8–31–00 Thursday Pages 52905–53156 - U.S. Government … · 2018-03-17 · Inland tank barge certificates of inspection; administrative ... Effluent guidelines plan (biennial),

1

8–31–00

Vol. 65 No. 170

Thursday

Aug. 31, 2000

Pages 52905–53156

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\31AUWS.LOC pfrm01 PsN: 31AUWS

.

II

2

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000

The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday throughFriday, except official holidays, by the Office of the FederalRegister, National Archives and Records Administration,Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C.Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee ofthe Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition.The Federal Register provides a uniform system for makingavailable to the public regulations and legal notices issued byFederal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations andExecutive Orders, Federal agency documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, documents required to be publishedby act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of publicinterest.Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of theFederal Register the day before they are published, unless theissuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documentscurrently on file for public inspection, see http://www.nara.gov/fedreg.The seal of the National Archives and Records Administrationauthenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publicationestablished under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507,the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed.The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche.It is also available online at no charge as one of the databaseson GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office.The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under theauthority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Registeras 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. eachday the Federal Register is published and it includes both textand graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward.GPO Access users can choose to retrieve online Federal Registerdocuments as TEXT (ASCII text, graphics omitted), PDF (AdobePortable Document Format, including full text and all graphics),or SUMMARY (abbreviated text) files. Users should carefully checkretrieved material to ensure that documents were properlydownloaded.On the World Wide Web, connect to the Federal Register at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Those without World Wide Web accesscan also connect with a local WAIS client, by Telnet toswais.access.gpo.gov, or by dialing (202) 512-1661 with a computerand modem. When using Telnet or modem, type swais, then login as guest with no password.For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO AccessUser Support Team by E-mail at [email protected]; by fax at(202) 512–1262; or call (202) 512–1530 or 1–888–293–6498 (tollfree) between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday,except Federal holidays.The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paperedition is $638, or $697 for a combined Federal Register, FederalRegister Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA)subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Registerincluding the Federal Register Index and LSA is $253. Six monthsubscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The chargefor individual copies in paper form is $9.00 for each issue, or$9.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $2.00 foreach issue in microfiche form. All prices include regular domesticpostage and handling. International customers please add 25% forforeign handling. Remit check or money order, made payable tothe Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO DepositAccount, VISA, MasterCard or Discover. Mail to: New Orders,Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA15250–7954.There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearingin the Federal Register.How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and thepage number. Example: 65 FR 12345.

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES

PUBLICSubscriptions:

Paper or fiche 202–512–1800Assistance with public subscriptions 512–1806

General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498Single copies/back copies:

Paper or fiche 512–1800Assistance with public single copies 512–1803

FEDERAL AGENCIESSubscriptions:

Paper or fiche 523–5243Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523–5243

FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP

THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS ANDHOW TO USE IT

FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of FederalRegulations.

WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register.WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present:

1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal Registersystem and the public’s role in the development ofregulations.

2. The relationship between the Federal Register and Codeof Federal Regulations.

3. The important elements of typical Federal Registerdocuments.

4. An introduction to the finding aids of the FR/CFR system.WHY: To provide the public with access to information necessary to

research Federal agency regulations which directly affect them.There will be no discussion of specific agency regulations.

WASHINGTON, DCWHEN: September 13, 2000, at 9:00 a.m.WHERE: Office of the Federal Register

Conference Room800 North Capitol Street, NW.Washington, DC(3 blocks north of Union Station Metro)

RESERVATIONS: 202–523–4538

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\31AUWS.LOC pfrm01 PsN: 31AUWS

Contents Federal Register

III

Vol. 65, No. 170

Thursday, August 31, 2000

Agriculture DepartmentSee Farm Service AgencySee Rural Business-Cooperative ServiceSee Rural Housing ServiceSee Rural Utilities Service

Army DepartmentSee Engineers CorpsNOTICESMeetings:

Historical Advisory Committee, 52991Scientific Advisory Board, 52991

Senior Executive Service:Performance Review Boards; membership, 52991–52994

Bonneville Power AdministrationNOTICESFloodplain and wetlands protection; environmental review

determinations; availability, etc.:Kangley-Echo Lake Transmission Line Project, WA;

scoping meeting, 53000–53001

Broadcasting Board of GovernorsNOTICESMeetings: Sunshine Act, 52982

Census Monitoring BoardNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 52983

Children and Families AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 53016–53017

Coast GuardNOTICESInland tank barge certificates of inspection; administrative

changes; cooperative pilot program, 53071Meetings:

Monkey Island Bridge Project, Cameron, LA; hearing,53071–53072

Commerce DepartmentSee Economics and Statistics AdministrationSee Export Administration BureauSee Foreign-Trade Zones BoardSee International Trade AdministrationSee National Institute of Standards and TechnologySee National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSee National Telecommunications and Information

AdministrationSee Patent and Trademark Office

Defense DepartmentSee Army DepartmentSee Engineers CorpsRULESAcquisition regulations:

Pollution control and clean air and water, 52954–52955Technical amendments, 52951–52954

NOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Economics and Statistics AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

Decennial Census Advisory Committee, 52983

Education DepartmentNOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Special education and rehabilitative services—Rehabilitation Continuing Education Programs, 52999–

53000Rehabilitation Long-Term Training and Rehabilitation

Continuing Education Programs, 52996–52998Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program, 52998–

52999Meetings:

President’s Board of Advisors on Historically BlackColleges and Universities, 53000

Employment and Training AdministrationNOTICESAdjustment assistance:

CompAir LeRoi, 53032Enefco International Ltd., 53032Voyager Emblem Inc., 53032–53033

Adjustment assistance and NAFTA transitional adjustmentassistance:

International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), 53031–53032

Nova Bus, Inc., 53032NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance:

Gynecare, 53033Reliable Exploration, Inc., 53033

Energy DepartmentSee Bonneville Power AdministrationSee Energy Information AdministrationSee Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Energy Information AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 53001–53002

Engineers CorpsNOTICESEnvironmental statements; notice of intent:

Arkabutla Lake et al., MS; operation and maintenanceactivities, 52995

Mississippi River, MN; Lock and Dam 3 navigation safetyand embankments projects, 52994–52995

Texas City Channel, Galveston County, TX; containerizedcargo terminal construction on Shoal Point, 52995–52996

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:50 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\31AUCN.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 31AUCN

IV Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Contents

Environmental Protection AgencyRULESAir pollution conrol:

Interstate ozone transport reduction—Nitrogen oxides budget trading program; Section 126

petitions; responses to comments on proposedrulemaking, 52931–52932

Air programs:Stratospheric ozone protection—

Unexpended Article 5 allowances; definition; CFRcorrection, 52938

Air quality implementation plans; approval andpromulgation; various States; air quality planningpurposes; designation of areas:

Oregon, 52932–52938Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw

agricultural commodities:Buprofezin, 52938–52947

Superfund program:National oil and hazardous substances contingency

plan—National priorities list update, 52947–52950

PROPOSED RULESAir quality implementation plans; approval and

promulgation; various States; air quality planningpurposes; designation of areas:

Oregon, 52978Air quality implementation plans; approval and

promulgation; various States:Illinois, 52967–52978

Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and rawagricultural commodities:

Inert ingredients; processing fees, 52979–52980Superfund program:

National oil and hazardous substances contingencyplan—

National priorities list update, 52980–52981Water pollution control:

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Cooling water intake structures for new facilities,

52978–52979NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 53005–53007Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Environmental Education Program, 53145–53156Meetings:

Good Neighbor Environmental Board, 53007–53008Project XL (excellence and leadership) innovative

technologies projects:Puget Sound Naval Shipyard project, WA, 53008

Water pollution; discharge of pollutants (NPDES):Alaska—

Mechanical placer mining and medium-size suctiondredging; general permits, 53013–53014

Water pollution control:Effluent guidelines plan (biennial), 53008–53013

Export Administration BureauNOTICESExport privileges, actions affecting:

Dien’s Auto Salvage, Inc., 52983–52984

Farm Service AgencyNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 52982

Federal Aviation AdministrationRULESAirworthiness directives:

Boeing, 52905–52907PROPOSED RULESAirworthiness directives:

Cessna; withdrawn, 52958Siam Hiller Holdings, Inc., 52958–52960

Class E airspace, 52960–52961Restricted areas, 52961–52962NOTICESEnvironmental statements; notice of intent:

O’Hare International Airport, IL; O’Hare World GatewayProgram, 53072–53073

Exemption petitions; summary and disposition, 53073–53077

Meetings:RTCA, Inc., 53077–53078

Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.:Orlando-Sanford International Airport, FL, 53078–53079

Federal Communications CommissionRULESRadio stations; table of assignments:

Various States, 52950–52951NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 53014–53015Common carrier services:

Wireless telecommunications services—Human exposure to radiofrequency emissions;

regulatory compliance; deadline reminder, 53015–53016

Rulemaking proceedings; petitions filed, granted, denied,etc., 53016

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESEnvironmental statements; notice of intent:

Florida Gas Transmission Co., 53002–53005Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Crossroads Pipeline Co., 53002Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., 53002Great Lakes Gas Transmission L.P., 53002

Federal Highway AdministrationPROPOSED RULESEngineering and traffic operations:

Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century;implementation—

Federal-aid project authorization and agreements,52962–52967

Federal Railroad AdministrationNOTICESExemption petitions, etc.:

Indiana Transportation Museum, 53079Union Pacific Railroad Co., 53079–53080

Traffic control systems; discontinuance or modification:CSX Transportation, Inc., 53080–53082CSX Transportation, Inc., et al., 53081

Federal Reserve SystemNOTICESBanks and bank holding companies:

Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 53016


VFederal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Contents

Fish and Wildlife ServiceNOTICESEndangered and threatened species permit applications,

53027

Food and Drug AdministrationRULESFood additives:

Adjuvants, production aids, and sanitizers—Trimethylolethane, 52908–52909

Polymers—Di-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate, 52907–52908

NOTICESMeetings:

Blood Products Advisory Committee, 53017–53018Human dose-response relationships prediction from

multiple biological models: issues withcryptosporidium parvum; workshop, 53018–53019

Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:In vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for

immediate release solid oral dosage forms based onbiopharmaceutics classification system; waiver,53019

Foreign-Trade Zones BoardNOTICESApplications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

New Jersey, 52984–52985

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Children and Families AdministrationSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee Health Care Financing AdministrationSee Health Resources and Services AdministrationSee National Institutes of Health

Health Care Financing AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Health Resources and Services AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, President’sAdvisory Commission; White House Initiative, 53020

Training in Primary Care Medicine and DentistryAdvisory Committee, 53020–53021

Housing and Urban Development DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 53022–53023Grant and cooperative agreement awards:

Rural Housing and Economic Development Program,53023–53027

Indian Affairs BureauNOTICESEnvironmental statements; notice of intent:

Moapa Indian Reservation, NV; Moapa Paiute PowerGenerating Station and associated facilities, 53027–53028

Interior DepartmentSee Fish and Wildlife ServiceSee Indian Affairs BureauSee Land Management Bureau

See National Park Service

Internal Revenue ServiceRULESIncome taxes:

Corporate reorganizations; continuity of interestrequirement, 52909–52912

NOTICESPrivacy Act:

Systems of records, 53089–53090

International Trade AdministrationNOTICESAntidumping:

Polychloroprene rubber from—Japan, 52985

Sparklers from—China, 52985–52986

Justice DepartmentSee Parole Commission

Labor DepartmentSee Employment and Training AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 53030–53031

Land Management BureauNOTICESEnvironmental statements; notice of intent:

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT;livestock grazing management, 53028–53029

Motor vehicle use restrictions:Wyoming, 53029–53030

Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.:Alaska, 53030

National Council on DisabilityNOTICESMeetings:

Technology Watch Advisory Committee, 53033

National Institute of Standards and TechnologyNOTICESMeetings:

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award—Panel of Judges, 52986

National Institutes of HealthNOTICESMeetings:

National Center for Research Resources, 53021National Institute of Nursing Research, 53021National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,

53022National Institute on Drug Abuse, 53021–53022

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRULESFishery conservation and management:

Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone—Rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish, 52957

Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries—Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic coastal migratory

pelagic resources, 52955–52957


VI Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Contents

NOTICESMeetings:

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 52986–52987

New England Fishery Management Council, 52987Permits:

Endangered and threatened species permit applications,52988

National Park ServiceNOTICESConcession contract negotiations:

Acadia National Park, ME, 53030

National Skill Standards BoardNOTICESMeetings, 53033–53034

National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration

NOTICESMeetings:

Global positioning system/ultrawideband operationalscenarios development, 52989

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 53034Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Nuclear power plant operating licenses; renewalapplications standard content and format and review,etc.; regulatory guide, standard review plan, etc.,53047–53050

Regulatory process; industry initiatives inclusion, 53050–53058

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:AmerGen Energy Co., LLC, 53034–53037AmerGen Vermont, LLC, 53037–53038Commonwealth Edison Co., 53038–53044Commonwealth Edison Co. et al., 53040–53041PECO Energy Co., 53044–53046PECO Energy Co. et al., 53046–53047

Parole CommissionRULESFederal prisoners; paroling and releasing, etc.:

District of Columbia Code—Prisoners serving sentences; correction, 53095

Patent and Trademark OfficeRULESFreedom of Information Act and Privacy Act;

implementation, 52916–52931

Personnel Management OfficeNOTICESPersonnel management demonstration projects:

Army Department—Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and

Engineering Center, Redstone Arsenal, AL, 53141–53143

Public Health ServiceSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee Health Resources and Services AdministrationSee National Institutes of Health

Rural Business-Cooperative ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Rural Housing ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Rural Utilities ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Saint Lawrence Seaway Development CorporationRULESSeaway regulations and rules:

Miscellaneous amendments, 52912–52915

Securities and Exchange CommissionNOTICESInvestment Company Act of 1940:

Deregistration applications—Dreyfus Retirement Income Fund et al., 53063–53065

Exemption applications—Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al., 53058–

53063Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 53065–53069

Small Business AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 53069Disaster loan areas:

Minnesota, 53069Ohio, 53069–53070Washington, 53070Wisconsin, 53070

State DepartmentNOTICESArt objects; importation for exhibition:

Morocco: Jews and Art in a Muslim Land, 53070

State Justice InstituteNOTICESGrants, cooperative agreements, and contracts; guidelines,

53097–53139

Surface Transportation BoardNOTICESRailroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.:

Canton Railroad Co., 53082–53083Minnesota Northern Railroad, Inc., et al., 53083Pennsylvania Transportation Department, 53083

Transportation DepartmentSee Coast GuardSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Federal Highway AdministrationSee Federal Railroad AdministrationSee Saint Lawrence Seaway Development CorporationSee Surface Transportation Board

Treasury DepartmentSee Internal Revenue Service


VIIFederal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Contents

NOTICESPrivacy Act:

Systems of records, 53083–53089

Veterans Affairs DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Separate Parts In This Issue

Part IIState Justice Institute, 53097–53139

Part IIIOffice of Personnel Management, 53141–53143

Part IVEnvironmental Protection Agency, 53145–53156

Reader AidsConsult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue forphone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders,and notice of recently enacted public laws.


CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in theReader Aids section at the end of this issue.

VIII Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Contents

14 CFR39.....................................52905Proposed Rules:39 (2 documents) ............5295871.....................................5296073.....................................52961

21 CFR177...................................52907178...................................52908

23 CFRProposed Rules:630...................................52962

26 CFR1.......................................52909602...................................52909

28 CFR2.......................................53095

33 CFR401...................................52912

37 CFR102...................................52916

40 CFR52 (2 documents) ............5293181.....................................5293182.....................................52938180...................................52938300 (2 documents) .........52947,

52948Proposed Rules:52 (2 documents) ...........52967,

5297881.....................................52978125...................................52978180...................................52979300...................................52980

47 CFR73.....................................52950

48 CFR201...................................52950202...................................52950208...................................52950209...................................52954211...................................52950215...................................52950219...................................52950222...................................52950223...................................52954225...................................52950226...................................52950242...................................52950252...................................52950253...................................52950

50 CFR622...................................52955679...................................52956

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:50 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\31AULS.LOC pfrm01 PsN: 31AULS

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains regulatory documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, most of whichare keyed to and codified in the Code ofFederal Regulations, which is published under50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold bythe Superintendent of Documents. Prices ofnew books are listed in the first FEDERALREGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

52905

Vol. 65, No. 170


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–24–AD; Amendment39–11880; AD 2000–17–06]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BoeingModel 747 and 767 Series AirplanesEquipped With General Electric CF6–80C2 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain Boeing Model 747and 767 series airplanes, that requiresrepetitive functional tests of thedirectional pilot valve (DPV) of thethrust reversers to detect pneumaticleakage, and corrective action, ifnecessary. This amendment is promptedby a report of a latent failure mode ofthe fail-safe features of the thrustreverser system identified as possibleleakage of the DPV that is due to apoppet being jammed slightly open or aleaking o-ring. The actions specified bythis AD are intended to ensure theintegrity of the fail-safe features of thethrust reverser system by preventingpossible failure modes, which couldresult in inadvertent deployment of athrust reverser during flight, andconsequent reduced controllability ofthe airplane.DATES: Effective October 5, 2000.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of October 5,2000.ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,Washington 98124–2207. Thisinformation may be examined at theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA),Transport Airplane Directorate, RulesDocket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; or at the Office ofthe Federal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dennis Kammers, Aerospace Engineer,Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington 98055–4056; telephone(425) 227–2793; fax (425) 227–1181.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aproposal to amend part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) toinclude an airworthiness directive (AD)that is applicable to certain BoeingModel 747 and 767 series airplanesseries airplanes was published in theFederal Register on March 16, 2000 (65FR 14216). That action proposed torequire repetitive functional tests of thedirectional pilot valve (DPV) of thethrust reversers to detect pneumaticleakage, and corrective action, ifnecessary.

Comments

Interested persons have been affordedan opportunity to participate in themaking of this amendment. Dueconsideration has been given to thecomments received.

Supportive Comment

One commenter concurs with theproposed rule and states that it hasaccomplished the initial inspection(functional test) specified in theproposal, and has incorporated the5,000 hour repetitive inspection (test)requirements into its existingmaintenance program for the affectedairplanes.

Request Credit for PreviousAccomplishment of Functional Test

One commenter requests that the FAArevise the proposal to provide credit foraccomplishment of the directional pilotvalve (DPV) functional test duringproduction. The FAA concurs. Therequired DPV functional test can beaccomplished in accordance with eitherthe service bulletin or a productionequivalent. A note has been added tothe final rule to clarify that credit isgiven for previous accomplishment of

the DPV functional test duringproduction.

Request To Extend Repetitive TestInterval

One commenter requests that the FAAextend the interval for the proposedrepetitive functional tests, as specifiedin paragraph (b) of the proposal, from5,000 flight hours to 6,000 flight hours.The commenter states that the 6,000-flight-hour interval coincides with thecheck recommended in the Boeing 767Maintenance Planning Document, andwould allow operators to accomplishthe functional test during scheduled‘‘C’’ checks. The commenter adds thatthis extension would decrease thenecessity to schedule additionalmaintenance time for its airplanes inorder to meet the 5,000 flight-hourrequirement.

The FAA concurs with thecommenter’s request. The intent of theAD is that the functional tests beconducted during a regularly scheduledmaintenance visit, for the majority ofthe affected fleet, while still ensuringthe thrust reverser system integrity. Thiswould occur when the airplanes wouldbe located at a base where specialequipment and trained personnel wouldbe readily available, if necessary. Basedon the information supplied by thecommenter, the FAA now recognizesthat an interval of 6,000 flight hourscorresponds more closely to most of theaffected operators’ normal maintenanceschedules. Paragraph (b) of the final rulehas been revised to requireaccomplishment of the repetitive tests atintervals not to exceed 6,000 flighthours.

Request To Revise Cost ImpactInformation

One commenter notes that theproposed rule incorrectly states, ‘‘Noneof the Model 747 series airplanesaffected by this action are on the U.S.Register.’’ The commenter states thatthis is inaccurate because all of itsModel 747 series airplanes are affectedby the proposed rule.

In light of the information supplied bythe commenter, the FAA agrees thatthere are eight Model 747 seriesairplanes on the U.S. Register that areaffected by this final rule. Therefore, thecost impact information, below, hasbeen revised accordingly.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 15:56 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 31AUR1

52906 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Terminating ModificationOne commenter states that the

proposed rule appears to be open-endedin that there is no modification availableto correct the potential latent failure ofthe DPV and terminate the DPVinspections/tests. The commenterrequests information on any plannedcorrective modification to the DPV inthe future.

The FAA agrees with the commenter’sobservation that there is no proposedmodification to the potential latentfailure of the DPV or to terminate therepetitive DPV inspections/tests. Sincethe issuance of the proposed rule, themanufacturer has advised the FAA thatit is developing a modified DPV thatwill positively address the unsafecondition addressed by this AD. Oncethis modification is developed,approved, and available, the FAA mayconsider additional rulemaking. Thatrulemaking may provide terminatingaction for the requirements of this finalrule if a DPV that is not subject to theunsafe condition is approved forinstallation on an airplane equippedwith GE CF6–80C2 series engines.

Request To Revise Paragraph (c)One commenter states that paragraph

(c) of the proposal should be revised toallow use of the 747–400 DispatchDeviations Procedures Guide-specifically, minimum equipment list(MEL) Chapter 78–31–1, which enablesairplanes to dispatch with a thrustreverser deactivated for up to 10 days.The commenter states that this ensuresflight safety. The FAA does not concur.The MEL is not intended to providesafeguard measures for hardware withknown, potentially catastrophic, failuremodes. While this DPV failure modedoes not lead directly to a thrustreverser deployment, it does lower theoverall reliability of the thrust reversersystem. Therefore, when DPV leakage isidentified, this AD requires correction ofthe problem, rather than deferral. Nochange to paragraph (c) of the final ruleis necessary in this regard.

ConclusionAfter careful review of the available

data, including the comments notedabove, the FAA has determined that airsafety and the public interest require theadoption of the rule with the changespreviously described. The FAA hasdetermined that these changes willneither increase the economic burdenon any operator nor increase the scopeof the AD.

Cost ImpactThere are approximately 418 Model

747 and 767 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.The FAA estimates that 116 airplanes ofU.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

For affected Model 747 seriesairplanes (8 U.S.-registered airplanes): Itwill take approximately 20 work hours(5 work hours per engine) to accomplishthe required functional test, at anaverage labor rate of $60 per work hour.Based on these figures, the cost impactof the functional test required by thisAD on U.S. operators is estimated to beapproximately $9,600, or $1,200 perairplane, per test cycle.

For affected Model 767 seriesairplanes (108 U.S.-registered airplanes):It will take approximately 10 workhours (5 work hours per engine) perairplane to accomplish the requiredfunctional test, at an average labor rateof $60 per work hour. Based on thesefigures, the cost impact of the functionaltest required by this AD on U.S.operators is estimated to be $64,800, or$600 per airplane, per test cycle.

The cost impact figures discussedabove are based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any ofthe requirements of this AD action, andthat no operator would accomplishthose actions in the future if this ADwere not adopted. The cost impactfigures discussed in AD rulemakingactions represent only the timenecessary to perform the specific actionsactually required by the AD. Thesefigures typically do not includeincidental costs, such as the timerequired to gain access and close up,planning time, or time necessitated byother administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein willnot have a substantial direct effect onthe States, on the relationship betweenthe national Government and the States,or on the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government. Therefore, it isdetermined that this final rule does nothave federalism implications underExecutive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, Icertify that this action (1) is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)will not have a significant economicimpact, positive or negative, on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A final evaluation hasbeen prepared for this action and it iscontained in the Rules Docket. A copyof it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided underthe caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me by theAdministrator, the Federal AviationAdministration amends part 39 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFRpart 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthinessdirective:2000–17–06 Boeing: Amendment 39–11880.Docket 2000–NM–24–AD.

Applicability: Model 747 and 767 seriesairplanes equipped with General ElectricCF6–80C2 series engines, certificated in anycategory.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplaneidentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenmodified, altered, or repaired in the areasubject to the requirements of this AD. Forairplanes that have been modified, altered, orrepaired so that the performance of therequirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance inaccordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.The request should include an assessment ofthe effect of the modification, alteration, orrepair on the unsafe condition addressed bythis AD; and, if the unsafe condition has notbeen eliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unlessaccomplished previously.

To ensure the integrity of the fail-safefeatures of the thrust reverser system bypreventing possible failure modes, whichcould result in inadvertent deployment of athrust reverser during flight, and consequentreduced controllability of the airplane,accomplish the following:

Repetitive Functional Tests

(a) For Model 747 and 767 series airplanesequipped with thrust reversers that HAVENOT been modified in accordance withBoeing Service Bulletin 747–78–2151 or 767–78–0063, as applicable, or a productionequivalent: Within 60 days after the effectivedate of this AD, perform a functional test ofthe directional pilot valve (DPV) of the thrustreversers to detect pneumatic leakage inaccordance with Boeing Alert ServiceBulletin 747–78A2170, or Boeing ServiceBulletin 767–78–0084, as applicable, both


52907Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

dated October 21, 1999. Repeat the functionaltest thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000flight hours.

(b) For Model 747 and 767 series airplanesequipped with thrust reversers that havebeen modified in accordance with BoeingService Bulletin 747–78–2151 or 767–78–0063, as applicable, or a productionequivalent: Within 180 days after theeffective date of this AD, perform afunctional test of the DPV of the thrustreversers to detect pneumatic leakage inaccordance with Boeing Alert ServiceBulletin 747–78A2170, or Boeing ServiceBulletin 767–78–0084, as applicable, bothdated October 21, 1999. Repeat the functionaltest thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000flight hours.

Note 2: For airplanes modified duringproduction: Functional tests accomplished inaccordance with a production equivalent areacceptable for the initial functional testrequired by paragraph (b) of this AD.

Corrective Action(c) If any functional test required by

paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD cannot besuccessfully performed as specified in BoeingAlert Service Bulletin 747–78A2170, orBoeing Service Bulletin 767–78–0084, asapplicable, both dated October 21, 1999; orif any discrepancy is detected during anyfunctional test required by paragraph (a) or(b) of this AD: Prior to further flight, correctthe discrepancy in accordance with theprocedures specified in the applicable BoeingModel 747 or 767 Airplane MaintenanceManual. Additionally, prior to further flight,any failed functional test required byparagraph (a) or (b) of this AD must berepeated and successfully accomplished.Repeat the functional test thereafter at theintervals required by paragraph (a) or (b) ofthis AD, as applicable.

Alternative Methods of Compliance(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, SeattleAircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate. Operatorsshall submit their requests through anappropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane toa location where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(f) Except as provided by paragraphs (b)and (c) of this AD, the functional test shallbe done in accordance with Boeing AlertService Bulletin 747–78A2170, dated October21, 1999; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767–78–0084, dated October 21, 1999. This

incorporation by reference was approved bythe Director of the Federal Register inaccordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFRpart 51. Copies may be obtained from BoeingCommercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Copies maybe inspected at the FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington; or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite700, Washington, DC.

(g) This amendment becomes effective onOctober 5, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August21, 2000.Donald L. Riggin,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 00–21717 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 177

[Docket No. 98F–0484]

Indirect Food Additives: Polymers

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending thefood additive regulations to provide forthe safe use of di-2-ethylhexylterephthalate as a component ofclosures with sealing gaskets for foodcontainers This action responds to apetition filed by Eastman Chemical Co.DATES: This rule is effective August 31,2000. Submit written objections andrequest for a hearing by October 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit written objections tothe Dockets Management Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration,5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,MD 20852.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Hortense S. Macon, Center for FoodSafety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–206), Food and Drug Administration,200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,202–418–3086.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a noticepublished in the Federal Register ofJuly 2, 1998 (63 FR 36246), FDAannounced that a food additive petition(FAP 8B4593) had been filed byEastman Chemical Co., P.O. Box 431,Kingsport, TN 37662. The petitionproposed to amend the food additiveregulations in § 177.1210 Closures withsealing gaskets for food containers (21CFR 177.1210) to provide for the safe

use of di-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate as acomponent of closure-sealing gaskets forfood containers.

FDA has evaluated the data in thepetition and other relevant material.Based on this information, the agencyconcludes that the proposed use of theadditive is safe, that the additive willachieve its intended technical effect,and therefore, that the regulations in§ 177.1210 should be amended as setforth below.

In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR171.1(h)), the petition and thedocuments that FDA considered andrelied upon in reaching its decision toapprove the petition are available forinspection at the Center for Food Safetyand Applied Nutrition by appointmentwith the information contact personlisted above. As provided in § 171.1(h),the agency will delete from thedocuments any materials that are notavailable for public disclosure beforemaking the documents available forinspection.

The agency has previously consideredthe environmental effects of this rule asannounced in the notice of filing forFAP 8B4593. No new information orcomments have been received thatwould affect the agency’s previousdetermination that there is nosignificant impact on the humanenvironment and that an environmentalimpact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collectionof information. Therefore, clearance bythe Office of Management and Budgetunder the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 is not required.

Any person who will be adverselyaffected by this regulation may at anytime file with the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) writtenobjections by October 2, 2000. Eachobjection shall be separately numbered,and each numbered objection shallspecify with particularity the provisionsof the regulation to which objection ismade and the grounds for the objection.Each numbered objection on which ahearing is requested shall specifically sostate. Failure to request a hearing forany particular objection shall constitutea waiver of the right to a hearing on thatobjection. Each numbered objection forwhich a hearing is requested shallinclude a detailed description andanalysis of the specific factualinformation intended to be presented insupport of the objection in the eventthat a hearing is held. Failure to includesuch a description and analysis for anyparticular objection shall constitute awaiver of the right to a hearing on theobjection. Three copies of all documentsare to be submitted and are to beidentified with the docket number



found in brackets in the heading of thisdocument. Any objections received inresponse to the regulation may be seenin the Dockets Management Branchbetween 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 177Food additives, Food packaging.Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs and redelegated tothe Director, Center for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 177 isamended as follows:

PART 177—INDIRECT FOODADDITIVES: POLYMERS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFRpart 177 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.

2. Section 177.1210 is amended in thetable in paragraph (b)(5) byalphabetically adding an entry underthe headings ‘‘List of substances’’ and‘‘Limitations’’ to read as follows:

§ 177.1210 Closures with sealing gasketsfor food containers.

* * * * *

List of substances Limitations (expressed as percent by weight ofclosure-sealing gasket composition)

* * * * * * *

Di-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate (CAS Reg. No. 006422–86–2). For use as a plasticizer at levels not exceeding 75 parts per hundredby weight of permitted vinyl chloride homo- and/or copolymer resinsused in contact with food of Types I, II, IV–B, VI–A, VI–B, VI–C (upto 15 percent alcohol by volume), VII–B, and VIII described in§ 176.170(c) of this chapter, table 1, and under conditions of use Athrough H described in § 176. 170 (c) of this chapter, table 2.

* * * * * * *

* * * * *Dated: August 21, 2000.

L. Robert Lake,Director of Regulations and Policy, Centerfor Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.[FR Doc. 00–22228 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



21 CFR Part 178

[Docket No. 99F–0127]

Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants,Production Aids, and Sanitizers

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending thefood additive regulations to provide forthe safe use of trimethylolethane as adispersant for pigments used ascomponents of food-contact articles.This action is in response to a petitionfiled by GEO Specialty Chemicals.DATES: This rule is effective August 31,2000. Submit written objections andrequests for a hearing by October 2,2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit written objections tothe Dockets Management Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration,

5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,MD 20852.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mark A. Hepp, Center for Food Safetyand Applied Nutrition (HFS–215), Foodand Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,Washington, DC 20204, 202–418–3098.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a noticepublished in the Federal Register ofFebruary 3, 1999 (64 FR 5300), FDAannounced that a food additive petition(FAP 9B4635) had been filed by GEOSpecialty Chemicals, c/o Keller andHeckman, 1001 G St. NW., suite 500West, Washington, DC 20001. Thepetition proposed to amend the foodadditive regulations in § 178.3725Pigment dispersants (21 CFR 178.3725)to provide for the safe use oftrimethylolethane as a dispersant forpigments used as components of food-contact articles.

FDA has evaluated the data in thepetition and other relevant material.Based on this information, the agencyconcludes that the proposed use of theadditive is safe, that the additive willachieve its intended technical effect,and therefore, that the regulations in§ 178.3725 should be amended as setforth below.

In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR171.1(h)), the petition and thedocuments that FDA considered andrelied upon in reaching its decision toapprove the petition are available forinspection at the Center for Food Safetyand Applied Nutrition by appointmentwith the information contact personlisted above. As provided in § 171.1(h),

the agency will delete from thedocuments any materials that are notavailable for public disclosure beforemaking the documents available forinspection.

The agency has carefully consideredthe environmental effects of this rule asannounced in the notice of filing for thepetition. No new information orcomments have been received thatwould affect the agency’s previousdetermination that there is nosignificant impact on the humanenvironment and that an environmentalimpact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collectionof information. Therefore, clearance bythe Office of Management and Budgetunder the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 is not required.

Any person who will be adverselyaffected by this regulation may at anytime file with the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) writtenobjections by October 2, 2000. Eachobjection shall be separately numbered,and each numbered objection shallspecify with particularity the provisionsof the regulation to which objection ismade and the grounds for the objection.Each numbered objection on which ahearing is requested shall specifically sostate. Failure to request a hearing forany particular objection shall constitutea waiver of the right to a hearing on thatobjection. Each numbered objection forwhich a hearing is requested shallinclude a detailed description andanalysis of the specific factualinformation intended to be presented in



support of the objection in the eventthat a hearing is held. Failure to includesuch a description and analysis for anyparticular objection shall constitute awaiver of the right to a hearing on theobjection. Three copies of all documentsare to be submitted and are to beidentified with the docket numberfound in brackets in the heading of thisdocument. Any objections received inresponse to the regulation may be seenin the Dockets Management Branchbetween 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 178

Food additives, Food packaging.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs and redelegated tothe Director, Center for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 178 isamended as follows:

PART 178—INDIRECT FOODADDITIVES: ADJUVANTS,PRODUCTION AIDS, AND SANITIZERS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFRpart 178 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.

2. Section 178.3725 is amended in thetable by alphabetically adding an entryunder the headings ‘‘Substances’’ and‘‘Limitations’’ to read as follows:

§ 178.3725 Pigment dispersants.

* * * * *

Substances Limitations

* * * * * * *

Trimethylolethane (CAS Reg. No. 77–85–0). For use only at levels not to exceed 0.45 percent by weight of inor-ganic pigment. The pigmented articles may contact all food underconditions of use A through H described in Table 2 of § 176.170(c)of this chapter.

Dated: August 21, 2000.L. Robert Lake,Director of Regulations and Policy, Centerfor Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.[FR Doc. 00–22226 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1 and 602

[TD 8898]

RIN 1545–AV81

Continuity of Interest

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),Treasury.ACTION: Final regulations.

SUMMARY: This document contains finalregulations providing guidanceregarding the continuity of interestrequirement for corporatereorganizations. The final regulationsaffect corporations and theirshareholders. The final regulationsprovide that distributions andredemptions by a target corporationprior to a potential reorganization aretaken into account for continuity ofinterest purposes to the extent that theconsideration received by the targetshareholder in the redemption ordistribution is treated as other propertyor money under section 356 of theInternal Revenue Code, or to the extentthat the consideration would be treatedas other property or money if the target

shareholder also had received stock ofthe issuing corporation in exchange forstock owned by the shareholder in thetarget corporation.DATES: Effective Dates: Theseregulations are effective August 30,2000.

Applicability Dates: For dates ofapplicability of these regulations, seethe ‘‘Effective Dates’’ portion of theSupplementary Information of thepreamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Marie Byrne, (202) 622–7750 (not a toll-free number).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information in thesefinal regulations has been reviewed and,pending receipt and evaluation ofpublic comments, approved by theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3507 andassigned control number 1545–1691.

The collection of information in theseregulations is in § 1.368–1(e)(7). Theinformation is a private letter rulingrequest to apply the final regulations toa transaction in which a taxpayer hasentered into a binding agreement on orafter January 28, 1998 (the effective dateof § 1.368–1T), and before the effectivedate of the final regulations. Thisinformation will be used to ensure thatall parties to the transaction takeconsistent positions for Federal taxpurposes. The collection of informationis elective. If § 1.368–1T would apply toa transaction, but the taxpayer wouldprefer to apply the final regulations, the

taxpayer may elect to submit theinformation. The likely respondents arebusinesses or other for-profitinstitutions.

Comments concerning the collectionof information should be sent to theOffice of Management and Budget, Attn:Desk Officer for the Department ofTreasury, Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, Washington, DC20503, with copies to the InternalRevenue Service, Attn: IRS ReportsClearance Officer, OP:FS:FP,Washington, DC 20224. Any suchcomments should be submitted not laterthan October 30, 2000.

Comments are specifically requestedconcerning:

(a) Whether the collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functioning of theInternal Revenue Service, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the estimatedburden associated with the collection ofinformation (see below);

(c) How the quality, utility, andclarity of the information requested maybe enhanced;

(d) How the burden of complyingwith the collection of information maybe minimized, including through theapplication of automated collectiontechniques or other forms of informationtechnology; and

(e) Estimates of capital or start-upcosts, and costs of operation,maintenance, and purchase of servicesto provide information. Estimated totalannual reporting burden: 1,500 hours.The annual burden per respondent



varies from 50 to 200 hours, dependingon individual circumstances, with anestimated average of 150 hours.Estimated number of respondents: 10.Estimated frequency of responses: Once.

An agency may not conduct orsponsor, and a person is not required torespond to, a collection of informationunless it displays a valid controlnumber assigned by the OMB.

Books or records relating to acollection of information must beretained as long as their contents maybecome material in the administrationof any internal revenue law. Generally,tax returns and tax return informationare confidential, as required by 26U.S.C. 6103.

BackgroundOn January 28, 1998, the Treasury

Department and IRS published finalregulations on the continuity of interest(COI) requirement for potentialcorporate reorganizations, whichpermitted former target corporation (T)shareholders to sell stock in the issuingcorporation (P) without causing thepotential reorganization to fail to satisfythe COI requirement (63 FR 4174).Additionally, the IRS and TreasuryDepartment published temporary andproposed regulations (the TemporaryRegulations) in the Federal Register at63 FR 4183 and 63 FR 4204,respectively, relating to redemptions of,and extraordinary distributions on, Tstock prior to certain otherwisequalifying reorganizations.

The Treasury Department and IRSreceived written comments in responseto the proposed regulations. A publichearing on the proposed regulations washeld on May 26, 1998. Afterconsideration of all comments, § 1.368–1T, published at 63 FR 4183, isremoved. Section 1.368–1(e) is amendedby this Treasury decision.

Explanation of ProvisionsThe Internal Revenue Code provides

general nonrecognition treatment forreorganization transactions specificallydescribed in section 368. In addition tocomplying with the statutoryrequirements and certain otherrequirements, a transaction generallymust satisfy the COI requirement. Thepurpose of the COI requirement is toprevent transactions that resemble salesfrom qualifying for nonrecognition ofgain or loss available to corporatereorganizations. COI requires that insubstance a substantial part of the valueof the proprietary interests in T bepreserved in the reorganization. Thesefinal regulations address the effect onCOI of prereorganization redemptionsand distributions.

The Temporary Regulations

The Temporary Regulations providethat a proprietary interest in T is notpreserved if, prior to and in connectionwith a potential reorganization, it isredeemed, or to the extent that, prior toand in connection with a potentialreorganization, an extraordinarydistribution is made with respect to it.

Several commentators argued that theTemporary Regulations are overlybroad. Some suggested that the scope ofthe COI requirement should closelyparallel the law regarding the ‘‘solely forvoting stock’’ requirement forreorganizations under § 368(a)(1)(B) and(C), because both the solely for votingstock requirement and the COIrequirement arose out of similarconcerns, i.e., to prevent transactionsthat resemble sales from qualifying fornonrecognition treatment available tocorporate reorganizations. Thesecommentators maintain that, similar tothe solely for voting stock rule,prereorganization redemptions andextraordinary distributions by T shouldnot be taken into account for COIpurposes unless P directly or indirectlyfurnishes the consideration for theredemption or distribution. A rule thatgoes beyond this, they argue, convertsthe COI requirement into an assetcontinuity test, and thus overlaps withthe continuity of business enterpriserequirement (COBE) and the‘‘substantially all the assets’’requirement for certain reorganizations.

In addition, one commentatormaintained that the TemporaryRegulations provide inconsistent resultsby treating extraordinary distributionstaxed as dividends under section 301 asthe equivalent of sales proceeds forpurposes of COI.

Other commentators expressedconcern that certain types of taxpayers,such as S corporations, areinappropriately adversely affected bythe approach of the TemporaryRegulations. The commentators notedthat when an S corporation merges intoa C corporation, it is common for the Scorporation, in advance of thereorganization, to make distributions inthe amount of its accumulatedadjustments account (AAA). If largeenough, such distributions may causethe potential reorganization to fail toqualify for tax-free treatment becausethe COI requirement is not satisfiedunder the Temporary Regulations.These commentators believe that thisapplication of the COI rules in theTemporary Regulations to S corporationreorganizations is inconsistent withsection 1371, which generally providesthat subchapter C applies to an S

corporation, except to the extentinconsistent with subchapter S, becausethe practice of making prereorganizationAAA distributions makes it moredifficult for S corporations than for Ccorporations to qualify forreorganization treatment. Similarconcerns arise when a controlled foreigncorporation (CFC) distributes incomefrom its previously taxed incomeaccount with respect to its subpart Fincome (see section 959). Anothercommentator suggested thatdistributions made by a C corporationimmediately prior to a merger with aRegulated Investment Company (RIC) orReal Estate Investment Trust (REIT)should not be treated as extraordinarydistributions. Under §§ 1.852–12 (forRICs) and 1.857–11 (for REITs), a Ccorporation that merges into a RIC orREIT must distribute all non-RIC or non-REIT earnings and profits before the endof the RIC’s or REIT’s first taxable year.Consequently, a C corporation typicallywill distribute such earnings and profitsprior to a merger with a RIC or REIT.

After considering these comments, thepurpose of the COI requirement, and theother existing protections that preventtransactions that resemble sales fromqualifying for nonrecognition of gain orloss available to corporatereorganizations, the TreasuryDepartment and IRS have concludedthat the approach of the finalregulations best reflects the purpose ofthe COI requirement. The regulationsprovide that a proprietary interest in T(other than one held by P) is notpreserved to the extent thatconsideration received prior to apotential reorganization, either in aredemption of T stock or in adistribution with respect to T stock, istreated as other property or moneyreceived in the exchange for purposes ofsection 356 or would be so treated if theT shareholder also had received stock ofP in exchange for stock owned by theshareholder in T. In determiningwhether consideration is treated asother property or money under section356 received in an exchange for aproprietary interest in T, taxpayersshould consider all facts, circumstances,and relevant legal authorities.

The regulations posit for COIpurposes that each T shareholderreceives some P stock in exchange for Tstock. Section 356 generally does notapply to a T shareholder who does notreceive any P stock in exchange for Tstock in a reorganization. See Rev. Rul.74–515 (1974–2 C.B. 118). Solely forpurposes of determining whether theCOI requirement is satisfied, however,the regulations deem each T shareholderto have received some P stock in



exchange for T stock (without ascribingany value to that stock). The regulationsthus use the same criterion fordetermining whether COI is satisfied,regardless of whether a T shareholderreceives any P stock. These finalregulations do not offer safe harbors orspecial rules for the transactions aboutwhich commentators expressedconcern. Unlike the temporaryregulations, however, the finalregulations do not automatically take allprereorganization redemptions andextraordinary distributions inconnection with the reorganization intoaccount for COI purposes.

Stock Repurchase ProgramsExample 8 of § 1.368–1(e)(6)

illustrates the effect on COI of a generalstock repurchase program. In theexample, P repurchases a smallpercentage of its stock after areorganization, as part of a preexistingstock repurchase program. COI issatisfied because the redemption of asmall percentage of P stock was not inconnection with the merger. In responseto comments received, the IRS andTreasury Department issued furtherguidance on the effect of a stockrepurchase program on COI in Rev. Rul.99–58 (1999–52 I.R.B. 701). BecauseExample 8 suggests a more restrictiveapproach to COI than was intended inthis context, Example 8 is removed bythis Treasury decision.

Effect on Other AuthoritiesThese COI regulations apply solely for

purposes of determining whether theCOI requirement is satisfied. Noinference should be drawn from anyprovision of this regulation as towhether other reorganizationrequirements are satisfied, or as to thecharacterization of a related transaction.

Effect on Other DocumentsThe following publications do not

apply to the extent they are inconsistentwith these regulations:Rev. Proc. 77–37 (1977–2 C.B. 568)Rev. Proc. 86–42 (1986–2 C.B. 722)

Effective DatesThese regulations apply to

transactions occurring after August 30,2000, unless the transaction occurspursuant to a written agreement that is(subject to customary conditions)binding on that date and at all timesthereafter. Taxpayers who entered into abinding agreement on or after January28, 1998 (the date that the temporaryand proposed regulations were filedwith the Federal Register), and beforeAugust 30, 2000, may request a privateletter ruling permitting them to apply

the final regulations to their transaction.A private letter ruling will not be issuedunless the taxpayer establishes to thesatisfaction of the IRS that there is nota significant risk of different parties tothe transaction taking inconsistentpositions, for U.S. tax purposes, withrespect to the applicability of the finalregulations to the transaction.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that theseregulations are not a significantregulatory action as defined inExecutive Order 12866. Therefore, aregulatory assessment is not required. Italso has been determined that section553(b) of the Administrative ProcedureAct (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not applyto these final regulations. It is herebycertified that the collection ofinformation in these regulations will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.This certification is based on the factthat while the burden of making thiscollection of information may besignificant when applicable, taxpayerswill have to make this collection ofinformation only if they arecorporations or shareholders ofcorporations who are parties to apurported reorganization in which COIwould not be preserved under theTemporary regulations. The IRSestimates that the number of taxpayerswho will need to make this collection ofinformation will be 10 or fewer.Therefore, a Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis under the RegulatoryFlexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) isnot required. Pursuant to section 7805(f)of the Code, these final regulations willbe submitted to the Chief Counsel forAdvocacy of the Small BusinessAdministration for comment on theirimpact on small business.

Drafting Information

The principal author of theseregulations is Marie Byrne of the Officeof the Associate Chief Counsel(Corporate), IRS. However, otherpersonnel from the IRS and TreasuryDepartment participated in theirdevelopment.

List of Subjects

26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

26 CFR Part 602

Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Adoption of Amendments to theRegulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602are amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citationfor part 1 continues to read in part asfollows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *Par. 2. Section 1.368–1 is amended

by:1. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii).2. Removing paragraph (e)(2)(ii).3. Removing the paragraph

designation (e)(2)(i).4. Removing Example 8 of paragraph

(e)(6).5. Redesignating Example 9 of

paragraph (e)(6) as Example 8.6. Adding new Example 9 to

paragraph (e)(6).7. Adding three sentences to the end

of paragraph (e)(7).The additions and revision read as

follows:

§ 1.368–1 Purpose and scope of exceptionof reorganization exchanges.* * * * *

(e) * * * (1) * * *(ii) For purposes of paragraph (e)(1)(i)

of this section, a proprietary interest inthe target corporation (other than oneheld by the acquiring corporation) is notpreserved to the extent thatconsideration received prior to apotential reorganization, either in aredemption of the target corporationstock or in a distribution with respect tothe target corporation stock, is treated asother property or money received in theexchange for purposes of section 356, orwould be so treated if the targetshareholder also had received stock ofthe issuing corporation in exchange forstock owned by the shareholder in thetarget corporation.* * * * *

(6) * * *Example 9. Preacquisition redemption by

target corporation. T has two shareholders, Aand B. P expresses an interest in acquiringthe stock of T. A does not wish to own Pstock. T redeems A’s shares in T in exchangefor cash. No funds have been or will beprovided by P for this purpose. Psubsequently acquires all the outstandingstock of T from B solely in exchange forvoting stock of P. The cash received by A inthe prereorganization redemption is nottreated as other property or money undersection 356, and would not be so treated evenif A had received some stock of P inexchange for his T stock. Theprereorganization redemption by T does notaffect continuity of interest, because B’sproprietary interest in T is unaffected, andthe value of the proprietary interest in T ispreserved.



