteload average rendering facility (in terms of areas (in bins or on floors). Fluids from (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. production) generates about 215,000 these raw materials drain off and enter 00141). During the summer, if raw gallons/day of process wastewater and the internal facility sewers (Docket W– materials are received by the rendering an average of 34,000 gallons/day from 01–06, Record No. 00141). At rendering operation in an advanced state of decay, other sources (Docket No. W–01–06, facilities that process poultry, drainage ammonium levels in the effluents could Record No. 00122). The NRA estimates of liquids can be significant because of increase. that the average sized facility discharges the use of fluming to transport feathers In a typical rendering facility the raw about 243,300 gallons/day or 169 and viscera in the processing facility. In materials that are processed include gallons per minute (Docket No. W–01– such facilities, liquid drainage may body fluids (including blood), fat, 06, Record No. 00122). account for approximately 20 percent of manure, hide curing solutions, tallow Condensates resulting from cooking the original raw material weight. and grease, and animal tissue (including and drying are the largest contributors The other important source of meal products such as meat, meat and to the total wastewater in terms of wastewater from rendering operations is bone, blood, feathers, hair and poultry volume and pollutant load (Docket No. water used for cleaning equipment and meal) (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. W–01–06, Record No. 00127). At those interior building surfaces, the cleanup 00126; Record No. 00141). All of these rendering facilities where hide curing is of spills, and trucks when materials are products can enter the wastewater, and also performed as an ancillary received from off-site locations for as a result, the wastewater typically operation, additional wastewater flow is rendering. Cleanup of rendering contains organic materials such as generated. Wastewaters from these equipment and facilities is less protein (soluble and insoluble), grease, operations are high in pollutant intensive than for processing facilities suspended solids, which are sources of concentrations, but relatively low in and usually occurs only once per day, biochemical oxygen demand, volume, particularly when the curing even though rendering usually is a 24- nitrogenous compounds, phosphorus, solution is only dumped a few times hour operation and commonly occurs salts.
VerDate 11
As mentioned above, wastewater is grinding and cooking of raw materials presents the pollutant concentrations generated at each step of the rendering and product separation with water, found in samples collected from a process. Condensates formed during the usually occurs at the end of a day’s continuous dry rendering facility in cooking/drying process are extremely operation when rendering has been Columbus, Ohio (Docket No. W–01–06, polluted and contain high completed. The volume of water used Record No. 00126). Samples from concentrations of volatile organic acids, for cleanup can be a significant portion cooker condensate, raw blood, and amines, mercaptans, and other noxious of the flow per unit of raw material washdown water were analyzed. The compounds. Most of the organic processed; usually, clean up water cooker condensate was mostly compounds detected in rendering accounts for 30 percent of the total composed of condensed volatile fats and wastewater are volatile fatty acids wastewater flow (Docket No. W–01–06, oils with some ammonia. The (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. Record No. 00141). Other areas are washdown water was facility clean-up 00127). typically dry cleaned. Washdown can water mixed with drainage from the raw Washdown in inedible rendering also follow an accidental spill, further facilities is less intensive than in meat contributing to the wastewater load. product storage hopper (the relative and poultry processing facilities because Each step in the rendering process proportions were not measured). the same degree of sanitation is not contributes to the overall pollutant load Although the blood accounted for only required (Docket No. W–01–06, Record and volume of wastewater. The relative a small percentage of the total volume No. 00141). Washdown, the process of contributions of each step in the process of wastewater, it was very high in cleaning the areas for receiving, can be seen in Table VII.B–4. The table chemical oxygen demand (COD).
TABLE VII.B–4.—POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR A DRY CONTINUOUS RENDERING FACILITY
Cooker con- Wash-up Raw blood 1 Parameter densate 1,2 water 3 (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Total COD ...... 150,000 2,400–6,000 7,600 Soluble COD ...... 136,000 2,400–6,000 3,200 Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN–N) ...... 16,500 430–740 270 Crude Protein (Org-N*6.25) ...... 81,250 0 1,440 Ammonia Nitrogen ...... 3,500 430–740 40 COD: TKN ...... 9.1 5.6–8.1 28.1 Total Phosphorus (P) ...... 183 <4 15.1 COD:P ...... 820 >1500 503 Freon Extractables (Fats, Oils, and Grease) ...... 620 110–260 35 Potassium ...... 798 <6 20.9 Calcium ...... 55 <1 26.4 Magnesium ...... 27 <1 7.3 Iron ...... 164 2 9.4 Sodium ...... 818 0.1 37.1 Copper ...... 0.7 <0.2 0.1 Zinc ...... 1.3 <0.15 0.46 Manganese ...... 0.05 0.05 0.01 Lead ...... <0.6 <3 <1.3 Chromium ...... 0.3 <0.2 0.12 Cadmium ...... 0.05 <0.01 <0.04 Nickel ...... <0.2 <1 <0.4 Cobalt ...... <0.02 <0.01 <0.04 Sulfate (SO4–S) ...... 300 <2 4.6 Total Chloride ...... 1700 <2 86 Source: Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00126. Note 1: Each point is the mean of three samples analyzed in duplicate. Note 2: Two batches of influent were used in the research. A range in concentration levels is shown for some cooker condensate parameters because of variability in strength between winter and summer batches. Cold ambient temperatures around the forced air condensers affected the COD strength of the cooker condensate. The COD strength of the blood and wash-up water was similar for both batches, so only one concentra- tion level is presented. Note 3: ‘‘ < ’’ and ‘‘ > ’’ symbols both indicate the limits of the analyses were exceeded.
The National Rendering Association effluent loadings, and do not identify bacterial counts of 250,000,000 colony (NRA) collected data from its specific sources of generated forming units per milliliter for generated membership to provide a general wastewater. The final effluent data wastewaters and 45,000 colony forming characterization of rendering represent pollutant loads after treatment units per milliliter for discharged wastewaters. Table VII.B–5 presents the has been applied. The NRA did not wastewaters. results of this survey. The data represent collect data on nutrients or metals. Fecal only wastewater generated and final coliform bacteria were detected at
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.B–5.—WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION OF ‘‘TYPICAL’’ NRA MEMBER RENDER FACILITY
Generated Discharged wastewater wastewater Parameter concentration concentration (mg/L) (mg/L)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ...... 123,000 8,000 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) ...... 80,000 5,100 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ...... 8,400 268 Fats, Oils, and Greases (FOG) ...... 3,200 116 Metals (Average Zinc) ...... NA 0.68 Source: NRA, 2000.
C. Pollutants of Concern value to ensure that pollutants detected instead transferred data from on-site EPA determined pollutants of concern at only trace amounts would not be rendering facilities. Consequently, EPA for the meat and poultry products selected. EPA obtained the pollutants of is using all the pollutants of concern industry by assessing EPA sampling concern by establishing which from Tables VII.C–1 and VII.C–2 for data. To establish the pollutant of parameters were detected at treatable independent rendering facilities. EPA is concern, EPA reviewed the analytical levels in at least 10 percent of all the planning further sampling at data from influent wastewater samples influent wastewater samples. Tables independent rendering facilities after to determine the pollutants which were VII.C–1 and VII.C–2 show the result of proposal to better refine the list of detected at treatable levels. EPA set this analysis. EPA did not sample at pollutants of concern list for treatable levels at five times the baseline independent rendering facilities but independent renderers.
TABLE VII.C–1.—POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR MEAT PROCESSING FACILITIES
Number of Pollutant group Pollutant CAS No. times ana- Number of lyzed detects
Classicals or Biologicals ..... Aeromonas ...... C2101 36 36 Ammonia as Nitrogen ...... 7664417 46 46 Biochemical Oxygen Demand ...... C003 46 45 BOD 5-day (Carbonaceous) ...... C002 46 46 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ...... C004 46 46 Chloride ...... 16887006 46 46 Cryptosporidium ...... 137259508 6 6 Dissolved Biochemical Oxygen Demand ...... C003D 46 41 Dissolved Phosphorus ...... 14265442D 46 46 E. Coli ...... C050 36 36 Fecal Coliform ...... C2106 46 46 Fecal Streptococcus ...... C2107 46 46 Hexane Extractable Material ...... C036 46 46 Nitrate/Nitrite ...... C005 46 33 Total Coliform ...... E10606 46 46 Total Dissolved Solids ...... C010 46 46 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ...... C021 36 36 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ...... C012 46 46 Total Orthophosphate ...... C034 46 45 Total Phosphorus ...... 14265442 46 46 Total Suspended Solids ...... C009 46 46 Volatile Residue ...... C030 46 46 Metals ...... Chromium ...... 7440473 46 46 Copper ...... 7440508 46 46 Manganese ...... 7439965 46 46 Titanium ...... 7440326 46 46 Zinc ...... 7440666 46 46 Pesticides ...... Carbaryl ...... 63252 12 5 Cis-permethrin ...... 61949766 12 6 Trans-permethrin ...... 61949777 12 7
TABLE VII.C–2.—POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR POULTRY PROCESSING FACILITIES
Number of Pollutant group Pollutant CAS No. times Number of analyzed detects
Classicals or Biologicals ..... Aeromonas ...... C2101 17 17 Ammonia as Nitrogen ...... 7664417 48 47 Biochemical Oxygen Demand ...... C003 48 48 BOD 5-day (Carbonaceous) ...... C002 48 48 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ...... C004 48 48
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.C–2.—POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR POULTRY PROCESSING FACILITIES—Continued
Number of Pollutant group Pollutant CAS No. times Number of analyzed detects
Chloride ...... 16887006 48 48 Dissolved Biochemical Oxygen Demand ...... C003D 48 47 Dissolved Phosphorus ...... 14265442D 48 48 E. Coli ...... C050 17 17 Fecal Coliform ...... C2106 23 23 Fecal Streptococcus ...... C2107 23 23 Hexane Extractable Material ...... C036 48 48 Nitrate/Nitrite ...... C005 48 28 Salmonella ...... 68583357 17 3 Total Coliform ...... E10606 23 23 Total Dissolved Solids ...... C010 48 48 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ...... C021 47 47 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ...... C012 48 46 Total Orthophosphate ...... C034 48 44 Total Phosphorus ...... 14265442 48 48 Total Residual Chlorine ...... 7782505 48 14 Total Suspended Solids ...... C009 48 48 Volatile Residue ...... C030 48 48 Metals ...... Copper ...... 7440508 48 48 Manganese ...... 7439965 48 47 Zinc ...... 7440666 48 48 Pesticides ...... Carbaryl ...... 63252 21 12
D. Approach to Estimating Compliance Document (see Docket No. W–01–06, dry) and all possible combinations of Costs Record No. 00168). these processes. These classifications produced 19 groupings. Table VII.D–1 1. Overview 2. Methods for Estimating Compliance Costs details the 19 different groupings. This section describes EPA’s Finally, EPA divided each of the 19 a. Overview methodology for estimating engineering groupings into four size classes (small, compliance costs and pollutant loading This section presents EPA’s estimates medium, large, and very large) based on reductions associated with the of industry-wide compliance costs annual total production. These regulatory options proposed for the associated with the proposed rule. EPA groupings allow EPA to consider variations in: (1) Raw wastewater meat and poultry products industry. separated MPP facilities into groups based on the type of meat and poultry characteristics as determined by meat Costs and pollutant loading reductions processed (e.g., meat, poultry, or both type and processes performed; and (2) were estimated for each class of MPP meat and poultry). To ensure all size, which can determine wastewater facilities, including meat, poultry, and facilities are accounted for, and volumes generated and thus the size of meat and poultry (mixed) facilities. A variation in raw wastewater required treatment technology. EPA description of each of the technology characteristics are considered, EPA used these MPP operations, meat or options is provided below and the classified all meat and poultry poultry product types, and size rationale for selecting the proposed BAT processing operations as either first classifications to develop 76 model and NSPS options are provided in processing (e.g., slaughtering, carcass facilities (= 19 groupings x 4 size Section XI. Detailed information on preparation and quartering), further classes) in order to describe the broad estimated compliance costs are processing (e.g., deboning, cooking, range of potential MPP facilities in provided in the MPP Development sausage making), or rendering (wet or current operation.
TABLE VII.D–1.—DEFINITION OF 19 MPP MODEL FACILITY GROUPINGS
Model fa- Processes performed cility Number Product type grouping First proc- Further code essing processing Rendering
1 ...... Meat ...... R1 X ...... 2 ...... Meat ...... R2 ...... X ...... 3 ...... Meat ...... R12 X X ...... 4 ...... Meat ...... R13 X ...... X 5 ...... Meat ...... R23 ...... X X 6 ...... Meat ...... R123 X X X 7 ...... Poultry ...... P1 X ...... 8 ...... Poultry ...... P2 ...... X ...... 9 ...... Poultry ...... P12 X X ...... 10 ...... Poultry ...... P13 X ...... X 11 ...... Poultry ...... P23 ...... X X 12 ...... Poultry ...... P123 X X X 13 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M1 X ......
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.D–1.—DEFINITION OF 19 MPP MODEL FACILITY GROUPINGS—Continued
Model fa- Processes performed cility Number Product type grouping First proc- Further code essing processing Rendering
14 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M2 ...... X ...... 15 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M12 X X ...... 16 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M13 X ...... X 17 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M23 ...... X X 18 ...... Mixed (Meat & Poultry) ...... M123 X X X 19 ...... Meat and/or Poultry ...... Render ...... X
EPA developed characteristics for • Use the MPP Screener Survey data annual costs of treatment units, each model facility based on the MPP to identify the median wastewater flow frequency of occurrence, and national Screener Survey, the MPP Detailed (model facility flow) and to estimate the estimate of MPP facilities for each of the Survey, and EPA’s sampling data. EPA number of MPP facilities nationally 76 model facilities; and used Computer Assisted Procedure For represented by each of the 76 model • Estimate the regulatory cost for each Design And Evaluation Of Wastewater facilities; subcategory based on the model facility Treatment Systems (CAPDET), a • Use the MPP Detailed Survey data computerized cost model, for to determine frequency of occurrence costs. developing construction cost and for treatment units in each of the 76 The Agency has developed a annual costs of a treatment unit (Docket model facilities; regulatory subcategorization scheme for No. W–01–06, Record No. 00129). The • Develop construction costs and the proposed rule, based on various capital cost of a treatment unit was annual costs of treatment units from combinations of the 76 model facility calculated using the construction costs CAPDET using model facility costs. Table VII.D–2 defines the 10 obtained from CAPDET. wastewater flows and typical influent regulatory groupings based on facility The step-by-step method for and effluent pollutant concentrations; type and size. See section 11 of the MPP • calculating the incremental cost for each Estimate capital costs of treatment Development Document for more details regulatory option is summarized below: units from construction costs; • • on how EPA developed size Use the MPP Screener Survey data Estimate capital and annual costs classifications for each of the 19 to establish production levels for each of for each regulatory option of the 76 groupings. the 76 model facilities; model facilities using capital and
TABLE VII.D–2.—DEFINITION OF 10 MPP REGULATORY GROUPINGS
40 CFR 1 subcategory Facility size Facility type Model facility grouping code
A, B, C, D ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Meat first ...... R1, R12, R13, R123. Small ...... Meat first processors ...... R1, R12, R13, R123. F, G, H, I ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Meat further processors ...... R2, R23, 0.61 *M2. Small 2 ...... Meat further processors ...... R2, R23, 0.59*M2, 0.5*M23. J ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Independent Renderers ...... Render. Small ...... Independent Renderers ...... Render. K ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Poultry first processors ...... P1, P12, P13, P123. Small ...... Poultry further processors ...... P1, P12, P13, P123. L ...... Medium, large, very large ...... Poultry further processors ...... P2, P23, 0.39*M2. Small ...... Poultry further processors ...... P2, P23, 0.41*M2, 0.5*M23. Note 1: The following abbreviations apply: R = Meat facilities; P = Poultry facilities; M = Facilities producing both meat and poultry products; 1 = First Processors; 2 = Further Processors; and 3 = Meat or Poultry facilities performing on-site rendering. Note 2: This group of small meat further processors includes all meat facilities that annually produce less than 50 million pounds of finished product and also includes all facilities currently covered under Subpart E (Small Processors) (see Section III.A.1).
The MPP Screener Survey only further processors regulatory grouping those processes or technologies in identified medium sized facilities (40 CFR part 432, Subcategory L) based treating the wastewater. Rather, the performing further processing on both on total annual production. EPA processes and technologies that would meat and poultry (Model Facility allocated the costs equally between the be used to treat meat and poultry Grouping Code = M2 and M23) and two groupings if production data were processing wastewater are left to the small facilities performing further not available. discretion of individual facilities; the processing, and further processing and proposed rule requires only the b. Available Technologies rendering on both meat and poultry numerical discharge limits be achieved. (Model Facility Grouping Code = M23). Although EPA is proposing In establishing these limits, however, EPA allocated the costs for facilities that limitations and standards based on the EPA evaluated a range of technology produce both meat and poultry products performance of specific processes and options that a facility could implement into the meat further processors treatment technologies in reducing to achieve the proposed limitations and regulatory grouping (40 CFR part 432, pollutant loadings, the Agency is not standards. The technology options Subcategory E through I) and poultry proposing to require a discharger to use evaluated for existing direct dischargers
VerDate 11
(BPT/BCT/BAT) and Pretreatment treatment units in-place according to the summary of these technology options Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) data supplied in the detailed surveys. A are shown in the Table VII.D–3. were selected based on an analysis of
TABLE VII.D–3.—BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MEAT AND POULTRY PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Technology options 1 Treatment units PSES PSES PSES PSES 123451 2 3 4
Screen ...... XXXXXXXXX Dissolved air floatation (DAF) ...... XXXXXXXXX Equalization tank ...... XXXX Anaerobic lagoon ...... XXXXX Biological treatment with nitrification ...... X 1 XXXX XXX Biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification .. X X X X X Biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification and phosphorous removal ...... X X X Filter ...... X Disinfection ...... XXXXX X: treatment unit is required for that option. 1 Nitrification is limited for Option 1. Note 1: EPA only considered Option5 for poultry facilities.
c. Treatment-in-Place Frequency of d. CAPDET Computer Model concentrations for a particular Occurrence The Computer Assisted Procedure For subcategory for each option were The frequency of occurrence for Design And Evaluation Of Wastewater determined from EPA sampling specific treatment units was an Treatment Systems (CAPDET) computer episodes and from detailed survey important factor in EPA’s cost estimates. model requires design specifications responses. EPA selected data from best To evaluate treatment-in-place, EPA and pollutant wastewater performing red meat, poultry, rendering, categorized MPP Detailed Survey concentrations as its input. Data and mixed facilities for each option responses into two size groups: small collected through survey responses, site based on effluent concentrations and the and non-small (medium, large, very visits, sampling episodes, and literature treatment scheme the facilities had in- large). Data provided in the MPP were used to run the CAPDET model. place. If data were not available, EPA Detailed Survey were not sufficiently The input wastewater flow for a derived data from similar operating detailed to allow further subdividing the particular subcategory was taken equal facilities having similar wastewater non-small grouping into individual to the model flow of that subcategory. characteristics. Remaining design groupings for medium, large, and very Although default influent concentration specifications were determined from large facilities. EPA also considered values are provided in CAPDET, EPA literature, survey responses, site visits, frequency of treatment units by used sampling and survey data from and sampling episodes. discharge status (direct or indirect). MPP facilities to extent available for The Agency evaluated the wastewater purposes of running the cost model. The e. Cost Components treatment systems of all the facilities influent concentrations for a particular Capital cost, annual cost, performance currently in the MPP Detailed Survey subcategory were determined through database. To determine the wastewater the use of EPA sampling data. In cost, and retrofit costs are the four major treatment upgrades necessary for the general, data from sampling locations components of costs used for estimating facilities to be in compliance with each that represent influent concentrations of the incremental industry-wide cost for regulatory option, the Agency compared the wastewater treatment system for the proposed regulation. the existing treatment system of the each regulatory option were selected. The construction costs of treatment facility to the list of treatment units for When data from multiple facilities were units for each subcategory were each regulatory option (Table VII.D–3). identified for a regulatory option, an obtained as an output from CAPDET EPA determined the treatment unit average of the concentrations was model runs. Based on the cost frequency of occurrence for each of the derived. EPA excluded a limited information obtained from the costing 76 model facilities. Treatment unit amount of sampling and survey data document for centralized waste frequency of occurrence is defined as that were considered outliers based on treatment industry (Docket No. W–01– the ratio of the number of facilities that engineering judgement. If data were not 06, Record No. 00138), the direct have the treatment unit in place (or available, EPA derived data from similar (excluding construction cost) and other treatment units that can perform operating facilities having similar indirect costs were estimated to be 69 the same function) to the total number wastewater characteristics. Default percent of the construction cost of the of facilities in that subcategory. The values provided in CAPDET were used treatment units. The break up of the frequency of occurrence distribution for several parameters for which no direct and indirect costs are provided in across medium, large, and very large sampling value was available (e.g., Table VII.D–4. The capital cost for a facilities was assumed to be identical. percent volatile solids, cations, anions, Facilities that do not have the treatment non-degradable fraction of VSS). treatment unit was obtained by using unit require upgrading costs to achieve Soluble COD and settleable solids the following equation: the performance of the proposed concentrations were derived based on Capital Cost of a treatment unit = 1.69 technology options. literature. Desired effluent × Construction cost of the treatment unit
VerDate 11
TABLE VII.D–4.—COST FACTORS treatment train similar to a regulatory denitrification and phosphorous USED TO ESTIMATE CAPITAL COSTS treatment option does not accrue any removal system were estimated to be 54 additional cost for that regulatory percent of the capital cost of a new Cost option. It is expected that the facilities nitrification system (ibid). For direct factor with a technology-in-place (TIP) dischargers, the Agency assumed that Cost item Cost type (% of comparable to an option should be able the retrofit costs to convert a construc- tion cost) to meet the proposed effluent limits of nitrification system to: (1) A that option. However, in reality, some of nitrification and denitrification system; Construction cost ...... Direct ..... 100 these facilities with TIP may not be able and (2) a nitrification and denitrification Piping ...... Direct ..... 17 to meet the proposed effluent limits and phosphorous removal system are 45 Instrumentation and Direct ..... 13 because of inadequate operational percent and 65 percent respectively of controls. practices compared to the proposed the cost of a nitrification and Engineering ...... Indirect ... 19.5 treatment unit. Therefore, to calculate denitrification system. See the MPP Contingency ...... Indirect ... 19.5 the cost of improving performance, the Development Document for more Total capital cost ...... 169 Agency assumed a 10 percent increase information on what assumptions EPA in the annual costs of all the facilities used in estimating retrofit costs. with TIP as performance cost. The annual (operations and g. Summary of Annualized Engineering Since many of the existing treatment maintenance) costs of the treatment Costs units for each subcategory were units in the facilities could be retrofitted obtained from the CAPDET model. The to meet stricter regulatory options, EPA The recommended options with incremental annual costs were investigated the costs required to annualized costs for the non-small size associated with the following cost items: upgrade such systems. The Agency category are shown in Table VII.D–5. • Labor (operation, maintenance, found that all nitrification systems These costs include the estimated laboratory, administrative and general), (Option2 and PSES2) could be capital investment costs annualized as • Maintenance (materials and retrofitted to a nitrification and described in Section VIII of this notice. vendors), denitrification system (Option3, PSES3). EPA used the retrofit costs to estimate • Chemical Costs, Similarly, all nitrification and the total compliance cost for this • Energy Costs, and denitrification systems could be industry ($80 million). EPA notes that • Sludge disposal costs. retrofitted to a nitrification, retrofit options are available to MPP denitrification, and phosphorous facilities and are less costly than f. Incremental Costs Calculation removal (Option4, Option5, PSES4) construction of new treatment units (e.g. EPA estimated the incremental cost system. Based on information provided tanks, piping) (Docket W–01–06, Record for each regulatory option by comparing by industry experts, EPA estimated that No. 00166.) EPA’s basis for selecting the the existing treatment system of the facilities with a nitrification system in retrofit costs is that operators will facility identified in the MPP Detailed place would incur 33 percent of the choose the less costly compliance Survey with that of the proposed capital cost of a new nitrification system option and retrofit their WWTP when regulatory option (see Table VII.D–3) to upgrade the system to a nitrification the retrofit option is available. EPA and costed for the additional treatment and denitrification system (Docket No. solicits comment on which costs (i.e., units needed to meet the regulatory W–01–06, Record No. 00130). Retrofit retrofit or upper bound) is most option. Therefore, a facility identified capital costs to convert a nitrification appropriate to consider for the final by the MPP Detailed Survey that has a system to a nitrification and rule.
TABLE VII.D–5.—ANNUALIZED COSTS (1999$) OF THE RECOMMENDED OPTIONS FOR NON-SMALL SIZE CLASS
Annualized Regulatory subcategory cost (RS) Discharge type Option (millions per year)
A, B, C, D ...... Direct ...... BAT3 ...... 42.2 F, G, H, I ...... Direct ...... BAT3 ...... 0.5 J ...... Direct ...... BAT2 ...... 0.6 K ...... Direct ...... BAT3 ...... 34.5 L ...... Direct ...... BAT3 ...... 2.2
E. Approach to Estimating Pollutant conducted at 11 MPP facilities. As the baseline loading analysis. When a Reductions previously stated, two facilities were facility did not provide average sampled by EPA and nine facilities concentrations but instead provided 1. Sources and Use of Available Data carried out self-sampling with technical non-averaged, self-monitoring data, EPA EPA used analytical data provided by oversight provided by EPA. calculated an average value to use as the baseline concentration. In calculating the industry in the detailed surveys and 2. Calculation of Average proposal average baseline analytical data from facilities sampled Concentrations from Analytical Data to estimate baseline and post- concentrations, EPA did not edit any compliance pollutant concentrations. For each facility that provided analytical data provided in the detailed Detailed Surveys for 48 direct analytical data as part of their detailed survey. In addition, EPA did not use dischargers and 103 indirect dischargers survey, EPA used the average sample detection limits or the maximum were used in the analysis. In addition, concentrations provided in the detailed and minimum concentration values EPA used data from the sampling efforts survey for each pollutant of concern in when average values were not available
VerDate 11
in the survey. However, for EPA processing category: (1) Direct, small; (2) EPA used typical flow values provided sampling episodes where concentrations direct, non-small; (3) indirect, small; in the detailed survey to determine the of pollutants were reported below the and (4) indirect non-small. When a percentage of flow attributable to each sample detection limit, EPA used the particular meat and poultry processing of the three processes (first, further and reported sample detection limit as the category was not represented by the rendering). The Agency used these flow concentration. Analytical data from the facilities in the detailed survey, EPA values and pollutant concentrations sampling episodes used for both used available data from similar meat from the above six subcategories to baseline and regulatory options loading and poultry processing categories in the derive average effluent concentrations calculations were averaged on a daily detailed survey to derive average for the various combinations of basis for each sample location. pollutant concentrations for the missing processes such as first and further, first and render, etc. Average effluent 3. Establishment of Baseline meat and poultry processing category. concentrations for the rendering Concentration Data Averages were comprised of meat subcategory averages that best represent subcategory (meat and poultry EPA derived baseline concentrations the subcategory without facilities. This combined) were derived by averaging for each POC for each of the 151 (= 48 calculation used both small and non- poultry rendering average effluent direct + 103 indirect) facilities used to small facilities. These estimates were concentrations with meat rendering generate pollutant load reduction then used to generate baseline pollutant average effluent concentrations. estimates. EPA used the following concentrations for each of the 19 meat Likewise, average effluent hierarchy of methods to calculate and poultry processing categories (see concentrations for further processing baseline concentrations for each of the Table VII.D–1) being analyzed by EPA. mixed subcategory were derived by 151 facilities: averaging average effluent • When a facility provided 4. Derivation Average Effluent concentrations from poultry further concentration data (average values Concentrations Representing processing with average effluent provided in the detailed survey and Implementation of Regulatory Options concentrations from meat further averages calculated by EPA as described For each regulatory option being processing. For regulatory option BAT1, previously) for any of the 37 POCs, EPA considered, EPA calculated average average effluent concentrations were used this average concentration. effluent concentrations for effluent based on those developed for regulatory • In the absence of any baseline pollutant concentrations that represent option BAT2 for all pollutants except concentration data in the detailed the best performing facilities (from the ammonia, nitrite-nitrate, and TKN. survey, EPA transferred analytical data respective of types of treatment in-place Because under regulatory option BAT1 from EPA sampling episodes for similar and degree of expected pollutant EPA assumed less efficient nitrification meat and poultry processors and similar removals). For purposes of proposal, was occurring and all of the sampled treatment in-place. When such sampling EPA relied on both EPA sampling facilities were categorized as operating data were available for more than one episode data and facility-submitted data at levels at least equivalent to BAT2, episode, EPA used an average to calculate average effluent EPA estimated average effluent concentration value of these episodes. concentrations for ammonia, nitrite- • concentrations. Average effluent For POCs where EPA sampling concentrations were calculated for the nitrate, and TKN. These estimates were episode data were not available to following six meat and poultry generally derived by calculating the transfer concentration data, the Agency processes: average ammonia effluent used average concentrations from both • first processing (meat); concentrations from facilities that detailed survey and EPA sampling • further processing (meat); submitted analytical data as part of their episode data from facilities with the • rendering (meat); detailed survey and that listed their same processing category and treatment • first processing (poultry); treatment system type as conventional option to calculate an average baseline • further processing (poultry); and (EPA assumed that these facilities are concentration for each pollutant in a • rendering (poultry). not operating their treatment systems to subcategory. Average effluent concentrations were specifically achieve nitrification, and • When data from facilities in the derived for each of the above six meat therefore would be representative of same meat and poultry processing and poultry processes from effluent performance of the BAT1 regulatory category were not available, an average concentration data collected during the option). EPA also assumed that the total concentration of facilities in similar sampling episodes. Specifically, for nitrogen for regulatory option BAT1 meat and poultry processing categories each regulatory option, effluent would be equal to the total nitrogen for was used instead. concentration data from representative regulatory option BAT2 (i.e., the total • When all of the above imputation facilities were used to derive average and organic nitrogen would not change methods failed to derive pollutant effluent concentrations for each POC. In from BAT1 to BAT2, just the form that concentrations, then facility data from the absence of data for a particular meat the nitrogen was in). Based on the total other, similar treatment options were and poultry process at a facility, nitrogen and ammonia concentrations, used. The size of the facility (small or pollutant concentration data from EPA then derived nitrite-nitrate and non-small) was not considered in another facility within the same TKN concentrations based on transferring data within similar meat grouping as well as applicable theoretical relationships between the and poultry processing categories and performance data (i.e., pollutant forms of nitrogen. treatment options. removal efficiencies from a facility After pollutant data were estimated representative of the regulatory option) 5. Calculation of Pollutant Loadings for each facility, EPA calculated average were used to derive appropriate EPA estimated baseline and baseline concentrations from the concentration data. These average regulatory option pollutant loadings for individual facilities, separating indirect effluent concentrations were derived all 37 POCs using the average dischargers from direct dischargers and irrespective of facility size. concentrations for each subcategory and small facilities from non-small facilities. In order to derive average effluent national flow (average) values derived This process yielded a total of four concentrations for the other 13 meat from the screener survey for small and averages for each meat and poultry groupings (other than the six above), non-small facilities. The following
VerDate 11
equation was used for conventional However, that data has not been fully post-proposal analyses and presented in pollutants, nutrients, metals and processed and, with some exceptions, is its forthcoming NODA. pesticides: generally not available for use in the c. Other Data Sources Load = Flow x Conc. x 8.345 analysis for today’s proposal. EPA has where: thus relied on secondary data sources, Although EPA relied primarily on its Load = Pollutant loading, lbs/day most importantly on data from the 1997 two surveys and the Census of Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per U.S. Census of Manufacturers. Manufacturers, other data sources day informed the analysis where a. Census of Manufacturers Data Conc. = Average pollutant appropriate. These other sources concentration, mg/L For the economic analysis used in include numerous journals, academic 8.345 = Conversion factor, lbs/gal and today’s proposal, EPA primarily used publications, data and reports from mg/L. data taken from the 1997 Census of USDA and other government agencies, For microbiological pollutants, the Manufacturers published by the U.S. and industry publications such as Meat loads were computed using the Census Bureau. These data are & Poultry and Meat Processing. published according to four NAICS following equation: C. Annualized Compliance Cost codes applicable to the meat and Estimates Load = Flow x Conc. x 37.8 poultry products industry: 311611 where: Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering, EPA estimates that 246 direct Load = Pollutant loading, Million cfu/ 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses, discharging meat and poultry products day 311613 Rendering and Meat Byproduct facilities would be regulated by this Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per Processing, and 311615 Poultry proposal. EPA also considered day Processing. The Census data contains a regulating the 731 largest indirect Conc. = Average pollutant large number of financial statistics that discharging facilities. EPA calculated concentration, cfu/100 mL are aggregated to the NAICS-code level. the economic impact on each of the 37.8 = Conversion factor, L/gal and The Census data also contains some facilities based on the cost of mL/L. information disaggregated by size of compliance using the technology basis For Cryptosporidium, the loads were establishment; this information is for each of the options considered for computed using the following equation employees, payroll, cost of materials, the proposal. For direct dischargers, by the following equation: value of shipments, and a handful of EPA calculated impacts for compliance Load = Flow x Conc. x 3.78 other statistics. Finally, EPA was able to with BPT/BCT/BAT; for indirect where: obtain from the Census Bureau the dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for Load = Pollutant loading, Million/day mean, standard deviation, covariance, compliance with PSES. As detailed in Flow = Flow rate, million gallons per and correlation of value of shipments, Section XI, EPA based the proposed day payroll, and cost of materials standards for direct discharges on Conc. = Pollutant concentration, per L disaggregated by size of establishment. Option 3 (except for the Rendering 3.78 = Conversion factor, L/gal. EPA used this information to create Subcategory, which are based on Option EPA estimated pollutant loading for model facilities that were matched to 2) and EPA is proposing no limitations the entire industry using the national the engineering model facilities (see or standards for indirect dischargers. Section VII). estimates of the number of facilities in EPA also calculated costs and impacts for the 4670 smallest facilities; these each meat subcategory multiplied by the b. MPP Screener and Detailed Survey subcategory loadings. results are presented in the EA. These EPA was able to use items from the small facilities are not included in the VIII. Economic Analysis screener and detailed survey in its estimates discussed in this section analysis for the proposal. The questions A. Introduction unless specifically noted. in both the screener and detailed The technologies that are the basis for EPA’s economic analysis assesses the surveys related to amount of production today’s proposal are estimated to have a costs and a variety of impacts of this (of various meat types and processing total pre-tax annualized cost of $80.0 proposal. This section reviews that operations), employees at the facility, million and a total post-tax annualized analysis while the record for the and employees at the company that cost of $50.5 million. The pre-tax proposal contains the detailed results of owns the facility are most relevant to annualized costs are the most complete this analysis. In particular, the MPP the economic analysis. The detailed estimates of annualized control costs, Economic Analysis (EA) presents the survey collected a large amount of but the post-tax costs more accurately results of the assessment. The MPP EA information about the individual reflect the costs businesses will incur estimates the economic and financial facilities and companies that own those because they net out tax savings. For costs of compliance with the proposal facilities, including general information that reason, both pre-tax or post-tax on individual facilities and companies. about the type of ownership, facility and costs are used in the economic impact The MPP EA also considers impacts on company employment, interest and analysis. Pre-tax costs, however, more new sources, foreign trade impacts and discount rates, and income statements accurately reflect the total cost to market impacts. The MPP EA also for 1997–1999 and balance sheets for society of the rule and are used in the includes an analysis detailing the effects 1999 (both income statement and EO 12866 analysis, the cost- on small meat products businesses. balance sheet information were effectiveness analysis, and elsewhere. Finally, the MPP EA contains the results collected for the facility and the of a cost-effectiveness analysis for the company). EPA utilized all of the D. Economic Impact Methodologies meat and poultry products industry. information from the screener survey in EPA’s analysis of the economic this proposal but was only able to use impacts of the proposed guidelines and B. Economic Data Collection Activities selected items from the detailed survey standards for the meat and poultry As noted above (see Section V.B), EPA due to the additional complexity and products industry examines the costs of sent a survey to a representative sample time required to process the detailed the proposed regulations on the of meat and poultry products facilities. surveys. This data will be used in EPA’s economic viability of facilities and firms
VerDate 11
using relatively standard financial payments; EPA then applied 1999 mix of both red meat and poultry analysis tools. A MPP firm is a business federal and an average of state corporate (approximately 70 percent of their unit or enterprise that owns or operates tax rates to EBIT. EPA estimated production is red meat). Facilities that a collection of MPP facilities. Since the industry level interest payments using a process poultry, with or without costs are estimated for model facilities, combination of ASM data on past slaughter, were assigned economic the economic impact analysis is also investment by industry, Census data on model facilities from NAICS 311615. performed on analogously constructed relative investment in buildings and Finally, facilities that only perform economic model facilities. This section equipment, and assumptions about rendering operations were classified as describes the construction of those investment behavior (e.g., all investment NAICS 311613. The model economic facilities and the impact analysis itself in each year was funded through bank facilities were further matched to the as well as a description of what the loans, the interest rate on those loans model engineering facilities by size. analysis will look like when the detailed was equal to the nominal prime rate for EPA used production from each survey data is available. that year plus 1 percent). Interest engineering model, combined with payments were then attributed to each representative meat product prices for 1. Economic Model Facilities employment class based on the 1999, to estimate model facility EPA based its economic model percentage of industry investment revenues. The engineering model was facilities on the U.S. Census Bureau’s accounted for by that employment class then assigned an economic model that 1997 Economic Census of the four in the 1997 Census. EPA estimated net most closely matched its estimated NAICS codes for meat and poultry income as EBIT less estimated tax and revenues. product industries (NAICS 311611, interest payments for each model The economic analysis is based on a 311612, 311613, and 311615). EPA used facility. Cash flow was then calculated wide variety of sources including the Census revenue and cost information at as net income plus depreciation. EPA screener survey and publicly available both the employment class (that is, inflated all model income measures data. However, the facility counts in disaggregated into size groupings based from the Census year, 1997, to the each class and subcategory are based on on annual production) and the industry baseline year, 1999, using the implicit estimates derived from the stratified level. At the employment class level, price deflator for the meat and poultry random sampling procedure used to EPA used the Census’ value of total products industry. determine survey recipients. Sixty-five shipments (a proxy for total revenues), However, the model facility in reality facilities were specifically selected to payroll and material costs data. (In some represents a distribution of facility receive surveys (‘‘certainty facilities’’). cases, value of total shipments may be incomes around the mean. Therefore, Information on these 65 certainty understated or overstated if survey EPA estimated this distribution of facilities was not available in time to respondents do not receive the full income around the model facility mean complete subcategorization and analysis value for their shipments, as may be the by obtaining from Census a special of these facilities because information case if one facility ships to another tabulation of the variances and on these facilities was collected in the facility owned by the same company. covariances for value of shipments, detailed survey and it could not be EPA did not, however, adjust these material costs, and payroll in each processed as quickly as the screener values.) EPA used industry level data on employment class. EPA assumed that survey. Therefore, to project potential benefits, depreciation, rent, and the distribution of each variable is impacts to these 65 certainty facilities, purchased services and attributed it to normal; given the relatively large EPA totaled impacts by subcategory (or the employment class level using a number of observations within each class) and discharge type, then inflated small number of reasonable employment class, this assumption is these impacts by 8 percent. EPA is thus assumptions (e.g., employment benefits reasonable. Because model facility EBIT implicitly assuming that the 65 certainty are proportionate to payroll, refuse is calculated as a linear function of the facilities are similar to the model removal costs are proportionate to means of its components, the variance facilities used in the remainder of the material costs). EPA divided each of EBIT for each employment class can analysis, and impacts are therefore component of facility income by the be calculated as a linear function of the proportionate to impacts projected for number of establishments in the variances and covariances of the other facilities. However, EPA could not employment class to calculate the components using well established identify the subcategories or classes in average for that class. EPA then formulae. Because the actual income which these impacts may occur in time estimated model facility earnings before measures differed from the approximate to include precise estimates for all interest and taxes (EBIT) in each class income measure (EBIT) on which aspects of the analysis. Instances where as the average value of shipments minus variance was estimated, EPA adjusted the certainty facilities are excluded from payroll, material costs, benefits, the variance of each income measure the analysis are indicated clearly. depreciation, rent, and purchased using standard rules concerning the 2. Methodology for Calculating Impacts services. Because revenues, payroll and expected value of mean and variance. cost of materials are the most significant In order to perform the economic EPA calculated economic impacts of components of EBIT, the relative error impact analysis, EPA matched its facilities and firms incurring the costs of introduced by attributing industry level economic model facilities to the compliance with the proposal. EPA data to the employment class level engineering model facilities used to estimated impacts at the facility-level in should be small. estimate costs. All red meat (or meat) several ways: using four financial ratios EPA used data from Census’ Annual facilities that perform animal slaughter, and by estimating closures in two Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), 1997 whether alone or in combination with different ways. EPA also estimated firm Economic Census, and the Internal other processes, were assigned impacts using return on assets (ROA) Revenue Service code combined with economic model facilities from NAICS and Altman’s Z’. EPA also estimated additional assumptions to estimate 311611. Red meat facilities that perform costs in two different ways (see Section model facility net income and cash flow further processing but no slaughtering VII): one estimate assumes that facilities from EBIT. EPA assumed model facility activities processes were assigned must install each individual technology EBIT is equal to business entity taxable economic model facilities from NAICS included in a given option, another income as the basis for calculating tax 311612, as were facilities that process a option assumes that facilities would be
VerDate 11
able to meet the limitations with some a shortcoming of the use of model especially important in a concentrated fraction of this full cost. More facilities. EPA has attempted to industry such as the meat and poultry specifically, facilities with nitrification ameliorate this shortcoming to a products industry, in which some firms (option 2) already in place would be practicable extent by using multiple own dozens of facilities. To examine able to upgrade their existing systems to model facilities within each subcategory firm-level impacts, EPA employed an denitrification and phosphorus removal and by being relatively conservative in Altman Z’-score analysis, which without incurring the full capital cost of its choice of average ratios that are employs a statistical technique called those technologies. These cost estimates deemed economically achievable. EPA multiple discriminant analysis to are referred to as retrofit costs. also considered using the probability predict company bankruptcy based on a EPA used four financial ratios to estimates discussed in the previous weighted combination of financial estimate impacts. Each of these is a ratio paragraph but is not relying on them for ratios. The Altman Z’-score is a widely- of annualized compliance cost to its economic achievability used tool used to predict firm ‘‘financial another measure: revenues, earnings determinations. EPA is considering, distress’’ or bankruptcy. It takes into before interest and taxes (EBIT), cash however, refined probability estimates. account a company’s total assets, total flow, and net income. (EPA used pretax As EPA continues to process the data liabilities and earnings, which are costs for the revenue and EBIT ratios from the detailed survey, we intend to influenced by total compliance capital and used the post-tax costs for the net use that data in the economic analysis costs incurred by a company because of income and cash flow ratios.) These for the final rule. The use of this more the proposal as well as pre-tax measures are listed in decreasing order detailed economic data will allow the annualized compliance costs. and their respective ratios will use of more facilities that better The score places firms into three correspondingly increase for a given represent financial conditions across the levels of financial health: where cost level. EPA found that these four industry and more sophisticated financial distress is unlikely, where cost ratios are highly correlated and do financial techniques such as discounted financial distress is indeterminate, and not individually provide unique cash flow models. These models are where financial distress is likely. EPA information. That is, for all model fully documented in the MPP EA. A considered firms that move from an facilities EPA found that the cost/ discounted cash flow model compares indeterminate or unlikely distress revenue ratio is smaller than the cost/ the present value of forecasted cash flow prediction to a likely distress prediction EBIT ratio, which is smaller than the (or, alternatively, net income) with the to be at risk of bankruptcy or other cost/cash flow ratio. (This correlation present value of the regulatory option. If serious financial disruption. The actual could be a factor of the highly the present value of the regulatory costs effects of financial distress are aggregated data on which model exceeds that of the projected cash flow, inherently unpredictable and a firm may facilities are based because this it does not make financial sense to avoid legal bankruptcy by taking other aggregated data masks variability across upgrade the facility. That is, if the measures such as laying off employees, facilities.) In order to simplify the present value of projected cash flow is closing facilities, or selling assets. These presentation, EPA chose the ratio of positive before, but negative after, the firms still may incur very significant cost/net income as its preferred (central) incurrence of regulatory costs, the impacts even if they do not file for measure of economic achievability (the facility is presumed to close. For the bankruptcy. results for all of the ratios are presented analysis, cash flow at the facility-level is EPA developed a market model to in the MPP EA). defined as the sum of net income and examine the impacts of the proposal on EPA also estimated the probability depreciation. Cash flow is widely used the price and output of various meat that a facility would close, because the within industry in evaluating capital and poultry products. The market cost of compliance exceeded one of the investment decisions because both net analysis for each product depends not other financial measures. In the income and depreciation (which is an only on the compliance costs for that analysis, EPA used both cash flow and accounting offset against income, but product but also on the impact of costs net income. EPA estimated these not an actual cash expenditure) are on the prices of the other three meat and probabilities by using the variance and potentially available to finance future poultry products because as prices for covariance information provided by the investment. However, assuming that one product rise, consumers will Census Bureau to derive the variance of total cash flow is available over an purchase less of that product and more both cash flow and net income. The extended time horizon to finance of the other three products. EPA probability that annualized compliance investments related to environmental selected a perfectly competitive costs are greater than either of these compliance could overstate a facility’s structure for the meat and poultry measures provides a rough estimate of ability to comply because depreciation products market model after performing the probability of that facility closing. is the facility’s way of accounting for the an extensive literature search. EPA While EPA believes this approach is cost of replacing existing capital. The developed standard domestic supply, promising, EPA has less confidence in facility may not be able to afford this domestic demand, import supply, and these closures estimates for several replacement if depreciation is instead export demand equations for each meat reasons which are discussed in detail in allocated to environmental compliance. and poultry product. Domestic demand the MPP EA. Primarily, these estimates EPA solicits comment on the economic for each meat and poultry product is predict that improbably large analysis in this proposal and the specified as a function of the price of percentages of facilities have negative methods it is considering for subsequent the other three meat and poultry net income at the baseline. Because EPA analyses, particularly the use of cash products in addition to its own price. has less confidence in these closure flow as a measure of resources available EPA used USDA data to determine numbers, they are not relied upon for to finance environmental compliance baseline market prices and quantities. economic achievability determinations, and suggestions for alternative Key model parameters (e.g., price but the estimates are presented in the methodologies. elasticities) were selected from existing MPP EA. EPA also estimated firm-level impacts published sources after an extensive EPA notes that the use of average to take into account the aggregate search. For each meat and poultry ratios could mask considerable impacts on firms that own multiple product market to be in equilibrium, variability in economic impacts. This is facilities. These impacts could be U.S. domestic demand plus foreign
VerDate 11
demand (exports) must equal U.S. these quantities for each meat and EPA is required to determine domestic supply plus foreign sales poultry product measure the market- economic achievability for individual (imports) at its current market price. level impacts of today’s proposal. subcategories and the industry as a Compliance costs shift the supply whole. Thus, impacts are presented by curve for each meat and poultry product E. Costs and Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT Options subcategory. This presentation by the average per-unit compliance cost necessarily masks variability in costs Tables VIII.E–1 through VIII.E–5 for that product. Given the supply shift and impacts across different types and present the cost and cost/net income for each product, EPA solves for the sizes of facilities in each subcategory. post-regulatory set of meat prices that results for the options considered by More detail on these results is presented results in equilibrium in all four EPA for BPT, BCT, and BAT. These are in Chapters 5 and 6 of the MPP EA. The markets. This solution provides options 2 through 4 for subcategories A– estimates of post-regulatory impacts. D, F–I, and J, and options 2 through 5 MPP EA also presents results for the Finally, the post-regulatory prices are for subcategories K and L. EPA was other measures of economic impact substituted back into the individual unable to identify any direct dischargers discussed in Section IV.E. The following component equations domestic supply, that did not have at least option 1 in 5 tables exclude the 65 certainty domestic demand, import supply, and current use. Costs for this option are facilities from both costs and facility export demand for each meat and therefore zero for direct dischargers and counts. poultry product. Changes in prices and are not presented.
TABLE VIII.E–1.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A–D, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—66 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net in- Post-tax Cost/net in- annualized come annualized come compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
2 ...... 4.86 0.25 5.49 0.28 3 ...... 24.7 1.30 36.3 1.90 4 ...... 42.4 2.38 72.3 4.11
TABLE VIII.E–2.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY F–I, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—19 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net in- Post-tax annualized come annualized Cost/net income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
2 ...... 0.210 0.13 0.221 0.14 3 ...... 0.310 0.29 0.4150.4 4 ...... 1.94 1.36 4.28 2.91
TABLE VIII.E–3.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY J, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—21 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net in- Post-tax Cost/net in- annualized come annualized come compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
2 ...... 0.304 0.68 0.304 0.68 3 ...... 2.51 5.70 3.55 8.03 4 ...... 2.97 6.74 3.87 8.78
TABLE VIII.E–4.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY K, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—88 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Post-tax Cost/net annualized income annualized income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
2 ...... 2.52 0.32 2.63 0.34 3 ...... 20.1 2.73 29.5 3.98 4 ...... 26.1 3.56 37.5 5.14 5 ...... 15.5 2.15 40.7 5.61
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.E–5.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY L, BPT/BCT/BAT OPTIONS [$1999 millions—15 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Post-tax Option Post-tax Cost/net annualized Cost/net in- annualized income compliance come ompliance cost (%) cost (%)
2 ...... 0.156 0.36 0.17 0.39 3 ...... 1.28 3.01 1.79 4.23 4 ...... 1.78 4.12 2.65 6.04 5 ...... 1.00 2.83 2.37 6.71
F. Results of BCT Cost Test treatment (i.e., ‘‘the POTW test’’). The Table VIII.F–1 presents the upgrade cost to industry must be less calculations for the BCT cost test using In July 1986, EPA explained how it than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per both the retrofit and upper-bound costs developed its methodology for setting pound (in 1976 dollars) or $0.63 per for subcategories A–D, F–I, and J (those effluent limitations based on BCT (51 pound (in 1999 dollars). In the industry subcategories with existing BPT limits). FR 24974). EPA evaluates the cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the Option 2 passes the POTW test in reasonableness of BCT candidate cost per pound to go from BPT to BCT subcategories A–D and J, while no other technologies—those that remove more divided by the cost per pound to go option does in those subcategories, nor conventional pollutants than BPT—by from raw wastewater to BPT for the do any of the options in subcategory F– applying a two-part cost test: A POTW industry must be less than 1.29 (that is, I. Options 3 and 4 therefore do not pass test and an industry cost-effectiveness the cost increase must be less than 29 the BCT cost test and it is not necessary test. percent). to perform the industry cost- EPA first calculates the cost per For purposes of this analysis, EPA is effectiveness test for these options, nor pound of conventional pollutant assuming that for subcategories A–D, F– is it necessary to perform the industry removed by industrial dischargers in I, and J the existing BPT limits are cost-effectiveness test for subcategory F– upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate equivalent to the baseline. Thus, EPA is I. The choice of retrofit versus upper- technology, and then compares this cost considering only options 2 through 4 as bound costs does not affect the result of to the cost per pound of conventional BCT candidate options. All BCT the test (these two costs are identical for pollutants removed in upgrading analyses include the 65 certainty option 2, so the cost test result is the POTWs to advanced secondary facilities. same for either set of costs).
TABLE VIII.F–1.—POTW COST TEST CALCULATIONS, SUBCATEGORIES A–J
Retrofit costs Upper-bound cost Conventional pollutant Pre-tax total Pre-tax total Option removals annualized Ratio of costs Pass POTW annualized Ratio of costs Pass POTW (M lbs) costs to removals test? costs to removals test? ($1999 M) ($/lb.) ($1999 M) ($/ lb.)
Subcategory A–D
2 ...... 22.5 9.93 0.44 Y 9.93 0.44 Y 3 ...... 23.7 42.3 1.78 N 59.5 2.51 N 4 ...... 25.6 73.5 2.87 N 118 4.60 N
Subcategory F–I
2 ...... 0.461 0.404 0.88 N 0.404 0.88 N 3 ...... 0.503 0.537 1.07 N 0.692 1.38 N 4 ...... 0.545 3.53 6.47 N 7.01 12.86 N
Subcategory J
2 ...... 5.94 0.552 0.09 Y 0.552 0.09 Y 3 ...... 6.16 4.28 0.70 N 5.80 0.94 N 4 ...... 6.62 4.98 0.75 N 6.31 0.95 N
Table VIII.F–2 presents the industry cost-effectiveness test for option 2 for subcategories A–D and J. This option fails the test for subcategories A–D but passes the test for Subcategory J. Thus, BCT is not revised for subcategories A–D or F–I, but BCT is set equal to option 2 for subcategory J.
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.F–2.—INDUSTRY COST-EFFECTIVENESS TEST CALCULATIONS, SUBCATEGORIES A–D AND J
RAW–BPT RAW–BPT RAW–BPT BPT–BCT conventional pre-tax total ratio of costs ratio of costs BPT–BCT Pass industry BCT option pollutant re- annualized to removals to removals raw-BPT ratio cost- movals costs (1999$ M) (1999$/ lb.) [B]/[A] effectivenss (M lbs) (1999$ M) [A] [B] test?
Subcategory A–D
2 ...... 1,521 270,240,482 0.178 0.40 2.25 No.
Subcategory J
2 ...... 19.63 10,001,886 0.509 0.12 0.24 Yes.
Table VIII.F–3 presents the change. These calculations are test in these subcategories. Thus, BCT is calculations for the BCT cost test using presented in the MPP EA.) Neither set equal to BPT for these subcategories. both the retrofit and upper-bound costs option 4 or option 5, the only options More detail on the calculation and for subcategories K and L. The test is more stringent than BPT for these inputs of the BCT tests is contained in calculated from the proposed BPT subcategories, passes the POTW test. the record (Docket No. W–01–06, option, which is option 3. (If the test These options therefore do not pass the Record No. 25,002—BCT Analysis for were to be conducted from a less BCT cost test and it is not necessary to Meat and Poultry Products Point Source stringent option the outcome would not perform the industry cost-effectiveness Category).
TABLE VIII.F–3.—POTW COST TEST CALCULATIONS, SUBCATEGORIES K AND L
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Conventional pollutant remov- Pre-tax total Pre-tax total Option als annualized Ratio of costs Pass POTW annualized Ratio of costs Pass POTW (M lbs) costs to removals test? costs to removals test? ($1999 M) ($/ lb.) ($1999 M) ($/ lb.)
Subcategory K
3 ...... 2.44 34.5 N/A N/A 48.4 N/A N/A 4 ...... 3.95 44.2 11.20 N 61.3 15.52 N 5 ...... 4.79 66.1 13.80 N 66.1 13.80 N
Subcategory L
3 ...... 0.136 2.18 N/A N/A 2.95 N/A N/A 4 ...... 0.196 3.03 15.48 N 4.32 22.06 N 5 ...... 0.230 3.85 16.72 N 3.85 16.72 N
G. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES options 1 through 54 for subcategories K sizes of facilities in each subcategory. Options and L. EPA is required to determine More detail on these results is presented economic achievability for individual in Chapters 5 and 6 of the MPP EA. The Tables VIII.G–1 through VIII.G–5 subcategories and the industry as a MPP EA also presents results for the present the cost/net income results for whole. Thus, impacts are presented by other measures of economic impact the options considered by EPA for subcategory. This presentation discussed in Section IV.E. All figures in PSES. These are options 1 through 4 for necessarily masks variability in costs the following five tables exclude the 65 subcategories A–D, F–I, and J, and and impacts across different types and certainty facilities.
TABLE VIII.G–1.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY A–D, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—60 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Post-Tax Cost/net annualized income annualized income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
1 ...... 1.83 0.27 4.30 0.57 2 ...... 43.3 5.28 91.3 10.4 3 ...... 52.4 6.53 59.0 7.21 4 ...... 64.4 7.36 74.3 8.14
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.G–2.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY F–I, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—234 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Post-tax Option Post-Tax Cost/net annualized Cost/net annualized income compliance income compliance cost (%) cost (%)
1 ...... 6.37 0.46 11.1 0.80 2 ...... 31.4 2.32 61.4 4.53 3 ...... 50.6 3.71 50.9 3.72 4 ...... 67.6 5.05 67.8 5.06
TABLE VIII.G–3.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY J, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—75 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Cost/net annualized income Post-tax income compliance cost (%) annualized (%)
1 ...... 0.511 0.33 0.78 0.50 2 ...... 7.59 4.77 14.0 8.78 3 ...... 13.9 8.74 17.1 10.79 4 ...... 15.0 9.47 18.0 11.36
TABLE VIII.G–4.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY K, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—138 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Post-tax Cost/net annualized income annualized income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
1 ...... 3.24 0.28 6.50 0.55 2 ...... 54.5 4.20 114 8.71 3 ...... 76.8 6.16 81.5 6.53 4 ...... 80.5 6.52 83.9 6.80
TABLE VIII.G–5.—COST AND IMPACTS FOR SUBCATEGORY L, PSES OPTIONS [$1999 millions—208 facilities]
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Option Post-tax Cost/net Post-tax Cost/net annualized income annualized income compliance cost (%) compliance cost (%)
1 ...... 5.17 0.87 9.12 1.50 2 ...... 34.2 5.23 63.3 9.63 3 ...... 45.4 6.99 45.6 7.00 4 ...... 58.0 8.95 58.1 8.96
H. Economic Impacts for New Sources to retrofit for those technologies. I. Firm-Level Impacts EPA is proposing NSPS limitations Therefore, NSPS limitations will not For those firms with available data, equivalent to the limitations that are present a barrier to entry for new EPA estimated a baseline Z’-score and a established for BPT/BCT/BAT for all facilities. corresponding score after the firm subcategories. These limitations are EPA is not proposing to establish incurred the costs of complying with the economically achievable for existing PSES or PSNS limitations for indirect proposal. EPA examined the company- sources. In general, EPA concludes that dischargers, so there will be no impacts level financial data in the detailed new sources will be able to comply at on new indirect dischargers. EPA survey for the companies with complete costs that are similar to, or less than, the solicits comment on whether EPA and consistent data. This effort yielded costs for existing sources. They may be should set more stringent standards for 20 companies with appropriate data. able to comply at lower cost since new either direct or indirect new sources. These firms include most of the largest sources can apply control technologies beef, pork, and poultry processing more efficiently than sources that need companies. These firms own 421
VerDate 11
facilities, or an average of 21 facilities K. Market and Foreign Trade Impacts from today’s proposed regulations will each. EPA estimated the number of Foreign trade impacts are difficult to have a significant impact on the facilities owned by each company using predict, since agricultural exports are competitiveness of U.S. poultry exports. publicly available information such as determined by economic conditions in As part of its market analysis, EPA trade publications and web sites as well foreign markets and changes in the evaluated the potential for changes in as information from the detailed survey. international exchange rate for the U.S. traded volumes, such as increases in Because EPA does not have an exact dollar. However, EPA predicts small imports and decreases in exports, and accounting of the type and size of the projected changes in overall supply and concluded that volume trade will not be facilities owned by each company, EPA demand for these products and a slight significantly impacts by today’s estimated total compliance costs for increase in market prices. Thus, foreign proposed regulations. EPA estimates each of these companies by constructing trade impacts as a result of the proposed that imports of beef will increase by a production-weighted average facility regulations will be minor. Using the 0.01 percent or less compared to compliance cost for red meat, poultry market model for meat and poultry baseline (pre-regulation) levels. In no and rendering facilities. This average products, EPA estimates that the other sector is there a measurable was constructed by multiplying the domestic supply and demand for beef, change in imports. EPA estimates that compliance cost for each model facility pork, chicken, and turkey all decrease exports decline by 0.14 percent in the by its production amount, summing by very slight amounts (all less than 0.1 chicken sector, 0.12 percent in the pork across a given product type (meat or percent). The decrease in domestic sector, 0.09 in the beef sector, and 0.05 poultry), and dividing by total supply ranges from 0.02 percent to 0.05 percent in the turkey sector. None of production in that product type. This percent and the decrease in domestic these decreases in exports are average was then multiplied by the demand ranges from 0.02 percent to considered to be significant. number of facilities owned by a 0.04 percent. L. Cost-Reasonableness and Cost- company to estimate the total costs for Despite its position as one of the Effectiveness Analysis a given company. The costs for the largest agricultural producers in the proposed option do not move any world, historically the U.S. has not been EPA compared the compliance costs companies from unlikely or a major player in world markets for red for the proposal against the following indeterminate distress to likely distress. meat (beef and pork) or poultry three different metrics: Removal of all products. In fact, until recently, the U.S. EPA notes that in its recent proposed pollutants in pounds, removal of only was a net importer of these products. rules concerning concentrated animal toxic pollutants in toxic pound- The presence of a large domestic market feeding operations (CAFOs), EPA equivalents, and removal of only for meat and poultry products has analyzed the potential impacts from nutrients in pounds. Although in limited U.S. reliance on developing costs passed on from the CAFO to the recently promulgated effluent export markets for its products. As the processor (66 FR 3092–30923). Many of guidelines, EPA has relied primarily on U.S. has taken steps to expand export these processors are the same the toxic pollutant cost-effectiveness markets for red meat and poultry companies that are considered in this measure for evaluating BAT, that products, one major obstacle has been proposal and EPA estimated that from measure is less appropriate for that it remains a relatively high cost comparing the relative cost-effectiveness $34 million to $306 million could be producer of these products compared to of options to control pollutants from the passed from the CAFO to the processor other net exporters, such as New meat and poultry products industry as a result of the CAFO proposal, but Zealand, Australia, and Latin American because it discharges relatively more EPA was unable to apportion these costs countries, as well as other more among specific companies. EPA intends established and government-subsidized conventional pollutants and nutrients to fully account for the potential costs exporting countries, including Canada than toxic pollutants. Furthermore, the of the final CAFO rule when the MPP and the countries in the European BCT cost test evaluates the cost- guidelines are promulgated. EPA solicits Union. Increasingly, however, reasonableness of the removal of comment on the most accurate method continued efficiency gains and low-cost conventional pollutants (see Section to include these potential costs in the feed are making the U.S. more VIII.G) a description of the MPP economic analysis. competitive in world markets for these methodology, data, and results of these analyses in more detail is contained in J. Community Impacts products, particularly for red meat. While today’s proposed regulations may the EA. The communities where the meat raise production costs and potentially a. BPT Cost-reasonableness products facilities are located may be reduce production quantities that would affected by the proposed regulation if otherwise be available for export, EPA Tables VIII.L–1 and VIII.L–2 present facilities cut back operations, local believes that any quantity and price the results of the BPT cost- employment and income may fall, changes resulting from the proposed reasonableness analysis for direct sending ripple effects throughout the requirements will not significantly alter dischargers in subcategories A–J and local community. Facility-level changes the competitiveness of U.S. export K&L, respectively. These results are in employment could be used to markets for red meat. presented separately because while the calculate total employment changes. In contrast, U.S. poultry products now cost-reasonableness test is useful for However, the model facilities used by account for a controlling share of world evaluating the options in subcategories EPA are not tied to any specific location trade and exports account for a sizable A–J, it is also a statutory criteria for and thus EPA does not have enough and growing share of annual U.S. evaluating the BPT options under information to estimate community production. Given the established consideration for subcategories K and L. impacts with any level of confidence. presence of the U.S. in world poultry EPA has historically considered cost/ EPA plans to conduct an analysis of markets and the relative strength in reasonableness ratios as high as $37/lb community-level impacts as part of its export demand for these products, EPA to be reasonable for BPT. Results are post-proposal activities and present does not expect that the predicted presented using both the retrofit and these results in a subsequent NODA. quantity and price changes resulting upper-bound costs.
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.L–1.—COST-REASONABLENESS ESTIMATES, SUBCATEGORIES A–J
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Pre-tax Option Removals total Ave. cost/ Pre-tax total Ave. cost/ (M lbs) annualized lb. removal annualized lb. removal costs ($/lb.) costs ($/lb.) ($1999 M) ($1999 M)
Subcategory A–D
2 ...... 12.3 9.9 0.81 9.9 0.81 3 ...... 38.7 42.2 1.09 59.5 1.54 4 ...... 41.0 73.5 1.79 118 2.88
Subcategory F–I
2 ...... 0.25 0.4 1.59 0.4 1.59 3 ...... 2.01 0.5 0.27 0.7 0.34 4 ...... 2.02 3.5 1.74 7.0 3.47
Subcategory J
2 ...... 18.3 0.6 0.03 0.6 0.03 3 ...... 18.3 4.3 0.23 5.8 0.32 4 ...... 18.1 5.0 0.27 6.3 0.35
TABLE VIII.L–2.—COST-REASONABLENESS ESTIMATES, SUBCATEGORIES K AND L
Retrofit costs Upper-bound costs Pre-tax Pre-tax Option Removals total Ave. cost/ total Ave. cost/ (M lbs) annualized lb. removal annualized lb. removal costs ($/lb.) costs ($/lb.) ($1999 M) ($1999 M)
Subcategory K
2 ...... 1.63 4.8 2.95 4.8 2.95 3 ...... 7.32 34.5 4.71 48.4 6.61 4 ...... 8.1 44.2 5.46 61.3 7.56 5 ...... 8.0 66.1 8.23 66.1 8.23
Subcategory L
2 ...... 09 0.3 3.28 0.3 3.28 3 ...... 0.31 2.2 7.11 2.9 9.60 4 ...... 0.32 3.0 9.54 4.3 13.59 5 ...... 0.32 3.9 11.97 3.9 11.97
For subcategories A–J, no option has b. Toxic Cost-Effectiveness removed by that option, and can be a cost-reasonableness greater than $ expressed as the average or incremental 3.47/lb using upper-bound costs, or The results of the toxic cost- cost-effectiveness for an option. greater than $ 1.79 using retrofit costs. effectiveness analysis are expressed in Average cost-effectiveness can be Subcategories K and L show similar terms of the costs (in 1981 dollars) per thought of as the ‘‘increment’’ between magnitudes. The least cost-reasonable pound-equivalent removed, where no regulation and the selected option for option for subcategory K is the most pounds-equivalent removed for a any given rule. Incremental cost- particular pollutant is determined by stringent option, option 5, with a cost- effectiveness measures the relative cost- multiplying the number of pounds of a reasonableness of $ 8.23. The cost- effectiveness for two options and is the pollutant removed by each option by a reasonableness for all of the other appropriate measure for comparing one toxic weighting factor. The toxic options for subcategory K are less than regulatory option to another regulatory weighting factors account for the $ 8.00/lb. The cost-reasonableness of the option for the same subcategory. Toxic differences in toxicity among pollutants cost-effectiveness results by subcategory options for subcategory L are slightly and are derived using ambient water and option are presented for direct higher, the least cost-reasonable is quality criteria. Cost effectiveness dischargers in Table VIII.L–3 and option 4 with upper-bound costs, at $ results are presented in 1981 dollars as indirect dischargers in Table VIII.L–4. 14/lb. All of these figures are well a reporting convention. Cost- The options are listed in order of within the cost-reasonableness of effectiveness is calculated as the ratio of increasing removals. Toxic cost- previously promulgated BPT standards. pre-tax annualized costs of an option to effectiveness is presented using both the annual pounds-equivalent (lb-eq) retrofit and upper-bound costs.
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.L–3.—TOXIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Pretax Pretax Incremental Option Total pounds annualized Average cost Incremental annualized Average cost cost effective- removed cost effectiveness cost effective- cost effectiveness ness (millions of ($1981/pounds ness (millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds $1999) equivalent) $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
Subcategory A Through D
BAT 2 ...... 93,586 NA NA NA $9.93 $62 $62 BAT 3 ...... 93,687 $42.25 $263 NA $59.52 $371 $286,414 BAT 4 ...... 94,195 $73.53 $455 $35,930.0 $117.98 $731 $67,154
Subcategory E Through I
BAT 2 ...... 2,609 NA NA NA $0.40 $90 $90 BAT 3 ...... 2,618 $0.54 $120 NA $0.69 $154 $18,512 BAT 4 ...... 2,615 $3.53 $787 ($597,188.0) $7.01 $1,564 ($1,216,372)
Subcategory J
BAT 2 ...... 1,550 NA NA NA $0.55 $208 $208 BAT 3 ...... 1,621 $4.28 $1,540 NA $5.80 $2,089 $43,028 BAT 4 ...... 1,553 $4.98 $1,871 (5,991.0) $6.31 $2,370 ($4,333)
Subcategory K
BAT 2 ...... 63,192 NA NA NA $4.82 $45 $45 BAT 3 ...... 64,094 $34.46 $314 NA $48.37 $440 $28,181 BAT 4 ...... 64,029 $44.21 $403 ($87,773.00) $61.25 $558 ($115,860) BAT 4 ...... 65,169 $66.09 $592 NA $66.09 $592 $2,479 Subcategory L
BAT 2 ...... 373 NA NA NA $0.30 $472 $472 BAT 3 ...... 383 $2.18 $3,329 NA $2.95 $4,494 $160,314 BAT 4 ...... 371 $3.03 $4,769 ($43,685.00) $4.32 $6,796 ($70,689) BAT 5 ...... 398 $3.85 $5,645 NA $3.85 $5,645 ($10,190)
TABLE VIII.L–4.—TOXIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Pretax Incremental Pretax Incremental Option Total pounds annualized Average cost cost effective- annualized Average cost cost effective- removed cost effectiveness ness cost effectiveness ness (Millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds (millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds $1999) equivalent) equivalent) $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
Subcategory A through D
PSES1 ...... 240,421 NA NA NA $7.05 $17 $17 PSES2 ...... 310,768 NA NA NA $151.49 $284 $1,198 PSES3 ...... 309,081 $86.42 $163 NA $96.25 $182 $19,107 PSES4 ...... 309,541 $105.86 $200 $24,671 $120.64 $227 $30,955
Subcategory E through I
PSES1 ...... 76,890 NA NA NA $18.79 $143 $143 PSES2 ...... 78,831 NA NA NA $102.09 $756 $25,036 PSES3 ...... 78,855 $83.25 $616 NA $83.68 $619 ($440,522) PSES4 ...... 78,813 $109.82 $813 ($368,189) $110.20 $816 ($367,437)
Subcategory J
PSES1 ...... 3,918 NA NA NA $1.33 $198 $198 PSES2 ...... 4,983 NA NA NA $23.25 $2,723 $12,011 PSES3 ...... 5,112 $23.09 $2,635 NA $27.91 $3,185 $21,075 PSES4 ...... 4,951 $24.78 $2,920 ($6,157) $29.22 $3,443 ($4,757)
Subcategory K
PSES1 ...... 377,651 NA NA NA $10.84 $17 $17 PSES2 ...... 382,550 NA NA NA $188.95 $288 $21,212 PSES3 ...... 382,735 $126.00 $192 NA $133.01 $203 ($176,292)
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.L–4.—TOXIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS—Continued
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Pretax Incremental Pretax Incremental Option Total pounds annualized Average cost cost effective- annualized Average cost cost effective- removed cost effectiveness ness cost effectiveness ness (Millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds (millions of ($1981/pounds ($1981/pounds $1999) equivalent) equivalent) $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
PSES4 ...... 381,751 $131.39 $201 ($3,196) $136.54 $209 ($2,093)
Subcategory L
PSES1 ...... 49,950 NA NA NA $15.26 $178 $178 PSES2 ...... 51,257 NA NA NA $105.33 $1,199 $40,224 PSES3 ...... 51,367 $74.25 $843 NA $74.56 $847 ($162,814) PSES4 ...... 51,237 $93.89 $1,069 ($88,323) $94.11 $1,072 ($87,885)
The average toxic cost-effectiveness not the main goal of the proposal. effectiveness of nutrient removal by values for the selected options generally Rather, EPA focused primarily on cost- POTWs with biological nutrient removal range from $120/lb-eq to $400/lb-eq. reasonableness (for total pounds) and is $4/lb for nitrogen and $10/lb for The average toxic cost-effectiveness nutrient cost-effectiveness in selecting phosphorus. values for subcategory L are an among options. Tables VIII.L–5 and VIII.L–6 present exception, and are estimated at $3,329/ the results of the nutrient cost- c. Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness lb-eq or $4,494/lb-eq. For all effectiveness analysis for direct and subcategories except J, the incremental EPA also has calculated the cost- indirect dischargers, respectively. The toxic cost-effectiveness is extremely effectiveness of the removal of nutrients options are listed in order of increasing high by historic standards (see for the options considered in today’s removals. Toxic cost-effectiveness is Appendix B of the EA for a comparison) proposal. As a basis of comparison, EPA presented using both retrofit and upper- however, control of toxic pollutants is has estimated that the average cost- bound costs.
TABLE VIII.L–5.—NUTRIENT COST-EFFECTIVENESS, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Pretax Incremental Pretax Incremental Option Total pounds annualized Average cost cost effective- annualized Average cost cost effective- removed cost effectiveness ness cost effectiveness ness (millions of ($1999/pounds ($1999/pounds (millions of ($1999/pounds ($1999/pounds $1999) eqivalent) equivalent) $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
Subcategory A Through D
BAT 2 ...... 1,972,012 NA NA NA $9.93 $5.0 $5.0 BAT 3 ...... 42,818,320 $42.25 $1.0 NA $59.52 $1.4 $1.2 BAT 4 ...... 44,916,551 $73.53 $1.6 $14.9 $117.98 $2.6 $27.9
Subcategory E through I
BAT 2 ...... 35,700 NA NA NA $0.40 $11.3 $11.3 BAT 3 ...... 2,115,639 $0.54 $0.3 NA $0.69 $0.3 $0.1 BAT 4 ...... 2,120,199 $3.53 $1.7 $656.1 $7.01 $3.3 $1,385.8
Subcategory J
BAT 2 ...... 86,772 NA NA NA $0.55 $6.4 $6.4 BAT 3 ...... 482,224 $4.28 $8.9 NA $5.80 $12.0 $13.3 BAT 4 ...... 531,196 $4.98 $9.4 $14.3 $6.31 $11.9 $10.3
Subcategory K
BAT 2 ...... 809,883 NA NA NA $4.82 $6.0 $6.0 BAT 3 ...... 8,371,827 $34.46 $4.1 NA $48.37 $5.8 $5.8 BAT 4 ...... 8,870,390 $44.21 $5.0 $19.6 $61.25 $6.9 $25.8 BAT 5 ...... 8,856,078 $66.09 $7.5 NA $66.09 $7.5 ($338.4)
Subcategory L
BAT 2 ...... 0 NA NA NA $0.30 NA NA BAT 3 ...... 320,160 $2.18 $6.8 NA $2.95 $9.2 $8.3 BAT 4 ...... 318,194 $3.03 $9.5 ($432.9) $4.32 $13.6 ($700.6) BAT 5 ...... 334,187 $3.85 $11.5 NA $3.85 $11.5 $29.5
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII.L–6.—NUTRIENT COST-EFFECTIVENESS, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Retrofit costs Upper bound costs Incremental Incremental Option Total pounds Pretax Average cost cost effective- Pretax Average cost cost effective- removed annualized effectiveness ness annualized effectivess ness cost (millions ($1999/pounds ($1999/pounds cost (millions ($1999/pounds ($1999/pounds of $1999) equivalent) equivalent) of $1999) equivalent) equivalent)
Subcategory A Through D
PSES1 ...... 907,327 NA NA NA $7.05 $7.77 $7.77 PSES2 ...... 1,573,317 NA NA NA $151.49 $96.29 $216.88 PSES3 ...... 33,837,795 $86.42 $2.55 NA $96.25 $2.84 ($1.71) PSES4 ...... 35,215,559 $105.86 $3.01 $14.11 $120.64 $3.43 $17.70
Subcategory E Through I
PSES1 ...... 1,997,640 NA NA NA $18.79 $9.41 $9.41 PSES2 ...... 1,510,007 NA NA NA $102.09 $67.61 ($170.82) PSES3 ...... 4,616,635 $83.25 $18.03 NA $83.68 $18.13 ($5.93) PSES4 ...... 4,603,357 $109.82 $23.86 ($2,001.07) $110.20 $23.94 ($1,996.98)
Subcategory J
PSES1 ...... 8,233,864 NA NA NA $1.33 $0.16 $0.16 PSES2 ...... 146,708 NA NA NA $23.25 $158.51 ($2.71) PSES3 ...... 10,194,886 $23.09 $2.26 NA $27.91 $2.74 $0.46 PSES4 ...... 10,379,498 $24.78 $2.39 $9.18 $29.22 $2.82 $7.09
Subcategory K
PSES1 ...... 5,468,191 NA NA NA $10.84 $1.98 $1.98 PSES2 ...... 2,827,350 NA NA NA $188.95 $66.83 ($67.45) PSES3 ...... 18,404,976 $126.00 $6.85 NA $133.01 $7.23 ($3.59) PSES4 ...... 19,217,341 $131.39 $6.84 $6.63 $136.54 $7.11 $4.34
Subcategory L
PSES1 ...... 2,715,456 NA NA NA $15.26 $5.62 $5.62 PSES2 ...... 1,893,734 NA NA NA $105.33 $55.62 ($109.61) PSES3 ...... 5,911,953 $74.25 $12.56 NA $74.56 $12.61 ($7.66) PSES4 ...... 5,936,000 $93.89 $15.82 $769.90 $94.11 $15.85 $792.95
The nutrient cost-effectiveness for the Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Manufacturers. The second approach selected options varies by subcategory The RFA provides that the default relied on data from the screener survey. from $0.10/lb to $8.30/lb. These values definitions for small businesses are Using the SBA/Census data, EPA first are all within the approximate based on size standards determined by checked the employment class for each benchmarks determined by EPA for the Small Business Administration model facility. If the model facility was phosphorus. In fact, for Subcategories (SBA). The standards are for firms, not in an employment class exceeding 500, A–I, Option 3 is more cost-effective (in facilities, and are based on NAICS then all facilities controlled by the same terms of nutrients) than Option 2 and is codes. The size standard for all of the firm were assumed to be large business well within the benchmark for nitrogen NAICS codes in the meat and poultry owned. If not, then EPA assigned to that as well. For subcategories J, K, and L, products industry is 500 employees. the nutrient cost-effectiveness numbers model facility the ratio of facilities to The first step in the analysis was establishments for the corresponding for the proposed options range from determining how many facilities in the $5.80 to $9.20 per pound. These exceed employment class in the SBA/Census industry are owned by small businesses special study. Multiplying that ratio by the benchmark for nitrogen. When and how many are owned by large the number of facilities represented by broken out by nitrogen and phosphorus, businesses. EPA took two separate the model facility resulted in our Option 2 meets the individual approaches to make this determination estimate of small business owned benchmarks, but option 3 does not for and compared the estimates to facilities. subcategories K and L. These options information from other sources on the thus may not be cost-effective for number of facilities owned by large For example, suppose the model nutrient removal. businesses to determine which was facility for R12, medium was in the M. Small Business Analysis more accurate. The first approach relied 100–249 employee class, and the SBA/ on data from the SBA website on the Census special study tells us that for EPA analyzed the economic impacts number of firms and facilities of a NAICS 311611, there are 200 firms and on small businesses in order to comply certain size; this data was provided 210 facilities with 100–500 employees. with its obligations under the under a special contract with the Census In that case, we assumed 95% of R12, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Bureau and matches the employment medium facilities were stand alone amended by the Small Business classes used in the Census of small businesses, and 5% of R12,
VerDate 11
medium facilities were large business estimates and was used to generate the as the range of cost/sales ratios owned. numbers of small and large businesses. calculated for those facilities. Average As an alternative to the estimates from EPA used the screener survey to cost/net income ratios for facilities the SBA/Census data, EPA also generate this data for rendering owned by small businesses are examined responses from the screener facilities. EPA determined that none of presented in Table VIII.M–2 with the survey, which asks for facility and the certainty facilities are owned by range of cost/net income ratios company employment for each facility. small businesses. calculated for those facilities. The EPA then compared the resulting EPA estimates the 73 facilities owned ranges are generated by calculating the estimates of the numbers of businesses by small businesses will be affected by ratios for each of the model facilities from each alternative approach to this regulation: 69 nonsmall facilities in that make up each subcategory. The information from the various sources in subcategories A–K with new BPT/BCT/ the industry profile on the number of BAT requirements and 4 small facilities average ratio is thus a weighted average facilities owned by large businesses. For in Subcategory L subject to new BPT of the ratios for the model facilities. all the subcategories except rendering, requirements. Average cost/sales ratios Therefore, this average ratio may vary the SBA/Census data appeared to for facilities owned by small businesses from the ratio for the subcategory as a provide more accurate comparative are presented in Table VIII.M–1 as well whole.
TABLE VIII.M–1.—COST/SALES RATIOS FOR SMALL BUSINESS-OWNED FACILITIES, SELECTED OPTIONS
Number of Cost/net income small busi- (%) Subcategory ness-owned facilities Average Low High
A–D ...... 5 0.02 0.25 0.25 F–I ...... 10 0.07 0.01 0.27 J ...... 12 0.17 0.17 0.17 K ...... 28 0.58 0.37 1.00 L (nonsmall) ...... 12 0.55 0.27 0.59 L (small) ...... 4 0.20 0.20 0.20
TABLE VIII.M–2.—COST/NET INCOME RATIOS FOR SMALL BUSINESS-OWNED FACILITIES, SELECTED OPTIONS
Number of Cost/net income small busi- (%) Subcategory ness-owned facilities Average Low High
A–D ...... 5 0.25 0.25 0.25 F–I ...... 10 0.55 0.09 2.03 J ...... 12 0.68 0.68 0.68 K ...... 28 6.82 5.03 8.94 L (nonsmall) ...... 12 4.87 2.03 5.31 L (small) ...... 4 2.44 2.44 2.44
IX. Water Quality Analysis and swimmable; where swimmable waters environmental impacts of 97 facilities Environmental Benefits are most desirable. (36 direct dischargers and 61 indirect EPA modeled a sample set of 97 dischargers). EPA did not evaluate: (1) A. Qualitative Description of Water facilities. EPA estimates that the 79 facilities which report storing water Quality Benefits proposed rule will improve overall use in on-site lagoons or land applying their EPA evaluated the environmental of 17 to 28 reach miles for the sample wastewater; or (2) 65 facilities for which benefits of controlling the discharges of set. Scaling these results to represent the EPA had insufficient data to conduct the conventional pollutants from meat and nation level of 246 facilities, EPA water quality analysis. poultry production industry (MPP) estimates the national improvement in facilities to surface waters in national overall use to be 29 to 49 reach miles. C. Pollutants of Concern analyses of direct and indirect The national monetized benefits for this EPA identified 30 pollutants of discharges. EPA used the National overall use improvement range from concern for the meat processing segment Water Pollution Control Assessment $15.5 million to $16.1 million. of the industry and 27 pollutants of Model (NWPCAM version 1.1) to model concern for the poultry processing the instream Dissolved Oxygen (DO) B. Facilities Modeled segment of the industry (see Section concentration, as influenced by EPA estimates that 246 red meat, V.C). This list includes Ammonia as pollutant reductions of BOD5, Total poultry, and rendering facilities are Nitrogen, Carbonaceous BOD5, Chemical Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total covered under this proposed rule. EPA Oxygen Demand (COD), Nitrate +Nitrite Suspended Solids (TSS) and Fecal mailed out 350 detailed surveys to (as Nitrogen), Hexane Extractable Coliform (FC). Based upon each reach generate both environmental and Method (HEM), Oil and Grease, Total mile concentration of DO, BOD5, FC and economic data. EPA received 241 Recoverable Oil and Grease, pH, TSS, EPA estimated the change in each detailed surveys in time for data Temperature, Total Nitrogen and Total reaches’ use category. The use categories analysis of this proposed rule making Phosphorous (as PO4). ladder is as follows, from poorest to (see Section V.B). Of the 241 detailed Discharges of these pollutants of best: No use, boatable, fishable, and surveys, EPA was able to model the concern into freshwater and estuarine
VerDate 11
ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats fishable; and 3 = swimmable (where The regulatory options evaluated for and adversely affect aquatic biota. For swimmable waters are most desirable). direct dischargers were: example, habitat degradation can result The NWPCAM is a national-scale BAT2: Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) from increased suspended particulate water quality model that characterizes (advanced oil/water separation), matter that reduces light penetration, water quality conditions for the Nation’s Lagoon, and Disinfection (Oil and and thus primary productivity, or from network of river and streams. As of Grease, BOD5, TSS, Pathogen accumulation of suspended particles present, the NWPCAM v1.1 only models removal) + Nitrification (Ammonia that alter benthic spawning grounds and DO, BOD5, Fecal Coliform, TKN and (NH3) removal) feeding habitats. Nutrients, including TSS. EPA is presently working to BAT3: BAT2 + Denitrification (Nitrogen phosphorus and nitrogen are the modify the model to include the removal) primary causes of surface water following: (1) Modeling of nutrients for BAT4: BAT3 + (Phosphorus removal) eutrophication, which can reduce an eutrophication analysis of ponds and The regulatory Options evaluated for dissolved oxygen content of waterbodies lakes; and (2) modeling of other indirect dischargers were: to levels insufficient to support fish and pollutants for rivers and streams. This invertebrates. Eutrophication may also model update should be completed in PSES1: DAF, Equalization (Oil and increase the incidence of harmful algal time for the final rule. Grease, TSS, removal) blooms which release toxins as they die Since the meat and poultry processing F. Documented Impacts and Permit and can severely affect wildlife as well industry waste streams are mostly non- Violations as humans. toxic organic pollutants, EPA is satisfied EPA identified 10 articles BOD5 and COD are important that NWPCAM v1.1 models the majority measures of the organic content of an of pollutant pounds generated by the 97 documenting environmental impacts due to meat and poultry processing effluent. When effluents with high BOD5 MPP facilities included in this rule or COD are discharged to surface waters, making. However, for this reason, EPA facilities. Documented impacts include the process of microbial degradation of acknowledges that the environmental 4 reaches with nutrient loadings, 2 sites organic compounds can, under certain impacts and benefits are probably with contaminated well water, 1 site conditions, reduce dissolved oxygen underestimated. with contaminated ground water, and 1 levels in receiving water bodies below In addition, EPA did not evaluate the lake threatened by nutrient loadings. the threshold necessary to support impact on receiving waters from EPA also documented 20 permit violations by meat and poultry aquatic life. Additionally, meat and conventional pollutants (BOD5, TSS, Oil poultry processing raw wastewaters and Grease and Fecal Coliform) and processing facilities. The permit levels contain significant amounts of organic other pollutants (metals, nutrients) mostly violated are NH3–N, PO4, and nitrogen which rapidly breaks down which pass through the POTW (see TSS. into ammonia which, if left untreated, Section XI.B). EPA is, however, EPA identified 18 articles which are a direct toxicant to aquatic soliciting comment on whether document legal action in criminal cases communities. Oil and grease are known pretreatment standards are necessary for taken against meat and poultry to produce toxic effects on aquatic this industry and how EPA should processing facilities. Documented legal organisms (i.e., fish, crustacea, larvae model these potential benefits from action includes: (1) Conspiracy of 5 and eggs, gastropods, bivalves, controls on MPP indirect dischargers. facilities to violate the CWA; (2) one invertebrates, and flora). Pathogens are case of illegal dumping of waste; and (3) known to impact a variety of water uses E. Modeled Technology Option five cases of falsifying records, diluting including recreation, drinking water Scenarios waste samples and or destroying sources, and aquatic life and fisheries EPA estimated the benefits from the records. These legal actions resulting in (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. improvements in water quality expected 3 possible cases of incarceration and 10024). for 8 different scenarios of the various fines ranging from $0.25 million to regulatory options. $12.6 million. All of these articles and D. Benefits Modeling Methodology permit violations are documented in the EPA chose to use the National Water TABLE IX.E–1.—BENEFITS SCENARIOS record (Docket No. W–01–06, Record Pollution Control Assessment Model MODELED No. 10033). (NWPCAM) version 1.1 to estimate G. Modeled Water Quality Impacts environmental impacts to surface water Scenario Regulatory options 1 quality resulting from implementation The environmental analysis for 97 of various scenarios for regulating MPP 1 ...... BAT2 meat and poultry processing facilities is facilities. Specifically, EPA developed 2 ...... BAT3 presented in Table IX.G–1. EPA NWPCAM v1.1 to model instream 3 ...... BAT4 estimates that the proposed rule would Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration, 4 ...... BAT2 + PSES1 decrease end-of-pipe pollutant loadings as influenced by pollutant reductions of 5 ...... BAT3 + PSES1 10 percent for all subcategories. The 6 ...... BAT4 + PSES1 BOD5, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), 7 ...... BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2 baseline load of 49.9 million lbs/yr Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Fecal (rendering) (BOD5, TSS, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Coliform (FC). Based upon each reach 8 ...... BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2 TKN) would be reduced to 45.1 million mile concentration of DO, BOD5, FC and (rendering) + PSES1 lbs/yr. The recommended treatment TSS, EPA estimates the change in each option would result in the over-all use Note 1: BAT options apply to within scope reaches’ use category. The use categories direct dischargers and PSES options apply to improvement of 21 river miles at the ladder is as follows, from poorest to within scope indirect dischargers (see Section sample set, and approximately 36 miles best: 0 = no use; 1 = boatable; 2 = III). at the national level.
VerDate 11
TABLE IX.G–1.—MODELED ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS (97 FACILITIES)
2 1 Overall use improvement Pollutant Pollutant Re- (reach miles) Scenario Regulatory options Load duction (million lbs/yr) (percent) Sample National
Baseline ...... 49.9 ...... 1 ...... BAT2 ...... 47.5 5 17 29 2 ...... BAT3 ...... 45.0 10 21 36 3 ...... BAT4 ...... 44.8 10 21 36 4 ...... BAT2 + PSES1 ...... 36.2 27 24 41 5 ...... BAT3 + PSES1 ...... 33.7 32 28 48 6 ...... BAT4 + PSES1 ...... 33.5 33 21 36 7 ...... BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2 (Rendering) ...... 45.1 10 21 36 8 ...... BAT3 (meat, poultry), BAT2 (Rendering) + PSES1 ...... 33.7 32 28 48 Note 1: Baseline = 49.9 Million lbs/yr. Pound totals include BOD, TSS, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and TKN from 97 facilities. Some overlap be- tween categories may be occurring Note 2: Sample set represents 97 facilities. National set represents 246 facilities. Of the 246 facilities represented, 79 facilities are zero dis- chargers, and therefore do not contribute to these modeled water quality impacts/improvements.
H. Monetized Water Quality Benefits TABLE IX.H–1.—MODELED ENVIRON- MPP facilities. Section X.B presents the Economic benefits associated with the MENTAL BENEFITS (97 FACILITIES) impact of the proposed technologies on meat and poultry products scenarios are air emissions, and section X.C discusses based on incremental changes in water Monetized the impact on wastewater treatment Regulatory benefits sludge generation. quality use-support (i.e., boatable, Scenario options ($1999 fishable, swimmable) and the million) A. Energy Requirements population benefitting from the changes. Benefits are calculated state-by-state at 1 ...... BAT2 ...... 15.5 EPA estimates that compliance with the State (local) scale as well as at the 2 ...... BAT3 ...... 15.6 this rule will result in a small net national level. For each State, benefits at 3 ...... BAT4 ...... 15.6 decrease in energy consumption at non- 4 ...... BAT2 + PSES1 .... 15.9 the local-scale represent the value that small MPP facilities that are direct the State population is willing to pay for 5 ...... BAT3 + PSES1 .... 16.0 6 ...... BAT4 + PSES1 .... 16.1 dischargers and no change in energy improvements to waters within the State 7 ...... BAT3 (meat, poul- 15.6 consumption at all MPP facilities that or adjoining the State. For each State, try), BAT2 (Ren- are indirect dischargers (as EPA is benefits at the national-scale represent dering). proposing no PSES and PSNS for all the value that the State population is 8 ...... BAT3 (meat, poul- 16.0 MPP subcategories) (see Section III.A.1 willing to pay for improvements to try), BAT2 (Ren- for EPA’s definition of small and non- dering) + PSES1. waters in all other states in the small facilities). EPA did, however, continental United States. EPA solicits estimate the energy consumption at comment on additional methods for X. Non-Water Quality Environmental non-small MPP facilities that are estimating and monetizing benefits. Impacts Table IX.H–1 summarizes the indirect dischargers and noted a small resulting estimates of economic benefits Sections 304(b) and 306(b) of the net increase in energy consumption. for each of the six regulatory scenarios Clean Water Act require EPA to Table X.A–1 and X.A–2 present analyzed. Based on the subset of consider non-water quality estimates of energy usage by technology facilities included in the NWPCAM environmental impacts (including option for both non-small direct and analysis, the total national willingness- energy requirements) associated with indirect dischargers, respectively. For to-pay (WTP) benefits at the local-scale effluent limitations guidelines and the selected proposal technology for all water quality use-supports ranged standards. To comply with these options, EPA estimates that there will be from approximately $15.5 million for requirements, EPA considered the a reduction in total annual energy use BAT2 to $16.1 million for BAT4 + potential impact of the proposed MPP across all non-small direct dischargers PSES1. EPA estimates that the annual rule on energy consumption, air (a net reduction of 144 million KWH/ benefits of the proposed regulatory emissions, and solid waste generation. yr). This is a relatively small net action (i.e., Scenario 7) is $15.6 million A discussion of the proposed reduction in comparison with the total per year. Since these benefits are for a technology options is given in Section annual amount of energy purchased by subset of the facilities regulated by the VII of this preamble. Considering energy non-small direct facilities (2,929 million proposal, they should not be compared use and environmental impacts across KWH/yr). There are no incremental to the total costs of the rule. EPA all media, the Agency has determined energy use impacts for direct estimates that the costs for Scenario 7 that the impacts identified in this dischargers that are small poultry for the facilities included in the benefits section are justified by the benefits slaughterers (subpart K) or small poultry analysis are $33.7 million. If the ratio of associated with compliance with the further processors (subpart L) as all of costs to benefits for these facilities is the proposed limitations and standards. these small facilities are currently same as the ratio of costs to benefits for Section X.A discusses the energy implementing the proposed limitations all facilities, the total benefits of the rule requirements for implementing and standards (Docket No. W–01–06, would be $37.0 million. wastewater treatment technologies at Record No. 00168).
VerDate 11
TABLE X.A–1.—INCREMENTAL ENERGY USE FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Total Energy Incremental MPP WWTP energy use per non-small MPP facility purchased per in units of million KWH/fac.-yr and total energy usage percent In- 1 non-small crease per non-small MPP facility [% increase] 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings MPP facility (million KWH/ fac.-yr) BAT2 BAT3 BAT4 BAT5
A, B, C, D ...... 11.42 0.0221 ¥0.9324 ¥1.0759 NA [0.19%] [¥8.89%] [¥10.40%] F, G, H, I ...... 13.46 0.0017 ¥0.0239 ¥0.0354 NA [0.01%] [¥0.18%] [¥0.26%] J ...... 5.47 0 ¥0.2415 ¥0.261 NA [0.00%] [¥4.62%] [¥5.01%] K ...... 13.53 0.0031 ¥0.627 ¥0.6076 ¥0.6033 [0.02%] [¥4.86%] [¥4.70%] [¥4.67%] L ...... 13.46 0.0021 ¥0.1088 ¥0.1094 ¥0.1519 [0.02%] [¥0.81%] [¥0.82%] [¥1.14%] Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have any net incremental NWQIs (including energy usage).
TABLE X.A–2.—INCREMENTAL ENERGY USE FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Total energy Incremental MPP WWTP energy use per non-small MPP facility purchased per in units of million KWH/fac.-yr and total energy usage percent in- 1 non-small crease per non-small MPP facility 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings MPP facility [% Increase] (million KWH/ fac.-yr) PSES1 PSES2 PSES3 PSES4
A, B, C, D ...... 11.42 0.2644 4.5467 2.0473 1.6061 [2.26%] [28.48%] [15.20%] [12.33%] F, G, H, I ...... 13.46 0.1227 0.6021 0.3404 0.3137 [0.90%] [4.28%] [2.47%] [2.28%] J ...... 5.47 0.0243 0.4617 0.0061 ¥0.0547 [0.44%] [7.78%] [0.11%] [¥1.01%] K ...... 13.53 0.1423 2.6724 0.9385 0.8078 [1.04%] [16.49%] [6.49%] [5.63%] L ...... 13.46 0.0995 0.6519 0.3194 0.2933 [0.73%] [4.62%] [2.32%] [2.13%] Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have any net incremental NWQIs (including energy usage).
The Direct Option BAT3 results in a B. Air Emissions Impacts the few facilities that have odor net decrease in energy use. This is a The Agency believes that the end-of- problems without sulfate waters (Docket result of the nitrification/denitrification pipe technologies included in the No. W–01–06, Record No. 00162). process (BAT3) utilizing less oxygen technology options for this rule do not Facilities generally utilized a scum layer and less mixing than the nitrification generate significant incremental air on the anaerobic contact tank or pond process (BAT2). Oxygen transfer and emissions either directly from the to minimize odors (Docket No. W–01– mixing operations require energy to run facility or indirectly through increased 06, Record No. 10034). Additionally, blowers and mixers, respectively. The air emissions impact from the electric covers and collectors of off-gases from electrical energy costs of a fully power generation facilities providing tanks or ponds may also control odors. nitrifying wastewater treatment plant the additional energy. If the off-gas has sufficient methane (WWTP) can typically be reduced by Odors are the only significant air content it can then be recovered for approximately 20% by implementation pollution problem associated with MPP energy or burned in a flare. Dissolved air flotation systems can also generate of denitrification with influent BOD as facility wastewater treatment. localized odors if facilities do not: (1) the necessary organic carbon source Malodorous conditions usually occur in anaerobic waste treatment processes or Properly remove the skimmings or (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. grease-containing solids; or (2) provide 00166). localized anaerobic environments within aerobic systems. However, it is sufficient ventilation around the EPA used facility count, wastewater generally agreed that anaerobic tanks treatment system if it is located indoors. flow, and treatment-in-place data from and ponds will not create serious odor Odors can best be controlled by the Screener Survey and Detailed problems unless the process water has elimination, at the source, in preference Survey to develop the previous energy a high sulfate content. The proposed to treatment for odor control. use estimations. The MPP Development technology options will not significantly EPA visited several MPP facilities that Document provides more detailed increase odors as the proposed EPA considered to be operating the information on the development of technology options do not create selected proposal technology options. these energy use estimations. additional amounts of methane. None of these BAT facilities had odor The anaerobic contact tank or pond control problems. One MPP WWTP odor is unpredictable as evidenced by operator noted that his facility, which
VerDate 11
operates BAT5 technology (biological raw water reaches the headworks of the Record No. 10042). EPA estimates that nutrient removal with disc filter), has WWTP. These large-scale solids have compliance with this proposed rule will had no odor control problem since the economic value as inedible rendering result in a decrease in wastewater installation of his new WWTP even with raw material. treatment sludges at MPP facilities. 1 private residences located within ⁄4 The organic and inorganic solid For the selected proposal technology material separated from the MPP mile of the WWTP (Docket No. W–01– options, EPA estimates that there will be wastewater, including chemicals added 06, Record No. 00154). a 3.4% reduction in total annual sludge As previously stated, EPA estimates to aid solids separation, is called sludge. production across all non-small direct an annual net energy reduction of 144 Typically, this sludge contains 95 to 98 dischargers (a net reduction of million KWH for the selected proposal percent water before dewatering. The approximately 16,500 tons/yr). This is a technology options. EPA is proposing raw sludge can be concentrated, relatively small net reduction in no PSES or PSNS regulatory controls for digested, dewatered, dried, incinerated, comparison with the current total indirect dischargers. This annual net land-filled, or spread in sludge holding annual amount of sludge production by energy reduction, however, is small ponds. Facilities may use combinations non-small direct facilities compared with the amount of energy of these sludge management options for (approximately 500,000 tons/yr). Tables used by MPP direct dischargers (2,929 different periods of the year. A WWTP X.C–1 and X.C–2 present the amount of million KWH/yr) and trivial when operator for a poultry slaughtering wastewater treatment sludge expected to compared with the total electricity used facility, which utilizes BAT5 be reduced at non-small facilities as a by the entire United States in 1999 technology, noted that sludges from his result of implementing each of the (3,501 billion KWH) (Docket No. W–01– facility are used as a soil amendments technology options. There are no 06, Record No. 00139). via spray irrigation for crops raised on the facility’s property, while during the incremental sludge generation impacts C. Solid Waste Generation off-growing season (July through March) for direct dischargers that are small The most significant non-water these sludges are kept in a lagoon. The poultry slaughterers (subpart K) or small quality environmental impact (NWQI) is operator pays a fee for land application poultry further processors (subpart L) as the generation of additional solids from of the WWTP sludge. EPA noted during all of these small facilities are currently MPP WWTP. These additional solids are site visits to two independent rendering implementing the proposed limitations generally nonhazardous. Some solids operations that sludges from dissolved and standards (Docket No. W–01–06, are recovered for additional processing air floatation units which use chemical Record No. 00168). (rendering) and are not considered solid additions to promote solids separation EPA is proposing no PSES and PSNS wastes or NWQIs. Screening devices of are rendered, however, the chemical for all indirect dischargers in all MPP various design and operating principles bond between the organic matter and subcategories. EPA did, however, are used primarily for removal of large- the polymers requires that the sludges estimate the sludge generation at non- scale solids (e.g., feathers, large animal be processed (rendered) at higher small MPP facilities that are indirect particles) from the meat and poultry temperatures (260 °F) and longer dischargers and noted a small net processing facility raw water before the retention times (Docket No. W–01–06, increase in sludge generation.
TABLE X.C–1.—INCREMENTAL SLUDGE GENERATION FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Baseline total Incremental Sludge Generated—tons/yr and percent increase [% sludge gen- Increase] for non-small MPP facilities, direct dischargers erated at non- 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings1 small MPP fa- cilities, direct dischargers BAT2 BAT3 BAT4 BAT5 (tons/year)
A, B, C, D ...... 353,794 0 ¥5,976 ¥5,334 NA [0.0%] [¥1.7%] [¥1.5%] F, G, H, I ...... 6,564 0 ¥45 ¥26 NA [0.0%] [¥0.7%] [¥0.4%] J ...... 3,655 0 ¥124 ¥124 NA [0.0%] [¥3.4%] [¥3.4%] K ...... 129,917 0 ¥10,353 8,533 8,533 [0.0%] [¥8.0%] [6.6%] [6.6%] L ...... 3,326 0 ¥146 ¥137 ¥909 [0.0%] ¥4.4%] [¥4.1%] [¥27.3%] Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have any net incremental NWQIs (including sludge generation).
TABLE X.C–2.—INCREMENTAL SLUDGE GENERATION FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Baseline total Incremental sludge generated—tons/yr and percent increase [% sludge gen- Increase] for non-small MPP facilities, indirect dischargers erated at non- 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings1 small MPP fa- cilities, indirect dischargers PSES1 PSES2 PSES3 PSES4 (tons/year)
A, B, C, D ...... 63,466 0 227,567 187,011 189,695 [0.0%] [358.6%] [294.7%] [298.9%]
VerDate 11
TABLE X.C–2.—INCREMENTAL SLUDGE GENERATION FOR EXISTING NON-SMALL MPP FACILITIES, INDIRECT DISCHARGERS—Continued
Baseline total Incremental sludge generated—tons/yr and percent increase [% sludge gen- Increase] for non-small MPP facilities, indirect dischargers erated at non- 40 CFR part 432 subcategory groupings1 small MPP fa- cilities, indirect dischargers PSES1 PSES2 PSES3 PSES4 (tons/year)
F, G, H, I ...... 2,599 302 58,071 48,598 50,046 [11.6%] [2234.6%] [1870.1%] [1925.8%] J ...... 9,520 32 11,259 9,212 9,522 [0.3%] [118.3%] [96.8%] [100.0%] K ...... 38,422 97 188,012 162,621 162,589 [0.3%] [489.3%] [423.3%] [423.2%] L ...... 2,360 228 61,213 53,794 54,233 [9.6%] [2593.6%] [2279.2%] [2297.8%] Note 1: Small Processors (Subpart E) are not covered under the proposal (see Section III.A.1) and do not have any net incremental NWQIs (including sludge generation).
As shown in Table X.C–1, Direct concern (POCs) identified for each chemicals are generally good Option BAT3 results in a net decrease subcategory. indicators of overall wastewater in sludge generation for non-small EPA selected a subset of pollutants for treatment performance. direct dischargers. This is a result of the which to establish numerical effluent Based on the methodology described nitrification/denitrification (BAT3) limitations from the list of POCs for above, EPA proposes to regulate metabolism which reduces sludge each regulated subcategory. Section pollutants in each subcategory that will production as compared with VII.C. discusses EPA’s methodology for ensure adequate control of a range of nitrification (BAT2) metabolism for the selecting POCs and identifies on a pollutants. same solids retention time (Docket No. subcategory basis the POCs relevant to W–01–06, Record No.00166). Full-scale this proposal. Generally, a chemical is 2. Selection of Proposed Regulated domestic WWTP have shown a 5 to 15% considered a POC if it was detected in Pollutants for Existing and New Direct reduction in waste sludge production the untreated process wastewater at 5 Dischargers after the inclusion of the nitrification/ times the minimum level (ML) in more The current regulation requires denitrification process (Docket No. W– than 10 percent of samples. facilities to maintain the pH between 6.0 Monitoring for all POCs is not 01–06, Record No. 10035). and 9.0 at all times. EPA intends to necessary to ensure that Meat and EPA also expects that water retain this limitation and proposes to Poultry Products wastewater pollution conservation and pollution prevention codify identical pH limitations for is adequately controlled, since many of technologies may result in a greater previously unregulated subcategories. the pollutants originate from similar sludge reduction. EPA expects these The pH shall be monitored at the point sources, have similar treatabilities, are technologies to reduce sludge of discharge from the wastewater removed by similar mechanisms, and generation for the following reasons: treatment facility to which effluent • Water conservation technologies are treated to similar levels. Therefore, limitations derived from this part apply. reduce the amount of source water used it may be sufficient to monitor for one and thus mass of pollutants in the pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of In addition, EPA is proposing to source water which reduces the amount several others. establish effluent limitations for MPP of sludge generated during treatment. Regulated pollutants are pollutants for facilities for the following pollutants of • Pollution prevention practices which the EPA would establish concern: BOD, COD, TSS, oil and reduce the mass of pollutants in numerical effluent limitations and grease, fecal coliforms, ammonia, total treatment system influent streams standards. EPA selected a POC for nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The which reduces the amount of WWTP regulation in a subcategory if it meets all specific justifications for the pollutants sludge. the following criteria: to be regulated for each subcategory are EPA used facility count, wastewater —Chemical is not used as a treatment provided below. In general, EPA flow, and treatment-in-place data from chemical in the selected technology selected these pollutants because they the MPP Screener Survey and Detailed option. are representative of the characteristics Survey to develop the previous sludge —Chemical is not considered a volatile of meat processing wastewaters generation estimations. The MPP compound. generated in the industry, and are key Development Document provides more —Chemical is effectively treated by the indicators of the performance of detailed information on the selected treatment technology option. treatment processes that serve as the development of these sludge generation —Chemical is detected in the untreated basis for the proposed effluent estimations. wastewater at treatable levels in a limitations. significant number of samples, e.g., A number of POCs evaluated by EPA XI. Options Selected for Proposal generally 5 times the minimum level are parameters that identify the quantity A. Introduction at more than 10 percent of the raw of material in an effluent that is likely wastewater samples. to consume oxygen as it breaks down in 1. Methodology for Proposed Selection —Chemicals whose control through surface waters after it has been of Regulated Pollutants treatment processes would lead to discharged. These parameters include EPA selects the pollutants for control of a wide range of pollutants total organic carbon, BOD, COD and regulation based on the pollutants of with similar properties; these dissolved BOD. Values for these POCs
VerDate 11
in meat poultry processing wastes are pollutant TKN) and inorganic nitrogen in many of the meat processing typically very high due to the (estimated by nitrate/nitrite) is operations. EPA is proposing the control wastewaters generated from killing, maintained, thus EPA is defining ‘‘total of oil and grease is necessary to ensure evisceration, further processing, and nitrogen’’ to be the sum of nitrate/nitrite that treatment systems are effective in rendering processes. EPA is proposing and TKN. EPA is also proposing to removing oil and grease. Excessive oil to regulate BOD and COD, which will be specifically regulate ammonia as and grease concentrations can be used as indicators of the performance of nitrogen because of the significant associated with high BOD demand in a biological treatment systems to remove oxygen demand it exerts, as well as its surface water and present other all oxygen-demanding pollutants. relatively high toxicity to aquatic life. In nuisance problems. In the proposed Total suspended solids (TSS), total conjunction with the proposed rule, these limitations and standards are dissolved solids (TDS), and total volatile regulations for total nitrogen, EPA listed as ‘‘O&G (HEM)’’ to indicate that solids are parameters that measure the proposes to approve EPA Method 300.0 the parameter should be measured as quantity of solids in a wastewater. Meat at 40 CFR part 432. Alternatively, EPA hexane extractable material (HEM). In processing facilities typically produce may amend 40 CFR part 136 to include contrast, EPA has retained the previous wastewaters high in organic solids Method 300.0 for determination of notation of ‘‘O&G’’ for the existing BPT including blood, carcass, feathers, and nitrate/nitrite from wastewaters in the limitations, but has included footnotes feces. These solids cause a high oxygen meat and poultry products point source that indicate it can be measured as demand (both chemical and category. The analytical methods for biochemical) and are high in protein HEM. EPA has used the two different nitrite/nitrate that are currently notations because the existing BPT and nitrogen content. Because some approved at 40 CFR part 136 include nutrients bind to solids, and solids often limitations and today’s proposed many that are based on colorimetric limitations were based upon analytical include oxygen-demanding organic techniques (i.e., adding reagents to a material, limiting the loading of solids testing methods that used two different sample that form a colored product extraction solvents: freon and n-hexane, will prevent degradation of surface when they react with the nitrate/nitrite respectively. EPA has determined that waters. EPA proposes to regulate TSS as and measuring the intensity of the the two methods are comparable (see an indicator of performance of colored product). Such methods can be ‘‘Approval of EPA Methods 1664, biological treatment systems to remove subject to interferences in the difficult Revision A, and 9071B for solids. EPA considered regulation of matrices associated with this industry Determination of Oil and Grease and TDS, however, as organic matter is where samples may contain blood, Non-polar Material in EPA’s Wastewater broken down in a biological system, animal tissue, and/or other particulates and Hazardous Waste Programs’’ (EPA– levels of TDS may increase, which which affect both the color development 821–F–98–005, February 23, 1999, makes regulation of TDS not feasible. and ability to pass light through the located at www.epa.gov/ost/methods/ EPA is considering setting TDS direct sample to measure the intensity of the 1664fs.html) and Analytical Method and/or indirect limitations and colored product. In contrast, Method standards for certain meat and poultry 300.0 employs the technique known as Guidance for EPA Method 1664A further processors (e.g., ham processors) ion chromatography to measure 10 Implementation and Use (EPA–821–R– that use significant amounts of brine or inorganic anions, including nitrate and 00–003, February 2000, located at pickling solutions for the final rule. EPA nitrite. Ion chromatography permits the www.epa.gov/ost/methods/ solicits comment on whether such TDS various inorganic anions to be separated 1664guide.pdf)). Because freon is an limitations and standards are necessary, from one another, as well as from other ozone-depleting agent and becoming what technologies would be appropriate materials and contaminants present in more expensive, EPA believes that for this industry for TDS removal, and the sample. Each anion can be identified facilities will prefer to measure oil and which industry subcategories (if any) on the basis of its characteristic grease as HEM for the existing BPT should be subject to these potential retention time (the time required to pass limitations. EPA solicits comments on limitations and standards. its notation for the two types of oil and Wastewaters from meat processing through the instrumentation). After separation, the anions are measured by grease limitations and standards in the facilities have high concentrations of proposed rule. nutrients associated primarily with a conductivity detector that responds to solids from feces wastes and facility changes in the effluent from the ion Chlorides measure the quantity of cleaning processes. In addition, those chromatograph that occur when the chloride ion dissolved in solution. In facilities employing advanced biological negatively charged anions (analytes) the meat processing industry, salts may treatment systems to remove ammonia elute at characteristic retention times, be used for cleaning and antimicrobial convert organic nitrogen to nitrate and thereby changing the conductivity of the purposes. The presence of chloride in nitrites. Due to the potential degrading solution. Thus, Method 300.0 offers discharges to surface waters may impact impacts to surface waters associated better specificity for nitrate and nitrite aquatic organisms because of their with the discharge of nutrients (e.g., in the presence of interferences sensitivity to concentrations of salt. eutrophication), EPA proposes to compared to the approved colorimetric Although EPA determined that regulate total nitrogen and total methods. Method 300.0 is located in the chlorides are a pollutant of concern, phosphorus. In regulating total nitrogen rulemaking record (Docket No. W–01– EPA is not proposing to regulate and total phosphorus, EPA will ensure 06, Record No. 10036). EPA requests chlorides because biological systems are that biological treatment systems used comment on the use of this method for not specifically designed and operated by facilities are effectively removing all the meat and poultry point source to treat chlorides. In fact, EPA observed forms of these nutrients including total category and whether the method in some instances an increase in kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate/nitrite, should be approved at 40 CFR part 432 chlorides within the biological ammonia as nitrogen, orthophosphate, or at 40 CFR part 136 or both. treatment system (i.e., from the influent and dissolved phosphorus. EPA Oil and grease (as n-hexane- to the effluent) at several facilities. As proposes to regulate total nitrogen to extractable material) is a parameter that a result, EPA believes that a facility will ensure that the relationship between measures oil and grease concentrations not be able to manage a biological organic nitrogen (estimated by the in effluents. Oil and grease is contained treatment process to consistently
VerDate 11
achieve effluent limitations for from deterioration of meat processing discharges’ over a calendar month, chlorides. machinery and equipment. Many metals calculated as the sum of all ‘daily Total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, are toxic to algae, aquatic invertebrates, discharges’ measured during a calendar fecal streptococci, Salmonella, and and/or fish. Although metals may serve month divided by the number of ‘daily Aeromonas were considered POCs useful purposes in meat processing discharges’ measured during that because they provide information on operations, most metals retain their month.’’ Daily discharge is defined as concentrations of potential bacterial and toxicity once they are discharged into the ‘discharge of a pollutant’ measured other pathogens in meat processing receiving waters. Although EPA during a calendar day or any 24-hour wastewaters. Meat processing observed that many of the biological period that reasonably represents the wastewaters are typically high in treatment systems used within the meat calendar day for purposes of sampling.’’ pathogens as they are associated with processing industry provide substantial EPA calculates the limitations based the organic solids such as feces, blood, reductions of most metals, biological upon percentiles chosen with the and internal organ wastes that are systems are not specifically designed intention, on one hand, to accommodate produced in many of the processes. The and operated to remove metals. As a reasonably anticipated variability control of pathogens is important to result, EPA believes that a facility will within the control of the facility and, on ensure efficient treatment to prevent not be able to manage a biological the other hand, to reflect a level of impairment of surface water uses such treatment process to consistently performance consistent with the Clean as a drinking water source or as a achieve effluent limitations. Therefore, Water Act requirement that these recreation water. EPA is proposing to EPA is not proposing to regulate metals. effluent limitations be based on the regulate fecal coliform as an indicator of Pesticides are used for controlling ‘‘best’’ technologies properly operated the efficacy of treatment processes to animal parasites and may be present in and maintained. The daily maximum control pathogens. Because analytical wastewaters from initial animal wash limitation is an estimate of the 99th methods require that fecal coliforms be and processing operations. Some percentile of the distribution of the measured within eight hours of sample pesticides are bioaccumulative and daily measurements. The maximum collection, EPA is currently conducting retain their toxicity once they are monthly average limitation is an a study to determine if longer holding discharged into receiving waters. estimate of the 95th percentile of the times affect the number of viable Similar to metals, although EPA distribution of the monthly averages of bacteria remaining in the sample during observed that many of the biological the daily measurements. The percentiles the eight hour holding time period. A treatment systems used within the meat for both types of limitations are number of organisms are being tested processing industry provide adequate estimated using the products of long- for, including fecal and total coliforms, reductions of pesticides, most biological term averages and variability factors. Escherichia coli, Aeromonas species, systems are not specifically designed In the first of two steps in estimating fecal streptococci, Salmonella species and operated to remove pesticides. As a both types of limitations, EPA and Enterococcus faecium. In addition, result, EPA believes that a facility will determines an average performance in developing the proposed limitations not be able to manage a biological level (the ‘‘long-term average’’) that a and standards, EPA measured fecal treatment process to consistently facility with well-designed and operated coliform counts in samples that had achieve effluent limitations for model technologies (which reflect the been retained longer than eight hours. pesticides. Therefore, EPA is not appropriate level of control) is capable The EPA study is testing for viable proposing to regulate pesticides. of achieving. This long-term average is organisms between 8 and 48 hours calculated from the data from the 3. Approach to Determining Long Term holding time. Thus, EPA will conduct facilities using the model technologies Averages, Variability Factors, and this holding time study for two for the option. EPA expects that all Effluent Limitations Guidelines and purposes: to evaluate the use of data in facilities subject to the limitations will Standards developing the limitations and design and operate their treatment standards; and for possible revisions to This subsection describes the systems to achieve the long-term currently approved methods. In the statistical methodology used to develop average performance level on a forthcoming NODA, EPA will provide long-term averages, variability factors, consistent basis because facilities with the data collected during the study and and limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT, and well-designed and operated model its evaluation of the results. NSPS. The same basic procedures apply technologies have demonstrated that In many instances, EPA found meat to the calculation of all effluent this can be done. In the second step of processing facilities utilizing chlorine to limitations guidelines and standards for developing a limitation, EPA determines disinfect treated wastewaters. As a this industry, regardless of whether the an allowance for the variation in disinfectant, chlorine is highly toxic to technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, or NSPS. pollutant concentrations when aquatic life. In light of the fact that EPA For simplicity, the following discussion processed through well designed and is proposing to regulate fecal coliform, refers only to effluent limitations operated treatment systems. This EPA is also considering regulating total guidelines; however, the discussion also allowance for variance incorporates all residual chlorine as means to control applies to new source standards. components of variability including the amount of chlorine that is The proposed limitations for process and wastewater generation, discharged to surface waters for the final pollutants for each option, as presented sample collection, shipping, storage, rule. However, EPA is not proposing to in today’s notice, are provided as and analytical variability. This regulate total residual chlorine at this maximum daily discharge limitations allowance is incorporated into the time. EPA solicits comment on this and maximum monthly average limitations through the use of the issue (see discussion on disinfection discharge limitations. Definitions variability factors, which are calculated techniques in Section XI.A.3). provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the from the data from the facilities using Metals may be present in meat ‘‘maximum daily discharge limitation’’ the model technologies. If a facility processing wastewaters due to a variety is the ‘‘highest allowable ‘daily operates its treatment system to meet of reasons. They are used as feed discharge’’’ and the ‘‘maximum average the relevant long-term average, EPA additives, they may be contained in for monthly discharge limitation’’ is the expects the facility to be able to meet sanitation products, or they may result ‘‘highest allowable average of ‘daily the limitations. Variability factors assure
VerDate 11
that normal fluctuations in a facility’s LTAs. In particular for regulatory internal controls are common industry treatment are accounted for in the option2 for poultry: practice. The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limitations. By accounting for these • The further processing portion for reasonable excursions above the long- limited balancing, committed to EPA’s TSS is estimated at 9.76 mg/L, which is term average, EPA’s use of variability discretion, which does not require the the largest value in survey data for factors results in limitations that are Agency to quantify the benefits in poultry facilities with further processing generally well above the actual long- monetary terms. In balancing costs in operations that has Option2 treatment in term averages. relation to effluent reduction benefits, EPA recognizes that, as a result of place, and EPA considers the volume and nature of modifications to 40 CFR part 432, some • The rendering portion for Oil and existing discharges expected after the dischargers may need to improve Grease(HEM) is estimated at 19.5 mg/L, application of BPT, the general treatment systems, process controls, which is the largest value in survey data environmental effects of the pollutants, and/or treatment system operations in for poultry facilities with rendering and the cost and economic impact of the order to consistently meet effluent operations that has Option2 treatment in required pollution controls. When limitations based on revised effluent place. setting BPT limitations, EPA is required limitations guidelines and standards. • For one conventional pollutant, under Section 304(b) to perform a EPA believes that this consequence is fecal coliform, the EPA sampling data limited cost-benefit balancing to ensure consistent with the Clean Water Act show that chlorine disinfection the costs are not wholly out of statutory framework, which requires followed by dechlorination is extremely proportion to the benefits achieved. See that discharge limitations reflect the effective treatment, and very low long- Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle, 590 best available technology. term averages were calculated for fecal F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978). While the actual monitoring coliform based on chlorine disinfection. a. New Subcategories/Segments. EPA requirements will be determined by the However, EPA has decided not to use proposes BPT limitations for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, permitting authority, the Agency has the long-term averages as calculated assumed thirty samples per month (i.e., fecal coliform, pH, and oil and grease) based on the fact that ultraviolet daily monitoring) in determining the and non-conventional pollutants disinfection (or other types of proposed maximum monthly average (ammonia as nitrogen, total nitrogen and disinfection) may overall be better for limitations. EPA recognizes that small total phosphorus) for the following the environment than chlorine poultry facilities are unlikely to operate subcategories or segments that have not disinfection because they don’t produce on weekends and is soliciting comment previously been regulated under part a residual effect that can be harmful to on whether their monthly limitations 432: Poultry First Processing and humans or aquatic life. Since ultraviolet should be based upon 20 days. Poultry Further Processing. There are no disinfection (or other types of Increasing or decreasing monitoring BPT limitations in the current disinfection) are not always as effective frequency does not affect the statistical regulation applicable to these types of properties of the underlying distribution as chlorine disinfection, EPA has facilities. of the data used to derive the decided to propose fecal coliform b. Existing Subcategories/Segments. limitations. However, monitoring less limitations equal to the existing ones, EPA is retaining the existing BPT frequently theoretically results in which are currently being met by MPP limitations (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, average values that are more variable. facilities with varying types of pH and oil and grease) for all facilities As a consequence, average values based disinfection. EPA intends to further currently covered under 40 CFR part on 20 monitoring samples per month assess ultraviolet and other disinfection 432. In addition, EPA proposes new from small poultry facilities technologies following proposal and BPT limitations for larger MPP facilities. theoretically could be numerically may set revised limitations for the final Specifically, larger than average values based upon rule. EPA solicits data on disinfection • For facilities in Subcategories A, B, 30 monitoring samples from non-small technologies and comments on this C and D that slaughter more than 50 facilities. Thus, operators of small decision. See MPP Development million pounds (LWK) per year, EPA poultry facilities may find they need to Document Section 11 for more proposes to add BPT limitations for one design treatment systems to achieve an information. non-conventional pollutant (COD) to average below the long term average 4. BPT reflect the better design and operation of basis of the proposed limitations and/or the existing BPT treatment technology. more control over variability of the In general, the BPT technology level The Agency is proposing the same COD discharges in order to maintain represents the average of the best BPT limitation for each of these compliance with the limitations. The existing performances of plants of subcategories (Subcategories A, B, C and MPP Development Document provides a various processes, ages, sizes or other D). list of both the proposed limitations and common characteristics. Where existing • For facilities in Subcategories F, G, those derived using a 20-day monitoring performance is considered uniformly H and I that produce more than 50 assumption. inadequate, BPT may be transferred million pounds of finished product per The long-term averages, variability from a different subcategory or industry. year, EPA proposes to add BPT factors, and limitations were based upon Limitations based upon transfer of limitations for one non-conventional pollutant concentrations collected from technology must be supported by a pollutant (COD) to reflect the better two data sources: EPA sampling conclusion that the technology is indeed design and operation of the existing BPT episodes and data submitted by transferable and a reasonable prediction treatment technology. The Agency is industry. When the data from the EPA that it will be capable of meeting the proposing the same COD BPT limitation sampling episodes at a facility met the prescribed effluent limits. See Tanners’ for each of these subcategories data editing criteria, EPA used the Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2nd (Subcategories F, G, H and I). sampling data and any monitoring data 1188 (4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuses on • For facilities in Subcategory J that provided by the facility. In the absence end-of-pipe treatment rather than render more than 10 million pounds per of transferable data, data received in the process changes or internal controls, year of raw material, EPA proposes to detailed surveys was used to develop except where the process changes or add a BPT limitation for one non-
VerDate 11
conventional pollutant (COD) to reflect (2) The industry cost-effectiveness the small meat processors subcategory the better design and operation of the test. (Subpart E). EPA survey data indicate existing BPT treatment technology. In the POTW test, EPA calculates the that there are approximately 107 small EPA is proposing the addition of COD cost per pound of conventional meat processing facilities that would to reflect the average of the best existing pollutant removed by industrial have been subject to any new performances based on new information discharges in upgrading from BPT to a limitations. EPA estimates that the collected for this proposal (see Section BCT candidate technology and then additional pollutant reductions V). Further, EPA has determined to compares this cost to the cost per pound achieved by establishing more stringent revise BPT for COD because the of conventional pollutant removed in limitations for these small facilities biological treatment technology used as upgrading POTWs from secondary would be minimal. For example, under a basis for the limitations really treatment. The upgrade cost to industry regulatory option BAT 3, pollutant load represents BPT technology and is must be less than the POTW benchmark reductions attributable to small facilities widely used in the industry. EPA of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars). is less than 0.1 percent of the total considers the control of COD as the In the industry cost-effectiveness test, expected pollutants load reductions. most appropriate parameter to represent the ratio of the incremental BPT to BCT In selecting its proposed NSPS the BPT level of control for non- cost divided by the BPT cost for the technology for these segments and conventional and conventional industry must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the subcategories, EPA considered all of the pollutants. The bulk parameter and cost increase must be less than 29 factors specified in CWA Section 306, nonconventional pollutant COD is an percent). See Section VIII.F for details including the costs of achieving effluent indicator of organic matter in the on the calculation of the BCT cost tests. reductions and the effect of costs on In developing BCT limits, EPA wastestream that is susceptible to strong new projects (barrier-to-entry). The considered whether there are oxidation, and as such would also Agency also considered energy technologies that achieve greater measure organic material susceptible to requirements and other non-water removals of conventional pollutants biochemical oxidation, as well as some quality environmental impacts for the than proposed for BPT, and whether that is more difficult to oxidize proposed NSPS options and concluded those technologies are cost-reasonable biochemically. While it is EPA’s view that these impacts were no greater than according to the prescribed BCT tests. for the proposed BAT technology that it can revise BPT limitations for For subcategories A–D, E–I, K and L, conventional pollutants without passing options and are acceptable. EPA EPA identified no technologies that can therefore concluded that the NSPS the BCT cost test (where the BPT achieve greater removals of effluent reduction ratio is favorable), the technology basis proposed constitutes conventional pollutants than the BPT the best available demonstrated control Agency is not generally inclined to do standards that also pass the BCT. technology for those segments. so unless the removals achieved by the Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish existing BPT limitations are BCT effluent limitations equal to the B. Pretreatment Standards significantly fewer than would be current BPT limitations for these National pretreatment standards are achieved through revision of BPT. That subcategories. In the Rendering established for those pollutants in was not the case here. Revising BPT to subcategory (subcategory J), EPA found wastewater from indirect dischargers incorporate COD will not only remove that Option 2 would achieve greater that may pass through, interfere with or large amounts of COD, but also achieve removal of conventional pollutants and are otherwise incompatible with POTW significant incidental removals of BOD5 was cost-reasonable under the BCT cost operations. Generally, pretreatment and TSS. For this reason, EPA has tests and therefore proposes this standards are designed to ensure that determined that it is not necessary to technology as BCT. wastewaters from direct and indirect separately revise the BPT limits for industrial dischargers are subject to 6. Consideration of Statutory Factors for BOD5 and TSS in this case. similar levels of treatment. In addition, EPA is retaining the existing BPT BAT and NSPS Technology Options many POTWs are required to develop limitations and proposing no new BPT Selection and implement local treatment limits limitations for ‘‘small’’ facilities. EPA Based on the record before it, EPA has applicable to their industrial indirect used production based thresholds to determined that each proposed model dischargers to satisfy any local subcategorized these small facilities (see technology is technically available. EPA requirements (see 40 CFR 403.5). Section III). EPA defines small MPP is also proposing that each is POTWs that are not required to facilities as MPP facilities that produce economically achievable for the segment implement approved programs, and less then the production based to which it applies. Further, EPA has have not had interference or pass thresholds defined above (and in determined, for the reasons set forth in through issues are not required to Section III). See also Section III.A.1 for Section X, that none of the proposed develop and implement local limits. a description of why and how EPA technology options has unacceptable There are approximately 1,500 POTWs developed these production based adverse non-water quality with approved Pretreatment Programs thresholds. environmental impacts. EPA also and 13,500 small POTWs that are not considered the age, size, processes, and 5. BCT required to develop and implement other engineering factors pertinent to approved Pretreatment Programs. The BCT methodology, promulgated facilities in the proposed segments for National pretreatment standards have in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses the the purpose of evaluating the three principal objectives: (1) Prevent Agency’s consideration of costs in technology options. EPA is proposing to the wide-scale introduction of establishing BCT effluent limitations establish separate limits for facilities on pollutants into publicly owned guidelines. EPA evaluates the the basis of size. As discussed in more treatment works (POTWs) that will reasonableness of BCT candidate detail in Section III.A.1 above, EPA is interfere with POTW operations, technologies (those that are not proposing to establish more including use or disposal of municipal technologically feasible) by applying a stringent limitations to small meat sludge; (2) prevent the introduction of two-part cost test: slaughterers nor is the Agency pollutants into POTWs which will pass (1) The POTW test; and proposing to revise the limitations for through the treatment works or will
VerDate 11
otherwise be incompatible with the This standard is based on the how overloadings of various parameters treatment works; and (3) improve performance of either of two (e.g., BOD5, Oil and Grease, TSS, opportunities to recycle and reclaim technologies (primary oil removal or Ammonia) and unequalized flows from municipal and industrial wastewaters DAF). EPA identified this pretreatment MPP indirect dischargers have resulted and sludges. standard as necessary to ‘‘minimize the in POTW interference incidents and Currently there are no categorical possibility of slug loadings of oil and POTW NPDES permit violations. pretreatment standards for the MPP grease being discharged to POTW,’’ It is not clear, however, whether these point source category. EPA is not (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. identified interference incidents proposing new pretreatment standards 00167). EPA notes that oil and grease represent an industry-wide problem or for existing or new MPP indirect from Petroleum Refineries is not the if they are site specific and more dischargers. While EPA has some same material as oil and grease from appropriately addressed by the general information regarding effluents from MPP facilities. EPA solicits comment on pretreatment prohibitions and local MPP indirect dischargers that may pass the use of the 100 mg/L standard for limits, or by POTW upgrades. Some of through, interfere with, or otherwise be preventing POTW interference by these instances do involve violations of incompatible with POTW operations, it vegetable/animal oil and grease local limits or were resolved by POTW is not clear that it justifies categorical discharges. upgrades, and therefore the general pretreatment standards for this industry. EPA previously identified that high pretreatment prohibitions and local The following sections discuss the organic loadings and grease remaining limits did work. However, EPA does not information EPA was able to collect and in the MPP facility effluent may cause know how frequently this was the case. what information EPA is soliciting in difficulty in the POTW treatment system More detailed information will be this proposal and planning to collect and that the performance of trickling gathered to determine whether these after proposal. filters appear to be particularly sensitive facilities were in violation of the local (Docket No. W–01–06, Record limits, POTWs have upgraded since the 1. POTW Interference No.00162; Record No.00140). High incident, or these were one-time As noted above, there are no loadings of oil and grease can also clog problems. EPA solicits more detailed categorical pretreatment standards for pipes and promote the growth of information on these identified MPP indirect dischargers, however, the filamentous bacteria which can inhibit interference incidents and other POTW national pretreatment standards prohibit the performance of the POTW interference and pass through incidents. the discharge of, ‘‘Any pollutant, (especially trickling filters which are EPA will collect more information from including oxygen demanding pollutants more often used at smaller POTWs) EPA and State pretreatment program (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. coordinators, POTWs, and MPP indirect flow rate and/or pollutant concentration 00085). A concentration of 100 dischargers after proposal to: (1) which will cause Interference with the mg/L for Oil and Grease is often cited Understand whether the general POTW ,’’ (see 40 CFR 403.5(b)(4)). All as a local limit and compliance with pretreatment prohibition is sufficient to indirect dischargers are prohibited from this limit may require an effective address POTW interference and pass introducing into a POTW any dissolved air floatation device in through incidents for this industry; and pollutant(s) which cause pass through addition to a catch basin and other (2) determine if reoccurrences of these or interference whether or not primary treatment system (Docket No. POTW interference and pass through categorical pretreatment standards or W–01–06, Record No.00162; Record incidents necessitate categorical any national, State, or local No.00140). EPA recognizes that much of pretreatment standards at the time of the pretreatment requirements apply (see 40 this data was developed in the 1970s final rule for non-small facilities. CFR 403.5(a)(1)). POTWs are required to but believes that it is still relevant Many POTWs are capable of develop and enforce Pretreatment today. controlling MPP indirect discharges Programs and/or set local limits to EPA also previously identified that oil through local limits or sufficient ensure renewed and continued and grease of petroleum origin has been dilution with domestic wastewaters. compliance with the POTW’s NPDES reported to interfere with the aerobic Most of the approximately 1,500 POTWs permit or sludge use or disposal processes of POTWs (Docket No. W–01– with approved Pretreatment Programs practices (see 40 CFR 403.5(c)). 06, Record No. 00167). It is believed that have numeric oil and grease limits and According to data provided in the the principal interference is caused by many POTWs without approved detailed surveys, approximately one- the attachment of oil and grease of Pretreatment Programs also have oil and third of the MPP facilities discharge to petroleum origin onto floc particles, grease limits. For example, EPA POTWs which discharge less than 5 resulting in a slower settling rate, loss identified approximately two dozen MGD. These POTWs are often not of solids by carryover out of the settling Pretreatment Programs with local limits required through their NPDES permits basin, and excessive release of BOD on oil and grease (Docket No. W–01–06, to implement Pretreatment Programs. from the POTW to the environment. Record No. 10037). Oil and grease limits EPA typically does not establish Additionally, EPA identified that oil were most often in the range of 50 mg/ pretreatment standards for conventional and grease of petroleum origin may coat L to 450 mg/L with 100 mg/L as the pollutants (e.g., BOD5, TSS, Oil and the biomass in activated sludge most common reported limit. Other Grease) since POTWs are designed to treatment units, thereby interfering with Pretreatment Programs use descriptive treat these pollutants, but EPA has oxygen transfer and reducing treatment requirements to limit interference from exercised its authority to establish efficiency. high oil and grease concentrations. categorical pretreatment standards for EPA Regional and State permit writers While most POTWs are not conventional pollutants. For example, and pretreatment coordinators significantly affected by MPP indirect EPA established categorical identified approximately twenty cases discharges, EPA notes that some, pretreatment standards for new and where MPP indirect dischargers primarily smaller POTWs, including existing sources with a one day interfered with POTW operations those not required to implement maximum concentration of 100 mg/L oil (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. approved Pretreatment Programs, may and grease in the Petroleum Refining 10037). While some specific details are have difficulty in properly treating MPP Point Source Category (40 CFR 419). lacking, these cases generally describe indirect discharges or in setting local
VerDate 11
limits. Some POTWs may be less toxic form of nitrogen) and are its operations. (Docket No. W–01–06, particularly susceptible to high and therefore unsuitable as a treatment step Record No. 10040). EPA also solicits variable organic and oil and grease to ensure that the receiving water information on whether MPP indirect loadings. If MPP indirect dischargers are doesn’t receive toxic amounts of dischargers are causing interference unable to reduce or equalize their high ammonia. In one such instance, a MPP issues on a national, on-going basis and organic and oil and grease facility was directed to establish whether POTWs are addressing these concentrations, some small POTWs biological pretreatment (by installing a interference issues in a timely manner receiving these discharges may be biological sequencing batch reactor) in once they are identified. Finally, EPA unable to dampen the peak loadings or order to discharge to the local POTW also solicits information on whether equalize high organic and oil and grease which has a simple anaerobic lagoon increased attention from Federal and concentrations from MPP indirect system (Docket No. W–01–06, Record State Pretreatment Programs and/or dischargers with domestic wastewater. No. 10039). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) MPP indirect discharges range from 3 to Industry and the Association of programs would sufficiently deal with 20 times in organic concentrations than Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies MPP indirect discharges that may cause typical domestic wastewater (Docket (AMSA) stated to EPA that cases of POTW interference in lieu of national No. W–01–06, Record No. 10038). Small POTW interference from MPP indirect categorical pretreatment standards. POTW facilities are generally more dischargers are relatively infrequent susceptible to high and variable occurrences and that they are best 2. POTW Pass Through loadings from large MPP indirect handled through local limits and proper dischargers. Small POTWs often use less enforcement (Docket No. W–01–06, As noted above, Federal categorical sophisticated wastewater treatment Record No. 10040). AMSA is a pretreatment standards are also systems (e.g., trickling filters, simple membership organization that designed to prevent the introduction of anaerobic lagoons) which may not be represents approximately 10% of the pollutants into POTWs which will pass able to operate properly during periods largest POTWs in the United States through the treatment works or will of high flow or handle slug loads (about 150 of the 1,500 POTWs with otherwise be incompatible with the discharged by MPP facilities after a Pretreatment Programs) and some small treatment works. Generally, to shut-down period (e.g., no or low MPP POTWs. However, none of the determine if pollutants pass through indirect loadings during weekend approximately 20 cases of interference POTWs, EPA compares the percentage operations when there are no or limited incidents identified in the record of the pollutant removed by well- MPP operations taking place). Trickling involve AMSA members. EPA solicits operated POTWs achieving secondary filters at small POTW facilities may be information on other potential positive treatment with the percentage of the unable to effectively process high and negative impacts on POTW pollutant removed by each of the organic and oil and grease operations if EPA were to set national indirect technology options. EPA concentrations and may allow categorical pretreatment standards for identified the following MPP pollutants, unacceptable amounts of BOD and oil the prevention of interference of POTW based on EPA sampling efforts, that EPA and grease concentrations to pass operations. AMSA has stated that any would normally determine to pass through if MPP indirect dischargers are attempt to reduce organic loadings from through using EPA’s standard not properly controlled. Anaerobic MPP facilities would also reduce the methodology (i.e., indirect technology lagoons at small POTW facilities may be amount of revenue collected by their option has a percent removal higher unable to convert ammonia to nitrate (a POTW and have a detrimental effect on than the POTW percent removal).