(7) * * * Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of thissection, however, applies to transactionsoccurring after August 30, 2000, unlessthe transaction occurs pursuant to awritten agreement that is (subject tocustomary conditions) binding on thatdate and at all times thereafter.Taxpayers who entered into a bindingagreement on or after January 28, 1998,and before August 30, 2000, may requesta private letter ruling permitting them toapply the final regulation to theirtransaction. A private letter ruling willnot be issued unless the taxpayerestablishes to the satisfaction of the IRSthat there is not a significant risk ofdifferent parties to the transactiontaking inconsistent positions, forFederal tax purposes, with respect to theapplicability of the final regulations tothe transaction.

§ 1.368–1T [Removed]

Par. 3. Section 1.368–1T is removed.

PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERSUNDER THE PAPERWORKREDUCTION ACT

Par. 4. Section § 602.101, paragraph(b) is amended by adding an entry to thetable in numerical order to read asfollows:

§ 602.101 OMB Control numbers.

* * * * *(b) * * *

CFR part or section whereidentified or described

Current OMBcontrol No.

* * * * *1.368–1 ................................... 1545–1691

* * * * *

Robert E. Wenzel,Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Approved: August 23, 2000.

Jonathan Talisman,Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.[FR Doc. 00–22075 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P


Saint Lawrence Seaway DevelopmentCorporation

33 CFR Part 401

[Docket No. SLSDC 2000–7543]

RIN 2135–AA11

Seaway Regulations and Rules:Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Saint Lawrence SeawayDevelopment Corporation, DOT.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Saint Lawrence SeawayDevelopment Corporation (SLSDC) andthe St. Lawrence Seaway ManagementCorporation of Canada (SLSMC) publishjoint Seaway Regulations. The SLSDCand the SLSMC have determined that anumber of existing regulations need tobe amended. Only four of theamendments are substantive and ofapplicability in both U.S. and Canadianwaters. (See SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION.) The remainingamendments are merely editorial,ministerial, for clarification withoutsubstantive change in interpretation, orapplicable only in Canada. The CanadaMarine Act has abolished the SaintLawrence Seaway Authority of Canadaand replaced it with the SLSMC, madechanges in the manner in which theSLSMC conducts or may conduct itsoperations as compared to theAuthority, and made minor changes insome of the terminology used in theCanadian law applicable to the Seaway.Accordingly, most of the amendmentsare strictly editorial, reflect proceduresundertaken unilaterally by the SLSMC,or otherwise are applicable only inCanada because of unilateral action bythe SLSMC or Canadian law. Otherchanges are due strictly to Canadiancircumstances or unilateral action, suchas: removal of reference to bridges thatno longer exist; removal of references tothe Canadian entity in the rules ondetention and sale; and addingprovisions that are only applicable onCanadian property. Some minor changesin numbering and lettering also arebeing made.DATES: This rule is effective on October2, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Marc C. Owen, Chief Counsel, SaintLawrence Seaway DevelopmentCorporation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366–6823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As a resultof discussions with the Saint Lawrence

Seaway Management Corporation ofCanada, the Saint Lawrence SeawayDevelopment Corporation is amendingthe Seaway Regulations and Rules in 33CFR part 401. A Notice of ProposedRulemaking was published on June 29,2000 (65 FR 40070). Interested partieshave been afforded an opportunity toparticipate in the making of theseamendments. No comments werereceived. The amendments aredescribed in the following summary.

Only four of the amendments aresubstantive and of applicability in bothU.S. and Canadian waters, which are asfollows. Section 401.3, ‘‘Maximumvessel dimensions’’, is amended byrevising paragraph (e) to allow a vesselwith a beam in excess of 23.2 m, but notmore than 23.8 m. and an overall lengthin excess of 222.5 m, but not more than225.5 m, to be considered for transitupon application to the SLSMC andSLSDC. This amendment followssuccessful feasibility testing by bothcorporations. Section 410.10, ‘‘Mooringlines’’, is amended by adding a newparagraph (a)(2) requiring mooring linesto have a diameter not greater than 28mm. This is in response to safetyconcerns for linehandling personnel ofboth corporations. The larger, heaviermooring lines that have been used bysome vessels are difficult to handle andmay cause back injuries. Section 401.13,‘‘Hand lines’’, is amended by changingthe minimum diameter from 12 mm to15 mm, the maximum diameter from 20mm to 17 mm, and the minimum lengthfrom 35 m to 30 m for similar safety oflinehandling personnel reasons.Schedule III, ‘‘Calling-In Table’’, isamended by changing a number ofreporting requirements at certaincalling-in points. The SLSDC and theSLSMC now share the same computerdatabase, which eliminates the need forvessels to report particulars more thanonce unless a change has occurred.

The remaining amendments,described in the rest of this preamble,are merely editorial, ministerial, forclarification without substantive changein interpretation, or applicable only inCanada. Some minor changes innumbering and lettering also are beingmade. The Canada Marine Act hasabolished the Saint Lawrence SeawayAuthority of Canada and replaced itwith the SLSMC, made changes in themanner in which the SLSMC conductsor may conduct its operations ascompared to the Authority, and mademinor changes in some of theterminology used in the Canadian lawapplicable to the Seaway. Accordingly,most of the amendments in thisproposal are strictly editorial, reflectprocedures undertaken unilaterally by



the SLSMC, or otherwise are applicableonly in Canada because of unilateralaction by the SLSMC or Canadian law.The principal change of this type iswherever the terms ‘‘Saint LawrenceSeaway Authority’’, ‘‘Authority’’, etc.appear, they are replaced with ‘‘SaintLawrence Seaway ManagementCorporation’’, ‘‘Manager’’, etc. Anotherchange is the term ‘‘vessel’’ is referredto as ‘‘ship’’ in the Canadian Act and theregulations will so note. Similarly, theSLSMC now refers to the ‘‘Tariff ofTolls’’ as the ‘‘Schedule of Tolls’’ and to‘‘tolls and charges’’ as ‘‘fees’’, both ofwhich also are to be noted in theregulations. Finally, the SLSMC nowrefers to these regulations as ‘‘Practicesand Procedures’’ and that is so noted.

There are a number of changes thatmerely reflect current Canadian practicein their procedures for clearances andtolls collection, and similar matters,such as adding a requirement for 3copies of applications for preclearancein section 401.24 or the type of bondingthey will accept in paragraph401.26(a)(5). Some administrativeprovisions, such as paragraphs401.26(b), 401.54(a), and 401.59(c) andsection 401.33, have been rewrittensimply for clarity with no substantivechange. In addition, where the CanadianSLSMC is solely handling theadministrative aspect of the Seaway’soperations, such as in section 401.26 forsecurity for tolls, references to theSLSDC are being removed. Otherchanges are due strictly to Canadiancircumstances or unilateral actioninclude: removal of the reference toBridges 20 and 21 in paragraph401.52(b) is removed because thebridges no longer exist; removal ofreferences to the Canadian entity in therules on detention and sale, sections401.86, 401.87, and 401.88, which theSLSMC will no longer use, but whichremain of current and prospective useby the SLSDC. Finally, new paragraphs(b) and (c) are being added to section401.90, ‘‘Boarding for inspection’’,which are only applicable on Canadianproperty.

Regulatory Evaluation

This regulation involves a foreignaffairs function of the United States, andtherefore, Executive Order 12866 doesnot apply. This regulation has also beenevaluated under the Department ofTransportation’s Regulatory Policies andProcedures and the regulation is notconsidered significant under thoseprocedures and its economic impact isexpected to be so minimal that a fulleconomic evaluation is not warranted.

Regulatory Flexibility ActDetermination

The Saint Lawrence SeawayDevelopment Corporation certifies thatthis regulation will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulationsand Rules primarily relate to theactivities of commercial users of theSeaway, the vast majority of whom areforeign vessel operators. Therefore, anyresulting costs will be borne mostly byforeign vessels.

Environmental Impact

This regulation does not require anenvironmental impact statement underthe National Environmental Policy Act(49 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) because it is nota major federal action significantlyaffecting the quality of humanenvironment.

Federalism

The Corporation has analyzed thisregulation under the principles andcriteria in Executive Order 13132, DatedAugust 4, 1999, and has determined thatit will not have a substantial, directeffect on the States or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among various levels ofgovernment. The regulation will notlimit the policymaking discretion of theStates. Nothing in it would directlypreempt any State law or regulation.Because the regulation will have nosignificant effect on State or localgovernments, no consultations withthose governments on this regulationwere necessary.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This regulation has been analyzedunder the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 and does not contain new ormodified information collectionrequirements subject to the Office ofManagement and Budget review.


Hazardous materials transportation,Navigation (water), Radio reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Vessels,Waterways.

Accordingly, the Saint LawrenceSeaway Development Corporationamends Part 401—Seaway Regulationsand Rules (33 CFR part 401) as follows:

PART 401—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 401,subpart A, is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4),as amended; 49 CFR 1.50a, unless otherwisenoted.

§ 401.1 [Amended]

2. Section 401.1 is amended byadding the parenthetical phrase ‘‘(the‘‘Practices and Procedures’’ in Canada’’)after the words ‘‘Seaway Regulations’’.

§ 401.2 [Amended]

3. Section 401.2 is amended asfollows:

a. Remove paragraph (a).b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) and (c)

as paragraphs (a) and (b).c. Add a new paragraph (c);d. Redesignate current paragraphs (m)

through (p) as paragraphs (o) through(r).

e. Add new paragraphs (m) and (n).f. In newly redesignated paragraph

(q), add the parenthetical phrase‘‘(‘‘ship’’ in Canada)’’ after the word‘‘Vessel’’.

g. In newly redesignated paragraph(r), add the parenthetical phrase ‘‘(‘‘shiptraffic controller’’ in Canada)’’ after theword ‘‘controller’’.

The additions read as follows:

§ 401.2 Interpretation.

* * * * *(c) ‘‘Manager’’ means the St.Lawrence

Seaway Management Corporation;* * * * *

(m) ‘‘Tariff of Tolls’’ means the sameas ‘‘Schedule of Tolls in Canada.

(n) ‘‘Tolls(s)’’ or ‘‘tolls and charges’’ isincluded in the definition of ‘‘fees’’ inCanada.* * * * *

4. Section 401.3 is amended byrevising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 401.3 Maximum vessel dimensions.

* * * * *(e) A vessel having a beam width in

excess of 23.2 m, but not more than 23.8m, and having dimensions that do notexceed the limits set out in the blockdiagram in Appendix I of this Part oroverall length in excess of 222.5 m, butnot more than 225.5 m, shall, onapplication to the Manager orCorporation, be considered for transit inaccordance with directions issued bythe Manager and Corporation.* * * * *

5. Section 401.10 is amended byredesignating current paragraphs (a)(2),(3), and (4) as paragraphs (a)(3), (4), and(5) and by adding a new paragraph (a)(2)to read as follows:

§ 401.10 Mooring lines.(a) * * *(2) Have a diameter not greater than

28mm;* * * * *

6. Section 401.13 is amended byrevising paragraph (b) to read as follows:



§ 401.13 Hand lines.

* * * * *(b) Be of uniform thickness and have

a diameter of not less than 15 mm andnot more than 17 mm and a minimumlength of 30 m.* * * * *

§ 401.22 [Amended]

7. Section 401.22 is amended byremoving the words ‘‘the Corporationor’’ the first time they appear inparagraph (a).

§ 401.24 [Amended]

8. Section 401.24 is amended byadding the parenthetical phrase ‘‘(3copies)’’ after the word ‘‘form’’.

§ 401.25 [Amended]

9. Section 401.25 is amended byremoving the words ‘‘in writing’’ inparagraph (a).

10. Section 401.26 is revised to readas follows:

§ 401.26 Security for tolls.(a) Before transit by a vessel to which

the requirement of preclearance applies,security for the payment of tolls inaccordance with the ‘‘St. LawrenceSeaway Tariff of Tolls’’ as well assecurity for any other charges, shall beprovided by the representative by meansof:

(1) A deposit of money with theManager;

(2) A deposit of money to the creditof the Manager with a bank in theUnited States or a member of theCanadian Payments Association, acorporation established by section 3 ofthe Canadian Payments Association Act,or a local cooperative credit society thatis a member of a central cooperativecredit society having membership in theCanadian Payments Association;

(3) A deposit with the Manager ofnegotiable bonds of the Government ofthe United States or the Government ofCanada; or

(4) A letter of guarantee to theManager given by an institution referredto in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(5) A letter of guarantee or bond givento the Manager by an acceptableBonding Company. Bonding companiesmay be accepted if they:

(i) Appear on the list of acceptablebonding companies as issued by theTreasury Board of Canada; and

(ii) Meet financial soundnessrequirements as may be defined by theManager at the time of the request.

(b) The security for the tolls of avessel shall be sufficient to cover thetolls established in the ‘‘St. LawrenceSeaway Tariff of Tolls’’ for the gross

registered tonnage of the vessel, cargocarried, and lockage tolls as estimatedby the Manager.

(c) Where a number of vessels:(1) For each of which preclearance

has been given;(2) Are owned or controlled by the

same individual or company; and(3) Have the same representative, the

security for the tolls is not required ifthe individual, company, orrepresentative has paid every tollinvoice received in the preceding fiveyears within the period set out in§ 401.75(a).

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) ofthis section, where a number of vessels,for each of which a preclearance hasbeen given, are owned or controlled bythe same individual or company andhave the same representative, thesecurity for tolls may be reduced oreliminated provided the representativehas paid every toll invoice received inthe preceding five years within theperiod set out in § 401.75(a). Therepresentative must provide theManager with a financial statement thatmeets the requirements established bythe Manager.

(e) Where, in the opinion of theManager, the security provided by therepresentative is insufficient to securethe tolls and charges incurred or likelyto be incurred by a vessel, the Managermay suspend the preclearance of thevessel.

11. Section 401.28 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a) and (b) to readas follows:

§ 401.28 Speed limits.(a) The maximum speed over the

bottom for a vessel of more than 12 min overall length shall be regulated so asnot to adversely affect other vessels orshore property, and in no event shallsuch a vessel proceeding in any areabetween the place set out in Column Iof an item of Schedule II to this part anda place set out in Column II of that itemexceed the speed set out in Column IIIor Column IV of that item, whicheverspeed is designated by the Corporationand the Manager in a Seaway Noticefrom time to time as being appropriateto existing water levels.

(b) Where the Corporation or theManager designate any speed less thanthe maximum speeds set out inSchedule II of this part, that speed shallbe transmitted as transit instructionsreferred to in § 401.27.* * * * *

12. Section 401.29 is amended byrevising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 401.29 Maximum draft.* * * * *

(b) The draft of a vessel shall not, inany case, exceed 79.2 dm or themaximum permissible draft designatedin a Seaway Notice by the Corporationand the Manager for the part of theSeaway in which a vessel is passing.* * * * *


§ 401.33 Special instructions.No vessel of unusual design, vessel, or

part of a vessel under tow, or vesselwhose dimensions exceed the maximumvessel dimensions § 401.3 shall transitthe Seaway except in accordance withspecial instructions of the Corporationor the Manager given on the applicationof the representative of the vessel.


inserting the words ‘‘U.S. Coast Guardor Canadian approved’’ after the word‘‘wear’’ in paragraph (b).


removing the phrase ‘‘or at Bridges 20and 21 on the Welland Canal,’’.

§ 401.54 [Amended]

16. Section 401.54 is amended byremoving the words ‘‘moored to’’ inparagraph (a) and adding in their placethe words ‘‘used as moorings’’.

§ 401.59 [Amended]

17. Section 401.59 is amended byadding the words ‘‘by the vessel’’ afterthe word ‘‘kept’’ in paragraph (c).

§ 401.68 [Amended]

18. Section 401.68 is amended byremoving the word ‘‘Authority’’ andadding in its place the words‘‘Management Corporation’’ inparagraph (c).

19. Section 401.74 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a), (e), (f) and (g) toread as follows:

§ 401.74 Transit declaration.(a) A Seaway Transit Declaration

Form (Cargo and Passenger) shall beforwarded to the Manager by therepresentative of a vessel, for eachvessel that has an approvedpreclearance except non-cargo vesselswithin fourteen days after the vesselenters the Seaway on any upbound ordownbound transit. The form may beobtained from the Saint LawrenceSeaway Development Corporation, P.O.Box 520, Massena, New York 13662, orthe St. Lawrence Seaway ManagementCorporation, 202 Pitt Street, Cornwall,Ontario K6J 3P7.* * * * *



(e) Where a Seaway TransitDeclaration Form is found to beinaccurate concerning the destination,cargo or passengers, the representativeshall immediately forward to theManager a revised Declaration Form.

(f) Seaway Transit Declaration Formsshall be used in assessing toll charges inaccordance with the St. LawrenceSeaway Tariff of Tolls and toll accountsshall be forwarded in duplicate to therepresentative or its designated agent.

(g) Where government aid cargo isdeclared, appropriate Canadian(Revenue Canada Customs and Exciseform B–13) or U.S. (Shippers ExportDeclaration form 7525) customs form ora stamped and signed certification letterfrom the U.S. or Canada Customs mustaccompany the transit declaration form.* * * * *

§ 401.75 [Amended]

20. Section 401.75 is amended byremoving the phrase ‘‘or Americanfunds, as indicated on the invoice,’’ andadding in their place the word ‘‘funds’’in paragraph (a).

21. Section 401.81 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 401.81 Reporting an accident.

(a) Where a vessel on the Seaway isinvolved in an accident, the master ofthe vessel shall report the accident tothe nearest Seaway station immediatelyor as soon as the vessel can make radiocontact with the station.* * * * *

§ 401.84 [Amended]

22. Section 401.84 is amended byremoving the number ‘‘401.21’’ andadding in its place the number‘‘401.19’’in paragraph (c).

§§ 401.86, 401.87, and 401.88 [Amended]

23. In Sections 401.86, 401.87, and401.88, remove the words ‘‘or theAuthority’’ wherever they appear in thefollowing places;

a. Section 401.86 (a), (b), and (c).b. Section 401.87 (c), (d), and (d)(3).c. Section 401.88 (a)(2) and (b).

§ 401.89 [Amended]

24. Section 401.89 is amended byremoving the number ‘‘401.6’’ andadding in its place the number ‘‘401.5’’and removing the number ‘‘401.21’’ andadding in its place the number ‘‘401.19’’in paragraph (a)(1).


§ 401.90 Boarding for inspections.

(a) For the purpose of enforcing theseRegulations in this part in both

Canadian and U.S. waters, an officermay board any vessel and:

(1) Examine the vessel and its cargo;and

(2) Determine that the vessel isadequately manned.

(b) In addition to § 401.90(a)(1) and(2) in Canadian waters, a Manager’sofficer may also:

(1) Require any person appearing tobe in charge of the vessel to produce forinspection, or for the purpose of makingcopies or extracts, any log book,document or paper; and

(2) In carrying out an inspection:(i) Use or cause to be used any

computer system or data processingsystem on the vessel to examine anydata contained in, or available to, thesystem;

(ii) Reproduce any record, or cause itto be reproduced from the data, in theform of a print-out or other intelligibleoutput and remove the print-out orother output for examination orcopying; and

(iii) Use or cause to be used anycopying equipment in the vessel tomake copies of any books, records,electronic data or other documents.

(c) In Canadian waters, the owner orperson who is in possession or controlof a vessel that is inspected, and everyperson who is found on the vessel,shall:

(1) Give the officer all reasonableassistance to enable the officer to carryout the inspection and exercise anypower conferred by the Canada MarineAct; and

(2) Provide the officer with anyinformation relevant to theadministration of these practices andprocedures that the officer mayreasonable require.

§ 401.93 [Amended]

26. Section 401.93 is amended byadding the words ‘‘or its successor’’after the words ‘‘Shore TrafficRegulations’’ in paragraph (b).

§ 401.94 [Amended]

27. The heading for § 401.94 isamended by removing the word ‘‘copy’’and adding in its place the word‘‘copies’’.

Schedule III to Subpart A [Amended]

28. Schedule III to subpart A, part 401is amended as follows:

a. Amend item 5 by removing items3, 4, and 5 in the third column, underthe heading ‘‘Message Content’’, andredesignating item 6 in that column asitem 3.

b. Amend item 8 by removing thewords ‘‘and call sign’’ from item 1 in thethird column, under the heading

‘‘Message Content’’, by removing items5 and 6 in that column, and adding anew item 5 in that column to read asfollows, ‘‘5. All ports of call’’.

c. Amend item 19 by removing items3, 4, 5, and 6 in the third column, underthe heading ‘‘Message Content’’, andredesignating item 7 in that column asitem 3.

d. Amend item 35 by removing item3 in the third column, under theheading ‘‘Message Content’’.

e. Amend item 36 by removing items3, 4, and 5 in the third column, underthe heading ‘‘Message Content’’, andredesignating items 6, 7 and 8 in thatcolumn as items 3, 4 and 5.

f. Amend item 40 by removing items3, 4, and 5 in the third column, underthe heading ‘‘Message Content’’.

§§ 401.2, 401.12, 401.13, 401.22, 401.24,401.25, 401.31, 401.34, 401.54, 401.59,401.66, 401.72, 401.78, 401.91, 401.92,401.93, 401.96, 401.97, and Schedule II tosubpart A [Amended]

29. In addition to the amendments setforth above, in 33 CFR part 401 removethe word ‘‘Authority’’ and add in itsplace the word ‘‘Manager’’ in thefollowing places:

a. Section 401.2 (d), (e), (h), (j), and(k);

b. Section 401.12 (a)(2) and (a)(4)(ii);c. Section 401.13(a);d. Section 401.22(a);e. Section 401.24;f. Section 401.25;g. Section 401.31(b);h. Section 401.34;i. Section 401.54(b);j. Section 401.59(d);k. Section 401.66(b);l. Section 401.72(e);m. Section 401.78(b);n. Section 401.91;o. Section 401.92;p. Section 401.93 (a) and (b);q. Section 401.96 (a), (b), (c), and (e);r. Section 401.97 (a), (b)(2), and (d);

ands. Footnote 1 to Schedule II to subpart

A, ‘‘Table of Speeds’’.Issued at Washington, DC on August 24,

2000.Saint Lawrence Seaway DevelopmentCorporation.Albert S. Jacquez,Administrator.[FR Doc. 00–22096 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–61–P



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and TrademarkOffice

37 CFR Part 102

RIN 0651–AB21

Public Information, Freedom ofInformation and Privacy

AGENCY: United States Patent andTrademark Office, Commerce.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States Patent andTrademark Office (USPTO) addsregulations implementing the Freedomof Information Act (FOIA), including theElectronic Freedom of Information Act(EFOIA) Amendments of 1996, and thePrivacy Act (PA).DATES: Effective October 2, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Joseph G. Piccolo, 703–305–9035.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rulewas proposed in a notice of proposedrulemaking published at 65 FR 41903 onJuly 7, 2000. Background information onthis rule may be found in that notice. Apublic-interest group sent a commentwith eleven recommendations. Asection of a bar association submitted acomment with a singlerecommendation.

Discussion of Comments

(1) The first comment recommendeddeletion of the phrase ‘‘created byUSPTO’’ in § 102.2(b). The commentappears to interpret the phrase as alimitation on what the FOIA Officermay have posted on the USPTO Webpage. Since the comment’sinterpretation is not consistent with theplain language of the rule, therecommendation will not be adopted.

(2) The first comment recommendedchanging the date for determiningresponsive records in § 102.5(a) from thedate of the request to the date of theresponse because requesters might beinjured by processing delays. Therecommendation is not adopted becauseit would exacerbate the problem itintends to address. The comment’sproposal creates a circular definition forthe response date because completion ofprocessing would trigger a new searchrequiring further processing. Such apractice would increase processing timefor all cases and would likely lead toinconsistent results. Thisrecommendation is not adopted becauseit is not required by law and it wouldbe administratively unworkable.

(3) The first comment recommendedthat § 102.5(b) be revised to limit

referrals to other agencies to situationsin which the other agency retainedcontrol over the requested record andthe referral would not delay a response.The first part of the recommendation isnot workable because the originatingagency is often the best, even the only,agency in a position to determine thereleasability of the record. The secondpart of the test is impossible to predictbefore the referral is made and, in anycase, could require USPTO to waiveanother agency’s exemptions routinelywithout consultation. Moreover, thecomment appears to interpret the rule asbarring the FOIA Officer fromresponding to a request that has beenreferred to another agency forconsultation. Since that interpretation isnot consistent with the plain languageof the rule, the recommendation is notadopted.

(4) The first comment recommendseliminating what it characterizes as a‘‘pre-suit, non-judicial extension of timefor the completion of requests’’ in§ 102.6(c)(3). The paragraph in questiondoes not provide for such extensions.Since the rule simply places requesterson notice that there may becircumstances in which a backlog mayexcuse a delay, the recommendation isnot adopted.

(5) The first comment recommendselimination of the last sentence of§ 102.6(c)(3). The comment interpretsthe sentence as suggesting ajurisdictional bar to judicial reviewwhen a requester refuses to work withUSPTO to permit a timely response. Thesentence simply notes that a court mighttake a requester’s conduct into accountbefore reaching the merits of acomplaint. Since the comment’sinterpretation is not consistent with thelanguage of the rule, therecommendation is not adopted.

(6) The first comment recommendsthat § 102.6(d)(1) be revised to providespecific standards for multitracking.There is no basis in USPTO for morespecific standards for multitracking atthis time. When more specific standardsbecome necessary, USPTO willpromulgate them in accordance with 5U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(D)(i).

(7) The first comment recommendsrevising the sections that requirepayment before the search results arereleased. The comment characterizesthis requirement as an impermissibleadvance payment. The comment’scharacterization is inconsistent withStrout v. United States Parole Comm’n,40 F.3d 136, 139 (6th Cir. 1994).Paragraph 102.11(i) explicitly bars theFOIA Officer from requiring advancepayment except as permitted by statute

and the case law. The recommendationis not adopted.

(8) The first comment recommendseliminating the provision in§ 102.11(i)(4) that a request in whichadvance payment may be required is notconsidered received until the advancepayment is received. Adopting therecommendation would create theparadoxical situation in which theUSPTO response is untimely eventhough the advanced payment wasnever received or was received so latethat no response was possible. The onlyalternative USPTO would have wouldbe to process the request without anyassurance that it would be paid inprecisely the situation where the statutepermits a requirement of advancepayment. The rule provides a reasonableinterpretation of the statute thateliminates the paradox. Therecommendation is not adopted.

(9) The first comment recommendseliminating the last sentence of§ 102.11(k)(2)(ii). The comment appearsto interpret this provision as barring theFOIA Officer from granting a fee waiverto a second requester of previouslyreleased information. The plainlanguage of the rule does not compelthat result, but rather requires the FOIAOfficer to evaluate that issue in thecontext of a specific request. Since thecomment’s interpretation is notconsistent with the language of the rule,the recommendation is not adopted.

(10) The first comment recommendseliminating the provision in § 102.9(f)that permits the submitter of businessinformation from pointing out allavailable exemptions from disclosure. Itis not clear from the comment whatbasis USPTO would have to censor abusiness submitter from pointing outany exemption that might meet itsinterest in keeping its confidentialinformation from disclosure. Moreover,the point of the rule is to ensure that abusiness submitter makes its entire casein a single response rather thanadvancing exemptions in a piecemealfashion. The recommendation is notadopted.

(11) The first comment recommendsrevising the last sentence of § 102.10(d),which provides that an administrativeappeal may continue after a requesterhas initiated a civil action. Thecomment appears to interpret paragraph(d) as requiring some requesters tochoose between continuing anadministrative appeal and filing a civilaction. The sentence does not force suchan election, but rather simply putsrequesters on notice of a practice that isnot universal in judicial review ofUSPTO action. Since the comment’sinterpretation is not consistent with the



language of the rule, therecommendation is not adopted.

(12) The second commentrecommends that USPTO make thematerial available under § 102.2(c)(4)–(6) also available at the USPTO web site(www.uspto.gov). The recommendationis already adopted in § 102.2(b) formaterials created on or after theeffective date of the EFOIAamendments, November 1, 1996.

Other ConsiderationsThis rule is not significant under

Executive Order 12866.This rule does not contain a

‘‘collection of information’’ as definedby the Paperwork Reduction Act (44U.S.C. ch. 35).

In accordance with the RegulatoryFlexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), USPTOhas certified that this rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 102Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of Information,Privacy, Public information.

For the reasons stated in thepreamble, amend 37 CFR Chapter I byadding Part 102 to read:

PART 102—DISCLOSURE OFGOVERNMENT INFORMATION

Subpart A—Freedom of Information ActSec.102.1 General.102.2 Public reference facilities.102.3 Records under FOIA.102.4 Requirements for making requests.102.5 Responsibility for responding to

requests.102.6 Time limits and expedited

processing.102.7 Responses to requests.102.9 Business Information.102.10 Appeals from initial determinations

or untimely delays.102.11 Fees.

Subpart B—Privacy Act102.21 Purpose and scope.102.22 Definitions.102.23 Procedures for making inquiries.102.24 Procedures for making requests for

records.102.25 Disclosure of requested records to

individuals.102.26 Special procedures: Medical

records.102.27 Procedures for making requests for

correction or amendment.102.28 Review of requests for correction or

amendment.102.29 Appeal of initial adverse

determination on correction oramendment.

102.30 Disclosure of record to person otherthan the individual to whom it pertains.

102.31 Fees.102.32 Penalties.

102.33 General exemptions.102.34 Specific exemptions.Appendix to Part 102—Systems of

Records Noticed by Other FederalAgencies and Applicable to USPTORecords, and Applicability of thisPart Thereto

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 5U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 3717; 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2),21, 41, 42, 122; 44 U.S.C. 3101.

Subpart A—Freedom of InformationAct

§ 102.1 General.(a) The information in this part is

furnished for the guidance of the publicand in compliance with therequirements of the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA), as amended (5U.S.C. 552). This part sets forth theprocedures the United States Patent andTrademark Office (USPTO) follows tomake publicly available the materialsand indices specified in 5 U.S.C.552(a)(2) and records requested under 5U.S.C. 552(a)(3). Information routinelyprovided to the public as part of aregular USPTO activity (for example,press releases issued by the Office ofPublic Affairs) may be provided to thepublic without following this part.USPTO’s policy is to make discretionarydisclosures of records or informationexempt from disclosure under FOIAwhenever disclosure would notforeseeably harm an interest protectedby a FOIA exemption, but this policydoes not create any right enforceable incourt.

(b) As used in this subpart, FOIAOfficer means the USPTO employeedesignated to administer FOIA forUSPTO. To ensure prompt processing ofa request, correspondence should beaddressed to the FOIA Officer, UnitedStates Patent and Trademark Office,WASHINGTON DC 20231 or deliveredby hand to Crystal Park Two, 2121Crystal Drive, Suite 714, Arlington,Virginia.

§ 102.2 Public reference facilities.(a) USPTO maintains a public

reference facility that contains therecords FOIA requires to be maderegularly available for public inspectionand copying; furnishes information andotherwise assists the public concerningUSPTO operations under FOIA; andreceives and processes requests forrecords under FOIA. The FOIA Officeris responsible for determining which ofUSPTO’s records are required to bemade available for public inspectionand copying, and for making thoserecords available in USPTO’s referenceand records inspection facility. TheFOIA Officer shall maintain and make

available for public inspection andcopying a current subject-matter indexof USPTO’s public inspection facilityrecords. Each index shall be updatedregularly, at least quarterly, with respectto newly included records. Inaccordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2),USPTO has determined that it isunnecessary and impracticable topublish quarterly, or more frequently,and distribute copies of the index andsupplements thereto. The publicreference facility is located in the PublicSearch Room, Crystal Plaza Three, 2021South Clark Place, Room 1A01,Arlington, Virginia.

(b) The FOIA Officer shall also makepublic inspection facility recordscreated by USPTO on or after November1, 1996, available electronically throughUSPTO’s World Wide Web site (http://www.uspto.gov). Information availableat the site shall include:

(1) The FOIA Officer’s index of thepublic inspection facility records, whichindicates which records are availableelectronically; and

(2) The general index referred to inparagraph (c)(3) of this section.

(c) USPTO maintains and makesavailable for public inspection andcopying:

(1) A current index providingidentifying information for the public asto any matter that is issued, adopted, orpromulgated after July 4, 1967, and thatis retained as a record and is requiredto be made available or published.Copies of the index are available uponrequest after payment of the direct costof duplication;

(2) Copies of records that have beenreleased and that the FOIA Officerdetermines, because of their subjectmatter, have become or are likely tobecome the subject of subsequentrequests for substantially the samerecords;

(3) A general index of the recordsdescribed in paragraph (c)(2) of thissection;

(4) Final opinions and orders,including concurring and dissentingopinions made in the adjudication ofcases;

(5) Those statements of policy andinterpretations that have been adoptedby USPTO and are not published in theFederal Register; and

(6) Administrative staff manuals andinstructions to staff that affect a memberof the public.

§ 102.3 Records under FOIA.

(a) Records under FOIA include allGovernment records, regardless offormat, medium or physicalcharacteristics, and include electronic



records and information, audiotapes,videotapes, and photographs.

(b) There is no obligation to create,compile, or obtain from outside USPTOa record to satisfy a FOIA request. Withregard to electronic data, the issue ofwhether records are created or merelyextracted from an existing database isnot always apparent. When respondingto FOIA requests for electronic datawhere creation of a record orprogramming becomes an issue, USPTOshall undertake reasonable efforts tosearch for the information in electronicformat.

(c) USPTO officials may, uponrequest, create and provide newinformation pursuant to user feestatutes, such as the first paragraph of15 U.S.C. 1525, or in accordance withauthority otherwise provided by law.This is outside the scope of FOIA.

(d) The FOIA Officer shall preserve allcorrespondence pertaining to therequests received under this subpart, aswell as copies of all requested records,until disposition or destruction isauthorized by Title 44 of the UnitedStates Code or a National Archives andRecords Administration’s GeneralRecords Schedule. The FOIA Officershall not dispose of records while theyare the subject of a pending request,appeal, or lawsuit under FOIA.

§ 102.4 Requirements for making requests.(a) A request for USPTO records that

are not customarily made available tothe public as part of USPTO’s regularinformational services must be inwriting, and shall be processed underFOIA, regardless of whether FOIA ismentioned in the request. Requestsshould be sent to the USPTO FOIAOfficer, United States Patent andTrademark Office, Washington DC20231 (records FOIA requires to bemade regularly available for publicinspection and copying are addressed in§ 102.2(c)). For the quickest handling,the request letter and envelope shouldbe marked ‘‘Freedom of Information ActRequest.’’ For requests for records aboutoneself, § 102.24 contains additionalrequirements. For requests for recordsabout another individual, either awritten authorization signed by thatindividual permitting disclosure ofthose records to the requester or proofthat that individual is deceased (forexample, a copy of a death certificate oran obituary) facilitates processing therequest.

(b) The records requested must bedescribed in enough detail to enableUSPTO personnel to locate them with areasonable amount of effort. Wheneverpossible, a request should includespecific information about each record

sought, such as the date, title or name,author, recipient, and subject matter ofthe record, and the name and locationof the office where the record is located.Also, if records about a court case aresought, the title of the case, the court inwhich the case was filed, and the natureof the case should be included. Ifknown, any file designations ordescriptions for the requested recordsshould be included. In general, the morespecifically the request describes therecords sought, the greater thelikelihood that USPTO will locate thoserecords. If the FOIA Officer determinesthat a request does not reasonablydescribe records, the FOIA Officer willinform the requester what additionalinformation is needed or why therequest is otherwise insufficient. TheFOIA Officer also may give the requesteran opportunity to discuss the request sothat it may be modified to meet therequirements of this section.

§ 102.5 Responsibility for responding torequests.

(a) In general. Except as stated inparagraph (b) of this section, the USPTOwill process FOIA requests directed toUSPTO. In determining recordsresponsive to a request, the FOIAOfficer shall include only those recordswithin USPTO’s possession and controlas of the date the FOIA Officer receivesthe request.

(b) Consultations and referrals. If theFOIA Officer receives a request for arecord in USPTO’s possession in whichanother Federal agency subject to FOIAhas the primary interest, the FOIAOfficer shall refer the record to thatagency for direct response to therequester. The FOIA Officer shallconsult with another Federal agencybefore responding to a requester if theFOIA Officer receives a request for arecord in which another Federal agencysubject to FOIA has a significantinterest, but not the primary interest; oranother Federal agency not subject toFOIA has the primary interest or asignificant interest. Ordinarily, theagency that originated a record will bepresumed to have the primary interestin it.

(c) Notice of referral. Whenever aFOIA Officer refers a document toanother Federal agency for directresponse to the requester, the FOIAOfficer will ordinarily notify therequester in writing of the referral andinform the requester of the name of theagency to which the document wasreferred.

(d) Timing of responses toconsultations and referrals. Allconsultations and referrals shall behandled according to the date the FOIA

request was received by the first Federalagency.

(e) Agreements regardingconsultations and referrals. The FOIAOfficer may make agreements with otherFederal agencies to eliminate the needfor consultations or referrals forparticular types of records.

§ 102.6 Time limits and expeditedprocessing.

(a) In general. The FOIA Officerordinarily shall respond to requestsaccording to their order of receipt.

(b) Initial response and appeal.Subject to paragraph (c)(1) of thissection, an initial response shall bemade within 20 working days (i.e.,excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legalpublic holidays) of the receipt of arequest for a record under this part bythe proper FOIA Officer identified inaccordance with § 102.5(a), and anappeal shall be decided within 20working days of its receipt by the Officeof the General Counsel.

(c) Unusual circumstances. (1) Inunusual circumstances as specified inparagraph (c)(2) of this section, theFOIA Officer may extend the time limitsin paragraph (b) of this section bynotifying the requester in writing assoon as practicable of the unusualcircumstances and of the date by whichprocessing of the request is expected tobe completed. Extensions of time for theinitial determination and extensions onappeal may not exceed a total of tenworking days, unless the requesteragrees to a longer extension, or the FOIAOfficer provides the requester with anopportunity either to limit the scope ofthe request so that it may be processedwithin the applicable time limit, or toarrange an alternative time frame forprocessing the request or a modifiedrequest.

(2) As used in this section, unusualcircumstances means, but only to theextent reasonably necessary to properlyprocess the particular request:

(i) The need to search for and collectthe requested records from fieldfacilities or other establishmentsseparate from the office processing therequest;

(ii) The need to search for, collect,and appropriately examine avoluminous amount of separate anddistinct records that are the subject of asingle request; or

(iii) The need for consultation, whichshall be conducted with all practicablespeed, with another Federal agencyhaving a substantial interest in thedetermination of the request.

(3) Unusual circumstances do notinclude a delay that results from apredictable workload of requests, unless



USPTO demonstrates reasonableprogress in reducing its backlog ofpending requests. Refusal to reasonablymodify the scope of a request or arrangean alternate time frame may affect arequester’s ability to obtain judicialreview.

(4) If the FOIA Officer reasonablybelieves that multiple requestssubmitted by a requester, or by a groupof requesters acting in concert,constitute a single request that wouldotherwise involve unusualcircumstances, and the requests involveclearly related matters, the FOIA Officermay aggregate them. Multiple requestsinvolving unrelated matters will not beaggregated.

(d) Multitrack processing. (1) TheFOIA Officer may use two or moreprocessing tracks by distinguishingbetween simple and more complexrequests based on the number of pagesinvolved, or some other measure of theamount of work and/or time needed toprocess the request, and whether therequest qualifies for expeditedprocessing as described in paragraph (e)of this section.

(2) The FOIA Officer may providerequesters in a slower track with anopportunity to limit the scope of theirrequests in order to qualify for fasterprocessing. The FOIA Officer maycontact the requester by telephone or byletter, whichever is most efficient ineach case.

(e) Expedited processing. (1) Requestsand appeals shall be taken out of orderand given expedited treatmentwhenever it is determined they involve:

(i) Circumstances in which the lack ofexpedited treatment could reasonably beexpected to pose an imminent threat tothe life or physical safety of anindividual;

(ii) The loss of substantial due processrights;

(iii) A matter of widespread andexceptional media interest in whichthere exist questions about theGovernment’s integrity that affect publicconfidence; or

(iv) An urgency to inform the publicabout an actual or alleged FederalGovernment activity, if made by aperson primarily engaged indisseminating information.

(2) A request for expedited processingmay be made at the time of the initialrequest for records or at any later time.For a prompt determination, a requestfor expedited processing should be sentto the FOIA Officer.

(3) A requester who seeks expeditedprocessing must submit a statement,certified to be true and correct to thebest of that person’s knowledge andbelief, explaining in detail the basis for

requesting expedited processing. Forexample, a requester within the categorydescribed in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of thissection, if not a full-time member of thenews media, must establish that he orshe is a person whose main professionalactivity or occupation is informationdissemination, though it need not be hisor her sole occupation. A requesterwithin the category described inparagraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section mustalso establish a particular urgency toinform the public about the Governmentactivity involved in the request, beyondthe public’s right to know aboutGovernment activity generally. Theformality of certification may be waivedas a matter of administrative discretion.

(4) Within ten calendar days of receiptof a request for expedited processing,the FOIA Officer will decide whether togrant it and shall notify the requester ofthe decision. If a request for expeditedtreatment is granted, the request shall begiven priority and processed as soon aspracticable. If a request for expeditedprocessing is denied, any appeal of thatdecision shall be acted onexpeditiously.

§ 102.7 Responses to requests.(a) Grants of requests. If the FOIA

Officer makes a determination to granta request in whole or in part, the FOIAOfficer will notify the requester inwriting. The FOIA Officer will informthe requester in the notice of any feecharged under § 102.11 and discloserecords to the requester promptly uponpayment of any applicable fee. Recordsdisclosed in part shall be marked orannotated to show each applicable FOIAexemption and the amount ofinformation deleted, unless doing sowould harm an interest protected by anapplicable exemption. The location ofthe information deleted shall also beindicated on the record, if feasible.

(b) Adverse determinations ofrequests. If the FOIA Officer makes anadverse determination regarding arequest, the FOIA Officer will notify therequester of that determination inwriting. An adverse determination is adenial of a request in any respect,namely: A determination to withholdany requested record in whole or inpart; a determination that a requestedrecord does not exist or cannot belocated; a determination that a record isnot readily reproducible in the form orformat sought by the requester; adetermination that what has beenrequested is not a record subject toFOIA (except that a determinationunder § 102.11(j) that records are to bemade available under a fee statute otherthan FOIA is not an adversedetermination); a determination against

the requester on any disputed feematter, including a denial of a requestfor a fee waiver; or a denial of a requestfor expedited treatment. Each denialletter shall be signed by the FOIAOfficer and shall include:

(1) The name and title or position ofthe denying official;

(2) A brief statement of the reason(s)for the denial, including applicableFOIA exemption(s);

(3) An estimate of the volume ofrecords or information withheld, innumber of pages or some otherreasonable form of estimation. Thisestimate need not be provided if thevolume is otherwise indicated throughdeletions on records disclosed in part,or if providing an estimate would harman interest protected by an applicableFOIA exemption; and

(4) A statement that the denial may beappealed, and a list of the requirementsfor filing an appeal under § 102.10(b).

§ 102.9 Business Information.(a) In general. Business information

obtained by USPTO from a submitterwill be disclosed under FOIA onlyunder this section.

(b) Definitions. For the purposes ofthis section:

(1) Business information meanscommercial or financial information,obtained by USPTO from a submitter,which may be protected from disclosureunder FOIA exemption 4 (5 U.S.C.552(b)(4)).

(2) Submitter means any person orentity outside the Federal Governmentfrom whom USPTO obtains businessinformation, directly or indirectly. Theterm includes corporations; state, localand tribal governments; and foreigngovernments.

(c) Designation of businessinformation. A submitter of businessinformation should designate byappropriate markings, either at the timeof submission or at a reasonable timethereafter, any portions of itssubmission that it considers to beprotected from disclosure under FOIAexemption 4. These designations willexpire ten years after the date of thesubmission unless the submitterrequests, and provides justification for,a longer designation period.

(d) Notice to submitters. The FOIAOfficer shall provide a submitter withprompt written notice of a FOIA requestor administrative appeal that seeks itsbusiness information whenever requiredunder paragraph (e) of this section,except as provided in paragraph (h) ofthis section, in order to give thesubmitter an opportunity underparagraph (f) of this section to object todisclosure of any specified portion of



that information. Such written noticeshall be sent via certified mail, returnreceipt requested, or similar means. Thenotice shall either describe the businessinformation requested or include copiesof the requested records containing theinformation. When notification of alarge number of submitters is required,notification may be made by posting orpublishing the notice in a placereasonably likely to accomplishnotification.

(e) When notice is required. Noticeshall be given to the submitterwhenever:

(1) The information has beendesignated in good faith by thesubmitter as protected from disclosureunder FOIA exemption 4; or

(2) The FOIA Officer has reason tobelieve that the information may beprotected from disclosure under FOIAexemption 4.

(f) Opportunity to object to disclosure.The FOIA Officer shall allow asubmitter seven working days (i.e.,excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legalpublic holidays) from the date of receiptof the written notice described inparagraph (d) of this section to providethe FOIA Officer with a detailedstatement of any objection to disclosure.The statement must specify all groundsfor withholding any portion of theinformation under any exemption ofFOIA and, in the case of exemption 4,it must show why the information is atrade secret or commercial or financialinformation that is privileged orconfidential. If a submitter fails torespond to the notice within the timespecified, the submitter will beconsidered to have no objection todisclosure of the information.Information a submitter provides underthis paragraph may itself be subject todisclosure under FOIA.

(g) Notice of intent to disclose. TheFOIA Officer shall consider asubmitter’s objections and specificgrounds under FOIA for nondisclosurein deciding whether to disclose businessinformation. If the FOIA Officer decidesto disclose business information overthe objection of a submitter, the FOIAOfficer shall give the submitter writtennotice via certified mail, return receiptrequested, or similar means, which shallinclude:

(1) A statement of reason(s) why thesubmitter’s objections to disclosurewere not sustained;

(2) A description of the businessinformation to be disclosed; and

(3) A statement that the FOIA Officerintends to disclose the informationseven working days from the date thesubmitter receives the notice.

(h) Exceptions to notice requirements.The notice requirements of paragraphs(d) and (g) of this section shall not applyif:

(1) The FOIA Officer determines thatthe information should not be disclosed;

(2) The information has been lawfullypublished or has been officially madeavailable to the public;

(3) Disclosure of the information isrequired by statute (other than FOIA) orby a regulation issued in accordancewith Executive Order 12600; or

(4) The designation made by thesubmitter under paragraph (c) of thissection appears obviously frivolous, inwhich case the FOIA Officer shallprovide the submitter written notice ofany final decision to disclose theinformation seven working days fromthe date the submitter receives thenotice.