TABLE XI.B–1.—MEAT POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
PSES indirect POTW treat- MPP pollutant of concern CAS number option 1 treat- ment effi- ment efficiency ciency 1
Oil and Grease ...... C036 95 86 Copper ...... 7440508 91 84 Molybdenum ...... 7439987 82 19 Zinc ...... 7440666 91 79 Note 1: These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50-POTW study (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00180).
TABLE XI.B–2.—POULTRY POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
PSES indirect POTW treat- MPP pollutant of concern CAS number option treat- ment effi- ment efficiency ciency 1
Oil and Grease ...... C036 90 87 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) ...... C021 73 57 Total Phosphorus ...... 14265442 67 57 Barium ...... 7440393 78 16 Manganese ...... 7439965 60 36 Nickel ...... 7440020 65 51 Zinc ...... 7440666 53 79 Note 1: These POTW removal efficiencies are from the 50–POTW study (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. 00180).
VerDate 11
PSES Indirect Option 1 (PSES1) is a how to examine current POTW 3. MPP Pretreatment Options physical-chemical treatment system performance for all pollutants including Considered [dissolved air floatation (DAF) with those pollutants in Tables XI.B–1 and chemical flocculant addition, XI.B–2. EPA will publish its revised Before determining no pass through or equalization tank] that primarily targets analysis of PSES1 treatment efficiencies, interference that justifies proposing conventional pollutants including oil loadings removals, and POTW removal additional regulations, EPA considered and grease. As the tables above indicate, efficiencies in the forthcoming NODA four pretreatment options for both PSES1 shows some metal and nutrient for public comment. EPA also solicits existing and new sources. Table XI.B–3 removals but it is not clear why a data regarding the POTW removal details the summary of EPA’s economic technology designed to control efficiencies for all pollutants identified analysis of the PSES1 pretreatment conventional pollutants also affects the in Tables VII.C–1 and VII.C–2 (see also option for the various MPP level of other pollutants. EPA notes that Section XV for data submission subcategories. EPA includes this many of these pollutants of concern that instructions). information here for public comment. If would normally be determined to EPA seeks information on any cases of information presented during the exhibit pass through do so in low significant pass through from MPP comment period following proposal or concentrations. For example metal indirect dischargers where the local the NODA shows that there is sufficient concentrations in MPP indirect limits were not set or exceeded and interference or pass through to justify dischargers are relatively low in comments on whether EPA should categorical pretreatment standards for comparison with conventional promulgate pretreatment standards for this industry, EPA will rely on the certain parameters (e.g., nutrients, TDS) pollutants concentrations (e.g., BOD, information provided here and in the TSS, and oil and grease). EPA will based on their potential pass through of record of this rulemaking to promulgate further investigate the data and POTWs into receiving waters. pretreatment standards. The public is potential mechanisms behind the Although some pollutants may pass encouraged to comment fully on the removals of metals and nutrients by through POTWs following fairly limited PSES1 to confirm the PSES1 treatment treatment, current information available following information. With respect to efficiencies and at the final regulation to EPA suggests that the overall levels preventing interference incidents, after may issue pretreatment standards based of these pollutants in MPP raw proposal EPA will evaluate comments on pass through for all or a sub-set of wastewater does not justify establishing and additional information to determine these pollutants. numeric categorical pretreatment whether another annual production size Further, EPA has received comments standards. EPA is not proposing to cut-off for MPP indirect dischargers from AMSA that the database used to establish pretreatment standards based should be established. Additionally, characterize POTW removal efficiencies on the difference between MPP EPA is soliciting comment on whether is outdated and current POTW pretreatment options and POTW it should exempt from categorical performance has improved. EPA is removal efficiencies because the Agency pretreatment standards MPP indirect considering different options on how to is uncertain that it accurately reflects discharges who are below 5% of POTW examine current POTW performance. the incidences of pass through for this dry weather hydraulic or organic One option is to evaluate removal industry as a whole. MPP Development capacity of the POTW treatment or efficiencies based on a subset of the 50– Document details the national estimates another percentage level that is POTW database that mainly includes of pollutants of concern that have appropriate to prevent interference those POTWs that receive large amounts greater removal efficiencies under each incidents if EPA decides to set of industrial and/or MPP indirect indirect technology option than POTWs categorical pretreatment standards for discharges. EPA solicits comment on for each of the MPP subcategories. non-small facilities in the final rule.
TABLE XI.B–3.—ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND TOXIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY TABLE FOR PSES OPTION 1, NON- SMALL FACILITIES
PSES option 1 toxic Cost/net in- Pre-tax cost-effectiveness MPP industry sector (40 CFR part 432, subcategory) come annualized (in percent) cost Removals ($1999 M) (lb-eq) $1981/lb-eq
Red Meat First Processors (A–D) ...... 0.57 $7.0 240,421 17 Red Meat Further Processors (F–I) ...... 0.80 $18.8 76,890 143 Independent Renderers (J) ...... 0.50 $1.3 3,918 198 Poultry First Processors (K) ...... 0.55 $10.8 377,651 17 Poultry Further Processors (L) ...... 1.50 $15.3 49,950 178
EPA notes that the PSES1 103 indirect MPP facilities utilize indirect facilities employing PSES1 pretreatment option cost is generally at PSES1. The MPP Detailed Survey also technology (equalization basin, DAF) is or below 1% of the facility’s net income identified the following breakdown of 99.5 mg/L. (profit). Also, based on detailed surveys treatment-in-place: (1) 64 facilities As previously stated, EPA is not received in time for EPA’s analysis, EPA utilize no pretreatment or pretreatment proposing new pretreatment standards notes that PSES1 is widely used in non- less effective than PSES1 (e.g., catch for existing or new MPP indirect small MPP pretreatment operations to basins); (2) 12 facilities utilize PSES2; dischargers because EPA did not have reduce BOD and oil and grease (3) 1 facility utilize PSES3; and (4) no sufficient information to demonstrate concentrations. Results from the MPP facilities utilize PSES4. Based on MPP that effluents from MPP indirect Detailed Survey used in estimating Detailed Survey data, the average oil dischargers interfere with, are compliance costs indicate that 26 of the and grease concentration from MPP incompatible with, or pass through
VerDate 11
POTW operations on enough of a wide- and EPA solicits comment on how EPA facilities are small facilities (see Section scale basis to justify national categorical should consider setting pretreatment III.A.1). pretreatment standards. Further, EPA standards for ammonia as nitrogen to 1. Subcategories A through D (Meat has received comments from AMSA that prevent interference. EPA is basing the Slaughtering Facilities) the database used to characterize POTW 100 mg/L potential pretreatment removal efficiencies is outdated and maximum daily standards on the a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT EPA current POTW performance has Petroleum Refining Industry oil and proposes establishing BPT limitations improved. EPA will work with States grease and ammonia standards because for COD. These pollutants are and pretreatment control authorities to those standards were designed to characteristic of meat slaughtering collect additional data on a more prevent POTW interference, which may wastewater. These proposed regulated systematic basis to determine whether be a problem for the meat and poultry pollutants are key indicators of the or not national categorical pretreatment products industry as well. The performance of the secondary biological standards are necessary. If the Petroleum Refining Industry oil and treatment process, which is the key additional and existing data indicate grease pretreatment standard of 100 mg/ component of the model BPT treatment that MPP indirect dischargers interfere L is based on the necessity to minimize systems for these subcategories. with or pass through POTW operations, POTW interference by minimizing the ii. BAT. EPA proposes establishing one or more of the following options possibility of slug loadings of oil and BAT limitations for ammonia-N, total may be used to establish national grease being discharged to POTWs. nitrogen and total phosphorus. These categorical pretreatment standards in (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. pollutants are characteristic of meat the final rule for non-small indirect 00167). Ammonia as nitrogen slaughtering wastewater. These dischargers. concentrations above 100 mg/L can proposed regulated pollutants are key • Establish numeric pretreatment exhibit inhibitory effects on the indicators of the performance of the standards for oil and grease and/or activated sludge process and cause tertiary biological treatment process, ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 POTW interference (Docket No. W–01– which is the technology basis for the (equalization and DAF) to prevent 06, Record No. 00167). EPA is also BAT and NSPS requirements for these POTW interference; soliciting comment on potential subcategories. • Establish numeric pretreatment concentration pretreatment maximum iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate standards for oil and grease and/or daily standards for oil and grease and the same pollutants for NSPS as those ammonia based on equalization alone to ammonia as nitrogen, respectively based for BAT, with the addition of BOD, TSS, reduce MPP indirect discharge variable on the performance of PSES1 oil and grease (measured as HEM) and loads which can, in some cases, prevent technology (DAF with chemical fecal coliform. POTW interference; flocculant addition, equalization tank). b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The • Establish numeric pretreatment These PSES1 concentration based Agency is proposing effluent limitations standards to prevent POTW pass standards are all below 100 mg/L for oil guidelines based on BPT–2 for through (e.g., oil and grease, nutrients, and grease with the exception of one Subcategories A through D. The and/or metals); limit for poultry facilities that do treatment technologies that serve as the • Establish narrative pretreatment slaughtering and rendering operations basis for the development of the standards for oil and grease and/or (see MPP Development Document). EPA proposed BPT limits are: equalization, ammonia as nitrogen based on PSES1 solicits comment on whether these dissolved air flotation, secondary (equalization and DAF) or equalization potential pretreatment maximum daily biological treatment including some along to prevent POTW interference; standards for oil and grease and degree of nitrification and chlorination/ • Allow POTWs to waive national ammonia as nitrogen would sufficiently dechlorination. BPT–2 represents an categorical pretreatment standards for prevent POTW interference. EPA is also improved version of the existing BPT MPP indirect dischargers that do not soliciting comment whether these technology. EPA has determined that interfere with POTW operation (e.g., standards should be presented as the cost and removal comparison for MPP indirect discharger below 5% of production based standards (e.g., lb- this option is reasonable. POTW dry weather hydraulic or organic pollutant/1000 lb-LWK) (see MPP As presented in Section VII, three capacity of the POTW treatment plant); Development Document). BPT options were considered. EPA • Allow a POTW to waive national estimated the costs and pollutant categorical pretreatment standards for C. Meat Facilities (Subcategories A, B, C, reductions that would be achieved if ammonia for any MPP indirect D, F, G, H and I) these options were applied to all 71 discharges it receives when that POTW After considering all of the technology facilities subject to today’s proposal. has nitrification capability (see 40 CFR options described in Section VII.A, in Limitations based on BPT–2 remove at 439 as an example of this type of light of the factors specified in Section least 12.3 million pounds of pollutants waiver); 304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water over current discharge at an annualized • Allow MPP indirect dischargers to Act, as appropriate, EPA proposed to compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999). demonstrate compliance with either select the technology options identified Limitations based on BPT–2 results in a numeric pretreatment standards or with below as BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS for cost to net income ratio of 0.28%, which EMS/BMP voluntary alternatives (see Subcategories A, B, C, D, F, G, H and I means that approximately 0.28% of a Section XI.F); of the proposed rule. The proposed facility’s profits would be spent on • Establish national categorical effluent limitations apply only to meat compliance if they were to implement pretreatment standards for MPP indirect facilities that slaughter more than 50 this option. Also, the results of the BPT dischargers based on compliance with million pounds per year (for cost to effluent reductions benefits is BMPs or a regulatory BMP alternative. Subcategories A, B, C and D) or produce $0.81 ($1999/pound). Thus, this option EPA is soliciting comment on 100 mg/ more than 50 million pounds per year is considered cost-reasonable. L as a potential pretreatment maximum of finished products (for Subcategories EPA also evaluated option 3 and daily standards for oil and grease and/ F, G, H and I). EPA is not revising option 4 as basis for establishing BPT or ammonia as nitrogen. EPA notes that limitations and standards for meat limitations that would be more stringent this is not completely a parallel case facilities in Subpart E as all of these than the level of control being proposed
VerDate 11
today. However, EPA believes that iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies As presented in Section VII.A, three Option 2 represent BPT (or ‘‘average of that serve as the basis for the BPT options were under consideration. the best’’) treatment for this industry development of the proposed NSPS BPT–2 removes at least 0.25 million subcategory. These options were limits are the same as the BAT for these pounds of pollutants over current evaluated in the BCT analysis. subcategories. As was the case for BAT, discharge at an annualized compliance ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing EPA did not pursue additional, more cost of $0.4 million ($1999). Option 2 effluent limitations guidelines based on stringent, options for NSPS because as results in a cost to net income ratio of BAT–3 for Subcategories A through D. with existing sources Option 4 is not 0.14%, which means that approximately The treatment technologies that serve as expected to achieve significant 0.14% of a facility’s profits would be the basis for the development of the incremental pollutant reductions. spent on compliance if they were to proposed BAT limits are: equalization, Further EPA does not expect the cost to implement this option. Also, the results dissolved air flotation and secondary construct the treatment system to of the BPT cost to effluent reductions biological treatment with nitrification achieve Option 4 performance would be benefits is $1.59 ($1999/pound). Thus, and denitrification. EPA has determined significantly less for a new source than this option is considered cost- that the cost for nutrient removal for if would be for an existing source to reasonable. this subcategory is cost effective; i.e. is retrofit their existing system. Therefore, EPA also evaluated option 3 and less than the cost for nutrient removal EPA proposes BAT–3 as the technology option 4 as basis for establishing BPT performed at a POTW. The Economic basis for NSPS for subcategories A–D more stringent than the level of control Analysis Section (see Section VIII) because EPA believes it represents the being proposed today. However, EPA presents the methodology for evaluating best demonstrated technology for this believes that Option 2 represent BPT (or cost effectiveness for nutrient subcategory. ‘‘average of the best’’) treatment for this pollutants. As presented in Section industry subcategory. These options are 2. Subcategories F through I (Meat considered in the evaluation of BCT VII.A, three BAT options were under Further Processing Facilities) consideration. Effluent limitations based controls. a. Regulated Pollutants. ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to on BAT–2 remove approximately 2.0 i. BPT EPA proposes establishing BPT establish effluent limitations based on million pounds of phosphorus over limitations for COD. These pollutants BAT–3 for Subcategories F, G, H and I. current discharge at an annualized are characteristic of meat further The treatment technologies that serve as compliance cost of $9.9 million ($1999). processing wastewater. These proposed the basis for the development of the BAT–3 removes an additional 40 regulated pollutants are key indicators proposed BAT limits are: equalization, million pounds of nitrogen and of the performance of the secondary dissolved air flotation and secondary phosphorus over BAT–2 at an biological treatment process, which is biological treatment with nitrification additional annualized compliance cost the key component of the model BPT and denitrification. EPA has determined of $32.3 million ($1999). Both of these treatment systems for these that the cost for nutrient removal for options result in a cost to net income subcategories. this subcategory is cost effective and ratio of less than 1.5%, so both are ii. BAT. EPA proposes establishing less than the cost for nutrient removal considered economically achievable. BAT limitations for ammonia-N, total performed at a POTW. As presented in However, since BAT–3 removes more nitrogen and total phosphorus. These Section VII.A, three BAT options were pounds of nutrients at a cost that is pollutants are characteristic of meat under consideration. EPA estimates that economically achievable, EPA has further processing wastewater. These the 20 facilities in Subparts F through chosen to propose effluent limitations proposed regulated pollutants are key I would achieve a removal based on BAT–3. indicators of the performance of the approximately 0.04 million pounds of EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis tertiary biological treatment process, phosphorus over current discharge at an for establishing BAT more stringent which is the key component of the annualized compliance cost of $0.4 than the level of control being proposed model BAT and NSPS treatment system million ($1999) with BAT–2. BAT–3 today. As was the case for BAT–3, the for these subcategories. removes an additional 2.08 million cost to net income of less than 2.4% iii. NSPS EPA proposes to regulate the pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus shows that the option is economically same pollutants for NSPS as those for over BAT–2 at an additional annualized achievable. However, EPA is not BAT, with the addition of BOD, TSS, oil compliance cost of $0.1 million ($1999). proposing to establish limits based on and grease (measured as HEM) and fecal Both of these options result in a cost to BAT–4 because BAT–3 achieves nearly coliform. net income ratio of less than 0.5%, so equivalent reductions in nitrogen and b. Technology Selected. i. BPT The both are considered economically phosphorus for much less cost. EPA has Agency is proposing to establish achievable. However, since BAT–3 determined that BAT–3 would remove effluent limitations based on BPT–2 for removes more pounds of nutrients at a 42.8 million pounds of nitrogen and Subcategories F through I. The cost that is economically achievable, phosphorus per year at a total treatment technologies that serve as the EPA has chosen to propose effluent annualized cost of $42.2 million basis for the development of the limitations based on BAT–3. ($1999). In contrast, BAT–4 would proposed BPT limits are: Equalization, EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis remove 44.9 million pounds of nitrogen dissolved air flotation, secondary for establishing BAT more stringent and phosphorus per year at a total biological treatment and chlorination/ than the level of control being proposed annualized cost of $73.5 million dechlorination. As discussed above, the today. As was the case for BAT–3, the ($1999). In view of the fact that BAT– proposed BPT–2 limits for COD reflects cost to net income of less than 1.4% 4 appears to achieve an increase in average of the best performance of the shows that the option is economically removals of only 5.0% and yet would existing technology in place at meat achievable. However, EPA is not prompt annualized costs to increase by processing facilities, which also calls for proposing to establish limits based on 74%, EPA has determined that BAT–3, secondary biological treatment. EPA has BAT–4 because it determined that BAT– not BAT–4 is the ‘‘best available’’ determined that the cost and removal 3 achieves nearly equivalent reductions technology economically achievable for comparison for this option is in nitrogen and phosphorus for much Subcategories A, B, C and D. reasonable. less cost. EPA has determined that
VerDate 11
BAT–3 would remove 2.12 million 2. Technology Selected effluent limitations based on BAT–2 for pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per a. BPT. The Agency is proposing to Subcategory J. year at a total annualized cost of $0.5 establish effluent limitations based on EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis million ($1999). In contrast, BAT–4 BPT–2 for Subcategory J. The treatment for establishing BAT more stringent would remove only 4,530 additional technologies that serve as the basis for than the level of control being proposed today. The cost to net income of more pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per the development of the proposed BPT than 6.7% for BAT–4 is even greater year at a total annualized cost of $3.5 limits are: Equalization, dissolved air than the ratio for Option 3. Since the million ($1999). In view of the fact that flotation and secondary biological Agency is not proposing Option 3 on the BAT–4 appears to achieve an increase in treatment with nitrification. Since basis of the potential economic impact, removals of only 0.2% and yet would secondary biological treatment already EPA is not proposing Option 4 which prompt annualized costs to increase by accomplishes some nitrification, EPA has a greater potential impact. Thus, 600%, EPA has determined that BAT– believes that the proposed BPT is an EPA has determined that BAT–2 is the 3, not BAT–4 is the ‘‘best available’’ improved version of the existing BPT ‘‘best available’’ technology technology economically achievable for technology basis which calls for Subcategories F, G, H and I. economically achievable for secondary biological treatment. Option Subcategory J. iii. NSPS. As was the case for BAT, 2 results in a cost to net income ratio of c. NSPS. The treatment technologies EPA did not pursue additional, more 0.68%, which means that approximately that serve as the basis for the stringent, options for NSPS because as 0.68% of a facility’s profits would be development of the proposed NSPS with existing sources Option 4 is not spent on compliance if they were to limits are the same as the BAT and BPT expected to achieve significant implement this option. Also, the results for this subcategory. EPA does not incremental pollutant reductions. of the BPT cost to effluent reductions expect a substantial cost savings for new Further EPA does not expect the cost to benefits is $0.03 ($1999/pound). Thus, facilities to design and construct a construct the treatment system to this option is considered cost- treatment system to achieve more achieve Option 4 performance would be reasonable. stringent effluent standards consistent significantly less for a new source than EPA also evaluated option 3 and with either Option 3 or 4. Thus, EPA if would be for an existing source to option 4 as basis for establishing BPT believes Options 3 and 4 could pose a retrofit their existing system. Therefore, more stringent than the level of control barrier to entry for new sources in this EPA proposes BAT–3 as the technology being proposed today. However, EPA Subcategory. Therefore, EPA proposes basis for NSPS for Subcategories F–I believes that Option 2 represent BPT (or BAT–2 as the technology basis for NSPS because EPA believes it represents the ‘‘average of the best’’) treatment for this for Subcategory J because EPA believes best demonstrated technology for this industry subcategory. These options it represents the best demonstrated subcategory. were considered as possible options for technology economically achievable for revising the BCT limitations. this subcategory. D. Independent Rendering Facilities b. BAT. The Agency is proposing to (Subcategory J) establish effluent limitations based on E. Poultry Facilities (Subcategories K After considering all of the technology BAT–2 for Subcategory J. The treatment and L) options described in Section VII.A, in technologies that serve as the basis for EPA is proposing to establish different light of the factors specified in section the development of the proposed BPT effluent limitations to apply only to 304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water limits are: Equalization, dissolved air Poultry facilities that slaughter more Act, as appropriate, EPA proposed to flotation and secondary biological than 10 million pounds per year (for select the technology options identified treatment with nitrification. EPA has Subcategory K) or produce more than 7 below as BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS for determined that this option is cost- million pounds per year of finished Subcategory J of the proposed rule. effective and economically achievable. products (for Subcategory L). As presented in Section VII.A, three 1. Regulated Pollutants. a. BPT. EPA BAT options were under consideration. 1. Poultry First Processing Facilities proposes establishing BPT limitations EPA estimates that the 23 existing (Subcategory K) for COD. These pollutants are facilities that would be subject to characteristic of meat rendering After considering all of the technology today’s proposal would achieve wastewater. These proposed regulated options described in Section VII.A, in removals of approximately 87,000 pollutants are key indicators of the light of the factors specified in section pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus performance of the secondary biological 304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water over current levels discharged at an treatment process, which is the key Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to annualized compliance cost of $0.6 component of the model BPT treatment select the technology options identified million ($1999) under BAT–2. BAT–3 systems for these subcategories. below as BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS for removes an additional 396,000 pounds Subcategory K of the proposed rule. b. BAT. EPA proposes to revise BAT of phosphorus over BAT–2 at an a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT. EPA limitations for ammonia-N. This additional annualized compliance cost proposes establishing BPT limitations pollutant is characteristic of meat of $3.7 million ($1999). BAT–2 results for BOD, TSS , Oil and Grease rendering wastewater. The proposed in a cost to net income ratio of less than (measured as HEM), and ammonia as N regulated pollutant is a key indicator of 0.7%, so this option is considered for facilities that slaughter no more than the performance of the secondary economically achievable. BAT–3 results 10 million pounds per year (small biological treatment process, which is in a cost to net income ratio of greater facilities). EPA proposes establishing the key component of the model BPT, than 5.5%, which is also considered BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, Oil and BAT and NSPS treatment system for this economically achievable. However, Grease (measured as HEM), fecal subcategory. since EPA has determined that the cost coliform, ammonia as N, total nitrogen c. NSPS. EPA proposes to revise the for nutrient removal for BAT–3 is not and total phosphorus for facilities that new source performance standards for cost effective and is more than the cost slaughter more than 10 million pounds BOD, TSS, oil and grease (measured as for nutrient removal performed at a per year (large facilities). These HEM), fecal coliform and ammonia. POTW, EPA has chosen to propose pollutants are characteristic of poultry
VerDate 11
slaughtering wastewater. These EPA also evaluated option 4 as basis today. The cost to net income of more proposed regulated pollutants are key for establishing BPT more stringent than than 3.6% for BAT–4 shows that the indicators of the performance of the the level of control being proposed option is economically achievable. secondary and tertiary biological today. EPA estimates that BPT–4 results However, EPA is not proposing to treatment process, which are the key in a cost to net income ratio of 3.56% establish BAT limits based on BPT–4 components of the model BPT treatment and the ratio of cost to effluent because it determined that BPT–3 systems for the small and large facilities, reduction benefits is 5.46. However, achieves nearly equivalent pollutant respectively. EPA is not proposing to establish BPT reductions at less cost. EPA has ii. BAT. EPA proposes to regulate the limits based on BPT–4 because it determined that BPT–3 would remove at same pollutants for BAT as those for determined that BPT–3 achieves nearly least 8.37 million pounds of total BPT. equivalent pollutant reductions at less nitrogen and total phosphorus per year iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate cost. EPA has determined that BPT–3 at a total annualized cost of $34.5 the same pollutants for NSPS as those would remove at least 7.32 million million ($1999). In contrast BPT–4 for BAT. pounds of pollutants per year at a total would remove only 8.87 pounds of total b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The annualized cost of $34.5 million nitrogen and total phosphorus at an Agency is proposing to establish ($1999). In contrast BPT–4 would additional cost of 28%. In view of the effluent limitations based on BPT–1 for remove an additional 10.7% of fact that BPT–4 achieves similar small facilities in Subcategory K. This pollutants at an additional cost of 28%. pollutant removals and yet would option is based on the current practices In view of the fact that BPT–4 appears prompt additional total annualized costs in place at facilities as reported to EPA to achieve minimal additional pollutant of $9.7 million ($1999), EPA has through the detailed surveys. Option 1 removals and yet would prompt selected BPT–3, not BPT–4, for this assumes a less aggressive nitrification additional total annualized costs of $9.7 Subcategory. Thus, EPA has determined treatment than Option 2. Based on the million ($1999), EPA has selected BPT– that BAT–3, not BAT–4 is the ‘‘best survey responses the Agency has 3, not BPT–4, for this Subcategory. available’’ technology economically reviewed to date we do not believe that ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to achievable for large facilities in there are any small poultry first set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities Subcategory K. processors, however, in the event that a in Subcategory K EPA was unable to iii. NSPS. EPA did not pursue small number of facilities exist which determine whether or not there is an additional, more stringent, options for were not captured through EPA’s survey economically achievable BAT treatment small facilities in Subcategory K for efforts, EPA is proposing to establish technology more stringent than NSPS because EPA does not expect the BPT limits. proposed for BPT because no small cost to construct the treatment system to The Agency is proposing to establish poultry first processors were identified. achieve Option 2 performance would be effluent limitations based on BPT–3 for EPA based it’s decision on the fact that significantly less for a new source than large facilities in Subcategory K. The there is no economically achievable if would be for an existing source to treatment technologies that serve as the BAT treatment technology more retrofit their existing system. Therefore, basis for the development of the stringent than proposed for BPT for EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology proposed BPT limits are: Equalization, poultry further processors. basis for NSPS for small facilities in dissolved air flotation and secondary The Agency is proposing to set BAT Subcategory K because EPA believes it biological treatment with nitrification equal to BPT for large facilities in represents the best demonstrated and denitrification. As presented in Subcategory K because EPA has technology for this subcategory. Section VII.A, three BPT options were determined that there is no As was the case for BAT, EPA did not under consideration. EPA has estimated economically achievable BAT treatment pursue additional, more stringent, the costs and pollutant reductions technology more stringent than the options for large facilities in associated with each technology option proposed BPT treatments. Also, EPA has Subcategory K for NSPS because, as as it would apply to the 95 facilities that determined that the cost for nutrient with existing sources, Option 4 is not would be subject to these proposed removal for this subcategory is cost expected to achieve significant requirements. BPT–2 removes at least effective; it is less than the cost for incremental pollutant reductions. 1.63 million pounds of pollutants over nutrient removal performed at a POTW. Further EPA does not expect the cost to current discharge at an annualized cost As presented in Section VII.A, three construct the treatment system to of $4.8 million ($1999). BPT–3 removes BAT options were under consideration. achieve Option 4 performance would be at least an additional 5.7 million pounds BAT–2 removes approximately 810,000 significantly less for a new source than of pollutants over BPT–2, at an pounds of phosphorus over current it would be for an existing source to additional annualized compliance cost discharge at an annualized compliance retrofit their existing system. Therefore, of $29.7 million. BPT Option 2 results cost of $4.8 million ($1999). BAT–3 EPA proposes BAT–3 as the technology in a cost to net income ratio of 0.34%, removes an additional 7.7 million basis for NSPS for large facilities in which means that approximately 0.34% pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus Subcategory K because EPA believes it of a facility’s profits would be spent on over BAT–2 at an additional annualized represents the best demonstrated compliance if they were to implement compliance cost of $29.7 million technology for this subcategory. this option. Also, the results of the BPT ($1999). BAT–2 results in a cost to net cost to effluent reductions benefits is income ratio of less than 0.4%, so this 2. Poultry Further Processing Facilities $2.95 ($1999/pound). Option 3 results option is considered economically (Subcategory L) in a cost to net income of 2.73%, and achievable. Since BAT–3 results in a After considering all of the technology the results of the BPT cost to effluent cost to net income ratio of less than options described in Section VII.A, in reduction benefits is $4.71 ($1999/ 2.8%, which is also economically light of the factors specified in Section pound). Thus, both of these options are achievable, EPA has chosen to set BAT 304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water considered cost-reasonable. However, equal to BPT for Subcategory K. Act, as appropriate, EPA proposed to since Option 3 removes more pollutants EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis select the technology options identified at a cost that is reasonable, BPT–3 was for establishing BAT more stringent below as BPT, BAT, BCT and NSPS for selected for this subcategory. than the level of control being proposed Subcategory L of the proposed rule.
VerDate 11
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BPT. EPA since Option 3 removes more pollutants chosen to set BAT equal to BPT for proposes establishing BPT limitations at a cost that is reasonable, BPT–3 was Subcategory L. for BOD, TSS , Oil and Grease selected for this subcategory. EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis EPA also evaluated option 4 as basis (measured as HEM), and ammonia as N for establishing BAT more stringent for facilities that slaughter no more than for establishing BPT more stringent than than the level of control being proposed 7 million pounds per year (small the level of control being proposed today. The cost to net income of more facilities). EPA proposes establishing today. EPA estimates that BPT–4 results BPT limitations for BOD, TSS, Oil and in a cost to net income ratio of 6.04% than 6% for BAT–4 shows that the Grease (measured as HEM), fecal and the ratio of cost to effluent option would cause significant coliform, ammonia as N, total nitrogen reduction benefits is 9.54. EPA is not economic impacts. Also, EPA is not and total phosphorus for facilities that proposing to establish BPT limits based proposing to establish BAT limits based slaughter more than 7 million pounds on BPT–4 because it determined that on BPT–4 because it determined that per year (large facilities). These BPT–3 achieves nearly equivalent BAT–3 achieves nearly equivalent pollutants are characteristic of poultry pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA pollutant reductions at less cost. EPA further processing wastewater. These has determined that BPT–3 would has determined that BAT–3 would proposed regulated pollutants are key remove at least 0.31 million pounds of remove at least 0.32 million pounds of indicators of the performance of the pollutants per year at a total annualized total nitrogen and total phosphorus per secondary and tertiary biological cost of $2.2 million ($1999). In contrast year at a total annualized cost of $2.2 treatment process, which are the key BPT–4 would remove at least 0.32 million ($1999). In contrast BPT–4 components of the model BPT treatment million pounds of pollutants at an would remove only 0.318 pounds of systems for the small and large facilities, additional cost of 36%. In view of the total nitrogen and total phosphorus at respectively. fact that BPT–4 appears to achieve less an additional cost of 36%. In view of the ii. BAT. EPA proposes to regulate the pollutant removals and yet would fact that BPT–4 appears to achieve same pollutants for BAT as those for prompt additional total annualized costs reduced pollutant removals and yet BPT. of $1.9 million ($1999), EPA has would prompt additional total iii. NSPS. EPA proposes to regulate selected BPT–3, not BPT–4, for this the same pollutants for NSPS as those Subcategory. annualized costs of $0.8 million for BAT. ii. BAT. The Agency is proposing to ($1999), EPA has selected BPT–3, not b. Technology Selected. i. BPT. The set BAT equal to BPT for small facilities BPT–4, for this Subcategory. Thus, EPA Agency is proposing to establish BPT– in Subcategory L because EPA has has determined that BAT–3, not BAT– 1 for small facilities in Subcategory L. determined that there is no 4 is the ‘‘best available’’ technology This is the same technology as economically achievable BAT treatment economically achievable for large described above for Subcategoy K. EPA technology more stringent than the facilities in Subcategory L. estimates that there are four small proposed BPT treatment. BAT–2 results iii. NSPS. EPA did not pursue facilities that could be affected by these in a cost to net income ratio of greater additional, more stringent, options for proposed requirements and these than 20%, which would cause small facilities in Subcategory L for requirements could cost $2,600. significant economic impacts for these NSPS because EPA does not expect the The Agency is proposing to establish facilities, so EPA has chosen to set BAT cost to construct the treatment system to BPT–3 for large facilities in Subcategory equal to BPT for small facilities in achieve Option 2 performance would be L. The treatment technologies that serve Subcategory L. as the basis for the development of the The Agency is proposing to establish significantly less for a new source than proposed BPT limits are: equalization, effluent limitations based on BAT–3 for if would be for an existing source to dissolved air flotation and secondary large facilities in Subcategory L. The retrofit their existing system. Therefore, biological treatment with nitrification treatment technologies that serve as the EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology and denitrification. As presented in basis for the development of the basis for NSPS for small facilities in Section VII.A, three BPT options were proposed BAT limits are: equalization, Subcategory L because EPA believes it under consideration. For the sixteen dissolved air flotation and secondary represents the best demonstrated facilities that would be subject to these biological treatment with nitrification technology for this subcategory. proposed requirements EPA estimates and denitrification. EPA has determined The treatment technologies that serve that BPT–2 removes at least 0.09 million that there is no economically achievable as the basis for the development of the pounds of pollutants over current BAT treatment technology more proposed NSPS limits are the same as discharge at an annualized cost of $0.3 stringent than the proposed BPT the BAT for this subcategory. As was the million ($1999). BPT–3 removes at least treatment. As presented in Section case for BAT, EPA did not pursue an additional 0.22 million pounds of VII.A, three BAT options were under additional, more stringent, options for pollutants over BPT–2, at an additional consideration. BAT–2 removes annualized compliance cost of $1.9 approximately zero pounds of NSPS because, as with existing sources, million. BPT Option 2 results in a cost phosphorus over current discharge at an Option 4 is not expected to achieve to net income ratio of 0.39%, which annualized compliance cost of $0.3 significant incremental pollutant means that approximately 0.39% of a million ($1999). BAT–3 removes an reductions. Further, EPA does not facility’s profits would be spent on additional 0.32 million pounds of expect the cost to construct the compliance if they were to implement nitrogen and phosphorus over BAT–2 at treatment system to achieve Option 4 this option. Also, the results of the BPT an additional annualized compliance performance would be significantly less cost to effluent reductions benefits is cost of $1.9 million ($1999). BAT–2 for a new source than it would be for $3.28 ($1999/pound). Option 3 results results in a cost to net income ratio of and existing source to retrofit their in a cost to net income of 4.23%, and less than 0.4%, so this option is system. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT– the results of the BPT cost to effluent considered economically achievable. 3 as the technology basis for NSPS for reduction benefits is $7.11 ($1999/ BAT–3 results in a cost to net income subcategory L because EPA believes it pound). Thus, both of these options are ratio of less than 4.25%, which is also represents the best demonstrated considered cost-reasonable. However, economically achievable, so EPA has technology for this subcategory.
VerDate 11
F. Regulatory Alternatives for Meat and reported having any significant amount solicits comment on whether the burden Poultry Products Industry of wastewater treatment to reduce for ensuring compliance with this EMS EPA is soliciting comment on nutrient pollutants. Although the regulatory alternative would fall on the alternative approaches that the Agency Agency is not proposing to establish States or EPA Regions as control is considering for the meat and poultry nutrient standards for indirect authorities and whether such products industry. EPA primarily dischargers, the Agency believes that a evaluations would be much more considered these approaches as significant reduction of nutrients can be difficult to perform on a national basis than a numeric standard. EPA also alternatives to potential numeric achieved through the implementation of solicits comment on what requirements pretreatment standards before the an EMS or an EAP and the can prevent facilities, which use the Agency determined that it did not have implementation of specific BMPs. Each EMS regulatory alternative and still enough information necessary to of these (EMS, EAP and specific BMPs) cause pass through or interference at a establish categorical pretreatment will be described in more detail in POTW, from causing such pass through standards for this industry (see Section subsequent discussions. Implementation or interference again. EPA also solicits XI.B). The purpose of any alternative of an EMS or EAP by meat and poultry comments on implementation of a would be to help facilities in this products facilities could also result in a voluntary EMS, perhaps as part of the industry comply with regulations or range of other environmental benefits (e.g., reduced odor, noise, energy and or Performance Partnership (see below). foster voluntary adoption of EPA also solicits comment on how environmental management systems water consumption). Given the potential benefits of an EMS, EPA is considering this compliance alternative can be that could help organizations reduce applied to direct dischargers. Most environmental impacts from an approach in which no pretreatment standards would be developed for meat direct dischargers have already installed unregulated activities through pollution wastewater treatment to comply with prevention and other approaches. and poultry products indirect dischargers rather, EPA would initiate their NPDES Permits. Depending on the Specifically, the Agency is considering effectiveness of the BMPs, EPA may the following two options. an expanded program to work in partnerships with meat industry consider offering reduced requirements Under the first option, EPA would not for monitoring wastewater requirements issue pretreatment standards for indirect facilities, organizations, and other interested parties to promote the for direct dischargers which implement dischargers in the final rule. Rather, an EMS. This could include reduction EPA would work with the industry to adoption and implementation of EMSs by these facilities. EPA would develop in the frequency of monitoring, or develop and implement voluntary monitoring for a reduced list of specific environmental management systems guidance on how to develop EMSs for meat and poultry product indirect pollutants. EPA solicits comments on (EMSs). In a few years, EPA would plan how an EMS compliance alternative to evaluate the performance of the dischargers and then work with our partners at the State Permitting and could be applied to direct dischargers voluntary program and either conclude and whether EPA should consider this that the voluntary program is sufficient, Control Authorities to inform them and the meat and poultry processors about as a compliance alternative for direct revisit the issue of pretreatment dischargers. standards for indirect dischargers, and/ the potential benefits of implementing or consider other appropriate steps. an EMS. EPA would monitor actions 2. Performance Improvement Under the second option, EPA would toward the development of EMSs by Partnership With the Meat and Poultry promulgate pretreatment standards for meat and poultry processors and Processing Industry non-small indirect dischargers. evaluate the improvements to water In parallel with the development of However, indirect dischargers would quality and the environment that result. the MPP ELGS proposal, EPA is working also receive the option of meeting Not later than five years after in partnership with the meat and regulatory obligations by implementing promulgation of this regulation, EPA poultry processing industry, State and EMSs that include environmental audit would issue a report providing a local government agencies, USDA, and programs (EAPs). Each of these options comprehensive evaluation of the EMS other stakeholders to promote improved is discussed below. initiative. The EMS or EAP alternatives environmental performance in the meat EPA is also considering whether an EPA is considering would allow indirect and poultry products industry. This EMS-based compliance alternative dischargers the opportunity to avoid partnership has been developed under similar to the second option could be installing wastewater treatment and the Agency’s Sustainable Industries applied also to direct dischargers. This could, therefore, be less costly. Partnership Program. Through the option is also discussed further below. EPA notes that allowing operators the Sustainable Industries program, part of use of an EMS to demonstrate the Agency’s overall innovations 1. Application of Regulatory or EMS compliance with potential pretreatment agenda, EPA works with selected Alternatives to Meat and Poultry standards assumes that the POTW or the industry sectors to voluntarily set Processors controlling authority is knowledgeable industry-wide performance EPA believes these EMS-based and available. EPA also notes that the improvement objectives, develop the alternatives would be attractive to many MPP indirect dischargers of greatest right tools and incentives to beneficially meat and poultry processors that concern are frequently in smaller affect facility performance, address discharge wastewater to Publicly communities where the POTW typically sector-specific regulatory reform needs, Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) if operates without an approved and measure results. EPA establishes categorical pretreatment pretreatment program or the POTW is The voluntary partnership program standards. The majority of the meat and typically a small-scale operation. EPA for the meat and poultry processing poultry products facilities are solicits comment on whether these rural industry is still under development as of discharging wastewater indirectly or small POTW operations are in a the date of this proposed rule. The through POTWs and besides the use of position to adequately assess purpose of the program is to bring Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) or other compliance with the EMS regulatory environmental improvements that will types of oil and grease treatment and option and to effectively respond to benefit meat and poultry processing equalization, few of these facilities significant deficiencies. EPA also facilities and their surrounding
VerDate 11
communities while maintaining broadly implement corporate/facility- environmental groups, and other extremely high levels of food safety. The appropriate EMSs. The project team has Federal and State agencies, has program has industry-generated drafted an EMS Guide for the Meat and established a ‘‘virtual’’ (web-based) performance objectives, plus four Poultry Processing Industry, on the national Compliance Assistance Center project elements that were identified as plan-do-check-act continuous known as the National Agriculture important actions to assist and promote improvement model. This EMS Guide Compliance Assistance Center (Ag better environmental performance by consists of 10 modules covering policy, Center: http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ag/). The meat and poultry processing facilities planning, implementation and Ag Center offers comprehensive, easy- and others. operation, checking and corrective to-understand information on Participants in developing this action, and management review. environmentally protective and program include the American Meat This voluntary EMS tailored for meat agriculturally sound approaches to Institute (AMI), the American and poultry processors can be used by compliance. EPA will use the Ag Center Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), both small and large meat and poultry as one of its tools for publicizing the the U.S. Department of Agriculture processors to implement an EMS. final Effluent Limitation Guideline and (USDA), several State agencies, EPA Currently, EPA is partnering with the related voluntary approaches. programs and regions, and other Iowa Waste Reduction Center (IWRC) c. External stewardship program with interested constituent groups. and the Iowa Department of Natural livestock suppliers. Nutrient Combined, the AMI and AAMP Resources (IDNR) to pilot test the Guide management by livestock producers is membership totals approximately 2,500 with five companies. IWRC and IDNR the most important environmental issue members and represents more than 75% are providing technical assistance and facing the overall industry. EPA is of the total production volume for the implementation consulting to the five developing a replicable external meat and poultry processing industry. companies. The pilot will be completed stewardship program for meat and Although the elements of the in July 2002 and then EPA will evaluate poultry processors to work with their voluntary partnership are under the pilot and incorporate lessons suppliers on pilot projects to test and development, AMI and AAMP have learned into the final draft of the EMS measure the impact of environmental stated their commitment to the pursuit Guide for Meat and Poultry Processors. best management practices (BMPs), with of continuous environmental The final guide is expected to be a focus on nutrient management. Project improvement and compliance with completed by September 2002, at which teams in Iowa and other midwest States environmental regulations at the facility point this tool will be widely marketed are working to design and voluntarily level and in the industry at large. throughout the meat and poultry implement BMPs and nutrient Elements of this commitment may processing industry with the direct management plans for livestock include the following, performance- involvement of the industry’s two major producers, building on existing related actions: trade groups. processor-supplier relationships. The (1) To work in partnership with This EMS project is strictly a goal of this project is to demonstrate Federal and State government agencies voluntary approach that is part of the that voluntary environmental to promote nationwide industry larger partnership program with the stewardship by livestock producers can compliance; meat and poultry processing industry. be defined, documented, measured, and (2) To expand education on best The project is designed to develop and progress achieved. Project results will practices, including the promotion of market a tool tailored to the needs of help demonstrate whether voluntary appropriate environmental management this specific industry, to be used by the programs can be used to augment systems (EMS); industry itself to promote improved existing regulations and eliminate the (3) To reduce environmental impacts, performance by individual facilities. need for expanded regulatory actions. including wastewater discharges and The Agency is also seeking comment on d. Best management practice tools. solid waste, associated with facility the option of using a standardized EMS Reducing, chloride, nitrogen and operations; as a stand-alone alternative to the phosphorus pollutants in meat and (4) To work with suppliers and setting of national numeric pretreatment poultry processing wastewater while customers to identify and promote standards (see Section XI.B). maintaining high food quality standards pollution prevention practices to b. Customer-oriented’’ compliance poses a challenge to many meat and achieve cleaner production and reduced assistance tools. Program partners are poultry processors. In addition, the waste; developing tools to assist meat and disposal of meat and poultry processing (5) To develop guidance for poultry processors in maintaining biosolids and renderable materials such communicating with employees, compliance with Federal, State and as offal poses a serious threat to the suppliers, customers, and the public local environmental requirements. economic viability of small meat and about the environmental impacts of the Many meat and poultry processors have poultry processors. To address these industry; and indicated that they have difficulty in environmental impacts through non- (6) To conserve and protect natural keeping up with the many regulatory means, EPA and its partners resources. environmental regulations surrounding are developing BMP guidance materials In support of the voluntary their facilities. Currently, the project for handling and disposal of rendering performance objectives, the Meat and team is developing a custom checklist of materials, and for chloride, nitrogen, Poultry Processing Partnership Program regulatory requirements, designed and phosphorus discharges. The project includes a set of four projects, currently specifically for meat and poultry team will evaluate these management underway, that will help to enable the processing facilities. Guidance is also practices and develop measures of their meat industry as a whole to achieve the being developed to help small effectiveness. Long-term deployment of voluntary performance objectives. The processors dispose of solid waste and the final tools will occur through the projects are described briefly. biosolids. active leadership of the industry’s trade a. Environmental Management System The Office of Compliance in EPA’s associations. (EMS). Program partners drafted Office of Enforcement and Compliance The Meat and Poultry Processing guidance materials and a training Assurance, in partnership with Partnership Program is intended to help program for the meat industry to industry, academic institutions, improve the environmental performance
VerDate 11
of meat and poultry processors across The use of environmental Partnership EMS program. As described the entire industry and, in the case of management systems is increasing previously under the Sustainable the external stewardship project, the throughout the world, especially since Industries Programs, EPA is partnering performance of livestock suppliers as the publication of the ISO 14001 with IWRC and IDNR and five meat and well. This innovative, non-regulatory International EMS Standard in 1996. poultry companies to pilot test the program has the potential to affect the ISO standards are developed by an ‘‘EMS Guide for the Meat and Poultry practices of all 6,000-plus meat and International Body with the goal of Processing Industry.’’ poultry products facilities, thereby establishing standardized product goals. fostering environmental improvement ISO 14001 established a standardized Contents of an EMS among facilities that are excluded from procedure for developing The factors described in more detail the proposed ELGS standards. In that Environmental Management Systems. below would be included in EMSs regard, it is a reflection of EPA’s Approximately 16,000 organizations, developed voluntarily under the commitment, along with its partners, to including approximately 1,500 alternative being considered by the achieve continuous performance organizations in the U.S. have adopted Agency: improvement and environmental EMSs based on ISO 14001, including Environmental Policy—a written stewardship on an industry-wide scale, certification to the standard through statement of policy, defined by top above and beyond what is intended to independent third party audits, and the facility management that includes be accomplished with this rule. rate of adoption is increasing rapidly. A commitments to: Compliance with both This voluntary program was not much larger number of organizations legal requirements and voluntary intended, when designed, specifically as have adopted EMSs consistent with the commitments; pollution prevention, and a regulatory alternative to the proposed overall approach embodied in ISO continual improvement of ELGS, but rather as a complement to the 14001, but tailored to their own environmental performance in order to proposed standards. Nevertheless, EPA particular operations. Implementation of reduce negative impacts on the solicits public comment on whether this an EMS, while it has the potential to environment over time; involving the program would be an adequate enhance compliance with regulatory public in an appropriate fashion in EMS replacement for any potential national requirements, does not expressly development and implementation, and numeric pretreatment standards and, if constitute or ensure compliance with sharing information about so, whether specific program legal requirements. Compliance environmental performance of the EMS modifications or enhancements should assurance, however, is an express public with the community and sharing be adopted in response to the issues policy and regulatory goal. information about environmental discussed in this preamble. That In addition, concerns have been performance of the EMS with the determination would be based, in part, expressed that ISO 14001 may not be public. on results that are yet to be achieved by appropriate for certain industries or Environmental Planning—identify the voluntary partnership. EPA and its certain small and medium-sized and document all environmental aspects partners therefore will evaluate and organizations. Several industry groups and impacts of the facility and share publicly the environmental results have developed, or are in the process of determine which of these are most achieved to date, and during the time developing, voluntary programs which significant. period preceding promulgation of the use EMSs. These include, but are not • Document both applicable final rule, by the meat and poultry limited to, egg production, biosolids environmental legal requirements and processing industry through its management, and water/wastewater voluntary commitments. participation in this program, to help utilities. Other industry groups, such as • Set and document measurable determine whether this voluntary the American Chemical Council objectives and measurable targets to performance-based approach should be (formerly the Chemical Manufacturer’s meet policy commitments and legal considered a viable alternative to Association), have had similar programs requirements and to reduce the facility’s national numeric pretreatment in place for a number of years. significant environmental impacts. standards. Information is available at EPA has been involved in strategically • Describe and document programs to www.SectorStar.org. promoting the voluntary adoption of achieve the objectives, targets and EMSs for several years. The Agency’s commitments in the EMS, including the 3. Environmental Management Systems policy in this area was clearly described means and time frames for their (EMSs) in our 1999 Report entitled ‘‘Aiming for completion. A simple definition of an EMS is ‘‘a Excellence’’. This report states that ‘‘we Implementation of Policy and Plan— continual cycle of planning, will encourage organizations to use The following actions provide implementing, reviewing, and EMSs that improve compliance, mechanisms for implementing and improving the actions an organization pollution prevention, and other maintaining the EMS policy and plan. takes to meet its environmental measures of environmental • Establish roles and responsibilities obligations.’’ These obligations include, performance’’. Copies of this report are for meeting objectives and targets of the but are in no way limited to regulated available at www.epa.gov/reinvent/ overall EMS and compliance with legal activities. EMSs are a potentially taskforce/report99. EPA has also requirements, including a top powerful tool to reduce the range of developed an action plan that identifies management representative with environmental impacts that may not be a wide range of activities the Agency is authority and responsibility for the amenable to regulation (e.g., odor, noise, or expects to undertake to follow up on EMS. energy consumption, or water the recommendations of the Aiming for • Define procedures for: (1) consumption). In conjunction with Excellence Report dealing with EMSs. Communicating relevant information reducing environmental impacts, EMSs Some of the key EMS-based programs regarding the EMS, including the offer other benefits including cost EPA is supporting, in partnership with facility’s environmental performance, savings, increased operational industry and others, are the National throughout the organization; (2) efficiency, risk reduction, improved Environmental Performance Track providing appropriate incentives for internal communication, and improved (NEPT), the United Egg Producers XL personnel to meet the EMS relations with external parties. Project, and the National Biosolids requirements; and (3) document and
VerDate 11
record control, including where poultry processing industry. EMSs can violation was corrected and steps taken documents related to the EMS will be provide significant internal benefits to to prevent recurrence. EPA may also located and who will maintain them. organizations such as improved internal wish to specify that persons whose • Provide for general environmental communication and better integration of compliance history includes certain training programs for all employees, and environmental considerations into types of serious violations (e.g., criminal specific training for those whose jobs business decisions. However, EPA is violations) must comply with numeric and responsibilities involve activities also interested in considering whether effluent limits. The regulatory authority directly related to achieving objectives EMSs could serve as method of may be in the best position to determine and targets and to compliance with legal promoting overall environmental at the outset whether a facility’s requirements. accountability to ensure real pollution compliance history should exclude it • Establish operation and reductions external. One potential from participation. EPA solicits maintenance programs for equipment method of ensuring greater comments on whether all facilities and for other operations that are related accountability and confidence is to should be allowed to participate or on to legal compliance and other include independent third party other potentially appropriate criteria, as significant environmental aspects. auditing as a component of an EMS well as on the timing of the screening. • Develop a documented emergency program. Third party auditing is EPA also wants to know whether the preparedness and response program. designed to provide facilities with an regulatory authority has the time and Community Involvement/External independent evaluation of their EMSs, resources to research these facilities and Communications—The following based on a particular set of EMS whether the need for the review merits actions provide mechanisms for elements or standards. the resources required. incorporating community involvement While third party EMS audits are Frequency of Third Party Auditing and external communications. primarily designed to evaluate the • Ensure that interested community overall suitability of a management EPA is considering requiring facilities members and others are given the system, as opposed to particular metrics to complete an initial and follow up opportunity to provide input to the related to regulatory compliance or audits in the range from each year to facility as it sets objectives and targets environmental performance, they do every three years, but solicits comment in its EMS examine how and if an organization is on other frequencies. EPA is also • Maintain regular communications meeting the environmental objectives it seeking comment on whether a facility’s with these stakeholders on the has set for its own operations, including internal audit might substitute for a performance of the EMS as it is compliance and reduced impacts from third party audit in certain years if the implemented and address relevant unregulated activities. previous third party audit indicated that issues raised by these stakeholders. Therefore, EPA is also considering the facility was making good progress • Report publicly on EMS establishing in the final regulation an on implementing its EMS. EPA also performance by, for example, making option that would allow the meat and solicits comment on how to define information from self and third party poultry products industry to develop an ‘making good progress’ in such audits available to the public. EPA Environmental Management System situations. Finally, at some point, each solicits comment on the most (EMS) program that would also include facility would need to complete a full appropriate method of sharing the audit independent third party audits by a reaudit of its environmental results, including website publication, qualified organization. Indirect management plan by an independent as well as their content and frequency. dischargers would have the option of third party. EPA solicits comment on Corrective Action—The following meeting potential pretreatment the frequency of these full reaudits. standards or agreeing to participate in actions provide mechanisms for Qualifications of Third Party Auditors identifying and correcting operation the EMS/Audit Program. Third party controls and procedures to ensure EMS auditing could substitute for a review by For any third party EMS auditing effectiveness. the control authority. Facilities program to be successful, all parties • Adoption of necessary operational participating in the program would must have confidence in the individuals controls and procedures to ensure that develop EMSs with the elements conducting the audits. Under this the EMS is effectively implemented. described above. proposal, third party auditors could be • certified by EPA or another organization Implementation of an active Eligibility Criteria program for assessing performance and as lead auditors under the relevant ISO preventing and detecting non- EPA could offer the EMS regulatory guidelines with sufficient additional conformance with legal and other alternative to all facilities. Alternatively, experience in the field of food safety or requirements (including regulatory EPA could limit the alternative’s wastewater management to enable the compliance) of the EMS availability to facilities meeting certain auditors to, among other things, • Maintain records that document criteria. EPA solicits comment on competently assess facility conformance EMS implementation and compliance eligibility criteria for determining with objectives and requirements and Management Review—Operators whether facilities should be allowed to applicable BMPs. A similar approach is should document management review adopt EMSs in lieu of installing being used in the biosolids industry, of performance against the established otherwise required wastewater where third party auditors must hold objectives and targets and the treatment. The purpose of the criteria credentials as an ISO 14001 lead auditor effectiveness of the EMS in meeting would be to screen the facilities to and have a minimum of 5 years policy commitments. ensure they can demonstrate an experience in biosolids and wastewater appropriate compliance history and management. Environmental Management System and commitment. For example, EPA could Alternatively, EPA could develop a Audit Program specify in the final rule that if the separate set of qualifications for As discussed earlier in this proposal, facility has had a particular type of auditors. We are seeking comment on EPA is interested in considering the violation within a certain number of the relevant qualifications for third possible use of EMSs in various aspects years (e.g., five) the owner/operator party auditors and suggestions for of its relationships with the meat and would have to demonstrate that the existing organizations that might be in
VerDate 11
a position to manage an auditing Correction of Nonconformance/Return 3 years. EPA solicits comment on types program. to Regulatory Coverage of records and reports that might be EPA assumes that facilities wishing to appropriate for this purpose and where Content of Audit Reports and Sharing of and how long they would be Information take advantage of this alternative will make a good faith effort to successfully maintained, including their availability Third party audit information is implement their environmental to regulators and/or the public. essential to maintain ongoing management programs. However, some Best Management Practices communications with the community facilities will inevitably experience Both the EMS and EAP alternative and other key stakeholders. However, serious nonconformance, potentially approaches include commitments to EPA recognizes the burden that including noncompliance with meeting meeting effluent standards through providing this information may pose to the goals of the EMS including BMPs to treatment or commitments to individual facilities. EPA also control pollutant discharges. Such implementation of BMPs. EPA has recognizes that some of the information problems can range from minor identified several BMPs that are in the audit may be considered CBI by deficiencies with implementation of believed to be effective at reducing the the facility. Therefore, we are seeking environmental management programs pollutant loads discharged in process comment on the most efficient way to that have minimal environmental wastewater from meat and poultry make this information available to the impact and can be easily corrected to products facilities. Implementation of public and on what limits if any should serious problems which lead to these BMPs would be a mandatory be placed on this information. For imminent and substantial component of the EAP when it serves as example, the information could be made endangerments, have significant a compliance alternative to potential available through the web site of the environmental impacts, or reflect pretreatment standards. The BMPs that control authority or State regulatory criminal conduct. are described below are currently being agency, as opposed to requiring the EPA’s intent is to balance the need to used at meat and poultry processing facility to make it available. The content provide facilities with incentives to seek facilities and were identified by of this information is also an important the third party alternative described in industry representatives as having the consideration. EPA proposes to limit the this proposal with the need to ensure greatest potential to reduce nutrient scope of this information to information that regulatory authorities can react pollutants from the effluent at meat and derived from the EMS audit, including promptly and effectively to serious poultry processing facilities. that which relates to the BMPs designed problems that may result in a facility Many of these best management to control pollutants discharged in being returned to regulatory coverage. practices simply prevent raw materials wastewater, and not necessarily There are a number of options EPA or by-products from coming in contact information about all aspects of facility could consider to address this issue. with wastewater, thus reducing the operations. Some of the information that These are not mutually exclusive and pollutant load which reaches the water is contained in actual audit reports may include (1) allowing facilities with stream. All meat and poultry processing be of little interest to the community. In minor audit nonconformance and/or and rendering facilities must use water contrast, information that focuses on the noncompliance to correct these to clean their equipment and facilities to areas of strength and needed problems in lieu of returning to maintain a clean, hygienic environment improvement as a result of the audit regulatory coverage, (2) requiring and keep food safe from bacterial may be quite useful. EPA solicits facilities with major nonconformance contamination. Prior to the disinfecting comment on the specific information and/or noncompliance to address the water cleaning, collecting as much of from audits that should be publicly issue within a specified period of time the solid by-products that may have available as well as the most efficient and have the corrective action reviewed accumulated around work areas will and effective way of accomplishing this. by the auditor or regulatory agency, or reduce the pollutants that reach water. (3) requiring that any major Many of these by-products have value as Ensuring Auditor Consistency and noncompliance with the EMS result in rendered product and, thus, should not Integrity a return to regulatory coverage. EPA become a solid waste requiring disposal solicits comment on the best approach to land. Ensuring that auditors perform their or combination of approaches from EPA believes that preventing solid duties in a consistent and objective those listed above or any other approach raw materials and byproducts such as manner is essential. A May 2001 for addressing nonconformance and offal from entering the wastewater National Academy of Public noncompliance with regulatory stream has the potential to greatly Administrators (NAPA) report on third requirements, including, for example, reduce the loading of nitrogen that is party auditing of EMS under ISO 14001, determining who is responsible for discharged from meat and poultry for example, noted that, given public noncompliance when there are actual products facilities. The nitrogen is still policy implications, it is important to discharges, and when such discharges in organic form and does not have the ensure credible and consistent results so will be treated as violations of the Clean opportunity to begin the biochemical that all who rely on the EMSs, including Water Act. EPA also solicits comment breakdown that occurs in wastewater the public, have appropriate on whether, when, and how related which releases ammonia. Once the expectations of what it represents information should be shared with the nitrogen has been converted to ammonia (Docket No. W–01–06, Record No. public. it is much more difficult to remove from 10041). EPA believes there should be a the wastewater stream. Likewise mechanism for periodically evaluating Reporting and Recordkeeping phosphorus loadings in wastewater the effectiveness of the third party audit To assure compliance with regulatory should also be reduced when solid program and considering appeals to alternatives to numerical effluent limits, materials are kept out of the wastewater. auditor decisions. The Agency solicits EPA believes it must be able to monitor The implementation of some of the comment on how this can best be EMS/EAP implementation and BMPs described herein may require accomplished and the roles that various performance. EPA’s preferred approach reconfiguring equipment or work areas parties, including States, should play. would be to maintain records on-site for within the facility to facilitate dry clean-
VerDate 11
up methods. These reconfigurations can reduce the volume and pollutant loads also solicits concentration information probably be done over time as there will when a batch requires disposal. These on Hexane Extractable Material which be some trade-off between labor practices include collection, screening, measures oil and grease (HEM method requirements necessary to conduct the and reuse of spent pickle from injection for oil and grease), 5-day Biochemical dry clean-up in the more difficult areas or tumbler machines. EPA is also Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Biochemical and the costs associated with retrofitting considering ways that the product could Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended these areas with equipment that be removed and packaged following this Solids (TSS). In addition to the facilitates this dry clean-up. However, process in such a way as to minimize concentration information, EPA needs as a compliance alternative to potential the loss of the solution. Facilities would to know the production practices, the pretreatment standards, the regulation also be asked to develop a protocol for wastewater flow and production rates would specify that the facility operator determining when a solution requires associated with the concentration must be able to demonstrate disposal to maximize the usefulness of measurements. The longer the time implementation of the required BMPs in these solutions and reduce the overall period during which data is collected order to be eligible for this EAP volume disposed. Facilities should also both before and after implementation of alternative. examine and maintain the equipment BMPs the more helpful the data will be Some of the BMPs identified by EPA used in these processes to minimize to EPA. are specific to a particular aspect of the spills and leaks. EPA will also need to evaluate the production, such as slaughtering. Finally, specific best management costs associated with implementing the Slaughtering facilities can accomplish practices that are being considered for BMPs and the EMS or EAP to determine reductions in the nutrient pollutants the rendering sector include managing whether they are comparable to costs discharged by maximizing blood the raw materials to prevent leaks and estimated for compliance with today’s collection and using dry clean-up spills especially for materials that may wastewater treatment that are being techniques prior to sanitation. Dry be entering the rendering facility as a considered for possible pretreatment collection and handling of other offal liquid such as blood or oil and grease. standards. EPA encourages the industry and by-products are also effective Losses of rendered product following and the public to provide information practices. Some meat and poultry the cooking process should be avoided on the costs associated with processing facilities use water to by providing and maintaining traps in implementing an EMS or EAP, transport offal and other by-products the cooking vapor lines and controlling including costs to hire consultants and away from the processing area either to pressure reduction and agitation after staff time necessary to develop and the on-site rendering facility or to trucks cooking. implement an EMS or EAP. EPA has for transport to an off-site renderer. This All meat and poultry products included some cost and estimates of can result in loss of these by-products facilities should minimize water usage labor requirements for the when the material is separated from the and employ water conservation implementation of EMS that were wastewater and promote chemical break practices including installing operator provided to EPA and reflect the down of these by-products which controlled nozzles on hoses and other implementation of EMSs to manage converts organic nitrogen to water sources of water. Facilities should also biosolids. EPA is also interested in data soluble ammonia. examine the chemicals used to sanitize that documents materials necessary to Manure management can also be a equipment. Whenever possible the use implement the BMPs. Facilities are consideration at slaughter facilities. of sanitizers containing phosphorus asked to also provide data which Facilities should ensure that manure is should be avoided. documents cost savings such as reduced properly handled and when possible EPA will continue to evaluate these water usage resulting in lower water handled as a solid waste rather than management practices and work with bills. adding it to the facilities wastewater stakeholders to identify measures, EPA would also welcome any data on stream. Practices would include dry monitoring or recordkeeping that EPA the actual performance of EMSs. This cleaning of pens and trucks prior to wet could use to ensure the proper could include data that demonstrates cleaning and sanitizing. In addition, implementation of these BMPs. EPA other environmental benefits associated there may be pollution prevention expects to fully describe these measures with implementing EMSs or EAPs such practices that can be implemented in in a subsequent notice and seek public as reductions in energy or water usage, association with manure management comment on them. improvements in food safety or involving removing the animals from reductions in odor or air emissions, or Assessment of Alternatives feed at some point prior to shipping data on EMS limitations. EPA is also them to the slaughterhouse. To assess the extent to which an EMS interested in knowing about other BMPs Facilities that do not slaughter or an EAP alternative can achieve that would be as effective as those animals, but do further processing of comparable pollutant reduction identified in today’s notice. meat and poultry products should also performance as the end-of-pipe effluent In summary, EPA is soliciting maximize the use of dry collection and standard, EPA needs data which comment on a variety of alternative cleaning of the facilities prior to document the pollutant reductions approaches that can be implemented in sanitation. There are also concerns with achieved by implementing the BMPs. the meat and poultry products industry some of the specific processes such as The specific performance data that EPA to beneficially affect industry-wide and pickling, spicing and marinating which is seeking includes effluent facility performance and measure are used to make meat and poultry concentrations taken from wastewater results. Through the Sustainable products. These processes involve discharges prior to and after Industries Program, stakeholders will preparing a solution containing salts, implementing the BMPs for nutrient identify and test the best methodologies sugars, phosphates and nitrites among pollutants. The nutrient pollutants and approaches to collecting other things. These solutions should be should be analyzed using EPA’s information and data to measure managed to minimize waste and loss. approved methods, found at 40 CFR part environmental results of various Some of the practices that EPA is 136 for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), voluntary concepts (i.e. BMP’s, EAP’s considering include using multiple, Ammonia, Nitrates, Dissolved and EMS). This effort will begin during smaller batches of these solutions to Phosphorus and Total Phosphorus. EPA the initial period immediately following
VerDate 11
proposal of this regulation. The results proposed regulation contains the limited universe of new sources. and an evaluation of various alternative technology-based effluent limitations Specifically, following promulgation of approaches will be included in a guidelines and standards applicable to any revised NSPS, the existing NSPS subsequent Notice of Data Availability the meat and poultry processing would continue to apply for a limited (NODA), which will also describe in industry to be used by permit writers to period of time to new sources that detail an alternative approach and derive NPDES permit technology-based commenced discharging MPP process solicit comment. effluent limitations. Water quality-based wastewater within the time period effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based beginning ten years before the effective XII. Regulatory Implementation on receiving water characteristics and date of a final rule revising part 432. A. Implementation of Part 432 Through ambient water quality standards, Thus, if EPA promulgates revised NSPS the NPDES Permit Program and the including designated water uses. They for part 432 in December 2003, and National Pretreatment Program are derived independently from the those regulations take effect in January technology-based effluent limitations set 2004, any direct discharging new source Under sections 301, 304, 306 and 307 out in this proposed regulation. The that commenced discharge after January of the CWA, EPA promulgates national CWA requires that NPDES permits must 1994 but before February 2004 would be effluent limitations guidelines and contain for a given discharge, the more subject to the currently codified NSPS standards of performance for major stringent of the applicable technology- for ten years from the date it industrial categories for three classes of based and water quality-based effluent commenced discharge or during the pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants limitations. period of depreciation or amortization (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA provides of such facility, whichever comes first. grease, biochemical oxygen demand, that in the absence of promulgated See CWA section 306(d). After that ten fecal coliform, and pH); (2) toxic effluent limitations guidelines or year period expires, any new or revised pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as standards, the Administrator, or her BAT limitations would apply with chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic designee, may establish technology- respect to toxics and nonconventional organic pollutants such as benzene, based effluent limitations for specific pollutants. Limitations on conventional benzo-a-pyrene, and naphthalene); and dischargers on a case-by-case basis. pollutants would be based on the (3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., Federal NPDES permit regulations current NSPS for conventional ammonia-N, fluoride, iron, total provide that these limits may be pollutants unless EPA promulgates phenols, and 2,3,7,8– established using ‘‘best professional revisions to BPT/BCT for conventional tetrachlorodibenzofuran). judgment’’ (BPJ) taking into account any pollutants that are more stringent than As discussed in Section II, EPA proposed effluent limitations guidelines these NSPS requirements. EPA is considers development of six types of and standards and other relevant reproducing in the MPP Development effluent limitations guidelines and scientific, technical and economic Document the NSPS codified in the standards for each major industrial information. 2001 edition of the Code of Federal category, as appropriate: Section 301 of the CWA, as amended Regulations for use during the Abbreviation/Effluent Limitation by the Water Quality Act of 1987, applicable ten-year period. Guideline or Standard requires that BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants are to have been 3. National Pretreatment Standards BPT—Best Practicable Control achieved as expeditiously as possible, 40 CFR Part 403 sets out national Technology Currently Available but not later than three years from date pretreatment standards which have BAT—Best Available Technology of promulgation of such limitations and three principal objectives: (1) To Economically Achievable in no case later than March 31, 1989. prevent the introduction of pollutants BCT—Best Control Technology for See 301(b)(2). Because the proposed into publicly owned treatment works Conventional Pollutants revisions to 40 CFR part 432 will be (POTWs) that will interfere with POTW NSPS—New Source Performance promulgated after March 31, 1989, operations, including use or disposal of Standards NPDES permit effluent limitations based municipal sludge; (2) to prevent the PSES—Pretreatment Standards for on the revised effluent limitations introduction of pollutants into POTWs Existing Sources guidelines must be included in the next which will pass through the treatment PSNS—Pretreatment Standards for New NPDES permit issued after works or will otherwise be incompatible Sources promulgation of the regulation and the with the treatment works; and (3) to Pretreatment standards apply to permit must require immediate improve opportunities to recycle and industrial facilities with wastewater compliance. reclaim municipal and industrial discharges to POTWs. The effluent wastewaters and sludges. limitations guidelines and new source 2. New Source Performance Standards The national pretreatment and performance standards apply to New sources must comply with the categorical standards comprise a series industrial facilities with direct new source performance standards and of prohibited discharges to prevent the discharges to navigable waters. limitations of the MPP rule (once it is discharge of ‘‘any pollutant(s) which finalized) at the time they commence cause Pass Through or Interference.’’ 1. NPDES Permit Program discharging MPP process wastewater. (see 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1)) Local control Section 402 of the CWA establishes Because the final rule is not expected authorities are required to implement the National Pollutant Discharge within 120 days of the proposed rule, the national pretreatment program Elimination System (NPDES) permit the Agency considers a discharger a new including application of the federal program. The NPDES permit program is source if construction of the source categorical pretreatment standards to designed to limit the discharge of begins after promulgation of the final their industrial users that are subject to pollutants into navigable waters of the rule (40 CFR 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA such categorical pretreatment standards, United States through a combination of expects to take final action on this as well as any pretreatment standards various requirements including proposal in December 2003. derived locally (i.e., local limits) that are technology-based and water quality- However, the currently codified NSPS more restrictive than the federal based effluent limitations. This continue to have force and effect for a standards. This proposed regulation
VerDate 11
does not revise federal categorical 1. Fundamentally Different Factors in question is fundamentally different pretreatment standards (PSES and Variances from the facilities and factors PSNS) applicable to meat and poultry EPA will develop effluent limitations considered by EPA in developing the processing facilities regulated by 40 CFR or standards different from the nationally applicable effluent part 432. otherwise applicable requirements if an guidelines. The regulation also lists four The federal categorical pretreatment individual discharging facility is other factors (e.g., infeasibility of standards for existing sources must be fundamentally different with respect to installation within the time allowed or achieved not later than three years factors considered in establishing the a discharger’s ability to pay) that may following the date of publication of the limitation of standards applicable to the not provide a basis for an FDF variance. final standards. If EPA were to individual facility. Such a modification In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), promulgate PSNS in the final rule, MPP is known as a ‘‘fundamentally different a request for limitations less stringent new sources would be required to factors’’ (FDF) variance. than the national limitation may be comply with the new source Early on, EPA, by regulation provided performance standards of the MPP rule approved only if compliance with the for the FDF modifications from the BPT (once it is finalized) at the time they national limitations would result in effluent limitations, BAT limitations for commence discharging MPP process either (a) a removal cost wholly out of toxic and nonconventional pollutants wastewater. Because the final rule is not proportion to the removal cost and BPT limitations for conventional expected within 120 days of the considered during development of the pollutants for direct dischargers. For proposed rule, the Agency considers an national limitations, or (b) a non-water indirect discharger a new source if its indirect dischargers, EPA provide for quality environmental impact construction commences following modifications from pretreatment (including energy requirements) promulgation of the final rule (40 CFR standards. FDF variances for toxic fundamentally more adverse than the 122.2; 40 CFR 403.3). EPA expects to pollutants were challenged judicially impact considered during development take final action on this proposal in and ultimately sustained by the of the national limits. EPA regulations December 2003. Supreme Court. (Chemical provide for an FDF variance for indirect In addition, § 403.7 of the Clean Water Manufacturers Assn v. NRDC, 479 U.S. dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The Act provides the criteria and procedures 116 (1985)). conditions for approval of a request to Subsequently, in the Water Quality to be used by a Control Authority to modify applicable pretreatment grant a categorical industrial user (CIU) Act of 1987, Congress added new section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to standards and factors considered are the variance from a pollutant limit specified same as those for direct dischargers. in a categorical pretreatment standard to authorize modifications of the otherwise reflect removal by the POTW treatment applicable BAT effluent limitations or The legislative history of section plant of the pollutant. Procedures for categorical pretreatment standards for 301(n) underscores the necessity for the granting removal credits are specified in existing sources if a facility is FDF variance applicant to establish 40 CFR 403.11. fundamentally different with respect to eligibility for the variance. EPA’s the factors specified in section 304 regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are B. Upset and Bypass Provisions (other than costs) from those considered explicit in imposing this burden upon A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion by EPA in establishing the effluent the applicant. The applicant must show of the streams from any portion of a limitations or pretreatment standard. that the factors relating to the discharge treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an Section 301(n) also defined the controlled by the applicant’s permit exceptional incident in which there is conditions under which EPA may which are claimed to be fundamentally unintentional and temporary establish alternative requirements. different are, in fact, fundamentally noncompliance with technology-based Under Section 301(n), an application for different from those factors considered permit effluent limitations because of approval of a FDF variance must be by EPA in establishing the applicable factors beyond the reasonable control of based solely on (1) information guidelines. The criteria for applying for the permittee. EPA’s regulations submitted during rulemaking raising the and evaluating applications for concerning bypasses and upsets for factors that are fundamentally different variances from categorical pretreatment direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR or (2) information the applicant did not standards are included in the 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect have an opportunity to submit. The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and alternate limitation or standard must be 403.13(h)(9). An FDF variance is not 403.17. no less stringent than justified by the available to a new source performance difference and must not result in subject to NSPS or PSNS. C. Variances and Modifications markedly more adverse non-water The CWA requires application of quality environmental impacts than the 2. Economic Variances effluent limitations established pursuant national limitation or standard. to section 301 or pretreatment standards EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes of section 307 to all direct and indirect subpart D, authorizing the Regional a variance from the otherwise applicable dischargers. However, the statute Administrators to establish alternative BAT effluent guidelines for provides for the modification of these limitations and standards, further detail nonconventional pollutants due to national requirements in a limited the substantive criteria used to evaluate economic factors. The request for a number of circumstances. Moreover, the FDF variance requests for direct variance from effluent limitations Agency has established administrative dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) developed from BAT guidelines must mechanisms to provide an opportunity identifies six factors (e.g., volume of normally be filed by the discharger for relief from the application of the process wastewater, age and size of a during the public notice period for the national effluent limitations guidelines discharger’s facility) that may be draft permit. Other filing time periods and pretreatment standards for considered in determining if a facility is may apply, as specified in 40 CFR categories of existing sources for toxic, fundamentally different. The Agency 122.21(1)(2). Specific guidance for this conventional, and nonconventional must determine whether, on the basis of type of variance is available from EPA’s pollutants. one or more of these factors, the facility Office of Wastewater Management.