(i) Notice of FOIA lawsuit. Whenevera requester files a lawsuit seeking tocompel the disclosure of businessinformation, the FOIA Officer shallpromptly notify the submitter.

(j) Corresponding notice to requesters.Whenever a FOIA Officer provides asubmitter with notice and anopportunity to object to disclosureunder paragraph (d) of this section, theFOIA Officer shall also notify therequester(s). Whenever a submitter filesa lawsuit seeking to prevent thedisclosure of business information, theFOIA Officer shall notify therequester(s).

§ 102.10 Appeals from initialdeterminations or untimely delays.

(a) If a request for records is initiallydenied in whole or in part, or has notbeen timely determined, or if a requesterreceives an adverse initialdetermination regarding any othermatter under this subpart (as describedin § 102.7(b)), the requester may file awritten appeal, which must be receivedby the Office of General Counsel withinthirty calendar days of the date of thewritten denial or, if there has been nodetermination, may be submittedanytime after the due date, includingthe last extension under § 102.6(c), ofthe determination.

(b) Appeals shall be decided by aDeputy General Counsel. Appealsshould be addressed to the GeneralCounsel, United States Patent andTrademark Office, Washington DC20231. Both the letter and the appealenvelope should be clearly marked‘‘Freedom of Information Appeal’’. Theappeal must include a copy of theoriginal request and the initial denial, ifany, and may include a statement of thereasons why the records requestedshould be made available and why the

initial denial, if any, was in error. Noopportunity for personal appearance,oral argument or hearing on appeal isprovided.

(c) If an appeal is granted, the personmaking the appeal shall be immediatelynotified and copies of the releasabledocuments shall be made availablepromptly thereafter upon receipt ofappropriate fees determined inaccordance with § 102.11.

(d) If no determination of an appealhas been sent to the requester within thetwenty-working-day period specified in§ 102.6(b) or the last extension thereof,the requester is deemed to haveexhausted his administrative remedieswith respect to the request, giving riseto a right of judicial review under 5U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C). If the person makinga request initiates a civil action againstUSPTO based on the provision in thisparagraph, the administrative appealprocess may continue.

(e) A determination on appeal shall bein writing and, when it denies recordsin whole or in part, the letter to therequester shall include:

(1) A brief explanation of the basis forthe denial, including a list of applicableFOIA exemptions and a description ofhow the exemptions apply;

(2) A statement that the decision isfinal;

(3) Notification that judicial review ofthe denial is available in the UnitedStates district court for the district inwhich the requester resides or has itsprincipal place of business, the UnitedStates District Court for the EasternDistrict of Virginia, or the District ofColumbia; and

(4) The name and title or position ofthe official responsible for denying theappeal.

§ 102.11 Fees.(a) In general. USPTO shall charge for

processing requests under FOIA inaccordance with paragraph (c) of thissection, except when fees are limitedunder paragraph (d) of this section orwhen a waiver or reduction of fees isgranted under paragraph (k) of thissection. USPTO shall collect allapplicable fees before sending copies ofrequested records to a requester.Requesters must pay fees by check ormoney order made payable to theTreasury of the United States.

(b) Definitions. For purposes of thissection:

(1) Commercial use request means arequest from or on behalf of a personwho seeks information for a use orpurpose that furthers his or hercommercial, trade, or profit interests,which can include furthering thoseinterests through litigation. The FOIA



Officer shall determine, wheneverreasonably possible, the use to which arequester will put the requested records.When it appears that the requester willput the records to a commercial use,either because of the nature of therequest itself or because the FOIAOfficer has reasonable cause to doubt arequester’s stated use, the FOIA Officershall provide the requester a reasonableopportunity to submit furtherclarification.

(2) Direct costs means those expensesUSPTO incurs in searching for andduplicating (and, in the case ofcommercial use requests, reviewing)records to respond to a FOIA request.Direct costs include, for example, thelabor costs of the employee performingthe work (the basic rate of pay for theemployee, plus 16 percent of that rate tocover benefits). Not included in directcosts are overhead expenses such as thecosts of space and heating or lighting ofthe facility in which the records arekept.

(3) Duplication means the making ofa copy of a record, or of the informationcontained in it, necessary to respond toa FOIA request. Copies may take theform of paper, microform, audiovisualmaterials, or electronic records (forexample, magnetic tape or disk), amongothers. The FOIA Officer shall honor arequester’s specified preference of formor format of disclosure if the record isreadily reproducible with reasonableefforts in the requested form or format.

(4) Educational institution means apreschool, a public or privateelementary or secondary school, aninstitution of undergraduate highereducation, an institution of graduatehigher education, an institution ofprofessional education, or an institutionof vocational education, that operates a

program of scholarly research. To be inthis category, a requester must showthat the request is authorized by and ismade under the auspices of a qualifyinginstitution, and that the records aresought to further scholarly researchrather than for a commercial use.

(5) Noncommercial scientificinstitution means an institution that isnot operated on a ‘‘commercial’’ basis,as that term is defined in paragraph(b)(1) of this section, and that isoperated solely for the purpose ofconducting scientific research, theresults of which are not intended topromote any particular product orindustry. To be in this category, arequester must show that the request isauthorized by and is made under theauspices of a qualifying institution andthat the records are sought to furtherscientific research rather than for acommercial use.

(6) Representative of the news media,or news media requester means anyperson actively gathering news for anentity that is organized and operated topublish or broadcast news to the public.The term ‘‘news’’ means informationthat is about current events or thatwould be of current interest to thepublic. Examples of news media entitiesinclude television or radio stationsbroadcasting to the public at large andpublishers of periodicals (but only ifthey can qualify as disseminators of‘‘news’’) that make their productsavailable for purchase or subscriptionby the general public. For ‘‘freelance’’journalists to be regarded as working fora news organization, they mustdemonstrate a solid basis for expectingpublication through that organization. Apublication contract would be theclearest proof, but the FOIA Officer

shall also look to the past publicationrecord of a requester in making thisdetermination. To be in this category, arequester must not be seeking therequested records for a commercial use.However, a request for recordssupporting the news-disseminationfunction of the requester shall not beconsidered to be for a commercial use.

(7) Review means the examination ofa record located in response to a requestin order to determine whether anyportion of it is exempt from disclosure.It also includes processing any recordfor disclosure—for example, doing allthat is necessary to redact it and prepareit for disclosure. Review costs arerecoverable even if a record ultimatelyis not disclosed. Review time does notinclude time spent resolving generallegal or policy issues regarding theapplication of exemptions.

(8) Search means the process oflooking for and retrieving records orinformation responsive to a request. Itincludes page-by-page or line-by-lineidentification of information withinrecords and also includes reasonableefforts to locate and retrieve informationfrom records maintained in electronicform or format. The FOIA Officer shallensure that searches are done in themost efficient and least expensivemanner reasonably possible.

(c) Fees. In responding to FOIArequests, the FOIA Officer shall chargethe fees summarized in chart form inparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of thissection and explained in paragraphs(c)(3) through (c)(5) of this section,unless a waiver or reduction of fees hasbeen granted under paragraph (k) of thissection.

(1) The four categories and chargeablefees are:

Category Chargeable fees

(i) Commercial Use Requesters ............................................................... Search, Review, and Duplication.(ii) Educational and Non-commercial Scientific Institution Requesters ... Duplication (excluding the cost of the first 100 pages).(iii) Representatives of the News Media .................................................. Duplication (excluding the cost of the first 100 pages).(iv) All Other Requesters .......................................................................... Search and Duplication (excluding the cost of the first 2 hours of

search and 100 pages).

(2) Uniform fee schedule.

Service Rate

(i) Manual search ...................................................................................... Actual salary rate of employee involved, plus 16 percent of salary rate.(ii) Computerized search .......................................................................... Actual direct cost, including operator time.(iii) Duplication of records:(A) Paper copy reproduction .................................................................... $.15 per page(B) Other reproduction (e.g., computer disk or printout, microfilm,

microfiche, or microform).Actual direct cost, including operator time.

(iv) Review of records (includes preparation for release, i.e. excising) ... Actual salary rate of employee conducting review, plus 16 percent ofsalary rate.



(3) Search. (i) Search fees shall becharged for all requests—other thanrequests made by educationalinstitutions, noncommercial scientificinstitutions, or representatives of thenews media—subject to the limitationsof paragraph (d) of this section. TheFOIA Officer will charge for time spentsearching even if no responsive recordsare located or if located records areentirely exempt from disclosure. Searchfees shall be the direct costs ofconducting the search by the involvedemployees.

(ii) For computer searches of records,requesters will be charged the directcosts of conducting the search, althoughcertain requesters (as provided inparagraph (d)(1) of this section) will becharged no search fee and certain otherrequesters (as provided in paragraph(d)(3) of this section) are entitled to thecost equivalent of two hours of manualsearch time without charge. These directcosts include the costs, attributable tothe search, of operating a centralprocessing unit and operator/programmer salary.

(4) Duplication. Duplication fees willbe charged to all requesters, subject tothe limitations of paragraph (d) of thissection. For a paper photocopy of arecord (no more than one copy of whichneed be supplied), the fee shall be $.15cents per page. For copies produced bycomputer, such as tapes or printouts,the FOIA Officer shall charge the directcosts, including operator time, ofproducing the copy. For other forms ofduplication, the FOIA Officer willcharge the direct costs of thatduplication.

(5) Review. Review fees shall becharged to requesters who make acommercial use request. Review feesshall be charged only for the initialrecord review—the review done whenthe FOIA Officer determines whether anexemption applies to a particular recordat the initial request level. No chargewill be made for review at theadministrative appeal level for anexemption already applied. However,records withheld under an exemptionthat is subsequently determined not toapply may be reviewed again todetermine whether any other exemptionnot previously considered applies, andthe costs of that review are chargeable.Review fees shall be the direct costs ofconducting the review by the involvedemployees.

(d) Limitations on charging fees.(1) No search fee will be charged for

requests by educational institutions,noncommercial scientific institutions,or representatives of the news media.

(2) No search fee or review fee will becharged for a quarter-hour period unless

more than half of that period is requiredfor search or review.

(3) Except for requesters seekingrecords for a commercial use, the FOIAOfficer will provide without charge:

(i) The first 100 pages of duplication(or the cost equivalent); and

(ii) The first two hours of search (orthe cost equivalent).

(4) Whenever a total fee calculatedunder paragraph (c) of this section is$20.00 or less for any request, no feewill be charged.

(5) The provisions of paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) of this section work together.This means that for requesters otherthan those seeking records for acommercial use, no fee will be chargedunless the cost of the search in excessof two hours plus the cost of duplicationin excess of 100 pages totals more than$20.00.

(e) Notice of anticipated fees over$20.00. When the FOIA Officerdetermines or estimates that the fees tobe charged under this section will bemore than $20.00, the FOIA Officershall notify the requester of the actualor estimated fees, unless the requesterhas indicated a willingness to pay feesas high as those anticipated. If only aportion of the fee can be estimatedreadily, the FOIA Officer shall advisethe requester that the estimated fee maybe only a portion of the total fee. If theFOIA Officer has notified a requesterthat actual or estimated fees are morethan $20.00, the FOIA Officer shall notconsider the request received or processit further until the requester agrees topay the anticipated total fee. Any suchagreement should be in writing. Anotice under this paragraph shall offerthe requester an opportunity to discussthe matter with USPTO personnel inorder to reformulate the request to meetthe requester’s needs at a lower cost.

(f) Charges for other services. Apartfrom the other provisions of this section,the FOIA Officer shall ordinarily chargethe direct cost of special services. Suchspecial services could include certifyingthat records are true copies or sendingrecords by other than ordinary mail.

(g) Charging interest. The FOIAOfficer shall charge interest on anyunpaid bill starting on the 31st calendarday following the date of billing therequester. Interest charges shall beassessed at the rate provided in 31U.S.C. 3717 and accrue from the date ofthe billing until payment is received bythe FOIA Officer. The FOIA Officershall follow the provisions of the DebtCollection Improvement Act of 1996(Pub. L. 104–134), as amended, and itsadministrative procedures, includingthe use of consumer reporting agencies,collection agencies, and offset.

(h) Aggregating requests. If a FOIAOfficer reasonably believes that arequester or a group of requesters actingtogether is attempting to divide arequest into a series of requests for thepurpose of avoiding fees, the FOIAOfficer may aggregate those requests andcharge accordingly. The FOIA Officermay presume that multiple requests ofthis type made within a 30-calendar-dayperiod have been made in order to avoidfees. If requests are separated by alonger period, the FOIA Officer shallaggregate them only if a solid basisexists for determining that aggregation iswarranted under all the circumstancesinvolved. Multiple requests involvingunrelated matters shall not beaggregated.

(i) Advance payments. (1) Forrequests other than those described inparagraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section,the FOIA Officer shall not require therequester to make an advance payment:a payment made before work is begunor continued on a request. Paymentowed for work already completed (i.e.,a payment before copies are sent to arequester) is not an advance payment.

(2) If the FOIA Officer determines orestimates that a total fee to be chargedunder this section will be more than$250.00, the requester must pay theentire anticipated fee before beginningto process the request, unless the FOIAOfficer receives a satisfactory assuranceof full payment from a requester whohas a history of prompt payment.

(3) If a requester has previously failedto pay a properly charged FOIA fee toUSPTO or another responsible Federalagency within 30 calendar days of thedate of billing, the FOIA Officer shallrequire the requester to pay the fullamount due, plus any applicableinterest, and to make an advancepayment of the full amount of anyanticipated fee, before the FOIA Officerbegins to process a new request orcontinues to process a pending requestfrom that requester.

(4) In cases in which the FOIA Officerrequires payment under paragraphs(i)(2) or (3) of this section, the requestshall not be considered received andfurther work will not be done on it untilthe required payment is received.

(5) Upon the completion of processingof a request, when a specific fee isdetermined to be payable andappropriate notice has been given to therequester, the FOIA Officer shall makerecords available to the requester onlyupon receipt of full payment of the fee.

(j) Other statutes specificallyproviding for fees. The fee schedule ofthis section does not apply to feescharged under any statute (except forFOIA) that specifically requires USPTO



or another responsible Federal agency toset and collect fees for particular typesof records. If records responsive torequests are maintained for distributionby agencies operating such statutorilybased fee schedule programs, the FOIAOfficer shall inform requesters of how toobtain records from those sources.

(k) Requirements for waiver orreduction of fees. (1) Records responsiveto a request will be furnished withoutcharge or at a charge reduced below thatestablished under paragraph (c) of thissection if the FOIA Officer determines,based on all available information, thatthe requester has demonstrated that:

(i) Disclosure of the requestedinformation is in the public interestbecause it is likely to contributesignificantly to public understanding ofthe operations or activities of theGovernment; and

(ii) Disclosure of the information isnot primarily in the commercial interestof the requester.

(2) To determine whether the first feewaiver requirement is met, the FOIAOfficer shall consider the followingfactors:

(i) The subject of the request: whetherthe subject of the requested recordsconcerns the operations or activities ofthe Government. The subject of therequested records must concernidentifiable operations or activities ofthe Federal Government, with aconnection that is direct and clear, notremote or attenuated.

(ii) The informative value of theinformation to be disclosed: whether thedisclosure is ‘‘likely to contribute’’ to anunderstanding of Governmentoperations or activities. The disclosableportions of the requested records mustbe meaningfully informative aboutGovernment operations or activities inorder to be ‘‘likely to contribute’’ to anincreased public understanding of thoseoperations or activities. The disclosureof information that already is in thepublic domain, in either a duplicative ora substantially identical form, wouldnot be likely to contribute to suchunderstanding.

(iii) The contribution to anunderstanding of the subject by thepublic likely to result from disclosure:whether disclosure of the requestedinformation will contribute to theunderstanding of a reasonably broadaudience of persons interested in thesubject, as opposed to the individualunderstanding of the requester. Arequester’s expertise in the subject areaand ability and intention to effectivelyconvey information to the public shallbe considered. It shall be presumed thata representative of the news mediasatisfies this consideration. It shall be

presumed that a requester who merelyprovides information to media sourcesdoes not satisfy this consideration.

(iv) The significance of thecontribution to public understanding:whether the disclosure is likely tocontribute ‘‘significantly’’ to publicunderstanding of Governmentoperations or activities. The public’sunderstanding of the subject in questionprior to the disclosure must besignificantly enhanced by thedisclosure.

(3) To determine whether the secondfee waiver requirement is met, the FOIAOfficer shall consider the followingfactors:

(i) The existence and magnitude of acommercial interest: whether therequester has a commercial interest thatwould be furthered by the requesteddisclosure. The FOIA Officer shallconsider any commercial interest of therequester (with reference to thedefinition of ‘‘commercial use request’’in paragraph (b)(1) of this section), or ofany person on whose behalf therequester may be acting, that would befurthered by the requested disclosure.Requesters shall be given anopportunity to provide explanatoryinformation regarding thisconsideration.

(ii) The primary interest in disclosure:whether any identified commercialinterest of the requester is sufficientlylarge, in comparison with the publicinterest in disclosure, that disclosure is‘‘primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester.’’ A fee waiver orreduction is justified if the publicinterest standard (paragraph (k)(1)(i) ofthis section) is satisfied and the publicinterest is greater than any identifiedcommercial interest in disclosure. TheFOIA Officer ordinarily shall presumethat if a news media requester hassatisfied the public interest standard,the public interest is the primaryinterest served by disclosure to thatrequester. Disclosure to data brokers orothers who merely compile and marketGovernment information for directeconomic return shall not be presumedto primarily serve the public interest.

(4) If only some of the records to bereleased satisfy the requirements for afee waiver, a waiver shall be granted forthose records.

(5) Requests for the waiver orreduction of fees should address thefactors listed in paragraphs (k)(2) and (3)of this section, insofar as they apply toeach request.

Subpart B—Privacy Act

§ 102.21 Purpose and scope.(a) The purpose of this subpart is to

establish policies and procedures forimplementing the Privacy Act of 1974,as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) (the Act).The main objectives are to facilitate fullexercise of rights conferred onindividuals under the Act and to ensurethe protection of privacy as toindividuals on whom USPTO maintainsrecords in systems of records under theAct. USPTO accepts the responsibilityto act promptly and in accordance withthe Act upon receipt of any inquiry,request or appeal from a citizen of theUnited States or an alien lawfullyadmitted for permanent residence intothe United States, regardless of the ageof the individual. Further, USPTOaccepts the obligations to maintain onlysuch information on individuals as isrelevant and necessary to theperformance of its lawful functions, tomaintain that information with suchaccuracy, relevancy, timeliness, andcompleteness as is reasonably necessaryto assure fairness in determinationsmade by USPTO about the individual,to obtain information from theindividual to the extent practicable, andto take every reasonable step to protectthat information from unwarranteddisclosure. USPTO will maintain norecord describing how an individualexercises rights guaranteed by the FirstAmendment unless expresslyauthorized by statute or by theindividual about whom the record ismaintained or unless pertinent to andwithin the scope of an authorized lawenforcement activity. An individual’sname and address will not be sold orrented by USPTO unless such action isspecifically authorized by law; however,this provision shall not be construed torequire the withholding of names andaddresses otherwise permitted to bemade public.

(b) This subpart is administered bythe Privacy Officer of USPTO.

(c) Matters outside the scope of thissubpart include the following:

(1) Requests for records which do notpertain to the individual making therequest, or to the individual aboutwhom the request is made if therequester is the parent or guardian of theindividual;

(2) Requests involving informationpertaining to an individual which is ina record or file but not within the scopeof a system of records notice publishedin the Federal Register;

(3) Requests to correct a record wherea grievance procedure is available to theindividual either by regulation or byprovision in a collective bargaining



agreement with USPTO, and theindividual has initiated, or hasexpressed in writing the intention ofinitiating, such grievance procedure. Anindividual selecting the grievanceprocedure waives the use of theprocedures in this subpart to correct oramend a record; and,

(4) Requests for employee-employerservices and counseling which wereroutinely granted prior to enactment ofthe Act, including, but not limited to,test calculations of retirement benefits,explanations of health and lifeinsurance programs, and explanations oftax withholding options.

(d) Any request for records whichpertains to the individual making therequest, or to the individual aboutwhom the request is made if therequester is the parent or guardian of theindividual, shall be processed under theAct and this subpart and under theFreedom of Information Act andUSPTO’s implementing regulations atSubpart A of this part, regardlesswhether the Act or the Freedom ofInformation Act is mentioned in therequest.

§ 102.22 Definitions.(a) All terms used in this subpart

which are defined in 5 U.S.C. 552a shallhave the same meaning herein.

(b) As used in this subpart:(1) Act means the ‘‘Privacy Act of

1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a)’’.(2) Appeal means a request by an

individual to review and reverse aninitial denial of a request by thatindividual for correction or amendment.

(3) USPTO means the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office.

(4) Inquiry means either a request forgeneral information regarding the Actand this subpart or a request by anindividual (or that individual’s parentor guardian) that USPTO determinewhether it has any record in a system ofrecords which pertains to thatindividual.

(5) Person means any human beingand also shall include but not be limitedto, corporations, associations,partnerships, trustees, receivers,personal representatives, and public orprivate organizations.

(6) Privacy Officer means a USPTOemployee designated to administer thissubpart.

(7) Request for access means a requestby an individual or an individual’sparent or guardian to see a record whichis in a particular system of records andwhich pertains to that individual.

(8) Request for correction oramendment means the request by anindividual or an individual’s parent orguardian that USPTO change (either by

correction, amendment, addition ordeletion) a particular record in a systemof records which pertains to thatindividual.

§ 102.23 Procedures for making inquiries.(a) Any individual, regardless of age,

who is a citizen of the United States oran alien lawfully admitted forpermanent residence into the UnitedStates may submit an inquiry to USPTO.The inquiry should be made either inperson at Crystal Park Two, 2121 CrystalPark Drive, Suite 714, Arlington,Virginia, or by mail addressed to thePrivacy Officer, United States Patentand Trademark Office, WASHINGTONDC 20231 or to the official identified inthe notification procedures paragraph ofthe systems of records notice publishedin the Federal Register. If an individualbelieves USPTO maintains a recordpertaining to that individual but doesnot know which system of recordsmight contain such a record, the USPTOPrivacy Officer will provide assistancein person or by mail.

(b) Inquiries submitted by mail shouldinclude the words ‘‘PRIVACY ACTINQUIRY’’ in capital letters at the top ofthe letter and on the face of theenvelope. If the inquiry is for generalinformation regarding the Act and thissubpart, no particular information isrequired. USPTO reserves the right torequire compliance with theidentification procedures appearing at§ 102.24(d) where circumstanceswarrant. If the inquiry is a request thatUSPTO determine whether it has, in agiven system of records, a record whichpertains to the individual, the followinginformation should be submitted:

(1) Name of individual whose recordis sought;

(2) Individual whose record is soughtis either a U.S. citizen or an alienlawfully admitted for permanentresidence;

(3) Identifying data that will helplocate the record (for example, maidenname, occupational license number,period or place of employment, etc.);

(4) Record sought, by description andby record system name, if known;

(5) Action requested (that is, sendinginformation on how to exercise rightsunder the Act; determining whetherrequested record exists; gaining accessto requested record; or obtaining copy ofrequested record);

(6) Copy of court guardianship orderor minor’s birth certificate, as providedin § 102.24(f)(3), but only if requester isguardian or parent of individual whoserecord is sought;

(7) Requester’s name (printed),signature, address, and telephonenumber (optional);

(8) Date; and,(9) Certification of request by notary

or other official, but only if(i) Request is for notification that

requested record exists, for access torequested record or for copy ofrequested record;

(ii) Record is not available to anyperson under 5 U.S.C. 552; and

(iii) Requester does not appear beforean employee of USPTO for verificationof identity.

(c) Any inquiry which is notaddressed as specified in paragraph (a)of this section or which is not markedas specified in paragraph (b) of thissection will be so addressed and markedby USPTO personnel and forwardedimmediately to the Privacy Officer. Aninquiry which is not properly addressedby the individual will not be deemed tohave been ‘‘received’’ for purposes ofmeasuring the time period for responseuntil actual receipt by the PrivacyOfficer. In each instance when aninquiry so forwarded is received, thePrivacy Officer shall notify theindividual that his or her inquiry wasimproperly addressed and the date theinquiry was received at the properaddress.

(d)(1) Each inquiry received shall beacted upon promptly by the PrivacyOfficer. Every effort will be made torespond within ten working days (i.e.,excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legalpublic holidays) of the date of receipt.If a response cannot be made within tenworking days, the Privacy Officer shallsend an acknowledgment during thatperiod providing information on thestatus of the inquiry and asking for suchfurther information as may be necessaryto process the inquiry. The firstcorrespondence sent by the PrivacyOfficer to the requester shall containUSPTO’s control number assigned to therequest, as well as a note that therequester should use that number in allfuture contacts in order to facilitateprocessing. USPTO shall use thatcontrol number in all subsequentcorrespondence.

(2) If the Privacy Officer fails to sendan acknowledgment within ten workingdays, as provided above, the requestermay ask the General Counsel to takecorrective action. No failure of thePrivacy Officer to send anacknowledgment shall conferadministrative finality for purposes ofjudicial review.

(e) An individual shall not berequired to state a reason or otherwisejustify his or her inquiry.

(f) Special note should be taken of thefact that certain agencies are responsiblefor publishing notices of systems ofrecords having Government-wide



application to other agencies, includingUSPTO. The agencies known to bepublishing these general notices and thetypes of records covered therein appearin an appendix to this part. Theprovisions of this section, andparticularly paragraph (a) of thissection, should be followed in makinginquiries with respect to such records.Such records in USPTO are subject tothe provisions of this part to the extentindicated in the appendix to this part.The exemptions, if any, determined byan agency publishing a general noticeshall be invoked and applied by USPTOafter consultation, as necessary, withthat other agency.

§ 102.24 Procedures for making requestsfor records.

(a) Any individual, regardless of age,who is a citizen of the United States oran alien lawfully admitted forpermanent residence into the UnitedStates may submit a request for accessto records to USPTO. The requestshould be made either in person atCrystal Park Two, 2121 Crystal Drive,Suite 714, Arlington, Virginia, or bymail addressed to the Privacy Officer,United States Patent and TrademarkOffice, Washington, DC 20231.

(b) Requests submitted by mail shouldinclude the words ‘‘PRIVACY ACTREQUEST’’ in capital letters at the topof the letter and on the face of theenvelope. Any request which is notaddressed as specified in paragraph (a)of this section or which is not markedas specified in this paragraph will be soaddressed and marked by USPTOpersonnel and forwarded immediatelyto the Privacy Officer. A request whichis not properly addressed by theindividual will not be deemed to havebeen ‘‘received’’ for purposes ofmeasuring time periods for responseuntil actual receipt by the PrivacyOfficer. In each instance when a requestso forwarded is received, the PrivacyOfficer shall notify the individual thathis or her request was improperlyaddressed and the date when therequest was received at the properaddress.

(c) If the request follows an inquiryunder § 102.23 in connection withwhich the individual’s identity wasestablished by USPTO, the individualneed only indicate the record to whichaccess is sought, provide the USPTOcontrol number assigned to the request,and sign and date the request. If therequest is not preceded by an inquiryunder § 102.23, the procedures of thissection should be followed.

(d) The requirements foridentification of individuals seekingaccess to records are as follows:

(1) In person. Each individual makinga request in person shall be required topresent satisfactory proof of identity.The means of proof, in the order ofpreference and priority, are:

(i) A document bearing theindividual’s photograph (for example,driver’s license, passport or military orcivilian identification card);

(ii) A document, preferably issued forparticipation in a federally sponsoredprogram, bearing the individual’ssignature (for example, unemploymentinsurance book, employer’sidentification card, national credit card,and professional, craft or unionmembership card); and

(iii) A document bearing neither thephotograph nor the signature of theindividual, preferably issued forparticipation in a federally sponsoredprogram (for example, Medicaid card).In the event the individual can provideno suitable documentation of identity,USPTO will require a signed statementasserting the individual’s identity andstipulating that the individualunderstands the penalty provision of 5U.S.C. 552a(i)(3) recited in § 102.32(a).In order to avoid any unwarranteddisclosure of an individual’s records,USPTO reserves the right to determinethe adequacy of proof of identity offeredby any individual, particularly when therequest involves a sensitive record.

(2) Not in person. If the individualmaking a request does not appear inperson before the Privacy Officer orother employee authorized to determineidentity, a certification of a notarypublic or equivalent officer empoweredto administer oaths must accompany therequest under the circumstancesprescribed in § 102.23(b)(9). Thecertification in or attached to the lettermust be substantially in accordancewith the following text:City of llllCounty of llll :ss(Name of individual), who affixed (his) (her)

signature below in my presence, camebefore me, a (title), in and for the aforesaidCounty and State, this lll day oflll, 20l, and established (his) (her)identity to my satisfaction.

My commission expires llll.(Signature)

(3) Parents of minors and legalguardians. An individual acting as theparent of a minor or the legal guardianof the individual to whom a recordpertains shall establish his or herpersonal identity in the same mannerprescribed in either paragraph (d)(1) or(d)(2) of this section. In addition, suchother individual shall establish his orher identity in the representativecapacity of parent or legal guardian. Inthe case of the parent of a minor, the

proof of identity shall be a certified orauthenticated copy of the minor’s birthcertificate. In the case of a legalguardian of an individual who has beendeclared incompetent due to physical ormental incapacity or age by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction, the proof ofidentity shall be a certified orauthenticated copy of the court’s order.For purposes of the Act, a parent orlegal guardian may represent only aliving individual, not a decedent. Aparent or legal guardian may beaccompanied during personal access toa record by another individual,provided the provisions of § 102.25(f)are satisfied.

(e) When the provisions of thissubpart are alleged to impede anindividual in exercising his or her rightto access, USPTO will consider, from anindividual making a request, alternativesuggestions regarding proof of identityand access to records.

(f) An individual shall not be requiredto state a reason or otherwise justify hisor her request for access to a record.

§ 102.25 Disclosure of requested recordsto individuals.

(a)(1) The Privacy Officer shall actpromptly upon each request. Everyeffort will be made to respond withinten working days (i.e., excludingSaturdays, Sundays, and legal publicholidays) of the date of receipt. If aresponse cannot be made within tenworking days due to unusualcircumstances, the Privacy Officer shallsend an acknowledgment during thatperiod providing information on thestatus of the request and asking for anyfurther information that may benecessary to process the request.‘‘Unusual circumstances’’ shall includecircumstances in which

(i) A search for and collection ofrequested records from inactive storage,field facilities or other establishments isrequired;

(ii) A voluminous amount of data isinvolved;

(iii) Information on other individualsmust be separated or expunged from theparticular record; or

(iv) Consultations with other agencieshaving a substantial interest in thedetermination of the request arenecessary.

(2) If the Privacy Officer fails to sendan acknowledgment within ten workingdays, as provided above in paragraph (a)of this section, the requester may ask theGeneral Counsel to take correctiveaction. No failure of the Privacy Officerto send an acknowledgment shall conferadministrative finality for purposes ofjudicial review.



(b) Grant of access—(1) Notification.An individual shall be granted access toa record pertaining to him or her, exceptwhere the provisions of paragraph (g)(1)of this section apply. The PrivacyOfficer will notify the individual of adetermination to grant access, andprovide the following information:

(i) The methods of access, as set forthin paragraph (b)(2) of this section;

(ii) The place at which the record maybe inspected;

(iii) The earliest date on which therecord may be inspected and the periodof time that the records will remainavailable for inspection. In no eventshall the earliest date be later than thirtycalendar days from the date ofnotification;

(iv) The estimated date by which acopy of the record could be mailed andthe estimate of fees pursuant to § 102.31.In no event shall the estimated date belater than thirty calendar days from thedate of notification;

(v) The fact that the individual, if heor she wishes, may be accompanied byanother individual during personalaccess, subject to the procedures setforth in paragraph (f) of this section;and,

(vi) Any additional requirementsneeded to grant access to a specificrecord.

(2) Methods of access. The followingmethods of access to records by anindividual may be available dependingon the circumstances of a givensituation:

(i) Inspection in person may be had ina location specified by the PrivacyOfficer during business hours;

(ii) Transfer of records to a Federalfacility more convenient to theindividual may be arranged, but only ifthe Privacy Officer determines that asuitable facility is available, that theindividual’s access can be properlysupervised at that facility, and thattransmittal of the records to that facilitywill not unduly interfere withoperations of USPTO or involveunreasonable costs, in terms of bothmoney and manpower; and

(iii) Copies may be mailed at therequest of the individual, subject topayment of the fees prescribed in§ 102.31. USPTO, on its own initiative,may elect to provide a copy by mail, inwhich case no fee will be charged theindividual.

(c) Access to medical records isgoverned by the provisions of § 102.26.

(d) USPTO will supply such otherinformation and assistance at the time ofaccess as to make the record intelligibleto the individual.

(e) USPTO reserves the right to limitaccess to copies and abstracts of original

records, rather than the original records.This election would be appropriate, forexample, when the record is in anautomated data media such as tape ordiskette, when the record containsinformation on other individuals, andwhen deletion of information ispermissible under exemptions (forexample, 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2)). In noevent shall original records of USPTObe made available to the individualexcept under the immediate supervisionof the Privacy Officer or the PrivacyOfficer’s designee.

(f) Any individual who requestsaccess to a record pertaining to thatindividual may be accompanied byanother individual of his or her choice.‘‘Accompanied’’ includes discussion ofthe record in the presence of the otherindividual. The individual to whom therecord pertains shall authorize thepresence of the other individual inwriting. The authorization shall includethe name of the other individual, aspecific description of the record towhich access is sought, the USPTOcontrol number assigned to the request,the date, and the signature of theindividual to whom the record pertains.The other individual shall sign theauthorization in the presence of thePrivacy Officer. An individual shall notbe required to state a reason orotherwise justify his or her decision tobe accompanied by another individualduring personal access to a record.

(g) Initial denial of access—(1)Grounds. Access by an individual to arecord which pertains to that individualwill be denied only upon adetermination by the Privacy Officerthat:

(i) The record is exempt under§ 102.33 or § 102.34, or exempt bydetermination of another agencypublishing notice of the system ofrecords, as described in § 102.23(f);

(ii) The record is informationcompiled in reasonable anticipation of acivil action or proceeding;

(iii) The provisions of § 102.26pertaining to medical recordstemporarily have been invoked; or

(iv) The individual has unreasonablyfailed to comply with the proceduralrequirements of this part.

(2) Notification. The Privacy Officershall give notice of denial of access torecords to the individual in writing andshall include the following information:

(i) The Privacy Officer’s name andtitle or position;

(ii) The date of the denial;(iii) The reasons for the denial,

including citation to the appropriatesection of the Act and this part;

(iv) The individual’s opportunities, ifany, for further administrative

consideration, including the identityand address of the responsible official.If no further administrativeconsideration within USPTO isavailable, the notice shall state that thedenial is administratively final; and

(v) If stated to be administrativelyfinal within USPTO, the individual’sright to judicial review provided under5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1), as limited by 5U.S.C. 552a(g)(5).

(3) Administrative review. When aninitial denial of a request is issued bythe Privacy Officer, the individual’sopportunities for further considerationshall be as follows:

(i) As to denial under paragraph(g)(1)(i) of this section, twoopportunities for further considerationare available in the alternative:

(A) If the individual contests theapplication of the exemption to therecords, review procedures in§ 102.25(g)(3)(ii) shall apply; or

(B) If the individual challenges theexemption itself, the procedure is apetition for the issuance, amendment, orrepeal of a rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(e).If the exemption was determined byUSPTO, such petition shall be filed withthe General Counsel. If the exemptionwas determined by another agency (asdescribed in § 102.23(f)), USPTO willprovide the individual with the nameand address of the other agency and anyrelief sought by the individual shall bethat provided by the regulations of theother agency. Within USPTO, no suchdenial is administratively final untilsuch a petition has been filed by theindividual and disposed of on themerits by the General Counsel.

(ii) As to denial under paragraphs(g)(1)(ii) of this section, (g)(1)(iv) of thissection or (to the limited extentprovided in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A) of thissection) paragraph (g)(1)(i) of thissection, the individual may file forreview with the General Counsel, asindicated in the Privacy Officer’s initialdenial notification. The proceduresappearing in § 102.28 shall be followedby both the individual and USPTO tothe maximum extent practicable.

(iii) As to denial under paragraph(g)(1)(iii) of this section, no furtheradministrative consideration withinUSPTO is available because the denialis not administratively final untilexpiration of the time period indicatedin § 102.26(a).

(h) If a request is partially granted andpartially denied, the Privacy Officershall follow the appropriate proceduresof this section as to the records withinthe grant and the records within thedenial.



§ 102.26 Special procedures: Medicalrecords.

(a) No response to any request foraccess to medical records by anindividual will be issued by the PrivacyOfficer for a period of seven workingdays (i.e., excluding Saturdays,Sundays, and legal public holidays)from the date of receipt.

(b) USPTO has published as a routineuse, for all systems of recordscontaining medical records,consultations with an individual’sphysician or psychologist if, in the solejudgment of USPTO, disclosure couldhave an adverse effect upon theindividual. The mandatory waitingperiod set forth in paragraph (a) of thissection will permit exercise of thisroutine use in appropriate cases. USPTOwill pay no cost of any suchconsultation.

(c) In every case of a request by anindividual for access to medical records,the Privacy Officer shall:

(1) Inform the individual of thewaiting period prescribed in paragraph(a) of this section;

(2) Obtain the name and address ofthe individual’s physician and/orpsychologist, if the individual consentsto give them;

(3) Obtain specific, written consentfor USPTO to consult the individual’sphysician and/or psychologist in theevent that USPTO believes suchconsultation is advisable, if theindividual consents to give suchauthorization;

(4) Obtain specific, written consentfor USPTO to provide the medicalrecords to the individual’s physician orpsychologist in the event that USPTObelieves access to the record by theindividual is best effected under theguidance of the individual’s physicianor psychologist, if the individualconsents to give such authorization; and

(5) Forward the individual’s medicalrecord to USPTO’s medical expert forreview and a determination on whetherconsultation with or transmittal of themedical records to the individual’sphysician or psychologist is warranted.If the consultation with or transmittal ofsuch records to the individual’sphysician or psychologist is determinedto be warranted, USPTO’s medicalexpert shall so consult or transmit.Whether or not such a consultation ortransmittal occurs, USPTO’s medicalofficer shall provide instruction to thePrivacy Officer regarding the conditionsof access by the individual to his or hermedical records.

(d) If an individual refuses in writingto give the names and consents set forthin paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4) of thissection and USPTO has determined that

disclosure could have an adverse effectupon the individual, USPTO shall givethe individual access to said records bymeans of a copy, provided without costto the requester, sent registered mailreturn receipt requested.

§ 102.27 Procedures for making requestsfor correction or amendment.

(a) Any individual, regardless of age,who is a citizen of the United States oran alien lawfully admitted forpermanent residence into the UnitedStates may submit a request forcorrection or amendment to USPTO.The request should be made either inperson or by mail addressed to thePrivacy Officer who processed theindividual’s request for access to therecord, and to whom is delegatedauthority to make initial determinationson requests for correction oramendment. The office of the PrivacyOfficer is open to the public betweenthe hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday (excluding legal publicholidays).

(b) Requests submitted by mail shouldinclude the words ‘‘PRIVACY ACTREQUEST’’ in capital letters at the topof the letter and on the face of theenvelope. Any request which is notaddressed as specified in paragraph (a)of this section or which is not markedas specified in this paragraph will be soaddressed and marked by USPTOpersonnel and forwarded immediatelyto the Privacy Officer. A request whichis not properly addressed by theindividual will not be deemed to havebeen ‘‘received’’ for purposes ofmeasuring the time period for responseuntil actual receipt by the PrivacyOfficer. In each instance when a requestso forwarded is received, the PrivacyOfficer shall notify the individual thathis or her request was improperlyaddressed and the date the request wasreceived at the proper address.

(c) Since the request, in all cases, willfollow a request for access under§ 102.25, the individual’s identity willbe established by his or her signature onthe request and use of the USPTOcontrol number assigned to the request.

(d) A request for correction oramendment should include thefollowing:

(1) Specific identification of therecord sought to be corrected oramended (for example, description,title, date, paragraph, sentence, line andwords);

(2) The specific wording to be deleted,if any;

(3) The specific wording to beinserted or added, if any, and the exactplace at which to be inserted or added;and

(4) A statement of the basis for therequested correction or amendment,with all available supporting documentsand materials which substantiate thestatement. The statement shouldidentify the criterion of the Act beinginvoked, that is, whether theinformation in the record isunnecessary, inaccurate, irrelevant,untimely or incomplete.

§ 102.28 Review of requests for correctionor amendment.

(a)(1)(i) Not later than ten workingdays (i.e., excluding Saturdays, Sundaysand legal public holidays) after receiptof a request to correct or amend arecord, the Privacy Officer shall send anacknowledgment providing an estimateof time within which action will betaken on the request and asking for suchfurther information as may be necessaryto process the request. The estimate oftime may take into account unusualcircumstances as described in§ 102.25(a). No acknowledgment will besent if the request can be reviewed,processed, and the individual notifiedof the results of review (eithercompliance or denial) within the tenworking days. Requests filed in personwill be acknowledged in writing at thetime submitted.

(ii) If the Privacy Officer fails to sendthe acknowledgment within ten workingdays, as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i)of this section, the requester may ask theGeneral Counsel to take correctiveaction. No failure of the Privacy Officerto send an acknowledgment shall conferadministrative finality for purposes ofjudicial review.

(2) Promptly after acknowledgingreceipt of a request, or after receivingsuch further information as might havebeen requested, or after arriving at adecision within the ten working days,the Privacy Officer shall either:

(i) Make the requested correction oramendment and advise the individualin writing of such action, providingeither a copy of the corrected oramended record or a statement as to themeans whereby the correction oramendment was effected in cases wherea copy cannot be provided (for example,erasure of information from a recordmaintained only in magneticallyrecorded computer files); or

(ii) Inform the individual in writingthat his or her request is denied andprovide the following information:

(A) The Privacy Officer’s name andtitle or position;

(B) The date of the denial;(C) The reasons for the denial,

including citation to the appropriatesections of the Act and this subpart; and



(D) The procedures for appeal of thedenial as set forth in § 102.29, includingthe address of the General Counsel.

(3) The term promptly in this sectionmeans within thirty working days (i.e.,excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legalpublic holidays). If the Privacy Officercannot make the determination withinthirty working days, the individual willbe advised in writing of the reasontherefor and of the estimated date bywhich the determination will be made.

(b) Whenever an individual’s record iscorrected or amended pursuant to arequest by that individual, the PrivacyOfficer shall be responsible for notifyingall persons and agencies to which thecorrected or amended portion of therecord had been disclosed prior to itscorrection or amendment, if anaccounting of such disclosure requiredby the Act was made. The notificationshall require a recipient agencymaintaining the record to acknowledgereceipt of the notification, to correct oramend the record, and to apprise anyagency or person to which it haddisclosed the record of the substance ofthe correction or amendment.

(c) The following criteria will beconsidered by the Privacy Officer inreviewing a request for correction oramendment:

(1) The sufficiency of the evidencesubmitted by the individual;

(2) The factual accuracy of theinformation;

(3) The relevance and necessity of theinformation in terms of purpose forwhich it was collected;

(4) The timeliness and currency of theinformation in light of the purpose forwhich it was collected;

(5) The completeness of theinformation in terms of the purpose forwhich it was collected;

(6) The degree of risk that denial ofthe request could unfairly result indeterminations adverse to theindividual;

(7) The character of the record soughtto be corrected or amended; and

(8) The propriety and feasibility ofcomplying with the specific means ofcorrection or amendment requested bythe individual.

(d) USPTO will not undertake togather evidence for the individual, butdoes reserve the right to verify theevidence which the individual submits.

(e) Correction or amendment of arecord requested by an individual willbe denied only upon a determination bythe Privacy Officer that:

(1) The individual has failed toestablish, by a preponderance of theevidence, the propriety of the correctionor amendment in light of the criteria setforth in paragraph (c) of this section;

(2) The record sought to be correctedor amended is part of the official recordin a terminated judicial, quasi-judicial,or quasi-legislative proceeding to whichthe individual was a party orparticipant;

(3) The information in the recordsought to be corrected or amended, orthe record sought to be corrected oramended, is the subject of a pendingjudicial, quasi-judicial, or quasi-legislative proceeding to which theindividual is a party or participant;

(4) The correction or amendmentwould violate a duly enacted statute orpromulgated regulation; or

(5) The individual has unreasonablyfailed to comply with the proceduralrequirements of this part.

(f) If a request is partially granted andpartially denied, the Privacy Officershall follow the appropriate proceduresof this section as to the records withinthe grant and the records within thedenial.

§ 102.29 Appeal of initial adversedetermination on correction or amendment.

(a) When a request for correction oramendment has been denied initiallyunder § 102.28, the individual maysubmit a written appeal within thirtyworking days (i.e., excluding Saturdays,Sundays and legal public holidays) afterthe date of the initial denial. When anappeal is submitted by mail, thepostmark is conclusive as to timeliness.

(b) An appeal should be addressed tothe General Counsel, United StatesPatent and Trademark Office,Washington, DC 20231. An appealshould include the words ‘‘PRIVACYAPPEAL’’ in capital letters at the top ofthe letter and on the face of theenvelope. An appeal not addressed andmarked as provided herein will be somarked by USPTO personnel when it isso identified and will be forwardedimmediately to the General Counsel. Anappeal which is not properly addressedby the individual will not be deemed tohave been ‘‘received’’ for purposes ofmeasuring the time periods in thissection until actual receipt by theGeneral Counsel. In each instance whenan appeal so forwarded is received, theGeneral Counsel shall notify theindividual that his or her appeal wasimproperly addressed and the datewhen the appeal was received at theproper address.

(c) The individual’s appeal shallinclude a statement of the reasons whythe initial denial is believed to be inerror and USPTO’s control numberassigned to the request. The appeal shallbe signed by the individual. The recordwhich the individual requests becorrected or amended and all

correspondence between the PrivacyOfficer and the requester will befurnished by the Privacy Officer whoissued the initial denial. Although theforegoing normally will comprise theentire record on appeal, the GeneralCounsel may seek additionalinformation necessary to assure that thefinal determination is fair and equitableand, in such instances, disclose theadditional information to the individualto the greatest extent possible, andprovide an opportunity for commentthereon.

(d) No personal appearance or hearingon appeal will be allowed.

(e) The General Counsel shall actupon the appeal and issue a finaldetermination in writing not later thanthirty working days (i.e., excludingSaturdays, Sundays and legal publicholidays) from the date on which theappeal is received, except that theGeneral Counsel may extend the thirtydays upon deciding that a fair andequitable review cannot be made withinthat period, but only if the individual isadvised in writing of the reason for theextension and the estimated date bywhich a final determination will issue.The estimated date should not be laterthan the sixtieth working day afterreceipt of the appeal unless unusualcircumstances, as described in§ 102.25(a), are met.

(f) If the appeal is determined in favorof the individual, the finaldetermination shall include the specificcorrections or amendments to be madeand a copy thereof shall be transmittedpromptly both to the individual and tothe Privacy Officer who issued theinitial denial. Upon receipt of such finaldetermination, the Privacy Officerpromptly shall take the actions set forthin § 102.28(a)(2)(i) and (b).

(g) If the appeal is denied, the finaldetermination shall be transmittedpromptly to the individual and state thereasons for the denial. The notice offinal determination also shall inform theindividual of the following:

(1) The right of the individual underthe Act to file a concise statement ofreasons for disagreeing with the finaldetermination. The statement ordinarilyshould not exceed one page and USPTOreserves the right to reject a statement ofexcessive length. Such a statement shallbe filed with the General Counsel. Itshould provide the USPTO controlnumber assigned to the request, indicatethe date of the final determination andbe signed by the individual. TheGeneral Counsel shall acknowledgereceipt of such statement and inform theindividual of the date on which it wasreceived.