VerDate 11
3. Water Quality Variances rule from survey questionnaire these periods of high production. To Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes responses from MPP facilities. (The accomplish this, facilities would likely a variance from BAT effluent guidelines production-normalized flows are have to develop more efficient treatment for certain nonconventional pollutants provided in Section VI.A.) systems and better water conservation due to localized environmental factors. A facility subject to today’s proposed and waste management practices during These pollutants include ammonia, regulation can use a combination of these periods. The Agency solicits chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols. various treatment alternatives and/or comments on related costs and any water conservation practices to achieve technical difficulties that meat and D. Production Basis for Calculation of a particular effluent limitation or poultry processing facilities might have Permit Limitations standard. The model treatment systems in meeting limits during short periods of 1. Background (see Section XI) illustrate at least one high production. EPA also solicits other means available to achieve the proposed options for consideration. The effluent limitations guidelines effluent limitations guidelines and and standards for BPT, BAT, and NSPS The proposed limitations neither standards. require the installation of any specific proposed today are expressed as mass As discussed above in Section XII.D.1, limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per control technology nor the attainment of both the NPDES permit regulations and any specific flow rate or effluent 1000 pounds (of production unit). EPA the General Pretreatment Regulations is soliciting comment on PSES and concentration. A facility subject to discuss the use of mass-based today’s proposed regulation can use PSNS numeric standards that are limitations and standards. In order to concentration-based. The NPDES various treatment alternatives or water convert the proposed effluent conservation practices to achieve a regulations (40 CFR 122.45(f)) require limitations and standards expressed as permit writers to implement mass-based particular effluent limitation or pounds/1,000 pounds of product to a standard. The model treatment systems limitations for direct dischargers, but monthly average or daily maximum described here illustrate at least one allows an exception when the limits are permit limit, the permitting or control means available to achieve the proposed expressed in terms of other units of authority would use a production rate effluent limitations guidelines and measurement (e.g., concentration) and with units of 1,000 pounds/day. The standards. the General Pretreatment Standards (40 NPDES permit regulations (40 CFR CFR 403.6(d)) provide that the control 122.45(b)(2)) require that NPDES permit E. Best Management Practices authority may impose mass limitations limits be based on a ‘‘* * * reasonable Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and on industrial users which are using measure of actual production.’’ A 501(a) of the CWA authorize the dilution to meet applicable pretreatment similar requirement is found in the Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part requirements or where mass limitations General Pretreatment regulations (40 are appropriate. EPA believes that MPP CFR 403.6(c)(3)). The production rates of effluent limitations guidelines and facilities that have been using the best used for NPDES permitting for the MPP standards or as part of a permit. EPA’s pollution prevention and water industry have commonly been the BMP regulations are found at 40 CFR conservation practices may also request highest annual average production from 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA that the permit writer or POTW use the prior five year period prorated to a authorizes EPA to include BMPs in mass-based limits in their permits or daily basis. effluent limitations guidelines for control mechanism. The Agency is The objective in determining a certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for providing detailed information on water production estimate for a facility is to the purpose of controlling ‘‘plant site use levels for specific unit operations in develop a measure of production which runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste Section 6 of the MPP Development can reasonably be expected to prevail disposal, and drainage from raw Document for today’s proposal. EPA during the next term of the permit. This material storage.’’ Section 402(a)(1) and believes this information will be useful is used in combination with the NPDES regulations (40 CFR 122.44(k)) to permit writers and control authorities production-based limitations to also provide for best management in those instances where they deem it establish a maximum mass of pollutant practices to control or abate the appropriate to set mass-based limits. that may be discharged each day and discharge of pollutants when numeric month. However, if the permit limitations and standards are infeasible. 2. Mass-Based Limitations and production rate is based on the In addition, Section 402(a)(2), read in Standards maximum month, then the permit could concert with Section 501(a), authorizes The effluent limitations guidelines allow excessive discharges of pollutants EPA to prescribe as wide a range of and standards for BPT, BAT, and NSPS during significant portions of the life of permit conditions as the Administrator proposed today are expressed as mass the permit. These excessive allowances deems appropriate in order to ensure limitations in pounds (of pollutant) per may discourage facilities from ensuring compliance with applicable effluent 1000 pounds (of production unit). optimal waste management, water limitations and standards and such Production units include Live Weight conservation, and wastewater treatment other requirements as the Administrator Killed (LWK), Equivalent Live Weight practices during lower production deems appropriate. Killed (ELWK), Finished Product (FP) periods. On the other hand, if the Dikes, curbs, and other control and Raw Material (RM). The mass average permit production rate is based measures are being used at some MPP limitation is derived by multiplying an on an average derived from the highest facilities to contain leaks and spills as effluent concentration (determined from year of production over the past five part of good ‘‘housekeeping’’ practices.’’ the analysis of treatment system years, then facilities may have trouble However, on a facility-by-facility basis a performance) by an appropriate ensuring that their waste management, permit writer may choose to incorporate wastewater volume (‘‘production- water conservation, and wastewater BMPs into the permit. See MPP normalized flow’’) determined for each treatment practices can accommodate Development Document for this MPP operation expressed in gallons/ shorter periods of higher production. proposed rule for a detailed discussion 1000 pounds of product. EPA developed This might require facilities to target a of pollution prevention and best the production normalized flows used more stringent treatment level than that management practices used in the MPP to develop the limits in the proposed on which the limits were based during industry.
VerDate 11
As described elsewhere in today’s based on full time employees (FTEs) or serious economic impacts if notice, EPA is considering an alternative annual revenues established by SBA; (2) requirements were imposed. EPA to potential numeric pretreatment a small governmental jurisdiction that is considered regulating an additional limitations and standards that would a government of a city, county, town, subset of this group of 5411 facilities, involve implementing BMPs as part of school district or special district with a the 731 largest indirect discharging an Environmental Management System population of less than 50,000; and (3) facilities, 462 of which are owned by (EMS) (see Section XI.B). a small organization that is any not-for- small businesses. If the costs of Option profit enterprise which is independently 1 for PSES standards were imposed on XIII. Administrative Requirements owned and operated and is not these facilities, EPA estimates that 235 A. Executive Order 12866: ‘‘Regulatory dominant in its field. of the 462 facilities owned by small Planning and Review’’ The definitions of small business for companies would have a cost/net the meat products industries are in income ratio between one and two Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR SBA’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. percent while the other 227 facilities 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency These size standards were updated owned by small companies would have must determine whether the regulatory effective October 1, 2000. SBA size a cost/net income ratio of less than one action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore standards for the meat and poultry percent. Thus, even if EPA had subject to OMB review and the products industry (that is, for NAICS proposed Option 1 PSES standards for requirements of the Executive Order. codes 311611, 311612, 311613, and indirect dischargers the combined The Order defines ‘‘significant 311615) define a ‘‘small business’’ as proposal would not have had a regulatory action’’ as one that is likely one which has 500 or fewer employees. significant impact on a substantial to result in a rule that may: EPA estimates that small businesses number of small entities. (1) Have an annual effect on the own 71 facilities out of 246 facilities EPA has held several teleconferences economy of $100 million or more or that would be regulated under the rule with representatives of the American adversely affect in a material way the as proposed. EPA based this estimate on Association of Meat Processors (AAMP) economy, a sector of the economy, information from the screener survey which has almost a third of its productivity, competition, jobs, the and SBA as described in Section VIII.M. association members with less than 10 environment, public health or safety, or EPA assumes that it is unlikely that any FTE at the company level. We continue State, local, or tribal governments or small company owns more than one to be interested in the potential impacts communities; facility. EPA has fully evaluated the of the proposed rule on small entities (2) Create a serious inconsistency or economic impact of the proposed rule and welcome comments on issues otherwise interfere with an action taken on the affected small companies. None related to such impacts. or planned by another agency; of the facilities owned by small (3) Materially alter the budgetary companies have a cost/sales ratio greater C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, than one percent. For this proposal, EPA Title II of the Unfunded Mandates or loan programs or the rights and is using the ratio of annualized Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L. obligations of recipients thereof; or compliance costs to net income as its 104–4, establishes requirements for (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues central measure of economic Federal agencies to assess the effects of arising out of legal mandates, the achievability (see Section VIII.E for a their regulatory actions on State, local, President’s priorities, or the principles definition of this measure). EPA and tribal governments and the private set forth in the Executive Order. estimates that, based on its model sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, It has been determined that this facilities, 38 of the 71 facilities owned EPA generally must prepare a written proposed rule is a ‘‘significant by small companies have cost/net statement, including a cost-benefit regulatory action’’ under the terms of income ratios between five and nine analysis, for proposed and final rules Executive Order 12866. As such, this percent, eight facilities have cost/net with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may action was submitted to OMB for income ratios between two and three result in expenditures to State, local, review. Changes made in response to percent, while the other 25 facilities and tribal governments, in the aggregate, OMB suggestions or recommendations owned by small companies have cost/ or to the private sector, of $100 million will be documented in the public net income ratios less than one percent. or more in any one year. record. EPA also calculated the ratio of cost to Before promulgating an EPA rule for sales as a supplement to the cost/net which a written statement is needed, B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as income ratio. (More detail on these Section 205 of the UMRA generally Amended by the Small Business estimates is provided in the EA.) After requires EPA to identify and consider a Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of considering the economic impact of reasonable number of regulatory 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. today’s proposed rule on small entities, alternatives and adopt the least costly, The RFA generally requires an agency including consideration of alternative most cost-effective or least burdensome to prepare a regulatory flexibility regulatory approaches being proposed, I alternative that achieves the objectives analysis for any rule subject to notice certify that this action will not have of the rule. The provisions of section and comment rulemaking requirements significant economic impact on a 205 do not apply when they are under the Administrative Procedure Act substantial number of small entities. inconsistent with applicable law. or any other statute unless the agency Although this proposed rule will not Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to certifies that the rule will not have a have a significant economic impact on adopt an alternative other than the least significant economic impact on a a substantial number of small entities, costly, most cost-effective or least substantial number of small entities. EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the burdensome alternative, if the Small entities include small businesses, impact of this rule on small entities. Administrator publishes with the final small organizations, and small EPA is not proposing any new rule an explanation why that alternative governmental jurisdictions. requirements on 5411 (or the vast was not adopted. For purposes of assessing the impacts majority of) facilities. Most of these are Before EPA establishes any regulatory of today’s rule on small entities, small owned by small businesses and many of requirements that may significantly or entity is defined as: (1) A small business the smallest could likely experience uniquely affect small governments,
VerDate 11
including tribal governments, it must the Agency must evaluate the Therefore, this rule is not subject to the have developed under section 203 of the environmental health and safety effects Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has UMRA a small government agency plan. of the planned rule on children, and previously approved information The plan must provide for notifying explain why the planned regulation is collection requirements for CWA direct potentially affected small governments, preferable to other potentially effective dischargers to comply with their NPDES enabling officials of affected small and reasonably feasible alternatives permits and for indirect dischargers to governments to have meaningful and considered by the Agency. comply with pretreatment requirements. timely input in the development of EPA This proposed rule is not subject to Burden estimates for direct dischargers regulatory proposals with significant E.O. 13045 because it is not to comply with this rule are contained Federal intergovernmental mandates, economically significant under E.O. in the ‘‘National Pollutant Discharge and informing, educating, and advising 12866, nor does it concern an Elimination System (NPDES)/ small governments on compliance with environmental health or safety risk that Compliance Assessment/Certification the regulatory requirements. may have a disproportionate effect on Information’’ ICR (OMB control no. EPA has determined that this rule children. 2040–0110). Burden estimates for does not contain a Federal mandate that E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation indirect discharging facilities to comply may result in expenditures of $100 and Coordination with Indian Tribal with 40 CFR Part 403 are included in million or more for State, local, and Governments the ‘‘National Pretreatment Program (40 tribal governments, in the aggregate, or CFR part 403)’’ ICR (OMB control no. the private sector in any one year. The Executive Order 13175, entitled 2040–0009). ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with total annual cost of this rule is estimated Copies of the ICR document(s) may be Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR to be $80 million. Thus, today’s rule is obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA not subject to the requirements of the Office of Environmental to develop an accountable process to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The Information, Collection Strategies ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by facilities which are affected by today’s Division; U.S. Environmental Protection tribal officials in the development of proposal are direct dischargers engaged Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., regulatory policies that have tribal in the slaughtering or processing of meat NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail implications.’’ This proposed rule does and poultry and the rendering of by- at [email protected], or by calling not have tribal implications, as specified products resulting from these activities. (202) 260–2740. A copy may also be in Executive Order 13175. This These facilities would be subject to downloaded off the internet at http:// proposed rule will not have substantial today’s proposed requirements through www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR and direct effects on tribal governments, on the issuance or renewal of an NPDES /or OMB number in any the relationship between the Federal permit either from the Federal EPA or correspondence. authorized State governments. These government and Indian tribes, or on the Burden means the total time, effort, or facilities should already have NPDES distribution of power and financial resources expended by persons permits as the Clean Water Act requires responsibilities between the Federal to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose a permit be held by any point source government and Indian tribes, as or provide information to or for a discharger before that facility may specified in Executive Order 13175. Federal agency. This includes the time discharge wastewater pollutants into Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not needed to review instructions; develop, surface waters. Therefore, today’s apply to this rule. proposal could require these permits to EPA specifically solicits additional acquire, install, and utilize technology be revised to comply with revised comment on this proposed rule from and systems for the purposes of federal standards, but should not tribal officials. collecting, validating, and verifying require a new permit program be EPA has compared 492 tribal zip information, processing and implemented. codes obtained from EPA’s America maintaining information, and disclosing EPA is not proposing to establish Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) to and providing information; adjust the pretreatment standards for this point the 5,270 zip codes from EPA’s Hazard existing ways to comply with any source category which are applied to Analysis and Critical Control Points previously applicable instructions and indirect dischargers and overseen by (HACCP) database. EPA identified requirements; train personnel to be able Control Authorities. Local governments approximately 64 MPP facilities located to respond to a collection of are frequently the Control Authority but in 36 tribal zip codes. Of these 64 MPP information; search data sources; since this regulation proposes no facilities, 50 are classified as very small complete and review the collection of pretreatment standards, there would be (<10 employees), 13 as small (10–499 information; and transmit or otherwise no impact imposed on local employees), and only one facility as disclose the information. governments. Thus, today’s rule is not large (≥500 employees). EPA expects the However, should EPA proceed with subject to the requirements of section proposed rule would not affect any of the Regulatory Alternative for indirect 203 of UMRA. the very small facilities. It would only dischargers there could be new cover some of the facilities employing information collection requirements. D. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection 10 to 499 employees and the one facility The Agency will develop an Information of Children From Environmental Health employing greater than or equal to 500 Collection Request seeking clearance for Risks and Safety Risks’’ employees. (EPA cannot determine from any additional information collection Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, the HACCP database which of these requirements when we have fully April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: facilities are indirect dischargers and evaluated and developed this (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically which are direct dischargers, although alternative. significant’’ as defined under E.O. the large majority of these facilities are An Agency may not conduct or 12866, and (2) concerns an indirect dischargers.) sponsor, and a person is not required to environmental health or safety risk that respond to a collection of information EPA has reason to believe may have a F. Paperwork Reduction Act unless it displays a currently valid OMB disproportionate effect on children. If This proposed rule contains no new control number. The OMB control the regulatory action meets both criteria, information collection requirements. numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
VerDate 11
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter technology-based effluent limitations Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 15. guidelines are uniformly applied 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have nationally irrespective of geographic G. Executive Order 13132: ‘‘Federalism’’ a significant adverse effect on the location. The proposed regulation will supply, distribution, or use of energy. Executive Order 13132, entitled reduce the negative effects of meat and As part of the Agency’s consideration of ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, poultry products industry waste in our Non-Water Quality Impacts, EPA has 1999), requires EPA to develop an nation’s waters to benefit all of society, estimated the energy consumption accountable process to ensure including minority and low-income associated with today’s proposed ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State communities. The cost impacts of the requirements. EPA estimates that meat and local officials in the development of rule should likewise not and poultry processing facilities will regulatory policies that have federalism disproportionately affect low-income decrease their energy consumption by implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have communities given the relatively low federalism implications’’ is defined in economic impacts of the rule. 144 million KWH/yr which is the Executive Order to include approximately 6 percent of current regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct I. National Technology Transfer and energy used by this industrial sector. effects on the States, on the relationship Advancement Act The decrease is associated with the between the national government and Section 12(d) of the National proposed BAT technologies for the the States, or on the distribution of Technology Transfer and Advancement poultry and meat subcategories, which power and responsibilities among the Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub L. 104–113 would result in treatment to remove various levels of government.’’ Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs nitrogen prior to discharge. This proposed rule does not have EPA to use voluntary consensus Denitrification, following nitrification, Federalism implications. It will not standards in its regulatory activities which most direct discharging facilities have substantial direct effects on the unless to do so would be inconsistent currently have in place, will reduce States, on the relationship between the with applicable law or otherwise energy usage. To remove the nitrates national government and the States, or impractical. Voluntary consensus and nitrites generated by nitrifying on the distribution of power and standards are technical standards (e.g., ammonia, a typical facility is likely to responsibilities among the various materials specifications, test methods, use the oxygen attached to the nitrogen levels of government, as specified in sampling procedures, and business compounds to further break down the Executive Order 13132. EPA estimates practices) that are developed or adopted BOD, which means that the facility can that, when promulgated, these revised by voluntary consensus standard bodies. effluent guidelines and standards will The NTTAA directs EPA to provide actually reduce the need to add oxygen be incorporated into NPDES permits Congress, through the Office of to the system through aeration of the without any additional costs to Management and Budget (OMB), wastewater. Shutting off the aeration authorized States. explanations when the Agency decides equipment will reduce the energy used Further, the revised regulations would not to use available and applicable in operating the treatment system. EPA not alter the basic State-Federal scheme voluntary consensus standards. estimates that there will be no change in established in the Clean Water Act This rulemaking involves technical the energy requirements to operate the under which EPA authorizes States to standards. The proposed rule requires treatment system for the rendering carry out the NPDES permitting certain facilities that produce meat or subcategory as a result of today’s program. EPA expects the revised poultry products to monitor for fecal proposed rule as the proposed rule does regulations to have little effect, if any, coliform, COD, BOD5, TSS, oil & grease, not change the technology basis on the relationship between, or the ammonia, total phosphorus, and total (nitrification) for rendering facilities. distribution of power and nitrogen (sum of nitrate/nitrite and See Section X.A of today’s notice for responsibilities among, the Federal, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)). EPA more discussion of how these energy State and local governments. Thus, performed a search to identify usages were determined. Therefore, we Executive Order 13132 does not apply potentially voluntary consensus have concluded that this rule is not to this rule. standards that could be used to measure likely to have any adverse energy the parameters in today’s proposed H. Executive Order 12898: ‘‘Federal effects. guideline. EPA’s search revealed that Actions To Address Environmental consensus standards for these K. Plain Language Justice in Minority Populations and paramenters exist and are already Low-Income Populations’’ specified in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. Executive Order 12866 requires each The requirements of the In addition, EPA is proposing to add a agency to write all rules in plain Environmental Justice Executive Order voluntary consensus standard (Method language. We invite your comments on are that EPA will review the 300.0) for measuring nitrate/nitrite. EPA how to make this proposed rule easier environmental effects of major Federal welcomes comments on this aspect of to understand. For example, have we actions significantly affecting the the proposed rulemaking and, organized the material to suit your quality of the human environment. For specifically, invites the public to needs? Are the requirements in the rule such actions, EPA reviewers will focus identify potentially-applicable clearly stated? Does the rule contain on the spatial distribution of human voluntary consensus standards and to technical language or jargon that is not health, social and economic effects to explain why such standards should be clear? Would a different format ensure that agency decision makers are used in this regulation. (grouping and order of sections, use of aware of the extent to which those headings, paragraphing) make the rule impacts fall disproportionately on J. Executive Order 13211: ‘‘Energy Effects’’ easier to understand? Would more (but covered communities.’’ This is not a shorter) sections be better? Could we major action. Further, EPA does not This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy improve clarity by adding tables, lists, believe this rulemaking will have a action’’ as defined in Executive Order or diagrams? What else could we do to disproportionate effect on minority or 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations make the rule easier to understand? low income communities because the That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
VerDate 11
XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments • Information on whether or not EPA development process. To ensure that should regulate indirect dischargers (see commenter data may be effectively A. General and Specific Comment Section XI.B); evaluated by the Agency, EPA has Solicitation • Additional data and information developed the following guidelines for EPA solicits comments on various related to MPP facilities implementing submission of data. issues specifically identified in the EMSs or BMPs (see Section XI.F); preamble as well as any other issues • Information on whether or not EPA A. Types of Data Requested that are not specifically addressed in should establish regulatory alternatives EPA requests paired influent and today’s notice. Specifically, EPA solicits to potential pretreatment standards for effluent treatment data for each of the information, data, and comment on the indirect dischargers (see Section XI.F). technologies identified in the following topics: • Additional data and information on technology options (see Section VII.A) • Additional information and data on exotic and other meat and poultry as well as any additional technologies the performance and associated costs of product facilities (e.g., horse, goats, elk, applicable to the treatment of MPP all wastewater treatment technologies deer, buffalo, ostriches, quail, wastewater. EPA prefers paired influent currently or potentially capable of pheasants, rabbits, and other small and effluent treatment data, but also treating MPP wastewaters; game). EPA is soliciting additional data solicits unpaired data as well. Data from • EPA’s intended use of data (e.g, and information on the industry profile systems treating only non-process MPP monitoring data) to perform a ‘‘real- for these meat and poultry product wastewater (e.g., sanitary wastewater or world’’ check on the achievability of the facilities including type of operations, non-contact cooling water) will not be limitations and standards; evaluated by EPA. • annual production, number of The potential of MPP facilities to employees per facility, typical For the systems treating MPP process reduce water consumption and new wastewater characteristics, typical wastewater, EPA requests paired technologies or practices that can methods of wastewater management and influent and effluent treatment data effectively reuse water; treatment. from 24-hour composite samples of • Description of all types of flowing wastewater streams (except for flocculants or treatment aids used in B. Regulatory Alternative to Potential analyses requiring grab samples, such as MPP WWTP and their concentrations Numerical Pretreatment Standards oil and grease). This includes end-of- that are commonly not accepted by EPA is describing a regulatory pipe treatment technologies and in- independent renderers; process treatment, recycling, or water • alternative to numerical pretreatment Differences in production and standards which would require meat reuse. Submission of effluent data alone wastewater generation and and poultry products facilities to is acceptable, but the commenters characteristics between non-religious implement specific BMPs as part of a should provide evidence that the and religious meat and poultry facilities; facility-wide Environmental influent concentrations contain treatable • Whether EPA should approve the Management System. See Section XI.F levels of the pollutants. If commenters use of Method 300.0 for the meat and for the discussion of this regulatory sample their wastewaters to respond to poultry industry; • alternative. EPA solicits comments on this proposal, EPA encourages them to EPA’s notation for oil and grease sample both the influent and effluent limitations and standards in the this alternative. Would it be a protective of the environment? Would meat and wastestreams. proposed rule; EPA prefers that the data be submitted • Whether EPA should regulate total poultry products facilities choose this regulatory alternative? in an electronic format. In addition to residual chlorine; providing the measurement of the • EPA’s methodology for determining EPA is also seeking data and pollutant in each sample, EPA requests LTAs and variability factors used in this information on the costs and burdens that sites provide the detection limit proposal; and even cost savings associated with • Need for a different monthly implementing an EMS and the specific (rather than specifying zero or ‘ND’) if average limitations for small and non- BMPs. Environmental improvements the pollutant is non-detected in the small facilities; associated with implementing the wastestream. Each measurement should • Whether EPA should set more BMPs, expressed in terms of pollutant be identified with a sample collection stringent standards for either direct or reductions in wastewater discharges and date, the sampling point location, and indirect new sources; other environmental improvements the flow rate at that location. For each • Additional methods for estimating associated with the implementation of sample or pollutant, EPA requests that and monetizing benefits associated with an EMS. the chemical analytical method be the proposed rule; EPA solicits comments on the identified. • The economic analysis in this establishment of pretreatment standards In support of the treatment data, proposal and the methods it is for oil & grease on the basis of commenters should submit the considering for subsequent analyses, interferences of POTW performance. As following items if they are available: A particularly the use of cash flow as a discussed in Section XI.B, EPA has process diagram of the treatment system measure of resources available to identified a number of instances where that includes the sampling point finance environmental compliance and the discharge of untreated meat and locations; treatment chemical addition suggestions for alternative poultry products wastewater has led to rates; laboratory reports; influent and methodologies; interference with a POTW treatment effluent flow rates for each treatment • Whether TDS limitations and system. unit during the sampling period; standards are necessary and which production in each subcategory (daily industry subcategories (if any) should be XV. Guidelines for Submission of values are preferred, but either subject to these potential limitations Analytical Data production or estimated production and standards; EPA requests that commenters to during the sampling period are also • Additional data and information today’s proposed rule submit analytical, acceptable); sludge or waste oil related to instances of MPP indirect flow, and production data to generation rates; a brief discussion of dischargers causing POTW interference supplement data collected by the the treatment technology sampled; and or pass through (see Section XI.B); Agency during the regulatory a list of MPP operations contributing to
VerDate 11
the sampled wastestream. If available, organic pollutants when automatic BCT—The best control technology for information on capital cost, annual compositors are used to collect samples. conventional pollutants, applicable to (operation and maintenance) cost, and discharges of conventional pollutants from treatment capacity should be included TABLE XV.C–1.—ANALYTICAL METH- existing industrial point sources, as defined by Section 304(b)(4) of the CWA for each treatment unit within the ODS FOR USE WITH MPP BOD5—Biochemical Oxygen Demand system. WASTEWATERS measured over a five day period. B. Analytes Requested BPJ—Best Professional Judgment Method used BPT—The best practicable control EPA considered metal, organic, in EPA sam- technology currently available, applicable Parameter pling to effluent limitations, for industrial conventional, and other (alternative nonconventional pollutant parameters discharges to surface waters, as defined by methods) Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA. for regulation. Based on analytical data CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Aeromonas ...... 9260L collected, EPA initially identified 30 Clean Water Act (CWA)—The Federal Water Acidity ...... 305.1 pollutants of concern for the meat Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 Alkalinity ...... 310.1 processing segment of the industry and (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended. Ammonia as Nitrogen ...... 350.2 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 27 pollutants of concern for the poultry BOD 5-Day ...... 405.1 Questionnaire—A questionnaire sent to processing segment of the industry (see BOD 5-Day (Carbonaceous) .. 405.1, facilities under the authority of Section 308 Section VII.C and MPP Development SM5210 of the CWA, which requests information to Document). The Agency requests Carbaryl ...... 632 be used in the development of national analytical data for any of the pollutants Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.1 (COD). effluent guidelines and standards. of concern and for any other pollutant Conventional Pollutants—Constituents of parameters that commentors believe are 410.2 410.4 wastewater as determined by section of concern in the MPP industry. Of 5220B 304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA particular interest are BOD5, TSS, Chloride ...... 300.0 regulations), i.e., pollutants classified as Ammonia as Nitrogen, and pH data. 325.3 biochemical oxygen demand, total Commentors should use the methods Dichlorvos ...... 1657 suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal listed in Table XV.C–1 or equivalent E. coli ...... 9221F coliform, and pH. methods (generally, those approved at Metals ...... 1620 (200.7, Daily Discharge—The discharge of a 245.1) pollutant measured during any calendar 40 CFR 136 for compliance monitoring), day or any 24-hour period that reasonably and should document the method used Volatile Organics ...... 1624 (624) Semivolatile Organics ...... 1625 (625) represents a calendar day. for all data submissions. The methods Malathion ...... 1657 Direct Discharger—A facility that discharges are described in more detail in the MPP Nitrate/Nitrite ...... 300.0 or may discharge treated or untreated Development Document. 353.1 wastewaters into waters of the United States. C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control 353.2 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl ...... 351.2 DMR—Discharge Monitoring Report. (QA/QC) Requirements 351.3 Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELGS)—Under CWA section 502(11), any restriction, EPA based today’s proposed Oil and Grease ...... 413.2 Oil and Grease (as HEM) ...... 1664 including schedules of compliance, regulations on analytical data collected cis-Permethrin ...... 1660 established by a State or the Administrator by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks trans-Permethrin ...... 1660 on quantities, rates, and concentrations of specified in the analytical methods pH ...... 150.1 (SM chemical, physical, biological, and other listed in Table XV.C–1. These QA/QC 4500 H∂ constituents which are discharged from checks include procedures specified in B) point sources into navigable waters, the each of the analytical methods, as well Phosphorus, Total ...... 365.2 waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean as procedures used for the MPP 365.3 (CWA sections 301(b) and 304(b)). sampling program in accordance with Salmonella ...... FDA–BAM Existing Source—For this rule, any facility from which there is or may be a discharge EPA sampling and analysis protocols. Tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos) ... 1657 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 160.1 of pollutants, the construction of which is These QA/QC procedures include Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 415.1 commenced before the publication of the sample preservation and the use of Total Orthophosphate ...... 300.0 final regulations prescribing a standard of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix 365.2 performance under section 306 of the spike duplicates, laboratory duplicate Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 160.2 CWA. samples, and QC standard checks (e.g., Facility—All contiguous property and Note: Standard Method (SM). continuing calibration blanks). Because equipment owned, operated, leased, or of these rigorous checks, EPA has high Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, under the control of the same person or confidence in its data. Thus, EPA and Abbreviations Used in This entity. FDF—Fundamentally Different Factor requests that submissions of analytical Document Finished Product—The final manufactured data include any available AAMP—The American Association of Meat product produced on site, including documentation of QA/QC procedures. Processors products intended for consumption with However, EPA will still consider data Administrator—The Administrator of the no additional processing as well as submitted without detailed QA/QC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. products intended for further processing, information. If commenters sample their Agency—The U.S. Environmental Protection when applicable. wastewaters to respond to this proposal, Agency First Processing—Operations which receive EPA encourages them to provide AMI—American Meat Institute live meat animals or poultry and produce detailed documentation of the QA/QC AMSA—Association of Metropolitan a raw, dressed meat or poultry product, Sewerage Agencies either whole or in parts. checks for each sample. EPA also BAT—The best available technology FTE—Full Time Equivalent Employee requests that sites collect and analyze 10 economically achievable, applicable to Further Processing—Operations which percent field duplicate samples to assess effluent limitations for industrial utilize whole carcasses or cut-up meat or sampling variability, and sites provide discharges to surface waters, as defined by poultry products for the production of data for equipment blanks for volatile Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA. fresh or frozen products, and may include
VerDate 11
the following types of processing: cutting Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact— owned by a State or municipality (as and deboning, cooking, seasoning, Deleterious aspects of control and defined by section 502(4) of the Clean smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, treatment technologies applicable to point Water Act). This definition includes any dicing, forming or breading. source category wastes, including, but not devices and systems used in the storage, Hazardous Waste—Any waste, including limited to air pollution, noise, radiation, treatment, recycling and reclamation of wastewater, defined as hazardous under sludge and solid waste generation, and municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a RCRA, TSCA, or any State law. energy used. liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes HEM—A measure of oil and grease in NRA—National Renderers Association and other conveyances only if they convey wastewater by mixing the wastewater with NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant. hexane and measuring the oils and greases NSPS—New Sources Performance Standards, The term also means the municipality as that are removed from the wastewater with applicable to industrial facilities whose defined in section 502(4) of the Clean n-hexane. Specifically EPA Method 1664, construction is begun after the effective Water Act, which has jurisdiction over the see 40 CFR 136.3, Table IB. date of the final regulations (if those Indirect Discharges to and the discharges Indirect Discharger—A facility that regulations are promulgated after June 25, from such a treatment works. discharges or may discharge wastewaters 2002). EPA is scheduled to take final action Raw Material—The basic input materials to into a publicly-owned treatment works. on this proposal in December 2003. See 40 a renderer composed of animal and poultry LTA (Long-Term Average)—For purposes of CFR 122.2. trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead the effluent guidelines, average pollutant NTTA—National Technology Transfer and animals, feathers and related usable by- levels achieved over a period of time by a Advancement Act products. facility, subcategory, or technology option. NWPCAM—The National Water Pollution RCRA—The Resource Conservation and LTAs were used in developing the effluent Control Assessment Model (version 1.1) is Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. limitations guidelines and standards in a computer model to model the instream 6901 et seq.), which regulates the today’s proposed regulation. dissolved oxygen concentration, as generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or Live Weight Killed (LWK)—The total weight influenced by pollutant reductions of recycling of solid and hazardous wastes. of the total number of animals slaughtered BOD5, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total RED MEAT—See the definition for ‘‘MEAT’. during a specific time period. Suspended Solids, and Fecal Coliform. RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act Maximum Monthly Discharge Limitation— LWK and ELWK—Live Weight Killed and the SAP—Sampling and Analysis Plan The highest allowable average of ‘‘daily Equivalent Live Weight Killed SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory discharges’’ over a calendar month, Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains and Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 calculated as the sum of all ‘‘daily other conduits from which a facility SCC—Sample Control Center discharges’’ measured during the calendar effluent discharges into receiving waters. SER—Small Entity Representative month divided by the number of ‘‘daily Pass Through—The term ‘‘Pass Through’’ SIC—Standard Industrial Classification discharges’’ measured during the month. means a Discharge which exits the POTW (SIC)—A numerical categorization system Meat—The term ‘‘meat’’ includes all animal into waters of the United States in used by the U.S. Department of Commerce products from cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, quantities or concentrations which, alone to catalogue economic activity. SIC codes lambs, horses, goats and exotic livestock or in conjunction with a discharge or refer to the products, or group of products, (e.g. elk, buffalo, deer) etc., except those discharges from other sources, is a cause of produced or distributed, or to services defined as Poultry for human a violation of any requirement of the rendered by an operating establishment. consumption. This category may include POTW’s NPDES permit (including an SIC codes are used to group establishments certain species not classified as ‘‘meat’’ by increase in the magnitude or duration of a by the economic activities in which they USDA FSIS and that may or may not be violation). are engaged. SIC codes often denote a under USDA FSIS voluntary inspection. Point Source—Any discernable, confined, facility’s primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. MPP—Meat and Poultry Products and discrete conveyance from which economic activities. Minimum Level—The level at which an pollutants are or may be discharged. See Stearin—An ester of glycerol and stearic acid analytical system gives recognizable CWA section 502(14). found in MPP wastewaters. signals and an acceptable calibration point. Pollutants of Concern (POCs)—Pollutants Total Nitrogen—Sum of nitrate/nitrite and NAICS—North American Industry commonly found in meat and poultry TKN. Classification System. NAICS was processing wastewaters. Generally, a TKN—Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and chemical is considered as a POC if it was TSS—Total Suspended Solids Mexico to provide new comparability in detected in untreated process wastewater statistics about business activity across at 5 times a baseline value in more than List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 432 North America. 10% of the samples. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Poultry—Broilers, other young chickens, Environmental protection; Meat and System (NPDES) Permit—A permit to hens, fowl, mature chickens, turkeys, meat products; Poultry and poultry discharge wastewater into waters of the capons, geese, ducks, exotic poultry (e.g. products; Waste treatment and disposal; United States issued under the National ostriches), and small game such as quail, Water pollution control. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, pheasants, and rabbits. This category may Dated: January 30, 2002. authorized by section 402 of the CWA. include species not classified as ‘‘poultry’’ Christine Todd Whitman, Nitrification Capability—The capability of a by USDA FSIS and that may or may not be POTW treatment system to oxidize under USDA FSIS voluntary inspection. Administrator. ammonia or ammonium salts initially to Priority Pollutant—One hundred twenty-six For the reasons set forth in this nitrites (via Nitrosomonas bacteria) and compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic preamble, 40 CFR part 432 is proposed subsequently to nitrates (via Nitrobacter pollutants and classes of pollutants to be revised to read as follows: bacteria). Criteria for determining the outlined pursuant to section 307 of the nitrification capability of a POTW CWA. PART 432—MEAT AND POULTRY treatment system are: bioassays confirming PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE the presence of nitrifying bacteria; and sources of indirect discharges, under CATEGORY analyses of the nitrogen balance Section 307(b) of the CWA, applicable (for demonstrating a reduction in the this rule) to indirect dischargers that Sec. concentration of ammonia or ammonium commenced construction prior to 432.1 General applicability. salts and an increase in the concentrations promulgation of the final rule. 432.2 General definitions. of nitrites and nitrates. PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new 432.3 General pretreatment standards. Non-Conventional Pollutants—Pollutants sources under section 307(c) of the CWA. 432.4 General limitation or standard for pH. that are neither conventional pollutants Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)— nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR A treatment works as defined by section Subpart A—Simple Slaughterhouses 401.15 and part 423 appendix A. 212 of the Clean Water Act, which is 432.10 Applicability.
VerDate 11
432.11 Special definitions. control technology currently available 432.97 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the (BPT). application of the best control application of the best practicable 432.55 New source performance standards technology for conventional pollutants control technology currently available (NSPS). (BCT). (BPT). 432.57 Effluent limitations attainable by the Subpart J—Renderers 432.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best control application of the best available technology for conventional pollutants 432.100 Applicability. technology economically achievable (BCT). 432.101 Special definitions. (BAT). 432.102 Effluent limitations attainable by Subpart F—Meat Cutters 432.15 New source performance standards the application of the best practicable (NSPS). 432.60 Applicability. control technology currently available 432.17 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.61 Special definitions. (BPT). application of the best control 432.62 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.103 Effluent limitations attainable by technology for conventional pollutants application of the best practicable the application of the best available (BCT). control technology currently available technology economically achievable (BPT). (BAT). Subpart B—Complex Slaughterhouses 432.63 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.105 New source performance standards 432.20 Applicability. application of the best available (NSPS). 432.21 Special definitions. technology economically achievable 432.107 Effluent limitations attainable by 432.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the (BAT). the application of the best control application of the best practicable 432.65 New source performance standards technology for conventional pollutants control technology currently available (NSPS). (BCT). (BPT). 432.67 Effluent limitations attainable by the Subpart K—Poultry First Processing 432.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best control application of the best available technology for conventional pollutants 432.110 Applicability. technology economically achievable (BCT). 432.111 Special definitions. (BAT). 432.112 Effluent limitations attainable by Subpart G—Sausage and Luncheon Meats 432.25 New source performance standards the application of the best practicable Processors (NSPS). control technology currently available 432.27 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.70 Applicability. (BPT). application of the best control 432.71 Special definitions. 432.113 Effluent limitations attainable by technology for conventional pollutants 432.72 Effluent limitations attainable by the the application of the best available (BCT). application of the best practicable technology economically achievable control technology currently available (BAT). Subpart C—Low-Processing (BPT). 432.115 New source performance standards Packinghouses 432.73 Effluent limitations attainable by the (NSPS). 432.30 Applicability. application of the best available 432.117 Effluent limitations attainable by 432.31 Special definitions. technology economically achievable the application of the best control 432.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the (BAT). technology for conventional pollutants application of the best practicable 432.75 New source performance standards (BCT). control technology currently available (NSPS). Subpart L—Poultry Further Processing (BPT). 432.77 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best control 432.120 Applicability. application of the best available technology for conventional pollutants 432.121 Special definitions. technology economically achievable (BCT). 432.122 Effluent limitations attainable by (BAT). the application of the best practicable Subpart H—Ham Processors 432.35 New source performance standards control technology currently available (NSPS). 432.80 Applicability. (BPT). 432.37 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.81 Special definitions. 432.123 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best control 432.82 Effluent limitations attainable by the the application of the best available technology for conventional pollutants application of the best practicable technology economically achievable (BCT). control technology currently available (BAT). (BPT). 432.125 New source performance standards Subpart D—High-Processing 432.83 Effluent limitations attainable by the (NSPS). Packinghouses application of the best available 432.127 Effluent limitations attainable by 432.40 Applicability. technology economically achievable the application of the best control 432.41 Special definitions. (BAT). technology for conventional pollutants 432.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.85 New source performance standards (BCT). application of the best practicable (NSPS). control technology currently available 432.87 Effluent limitations attainable by the Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, (BPT). application of the best control 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, as 432.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the technology for conventional pollutants amended; 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, application of the best available (BCT). 1318, 1342 and 1361. technology economically achievable Subpart I—Canned Meats Processors § 432.1 General applicability. (BAT). 432.45 New source performance standards 432.90 Applicability. As defined more specifically in each (NSPS). 432.91 Special definitions. subpart, this part applies to discharges 432.47 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.92 Effluent limitations attainable by the of process wastewater resulting from application of the best control application of the best practicable sources engaged in the slaughtering, technology for conventional pollutants control technology currently available dressing and packing of mammals, (BCT). (BPT). including cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, 432.93 Effluent limitations attainable by the lambs, and poultry, including chickens, Subpart E—Small Processors application of the best available 432.50 Applicability. technology economically achievable turkeys, fowl and ducks; production of 432.51 Special definitions. (BAT). sausages, luncheon meats, cured, 432.52 Effluent limitations attainable by the 432.95 New source performance standards smoked and canned or other prepared application of the best practicable (NSPS). meat and poultry products from
VerDate 11
purchased carcasses and other (j) Raw Material means the basic input § 432.12 Effluent limitations attainable by materials; or production of animal oils, materials to a renderer composed of the application of the best practicable meat meal and the rendering of grease animal and poultry trimmings, bones, control technology currently available and tallow from animal fat, bones and blood, meat scraps, dead animals, (BPT). meat scraps. These manufacturing feathers and related usable by-products. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point activities are generally reported under (k) The other parameters regulated in source subject to this subpart must one or more of the following Standard this part are listed with approved achieve the following effluent Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: methods of analysis in Table 1B at 40 limitations representing the application 0751, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2047, 2048 and CFR 136.3, and are defined as follows: 2077 (1987 Manual) and under one or of BPT: (1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia (a) Facilities that slaughter no more more of the following North American measured as nitrogen. Industry Classification System (NAICS) than 50 million pounds per year (in (2) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or codes: 311611, 311612, 311615, 311613, oxygen demand. subsequent meat, meat product or by- 311111, 311119, 311999 and 11234. (3) COD means chemical oxygen product processing of carcasses of § 432.2 General definitions. demand. animals slaughtered on-site: As used in this part: (4) O&G means total recoverable oil (a) The general definitions and and grease. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 shall (5) O&G (as HEM) means total apply. Maximum recoverable oil and grease measured as Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 (b) ELWK (equivalent live weight n-hexane extractable material. avg. 1 killed) means the total weight of the (6) Total Nitrogen means the total of total number of animals slaughtered at BOD ...... 0.24 0.12 nitrate/nitrite and total kjeldahl 5 locations other than the slaughterhouse Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) nitrogen. 3 or packinghouse, which animals O&G ...... 0.12 0.06 provide hides, blood, viscera or (7) Total Phosphorus means all of the TSS ...... 0.40 0.20 phosphorus present in the sample, renderable materials for processing at 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. that slaughterhouse, in addition to those regardless of form, as measured by the 2 Maximum of 400 most probable number derived from animals slaughtered on persulfate digestion procedure. (MPN) per 100 ml at any time. (8) TSS means total suspended solids. 3 May be measured as hexane extractable site. material (HEM). (c) Fecal coliform means the bacterial (l) Slaughterhouse means a facility count, as determined by approved that slaughters animals and has as its (2) Processing (defleshing, washing methods of analysis for Parameter 1 in main product fresh meat as whole, half and curing) of hides derived from Table 1A at 40 CFR 136.3. or quarter carcasses or small meat cuts. animals slaughtered at locations off site: The following supplemental limitations (d) Finished Product means the final (m) The nitrate/nitrite part of total apply in addition to the corresponding fresh or frozen products resulting from nitrogen may be measured by EPA limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) the further processing of meat or poultry Method 300.0. whole or cut-up carcasses. of this section: (e) Further processing means § 432.3 General pretreatment standards. SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) operations which utilize whole Any source subject to this part that carcasses or cut-up meat or poultry introduces process wastewater Maximum products for the production of fresh or pollutants into a publicly owned Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 frozen products, and may include the treatment works (POTW) must comply avg. 1 following types of processing: cutting with 40 CFR part 403. and deboning, cooking, seasoning, BOD5 ...... 0.04 0.02 smoking, canning, grinding, chopping, § 432.4 General limitation or standard for TSS ...... 0.08 0.04 pH. dicing, forming and/or breading. 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. (f) LWK (live weight killed) means the The pH must remain within the range (3) Processing of blood derived from total weight of the total number of 6 to 9 in any discharge subject to BPT, animals slaughtered at locations off site: animals slaughtered during the time BAT, NSPS, or BCT limitations or The same limitations for BOD and TSS period to which the limitations or standards in this part. 5 standards apply, i.e. daily or monthly. specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this (g) Meat means products derived from Subpart A—Simple Slaughterhouses section apply in addition to the the slaughter and processing of cattle, corresponding limitation specified in calves, hogs, sheep, lambs, and any § 432.10 Applicability. paragraph (a)(1) of this section. meat that is not listed under the This part applies to discharges of (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering definition of poultry. process wastewater resulting from the of material derived from animals (h) Packinghouse means a plant that production of meat carcasses, in whole slaughtered at locations off site: The both slaughters animals and or in part, by simple slaughterhouses. following supplemental limitations subsequently processes carcasses into apply in addition to the corresponding cured, smoked, canned or other § 432.11 Special definitions. limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) prepared meat products. For the purpose of this subpart: of this section: (i) Poultry means products derived Simple slaughterhouse means a from the slaughter and processing of slaughterhouse which accomplishes SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) broilers, other young chickens, mature very limited by-product processing, if Maximum Maximum chickens, hens, turkeys, capons, geese, any, usually no more than two Regulated parameter monthly daily 1 ducks, small game fowl such as quail or operations such as rendering, paunch avg.1 pheasants, and small game such as and viscera handling, or processing of rabbits. blood, hide or hair. BOD5 ...... 0.06 0.03
VerDate 11
SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT)— COD applies in addition to the COD EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) Continued limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Maximum daily 1 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.1 daily 1 SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) avg.1 Maximum Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0655 0.0143 TSS ...... 0.12 0.06 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0561 0.0230 daily 1 avg.1 Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0497 0.0238 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. (5) Dry rendering of material derived COD ...... 0.1550 0.1260 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. from animals slaughtered at locations 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw (b) Further processing of animals off site: The following supplemental material. slaughtered on site, or at locations off limitations apply in addition to the corresponding limitation specified in (5) Dry rendering of material derived site: The following supplemental paragraph (a)(1) of this section: from animals slaughtered at locations limitations apply in addition to the off site: The supplemental limitations corresponding limitation specified in SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) for BOD5 and TSS specified in paragraph (a) of this section: paragraph (a)(5) of this section apply in Maximum addition to the corresponding limitation SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BAT) Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this avg.1 section and the supplemental Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly limitations for COD specified in daily 1 BOD5 ...... 0.02 0.01 avg.1 TSS ...... 0.04 0.02 paragraph (b)(4) of this section apply in addition to the COD limitation specified Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0704 0.0153 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0965 0.0396 (b) Facilities that slaughter more than (6) Further processing of animals Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0917 0.0439 50 million pounds per year (in units of slaughtered on site, or at locations off LWK). site: The following supplemental 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: limitations apply in addition to the COD product. limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and (c) Rendering of by-products from of this section: fecal coliform are the same as the animals slaughtered on site, or at corresponding limitation specified in locations off site: The following SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and a supplemental limitations apply in limitation for COD is as follows: Maximum addition to the corresponding limitation Regulated parameter Maximum monthly specified in paragraph (a) of this EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) daily 1 avg.1 section: Maximum COD ...... 0.278 0.226 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BAT) daily 1 avg.1 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished product. Maximum COD ...... 0.1450 0.1180 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 (7) Rendering of raw materials from avg.1 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. animals slaughtered on-site: The (2) Processing (defleshing, washing following supplemental limitations for Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0438 0.0096 and curing) of hides derived from COD apply in addition to the COD Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0601 0.0247 animals slaughtered at locations off site: limitation specified in paragraph (b)(1) Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0472 0.0226 The supplemental limitations for BOD of this section: 5 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw and TSS specified in paragraph (a)(2) of material. this section apply in addition to the SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) corresponding limitation specified in § 432.15 New source performance Maximum standards (NSPS). paragraph (a)(1) of this section: Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 (3) Processing of blood derived from avg.1 Any new source subject to this animals slaughtered at locations off site: subpart must achieve the following The same supplemental limitations for COD ...... 0.1550 0.1260 performance standards: BOD and TSS specified in paragraph 5 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw (a)(2) of this section apply in addition material. (a) Facilities that slaughter no more to the corresponding limitation than 50 million pounds per year (in specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this § 432.13 Effluent limitations attainable by units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or section. the application of the best available subsequent meat, meat product or by- (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering technology economically achievable (BAT). product processing of carcasses of of material derived from animals Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 animals slaughtered on-site: The slaughtered at locations off site: The through 125.32, any existing point standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal supplemental limitations for BOD5 and source subject to this subpart that coliform are the same as the TSS specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this slaughters more than 50 million pounds corresponding limitation specified in section apply in addition to the per year (in units of LWK) must achieve § 432.12(a)(1); and standards for corresponding limitation specified in the following effluent limitations ammonia (as N) are as follows: paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the representing the application of BAT: following supplemental limitation for (a) Animals slaughtered on-site:
VerDate 11
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) are the same as the corresponding limitations specified in § 432.12. Maximum Maximum Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Regulated parameter monthly Subpart B—Complex Slaughterhouses daily 1 daily 1 avg.1 avg.1 § 432.20 Applicability. Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.34 0.17 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0655 0.0143 This part applies to discharges of BOD5 ...... 0.0442 0.0208 process wastewater resulting from the 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. 2 2 Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() production of meat carcasses, in whole O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.0835 0.0210 (2) Processing of blood derived from Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0561 0.0230 or in part, by complex slaughterhouses. animals slaughtered at locations off site: Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0497 0.0238 § 432.21 Special definitions. The supplemental standards for BOD TSS ...... 0.0178 0.0137 5 For the purpose of this subpart: and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) and 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. Complex slaughterhouse means a the following supplemental standards 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any slaughterhouse which accomplishes for ammonia (as N), apply in addition to time. extensive by-product processing, the corresponding standard specified in (2) Further processing of animals usually at least three operations such as paragraph (a)(1) of this section: slaughtered on site, or at locations off rendering, paunch and viscera handling, site: The following supplemental or processing of blood, hide or hair. SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) standards apply in addition to the corresponding standard specified in § 432.22 Effluent limitations attainable by Maximum the application of the best practicable Regulated parameter Maximum monthly paragraph (b)(1) of this section: daily 1 control technology currently available avg.1 (BPT). SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.06 0.03 through 125.32, any existing point Maximum 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. Regulated parameter Maximum monthly source subject to this subpart must daily 1 avg.1 achieve the following effluent (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering limitations representing the application of material derived from animals Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0704 0.0153 of BPT: slaughtered at locations off site: The BOD5 ...... 0.0520 0.0245 (a) Facilities that slaughter no more O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.1430 0.0362 supplemental standards for BOD5 and than 50 million pounds per year (in TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) and the Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0965 0.0396 units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or following supplemental standards for Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0917 0.0439 TSS ...... 0.0262 0.0201 subsequent meat, meat product or by- ammonia (as N) apply in addition to the product processing of carcasses of corresponding standard specified in 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished animals slaughtered on-site: paragraph (a)(1) of this section: product. (3) Rendering of by-products from EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) animals slaughtered on site, or at locations off site: The following Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Maximum supplemental standards apply in daily 1 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.1 daily 1 avg.1 addition to the corresponding standard specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this BOD5 ...... 0.42 0.21 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.10 0.05 section: Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) O&G 3 ...... 0.16 0.08 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) TSS ...... 0.50 0.25 (4) Dry rendering of material derived 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. Maximum 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any from animals slaughtered at locations Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 time. off site: The supplemental standards for avg.1 3 May be measured as hexane extractable BOD5 and TSS specified in material (HEM). Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0438 0.0096 § 432.12(a)(5) and the following (2) Processing (defleshing, washing supplemental standards for ammonia (as BOD5 ...... 0.0578 0.0272 O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.1170 0.0297 and curing) of hides derived from N) apply in addition to the Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0601 0.0247 animals slaughtered at locations off site: corresponding standard specified in Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0472 0.0226 The supplemental limitations for BOD5 paragraph (a)(1) of this section: TSS ...... 0.0163 0.0125 and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2)
1 apply in addition to the corresponding SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (NSPS) Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw material. limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Maximum Maximum § 432.17 Effluent limitations attainable by (3) Processing of blood derived from Regulated parameter 1 monthly the application of the best control daily 1 animals slaughtered at locations off site: avg. technology for conventional pollutants The supplemental limitations for BOD5 (BCT). Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.04 0.02 and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 apply in addition to the corresponding 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) ELWK. through 125.32, any existing point limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) source subject to this subpart must of this section. (b) Facilities that slaughter more than achieve the following effluent (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering 50 million pounds per year (in units of limitations representing the application of material derived from animals LWK) of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, slaughtered at locations off site: The (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: O&G, O&G (as HEM) and fecal coliform supplemental limitations for BOD5 and
VerDate 11
TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) apply in § 432.23 Effluent limitations attainable by supplemental standards for ammonia (as addition to the corresponding limitation the application of the best available N) specified in § 432.15(a)(3) apply in specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this technology economically achievable (BAT). addition to the corresponding standard section. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this (5) Dry rendering of material derived through 125.32, any existing point section. from animals slaughtered at locations source subject to this subpart that (4) Dry rendering of material derived off site: The supplemental limitations slaughters more than 50 million pounds from animals slaughtered at locations for BOD5 and TSS specified in per year (in units of LWK) must achieve off site: The supplemental limitations § 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the the following effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in corresponding limitation specified in representing the application of BAT: § 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The standards for ammonia (as N) specified (b) Facilities that slaughter more than effluent limitations for Ammonia (as N), in § 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to the 50 million pounds per year (in units of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus corresponding standard specified in LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: specified in § 432.13(a) apply. paragraph (a)(1) of this section: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and (b) Further processing of animals (b) Facilities that slaughter more than fecal coliform are the same as the slaughtered on site, or at locations off 50 million pounds per year (in units of corresponding limitation specified in site: The supplemental limitations for LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site, paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and the effluent standards for BOD5, TSS, effluent limitations for COD specified in Total Phosphorus specified in O&G (as HEM), fecal coliform, Ammonia § 432.12(b)(1) apply. § 432.13(b) apply in addition to the (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total (2) Processing (defleshing, washing corresponding limitation specified in Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(1) and curing) of hides derived from § 432.13(a). apply. animals slaughtered at locations off site: (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered (2) Further processing of animals The supplemental limitations for BOD5 on site, or at locations off site: The slaughtered on site, or at locations off and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) supplemental limitations for Ammonia site: The supplemental standards for apply in addition to the corresponding (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) Phosphorus specified in § 432.13(c) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total of this section. apply in addition to the corresponding Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(2) (3) Processing of blood derived from limitation specified in § 432.13(a). apply in addition to the corresponding animals slaughtered at locations off site: standard specified in § 432.15(b)(1). § 432.25 New source performance The supplemental limitations for BOD5 (3) Rendering of by-products from standards (NSPS). and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) animals slaughtered on site, or at apply in addition to the corresponding Any new source subject to this locations off site: The supplemental subpart must achieve the following limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as of this section. performance standards: HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering (a) Facilities that slaughter no more and Total Phosphorus specified in of material derived from animals than 50 million pounds per year (in § 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to the slaughtered at locations off site: The units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or corresponding standard specified in supplemental limitations specified in subsequent meat, meat product or by- § 432.15(b)(1). § 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the product processing of carcasses of corresponding limitation specified in animals slaughtered on-site: The § 432.27 Effluent limitations attainable by paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal the application of the best control coliform are the same as the technology for conventional pollutants supplemental limitations for COD (BCT). specified in § 432.12(b)(4) apply in corresponding limitation specified in addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.22(a)(1); and the standards for Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 specified in § 432.12(b)(1). ammonia (as N) are as follows: through 125.32, any existing point (5) Dry rendering of material derived source subject to this subpart must from animals slaughtered at locations PERFORMANCE STANDARDS achieve the following effluent off site: The supplemental limitations limitations representing the application specified in § 432.12(a)(5) apply in Maximum of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 O&G and fecal coliform are the same as addition to the corresponding limitation avg.1 specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this the corresponding limitations specified section; and the supplemental Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.48 0.24 in § 432.22. limitations for COD specified in 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. Subpart C—Low-processing § 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to the Packinghouses corresponding limitation specified in (2) Processing of blood derived from § 432.12(b)(1). animals slaughtered at locations off site: § 432.30 Applicability. (6) Further processing of animals The supplemental limitations for BOD5 This part applies to discharges of slaughtered on site, or at locations off and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) and process wastewater resulting from the site: The supplemental limitations for the supplemental standards for production of meat carcasses, in whole COD specified in § 432.12(b)(6) apply in ammonia (as N) specified in or in part, by low-processing addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to the packinghouses. specified in § 432.12(b)(1). corresponding standard specified in (7) Rendering of raw materials from paragraph (a)(1) of this section. § 432.31 Special definitions. animals slaughtered on-site: (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering For the purpose of this subpart: Low- supplemental limitations for COD of material derived from animals processing packinghouse means a specified in § 432.12(b)(7) apply in slaughtered at locations off site: The packinghouse that processes no more, addition to the corresponding limitation supplemental limitations for BOD5 and and usually less, that the total animals specified in § 432.12(b)(1). TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) and the killed at that plant.