1 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(4) has no application withinUSPTO.

(2) The facts that any suchdisagreement statement filed by theindividual will be noted in the disputedrecord, that the purposes and uses towhich the statement will be put arethose applicable to the record in whichit is noted, and that a copy of thestatement will be provided to personsand agencies to which the record isdisclosed subsequent to the date ofreceipt of such statement;

(3) The fact that USPTO will appendto any such disagreement statementfiled by the individual, a copy of thefinal determination or summary thereofwhich also will be provided to personsand agencies to which the disagreementstatement is disclosed; and,

(4) The right of the individual tojudicial review of the finaldetermination under 5 U.S.C.552a(g)(1)(A), as limited by 5 U.S.C.552a(g)(5).

(h) In making the final determination,the General Counsel shall employ thecriteria set forth in § 102.28(c) and shalldeny an appeal only on the grounds setforth in § 102.28(e).

(i) If an appeal is partially granted andpartially denied, the General Counselshall follow the appropriate proceduresof this section as to the records withinthe grant and the records within thedenial.

(j) Although a copy of the finaldetermination or a summary thereof willbe treated as part of the individual’srecord for purposes of disclosure ininstances where the individual has fileda disagreement statement, it will not besubject to correction or amendment bythe individual.

(k) The provisions of paragraphs (g)(1)through (g)(3) of this section satisfy therequirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3).

§ 102.30 Disclosure of record to personother than the individual to whom itpertains.

(a) USPTO may disclose a recordpertaining to an individual to a personother than the individual to whom itpertains only in the following instances:

(1) Upon written request by theindividual, including authorizationunder § 102.25(f);

(2) With the prior written consent ofthe individual;

(3) To a parent or legal guardianunder 5 U.S.C. 552a(h);

(4) When required by the Act and notcovered explicitly by the provisions of5 U.S.C. 552a(b); and

(5) When permitted under 5 U.S.C.552a(b)(1) through (12), which read asfollows:1

(i) To those officers and employees ofthe agency which maintains the recordwho have a need for the record in theperformance of their duties;

(ii) Required under 5 U.S.C. 552 ;(iii) For a routine use as defined in 5

U.S.C. 552a(a)(7) and described under 5U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(D);

(iv) To the Bureau of the Census forpurposes of planning or carrying out acensus or survey or related activitypursuant to the provisions of Title 13;

(v) To a recipient who has providedthe agency with advance adequatewritten assurance that the record will beused solely as a statistical research orreporting record, and the record is to betransferred in a form that is notindividually identifiable;

(vi) To the National Archives andRecords Administration as a recordwhich has sufficient historical or othervalue to warrant its continuedpreservation by the United StatesGovernment, or for evaluation by theArchivist of the United States or thedesignee of the Archivist to determinewhether the record has such value;

(vii) To another agency or to aninstrumentality of any governmentaljurisdiction within or under the controlof the United States for a civil orcriminal law enforcement activity if theactivity is authorized by law, and if thehead of the agency or instrumentalityhas made a written request to the agencywhich maintains the record specifyingthe particular portion desired and thelaw enforcement activity for which therecord is sought;

(viii) To a person pursuant to ashowing of compelling circumstancesaffecting the health or safety of anindividual if upon such disclosurenotification is transmitted to the lastknown address of such individual;

(ix) To either House of Congress, or,to the extent of matter within itsjurisdiction, any committee orsubcommittee thereof, any jointcommittee of Congress or subcommitteeof any such joint committee;

(x) To the Comptroller General, or anyof his authorized representatives, in thecourse of the performance of the dutiesof the General Accounting Office;

(xi) Pursuant to the order of a courtof competent jurisdiction; or

(xii) To a consumer reporting agencyin accordance with section 3711(e) ofTitle 31.

(b) The situations referred to inparagraph (a)(4) of this section includethe following:

(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4) requiresdissemination of a corrected oramended record or notation of adisagreement statement by USPTO incertain circumstances;

(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d) requiresdisclosure of records to the individualto whom they pertain, upon request;and

(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(g) authorizes civilaction by an individual and requiresdisclosure by USPTO to the court.

(c) The Privacy Officer shall make anaccounting of each disclosure by him ofany record contained in a system ofrecords in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552a(c) (1) and (2). Except for adisclosure made under 5 U.S.C.552a(b)(7), the Privacy Officer shallmake such accounting available to anyindividual, insofar as it pertains to thatindividual, on request submitted inaccordance with § 102.24. The PrivacyOfficer shall make reasonable efforts tonotify any individual when any recordin a system of records is disclosed toany person under compulsory legalprocess, promptly upon being informedthat such process has become a matterof public record.

§ 102.31 Fees.

The only fees to be charged to orcollected from an individual under theprovisions of this part are forduplication of records at the request ofthe individual. The Privacy Officer shallcharge fees for duplication of recordsunder the Act in the same way in whichthey charge duplication fees under§ 102.11, except as provided in thissection.

(a) No fees shall be charged orcollected for the following: Search forand retrieval of the records; review ofthe records; copying at the initiative ofUSPTO without a request from theindividual; transportation of recordsand personnel; and first-class postage.

(b) It is the policy of USPTO toprovide an individual with one copy ofeach record corrected or amendedpursuant to his or her request withoutcharge as evidence of the correction oramendment.

(c) As required by the United StatesOffice of Personnel Management in itspublished regulations implementing theAct, USPTO will charge no fee for asingle copy of a personnel recordcovered by that agency’s Government-wide published notice of systems ofrecords.

§ 102.32 Penalties.

(a) The Act provides, in pertinentpart:

Any person who knowingly and willfullyrequests or obtains any record concerning anindividual from an agency under falsepretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanorand fined not more than $5,000. (5 U.S.C.552a(i)(3)).



(b) A person who falsely orfraudulently attempts to obtain recordsunder the Act also may be subject toprosecution under such other criminalstatutes as 18 U.S.C. 494, 495 and 1001.

§ 102.33 General exemptions.(a) Individuals may not have access to

records maintained by USPTO butwhich were provided by another agencywhich has determined by regulation thatsuch information is subject to generalexemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j). Ifsuch exempt records are within arequest for access, USPTO will advisethe individual of their existence and ofthe name and address of the sourceagency. For any further informationconcerning the record and theexemption, the individual must contactthat source agency.

(b) The general exemption determinedto be necessary and proper with respectto systems of records maintained byUSPTO, including the parts of eachsystem to be exempted, the provisionsof the Act from which they areexempted, and the justification for theexemption, is as follows: InvestigativeRecords—Contract and Grant Fraudsand Employee Criminal Misconduct—COMMERCE/DEPT.—12. Pursuant to 5U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), these records arehereby determined to be exempt fromall provisions of the Act, except 5 U.S.C.552a (b), (c) (1) and (2), (e)(4) (A)through (F), (e) (6), (7), (9), (10), and(11), and (i). These exemptions arenecessary to ensure the proper functionsof the law enforcement activity, toprotect confidential sources ofinformation, to fulfill promises ofconfidentiality, to prevent interferencewith law enforcement proceedings, toavoid the disclosure of investigativetechniques, to avoid the endangering oflaw enforcement personnel, to avoidpremature disclosure of the knowledgeof criminal activity and the evidentiarybases of possible enforcement actions,and to maintain the integrity of the lawenforcement process.

§ 102.34 Specific exemptions.(a)(1) Some systems of records under

the Act which are maintained byUSPTO contain, from time-to-time,material subject to the exemptionappearing at 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), relatingto national defense and foreign policymaterials. The systems of records

published in the Federal Register byUSPTO which are within thisexemption are: COMMERCE/PAT–TM–6, COMMERCE/PAT–TM–7,COMMERCE/PAT–TM–8, COMMERCE/PAT–TM–9.

(2) USPTO hereby asserts a claim toexemption of such materials whereverthey might appear in such systems ofrecords, or any systems of records, atpresent or in the future. The materialswould be exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G), (H), and (I),and (f) to protect materials required byExecutive order to be kept secret in theinterest of the national defense andforeign policy.

(b) The specific exemptionsdetermined to be necessary and properwith respect to systems of recordsmaintained by USPTO, including theparts of each system to be exempted, theprovisions of the Act from which theyare exempted, and the justification forthe exemption, are as follows:

(1)(i) Exempt under 5 U.S.C.552a(k)(2). The systems of recordsexempt (some only conditionally), thesections of the Act from whichexempted, and the reasons therefor areas follows:

(A) Investigative Records—Contractand Grant Frauds and EmployeeCriminal Misconduct—COMMERCE/DEPT–12, but only on condition that thegeneral exemption claimed in§ 102.33(b)(3) is held to be invalid;

(B) Investigative Records—PersonsWithin the Investigative Jurisdiction ofUSPTO—COMMERCE/DEPT–13;

(C) Litigation, Claims andAdministrative Proceeding Records—COMMERCE/DEPT–14;

(D) Attorneys and Agents Registeredto Practice Before the Office—COMMERCE/PAT–TM–1;

(E) Complaints, Investigations andDisciplinary Proceedings Relating toRegistered Patent Attorneys andAgents—COMMERCE/PAT–TM–2; and

(F) Non-Registered Persons RenderingAssistance to Patent Applicants—COMMERCE/PAT–TM–5.

(ii) The foregoing are exempted from5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G),(H), and (I), and (f). The reasons forasserting the exemption are to preventsubjects of investigation from frustratingthe investigatory process, to insure theproper functioning and integrity of lawenforcement activities, to prevent

disclosure of investigative techniques,to maintain the ability to obtainnecessary information, to fulfillcommitments made to sources to protecttheir identities and the confidentialityof information and to avoid endangeringthese sources and law enforcementpersonnel. Special note is taken of thefact that the proviso clause in thisexemption imports due process andprocedural protections for theindividual. The existence and generalcharacter of the information exemptedwill be made known to the individualto whom it pertains.

(2)(i) Exempt under 5 U.S.C.552a(k)(5). The systems of recordsexempt (some only conditionally), thesections of the act from whichexempted, and the reasons therefor areas follows:

(A) Investigative Records—Contractand Grant Frauds and EmployeeCriminal Misconduct—COMMERCE/DEPT–12, but only on condition that thegeneral exemption claimed in§ 102.33(b)(3) is held to be invalid;

(B) Investigative Records—PersonsWithin the Investigative Jurisdiction ofUSPTO—COMMERCE/DEPT–13; and

(C) Litigation, Claims, andAdministrative Proceeding Records—COMMERCE/DEPT–14.

(ii) The foregoing are exempted from5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G),(H), and (I), and (f). The reasons forasserting the exemption are to maintainthe ability to obtain candid andnecessary information, to fulfillcommitments made to sources to protectthe confidentiality of information, toavoid endangering these sources and,ultimately, to facilitate proper selectionor continuance of the best applicants orpersons for a given position or contract.Special note is made of the limitation onthe extent to which this exemption maybe asserted. The existence and generalcharacter of the information exemptedwill be made known to the individualto whom it pertains.

(c) At the present time, USPTO claimsno exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(3), (4), (6) and (7).

Appendix to Part 102—Systems ofRecords Noticed by other FederalAgencies 1 and Applicable to USPTORecords and Applicability of this Partthereto

Category of records Other federal agency

Federal Personnel Records ...................................................................... Office of Personnel Management.2

Federal Employee Compensation Act Program ....................................... Department of Labor.3

Equal Employment Opportunity Appeal Complaints ................................ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.4



Category of records Other federal agency

Formal Complaints/Appeals of Adverse Personnel Actions .................... Merit Systems Protection Board.5

1 Other than systems of records noticed by the Department of Commerce. Where the system of records applies only to USPTO, these regula-tions apply. Where the system of records applies generally to components of the Department of Commerce, the regulations of that departmentattach at the point of any denial for access or for correction or amendment.

2 The provisions of this part do not apply to these records covered by notices of systems of records published by the Office of Personnel Man-agement for all agencies. The regulations of OPM alone apply.

3 The provisions of this part apply only initially to these records covered by notices of systems of records published by the U.S. Department ofLabor for all agencies. The regulations of that department attach at the point of any denial for access or for correction or amendment.

4 The provisions of this part do not apply to these records covered by notices of systems of records published by the Equal Employment Op-portunity Commission for all agencies. The regulations of the Commission alone apply.

5 The provisions of this part do not apply to these records covered by notices of systems of records published by the Merit Systems ProtectionBoard for all agencies. The regulations of the Board alone apply.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Q. Todd Dickinson,Under Secretary of Commerce for IntellectualProperty and Director of the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 00–22356 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–6862–9]

Notice of Availability of Responses toComments on Proposed Rulemakingfor Section 126 Petitions for Purposesof Reducing Interstate OzoneTransport

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The EPA conducted anextensive rulemaking on petitions filedby eight Northeastern States undersection 126 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).These petitions sought to reduceinterstate transport of nitrogen oxides(NOX), one of the precursors of ground-level ozone. During part of therulemaking process and after EPA hadtaken one final action on the petitions(64 FR 28250, May 25, 1999), EPAissued a proposal (64 FR 33962, June 24,1999) and solicited comments on a setof discrete issues. In response, a numberof comments were submitted that wereoutside the scope of the June 24, 1999proposal and that, effectively, soughtreconsideration of issues on which EPAhad already taken final action. OnJanuary 18, 2000, the Agency took finalaction on the June 24, 1999 proposal,and noted that it would respond tothose comments at a later date. Thisnotice informs the public that EPA hasresponded separately to those commentsand that the responses are now availablein the docket (Docket Number A–97–43).

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to thisaction are available for inspection at theAir and Radiation Docket andInformation Center (6102), Attention:Docket No. A–97–43, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street SW, room M–1500,Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)260–7548 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30p.m., Monday though Friday, excludinglegal holidays. A reasonable fee may becharged for copying.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Questions concerning today’s actionshould be addressed to David Cole,Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards, Air Quality Strategies andStandards Division, MD–15, ResearchTriangle Park, NC, 27711, telephone(919) 541–5565, e-mail [email protected] INFORMATION:

Availability of Related InformationThe official record for the section 126

rulemaking, as well as the publicversion of the record, has beenestablished under docket number A–97–43. The public version of this record,including printed, paper versions ofelectronic comments, which does notinclude any information claimed asconfidential business information, isavailable for inspection from 8:00 a.m.to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,excluding legal holidays. The officialrulemaking record is located at theaddress in ADDRESSES at the beginningof this document. In addition, theFederal Register rulemakings andassociated documents are located onEPA’s websites at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/126 and at http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/modlrule/main.html#126.

BackgroundOn May 25, 1999 (64 FR 28250), EPA

made final determinations that portionsof the petitions filed by eightNortheastern States under section 126 ofthe CAA are technically meritorious.The petitions sought to mitigate whatthey described as significant transport ofone of the main precursors of ground-

level ozone, NOX, across Stateboundaries. Each petition specificallyrequested that EPA make a finding thatcertain stationary sources emit NOX inviolation of the CAA’s prohibition onemissions that significantly contributeto nonattainment problems in thepetitioning State.

On June 24, 1999 (64 FR 33962), EPAproposed to revise two aspects of theMay 25, 1999 final rule. The EPAproposed to stay indefinitely theaffirmative technical determinationsbased on the 8-hour standard pendingfurther developments in the litigation ofthat standard (see 64 FR 33956, June 24,1999). The EPA also proposed to removethe trigger mechanism for makingsection 126 findings that was based ondeadlines specified in a related EPAaction to reduce interstate transport ofozone, the NOX State implementationplan (SIP) call, and to instead make thefindings under the 1-hour standard.

The EPA finalized the revisions to theMay 25, 1999 final rule on January 18,2000 (65 FR 2674). In this revised rule,EPA noted that it received comments onthe June 24, 1999 proposal that theAgency considers to be outside thescope of that proposal. These commentsrelate primarily to issues that have beenaddressed previously either in the NOX

SIP call final rule, the NOX SIP callresponse to comments document, theMay 25, 1999 final rule for the section126 petitions, or the April 1999response to comments document for thesection 126 petitions. Although thesecomments were outside the scope of therulemaking, EPA responded to most ofthem in the revised rule of January 18,2000.

The EPA did not, in the revised rule,respond to certain comments that theAgency believes should be consideredto be, in effect, petitions forreconsideration of the May 25, 1999section 126 final rule. By today’s action,EPA is notifying the public that EPA hasresponded to these comments separatelyin a document placed in the rulemakingdocket for the section 126 petitions (A–97–43), document number XII–A–01.



Dated: August 24, 2000.Carol M. Browner,Administrator.[FR Doc. 00–22382 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P



[Docket OR–84–7299a; FRL–6858–1]

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is approving the revisionsto Oregon’s State Implementation Planwhich were submitted on November 10,1999. These revisions consist of:approval of the 1993 carbon monoxideperiodic emissions inventory for GrantsPass, Oregon; approval of the GrantsPass carbon monoxide maintenanceplan; and redesignation of Grants Passfrom nonattainment to attainment forcarbon monoxide.DATES: This direct final rule is effectiveon October 30, 2000 without furthernotice, unless EPA receives adversecomment by October 2, 2000. If adversecomment is received, EPA will publisha timely withdrawal of the direct finalrule in the Federal Register and informthe public that the rule will not takeeffect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to: Debra Suzuki, EPA,Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington98101.

Copies of the State’s request and otherinformation supporting this action areavailable for inspection during normalbusiness hours at the followinglocations: EPA, Office of Air Quality(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,Washington 98101, and State of OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality,811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon97204–1390.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Debra Suzuki, Office of Air Quality(OAQ–107), EPA, Seattle, Washington,(206) 553–0985.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Supplementary Information1. What is the purpose of this rule making?2. What is a State Implementation Plan?3. What National Ambient Air Quality

Standards are considered in today’srulemaking?

4. What is the background information forthis SIP action?

5. What criteria did EPA use to evaluatethe State’s submittal?

6. In summary, what are the results ofEPA’s evaluation?

7. Has Grants Pass attained the carbonmonoxide NAAQS?

8. Does Grants Pass have a fully approvedSIP?

9. How does this action affectTransportation Conformity?

Table 1—Central Business DistrictTransportation Emissions BudgetThrough 2015 (pounds CO/Winter Day)

10. Has the State provided an adequateemissions inventory?

11. Is the improvement in air quality inGrants Pass due to permanent andenforceable measures?

12. Does the State provide a fullyapprovable maintenance plan?

13. Did the State provide adequateattainment and maintenance yearemissions inventories?

Table 2—1993 CO Attainment Year andRecent Actual Emissions for the GrantsPass Nonattainment Area (CO tons/year)

Table 3—Projected Maintenance YearEmissions for the Grants PassNonattainment Area (CO tons/year)

14. Has the State successfullydemonstrated maintenance and provideda projected emissions inventory?

15. How will this action affect theoxygenated fuels program in GrantsPass?

16. How will the State continue to verifyattainment?

17. What contingency measures does theState provide?

18. How will the State provide forsubsequent maintenance plan revisions?

19. How does this action affect specificrules?

20. In conclusion, what is EPA approvingand why?

III. Final ActionIV. Administrative Requirements

I. Supplementary Information

1. What Is the Purpose of This RuleMaking?

Today’s rule making announces threeactions being taken by EPA related to airquality in the State of Oregon. Theseactions are taken at the request of theGovernor of Oregon in response to CleanAir Act (Act) requirements and EPAregulations.

First, EPA approves the 1993 periodiccarbon dioxide emissions inventory forGrants Pass. The 1993 inventoryestablishes a baseline characterization ofemissions that EPA considerscomprehensive and accurate. It providesthe foundation for air quality planningin Grants Pass.

Second, EPA approves the carbonmonoxide maintenance plan for theGrants Pass nonattainment area into theOregon State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Third, EPA redesignates Grants Passfrom nonattainment to attainment for

carbon monoxide. This redesignation isbased on validated monitoring data andprojections made in the maintenanceplan’s demonstration. EPA believes thearea will continue to meet the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards for COfor at least ten years beyond thisredesignation, as required by the Act.

2. What Is a State Implementation Plan?The Clean Air Act requires States to

keep ambient concentrations of specificair pollutants below certain thresholdsto provide an adequate margin of safetyfor public health and welfare. Thesemaximum concentrations areestablished by EPA based on currentscience and are known as the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards, orNAAQS. The State’s commitments forattaining the NAAQS are outlined in itsState Implementation Plan, or SIP. TheSIP is a planning document that, whenimplemented, is designed to ensure theachievement of the NAAQS. Each Statecurrently has a SIP in place, and the Actrequires that SIP revisions be madeperiodically.

A SIP includes the following: (1)inventories of emissions from point,area, and mobile sources; (2) statutesand regulations adopted by the statelegislature and executive agencies; (3)air quality analyses that includedemonstrations that adequate controlsare in place to meet the NAAQS; (4)contingency measures to be undertakenif an area fails to attain or makereasonable progress toward attainmentby the required date.

The SIP must be presented to thepublic in a hearing and approved by theGovernor of the State or appointeddesignee prior to submittal to EPA. Theapproved SIP serves as the State’scommitment to actions that will reduceor eliminate air quality problems. Onceapproved by EPA, the SIP becomes partof the Code of Federal Regulations andis federally enforceable. Any subsequentchanges must go through the formal SIPrevision process specified in the Act.

Oregon submitted their originalsection 110 SIP on January 25, 1972 andit was approved by EPA soon thereafter.

The Grants Pass CO maintenance planand redesignation request wassubmitted as a revision to the SIP onNovember 10, 1999. This revision is thesubject of today’s action.

3. What National Ambient Air QualityStandards Are Considered in Today’sRulemaking?

The standards considered in today’saction are the primary and secondarycarbon monoxide NAAQS. Thesestandards were originally promulgatedin 1985 and are as follows: (1) 9 parts



per million (ppm) for an eight-houraverage concentration not to beexceeded more than once per year; and(2) 35 ppm for a one-hour averageconcentration not to be exceeded morethan once per year. (40 CFR 50.8)

The Grants Pass nonattainment areahas violated the eight-hour standard butnever exceeded the one-hour standard.As a result, the discussion in thisrulemaking refers to the eight-hour CONAAQS only.

4. What Is the Background Informationfor This SIP Action?

Grants Pass, OR was designatednonattainment for carbon monoxide onDecember 16, 1985. This designationwas the result of ambient air qualitymonitoring data that showed violationsof the CO NAAQS.

The Grants Pass nonattainment area isa 36 square block area of downtownGrants Pass known as the CentralBusiness District. For planningpurposes, however, the entire areawithin the urban growth boundary istreated as the nonattainment area.

In response to the requirementsapplicable at the time of designation,Oregon submitted an attainment plan tobring the area into attainment by 1990.This plan relied upon the constructionof a third bridge over the Rogue Riveras its primary control measure. The planshowed that diverting motor vehicletraffic away from the Central BusinessDistrict would bring the area intoattainment by the deadline in the Act.EPA approved the SIP revision onJanuary 15, 1988.

Later, upon enactment of the 1990Clean Air Act Amendments, a newclassification scheme was created whichestablished revised attainment dates andplanning requirements according to theseverity of nonattainment. Under thissystem, Grants Pass was classified as amoderate nonattainment area because ithad a design value of 10.3 ppm basedon 1988–89 ambient air monitoringdata. The attainment deadline wasrevised and became December 31, 1995,or as expeditiously as practicable.

The Grants Pass nonattainment areahas shown attainment of the CONAAQS since 1990. In compliance withrequirements for moderate areas, Oregonsubmitted a maintenance plan andredesignation request to EPA onNovember 10, 1999. On December 16,1999, EPA notified Oregon that thissubmittal constituted a completeredesignation request and maintenanceplan under the general completenesscriteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V,sections 2.1 and 2.2.

5. What Criteria Did EPA Use ToEvaluate the State’s Submittal?

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act listsspecific requirements that an area mustmeet in order to be redesignated fromnonattainment to attainment. They areas follows:

1. The area must attain the applicableNAAQS;

2. The area must have a fullyapproved SIP under section 110(k) ofthe Act and the area must meet all therelevant requirements under section 110part D of the Act;

3. The air quality improvement mustbe permanent and enforceable;

4. The area must have a fullyapproved maintenance plan pursuant tosection 175A of the Act.

6. In Summary, What Are the Results ofEPA’s Evaluation?

EPA has found that the Oregonredesignation request for the GrantsPass, OR nonattainment area meets therequirements of section 107(d)(3)(E),noted above. The following questionsand answers provide a brief descriptionof how each of these requirements ismet. A Technical Support Document onfile at the EPA Region 10 office,contains a more detailed analysis of thisredesignation request.

7. Has Grants Pass Attained the CarbonMonoxide NAAQS?

Yes. To attain the CO NAAQS, an areamust have complete quality assureddata showing no more than oneexceedance of the standard per year forat least two consecutive years. Theredesignation of Grants Pass is based onair quality data that shows that the COstandard was not violated from 1989through 1993, or since. These data werecollected by the Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ODEQ) inaccordance with 40 CFR 50.8, followingEPA guidance on quality assurance andquality control and are entered in theEPA Aerometric Information andRetrieval System, or AIRS. Since theGrants Pass, OR area has five years ofcomplete quality-assured monitoringdata showing attainment with noviolations, the area has met the statutorycriterion for attainment of the CONAAQS. ODEQ has committed tocontinue monitoring in this area inaccordance with 40 CFR part 58.

8. Does Grants Pass Have a FullyApproved SIP?

Yes. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Actstates that EPA may not approveredesignation of a nonattainment area to

attainment unless EPA has fullyapproved all of the SIP requirementsthat were due under the 1990amendments. The 1990 Clean Air Actrequires that nonattainment areasachieve specific new requirementsdepending on the severity of thenonattainment classification.

As noted earlier, Grants Pass wasclassified as a nonattainment area witha design value less than 12.7 ppm.Therefore, the 1990 requirementsapplicable to the Grants Passnonattainment area include thepreparation of a 1990 emissioninventory with periodic updates,adoption of an oxygenated fuelsprogram, the development ofcontingency measures, adoption of anenhanced inspection and maintenanceplan, a forecast of vehicle milestraveled, development of conformityprocedures, and the establishment of apermit program for new or modifiedmajor stationary sources.

For the purposes of evaluating therequest for redesignation to attainment,EPA has approved all but one elementof the CO attainment SIP. Specifically,the 1990 emissions inventory wasreviewed but not acted upon to allowfor additional correction and revision.EPA later determined that a 1993inventory that incorporated thesechanges would satisfy the requirementfor a 1990 base year. This is discussedin further detail below.

A 1993 periodic emissions inventorywas submitted with the maintenanceplan and fulfills the requirement for abase year inventory. Today’s actionconcurrently approves this requiredelement of the 110 SIP with theredesignation to attainment.

9. How Does This Action AffectTransportation Conformity in GrantsPass?

Under section 176(c) of the Act,transportation plans, programs, andprojects in nonattainment ormaintenance areas that are funded orapproved under 23 U.S.C. or the FederalTransit Act, must conform to theapplicable SIPs.

For transportation conformity andregional emissions analysis purposes, anemissions budget has been establishedfor on-road motor vehicle emissions inthe Grants Pass Central BusinessDistrict. The transportation emissionsbudget numbers for the plan are shownin Table 1.



TABLE 1.—CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS BUDGET THROUGH 2015 (POUNDS CO/WINTERDAY)

Year 1993 2000 2005 2010 2015

Budget .............................................................................................................................................. 4,626 4,404 4,245 4,087 3,929

10. Has the State Provided An AdequateEmissions Inventory?

Yes. Section 187(a) of the Actrequired moderate CO areas to submit acomprehensive, accurate, and currentinventory of actual emissions from allsources as described in thenonattainment area provision section172(c)(3). Oregon submitted a 1990emissions inventory on November 15,1992. The 1990 inventory was reviewedby EPA but never formally approved.

In lieu of an inventory revision, EPAadvised Oregon to incorporatecomments into the 1993 periodicinventory and use this as the new baseyear. The 1993 periodic emissionsinventory was submitted on November10, 1999 with the maintenance plan andredesignation request being consideredin today’s action.

EPA believes this inventory meets allapplicable requirements and approves itas part of the Oregon SIP.

11. Is the Improvement in Air Quality inGrants Pass Due to Permanent andEnforceable Measures?

Yes. EPA approved Grants Pass’attainment plan as meeting therequirements of the 1990 amendments.Emissions reductions achieved throughthe implementation of control measurescontained in that SIP are enforceable.These measures are: (1) a bridge over theRogue River; (2) the Federal MotorVehicle Control Program, establishingemission standards for new motorvehicles; and (3) an oxygenated fuelsprogram. As discussed above, the GrantsPass area initially attained the NAAQSin 1990 (prior to the implementation of

the oxygenated fuels program inNovember 1992) and the plan citesmonitoring data in AIRS which showscontinued attainment through 1998.

ODEQ has demonstrated that actualenforceable emission reductions areresponsible for the air qualityimprovement and that the CO emissionsin the base year are not artificially lowdue to a local economic downturn orunusual or extreme weather patterns.EPA believes the combination of certainexisting EPA-approved SIP and federalmeasures contributed to permanent andenforceable reductions in ambient COlevels that have allowed the area toattain the NAAQS.

12. Does the State Provide a FullyApprovable Maintenance Plan?

Yes. Section 175A sets forth theelements of a maintenance plan forareas seeking redesignation fromnonattainment to attainment. The planmust demonstrate continued attainmentof the applicable NAAQS for at least tenyears after the Administrator approves aredesignation to attainment. Eight yearsafter the redesignation, the State mustsubmit a revised maintenance planwhich demonstrates attainment for theten years following the initial ten-yearperiod. To provide for the possibility offuture NAAQS violations, themaintenance plan must containcontingency measures, with a schedulefor implementation adequate to assureprompt correction of any air qualityproblems.

In this document, EPA is approvingOregon’s maintenance plan for Grants

Pass because EPA finds that it meets therequirements of section 175A.

13. Did the State Provide AdequateAttainment and Maintenance YearEmissions Inventories?

ODEQ submitted comprehensiveinventories of CO emissions from point,area and mobile sources using 1993 asthe attainment year. This data was thenused in calculations to demonstrate thatthe CO standard will be maintained infuture years.

Since air monitoring recordedattainment levels of CO in 1993, this isan acceptable year for the attainmentinventory. The 1993 emission inventorysummaries by source category are listedin Table 2. Detailed inventory data isalso contained in the docket for thisaction maintained by EPA.

Based on the CO emissions in theattainment year (1993), ODEQcalculated inventories for the requiredmaintenance year (2010) and five yearsbeyond (2015), as shown in Table 3below. Future emission estimates arebased on forecast assumptions aboutgrowth of the regional economy andvehicle miles traveled.

Mobile sources are the greatest sourceof carbon monoxide. Although vehicleuse is expected to increase in the future,more stringent federal automobilestandards and removal of older, lessefficient cars over time will still resultin an overall decline in CO emissions.

The following tables summarize theprojections in the maintenance plan anddemonstrate that future emissions arenot expected to exceed attainment yearlevels.

TABLE 2.—1993 CO ATTAINMENT YEAR AND RECENT ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR THE GRANTS PASS NONATTAINMENT AREA(CO TONS/YEAR)

Year Mobile Area Non-road Point Total

1993 ............................................................................................................................. 7,775 1,393 917 309 10,3941994 ............................................................................................................................. 7,649 1,389 932 196 10,2491995 ............................................................................................................................. 7,691 1,385 946 208 10,2301996 ............................................................................................................................. 7,773 1,381 961 213 10,204

TABLE 3.—PROJECTED MAINTENANCE YEAR EMISSIONS FOR THE GRANTS PASS NONATTAINMENT AREA (CO TONS/YEAR)


1997 ............................................................................................................................. 7,606 1,377 976 210 10,1691998 ............................................................................................................................. 7,564 1,373 990 212 10,1391999 ............................................................................................................................. 7,522 1,369 1,005 213 10,1092000 ............................................................................................................................. 7,480 1,365 1,020 214 10,079



TABLE 3.—PROJECTED MAINTENANCE YEAR EMISSIONS FOR THE GRANTS PASS NONATTAINMENT AREA (CO TONS/YEAR)—Continued


2001 ............................................................................................................................. 7,438 1,361 1,034 215 10,0482002 ............................................................................................................................. 7,396 1,357 1,049 217 10,0182003 ............................................................................................................................. 7,354 1,353 1,064 218 9,9882004 ............................................................................................................................. 7,311 ??361 1,078 219 8,9702005 ............................................................................................................................. 7,269 1,344 1,093 220 9,9272006 ............................................................................................................................. 7,227 1,340 1,108 222 9,8972007 ............................................................................................................................. 7,185 1,336 1,122 223 9,8672008 ............................................................................................................................. 7,143 1,332 1,137 224 9,8362009 ............................................................................................................................. 7,101 1,328 1,152 226 9,8062010 ............................................................................................................................. 7,059 1,324 1,166 227 9,7762011 ............................................................................................................................. 7,016 1,320 1,181 232 9,7492012 ............................................................................................................................. 6,974 1,316 1,195 233 9,7192013 ............................................................................................................................. 6,932 1,312 1,210 234 9,6892014 ............................................................................................................................. 6,890 1,308 1,225 236 9,6582015 ............................................................................................................................. 6,848 1,304 1,239 237 9,658

14. Has the State SuccessfullyDemonstrated Maintenance andProvided a Projected EmissionsInventory?

Yes. Total CO emissions wereprojected from the 1993 attainment yearout to 2015. These projected inventorieswere prepared according to EPAguidance. The projections show thatwhen CO emissions are calculatedwithout the implementation of theoxygenated fuels program, they are notexpected to exceed 1993 attainment yearlevels.

15. How Will This Action Affect theOxygenated Fuels Program in GrantsPass?

ODEQ’s maintenance demonstrationshows that the Grants Pass UrbanGrowth Boundary is expected tocontinue to meet the CO NAAQSthrough 2015 without the oxygenatedfuels program, while maintaining asafety margin. Therefore, EPA approvesthe State’s request to discontinue theoxygenated fuels program. Theoxygenated fuels program will not needto be implemented followingredesignation unless a future violationof the standard triggers its use as acontingency measure.

16. How Will the State Continue ToVerify Attainment?

In accordance with 40 CFR part 50and EPA’s Redesignation Guidance,ODEQ has committed to analyze airquality data on an annual basis to verifycontinued attainment of the CONAAQS. ODEQ will also conduct acomprehensive review of planimplementation and air quality statuseight years after redesignation. The Statewill then submit a SIP revision thatincludes a full emissions inventoryupdate and provides for the continued

maintenance of the standard ten yearsbeyond the initial ten year period.

17. What Contingency Measures Doesthe State Provide?

Section 175(d) of the Act requiresretention of all control measurescontained in the SIP prior toredesignation as contingency measuresin the CO maintenance plan.

Since the oxygenated fuels programwas a control measure contained in theSIP prior to redesignation, the SIPretains oxygenated fuels as the primarycontingency measure in themaintenance plan.

In the event of future violations,implementation of the oxygenated fuelsprogram will be triggered. Thiscontingency measure will require allgasoline blended for sale in Grants Passto meet requirements identical to thoseof the current oxygenated gasolineprogram.

This contingency measure will betriggered in the event of a qualityassured violation of the NAAQS for COat any permanent monitoring site in thenonattainment area. A violation willoccur when any monitoring site recordstwo eight-hour average COconcentrations that equal or exceed 9.5ppm in a single calendar year.

The oxygenated fuels program will befully implemented no later than the nextfull winter season following the datewhen the contingency measure wasactivated. Implementation will continuethroughout the balance of the COmaintenance period, or until such timethat a reassessment of the ambient COmonitoring data establishes that thecontingency measure is no longerneeded.

EPA is approving the conversion ofthe oxygenated fuels program from acontrol measure to a contingencymeasure for the Grants Pass area.

18. How Will the State Provide forSubsequent Maintenance PlanRevisions?

In accordance with section 175A(b) ofthe Act, the state has agreed to submita revised maintenance SIP eight yearsafter the area is redesignated toattainment. That revised SIP mustprovide for maintenance of the standardfor an additional ten years.

The plan states that ODEQ will likelyconduct its first revision of the plan in2009. It will include a full emissionsinventory update and projectedemissions demonstrating continuedattainment for ten additional years.

19. How Does This Action AffectSpecific Rules?

Upon the effective date of this action,Grants Pass will no longer be anonattainment area, and will become amaintenance area. Therefore, OAR 340–204–0030, Designation ofNonattainment Areas, and OAR 340–204–0040, Maintenance Areas, havebeen revised to reflect this change.Additionally, OAR 340–204–0090,Oxygenated Gasoline Control Areas, hasbeen revised to discontinue the programin Grants Pass upon the effective date ofthis action. EPA is approving these rulesas revisions to the SIP.

ODEQ re-codified their rules last fall,so there is some discontinuity betweenthe rule numbers of the rules EPA isapproving, and the rule numberscurrently in the SIP. Below is a list ofthe specific rules affected by this action,with the state effective date inparentheses.

A. The Rule Revisions EPA IsIncorporating by Reference Into the SIPOAR 340–204–0030, Designation of

Nonattainment Areas (10–22–99)OAR 340–204–0040, Maintenance Areas

(10–22–99)



OAR 340–204–0090, OxygenatedGasoline Control Areas (10–22–99)

B. The Rules EPA is Removing From theCurrent SIPOAR 340–031–0520, Designation of

Nonattainment Areas (8–19–96)OAR 340–031–0530, Maintenance Areas

(8–19–96)OAR 340–022–0470, Oxygenated

Gasoline Control Areas (11–4–93)

20. In Conclusion, What is EPAApproving and Why?

EPA is approving the Grants Pass,Oregon CO maintenance plan andOregon’s request for redesignation toattainment because Oregon hasdemonstrated compliance with therequirements of section 107(d)(3)(E).The Agency believes that theredesignation requirements areeffectively satisfied based oninformation provided by ODEQ andrequirements contained in the OregonSIP and maintenance plan.

III. Final ActionEPA is approving the following

revisions to the Oregon StateImplementation Plan: (1) the 1993carbon monoxide periodic emissionsinventory for Grants Pass, Oregon; (2)the Grants Pass carbon monoxidemaintenance plan; and (3) redesignationof Grants Pass from nonattainment toattainment for carbon monoxide.

Nothing in this action should beconstrued as permitting or allowing orestablishing a precedent for any futurerequest for revision to any SIP. Eachrequest for revision to any SIP shall beconsidered separately in light of specifictechnical, economic, and environmentalfactors, and in relation to relevantstatutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatoryaction from Executive Order 12866,entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning andReview.’’

B. Executive Order 13045Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),applies to any rule that: (1) isdetermined to be ‘‘economicallysignificant’’ as defined under ExecutiveOrder 12866, and (2) concerns anenvironmental health or safety risk thatEPA has reason to believe may have adisproportionate effect on children. Ifthe regulatory action meets both criteria,the Agency must evaluate theenvironmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, andexplain why the planned regulation ispreferable to other potentially effectiveand reasonably feasible alternativesconsidered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to ExecutiveOrder 13045 because it does not involvedecisions intended to mitigateenvironmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is notrequired by statute, that significantlyaffects or uniquely affects thecommunities of Indian tribalgovernments, and that imposessubstantial direct compliance costs onthose communities, unless the Federalgovernment provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by the tribalgovernments, or EPA consults withthose governments. If EPA complies byconsulting, Executive Order 13084requires EPA to provide to the Office ofManagement and Budget, in a separatelyidentified section of the preamble to therule, a description of the extent of EPA’sprior consultation with representativesof affected tribal governments, asummary of the nature of their concerns,and a statement supporting the need toissue the regulation. In addition,Executive Order 13084 requires EPA todevelop an effective process permittingelected officials and otherrepresentatives of Indian tribalgovernments ‘‘to provide meaningfuland timely input in the development ofregulatory policies on matters thatsignificantly or uniquely affect theircommunities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly oruniquely affect the communities ofIndian tribal governments. This actiondoes not involve or impose anyrequirements that affect Indian Tribes.Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 3(b) of Executive Order 13084do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces ExecutiveOrders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875(Enhancing the IntergovernmentalPartnership). Executive Order 13132requires EPA to develop an accountableprocess to ensure ‘‘meaningful andtimely input by State and local officialsin the development of regulatorypolicies that have federalismimplications.’’ ‘‘Policies that havefederalism implications’’ is defined inthe Executive Order to includeregulations that have ‘‘substantial directeffects on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national government and

the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government.’’ UnderExecutive Order 13132, EPA may notissue a regulation that has federalismimplications, that imposes substantialdirect compliance costs, and that is notrequired by statute, unless the Federalgovernment provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by State and localgovernments, or EPA consults withState and local officials early in theprocess of developing the proposedregulation. EPA also may not issue aregulation that has federalismimplications and that preempts Statelaw unless the Agency consults withState and local officials early in theprocess of developing the proposedregulation.

This rule will not have substantialdirect effects on the States, on therelationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, because itmerely approves a state ruleimplementing a federal standard, anddoes not alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities established in the CleanAir Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 6 of the Executive Order do notapply to this rule.

E. Regulatory FlexibilityThe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conducta regulatory flexibility analysis of anyrule subject to notice and commentrulemaking requirements unless theagency certifies that the rule will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.Small entities include small businesses,small not-for-profit enterprises, andsmall governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities because SIP approvals undersection 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act do not create any newrequirements but simply approverequirements that the State is alreadyimposing. Additionally, redesignation ofan area to attainment under section107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not imposeany new requirements on small entities.Redesignation is an action that affectsthe status of a geographical area anddoes not impose any regulatoryrequirements on sources. Therefore, Icertify that this action will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.Moreover, due to the nature of the



Federal-State relationship under theClean Air Act, preparation of flexibilityanalysis would constitute Federalinquiry into the economicreasonableness of state action. TheClean Air Act forbids EPA to base itsactions concerning SIPs on suchgrounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded MandatesUnder sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signedinto law on March 22, 1995, EPA mustprepare a budgetary impact statement toaccompany any proposed or final rulethat includes a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated costs to State,local, or tribal governments in theaggregate; or to the private sector, of$100 million or more. Under section205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensomealternative that achieves the objectivesof the rule and is consistent withstatutory requirements. Section 203requires EPA to establish a plan forinforming and advising any smallgovernments that may be significantlyor uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approvalaction promulgated does not include aFederal mandate that may result inestimated costs of $100 million or moreto either State, local, or tribalgovernments in the aggregate, or to theprivate sector. This Federal actionapproves pre-existing requirementsunder State or local law, and imposesno new requirements. Accordingly, noadditional costs to State, local, or tribalgovernments, or to the private sector,result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and theComptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes acopy of the rule, to each House of theCongress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. EPA will submit areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate,the U.S. House of Representatives, andthe Comptroller General of the UnitedStates prior to publication of the rule inthe Federal Register. A major rulecannot take effect until 60 days after itis published in the Federal Register.This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ asdefined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rulewill be effective October 30, 2000 unless

EPA receives adverse written commentsby October 2, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act

Section 12 of the National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federalagencies to evaluate existing technicalstandards when developing a newregulation. To comply with NTTAA,EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntaryconsensus standards’’ (VCS) if availableand applicable when developingprograms and policies unless doing sowould be inconsistent with applicablelaw or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS areinapplicable to this action. Today’saction does not require the public toperform activities conducive to the useof VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial ReviewUnder section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for theappropriate circuit by October 30, 2000.Filing a petition for reconsideration bythe Administrator of this final rule doesnot affect the finality of this rule for thepurposes of judicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petitionfor judicial review may be filed, andshall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings toenforce its requirements. (See section307(b)(2).)

J. Oregon Notice ProvisionDuring EPA’s review of a SIP revision

involving Oregon’s statutory authority, aproblem was detected which affectedthe enforceability of point source permitlimitations. EPA determined that,because the five-day advance noticeprovision required by ORS 468.126(1)(1991) bars civil penalties from beingimposed for certain permit violations,ORS 468 fails to provide the adequateenforcement authority that a state mustdemonstrate to obtain SIP approval, asspecified in section 110 of the Clean AirAct and 40 CFR 51.230. Accordingly,the requirement to provide such noticewould preclude federal approval of asection 110 SIP revision.

To correct the problem the Governorof Oregon signed into law newlegislation amending ORS 468.126 onSeptember 3, 1993. This amendmentadded paragraph ORS 468.126(2)(e)which provides that the five-dayadvance notice required by ORS468.126(1) does not apply if the noticerequirement will disqualify a stateprogram from federal approval or

delegation. ODEQ responded to EPA’sunderstanding of the application of ORS468.126(2)(e) and agreed that, becausefederal statutory requirements precludethe use of the five-day advance noticeprovision, no advance notice will berequired for violations of SIPrequirements contained in permits.

K. Oregon Audit Privilege

Another enforcement issue concernsOregon’s audit privilege and immunitylaw. Nothing in this action should beconstrued as making any determinationor expressing any position regardingOregon’s Audit Privilege Act, ORS468.963 enacted in 1993, or its impactupon any approved provision in the SIP,including the revision at issue here. Theaction taken herein does not express orimply any viewpoint on the question ofwhether there are legal deficiencies inthis or any other Clean Air Act Programresulting from the effect of Oregon’saudit privilege and immunity law. Astate audit privilege and immunity lawcan affect only state enforcement andcannot have any impact on federalenforcement authorities. EPA may atany time invoke its authority under theClean Air Act, including, for example,sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, toenforce the requirements or prohibitionsof the state plan, independently of anystate enforcement effort. In addition,citizen enforcement under section 304of the Clean Air Act is likewiseunaffected by a state audit privilege orimmunity law.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Carbon monoxide,Incorporation by reference,Intergovernmental relations, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Airpollution control, National parks,Wilderness areas.

Dated: August 17, 2000.Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations areamended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52continues to read as follows:




Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended byadding paragraph (c) (133) to read asfollows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.* * * * *

(c) * * *(133) On November 10, 1999, the

Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality requested the redesignation ofGrants Pass to attainment for carbonmonoxide. The State’s maintenanceplan and base year emissions inventory

are complete and the redesignationsatisfies all the requirements of theClean Air Act.

(i) Incorporation by reference.(A) Oregon Administrative Rule

(OAR) 340–204–0030, OAR 340–204–0040, and OAR 340–204–0090, aseffective October 22, 1999.

(B) Remove without replacement thefollowing provisions from the currentincorporation by reference of the StateImplementation Plan: OAR 340–031–0520 and OAR 340–031–0530, aseffective August 19, 1996 and OAR 340–

022–0470, as effective November 4,1993.

PART 81—[AMENDED]



2. In § 81.338, the table entitled‘‘Oregon—Carbon Monoxide’’ isamended by revising the entry for‘‘Grants Pass Area, Josephine County(part)’’ to read as follows:* * * * *

OREGON—CARBON MONOXIDE

Designated areaDesignation Classification

Date1 Type Date1 Type

* * * * * * *Grants Pass Area:Josephine County (part) Central Business District ....... October 30, 2000 Attainment

* * * * * * *

1 This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–22054 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]



40 CFR Part 82

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

CFR Correction

In Title 40 of the Code of FederalRegulations, parts 81 to 85, revised as ofJuly 1, 1999, in §82.3 the definition of‘‘Unexpended Article 5 allowances’’inadvertently removed, should be addedafter the term ‘‘Transhipment’’ asfollows:

§82.3 Definitions.

* * * * *Unexpended Article 5 allowances

means Article 5 allowances that havenot been used. At any time in anycontrol period a person’s unexpendedArticle 5 allowances are the total of thelevel of Article 5 allowances the personhas authorization under this subpart tohold at that time for that control period,minus the level of controlled substancesthat the person has produced in thatcontrol period until that time.* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–55514 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D


40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301040; FRL–6740–1]

RIN 2070–AB

Buprofezin (2-Tert-butylimino-3-isopropyl-5-phenyl-1,3,5-thiadiazinan-4-one); Time-Limited PesticideTolerances

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishestime-limited tolerances for residues ofbuprofezin in or on lettuce, head;lettuce, leaf; and vegetables, cucurbits.Aventis CropScience requested thesetolerances under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended bythe Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.The tolerances will expire on December31, 2004.DATES: This regulation is effectiveAugust 31, 2000. Objections andrequests for hearings, identified bydocket control number OPP–301040,must be received by EPA on or beforeOctober 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Written objections andhearing requests may be submitted bymail, in person, or by courier. Pleasefollow the detailed instructions for eachmethod as provided in Unit VI. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensureproper receipt by EPA, your objectionsand hearing requests must identifydocket control number OPP–301040 inthe subject line on the first page of yourresponse.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bymail: Richard J. Gebken, RegistrationDivision (7505C), Office of PesticidePrograms, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,DC 20460; telephone number: (703)305–6701; and e-mail address:[email protected] INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, foodmanufacturer, or pesticidemanufacturer. Potentially affectedcategories and entities may include, butare not limited to:

Cat-egories NAICS

Examples of Po-tentially Affected

Entities

Industry 111 Crop production112 Animal production311 Food manufac-

turing32532 Pesticide manu-

facturing



This listing is not intended to beexhaustive, but rather provides a guidefor readers regarding entities likely to beaffected by this action. Other types ofentities not listed in the table could alsobe affected. The North AmericanIndustrial Classification System(NAICS) codes have been provided toassist you and others in determiningwhether or not this action might applyto certain entities. If you have questionsregarding the applicability of this actionto a particular entity, consult the personlisted under FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT.

B. How Can I Get AdditionalInformation, Including Copies of thisDocument and Other RelatedDocuments?

1. Electronically.You may obtainelectronic copies of this document, andcertain other related documents thatmight be available electronically, fromthe EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access thisdocument, on the Home Page select‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ Regulationsand Proposed Rules, and then look upthe entry for this document under the‘‘Federal Register—EnvironmentalDocuments.’’ You can also go directly tothe Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The Agency hasestablished an official record for thisaction under docket control numberOPP–301040. The official recordconsists of the documents specificallyreferenced in this action, and otherinformation related to this action,including any information claimed asConfidential Business Information (CBI).This official record includes thedocuments that are physically located inthe docket, as well as the documentsthat are referenced in those documents.The public version of the official recorddoes not include any informationclaimed as CBI. The public version ofthe official record, which includesprinted, paper versions of any electroniccomments submitted during anapplicable comment period is availablefor inspection in the Public Informationand Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 JeffersonDavis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,excluding legal holidays. The PIRIBtelephone number is (703) 305–5805.

II. Background and Statutory FindingsIn the Federal Register of August 26,

1998 (63 FR 45483) (FRL–5791–1), EPAissued a notice pursuant to section 408of the Federal Food, Drug, and CosmeticAct (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a asamended by the Food Quality ProtectionAct of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104–170) announcing the filing of a pesticidepetition (PP) for tolerance by AventisCropScience (formerly AgrEvo USACompany, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive,Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709).This notice included a summary of thepetition prepared by AventisCropScience, the registrant. There wereno comments received in response tothe notice of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR180.511 be amended by establishing atolerance for residues of the insecticidebuprofezin, in or on lettuce, head;lettuce, leaf; and vegetables, cucurbits at5.0, 13.0, and 0.50 parts per million(ppm), respectively. The tolerances willexpire on December 31, 2004.

Buprofezin is an insecticide whichwill be sold under the trade name ofApplaud 70WP. Buprofezin is a newinsect growth regulator used for thecontrol of several species of Homopteraspp., such as planthoppers, mealybugs,leafhoppers, whiteflies and scales. It iscurrently registered in 76 countriesmainly for use on vegetables, cotton,citrus, rice and ornamentals.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCAallows EPA to establish a tolerance (thelegal limit for a pesticide chemicalresidue in or on a food) only if EPAdetermines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ tomean that ‘‘there is a reasonablecertainty that no harm will result fromaggregate exposure to the pesticidechemical residue, including allanticipated dietary exposures and allother exposures for which there isreliable information.’’ This includesexposure through drinking water and inresidential settings, but does not includeoccupational exposure. Section408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give specialconsideration to exposure of infants andchildren to the pesticide chemicalresidue in establishing a tolerance andto ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonablecertainty that no harm will result toinfants and children from aggregateexposure to the pesticide chemicalresidue. . . .’’

EPA performs a number of analyses todetermine the risks from aggregate

exposure to pesticide residues. Forfurther discussion of the regulatoryrequirements of section 408 and acomplete description of the riskassessment process, see the final rule onBifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754–7).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment andDetermination of Safety

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D),EPA has reviewed the availablescientific data and other relevantinformation in support of this action.EPA has sufficient data to assess thehazards of and to make a determinationon aggregate exposure, consistent withsection 408(b)(2), for a tolerance forresidues of buprofezin on lettuce, head;lettuce, leaf; and vegetables, cucurbits at5.0, 13.0, and 0.50 parts per million(ppm), respectively. EPA’s assessmentof exposures and risks associated withestablishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the availabletoxicity data and considered its validity,completeness, and reliability as well asthe relationship of the results of thestudies to human risk. EPA has alsoconsidered available informationconcerning the variability of thesensitivities of major identifiablesubgroups of consumers, includinginfants and children.

The toxicological data base forbuprofezin is adequate for selectingtoxicity endpoints according to theAgency guideline requirements for afood-use chemical by 40 CFR part 158.However, an additional developmentalneurotoxicity study in rats is required toaddress Agency concerns raised fromthe presence of thyroid effects observedin rat and dog subchronic and/orchronic studies.

1. Acute toxicity. Buprofezin isclassified by the Agency as toxicityCategory III for acute oral and toxicitycategory IV for acute dermal toxicity,acute inhalation toxicity, eye irritationand dermal irritation, and is not adermal sensitizer. The nature of thetoxic effects caused by buprofezin arediscussed in the following Table 1 aswell as the no observed adverse effectlevel (NOAEL) and the lowest observedadverse effect level (LOAEL) from thetoxicity studies reviewed.



TABLE 1.—ACUTE TOXICITY DATA ON BUPROFEZIN TECHNICAL*

Guideline No. Study Type Results Toxicity Category

870.1100 Acute oral toxicity LD50 1,653 mg/kg males, LD50

2,015 mg/kg femalesIII

870.1200 Acute dermal toxicity LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg IV

870.1300 Acute inhalation toxicity LC50 > 4.21 mg/L (estimated) IV

870.2400 Acute eye irritation Mild IV

870.2500 Acute dermal irritation Slight IV

870.2600 Skin sensitization Negative NA

*Buprofezin Technical (99% a.i.)

2. Subcronic, chronic, and othertoxicity. For subchronic toxicity, theprimary effects of concern in the ratwere increased microscopic lesions inmale and female liver and thyroid,increased liver weights in males andfemales, and increased thyroid weightin males. Increased focal necrosis withan inflammatory infiltrate in the liverwas observed in females followingdermal subchronic exposure, as wasincreased acanthosis and hyperkeratosisin skin.

In chronic studies in the rat, anincreased incidence of follicular cellhyperplasia and hypertrophy in thethyroid of males was reported. Increasedrelative liver weights were reported infemale dogs. In the mouse, increasedabsolute liver weights in males andfemales, along with an increasedincidence of hepatocellular adenomasand hepatocellular adenomas pluscarcinomas in females were reported.The Agency has evaluated thecarcinogenic potential of buprofezin,based on these liver tumors in femalemice, and classified it as having‘‘Suggestive Evidence of

Carcinogenicity, but not sufficient toassess human carcinogenic potential.’’

The developmental toxicity study inthe rat produced reduced ossificationand reduced pup weight at maternallytoxic doses (death, decreased pregnancyrates, and increased resorption rates).No developmental toxicity was observedin the rabbit at or below maternallytoxic dose levels.

The reproductive toxicity studyshowed decreased pup body weights atdose levels where liver effects(increased relative and/or absolute liverweights) and decreased body weightgains were observed in the parentalgenerations.

The data do not raise concern forsusceptibility in offspring. Thedevelopmental and reproductive studiesshowed toxicity in the offspring only atdose levels that were toxic in theparent(s). The toxicity observed in theoffspring was not more severe,qualitatively, than the toxicity observedin the parents.

The data do not indicate a basis forconcern for neurotoxicity. Possibleneurotoxicity (hunched positions,

lethargy) was observed in the ratdevelopmental toxicity study, at levelsthat caused death. In the 90–day ratsubchronic study, a 24% decrease inplasma cholinesterase was reported inmales and females at the high doselevel. However, this was not correlatedwith any pathological observation orfunctional deficit. Neurotoxicity was notobserved in any of the chronic studiesin the rat, mouse, or dog.

There is no concern for mutagenicactivity in several studies such as theAmes assay, forward mutation assay,mouse micronucleus assay, in vitrohuman cytogenetic assay, andunscheduled DNA synthesis.

A rat metabolism study indicated that95% of the administered compound isrecovered in the feces and urine within72 hours, and that 45% is recovered asthe parent compound, with theremainder as several metabolites. Thenature of the toxic effects caused bybuprofezin are discussed in thefollowing Table 2 as well as the NOAELand the LOAEL from the toxicity studiesreviewed.

TABLE 2.—SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY

Guideline No. Study Type Results

870.3100 90-Day oral toxicity rodents (rat) NOAEL: 13.0 mg/kg/day (Males or M); 16.3 mg/kg/day (Femalesor F)

LOAEL: 68.6 mg/kg/day (M); 81.8 mg/kg/day females based onincreased relative thyroid weight males, increased liver weightsM/F, increased microscopic lesions in liver and thyroid M/F

870.3200 24-Day dermal toxicity (rat) Systemic NOAEL: 300 mg/kg/dayDermal NOAEL: 300 mg/kg/daySystemic LOAEL: 1,000 mg/kg/day based on increased focal ne-

crosis with an inflammatory infiltrate in liver (F)Dermal LOAEL: 1,000 mg/kg/day based on increased acanthosis

and hyperkeratosis in skin (F)

870.3700a Developmental toxicity in rodents (rat) Maternal NOAEL 200 mg/kg/dayDevelopmental NOAEL 200 mg/kg/dayMaternal LOAEL 800 mg/kg/day based on mortality, decreased

pregnancy rates, increased resorption rates



TABLE 2.—SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY—Continued

Guideline No. Study Type Results

Developmental LOAEL 800 mg/kg/day based on reduced ossifi-cation, reduced pup weight, fetal edema

870.3700b Developmental toxicity in non-rodents (rabbit) Maternal NOAEL 50 mg/kg/dayDevelopmental NOAEL 250 mg/kg/dayMaternal LOAEL 250 mg/kg/day based on decreased food con-

sumption, decreased body weights.Developmental LOAEL, not established (> 250 mg/kg/day)

870.3800 Reproduction and fertility effects in rats Parental NOAEL 7.89 mg/kg/dayReproductive/Developmental NOAEL 7.89 mg/kg/dayParental LOAEL 81.47 mg/kg/day based on decreased body

weight gain and on organ weight changesReproductive/Developmental LOAEL 81.47 mg/kg/day based on

decreased pup weight.

870.4100 Chronic toxicity in dogs NOAEL 2 mg/kg/dayLOAEL 20 mg/kg/day based on increased bile duct hyperplasia

M/F, increased serum alkaline phosphatase activity M/F, in-creased relative and absolute liver weights and decreased liverfunction in females

870.4200 Carcinogenicity study in mice NOAEL 1.82/17.9 mg/kg/day (M/F)LOAEL 17.40/191.0 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on increased abso-

lute liver weights in males and females, increasedhepatocellular adenomas in females, increased hepatocellularadenomas + carcinomas in females

870.4300 Chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity in rodents(rat)

NOAEL 1.0 mg/kg/day

LOAEL 8.7 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of follicularcell hyperplasia and hypertrophy in thyroid in males

No evidence of carcinogenicity

870.5100 Mutagenicity: gene mutation Salmonella Not mutagenic, with or without activation tested up to cytotoxiclevels

870.5300 Mutagenicity: gene mutation mouselymphoma

Not mutagenic, with or without activation tested up to cytotoxiclevels

870.5300 Mutagenicity: in vitro human cytogeneticassay

Negative for chromosomal aberrations tested up to cytotoxic lev-els

870.5300 Mutagenicity: mouse micronucleus assay Negative for micronucleus induction in bone marrow cells ofmales and females tested up to cytotoxic levels

870.5300 Mutagenicity: unscheduled DNA synthesis Negative for DNA repair tested up to cytotoxic levels

870.7485 Metabolism 79.1% recovered from feces, 12.9% from urine within 72 hr.45.4% recovered as parent cpd, several metabolites identified

B. Toxicological Endpoints

The dose at which no adverse effectsare observed (the NOAEL) from thetoxicology study identified asappropriate for use in risk assessment isused to estimate the toxicological levelof concern (LOC). However, the lowestdose at which adverse effects of concernare identified (the LOAEL) is sometimesused for risk assessment if no NOAELwas achieved in the toxicology studyselected. An uncertainty factor (UF) isapplied to reflect uncertainties inherentin the extrapolation from laboratoryanimal data to humans and in thevariations in sensitivity among membersof the human population as well as

other unknowns. An UF of 100 isroutinely used, 10X to account forinterspecies differences and 10X forintraspecies differences.

For dietary risk assessment (otherthan cancer), the Agency uses the UF tocalculate an acute or chronic referencedose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) wherethe RfD is equal to the NOAEL dividedby the appropriate UF (RfD=NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor isretained due to concerns unique to theFQPA, this additional factor is appliedto the RfD by dividing the RfD by suchadditional factor. The acute or chronicPopulation Adjusted Dose (aPAD orcPAD) is a modification of the RfD to

accommodate this type of FQPA SafetyFactor.

For non-dietary risk assessments(other than cancer), the UF is used todetermine the LOC. For example, when100 is the appropriate UF (10X toaccount for interspecies differences and10X for intraspecies differences) theLOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio ofthe NOAEL to exposures (margin ofexposure (MOE)=NOAEL/exposure) iscalculated and compared to the LOC.

The linear default risk methodology(Q*) is the primary method currentlyused by the Agency to quantifycarcinogenic risk. The Q* approachassumes that any amount of exposurewill lead to some degree of cancer risk.



A Q* is calculated and used to estimaterisk which represents a probability ofoccurrence of additional cancer cases(e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10-6 or onein a million). Under certain specificcircumstances, MOE calculations willbe used for the carcinogenic riskassessment. In this non-linear approach,

a ‘‘point of departure’’ is identifiedbelow which carcinogenic effects arenot expected. The point of departure istypically a NOAEL based on anendpoint related to cancer effectsthough it may be a different valuederived from the dose response curve.To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of

departure to exposure (MOEcancer=pointof departure/exposures) is calculated.The doses and toxicological endpointsselected and the LOC for margins ofexposure for various exposure scenariosare summaried in the following Table 3.

TABLE 3.—TOXICOLOGICAL ENDPOINT SUMMARY FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT

Exposure Scenario Dose (mg/kg/day) Endpoint Study

Acute Dietary NOAEL = 200 UF = 100 LOAEL = 800 mg/kg/day based on skeletal ef-fects in offspring

Developmental toxicity rabbit

Acute RfD = 2.0 mg/kg (females 13 - 50); AcuteRfD for general population including infantsand children: None, no endpoint identifiedwhich was attributable to a single dose.

NA

Chronic Dietary NOAEL = 1.0 UF = 100 LOAEL = 8.7 mg/kg/day based on increased inci-dence of follicular cell hyperplasia and hyper-trophy in the thyroid in males.

2-year chronic toxicity/oncogenicity in rat

Chronic RfD = 0.01 mg/kg day NA

Short-term (dermal) NOAEL = 300 LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day based on an increaseof focal necrosis with an inflammatory infiltratein liver in females

24-Day dermal rat

Intermediate-term (dermal) NOAEL = 300 LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day based on an increaseof focal necrosis with an inflammatory infiltratein liver in females

24-Day dermal rat

Long-term (dermal) Oral NOAEL = 1.0* LOAEL = 8.7 mg/kg/day based on increased inci-dence of follicular cell hyperplasia and hyper-trophy in the thyroid in males. 30% dermal ab-sorption estimated.

2-Year chronic oral toxicity/oncogenicity in rat

Short-term (inhalation) Oral NOAEL = 200** LOAEL = 800 mg/kg/day based on skeletal ef-fects in offspring

Developmental toxicity rat

Intermediate-term (inhala-tion)

Oral NOAEL = 13** LOAEL = 68.6 mg/kg/day abased on organweight changes and microscopic findings inliver and thyroid (M and F) and kidney (M)

90-Day oral subchronic study inrat

Long-term (inhalation) Oral NOAEL = 1** LOAEL = 8.7 mg/kg/day based on increased inci-dence of follicular cell hyperplasia and hyper-trophy in the thyroid in males.

2-Year chronic oral toxicity/oncogenicity in rat

*Since an oral NOAEL was selected, 30% dermal absorption was used.**Since an oral NOAEL was selected, 100% inhalation absorption was used.

C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food andfeed uses. Time-limited tolerancesunder section 18 emergency exemptionshave been established (40 CFR180.511(b)) for the residues ofbuprofezin, in or on a variety of rawagricultural commodities. The followingtime-limited tolerances for residues ofbuprofezin are established inconnection with use of the pesticideunder section 18 emergencyexemptions: citrus fruit (2.0 ppm); citruspulp dried (10 ppm); cotton seed (1.0ppm); cotton gin byproducts (20 ppm);cucurbits (0.5 ppm); tomatoes (0.7 ppm);tomato paste (1.0 ppm); milk (0.03ppm); and fat (0.02 ppm), meat (0.02ppm), and meat byproducts (0.5 ppm) ofcattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep.

Risk assessments were conducted byEPA to assess dietary exposures frombuprofezin in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary riskassessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study hasindicated the possibility of an effect ofconcern occurring as a result of a 1 dayor single exposure. The DietaryExposure Evaluation Model (DEEMTM)analysis evaluated the individual foodconsumption as reported byrespondents in the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) 1989-1992nationwide Continuing Surveys of FoodIntake by Individuals (CSFII) andaccumulated exposure to the chemicalfor each commodity. The followingassumptions were made for the acuteexposure assessments: The acute dietary

exposure analysis assumed tolerancelevel residues and 100% crop treated forall registered and proposedcommodities (Tier 1). For females 13-50years old, 4% of the aPAD is occupiedby dietary (food) exposure (no acute RfDestablished for the general populationincluding infants and children).Therefore acute exposure to buprofezin,as a result of dietary exposure, is belowthe Agency’s level of concern. Theanticipated residues were used forevaluation.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conductingthis chronic dietary risk assessment, theDEEMTM analysis evaluated theindividual food consumption asreported by respondents in the USDA1989-1992 nationwide CSFII andaccumulated exposure to the chemical



for each commodity. The followingassumptions were made for the chronicexposure assessments: Since there areno chronic residential exposurescenarios, the chronic aggregate riskassessment is concerned with food andwater only. The chronic dietaryexposure analysis incorporatedanticipated residues calculated fromfield trial data and assumed 100% croptreated for all commodities excepttomatoes (44% and 0.6% crop treatedfor the fresh market and for processing,respectively; Tier 2 analysis). Only 49%of the cPAD is occupied by dietary(food) exposure The buprofezinestimated environmental concentrationsin surface and ground water are lessthan the Agency’s DWLOC (for allpopulation subgroups). Chronic risk forbuprofezin, as a result of dietary (foodand water) exposure, is below theAgency’s level of concern. The Agencyconcludes with reasonable certainty thatresidues of buprofezin in food anddrinking water do not contributesignificantly to the acute or chronicaggregate human health risk at thepresent time.

iii. Cancer. The Agency has evaluatedthe carcinogenicity potential ofbuprofezin, based on these liver tumorsin female mice. Buprofezin was notcarcinogenic to male and female rats.Administration of buprofezin in the dietwas associated with increased incidenceof liver tumors in female mice onlybecause:

a. There was a significant increase bypair-wise comparison with the controlsfor combined hepatocellular adenomas/carcinomas at 2,000 and 5,000 ppm(191.9 and 493 mg/kg/day, respectively)in females. The increased incidence ofcombined tumors was driven by theincidence of adenomas. There was asignificant positive trend for combinedtumors and a dose-related increase inthe incidence at the two top doses. Theincrease in the combined incidence ofliver tumors at 2,000 and 5,000 ppmwas associated with non-neoplasticchanges and the incidences wereslightly outside the historical controlrange. The increased incidence ofhepatocellular adenomas/carcinomas at2,000 ppm in females was considered bythe Agency to be biologicallysignificant.

b. In males, there was a significantincrease by pair-wise comparison withthe controls for combined adenomas/carcinomas of the lung at 20, 200 and5,000 ppm (1.82, 17.4, or 481 mg/kg/day, respectively). Although there wasevidence of a positive trend withincreasing doses of buprofezin, theincidences in all dose groups werewithin the range for the historical

controls. The Agency, therefore,concluded that the lung tumors in maleswere not treatment-related. The dosingat 5,000 ppm was considered to beadequate and not excessive based onincreased liver weights in females,histopathological changes in the liver,and decreased body weight gains at5,000 ppm in both sexes.

Although buprofezin was negative inin vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays,the findings from the publishedliterature indicate that it causes celltransformation and induces micronucleiin vitro. However, in the absence of apositive response in an in vivomicronucleus assay, the Agencyconcluded that buprofezin may haveaneugenic potential which is notexpressed in vivo.

Consistent with the EPA Guidelinesfor Carcinogen Risk Assessment(proposed July 1999), the Agency hasclassified buprofezin as having‘‘Suggestive Evidence ofCarcinogenicity, but not sufficient toassess human carcinogenic potential.’’The Agency concluded that noquantification of cancer risk orassessment is appropriate, taking intoaccount all of the evidence bearing oncarcinogenicity including that a positivefinding was limited to one sex of onespecies.

iv. Anticipated residues. Section408(b)(2)(E) authorizes EPA to useavailable data and information on theanticipated residue levels of pesticideresidues in food and the actual levels ofpesticide chemicals that have beenmeasured in food. If EPA relies on suchinformation, EPA must require that databe provided 5 years after the toleranceis established, modified, or left in effect,demonstrating that the levels in food arenot above the levels anticipated.Following the initial data submission,EPA is authorized to require similardata on a time frame it deemsappropriate. As required by section408(b)(2)(E), EPA will issue a Data Call-In for information relating to anticipatedresidues to be submitted no later than 5years from the date of issuance of thistolerance.

2. Dietary exposure from drinkingwater. The maximum and average EECsfor buprofezin in ground and surfacewater are less than the Agency’sDWLOC for buprofezin as a contributionto acute and chronic aggregate exposure(for all population subgroups).

The Agency lacks sufficientmonitoring exposure data to complete acomprehensive dietary exposureanalysis and risk assessment forbuprofezin in drinking water. Becausethe Agency does not havecomprehensive monitoring data,

drinking water concentration estimatesare made by reliance on simulation ormodeling taking into account data onthe physical characteristics ofbuprofezin.

The Agency uses the GenericEstimated Environmental Concentration(GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System(PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticideconcentrations in surface water and SCI-GROW, which predicts pesticideconcentrations in ground water. Ingeneral, EPA will use GENEEC (a tier 1model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (atier 2 model) for a screening-levelassessment for surface water. TheGENEEC model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides.GENEEC incorporates a farm pondscenario, while PRZM/EXAMSincorporates an index reservoirenvironment in place of the previouspond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMSmodel includes a percent crop areafactor as an adjustment to account forthe maximum percent crop coveragewithin a watershed or drainage basin.

None of these models includeconsideration of the impact processing(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of rawwater for distribution as drinking waterwould likely have on the removal ofpesticides from the source water. Theprimary use of these models by theAgency at this stage is to provide acoarse screen for sorting out pesticidesfor which it is highly unlikely thatdrinking water concentrations wouldever exceed human health levels ofconcern.

Since the models used are consideredto be screening tools in the riskassessment process, the Agency doesnot use EECs from these models toquantify drinking water exposure andrisk as a %RfD or PAD. Instead drinkingwater levels of comparison (DWLOCs)are calculated and used as a point ofcomparison against the model estimatesof a pesticide’s concentration in water.DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits ona pesticide’s concentration in drinkingwater in light of total aggregate exposureto a pesticide in food, and fromresidential uses. Since DWLOCs addresstotal aggregate exposure to buprofezin,they are further discussed in theaggregate risk sections below.

Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROWmodels the EECs of buprofezin insurface water and ground water foracute exposures are estimated to be11.48 ppb for surface water and 0.04ppb for ground water. The EECs forchronic exposures are estimated to be1.80 ppb for surface water and 0.04 ppbfor ground water.



3. From non-dietary exposure. Theterm ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used inthis document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,indoor pest control, termiticides, andflea and tick control on pets).Buprofezin is not registered for use onany sites that would result in residentialexposure.

4. Cumulative exposure to substanceswith a common mechanism of toxicity.Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that,when considering whether to establish,modify, or revoke a tolerance, theAgency consider ‘‘availableinformation’’ concerning the cumulativeeffects of a particular pesticide’sresidues and ‘‘other substances thathave a common mechanism of toxicity.’’

EPA does not have, at this time,available data to determine whetherbuprofezin has a common mechanism oftoxicity with other substances or how toinclude this pesticide in a cumulativerisk assessment. Unlike other pesticidesfor which EPA has followed acumulative risk approach based on acommon mechanism of toxicity,buprofezin does not appear to producea toxic metabolite produced by othersubstances. For the purposes of thistolerance action, therefore, EPA has notassumed that buprofezin has a commonmechanism of toxicity with othersubstances. For information regardingEPA’s efforts to determine whichchemicals have a common mechanismof toxicity and to evaluate thecumulative effects of such chemicals,see the final rule for Bifenthrin PesticideTolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26,1997).

D. Safety Factor for Infants andChildren

1. Safety factor for infants andchildren—i. In general. FFDCA section408 provides that EPA shall apply anadditional tenfold margin of safety forinfants and children in the case ofthreshold effects to account for prenataland postnatal toxicity and thecompleteness of the data base ontoxicity and exposure unless EPAdetermines that a different margin ofsafety will be safe for infants andchildren. Margins of safety areincorporated into EPA risk assessmentseither directly through use of a marginof exposure (MOE) analysis or throughusing uncertainty (safety) factors incalculating a dose level that poses noappreciable risk to humans.

ii. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.The Agency concluded that availabletoxicity data provide no indication ofincreased susceptibility of rats or rabbitsfollowing in utero exposure or of rats

following prenatal/postnatal exposure tobuprofezin. In the prenataldevelopmental toxicity study in rats,developmental effects were seen only inthe presence of severe maternal toxicityincluding deaths. No developmentaltoxicity was seen at the highest dosetested in the prenatal developmentaltoxicity study in rabbits. And in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats,effects in the offspring were observedonly at treatment levels which resultedin evidence of parental toxicity.

iii. Conclusion. The toxicology database for buprofezin is complete forFQPA assessment. The developmentaltoxicity studies in rats and rabbits andthe 2-generation reproduction study inrats are available and consideredacceptable. Acute and subchronicneurotoxicity studies are not requiredfor buprofezin.

The Agency determined that anadditional developmental neurotoxicitystudy in rats is required based on theevidence of thyroid toxicity followingsubchronic and chronic exposures torats as well as chronic exposures todogs. In these studies, thyroid toxicitywas characterized as decreases in serumthyroxine levels and increased thyroidweights in dogs and histopathologicallesions in the subchronic and chronictoxicity studies in rats. While theAgency recognized the fact that thyroidtoxicity was seen in the presence ofhepatotoxicity, there was concern thatthyroid effects were seen in two speciesfollowing subchronic and chronicexposures. The Agency concluded thatthe DNT study is needed to furtherevaluate the hormonal responsesassociated with the developing fetalnervous system.

The Agency concluded that a safetyfactor is necessary for buprofezin sincethere is an additional developmentalneurotoxicity characterization studyneeded in rats. This study is requireddue to the evidence of thyroid effectsobserved following subchronic andchronic exposures to rats and chronicexposure to dogs.

The safety factor was reduced to 3Xbecause: There is no evidence ofincreased susceptibility to young rats orrabbits following in utero exposure orfollowing prenatal and/or postnatalexposure to rats; Adequate actual data,surrogate data, and/or modeling outputsare available to satisfactorily assessdietary (food and water) exposureassessment; and there are no registeredresidential uses at the present time.

The FQPA safety factor for buprofezinis applicable to females 13-50 and toinfants and children due uncertaintyresulting from an additionalconfirmatory developmental

neurotoxicity study in rats. Thisadditional study will characterize thepotential for neurotoxic effects on fetaldevelopment and may provide data thatcould be used in the toxicologyendpoint selection and further refine thedietary exposure risk assessments forthese population subgroups.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination ofSafety

To estimate total aggregate exposureto a pesticide from food, drinking water,and residential uses, the Agencycalculates DWLOCs which are used as apoint of comparison against the modelestimates of a pesticide’s concentrationin water (EECs). DWLOC values are notregulatory standards for drinking water.DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits ona pesticide’s concentration in drinkingwater in light of total aggregate exposureto a pesticide in food and residentialuses. In calculating a DWLOC, theAgency determines how much of theacceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) isavailable for exposure through drinkingwater e.g., allowable chronic waterexposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (averagefood + residential exposure). Thisallowable exposure through drinkingwater is used to calculate a DWLOC.

A DWLOC will vary depending on thetoxic endpoint, drinking waterconsumption, and body weights. Defaultbody weights and consumption valuesas used by the USEPA Office of Waterare used to calculate DWLOCs: 2L/70 kg(adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female),and 1L/10 kg (child). Default bodyweights and drinking waterconsumption values vary on anindividual basis. This variation will betaken into account in more refinedscreening-level and quantitativedrinking water exposure assessments.Different populations will have differentDWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC iscalculated for each type of riskassessment used: acute, short-term,intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.

When EECs for surface water andground water are less than thecalculated DWLOCs, OPP concludeswith reasonable certainty that exposuresto the pesticide in drinking water (whenconsidered along with other sources ofexposure for which OPP has reliabledata) would not result in unacceptablelevels of aggregate human health risk atthis time. Because OPP considers theaggregate risk resulting from multipleexposure pathways associated with apesticide’s uses, levels of comparison indrinking water may vary as those useschange. If new uses are added in thefuture, OPP will reassess the potentialimpacts of residues of the pesticide in



drinking water as a part of the aggregaterisk assessment process.

1. Acute risk. The acute dietaryexposure analysis assumed tolerancelevel residues and 100% crop treated forall registered and proposedcommodities (Tier 1). For females 13-50years old, 4% of the aPAD (.67 ppm/day) is occupied by dietary (food)exposure (no acute RfD established forthe general population including infantsand children). The acute exposure tobuprofezin as a result of exposure fromresidues in food is below the Agency’slevel of concern.

2. Chronic risk. Since there are nochronic residential exposure scenarios,the chronic aggregate risk assessment isconcerned with food and water only.The chronic dietary exposure analysisincorporated average residuescalculated from field trial data andassumed 100% crop treated for allcommodities except tomatoes (44% and0.6% crop treated for the fresh marketand for processing, respectively; Tier 2analysis). Only 49% of the cPAD isoccupied by dietary (food) exposure.The buprofezin EECs in surface andground water are less than the Agency’sDWLOC (for all population subgroups).Chronic risk for buprofezin, as a resultof dietary (food and water) exposure, isbelow the Agency’s level of concern.After calulating the DWLOCs andcomparing them to the EECs for surfaceand ground water, EPA does not expectthe aggregate exposure to exceed 100%of the cPAD, as shown in the followingTable 4.

TABLE 4.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESS-MENT FOR CHRONIC (NON-CANCER)EXPOSURE TO BUPROFEZIN

Subgroupsexposure

(mg/kg/day) % cPAD1

U.S. populationall seasons ........

0.000957 29

All Infants(1 year) ..............

0.000452 14

Children(1-6 years) .........

0.001615 49

Children(7-12 years) .......

0.001305 40

Females(13-50 years) .....

0.000871 26

Males(13-19 years) .....

0.000858 26

Males(20+ years) ........

0.000818 25

TABLE 4.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESS-MENT FOR CHRONIC (NON-CANCER)EXPOSURE TO BUPROFEZIN—Con-tinued

Subgroupsexposure

(mg/kg/day) % cPAD1

Seniors(55+) ..................

0.000814 25

1cPAD = 0.0033 mg/kg/day

3. Short-term risk. Short-termaggregate exposure takes into accountresidential exposure plus chronicexposure to food and water (consideredto be a background exposure level).Buprofezin is not registered for use onany sites that would result in residentialexposure. Therefore, the aggregate riskis the sum of the risk from food andwater, which do not exceed theAgency’s LOC.

4. Intermediate-term risk.Intermediate-term aggregate exposuretakes into account residential exposureplus chronic exposure to food and water(considered to be a backgroundexposure level). Buprofezin is notregistered for use on any sites thatwould result in residential exposure.Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sumof the risk from food and water, whichdo not exceed the Agency’s LOC.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.population. Buprofezin has beenclassified as ‘‘Suggestive Evidence ofCarcinogenicity, but not sufficient toassess human carcinogenic potential’’based on liver tumors in female mice,according to the Agency’s Cancer RiskAssessment Guidelines (proposed July1999). The Agency concluded that noquantification of cancer risk is required.

6. Determination of safety. Based onthese risk assessments, EPA concludesthat there is a reasonable certainty thatno harm will result to the generalpopulation, and to infants and childrenfrom aggregate exposure to buprofezinresidues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement MethodologyAdequate enforcement methodology

(example - gas chromatography) isavailable to enforce the toleranceexpression. The method may berequested from: Calvin Furlow, PIRIB,IRSD (7502C), Office of PesticidePrograms, Environmental ProtectionAgency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephonenumber: (703) 305–5229; e-mail address:[email protected].

B. International Residue LimitsNo maximum residue limits (MRLs)

are established for buprofezin in/on

cucurbits or lettuce in Mexico orCanada. Codex has a buprofezin MRL of1 ppm in/on cucumbers. The field trialdata do not support harmonization.

C. ConditionsConditions for continued registration

are as follows: A developmentalneurotoxicity study in rats (OPPTSGuideline 870.6300) guidelinerequirement (40 CFR part 158) for food/feed use, validation of frozen storageintervals, petition method validation, aninterference study, a confirmatorymethod, and additional cantaloupe andleaf lettuce field trials.

V. ConclusionTherefore, the tolerance is established

for residues of buprofezin, 2-tert-butylimino-3-isopropyl-5-phenyl-1,3,5-thiadiazinan-4-one, in or on lettuce,head; lettuce, leaf; and vegetables,cucurbits at 5.0, 13.0, and 0.50 ppm,respectively.

VI. Objections and Hearing RequestsUnder section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as

amended by the FQPA, any person mayfile an objection to any aspect of thisregulation and may also request ahearing on those objections. The EPAprocedural regulations which govern thesubmission of objections and requestsfor hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.Although the procedures in thoseregulations require some modification toreflect the amendments made to theFFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA willcontinue to use those procedures, withappropriate adjustments, until thenecessary modifications can be made.The new section 408(g) providesessentially the same process for personsto ‘‘object’’ to a regulation for anexemption from the requirement of atolerance issued by EPA under newsection 408(d), as was provided in theold FFDCA sections 408 and 409.However, the period for filing objectionsis now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File anObjection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection orrequest a hearing on this regulation inaccordance with the instructionsprovided in this unit and in 40 CFR part178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,you must identify docket controlnumber OPP–301040 in the subject lineon the first page of your submission. Allrequests must be in writing, and must bemailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerkon or before October 30, 2000.

1. Filing the request. Your objectionmust specify the specific provisions inthe regulation that you object to, and thegrounds for the objections (40 CFR



178.25). If a hearing is requested, theobjections must include a statement ofthe factual issues(s) on which a hearingis requested, the requestor’s contentionson such issues, and a summary of anyevidence relied upon by the objector (40CFR 178.27). Information submitted inconnection with an objection or hearingrequest may be claimed confidential bymarking any part or all of thatinformation as CBI. Information somarked will not be disclosed except inaccordance with procedures set forth in40 CFR part 2. A copy of theinformation that does not contain CBImust be submitted for inclusion in thepublic record. Information not markedconfidential may be disclosed publiclyby EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office ofthe Hearing Clerk (1900), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Youmay also deliver your request to theOffice of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400,Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW.,Washington, DC 20460. The Office ofthe Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m.to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,excluding legal holidays. The telephonenumber for the Office of the HearingClerk is (202) 260–4865.

2. Tolerance fee payment. If you filean objection or request a hearing, youmust also pay the fee prescribed by 40CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of thatfee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). Youmust mail the fee to: EPA HeadquartersAccounting Operations Branch, Officeof Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Pleaseidentify the fee submission by labelingit ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees.’’

EPA is authorized to waive any feerequirement ‘‘when in the judgement ofthe Administrator such a waiver orrefund is equitable and not contrary tothe purpose of this subsection.’’ Foradditional information regarding thewaiver of these fees, you may contactJames Tompkins by phone at (703) 305–5697, by e-mail [email protected], or by mailing arequest for information to Mr. Tompkinsat Registration Division (7505C), Officeof Pesticide Programs, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiverof the tolerance objection fees, you mustmail your request for such a waiver to:James Hollins, Information Resourcesand Services Division (7502C), Office ofPesticide Programs, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the Docket. In additionto filing an objection or hearing requestwith the Hearing Clerk as described in

Unit VI.A., you should also send a copyof your request to the PIRIB for itsinclusion in the official record that isdescribed in Unit I.B.2. Mail yourcopies, identified by docket controlnumber OPP–301040, to: PublicInformation and Records IntegrityBranch, Information Resources andServices Division (7502C), Office ofPesticide Programs, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Inperson or by courier, bring a copy to thelocation of the PIRIB described in UnitI.B.2. You may also send an electroniccopy of your request via e-mail to: [email protected]. Please use an ASCIIfile format and avoid the use of specialcharacters and any form of encryption.Copies of electronic objections andhearing requests will also be acceptedon disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 fileformat or ASCII file format. Do notinclude any CBI in your electronic copy.You may also submit an electronic copyof your request at many FederalDepository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant aRequest for a Hearing?

A request for a hearing will be grantedif the Administrator determines that thematerial submitted shows the following:There is a genuine and substantial issueof fact; there is a reasonable possibilitythat available evidence identified by therequestor would, if established resolveone or more of such issues in favor ofthe requestor, taking into accountuncontested claims or facts to thecontrary; and resolution of the factualissues(s) in the manner sought by therequestor would be adequate to justifythe action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

VII. Regulatory AssessmentRequirements

This final rule establishes a toleranceunder FFDCA section 408(d) inresponse to a petition submitted to theAgency. The Office of Management andBudget (OMB) has exempted these typesof actions from review under ExecutiveOrder 12866, entitled RegulatoryPlanning and Review (58 FR 51735,October 4, 1993). This final rule doesnot contain any information collectionssubject to OMB approval under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose anyenforceable duty or contain anyunfunded mandate as described underTitle II of the Unfunded MandatesReform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (PublicLaw 104–4). Nor does it require anyprior consultation as specified byExecutive Order 13084, entitledConsultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments (63 FR

27655, May 19, 1998); specialconsiderations as required by ExecutiveOrder 12898, entitled Federal Actions toAddress Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations (59 FR 7629, February 16,1994); or require OMB review or anyAgency action under Executive Order13045, entitled Protection of Childrenfrom Environmental Health Risks andSafety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,1997). This action does not involve anytechnical standards that would requireAgency consideration of voluntaryconsensus standards pursuant to section12(d) of the National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act of 1995(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Sincetolerances and exemptions that areestablished on the basis of a petitionunder FFDCA section 408(d), such asthe tolerance in this final rule, do notrequire the issuance of a proposed rule,the requirements of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.) do not apply. In addition, theAgency has determined that this actionwill not have a substantial direct effecton States, on the relationship betweenthe national government and the States,or on the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, entitledFederalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,1999). Executive Order 13132 requiresEPA to develop an accountable processto ensure ‘‘ ‘‘meaningful and timelyinput by State and local officials in thedevelopment of regulatory policies thathave federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policiesthat have federalism implications’’ isdefined in the Executive Order toinclude regulations that have‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,on the relationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government.’’ This final ruledirectly regulates growers, foodprocessors, food handlers and foodretailers, not States. This action does notalter the relationships or distribution ofpower and responsibilities establishedby Congress in the preemptionprovisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).

VIII. Submission to Congress and theComptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes acopy of the rule, to each House of the



Congress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. EPA will submit areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate,the U.S. House of Representatives, andthe Comptroller General of the UnitedStates prior to publication of this finalrule in the Federal Register. This finalrule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticidesand pests, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Dated: August 22, 2000.Susan B. Hazen,Deputy Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I isamended as follows:

PART 180—AMENDED


Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a) and371.

2. Section 180.511 is amended byadding paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances forresidues.

(a) General. Tolerances areestablished for residues of buprofezin inor on the following food commodities:

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/RevocationDate

Lettuce, head 5.0 12/31/04Lettuce, leaf 13.0 12/31/04Vegetables, cucurbits 0.50 12/31/04

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–22371 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–S


40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6860–8]

National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution ContingencyPlan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of partial deletion of theCimarron Mining Superfund Site fromthe National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Region 6 announces thepartial deletion of the Cimarron MiningSuperfund Site (Site). This partialdeletion applies only to the surface soilportion of Operable Unit 1 (OU 1 orCimarron) and all of Operable Unit 2(OU 2 or Sierra Blanca, which consistssolely of surface soils). The long-termremedial action for the ground waterportion of the remedy for the surfacesoil portion of OU 1 will continue untilfurther notice and remains on theNational Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,promulgated pursuant to section 105 ofthe Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, iscodified at Appendix B of the NationalOil and Hazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part300. This partial deletion is consistent

with EPA’s Notice of Policy Change:Policy Regarding Partial Deletion ofSites Listed on the National PrioritiesList. This partial deletion does notpertain to the subsurface portion of OU1 (Cimarron) including withoutlimitation ground water and subsurfacesoils. The subsurface portion of the Sitewill remain on the NPL, and responseactivities will continue for that portion.With the concurrence of the State ofNew Mexico, acting through the NewMexico Environment Department(NMED), EPA has determined that forthe surface portion of OU 1 (Cimarron)and all of OU 2 (Sierra Blanca) allappropriate Hazardous SubstanceResponse Trust Fund (Fund)—financedresponse under CERCLA has beenimplemented and that no furtherresponse action by responsible parties isappropriate. (Neither CERCLA-requiredfive-year reviews nor operation andmaintenance are considered furtherresponse action for the purpose of thispartial deletion.) EPA, with State ofNew Mexico concurrence (actingthrough NMED), has determined thatSite investigations show that theportions of the Site being deleted fromthe NPL now pose no significant threatto public health or the environment;consequently, pursuant to CERCLAsection 105, and 40 CFR 300.425(e), thesurface portions of the Site (the surfaceportion of OU 1 and all of OU 2) arehereby deleted from the NPL.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Petra Sanchez, Remedial ProjectManager, 214–665–6686, United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency,Region 6, 6SF–LT, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas, 75231.Information on the Site is available atthe local information repository locatedat Carrizozo City Hall, P.O. Box 247,Carrizozo, New Mexico 88301. Requestsfor comprehensive copies of documentsshould be directed formally to Ms.Elizabeth Rogers, Regional SuperfundInformation Management Team, EPARegion 6, SF–PI, 1445 Ross Avenue,Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas, 75231.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Sitebeing partially deleted from the NPL isthe Cimarron Mining Superfund Sitelocated near the town of Carrizozo, inLincoln County, New Mexico. Thispartial deletion pertains only to thesurface portions of the Site (surfaceportion of OU 1, Cimarron, and theentire portion of OU 2, Sierra Blanca(the latter consisting solely of surfacesoils). This action does not pertain tothe Long Term Remedial Action forground water at OU 1, Cimarron. Thispartial deletion is in accordance with 40CFR 300.425(e) and the Notice of PolicyChange: Partial Deletion of Sites Listedon the National Priorities List, 60 FR55466 (November 1, 1995). A Notice ofIntent for Partial Deletion was publishedon June 21, 2000 (65 FR 38476). Theclosing date for comments on the Noticeof Intent for Partial Deletion was July21, 2000. No comments were received.The EPA identifies sites which appearto present a significant risk to publichealth, welfare, or the environment andit maintains the NPL as the list of thosesites. Sites on the NPL may be thesubject of Fund-financed remedialactions. Section 300.425(e)(3) of theNCP, 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), states thatFund-financed actions may be taken at



sites deleted from the NPL in the eventthat future conditions at the site warrantsuch action. Deletion of a site from theNPL does not affect responsible partyliability or impede EPA efforts torecover costs associated with responseefforts.


Environment protection, Air pollutioncontrol, Chemicals, Hazardoussubstances, Hazardous waste,Intergovernmental regulations,Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Waterpollution control, Water supply.

Dated: August 17, 2000.Lynda F. Carroll,Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPARegion 6.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amendedas follows:



Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300is amended by revising the entry for‘‘Cimarron Mining Corp.,’’ Carrizozo,New Mexico to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300—NationalPriorities List

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/County Notes(a)

* * * * * * *NM ................................................. Cimarron Mining Corp Carrizozo P.

* * * * * * *

(a) * * *P=Sites with partial deletion(s).



40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6861–9]


AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Direct Final Deletion of theWheeling Disposal Service Company,Incorporated, Landfill Site from theNational Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: EPA Region VII announcesthe deletion of the Wheeling DisposalService Company, Incorporated Landfillsite (site) from the (NPL) and requestspublic comment on this action. The NPLconstitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part300 which is the National Oil andHazardous Substance PollutionContingency Plan (NCP), which EPApromulgated pursuant to Section 105 ofthe Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and LiabilityAct of 1980, as amended, (CERCLA).EPA and the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) havedetermined that all appropriateresponse actions have beenimplemented and the site poses nosignificant threat to public health or theenvironment and, therefore, further

remedial measures pursuant to CERCLAare not appropriate.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ action will beeffective October 30, 2000 unless EPAreceives significant adverse or criticalcomments by October 2, 2000. If adversecomments are received, EPA willpublish a timely withdrawal of thedirect final rule in the Federal Registerinforming the public that the rule willnot take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed toCatherine Barrett, Remedial ProjectManager, U.S. EPA, Superfund Division,901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS66101, telephone (913) 551–7704, fax(913) 551–7063. Comprehensiveinformation on this site is availablethrough the public docket which isavailable for viewing at the SiteInformation Repository at U.S. EPARegion VII, Superfund Division RecordsCenter, 901 North 5th Street, KansasCity, KS 66101 or the Wheeling LocalRepository, Rolling Hills Library, 514West Main Street, Savannah, Missouri.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Catherine Barrett, U.S. EPA, SuperfundDivision, 901 North 5th Street, KansasCity, KS 66101, telephone (913) 551–7704, fax (913) 551–7063.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. IntroductionII. NPL Deletion CriteriaIII. Deletion ProceduresIV. Basis of Intended Site DeletionV. Action

I. Introduction

The EPA Region VII announces thedeletion of the Wheeling DisposalService Company, Incorporated,Landfill site, Amazonia, Missouri, fromthe NPL, Appendix B of the NCP, 40CFR Part 300. EPA identifies sites thatappear to present a significant risk topublic health, welfare, or theenvironment and maintains the NPL asthe list of these sites. EPA and theMDNR have determined that theremedial action for the site has beensuccessfully executed. EPA will acceptcomments on this notice thirty daysafter publication of this notice in theFederal Register.