VerDate 11
§ 432.32 Effluent limitations attainable by effluent limitations for COD specified in Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and the application of the best practicable § 432.12(b)(1) apply. Total Phosphorus specified in control technology currently available (2) Processing (defleshing, washing § 432.13(b) apply in addition to the (BPT). and curing) of hides derived from corresponding limitation specified in Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 animals slaughtered at locations off site: § 432.13(a). through 125.32, any existing point The supplemental limitations for BOD5 (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered source subject to this subpart must and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) on site, or at locations off site: The achieve the following effluent apply in addition to the corresponding supplemental limitations for Ammonia limitations representing the application limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total of BPT: of this section. Phosphorus specified in § 432.13(c) (a) Facilities that slaughter no more (3) Processing of blood derived from apply in addition to the corresponding than 50 million pounds per year (in animals slaughtered at locations off site: limitation specified in § 432.13(a). units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or The supplemental limitations for BOD5 subsequent meat, meat product or by- and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) § 432.35 New source performance standards (NSPS). product processing of carcasses of apply in addition to the corresponding animals slaughtered on-site: limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) Any new source subject to this of this section. subpart must achieve the following EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering performance standards: of material derived from animals (a) Facilities that slaughter no more Maximum slaughtered at locations off site: The than 50 million pounds per year (in Regulated parameter Maximum monthly units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or daily 1 supplemental limitations specified in avg.1 § 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the subsequent meat, meat product or by- corresponding limitation specified in product processing of carcasses of BOD5 ...... 0.34 0.17 animals slaughtered on-site: Limitations 2 2 paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() for BOD , TSS, O&G and fecal coliform O&G 3 ...... 0.16 0.08 supplemental limitations for COD 5 TSS ...... 0.48 0.24 specified in § 432.12(b)(4) apply in are the same as the corresponding addition to the corresponding limitation limitation specified in § 432.32(a)(1); 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. and standards for ammonia (as N) are as 2 specified in § 432.12(b)(1). Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any follows: time. (5) Dry rendering of material derived 3 May be measured as hexane extractable from animals slaughtered at locations material (HEM). off site: The supplemental limitations PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) specified in § 432.12(a)(5) apply in (2) Processing (defleshing, washing Maximum and curing) of hides derived from addition to the corresponding limitation Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily1 animals slaughtered at locations off site: specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this avg.1 The supplemental limitations for BOD5 section; and the supplemental and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) limitations for COD specified in Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.48 0.24 apply in addition to the corresponding § 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to the 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. corresponding limitation specified in limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (2) Processing of blood derived from of this section. § 432.12(b)(1). (6) Further processing of animals animals slaughtered at locations off site: (3) Processing of blood derived from The supplemental limitations for BOD animals slaughtered at locations off site: slaughtered on site, or at locations off 5 site: The supplemental limitations for and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) and The supplemental limitations for BOD5 the supplemental standards for and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) COD specified in § 432.12(b)(6) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation ammonia (as N) specified in apply in addition to the corresponding § 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to the limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) specified in § 432.12(b)(1). (7) Rendering of raw materials from corresponding standard specified in of this section. paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering animals slaughtered on-site: supplemental limitations for COD (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering of material derived from animals of material derived from animals slaughtered at locations off site: The specified in § 432.12(b)(7) apply in addition to the corresponding limitation slaughtered at locations off site: The supplemental limitations for BOD5 and specified in § 432.12(b)(1). supplemental limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) apply in TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) and the addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.33 Effluent limitations attainable by supplemental standards for ammonia (as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this the application of the best available N) specified in § 432.15(a)(3) apply in section. technology economically achievable (BAT) addition to the corresponding standard (5) Dry rendering of material derived Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this from animals slaughtered at locations through 125.32, any existing point section. off site: The supplemental limitations source subject to this subpart that (4) Dry rendering of material derived for BOD5 and TSS specified in slaughters more than 50 million pounds from animals slaughtered at locations § 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the per year (in units of LWK) must achieve off site: The supplemental limitations corresponding limitation specified in the following effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. representing the application of BAT: § 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental (b) Facilities that slaughter more than (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The standards for ammonia (as N) specified 50 million pounds per year (in units of effluent limitations for Ammonia (as N), in § 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to the LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus corresponding standard specified in Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and specified in § 432.13(a) apply. paragraph (a)(1) of this section: fecal coliform are the same as the (b) Further processing of animals (b) Facilities that slaughter more than corresponding limitation specified in slaughtered on site, or at locations off 50 million pounds per year (in units of paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the site: The supplemental limitations for LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site:
VerDate 11
The effluent standards for BOD5, TSS, product processing of carcasses of apply in addition to the corresponding O&G (as HEM), fecal coliform, Ammonia animals slaughtered on-site: limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total of this section. Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) (3) Processing of blood derived from apply. animals slaughtered at locations off site: (2) Further processing of animals Maximum The supplemental limitations for BOD5 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) slaughtered on site, or at locations off avg.1 site: The supplemental standards for apply in addition to the corresponding 2 BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia BOD5 ...... 0.48 0.24 limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Fecal Coliform ...... (3)(3) of this section. Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(2) O&G 4 ...... 0.26 0.13 (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering 2 apply in addition to the corresponding TSS ...... 0.62 0.31 of material derived from animals standard specified in § 432.15(b)(1). 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. slaughtered at locations off site: The 2 (3) Rendering of by-products from The values for BOD5 and TSS are for av- supplemental limitations specified in animals slaughtered on site, or at erage plants, i.e., plants where the ratio: § 432.12(a)(4) apply in addition to the avg.wt. of processed meat products/avg. LWK corresponding limitation specified in locations off site: The supplemental is 0.55. Adjustments can be made for high- paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as processing packinghouses operating at other HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen such ratios according to the following equa- supplemental limitations for COD and Total Phosphorus specified in tions: lbs BOD5/1000 lbs LWK = 0.21 + 0.23 specified in § 432.12(b)(4) apply in (v ¥ 0.4) and lbs TSS/1000 lbs LWK = 0.28 + addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to the 0.3 (v ¥ 0.4), where v equals the following corresponding standard specified in ratio: lbs processed meat products/lbs LWK. specified in § 432.12(b)(1). § 432.15(b)(1). 3 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any (5) Dry rendering of material derived time. from animals slaughtered at locations § 432.37 Effluent limitations attainable by 4 May be measured as hexane extractable off site: The supplemental limitations material (HEM). the application of the best control specified in § 432.12(a)(5) apply in technology for conventional pollutants (2) Processing (defleshing, washing addition to the corresponding limitation (BCT). and curing) of hides derived from specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 animals slaughtered at locations off site: section; and the supplemental through 125.32, any existing point The supplemental limitations for BOD5 limitations for COD specified in source subject to this subpart must and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) § 432.12(b)(4) apply in addition to the achieve the following effluent apply in addition to the corresponding corresponding limitation specified in limitations representing the application limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) § 432.12(b)(1). of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G of this section. (6) Further processing of animals and fecal coliform are the same as the (3) Processing of blood derived from slaughtered on site, or at locations off corresponding limitations specified in animals slaughtered at locations off site: site: The supplemental limitations for § 433.32. The supplemental limitations for BOD5 COD specified in § 432.12(b)(6) apply in and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) addition to the corresponding limitation Subpart D—High-Processing apply in addition to the corresponding specified in § 432.12(b)(1). Packinghouse limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) (7) Rendering of raw materials from of this section. animals slaughtered on-site: The § 432.40 Applicability. (4) Wet or low-temperature rendering supplemental limitations for COD and This part applies to discharges of of material derived from animals specified in § 432.12(b)(7) apply in process wastewater resulting from the slaughtered at locations off site: The addition to the corresponding limitation production of meat carcasses, in whole supplemental limitations for BOD5 and specified in § 432.12(b)(1). or in part, by high-processing TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) apply in packinghouses. addition to the corresponding limitation § 432.43 Effluent limitations attainable by specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this the application of the best available § 432.41 Special definitions. section. technology economically achievable (BAT). For the purpose of this subpart: High- (5) Dry rendering of material derived Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 processing packinghouse means a from animals slaughtered at locations through 125.32, any existing point packinghouse which processes both off site: The supplemental limitations source subject to this subpart that animals slaughtered at the site and for BOD5 and TSS specified in slaughters more that 50 million pounds additional carcasses from outside § 432.12(a)(5) apply in addition to the per year (in units of LWK) must achieve sources. corresponding limitation specified in the following effluent limitations paragraph (a)(1) of this section. representing the application of BAT: § 432.42 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Facilities that slaughter more than (a) Animals slaughtered on-site: The the application of the best practicable 50 million pounds per year (in units of limitations for Ammonia (as N), Total control technology currently available LWK). (1) Animals slaughtered on-site: Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (BPT). Limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and specified in § 432.13(a). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 fecal coliform are the same as the (b) Further processing of animals through 125.32, any existing point corresponding limitation specified in slaughtered on site, or at locations off source subject to this subpart must paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and the site: The supplemental limitations for achieve the following effluent effluent limitations for COD specified in Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and limitations representing the application § 432.12(b)(1) apply. Total Phosphorus specified in of BPT: (2) Processing (defleshing, washing § 432.13(b) apply in addition to the (a) Facilities that slaughter no more and curing) of hides derived from corresponding limitation specified in than 50 million pounds per year (in animals slaughtered at locations off site: § 432.13(a). units of LWK). (1) On-site slaughter or The supplemental limitations for BOD5 (c) Rendering of animals slaughtered subsequent meat, meat product or by- and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) on site, or at locations off site: The
VerDate 11
supplemental limitations for Ammonia (2) Further processing of animals EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total slaughtered on site, or at locations off Phosphorus specified in § 432.13(c) site: The supplemental standards for Maximum Regulated Parameter Maximum monthly apply in addition to the corresponding daily 1 BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Ammonia avg.1 limitation specified in § 432.13(a). (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total § 432.45 New source performance Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(2) BOD5 ...... 2.0 1 2 2 standards (NSPS). apply in addition to the corresponding Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() standard specified in § 432.15(b)(1). O&G3 ...... 1.0 0.5 Any new source subject to this TSS ...... 2.4 1.2 subpart must achieve the following (3) Rendering of of by-products from animals slaughtered on site, or at 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. performance standards: 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any (a) Facilities that slaughter no more locations off site: The supplemental time. than 50 million pounds per year (in standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as 3 May be measured as hexane extractable units of LWK): (1) On-site slaughter or HEM), Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen material (HEM). subsequent meat, meat product or by- and Total Phosphorus specified in § 432.55 New source performance product processing of carcasses of § 432.15(b)(3) apply in addition to the standards (NSPS). animals slaughtered on-site: The corresponding standard specified in Any new source subject to this standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal § 432.15(b)(1). subpart must achieve the following: coliform are the same as the § 432.47 Effluent limitations attainable by corresponding limitation specified in PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) § 432.42(a)(1); and standards for the application of the best control technology for conventional pollutants ammonia (as N) are as follows: Maximum (BCT). Maximum Regulated parameter 1 monthly daily 1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 avg. through 125.32, any existing point Maximum BOD5 ...... 1.0 0.5 source subject to this subpart must 2 2 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() daily 1 3 avg.1 achieve the following effluent O&G ...... 0.5 0.25 limitations representing the application TSS ...... 1.2 0.6 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.80 0.40 of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, 1 Pound per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. O&G and fecal coliform are the same as 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any the corresponding limitations specified time. 3 (2) Processing of blood derived from in § 432.42. May be measured as hexane extractable animals slaughtered at locations off site: material (HEM). The supplemental limitations for BOD5 Subpart E—Small Processors § 432.57 Effluent limitations attainable by and TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(2) and the application of the best control the supplemental standards for § 432.50 Applicability. technology for conventional pollutants ammonia (as N) specified in This part applies to discharges of (BCT). § 432.15(a)(2), apply in addition to the process wastewater resulting from the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 corresponding standards specified in production of finished meat products through 125.32, any existing point paragraph (a)(1) of this section. such as fresh meat cuts, smoked source subject to this subpart must (3) Wet or low-temperature rendering products, canned products, hams, achieve the following effluent of material derived from animals limitations representing the application sausages, luncheon meats, or similar slaughtered at locations off site: The of BCT: The limitations for BOD , TSS products by a small processor. 5 supplemental limitations for BOD5 and and O&G are the same as the TSS specified in § 432.12(a)(4) and the § 432.51 Special definitions. corresponding standard specified in supplemental standards for ammonia (as § 432.55. N) specified in § 432.15(a)(3) apply in For the purpose of this subpart: addition to the corresponding standard (a) Finished product means the final Subpart F—Meat Cutters specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this product, such as fresh meat cuts, hams, § 432.60 Applicability. section. bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, This part applies to discharges of (4) Dry rendering of material derived luncheon meats, stew, canned meats or process wastewater resulting from the from animals slaughtered at locations related products. fabrication or production of fresh meat off site: The supplemental limitations (b) Small processor means an cuts, such as steaks, roasts, chops, etc. for BOD and TSS specified in 5 by a meat cutter. § 432.12(a)(5) and the supplemental operation that produces up to 6000 lbs (2730 kg) per day of any type or standards for ammonia (as N) specified § 432.61 Special definitions. combination of finished products. in § 432.15(a)(4) apply in addition to the For the purpose of this subpart: corresponding standard specified in § 432.52 Effluent limitations attainable by (a) Finished product means the final paragraph (a)(1) of this section: the application of the best practicable product, such as fresh meat cuts (b) Facilities that slaughter more than control technology currently available including, but not limited to, steaks, 50 million pounds per year (in units of (BPT). roasts, chops, or boneless meats. LWK). (b) Meat cutter means an operation (1) Animals slaughtered on-site, the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 which fabricates, cuts, or otherwise through 125.32, any existing point effluent standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G produces fresh meat cuts and related (as HEM), fecal coliform, Ammonia (as source subject to this subpart must finished products from larger pieces of N), Total Nitrogen and Total achieve the following effluent meat (carcasses or not carcasses), at Phosphorus specified in § 432.15(b)(1) limitations representing the application rates greater than 6000 lbs (2730 kg) per apply. of BPT: day.
VerDate 11
§ 432.62 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Facilities that generate more than Subpart G—Sausage and Luncheon the application of the best practicable 50 million pounds per year of finished Meats Processors control technology currently available products: (BPT). § 432.70 Applicability. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) This part applies to discharges of through 125.32, any existing point process wastewater resulting from the source subject to this subpart must Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly production of fresh meat cuts, sausage, daily 1 achieve the following effluent avg.1 bologna and other luncheon meats by a limitations representing the application sausage and luncheon meat processor. of BPT: Ammonia ...... 0.0165 0.0036 (a) Facilities that generate no more Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0226 0.0093 § 432.71 Special definitions. Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0215 0.0103 than 50 million pounds per year of For the purpose of this subpart: finished products: 1 mg/L (ppm). (a) Finished product means the final § 432.65 New source performance EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) product as fresh meat cuts, which standards (NSPS). includes steaks, roasts, chops or Maximum Any new source subject to this boneless meat, bacon or other smoked Regulated parameter Maximum monthly subpart must achieve the following daily 1 meats (except hams) such as sausage, avg.1 performance standards: (a) Facilities bologna or other luncheon meats, or that generate no more than 50 million related products (except canned meats). BOD5 ...... 0.036 0.018 pounds per year of finished products: Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) (b) Sausage and luncheon meat O&G 3 ...... 0.012 0.006 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) processor means an operation which TSS ...... 0.044 0.022 cuts fresh meats, grinds, mixes, seasons, 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished Maximum smokes or otherwise produces finished Regulated parameter Maximum monthly product. daily 1 products such as sausage, bologna and 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any avg.1 luncheon meats at rates greater than time. 3 6000 lbs (2730 kg) per day. May be measured as hexane extractable BOD5 ...... 0.030 0.015 material (HEM). 2 2 Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() § 432.72 Effluent limitations attainable by O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.012 0.006 the application of the best practicable (b) Facilities that generate more than TSS ...... 0.036 0.018 50 million pounds per year of finished control technology currently available 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished (BPT). products: The limitations for BOD5, product. TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 same as the corresponding limitation time. through 125.32, any existing point specified in paragraph (a) of this (b) Facilities that generate more than source subject to this subpart must section; and limitations for COD are as 50 million pounds per year of finished achieve the following effluent follows. products: limitations representing the application of BPT: EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) (a) Facilities that generate no more Maximum than 50 million pounds per year of Maximum Maximum Maximum Regulated parameter 1 monthly Regulated parameter monthly finished products: daily 1 daily 1 avg. avg.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) COD ...... 0.0654 0.0531 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0165 0.0036 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished BOD5 ...... 0.0122 0.0058 Maximum Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) Regulated parameter Maximum monthly product. daily 1 O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.0337 0.0085 avg.1 § 432.63 Effluent limitations attainable by Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0226 0.0093 the application of the best available Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0215 0.0103 BOD5 ...... 0.56 0.28 technology economically achievable (BAT). TSS ...... 0.0062 0.0047 Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) O&G 3 ...... 0.2 0.10 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished TSS ...... 0.68 0.34 through 125.32, any existing point product. 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any source subject to this subpart must time. 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished achieve the following effluent product. limitations representing the application § 432.67 Effluent limitations attainable by 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any the application of the best control time. of BAT: (a) Facilities that generate no 3 technology for conventional pollutants May be measured as hexane extractable more than 50 million pounds per year material (HEM). of finished products: (BCT). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (b) Facilities that generate more than EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) through 125.32, any existing point 50 million pounds per year of finished source subject to this subpart must products: The limitations for BOD5, Maximum achieve the following effluent TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 limitations representing the application avg.1 same as the corresponding limitation of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, specified in paragraph (a) of this O&G and fecal coliform are the same as Ammonia ...... 8.0 4.0 section; and limitations for COD are as the corresponding limitation specified follows. 1 mg/L (ppm). in § 432.62.
VerDate 11
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS):— EFFLUENT LIMITATION (BPT) Continued Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Regulated parameter 1 monthly Regulated parameter 1 monthly daily 1 Maximum daily 1 avg. Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg. daily 1 avg.1 COD ...... 0.2780 0.2260 BOD 5 ...... 0.62 0.31 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) product. O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.1430 0.0362 O&G 3 ...... 0.22 0.11 Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0965 0.0396 TSS ...... 0.74 0.37 § 432.73 Effluent limitations attainable by Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0917 0.0439 1Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished the application of the best available TSS ...... 0.0262 0.0201 technology economically achievable (BAT) product. 2 Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any product. time. through 125.32, any existing point 3 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any May be measured as hexane extractable source subject to this subpart must time. material (HEM). achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application § 432.77 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Facilities that generate more than of BAT: (a) Facilities that generate no the application of the best control 50 million pounds per year of finished more than 50 million pounds per year technology for conventional pollutants products: The limitations for BOD5, of finished products: The limitations for (BCT). TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the ammonia (as N) are the same as Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 same as the corresponding limitation specified in § 432.63(a). through 125.32, any existing point specified in paragraph (a) of this (b) Facilities that generate more than source subject to this subpart must section; and limitations for COD are the 50 million pounds per year of finished same as the COD limitations specified in products: achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application § 432.62(b). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, § 432.83 Effluent limitations attainable by O&G and fecal coliform are the same as the application of the best available Maximum the corresponding limitation specified technology economically achievable (BAT) Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 in § 432.72. avg.1 Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 Subpart H—Ham Processors through 125.32, any existing point Ammonia ...... 0.0704 0.0153 source subject to this subpart must Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0965 0.0396 § 432.80 Applicability. achieve the following effluent Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0917 0.0439 limitations representing the application This part applies to discharges of 1 mg/L (ppm). of BAT: process wastewater resulting from the § 432.75 New source performance production of hams, alone or in (a) Facilities that generate no more standards (NSPS). combination with other finished than 50 million pounds per year of Any new source subject to this products, by a ham processor. finished products: The limitations for subpart must achieve the following ammonia (as N) are the same as performance standards: (a) Facilities § 432.81 Special definitions. specified in § 432.63(a). that generate no more than 50 million For the purpose of this subpart: (b) Facilities that generate more than pounds per year of finished products: (a) Finished products means the final 50 million pounds per year of finished product as fresh meat cuts, which products: The limitations for Ammonia PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) includes steaks, roasts, chops or (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the same as specified in Maximum boneless meat, smoked or cured hams, Regulated parameter Maximum monthly § 432.73(b). daily 1 bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, avg.1 bologna or other luncheon meats (except § 432.85 New source performance canned meats). standards (NSPS). BOD5 ...... 0.48 0.24 2 2 (b) Ham processor means an operation Fecal Coliform ...... ( )() Any new source subject to this O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.20 0.10 producing hams, alone or in subpart must achieve the following TSS ...... 0.58 0.29 combination with other finished performance standards: (a) Facilities 1 products, at rates greater than 6000 lbs Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished that generate no more than 50 million product. (2730 kg) per day. 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any pounds per year of finished products: time. § 432.82 Effluent limitations attainable by The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and (b) Facilities that generate more than the application of the best practicable Fecal Coliform are the same as the 50 million pounds per year of finished control technology currently available corresponding limitation specified in (BPT). products: § 432.82(a). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (b) Facilities that generate more than PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS): through 125.32, any existing point 50 million pounds per year of finished source subject to this subpart must products: The standards for BOD5, TSS, Maximum achieve the following effluent O&G (as HEM), Fecal Coliform, Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 avg.1 limitations representing the application Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and of BPT: (a) Facilities that generate no Total Phosphorus are the same as the Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0704 0.0153 more than 50 million pounds per year corresponding standard specified in BOD5 ...... 0.0520 0.0245 of finished products: § 432.75(b).
VerDate 11
§ 432.87 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Facilities that generate more than by-product residues (tankage), animal the application of the best control 50 million pounds per year of finished oils, grease and tallow, perhaps technology for conventional pollutants products: The limitations for BOD5, including hide curing, by a renderer. (BCT). TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the § 432.101 Special definitions. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 same as the corresponding limitation through 125.32, any existing point specified in paragraph (a) of this For the purpose of this subpart: source subject to this subpart must section; and limitations for COD are the (a) Raw material (RM) means the basic achieve the following effluent same as the COD limitations specified in input materials to a renderer composed limitations representing the application § 432.62(b). of animal and poultry trimmings, bones, meat scraps, dead animals, feathers and of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, O&G and fecal coliform are the same as § 432.93 Effluent limitations attainable by related usable by-products. the application of the best available (b) Renderer means an independent or the corresponding limitation specified technology economically achievable (BAT) off-site rendering operation, which is in § 432.82. Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 conducted separate from a Subpart I—Canned Meats Processors through 125.32, any existing point slaughterhouse, packinghouse or source subject to this subpart must poultry dressing or processing § 432.90 Applicability. achieve the following effluent operation, uses raw material at rates This part applies to discharges of limitations representing the application greater than 10 million pounds per year, process wastewater resulting from the of BAT: (a) Facilities that generate no produces meat meal, tankage, animal production of canned meats, alone or in more than 50 million pounds per year fats or oils, grease, and tallow, and may combination with any other finished of finished products: The limitations for cure cattle hides, but excludes marine products, by a canned meats processor. ammonia (as N) are the same as oils, fish meal, and fish oils. specified in § 432.63(a). (c) Tankage means dried animal by- § 432.91 Special definitions. (b) Facilities that generate more than product residues used in feedstuffs. For the purpose of this subpart: 50 million pounds per year of finished (d) Tallow means a product made products: The limitations for Ammonia from beef cattle or sheep fat that has a (a) Canned meats processor means an melting point of 40°C or greater. operation which prepares and cans (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total meats (stew, sandwich spreads, or Phosphorus are the same as specified in § 432.102 Effluent limitations attainable by similar products), alone or in § 432.73(b). the application of the best practicable control technology currently available combination with other finished § 432.95 New source performance (BPT). products, at rates greater than 6000 lbs standards (NSPS). (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR (2730 kg) per day. Any new source subject to this 125.30 through 125.32, any existing (b) Finished products means the final subpart must achieve the following point source subject to this subpart must product, such as fresh meat cuts which performance standards: (a) Facilities achieve the following effluent includes steaks, roasts, chops or that generate no more than 50 million limitations representing the application boneless meat, smoked or cured hams, pounds per year of finished products: of BPT: bacon or other smoked meats, sausage, The standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G and bologna or other luncheon meats, stews, fecal coliform are the same as the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) sandwich spreads or other canned corresponding limitation specified in meats. § 432.92(a). Maximum (b) Facilities that generate more than Regulated parameter Maximum monthly § 432.92 Effluent limitations attainable by daily 1 avg.1 the application of the best practicable 50 million pounds per year of finished products: The standards for BOD5, TSS, control technology currently available BOD ...... 0.34 0.17 (BPT). O&G (as HEM), Fecal Coliform, 5 Ammonia (as N), Total Nitrogen and COD ...... 0.184 0.111 Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 Total Phosphorus are the same as the through 125.32, any existing point O&G3 ...... 0.20 0.10 corresponding standard specified in TSS ...... 0.42 0.21 source subject to this subpart must § 432.75(b) achieve the following effluent 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of raw ma- limitations representing the application § 432.97 Effluent limitations attainable by terial. 2 of BPT: (a) Facilities that generate no the application of the best control Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any technology for conventional pollutants time. more than 50 million pounds per year 3 May be measured as hexane extractable of finished products: (BCT). material (HEM). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (2) The limitations for BOD and TSS through 125.32, any existing point 5 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) specified in paragraph (a) of this section source subject to this subpart must were derived for a renderer which does Maximum achieve the following effluent Maximum no cattle hide curing as part of its Regulated parameter 1 monthly limitations representing the application daily 1 operations. If a renderer does conduct avg. of BCT: The limitations for BOD , TSS, 5 hide curing, the following empirical O&G and fecal coliform are the same as BOD5 ...... 0.74 0.37 formulas should be used to derive Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) the corresponding limitation specified supplemental limitations for BOD5 and 3 in § 432.92. O&G ...... 0.26 0.13 TSS which apply in addition to the TSS ...... 0.90 0.45 Subpart J—Renderers corresponding limitation specified in 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished paragraph (a) of this section: product. § 432.100 Applicability. lbs BOD /1000 lbs RM = 17.6 × (no. of 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any 5 This part applies to discharges of hides)/lbs RM time. × 3 May be measured as hexane extractable process wastewater resulting from the kg BOD5/kkg RM = 8 (no. of hides)/ material (HEM). production of meat meal, dried animal kg RM
VerDate 11
lbs TSS/1000 lbs RM = 24.2 × (no. of the corresponding limitation specified EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)— hides)/lbs RM in § 432.105(a). Continued kg TSS/kkg RM = 11 × (no. of hides)/kg (b) The limitations for BOD5 and TSS RM specified in paragraph (a) of this section Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly were derived for a renderer which does daily 1 § 432.103 Effluent limitations attainable by avg.1 the application of the best available no cattle hide curing as part of the plant operations. If a renderer does conduct technology economically achievable (BAT). TSS ...... 0.2120 0.0991 hide curing, the following empirical Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 formulas should be used to derive 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. through 125.32, any existing point 2 supplemental limitations for BOD5 and Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any source subject to this subpart must time. achieve the following effluent TSS which apply in addition to the limitations representing the application corresponding limitation specified in (2) Further processing of poultry of BAT: paragraph (a) of this section: slaughtered on site, or at locations off lbs BOD5/1000 lbs RM = 7.9 × (no. of site: The following supplemental EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) hides)/lbs RM limitations apply in addition to the kg BOD5/kkg RM = 3.6 × (no. of hides)/ corresponding limitation specified in Maximum kg RM paragraph (a)(1) of this section: Regulated parameter Maximum monthly lbs TSS/1000 lbs RM = 13.6 × (no. of daily 1 avg.1 hides)/lbs RM SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) kg TSS/kkg RM = 6.2 × (no. of hides)/ Ammonia ...... 0.0194 0.0103 Maximum kg RM Maximum 1 Regulated parameter 1 monthly Pounds per 1000 lbs (gm/kg) of raw mate- daily 1 rial (RM). Subpart K—Poultry First Processing avg. § 432.105 New source performance § 432.110 Applicability. Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0400 0.0087 standards (NSPS). This part applies to discharges of BOD5 ...... 0.0458 0.0215 (a) Any new source subject to this process wastewater resulting from the O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.5150 0.1290 subpart must achieve the following slaughtering of poultry, further TSS ...... 0.0623 0.0290 performance standards: processing of poultry and rendering of 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished material derived from slaughtered product. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) poultry. (3) Rendering of by-products from poultry slaughtered on site, or at Maximum § 432.111 Special definitions. Regulated parameter Maximum monthly locations off site: The following daily 1 For the purpose of this subpart: avg.1 Poultry first processing means supplemental limitations apply in slaughtering of poultry and producing addition to the corresponding limitation Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0194 0.0103 whole, half, quarter or smaller meat specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this BOD5 ...... 0.0436 0.0209 section: Fecal coliform ...... (2)(2) cuts. Poultry first processing also O&G3 ...... 0.2350 0.0594 includes cutting deboning and grinding TSS ...... 0.1780 0.0887 of poultry when these operations are SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) performed on site at a slaughtering 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (gm/kg) of raw mate- Maximum rial (RM). facility. However, when cutting, Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any deboning and grinding is performed at avg.1 time. locations off site, these operations are 3 May be measured as hexane extractable Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0771 0.0168 material (HEM). considered further processing operations. BOD5 ...... 0.0324 0.0152 (b) The standards for BOD5 and TSS O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.2950 0.0745 specified in paragraph (a) of this section § 432.112 Effluent limitations attainable by TSS ...... 0.2400 0.1120 the application of the best practicable were derived for a renderer which does 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw no cattle hide curing as part of the plant control technology currently available (BPT). material. operations. If a renderer does conduct hide curing, the same empirical Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (b) Facilities that slaughter more than formulas specified in § 432.102(b) through 125.32, any existing point 10 million pounds per year (in units of should be used to derive supplemental source subject to this subpart must LWK) (1) Poultry first processing: achieve the following effluent standards for BOD5 and TSS which apply in addition to the corresponding limitations representing the application EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) standard specified in paragraph (a) of of BPT: (a) Facilities that slaughter no more than 10 million pounds per year Maximum this section. Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 (in units of LWK). avg.1 § 432.107 Effluent limitations attainable by (1) Poultry first processing: the application of the best control Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.163 0.0356 technology for conventional pollutants EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) BOD5 ...... 0.120 0.0568 (BCT). Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR Maximum Maximum O&G (as HEM) ...... 1.31 0.33 125.30 through 125.32, any existing Regulated parameter 1 monthly Total Nitrogen ...... 0.2239 0.0921 daily 1 point source subject to this subpart must avg. Total Phosphorus ..... 0.1760 0.0843 TSS ...... 0.0609 0.0467 achieve the following effluent Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.1630 0.0356 limitations representing the application BOD5 ...... 0.1200 0.0568 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) LWK. of BCT: The limitations for BOD,5 TSS, Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any O&G and fecal coliform are the same as O&G (as HEM) ...... 1.330 0.335 time.
VerDate 11
(2) Further processing of poultry performance standards: The standards EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) slaughtered on site, or at locations off for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Fecal site: The following supplemental Maximum Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total Maximum limitations apply in addition to the Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the Regulated parameter 1 monthly daily 1 corresponding limitation specified in same as the corresponding limitation avg. paragraph (b)(1) of this section: specified in § 432.112. Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0400 0.0087 BOD ...... 0.0453 0.0213 SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) § 432.117 Effluent limitations attainable by 5 the application of the best control Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) Maximum technology for conventional pollutants O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.229 0.0579 Regulated parameter Maximum monthly (BCT). Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0548 0.0226 daily 1 avg.1 Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0431 0.0206 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 TSS ...... 0.0149 0.0114 Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0400 0.0087 through 125.32, any existing point 1 BOD5 ...... 0.0453 0.0213 source subject to this subpart must Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.2290 0.0579 achieve the following effluent product. Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0548 0.0226 limitations representing the application 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0431 0.0206 time. of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, TSS ...... 0.0149 0.0114 O&G (as HEM) and Fecal Coliform are § 432.123 Effluent limitations attainable by 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) finished the same as the corresponding the application of the best available product. limitation specified in § 432.112. technology economically achievable (BAT). (3) Rendering of by-products from Subpart L—Poultry Further Processing Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 poultry slaughtered on site, or at through 125.32, any existing point locations off site: The following § 432.120 Applicability source subject to this subpart must supplemental limitations apply in achieve the following effluent addition to the corresponding limitation This part applies to discharges of limitations representing the application specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this process wastewater resulting from section: further processing of poultry. of BCT: The limitations for Fecal Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATIONS (BPT) § 432.122 Effluent limitations attainable by Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the the application of the best practicable same as the corresponding limitation control technology currently available Maximum specified in § 432.122. Maximum (BPT). Regulated parameter 1 monthly daily 1 avg. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 432.125 New source performance standards (NSPS). Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0771 0.0168 through 125.32, any existing point BOD5 ...... 0.0324 0.0152 source subject to this subpart must Any new source subject to this O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.1980 0.0500 achieve the following effluent subpart must achieve the following Total Nitrogen ...... 0.0601 0.0247 limitations representing the application performance standards: The standards Total Phosphorus ..... 0.0472 0.0226 of BPT: (a) Facilities that further process for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM), Fecal TSS ...... 0.0271 0.0208 no more than 7 million pounds per year Coliform, Ammonia (as N), Total 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) raw (in units of finished product): Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are the material. same as the corresponding limitation EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT) § 432.113 Effluent limitations attainable by specified in § 432.122. the application of the best available § 432.127 Effluent limitations attainable by technology economically achievable (BAT). Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum monthly daily 1 the application of the best control Except as provided by 40 CFR 125.30 avg.1 technology for conventional pollutants through 125.32, any existing point (BCT). source subject to this subpart must Ammonia (as N) ...... 0.0400 0.0087 achieve the following effluent BOD5 ...... 0.0458 0.0215 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 limitations representing the application Fecal Coliform ...... (2)(2) through 125.32, any existing point of BAT: The limitations for Ammonia O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.5150 0.1290 source subject to this subpart must (as N), Total Nitrogen and Total TSS ...... 0.0623 0.0290 achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application Phosphorus are the same as the 1 Pounds per 1000 lbs (or g/kg) of finished corresponding limitation specified in product. of BCT: The limitations for BOD5, TSS, § 432.112. 2 Maximum of 400 MPN per 100 ml at any O&G (as HEM) and Fecal Coliform are time. the same as the corresponding § 432.115 New source performance limitation specified in § 432.122. standards (NSPS). (b) Facilities that further process more Any new source subject to this than 7 million pounds per year (in units [FR Doc. 02–2838 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] subpart must achieve the following of finished product): BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate 11
Part III
Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service
Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for section 514 Farm Labor Housing Loans and section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing for Fiscal Year 2002; Notice
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 761–7740, TDD (1–907–786–7786, 40503, (606) 224–7300, TDD (606) Deborah Davis 224–7422, Paul Higgins Rural Housing Service Arizona State Office, Phoenix Corporate Louisiana State Office, 3727 Center, 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite Government Street, Alexandria, LA Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012–2906, (602) 71302, (318) 473–7962, TDD (318) Section 514 Farm Labor Housing 280–8706, TDD (602) 280–8770, 473–7655, Yvonne R. Emerson Loans and Section 516 Farm Labor Johnna Vargas Maine State Office, 444 Stillwater Ave., Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing Arkansas State Office, 700 W. Capitol Suite 2, PO Box 405, Bangor, ME for Fiscal Year 2002 Ave., Rm. 3416, Little Rock, AR 04402–0405, (207) 990–9110, TDD AGENCY: Rural Housing Service (RHS), 72201–3225, (501) 301–3250, TDD (207) 942–7331, Michael Grondin USDA. (501) 301–3279, Clinton King Maryland ACTION: Notice. California State Office, 430 G Street, Agency 4169, Davis, CA 95616–4169, Served by Delaware State Office SUMMARY: This NOFA announces the (530) 792–5819, TDD (530) 792–5848, Massachusetts, Connecticut, & Rhode timeframe to submit applications for Jeff Deis Island State Office, 451 West Street, section 514 Farm Labor Housing loan Colorado State Office, 655 Parfet Street, Amherst, MA 01002, (413) 253–4333, funds and section 516 Farm Labor Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215, TDD (413) 253–4590, Donald Colburn Housing grant funds for new (303) 236–2801 (ext. 124), TDD (303) Michigan State Office, 3001 Coolidge construction and acquisition and 236–1590, Mary Summerfield Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI rehabilitation of off-farm units for Connecticut 48823, (517) 324–5192, TDD (517) farmworker households. Applications 337–6795, Philip Wolak may also include requests for section Served by Massachusetts State Office Minnesota State Office, 410 AgriBank 521 rental assistance (RA) and operating Delaware & Maryland State Office, 5201 Building, 375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, assistance for migrant units. This South Dupont Highway, PO Box 400, MN 55101–1853, (651) 602–7804, document describes the method used to Camden, DE 19934–9998, (302) 697– TDD (651) 602–7830, Joyce Vondal distribute funds, the application 4353, TDD (302) 697–4303, Pat Baker Mississippi State Office, Federal process, and submission requirements. Florida & Virgin Islands State Office, Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol DATES: The closing deadline for receipt 4440 N.W. 25th Place, PO Box Street, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965– of all applications in response to this 147010, Gainesville, FL 32614–7010, 4325, TDD (601) 965–5850, Darnella NOFA is 5 p.m., local time for each (352) 338–3465, TDD (352) 338–3499, Smith-Murray Rural Development State office on May Joseph P. Fritz Missouri State Office, 1201 Business 28, 2002. The application closing Georgia State Office, Stephens Federal Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite deadline is firm as to date and hour. Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876– RHS will not consider any application Athens, GA 30601–2768, (706) 546– 0990, TDD (573) 876–9480, Charles H. that is received after the closing 2164, TDD (706) 546–2034, Wayne Marcks deadline. Applicants intending to mail Rogers Montana State Office, Unit 1, Suite B, applications must provide sufficient 900 Technology Blvd., Bozeman, MT time to permit delivery on or before the Guam 59715, (406) 585–2518, TDD (406) closing deadline date and time. Served by Hawaii State Office 585–2562, Craig Hildreth Acceptance by the United States Postal Nebraska State Office, Federal Building, Service or private mailer does not Hawaii, Guam, & Western Pacific room 152, 100 Centennial Mall N, constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX) and Territories State Office, Room 311, Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437–5567, postage due applications will not be Federal Building, 154 Waianuenue TDD (402) 437–5093, Phil Willnerd accepted. Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, (808) 933– Nevada State Office, 1390 South Curry 8309, TDD (808) 933–8321, Thao Street, Carson City, NV 89703–9910, ADDRESSES: Applicants wishing to apply Khamoui (775) 887–1222 (ext. 13), TDD (775) for assistance must contact the Rural Idaho State Office, Suite A1, 9173 West 885–0633, William L. Brewer Development State office serving the Barnes Dr., Boise, ID 83709, (208) New Hampshire State Office, Concord place in which they desire to locate off- 378–5628, TDD (208) 378–5644, Center, Suite 218, Box 317, 10 Ferry farm labor housing to receive further LaDonn McElligott Street, Concord, NH 03301–5004, information and copies of the Illinois State Office, 2118 W. Park Ct. (603) 223–6046, TDD (603) 229–0536, application package. Rural Development Suite A, Champaign, IL 6821–2986, Jim Fowler will date and time stamp incoming (217) 403–6222, TDD (217) 403–6240, New Jersey State Office, Tarnsfield applications to evidence timely receipt, Barry L. Ramsey Plaza, Suite 22, 790 Woodland Road, and, upon request, will provide the Indiana State Office, 5975 Lakeside Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265–3636, applicant with a written Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278, TDD (609) 265–3687, George Hyatt, Jr. acknowledgment of receipt. A listing of (317) 290–3100 (ext. 423), TDD (317) New Mexico State Office, 6200 Jefferson Rural Development State offices, their 290–3343, John Young St., NE, Room 255, Albuquerque, NM addresses, telephone numbers, and Iowa State Office, 873 Federal Building, 87109, (505) 761–4944, TDD (505) person to contact follows: 210, Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 761–4938, Carmen N. Lopez Note: Telephone numbers listed are not 50309, (515) 284–4666, TDD (515) New York State Office, The Galleries of toll-free. 284–4858, Julie Sleeper Syracuse, 441 S. Salina Street, Suite Alabama State Office, Suite 601, Kansas State Office, 1303 SW First 357, Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 477– Sterling Center, 4121 Carmichael American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, 6419, TDD (315) 477–6447, George N. Road, Montgomery, AL 36106–3683, KS 66604–4040, (785) 271–2721, TDD Von Pless (334) 279–3455, TDD (334) 279–3495, (785) 271–2767, Virginia M. North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland James B. Harris Hammersmith Road, Suite 2120, Raleigh, NC 271209, Alaska State Office, 800 West Evergreen, Kentucky State Office, 771 Corporate (919) 873–2066, TDD (919) 873–2003, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645, (907) Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY Terry Strole
VerDate 11
North Dakota State Office, Federal Western Pacific Territories Discussion of Notice Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, Served by Hawaii State Office I. Authority and Distribution PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502, West Virginia State Office, Federal Methodology (701) 530–2049, TDD (701) 530–2113, Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, A. Authority Kathy Lake Morgantown, WV 26505–7500, (304) Ohio State Office, Federal Building, 284–4889, TDD (304) 284–4836, Craig The Farm Labor Housing program is Room 507, 200 North High Street, St. Clair authorized by the Housing Act of 1949: Columbus, OH 43215–2477, (614) Wisconsin State Office, 4949 Kirschiling Section 514 (42 U.S.C. 1484) for loans 255–2418, TDD (614) 255–2554, Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481, (715) and section 516 (42 U.S.C. 1486) for Melodie Taylor 345–7620 (ext. 7145), TDD (715) 345– grants. Tenant subsidies (rental Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 7614, Sherry Engel assistance (RA)) are available through 108, Stillwater, OK 74074–2654, (405) Wyoming State Office, 100 East B, section 521 (42 U.S.C. 1490a). Sections 742–1070, TDD (405) 742–1007, Phil Federal Building, Room 1005, PO Box 514 and 516 provide RHS the authority Reimers 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261– to make loans and grants for financing Oregon State Office, 101 SW Main, Suite 6315, TDD (307) 261–6333, Charles off-farm housing to broad-based 1410, Portland, OR 97204–3222, (503) Huff nonprofit organizations, nonprofit 414–3325, TDD (503) 414–3387, organizations of farmworkers, federally Margo Donelin FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit general information, applicants may recognized Indian tribes, agencies or Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, contact Mary Fox, Senior Loan political subdivisions of State or local PA 17110–2996, (717) 237–2281, TDD Specialist or David Layfield, Senior government, public agencies (such as (717) 237–2261, Gary Rothrock Loan Specialist, of the Multi-Family local housing authorities) and with Puerto Rico State Office, New San Juan Housing Processing Division, Rural section 514 loans to nonprofit limited Office Bldg., Room 501, 159 Carlos E. Housing Service, United States partnerships in which the general Chardon Street, Hato Rey, PR 00918– Department of Agriculture, Stop 0781, partner is a nonprofit entity. 5481, (787) 766–5095 (ext. 254), TDD 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, B. Distribution Methodology 1–800–274–1572, Lourdes Colon Washington, DC, 20250, telephone (202) Because RHS has the ability to adjust 720–1624 or (202) 690–0759 (voice) Rhode Island loan and grant levels, final loan and (this is not a toll free number) or (800) grant levels will fluctuate. The Served by Massachusetts State Office 877–8339 (TDD-Federal Information estimated funds available for fiscal year South Carolina State Office, Strom Relay Service). (FY) 2002 for off-farm housing are: Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 514 loans, $22,459,099; Section Assembly Street, Room 1007, 516 grants, $13,967,000. Columbia, SC 29201, (803) 253–3432, Programs Affected TDD (803) 765–5697, Larry D. Floyd The Farm Labor Housing Program is C. Section 514 and Section 516 Funds South Dakota State Office, Federal listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Section 514 loan funds and section Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Assistance under Number 10.405, Farm 516 grant funds will be distributed to Street, SW, Huron, SD 57350, (605) Labor Housing Loans and Grants. Rental States based on a national competition, 352–1132, TDD (605) 352–1147, Assistance is listed in the Catalog under as follows: Dwight Wullweber Number 10.427, Rural Rental Assistance 1. States will accept, review, and Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 Payments. score requests in accordance with 7 CFR West End Avenue, Nashville, TN Definitions part 1944, subpart D. The scoring factors 37203–1084, (615) 783–1300, TDD are: (615) 783–1397, G. Benson Lasater Farm Labor. Farm labor includes (a) The presence and extent of Texas State Office, Federal Building, services in connection with cultivating leveraged assistance, including donated Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, the soil, raising or harvesting any land, for the units that will serve TX 76501, (254) 742–9755, TDD (254) agriculture or aquaculture commodity; program-eligible tenants, calculated as a 742–9712, Eugene G. Pavlat or in catching, netting, handling, percentage of the RHS total Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennett planting, drying, packing, grading, development cost (TDC). RHS TDC Federal Building, 125 S. State Street, storing, or preserving in its excludes non-RHS eligible costs such as Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT unmanufactured state any agriculture or a developer’s fee. Leveraged assistance 84147–0350, (801) 524–4324, TDD aquaculture commodity; or delivering to includes, but is not limited to, funds for (801) 524–3309, Robert L. Milianta storage, market, or a carrier for hard construction costs, section 8 or Vermont State Office, City Center, 3rd transportation to market or to process other non-RHS tenant subsidies, and Floor 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT any agricultural or aquacultural state or federal funds. A minimum of 05602, (802) 828–6028, TDD (802) commodity. ten percent leveraged assistance is 223–6365, Sandra Mercier Migrant Agricultural Laborers. required to earn points; however, if the Agricultural laborers and family Virgin Islands total percentage of leveraged assistance dependents who establish a temporary is less than ten percent and the proposal Served by Florida State Office residence while performing agriculture includes donated land, two points will Virginia State Office, Culpeper Building, work at one or more locations away be awarded for the donated land. Points Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, from the place they call home or home will be awarded in accordance with the Richmond, VA 23229, (804) 287– base. (This does not include day-haul following table. (0 to 20 points) 1547, TDD (804) 287–1753, Eileen agricultural workers whose travels are Nowlin limited to work areas within one day of Percentage Points Washington State Office, 1011 East their work locations.) Main St., Suite 306, Puyallup, WA Off-Farm Labor Housing. Housing for 75 or more ...... 20 98372–6771, (253) 845–9272 X114, farm laborers regardless of the farm 60–74 ...... 18 TDD (360) 704–7760, Robert Lund where they work. 50–59 ...... 16
VerDate 11
Percentage Points highest State-ranked) will compete by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE computer-based random lottery. If 40–49 ...... 12 necessary, the process will be Rural Housing Service 30–39 ...... 10 completed until all same-pointed 20–29 ...... 8 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) preapplications are selected or funds are 10–19 ...... 5 for the Section 515 Rural Rental 0–9 ...... 0 exhausted. Housing Program for Fiscal Year 2002 Donated land in proposals with II. Funding Limits less than ten percent total lever- AGENCY: Rural Housing Service (RHS), aged assistance ...... 2 A. Individual requests may not exceed USDA. $3 million (total loan and grant). ACTION: Notice. (b) Seasonal, temporary, migrant housing. (5 points for up to and B. No State may receive more than 30 SUMMARY: This NOFA announces the including 50 percent of the units; 10 percent of the total available funds timeframe to submit applications for points for 51 percent or more.) unless an exception is granted from the section 515 Rural Rental Housing (RRH) (c) The selection criteria contained in Administrator. loan funds and section 521 Rental 7 CFR 1944, Subpart D includes one C. Rental Assistance and Operating Assistance (RA) for new construction, including applications for the nonprofit optional criteria set by the National Assistance will be held in the National set-aside for eligible nonprofit entities, Office. This fiscal year, the National Office for use with section 514 loans the set-aside for the most Underserved office initiative will be used in the and section 516 grants and will be selection criteria as follows: Counties and Colonias (Cranston- awarded based on each project’s Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Up to 10 points will be awarded based financial structure and need. on the presence of and extent to which Act), and the set-aside for a tenant services plan exists that clearly III. Application Process Empowerment Zones and Enterprise outlines services that will be provided Communities (EZ/ECs) and Rural to the residents of the proposed project. All applications for sections 514 and Economic Area Partnership (REAP) These services may include but are not 516 funds must be filed with the communities. This document describes limited to: transportation related appropriate Rural Development State the methodology that will be used to services, on-site English as a Second office and must meet the requirements distribute funds, the application Language (ESL) classes, move-in funds, of 7 CFR part 1944, subpart D, and process, submission requirements, and emergency assistance funds, section IV of this NOFA. Incomplete areas of special emphasis or homeownership counseling, food applications will not be reviewed and consideration. pantries, after school tutoring, and will be returned to the applicant. No DATES: The closing deadline for receipt computer learning centers. Two points application will be accepted after 5 pm, of all applications, including those for will be awarded for each resident local time, on May 28, 2002, unless date the set-asides, in response to this NOFA service included in the tenant services and time is extended by another Notice is 5:00 p.m., local time for each Rural plan up to a maximum of 10 points. published in the Federal Register. Development State office on April 26, Plans must detail how the services are 2002. The application closing deadline to be administered, who will administer IV. Application Submission is firm as to date and hour. RHS will not them, and where they will be Requirements consider any application that is received after the closing deadline. Applicants administered. All tenant service plans A. Each application shall include all must include letters of intent that intending to mail applications must of the information, materials, forms and clearly state the service that will be provide sufficient time to permit exhibits required by 7 CFR part 1944, provided at the project for the benefit of delivery on or before the closing subpart D, as well as comply with the the residents from any party deadline date and time. Acceptance by administering each service, including provisions of this NOFA. Applicants are the United States Postal Service or the applicant. (0 to 10 points) encouraged, but not required, to include private mailer does not constitute 2. States will conduct preliminary a checklist and to have their delivery. Facsimile (FAX) and postage eligibility review, score applications, applications indexed and tabbed to due applications will not be accepted. and forward to the National Office. facilitate the review process. The Rural ADDRESSES: Applicants wishing to apply 3. The National office will rank all Development State office will base its for assistance must contact the Rural requests nationwide and distribute determination of completeness of the Development State office serving the funds to States in rank order, within application and the eligibility of each place in which they desire to submit an funding and RA limits. If insufficient applicant on the information provided application for rural rental housing to funds or RA remain for the next ranked in the application. receive further information and copies proposal, the Agency will select the B. Applicants are advised to contact of the application package. Rural next ranked proposal that falls within the Rural Development State office Development will date and time stamp the remaining levels. In case of point- serving the place in which they desire incoming applications to evidence score ties in the National ranking, first to submit an application for application timely receipt, and, upon request, will provide the applicant with a written preference will be given to a information. preapplication to develop units in a acknowledgment of receipt. A listing of state that does not have existing RHS- Dated: February 15, 2002. Rural Development State offices, their financed off-farm LH units; second James C. Alsop, addresses, telephone numbers, and preference to a preapplication will be Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. person to contact follows: from a State that has not yet been [FR Doc. 02–4329 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Note: Telephone numbers listed are not selected in the current funding cycle. In toll-free. BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P the event there are multiple Alabama State Office, Suite 601, preapplications in either category, one Sterling Centre, 4121 Carmichael preapplication from each State (the Road, Montgomery, AL 36106–3683,
VerDate 11
(334) 279–3455, TDD (334) 279–3495, Kentucky State Office, 771 Corporate (919) 873–2066, TDD (919) 873–2003, James B. Harris Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY Terry Strole Alaska State Office, 800 West Evergreen, 40503, (859) 224–7325, TDD (859) North Dakota State Office, Federal Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645, (907) 224–7422, Paul Higgins Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, 761–7740, TDD (907) 761–8905, Louisiana State Office, 3727 PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502, Deborah Davis Government Street, Alexandria, LA (701) 530–2049, TDD (701) 530–2113, Arizona State Office, Phoenix Corporate 71302, (318) 473–7962, TDD (318) Kathy Lake Center, 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite 473–7655, Yvonne R. Emerson Ohio State Office, Federal Building, 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012–2906, (602) Maine State Office, 967 Illinois Ave., Room 507, 200 North High Street, 280–8765, TDD (602) 280–8706, Suite 4, PO Box 405, Bangor, ME Columbus, OH 43215–2477, (614) Johnna Vargas 04402–0405, (207) 990–9110, TDD 255–2418, TDD (614) 255–2554, Arkansas State Office, 700 W. Capitol (207) 942–7331, Dale D. Holmes Melodie Taylor Ave., Room 3416, Little Rock, AR Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 72201–3225, (501) 301–3250, TDD Maryland 108, Stillwater, OK 74074–2654, (405) (501) 301–3279, Cathy Jones Served by Delaware State Office 742–1070, TDD (405) 742–1007, California State Office, 430 G Street, Massachusetts, Connecticut, & Rhode Phillip F. Reimers Agency 4169, Davis, CA 95616–4169, Island State Office, 451 West Street, Oregon State Office, 101 SW Main, Suite (530) 792–5819 or, (530) 792–5830, Amherst, MA 01002, (413) 253–4333, 1410, Portland, OR 97204–3222, (503) TDD (530) 792–5848, Jeff Deiss TDD (413) 253–4590, Donald Colburn 414–3325, TDD (503) 414–3387, Bill Colorado State Office, 655 Parfet Street, Michigan State Office, 3001 Coolidge Daniel Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215, Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit (720) 544–2922, TDD (720) 544–2976, 48823, (517) 324–5192, TDD (517) Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, ‘‘Sam’’ Mitchell 337–6795, Philip Wolak PA 17110–2996, (717) 237–2281, TDD (717) 237–2261, Gary Rothrock Connecticut Minnesota State Office, 410 AgriBank Building, 375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, Puerto Rico State Office, 654 Munoz Served by Massachusetts State Office MN 55101–1853, (651) 602–7804, Rivera Avenue, IBM Plaza, Suite 601, Delaware and Maryland State Office, TDD (651) 602–7830, Joyce Vondal Hato Rey, PR 00918, (787) 766–5095 5201 South Dupont Highway, PO Box Mississippi State Office, Federal (ext. 249), TDD (787) 766–5332, 400, Camden, DE 19934–9998, (302) Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol Lourdes Colon 697–4353, TDD (302) 697–4303, Pat Street, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965– Rhode Island Baker 4325, TDD (601) 965–5850, Darnella Florida & Virgin Islands State Office, Smith-Murray Served by Massachusetts State Office 4440 N.W. 25th Place, Gainesville, FL Missouri State Office, 601 Business South Carolina State Office, Strom 32614–7010, (352) 338–3465, TDD Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 (352) 338–3499, Joseph P. Fritz 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876– Assembly Street, Room 1007, Georgia State Office, Stephens Federal 0990, TDD (573) 876–9301, Charlie Columbia, SC 29201, (803) 253–3432, Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Marcks TDD (803) 765–5697, Larry D. Floyd Athens, GA 30601–2768, (706) 546– Montana State Office, Unit 1, Suite B, South Dakota State Office, Federal 2164, TDD (706) 546–2034, Wayne 900 Technology Blvd., Bozeman, MT Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Rogers 59715, (406) 585–2551, TDD (406) Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350, (605) 585–2562, Deborah Chorlton 352–1132, TDD (605) 352–1147, Guam Nebraska State Office, Federal Building, Dwight Wullweber Served by Hawaii State Office Room 152, 100 Centennial Mall N, Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 Hawaii and Western Pacific State Office, Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437–5594, West End Avenue, Nashville, TN Room 311, Federal Building, 154 TDD (402) 437–5093, Phil Willnerd 37203–1084, (615) 783–1375, TDD Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, Nevada State Office, 1390 South Curry (615) 783–1397, G. Benson Lasater (808) 933–8309, TDD (808) 933–8321, Street, Carson City, NV 89703–9910, Texas State Office, Federal Building, Thao Khamoui (775) 887–1222 (ext. 13), TDD (775) Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, Idaho State Office, Suite A1, 9173 West 885–0633, William L. Brewer TX 76501, (254) 742–9755, TDD (254) Barnes Dr., Boise, ID 83709, (208) New Hampshire State Office, Concord 742–9712, Eugene G. Pavlat 378–5630, TDD (208) 378–5644, Center, Suite 218, Box 317, 10 Ferry Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennett LaDonn McElligott Street, Concord, NH 03301–5004, Federal Building, 125 S. State Street, Illinois State Office, 2118 West Park (603) 223–6062, TDD (603) 229–0536, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821, Jim Fowler 84147–0350, (801) 524–4324, TDD (217) 403–6222, TDD (217) 403–6240, New Jersey State Office, Tarnsfield (801) 524–3309, Robert L. Milianta Barry L. Ramsey Plaza, Suite 22, 790 Woodland Road, Vermont State Office, City Center, 3rd Indiana State Office, 5975 Lakeside Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265–3636, Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278, TDD (609) 265–3687, George Hyatt, Jr. 05602, (802) 828–6028, TDD (802) (317) 290–3100 (ext. 423), TDD (317) New Mexico State Office, 6200 Jefferson 223–6365, Sandra Mercier 290–3343, John Young St., NE, Room 255, Albuquerque, NM Virgin Islands Iowa State Office, 873 Federal Building, 87109, (505) 761–4944, TDD (505) 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 761–4938, Carmen N. Lopez Served by Florida State Office 50309, (515) 284–4666, TDD (515) New York State Office, The Galleries of Virginia State Office, Culpeper Building, 284–4858, Julie Sleeper Syracuse, 441 S. Salina Street, Suite Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Kansas State Office, 1303 SW First 357, Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 477– Richmond, VA 23229, (804) 287– American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, 6419, TDD (315) 477–6447, George N. 1547, TDD (804) 287–1753, Eileen KS 66604–4040, (785) 271–2721, TDD Von Pless Nowlin (785) 271–2767, Virginia M. North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland Washington State Office, Puyallup Hammersmith Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609, Executive Park, 1011 E. Main, Suite
VerDate 11
306, Puyallup, WA 98372–6771, (253) B. Distribution Methodology Percentage of leveraging Points 845–9272 (ext. 5), TDD (253) 845– The total amount available for FY 0553, Robert Lund 2002 for section 515 is $114,068,998, of 75 or more ...... 20 70–74 ...... 19 which $49,000,000 is available for new Western Pacific Territories 65–69 ...... 18 construction as follows: Served by Hawaii State Office 60–64 ...... 17 55–59 ...... 16 Section 515 new construc- West Virginia State Office, Federal 50–54 ...... 15 Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, tion funds ...... $16,715,502 Set-aside for nonprofits ...... 10,266,209 45–49 ...... 14 Morgantown, WV 26505–7500, (304) 40–44 ...... 13 284–4889, TDD (304) 284–4836, Craig Set-aside for Underserved Counties and Colonias .... 5,703,450 35–39 ...... 12 St. Clair Set-aside for EZ, EC, and 30–34 ...... 11 Wisconsin State Office 4949 Kirschling REAP Zones ...... 14,814,839 25–29 ...... 10 Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481, (715) State Rental Assistance 20–24 ...... 9 345–7615 (ext. 151), TDD (715) 345– (RA) Designated reserve 1,500,000 15–19 ...... 8 7614, Sherry Engel 10–14 ...... 7 Wyoming State Office, 100 East B, C. Section 515 New Construction Funds 5–9 ...... 6 Federal Building, Room 1005, PO Box For fiscal year 2002 the Administrator 0–4 ...... 0 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261– has determined that it would not be 6315, TDD (307) 261–6333, Charles practical to allocate funds to States (b) The units to be developed are in Huff because of funding limitations; a colonia, tribal land, EZ, EC, or REAP therefore, section 515 new construction community, or in a place identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For funds will be distributed to States based the State Consolidated Plan or State general information, applicants may on a National competition, as follows: Needs Assessment as a high need contact Linda Armour, Senior Loan Officer, Multi-Family Housing 1. States will accept, review, score, community for multifamily housing. (20 Processing Division, Rural Housing and rank requests in accordance with 7 points) Service, United States Department of CFR part 1944, subpart E. The scoring (c) In states where RHS has an on- Agriculture, Stop 0781, 1400 factors are: going formal working relationship, Independence Avenue, SW, (a) The presence and extent of agreement, or Memorandum of Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) leveraged assistance for the units that Understanding (MOU) with the State to 720–1753 (voice) (this is not a toll free will serve RHS income-eligible tenants provide State resources (State funds, at basic rents comparable to those if number) or (800) 877–8339 (TDD- State RA, HOME funds, CDBG funds, or RHS provided full financing, computed Federal Information Relay Service). Low-Income Housing Tax Credits) for as a percentage of the RHS total RHS proposals; or where the State SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: development cost (TDC). RHS TDC provides preference or points to RHS Programs Affected excludes non-RHS eligible costs such as a developer’s fee. The required proposals in awarding such State The Rural Rental Housing program is applicant contribution is not considered resources, 20 points will be provided to listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic leveraged assistance. Leveraged loan requests that include such State Assistance under Number 10.415, Rural assistance includes loans and grants resources in an amount equal to at least Rental Housing Loans. Rental from other sources, contributions from 5 percent of the total development cost. Assistance is listed in the Catalog under the applicant above the required Native American Housing and Self Number 10.427, Rural Rental Assistance contribution indicated by the Sources Determination Act (NAHASDA) funds Payments. and Uses Comprehensive Evaluation may be considered a State Resource if the Tribal Plan for NAHASDA funds Discussion of Notice (available from the Rural Development State Office) and tax abatements or other contains provisions for partnering with I. Authority and Distribution savings in operating costs provided that, RHS for multifamily housing. (National Methodology at the end of the abatement period when office initiative) A. Authority the benefit is no longer available, the (d) The loan request includes donated basic rents are comparable to or lower land meeting the provisions of 7 CFR Section 515 of the Housing Act of than the basic rents if RHS provided full 1944.215(r)(4). (5 points) 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485) provides RHS financing. Loan proposals that include with the authority to make loans to any secondary funds from other sources that 2. The National office will rank all individual, corporation, association, have been requested but have not yet requests nationwide and distribute trust, Indian tribe, public or private been committed will be processed as funds to States in rank order, within nonprofit organization, consumer follows: The proposal will be scored funding and RA limits. If insufficient cooperative, or partnership to provide based on the requested funds, provided funds or RA remain for the next ranked rental or cooperative housing and (1) the applicant includes evidence of a proposal, the Agency will select the related facilities in rural areas for very- filed application for the funds; and (2) next ranked proposal that falls within low, low, or moderate income persons the funding date of the requested funds the remaining levels. Point score ties or families, including elderly persons will permit processing of the loan will be handled as follows: The highest and persons with disabilities. Rental request in the current funding cycle, or, ranked same-pointed proposal from assistance (RA) is a tenant subsidy for if the applicant does not receive the each State will be selected, followed by very-low and low-income families requested funds, will permit processing the second highest ranked proposal, and residing in rural rental housing facilities of the next highest ranked proposal in so on, until funds are exhausted. If there with RHS financing and may be the current year. Points will be awarded are insufficient funds to select the requested with applications for such in accordance with the following table. highest ranked proposal from each facilities. (0 to 20 points) State, selection will be made by lottery.
VerDate 11
D. Applications That Do Not Require defined in section 509(f) of the Housing B. Applicants are advised to contact New Construction Rental Assistance Act of 1949. the Rural Development State office (RA) 3. EZ, EC, and REAP set-aside. An serving the place in which they desire For fiscal year 2002 limited new amount of $14,814,839 has been set to submit an application for the construction RA is available. Therefore, aside to develop units in EZ, EC, or following: the Agency is inviting applications to REAP communities. Loan requests that 1. Application information and are eligible for this set-aside may also be develop units in markets that do not 2. List of designated places for which require RA. The market study for non- eligible for regular section 515 funds as applications for new section 515 RA proposals must clearly demonstrate a high-need community. The state must facilities may be submitted. a need and demand for the units by indicate on the list submitted to the prospective tenants at income levels National office if the request is eligible VI. Areas of Special Emphasis or that can support the proposed rents for the EZ, EC, and REAP set-aside and Consideration without tenant subsidies. The proposed regular section 515 funds. If requests for units must offer amenities that are this set-aside exceed available funds, A. The selection criteria contained in typical for the market area at rents that selection will be made by point score. 7 CFR part 1944, subpart E includes two are comparable to conventional rents in II. Funding Limits optional criteria, one set by the National the market for similar units. Office and one by the State office. This A. Individual loan requests may not fiscal year, the National Office initiative E. Set-asides exceed $1 million. This applies to will be used in the selection criteria as Loan requests will be accepted for the regular section 515 funds and set-aside follows: In states where RHS has an on- following set-asides: funds. The Administrator may make an going formal working relationship, 1. Nonprofit set-aside. An amount of exception to this limit in cases where a agreement, or Memorandum of State’s average total development costs $10,266,209 has been set aside for Understanding (MOU) with the State to exceed the National average by 50 nonprofit applicants. All loan proposals provide State resources (State funds, percent or more. must be in designated places in State RA, HOME funds, CDBG funds, or B. No State may receive more than accordance with 7 CFR part 1944, LIHTC) for RHS proposals; or where the subpart E. A State or jurisdiction may $2.5 million, including set-asides funds. State provides preference or points to receive one proposal from this set-aside, III. Rental Assistance (RA) RHS proposals in awarding these State which cannot exceed $1 million. A State could get additional funds from this set- New construction RA will be held in Resources, 20 points will be provided to aside if any funds remain after funding the National office for use with section loan requests that include such State one proposal from each participating 515 Rural Rental Housing loans. RA resources in an amount equal to at least State. If there are insufficient funds to may be requested by applicants, except 5 percent of the total development cost. fund one loan request from each for non-RA requests in accordance with Native American Housing and Self participating State, selection will be section I.D. above. Determination Act (NAHASDA) funds may be considered a State Resource if made by point score. If there are any IV. Application Process funds remaining, they will revert to the the Tribal Plan for NAHASDA funds National office reserve. Funds from this All applications for section 515 new contains provisions for partnering with set-aside will be available only to construction funds must be filed with RHS for multifamily housing. No State nonprofit entities, which may include a the appropriate Rural Development selection criteria will be used this fiscal partnership that has as its general State office and must meet the year. partner a nonprofit entity or the requirements of 7 CFR part 1944, B. $10,266,209 is available nonprofit entity’s for-profit subsidiary subpart E and section V of this NOFA. nationwide in a set-aside for eligible Incomplete applications will not be which will be receiving low-income nonprofit organizations as defined in 42 reviewed and will be returned to the housing tax credits authorized under U.S.C. 1485(w). section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code applicant. No application will be of 1986. To be eligible for this set-aside, accepted after 5:00 p.m., local time, on C. $5,703,450 is available nationwide the nonprofit entity must be an the application deadline previously in a set-aside for the 100 most organization that: mentioned unless that date and time is Underserved Counties and Colonias. (a) Will own an interest in the project extended by a Notice published in the D. $14,814,839 is available to be financed and will materially Federal Register. nationwide in a set-aside for EZ, EC, participate in the development and the V. Application Submission and REAP communities. operations of the project; Requirements (b) Is a private organization that has E. $1,500,000 is available nationwide nonprofit, tax exempt status under A. Each application shall include all in a reserve for States with viable State section 501(c)(3) or section 501(c)(4) of of the information, materials, forms and Rental Assistance (RA) programs. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; exhibits required by 7 CFR part 1944, order to participate, States are to submit (c) Has among its purposes the subpart E as well as comply with the specific written information about the planning, development, or management provisions of this NOFA. Applicants are State RA program, i.e., a memorandum of low-income housing or community encouraged, but not required, to include of understanding, documentation from development projects; and a checklist and to have their the provider, etc., to the National Office. (d) Is not affiliated with or controlled applications indexed and tabbed to Dated: February 15, 2002. by a for-profit organization. facilitate the review process. The Rural James C. Alsop, 2. Underserved counties and colonias Development State office will base its set-aside. An amount of $5,703,450 has determination of completeness of the Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. been set aside for loan requests to application and the eligibility of each [FR Doc. 02–4330 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] develop units in the 100 most needy applicant on the information provided BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P underserved counties or colonias as in the application.
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Note: Telephone numbers listed are not 50309, (515) 284–4493, TDD (515) toll-free. 284–4858, Bruce McGuire Rural Housing Service Alabama State Office, Suite 601, Kansas State Office, 1303 SW First Sterling Centre, 4121 Carmichael American Place Ste 100, Topeka, KS Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for Road, Montgomery, AL 36106–3683, 66604–4040, (785) 271–2721, TDD section 533 Housing Preservation (334) 279–3455, TDD (334) 279–3495, (785) 271–2767, Virginia M. Grants James B. Harris Hammersmith AGENCY: Rural Housing Service (RHS), Alaska State Office, 800 West Evergreen, Kentucky State Office, 771 Corporate USDA. Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645, (907) Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY ACTION: Notice. 761–7740, TDD (907) 761–8905, 40503, (859) 224–7325, TDD (859) Deborah Davis 224–7422, Paul Higgins SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service Arizona State Office, Phoenix Corporate Louisiana State Office, 3727 (RHS) announces that it is soliciting Center, 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite Government Street, Alexandria, LA competitive applications under its 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012–2906, (602) 71302, (318) 473–7962, TDD (318) Housing Preservation Grant (HPG) 280–8765, TDD (602) 280–8706, 473–7655, Yvonne R. Emerson program. The HPG program is a grant Johnna Vargas Maine State Office, 967 Illinois Ave., program which provides qualified Arkansas State Office, 700 W. Capitol Suite 4, PO Box 405, Bangor, ME public agencies, private nonprofit Ave., Rm. 3416, Little Rock, AR 04402–0405, (207) 990–9110, TDD organizations, and other eligible entities 72201–3225, (501) 301–3250, TDD (207) 942–7331, Dale D. Holmes grant funds to assist very low- and low- (501) 301–3279, Cathy Jones Maryland income homeowners repair and California State Office, 430 G Street, rehabilitate their homes in rural areas, Agency 4169, Davis, CA 95616–4169, Served by Delaware State Office and to assist rental property owners and (530) 792–5819 or, (530) 792–5830, Massachusetts, Connecticut, & Rhode cooperative housing complexes to repair TDD (530) 792–5848, Millie Island State Office, 451 West Street, and rehabilitate their units if they agree Manzanedo or Jeff Deiss Amherst, MA 01002, (413) 253–4333, to make such units available to low- and Colorado State Office, 655 Parfet Street, TDD (413) 253–4590, Donald Colburn very low-income persons. This action is Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215, Michigan State Office, 3001 Coolidge taken to comply with Agency (720) 544–2922, TDD (720) 544–2976, Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI regulations found in 7 CFR part 1944, ‘‘Sam’’ Mitchell 48823, (517) 324–5192, TDD (517) subpart N, which require the Agency to 337–6795, Philip Wolak announce the opening and closing dates Connecticut Minnesota State Office, 410 AgriBank for receipt of preapplications for HPG Served by Massachusetts State Office Building, 375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, MN 55101–1853, (651) 602–7804, funds from eligible applicants. The Delaware and Maryland State Office, TDD (651) 602–7830, Joyce Vondal intended effect of this Notice is to 5201 South Dupont Highway, PO Box Mississippi State Office, Federal provide eligible organizations notice of 400, Camden, DE 19934–9998, (302) Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol these dates. 697–4353, TDD (302) 697–4303, Pat Street, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965– DATES: The closing deadline for receipt Baker 4325, TDD (601) 965–5850, Darnella of all applications in response to this Florida & Virgin Islands State Office, NOFA is 5 p.m., local time for each Smith-Murray 4440 N.W. 25th Place, Gainesville, FL Missouri State Office, 601 Business Rural Development State office on May 32614–7010, (352) 338–3465, TDD 28, 2002. The application closing Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite (352) 338–3499, Joseph P. Fritz 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876– deadline is firm as to date and hour. Georgia State Office, Stephens Federal RHS will not consider any application 0990, TDD (573) 876–9301, Charlie Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Marcks that is received after the closing Athens, GA 30601–2768, (706) 546– deadline. Applicants intending to mail Montana State Office, Unit 1, Suite B, 2164, TDD (706) 546–2034, Wayne 900 Technology Blvd., Bozeman, MT applications must provide sufficient Rogers time to permit delivery on or before the 59715, (406) 585–2551, TDD (406) closing deadline date and time. Guam 585–2562, Deborah Chorlton Nebraska State Office, Federal Building, Acceptance by the United States Postal Served by Hawaii State Office room 152, 100 Centennial Mall N, Service or private mailer does not Hawaii and Western Pacific State Office, Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437–5594, constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX) and Room 311, Federal Building, 154 TDD (402) 437–5093, Phil Willnerd postage due applications will not be Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, Nevada State Office, 1390 South Curry accepted. (808) 933–8309, TDD (808) 933–8321, Street, Carson City, NV 89703–9910, ADDRESSES: Applicants wishing to apply Thao Khamoui (775) 887–1222 (ext. 13), TDD (775) for assistance must contact the Rural Idaho State Office, Suite A1, 9173 West 885–0633, William L. Brewer Development State office serving the Barnes Dr., Boise, ID 83709, (208) New Hampshire State Office, Concord place in which they desire to submit an 378–5630, TDD (208) 378–5644, Center, Suite 218, Box 317, 10 Ferry application to receive further LaDonn McElligott Street, Concord, NH 03301–5004, information and copies of the Illinois State Office, 2118 West Park (603) 223–6062, TDD (603) 229–0536, application package. Rural Development Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821, Jim Fowler will date and time stamp incoming (217) 403–6222, TDD (217) 403–6240, New Jersey State Office, Tarnsfield applications to evidence timely receipt, Barry L. Ramsey Plaza, Suite 22, 790 Woodland Road, and, upon request, will provide the Indiana State Office, 5975 Lakeside Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265–3636, applicant with a written Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278, TDD (609) 265–3687, George Hyatt, Jr. acknowledgment of receipt. A listing of (317) 290–3100 (ext. 423), TDD (317) New Mexico State Office, 6200 Jefferson Rural Development State offices, their 290–3343, John Young St., NE, Room 255, Albuquerque, NM addresses, telephone numbers, and Iowa State Office, 873 Federal Building, 87109, (505) 761–4944, TDD (505) person to contact follows: 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 761–4938, Carmen N. Lopez
VerDate 11
New York State Office, The Galleries of Virginia State Office, Culpeper Building, nonprofit corporations, Federally Syracuse, 441 S. Salina Street, Suite Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, recognized Indian Tribes, and consortia 357, Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 477– Richmond, VA 23229, (804) 287– of eligible entities. 6419, TDD (315) 477–6447, George N. 1547, TDD (804) 287–1753, Eileen Funding Information Von Pless Nowlin North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland Washington State Office, Puyallup The funding instrument for the HPG Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609, Executive Park, 1011 E. Main, Suite program will be a grant agreement. The (919) 873–2066, TDD (919) 873–2003, 306, Puyallup, WA 98372–6771, (253) term of the grant can vary from 1 to 2 Terry Strole 845–9272 (ext. 5), TDD (253) 845– years, depending on available funds and North Dakota State Office, Federal 0553, Robert Lund demand. No maximum or minimum Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, grant levels have been established at the PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502, Western Pacific Territories National level. You should contact the (701) 530–2049, TDD (701) 530–2113, Served by Hawaii State Office State office to determine the allocation Kathy Lake West Virginia State Office, Federal and the State maximum grant level, if Ohio State Office, Federal Building, Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, any. For FY 2002, $7,982,000 is Room 507, 200 North High Street, Morgantown, WV 26505–7500, (304) available for the Housing Preservation Columbus, OH 43215–2477, (614) 284–4889, TDD (304) 284–4836, Craig Grant Program. A set aside of $600,000 255–2418, TDD (614) 255–2554, St. Clair has been established for grants located Melodie Taylor Wisconsin State Office, 4949 Kirschling in Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481, (715) Communities, and REAP Zones and 108, Stillwater, OK 74074–2654, (405) 345–7615 (ext.151), TDD (715) 345– $6,600,000 has been distributed under a 742–1070, TDD (405) 742–1007, Phil 7614, Sherry Engel formula allocation to States pursuant to Reimers Wyoming State Office, 100 East B, 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L, Oregon State Office, 101 SW Main, Suite Federal Building, Room 1005, PO Box ‘‘Methodology and Formulas for 1410, Portland, OR 97204–3222, (503) 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261– Allocation of Loan and Grant Program 414–3325, TDD (503) 414–3387, Bill 6315, TDD (307) 261–6333, Charles Funds’’. Decisions on funding will be Daniel Huff based on preapplications. Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit Dated: February 15, 2002. Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For PA 17110–2996, (717) 237–2281, TDD general information, applicants may James C. Alsop, (717) 237–2261, Gary Rothrock contact Tracee Lilly, Senior Loan Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. Puerto Rico State Office, 654 Munoz Officer, Multi-Family Housing [FR Doc. 02–4331 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Rivera Avenue, IBM Plaza, Suite 601, Processing Division, Rural Housing BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P Hato Rey, PR 00918, (787) 766–5095 Service, United States Department of (ext. 249), TDD (787) 766–5332, Agriculture, Stop 0781, 1400 Lourdes Colon Independence Avenue, SW, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) Rhode Island 720–1604 (voice) (this is not a toll free Rural Housing Service Served by Massachusetts State Office number) or (800) 877–8339 (TDD- Federal Information Relay Service). Notice of Availability of Funding and South Carolina State Office, Strom Requests for Proposals for Guaranteed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Loans Under the Section 538 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Programs Affected Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Columbia, SC 29201, (803) 253–3432, Program TDD (803) 765–5697, Larry D. Floyd This program is listed in the Catalog South Dakota State Office, Federal of Federal Domestic Assistance under AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Number 10.433, Rural Housing ACTION: Notice of fund availability. Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350, (605) Preservation Grants. This program is 352–1132, TDD (605) 352–1147, subject to the provisions of Executive Required Responses From: Eligible Dwight Wullweber Order 12372 which requires Lenders for Multi-Family Lending. Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 intergovernmental consultation with Program Offers: Loan Guarantees and West End Avenue, Nashville, TN State and local officials (7 CFR part Interest Credits for Rural Housing. 37203–1084, (615) 783–1375, TDD 3015, subpart V). Applicants are SUMMARY: This Notice of Fund (615) 783–1397, G. Benson Lasater referred to 7 CFR 1944.674 and Availability (NOFA or Notice) Texas State Office, Federal Building, 1944.676(f), (g), and (h) for specific announces the timeframe, submission Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, guidance on these requirements relative requirements and deadlines to submit TX 76501, (254) 742–9755, TDD (254) to the HPG program. proposals in the form of ‘‘NOFA responses’’ for the section 538 742–9712, Eugene G. Pavlat Application Requirements Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennett Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Federal Building, 125 S. State Street, 7 CFR part 1944, subpart N provides Program (GRRHP)for the Fiscal Year Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT details on what information must be (FY) 2002 allocation of $99.77 million. 84147–0350, (801) 524–4324, TDD contained in the preapplication This Notice describes the commitment (801) 524–3309, Robert L. Milianta package. Entities wishing to apply for of program dollars, eligibility Vermont State Office, City Center, 3rd assistance should contact the Rural requirements, lender responsibilities, Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT Development State office to receive and the overall NOFA and application 05602, (802) 828–6028, TDD (802) further information, the State allocation processes. 223–6365, Sandra Mercier of funds, and copies of the The GRRHP operates under 7 CFR preapplication package. Eligible entities part 3565. The GRRHP Origination and Virgin Islands for these competitively awarded grants Servicing Handbook (HB–1–3565) is Served by Florida State Office include state and local governments, available to provide lenders and the
VerDate 11
general public with guidance on submission of a complete application credit priority score until at least 20% program administration. HB–1–3565, may submit an application for of the loans have received interest which contains a copy of 7 CFR part competition for FY 2002 funding credit. Requests for interest credit must 3565 in Appendix 1, can be found at the without completing a FY 2002 NOFA be made in the NOFA response. Lenders Rural Development regulation web site response. All qualified applications will are not permitted to make requests for address http://rdinit.usda.gov/regs. be funded on a first come basis until all interest credit after the selection process Eligible lenders are invited to submit program funds are exhausted. RHS will has taken place. NOFA responses for the development of commit and obligate funds only to Due to limited funding and in order affordable rental housing to serve rural lenders that submit a complete to distribute Interest Credit assistance as America. The Rural Housing Service application including all federal broadly as possible, the Agency has (RHS) will review responses submitted environmental documents required by 7 decided to limit the interest credit to by eligible lenders, on the lender’s CFR 1940 subpart G, Form RD 3565–1, $1.5 million per loan. For example, if an letterhead, and signed by both the ‘‘Application for Loan and Guarantee’’ eligible request were made for interest prospective borrower and lender. and the 2,500 dollar application fee. credit on a loan of $2.5 million, up to Although a complete application is not General Program Information $1.5 million of the loan would receive required in response to the NOFA, interest credit and $1 million would be Program Purpose: The section 538 eligible lenders may submit a complete originated at the note rate. Interest Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing application concurrently with the credit is not available for construction Program is designed to increase the NOFA response. The submission of a loans. Interest credit is only available supply of affordable multi-family complete application will not affect the for permanent loans. Lenders with housing through partnerships between scoring process. projects that are viable with or without the RHS and major lending sources, as DATES: The FY 2002 program dollars interest credit are encouraged to submit well as state and local housing finance will be allocated through a continuous a NOFA response reflecting financial selection process. The RHS will review agencies and bond issuers. Qualifying Properties: Qualifying and market feasibility under both all NOFA responses through May 16, properties include new construction for funding options. NOFA responses 2002. Reviews will take place on an on- multi-family housing units or requesting consideration under both going basis. Those responses that are acquisition of existing structures with options will not affect interest credit selected that subsequently submit rehabilitation of at least 15,000 dollars selection. However, once the interest complete applications and meet all per unit. credit funds are exhausted, only those federal environmental requirements will Eligible Financing Sources: Any form NOFA responses requesting receive commitments until all funds are of Federal, state, and conventional consideration under both funding expended. A notice will be placed in the sources of financing can be used in options or the Non-Interest Credit Federal Register when all funds are conjunction with the loan guarantee, option will be further considered. committed for FY 2002. NOFA including Home Investment Partnership Due to limited interest credit funds responses received after May 16, 2002 Program (HOME) grant funds, tax and the responsibility of RHS to target will be held for review subject to the exempt bonds, and low income housing and give priority to rural areas most in availability of funds. tax credits. need, NOFA responses requesting Eligible lenders intending to mail a Maximum Guarantee: The maximum interest credit must score a minimum of NOFA response or application must guarantee for a permanent loan will be 65 points under the criteria established provide sufficient time to permit 90 percent of the unpaid balance and in this NOFA. In the event of ties, delivery to the NOFA submission interest on the loan. The maximum selection between responses will be by address on or before the closing guarantee on a construction loan will be lot. deadline date and time. Acceptance by 90 percent of the work in place, which Surcharges for Guarantee of a U.S. Post Office or private mailer does have credit enhancements, or up to 90 Construction Advances: There is no not constitute delivery. Postage due percent of the amount actually surcharge for the guarantee of NOFA responses and applications will advanced by the lender, whichever is construction advances for FY 2002. not be accepted. less. Program Fees for FY 2002: The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reimbursement of Losses: Any losses Arlene Nunes, Senior Loan Specialist, following information stipulates the will be split on a pro-rata basis between program fees. Guaranteed Loans, Multi-Family the lender and the RHS from the first Housing Processing Division, U.S. dollar lost. (1) There is an initial guarantee fee of Department of Agriculture, South Interest Rate: RHS will accept the best 1 percent of the total guarantee amount, Agriculture Building, Room 1271, STOP rate negotiated between the lender and which will be due when the loan 0781, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, prospective borrower indexed to the 10- guarantee is issued. In the case of a Washington, DC 20250–0781. E-mail: year Treasury Bond Yield. However, combination construction and [email protected]. priority points will be given for interest permanent loan guarantee, the 1 percent Telephone: (202) 401–2307. This rates less than 300 basis points over the initial fee will be paid when the number is not toll-free. Hearing or 10-Year Treasury Bond Yield. Interest construction loan note guarantee is speech-impaired persons may access rates must be fixed over the term of the issued. For purposes of calculating this that number by calling the Federal loan. fee, the guarantee amount is the product Information Relay Service toll-free at Interest Credit: RHS will award of the percentage of the guarantee times (800) 877–8339. interest credit to at least 20 percent of the initial principal amount of the Eligiblity of Prior Year Selected NOFA the loans made under the program. If 20 guaranteed loan. Responses: NOFA responses selected in percent of the loans have not received (2) There is an annual renewal fee of FY 2001 are eligible for FY 2002 interest credit by May 16, 2002, then 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal program dollars subject to the RHS will award interest credit to those and interest of the loan. This fee will be availability of funds. FY 2001 NOFA loans that initially requested interest collected annually on January 1st of responses selected by RHS for credit and have the highest interest each calendar year.
VerDate 11
(3) There is no fee for site assessment In order to be approved the lender will (b) list of principal officers and their and market analysis or preliminary have to have an acceptable level of responsibilities, (c) certification that the feasibility in FY 2002. financial soundness as determined by a officers and principals of the lender (4) There is a non-refundable lender rating service. The submission of have not been debarred or suspended application fee of $2,500 when the materials demonstrating capacity will be from Federal programs, (d) Form AD application is submitted. required if the lender’s NOFA response 1047, ‘‘Certification Regarding (5) There is a flat fee of $500 when a is selected. Debarment and Suspension,’’ (e) lender requests RHS to extend the term Lenders who are otherwise ineligible certification that the lender is not in of a guarantee commitment. may become eligible if they maintain a default or delinquent on any Federal (6) There is a flat fee of $500 when a correspondent relationship with an debt or loan, or possess an outstanding lender requests RHS to extend a eligible lender that does have the finding of deficiency in a federal guarantee commitment after the period capacity to underwrite, originate, housing program, and (f) certification of of the commitment lapses. process, close, service, manage, and the lender’s credit rating; (7) There is a flat fee of $1,250 when dispose of multi-family housing loans. a lender requests RHS to approve the (10) Documentation on bonding and In this case, the eligible lender must insurance; and transfer of property and assumption of submit the NOFA response and the loan to an eligible prospective application. All contractual and legal (11) Certification that computer borrower. documentation will be signed between systems comply with year 2000 (8) There is no lender application fee RHS and the lender that submitted the technology. for lender approval in FY 2002. NOFA response and application. RHS Lender Approval Requirements: Eligible Lenders: An eligible lender RHS Lender Approval Application: Lenders who request RHS lender for the section 538 Guaranteed Loan Lenders whose NOFA responses are approval must meet the standards Housing Program as required by 7 CFR selected will be notified by the RHS to stipulated in the 7 CFR part 3565, 3565.102 must be a licensed business submit a request for RHS lender subpart C, section 3565.103 ‘‘Approval entity or Housing Finance Agency in approval application within 30 days of Requirements.’’ good standing in the state or states notification. Lenders that have received where it conducts business. Lender Lender Responsibilities: Lenders will RHS lender approval in the past and are be responsible for the full range of loan eligibility requirements are contained in in good standing do not need to reapply 7 CFR part 3565, subpart C, section origination, underwriting, management, for RHS lender approval. servicing, compliance issues and 3565.102 ‘‘Lender Eligibility’’. Below is Submission of Documentation for property disposition activities a list of eligible lenders under 7 CFR RHS Lender Approval: All lenders that associated with their projects. The 3565.102: have not yet received RHS lender lender will be expected to provide (1) A licensed business entity that approval must submit a complete guidance to the prospective borrower on meets the qualifications and has the application for RHS lender approval. As the RHS requirements during the approval of the Secretary of Housing RHS does not have a formal application application phase. Once the guarantee is and Urban Development (HUD) to make form, a complete application will issued, the lender is expected to service multi-family housing loans that are consist of a cover letter requesting RHS each loan it underwrites or contract insured under the National Housing lender approval and the following these services to another capable entity. Act. A complete list of HUD approved documentation: lenders can be found in the HUD Web (1) a request for RHS lender approval Discussion of Notice site at www.hud.gov. on the lender’s letterhead; (2) A licensed business entity that (2) Lenders who are HUD, Freddie Content of NOFA Responses: All meets the qualifications and has the Mac or Fannie Mae multi-family NOFA responses require lender approval of the Freddie Mac or Fannie approved lenders are required to show information and project specific data. Mae corporations to make multi-family evidence of this status, such as a copy Incomplete responses will not be housing loans that are sold to the same of a letter designating the distinction. considered for funding. Lenders will be corporations. A complete list of Freddie (3) The lender’s Loan Origination, notified of incomplete NOFA responses. Mac approved lenders can be found in Loan Servicing and Portfolio Complete NOFA responses are to Freddie Mac’s web site at Management Handbooks. These include a signed cover letter from the www.freddiemac.com. Fannie Mae handbooks should detail the lender’s lender on the lender’s letterhead and the approved lenders are found at policies and procedures on loan following information: www.fanniemae.com. origination through termination for (3) A state or local Housing Finance multi-family loans; (1) Lender Information Authority (HFA) with a top-tier rating (4) Portfolio performance data; A. Lender certification—The lender from Moody’s or Standard & Poors, or (5) Copies of standard documents that must certify that the lender will make a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank will be used in processing GRRHP loan to the prospective borrower for the system, and the demonstrated ability to loans; proposed project, under specified terms underwrite, originate, process, close, (6) Resumes and qualifications of key and conditions subject to the issuance of service, manage, and dispose of multi- personnel that will be involved in the the RHS guarantee. Lender certification family housing loans in a prudent GRRHP; manner. (7) Identification of standards and must be on the lender’s letterhead and (4) Be a GRRHP approved lender, processes that deviate from those signed by both the lender and the defined as an entity with an executed outlined in the GRRHP Origination and prospective borrower. multi-family housing Lender’s Servicing Handbook (HB–1–3565) found (2) Project Specific Data Agreement with RHS. at http://rdinit.usda.gov/regs; (5) Lenders that can demonstrate the (8) A copy of the most recent audited A. The lender must submit the project capacity to underwrite, originate, financial statements; specific data below on the lender’s process, close, service, manage, and (9) Lender specific information letterhead, signed by both the lender dispose of multi-family housing loans. including: (a) Legal name and address, and the prospective borrower.
VerDate 11
Lender Name Insert the lender’s name
Lender Tax ID # Insert lender’s tax ID #
Lender Contact Name Name of the lender contact for Loan
Mailing Address Lender’s complete mailing address
Phone # Phone # for lender contact
Fax # Insert lender’s fax #
E-mail Address Insert lender contact e-mail address
Borrower Name and Organization Type State whether borrower is a Limited Partnership, Corporation, In- dian Tribe, etc.
Tax Classification Type State whether borrower is for profit, not for profit, etc.
Borrower Tax ID # Insert borrower’s tax ID #
Borrower Address, including County Insert borrower’s address and county
Borrower Phone # Insert borrower’s phone #
Principal or Key Member for the Borrower Insert name and title
Borrower Information and Statement of Housing Development Expe- Attach relevant information rience
New Construction or Acquisition or Repair or Rehabilitation of at State whether the project is new construction or acquisition or re- Least $15,000 Per Unit pair or rehabilitation
Project Location Town or City Town or city in which the project is located
Project County County in which the project is located
Project State State in which state the project is located
Project Zip Code Insert zip code
Project Congressional District Congressional District for project location
Project Name Insert project name
Project Type Family, senior (all residents over 55), or mixed
Property Description and Proposed Development Schedule Provide as an attachment
Total Project Development Cost Enter amount for total project
# of Units Insert the # of units in the project
Cost Per Unit Total development cost divided by # of units
Bedroom Mix # of units by # of bedrooms
Rent Proposed rent structure
Median Income for Community Provide median income for the community
Evidence of Site Control Attach relevant information
Description of Any Environmental Issues Attach relevant information
Loan Amount Insert the loan amount
Interest Credit (IC) Is interest credit requested for this loan (Yes or No)?
VerDate 11
Interest Rate (for interest credit requests only) Lenders seeking interest credit must provide the interest rate. Pri- ority points will be awarded to projects requesting interest credit for interest rates less than 300 basis points over the 10-year treas- ury bond yield
If Above Is Yes, Should Proposal Be Considered Under Non–IC Se- If Yes, proposal must show financial feasibility for NON–IC consid- lection, If IC Funds Are Exhausted? eration.
Borrower’s Proposed Equity Insert amount.
Tax Credits Will the project be allocated tax credits? How much? What is the es- timated value of the tax credits awarded?
Other Sources of Funds List all funding sources.
Loan to Value Guaranteed loan divided by value of project.
Debt Coverage Ratio Net Operating Income divided by debt service payments.
Percentage of Guarantee Percentage guarantee requested.
Collateral Attach relevant information.
Empowerment Zone (EZ) or Enterprise Community (EC) Yes or No? Is the project in a recognized EZ or EC?
Colonia or Tribal Lands Is the project in a Colonia or on an Indian Reservation? Yes or No?
Population Must be within the 20,000 population limit set for the program.
Is a Guarantee for Construction Being Requested? Are Advances State yes or no. The Agency will guarantee construction advances, Being Requested? only as part of a combination construction and permanent loan.
Loan Term Up to a 40-year amortized loan Balloon mortgage with a minimum 25-year term are eligible.
Scoring of Priority Criteria for Population size Points Median income (dollars) Points Selection of Projects with Interest Credit Requests: RHS will allocate points to 15,001–16,000 people ...... 5 Less than $25,000 ...... 20 projects with requests for interest credit. 16,001–17,000 people ...... 4 $25,000–$29,999 ...... 15 Projects with no interest credit request 17,001–18,000 people ...... 3 $30,000–$34,999 ...... 10 will be reviewed for eligibility and 18,001–19,000 people ...... 2 $35,000–$40,000 ...... 5 viability on a continuous basis and 19,001–20,000 people ...... 1 More than $40,000 ...... 0 without any priority selection criteria. Priority 4—Projects that demonstrate The seven priority criteria for projects Priority 2—The RHS will award with requests for interest credit are partnering and leveraging in order to points for projects with 3–5 bedroom develop the maximum number of units listed below. units. Priority 1—Projects located in rural and promote partnerships with state and communities with the smallest Score for Priority 2—The RHS will local communities will also receive populations. score the projects with the 3–5 bedroom points. Score for Priority 1—Projects with the units as follows: Score for Priority 4—The RHS will lowest populations will receive the award points as follows: highest points. No. of 3–5 bedroom units Points Loan to value ratio (percentage %) Points Population size Points More than 15 ...... 20 10–15 ...... 15 More than 75 ...... 10 0–1,000 people ...... 20 5–9 ...... 10 70–75 ...... 15 1,001–2,000 people ...... 19 1–4 ...... 5 Less than 70 ...... 20 2,001–3,000 people ...... 18 3,001–4,000 people ...... 17 Priority 5—RHS will award points for Priority 3—The most needy 4,001–5,000 people ...... 16 interest rates less above the 10-Year 5,001–6,000 people ...... 15 communities as determined by the Treasury Bond Yield as follows: 6,001–7,000 people ...... 14 median income from the most recent 7,001–8,000 people ...... 13 census data will receive points. 8,001–9,000 people ...... 12 SCORE FOR PRIORITY 5 9,001–10,000 people ...... 11 Score for Priority 3—The RHS will 10,001–11,000 people ...... 10 allocate points to projects located in Interest rate Points 11,001–12,000 people ...... 9 communities having the lowest median 300 basis points or more, inclusive ¥20 12,001–13,000 people ...... 8 income. Points for median income will 13,001–14,000 people ...... 7 299 to 200 basis points, inclusive .. 5 14,001–15,000 people ...... 6 be awarded as follows: 199 to 100 basis points, inclusive .. 10
VerDate 11
SCORE FOR PRIORITY 5—Continued Rural Development State Office staff ACTION: Notice. will work with lenders in the Interest rate Points development of the complete SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service application. Applications must include; (RHS) announces the availability of 99 to 50 basis points, inclusive ...... 15 (1) The appropriate level of housing funds for fiscal year 2002 (FY Less than 50 basis points, inclusive 20 environmental review in accordance 2002). This action is taken to comply with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, (2) the with 42 U.S.C. 1490p, which requires Priority 6—The development of Civil Rights Impact Analysis that RHS publish in the Federal projects on Tribal Lands, or in an Certification, (3) intergovernmental Register notice of the availability of any Empowerment Zone or Enterprise review (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V), housing assistance. Community will receive points. and (4) appropriate flood insurance EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. Score for Priority 6—The RHS will coverage as stipulated in 7 CFR part FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For attribute 20 points to projects that are 1806 subpart B. information regarding this notice developed in any of the locations The deadline for the submission of a contact Teresa Sumpter, Loan described in priority 6. Specialist, Single Family Housing Direct Priority 7—The development of complete application and fee is 90 days from the date of notification of NOFA Loan Division, telephone 202–720– projects in a Colonia or in a place 1485, Stop 0783, for single family identified in the State’s Consolidated selection. If the application and fee are not submitted within 90 days from the housing (SFH) issues and Tammy S. Plan or State Needs Assessment as a Daniels, Loan Specialist, Multi-Family high need community for multi-family date of notification, the selection is subject to cancellation, thereby allowing Housing Processing Division, telephone housing will receive points. 202–720–0021, Stop 0781 for multi- Score for Priority 7—The RHS will another NOFA response that is ready to proceed with processing to be selected. family housing (MFH) issues, U.S. attribute 20 points to projects that are Department of Agriculture, 1400 developed in any of the locations Obligation of Program Funds: The RHS will only obligate funds to projects Independence Ave., SW., Washington, described in priority 7. DC 20250. (The telephone numbers NOFA Submission Address: Eligible that undergo a satisfactory listed are not toll free numbers). For lenders will send the NOFA responses environmental review in accordance information on applying for assistance, to: Director, Multi-Family Housing with the National Environmental visit our Internet Web site at www. Processing Division, Rural Housing Protection Act (NEPA). rurdev.usda.gov/recdlmap.html and Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conditional Commitment: Once the select your State or check the blue pages Room 1263, STOP 0781, 1400 complete application and application in your local telephone directory under Independence Avenue, SW, fee are received and all NEPA ‘‘Rural Development’’ for the office Washington, DC 20250–0781. Responses requirements have been met, the Rural serving your area. Also attached for for participation in the program must be Development State Office will issue a information purposes is a listing of identified as ‘‘Section 538 Guaranteed conditional commitment, which Rural Development State Directors, Rural Rental Housing Program’’ on the stipulates the conditions that must be State Office addresses and phone envelope. met for the issuance of a guarantee, in numbers. Notifications: NOFA responses will be accordance with 7 CFR part 3565, reviewed for completeness and subpart G, section 3565.303. Once the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: eligibility. The RHS will notify those conditional commitment is issued the Programs Affected lenders whose NOFA responses are funds are obligated to the lender. The following programs are subject to selected via letter. The RHS will request Issuance of Guarantee: The RHS will the provisions of Executive Order 12372 lenders without RHS lender approval to issue a guarantee to the lender for a that requires intergovernmental apply for RHS lender approval within project in accordance with 7 CFR part consultation with State and local 30 days upon receipt of notification of 3565, subpart G, section 3565.303 officials. These programs or activities selection. For information regarding ‘‘Issuance of Loan Guarantee.’’ No are listed in the Catalog of Federal RHS Lender Approval, please refer to guarantee can be issued without a Domestic Assistance under Nos. section SUBMISSION OF complete application, review of DOCUMENTATION FOR RHS LENDER appropriate certifications, satisfactory 10.405 Farm Labor Housing (LH) APPROVAL in this NOFA. Requests for assessment of the appropriate level of Loans and Grants RHS lender approval should be sent to environmental review, and the 10.410 Very Low to Moderate Income the person and address listed in the completion of any conditional Housing Loans 10.411 Rural Housing Site Loans and NOFA SUBMISSION ADDRESS section requirements. Self-Help Housing Land Development in this NOFA. Dated: February 15, 2002. Lenders will also be invited to submit Loans a complete application and the required James C. Alsop, 10.415 Rural Rental Housing Loans 10.417 Very Low Income Housing application fee of $2,500 to the Rural Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. 02–4332 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Repair Loans and Grants Development State Office where the 10.420 Rural Self-Help Housing BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P project is located. Technical Assistance Submission of GRRHP Applications: 10.427 Rural Rental Assistance Notification letters will instruct lenders DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Payments to contact the Rural Development State 10.433 Rural Housing Preservation Office immediately following Rural Housing Service Grants notification of selection to schedule 10.442 Housing Application Packaging required agency reviews. Rural Notice of Availability of Funds; Multi- Grants Development State Office addresses can Family Housing, Single Family Discussion of Notice be found in the USDA web site, Housing www.usda.gov, under the Rural Part 1940, subpart L of 7 CFR contains Development program area. AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. the ‘‘Methodology and Formulas for
VerDate 11
Allocation of Loan and Grant Program III. Farm Labor Housing (LH) Loans and General Reserve: $10,068,998 Funds.’’ To apply for assistance under Grants. A. New construction loan funds. New these programs or for more information, The Administrator has the authority construction loan funds will be made contact the Rural Development Office to transfer funds between the two available using a national NOFA being for your area. Separate guidance has programs. Upon NOFA closing the published in the Federal Register. Upon been provided to our State offices for Administrator will evaluate the closing of the NOFA, States will submit assistance available in our Multi- and responses and determine proper a list, in rank order of the eligible Single-Family Housing programs as distribution of funds between loans and projects. follows: grants. B. National Office New Construction Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Set-asides. The following legislatively A. Section 514 Farm LH Loans mandated set-asides of funds are part of I. General 1. These loans are funded in the National office set-aside: A. This provides guidance on MFH accordance with 7 CFR 1940.579(a). 1. Nonprofit Set-aside. An amount of funding for the Rural Rental Housing FY 2002 Appropriation: $28,459,099 $10,266,209 has been set aside for program (RRH) for FY 2002 (does not Available for Off-Farm Loans: nonprofit applicants. All Nonprofit loan include carryover funds). Allocation $22,459,099 proposals must be located in designated computations have been performed in Available for On-Farm Loans: places as defined in RD Instruction accordance with 7 CFR 1940.575 and $2,500,000 1944–E. 1940.578. For FY 2002, State Directors, National Office Reserve: $3,500,000 2. Underserved Counties and Colonias under the Rural Housing Assistance 2. Off-farm loan funds will be made Set-Aside. An amount of $5,703,450 has Grants (RHAG), will have the flexibility available under a NOFA being been set aside for loan requests to to transfer their initial allocations of published in the Federal Register. develop units in the underserved 100 budget authority between the Single Additional guidance will be provided in most needy counties or colonias as Family Housing (SFH) section 504 Rural the NOFA. defined in section 509(f) of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended. Priority will be Housing Grants and section 533 B. Section 516 Farm LH Grants Housing Preservation Grant (HPG) given to proposals to develop units in programs. 1. Grants are funded in accordance colonias or tribal lands. B. MFH loan and grant levels for FY with 7 CFR 1940.579(b). Unobligated 3. EZ, EC or REAP Zone Earmark. An 2002 are as follows: prior year balances and cancellations amount of $14,814,839 has been will be added to the amount shown. earmarked for loan requests to develop MFH Loan Programs Credit Sales: units in EZ or EC communities or REAP $1,778,515 FY 2002 Appropriation: $17,967,000 Available for LH Grants for Off-Farm: Zones until June 30, 2002. Section 514 Farm Labor Housing (LH) $13,967,000 C. Rental Assistance (RA). Limited loans: *$28,459,099 Available for Technical Assistance new construction RA will be held in the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Grants: $1,500,000 National office for use with section 515 (RRH) loans: *$114,068,998 National Office Reserve: $2,500,000 Rural Rental Housing loans. Section 521 Rental Assistance (RA) 2. Labor Housing grant funds for Off- D. Designated Reserves for State RA. and 502(c)(5)(C) Advance: Farm will be made available under a An amount of $1.5 million of section *$701,004,000 NOFA being published in this Federal 515 loan funds has been set aside for Section 516 LH grants: *$17,967,000 Register. Additional guidance will be matching with projects in which an Section 525 Technical and provided in the NOFA. active State sponsored RA program is Supervisory Assistance grants (TSA) C. Labor Housing Rental Assistance available. The State RA program must and 509 Housing Application (RA) will be held in the National Office be comparable to the RHS RA program. Packaging grants: $1,415,977 for use with LH loan and grant E. Repair and Rehabilitation Loans. (HAPG) (Shared between single and applications. RA is only available with Tenant health and safety continues to be multi-family housing): (includes an LH loan of at least 5 percent of the the top priority. Repair and carryover) total development cost. Projects without rehabilitation funds must be first targeted to RRH facilities that have Section 533 Housing Preservation a LH loan cannot receive RA. physical conditions that affect the grants (HPG): *$7,982,000 IV. Section 515 RRH Loan Funds health and safety of tenants and Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental FY 2002 section 515 Rural Rental subsequently made available to facilities Housing program: *$99,770,992 Housing allocation (Total): that have deferred maintenance. All * Does not include disaster or regular $114,068,998 funds will be held in the National office program carryover. New Construction funds and set-asides: and will be distributed based upon II. Funds Not Allocated to States $49,000,000 indicated rehabilitation needs in the New construction loans: $16,715,502 MFH survey conducted in October 2001. A. Credit Sales Authority. For FY Set-aside for nonprofits: $10,266,209 F. Designated Reserve for Equity 2002, $1,778,515 will be set aside for Set-aside for underserved counties Loans. An amount of $5 million has credit sales to program and nonprogram and colonias: $5,703,450 been designated for the equity loan buyers. Credit sale funding will not be Earmark for EZ, EC, or REAP Zones: preservation incentive described in RH allocated by State. $14,814,839 Instruction 1965–E. The $5 million will B. Section 538 Guaranteed Rural State RA designated reserve: be further divided into $4 million for Rental Housing Program. Guaranteed $1,500,000 equity loan requests currently on the loan funds will be made available under Rehab and repair funds and equity: pending funding list and $1 million to a Notice of Funding Availability $55,000,000 facilitate the transfer of properties from (NOFA) being published in the Federal Rehab and repair loans: $50,000,000 for-profit owners to nonprofit Register. Additional guidance will be Designated equity loan reserve: corporations and public bodies. Funds provided at that time. $5,000,000 for such transfers would be authorized
VerDate 11
only for for-profit owners who are Very low-income subsidized loans: available for section 523 Mutual Self- currently on the pending funding list $475,133,131 Help and Section 524 RH Site loans, who agree to transfer to nonprofit Low-income subsidized loans: respectively. corporations or public bodies rather $604,714,893 5. Section 306C WWD Grants to than to remain on the pending list. If Credit sales (Nonprogram): $10,000,000 Individuals in Colonias. The objective of insufficient transfer requests are Section 504 housing repair loans: the section 306C WWD individual grant generated to utilize the full $1 million $32,324,929 program is to facilitate the use of set aside for nonprofit and public body Section 504 housing repair grants: community water or waste disposal transfers, the balance will revert to the ***$30,053,395 systems for the residents of the colonias existing pending equity loan funding Section 509 compensation for along the U.S.-Mexico border. list. construction defects: **$574,204 The total amount available to Arizona, G. General Reserve. There is one Section 523 mutual and self-help California, New Mexico, and Texas will general reserve fund of $10,068,998. housing grants **: ***$56,055,462 be $1,458,569 for FY 2002. This amount Some examples of immediate allowable Section 523 Self-Help Site Loans: includes the carryover unobligated uses include, but are not limited to, $5,000,000 balance of $458,569 and the transferred hardships and emergencies, RH Section 524 RH site loans: $5,090,909 amount of $1 million from the Rural cooperatives or group homes, or RRH Section 306C Water and waste disposal Utilities Service (RUS) to RHS for preservation. grants: **$1,458,569 processing individual grant Section 525 Supervisory and technical applications. V. Section 533 Housing Preservation assistance and section 509 Housing Grants (HPG). Application: 6. Section 525 Technical and Total Available: $7,982,000 Packaging Grants Total Available for Supervisory Assistance (TSA) and Less General reserve: $782,000 single and multi-family: Section 509 Housing Application Less Earmark for EZ, EC, or REAP **$1,415,977 Packaging Grants (HAPG). $998,000 of Zones: $600,000 North Carolina Elderly Demonstration new funds and $417,977 of carryover Total Available for Distribution: Program funds from previous years remain $6,600,000 Modular Home Loans: **$1,961,244 available for the TSA and HAPG Amount available for allocation. See Modular Home Grants: **$3,998,627 programs. The 29 eligible States under end of this Notice for HPG State Natural disaster funds (Section 502 HAPG that have active grantees allocations. Fund availability will be loans): **$2,274,638 operating will be able to access up to announced in a NOFA being published Natural disaster funds (Section 504 $5,000 for section 502 or 504 loan and in the Federal Register. loans): **$13,462,253 grant programs in order to continue The amount of $600,000 is earmarked Natural disaster funds (Section 504 operations. Reserve requests will be for EZ, EC or REAP Zones until June 30, grants): **$5,035,979 considered on a first-come, first-served basis. 2002. *Includes $600,000 for EZ/EC and 7. North Carolina Elderly Single Family Housing (SFH) REAP communities until June 30, 2002. **Carryover funds are included in the Demonstration Program. Budget I. General balance. authority was earmarked in FY 2001 for the North Carolina Elderly All SFH programs are administered ***Includes $1,000,000 for EZ/EC and Demonstration Program. These funds through field offices. For more REAP communities until June 30, 2002. were used to provide Section 502 loans information or to make application, c. SFH Funding Not Allocated to and grants in North Carolina for very please contact the Rural Development States. The following funding is not low- and low-income elderly families office servicing your area. To locate allocated to States by formula. Funds who lost their housing as a result of a these offices, contact the appropriate are made available to each state on a major disaster declared by the President. State Office from the attached State case-by-case basis. Unobligated funds have been carried Office listing, visit our web site at 1. Credit sale authority. Credit sale over into FY 2002 for this demo www.rurdev.usda.gov/recdlmap.html funds in the amount of $10,000,000 are program. These funds will remain or check the blue pages in your local available only for nonprogram sales of available until they are exhausted. telephone directory under ‘‘Rural Real Estate Owned (REO) property. Development’’ for the office serving 2. Section 509 Compensation for 8. Natural Disaster Funds. Funds are your area. Construction Defects. $574,204 is available until exhausted to those States A. This notice provides SFH available for compensation for with active Presidential Declarations. allocations for FY 2002. Allocation construction defects. 9. Deferred Mortgage Payment computations have been made in 3. Section 523 Mutual and Self-Help Demonstration. There is no FY 2002 accordance with 7 CFR 1940.563 Technical Assistance Grants. $56 funding provided for deferred mortgage through 1940.568. Information on basic million is available for section 523 authority or loans for deferred mortgage formula criteria, data source and weight, Mutual and Self-Help Technical assumptions. administrative allocation, pooling of Assistance Grants. Of these funds, $1 D. Contingency Reserve. For the funds, and availability of the allocation million is earmarked for EZ, EC or REAP Section 502 direct and Section 504 loan are located on a chart at the end of this Zones until June 30, 2002. A technical and grant programs, a 5 percent notice. review and analysis must be completed contingency reserve will be held in the B. The SFH levels authorized for FY by the Technical and Management National Office pending a potential 2002 are as follows: Assistance (T&MA) contractor on all rescission of funds which may be used Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing predevelopment, new, and existing to offset federal outlays to address the (RH) loans (refunding) grant applications. tragic events of September 11, 2001. If Nonsubsidized Guarantees: 4. Section 523 Mutual and Self-Help no rescession occurs, these funds will $3,137,968,750 Site Loans and Section 524 RH Site be distributed to the States based upon Section 502 Direct RH loans Loans. $5,000,000 and $5,090,909 are the allocation formula.
VerDate 11
II. State allocations (iv) Financing for the purchase of (f) Empowerment Zone (EZ) and program REOs when the National office Enterprise Community (EC) or Rural A. Section 502 Nonsubsidized reserve has been exhausted. Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Guaranteed RH (GRH) Loans (v) States will leverage an amount earmark. An amount of $38,000,000 has 1. Amount Available for Allocation. equal to 25 percent of their initial low- been earmarked until June 30, 2002, for Total Available: $3,137,968,750 income allocation and 5 percent of their loans in EZ, EC or REAP Zones. Further Less National Office General Reserve: initial very low-income allocation with information will follow. $700,348,107 funding from other sources. For (g) State Office Pooling. If pooling is Less Special Outreach Area Reserve: example, if a State receives an initial conducted within a State, it must not $300,120,643 low-income allocation of $900,000 the take place within the first 30 calendar Basic Formula—Administrative amount to be leveraged from other days of the first, second, or third Allocation: $2,137,500,000 sources would be $225,000 ($900,000 × quarter. (There are no restrictions on 2. National Office General Reserve. 25 percent) for a total RHS and other pooling in the fourth quarter.) The Administrator may restrict access to funding source of $1,125,000 ($900,000 (h) Suballocation by the State this reserve for States not meeting their + $225,000). Director. The State Director may goals in special outreach areas. (vi) Areas targeted by the State suballocate to each area office using the 3. Special Outreach Areas. FY 2002 according to its strategic plan. methodology and formulas required by GRH funding is allocated to States in b. National Office Reserves. 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L. If two funding streams (70/30) similar to (i) General Reserve. The National suballocated to the area level, the Rural the 60/40 income split for direct SFH office has a general reserve of $145 Development Manager will make funds funds. Seventy percent of GRH funds million. Of this amount, the available on a first-come, first-served may be used in any eligible area. Thirty Administrator’s reserve is $30 million. basis to all offices at the field or area percent of GRH funds are to be used in One of the purposes of the level. No field office will have its access special outreach areas. Special outreach Administrator’s reserve will be for loans to funds restricted without the prior areas are counties with median incomes in Indian Country. Indian Country is written approval of the Administrator. at or below the State’s nonmetropolitan defined as land inside the boundaries of B. Section 504 Housing Loans and median income. Each funding stream Indian reservations, communities made Grants. Section 504 grant funds are will independently be subject to up mainly of Native Americans, Indian included in the Rural Housing pooling. Assistance Grant program (RHAG) in the 4. National Office Special Area trust and restricted land, and tribal allotted lands. The remaining reserves FY 2002 appropriation. Outreach Reserve. A special outreach 1. Amount available for allocation. area reserve fund has been established will be established as follows: at the National office. Funds from this (ii) Hardship and Homelessness Section 504 Loans Reserve. $3.5 million has been set aside reserve may only be used in special Total Available: $32,324,929 outreach areas. for hardships and homeless. (iii) Rural Housing Demonstration Less 5% for 100 Underserved B. Section 502 Direct RH Loans Program. $1.5 million has been set aside Counties and Colonias: $1,616,247 for innovative demonstration initiatives. EZ, EC or REAP Zone Earmark: 1. Amount Available for Allocation. $1,200,000 (iv) Program credit sales. $20 million Total Available: $1,079,848,024 Less 5% contingency: $1,600,000 has been set aside for program sales of Less Required Set Aside for: Less General Reserve: $1,500,682 REO property. Underserved Counties and Colonias: Basic Formula—Administrative $53,992,401 (c) Homeownership Partnership. $95 Allocation: $26,408,000 EZ, EC and REAP Earmark: million has been set aside for $38,000,000 Homeownership Partnerships. These Section 504 Grants Less 5% contingency: $53,000,000 funds will be used to expand existing Total Available: $30,053,395 Less General Reserve: $145,000,623 partnerships and create new Administrator’s Reserve: $30,000,623 Less 5% for 100 Underserved partnerships, such as the following: Counties and Colonias: $1,496,700 Hardships & Homelessness: $3,500,000 (i) Department of Treasury, Rural Housing Demonstration Less EZ, EC or REAP Earmark: Community Development Financial $600,000 Program: $1,500,000 Institutions (CDFI)—Funds will be Homeownership Partnership: Less 5% contingency: $1,400,000 available to fund leveraged loans made $95,000,000 Less General Reserve: $1,619,395 Program funds for the sale of REO in partnership with the Department of Basic Formula-Administrative properties: $15,000,000 Treasury CDFI participants. Allocation: $24,937,300 Less Designated Reserve for Self-Help: (ii) Partnership initiatives established 2. Reserves and Set-asides. $110,000,000 to carry out the objectives of the rural a. State Office Reserve. State Directors Basic Formula Administrative home loan partnership (RHLP). must maintain an adequate reserve to Allocation: $679,855,000 (d) Designated Reserve for Self-Help. handle all anticipated hardship 2. Reserves. $110 million has been set aside for applicants based upon historical data a. State Office Reserve. State Directors matching funds to assist participating and projected demand. must maintain an adequate reserve to Self-Help applicants. The matching b. Underserved Counties and fund the following applications: funds were established on the basis of Colonias. Approximately $1.6 million (i) Hardship and homeless applicants the National office contributing 75 and $1.5 million have been set aside for including the direct section 502 loan percent from the National office reserve the 100 underserved counties and and section 504 loan and grant and States contributing 25 percent of colonias until June 30, 2002, for the programs. their allocated section 502 RH funds. section 504 loan and grant programs, (ii) Mutual Self-Help loans. (e) Underserved Counties and respectively. (iii) Subsequent loans for essential Colonias. An amount of $53,992,401 has c. Empowerment Zone (EZ) and improvements or repairs and transfers been set aside for the 100 underserved Enterprise Community (EC) or Rural with assumptions. counties and colonias. Economic Area Partnership (REAP)
VerDate 11
Earmark (Loan Funds Only). d. General Reserve. $1.5 million for requiring a significant priority in Approximately $1.2 million and section 504 loan hardships and $1.6 funding, ahead of other requests, due to $600,000 have been earmarked through million for section 504 grant extreme severe health or safety hazards, or June 30, 2002, for EZ, EC or REAPs for hardships have been set-aside in the physical needs of the applicant. the section 504 loan and grant programs, general reserve. For section 504 grants, respectively. an extreme hardship case is one
INFORMATION ON BASIC FORMULA CRITERIA, DATA SOURCE AND WEIGHT, ADMINISTRATIVE ALLOCATION, POOLING OF FUNDS, AND AVAILABILITY OF THE ALLOCATION
Section 502 non- No. Description subsidized guaranteed Section 502 direct RH Section 504 loans and RH loans loans grants
1 Basic formula criteria, data source, and weight ...... See 7 CFR 1940.563(b) .. See 7 CFR 1940.565(b) .. See 7 CFR 1940.566(b) and 1940.567(b). 2 Administrative Allocation: Western Pacific Area ...... $1,000,000 ...... $1,000,000 ...... $1,000,000 loan $500,000 grant. 3 Pooling of funds: a. Mid-year pooling ...... If necessary ...... If necessary ...... If necessary. b. Year-end pooling ...... August 16, 2002 ...... August 16, 2002 ...... August 16, 2002. c. Underserved counties and colonias ...... N/A ...... June 30, 2002 ...... June 30, 2002. d. EZ, EC or REAP ...... N/A ...... June 30, 2002 ...... June 30, 2002. e. Credit sales ...... N/A ...... June 30, 2002 ...... N/A. 4 Availability of the allocation: a. first quarter ...... 50 percent ...... 50 percent ...... 50 percent. b. second quarter ...... 75 percent ...... 70 percent ...... 70 percent. c. third quarter ...... 90 percent ...... 90 percent ...... 90 percent. d. fourth quarter ...... 100 percent ...... 100 percent ...... 100 percent. 1. Data derived from the 1990 U.S. Census was provided to each State by the National office on August 12, 1993. 2. Due to the absence of Census data. 3. All dates are tentative and are for the close of business (COB). Pooled funds will be placed in the National office reserve and made avail- able administratively. The Administrator reserves the right to redistribute funds based upon program performance. 4. Funds will be distributed cumulatively through each quarter listed until the National office year-end pooling date.
Dated: February 15, 2002. James C. Alsop, Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
[FR Doc. 02–4333 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–XV–C
VerDate 11
Part III
Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service
Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for section 514 Farm Labor Housing Loans and section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing for Fiscal Year 2002; Notice
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 761–7740, TDD (1–907–786–7786, 40503, (606) 224–7300, TDD (606) Deborah Davis 224–7422, Paul Higgins Rural Housing Service Arizona State Office, Phoenix Corporate Louisiana State Office, 3727 Center, 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite Government Street, Alexandria, LA Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012–2906, (602) 71302, (318) 473–7962, TDD (318) Section 514 Farm Labor Housing 280–8706, TDD (602) 280–8770, 473–7655, Yvonne R. Emerson Loans and Section 516 Farm Labor Johnna Vargas Maine State Office, 444 Stillwater Ave., Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing Arkansas State Office, 700 W. Capitol Suite 2, PO Box 405, Bangor, ME for Fiscal Year 2002 Ave., Rm. 3416, Little Rock, AR 04402–0405, (207) 990–9110, TDD AGENCY: Rural Housing Service (RHS), 72201–3225, (501) 301–3250, TDD (207) 942–7331, Michael Grondin USDA. (501) 301–3279, Clinton King Maryland ACTION: Notice. California State Office, 430 G Street, Agency 4169, Davis, CA 95616–4169, Served by Delaware State Office SUMMARY: This NOFA announces the (530) 792–5819, TDD (530) 792–5848, Massachusetts, Connecticut, & Rhode timeframe to submit applications for Jeff Deis Island State Office, 451 West Street, section 514 Farm Labor Housing loan Colorado State Office, 655 Parfet Street, Amherst, MA 01002, (413) 253–4333, funds and section 516 Farm Labor Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215, TDD (413) 253–4590, Donald Colburn Housing grant funds for new (303) 236–2801 (ext. 124), TDD (303) Michigan State Office, 3001 Coolidge construction and acquisition and 236–1590, Mary Summerfield Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI rehabilitation of off-farm units for Connecticut 48823, (517) 324–5192, TDD (517) farmworker households. Applications 337–6795, Philip Wolak may also include requests for section Served by Massachusetts State Office Minnesota State Office, 410 AgriBank 521 rental assistance (RA) and operating Delaware & Maryland State Office, 5201 Building, 375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, assistance for migrant units. This South Dupont Highway, PO Box 400, MN 55101–1853, (651) 602–7804, document describes the method used to Camden, DE 19934–9998, (302) 697– TDD (651) 602–7830, Joyce Vondal distribute funds, the application 4353, TDD (302) 697–4303, Pat Baker Mississippi State Office, Federal process, and submission requirements. Florida & Virgin Islands State Office, Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol DATES: The closing deadline for receipt 4440 N.W. 25th Place, PO Box Street, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965– of all applications in response to this 147010, Gainesville, FL 32614–7010, 4325, TDD (601) 965–5850, Darnella NOFA is 5 p.m., local time for each (352) 338–3465, TDD (352) 338–3499, Smith-Murray Rural Development State office on May Joseph P. Fritz Missouri State Office, 1201 Business 28, 2002. The application closing Georgia State Office, Stephens Federal Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite deadline is firm as to date and hour. Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876– RHS will not consider any application Athens, GA 30601–2768, (706) 546– 0990, TDD (573) 876–9480, Charles H. that is received after the closing 2164, TDD (706) 546–2034, Wayne Marcks deadline. Applicants intending to mail Rogers Montana State Office, Unit 1, Suite B, applications must provide sufficient 900 Technology Blvd., Bozeman, MT time to permit delivery on or before the Guam 59715, (406) 585–2518, TDD (406) closing deadline date and time. Served by Hawaii State Office 585–2562, Craig Hildreth Acceptance by the United States Postal Nebraska State Office, Federal Building, Service or private mailer does not Hawaii, Guam, & Western Pacific room 152, 100 Centennial Mall N, constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX) and Territories State Office, Room 311, Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437–5567, postage due applications will not be Federal Building, 154 Waianuenue TDD (402) 437–5093, Phil Willnerd accepted. Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, (808) 933– Nevada State Office, 1390 South Curry 8309, TDD (808) 933–8321, Thao Street, Carson City, NV 89703–9910, ADDRESSES: Applicants wishing to apply Khamoui (775) 887–1222 (ext. 13), TDD (775) for assistance must contact the Rural Idaho State Office, Suite A1, 9173 West 885–0633, William L. Brewer Development State office serving the Barnes Dr., Boise, ID 83709, (208) New Hampshire State Office, Concord place in which they desire to locate off- 378–5628, TDD (208) 378–5644, Center, Suite 218, Box 317, 10 Ferry farm labor housing to receive further LaDonn McElligott Street, Concord, NH 03301–5004, information and copies of the Illinois State Office, 2118 W. Park Ct. (603) 223–6046, TDD (603) 229–0536, application package. Rural Development Suite A, Champaign, IL 6821–2986, Jim Fowler will date and time stamp incoming (217) 403–6222, TDD (217) 403–6240, New Jersey State Office, Tarnsfield applications to evidence timely receipt, Barry L. Ramsey Plaza, Suite 22, 790 Woodland Road, and, upon request, will provide the Indiana State Office, 5975 Lakeside Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265–3636, applicant with a written Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278, TDD (609) 265–3687, George Hyatt, Jr. acknowledgment of receipt. A listing of (317) 290–3100 (ext. 423), TDD (317) New Mexico State Office, 6200 Jefferson Rural Development State offices, their 290–3343, John Young St., NE, Room 255, Albuquerque, NM addresses, telephone numbers, and Iowa State Office, 873 Federal Building, 87109, (505) 761–4944, TDD (505) person to contact follows: 210, Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 761–4938, Carmen N. Lopez Note: Telephone numbers listed are not 50309, (515) 284–4666, TDD (515) New York State Office, The Galleries of toll-free. 284–4858, Julie Sleeper Syracuse, 441 S. Salina Street, Suite Alabama State Office, Suite 601, Kansas State Office, 1303 SW First 357, Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 477– Sterling Center, 4121 Carmichael American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, 6419, TDD (315) 477–6447, George N. Road, Montgomery, AL 36106–3683, KS 66604–4040, (785) 271–2721, TDD Von Pless (334) 279–3455, TDD (334) 279–3495, (785) 271–2767, Virginia M. North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland James B. Harris Hammersmith Road, Suite 2120, Raleigh, NC 271209, Alaska State Office, 800 West Evergreen, Kentucky State Office, 771 Corporate (919) 873–2066, TDD (919) 873–2003, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645, (907) Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY Terry Strole
VerDate 11
North Dakota State Office, Federal Western Pacific Territories Discussion of Notice Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, Served by Hawaii State Office I. Authority and Distribution PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502, West Virginia State Office, Federal Methodology (701) 530–2049, TDD (701) 530–2113, Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, A. Authority Kathy Lake Morgantown, WV 26505–7500, (304) Ohio State Office, Federal Building, 284–4889, TDD (304) 284–4836, Craig The Farm Labor Housing program is Room 507, 200 North High Street, St. Clair authorized by the Housing Act of 1949: Columbus, OH 43215–2477, (614) Wisconsin State Office, 4949 Kirschiling Section 514 (42 U.S.C. 1484) for loans 255–2418, TDD (614) 255–2554, Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481, (715) and section 516 (42 U.S.C. 1486) for Melodie Taylor 345–7620 (ext. 7145), TDD (715) 345– grants. Tenant subsidies (rental Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 7614, Sherry Engel assistance (RA)) are available through 108, Stillwater, OK 74074–2654, (405) Wyoming State Office, 100 East B, section 521 (42 U.S.C. 1490a). Sections 742–1070, TDD (405) 742–1007, Phil Federal Building, Room 1005, PO Box 514 and 516 provide RHS the authority Reimers 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261– to make loans and grants for financing Oregon State Office, 101 SW Main, Suite 6315, TDD (307) 261–6333, Charles off-farm housing to broad-based 1410, Portland, OR 97204–3222, (503) Huff nonprofit organizations, nonprofit 414–3325, TDD (503) 414–3387, organizations of farmworkers, federally Margo Donelin FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit general information, applicants may recognized Indian tribes, agencies or Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, contact Mary Fox, Senior Loan political subdivisions of State or local PA 17110–2996, (717) 237–2281, TDD Specialist or David Layfield, Senior government, public agencies (such as (717) 237–2261, Gary Rothrock Loan Specialist, of the Multi-Family local housing authorities) and with Puerto Rico State Office, New San Juan Housing Processing Division, Rural section 514 loans to nonprofit limited Office Bldg., Room 501, 159 Carlos E. Housing Service, United States partnerships in which the general Chardon Street, Hato Rey, PR 00918– Department of Agriculture, Stop 0781, partner is a nonprofit entity. 5481, (787) 766–5095 (ext. 254), TDD 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, B. Distribution Methodology 1–800–274–1572, Lourdes Colon Washington, DC, 20250, telephone (202) Because RHS has the ability to adjust 720–1624 or (202) 690–0759 (voice) Rhode Island loan and grant levels, final loan and (this is not a toll free number) or (800) grant levels will fluctuate. The Served by Massachusetts State Office 877–8339 (TDD-Federal Information estimated funds available for fiscal year South Carolina State Office, Strom Relay Service). (FY) 2002 for off-farm housing are: Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 514 loans, $22,459,099; Section Assembly Street, Room 1007, 516 grants, $13,967,000. Columbia, SC 29201, (803) 253–3432, Programs Affected TDD (803) 765–5697, Larry D. Floyd The Farm Labor Housing Program is C. Section 514 and Section 516 Funds South Dakota State Office, Federal listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Section 514 loan funds and section Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Assistance under Number 10.405, Farm 516 grant funds will be distributed to Street, SW, Huron, SD 57350, (605) Labor Housing Loans and Grants. Rental States based on a national competition, 352–1132, TDD (605) 352–1147, Assistance is listed in the Catalog under as follows: Dwight Wullweber Number 10.427, Rural Rental Assistance 1. States will accept, review, and Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 Payments. score requests in accordance with 7 CFR West End Avenue, Nashville, TN Definitions part 1944, subpart D. The scoring factors 37203–1084, (615) 783–1300, TDD are: (615) 783–1397, G. Benson Lasater Farm Labor. Farm labor includes (a) The presence and extent of Texas State Office, Federal Building, services in connection with cultivating leveraged assistance, including donated Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, the soil, raising or harvesting any land, for the units that will serve TX 76501, (254) 742–9755, TDD (254) agriculture or aquaculture commodity; program-eligible tenants, calculated as a 742–9712, Eugene G. Pavlat or in catching, netting, handling, percentage of the RHS total Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennett planting, drying, packing, grading, development cost (TDC). RHS TDC Federal Building, 125 S. State Street, storing, or preserving in its excludes non-RHS eligible costs such as Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT unmanufactured state any agriculture or a developer’s fee. Leveraged assistance 84147–0350, (801) 524–4324, TDD aquaculture commodity; or delivering to includes, but is not limited to, funds for (801) 524–3309, Robert L. Milianta storage, market, or a carrier for hard construction costs, section 8 or Vermont State Office, City Center, 3rd transportation to market or to process other non-RHS tenant subsidies, and Floor 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT any agricultural or aquacultural state or federal funds. A minimum of 05602, (802) 828–6028, TDD (802) commodity. ten percent leveraged assistance is 223–6365, Sandra Mercier Migrant Agricultural Laborers. required to earn points; however, if the Agricultural laborers and family Virgin Islands total percentage of leveraged assistance dependents who establish a temporary is less than ten percent and the proposal Served by Florida State Office residence while performing agriculture includes donated land, two points will Virginia State Office, Culpeper Building, work at one or more locations away be awarded for the donated land. Points Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, from the place they call home or home will be awarded in accordance with the Richmond, VA 23229, (804) 287– base. (This does not include day-haul following table. (0 to 20 points) 1547, TDD (804) 287–1753, Eileen agricultural workers whose travels are Nowlin limited to work areas within one day of Percentage Points Washington State Office, 1011 East their work locations.) Main St., Suite 306, Puyallup, WA Off-Farm Labor Housing. Housing for 75 or more ...... 20 98372–6771, (253) 845–9272 X114, farm laborers regardless of the farm 60–74 ...... 18 TDD (360) 704–7760, Robert Lund where they work. 50–59 ...... 16
VerDate 11
Percentage Points highest State-ranked) will compete by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE computer-based random lottery. If 40–49 ...... 12 necessary, the process will be Rural Housing Service 30–39 ...... 10 completed until all same-pointed 20–29 ...... 8 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) preapplications are selected or funds are 10–19 ...... 5 for the Section 515 Rural Rental 0–9 ...... 0 exhausted. Housing Program for Fiscal Year 2002 Donated land in proposals with II. Funding Limits less than ten percent total lever- AGENCY: Rural Housing Service (RHS), aged assistance ...... 2 A. Individual requests may not exceed USDA. $3 million (total loan and grant). ACTION: Notice. (b) Seasonal, temporary, migrant housing. (5 points for up to and B. No State may receive more than 30 SUMMARY: This NOFA announces the including 50 percent of the units; 10 percent of the total available funds timeframe to submit applications for points for 51 percent or more.) unless an exception is granted from the section 515 Rural Rental Housing (RRH) (c) The selection criteria contained in Administrator. loan funds and section 521 Rental 7 CFR 1944, Subpart D includes one C. Rental Assistance and Operating Assistance (RA) for new construction, including applications for the nonprofit optional criteria set by the National Assistance will be held in the National set-aside for eligible nonprofit entities, Office. This fiscal year, the National Office for use with section 514 loans the set-aside for the most Underserved office initiative will be used in the and section 516 grants and will be selection criteria as follows: Counties and Colonias (Cranston- awarded based on each project’s Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Up to 10 points will be awarded based financial structure and need. on the presence of and extent to which Act), and the set-aside for a tenant services plan exists that clearly III. Application Process Empowerment Zones and Enterprise outlines services that will be provided Communities (EZ/ECs) and Rural to the residents of the proposed project. All applications for sections 514 and Economic Area Partnership (REAP) These services may include but are not 516 funds must be filed with the communities. This document describes limited to: transportation related appropriate Rural Development State the methodology that will be used to services, on-site English as a Second office and must meet the requirements distribute funds, the application Language (ESL) classes, move-in funds, of 7 CFR part 1944, subpart D, and process, submission requirements, and emergency assistance funds, section IV of this NOFA. Incomplete areas of special emphasis or homeownership counseling, food applications will not be reviewed and consideration. pantries, after school tutoring, and will be returned to the applicant. No DATES: The closing deadline for receipt computer learning centers. Two points application will be accepted after 5 pm, of all applications, including those for will be awarded for each resident local time, on May 28, 2002, unless date the set-asides, in response to this NOFA service included in the tenant services and time is extended by another Notice is 5:00 p.m., local time for each Rural plan up to a maximum of 10 points. published in the Federal Register. Development State office on April 26, Plans must detail how the services are 2002. The application closing deadline to be administered, who will administer IV. Application Submission is firm as to date and hour. RHS will not them, and where they will be Requirements consider any application that is received after the closing deadline. Applicants administered. All tenant service plans A. Each application shall include all must include letters of intent that intending to mail applications must of the information, materials, forms and clearly state the service that will be provide sufficient time to permit exhibits required by 7 CFR part 1944, provided at the project for the benefit of delivery on or before the closing subpart D, as well as comply with the the residents from any party deadline date and time. Acceptance by administering each service, including provisions of this NOFA. Applicants are the United States Postal Service or the applicant. (0 to 10 points) encouraged, but not required, to include private mailer does not constitute 2. States will conduct preliminary a checklist and to have their delivery. Facsimile (FAX) and postage eligibility review, score applications, applications indexed and tabbed to due applications will not be accepted. and forward to the National Office. facilitate the review process. The Rural ADDRESSES: Applicants wishing to apply 3. The National office will rank all Development State office will base its for assistance must contact the Rural requests nationwide and distribute determination of completeness of the Development State office serving the funds to States in rank order, within application and the eligibility of each place in which they desire to submit an funding and RA limits. If insufficient applicant on the information provided application for rural rental housing to funds or RA remain for the next ranked in the application. receive further information and copies proposal, the Agency will select the B. Applicants are advised to contact of the application package. Rural next ranked proposal that falls within the Rural Development State office Development will date and time stamp the remaining levels. In case of point- serving the place in which they desire incoming applications to evidence score ties in the National ranking, first to submit an application for application timely receipt, and, upon request, will provide the applicant with a written preference will be given to a information. preapplication to develop units in a acknowledgment of receipt. A listing of state that does not have existing RHS- Dated: February 15, 2002. Rural Development State offices, their financed off-farm LH units; second James C. Alsop, addresses, telephone numbers, and preference to a preapplication will be Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. person to contact follows: from a State that has not yet been [FR Doc. 02–4329 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Note: Telephone numbers listed are not selected in the current funding cycle. In toll-free. BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P the event there are multiple Alabama State Office, Suite 601, preapplications in either category, one Sterling Centre, 4121 Carmichael preapplication from each State (the Road, Montgomery, AL 36106–3683,
VerDate 11
(334) 279–3455, TDD (334) 279–3495, Kentucky State Office, 771 Corporate (919) 873–2066, TDD (919) 873–2003, James B. Harris Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY Terry Strole Alaska State Office, 800 West Evergreen, 40503, (859) 224–7325, TDD (859) North Dakota State Office, Federal Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645, (907) 224–7422, Paul Higgins Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, 761–7740, TDD (907) 761–8905, Louisiana State Office, 3727 PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502, Deborah Davis Government Street, Alexandria, LA (701) 530–2049, TDD (701) 530–2113, Arizona State Office, Phoenix Corporate 71302, (318) 473–7962, TDD (318) Kathy Lake Center, 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite 473–7655, Yvonne R. Emerson Ohio State Office, Federal Building, 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012–2906, (602) Maine State Office, 967 Illinois Ave., Room 507, 200 North High Street, 280–8765, TDD (602) 280–8706, Suite 4, PO Box 405, Bangor, ME Columbus, OH 43215–2477, (614) Johnna Vargas 04402–0405, (207) 990–9110, TDD 255–2418, TDD (614) 255–2554, Arkansas State Office, 700 W. Capitol (207) 942–7331, Dale D. Holmes Melodie Taylor Ave., Room 3416, Little Rock, AR Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 72201–3225, (501) 301–3250, TDD Maryland 108, Stillwater, OK 74074–2654, (405) (501) 301–3279, Cathy Jones Served by Delaware State Office 742–1070, TDD (405) 742–1007, California State Office, 430 G Street, Massachusetts, Connecticut, & Rhode Phillip F. Reimers Agency 4169, Davis, CA 95616–4169, Island State Office, 451 West Street, Oregon State Office, 101 SW Main, Suite (530) 792–5819 or, (530) 792–5830, Amherst, MA 01002, (413) 253–4333, 1410, Portland, OR 97204–3222, (503) TDD (530) 792–5848, Jeff Deiss TDD (413) 253–4590, Donald Colburn 414–3325, TDD (503) 414–3387, Bill Colorado State Office, 655 Parfet Street, Michigan State Office, 3001 Coolidge Daniel Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215, Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit (720) 544–2922, TDD (720) 544–2976, 48823, (517) 324–5192, TDD (517) Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, ‘‘Sam’’ Mitchell 337–6795, Philip Wolak PA 17110–2996, (717) 237–2281, TDD (717) 237–2261, Gary Rothrock Connecticut Minnesota State Office, 410 AgriBank Building, 375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, Puerto Rico State Office, 654 Munoz Served by Massachusetts State Office MN 55101–1853, (651) 602–7804, Rivera Avenue, IBM Plaza, Suite 601, Delaware and Maryland State Office, TDD (651) 602–7830, Joyce Vondal Hato Rey, PR 00918, (787) 766–5095 5201 South Dupont Highway, PO Box Mississippi State Office, Federal (ext. 249), TDD (787) 766–5332, 400, Camden, DE 19934–9998, (302) Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol Lourdes Colon 697–4353, TDD (302) 697–4303, Pat Street, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965– Rhode Island Baker 4325, TDD (601) 965–5850, Darnella Florida & Virgin Islands State Office, Smith-Murray Served by Massachusetts State Office 4440 N.W. 25th Place, Gainesville, FL Missouri State Office, 601 Business South Carolina State Office, Strom 32614–7010, (352) 338–3465, TDD Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 (352) 338–3499, Joseph P. Fritz 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876– Assembly Street, Room 1007, Georgia State Office, Stephens Federal 0990, TDD (573) 876–9301, Charlie Columbia, SC 29201, (803) 253–3432, Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Marcks TDD (803) 765–5697, Larry D. Floyd Athens, GA 30601–2768, (706) 546– Montana State Office, Unit 1, Suite B, South Dakota State Office, Federal 2164, TDD (706) 546–2034, Wayne 900 Technology Blvd., Bozeman, MT Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Rogers 59715, (406) 585–2551, TDD (406) Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350, (605) 585–2562, Deborah Chorlton 352–1132, TDD (605) 352–1147, Guam Nebraska State Office, Federal Building, Dwight Wullweber Served by Hawaii State Office Room 152, 100 Centennial Mall N, Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 Hawaii and Western Pacific State Office, Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437–5594, West End Avenue, Nashville, TN Room 311, Federal Building, 154 TDD (402) 437–5093, Phil Willnerd 37203–1084, (615) 783–1375, TDD Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, Nevada State Office, 1390 South Curry (615) 783–1397, G. Benson Lasater (808) 933–8309, TDD (808) 933–8321, Street, Carson City, NV 89703–9910, Texas State Office, Federal Building, Thao Khamoui (775) 887–1222 (ext. 13), TDD (775) Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, Idaho State Office, Suite A1, 9173 West 885–0633, William L. Brewer TX 76501, (254) 742–9755, TDD (254) Barnes Dr., Boise, ID 83709, (208) New Hampshire State Office, Concord 742–9712, Eugene G. Pavlat 378–5630, TDD (208) 378–5644, Center, Suite 218, Box 317, 10 Ferry Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennett LaDonn McElligott Street, Concord, NH 03301–5004, Federal Building, 125 S. State Street, Illinois State Office, 2118 West Park (603) 223–6062, TDD (603) 229–0536, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821, Jim Fowler 84147–0350, (801) 524–4324, TDD (217) 403–6222, TDD (217) 403–6240, New Jersey State Office, Tarnsfield (801) 524–3309, Robert L. Milianta Barry L. Ramsey Plaza, Suite 22, 790 Woodland Road, Vermont State Office, City Center, 3rd Indiana State Office, 5975 Lakeside Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265–3636, Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278, TDD (609) 265–3687, George Hyatt, Jr. 05602, (802) 828–6028, TDD (802) (317) 290–3100 (ext. 423), TDD (317) New Mexico State Office, 6200 Jefferson 223–6365, Sandra Mercier 290–3343, John Young St., NE, Room 255, Albuquerque, NM Virgin Islands Iowa State Office, 873 Federal Building, 87109, (505) 761–4944, TDD (505) 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 761–4938, Carmen N. Lopez Served by Florida State Office 50309, (515) 284–4666, TDD (515) New York State Office, The Galleries of Virginia State Office, Culpeper Building, 284–4858, Julie Sleeper Syracuse, 441 S. Salina Street, Suite Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Kansas State Office, 1303 SW First 357, Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 477– Richmond, VA 23229, (804) 287– American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, 6419, TDD (315) 477–6447, George N. 1547, TDD (804) 287–1753, Eileen KS 66604–4040, (785) 271–2721, TDD Von Pless Nowlin (785) 271–2767, Virginia M. North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland Washington State Office, Puyallup Hammersmith Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609, Executive Park, 1011 E. Main, Suite
VerDate 11
306, Puyallup, WA 98372–6771, (253) B. Distribution Methodology Percentage of leveraging Points 845–9272 (ext. 5), TDD (253) 845– The total amount available for FY 0553, Robert Lund 2002 for section 515 is $114,068,998, of 75 or more ...... 20 70–74 ...... 19 which $49,000,000 is available for new Western Pacific Territories 65–69 ...... 18 construction as follows: Served by Hawaii State Office 60–64 ...... 17 55–59 ...... 16 Section 515 new construc- West Virginia State Office, Federal 50–54 ...... 15 Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, tion funds ...... $16,715,502 Set-aside for nonprofits ...... 10,266,209 45–49 ...... 14 Morgantown, WV 26505–7500, (304) 40–44 ...... 13 284–4889, TDD (304) 284–4836, Craig Set-aside for Underserved Counties and Colonias .... 5,703,450 35–39 ...... 12 St. Clair Set-aside for EZ, EC, and 30–34 ...... 11 Wisconsin State Office 4949 Kirschling REAP Zones ...... 14,814,839 25–29 ...... 10 Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481, (715) State Rental Assistance 20–24 ...... 9 345–7615 (ext. 151), TDD (715) 345– (RA) Designated reserve 1,500,000 15–19 ...... 8 7614, Sherry Engel 10–14 ...... 7 Wyoming State Office, 100 East B, C. Section 515 New Construction Funds 5–9 ...... 6 Federal Building, Room 1005, PO Box For fiscal year 2002 the Administrator 0–4 ...... 0 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261– has determined that it would not be 6315, TDD (307) 261–6333, Charles practical to allocate funds to States (b) The units to be developed are in Huff because of funding limitations; a colonia, tribal land, EZ, EC, or REAP therefore, section 515 new construction community, or in a place identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For funds will be distributed to States based the State Consolidated Plan or State general information, applicants may on a National competition, as follows: Needs Assessment as a high need contact Linda Armour, Senior Loan Officer, Multi-Family Housing 1. States will accept, review, score, community for multifamily housing. (20 Processing Division, Rural Housing and rank requests in accordance with 7 points) Service, United States Department of CFR part 1944, subpart E. The scoring (c) In states where RHS has an on- Agriculture, Stop 0781, 1400 factors are: going formal working relationship, Independence Avenue, SW, (a) The presence and extent of agreement, or Memorandum of Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) leveraged assistance for the units that Understanding (MOU) with the State to 720–1753 (voice) (this is not a toll free will serve RHS income-eligible tenants provide State resources (State funds, at basic rents comparable to those if number) or (800) 877–8339 (TDD- State RA, HOME funds, CDBG funds, or RHS provided full financing, computed Federal Information Relay Service). Low-Income Housing Tax Credits) for as a percentage of the RHS total RHS proposals; or where the State SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: development cost (TDC). RHS TDC provides preference or points to RHS Programs Affected excludes non-RHS eligible costs such as a developer’s fee. The required proposals in awarding such State The Rural Rental Housing program is applicant contribution is not considered resources, 20 points will be provided to listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic leveraged assistance. Leveraged loan requests that include such State Assistance under Number 10.415, Rural assistance includes loans and grants resources in an amount equal to at least Rental Housing Loans. Rental from other sources, contributions from 5 percent of the total development cost. Assistance is listed in the Catalog under the applicant above the required Native American Housing and Self Number 10.427, Rural Rental Assistance contribution indicated by the Sources Determination Act (NAHASDA) funds Payments. and Uses Comprehensive Evaluation may be considered a State Resource if the Tribal Plan for NAHASDA funds Discussion of Notice (available from the Rural Development State Office) and tax abatements or other contains provisions for partnering with I. Authority and Distribution savings in operating costs provided that, RHS for multifamily housing. (National Methodology at the end of the abatement period when office initiative) A. Authority the benefit is no longer available, the (d) The loan request includes donated basic rents are comparable to or lower land meeting the provisions of 7 CFR Section 515 of the Housing Act of than the basic rents if RHS provided full 1944.215(r)(4). (5 points) 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485) provides RHS financing. Loan proposals that include with the authority to make loans to any secondary funds from other sources that 2. The National office will rank all individual, corporation, association, have been requested but have not yet requests nationwide and distribute trust, Indian tribe, public or private been committed will be processed as funds to States in rank order, within nonprofit organization, consumer follows: The proposal will be scored funding and RA limits. If insufficient cooperative, or partnership to provide based on the requested funds, provided funds or RA remain for the next ranked rental or cooperative housing and (1) the applicant includes evidence of a proposal, the Agency will select the related facilities in rural areas for very- filed application for the funds; and (2) next ranked proposal that falls within low, low, or moderate income persons the funding date of the requested funds the remaining levels. Point score ties or families, including elderly persons will permit processing of the loan will be handled as follows: The highest and persons with disabilities. Rental request in the current funding cycle, or, ranked same-pointed proposal from assistance (RA) is a tenant subsidy for if the applicant does not receive the each State will be selected, followed by very-low and low-income families requested funds, will permit processing the second highest ranked proposal, and residing in rural rental housing facilities of the next highest ranked proposal in so on, until funds are exhausted. If there with RHS financing and may be the current year. Points will be awarded are insufficient funds to select the requested with applications for such in accordance with the following table. highest ranked proposal from each facilities. (0 to 20 points) State, selection will be made by lottery.