Section II of this action explains thecriteria for deleting sites from the NPL.Section III discusses the procedures thatEPA is using for this action. Section IVdiscusses the history of the WheelingDisposal Service Company,Incorporated, Landfill site and explainshow the site meets the deletion criteria.Section V states EPA’s action to deletethe releases of the site from the NPLunless dissenting comments arereceived during the comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCPprovides that sites may be deleted from,or recategorized on the NPL where nofurther response is appropriate. Inmaking a determination to delete arelease from the NPL, EPA shallconsider, in consultation with the state,whether any of the following criteriahave been met:



(i) Responsible parties or otherpersons have implemented allappropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate fund-financedresponse under CERCLA has beenimplemented, and no further responseaction by responsible parties isappropriate; or

(iii) The remedial investigation hasshown that the release poses nosignificant threat to public health or theenvironment; and, therefore, taking ofremedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if the site is deleted from theNPL, where hazardous substances,pollutants, or contaminants remain atthe site above levels that allow forunlimited use and unrestrictedexposure, EPA’s policy is that asubsequent review of the site will beconducted at least every five years afterthe initiation of the remedial action atthe site to ensure that the remedyremains protective of human health andthe environment. A 5-year review wasconducted for the Wheeling DisposalService Company, Incorporated,Landfill in 1999. Based on that review,EPA in consultation with the State,determined that conditions at the siteremain protective of public health andthe environment. As explained below,the site meets the NCP’s deletion criterialisted above. If new informationbecomes available which indicates aneed for further action, EPA may initiateremedial actions. Whenever there is asignificant release from a site deletedfrom the NPL, the site shall be restoredto the NPL without the application ofthe Hazard Ranking System (HRS).

III. Deletion ProceduresThe following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of the releasefrom the site: (1) All appropriateresponse under CERCLA has beenimplemented and no further action byEPA is appropriate; (2) The MDNRconcurred with the proposed deletiondecision; (3) A notice has beenpublished in the local newspaper andhas been distributed to appropriatefederal, state, and local officials andother interested parties announcing thecommencement of a 30-day dissentingpublic review. EPA is requesting onlydissenting comments on the Direct FinalAction to Delete; and (4) All relevantdocuments have been made available inthe local site information repository.

For deletion of the release from thesite, EPA’s Regional Office will acceptand evaluate public comments on EPA’sFinal Notice before making a finaldecision to delete. If necessary theAgency will prepare a ResponsivenessSummary, responding to eachsignificant comment submitted during

the public comment period. Deletion ofthe site from the NPL does not itselfcreate, alter, or revoke any individual’srights or obligations. The NPL isdesigned primarily for informationalpurposes and to assist Agencymanagement. As mentioned in SectionII of this document, § 300.425 (e) (3) ofthe NCP states that the deletion of arelease from a site from the NPL doesnot preclude eligibility for futureresponse actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site DeletionThe following site summary provides

the Agency’s rationale for the proposalto delete this release from the NPL.

Site Background and HistoryThe Wheeling Disposal Service

Company, Incorporated, Landfill site islocated in Andrew County, Missouri,and is a 20-acre site, centrally locatedon two adjacent areas totaling about 200acres. The shallow groundwater belowthe site supplies water to a deeperaquifer. The site was added to the NPLon October 4, 1989.

The landfill was established in theearly 1970s and the facility received aState permit in 1975 to operate as anindustrial waste disposal facility.Between 1980 and 1981, the companyvoluntarily ceased operations. Thefacility resumed operations under theauthority of a special waste disposalpermit issued by the State of Missouriuntil it voluntarily closed in 1986. TheMDNR periodically inspected the siteand monitored groundwater when thelandfill was in operation. Based onMDNR hazardous waste records, wastescontaining pesticides, heavy metals,paint, solvents, and leather tanningsludge were disposed of in the landfill.In field investigations conducted by theEPA, contaminants were detected inmonitoring wells and springs on thesite.

The groundwater and soil on site werecontaminated with various volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) and heavymetals including arsenic, chromium,nickel, and lead from the former wastedisposal activities. Several seeps on thenorth side of the site werecontaminated, indicating that localsurface water was potentiallythreatened.

In late 1990, the potentiallyresponsible parties completed siteinvestigations. In a Proposed Plan, theproposed remedy for the site includedthe following: well plugging, surfacewater and groundwater monitoring, andupgrading the existing landfill cover tocomply with State and Federalstandards. A Community Relations Planwas completed for the Wheeling

Disposal Service Company,Incorporated, Landfill site. TheProposed Plan and the AdministrativeRecord were available for public reviewduring the public comment period. Apublic meeting was held to present theProposed Plan for the remedy and toanswer questions and receive anywritten comments. A Record of Decisionexplaining the remedy for the site wassigned by EPA on September, 27, 1990.

A Consent Decree, Civil Action No.92–0132–CV–W–1, which addressed theRemedial Design and Remedial Action(RD/RA) at the site, was entered by thecourt on October 1, 1992. The WheelingDisposal Site RD/RA Trust hired acontractor to assist them in theimplementation of the RD/RA.Construction documents were generatedby the responsible party contractor andcontractors were procured to carry outthe bid contracts. The EPA approved RDdocuments on September 30, 1993.

In compliance with the ConsentDecree, the responsible party completedall RA construction within the ConsentDecree schedule. The pre-final siteinspection by EPA was conducted onJuly 27, 1994. The EPA provided finalConstruction Completion Notificationon September 1, 1994.

The RA construction completedincluded previous monitoring well andfarm well closure according to MDNRregulations, placement of 10 newmonitoring wells, surface water andgroundwater monitoring, and upgradingthe existing landfill cover to complywith State and Federal standards. Thelandfill upgrading included gas ventsystem installation, geotextileinstallation, 24-inch depth final soilcap, surface terraces, berms, and riprapchannel installation, and topsoilplacement and seeding.

Operations and MaintenanceLong-term maintenance and

groundwater monitoring is beingconducted by the parties potentiallyresponsible for site contamination. Theoperation and maintenance (O&M)activities being conducted includeground water monitoring and surfacewater monitoring through a samplingprogram, and maintenance of thelandfill cover. Sampling is to continueto be conducted annually by theresponsible party in accordance withthe Consent Decree.

Five-Year ReviewCERCLA requires a five-year review of

all sites with hazardous substancesremaining above the health-based levelsfor unrestricted use of the site. Sincehazardous materials remain at the Site,the five-year review process will be



used to insure that the landfill cover isstill intact and the remedy is protectiveof human health and the environment.EPA issued a five-year review report in1999 which was an evaluation of theresults of the maintenance andmonitoring activities at the Site. Thisreport concluded that the WheelingDisposal Service Company,Incorporated, Landfill site is protectiveof human health and the environment.The five-year review recommendedcontinuing the O&M activities,including maintenance of the landfillcap and groundwater and surface watersampling.

V. ActionThe remedy selected for this Site has

been implemented in accordance withthe Record of Decision. Therefore, nofurther response action is necessary.The remedy has resulted in thesignificant reduction of the long-termpotential for release of contaminants,therefore, human health and potentialenvironmental impacts have beenminimized. EPA and the MDNR findthat the remedy implemented continuesto provide adequate protection ofhuman health and the environment.

The EPA, with concurrence of theState of Missouri, has determined thatthe criteria for deletion of the releasehave been met. Therefore, EPA isdeleting the site from the NPL.

This action will be effective October30, 2000. However, if EPA receivesdissenting comments by October 2,2000, EPA will publish a document thatwithdraws this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardoussubstances, Hazardous substances,Hazardous waste, Intergovernmentalrelations, Penalties, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Superfund,Water pollution control, Water supply.

August 18, 2000.William Rice,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

Part 300, title 40 of chapter 1 of theCode of Federal Regulations is amendedas follows:



Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321 (c) (2); 42 U.S.C.9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56FR 54757, 3 CFR,1991 Comp.; p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p.193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300is amended by removing the site for

‘‘Wheeling Disposal Service Co.Landfill, Amazonia, Missouri.’’[FR Doc. 00–22377 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–1840]

Radio Broadcasting Services; VariousLocations

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, on its ownmotion, editorially amends the Table ofFM Allotments to specify the actualclasses of channels allotted to variouscommunities. The changes in channelclassifications have been authorized inresponse to applications filed bylicensees and permittees operating onthese channels. This action is takenpursuant to Revision of Section73.3573(a)(1) of the Commission’s RulesConcerning the Lower Classification ofan FM Allotment, 4 FCC Rcd 2413(1989), and the Amendment of theCommission’s Rules to permit FMChannel and Class Modifications[Upgrades] by Applications, 8 FCC Rcd4735 (1993).DATES: Effective August 31, 2000.ADDRESSES: Federal CommunicationsCommission, Washington, D.C. 20554.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass MediaBureau, (202) 418–2180.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asummary of the Commission’s Reportand Order, adopted August 2, 2000, andreleased August 11, 2000. The full textof this Commission decision is availablefor inspection and copying duringnormal business hours in theCommission’s Reference Center, 44512th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. Thecomplete text of this decision may alsobe purchased from the Commission’scopy contractors, InternationalTranscription Service, Inc., 1231 20thStreet, NW, Washington, DC. 20036,(202) 857–3800, facsimile (202) 857–3805.


Radio broadcasting.Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]


Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under California, isamended by removing Channel 253Band adding Channel 253B1 at Delanoand by removing Channel 237B1 andadding Channel 237B at Fort Bragg.

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Colorado, is amendedby removing Channel 288A and addingChannel 289C3 at Sterling.

4. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Georgia, is amendedby removing Channel 235C and addingChannel 235C1 at Atlanta.

5. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Idaho, is amended byremoving Channel 271A and addingChannel 271C1 at Driggs and byremoving Channel 296A and addingChannel 296C1 at Idaho Falls.

6. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Illinois, is amendedby removing Channel 236A and addingChannel 236B1 at Carterville.

7. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Kansas, is amendedby removing Channel 265A and addingChannel 265C3 at Clay Center.

8. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Kentucky, is amendedby removing Channel 221C3 and addingChannel 221C2 at Carlisle and byremoving Channel 222C2 and addingChannel 222C3 at London.

9. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Louisiana, isamended by removing Channel 250Aand adding Channel 250C2 at DeRidder.

10. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Michigan, is amendedby removing Channel 288A and addingChannel 288C1 at Pickford.

11. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Nebraska, is amendedby removing Channel 272C3 and addingChannel 275C1 at Kearney.

12. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under New Mexico, isamended by removing Channel 275Aand adding Channel 275C2 at Las Vegas.

13. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Oregon, is amendedby removing Channel 259A and addingChannel 259C3 at Bend.

14. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Texas, is amended byremoving Channel 251C2 and addingChannel 251C1 at Anson and by



removing Channel 240C3 and addingChannel 239C2 at Big Spring and byremoving Channel 284C and addingChannel 284C1 at Burkburnett and byremoving Channel 236C2 and addingChannel 236C1 at Comfort and byremoving Channel 241C2 and addingChannel 241C1 at Odessa and byremoving Channel 285C2 and addingChannel 285C1 at Pilot Point and byremoving Channel 245A and addingChannel 245C3 at Pittsburg.

15. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Washington, isamended by removing Channel 249Aand adding Channel 249C3 at EastWenatchee.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and RulesDivision, Mass Media Bureau.[FR Doc. 00–22350 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 201, 202, 208, 211, 215,219, 222, 225, 226, 242, 252, and 253,and Appendices F and G to Chapter 2

Defense Federal AcquisitionRegulation Supplement; TechnicalAmendments

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Director of DefenseProcurement is making technicalamendments to the Defense FederalAcquisition Regulation Supplement.The amendments reflect theestablishment of the Defense ContractManagement Agency (DCMA) andDCMA’s renaming of its contractadministration offices to contractmanagement offices. In addition, theamendments update references andactivity addresses and delete obsoletetext.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Michele Peterson, Defense AcquisitionRegulations Council, OUSD (AT&L) DP(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 DefensePentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062.Telephone (703) 602–0311; telefax (703)602–0350.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 201,202, 208, 211, 215, 219, 222, 225, 226,242, 252, and 253

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,Executive Editor, Defense AcquisitionRegulations Council.

Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 201, 202, 208,211, 215, 219, 222, 225, 226, 242, 252,and 253, and Appendices F and G toChapter 2 are amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFRParts 201, 202, 208, 211, 215, 219, 222,225, 226, 242, 252, and 253, andAppendices F and G to subchapter Icontinues to read as follows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFRChapter 1.

PART 201—FEDERAL ACQUISITIONREGULATIONS SYSTEM

201.404 [Amended]

2. Section 201.404 is amended inparagraph (b)(ii) introductory text byadding, after ‘‘Defense CommissaryAgency’’, the phrase ‘‘, the DefenseContract Management Agency,’’.

PART 202—DEFINITIONS OF WORDSAND TERMS


a. By adding a definition of ‘‘Contractadministration office’’;

b. In the definition of ‘‘Contractingactivity’’, under the heading ‘‘NAVY’’,in the last entry, by adding a periodafter ‘‘U.S.’’;

c. In the definition of ‘‘Contractingactivity’’, under the heading ‘‘DEFENSEADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTSAGENCY’’ by removing the entry‘‘Defense Finance and AccountingService External Services, DefenseFinance and Accounting Service’’, andadding in its place the following newheadings and entries:

‘‘DEFENSE CONTRACTMANAGEMENT AGENCY

Office of the Director, Defense ContractManagement Agency

DEFENSE FINANCE ANDACCOUNTING SERVICE

External Services, Defense Finance andAccounting Service’’;

d. In the definition of ‘‘Contractingactivity’’, under the heading ‘‘DEFENSELOGISTICS AGENCY’’, by removing theentry ‘‘Office of the Commander,Defense Contract ManagementCommand’’; and

e. In the definition of ‘‘Departmentsand agencies’’ in the last sentence byadding, after ‘‘Defense Commissary

Agency,’’, the phrase ‘‘the DefenseContract Management Agency,’’. Theadded definition reads as follows:

202.101 Definitions.

* * * * *Contract administration office also

means a contract management office ofthe Defense Contract ManagementAgency.

PART 208—REQUIRED SOURCES OFSUPPLIES AND SERVICES

4. Section 208.7002–2 is amended asfollows:

a. By revising paragraph (b)(8)(ii);b. In paragraph (b)(9) by adding the

word ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon;c. In paragraph (b)(10) by removing ‘‘;

and’’ and adding a period in its place;and

d. By removing paragraph (b)(11). Therevised text reads as follows:

208.7002–2 Requiring departmentresponsibilities.

* * * * *(b) * * *(8) * * *(ii) The basis for determining the

acceptability of such supplies (see FAR11.302(b));* * * * *

5. Section 208.7301 is amended byrevising the definition of ‘‘PreciousMetals Indicator code (PMIC)’’ to read asfollows:

208.7301 Definitions.

* * * * *Precious Metals Indicator Code

(PMIC) means a single-digit, alpha-numeric code assigned to national stocknumbered items in the DefenseIntegrated Data System Total ItemRecord used to indicate the presence orabsence of precious metals in the item.PMICs and the content value ofcorresponding items are listed in DoD4100.39–M, Federal LogisticsInformation System (FLIS ProceduresManual, Volume 10, Chapter 4, Table160.* * * * *

208.7302 [Amended]


a. In the second sentence by removingthe abbreviation ‘‘DISC’’ and adding inits place ‘‘DSCP’’; and

b. By removing the parenthetical‘‘(See DoDD 4160.22, Recovery andUtilization of Precious Metals.)’’.



208.7303 [Amended]

7. Section 208.7303 is amended in thefirst sentence of paragraph (b) asfollows:

a. By removing ‘‘chapter X’’ andadding in its place ‘‘Chapter 11’’; and

b. By removing the phrase‘‘Utilization and Disposal’’ and addingin its place ‘‘Material Disposition’’.


208.7304 Refined precious metals.The following refined precious metals

are currently managed by DSCP:

Precious metal National stock num-ber (NSN)

Gold ........................... 9660–00–042–7733Silver ......................... 9660–00–106–9432Platinum Granules .... 9660–00–042–7768Platinum Sponge ....... 9660–00–151–4050Palladium Granules ... 9660–00–042–7765Palladium Sponge ..... 9660–01–039–0320Rhodium .................... 9660–01–010–2625Iridium ....................... 9660–00–011–1937Ruthenium ................. 9660–01–039–0313

208.7305 [Amended]

9. Section 208.7305 is amended inparagraph (b) as follows:

a. By removing ‘‘chapter X’’ andadding in its place ‘‘Chapter 11’’; and

b. By removing the phrase‘‘Utilization and Disposal’’ and addingin its place ‘‘Materiel Disposition’’.

PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCYNEEDS

211.273–2 [Amended]

10. Section 211.273–2 is amended inparagraph (b) by removing the word‘‘Command’’ and adding in its place theword ‘‘Agency’’.

PART 215—CONTRACTING BYNEGOTIATION

11. Section 215.404–76 is amended byrevising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

215.404–76 Reporting profit and feestatistics.

* * * * *(g) These reporting requirements have

been assigned Report Control SymbolDD–AT–&L(Q) 1751.


a. By revising paragraph (c)(1) and theintroductory text of paragraph (c)(2)(A);and

b. In paragraph (c)(2)(C) in the thirdsentence by removing ‘‘DCMC/DLA led’’and adding in its place ‘‘DCMA-led’’.The revised text reads as follows:

215.407–4 Should-cost review.

* * * * *(c) * * *(1) Contact the Defense Contract

Management Act (DCMA) (http:///www.dcmc.hq.dla.mil/) for questions onoverhead should-cost analysis.

(2)(A) DCMA is the militarydepartment responsible for performingcontact administration functions (e.g.,Navy SUPSHIP) should consider, basedon risk assessment, performing anoverhead should-cost review of acontractor business unit (as definedFAR 31.001) when all of the followingconditions exist:

PART 219—SMALL BUSINESSPROGRAMS

219.70 [Amended]

13. Section 219.708 is amended inparagraph (b)(2) by removing the word‘‘which’’ and adding in its place theword ‘‘that’’, and by removing the words‘‘Small Business’’.

PART 22—APPLICATION OF LABORLAWS TO GOVERNMENTACQUISITIONS

222.101–3–70 [Amended]

14. Section 222.101–3–70 is amendedin paragraph (b) introductory text in thethird sentence by removing ‘‘DD–ACQ(AR) 1153’’ and adding in its place‘‘DD–AT&L (AR) 1153’’.

PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

225.802–70 [Amended]

15. Section 225.802–70 is amended inparagraph (a) in the first sentence byremoving the parenthetical ‘‘(asspecified in DLAH 4105.5)’’.

16. Section 225.870–1 is amended inparagraph (e)(2) by revising the lastsentence to read as follows:

225.870–1 General.

* * * * *(e) * * *(2) * * * Requests for audit on non-

Canadian Commercial Corporationcontracts should be routed through thecognizant contract management office ofthe Defense Contract ManagementAgency.* * * * *

17. Section 225.870–5 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

225.870–5 Contract administration.(a) Assign contract administration in

accordance with part 242. Whencontract administration is performed inCanada by the cognizant contractmanagement office of the DefenseContract Management Agency, the

paying office to be named in thecontract for disbursement of DoD funds(DoD Department Code: 17-Navy; 21-Army; 57-Air Force; 97-all other DoDcomponents), whether payment is inCanadian or U.S. dollars, shall be:DFAS-Columbus Center, DFAS–CO/New Dominion Division, PO Box182041, Columbus, OH 43218–2041.* * * * *

225.902 [Amended]


a. In paragraph (2)(i)(D) introductorytext by removing ‘‘DCMC’’ and addingin its place ‘‘DCM’’, and by adding after‘‘New York Avenue,’’ the phase‘‘Building 120,’’ and

b. In paragraph (2)(i)(E), and inparagraph (2)(ii) in the first and lastsentences, by removing ‘‘DCMC’’ andadding in its place ‘‘DCM’’.

225.7002–2 [Amended]

19. Section 225.7002–2 is amended inparagraph (d) by removing ‘‘FAR section25.108(d)(1)’’ and adding in its place‘‘FAR 25.104(a)’’.

20. Section 225.7019–2 amended byrevising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

225.7019–2 Exceptions.

* * * * *(b) The restrictions in 225.7019–1(b)

does not apply to contracts foracquisition of commercial items orsubcontracts for acquisition ofcommercial items or commercialcomponents (see 212.503(a)(xi) and212.504(a)(xxv)).

PART 226—OTHER SOCIOECONOMICPROGRAMS

226.104 [Amended]


a. By removing the introductory text‘‘Use the following prescription insteadof the prescription at FAR 26.10(a):’’and

b. By removing the paragraph (a)designation.

PART 242—CONTRACTADMINISTRATION AND AUDITSERVICES

242.002 [Amended]

22. Section 242.002 is amended inparagraph (S–70)(iii) introductory textin the first sentence by removing‘‘Defense Contract ManagementCommand (DCMC), New York, NY’’ andadding in its place ‘‘Headquarters,Defense Contract Management Agency,International and Federal Team’’.



242.202 [Amended]


a. In paragraph (a)(ii) in the lastsentence by removing ‘‘Command(DCMC)’’ and adding in its place‘‘Agency (DCMA)’’; and

b. In paragraph (a)(iii) in the first andlast sentences by removing ‘‘DCMC’’and adding in its place ‘‘DCMA’’.

242.302 [Amended]


a. In paragraph (a)(13)(A) by removing‘‘Command (DCMC)’’ and adding in itsplace ‘‘Agency (DCMA)’’;

b. In paragraph (a)(13)(B) introductorytext and the first sentence of paragraph(a)(13)(C) by removing ‘‘DMC’’ andadding in its place ‘‘DCMA’’; and

c. In paragraph (a)(41) by removing‘‘The Defense Contract ManagementCommand (DCMC)’’ and adding in itsplace ‘‘DCMA’’.

242.771–3 [Amended]

25. Section 242.771–3 is amended inparagraph (b) by removing the phrase‘‘Command of the Defense Logistics’’.

242.7301 [Amended]26. Section 242.7301 is amended as

follows:a. In paragraph (a) introductory text in

the last sentence by removing ‘‘DefenseLogistics Agency (DLA)’’ and adding inits place ‘‘Defense Contract ManagementAgency (DCMA)’’; and

b. In paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) byremoving ‘‘DLA’’ and adding in its place‘‘DCMA’’.

242.7302 [Amended]

27. Section 242.7302 is amended inparagraph (a)(1)(ii) by removing ‘‘DLA’’and adding in its place ‘‘DCMA’’.

242.7303 [Amended]

28. Section 242.7303 is amended inparagraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) and theintroductory text of paragraph (b) byremoving ‘‘DLA’’ and adding in its place‘‘DCMA’’.

PART 252—SOLICITATIONPROVISIONS AND CONTRACTCLAUSES

29. Section 252.211–7005 is amendedas follows:

a. By revising the clause date to read‘‘(AUG 2000)’’;

b. In paragraph (a) in the last sentenceby removing the word ‘‘Command’’ andadding in its place the word ‘‘Agency’’;and

c. In paragraph (b) by revising the lastsentence to read as follows:

252.211–7005 Substitutions for Military orFederal Specifications and Standards.

* * * * *(b) * * * A listing of SPI processes

accepted at specific facilities is availablevia the Internet in PDF format at http://www.dcmc.hq.dla.mil/dcmc_o/oc/spi/files/dbreport/files/modified.pdf and inExcel format at http://www.dcmc.hq.dla.mil/dcmc_o/oc/spi/files/dbreport/files/modified.xls.* * * * *

252.225–7009 [Amended]



b. In paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(A) in the lastsentence by removing ‘‘Command(DCMC)’’ and adding in its place‘‘(DCMC)’’, and by adding after ‘‘NewYork Avenue,’’ the phrase ‘‘Building120,’’;

c. In paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) byremoving ‘‘Defense ContractManagement Command (DCMC)’’ andadding in its place ‘‘DCM’’;

d. In paragraph (f)(2)(vii) by removing‘‘DCMC’’ and adding in its place‘‘DCM’’; and

e. In paragraph (g)(1) in the secondsentence by removing ‘‘DCMC NY’’ andadding in its place ‘‘DCM New York’’.

252.225–7010 [Amended]



b. In paragraph (e) introductory text inthe first sentence by removing‘‘Command (DCMC)’’ and adding in itsplace ‘‘(DCM)’’, and by adding after‘‘New York Avenue,’’ the phrase‘‘Building 120,’’; and

c. In paragraph (e)(3) and the secondsentence of paragraph (f) by removing‘‘DCMC’’ and adding in its place‘‘DCM’’.

252.225–7012 [Amended]


a. By revising the clause date to read‘‘(AUG 2000)’’; and

b. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing‘‘FAR section 25.108(d)(1)’’ and addingin its place ‘‘FAR 25.104(a)’’.

252.225–7037 [Amended]



b. In paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(A) in the lastsentence by removing ‘‘Command(DCMC)’’ and adding in its place

‘‘(DCM)’’, and by adding after ‘‘NewYork Avenue,’’ the phrase ‘‘Building120.’’;

c. In paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) in the firstsentence by removing ‘‘DCMC, NY’’ andadding in its place ‘‘DCM New York’’;

d. In paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) in the lastsentence by removing ‘‘CDMC, NY’’ andadding in its place ‘‘DCM New York’’,and by adding an end parenthesis afterthe period;

e. In paragraph (f)(2)(vii) by removing‘‘DCMC’’ and adding in its place‘‘DCM;’’ and

f. In paragraph (g)(1) in the secondsentence by removing ‘‘DCMC NY’’ andadding in its place ‘‘DCM New York’’.

PART 253—FORMS


a. By revising paragraph (c)(6)(i)(A);and

b. In paragraph (e) in the firstsentence by removing the word‘‘Command’’ and adding in its place theword ‘‘Agency’’. The revised text readsas follows:

252.208–1 DD Form 448, MilitaryInterdepartmental Purchase Request.

* * * * *(c) * * *(6) ***(i) * * *(A) The resulting contract is not to be

paid by the Defense Finance andAccounting Service; and* * * * *

253.213–70 [Amended]

35. Section 253.213–70 is amended inparagraph (e), under the heading‘‘BLOCK 19 Schedule of Supplies/Services—’’, in the last sentence of theintroductory text, by removing ‘‘DCMC’’and adding in its place ‘‘the DefenseContract Management Agency’’.

36. The note at the end of Part 253 isamended as follows:

a. By removing the entry ‘‘253.303–1348–1’’ and adding in its place thefollowing two new entries:‘‘253.303–1348–1A—Issue Release/

Receipt Document.253.303–1348–2—Issue Release/Receipt

Document with Address Label.’’; andb. By removing the entry ‘‘253.303–

1651’’.

Appendix F—Material Inspection andReceiving Report

F–301 [Amended]

37. Appendix F to Chapter 2 isamended in Part 3, Section F–301, asfollows:

a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) by removingthe parenthetical ‘‘(Block 16(d)(6))’’ and



adding in its place ‘‘(see paragraph(b)(16)(iv)(F) of this section)’’;

b. In paragraph (b)(16)(iii)introductory text by removing ‘‘DefenseContract Management Command’’ andadding in its place ‘‘the DefenseContract Management Agency’’;

c. In paragraph (b)(21)(ii) by removing‘‘Command (DCMC)’’ and adding in itsplace ‘‘Agency (DCMA)’’; and

d. In paragraph (b)(21)(iii) in thesecond sentence and in paragraphs(b)(21)(iv)(B)(2), (b)(21)(iv)(B)(3),(b)(21)(iv)(D)(1), and (b)(21)(iv)(D)(2), byremoving ‘‘DCMC’’ and adding in itsplace ‘‘DMCA’’.

F–401 [Amended]

38. Appendix F to Chapter 2 isamended in Part 4, Section F–401,under the heading ‘‘Material Inspectionand Receiving Report Table 1—StandardDistribution’’, as follows:

a. In the parenthetical beneath theentry ‘‘Contract Administration Office’’,by removing ‘‘DCMD, DCMAO, or aDPRO’’ and adding in its place ‘‘DefenseContract Management Agency (DCMA)office’’; and

b. In the parenthetical beneath theentry ‘‘Payment Office’’, in paragraph(i), by removing ‘‘DCMD or DCMAO’’and adding in its place ‘‘DCMA office’’.

Appendix G—Activity AddressNumbers

39. Appendix G to Chapter 2 isamended in Part 4 as follows:

a. By removing the entries ‘‘M60050’’and ‘‘M67438’’;

b. By revising the entry ‘‘M67400’’;and

c. By adding, in alpha-numericalorder, a new entry ‘‘M67865’’. Therevised and added text reads as follows:

Part 4—Marine Corps Activity AddressNumbers

* * * * *M67400–QJ

Marine Corps Regional ContractingOffice (Far East), Marine Corps BaseCamp Smedley D. Butler, PSC 577,Box 2000, FPO AP, NA 96379–2000

* * * * *M67865—J9

Contracting Office, MCAS Miramar(Code 5KB), PO Box 452007, SanDiego, CA 92145–2007

* * * * *40. Appendix G to Chapter 2 is

amended in Part 5 as follows:a. In the entry ‘‘F61521’’ by removing

‘‘UH, UJ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘UH’’;and

b. By adding, in alpha-numericalorder, a new entry ‘‘F63197’’ to read asfollows:

Part 5—Air Force Activity AddressNumbers

* * * * *F63197—UJ

731 MUNSS/LGC, Unit 7230, Box 49,Araxos AB APO AE 09843–0049

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–22094 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5000–04–M



[DFARS Case 2000–D004]

Defense Federal AcquisitionRegulation Supplement; PollutionControl and Clean Air and Water

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Director of DefenseProcurement has issued a final ruleamending the Defense FederalAcquisition Regulation Supplement(DFARS) to revise and relocate policyon the level of approval required toexcept a contract from certainrestrictions of the Clean Air Act or theClean Water Act. The policy is movedfrom the Pollution Control and CleanAir and Water subpart to the Debarment,Suspension, and Ineligibility subpart ofthe DFARS, because the FederalAcquisition Regulation (FAR) subparton Pollution Control and Clean Air andWater has been removed.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Sandra G. Haberlin, Defense AcquisitionRegulations Council,OUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139,3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0289;telefax (703) 602–0350. Please citeDFARS Case 2000–D004.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. BackgroundOn December 27, 1999, Item I of

Federal Acquisition Circular 97–15 (64FR 72415) removed Subpart 23.1,Pollution Control and Clean Air andWater, from the FAR. Subpart 23.1contained policy pertaining to entitiesthat are ineligible for contract awarddue to a violation of the Clean Air Actor the Clean Water Act. The FAR textwas deemed unnecessary, becausecontracting officers can use the GeneralServices Administration List of PartiesExcluded from Federal Procurement andNonprocurement Programs to ensurethat they do not award contracts toineligible entities. In accordance withEnvironmental Protection Agency

regulations at 40 CFR 32.215(b), FARSubpart 23.1 permitted an agency headto except a contract from the prohibitionon award to a Clean Air Act or CleanWater Act violator if it was in theparamount interest of the United Statesto do so. DFARS Subpart 223.1 limiteddelegation of this exception authority toa level no lower than an official who isappointed by and with the advice of theSenate.

This final rule—1. Removes the text from DFARS

Subpart 223.1, since FAR Subpart 23.1no longer exists; and relocates the textto DFARS 209.405(b), since thecorresponding text at FAR 9.405(b)addresses matters relating to entities onthe List of Parties Excluded fromFederal Procurement andNonprocurement Programs;

2. Retains a limitation on delegationof the exception authority, but lowersthe permitted level of delegation to alevel no lower than a general or flagofficer or a member of the SeniorExecutive Service; and

3. Designates the text already locatedat DFARS 209.405 as 209.405(a), andamends the text to clarify that theprovisions of 10 U.S.C. 2393 regardinga ‘‘compelling reason’’ determinationapply only to the conduct of businesswith entities that are debarred orsuspended.

DoD published a proposed rule at 65FR 32065 on May 22, 2000. DoDreceived no public comments on theproposed rule. The proposed rule isconverted to a final rule without change.

This rule was not subject to Office ofManagement and Budget review underExecutive Order 12866, datedSeptember 30, 1993.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

DoD certifies that this final rule willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of small entitieswithin the meaning of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,because the rule pertains only to theexceptional situations where there is aneed to conduct business with entitiesthat are debarred or suspended or,because of a violation of the Clean AirAct or the Clean Water Act, areineligible for award.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act doesnot apply because the rule does notimpose any information collectionrequirements that require the approvalof the Office of Management and Budgetunder 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.



List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 209 and223

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,Executive Editor, Defense AcquisitionRegulations Council.

Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 209 and 223are amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFRParts 209 and 223 continues to read asfollows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFRChapter 1.

PART 209—CONTRACTORQUALIFICATIONS


209.405 Effect of listing.(a) Under 10 U.S.C. 2393(b), when a

department or agency determines that acompelling reason exists for it toconduct business with a contractor thatis debarred or suspended fromprocurement programs, it must providewritten notice of the determination tothe General Services Administration,Office of Acquisition Policy. Examplesof compelling Reasons are—

(i) Only a debarred or suspendedcontractor can provide the supplies orservices;

(ii) Urgency requires contracting witha debarred or suspended contractor;

(iii) The contractor and a departmentor agency have an agreement coveringthe same events that resulted in thedebarment or suspension and theagreement includes the department oragency decision not to debar or suspendthe contractor; or

(iv) The national defense requirescontinued business dealings with thedebarred or suspended contractor.

(b)(i) The Procurement Cause andTreatment Code ‘‘H’’ annotation in theGSA List of Parties Excluded fromFederal Procurement andNonprocurement Programs identifiescontractors that are declared ineligiblefor award of a contract or subcontractbecause of a violation of the Clean AirAct (42 U.S.C. 7606) or the Clean WaterAct (33 U.S.C. 1368).

(ii) Under the authority of 40 CFR32.215(b), the agency head may grant anexception permitting award to a Code‘‘H’’ ineligible contractor if it is in theparamount interest of the United States.

(A) The agency head may delegatethis exception authority to a level nolower than a general or flag officer or amember of the Senior Executive Service.

(B) The official granting the exceptionmust provide written notice to theEnvironmental Protection Agencydebarring official.

PART 223—ENVIRONMENT,CONSERVATION, OCCUPATIONALSAFETY, AND DRUG-FREEWORKPLACE

Subpart 223.1—[Removed]

3. Subpart 223.1 is removed.



National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 000511131–0234–02; I.D.021500A]

RIN 0648-AM75

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf ofMexico, and South Atlantic; CoastalMigratory Pelagic Resources of theGulf of Mexico and South Atlantic;Amendment 12

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule toimplement Amendment 12 to theFishery Management Plan for theCoastal Migratory Pelagic Resources ofthe Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic(Amendment 12). This rule extends thecurrent moratorium on the issuance ofcommercial vessel permits for kingmackerel through October 15, 2005. Theintended effects of this final rule are toprevent speculative entry into thefishery and provide stability in thefishery.

DATES: This final rule is effectiveOctober 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: Comments regarding thecollection-of-information requirementscontained in this final rule should besent to Dr. Roy Crabtree, SoutheastRegional Office, NMFS, 9721 ExecutiveCenter Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL33702, and to the Office of Informationand Regulatory Affairs, Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB),Washington, DC 20503 (Attention:NOAA Desk Officer). Comments on anyambiguity or unnecessary complexityarising from the language used in thisrule should be directed to the SoutheastRegional Office, NMFS, at the aboveaddress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727-570-

5305, fax: 727-570-5583, e-mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefisheries for coastal migratory pelagicresources are managed under theFishery Management Plan for theCoastal Migratory Pelagic Resources ofthe Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic(FMP). The FMP was prepared jointlyby the Gulf of Mexico FisheryManagement Council and the SouthAtlantic Fishery Management Council(Councils), approved by NMFS, andimplemented under the authority of theMagnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulationsat 50 CFR part 622.

On March 1, 2000, NMFS announcedthe availability of proposed Amendment12 to the FMP and requested commentson it (65 FR 11028). NMFS approvedAmendment 12 on May 31, 2000, andon June 1, 2000, published a proposedrule to implement the extendedcommercial vessel permit moratoriumin Amendment 12 (65 FR 35040). Thebackground and rationale for theextended permit moratorium in theamendment and proposed rule arecontained in the preamble to theproposed rule and are not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

NMFS received comments from fiveindividuals regarding Amendment 12 orthe proposed rule. A summary of thosecomments and NMFS responses follows.

Comment 1: All five individualssupported the extension of the permitmoratorium because it would maintainstability in the fishery, preventincreasing effort, and aid in maintaininghealthy fish stocks and fisheries.

Response: NMFS agrees that theaction is appropriate. NMFS hasapproved Amendment 12 and is issuingthis implementing final rule.

Comment 2: Two commenters offeredsuggestions for additional managementmeasures for king mackerel, includingslot limits, elimination of gears, andseparate quotas for the charter industry.The commenters also suggestedadditional research to address the statusof the king mackerel stocks in the Gulfof Mexico and the South Atlantic.

Response: NMFS agrees that there arenumerous additional managementoptions available to the Councils toeffectively manage the coastal migratorypelagic resources of the southeasternUnited States. However, under theMagnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannotsubstitute measures for, or add measuresto, the specific measures proposed bythe Councils; NMFS can only approve,disapprove, or partially approve the



proposed measures and implement theapproved measures by final rule. NMFSencourages the public to be activelyinvolved in the Council process andprovide suggestions to the Councils fortheir deliberations.

ClassificationThe Administrator, Southeast Region,

NMFS, determined that Amendment 12is necessary for the conservation andmanagement of the Coastal MigratoryPelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexicoand the South Atlantic and that it isconsistent with the Magnuson-StevensAct and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined tobe not significant for purposes ofExecutive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation ofthe Department of Commerce certifiedto the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of theSmall Business Administration that thisrule would not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. No commentswere received regarding thiscertification. As a result, a regulatoryflexibility analysis was not prepared.

Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, no person is required to respondto, nor shall a person be subject to apenalty for failure to comply with, acollection-of-information subject to therequirements of the PaperworkReduction Act (PRA) unless thatcollection of information displays acurrently valid OMB control number.

This rule includes collection-of-information requirements that aresubject to the PRA. The first collection-of-information pertains to applicationsfor commercial vessel permits. Thatcollection is currently approved underOMB control number 0648-0205 and itspublic reporting burden is estimated at20 minutes per response. The secondcollection-of-information pertains tofishing records of vessels permitted inthe commercial king or Spanishmackerel fisheries. That collection iscurrently approved under OMB controlnumber 0648-0016 and its publicreporting burden is estimated at 15minutes per response. These burdenestimates include the time for reviewinginstructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining thedata needed, and completing andreviewing the collection of information.Send comments regarding these burdenestimates, or any other aspect of thisdata collection, including suggestionsfor reducing the burden, to NMFS andOMB (see ADDRESSES).

The President has directed Federalagencies to use plain language in theircommunications with the public,including regulations. To comply with

this directive, we seek public commenton any ambiguity or unnecessarycomplexity arising from the languageused in this final rule. Such commentsshould be directed to NMFS SoutheastRegional Office (see ADDRESSES).


Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Virgin Islands.

Dated: August 23, 2000.William T. Hogarth,Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amendedas follows:

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THECARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTHATLANTIC


Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.2. In § 622.4, the last two sentences of

paragraph (a)(2)(iii), the last sentence ofparagraph (a)(2)(iv), and paragraph (q)are revised to read as follows:

§ 622.4 Permits and fees.(a) * * *(2) * * *(iii) * * * To obtain or renew a

commercial vessel permit for kingmackerel, at least 25 percent of theapplicant’s earned income, or at least$10,000, must have been derived fromcommercial fishing (i.e., harvest andfirst sale of fish) or from charter fishingduring one of the 3 calendar yearspreceding the application. Seeparagraph (q) of this section regarding amoratorium on commercial vesselpermits for king mackerel, transfers ofpermits during the moratorium, andlimited exceptions to the earned incomeor gross sales requirement for a permit.

(iv) * * * To obtain or renew acommercial vessel permit for Spanishmackerel, at least 25 percent of theapplicant’s earned income, or at least$10,000, must have been derived fromcommercial fishing (i.e., harvest andfirst sale of fish) or from charter fishingduring one of the 3 calendar yearspreceding the application.* * * * *

(q) Moratorium on commercial vesselpermits for king mackerel. Thisparagraph (q) is effective throughOctober 15, 2005.

(1) No applications for additionalcommercial vessel permits for kingmackerel will be accepted. Existingvessel permits may be renewed, aresubject to the restrictions on transfer or

change in paragraphs (q)(2) through(q)(5) of this section, and are subject tothe requirement for timely renewal inparagraph (q)(6) of this section.

(2) An owner of a permitted vesselmay transfer the commercial vesselpermit for king mackerel issued underthis moratorium to another vesselowned by the same entity.

(3) An owner whose percentage ofearned income or gross sales qualifiedhim/her for the commercial vesselpermit for king mackerel issued underthe moratorium may request that NMFStransfer that permit to the owner ofanother vessel, or to the new ownerwhen he or she transfers ownership ofthe permitted vessel. Such owner ofanother vessel, or new owner, mayreceive a commercial vessel permit forking mackerel for his or her vessel, andrenew it through April 15 following thefirst full calendar year after obtaining it,without meeting the percentage ofearned income or gross salesrequirement of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) ofthis section. However, to further renewthe commercial vessel permit, the ownerof the other vessel, or new owner, mustmeet the earned income or gross salesrequirement not later than the first fullcalendar year after the permit transfertakes place.

(4) An owner of a permitted vessel,the permit for which is based on anoperator’s earned income and, thus, isvalid only when that person is theoperator of the vessel, may request thatNMFS transfer the permit to the income-qualifying operator when such operatorbecomes an owner of a vessel.

(5) An owner of a permitted vessel,the permit for which is based on anoperator’s earned income and, thus, isvalid only when that person is theoperator of the vessel, may have theoperator qualification on the permitremoved, and renew it without suchqualification through April 15 followingthe first full calendar year afterremoving it, without meeting the earnedincome or gross sales requirement ofparagraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section.However, to further renew thecommercial vessel permit, the ownermust meet the earned income or grosssales requirement not later than the firstfull calendar year after the operatorqualification is removed. To have anoperator qualification removed from apermit, the owner must return theoriginal permit to the RA with anapplication for the changed permit.

(6) NMFS will not reissue acommercial vessel permit for kingmackerel if the permit is revoked or ifthe RA does not receive an applicationfor renewal within 1 year of the permit’sexpiration date.



§§ 622.2, 622.6, 622.41, and 622.44[Amended]

3. In addition to the amendments setforth above, in 50 CFR part 622, removethe word ‘‘Dade’’ and add, in its place,the words ‘‘Miami-Dade’’ in thefollowing places:

(a) Section 622.2, in paragraph (2) ofthe definition of ‘‘Migratory group’’;

(b) Section 622.6(b)(2);(c) Section 622.41(c)(3)(ii)(B); and(d) Section 622.44(a)(1)(iii).

[FR Doc. 00–22237 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]Billing Code: 3510–22–S



50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 000211040–0040–01; I.D.082500A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive EconomicZone Off Alaska; Species in the Rocksole/Flathead sole/‘‘Other flatfish’’Fishery Category by Vessels UsingTrawl Gear in the Bering Sea andAleutian Islands Management Area

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Closure.SUMMARY: NMFS is closing directedfishing for species in the rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fisherycategory by vessels using trawl gear inthe Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

management area (BSAI). This action isnecessary to prevent exceeding the 2000Pacific halibut by catch allowancespecified for the trawl rock sole/flatheadsole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery category.DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska localtime (A.l.t.), August 25, 2000, until 2400hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFSmanages the groundfish fishery in theBSAI exclusive economic zoneaccording to the Fishery ManagementPlan for the Groundfish Fishery of theBering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area(FMP) prepared by the North PacificFishery Management Council underauthority of the Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and ManagementAct. Regulations governing fishing byU.S. vessels in accordance with the FMPappear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600and 50 CFR part 679.

The Final 2000 Harvest Specificationsof Groundfish (65 FR 8282, February 18,2000) and subsequent technicalamendment (65 FR 42302, June 10,2000) established the halibut bycatchmortality allowance for the BSAI trawlrock sole/flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’fishery category, which is defined at §679.21(e)(3)(iv)(B)(2), as 779 metrictons.

In accordance with § 679.21(e)(7)(v),the Administrator, Alaska Region,NMFS (Regional Administrator), hasdetermined that the 2000 halibutbycatch allowance specified for thetrawl rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘otherflatfish’’ fishery in the BSAI has been

caught. Consequently, the RegionalAdministrator is closing directed fishingfor species in the rock sole/flatheadsole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery category byvessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

Maximum retainable bycatch amountsmay be found in the regulations at §679.20(e) and (f).

This action responds to the bestavailable information recently obtainedfrom the fishery. It must beimplemented immediately to preventexceeding the 2000 halibut bycatchallowance specified for the trawl rocksole/flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’fishery category. Providing prior noticeand an opportunity for public commenton this action is impracticable andcontrary to the public interest. The fleetwill soon take the allowance. Furtherdelay would only result in the 2000halibut bycatch allowance beingexceeded. NMFS finds for good causethat the implementation of this actioncannot be delayed for 30 days.Accordingly, under U.S.C. 553(d), adelay in the effective date is herebywaived.

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR679.21 and is exempt from review underE.O. 12866.


Bruce C. Morehead,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 00–22216 Filed 8–25–00; 3:39 pm]Billing Code: 3510–22–S


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

52958

Vol. 65, No. 170




14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–53–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The CessnaAircraft Company Models 425 and 441Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws anotice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)that would have applied to all CessnaAircraft Company (Cessna) Models 425and 441 airplanes. The proposed ADwould have required you to revise theAirplane Flight Manual (AFM) toinclude requirements for activation ofthe airframe pneumatic deicing boots.The proposed AD was the result ofreports of in-flight incidents and anaccident (on airplanes other than thereferenced Cessna airplanes) thatoccurred in icing conditions where theairframe pneumatic deicing boots werenot activated. Cessna has demonstratedthat the design of the affected airplanes,including the language currently in theAFM, is adequate to address theconditions identified in the proposedAD for these airplanes. Therefore, ADaction is not necessary to address theconditions on these airplanes and weare withdrawing the NPRM.ADDRESSES: You may look atinformation related to this action at theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA),Central Region, Office of the RegionalCounsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.99–CE–53–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506,Kansas City, Missouri 64106, between 8a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday, except holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Larry E. Werth, Airworthiness DirectiveCoordinator, FAA, Small AirplaneDirectorate, 901 Locust, Room 301,Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816) 329–4147; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.


Discussion

What Action Has FAA Taken to Date?