VerDate 11
D. Applications That Do Not Require defined in section 509(f) of the Housing B. Applicants are advised to contact New Construction Rental Assistance Act of 1949. the Rural Development State office (RA) 3. EZ, EC, and REAP set-aside. An serving the place in which they desire For fiscal year 2002 limited new amount of $14,814,839 has been set to submit an application for the construction RA is available. Therefore, aside to develop units in EZ, EC, or following: the Agency is inviting applications to REAP communities. Loan requests that 1. Application information and are eligible for this set-aside may also be develop units in markets that do not 2. List of designated places for which require RA. The market study for non- eligible for regular section 515 funds as applications for new section 515 RA proposals must clearly demonstrate a high-need community. The state must facilities may be submitted. a need and demand for the units by indicate on the list submitted to the prospective tenants at income levels National office if the request is eligible VI. Areas of Special Emphasis or that can support the proposed rents for the EZ, EC, and REAP set-aside and Consideration without tenant subsidies. The proposed regular section 515 funds. If requests for units must offer amenities that are this set-aside exceed available funds, A. The selection criteria contained in typical for the market area at rents that selection will be made by point score. 7 CFR part 1944, subpart E includes two are comparable to conventional rents in II. Funding Limits optional criteria, one set by the National the market for similar units. Office and one by the State office. This A. Individual loan requests may not fiscal year, the National Office initiative E. Set-asides exceed $1 million. This applies to will be used in the selection criteria as Loan requests will be accepted for the regular section 515 funds and set-aside follows: In states where RHS has an on- following set-asides: funds. The Administrator may make an going formal working relationship, 1. Nonprofit set-aside. An amount of exception to this limit in cases where a agreement, or Memorandum of State’s average total development costs $10,266,209 has been set aside for Understanding (MOU) with the State to exceed the National average by 50 nonprofit applicants. All loan proposals provide State resources (State funds, percent or more. must be in designated places in State RA, HOME funds, CDBG funds, or B. No State may receive more than accordance with 7 CFR part 1944, LIHTC) for RHS proposals; or where the subpart E. A State or jurisdiction may $2.5 million, including set-asides funds. State provides preference or points to receive one proposal from this set-aside, III. Rental Assistance (RA) RHS proposals in awarding these State which cannot exceed $1 million. A State could get additional funds from this set- New construction RA will be held in Resources, 20 points will be provided to aside if any funds remain after funding the National office for use with section loan requests that include such State one proposal from each participating 515 Rural Rental Housing loans. RA resources in an amount equal to at least State. If there are insufficient funds to may be requested by applicants, except 5 percent of the total development cost. fund one loan request from each for non-RA requests in accordance with Native American Housing and Self participating State, selection will be section I.D. above. Determination Act (NAHASDA) funds may be considered a State Resource if made by point score. If there are any IV. Application Process funds remaining, they will revert to the the Tribal Plan for NAHASDA funds National office reserve. Funds from this All applications for section 515 new contains provisions for partnering with set-aside will be available only to construction funds must be filed with RHS for multifamily housing. No State nonprofit entities, which may include a the appropriate Rural Development selection criteria will be used this fiscal partnership that has as its general State office and must meet the year. partner a nonprofit entity or the requirements of 7 CFR part 1944, B. $10,266,209 is available nonprofit entity’s for-profit subsidiary subpart E and section V of this NOFA. nationwide in a set-aside for eligible Incomplete applications will not be which will be receiving low-income nonprofit organizations as defined in 42 reviewed and will be returned to the housing tax credits authorized under U.S.C. 1485(w). section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code applicant. No application will be of 1986. To be eligible for this set-aside, accepted after 5:00 p.m., local time, on C. $5,703,450 is available nationwide the nonprofit entity must be an the application deadline previously in a set-aside for the 100 most organization that: mentioned unless that date and time is Underserved Counties and Colonias. (a) Will own an interest in the project extended by a Notice published in the D. $14,814,839 is available to be financed and will materially Federal Register. nationwide in a set-aside for EZ, EC, participate in the development and the V. Application Submission and REAP communities. operations of the project; Requirements (b) Is a private organization that has E. $1,500,000 is available nationwide nonprofit, tax exempt status under A. Each application shall include all in a reserve for States with viable State section 501(c)(3) or section 501(c)(4) of of the information, materials, forms and Rental Assistance (RA) programs. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; exhibits required by 7 CFR part 1944, order to participate, States are to submit (c) Has among its purposes the subpart E as well as comply with the specific written information about the planning, development, or management provisions of this NOFA. Applicants are State RA program, i.e., a memorandum of low-income housing or community encouraged, but not required, to include of understanding, documentation from development projects; and a checklist and to have their the provider, etc., to the National Office. (d) Is not affiliated with or controlled applications indexed and tabbed to Dated: February 15, 2002. by a for-profit organization. facilitate the review process. The Rural James C. Alsop, 2. Underserved counties and colonias Development State office will base its set-aside. An amount of $5,703,450 has determination of completeness of the Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. been set aside for loan requests to application and the eligibility of each [FR Doc. 02–4330 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] develop units in the 100 most needy applicant on the information provided BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P underserved counties or colonias as in the application.
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Note: Telephone numbers listed are not 50309, (515) 284–4493, TDD (515) toll-free. 284–4858, Bruce McGuire Rural Housing Service Alabama State Office, Suite 601, Kansas State Office, 1303 SW First Sterling Centre, 4121 Carmichael American Place Ste 100, Topeka, KS Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for Road, Montgomery, AL 36106–3683, 66604–4040, (785) 271–2721, TDD section 533 Housing Preservation (334) 279–3455, TDD (334) 279–3495, (785) 271–2767, Virginia M. Grants James B. Harris Hammersmith AGENCY: Rural Housing Service (RHS), Alaska State Office, 800 West Evergreen, Kentucky State Office, 771 Corporate USDA. Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645, (907) Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY ACTION: Notice. 761–7740, TDD (907) 761–8905, 40503, (859) 224–7325, TDD (859) Deborah Davis 224–7422, Paul Higgins SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service Arizona State Office, Phoenix Corporate Louisiana State Office, 3727 (RHS) announces that it is soliciting Center, 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite Government Street, Alexandria, LA competitive applications under its 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012–2906, (602) 71302, (318) 473–7962, TDD (318) Housing Preservation Grant (HPG) 280–8765, TDD (602) 280–8706, 473–7655, Yvonne R. Emerson program. The HPG program is a grant Johnna Vargas Maine State Office, 967 Illinois Ave., program which provides qualified Arkansas State Office, 700 W. Capitol Suite 4, PO Box 405, Bangor, ME public agencies, private nonprofit Ave., Rm. 3416, Little Rock, AR 04402–0405, (207) 990–9110, TDD organizations, and other eligible entities 72201–3225, (501) 301–3250, TDD (207) 942–7331, Dale D. Holmes grant funds to assist very low- and low- (501) 301–3279, Cathy Jones Maryland income homeowners repair and California State Office, 430 G Street, rehabilitate their homes in rural areas, Agency 4169, Davis, CA 95616–4169, Served by Delaware State Office and to assist rental property owners and (530) 792–5819 or, (530) 792–5830, Massachusetts, Connecticut, & Rhode cooperative housing complexes to repair TDD (530) 792–5848, Millie Island State Office, 451 West Street, and rehabilitate their units if they agree Manzanedo or Jeff Deiss Amherst, MA 01002, (413) 253–4333, to make such units available to low- and Colorado State Office, 655 Parfet Street, TDD (413) 253–4590, Donald Colburn very low-income persons. This action is Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215, Michigan State Office, 3001 Coolidge taken to comply with Agency (720) 544–2922, TDD (720) 544–2976, Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI regulations found in 7 CFR part 1944, ‘‘Sam’’ Mitchell 48823, (517) 324–5192, TDD (517) subpart N, which require the Agency to 337–6795, Philip Wolak announce the opening and closing dates Connecticut Minnesota State Office, 410 AgriBank for receipt of preapplications for HPG Served by Massachusetts State Office Building, 375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, MN 55101–1853, (651) 602–7804, funds from eligible applicants. The Delaware and Maryland State Office, TDD (651) 602–7830, Joyce Vondal intended effect of this Notice is to 5201 South Dupont Highway, PO Box Mississippi State Office, Federal provide eligible organizations notice of 400, Camden, DE 19934–9998, (302) Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol these dates. 697–4353, TDD (302) 697–4303, Pat Street, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965– DATES: The closing deadline for receipt Baker 4325, TDD (601) 965–5850, Darnella of all applications in response to this Florida & Virgin Islands State Office, NOFA is 5 p.m., local time for each Smith-Murray 4440 N.W. 25th Place, Gainesville, FL Missouri State Office, 601 Business Rural Development State office on May 32614–7010, (352) 338–3465, TDD 28, 2002. The application closing Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite (352) 338–3499, Joseph P. Fritz 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876– deadline is firm as to date and hour. Georgia State Office, Stephens Federal RHS will not consider any application 0990, TDD (573) 876–9301, Charlie Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Marcks that is received after the closing Athens, GA 30601–2768, (706) 546– deadline. Applicants intending to mail Montana State Office, Unit 1, Suite B, 2164, TDD (706) 546–2034, Wayne 900 Technology Blvd., Bozeman, MT applications must provide sufficient Rogers time to permit delivery on or before the 59715, (406) 585–2551, TDD (406) closing deadline date and time. Guam 585–2562, Deborah Chorlton Nebraska State Office, Federal Building, Acceptance by the United States Postal Served by Hawaii State Office room 152, 100 Centennial Mall N, Service or private mailer does not Hawaii and Western Pacific State Office, Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437–5594, constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX) and Room 311, Federal Building, 154 TDD (402) 437–5093, Phil Willnerd postage due applications will not be Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, Nevada State Office, 1390 South Curry accepted. (808) 933–8309, TDD (808) 933–8321, Street, Carson City, NV 89703–9910, ADDRESSES: Applicants wishing to apply Thao Khamoui (775) 887–1222 (ext. 13), TDD (775) for assistance must contact the Rural Idaho State Office, Suite A1, 9173 West 885–0633, William L. Brewer Development State office serving the Barnes Dr., Boise, ID 83709, (208) New Hampshire State Office, Concord place in which they desire to submit an 378–5630, TDD (208) 378–5644, Center, Suite 218, Box 317, 10 Ferry application to receive further LaDonn McElligott Street, Concord, NH 03301–5004, information and copies of the Illinois State Office, 2118 West Park (603) 223–6062, TDD (603) 229–0536, application package. Rural Development Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821, Jim Fowler will date and time stamp incoming (217) 403–6222, TDD (217) 403–6240, New Jersey State Office, Tarnsfield applications to evidence timely receipt, Barry L. Ramsey Plaza, Suite 22, 790 Woodland Road, and, upon request, will provide the Indiana State Office, 5975 Lakeside Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265–3636, applicant with a written Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278, TDD (609) 265–3687, George Hyatt, Jr. acknowledgment of receipt. A listing of (317) 290–3100 (ext. 423), TDD (317) New Mexico State Office, 6200 Jefferson Rural Development State offices, their 290–3343, John Young St., NE, Room 255, Albuquerque, NM addresses, telephone numbers, and Iowa State Office, 873 Federal Building, 87109, (505) 761–4944, TDD (505) person to contact follows: 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 761–4938, Carmen N. Lopez
VerDate 11
New York State Office, The Galleries of Virginia State Office, Culpeper Building, nonprofit corporations, Federally Syracuse, 441 S. Salina Street, Suite Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, recognized Indian Tribes, and consortia 357, Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 477– Richmond, VA 23229, (804) 287– of eligible entities. 6419, TDD (315) 477–6447, George N. 1547, TDD (804) 287–1753, Eileen Funding Information Von Pless Nowlin North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland Washington State Office, Puyallup The funding instrument for the HPG Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609, Executive Park, 1011 E. Main, Suite program will be a grant agreement. The (919) 873–2066, TDD (919) 873–2003, 306, Puyallup, WA 98372–6771, (253) term of the grant can vary from 1 to 2 Terry Strole 845–9272 (ext. 5), TDD (253) 845– years, depending on available funds and North Dakota State Office, Federal 0553, Robert Lund demand. No maximum or minimum Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, grant levels have been established at the PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502, Western Pacific Territories National level. You should contact the (701) 530–2049, TDD (701) 530–2113, Served by Hawaii State Office State office to determine the allocation Kathy Lake West Virginia State Office, Federal and the State maximum grant level, if Ohio State Office, Federal Building, Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, any. For FY 2002, $7,982,000 is Room 507, 200 North High Street, Morgantown, WV 26505–7500, (304) available for the Housing Preservation Columbus, OH 43215–2477, (614) 284–4889, TDD (304) 284–4836, Craig Grant Program. A set aside of $600,000 255–2418, TDD (614) 255–2554, St. Clair has been established for grants located Melodie Taylor Wisconsin State Office, 4949 Kirschling in Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481, (715) Communities, and REAP Zones and 108, Stillwater, OK 74074–2654, (405) 345–7615 (ext.151), TDD (715) 345– $6,600,000 has been distributed under a 742–1070, TDD (405) 742–1007, Phil 7614, Sherry Engel formula allocation to States pursuant to Reimers Wyoming State Office, 100 East B, 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L, Oregon State Office, 101 SW Main, Suite Federal Building, Room 1005, PO Box ‘‘Methodology and Formulas for 1410, Portland, OR 97204–3222, (503) 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261– Allocation of Loan and Grant Program 414–3325, TDD (503) 414–3387, Bill 6315, TDD (307) 261–6333, Charles Funds’’. Decisions on funding will be Daniel Huff based on preapplications. Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit Dated: February 15, 2002. Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For PA 17110–2996, (717) 237–2281, TDD general information, applicants may James C. Alsop, (717) 237–2261, Gary Rothrock contact Tracee Lilly, Senior Loan Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. Puerto Rico State Office, 654 Munoz Officer, Multi-Family Housing [FR Doc. 02–4331 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Rivera Avenue, IBM Plaza, Suite 601, Processing Division, Rural Housing BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P Hato Rey, PR 00918, (787) 766–5095 Service, United States Department of (ext. 249), TDD (787) 766–5332, Agriculture, Stop 0781, 1400 Lourdes Colon Independence Avenue, SW, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) Rhode Island 720–1604 (voice) (this is not a toll free Rural Housing Service Served by Massachusetts State Office number) or (800) 877–8339 (TDD- Federal Information Relay Service). Notice of Availability of Funding and South Carolina State Office, Strom Requests for Proposals for Guaranteed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Loans Under the Section 538 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Programs Affected Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Columbia, SC 29201, (803) 253–3432, Program TDD (803) 765–5697, Larry D. Floyd This program is listed in the Catalog South Dakota State Office, Federal of Federal Domestic Assistance under AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Number 10.433, Rural Housing ACTION: Notice of fund availability. Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350, (605) Preservation Grants. This program is 352–1132, TDD (605) 352–1147, subject to the provisions of Executive Required Responses From: Eligible Dwight Wullweber Order 12372 which requires Lenders for Multi-Family Lending. Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 intergovernmental consultation with Program Offers: Loan Guarantees and West End Avenue, Nashville, TN State and local officials (7 CFR part Interest Credits for Rural Housing. 37203–1084, (615) 783–1375, TDD 3015, subpart V). Applicants are SUMMARY: This Notice of Fund (615) 783–1397, G. Benson Lasater referred to 7 CFR 1944.674 and Availability (NOFA or Notice) Texas State Office, Federal Building, 1944.676(f), (g), and (h) for specific announces the timeframe, submission Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, guidance on these requirements relative requirements and deadlines to submit TX 76501, (254) 742–9755, TDD (254) to the HPG program. proposals in the form of ‘‘NOFA responses’’ for the section 538 742–9712, Eugene G. Pavlat Application Requirements Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennett Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Federal Building, 125 S. State Street, 7 CFR part 1944, subpart N provides Program (GRRHP)for the Fiscal Year Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT details on what information must be (FY) 2002 allocation of $99.77 million. 84147–0350, (801) 524–4324, TDD contained in the preapplication This Notice describes the commitment (801) 524–3309, Robert L. Milianta package. Entities wishing to apply for of program dollars, eligibility Vermont State Office, City Center, 3rd assistance should contact the Rural requirements, lender responsibilities, Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT Development State office to receive and the overall NOFA and application 05602, (802) 828–6028, TDD (802) further information, the State allocation processes. 223–6365, Sandra Mercier of funds, and copies of the The GRRHP operates under 7 CFR preapplication package. Eligible entities part 3565. The GRRHP Origination and Virgin Islands for these competitively awarded grants Servicing Handbook (HB–1–3565) is Served by Florida State Office include state and local governments, available to provide lenders and the
VerDate 11
general public with guidance on submission of a complete application credit priority score until at least 20% program administration. HB–1–3565, may submit an application for of the loans have received interest which contains a copy of 7 CFR part competition for FY 2002 funding credit. Requests for interest credit must 3565 in Appendix 1, can be found at the without completing a FY 2002 NOFA be made in the NOFA response. Lenders Rural Development regulation web site response. All qualified applications will are not permitted to make requests for address http://rdinit.usda.gov/regs. be funded on a first come basis until all interest credit after the selection process Eligible lenders are invited to submit program funds are exhausted. RHS will has taken place. NOFA responses for the development of commit and obligate funds only to Due to limited funding and in order affordable rental housing to serve rural lenders that submit a complete to distribute Interest Credit assistance as America. The Rural Housing Service application including all federal broadly as possible, the Agency has (RHS) will review responses submitted environmental documents required by 7 decided to limit the interest credit to by eligible lenders, on the lender’s CFR 1940 subpart G, Form RD 3565–1, $1.5 million per loan. For example, if an letterhead, and signed by both the ‘‘Application for Loan and Guarantee’’ eligible request were made for interest prospective borrower and lender. and the 2,500 dollar application fee. credit on a loan of $2.5 million, up to Although a complete application is not General Program Information $1.5 million of the loan would receive required in response to the NOFA, interest credit and $1 million would be Program Purpose: The section 538 eligible lenders may submit a complete originated at the note rate. Interest Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing application concurrently with the credit is not available for construction Program is designed to increase the NOFA response. The submission of a loans. Interest credit is only available supply of affordable multi-family complete application will not affect the for permanent loans. Lenders with housing through partnerships between scoring process. projects that are viable with or without the RHS and major lending sources, as DATES: The FY 2002 program dollars interest credit are encouraged to submit well as state and local housing finance will be allocated through a continuous a NOFA response reflecting financial selection process. The RHS will review agencies and bond issuers. Qualifying Properties: Qualifying and market feasibility under both all NOFA responses through May 16, properties include new construction for funding options. NOFA responses 2002. Reviews will take place on an on- multi-family housing units or requesting consideration under both going basis. Those responses that are acquisition of existing structures with options will not affect interest credit selected that subsequently submit rehabilitation of at least 15,000 dollars selection. However, once the interest complete applications and meet all per unit. credit funds are exhausted, only those federal environmental requirements will Eligible Financing Sources: Any form NOFA responses requesting receive commitments until all funds are of Federal, state, and conventional consideration under both funding expended. A notice will be placed in the sources of financing can be used in options or the Non-Interest Credit Federal Register when all funds are conjunction with the loan guarantee, option will be further considered. committed for FY 2002. NOFA including Home Investment Partnership Due to limited interest credit funds responses received after May 16, 2002 Program (HOME) grant funds, tax and the responsibility of RHS to target will be held for review subject to the exempt bonds, and low income housing and give priority to rural areas most in availability of funds. tax credits. need, NOFA responses requesting Eligible lenders intending to mail a Maximum Guarantee: The maximum interest credit must score a minimum of NOFA response or application must guarantee for a permanent loan will be 65 points under the criteria established provide sufficient time to permit 90 percent of the unpaid balance and in this NOFA. In the event of ties, delivery to the NOFA submission interest on the loan. The maximum selection between responses will be by address on or before the closing guarantee on a construction loan will be lot. deadline date and time. Acceptance by 90 percent of the work in place, which Surcharges for Guarantee of a U.S. Post Office or private mailer does have credit enhancements, or up to 90 Construction Advances: There is no not constitute delivery. Postage due percent of the amount actually surcharge for the guarantee of NOFA responses and applications will advanced by the lender, whichever is construction advances for FY 2002. not be accepted. less. Program Fees for FY 2002: The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reimbursement of Losses: Any losses Arlene Nunes, Senior Loan Specialist, following information stipulates the will be split on a pro-rata basis between program fees. Guaranteed Loans, Multi-Family the lender and the RHS from the first Housing Processing Division, U.S. dollar lost. (1) There is an initial guarantee fee of Department of Agriculture, South Interest Rate: RHS will accept the best 1 percent of the total guarantee amount, Agriculture Building, Room 1271, STOP rate negotiated between the lender and which will be due when the loan 0781, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, prospective borrower indexed to the 10- guarantee is issued. In the case of a Washington, DC 20250–0781. E-mail: year Treasury Bond Yield. However, combination construction and [email protected]. priority points will be given for interest permanent loan guarantee, the 1 percent Telephone: (202) 401–2307. This rates less than 300 basis points over the initial fee will be paid when the number is not toll-free. Hearing or 10-Year Treasury Bond Yield. Interest construction loan note guarantee is speech-impaired persons may access rates must be fixed over the term of the issued. For purposes of calculating this that number by calling the Federal loan. fee, the guarantee amount is the product Information Relay Service toll-free at Interest Credit: RHS will award of the percentage of the guarantee times (800) 877–8339. interest credit to at least 20 percent of the initial principal amount of the Eligiblity of Prior Year Selected NOFA the loans made under the program. If 20 guaranteed loan. Responses: NOFA responses selected in percent of the loans have not received (2) There is an annual renewal fee of FY 2001 are eligible for FY 2002 interest credit by May 16, 2002, then 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal program dollars subject to the RHS will award interest credit to those and interest of the loan. This fee will be availability of funds. FY 2001 NOFA loans that initially requested interest collected annually on January 1st of responses selected by RHS for credit and have the highest interest each calendar year.
VerDate 11
(3) There is no fee for site assessment In order to be approved the lender will (b) list of principal officers and their and market analysis or preliminary have to have an acceptable level of responsibilities, (c) certification that the feasibility in FY 2002. financial soundness as determined by a officers and principals of the lender (4) There is a non-refundable lender rating service. The submission of have not been debarred or suspended application fee of $2,500 when the materials demonstrating capacity will be from Federal programs, (d) Form AD application is submitted. required if the lender’s NOFA response 1047, ‘‘Certification Regarding (5) There is a flat fee of $500 when a is selected. Debarment and Suspension,’’ (e) lender requests RHS to extend the term Lenders who are otherwise ineligible certification that the lender is not in of a guarantee commitment. may become eligible if they maintain a default or delinquent on any Federal (6) There is a flat fee of $500 when a correspondent relationship with an debt or loan, or possess an outstanding lender requests RHS to extend a eligible lender that does have the finding of deficiency in a federal guarantee commitment after the period capacity to underwrite, originate, housing program, and (f) certification of of the commitment lapses. process, close, service, manage, and the lender’s credit rating; (7) There is a flat fee of $1,250 when dispose of multi-family housing loans. a lender requests RHS to approve the (10) Documentation on bonding and In this case, the eligible lender must insurance; and transfer of property and assumption of submit the NOFA response and the loan to an eligible prospective application. All contractual and legal (11) Certification that computer borrower. documentation will be signed between systems comply with year 2000 (8) There is no lender application fee RHS and the lender that submitted the technology. for lender approval in FY 2002. NOFA response and application. RHS Lender Approval Requirements: Eligible Lenders: An eligible lender RHS Lender Approval Application: Lenders who request RHS lender for the section 538 Guaranteed Loan Lenders whose NOFA responses are approval must meet the standards Housing Program as required by 7 CFR selected will be notified by the RHS to stipulated in the 7 CFR part 3565, 3565.102 must be a licensed business submit a request for RHS lender subpart C, section 3565.103 ‘‘Approval entity or Housing Finance Agency in approval application within 30 days of Requirements.’’ good standing in the state or states notification. Lenders that have received where it conducts business. Lender Lender Responsibilities: Lenders will RHS lender approval in the past and are be responsible for the full range of loan eligibility requirements are contained in in good standing do not need to reapply 7 CFR part 3565, subpart C, section origination, underwriting, management, for RHS lender approval. servicing, compliance issues and 3565.102 ‘‘Lender Eligibility’’. Below is Submission of Documentation for property disposition activities a list of eligible lenders under 7 CFR RHS Lender Approval: All lenders that associated with their projects. The 3565.102: have not yet received RHS lender lender will be expected to provide (1) A licensed business entity that approval must submit a complete guidance to the prospective borrower on meets the qualifications and has the application for RHS lender approval. As the RHS requirements during the approval of the Secretary of Housing RHS does not have a formal application application phase. Once the guarantee is and Urban Development (HUD) to make form, a complete application will issued, the lender is expected to service multi-family housing loans that are consist of a cover letter requesting RHS each loan it underwrites or contract insured under the National Housing lender approval and the following these services to another capable entity. Act. A complete list of HUD approved documentation: lenders can be found in the HUD Web (1) a request for RHS lender approval Discussion of Notice site at www.hud.gov. on the lender’s letterhead; (2) A licensed business entity that (2) Lenders who are HUD, Freddie Content of NOFA Responses: All meets the qualifications and has the Mac or Fannie Mae multi-family NOFA responses require lender approval of the Freddie Mac or Fannie approved lenders are required to show information and project specific data. Mae corporations to make multi-family evidence of this status, such as a copy Incomplete responses will not be housing loans that are sold to the same of a letter designating the distinction. considered for funding. Lenders will be corporations. A complete list of Freddie (3) The lender’s Loan Origination, notified of incomplete NOFA responses. Mac approved lenders can be found in Loan Servicing and Portfolio Complete NOFA responses are to Freddie Mac’s web site at Management Handbooks. These include a signed cover letter from the www.freddiemac.com. Fannie Mae handbooks should detail the lender’s lender on the lender’s letterhead and the approved lenders are found at policies and procedures on loan following information: www.fanniemae.com. origination through termination for (3) A state or local Housing Finance multi-family loans; (1) Lender Information Authority (HFA) with a top-tier rating (4) Portfolio performance data; A. Lender certification—The lender from Moody’s or Standard & Poors, or (5) Copies of standard documents that must certify that the lender will make a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank will be used in processing GRRHP loan to the prospective borrower for the system, and the demonstrated ability to loans; proposed project, under specified terms underwrite, originate, process, close, (6) Resumes and qualifications of key and conditions subject to the issuance of service, manage, and dispose of multi- personnel that will be involved in the the RHS guarantee. Lender certification family housing loans in a prudent GRRHP; manner. (7) Identification of standards and must be on the lender’s letterhead and (4) Be a GRRHP approved lender, processes that deviate from those signed by both the lender and the defined as an entity with an executed outlined in the GRRHP Origination and prospective borrower. multi-family housing Lender’s Servicing Handbook (HB–1–3565) found (2) Project Specific Data Agreement with RHS. at http://rdinit.usda.gov/regs; (5) Lenders that can demonstrate the (8) A copy of the most recent audited A. The lender must submit the project capacity to underwrite, originate, financial statements; specific data below on the lender’s process, close, service, manage, and (9) Lender specific information letterhead, signed by both the lender dispose of multi-family housing loans. including: (a) Legal name and address, and the prospective borrower.
VerDate 11
Lender Name Insert the lender’s name
Lender Tax ID # Insert lender’s tax ID #
Lender Contact Name Name of the lender contact for Loan
Mailing Address Lender’s complete mailing address
Phone # Phone # for lender contact
Fax # Insert lender’s fax #
E-mail Address Insert lender contact e-mail address
Borrower Name and Organization Type State whether borrower is a Limited Partnership, Corporation, In- dian Tribe, etc.
Tax Classification Type State whether borrower is for profit, not for profit, etc.
Borrower Tax ID # Insert borrower’s tax ID #
Borrower Address, including County Insert borrower’s address and county
Borrower Phone # Insert borrower’s phone #
Principal or Key Member for the Borrower Insert name and title
Borrower Information and Statement of Housing Development Expe- Attach relevant information rience
New Construction or Acquisition or Repair or Rehabilitation of at State whether the project is new construction or acquisition or re- Least $15,000 Per Unit pair or rehabilitation
Project Location Town or City Town or city in which the project is located
Project County County in which the project is located
Project State State in which state the project is located
Project Zip Code Insert zip code
Project Congressional District Congressional District for project location
Project Name Insert project name
Project Type Family, senior (all residents over 55), or mixed
Property Description and Proposed Development Schedule Provide as an attachment
Total Project Development Cost Enter amount for total project
# of Units Insert the # of units in the project
Cost Per Unit Total development cost divided by # of units
Bedroom Mix # of units by # of bedrooms
Rent Proposed rent structure
Median Income for Community Provide median income for the community
Evidence of Site Control Attach relevant information
Description of Any Environmental Issues Attach relevant information
Loan Amount Insert the loan amount
Interest Credit (IC) Is interest credit requested for this loan (Yes or No)?
VerDate 11
Interest Rate (for interest credit requests only) Lenders seeking interest credit must provide the interest rate. Pri- ority points will be awarded to projects requesting interest credit for interest rates less than 300 basis points over the 10-year treas- ury bond yield
If Above Is Yes, Should Proposal Be Considered Under Non–IC Se- If Yes, proposal must show financial feasibility for NON–IC consid- lection, If IC Funds Are Exhausted? eration.
Borrower’s Proposed Equity Insert amount.
Tax Credits Will the project be allocated tax credits? How much? What is the es- timated value of the tax credits awarded?
Other Sources of Funds List all funding sources.
Loan to Value Guaranteed loan divided by value of project.
Debt Coverage Ratio Net Operating Income divided by debt service payments.
Percentage of Guarantee Percentage guarantee requested.
Collateral Attach relevant information.
Empowerment Zone (EZ) or Enterprise Community (EC) Yes or No? Is the project in a recognized EZ or EC?
Colonia or Tribal Lands Is the project in a Colonia or on an Indian Reservation? Yes or No?
Population Must be within the 20,000 population limit set for the program.
Is a Guarantee for Construction Being Requested? Are Advances State yes or no. The Agency will guarantee construction advances, Being Requested? only as part of a combination construction and permanent loan.
Loan Term Up to a 40-year amortized loan Balloon mortgage with a minimum 25-year term are eligible.
Scoring of Priority Criteria for Population size Points Median income (dollars) Points Selection of Projects with Interest Credit Requests: RHS will allocate points to 15,001–16,000 people ...... 5 Less than $25,000 ...... 20 projects with requests for interest credit. 16,001–17,000 people ...... 4 $25,000–$29,999 ...... 15 Projects with no interest credit request 17,001–18,000 people ...... 3 $30,000–$34,999 ...... 10 will be reviewed for eligibility and 18,001–19,000 people ...... 2 $35,000–$40,000 ...... 5 viability on a continuous basis and 19,001–20,000 people ...... 1 More than $40,000 ...... 0 without any priority selection criteria. Priority 4—Projects that demonstrate The seven priority criteria for projects Priority 2—The RHS will award with requests for interest credit are partnering and leveraging in order to points for projects with 3–5 bedroom develop the maximum number of units listed below. units. Priority 1—Projects located in rural and promote partnerships with state and communities with the smallest Score for Priority 2—The RHS will local communities will also receive populations. score the projects with the 3–5 bedroom points. Score for Priority 1—Projects with the units as follows: Score for Priority 4—The RHS will lowest populations will receive the award points as follows: highest points. No. of 3–5 bedroom units Points Loan to value ratio (percentage %) Points Population size Points More than 15 ...... 20 10–15 ...... 15 More than 75 ...... 10 0–1,000 people ...... 20 5–9 ...... 10 70–75 ...... 15 1,001–2,000 people ...... 19 1–4 ...... 5 Less than 70 ...... 20 2,001–3,000 people ...... 18 3,001–4,000 people ...... 17 Priority 5—RHS will award points for Priority 3—The most needy 4,001–5,000 people ...... 16 interest rates less above the 10-Year 5,001–6,000 people ...... 15 communities as determined by the Treasury Bond Yield as follows: 6,001–7,000 people ...... 14 median income from the most recent 7,001–8,000 people ...... 13 census data will receive points. 8,001–9,000 people ...... 12 SCORE FOR PRIORITY 5 9,001–10,000 people ...... 11 Score for Priority 3—The RHS will 10,001–11,000 people ...... 10 allocate points to projects located in Interest rate Points 11,001–12,000 people ...... 9 communities having the lowest median 300 basis points or more, inclusive ¥20 12,001–13,000 people ...... 8 income. Points for median income will 13,001–14,000 people ...... 7 299 to 200 basis points, inclusive .. 5 14,001–15,000 people ...... 6 be awarded as follows: 199 to 100 basis points, inclusive .. 10
VerDate 11
SCORE FOR PRIORITY 5—Continued Rural Development State Office staff ACTION: Notice. will work with lenders in the Interest rate Points development of the complete SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service application. Applications must include; (RHS) announces the availability of 99 to 50 basis points, inclusive ...... 15 (1) The appropriate level of housing funds for fiscal year 2002 (FY Less than 50 basis points, inclusive 20 environmental review in accordance 2002). This action is taken to comply with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, (2) the with 42 U.S.C. 1490p, which requires Priority 6—The development of Civil Rights Impact Analysis that RHS publish in the Federal projects on Tribal Lands, or in an Certification, (3) intergovernmental Register notice of the availability of any Empowerment Zone or Enterprise review (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V), housing assistance. Community will receive points. and (4) appropriate flood insurance EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2002. Score for Priority 6—The RHS will coverage as stipulated in 7 CFR part FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For attribute 20 points to projects that are 1806 subpart B. information regarding this notice developed in any of the locations The deadline for the submission of a contact Teresa Sumpter, Loan described in priority 6. Specialist, Single Family Housing Direct Priority 7—The development of complete application and fee is 90 days from the date of notification of NOFA Loan Division, telephone 202–720– projects in a Colonia or in a place 1485, Stop 0783, for single family identified in the State’s Consolidated selection. If the application and fee are not submitted within 90 days from the housing (SFH) issues and Tammy S. Plan or State Needs Assessment as a Daniels, Loan Specialist, Multi-Family high need community for multi-family date of notification, the selection is subject to cancellation, thereby allowing Housing Processing Division, telephone housing will receive points. 202–720–0021, Stop 0781 for multi- Score for Priority 7—The RHS will another NOFA response that is ready to proceed with processing to be selected. family housing (MFH) issues, U.S. attribute 20 points to projects that are Department of Agriculture, 1400 developed in any of the locations Obligation of Program Funds: The RHS will only obligate funds to projects Independence Ave., SW., Washington, described in priority 7. DC 20250. (The telephone numbers NOFA Submission Address: Eligible that undergo a satisfactory listed are not toll free numbers). For lenders will send the NOFA responses environmental review in accordance information on applying for assistance, to: Director, Multi-Family Housing with the National Environmental visit our Internet Web site at www. Processing Division, Rural Housing Protection Act (NEPA). rurdev.usda.gov/recdlmap.html and Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conditional Commitment: Once the select your State or check the blue pages Room 1263, STOP 0781, 1400 complete application and application in your local telephone directory under Independence Avenue, SW, fee are received and all NEPA ‘‘Rural Development’’ for the office Washington, DC 20250–0781. Responses requirements have been met, the Rural serving your area. Also attached for for participation in the program must be Development State Office will issue a information purposes is a listing of identified as ‘‘Section 538 Guaranteed conditional commitment, which Rural Development State Directors, Rural Rental Housing Program’’ on the stipulates the conditions that must be State Office addresses and phone envelope. met for the issuance of a guarantee, in numbers. Notifications: NOFA responses will be accordance with 7 CFR part 3565, reviewed for completeness and subpart G, section 3565.303. Once the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: eligibility. The RHS will notify those conditional commitment is issued the Programs Affected lenders whose NOFA responses are funds are obligated to the lender. The following programs are subject to selected via letter. The RHS will request Issuance of Guarantee: The RHS will the provisions of Executive Order 12372 lenders without RHS lender approval to issue a guarantee to the lender for a that requires intergovernmental apply for RHS lender approval within project in accordance with 7 CFR part consultation with State and local 30 days upon receipt of notification of 3565, subpart G, section 3565.303 officials. These programs or activities selection. For information regarding ‘‘Issuance of Loan Guarantee.’’ No are listed in the Catalog of Federal RHS Lender Approval, please refer to guarantee can be issued without a Domestic Assistance under Nos. section SUBMISSION OF complete application, review of DOCUMENTATION FOR RHS LENDER appropriate certifications, satisfactory 10.405 Farm Labor Housing (LH) APPROVAL in this NOFA. Requests for assessment of the appropriate level of Loans and Grants RHS lender approval should be sent to environmental review, and the 10.410 Very Low to Moderate Income the person and address listed in the completion of any conditional Housing Loans 10.411 Rural Housing Site Loans and NOFA SUBMISSION ADDRESS section requirements. Self-Help Housing Land Development in this NOFA. Dated: February 15, 2002. Lenders will also be invited to submit Loans a complete application and the required James C. Alsop, 10.415 Rural Rental Housing Loans 10.417 Very Low Income Housing application fee of $2,500 to the Rural Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. 02–4332 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] Repair Loans and Grants Development State Office where the 10.420 Rural Self-Help Housing BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P project is located. Technical Assistance Submission of GRRHP Applications: 10.427 Rural Rental Assistance Notification letters will instruct lenders DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Payments to contact the Rural Development State 10.433 Rural Housing Preservation Office immediately following Rural Housing Service Grants notification of selection to schedule 10.442 Housing Application Packaging required agency reviews. Rural Notice of Availability of Funds; Multi- Grants Development State Office addresses can Family Housing, Single Family Discussion of Notice be found in the USDA web site, Housing www.usda.gov, under the Rural Part 1940, subpart L of 7 CFR contains Development program area. AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. the ‘‘Methodology and Formulas for
VerDate 11
Allocation of Loan and Grant Program III. Farm Labor Housing (LH) Loans and General Reserve: $10,068,998 Funds.’’ To apply for assistance under Grants. A. New construction loan funds. New these programs or for more information, The Administrator has the authority construction loan funds will be made contact the Rural Development Office to transfer funds between the two available using a national NOFA being for your area. Separate guidance has programs. Upon NOFA closing the published in the Federal Register. Upon been provided to our State offices for Administrator will evaluate the closing of the NOFA, States will submit assistance available in our Multi- and responses and determine proper a list, in rank order of the eligible Single-Family Housing programs as distribution of funds between loans and projects. follows: grants. B. National Office New Construction Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Set-asides. The following legislatively A. Section 514 Farm LH Loans mandated set-asides of funds are part of I. General 1. These loans are funded in the National office set-aside: A. This provides guidance on MFH accordance with 7 CFR 1940.579(a). 1. Nonprofit Set-aside. An amount of funding for the Rural Rental Housing FY 2002 Appropriation: $28,459,099 $10,266,209 has been set aside for program (RRH) for FY 2002 (does not Available for Off-Farm Loans: nonprofit applicants. All Nonprofit loan include carryover funds). Allocation $22,459,099 proposals must be located in designated computations have been performed in Available for On-Farm Loans: places as defined in RD Instruction accordance with 7 CFR 1940.575 and $2,500,000 1944–E. 1940.578. For FY 2002, State Directors, National Office Reserve: $3,500,000 2. Underserved Counties and Colonias under the Rural Housing Assistance 2. Off-farm loan funds will be made Set-Aside. An amount of $5,703,450 has Grants (RHAG), will have the flexibility available under a NOFA being been set aside for loan requests to to transfer their initial allocations of published in the Federal Register. develop units in the underserved 100 budget authority between the Single Additional guidance will be provided in most needy counties or colonias as Family Housing (SFH) section 504 Rural the NOFA. defined in section 509(f) of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended. Priority will be Housing Grants and section 533 B. Section 516 Farm LH Grants Housing Preservation Grant (HPG) given to proposals to develop units in programs. 1. Grants are funded in accordance colonias or tribal lands. B. MFH loan and grant levels for FY with 7 CFR 1940.579(b). Unobligated 3. EZ, EC or REAP Zone Earmark. An 2002 are as follows: prior year balances and cancellations amount of $14,814,839 has been will be added to the amount shown. earmarked for loan requests to develop MFH Loan Programs Credit Sales: units in EZ or EC communities or REAP $1,778,515 FY 2002 Appropriation: $17,967,000 Available for LH Grants for Off-Farm: Zones until June 30, 2002. Section 514 Farm Labor Housing (LH) $13,967,000 C. Rental Assistance (RA). Limited loans: *$28,459,099 Available for Technical Assistance new construction RA will be held in the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Grants: $1,500,000 National office for use with section 515 (RRH) loans: *$114,068,998 National Office Reserve: $2,500,000 Rural Rental Housing loans. Section 521 Rental Assistance (RA) 2. Labor Housing grant funds for Off- D. Designated Reserves for State RA. and 502(c)(5)(C) Advance: Farm will be made available under a An amount of $1.5 million of section *$701,004,000 NOFA being published in this Federal 515 loan funds has been set aside for Section 516 LH grants: *$17,967,000 Register. Additional guidance will be matching with projects in which an Section 525 Technical and provided in the NOFA. active State sponsored RA program is Supervisory Assistance grants (TSA) C. Labor Housing Rental Assistance available. The State RA program must and 509 Housing Application (RA) will be held in the National Office be comparable to the RHS RA program. Packaging grants: $1,415,977 for use with LH loan and grant E. Repair and Rehabilitation Loans. (HAPG) (Shared between single and applications. RA is only available with Tenant health and safety continues to be multi-family housing): (includes an LH loan of at least 5 percent of the the top priority. Repair and carryover) total development cost. Projects without rehabilitation funds must be first targeted to RRH facilities that have Section 533 Housing Preservation a LH loan cannot receive RA. physical conditions that affect the grants (HPG): *$7,982,000 IV. Section 515 RRH Loan Funds health and safety of tenants and Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental FY 2002 section 515 Rural Rental subsequently made available to facilities Housing program: *$99,770,992 Housing allocation (Total): that have deferred maintenance. All * Does not include disaster or regular $114,068,998 funds will be held in the National office program carryover. New Construction funds and set-asides: and will be distributed based upon II. Funds Not Allocated to States $49,000,000 indicated rehabilitation needs in the New construction loans: $16,715,502 MFH survey conducted in October 2001. A. Credit Sales Authority. For FY Set-aside for nonprofits: $10,266,209 F. Designated Reserve for Equity 2002, $1,778,515 will be set aside for Set-aside for underserved counties Loans. An amount of $5 million has credit sales to program and nonprogram and colonias: $5,703,450 been designated for the equity loan buyers. Credit sale funding will not be Earmark for EZ, EC, or REAP Zones: preservation incentive described in RH allocated by State. $14,814,839 Instruction 1965–E. The $5 million will B. Section 538 Guaranteed Rural State RA designated reserve: be further divided into $4 million for Rental Housing Program. Guaranteed $1,500,000 equity loan requests currently on the loan funds will be made available under Rehab and repair funds and equity: pending funding list and $1 million to a Notice of Funding Availability $55,000,000 facilitate the transfer of properties from (NOFA) being published in the Federal Rehab and repair loans: $50,000,000 for-profit owners to nonprofit Register. Additional guidance will be Designated equity loan reserve: corporations and public bodies. Funds provided at that time. $5,000,000 for such transfers would be authorized
VerDate 11
only for for-profit owners who are Very low-income subsidized loans: available for section 523 Mutual Self- currently on the pending funding list $475,133,131 Help and Section 524 RH Site loans, who agree to transfer to nonprofit Low-income subsidized loans: respectively. corporations or public bodies rather $604,714,893 5. Section 306C WWD Grants to than to remain on the pending list. If Credit sales (Nonprogram): $10,000,000 Individuals in Colonias. The objective of insufficient transfer requests are Section 504 housing repair loans: the section 306C WWD individual grant generated to utilize the full $1 million $32,324,929 program is to facilitate the use of set aside for nonprofit and public body Section 504 housing repair grants: community water or waste disposal transfers, the balance will revert to the ***$30,053,395 systems for the residents of the colonias existing pending equity loan funding Section 509 compensation for along the U.S.-Mexico border. list. construction defects: **$574,204 The total amount available to Arizona, G. General Reserve. There is one Section 523 mutual and self-help California, New Mexico, and Texas will general reserve fund of $10,068,998. housing grants **: ***$56,055,462 be $1,458,569 for FY 2002. This amount Some examples of immediate allowable Section 523 Self-Help Site Loans: includes the carryover unobligated uses include, but are not limited to, $5,000,000 balance of $458,569 and the transferred hardships and emergencies, RH Section 524 RH site loans: $5,090,909 amount of $1 million from the Rural cooperatives or group homes, or RRH Section 306C Water and waste disposal Utilities Service (RUS) to RHS for preservation. grants: **$1,458,569 processing individual grant Section 525 Supervisory and technical applications. V. Section 533 Housing Preservation assistance and section 509 Housing Grants (HPG). Application: 6. Section 525 Technical and Total Available: $7,982,000 Packaging Grants Total Available for Supervisory Assistance (TSA) and Less General reserve: $782,000 single and multi-family: Section 509 Housing Application Less Earmark for EZ, EC, or REAP **$1,415,977 Packaging Grants (HAPG). $998,000 of Zones: $600,000 North Carolina Elderly Demonstration new funds and $417,977 of carryover Total Available for Distribution: Program funds from previous years remain $6,600,000 Modular Home Loans: **$1,961,244 available for the TSA and HAPG Amount available for allocation. See Modular Home Grants: **$3,998,627 programs. The 29 eligible States under end of this Notice for HPG State Natural disaster funds (Section 502 HAPG that have active grantees allocations. Fund availability will be loans): **$2,274,638 operating will be able to access up to announced in a NOFA being published Natural disaster funds (Section 504 $5,000 for section 502 or 504 loan and in the Federal Register. loans): **$13,462,253 grant programs in order to continue The amount of $600,000 is earmarked Natural disaster funds (Section 504 operations. Reserve requests will be for EZ, EC or REAP Zones until June 30, grants): **$5,035,979 considered on a first-come, first-served basis. 2002. *Includes $600,000 for EZ/EC and 7. North Carolina Elderly Single Family Housing (SFH) REAP communities until June 30, 2002. **Carryover funds are included in the Demonstration Program. Budget I. General balance. authority was earmarked in FY 2001 for the North Carolina Elderly All SFH programs are administered ***Includes $1,000,000 for EZ/EC and Demonstration Program. These funds through field offices. For more REAP communities until June 30, 2002. were used to provide Section 502 loans information or to make application, c. SFH Funding Not Allocated to and grants in North Carolina for very please contact the Rural Development States. The following funding is not low- and low-income elderly families office servicing your area. To locate allocated to States by formula. Funds who lost their housing as a result of a these offices, contact the appropriate are made available to each state on a major disaster declared by the President. State Office from the attached State case-by-case basis. Unobligated funds have been carried Office listing, visit our web site at 1. Credit sale authority. Credit sale over into FY 2002 for this demo www.rurdev.usda.gov/recdlmap.html funds in the amount of $10,000,000 are program. These funds will remain or check the blue pages in your local available only for nonprogram sales of available until they are exhausted. telephone directory under ‘‘Rural Real Estate Owned (REO) property. Development’’ for the office serving 2. Section 509 Compensation for 8. Natural Disaster Funds. Funds are your area. Construction Defects. $574,204 is available until exhausted to those States A. This notice provides SFH available for compensation for with active Presidential Declarations. allocations for FY 2002. Allocation construction defects. 9. Deferred Mortgage Payment computations have been made in 3. Section 523 Mutual and Self-Help Demonstration. There is no FY 2002 accordance with 7 CFR 1940.563 Technical Assistance Grants. $56 funding provided for deferred mortgage through 1940.568. Information on basic million is available for section 523 authority or loans for deferred mortgage formula criteria, data source and weight, Mutual and Self-Help Technical assumptions. administrative allocation, pooling of Assistance Grants. Of these funds, $1 D. Contingency Reserve. For the funds, and availability of the allocation million is earmarked for EZ, EC or REAP Section 502 direct and Section 504 loan are located on a chart at the end of this Zones until June 30, 2002. A technical and grant programs, a 5 percent notice. review and analysis must be completed contingency reserve will be held in the B. The SFH levels authorized for FY by the Technical and Management National Office pending a potential 2002 are as follows: Assistance (T&MA) contractor on all rescission of funds which may be used Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing predevelopment, new, and existing to offset federal outlays to address the (RH) loans (refunding) grant applications. tragic events of September 11, 2001. If Nonsubsidized Guarantees: 4. Section 523 Mutual and Self-Help no rescession occurs, these funds will $3,137,968,750 Site Loans and Section 524 RH Site be distributed to the States based upon Section 502 Direct RH loans Loans. $5,000,000 and $5,090,909 are the allocation formula.
VerDate 11
II. State allocations (iv) Financing for the purchase of (f) Empowerment Zone (EZ) and program REOs when the National office Enterprise Community (EC) or Rural A. Section 502 Nonsubsidized reserve has been exhausted. Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Guaranteed RH (GRH) Loans (v) States will leverage an amount earmark. An amount of $38,000,000 has 1. Amount Available for Allocation. equal to 25 percent of their initial low- been earmarked until June 30, 2002, for Total Available: $3,137,968,750 income allocation and 5 percent of their loans in EZ, EC or REAP Zones. Further Less National Office General Reserve: initial very low-income allocation with information will follow. $700,348,107 funding from other sources. For (g) State Office Pooling. If pooling is Less Special Outreach Area Reserve: example, if a State receives an initial conducted within a State, it must not $300,120,643 low-income allocation of $900,000 the take place within the first 30 calendar Basic Formula—Administrative amount to be leveraged from other days of the first, second, or third Allocation: $2,137,500,000 sources would be $225,000 ($900,000 × quarter. (There are no restrictions on 2. National Office General Reserve. 25 percent) for a total RHS and other pooling in the fourth quarter.) The Administrator may restrict access to funding source of $1,125,000 ($900,000 (h) Suballocation by the State this reserve for States not meeting their + $225,000). Director. The State Director may goals in special outreach areas. (vi) Areas targeted by the State suballocate to each area office using the 3. Special Outreach Areas. FY 2002 according to its strategic plan. methodology and formulas required by GRH funding is allocated to States in b. National Office Reserves. 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L. If two funding streams (70/30) similar to (i) General Reserve. The National suballocated to the area level, the Rural the 60/40 income split for direct SFH office has a general reserve of $145 Development Manager will make funds funds. Seventy percent of GRH funds million. Of this amount, the available on a first-come, first-served may be used in any eligible area. Thirty Administrator’s reserve is $30 million. basis to all offices at the field or area percent of GRH funds are to be used in One of the purposes of the level. No field office will have its access special outreach areas. Special outreach Administrator’s reserve will be for loans to funds restricted without the prior areas are counties with median incomes in Indian Country. Indian Country is written approval of the Administrator. at or below the State’s nonmetropolitan defined as land inside the boundaries of B. Section 504 Housing Loans and median income. Each funding stream Indian reservations, communities made Grants. Section 504 grant funds are will independently be subject to up mainly of Native Americans, Indian included in the Rural Housing pooling. Assistance Grant program (RHAG) in the 4. National Office Special Area trust and restricted land, and tribal allotted lands. The remaining reserves FY 2002 appropriation. Outreach Reserve. A special outreach 1. Amount available for allocation. area reserve fund has been established will be established as follows: at the National office. Funds from this (ii) Hardship and Homelessness Section 504 Loans Reserve. $3.5 million has been set aside reserve may only be used in special Total Available: $32,324,929 outreach areas. for hardships and homeless. (iii) Rural Housing Demonstration Less 5% for 100 Underserved B. Section 502 Direct RH Loans Program. $1.5 million has been set aside Counties and Colonias: $1,616,247 for innovative demonstration initiatives. EZ, EC or REAP Zone Earmark: 1. Amount Available for Allocation. $1,200,000 (iv) Program credit sales. $20 million Total Available: $1,079,848,024 Less 5% contingency: $1,600,000 has been set aside for program sales of Less Required Set Aside for: Less General Reserve: $1,500,682 REO property. Underserved Counties and Colonias: Basic Formula—Administrative $53,992,401 (c) Homeownership Partnership. $95 Allocation: $26,408,000 EZ, EC and REAP Earmark: million has been set aside for $38,000,000 Homeownership Partnerships. These Section 504 Grants Less 5% contingency: $53,000,000 funds will be used to expand existing Total Available: $30,053,395 Less General Reserve: $145,000,623 partnerships and create new Administrator’s Reserve: $30,000,623 Less 5% for 100 Underserved partnerships, such as the following: Counties and Colonias: $1,496,700 Hardships & Homelessness: $3,500,000 (i) Department of Treasury, Rural Housing Demonstration Less EZ, EC or REAP Earmark: Community Development Financial $600,000 Program: $1,500,000 Institutions (CDFI)—Funds will be Homeownership Partnership: Less 5% contingency: $1,400,000 available to fund leveraged loans made $95,000,000 Less General Reserve: $1,619,395 Program funds for the sale of REO in partnership with the Department of Basic Formula-Administrative properties: $15,000,000 Treasury CDFI participants. Allocation: $24,937,300 Less Designated Reserve for Self-Help: (ii) Partnership initiatives established 2. Reserves and Set-asides. $110,000,000 to carry out the objectives of the rural a. State Office Reserve. State Directors Basic Formula Administrative home loan partnership (RHLP). must maintain an adequate reserve to Allocation: $679,855,000 (d) Designated Reserve for Self-Help. handle all anticipated hardship 2. Reserves. $110 million has been set aside for applicants based upon historical data a. State Office Reserve. State Directors matching funds to assist participating and projected demand. must maintain an adequate reserve to Self-Help applicants. The matching b. Underserved Counties and fund the following applications: funds were established on the basis of Colonias. Approximately $1.6 million (i) Hardship and homeless applicants the National office contributing 75 and $1.5 million have been set aside for including the direct section 502 loan percent from the National office reserve the 100 underserved counties and and section 504 loan and grant and States contributing 25 percent of colonias until June 30, 2002, for the programs. their allocated section 502 RH funds. section 504 loan and grant programs, (ii) Mutual Self-Help loans. (e) Underserved Counties and respectively. (iii) Subsequent loans for essential Colonias. An amount of $53,992,401 has c. Empowerment Zone (EZ) and improvements or repairs and transfers been set aside for the 100 underserved Enterprise Community (EC) or Rural with assumptions. counties and colonias. Economic Area Partnership (REAP)
VerDate 11
Earmark (Loan Funds Only). d. General Reserve. $1.5 million for requiring a significant priority in Approximately $1.2 million and section 504 loan hardships and $1.6 funding, ahead of other requests, due to $600,000 have been earmarked through million for section 504 grant extreme severe health or safety hazards, or June 30, 2002, for EZ, EC or REAPs for hardships have been set-aside in the physical needs of the applicant. the section 504 loan and grant programs, general reserve. For section 504 grants, respectively. an extreme hardship case is one
INFORMATION ON BASIC FORMULA CRITERIA, DATA SOURCE AND WEIGHT, ADMINISTRATIVE ALLOCATION, POOLING OF FUNDS, AND AVAILABILITY OF THE ALLOCATION
Section 502 non- No. Description subsidized guaranteed Section 502 direct RH Section 504 loans and RH loans loans grants
1 Basic formula criteria, data source, and weight ...... See 7 CFR 1940.563(b) .. See 7 CFR 1940.565(b) .. See 7 CFR 1940.566(b) and 1940.567(b). 2 Administrative Allocation: Western Pacific Area ...... $1,000,000 ...... $1,000,000 ...... $1,000,000 loan $500,000 grant. 3 Pooling of funds: a. Mid-year pooling ...... If necessary ...... If necessary ...... If necessary. b. Year-end pooling ...... August 16, 2002 ...... August 16, 2002 ...... August 16, 2002. c. Underserved counties and colonias ...... N/A ...... June 30, 2002 ...... June 30, 2002. d. EZ, EC or REAP ...... N/A ...... June 30, 2002 ...... June 30, 2002. e. Credit sales ...... N/A ...... June 30, 2002 ...... N/A. 4 Availability of the allocation: a. first quarter ...... 50 percent ...... 50 percent ...... 50 percent. b. second quarter ...... 75 percent ...... 70 percent ...... 70 percent. c. third quarter ...... 90 percent ...... 90 percent ...... 90 percent. d. fourth quarter ...... 100 percent ...... 100 percent ...... 100 percent. 1. Data derived from the 1990 U.S. Census was provided to each State by the National office on August 12, 1993. 2. Due to the absence of Census data. 3. All dates are tentative and are for the close of business (COB). Pooled funds will be placed in the National office reserve and made avail- able administratively. The Administrator reserves the right to redistribute funds based upon program performance. 4. Funds will be distributed cumulatively through each quarter listed until the National office year-end pooling date.
Dated: February 15, 2002. James C. Alsop, Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
[FR Doc. 02–4333 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–XV–C
VerDate 11
Part IV
Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management
Resource Management Plans; Pinedale and Rawlins, Wyoming; Notice
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR through Friday, except holidays, at the mineral estate. The Pinedale RMP Pinedale Field Office. If you wish to planning area includes two wilderness Bureau of Land Management withhold your name or address from study areas (WSA—Scab Creek and Lake [WY–030–02–1610; WY–100–02–1610] public review or from disclosure under Mountain). These have been addressed the Freedom of Information Act, you in separate environmental impact Resource Management Plans; Pinedale must state this prominently at the statement (EIS) documents and will not and Rawlins, WY beginning of your comments. Such be addressed in the revision of the requests will be honored to the extent Pinedale RMP. There are two areas of AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, allowed by law. All submissions from critical environmental concern (ACEC— Interior. organizations or businesses, and from Rock Creek and Beaver Creek), and three ACTION: Notice of Intent to Revise the individuals or officials representing special recreation management areas Pinedale Resource Management Plan organizations or businesses, will be (SRMAs —Scab Creek, Upper Green (RMP) and Call for Coal and Other made available for public inspection in River, and Boulder Lake). Revision of Resource Information for the Bureau of their entirety. the Pinedale RMP may result in altering Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Field DATES: This initial call for coal and the designation of these ACECs and Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. other resource information and SRMAs, and the management SUMMARY: The BLM Pinedale Field identification of issues for this planning prescriptions for these areas could also Office is initiating a revision of the effort will be open for 60 days, and will change. The potential for additional Pinedale Resource Management Plan commence with the date following special management areas will be (RMP) to guide future management publication of this notice in the Federal explored, and if any other areas are actions on the public lands within the Register. Notification of future scoping nominated for special mnagement area Pinedale Field Office administrative (or activities and meetings and other designation, they will be considered in management) area. The existing meetings or hearings and any other the EIS for the planning effort. public involvement activities that may Pinedale RMP will continue to guide To date, the BLM has identified eight be scheduled during the course of the management actions and decisions for preliminary issues associated with the planning effort will be handled through the Pinedale Field Office until the RMP existing management direction provided public notices, media news releases, revision is completed. by the Pinedale RMP. The BLM invites The revised RMP will be a internet postings, or mailings. the public to comment on these The purpose of this call for resource comprehensive land use plan that will preliminary issues and to identify any data, issues, and concerns is to help allocate and identify allowable public additional issues, concerns, problems or BLM identify specific problems, land and resource uses, land use and conflicts that should be considered in concerns, and issues pertaining to the resource condition management goals, the Pinedale RMP revision effort. various resource and land use values in public land and resource use Comments should be sent to the the Pinedale planning area and to help conditional requirements, and general Pinedale address above. identify any data gaps, data needs, and Issue 1: Potential Conflicts Between management practices needed to data sources pertaining to the planning achieve RMP objectives. It will also Mineral Exploration and Development area. This planning effort is scheduled Activities and Other Land and Resource identify lands available for to be completed by the fall of 2004. consideration for transfer from BLM Uses and Values ADDRESSES: Documentation of the jurisdiction (via public disposition or Isssue 2: Limited Accessability to Public planning process and completed transfer to another agency). Lands and Resources and Land documents for the Pinedale RMP Requirements, standards, and Tenure Adjustments planning area will be available at 432 procedures for preparing RMPs are Issue 3: Conflicting Demands for East Mill Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, contained in 43 CFR 1600, BLM Manual Consumptive and Non-consumptive Wyoming 82941–0768. All comments 1601 and BLM Handbook H–1601–1. Vegetation Uses must include legible full name and The BLM Washington Office provides Issue 4: Potential Conflicts of Various address on the envelope, letter, or further guidance for BLM land use Public Land and Resource Uses with postcard. planning. The BLM Wyoming State Recreation, Cultural Resources Office will continue to provide guidance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If (including National Historic Trails) for land use planning in the ten Field you wish to be placed on the Pinedale and Paleontological Resources Offices in the State of Wyoming to guide RMP mailing list, or if you wish to Issue 5: Wildland/Urban Interface BLM managers in producing balanced comment on the preliminary list of Concerns public land and resource use decisions public land and resource problems, Issue 6: Special Status Plant and Animal that meet requirements of law and conflicts, concerns, or issues being Species Management regulation. The Pinedale Field Office considered in the Pinedale RMP Issue 7: Concerns for Maintaining or will develop planning criteria revision, contact Kellie Roadifer, Improving Water Quality and Meeting applicable to the planning effort to Pinedale RMP team leader, at the State and Federal Water Quality provide the public a preview of the Pinedale address above or phone (307) Standards types of considerations that will be 367–5309. Issue 8: Special Management Area made in developing the RMP decisions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Designations or Changes for the planning area. current Pinedale RMP provides The BLM is requesting the public to Freedom of Information Act guidance and direction for management help identify additional problems and Considerations: Public comments of approximately 931,000 acres of BLM- conflicts and resource management submitted for this planning effort, administered public land surface and opportunities that should also be including names and street addresses of 1,185,000 acres of BLM-administered addressed in the Pinedale RMP Revision respondents, will be available for public Federal mineral estate in Sublette, process. review in their entirety after comment Lincoln, and Fremont counties, This notice includes a request for any periods close, during regular business Wyoming. Approximately 919,000 acres available resource information and data hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday are both Federal surface and Federal pertaining to the Pinedale RMP
VerDate 11
planning area. The purposes of this coal leasing and development or in coal Rawlins Field Office administrative (or request are (1) to assure that the bed methane exploration and management) area. The existing Great planning effort has sufficient development will be expected to Divide RMP will continue to guide information and data to consider the provide coal resource data for their management actions and decisions for fullest possible range of public land and areas of interest. The schedule for the Rawlins Field Office until the RMP resource uses, management options and completing this planning effort requires revision is completed. alternatives, and (2) to include the call that areas of interest and coal resource The revised RMP will be a for coal resource information required data must be submitted within 60 days comprehensive land use plan that will by the Federal Coal Regulations (43 CFR following publication of this notice. If allocate and identify allowable public 3420.1–2). coal resource data is insufficient or land and resource uses, land use and The call for coal resource information unavailable for your area(s) of interest at resource condition management goals, in the Pinedale RMP planning area is this time, but can be obtained in 2002, public land and resource use primarily to update information on the BLM will accept, until April 30, conditional requirements, and general areas where coal occurs. There is little, 2002, an estimate of the extent and management practices needed to if any, known potential for or interest in locations of the coal resource and a achieve RMP objectives. It will also developing coal in the Pinedale RMP schedule for providing the data. The identify lands available for planning area. However, identifying the adequacy and timing of the coal consideration for transfer from BLM areas of coal occurrence is necessary to resource information provided will jurisdiction (via public disposition or address potential coal bed methane determine the extent to which the transfer to another agency). development. Federal coal resource, its development Requirements, standards, and The usual purpose of the call for coal potential and coal bed methane procedures for preparing RMPs are resource information is to obtain any development potential may be contained in 43 CFR 1600, BLM Manual available coal resource data and any addressed in this planning effort. 1601, and BLM Handbook H–1601–1. other resource information pertinent to Public participation will be an The BLM Washington Office will applying the coal unsuitability criteria, essential component of this planning provide further guidance on nationwide and to identify any areas of interest for effort. Several techniques for providing standards for BLM land use planning. possible Federal coal leasing. Coal public involvement opportunities will The BLM Wyoming State Office will resource information submissions be used during the planning process, continue to provide guidance for land would assist the BLM in determining including: Federal Register use planning in the ten Field Offices in those areas with coal development announcements, one-on-one discussion the State of Wyoming to guide BLM potential. As a part of the RMP planning with interested groups and individuals, managers in producing balanced public process, the coal screening/coal internet postings, articles in local news land and resource use decisions that planning procedures would be media, and individual mailings to all meet requirements of law and conducted on those areas with Federal parties who have expressed an interest regulation. The Rawlins Field Office coal development potential to determine in the process. For those persons will develop planning criteria which Federal coal areas are acceptable wishing to be placed on the Pinedale applicable to the planning effort to for further consideration for leasing. mailing list, notify the BLM contact provide the public a preview of the Identification at this time of definite provided in the ADDRESSES section of types of considerations that will be interests in future leasing of Federal this notice. made in developing the RMP decisions coal in the Pinedale RMP planning area, for the planning area. substantiated with adequate coal Dated: January 17, 2002. Freedom of Information Act resource data, would allow the BLM to Alan R. Pierson, Considerations: Public comments address this potential during the State Director. planning effort and possibly avoid submitted for this planning effort, [FR Doc. 02–4494 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] including names and street addresses of unnecessary work, delays, or BILLING CODE 4310–22–P amendments to the RMP in the near respondents, will be available for public future. review in their entirety after comment periods close, during regular business Some of the Pinedale RMP planning DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR area is within the Green River-Hams hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday Fork Coal Production Region. A Notice Bureau of Land Management through Friday, except holidays, at the that the coal region was decertified was Rawlins Field Office. If you wish to published in the Federal Register, Vol. [WY–030–02–1610; WY–100–02–1610] withhold your name or address from 53, No. 77, April 21, 1988. Federal coal public review or from disclosure under Great Divide Resource Management the Freedom of Information Act, you leasing regulations contained in 43 CFR Plan; Rawlins, Wyoming 3425 are now in effect and coal reserves must state this prominently at the in the Pinedale RMP planning area are AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, beginning of your comments. Such subject to potential ‘‘leasing by Interior. requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from application’’. This type of coal leasing is ACTION: Notice of Intent To Revise The organizations or businesses, and from essentially done on a case-by-case basis Great Divide Resource Management individuals or officials representing rather than through the regional leasing Plan (RMP) and Call for Coal and Other organizations or businesses, will be process under 43 CFR 3420. Note that Resource Information for the Bureau of made available for public inspection in the sale and issuance of Federal coal Land Management (BLM) Rawlins Field their entirety. leases under these provisions is still Office, Rawlins, Wyoming. done through a competitive bidding DATES: This initial call for coal and process. SUMMARY: The BLM Rawlins Field other resource information and The BLM has very limited capability Office is initiating a revision of the identification of issues for this planning to conduct additional coal or other Great Divide Resource Management effort will be open for 60 days and will resource inventories in the planning Plan (RMP) to guide future management commence with the publication of this area. Thus, parties interested in Federal actions on the public lands within the notice in the Federal Register.