We issued a proposal to amend part39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations(14 CFR part 39) to include an AD thatwould apply to all Cessna Models 425and 441 airplanes that are equippedwith pneumatic deicing boots. Theproposal was published in the FederalRegister as an NPRM on October 12,1999 (64 FR 55184). The NPRMproposed to require revising theLimitations Section of the AFM toinclude requirements for activation ofpneumatic deicing boots at the first signof ice accumulation on the airplane.

Was the Public Invited to Comment?

The FAA invited interested persons toparticipate in the making of thisamendment. We received a comment onthe proposed AD from Cessna. Ouranalysis and disposition of thiscomment follow:

Comment Disposition

What Is the Commenter’s Concern?

Cessna provides information itbelieves demonstrates that the design ofthe affected airplanes, including thelanguage currently in the AFM, isadequate to address the conditionsidentified in the proposed AD for theseairplanes. Therefore, Cessna requeststhat FAA withdraw the NPRM.

What Is FAA’s Response to the Concern?

After evaluating the information thatCessna submitted, we have determinedthat the design of the affected airplanes,including the language currently in theAFM, is adequate to address theconditions identified in the proposedAD for these airplanes. We willwithdraw the NPRM per the Cessnarequest.

The FAA’s Determination

What Is FAA’s Final Determination onThis Issue?

Based on the above information, wehave determined that there is no needfor the NPRM, Docket No. 99–CE–53–AD, and that we should withdraw it.

Withdrawal of this NPRM does notprevent us from issuing another notice

in the future, nor will it commit us toany course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

Does This AD Involve a Significant Ruleor Regulatory Action?

Since this action only withdraws aproposed AD, it is not an AD and,therefore, is not covered underExecutive Order 12866, the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, or DOT RegulatoryPolicies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,February 26, 1979).


Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, FAA withdraws thenotice of proposed rulemaking, DocketNo. 99–CE–53–AD, published in theFederal Register on October 12, 1999(64 FR 55184).

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August23, 2000.Marvin R. Nuss,Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 00–22271 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–SW–27–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Siam HillerHoldings, Inc. Model UH–12, UH–12A,UH–12B, UH–12C, UH–12D, UH–12E,UH–12E–L, UH–12L, and UH–12L4Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes theadoption of a new airworthinessdirective (AD) for Siam Hiller Holdings,Inc. (Hiller), formerly Rogerson HillerCorporation, Model UH–12, UH–12A,UH–12B, UH–12C, UH–12D, UH–12E,UH–12E–l, UH–12L, and UH–12L4helicopters. The AD would requirereplacing all undrilled-shank bolts atpivoting joints in the control systemlinkage with drilled-shank bolts and

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:12 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 31AUP1

52959Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules

installing castellated nuts and cotterpins. This proposal is prompted by anaccident caused by separation of thecontrol system linkage of a Model UH–12E helicopter. The actions specified bythe proposed AD are intended toprevent separation of the control systemattachments at pivoting points andsubsequent loss of control of thehelicopter.DATES: Comments must be received onor before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), Office of theRegional Counsel, Southwest Region,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–SW–27–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You mayalso send comments electronically tothe Rules Docket at the followingaddress: [email protected] may be inspected at theOffice of the Regional Counsel between9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday throughFriday, except Federal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonMowery, Aviation Safety Engineer,FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft CertificationOffice, Airframe Branch, 3960Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California90712–4137, telephone (562) 627–5322,fax (562) 627–5210.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments InvitedInterested persons are invited to

participate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communicationsshould identify the Rules Docketnumber and be submitted in triplicate tothe address specified above. Allcommunications received on or beforethe closing date for comments will beconsidered before taking action on theproposed rule. The proposals containedin this notice may be changed in lightof the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe proposed rule. All commentssubmitted will be available in the RulesDocket for examination by interestedpersons. A report summarizing eachFAA-public contact concerned with thesubstance of this proposal will be filedin the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA toacknowledge receipt of their mailedcomments submitted in response to thisnotice must submit a self-addressed,stamped postcard on which thefollowing statement is made:‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2000–SW–27–AD.’’ The postcard will be date

stamped and returned to thecommenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of thisNPRM by submitting a request to theFAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,Southwest Region, Attention: RulesDocket No. 2000–SW–27–AD, 2601Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,Texas 76137.

Discussion

This document proposes the adoptionof a new airworthiness directive (AD)for Hiller Model UH–12, UH–12A, UH–12B, UH–12C, UH–12D, UH–12E, UH–12E–l, UH–12L, and UH–12L4helicopters. The AD would requirereplacing all undrilled-shank bolts atpivoting joints in control system linkagewith drilled-shank bolts and installingcastellated nuts and cotter pins. Thisproposal is prompted by an accidentdue to separation of the control systemattachments at pivoting points on aModel UH–12E helicopter. Theattachments are bolts with self-lockingnuts that can lose the self-lockingfeature with repeated disassembly. Thiscondition, if not corrected, could resultin separation of the control systemattachments at pivoting points andsubsequent loss of control of thehelicopter.

The FAA has reviewed Hiller AircraftService Bulletin No. 10–4, Revision 2,dated December 20, 1999 (SB), whichdescribes procedures for replacing plainbolts and self-locking nuts, used atpivoting joints, with drilled-shank bolts,castellated nuts, and cotter pins.

We have identified an unsafecondition that is likely to exist ordevelop on other Hiller Model UH–12,UH–12A, UH–12B, UH–12C, UH–12D,UH–12E, UH–12E–L, UH–12L, and UH–12L4 helicopters of the same typedesign. The proposed AD would requireat the next annual inspection or within12 months, whichever occurs first,replacing all undrilled-shank bolts withdrilled-shank bolts at pivoting joints inthe control system linkage and installingcastellated nuts and cotter pins. Theactions would be required to beaccomplished in accordance with theSB described previously.

The FAA estimates that 500helicopters of U.S. registry would beaffected by this proposed AD, that itwould take approximately 24 workhours per helicopter to accomplish theproposed actions, and that the averagelabor rate is $60 per work hour.Required parts would costapproximately $150 per helicopter.Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.operators is estimated to be $795,000.

The regulations proposed hereinwould not have a substantial directeffect on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national Government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government. Therefore,it is determined that this proposalwould not have federalism implicationsunder Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, Icertify that this proposed regulation (1)is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under Executive Order 12866; (2) is nota ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact, positive or negative,on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A copy of the draftregulatory evaluation prepared for thisaction is contained in the Rules Docket.A copy of it may be obtained bycontacting the Rules Docket at thelocation provided under the captionADDRESSES.


Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me by theAdministrator, the Federal AviationAdministration proposes to amend part39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES


Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding a new airworthiness directive toread as follows:Siam Hiller Holdings, Inc.: Docket No. 2000–

SW–27–AD.Applicability: Model UH–12, UH–12A,

UH–12B, UH–12C, UH–12D, UH–12E, UH–12E–L, UH–12L, UH–12L4 helicopters,certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopteridentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenotherwise modified, altered, or repaired inthe area subject to the requirements of thisAD. For helicopters that have been modified,altered, or repaired so that the performanceof the requirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance in


52960 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.The request should include an assessment ofthe effect of the modification, alteration, orrepair on the unsafe condition addressed bythis AD; and if the unsafe condition has notbeen eliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required at the next annualinspection or within 12 months, whicheveroccurs first, unless accomplished previously.

To prevent separation of the control systemattachments at pivoting points andsubsequent loss of control of the helicopter,accomplish the following:

(a) Replace all undrilled-shank bolts atpivoting joints in the control system linkagewith drilled-shank bolts, and installcastellated nuts and cotter pins in accordancewith Hiller Aircraft Corporation ServiceBulletin No. 10–4, Revision 2, datedDecember 20, 1999.

(b) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, LosAngeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA.Operators shall submit their requests throughan FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,who may concur or comment and then sendit to the Manager, Los Angeles AircraftCertification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the Los Angeles AircraftCertification Office.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued inaccordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopterto a location where the requirements of thisAD can be accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 24,2000.Eric Bries,Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 00–22283 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U



14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ASO–33]

Proposed Establishment of Class EAirspace; Oak Grove, NC

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes toestablish Class E airspace at Oak Grove,NC. The United States Marine Corpsoperates a part time control tower at themarine Corps Outlying Landing Facility(MCOLF) Airport. As a result, controlledairspace extending upward from 700

feet Above Ground Level (AGL) isrequired when the control tower is opento accommodate instrument approachesand for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)operations at the airport.DATES: Comments must be received onor before October 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: Send comments on theproposal in triplicate to: FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.00–ASO–33, Manager, Airspace Branch,ASO–520, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,Georgia 30320.

The official docket may be examinedin the Office of the Regional Counsel forSouthern Region, Room 550, 1701Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia30337, telephone (404) 305–5586.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy B. Shelton, Manager, AirspaceBranch, Air Traffic Division, FederalAviation Administration, P.O. Box20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;telephone (404) 305–5586.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited toparticipate in this proposed rulemakingby submitting such written data, viewsor arguments as they may desire.Comments that provide the factual basissupporting the views and suggestionspresented are particularly helpful indeveloping reasoned regulatorydecisions on the proposal. Commentsare specifically invited on the overallregulatory, aeronautical, economic,environmental, and energy-relatedaspects of the proposal.Communications should identify theairspace docket number and besubmitted in triplicate to the addresslisted above. Commenters wishing theFAA to acknowledge receipt of theircomments on this notice must submitwith those comments a self-addressed,stamped postcard on which thefollowing statement is made:‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00–ASO–33.’’ The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to thecommenter. All communicationsreceived before the specified closingdate for comments will be consideredbefore taking action on the proposedrule. The proposal contained in thisnotice may be changed in light of thecomments received. All commentssubmitted will be available forexamination in the Office of theRegional Counsel for Southern Region,Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,College Park, Georgia 30337, both beforeand after the closing date for comments.A report summarizing each substantivepublic contact with FAA personnel

concerned with this rulemaking will befiled in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of thisNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)by submitting a request to the FederalAviation Administration, Manager,Airspace Branch, ASO–520, Air TrafficDivision, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,Georgia 30320. Communications mustidentify the notice number of thisNPRM. Persons interested in beingplaced on a mailing list for futureNPRMs should also request a copy ofAdvisory Circular No. 11–2A whichdescribes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering anamendment to part 71 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) toestablish Class E airspace at Oak Grove,NC. Class E airspace designations forairspace areas extending upward from700 feet or more above the surface of theearth are published in Paragraph 6005 ofFAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 1,1999, and effective September 16, 1999,which is incorporated by reference in 14CFR 71.1. The Class E airspacedesignation listed in this documentwould be published subsequently in theOrder.

The FAA has determined that thisproposed regulation only involves anestablished body of technicalregulations for which frequent androutine amendments are necessary tokeep them operationally current. It,therefore, 91) is not a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under ExecutiveOrder 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significantrule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policiesand Procedures (44 FR 11034; February26, 1979); and (3) does not warrantpreparation of a Regulatory Evaluationas the anticipated impact is so minimal.Since this is a routine matter that willonly affect air traffic procedures and airnavigation, it is certified that this rule,when promulgated, will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act.


Airspace, Incorporation by reference,Navigation (air).


In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationproposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 asfollows:



PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, ANDCLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTINGPOINTS


Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in14 CFR 71.1 of Federal AviationAdministration Order 7400.9F, AirspaceDesignations and Reporting Points,dated September 1, 1999, and effectiveSeptember 16, 1999, is amended asfollows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace AreasExtending Upward from 700 feet or MoreAbove the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Oak Grove, NC [New]

Marine Corps Outlying Landing FacilityAirport, NC

(Lat. 35°02′01″N, long. 77°14′59″W)That airspace extending upward from 700feet above the surface within a 6.4-mileradius of Marine Corps Outlying LandingFacility Airport, excluding that airspacewithin the New Bern, NC, Class E airspacearea.

* * * * *Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August

21, 2000.Wade T. Carpenter,Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,Southern Region.[FR Doc. 00–22364 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



14 CFR Part 73

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ACE–23]

Amendment of Time of Use forRestricted Areas R–4501A, B, C, D, andE, Fort Leonard Wood; MO

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This action proposes toamend the times of use for RestrictedAreas R–4501A, B, C, D, and E, FortLeonard Wood, MO. Specifically, thisaction proposes to reduce and/orincrease the published times and/ordays the restricted areas are in use. TheFAA is proposing this action in

response to the United States Army’s(USA) increased training requirements.DATES: Comments must be received onor before October 16, 2000.ADDRESSES: Send comments on thisproposal in triplicate to: Manager, AirTraffic Division, ACE–500, Docket No.00–ACE–23, Federal AviationAdministration, 601 East 12th Street,Federal Building, Kansas City, MO64106. The official docket may beexamined in the Rules Docket, Office ofthe Chief Counsel, Room 916, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington DC, weekdays, exceptFederal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and5:00 p.m.

An informal docket may also beexamined during normal business hoursat the office of the Regional Air TrafficDivision.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:William C. Nelson, Airspace and RulesDivision, ATA–400, Office of Air TrafficAirspace Management, Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;telephone: (202) 267–8783.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments InvitedInterested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemakingby submitting such written data, views,or arguments as they may desire.Comments that provide the factual basissupporting the views and suggestionspresented are particularly helpful indeveloping reasoned regulatorydecisions on the proposal. Commentsare specifically invited on the overallregulatory, aeronautical, economic,environmental, and energy-relatedaspects of the proposal.Communications should identify theairspace docket number and besubmitted in triplicate to the addresslisted above. Commenters wishing theFAA to acknowledge receipt of theircomments on this action must submitwith those comments a self-addressed,stamped postcard on which thefollowing statement is made:‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00–ACE–23.’’ The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to thecommenter. All communicationsreceived on or before the specifiedclosing date for comments will beconsidered before taking action on theproposed rule. The proposal containedin this action may be changed in lightof comments received. All commentssubmitted will be available forexamination in the Rules Docket bothbefore and after the closing date forcomments. A report summarizing eachsubstantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with thisrulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM’sAn electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded from the FAAregulations section of the Fedworldelectronic bulletin board service(telephone: 703–321–3339) or theFederal Register’s electronic bulletinboard service (telephone: 202–512–1661) using a modem and suitablecommunications software.

Internet users may reach the FAA’sweb page at http://www.faa.gov or theFederal Register’s web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access torecently published rulemakingdocuments.

Any person may also obtain a copy ofthis NPRM by submitting a request tothe FAA, Office of Air Traffic AirspaceManagement, ATA–400, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20591, or by calling(202) 267–8783. Communications mustidentify the docket number of thisNPRM. Persons interested in beingplaced on a mailing list for futureNPRM’s should call the FAA, Office ofRulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to requesta copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A,which describes the applicationprocedure.

BackgroundThe Department of Defense in a

continuing need to meet its addednational defense responsibilities hasincreased its training requirements ofthe USA Reserve and National Guardresources in many areas of the UnitedStates. One of the locations where thistraining has been increased is at FortLeonard Wood, MO. This increase intraining requires modification of thetimes of use for R–4501 and itssubdivisions. Therefore, the USA hasrequested that the FAA amend the timesand days of use for R–4501A, B, C, D,and E.

The ProposalThe FAA is proposing an amendment

to 14 CFR part 73 to modify the timesof use of R–4501 and its subdivisionsover Fort Leonard Wood, MO.Specifically, the FAA proposes toactivate R–4501A thirty minutes earlierand deactivate it three hours later.Additionally, R–4501B would beactivated on the same schedule butdeactivated four hours later. The dayschedule (Monday-Saturday) wouldremain unchanged.

Also, the FAA proposes to activate R–4501C and D two hours later Monday–Friday and deactivate it three hourslater than the current designation on



Monday and two hours earlier Tuesday–Friday. Saturday would no longer bedesignated as an active day unless doneso by NOTAM 24 hours in advance. Inaddition, the FAA proposes to activateR–4501E on the same schedule as R–4501C and D. The FAA is proposing thisaction at the request of the USA to meetthe increasing training efforts of theUSA at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and tobetter depict more realistic operationaltimes of use of the restricted areas.


Airspace, Navigation (air).


In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationproposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 asfollows:

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE


Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.

2. § 73.45 is amended as follows:* * * * *

R–4501A Fort Leonard Wood West, MO[Amended]

By removing the words ‘‘Time ofDesignation. 0700–1800 Monday–Saturday;other times by NOTAM issued at least 24hours in advance.’’ and inserting the words‘‘Time of Designation. 0630–2100 Monday–Saturday; other times by NOTAM issued atleast 24 hours in advance.’’

R–4501B Fort Leonard Wood East, MO[Amended]

By removing the words ‘‘Time ofDesignation. 0700–1800 Monday–Saturday;other times by NOTAM issued at least 24hours in advance.’’ and inserting the words‘‘Time of Designation. 0630–2200 Monday–Saturday; other times by NOTAM issued atleast 24 hours in advance.’’

R–4501C Fort Leonard Wood, MO[Amended]

By removing the words ‘‘Time ofDesignation. 0700–1800 Monday–Saturday;other times by NOTAM issued at least 24hours in advance.’’ and inserting the words‘‘Time of Designation. 0900–2100 Monday;0900–1600 Tuesday–Friday; other times byNOTAM issued at least 24 hours inadvance.’’

R–4501D Fort Leonard Wood, MO[Amended]

By removing the words ‘‘Time ofDesignation. 0700–1800 Monday–Saturday;other times by NOTAM issued at least 24hours in advance.’’ and inserting the words‘‘Time of Designation. 0900–2100 Monday;0900–1600 Tuesday–Friday; other times byNOTAM issued at least 24 hours inadvance.’’

R–4501E Fort Leonard Wood, MO[Amended]

By removing the words ‘‘Time ofDesignation. As specified by NOTAM at least24 hours in advance.’’ and inserting thewords ‘‘Time of Designation. 0900–2100Monday; 0900–1600 Tuesday–Friday; othertimes by NOTAM issued at least 24 hours inadvance.’’

* * * * *Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24,

2000.Reginald C. Matthews,Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.[FR Doc. 00–22358 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P


Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 630

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2000–7426]

RIN 2125–AE77

Federal-Aid Project Agreement

AGENCY: Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM); request for comments.

SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes tocombine its regulation on Federal-aidproject authorization and its regulationon project agreements. Section 1305 ofthe Transportation Equity Act for the21st Century (TEA–21) amended 23U.S.C. 106(a) and combinedauthorization of work and execution ofthe project agreement for a Federal-aidproject into a single action. Changes tothe agreement provisions are beingproposed to reflect these adjustments.Additionally, section 1304 of the TEA–21 amended 23 U.S.C. 102(b) to includea provision to allow the granting of timeextensions for engineering costreimbursement. Changes to theprocedures would be added to agencyregulations to provide this newflexibility.

DATES: Comments must be received onor before October 2, 2000. Commentsreceived after that date will beconsidered to the extent practicable.ADDRESSES: Mail or hand delivercomments to the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Dockets ManagementFacility, Room PL–401, 400 SeventhStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20590, orsubmit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All commentsshould include the docket number thatappears in the heading of thisdocument. All comments received will

be available for examination andcopying at the above address from 9a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday throughFriday, except Federal Holidays. Thosedesiring notification of receipt ofcomments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or printthe acknowledgment page that appearsafter submitting commentselectronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Jack Wasley, Office of ProgramAdministration (HIPA), (202) 366–4658,or Mr. Harold Aikens, Office of theChief Counsel (HCC–30), (202) 366–0791, Federal Highway Administration,400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,DC 20590–0001. Office hours are from7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidays.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

You may submit or retrieve commentsonline through the DocumentManagement System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptableformats include: MS Word (versions 95to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 6 to8), Rich Text File (RTF), AmericanStandard Code Information Interchange(ASCII)(TXT), Portable DocumentFormat (PDF), and WordPerfect(versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available24 hours each day, 365 days each year.Electronic submission and retrieval helpand guidelines are available under thehelp section of the web site.

An electronic copy of this documentmay be downloaded by using acomputer, modem and suitablecommunications software from theGovernment Printing Office’s ElectronicBulletin Board Service at (202) 512–1661. Internet users may reach theOffice of the Federal Register’s homepage at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg andthe Government Printing Office’s webpage at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

Under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 106,a formal agreement between the Statetransportation department (STD) andthe FHWA is required for Federal-aidhighway projects. This agreement,referred to as the ‘‘project agreement,’’ isin essence a written contract betweenthe State and the Federal Governmentdefining the extent of the work to beundertaken, the State and the Federalshares of a project’s cost, andcommitments concerning maintenanceof the project.

The present regulation at 23 CFR 630,subpart C, provides requirementsconcerning the project agreement. It



includes detailed instructions onpreparation of the project agreement,and an assemblage of agreementprovisions that are part of the projectagreement.

The present regulation at 23 CFR 630,subpart A, provides requirementsconcerning the project authorization.The FHWA authorization commits theFederal Government to participate inthe funding of a project, except in thoseinstances where the State requestsFHWA authorization without thecommitment of Federal funds. Inaddition, FHWA authorization alsoestablishes a point in time after whichcosts incurred on a project are eligiblefor Federal participation.

It is the FHWA’s desire to update andmodify the existing regulation toincorporate needed changes to reflectadjustments made by sections 1304 and1305 of the TEA–21, Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat.107, to combine theproject agreement and provisions intothe authorization of work, and to retainexisting versatility in its use. Theproposed changes are discussed in thefollowing section-by-section analysis.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 630.102 Purpose

Section 630.102 would be combinedwith § 630.301 to create a new§ 630.102, with minor changes forclarity.

Section 630.104 Applicability

Section 630.104(a) would be retainedwithout modification. Section630.104(b) would be combined with§ 630.104(c) to create a new§ 630.104(b), to eliminate the need tocross reference projects financed withFHWA funds covered under separateregulations.

Section 630.106 Authorization ToProceed

Section 630.106 would be revised toreflect that a project agreement isneeded before authorization can begiven to proceed with a project. Attimes, certain special projects may haveunique authorization requirements inadvance of the commitment of Federalfunds. A project agreement, therefore,would be used to authorize specialprojects to proceed and not be construedas creating in any manner any obligationof the part of the Federal government toprovide Federal funds for that portion ofthe undertaking not fully funded in theagreement. This section would retainmany of the basic principles set forth inexisting § 630.106. The followingdiscussion covers proposed § 630.106 byindividual paragraph.

Section 630.106(a) would retain therequirement that the FHWA’sauthorization to proceed with a Federal-aid project will only be given inresponse to a request from the STD ina project agreement, and then only if theapplicable requirements in law havebeen satisfied for the project.

Section 630.106(b) would retain thelongstanding requirement that Federal-aid funds will only participate in costsincurred after the date the FHWA hasauthorized the State to proceed with theproject. However, exceptions to thisrequirement have been allowed under aprocess set forth in 23 CFR 1.9(b). Forinformational purposes, wording hasbeen included in paragraph (b) toidentify and cross reference theexception process.

Section 630.106 (c), (d), and (e) wouldretain the requirement that at the timea project agreement is executed for aFederal-aid project, the appropriateFederal funds for this project must beavailable. Four general categories forexceptions to this rule are presented in§ 630.106(c)(1)–(4), these being the samefour categories that are in the existingregulation. Section 630.106(d) would beshortened to make it comparable withthe clarification provided for otherproject agreement conditions andrequirements.

Section 630.106(f) is revised forpurposes of clarification. The FHWAproject agreement represents acontractual action by the FHWA and theFederal share of eligible costs must beagreed upon when the project agreementis executed. The Federal share may bein the form of a specified percentage ofeligible costs or a lump sum amount.Use of the lump sum share is toaccommodate those instances wherethere is a desire to commit a fixedamount of Federal funds to a project.The lump sum amount may not exceedthe legal pro rata share for the Federalfunds involved. This may requiredownward adjustment of the lump sumamount when costs of eligible work ona project are less than the initialestimates at the time the projectagreement is executed.

The Federal share agreed to wouldcontinue through the life of the project.Manipulation of funding levels ofindividual projects to accommodateprogram funding changes or needswould not be allowed. However,adjustments to the Federal share wouldbe permitted for projects in situationswhere bid prices are significantlydifferent from the estimates at the timeof FHWA authorization.

Section 630.106(g) would retain costsharing principles of title 23, U.S.C.This would continue the practice of

allowing the State to contribute morethan the normal State match on aFederal-aid project. A State mayovermatch without being tied to amandatory Federal share. However,token financing, such as when theFederal share represents only a minorpercentage of eligible work or whenlarge contributions are applied to theproject to reduce the total cost, is not tobe permitted. It is expected that theamount of Federal funds requested willrepresent at least 50 percent of eligibleproject costs. Exception to the 50percent level should be based on soundproject development or managementreasons.

Section 630.106(h)(1) is new andwould permit cash contributions fromprivate sources for a specific Federal-aidproject to be used to reduce the requiredState match of eligible costs. The FHWAparticipates in costs incurred onFederal-aid projects. Private cashcontributions can be applied to eithereligible or ineligible items of work.However, when a private cashcontribution is applied to costsineligible for Federal participation, theprivate cash contribution is notconsidered to have reduced the cost ofthe Federal-aid project and thus cannotreduce the State match.

Private cash contributions made to aState or local government with nodesignation to a specific project, areconsidered to be State or localgovernment funds and may be used inany way State or local funds areauthorized to be used, includingproviding State match on Federal-aidprojects.

Contributions of funds from otherFederal agencies to a specific projectgenerally may not be used to providethe required State match on a Federal-aid project but, instead, are viewed ashaving reduced the cost incurred by theState on the project. The only exceptionis in those cases where specificlegislative authority allows Federalfunds to match other Federal funds.

The fair market value of any donatedmaterials, services, or real property thatare accepted and incorporated into theFederal-aid project by the STD may becredited against the State share incertain cases.

Section 630.106(h)(2) is new andwould require that all contributions toa project be accounted for and properlycredited to the project. The sum of cashcontributions from all sources plus theFederal funds may not exceed the totalcost of the project. This item is intendedto prevent the State from making a profiton a Federal-aid project.



Section 630.108 Preparation ofAgreement

This proposed new section would bea revision of existing § 630.303. A Stateis required to prepare a projectagreement for each Federal-aid highwayproject. A State would continue to havethe flexibility to develop its own formatfor the project agreement, provided itcontains information identified asnecessary by the regulation. Theoptional use of electronic forms andsignatures as developed andimplemented by the FHWA would alsocontinue.

The following discussion coversproposed § 630.108 by individualparagraph:

Section 630.303(a) and (b) would berelocated to § 630.108(a) and (b),respectively, with the term ‘‘Statehighway agency’’ replaced with the newterm ‘‘State transportation department’’along with minor changes for clarity andconsistency.

Sections 630.303(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3),and (b)(4), would be relocated to 23 CFR630.108(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4),respectively, without modification.

Section 630.108(b)(5) would be a newrequirement for the project agreement.The Federal-aid share of eligible costsexpressed as either a pro rata percentageor a lump sum is presently required tobe established at the time of projectauthorization. The project agreementbeing combined with the projectauthorization requirements mustcontain this information.

Section 630.303(b)(5), (b)(6), and(b)(7), would be redesignated as§ 630.108(b)(6), (b)(7), and (b)(8), andrevised to reflect the new agreementprovisions section.

Section 630.108(c) would be a newsection containing the requirement thatthe project agreement must documentinstances when the State uses creditfrom special accounts and/or whenother arrangements affecting Federalfunding are used. The Federal share ofeligible costs incurred by the Statecannot exceed the maximum sharepermitted by legislation. The onlyexception is when using amounts ofcredits from special accounts (such asthe 23 U.S.C. 120(j) toll credits, 23U.S.C. 144(n) off-system bridge creditsand 23 U.S.C. 323 land value credits) tocover all, or a portion, of the normalpercent of non-Federal share of eligibleproject costs. The result is that the Statemay apply these credits to adjust theFederal participation in actual projectcosts up to 100 percent. The non-Federal participation of eligible costsmust come from State funds. Localgovernment funds are considered to be

State funds. Thus, local governmentfunds can be combined with STD fundsto cover the required State match ofeligible costs. The State has theflexibility of using amounts of creditfrom special accounts permitted byenabling legislation to cover all or aportion of the normal percent non-Federal share of the project.

Section 630.303(d) would beredesignated as § 630.108(d), withoutmodification.

Section 630.110 Modification ofOriginal Agreement

This proposed new section would becomprised of existing § 630.305 withminor revisions. References to theobsolete ‘‘SHA’’ nomenclature would bereplaced with the current ‘‘STD’’nomenclature and a clarifying statementadded that would include ourlongstanding requirement thatagreements should not be modified toreplace one Federal fund category withanother unless specifically authorizedby statute.

Section 630.112 Agreement ProvisionsThis proposed new section would be

a revision of existing § 630.307. Theprovisions contained in this sectioncontinue to be a required part of eachproject agreement. Only the provisionsthat are necessary are included in thissection of the regulation. The projectagreement, by reference to this section,incorporates the provisions into eachagreement. The following discussioncovers each of the existing provisionsand describes the revisions that arebeing proposed.

Section 630.307(a), would beredesignated as § 630.312(a), replacingonly the references to the obsolete‘‘SHA’’ nomenclature with the current‘‘STD’’ nomenclature. This generalprovision is so broad in scope that thereis little or no need for other provisions.Under this general provision, the Stateagrees to comply with title 23, UnitedStates Code, the regulationsimplementing title 23, and the policiesand procedures established by theFHWA. The States generally agree, inthe project agreement process, tocomply with all other applicableFederal laws and regulations.

Section 630.307(b), would beredesignated as § 630.312(a), with minorchanges for clarity.

Section 630.307(c), would beredesignated as § 630.312(c), withoutmodification, except for the use of‘‘STD’’ nomenclature.

Section 630.307(c)(1), would beredesignated as § 630.312(c)(1), withminor changes for clarity. Thisprovision requires repayment of

Federal-aid highway funds authorized ifroad construction on this right-of-wayhad not begun within 20 years. It isproposed that information be addedconcerning the FHWA’s process toapprove a period longer than twentyyears for the repayment of Federal fundsthat is allowed under 23 U.S.C.108(a)(2).

Section 630.307(c)(2), would beredesignated as § 630.312(c)(2), withchanges to allow the granting of timeextensions for engineering costreimbursement. This provision requiresrepayment of Federal-aid highway fundsauthorized if right-of way acquisition oractual construction had not begunwithin 10 years after authorization ofthe preliminary engineering. It isproposed that information be addedindicating that the FHWA may approvea period longer than 10 years for therepayment of Federal funds ifconsidered reasonable. This provision isnow found in the statute; section 1304of the TEA–21 incorporated thisprovision into 23 U.S.C. 102(c).

Sections 630.307(c)(3), (4), and (5)would be redesignated as§ 630.312(c)(3), (4) and (5) withoutmodification, except for the replacementof ‘‘SHA’’ nomenclature with ‘‘STD’’nomenclature. These provisions requirethat certifications be given to theFHWA, for drug-free workplacecertification required by 49 CFR 29.630,for suspension/debarment certificationrequired by 49 CFR 29.510, and forlobbying certification required by 49CFR 20.110. States must provide thesecertifications for each project. Placinglanguage in the project agreement aspart of the general provisions isconsidered the same as providing aseparate certification action for everyproject placed under agreement.

Section 630.301 Purpose

This section would be removedbecause § 630.301 would be combinedwith § 630.102 to create a new§ 630.102.

Section 630.303 Preparation ofAgreement

This section would be removedbecause it would be relocated andrevised as proposed new § 630.108.

Section 630.305 Modification ofOriginal Agreement

This section would be removedbecause it would be relocated asproposed new § 630.110 with minorrevisions.



Section 630.307 Agreement Provisions

This section would be removedbecause it would be relocated andrevised as proposed new § 630.112.

The following derivation table isprovided to assist the user inunderstanding the reorganization ofsections contained in proposed subpartA of part 630. Note that many of theproposed new sections would containrevised language that originated fromcurrent subpart C, according to thedescription in the section-by-sectionanalysis above:

New section Old section

630.102 ..................... 630.102 and 630.301630.104(a) ................. 630.104(a)630.104(b) ................. 630.104(b) and (c)630.106(a) ................. 630.106(a)630.106(b) ................. 630.106(b)630.106(c) ................. 630.106(c)630.106(d) ................. 630.106(d)630.106(e) ................. 630.106(e)630.106(f) .................. 630.106(f)630.106(g) ................. 630.106(g)630.106(h) ................. Added630.108(a) ................. 630.303(a)630.108(b)(1) through

(b)(4).630.303(b)(1) through

(b)(4)630.108(b)(5) ............ Added630.108(b)(6), (b)(7),

and (b)(8).630.303(b)(5), (b)(6),

and (b)(7)630.108(c) ................. Added630.108(d) ................. 630.303(d)630.110 ..................... 630.305630.112 ..................... 630.307

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received before theclose of business on the commentclosing date indicated above will beconsidered and will be available forexamination in the docket at the aboveaddress. Comments received after thecomment closing date will be filed inthe docket and will be considered to theextent practicable, but the FHWA mayissue a final rule at any time after theclose of the comment period. Inaddition to late comments, the FHWAwill also continue to file relevantinformation in the docket as it becomesavailable after the comment closingdate, and interested persons shouldcontinue to examine the docket for newmaterial.

Executive Order 12866 (RegulatoryPlanning and Review) and DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that thisaction is not a significant regulatoryaction within the meaning of ExecutiveOrder 12866 or significant within themeaning of Department ofTransportation regulatory policies andprocedures. The proposed amendmentswould merely update the Federal-aid

project agreement regulation to conformto recent laws, regulations, or guidanceand clarify existing policies. It isanticipated that the economic impact ofthis rulemaking will be minimal;therefore, a full regulatory evaluation isnot required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the RegulatoryFlexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), theFHWA has evaluated the effects of thisrule on small entities, such as localgovernments and businesses. Based onthe evaluation, the FHWA herebycertifies that this action would not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The proposed amendments wouldmerely clarify or simplify proceduresused by State highway agencies inaccordance with existing laws,regulations, or guidance. We specificallyinvite comments on this issue.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995

This proposed rule would not imposea Federal mandate resulting in theexpenditure by State, local, and tribalgovernments, in the aggregate, or by theprivate sector, of $100 million or morein any one year (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Executive Order 12988 (Civil JusticeReform)

This action meets applicablestandards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) ofExecutive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform, to minimize litigation,eliminate ambiguity, and reduceburden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection ofChildren)

We have analyzed this action underExecutive Order 13045, Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks. This proposedrule is not economically significant anddoes not concern an environmental riskto health or safety that maydisproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking ofPrivate Property)

This proposed rule would not effect ataking of private property or otherwisehave taking implications underExecutive Order 12630, GovernmentalActions and Interference withConstitutionally Protected PropertyRights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed inaccordance with the principles andcriteria contained in Executive Order13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it has

been preliminarily determined that itdoes not have a substantial direct affector significant federalism implications onStates or local governments that wouldlimit the policymaking discretion of theStates. Nothing in this documentdirectly preempts any State law orregulation.

Executive Order 12372(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Program Number 20.205,Highway Planning and Construction.The regulations implementing ExecutiveOrder 12372 regardingintergovernmental consultation onFederal programs and activities apply tothis program.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.),Federal agencies must obtain approvalfrom the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) for each collection ofinformation they conduct, sponsor, orrequire through regulations. The FHWAhas determined that this proposalcontains collection of informationrequirements for the purposes of thePRA. The requirements to collectinformation relating to the currentprovisions for the project agreementform are covered by a currently-approved information collectionentitled ‘‘Preparation and Execution ofthe Project Agreement andModifications.’’ This collection iscovered under OMB Approval No.2125–0529 with an expiration date ofMay 31, 2001.

This proposal would update andmodify existing requirements to reflectstatutory changes to the projectagreement process enacted by Section1305 of the Transportation Equity Actfor the 21st Century (TEA–21, Pub. L.105–178) amended 23 U.S.C. 106(a) andcombined authorization of work andexecution of the project agreement for aFederal-aid project into a single action.There are no changes to the currentinformation collection burden estimatesas a result of this proposal. The FHWAhas estimated that the average numberof project agreements executed annuallyby each of the respondents is 215 andthat each agreement takesapproximately one hour to complete.The 56 respondents include STDs in the50 States, the District of Columbia,Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands and theTerritories of Guam, the Virgin Islands,and American Samoa.

The FHWA seeks public commentsregarding these information collectionrequirements. Interested parties are



invited to send comments regarding anyaspect of these information collectionrequirements, including, but not limitedto: (1) Whether the collection ofinformation is necessary for the FHWA’sperformance, including whether theinformation has practical utility; (2) theaccuracy of the estimated burdens; (3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the collection information; and(4) ways to minimize the collectionburden without reducing the quality ofthe information collected.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this actionfor the purpose of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determinedthat this action would not have anyeffect on the quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number(RIN) is assigned to each regulatoryaction listed in the Unified Agenda ofFederal Regulations. The RegulatoryInformation Service Center publishesthe Unified Agenda in April andOctober of each year. The RIN containedin the heading of this document can beused to cross reference this action withthe Unified Agenda.


Government contracts, Grantprograms—Transportation, Highwaysand roads, Project agreementprocedures.

Issued on: August 24, 2000.Kenneth R. Wykle,Federal Highway Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, theFHWA proposes to amend title 23, Codeof Federal Regulations, by revisingsubpart A and removing and reservingsubpart C of part 630 as set forth below:

PART 630—PRECONSTRUCTIONPROCEDURES

1. Revise the authority citation forpart 630 to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106, 109, 115, 315,320, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR1.48(b).

2. Revise subpart A of part 630 to readas follows:

Subpart A—Project Authorization andAgreements

Sec.630.102 Purpose.630.104 Applicability.630.106 Authorization to proceed.630.108 Preparation of agreement.630.110 Modification of original agreement.630.112 Agreement provisions.

§ 630.102 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is toprescribe policies for authorizingFederal-aid projects through executionof the project agreement required by 23U.S.C. 106(a)(2).

§ 630.104 Applicability.

(a) This regulation is applicable to allFederal-aid projects unless specificallyexempted.

(b) Other projects which involvespecial procedures are to be approved,or authorized as set out in theimplementing instructions orregulations for those projects.

§ 630.106 Authorization to proceed.

(a)(1) The State transportationdepartment (STD) must obtain anauthorization to proceed from theFHWA before beginning work on anyFederal-aid project. The STD mayrequest an authorization to proceed inwriting or by electronic mail for aproject or a group of projects.

(2) The FHWA will issue theauthorization to proceed either throughor after the execution of a formal projectagreement with the State. Theagreement can be executed only afterapplicable prerequisite requirements ofFederal laws and implementingregulations and directives are satisfied.Except as provided in subsections(c)(1)–(4) of the section, the FHWA willobligate Federal funds in the projects orgroup of projects upon execution of theproject agreement.

(b) Federal funds shall not participatein costs incurred prior to the date of aproject agreement except as provided by23 CFR 1.9(b).

(c) The execution of the projectagreement shall be deemed a contractualobligation of the Federal governmentunder 23 U.S.C. 106 and shall requirethat appropriate funds be available atthe time of authorization for the agreedFederal share, either pro rata or lumpsum, of the cost of eligible work to beincurred by the State except as follows:

(1) Advance construction projectsauthorized under 23 U.S.C. 115.

(2) Projects for preliminary studies forthe portion of the preliminaryengineering and right-of-way (ROW)phase(s) through the selection of alocation.

(3) Projects for ROW acquisition inhardship and protective buyingsituations through the selection of aparticular location. This includes ROWacquisition within a potential highwaycorridor under consideration wherenecessary to preserve the corridor forfuture highway purposes. Authorizationof work under this paragraph shall be in

accord with the provisions of 23 CFRpart 710.

(4) In special cases where the FederalHighway Administrator determines it tobe in the best interest of the Federal-aidhighway program.

(d) For projects authorized to proceedunder paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) ofthis section, the executed projectagreement shall contain the followingstatement: ‘‘Authorization to proceed isnot a commitment or obligation toprovide Federal funds for that portion ofthe undertaking not fully fundedherein.’’

(e) For projects authorized underparagraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of thissection, subsequent authorizationsbeyond the location stage shall not begiven until appropriate available fundshave been obligated to cover eligiblecosts of the work covered by theprevious authorization.

(f)(1) The Federal-aid share of eligibleproject costs shall be established at thetime the project agreement is executedin one of the following manners:

(i) Pro rata, with the agreement statingthe Federal share as a specifiedpercentage; or

(ii) Lump sum, with the agreementstating that Federal funds are limited toa specified dollar amount not to exceedthe legal pro rata.

(2) The pro-rata or lump sum sharemay be adjusted before or shortly aftercontract award to reflect any substantivechange in the bids received as comparedto the STD’s estimated cost of theproject at the time of FHWAauthorization, provided that Federalfunds are available.

(3) Federal participation is limited tothe agreed Federal share of eligible costsactually incurred by the State, not toexceed the maximum permitted byenabling legislation.

(g) The State may contribute morethan the normal non-Federal share oftitle 23, U.S.C., projects. In general,financing proposals that result in onlyminimal amounts of Federal funds inprojects should be avoided unless theyare based on sound project managementdecisions.

(h)(1) Donations of cash, land,material or services may be credited tothe State’s non-Federal share of theparticipating project work in accordancewith title 23, United States Code, andimplementing regulations.

(2) Contributions may not exceed thetotal costs incurred by the State on theproject. Cash contributions from allsources plus the Federal funds may notexceed the total cost of the project.



§ 630.108 Preparation of agreement.(a) The STD shall prepare a project

agreement for each Federal-aid project.(b) The STD may develop the project

agreement in a format acceptable to boththe STD and the FHWA provided thefollowing are included:

(1) A description of the projectlocation including State and projecttermini;

(2) The Federal-aid project number;(3) The work covered by the

agreement;(4) The total project cost and amount

of Federal funds under agreement;(5) The Federal-aid share of eligible

project costs expressed as either a prorata percentage or a lump sum as setforth in § 630.106(f)(1);

(6) A statement that the State acceptsand will comply with the agreementprovisions set forth in § 630.112;

(7) A statement that the Statestipulates that its signature on theproject agreement constitutes themaking of the certifications set for in§ 630.112; and

(8) Signatures of officials from boththe State and the FHWA, and the dateexecuted.

(c) The project agreement should alsodocument, by comment, instanceswhere:

(1) The State is applying amounts ofcredits from special accounts (such asthe 23 U.S.C. 120(j) toll credits, 23U.S.C. 144(n) off-system bridge creditsand 23 U.S.C. 323 land value credits) tocover all or a portion of the normalpercent non-Federal share of the project;and

(2) The project involves otherarrangements affecting Federal fundingor non-Federal matching provisions,including tapered match, donations, oruse of other Federal agency funds, ifknown at the time the project agreementis executed.

(3) The State is claiming financerelated costs for bond and other debtinstrument financing (such as paymentsto States under 23 U.S.C. 122).

(d) The STD may use an electronicversion of the agreement as provided bythe FHWA.

(Approved by the Office ofManagement and Budget under controlnumber 2125–0529)

§ 630.110 Modification of originalagreement.

(a) When changes are needed to theoriginal project agreement, amodification of agreement shall beprepared. Agreements should not bemodified to replace one Federal fundcategory with another unlessspecifically authorized by statute.

(b) The STD may develop themodification of project agreement in a

format acceptable to both the STD andthe FHWA provided the following areincluded:

(1) The Federal-aid project numberand State;

(2) A sequential number identifyingthe modification;

(3) A reference to the date of theoriginal project agreement to bemodified;

(4) The original total project cost andthe original amount of Federal fundsunder agreement;

(5) The revised total project cost andthe revised amount of Federal fundsunder agreement;

(6) The reason for the modifications;and,

(7) Signatures of officials from boththe State and the FHWA and dateexecuted.

(c) The STD may use an electronicversion of the modification of projectagreement as provided by the FHWA.

§ 630.112 Agreement provisions.(a) The State, through its

transportation department, accepts andagrees to comply with the applicableterms and conditions set forth in title23, United States Code, the regulationsissued pursuant thereto, the policiesand procedures promulgated by theFHWA relative to the designated projectcovered by the agreement, and all otherapplicable Federal laws and regulations.

(b) Federal funds obligated for theproject must not exceed the amountagreed to on the project agreement, thebalance of the estimated total cost beingan obligation of the State. Suchobligation of Federal funds extends onlyto project costs incurred by the Stateafter the execution of a formal projectagreement with the FHWA.

(c) The State must stipulate that as acondition to payment of the Federalfunds obligated, it accepts and willcomply with the following applicableprovisions:

(1) Project for acquisition of rights-of-way. In the event that actualconstruction of a road on this right-of-way is not undertaken by the close ofthe twentieth fiscal year following thefiscal year in which the project isauthorized, the STD will repay to theFHWA the sum or sums of Federalfunds paid to the transportationdepartment under the terms of theagreement. The State may request a timeextension beyond the 20-year limit withno repayment of Federal funds, and theFHWA may approve this request if it isconsidered reasonable.

(2) Preliminary engineering project. Inthe event that right-of-way acquisitionfor, or actual construction of, the roadfor which this preliminary engineering

is undertaken is not started by the closeof the tenth fiscal year following thefiscal year in which the project isauthorized, the STD will repay to theFHWA the sum or sums of Federalfunds paid to the transportationdepartment under the terms of theagreement. The State may request a timeextension for any preliminaryengineering project beyond the 10-yearlimit with no repayment of Federalfunds, and the FHWA may approve thisrequest if it is considered reasonable.

(3) Drug-free workplace certification.By signing the project agreement, theSTD agrees to provide a drug-freeworkplace as required by 49 CFR part29, subpart F. In signing the projectagreement, the State is providing thecertification required in appendix C to49 CFR part 29, unless the Stateprovides an annual certification.

(4) Suspension and debarmentcertification. By signing the projectagreement, the STD agrees to fulfill theresponsibility imposed by 49 CFR29.510 regarding debarment,suspension, and other responsibilitymatters. In signing the projectagreement, the State is providing thecertification for its principals requiredin appendix A to 49 CFR part 29.

(5) Lobbying certification. By signingthe project agreement, the STD agrees toabide by the lobbying restrictions setforth in 49 CFR part 20. In signing theproject agreement, the State is providingthe certification required in theappendix to 49 CFR part 20.

Subpart C—[Removed and Reserved]

3. In part 630, remove and reservesubpart C.



40 CFR Part 52

[IL203–1; FRL–6862–2]

Approval and Promulgation of AirQuality Implementation Plans; Illinois;Oxides of Nitrogen Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Illinois submitted a proposedrule to control emissions of oxides ofnitrogen (NOX). The proposed rule is toprovide NOX emission reductions tosupport attainment of the 1-hour ozonestandard in the Metro-East/St. Louisozone nonattainment area and will



contribute to attainment of the 1-hourozone standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area.Illinois’ rule, which focuses on electricgenerating units, also represents a keyportion of the State’s response to EPA’sOctober 27, 1998 NOX SIP Call. EPAexpects Illinois to adopt other rules toregulate NOX emissions from othersource types, and expects Illinois tosubmit an analysis of the adequacy ofthe full set of rules in conjunction withthe other rules for addressing the NOX

SIP Call. Therefore, this EPArulemaking does not address whetherIllinois’ rule (with or without rules forother source types) limits NOX

emissions to the extent required underthe NOX SIP Call. Through parallelprocessing, EPA is proposing to approvethe rule, provided Illinois correctsidentified deficiencies in its ruleconsistent with this notice. Mostsignificantly, the rule has a provisionthat defers the compliance date of therule beyond May 1, 2003, if any ofcertain Midwestern States do not haveState NOX regulations approved by theEPA or do not have effective federallypromulgated NOX regulations by theend of 2002. EPA proposes to approvethe State’s rule provided Illinoisremoves this provision from the finaladopted rule by December 31, 2000.EPA also proposes in the alternative todisapprove Illinois’ rule if this provisionremains in the final adopted rule or ifIllinois fails to address other significantidentified deficiencies. Significantchanges in the NOX control rule fromthe version included in the State’s draftrule submittal, other than those changesresulting from corrections todeficiencies noted in this proposedrulemaking, will result in a newproposal of the rulemaking on Illinois’subsequent submittal.DATES: Written comments must bereceived on or before October 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe sent to: Jay Bortzer, Acting Chief, AirPrograms Branch (AR–18J), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 77West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,Illinois 60604. Copies of the State’ssubmittals and materials relevant to thisproposed rulemaking are available forpublic inspection during normalbusiness hours at the following address:United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 5, Air and RadiationDivision, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,Chicago, Illinois 60604 (18th floor).(Please telephone John Paskevicz at(312) 886–6084 before visiting theRegion 5 office.)FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JohnPaskevicz, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,Chicago, Illinois 60604, TelephoneNumber: (312) 886–6084, E-MailAddress:[email protected] INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. BackgroundA. What Clean Air Act requirements apply to

or led to the State’s submittal of the NOX

emission control regulations?B. What analyses and EPA rulemaking

actions support the need for the NOX

emission control regulations?C. What have been the Court rulings

regarding EPA’s NOX emission controlregulations?