VerDate 11
Notification of future scoping activities these areas could also change. The Rawlins RMP planning area. Coal and meetings and other meetings or potential for additional special resource information submissions will hearings and any other public management areas will be explored, and assist the BLM in determining those involvement activities that may be if any other areas are nominated for areas with coal development potential. scheduled during the course of the special management area designation, As appropriate and as part of the planning effort will be handled through they will be considered in the EIS for Rawlins RMP planning process, the coal public notices, media news releases, the planning effort. screening/coal planning procedures will internet postings, or mailings. To date, the BLM has identified eight be conducted on those areas with The purpose of this call for resource preliminary issues associated with the Federal coal development potential to data, issues and concerns is to help existing management direction provided determine which Federal coal areas are BLM identify specific problems, by the Great Divide (Rawlins) RMP. The acceptable for further consideration for concerns, and issues pertaining to the BLM invites the public to comment on leasing. This coal resource information various resource and land use values in these preliminary issues and to identify will also be pertinent to addressing the Rawlins planning area and to help any additional issues, concerns, potential coal bed methane identify any data gaps, data needs, and problems or conflicts that should be development areas. data sources pertaining to the planning considered in the Rawlins RMP revision Some of the Rawlins RMP planning area. This planning effort is scheduled effort. Comments should be sent to the area is within the Green River-Hams to be completed by the fall of 2004. Rawlins address above. Fork Coal Production Region. A Notice ADDRESSES: Documentation of the Issue 1: Potential Conflicts Between that the coal region was decertified was planning process and completed Mineral Exploration and Development published in the Federal Register, Vol. documents for the Rawlins RMP Activities and Other Land and 53, No. 77, April 21, 1988. Federal coal planning area will be available at 1300 Resource Uses and Values leasing regulations contained in 43 CFR North Third Street, P.O. Box 2407, Issue 2: Special Management Area 3425 are now in effect and coal reserves Rawlins, Wyoming 82301–2407. All Designations or Changes in the Rawlins RMP planning area are comments must include legible full Issue 3: Access Limitations to Public now subject to ‘‘leasing by application’’. name and address on the envelope, Lands and Resources This type of coal leasing is essentially letter, or postcard. Issue 4: Wildland/Urban Interface done on a case-by-case basis, rather than through the regional leasing process FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Concerns under 43 CFR 3420. Note that the sale you wish to be placed on the Rawlins Issue 5: Special Status Plant and Animal and issuance of federal coal leases RMP mailing list, or if you wish to Species Management under these provisions is still done comment on the preliminary list of Issue 6: Concerns for Maintaining or Improving Water Quality and Meeting through a competitive bidding process. public land and resource problems, Identification at this time of definite State and Federal Water Quality conflicts, concerns, or issues being interests in future leasing of Federal Standards considered in the Rawlins RMP coal in the Rawlins RMP planning area, Issue 7: Conflicting Demands for (currently known as the Great Divide substantiated with adequate coal Consumptive and Non-consumptive RMP) revision, contact John Spehar, resource data, will allow the BLM to Vegetation Uses Rawlins RMP team leader, at the address this potential during the Issue 8: Potential Conflicts of Various Rawlins address above or phone (307) planning effort and possibly avoid Public Land and Resource Uses with 328–4264. unnecessary work, delays, or Recreation, Cultural Resources SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The amendments to the RMP in the near current Great Divide RMP provides (including National Historic Trails) future. management guidance and direction for and Paleontological Resources The BLM has very limited capability approximately four million acres of The BLM is requesting the public to to conduct additional coal or other BLM-administered public land surface help identify additional problems and resource inventories in the planning and five million acres of BLM- conflicts and resource management area. Thus, parties interested in federal administered federal mineral estate in opportunities that should also be coal leasing and development or in coal Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and addressed in the Rawlins RMP revision bed methane exploration and Sweetwater counties. When the Great process. development will be expected to Divide RMP is revised, it will be This notice includes a request for any provide coal resource data for their renamed the Rawlins RMP to be available resource information and data areas of interest. The schedule for consistent with the current pertaining to the Rawlins RMP planning completing this planning effort requires organizational structure and naming of area. The purposes of this request are (1) that areas of interest and coal resource BLM land use plans in Wyoming. to assure that the planning effort has data must be submitted within 60 days The Rawlins RMP planning area sufficient information and data to following publication of this notice. If includes five wilderness study areas consider the fullest possible range of coal resource data are insufficient or (WSAs—Encampment River Canyon, public land and resource uses, unavailable for your area(s) of interest at Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, management options and alternatives, this time, but can be obtained in 2002, Adobe Town, Ferris Mountain), four and (2) to include the call for coal the BLM will accept, until April 30, areas of critical environmental concern resource information required by the 2002, an estimate of the extent and (ACECs—Jep Canyon, Como Bluff, Federal Coal Regulations (43 CFR locations of the coal resource and a Shamrock Hills, Sand Hills), and three 3420.1–2). schedule for providing the data. The special recreation management areas The call for coal resource information adequacy and timing of the coal (SRMAs—Continental Divide National is issued to obtain any available coal resource information provided will Scenic Trail, North Platte River, Shirley resource data and any other resource determine the extent to which the Mountain Caves). Revision of the information pertinent to applying the Federal coal resource, its development Rawlins RMP may result in altering the coal unsuitability criteria, and to potential and coal bed methane designation of these ACECs and SRMAs, identify any additional areas of interest development potential may be and the management prescriptions for for possible Federal coal leasing in the addressed in this planning effort.
VerDate 11
Public participation will be an with interested groups and individuals, provided in the ADDRESSES section of essential component of this planning internet postings, articles in local news this notice. effort. Several techniques for providing media, and individual mailings to all Dated: January 17, 2002. public involvement opportunities will parties who have expressed an interest Alan R. Pierson, be used during the planning process, in the process. For those persons State Director. including: Federal Register wishing to be placed on the Rawlins [FR Doc. 02–4495 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] announcements, one-on-one discussion mailing list, notify the BLM contact BILLING CODE 4310–22–P
VerDate 11
Part IV
Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management
Resource Management Plans; Pinedale and Rawlins, Wyoming; Notice
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR through Friday, except holidays, at the mineral estate. The Pinedale RMP Pinedale Field Office. If you wish to planning area includes two wilderness Bureau of Land Management withhold your name or address from study areas (WSA—Scab Creek and Lake [WY–030–02–1610; WY–100–02–1610] public review or from disclosure under Mountain). These have been addressed the Freedom of Information Act, you in separate environmental impact Resource Management Plans; Pinedale must state this prominently at the statement (EIS) documents and will not and Rawlins, WY beginning of your comments. Such be addressed in the revision of the requests will be honored to the extent Pinedale RMP. There are two areas of AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, allowed by law. All submissions from critical environmental concern (ACEC— Interior. organizations or businesses, and from Rock Creek and Beaver Creek), and three ACTION: Notice of Intent to Revise the individuals or officials representing special recreation management areas Pinedale Resource Management Plan organizations or businesses, will be (SRMAs —Scab Creek, Upper Green (RMP) and Call for Coal and Other made available for public inspection in River, and Boulder Lake). Revision of Resource Information for the Bureau of their entirety. the Pinedale RMP may result in altering Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Field DATES: This initial call for coal and the designation of these ACECs and Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. other resource information and SRMAs, and the management SUMMARY: The BLM Pinedale Field identification of issues for this planning prescriptions for these areas could also Office is initiating a revision of the effort will be open for 60 days, and will change. The potential for additional Pinedale Resource Management Plan commence with the date following special management areas will be (RMP) to guide future management publication of this notice in the Federal explored, and if any other areas are actions on the public lands within the Register. Notification of future scoping nominated for special mnagement area Pinedale Field Office administrative (or activities and meetings and other designation, they will be considered in management) area. The existing meetings or hearings and any other the EIS for the planning effort. public involvement activities that may Pinedale RMP will continue to guide To date, the BLM has identified eight be scheduled during the course of the management actions and decisions for preliminary issues associated with the planning effort will be handled through the Pinedale Field Office until the RMP existing management direction provided public notices, media news releases, revision is completed. by the Pinedale RMP. The BLM invites The revised RMP will be a internet postings, or mailings. the public to comment on these The purpose of this call for resource comprehensive land use plan that will preliminary issues and to identify any data, issues, and concerns is to help allocate and identify allowable public additional issues, concerns, problems or BLM identify specific problems, land and resource uses, land use and conflicts that should be considered in concerns, and issues pertaining to the resource condition management goals, the Pinedale RMP revision effort. various resource and land use values in public land and resource use Comments should be sent to the the Pinedale planning area and to help conditional requirements, and general Pinedale address above. identify any data gaps, data needs, and Issue 1: Potential Conflicts Between management practices needed to data sources pertaining to the planning achieve RMP objectives. It will also Mineral Exploration and Development area. This planning effort is scheduled Activities and Other Land and Resource identify lands available for to be completed by the fall of 2004. consideration for transfer from BLM Uses and Values ADDRESSES: Documentation of the jurisdiction (via public disposition or Isssue 2: Limited Accessability to Public planning process and completed transfer to another agency). Lands and Resources and Land documents for the Pinedale RMP Requirements, standards, and Tenure Adjustments planning area will be available at 432 procedures for preparing RMPs are Issue 3: Conflicting Demands for East Mill Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, contained in 43 CFR 1600, BLM Manual Consumptive and Non-consumptive Wyoming 82941–0768. All comments 1601 and BLM Handbook H–1601–1. Vegetation Uses must include legible full name and The BLM Washington Office provides Issue 4: Potential Conflicts of Various address on the envelope, letter, or further guidance for BLM land use Public Land and Resource Uses with postcard. planning. The BLM Wyoming State Recreation, Cultural Resources Office will continue to provide guidance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If (including National Historic Trails) for land use planning in the ten Field you wish to be placed on the Pinedale and Paleontological Resources Offices in the State of Wyoming to guide RMP mailing list, or if you wish to Issue 5: Wildland/Urban Interface BLM managers in producing balanced comment on the preliminary list of Concerns public land and resource use decisions public land and resource problems, Issue 6: Special Status Plant and Animal that meet requirements of law and conflicts, concerns, or issues being Species Management regulation. The Pinedale Field Office considered in the Pinedale RMP Issue 7: Concerns for Maintaining or will develop planning criteria revision, contact Kellie Roadifer, Improving Water Quality and Meeting applicable to the planning effort to Pinedale RMP team leader, at the State and Federal Water Quality provide the public a preview of the Pinedale address above or phone (307) Standards types of considerations that will be 367–5309. Issue 8: Special Management Area made in developing the RMP decisions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Designations or Changes for the planning area. current Pinedale RMP provides The BLM is requesting the public to Freedom of Information Act guidance and direction for management help identify additional problems and Considerations: Public comments of approximately 931,000 acres of BLM- conflicts and resource management submitted for this planning effort, administered public land surface and opportunities that should also be including names and street addresses of 1,185,000 acres of BLM-administered addressed in the Pinedale RMP Revision respondents, will be available for public Federal mineral estate in Sublette, process. review in their entirety after comment Lincoln, and Fremont counties, This notice includes a request for any periods close, during regular business Wyoming. Approximately 919,000 acres available resource information and data hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday are both Federal surface and Federal pertaining to the Pinedale RMP
VerDate 11
planning area. The purposes of this coal leasing and development or in coal Rawlins Field Office administrative (or request are (1) to assure that the bed methane exploration and management) area. The existing Great planning effort has sufficient development will be expected to Divide RMP will continue to guide information and data to consider the provide coal resource data for their management actions and decisions for fullest possible range of public land and areas of interest. The schedule for the Rawlins Field Office until the RMP resource uses, management options and completing this planning effort requires revision is completed. alternatives, and (2) to include the call that areas of interest and coal resource The revised RMP will be a for coal resource information required data must be submitted within 60 days comprehensive land use plan that will by the Federal Coal Regulations (43 CFR following publication of this notice. If allocate and identify allowable public 3420.1–2). coal resource data is insufficient or land and resource uses, land use and The call for coal resource information unavailable for your area(s) of interest at resource condition management goals, in the Pinedale RMP planning area is this time, but can be obtained in 2002, public land and resource use primarily to update information on the BLM will accept, until April 30, conditional requirements, and general areas where coal occurs. There is little, 2002, an estimate of the extent and management practices needed to if any, known potential for or interest in locations of the coal resource and a achieve RMP objectives. It will also developing coal in the Pinedale RMP schedule for providing the data. The identify lands available for planning area. However, identifying the adequacy and timing of the coal consideration for transfer from BLM areas of coal occurrence is necessary to resource information provided will jurisdiction (via public disposition or address potential coal bed methane determine the extent to which the transfer to another agency). development. Federal coal resource, its development Requirements, standards, and The usual purpose of the call for coal potential and coal bed methane procedures for preparing RMPs are resource information is to obtain any development potential may be contained in 43 CFR 1600, BLM Manual available coal resource data and any addressed in this planning effort. 1601, and BLM Handbook H–1601–1. other resource information pertinent to Public participation will be an The BLM Washington Office will applying the coal unsuitability criteria, essential component of this planning provide further guidance on nationwide and to identify any areas of interest for effort. Several techniques for providing standards for BLM land use planning. possible Federal coal leasing. Coal public involvement opportunities will The BLM Wyoming State Office will resource information submissions be used during the planning process, continue to provide guidance for land would assist the BLM in determining including: Federal Register use planning in the ten Field Offices in those areas with coal development announcements, one-on-one discussion the State of Wyoming to guide BLM potential. As a part of the RMP planning with interested groups and individuals, managers in producing balanced public process, the coal screening/coal internet postings, articles in local news land and resource use decisions that planning procedures would be media, and individual mailings to all meet requirements of law and conducted on those areas with Federal parties who have expressed an interest regulation. The Rawlins Field Office coal development potential to determine in the process. For those persons will develop planning criteria which Federal coal areas are acceptable wishing to be placed on the Pinedale applicable to the planning effort to for further consideration for leasing. mailing list, notify the BLM contact provide the public a preview of the Identification at this time of definite provided in the ADDRESSES section of types of considerations that will be interests in future leasing of Federal this notice. made in developing the RMP decisions coal in the Pinedale RMP planning area, for the planning area. substantiated with adequate coal Dated: January 17, 2002. Freedom of Information Act resource data, would allow the BLM to Alan R. Pierson, Considerations: Public comments address this potential during the State Director. planning effort and possibly avoid submitted for this planning effort, [FR Doc. 02–4494 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] including names and street addresses of unnecessary work, delays, or BILLING CODE 4310–22–P amendments to the RMP in the near respondents, will be available for public future. review in their entirety after comment periods close, during regular business Some of the Pinedale RMP planning DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR area is within the Green River-Hams hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday Fork Coal Production Region. A Notice Bureau of Land Management through Friday, except holidays, at the that the coal region was decertified was Rawlins Field Office. If you wish to published in the Federal Register, Vol. [WY–030–02–1610; WY–100–02–1610] withhold your name or address from 53, No. 77, April 21, 1988. Federal coal public review or from disclosure under Great Divide Resource Management the Freedom of Information Act, you leasing regulations contained in 43 CFR Plan; Rawlins, Wyoming 3425 are now in effect and coal reserves must state this prominently at the in the Pinedale RMP planning area are AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, beginning of your comments. Such subject to potential ‘‘leasing by Interior. requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from application’’. This type of coal leasing is ACTION: Notice of Intent To Revise The organizations or businesses, and from essentially done on a case-by-case basis Great Divide Resource Management individuals or officials representing rather than through the regional leasing Plan (RMP) and Call for Coal and Other organizations or businesses, will be process under 43 CFR 3420. Note that Resource Information for the Bureau of made available for public inspection in the sale and issuance of Federal coal Land Management (BLM) Rawlins Field their entirety. leases under these provisions is still Office, Rawlins, Wyoming. done through a competitive bidding DATES: This initial call for coal and process. SUMMARY: The BLM Rawlins Field other resource information and The BLM has very limited capability Office is initiating a revision of the identification of issues for this planning to conduct additional coal or other Great Divide Resource Management effort will be open for 60 days and will resource inventories in the planning Plan (RMP) to guide future management commence with the publication of this area. Thus, parties interested in Federal actions on the public lands within the notice in the Federal Register.
VerDate 11
Notification of future scoping activities these areas could also change. The Rawlins RMP planning area. Coal and meetings and other meetings or potential for additional special resource information submissions will hearings and any other public management areas will be explored, and assist the BLM in determining those involvement activities that may be if any other areas are nominated for areas with coal development potential. scheduled during the course of the special management area designation, As appropriate and as part of the planning effort will be handled through they will be considered in the EIS for Rawlins RMP planning process, the coal public notices, media news releases, the planning effort. screening/coal planning procedures will internet postings, or mailings. To date, the BLM has identified eight be conducted on those areas with The purpose of this call for resource preliminary issues associated with the Federal coal development potential to data, issues and concerns is to help existing management direction provided determine which Federal coal areas are BLM identify specific problems, by the Great Divide (Rawlins) RMP. The acceptable for further consideration for concerns, and issues pertaining to the BLM invites the public to comment on leasing. This coal resource information various resource and land use values in these preliminary issues and to identify will also be pertinent to addressing the Rawlins planning area and to help any additional issues, concerns, potential coal bed methane identify any data gaps, data needs, and problems or conflicts that should be development areas. data sources pertaining to the planning considered in the Rawlins RMP revision Some of the Rawlins RMP planning area. This planning effort is scheduled effort. Comments should be sent to the area is within the Green River-Hams to be completed by the fall of 2004. Rawlins address above. Fork Coal Production Region. A Notice ADDRESSES: Documentation of the Issue 1: Potential Conflicts Between that the coal region was decertified was planning process and completed Mineral Exploration and Development published in the Federal Register, Vol. documents for the Rawlins RMP Activities and Other Land and 53, No. 77, April 21, 1988. Federal coal planning area will be available at 1300 Resource Uses and Values leasing regulations contained in 43 CFR North Third Street, P.O. Box 2407, Issue 2: Special Management Area 3425 are now in effect and coal reserves Rawlins, Wyoming 82301–2407. All Designations or Changes in the Rawlins RMP planning area are comments must include legible full Issue 3: Access Limitations to Public now subject to ‘‘leasing by application’’. name and address on the envelope, Lands and Resources This type of coal leasing is essentially letter, or postcard. Issue 4: Wildland/Urban Interface done on a case-by-case basis, rather than through the regional leasing process FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Concerns under 43 CFR 3420. Note that the sale you wish to be placed on the Rawlins Issue 5: Special Status Plant and Animal and issuance of federal coal leases RMP mailing list, or if you wish to Species Management under these provisions is still done comment on the preliminary list of Issue 6: Concerns for Maintaining or Improving Water Quality and Meeting through a competitive bidding process. public land and resource problems, Identification at this time of definite State and Federal Water Quality conflicts, concerns, or issues being interests in future leasing of Federal Standards considered in the Rawlins RMP coal in the Rawlins RMP planning area, Issue 7: Conflicting Demands for (currently known as the Great Divide substantiated with adequate coal Consumptive and Non-consumptive RMP) revision, contact John Spehar, resource data, will allow the BLM to Vegetation Uses Rawlins RMP team leader, at the address this potential during the Issue 8: Potential Conflicts of Various Rawlins address above or phone (307) planning effort and possibly avoid Public Land and Resource Uses with 328–4264. unnecessary work, delays, or Recreation, Cultural Resources SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The amendments to the RMP in the near current Great Divide RMP provides (including National Historic Trails) future. management guidance and direction for and Paleontological Resources The BLM has very limited capability approximately four million acres of The BLM is requesting the public to to conduct additional coal or other BLM-administered public land surface help identify additional problems and resource inventories in the planning and five million acres of BLM- conflicts and resource management area. Thus, parties interested in federal administered federal mineral estate in opportunities that should also be coal leasing and development or in coal Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and addressed in the Rawlins RMP revision bed methane exploration and Sweetwater counties. When the Great process. development will be expected to Divide RMP is revised, it will be This notice includes a request for any provide coal resource data for their renamed the Rawlins RMP to be available resource information and data areas of interest. The schedule for consistent with the current pertaining to the Rawlins RMP planning completing this planning effort requires organizational structure and naming of area. The purposes of this request are (1) that areas of interest and coal resource BLM land use plans in Wyoming. to assure that the planning effort has data must be submitted within 60 days The Rawlins RMP planning area sufficient information and data to following publication of this notice. If includes five wilderness study areas consider the fullest possible range of coal resource data are insufficient or (WSAs—Encampment River Canyon, public land and resource uses, unavailable for your area(s) of interest at Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, management options and alternatives, this time, but can be obtained in 2002, Adobe Town, Ferris Mountain), four and (2) to include the call for coal the BLM will accept, until April 30, areas of critical environmental concern resource information required by the 2002, an estimate of the extent and (ACECs—Jep Canyon, Como Bluff, Federal Coal Regulations (43 CFR locations of the coal resource and a Shamrock Hills, Sand Hills), and three 3420.1–2). schedule for providing the data. The special recreation management areas The call for coal resource information adequacy and timing of the coal (SRMAs—Continental Divide National is issued to obtain any available coal resource information provided will Scenic Trail, North Platte River, Shirley resource data and any other resource determine the extent to which the Mountain Caves). Revision of the information pertinent to applying the Federal coal resource, its development Rawlins RMP may result in altering the coal unsuitability criteria, and to potential and coal bed methane designation of these ACECs and SRMAs, identify any additional areas of interest development potential may be and the management prescriptions for for possible Federal coal leasing in the addressed in this planning effort.
VerDate 11
Public participation will be an with interested groups and individuals, provided in the ADDRESSES section of essential component of this planning internet postings, articles in local news this notice. effort. Several techniques for providing media, and individual mailings to all Dated: January 17, 2002. public involvement opportunities will parties who have expressed an interest Alan R. Pierson, be used during the planning process, in the process. For those persons State Director. including: Federal Register wishing to be placed on the Rawlins [FR Doc. 02–4495 Filed 2–22–02; 8:45 am] announcements, one-on-one discussion mailing list, notify the BLM contact BILLING CODE 4310–22–P
VerDate 11
Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 37 Monday, February 25, 2002
CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING FEBRUARY
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 8 CFR 3 CFR Presidential Documents 217...... 7943 Proclamations: Executive orders and proclamations 523–5227 7521...... 5431 Proposed Rules: The United States Government Manual 523–5227 7522...... 5433 3...... 7309 7523...... 5919 280...... 7309 Other Services Executive Orders: 9 CFR Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523–3447 12876...... 6823 50...... 7583 Privacy Act Compilation 523–3187 13227 (Amended by 55...... 5925 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523–6641 EO 13255)...... 6157 77...... 7583 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523–5229 13228 (See EO 93...... 6369 13257) ...... 7259 94...... 4877, 8181 13255...... 6157 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 145...... 8466 13254...... 4869 147...... 8466 World Wide Web 13256...... 6823 13257...... 7259 Proposed Rules: Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 94...... 4927 is located at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara Administrative Orders: Federal Register information and research tools, including Public Presidential Determinations: 10 CFR Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: No. 2002–06 of 72...... 5934 January 25, 2002 ...... 5921 http://www.nara.gov/fedreg Proposed Rules: Memorandums: 26...... 7093 E-mail Memorandum of 50...... 6663 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is February 1, 2002 ...... 5923 72...... 6203 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 4 CFR form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 11 CFR of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and Proposed Rules: 106...... 5445 PDF links to the full text of each document. 21...... 8485 Proposed Rules: 100...... 6883 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 5 CFR Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 114...... 6883 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 330...... 5195, 6639 117...... 6883 332...... 5195, 7055 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 351...... 5195, 5196 12 CFR service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 353...... 5195 203...... 7222 To subscribe, go to http://hydra.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 550...... 6640 220...... 8182 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 701...... 7057 7 CFR the instructions. Proposed Rules: 300...... 8461 203...... 7252 FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 301 .....5041, 6827, 7941, 8177, respond to specific inquiries. 8461 13 CFR Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 318...... 8461 Proposed Rules: Federal Register system to: [email protected] 319 ...... 4873, 8180, 8461 121...... 6437 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 353...... 8461 regulations. 457...... 5925 14 CFR 764...... 7941 13...... 6364 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, FEBRUARY 911...... 6837 23...... 5196 927...... 5435 25...... 5934 4869–5040...... 1 929...... 6843 39 ...... 4878, 4895, 4896, 5042, 5041–5194...... 4 932...... 5438 5043, 5148, 5721, 5937, 5195–5430...... 5 944...... 6837 6159, 6370, 6372, 6374, 5431–5720...... 6 948...... 5440 6376, 6379, 6381, 6385, 5721–5920...... 7 982...... 5442 6388, 6390, 6846, 6850, 5921–6158...... 8 1219...... 7261 6852, 6854, 6855, 6857, 6159–6368...... 11 1430...... 7056 6859, 6861, 6864, 7059, 6369–6638...... 12 1439...... 7265 7061, 7593, 7594, 7604, 6639–6822...... 13 1710...... 6369 7605, 7607, 7609, 7945, 6823–7054...... 14 1951...... 7942 7947, 7949, 8337, 8475 7055–7258...... 15 Proposed Rules: 71 ...... 4898, 5044, 5198, 6161, 7259–7582...... 19 29...... 4926 6641, 6642, 6643, 6644, 7583–7940...... 20 250...... 7977 7065, 7066, 7067, 7068, 7941–8176...... 21 928...... 5526 7069, 7070 8177–8460...... 22 1030...... 7040 73...... 6644 8461–8704...... 25 1219...... 7290 91 ...... 5888, 7538, 8340
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:17 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\25FECU.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FECU ii Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002 / Reader Aids
97...... 6163, 6166 510...... 5046 846...... 5203 81 ...... 6411, 7082, 7272, 7966 107...... 8340 514...... 5046 901...... 5204 82...... 6352 108...... 8340 520...... 5469, 6865 917...... 5207 105...... 6138 109...... 8340 522...... 5724, 6866 926...... 6395 180 .....4913, 5735, 5740, 6414, 121...... 8340 529...... 7072 Proposed Rules: 6418, 6422, 7085 129...... 8340 530...... 5470 250...... 6453 194...... 6661 135...... 8340 556...... 6866 260...... 6454 264...... 6792 139...... 8340 558...... 6867, 7268 265...... 6792 191...... 8340 606...... 4904 31 CFR 266...... 6792, 6968 330...... 4899 610...... 4904 357...... 7078 270...... 6792, 6968 Proposed Rules: 821...... 5943 591...... 5472 271...... 6792 1...... 5368 900...... 5446 300 .....5218, 5955, 7279, 7576, 21...... 5368 1308...... 7073 32 CFR 7614 25...... 8485, 8487 Proposed Rules: 199...... 5477, 6408 Proposed Rules: 39 ...... 5526, 5958, 6205, 6207, 862...... 7982 50...... 7112 6210, 6212, 6883, 6885, 868...... 6444 33 CFR 51...... 8396 6886, 6888, 6890, 7093, 872...... 7620 100...... 8193 52 ...... 5078, 5552, 6153, 6456, 880...... 5750 7097, 7318, 8212, 8214 117 .....4909, 5062, 5063, 5064, 7323, 7996, 7997, 8000, 888...... 5753 43...... 5368 6168, 6647, 7082, 7952, 8001, 8386, 8396, 8493 45...... 5368 22 CFR 8479 62...... 8496 61...... 5368 70 ...... 8000, 8001, 8386 40...... 8477 140...... 5912 65...... 5368 71...... 8386 41...... 8477 151...... 6171 71 ...... 5528, 5529, 5530, 7980, 81 ...... 6459, 7323, 8001 42...... 8477 165 .....4909, 4911, 5480, 5482, 7981 6648, 6650, 6652, 7270, 96...... 8396 Proposed Rules: 91...... 5368 7611, 8196, 8197 97...... 8396 89...... 6447 255...... 7100 334...... 6653 105...... 6145 382...... 6892 23 CFR 402...... 6869 180...... 5548, 5553 Proposed Rules: 300 .....5246, 7324, 7326, 7580, 15 CFR 625...... 6393 655...... 7073 117 ...... 5076, 7110, 7989, 7991 7657 909...... 7611 432...... 8582 Proposed Rules: 161...... 5538 630...... 5532 165 ...... 6666, 7321, 7992 16 CFR 167...... 5538 41 CFR 303...... 4901 24 CFR 334...... 6901 Ch. 301 ...... 7283 Proposed Rules: 5...... 6820 Ch. 302 ...... 7219 36 CFR 303...... 7104 982...... 6820 300–2...... 7219 1700...... 7319 7...... 8479 302–3...... 7219 25 CFR 13...... 8481 302–11...... 4923, 6790 17 CFR Proposed Rules: 242...... 5890 42 CFR 140...... 5938 112...... 7985 1254...... 8199 160...... 6790 116...... 7985 Proposed Rules: 82...... 6874 240...... 5199 121...... 7985 242...... 6334 Proposed Rules: 123...... 7985 1206...... 5542 36...... 6998 18 CFR 125...... 7985 36a...... 6998 157...... 6168 154...... 7985 37 CFR 136...... 6998 Proposed Rules: 156...... 7985 1...... 6075 136a...... 6998 Ch. 1 ...... 6665 178...... 7985 259...... 5213 137...... 6998 243...... 7985 Proposed Rules: 19 CFR 43 CFR 26 CFR 201...... 5761 141...... 7070 Proposed Rules: 1 ...... 4907, 5061, 5148, 5203, 206...... 8183 38 CFR 1860...... 8216 8579 3...... 6870, 6872 3809...... 4940 Proposed Rules: 40...... 5471 4...... 6872 24...... 4930 602...... 5061, 5203 17...... 6874 44 CFR 123...... 4930 Proposed Rules: 132...... 4930 21...... 6654 64...... 5221 1 ...... 5074, 5076, 5148, 7630, 65 ...... 5222, 5224, 5227, 5230 142...... 4930 7656 Proposed Rules: 20...... 4939 67...... 5232, 5234 20 CFR 31...... 5076 301...... 4938 Proposed Rules: 200...... 5723 39 CFR 67 ...... 5246, 5249, 5251, 5254 27 CFR 551...... 5215 45 CFR 21 CFR 178...... 5422 Proposed Rules: 10...... 4904 Proposed Rules: 111...... 5960 1611...... 8484 16...... 5446 9...... 5756 255...... 8489 2553...... 6875 201...... 4904 178...... 5428 Proposed Rules: 203...... 6645 40 CFR 1611...... 6214 205...... 6645 28 CFR 9...... 6138 1626...... 6667 211...... 5046 65...... 7269 52 ...... 5064, 5152, 5170, 5485, 226...... 5046 5725, 5727, 5729, 5952, 47 CFR 250...... 4904 29 CFR 5953, 6130, 6148, 6410, Ch. 1 ...... 5955 290...... 4904 4022...... 7076 6655, 6658, 7272, 7954, 1...... 6172, 7287 310...... 4904 4044...... 7076 7957, 7960, 7961, 7963, 2...... 5491, 6172 329...... 4904 Proposed Rules: 7966, 8200 25...... 7287 333...... 5942 2510...... 5245 55...... 5490 27...... 5491 341...... 4904 63 ...... 6792, 6968, 8202 32...... 5670 361...... 4904 30 CFR 70 ...... 5216, 7963, 7973 43...... 5670 369...... 4904 724...... 5203 71...... 5490 51...... 5670
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:17 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\25FECU.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FECU Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002 / Reader Aids iii
52...... 6431 3...... 6120 49 CFR 50 CFR 54 ...... 5670, 6435, 7287 4...... 6113 195...... 6436 17...... 5515 64...... 5670 5...... 7256 1104...... 5513 65...... 5670 9...... 6120 100...... 5890 1500...... 8340 69...... 5670 12...... 6120 600...... 6194, 7289 73 ...... 5069, 5070, 5241, 5691, 13...... 6114, 6120 1510...... 8340 635...... 6194, 8211 5956, 6875, 6876, 6877, 14...... 6113, 6120 1511...... 7926, 8579 648 ...... 5241, 6194, 6877 7288, 7289, 8204, 8205 15...... 6115, 6120 1520...... 8340 660...... 6194, 7289 90...... 6172 22...... 6116 1540...... 8205, 8340 679 .....5148, 5749, 6202, 6662, 95...... 6172, 8579 25...... 6116 1542...... 8340 6882 1544...... 8205, 8340 101...... 7287 31...... 6120 Proposed Rules: 32...... 6113 1546...... 8340 Proposed Rules: Ch. I ...... 4940 1...... 7113 36...... 6120 1548...... 8340 17 ...... 5780, 6214, 6459, 6578, 2...... 7113 42...... 6118, 6120 1550...... 8340 7122, 8499 27...... 7113 46...... 6120 Proposed Rules: 22...... 7122 32...... 5704 51...... 6120 107...... 4941, 6667 52 ...... 6116, 6118, 6120 100...... 6334 36...... 5704 171...... 4941, 6667 1501...... 5070 223...... 6215 51...... 6902 172...... 4941, 6667 54...... 7327 1502...... 5070 224...... 6215 173 ...... 4941, 6667, 8220 64...... 5704 1515...... 5070 175...... 6669 226...... 6215, 7660 73 ...... 4941, 5080, 5961, 6905, 1517...... 5070 177 ...... 4941, 6667, 8220 300...... 6220 7341, 8219 1536...... 5070 600 ...... 5558, 7341, 7342 1552...... 5070 178...... 4941, 6667 80...... 5080 622 ...... 5780, 7123, 7344, 8503 90...... 7113 1816...... 7617 180...... 4941, 6667 635...... 5780 95...... 7113 1832...... 7618 533...... 5767 1852...... 7617 567...... 5084 640...... 5780 48 CFR Proposed Rules: 571...... 5084 648...... 6479 Ch. 1...... 6112, 6121 1509...... 7657 574...... 5084 654...... 5780 2...... 6113 1552...... 7657 575...... 5084 660...... 5962
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:17 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\25FECU.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FECU iv Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002 / Reader Aids
REMINDERS HOUSING AND URBAN promulgation; various by 3-7-02; published 2- The items in this list were DEVELOPMENT States: 5-02 [FR 02-02508] editorially compiled as an aid DEPARTMENT Alaska; comments due by FEDERAL to Federal Register users. Federal Housing Enterprise 3-6-02; published 2-4-02 COMMUNICATIONS Inclusion or exclusion from Oversight Office [FR 02-02505] COMMISSION this list has no legal Practice and procedure: ENVIRONMENTAL Common carrier services: significance. Prompt supervisory PROTECTION AGENCY 27 MHz spectrum response and corrective Air quality implementation transferred from action; published 1-25-02 plans; approval and Government to non- RULES GOING INTO LEGAL SERVICES promulgation; various government use; EFFECT FEBRUARY 25, CORPORATION States: reallocation; comments due by 3-4-02; published 2002 Legal assistance eligibility; Alaska; comments due by 2-15-02 [FR 02-03799] maximum income guidelines; 3-6-02; published 2-4-02 GENERAL SERVICES COMMERCE DEPARTMENT published 2-25-02 [FR 02-02506] ADMINISTRATION National Oceanic and ENVIRONMENTAL Federal Acquisition Regulation Atmospheric Administration COMMENTS DUE NEXT PROTECTION AGENCY (FAR): Fishery conservation and WEEK Air quality implementation Hazardous material safety management: plans; approval and data; comments due by 3- Northeastern United States COMMERCE DEPARTMENT promulgation; various 5-02; published 1-4-02 fisheries— National Oceanic and States: [FR 02-00117] Summer flounder, scup, Atmospheric Administration Ohio; comments due by 3- INTERIOR DEPARTMENT and black sea bass; Fishery conservation and 4-02; published 1-31-02 Fish and Wildlife Service published 12-26-01 management: [FR 02-02379] Endangered and threatened Summer flounder, scup, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, ENVIRONMENTAL species: and black sea bass; and South Atlantic PROTECTION AGENCY Findings on petitions, etc.— correction; published 1- fisheries— Air quality implementation Miami blue butterfly; 23-02 Snapper-grouper; plans; approval and comments due by 3-4- comments due by 3-4- promulgation; various 02; published 1-3-02 ENVIRONMENTAL 02; published 1-31-02 States: [FR 02-00036] PROTECTION AGENCY [FR 02-02301] Ohio; comments due by 3- Migratory bird permits: Air programs; State authority Snapper-grouper; 4-02; published 1-31-02 Rehabilitation activities and delegations: comments due by 3-4- [FR 02-02380] permit exceptions; District of Columbia; 02; published 1-31-02 Texas; comments due by 3- comments due by 3-6-02; published 12-26-01 [FR 02-02405] 6-02; published 2-4-02 published 12-6-01 [FR 01- Air quality implementation Magnuson-Stevens Act [FR 02-02613] 30297] plans; √A√approval and INTERIOR DEPARTMENT provisions— ENVIRONMENTAL promulgation; various Surface Mining Reclamation Domestic fisheries; PROTECTION AGENCY States; air quality planning exempted fishing permit and Enforcement Office purposes; designation of Air quality implementation Permanent program and applications; comments plans; approval and areas: due by 3-6-02; abandoned mine land promulgation; various reclamation plan Louisiana; published 12-26- published 2-19-02 [FR States: 01 02-03980] submissions: Wyoming; comments due by Hazardous waste program Domestic fisheries; West Virginia; comments 3-8-02; published 2-6-02 due by 3-4-02; published authorizations: exempted fishing permit [FR 02-02706] applications; comments 1-31-02 [FR 02-02415] Kentucky; published 12-26- ENVIRONMENTAL 01 due by 3-6-02; NATIONAL AERONAUTICS PROTECTION AGENCY AND SPACE Tennessee; published 12- published 2-19-02 [FR Air quality implementation ADMINISTRATION 26-01 02-03981] Permits: plans; approval and Federal Acquisition Regulation FEDERAL Marine mammals; comments promulgation; various (FAR): COMMUNICATIONS due by 3-7-02; published States: Hazardous material safety COMMISSION 1-8-02 [FR 02-00439] Wyoming; comments due by data; comments due by 3- Common carrier services: 3-8-02; published 2-6-02 5-02; published 1-4-02 DEFENSE DEPARTMENT [FR 02-02707] [FR 02-00117] Telecommunications Act of Federal Acquisition Regulation TRANSPORTATION 1996; implementation— (FAR): ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEPARTMENT Pay telephone Hazardous material safety Coast Guard reclassification and data; comments due by 3- Superfund program: Ports and waterways safety: compensation 5-02; published 1-4-02 National oil and hazardous Long Beach, CA; safety provisions; clarification; [FR 02-00117] substances contingency published 1-25-02 plan— zone; comments due by ENVIRONMENTAL 3-6-02; published 2-19-02 HEALTH AND HUMAN National priorities list PROTECTION AGENCY [FR 02-03928] SERVICES DEPARTMENT update; comments due Acquisition regulations: Prince William Sound, AK; by 3-7-02; published 2- Food and Drug Procurement officials traffic separation scheme; 5-02 [FR 02-02507] Administration empowerment and port access route study; Medical devices: miscellaneous technical ENVIRONMENTAL comments due by 3-8-02; Gastroenterology-urology amendments; comments PROTECTION AGENCY published 2-6-02 [FR 02- devices— due by 3-6-02; published Superfund program: 02756] Ingestible telemetric 2-4-02 [FR 02-02509] National oil and hazardous TRANSPORTATION gastrointestinal capsule ENVIRONMENTAL substances contingency DEPARTMENT imaging system; PROTECTION AGENCY plan— Federal Aviation classification; published Air quality implementation National priorities list Administration 1-24-02 plans; approval and update; comments due Airworthiness directives:
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:17 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\25FECU.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FECU Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002 / Reader Aids v
Boeing; comments due by GROB-WERKE Model session of Congress which Paris Hill, Maine, as the 3-4-02; published 1-3-02 G120A airplane; have become Federal laws. It ‘‘Horatio King Post Office [FR 02-00148] comments due by 3-7- may be used in conjunction Building’’. (Feb. 14, 2002; 116 TRANSPORTATION 02; published 2-5-02 with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws Stat. 19) [FR 02-02719] Update Service) on 202–523– DEPARTMENT S. 1026/P.L. 107–146 6641. This list is also Federal Aviation Class C airspace; comments available online at http:// To designate the United Administration due by 3-8-02; published 1- 22-02 [FR 02-01373] www.nara.gov/fedreg/ States Post Office located at Airworthiness directives: plawcurr.html. 60 Third Avenue in Long Pratt & Whitney; comments TRANSPORTATION Branch, New Jersey, as the due by 3-4-02; published DEPARTMENT The text of laws is not ‘‘Pat King Post Office 1-2-02 [FR 01-31296] Federal Aviation published in the Federal Building’’. (Feb. 14, 2002; 116 Administration Register but may be ordered Stat. 20) TRANSPORTATION in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual DEPARTMENT Class E airspace; comments Last List Feburary 14, 2002 due by 3-6-02; published 2- pamphlet) form from the Federal Aviation 4-02 [FR 02-02538] Superintendent of Documents, Administration U.S. Government Printing Airworthiness directives: TRANSPORTATION Office, Washington, DC 20402 DEPARTMENT Public Laws Electronic Pratt & Whitney; comments (phone, 202–512–1808). The Federal Railroad text will also be made Notification Service due by 3-8-02; published (PENS) 1-7-02 [FR 02-00304] Administration available on the Internet from GPO Access at http:// TRANSPORTATION Locomotive engineers; qualification and certification: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ DEPARTMENT PENS is a free electronic mail Miscellaneous amendments; nara005.html. Some laws may Federal Aviation notification service of newly comments due by 3-4-02; not yet be available. Administration enacted public laws. To published 1-2-02 [FR 01- Airworthiness directives: H.J. Res. 82/P.L. 107–143 subscribe, go to http:// 32049] Recognizing the 91st birthday Turbomeca S.A.; comments hydra.gsa.gov/archives/ TREASURY DEPARTMENT of Ronald Reagan. (Feb. 14, due by 3-8-02; published publaws-l.html or send E-mail 2002; 116 Stat. 17) 1-7-02 [FR 02-00199] Internal Revenue Service to [email protected] S. 737/P.L. 107–144 with the following text TRANSPORTATION Income taxes: To designate the facility of the message: DEPARTMENT Credit for increasing United States Postal Service research activities; SUBSCRIBE PUBLAWS-L Federal Aviation located at 811 South Main Administration comments due by 3-6-02; Your Name. published 12-26-01 [FR Street in Yerington, Nevada, Airworthiness standards: 01-31007] as the ‘‘Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Note: This service is strictly Special conditions— Post Office’’. (Feb. 14, 2002; for E-mail notification of new Fairchild Dornier GmbH 116 Stat. 18) laws. The text of laws is not Model 728-100 airplane; LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS S. 970/P.L. 107–145 available through this service. comments due by 3-8- To designate the facility of the PENS cannot respond to 02; published 1-22-02 This is a continuing list of United States Postal Service specific inquiries sent to this [FR 02-01506] public bills from the current located at 39 Tremont Street, address.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:17 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\25FECU.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FECU vi Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002 / Reader Aids
CFR CHECKLIST Title Stock Number Price Revision Date 14 Parts: 1–59 ...... (869–044–00037–7) ...... 57.00 Jan. 1, 2001 This checklist, prepared by the Office of the Federal Register, is 60–139 ...... (869–044–00038–5) ...... 55.00 Jan. 1, 2001 published weekly. It is arranged in the order of CFR titles, stock 140–199 ...... (869–044–00039–3) ...... 26.00 Jan. 1, 2001 numbers, prices, and revision dates. 200–1199 ...... (869–044–00040–7) ...... 44.00 Jan. 1, 2001 An asterisk (*) precedes each entry that has been issued since last 1200–End ...... (869–044–00041–5) ...... 37.00 Jan. 1, 2001 week and which is now available for sale at the Government Printing 15 Parts: Office. 0–299 ...... (869–044–00042–3) ...... 36.00 Jan. 1, 2001 A checklist of current CFR volumes comprising a complete CFR set, 300–799 ...... (869–044–00043–1) ...... 54.00 Jan. 1, 2001 also appears in the latest issue of the LSA (List of CFR Sections 800–End ...... (869–044–00044–0) ...... 40.00 Jan. 1, 2001 Affected), which is revised monthly. 16 Parts: The CFR is available free on-line through the Government Printing 0–999 ...... (869–044–00045–8) ...... 45.00 Jan. 1, 2001 Office’s GPO Access Service at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/ 1000–End ...... (869–044–00046–6) ...... 53.00 Jan. 1, 2001 index.html. For information about GPO Access call the GPO User Support Team at 1-888-293-6498 (toll free) or 202-512-1530. 17 Parts: 1–199 ...... (869–044–00048–2) ...... 45.00 Apr. 1, 2001 The annual rate for subscription to all revised paper volumes is 200–239 ...... (869–044–00049–1) ...... 51.00 Apr. 1, 2001 $1195.00 domestic, $298.75 additional for foreign mailing. 240–End ...... (869–044–00050–4) ...... 55.00 Apr. 1, 2001 Mail orders to the Superintendent of Documents, Attn: New Orders, 18 Parts: P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. All orders must be 1–399 ...... (869–044–00051–2) ...... 56.00 Apr. 1, 2001 accompanied by remittance (check, money order, GPO Deposit 400–End ...... (869–044–00052–1) ...... 23.00 Apr. 1, 2001 Account, VISA, Master Card, or Discover). Charge orders may be telephoned to the GPO Order Desk, Monday through Friday, at (202) 19 Parts: 512–1800 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern time, or FAX your 1–140 ...... (869–044–00053–9) ...... 54.00 Apr. 1, 2001 charge orders to (202) 512-2250. 141–199 ...... (869–044–00054–7) ...... 53.00 Apr. 1, 2001 200–End ...... (869–044–00055–5) ...... 20.00 5Apr. 1, 2001 Title Stock Number Price Revision Date 20 Parts: 1, 2 (2 Reserved) ...... (869–044–00001–6) ...... 6.50 4Jan. 1, 2001 1–399 ...... (869–044–00056–3) ...... 45.00 Apr. 1, 2001 3 (1997 Compilation 400–499 ...... (869–044–00057–1) ...... 57.00 Apr. 1, 2001 and Parts 100 and 500–End ...... (869–044–00058–0) ...... 57.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1 101) ...... (869–044–00002–4) ...... 36.00 Jan. 1, 2001 21 Parts: 4 ...... (869–044–00003–2) ...... 9.00 Jan. 1, 2001 1–99 ...... (869–044–00059–8) ...... 37.00 Apr. 1, 2001 100–169 ...... (869–044–00060–1) ...... 44.00 Apr. 1, 2001 5 Parts: 170–199 ...... (869–044–00061–0) ...... 45.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1–699 ...... (869–044–00004–1) ...... 53.00 Jan. 1, 2001 200–299 ...... (869–044–00062–8) ...... 16.00 Apr. 1, 2001 700–1199 ...... (869–044–00005–9) ...... 44.00 Jan. 1, 2001 300–499 ...... (869–044–00063–6) ...... 27.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1200–End, 6 (6 500–599 ...... (869–044–00064–4) ...... 44.00 Apr. 1, 2001 Reserved) ...... (869–044–00006–7) ...... 55.00 Jan. 1, 2001 600–799 ...... (869–044–00065–2) ...... 15.00 Apr. 1, 2001 7 Parts: 800–1299 ...... (869–044–00066–1) ...... 52.00 Apr. 1, 2001 *1–26 ...... (869–048–00001–1) ...... 41.00 Jan. 1, 2002 1300–End ...... (869–044–00067–9) ...... 20.00 Apr. 1, 2001 27–52 ...... (869–044–00008–3) ...... 45.00 Jan. 1, 2001 22 Parts: 53–209 ...... (869–044–00009–1) ...... 34.00 Jan. 1, 2001 1–299 ...... (869–044–00068–7) ...... 56.00 Apr. 1, 2001 210–299 ...... (869–044–00010–5) ...... 56.00 Jan. 1, 2001 300–End ...... (869–044–00069–5) ...... 42.00 Apr. 1, 2001 *300–399 ...... (869–048–00011–9) ...... 42.00 Jan. 1, 2002 400–699 ...... (869–044–00012–1) ...... 53.00 Jan. 1, 2001 23 ...... (869–044–00070–9) ...... 40.00 Apr. 1, 2001 700–899 ...... (869–044–00013–0) ...... 50.00 Jan. 1, 2001 24 Parts: 900–999 ...... (869–044–00014–8) ...... 54.00 Jan. 1, 2001 0–199 ...... (869–044–00071–7) ...... 53.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1000–1199 ...... (869–044–00015–6) ...... 24.00 Jan. 1, 2001 200–499 ...... (869–044–00072–5) ...... 45.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1200–1599 ...... (869–044–00016–4) ...... 55.00 Jan. 1, 2001 500–699 ...... (869–044–00073–3) ...... 27.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1600–1899 ...... (869–044–00017–2) ...... 57.00 Jan. 1, 2001 700–1699 ...... (869–044–00074–1) ...... 55.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1900–1939 ...... (869–044–00018–1) ...... 21.00 4Jan. 1, 2001 1700–End ...... (869–044–00075–0) ...... 28.00 Apr. 1, 2001 4 1940–1949 ...... (869–044–00019–9) ...... 37.00 Jan. 1, 2001 25 ...... (869–044–00076–8) ...... 57.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1950–1999 ...... (869–044–00020–2) ...... 45.00 Jan. 1, 2001 2000–End ...... (869–044–00021–1) ...... 43.00 Jan. 1, 2001 26 Parts: §§ 1.0-1–1.60 ...... (869–044–00077–6) ...... 43.00 Apr. 1, 2001 8 ...... (869–044–00022–9) ...... 54.00 Jan. 1, 2001 §§ 1.61–1.169 ...... (869–044–00078–4) ...... 57.00 Apr. 1, 2001 9 Parts: §§ 1.170–1.300 ...... (869–044–00079–2) ...... 52.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1–199 ...... (869–044–00023–7) ...... 55.00 Jan. 1, 2001 §§ 1.301–1.400 ...... (869–044–00080–6) ...... 41.00 Apr. 1, 2001 200–End ...... (869–044–00024–5) ...... 53.00 Jan. 1, 2001 §§ 1.401–1.440 ...... (869–044–00081–4) ...... 58.00 Apr. 1, 2001 §§ 1.441-1.500 ...... (869-044-00082-2) ...... 45.00 Apr. 1, 2001 10 Parts: §§ 1.501–1.640 ...... (869–044–00083–1) ...... 44.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1–50 ...... (869–044–00025–3) ...... 55.00 Jan. 1, 2001 §§ 1.641–1.850 ...... (869–044–00084–9) ...... 53.00 Apr. 1, 2001 51–199 ...... (869–044–00026–1) ...... 52.00 Jan. 1, 2001 §§ 1.851–1.907 ...... (869–044–00085–7) ...... 54.00 Apr. 1, 2001 200–499 ...... (869–044–00027–0) ...... 53.00 Jan. 1, 2001 §§ 1.908–1.1000 ...... (869–044–00086–5) ...... 53.00 Apr. 1, 2001 500–End ...... (869–044–00028–8) ...... 55.00 Jan. 1, 2001 §§ 1.1001–1.1400 ...... (869–044–00087–3) ...... 55.00 Apr. 1, 2001 11 ...... (869–044–00029–6) ...... 31.00 Jan. 1, 2001 §§ 1.1401–End ...... (869–044–00088–1) ...... 58.00 Apr. 1, 2001 2–29 ...... (869–044–00089–0) ...... 54.00 Apr. 1, 2001 12 Parts: 30–39 ...... (869–044–00090–3) ...... 37.00 Apr. 1, 2001 1–199 ...... (869–044–00030–0) ...... 27.00 Jan. 1, 2001 40–49 ...... (869–044–00091–1) ...... 25.00 Apr. 1, 2001 200–219 ...... (869–044–00031–8) ...... 32.00 Jan. 1, 2001 50–299 ...... (869–044–00092–0) ...... 23.00 Apr. 1, 2001 220–299 ...... (869–044–00032–6) ...... 54.00 Jan. 1, 2001 300–499 ...... (869–044–00093–8) ...... 54.00 Apr. 1, 2001 300–499 ...... (869–044–00033–4) ...... 41.00 Jan. 1, 2001 500–599 ...... (869–044–00094–6) ...... 12.00 5Apr. 1, 2001 500–599 ...... (869–044–00034–2) ...... 38.00 Jan. 1, 2001 600–End ...... (869–044–00095–4) ...... 15.00 Apr. 1, 2001 600–End ...... (869–044–00035–1) ...... 57.00 Jan. 1, 2001 27 Parts: 13 ...... (869–044–00036–9) ...... 45.00 Jan. 1, 2001 1–199 ...... (869–044–00096–2) ...... 57.00 Apr. 1, 2001
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:18 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4721 Sfmt 4721 E:\FR\FM\25FECL.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FECL Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002 / Reader Aids vii
Title Stock Number Price Revision Date Title Stock Number Price Revision Date 200–End ...... (869–044–00097–1) ...... 26.00 Apr. 1, 2001 100–135 ...... (869–044–00151–9) ...... 38.00 July 1, 2001 ...... 28 Parts: ...... 136–149 (869–044–00152–7) 55.00 July 1, 2001 150–189 ...... 0-42 ...... (869–044–00098–9) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 (869–044–00153–5) 52.00 July 1, 2001 190–259 ...... (869–044–00154–3) ...... 34.00 July 1, 2001 43-end ...... (869-044-00099-7) ...... 50.00 July 1, 2001 260–265 ...... (869–044–00155–1) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 29 Parts: 266–299 ...... (869–044–00156–0) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 0–99 ...... (869–044–00100–4) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 300–399 ...... (869–044–00157–8) ...... 41.00 July 1, 2001 100–499 ...... (869–044–00101–2) ...... 14.00 6July 1, 2001 400–424 ...... (869–044–00158–6) ...... 51.00 July 1, 2001 500–899 ...... (869–044–00102–1) ...... 47.00 6July 1, 2001 425–699 ...... (869–044–00159–4) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 900–1899 ...... (869–044–00103–9) ...... 33.00 July 1, 2001 700–789 ...... (869–044–00160–8) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 1900–1910 (§§ 1900 to 790–End ...... (869–044–00161–6) ...... 44.00 July 1, 2001 1910.999) ...... (869–044–00104–7) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 41 Chapters: 1910 (§§ 1910.1000 to 1, 1–1 to 1–10 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 end) ...... (869–044–00105–5) ...... 42.00 July 1, 2001 3 6 1, 1–11 to Appendix, 2 (2 Reserved) ...... 13.00 July 1, 1984 1911–1925 ...... (869–044–00106–3) ...... 20.00 July 1, 2001 3–6 ...... 14.00 3 July 1, 1984 1926 ...... (869–044–00107–1) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 7 ...... 6.00 3 July 1, 1984 1927–End ...... (869–044–00108–0) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 8 ...... 4.50 3 July 1, 1984 30 Parts: 9 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 1–199 ...... (869–044–00109–8) ...... 52.00 July 1, 2001 10–17 ...... 9.50 3 July 1, 1984 200–699 ...... (869–044–00110–1) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 18, Vol. I, Parts 1–5 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 700–End ...... (869–044–00111–7) ...... 53.00 July 1, 2001 18, Vol. II, Parts 6–19 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 18, Vol. III, Parts 20–52 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 31 Parts: 19–100 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 0–199 ...... (869–044–00112–8) ...... 32.00 July 1, 2001 1–100 ...... (869–044–00162–4) ...... 22.00 July 1, 2001 200–End ...... (869–044–00113–6) ...... 56.00 July 1, 2001 101 ...... (869–044–00163–2) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 32 Parts: 102–200 ...... (869–044–00164–1) ...... 33.00 July 1, 2001 1–39, Vol. I ...... 15.00 2 July 1, 1984 201–End ...... (869–044–00165–9) ...... 24.00 July 1, 2001 1–39, Vol. II ...... 19.00 2 July 1, 1984 1–39, Vol. III ...... 18.00 2 July 1, 1984 42 Parts: 1–190 ...... (869–044–00114–4) ...... 51.00 6July 1, 2001 1–399 ...... (869–044–00166–7) ...... 51.00 Oct. 1, 2001 ...... 191–399 ...... (869–044–00115–2) ...... 57.00 July 1, 2001 400–429 (869–044–00167–5) 59.00 Oct. 1, 2001 430–End ...... (869–044–00168–3) ...... 58.00 Oct. 1, 2001 400–629 ...... (869–044–00116–8) ...... 35.00 6July 1, 2001 630–699 ...... (869–044–00117–9) ...... 34.00 July 1, 2001 43 Parts: 700–799 ...... (869–044–00118–7) ...... 42.00 July 1, 2001 1–999 ...... (869–044–00169–1) ...... 45.00 Oct. 1, 2001 800–End ...... (869–044–00119–5) ...... 44.00 July 1, 2001 1000–end ...... (869–044–00170–5) ...... 56.00 Oct. 1, 2001 33 Parts: 44 ...... (869–044–00171–3) ...... 45.00 Oct. 1, 2001 1–124 ...... (869–044–00120–9) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 45 Parts: 125–199 ...... (869–044–00121–7) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 1–199 ...... (869–044–00172–1) ...... 53.00 Oct. 1, 2001 200–End ...... (869–044–00122–5) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 200–499 ...... (869–044–00173–0) ...... 31.00 Oct. 1, 2001 34 Parts: 500–1199 ...... (869–044–00174–8) ...... 45.00 Oct. 1, 2001 1–299 ...... (869–044–00123–3) ...... 43.00 July 1, 2001 1200–End ...... (869–044–00175–6) ...... 55.00 Oct. 1, 2001 300–399 ...... (869–044–00124–1) ...... 40.00 July 1, 2001 46 Parts: 400–End ...... (869–044–00125–0) ...... 56.00 July 1, 2001 1–40 ...... (869–044–00176–4) ...... 43.00 Oct. 1, 2001 35 ...... (869–044–00126–8) ...... 10.00 6July 1, 2001 41–69 ...... (869–044–00177–2) ...... 35.00 Oct. 1, 2001 70–89 ...... (869–044–00178–1) ...... 13.00 Oct. 1, 2001 36 Parts 90–139 ...... (869–044–00179–9) ...... 41.00 Oct. 1, 2001 ...... 1–199 (869–044–00127–6) 34.00 July 1, 2001 140–155 ...... (869–044–00180–2) ...... 24.00 Oct. 1, 2001 ...... 200–299 (869–044–00128–4) 33.00 July 1, 2001 156–165 ...... (869–044–00181–1) ...... 31.00 Oct. 1, 2001 ...... 300–End (869–044–00129–2) 55.00 July 1, 2001 166–199 ...... (869–044–00182–9) ...... 42.00 Oct. 1, 2001 37 (869–044–00130–6) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 200–499 ...... (869–044–00183–7) ...... 36.00 Oct. 1, 2001 ...... 38 Parts: 500–End (869–044–00184–5) 23.00 Oct. 1, 2001 0–17 ...... (869–044–00131–4) ...... 53.00 July 1, 2001 47 Parts: 18–End ...... (869–044–00132–2) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 0–19 ...... (869–044–00185–3) ...... 55.00 Oct. 1, 2001 20–39 ...... (869–044–00186–1) ...... 43.00 Oct. 1, 2001 39 ...... (869–044–00133–1) ...... 37.00 July 1, 2001 40–69 ...... (869–044–00187–0) ...... 36.00 Oct. 1, 2001 40 Parts: 70–79 ...... (869–044–00188–8) ...... 58.00 Oct. 1, 2001 1–49 ...... (869–044–00134–9) ...... 54.00 July 1, 2001 80–End ...... (869–044–00189–6) ...... 55.00 Oct. 1, 2001 50–51 ...... (869–044–00135–7) ...... 38.00 July 1, 2001 48 Chapters: 52 (52.01–52.1018) ...... (869–044–00136–5) ...... 50.00 July 1, 2001 1 (Parts 1–51) ...... (869–044–00190–0) ...... 60.00 Oct. 1, 2001 52 (52.1019–End) ...... (869–044–00137–3) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 1 (Parts 52–99) ...... (869–044–00191–8) ...... 45.00 Oct. 1, 2001 53–59 ...... (869–044–00138–1) ...... 28.00 July 1, 2001 2 (Parts 201–299) ...... (869–044–00192–6) ...... 53.00 Oct. 1, 2001 60 (60.1–End) ...... (869–044–00139–0) ...... 53.00 July 1, 2001 3–6 ...... (869–044–00193–4) ...... 31.00 Oct. 1, 2001 60 (Apps) ...... (869–044–00140–3) ...... 51.00 July 1, 2001 7–14 ...... (869–044–00194–2) ...... 51.00 Oct. 1, 2001 61–62 ...... (869–044–00141–1) ...... 35.00 July 1, 2001 15–28 ...... (869–044–00195–1) ...... 53.00 Oct. 1, 2001 63 (63.1–63.599) ...... (869–044–00142–0) ...... 53.00 July 1, 2001 29–End ...... (869–044–00196–9) ...... 38.00 Oct. 1, 2001 63 (63.600–63.1199) ...... (869–044–00143–8) ...... 44.00 July 1, 2001 63 (63.1200-End) ...... (869–044–00144–6) ...... 56.00 July 1, 2001 49 Parts: 64–71 ...... (869–044–00145–4) ...... 26.00 July 1, 2001 1–99 ...... (869–044–00197–7) ...... 55.00 Oct. 1, 2001 72–80 ...... (869–044–00146–2) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2001 100–185 ...... (869–044–00198–5) ...... 60.00 Oct. 1, 2001 81–85 ...... (869–044–00147–1) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 186–199 ...... (869–044–00199–3) ...... 18.00 Oct. 1, 2001 86 (86.1–86.599–99) ...... (869–044–00148–9) ...... 52.00 July 1, 2001 200–399 ...... (869–044–00200–1) ...... 60.00 Oct. 1, 2001 86 (86.600–1–End) ...... (869–044–00149–7) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2001 400–999 ...... (869–044–00201–9) ...... 58.00 Oct. 1, 2001 87–99 ...... (869–044–00150–1) ...... 54.00 July 1, 2001 1000–1199 ...... (869–044–00202–7) ...... 26.00 Oct. 1, 2001
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:18 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4721 Sfmt 4721 E:\FR\FM\25FECL.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FECL viii Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2002 / Reader Aids
Title Stock Number Price Revision Date 1200–End ...... (869–044–00203–5) ...... 21.00 Oct. 1, 2001 50 Parts: 1–199 ...... (869–044–00204–3) ...... 63.00 Oct. 1, 2001 200–599 ...... (869–044–00205–1) ...... 36.00 Oct. 1, 2001 600–End ...... (869–044–00206–0) ...... 55.00 Oct. 1, 2001 CFR Index and Findings Aids ...... (869–044–00047–4) ...... 56.00 Jan. 1, 2001 Complete 2000 CFR set ...... 1,094.00 2000 Microfiche CFR Edition: Subscription (mailed as issued) ...... 298.00 2000 Individual copies ...... 2.00 2000 Complete set (one-time mailing) ...... 247.00 1997 Complete set (one-time mailing) ...... 264.00 1996 1 Because Title 3 is an annual compilation, this volume and all previous volumes should be retained as a permanent reference source. 2 The July 1, 1985 edition of 32 CFR Parts 1–189 contains a note only for Parts 1–39 inclusive. For the full text of the Defense Acquisition Regulations in Parts 1–39, consult the three CFR volumes issued as of July 1, 1984, containing those parts. 3 The July 1, 1985 edition of 41 CFR Chapters 1–100 contains a note only for Chapters 1 to 49 inclusive. For the full text of procurement regulations in Chapters 1 to 49, consult the eleven CFR volumes issued as of July 1, 1984 containing those chapters. 4 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period January 1, 2000, through January 1, 2001. The CFR volume issued as of January 1, 2000 should be retained. 5 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period April 1, 2000, through April 1, 2001. The CFR volume issued as of April 1, 2000 should be retained. 6 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period July 1, 2000, through July 1, 2001. The CFR volume issued as of July 1, 2000 should be retained..
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:18 Feb 22, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4721 Sfmt 4721 E:\FR\FM\25FECL.LOC pfrm04 PsN: 25FECL