II. Summary of the State SubmittalA. When were the NOX emission control

regulations submitted to the EPA?B. What are the basic components of the

State’s draft rule?C. Components of the draft regulations.

1. What geographic regions and sources areaffected by the draft regulations?

2. What are the allowable NOX emissionrates or levels for affected sources?

3. What are the monitoring, recordkeeping,and reporting requirements for affectedsources?

4. What is the compliance/implementationdeadline for the affected sources?

D. Will the Illinois NOX trading programmeet the Federal NOX budget?

E. What public review opportunities are/wereprovided?

F. What requirements are contained in theNOX emission control regulations fromthe standpoints of the Lake Michiganand the Metro-East/St. Louis ozoneattainment demonstrations?

G. What guidance did EPA use to evaluateIllinois’ NOX control program?

H. Does the Illinois Part 217 NOX emissionscontrol program meet the needs of theozone attainment demonstrations?

I. Does the Illinois Part 217 NOX emissionscontrol program meet all of the FederalNOx SIP Call requirements?

J. What deficiencies were noted in Illinois’NOX emissions control regulations, anddo any of these deficiencies constitute aserious disapprovability issue?

III. Proposed Action

A. What action is EPA proposing today?B. What happens if Illinois significantly

changes the regulations during the finaladoption process?

IV. Administrative RequirementsA. Executive Order 12866B. Executive Order 13045C. Executive Order 13084D. Executive Order 13132E. Regulatory FlexibilityF. Unfunded Mandates

In the following questions andanswers, the term ‘‘you’’ refers to thereader of this proposed rule and ‘‘we,’’‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ refers to the EPA.

I. Background

A. What Clean Air Act requirementsapply to or led to the State’s submittalof the NOX emission controlregulations?

The Clean Air Act (Act or CAA)requires the EPA to establish NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) for certain air pollutants thatcause or contribute to air pollution thatis reasonably anticipated to endangerpublic health or welfare. Clean Air Actsections 108 and 109. In 1979, EPApromulgated the 1-hour ground-levelozone standard of 0.12 parts per million(ppm) or 120 parts per billion (ppb). 44FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).

Ground-level ozone is generally notdirectly emitted by sources. Rather,volatile organic compounds (VOC) andNOX, both emitted by a wide variety ofsources, react in the presence ofsunlight to form additional pollutants,including ozone. NOX and VOC arereferred to as precursors of ozone.

The Act, as amended in 1990,required EPA to designate asnonattainment any area that wasviolating the 1-hour ozone standard,generally based on air qualitymonitoring data from the 1987 through1989 period. Clean Air Act section107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (November 6,1991). The Act further classified theseareas, based on the areas’ ozone designvalues, as marginal, moderate, serious,severe, or extreme. Marginal areas weresuffering the least significant ozonenonattainment problems, while theareas classified as severe and extremehad the most significant ozonenonattainment problems.

The control requirements and date bywhich attainment with the ozoneNAAQS is to be achieved vary with anarea’s classification. Marginal areaswere subject to the fewest mandatedcontrol requirements and had theearliest attainment date, November 15,1993. Moderate areas were subject tomore stringent planning and controlrequirements but were provided moretime to attain the ozone standard, untilNovember 15, 1996. Severe and extremeareas are subject to even more stringentplanning and control requirements butare also provided more time to attain thestandard. Severe areas are required toattain the ozone NAAQS by November15, 2005 or November 15, 2007,depending on the areas’ ozone designvalues for the 1987 through 1989 period.

The St. Louis ozone nonattainmentarea (subsequently also referred to as theMetro-East/St. Louis ozonenonattainment area to denote the bi-state nature of the area) was classifiedas moderate, giving it an attainment



deadline of November 15, 1996. TheMetro-East/St. Louis ozonenonattainment area is defined (40 CFR81.314 and 81.326) to contain Madison,Monroe, and St. Clair Counties inIllinois, and Franklin, Jefferson, St.Charles, and St. Louis Counties and St.Louis City in Missouri.

The Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozonenonattainment area was classified assevere-17 and its attainment date isNovember 15, 2007. The Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment areais defined (40 CFR 81.314 and 81.315)to contain Cook, DuPage, Grundy (AuxSable and Goose Lake Townships only),Kane, Kendall (Oswego Township only),Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties inIllinois, and Lake and Porter Counties inIndiana.

The Act requires moderate and aboveozone nonattainment areas (includingsevere ozone nonattainment areas) to beaddressed in ozone attainmentdemonstrations, including adoptedemission control regulations sufficientto achieve attainment of the ozoneNAAQS by the applicable ozoneattainment dates. The requirements ofthe Act for ozone attainmentdemonstrations for moderate and aboveozone attainment areas are determinedby considering several sections of theAct. Section 172(c)(6) of the Actrequires SIPs to include enforceableemission limitations, and such othercontrol measures, means or techniquesas well as schedules and timetables forcompliance, as may be necessary toprovide for attainment by the applicableattainment dates. Section 172(c)(1) ofthe Act requires the implementation ofall reasonably available controlmeasures (including reasonablyavailable control technology [RACT])and requires the SIP to provide forsufficient annual reductions inemissions of VOC and NOX as necessaryto attain the ozone NAAQS by theapplicable attainment dates. Section182(j)(1)(B) requires the use ofphotochemical grid modeling or othermethods judged to be at least aseffective to demonstrate attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS in multi-statemoderate ozone nonattainment areas.Sections 182(c)(2) and (d) required SIPrevision submissions by November 15,1994 for serious and severe ozonenonattainment areas to demonstratehow the areas would attain the 1-hourstandard and how they would achieverate-of-progress (ROP) reductions inVOC emissions of 9 percent for each 3-year period until the date of attainment.(In some cases, NOX emissionreductions can be substituted for therequired VOC emission reductions toachieve ROP.) Section 182(c)(2)(A)

requires the ozone attainmentdemonstrations for serious and aboveozone nonattainment areas to be basedon the use of photochemical gridmodeling or on other analytical methodsdetermined to be at least as effective.The attainment demonstrations basedon photochemical grid modeling canaddress the emission impacts of bothVOC and NOX. The NOX emissioncontrol regulations addressed in thisproposed rulemaking are, in part,intended to meet the requirements forthe attainment demonstrations for theMetro-East/St. Louis and Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment areas.

On October 27, 1998, the EPApromulgated a NOX SIP call for anumber of States, including the State ofIllinois. The NOX SIP call requires thesubject States to develop NOX emissioncontrol regulations sufficient to providefor a prescribed NOX emission budget in2007, and is further discussed below.These NOX emission reductions willaddress ozone transport in the area ofthe country primarily east of theMississippi River. EPA promulgated theNOX SIP call pursuant to therequirements of CAA section110(a)(2)(D) and our authority underCAA section 110(k). Section 110(a)(2)(D)applies to all SIPs for each pollutantcovered by a NAAQS and for all areasregardless of their attainmentdesignation. It requires a SIP to containadequate provisions that prohibit anysource or type of source or other typesof emissions within a State fromemitting any air pollutants in amountswhich will contribute significantly tononattainment in, or interfere withmaintenance of attainment of a standardby any other State with respect to anyNAAQS. Section 110(k)(5) authorizesthe EPA to find that a SIP issubstantially inadequate to meet anyCAA requirement when appropriate,and, based on such finding, to thenrequire the State to submit a SIPrevision within a specified time tocorrect such inadequacies.

B. What Analyses and EPA RulemakingActions Support the Need for the NOX

Emission Control Regulations?The State of Illinois has the primary

responsibility under the CAA forensuring that Illinois meets the ozoneNAAQS and is required to submit a SIPthat specifies emission limitations,control measures, and other measuresnecessary for attainment, maintenance,and enforcement of the NAAQS withinthe State. The SIP for ozone must meetthe CAA requirements discussed above,must be adopted pursuant to notice andcomment rulemaking, and must besubmitted to the EPA for approval. A

number of analyses and EPA rulemakingactions have affected the SIP revisionsneeded for the Metro-East/St. Louis andChicago-Gary-Lake County ozonenonattainment areas as discussed below.

The Metro-East/St. Louis andChicago-Gary-Lake Countynonattainment areas have not attainedand continue to violate the 1-hour ozonestandard. The States of Illinois andMissouri have worked cooperatively toprovide the EPA with an ozoneattainment demonstration for the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment area. TheStates of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,and Michigan have workedcooperatively to provide the EPA withan ozone attainment demonstration forthe Lake Michigan area, which includesthe Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozonenonattainment area. Analysesconducted to support both of theseozone attainment demonstrations, assubmitted in 1994 and supplemented inApril 1998, indicate that reductions inupwind NOX emissions are needed toreduce the transport of ozone into thesenonattainment areas.

On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols,Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Airand Radiation Division, published amemorandum titled ‘‘Ozone AttainmentDemonstrations.’’ In this memorandum,the EPA recognized that thedevelopment of the necessary technicalinformation, as well as the emissioncontrol measures necessary to achievethe attainment of the ozone NAAQS hadbeen difficult for the States affected bysignificant ozone transport. EPAestablished a two-phase process forStates with serious and severenonattainment areas to develop ozoneattainment SIPs. Under Phase I, Stateswere required to complete 1994 SIPrequirements (with the exception offinal ozone attainment demonstrations),submit regulations sufficient to meetROP requirements through 1999, andsubmit initial ozone modeling analyses,including preliminary ozone attainmentdemonstrations based on assumedreductions in upwind ozone precursoremissions. Phase II called for a two-yearconsultative process to assess regionalstrategies to address ozone transport inthe eastern United States and requiredsubmittal of all remaining ROPsubmittals to cover ROP through theattainment dates, final attainmentdemonstrations to address the emissionreduction requirements resulting fromthe two-year consultative process andany additional rules and emissioncontrols needed to attain the ozonestandard, and any regional controlsneeded for attainment by all areas in theeastern half of the United States.



1 Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, District ofColumbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, NewJersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In response to problem of ozonetransport, the Environmental Council ofStates (ECOS) recommended theformation of a national workgroup toassess the problem and to develop aconsensus approach to addressing thetransport problem. As a result of ECOS’recommendation and in response to theMarch 2, 1995 EPA memorandum, theOzone Transport Assessment Group(OTAG), a partnership among EPA, the36 eastern States and the District ofColumbia, and industrial, academic, andenvironmental groups, was formed toconduct regional ozone transportanalyses and to develop a recommendedozone transport control strategy. OTAGwas given the responsibility ofconducting the two years of analysesenvisioned in the March 2, 1995 EPAmemorandum.

OTAG conducted a number ofregional ozone data analyses andregional ozone modeling analyses usingphotochemical grid modeling. In July1997, OTAG completed its work andmade recommendations to the EPAconcerning the regional emissionsreductions needed to reduce transportedozone as an obstacle to attainment indownwind areas. OTAG recommendeda possible range of regional NOX

emission reductions to support thecontrol of transported ozone. Based onOTAG’s recommendations and otherinformation, EPA issued the NOX SIPcall rule on October 27, 1998. 63 FR57356.

In the NOX SIP call, EPA determinedthat sources and emitting activities in 23jurisdictions 1 emit NOX in amounts that‘‘significantly contribute’’ to ozonenonattainment or interfere withmaintenance of the 1-hour ozoneNAAQS in one or more downwind areasin violation of CAA section110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA identified NOX

emission reductions by source sectorthat could be achieved using cost-effective measures and set state-wideNOX emission budgets for each affectedjurisdiction for 2007 based on thepossible cost-effective NOX emissionreductions. The source sectors includenonroad mobile, highway mobile, area,electricity generating units (EGUs)(including stationary boilers andturbines, which may generate steam forindustrial processes but whose primarypurpose is to generate electricity for saleto the electrical grid), and major non-EGU stationary point sources (processstationary boilers or turbines, whose

primary purpose is to generate steam forindustrial processes). EPA establishedrecommended NOX emissions caps forlarge EGUs (serving a generator greaterthan 25 megawatts) and for large non-EGUs (maximum design heat input of250 million British thermal units [Btu]per hour [mmBtu/hr]). EPA determinedthat significant NOX reductions usingcost-effective measures could beobtained as follows: application of a0.15 pounds NOX/mmBtu heat inputemission rate limit for large EGUs; a 60percent reduction of NOX emissionsfrom large non-EGUs; a 30 percentreduction of NOX emissions from largecement kilns; and a 90 percentreduction of NOX emissions from largestationary internal combustion enginesnot serving electricity generators. The2007 state-wide NOX emission budgetsestablished by jurisdiction were based,in part, by assuming these levels of NOX

emission controls coupled with NOX

emissions projected by source sector to2007.

Although the state-wide NOX

emission budgets were based on thelevels of reduction achievable throughcost-effective emission controlmeasures, the NOX SIP call allows eachState to determine what measures it willchoose to meet the state-wide NOX

emission budgets. It does not require theStates to adopt the specific NOX

emission rates assumed by the EPA inestablishing the NOX emission budgets.The NOX SIP call merely requires Statesto submit SIPs, which, whenimplemented, will require controls thatmeet the NOX state-wide emissionbudget. The NOX SIP call encouragesthe States to adopt a NOX cap and tradeprogram for large EGUs and large non-EGUs as a cost-effective strategy andprovides an interstate NOX tradingprogram that the EPA will administerfor the States. If States choose toparticipate in the national tradingprogram, the States must submit SIPsthat conform to the trading programrequirements in the NOX SIP call.

As a moderate ozone nonattainmentarea, the Metro-East/St. Louisnonattainment area was not included inthe two-phase approach established inEPA’s March 2, 1995 memorandum. TheEPA, however, recognizes that somemoderate ozone nonattainment areasmay also have been significantlyimpacted by ozone transport fromupwind areas, making attainment of the1-hour ozone NAAQS difficult throughthe imposition of only local emissioncontrol measures. On July 16, 1998, EPAestablished a policy that allowed for adeferral of the attainment date for areassignificantly impacted by ozonetransport and where certain conditions

are met. The EPA published this policy(Extension Policy) in the FederalRegister on March 25, 1999. 64 FR14441.

Under the Extension Policy, the EPAwould defer final findings on theattainment status for moderatenonattainment areas and would insteadallow these areas to submit attainmentSIPs that include boundary reductionsin ozone achieved by controls measuresin upwind areas. The attainment datefor these areas would be the date bywhich the relevant upwind areas willhave reduced emissions, reducing thetransported ozone. Along this line, onMarch 18, 1999, EPA published aproposed rule titled ‘‘Clean AirReclassification and Notice of PotentialEligibility for Attainment DateExtension, Missouri and Illinois, St.Louis Nonattainment Area; Ozone.’’ Inthat proposed rule, the EPA proposed todefer final action on a proposed findingof nonattainment for the Metro-East/St.Louis nonattainment (which wouldhave resulted in a bump-up of the areato serious nonattainment for ozone)until it could ascertain whether theattainment date should be extended forthe area based on an application of theExtension Policy.

In an October 1999 draft supplementto its 1994 attainment demonstration forthe Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainmentarea, the State of Illinois committed toimplementing state-wide NOX emissionreductions from EGUs. Illinois officiallysubmitted the adopted attainmentdemonstration supplement to the EPAin February 2000. The final attainmentstrategy for the Metro-East St. Louis areaassumed that the 23 jurisdictionsaffected by the EPA NOX SIP call,including the eastern one-third ofMissouri would limit NOX emissionsfrom large EGUs beginning in May 2003to an emission rate of no more than 0.25pounds NOX/mmBtu of heat input.Large EGUs in the western two-thirds ofMissouri would be limited to a NOX

emission rate of no more than 0.35pounds NOX per mmBtu of heat input.The State’s photochemical gridmodeling supported attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment area in May2003 based on these regional NOX

reductions. The EPA proposed toconditionally approve this attainmentdemonstration on April 17, 2000,contingent, in part, on the States ofIllinois and Missouri submittingregional (statewide) draft NOX rules byJune 2000 and completing adoption ofthese rules and submitting them in finalform to the EPA by December 2000. 65FR 20404.



On April 30, 1998, the State of Illinoissubmitted a major revision of the ozoneattainment demonstration for theChicago-Gary-Lake County ozonenonattainment area. In that attainmentdemonstration revision, the Statedemonstrated that significant reductionsin transported ozone and NOX would benecessary to achieve attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in thenonattainment area. Illinois committedto complete the ozone attainmentdemonstration and to adopt sufficientlocal and regional controls as needed todemonstrate attainment of the ozonestandard and to submit the finalattainment demonstration and adoptedregulations to the EPA by December2000. The EPA proposed toconditionally approve the 1-hourattainment demonstration based, in part,on the State’s commitment to adopt andsubmit a final attainment demonstrationand a post-1999 ROP plan, including thenecessary State emission controlregulations, by December 31, 2000. 64FR 70496. The NOX regulationsreviewed in this proposed rule are, inpart, intended to meet part of the State’scommitment to complete the ozoneattainment demonstration for theChicago-Gary-Lake Countynonattainment area.

C. What Have Been the Court RulingsRegarding EPA’s NOX Emission ControlRegulations?

When the EPA published the NOX SIPcall on October 27, 1998, a number ofStates and various industry groups filedpetitions challenging the rulemakingbefore the United States Court ofAppeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit. See Michigan vs. EPA, 213 F.3d663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The Court, on May25, 1999, stayed the obligation of State’sto submit SIPs in response to the NOX

SIP call rule. Subsequently, on March 3,2000, the Court upheld most of the NOX

SIP call rule. The Court, however,vacated the rule as it applied toMissouri and Georgia and remanded forfurther consideration the inclusion ofportions of Missouri and Georgia in the

rule. The Court also vacated the rule asit applied to Wisconsin because EPAhad not made a showing that sources inWisconsin significantly contribute tononattainment or interfere withmaintenance of the ozone NAAQS inany other State. Finally, the Court alsoremanded two issues concerning alimited portion of the NOX emissionbudgets. On June 22, 2000, the Courtremoved the stay of States’ obligation tosubmit SIPs in response to the NOX SIPcall and denied petitioners’ motions forrehearing and rehearing en banc. Inremoving the stay, the Court providedthat EPA should allow 128 days forStates to submit SIPs. Thus, SIPs mustbe submitted to the EPA by October 30,2000.

The State of Illinois has indicated thatthe NOX regulations reviewed in thisproposed rulemaking are intendedprimarily to meet the emissionreduction needs of the Metro-East/St.Louis ozone attainment demonstrationand secondarily to meet a portion of theNOX emission budget established in theNOX SIP call for Illinois. The State,however, needs to take further action todevelop a submission in response to theNOX SIP call emission budget, and, inthis action, we are not reviewing theEGU NOX rule for the purposes ofdetermining whether the EGU NOX ruleis sufficient to allow the State to meetthe NOX SIP call emission budget.

II. Summary of the State Submittal

A. When Were the NOX EmissionControl Regulations Submitted to theEPA?

On June 29, 2000, the IllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency(IEPA) submitted a draft NOX emissioncontrol rule to the EPA for pre-adoptionreview.

On July 18, 2000, EPA received aletter from David J. Kolaz, Chief, Bureauof Air, Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency, which contained a number ofdocuments, including the draft rulesubmitted on June 29, 2000 along withadditional documentation for the draft

rule. The letter included a request fromthe Bureau Chief to process thesubmittal in parallel (i.e., parallelprocessing) to the development of therule at the State level and included aschedule for development and adoptionof the rule by the State.

Parallel processing allows a State tosubmit a plan for approval prior toactual adoption by the State. 47 FR27073 (June 23, 1982) A submittal forparallel processing must include thefollowing three items: a letter from theState requesting parallel processing; aschedule for final adoption or issuanceof the plan; and a copy of the proposedregulation or document. Illinoissubmitted these three items ofinformation in the letter dated July 18,2000, from the Bureau Chief. TheBureau Chief is the authorizedrepresentative for the State to submitSIP revisions. The letter asks that EPAparallel process the submittal, and itincludes milestones leading to finaladoption of the plan. The milestones areacceptable to EPA as a schedule,however the end date of final approval(final rule adoption) by the IllinoisPollution Control Board (IPCB) cannotprecisely be established. Finally,enclosed with the letter was a copy ofthe draft NOX rule along with a‘‘Statement of Reasons’’ provided to theIPCB by the Legal Counsel of the IllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency tosupport the adoption of the rule.

B. What Are the Basic Components ofthe State’s Draft Rule?

The State based the draft ruleprimarily on EPA’s part 96 TradingRule. Many sections of part 96 areincorporated by reference (IBR) into thedraft rule. In addition to IBR of portionsof 40 CFR part 96, Illinois’ NOX rulealso includes IBR of portions of 40 CFRparts 60, 72, 75, and 76. Section 217.104of the Illinois rule identifies the CFRparts and sections included in the IBR.Table 1 identifies the Volume 40 CFRparts and sections included by IBR inIllinois’ NOX rule.

TABLE 1.—40 CFR PARTS AND SECTIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN ILLINOIS’ EGU NOX RULE

40 CFR Part Section Section Title/Subject

60 .................................................... Appendix A .................................... Method 7 (The phenol disulfonic acid method).72 .................................................... All Sections .................................... Permits regulation.75 .................................................... All Sections .................................... Continuous emission monitoring.76 .................................................... All Sections .................................... Acid rain nitrogen oxides emission reduction program.96 .................................................... Subpart A:

96.1 ................................................ Purpose.96.2 ................................................ Definitions.96.3 ................................................ Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms.96.5 ................................................ Retired unit exemptions.96.6 ................................................ Standard requirements.96.7 ................................................ Computation of time.



TABLE 1.—40 CFR PARTS AND SECTIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN ILLINOIS’ EGU NOX RULE—Continued

40 CFR Part Section Section Title/Subject

Subpart B:96.10 .............................................. Authorization and responsibility of the NOX authorized account rep-

resentative.96.11 .............................................. Alternate authorized account representative.96.12 .............................................. Changing the authorized account representative and alternate author-

ized account representative.96.13 .............................................. Account certificate of representation.96.14 .............................................. Objections concerning authorized account representative.Subpart D:96.30 .............................................. Compliance certification report.96.31 .............................................. Permitting authority’s and Administrator’s action on compliance certifi-

cation.Subpart F:96.50 .............................................. NOX Allowance Tracking System accounts.96.51 .............................................. Establishment of accounts.96.52 .............................................. NOX Allowance Tracking System responsibilities of NOX authorized

account representative.96.53 .............................................. Recordation of NOX allowance allocations.96.54 .............................................. Compliance.96.55(a) ......................................... Banking.96.55(b) ......................................... Banking.96.56 .............................................. Account error.96.57 .............................................. Closing of general accountsSubpart G:96.60 .............................................. NOX allowance transfers.96.61 .............................................. EPA recordation.96.62 .............................................. NotificationSubpart H:96.70 .............................................. Monitoring and reporting, General requirements.96.71 .............................................. Initial certification and recertification procedures.96.72 .............................................. Out of control periods.96.73 .............................................. Notifications.96.74 .............................................. Recordkeeping and reporting.96.75 .............................................. Petitions.96.76 .............................................. Additional requirements to provide heat input data for allocations pur-

poses.

In addition to the IBR portion of the rule, the rule contains a number of other sections or components. Table2 lists these sections/components. Some of these sections/components were derived from federal regulations. (Illinoisattempted to either revise the federal regulations to more abbreviated versions or to revise the federal regulations tomake them more compatible with existing State regulations.) Where appropriate, the final column of Table 2 notesthe federal regulation(s) from which the State regulation was derived or notes the effect of the State regulation relativeto related federal regulations.

TABLE 2.—NON-IBR PORTIONS OF ILLINOIS’ NOX RULE

Subpart/Section Title Comparable federal regulation/note

Subpart B/Section 211 ....................................... Definitions ......................................................... Replace Some IBR DefinitionsSubpart A ........................................................... General Provisions.Section 217.100 ................................................. Scope and organization.Section 217.101 ................................................. Measurement Methods.Section 217.102 ................................................. Abbreviations and Units ................................... Replaces some abbreviations included by

IBR.Section 217.104 ................................................. Incorporations by Reference.Subpart W .......................................................... NOX Trading Program for Electrical Gener-

ating Units.Section 217.750 ................................................. Purpose.Section 217.752 ................................................. Severability.Section 217.754 ................................................. Applicability ...................................................... See 40 CFR 96.4.Section 217.756 ................................................. Compliance Requirements.Section 217.756(b) ............................................. Permit requirements.Section 217.756(c) ............................................. Monitoring requirements.Section 217.756(d) ............................................. NOX requirements.Section 217.756(e) ............................................. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.Section 217.756(f) .............................................. Liability.Section 217.758 ................................................. Permitting Requirements.Section 217.758(a) ............................................. Budget permit requirements ............................. See 40 CFR 96.20 and 96.21.Section 217.758(b) ............................................. Budget permit applications ............................... See 40 CFR 96.22 and 96.23.Section 217.760 ................................................. NOX Trading Budget ........................................ See 40 CFR 96.40, 96.41, and 96.42.Section 217.762 ................................................. Methodology for Calculating NOX Allocations

for Budget Electrical Generating Units.See 40 CFR 96.42.



TABLE 2.—NON-IBR PORTIONS OF ILLINOIS’ NOX RULE—Continued

Subpart/Section Title Comparable federal regulation/note

Section 217.764 ................................................. NOX Allocations for Budget EGUs ................... See 40 CFR 96.42.Section 217.768 ................................................. New Source Set-Asides for ‘‘New’’ Budget

EGUs.Section 217.770 ................................................. Early Reduction Credits for Budget EGUs ...... See 40 CFR 96.55.Section 217.774 ................................................. Opt-in Units.Section 217.776 ................................................. Opt-In Process ................................................. See 40 CFR 96.84.Section 217.778 ................................................. Budget Opt-in Units: Withdrawal from NOX

Trading Program.Section 217.780 ................................................. Opt-in Units: Change in Regulatory Status.Section 217.782 ................................................. Allowance Allocations to Budget Opt-In Units.Appendix D ........................................................ Non-Electrical Generating Units.Appendix F ......................................................... Allowances for Electrical Generating Units.

Using information provided by theIEPA to the IPCB in support of theadoption of this rule, the followingsummarizes the various rule sectionslisted in table 2 above.

Subpart B, Section 211

A number of new definitions wouldbe added to an existing part 211 ofIllinois’ air pollution rules. Definitionsof the following terms would be added:Allowance; Combined Cycle System;Combustion Turbine; CommonCommercial Operation; CommenceOperation; Common Stack; ControlPeriod; Excess Emissions; Fossil Fuel;Fossil Fuel-Fired; Generator; Heat Input;Heat Input Rate; Nameplate Capacity;Potential Electrical Output Capacity;and Repowering. The specifics of thesedefinitions do affect the completenessand enforceability of the rule(s) thatuses them. Therefore, they have beencompared to definitions contained in 40CFR parts 96 and 97 as part of thereview conducted for this proposedrulemaking.

Subpart A

Section 217.100 Scope andOrganization

This section specifies the purpose ofthe State’s NOX rule and limits its scopeto prevent problems with existing rules.

Section 217.101 MeasurementMethods

This section states that themeasurement of NOX emissions atsources and facilities covered by therule shall be conducted according to: (a)The phenol disulfonic acid method (40CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 7(1999)); and continuous emissionsmonitoring pursuant to 40 CFR part 75(1999).

Section 217.102 Abbreviations andUnits

Like definitions of terms, abbreviationdefinitions can affect the completenessand enforceability of a rule, and the

abbreviations added to this rule havebeen reviewed from this standpoint. Itshould be noted that part 211 of Illinois’air pollution rules also contains anumber of defined abbreviations. Theabbreviations added in section 217.102are specific to the NOX rule and do notnecessarily apply to other Illinois airpollution control rules.

Section 217.104As noted above, the State proposes to

amend section 217.104 (to add thissection to existing Illinois rules) to addportions of 40 CFR part 96 and 40 CFRparts 72, 75, and 76 (see table 1 above)to the documents that have beenincorporated into Illinois’ rules byreference. IBR documents are an integralpart of Illinois’ rules and are enforceablein the same manner as one wouldenforce any State rule.

Trading Program for ElectricalGenerating Units

Section 217.754 ApplicabilityThis section addresses the

applicability of the State’s proposedNOX trading program. Subsection (a)provides that the NOX trading rule andemissions cap applies to all fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers, combustionturbines or combined cycle systems,serving a generator which has anameplate capacity exceeding 25megawatts (MWe) if the generatedelectricity is sold. This section alsoapplies to fossil-fuel fire units with amaximum design heat input rate ofgreater than 250 mmBtu/hour andserving smaller generators under certainspecified circumstances, including thecondition that a served generator islarger than 50 percent of a unit’spotential electrical output capacity(such a unit would also be classified asan electrical generating unit subject tothe rule and the trading programrequirements). Subsection (b) of thissection provides that units meeting theabove criteria are subject to the emissionlimits of the NOX Trading Program.

Subsection (c) provides an exemptionfor low-emitters, such as units that burnnatural gas and/or fuel oil exclusivelyand have potential NOX emission ratesof 25 tons or less during the controlperiod. The owner or operator of sucha unit may choose to get an operatingpermit that limits emissions to thislower level through federallyenforceable conditions as specified inthis subsection. Owners and operatorsseeking low emitter status affect theemission allowances covered in theNOX Trading Program depending onwhether the units are existing or newunits.

Section 217.756 ComplianceRequirements

This section specifies the compliancerequirements for EGUs subject to theNOX Trading Program (budget EGUs).Owners or operators of each source thathas one or more budget EGUs mustsubmit an application meeting therequirements of section 217.758 for anemissions budget permit from the IEPA.The budget permit must specifyfederally enforceable conditionscovering the NOX Trading Program andmust satisfy all other permittingrequirements in Illinois’ air qualityrules. The application for a budgetpermit is subject to specified timingrequirements.

Subject budget EGUs must meetspecified monitoring requirements,including continuous emissionsmonitoring. An account representativefor a subject budget EGU must complywith specified monitoring compliancecertification and reporting requirementsof 40 CFR part 96, subpart H. Themonitoring results will be used tocertify compliance with the budgetemissions limitations.

Subsection (d) requires the accountrepresentative for a budget EGU to holdsufficient emission allowances availablefor compliance deduction in the budgetEGU’s compliance account to accountfor the source’s overdraft account by



November 30 of each year starting in thecompliance year (1 allowance equals 1ton of NOX emissions). Only a certainnumber of allowances will be given toa budget EGU each control period (May1 through September 30) based on anestablished State-wide NOX emissionscap and an allowance distributionsystem devised cooperatively by theStates and the affected sources. BudgetEGUs can not use an allowance prior tothe control period in which it isallocated by the State.

Subsection (d)(3) contains a provisionthat defers the compliance date for theprogram beyond May 1, 2003, if any ofthe neighboring States and other Statesin Region 5 subject to the NOX SIP Calldo not have fully approved regulationsor effective federally promulgatedregulations by the end of 2002. Thisraises an unacceptable risk that the ruleas proposed by Illinois would notrequire NOX emission controls by thetime they are needed primarily forpurposes of attainment in the Metro-East/St. Louis area, by May 1, 2003, toavoid a bump-up of the area to seriousnonattainment of the 1-hour ozonestandard or for purposes of the NOX SIPCall.

Subsection (e) provides therecordkeeping requirements for thebudget EGUs. All emission monitoringinformation must be recorded andmaintained in accordance with 40 CFRpart 96, subpart H. Documents andrecords must be kept and must be madeavailable for inspection upon request for5 years unless a different period isspecified elsewhere (under other rules).

Subsection (f) contains the provisionsgoverning liability of budget EGUs, theirowner and operators, and accountrepresentatives. The owner and accountrepresentative of one budget EGU arenot liable for any violation of any otherbudget EGU with which they are notaffiliated, except with respect torequirements for EGUs with a commonstack.

Section 217.758 PermittingRequirements

The budget permit of a budget EGUmust contain federally enforceableconditions that apply to the unit andprovide that the budget permit is acomplete and segregable portion of thesource’s entire permit.

Subsection (a) prohibits the issuanceof a budget permit and theestablishment of a NOX emissionsallowance until the IEPA and the EPAhave received a complete ‘‘accountcertificate of representation’’ from thebudget EGU’s account representative,and sets forth the timing for submittinga budget permit application where one

or more of the budget EGUs are subjectto the requirements of section 39.5 ofthe Illinois Clean Air Act PermitProgram. Budget EGUs not subject tothese requirements are also required toobtain a permit with federallyenforceable conditions.

Section 217.760 The NOX TradingBudget

Subsection (a) provides that the totalbase NOX trading budget availablestatewide for allowance allocations foreach control period (May 1 throughSeptember 30) is 30,701 tons (30,701allowances). This budget may beincreased or decreased under variouscircumstances, such as the opt-in ofnon-subject sources or the opt-out ofexempted low-emitter sources. Thissubsection also provides that for theyears of 2003 through 2005, 5 percent ofthe 30,701 allowances will be allocatedto a new source set-aside. For the years2006 and thereafter, the new source set-aside will be reduced to 2 percent of the30,701 allowances.

Subsection (b) authorizes the IEPA toadjust the total EGU trading budgetavailable for allocation. This is done toremove allowances for low-emittersopting to become exempt from the NOX

Trading Program.Subsection (c) authorizes the IEPA to

adjust the total base EGU trading budgetpro-rata if the EPA subsequently makesadjustments in the EGU budget.

Section 217.762 Methodology forCalculating NOX Allocations for BudgetElectrical Generating Units (EGUs)

The methodology used to calculateallocations (not the total state-wideemission cap) is based on the emissionrate limit and a unit’s control periodheat input. Appendix F of the rule liststhe budget EGUs and their associatedallowances. For budget EGUs, includingopt-ins, not listed in appendix F, thelimiting emission rate used in thecalculation of allowances is the morestringent of 0.15 pounds NOX/millionBtu heat input or the permitted NOX

emission rate, but never less than 0.055pounds NOX per million Btu heat input.

Subsection (b) sets forth how the heatinput is to be determined for the controlperiod. This heat input for each budgetEGU is used along with the emissionlimit to determine the NOX allowancefor the EGU.

Section 217.764 NOX Allocations forBudget EGUs

This section sets forth, for eachcontrol period, the allowanceallocations for budget EGUs. Theallocations involve a ‘‘fixed/flex’’approach from 2006 through 2009 and

a ‘‘100 percent flex’’ approach in 2010and thereafter (consult this section ofthe rule for the details of theseapproaches). The allocations for 2003through 2005 are specified in subsection(a).

Section 217.768 New Source Set-Asidefor ‘‘New’’ Budget EGUs

This section sets aside allowances fornew sources as noted above. During theperiod of 2003 through 2005, anyallowances that are not allocated to newsources will be allocated to certainEGUs. After January 1, 2003, newbudget EGUs that commencecommercial operation may purchaseallowances from the new source set-aside based on a pricing structuredefined in this section.

Section 217.770 Early ReductionCredits for Budget EGUs

The IEPA proposes to add this sectionthat allows budget EGUs to request earlyreduction credits (ERCs) if they reduceNOX emissions in the 2001 or 2002control periods. This section sets forththe various requirements associatedwith the generation and recording ofthese ERCs.

C. Components of the Draft Regulations

1. What geographic regions and sourcesare affected by the draft regulations?

The proposed rules affect all fossilfuel-fired boilers, combustion turbinesor combined cycle systems in the Stateof Illinois serving a generator with anameplate capacity greater than 25MWe (and boilers, turbines, and allcombined cycle systems in the State ofIllinois serving smaller generatorsprovided that these units have heatinput rates exceeding 250 mmBtu/hourand have a potential to provide morethan 50 percent of their power output tothe generators), and any opt-in sourcesin the State of Illinois as described inthe rule.

2. What are the allowable NOX emissionrates or levels for affected sources?

The NOX reductions called for in theproposed State rule are based on anNOX emissions cap required for EGUs inthe State. The target budget establishedin the State rule is 30,701 tons for thecontrol period. The cap is based on anemission rate of 0.15 pounds/mmBtuheat input for EGUs operating in 1995/1996 applied to operating levelsexpected in 2007. The State believes therule will bring about attainment of the1-hour ozone standard in the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment area. Withregard to the attainment demonstrationfor the Chicago-Gary-Lake Countynonattainment area, the State can only



note that its analysis thus far will‘‘ * * * likely demonstrateattainment * * * ’’ of the 1-hour ozonestandard. The State will complete its airquality modeling and submit its finalattainment demonstration to EPA inDecember 2000. Finally, this rule isintended to provide the level of controlfrom EGUs that, in conjunction withrules establishing similar requirementsfor other source types, will meet Illinois’NOX emission budget under the NOX

SIP call.

3. What are the monitoring,recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements for affected sources?

The IEPA proposes to incorporate byreference the EPA Part 96 monitoring,Recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements for the affected sources.However, in section 217.770(a) of therule, which addresses early reductioncredits for budget EGUs, the ruleprovides that ‘‘ * * * monitoringsystem availability shall be not less than80 percent during the control periodprior to the control period in which theNOX emissions reduction ismade * * * ’’. Also, in the opt-inprocess, the State, in section 217.776(b)addresses monitoring systemavailability of ‘‘ * * * not less than 80percent * * * ’’. This differs with theEPA requirement for monitoring insection 96.84(b) of 40 CFR part 96,which requires 90 percent availability.

4. What is the compliance/implementation deadline for affectedsources?

The Illinois rule has a compliancedate that is contingent uponimplementation of NOX rules in otherStates. Section 217.756 states thatsources ‘‘ * * * shall be subject to themonitoring and [emission control]requirements * * * starting on thelater of May 1, 2003, * * * or [May 1of the year after] all of the other Statessubject to the provisions of the NOX SIPCall [in Region 5 or contiguous toIllinois] have adopted regulations toimplement NOX trading programs andother required reductions of NOX

emissions pursuant to the NOX SIP Call,and such regulations have received finalapproval by EPA * * * , or a final FIPfor ozone promulgated by EPA iseffective.’’ The relevant other States areIndiana, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, andKentucky. This language provides forcompliance with relevant requirementsby May 1, 2003, except that a latercompliance date will apply if any ofthese five other States does not haveadequate NOX regulations either asapproved State regulations or aseffective promulgated Federalregulations by the end of 2002.

This language raises significantconcerns. To avoid reclassification ofthe St. Louis area to seriousnonattainment, Illinois must submitrules that provide adequate NOX

emission reductions by May 1, 2003.Also, for EPA to approve this rule andthe expected other related rules assatisfying the NOX SIP Call, EPA mustconclude that the controls needed toachieve the budget will be required byMay 1, 2003. The language in Illinois’proposed rule would not achieve eitherof these purposes if problems arise inany of the five States, delaying approvalof their NOX rule until after the end of2002 or the promulgation of an effectiveFIP after 2002. Of particular concern isthe dependence on the timetable forMissouri, since, unlike Illinois, theCourt remanded the NOX SIP Call forMissouri. This will result in Missourisubmitting NOX SIP call-compliantregulations on a later schedule thanother NOX SIP call States. The EPArulemaking on such rule may besufficiently delayed, such that thelanguage of the Illinois NOX rule woulddelay the compliance date for the rulebeyond the attainment date establishedin the attainment demonstration for theSt. Louis area and beyond the requiredcompliance date under the NOX SIPcall.

EPA is also concerned about otheraspects of this provision of Illinois rule.The language in Ilinois’ rule makes thecompliance date contingent onadoption/approval or promulgation of‘‘regulations to implement NOX tradingprograms [and other requiredreductions].’’ While EPA is mandatingachievement of specified amounts ofNOX emissions control, EPA is notmandating that States adopt provisionsfor emissions trading. Therefore, if arelevant State opts not to implementtrading, Illinois’ language suggests apermanent compliance date deferral.

D. Will the Illinois NOX TradingProgram Meet the Federal NOX Budget?

Illinois’ rule on EGUs is a key elementof the set of rules Illinois is expected tosubmit to satisfy the reductionrequirements for NOX emissions thatEPA’s NOX SIP Call mandates forIllinois. In fact, Illinois’ EGU ruleestablishes a cap on emissions derivedfrom the NOX emission limit (0.15pounds per million BTUs of heat input)that EPA used in calculating Illinois’budget. Nevertheless, this rulemakingdoes not evaluate the rule on EGUs asto whether it is an adequate step towardachieving the NOX SIP Call reductionsor whether the full set of expected ruleswill achieve the reductions.

Illinois has not yet submitted adetailed assessment of whether its full

set of rules will assure achievement ofthe reductions. EPA expects such asubmittal in conjunction with the otherrules that Illinois must still submit. EPAwill rulemake on the adequacy ofIllinois’ rules for achieving the State’sNOX SIP call budget as part ofrulemaking on these other submittals.

E. What Public Review OpportunitiesAre/Were Provided?

The State reports that early in 1999,the IEPA commenced regular meetingswith the NOX Technical Committee andwith representatives of the existingEGUs. The State met with these existingsources on numerous occasions. Most ofthe time was spent developing conceptsin the flexible portions of the FederalNOX Trading Program, i.e., initialallocations, allocation methodology, andthe use of the Compliance SupplementPool. The State also met with new EGUsand again with existing EGUs for asecond time to discuss how allowanceswould be allocated.

Following the May 25, 1999 stay bythe Court of Appeals, the IEPA shiftedits effort to meet the requirements of the1-hour standard attainmentdemonstrations. When this stay waslifted on June 22, 2000, IEPA againbegan to formulate a program to complywith the NOX SIP Call rule. IEPA againmet with the affected sources and alsowith the American Lung Association ofChicago, the Illinois EnvironmentalCouncil, the Environmental Law andPolicy Center, and the IllinoisEnvironmental Regulatory Group.

F. What Requirements Are Contained inthe NOX Emission Control RegulationsFrom the Standpoints of the LakeMichigan and the Metro-East/St. LouisOzone Attainment Demonstrations?

As noted in the December 16, 1999proposed rulemaking on the State’sattainment demonstration for theChicago-Gary-Lake County ozonenonattainment area (64 FR 70496), theState did not commit to developregional NOX controls for specificsource categories or for specificemission control levels. The attainmentdemonstration, which has not beensubmitted in final form, did note thatsignificant reductions in regional NOX

emissions would be needed to attain thestandard in the nonattainment area. TheState did assume significant futurereductions in background (transported)ozone levels and upwind NOX

emissions to reflect possible impactsfrom EPA’s NOX SIP call based oninformation available prior to April1998. The States (Illinois, Indiana, and



Wisconsin, and the Lake Michigan AirDirectors Consortium) are currentlymodeling the possible impacts of theNOX SIP call for inclusion in the finalattainment demonstration submittals forthe Lake Michigan area.

As noted in the proposed rulemakingfor the Metro-East/St. Louis ozonenonattainment area (65 FR 20404), theattainment demonstration for thisnonattainment area relies on NOX

emission controls from large EGUs inboth Illinois and Missouri. As notedabove, the attainment demonstrationassumes that NOX emission rates forlarge EGUs state-wide in Illinois will belimited to a level of 0.25 pounds NOX/mmBtu of heat input or less. Theattainment demonstration did notassume additional NOX emissioncontrols beyond those required by theClean Air Act for a moderate ozonenonattainment area.

G. What Guidance Did EPA Use toEvaluate Illinois’ NOX Control Program?

The State of Illinois asked that thepart 217 NOX emissions control rule beparallel processed by EPA in order toexpedite eventual approval of the State’sNOX SIP. Guidance for parallelprocessing is found at 47 FR 27073(June 23, 1982). In addition, we used 40CFR part 96 for review of portions of thesubmittal which apply. The Stateincorporated by reference a significantportion of 40 CFR part 96. The portionsincorporated by reference are listedelsewhere in this proposal.

H. Does the Illinois Part 217 NOX

Emissions Control Program Meet theNeeds of the Ozone AttainmentDemonstrations?

Aside from the implementation delayproblem and other deficienciesdiscussed elsewhere in this document,EPA proposes to find that the part 217NOX emissions control program meetsthe emission reduction needs of theozone attainment demonstration forMetro-East/St. Louis ozonenonattainment area which EPA hasrecently proposed to approve. TheStates of Illinois and Missouri havecompleted additional revisions in theattainment demonstration which will beaddressed in a separate rulemaking.These additional revisions have notaffected the emission reductionrequirements considered in theattainment demonstration addressed inEPA’s proposed rule on April 17, 2000(65 FR 20404).

Until Illinois and other Lake MichiganStates complete the attainmentdemonstration for the Lake Michiganarea, it cannot be determined whetherthe NOX emissions reductions from the

NOX rule reviewed here will beadequate to lead to a demonstration ofattainment for the Chicago-Gary-LakeCounty ozone nonattainment area.

I. Does the Illinois Part 217 NOX

Emissions Control Program Meet All ofthe Federal NOX SIP Call Requirements?

No. The part 217 rule only addressesthe NOX controls for EGUs. Althoughthese reductions are significant, they arenot sufficient to guarantee that the Statewill achieve the NOX emission budgetestablished in the NOX SIP call. Toachieve the acceptable NOX emissionlevel of the NOX SIP call, the State willhave to adopt additional emissioncontrol regulations or further tighten theemission limits for EGUs. The adequacyof the full set of reductions to satisfy theNOX SIP Call requirements will beaddressed in separate rulemaking. Otherdeficiencies are noted below.

J. What Deficiencies Were Noted inIllinois’ NOX Emissions ControlRegulations, and Do Any of TheseDeficiencies Constitute a SeriousDisapprovability Issue?

EPA reviewed the State’s draft part217 NOX emissions control rule andoffers the following comments ondeficiencies found in the draft rule,many of which are minor and should bereadily correctable in the final ruleadoption process. These deficienciesmust be corrected before the EPA cangive final approval to the Illinois NOX

rule.

Section 217.101

(a) The reference to Method 7 isquestionable. Method 7 is a one timestack test. The rule should requireContinous Emissions MonitoringSystem (CEMS). Additionally, there is amore recent method than method 7. Itis method 7e.

(c) Low-emitter status. If a unitreceives low emitter status, it will not berequired to monitor anymore: it willneed only to report operating hours.Therefore, item D, which requirespotential NOX emissions to becalculated by either part 75 or by thedefault emissions rate, should requireonly the use of default emissions rates.

Section 217.756

This section repeats section 96.6 of 40CFR part 96, which is alreadyincorporated by reference. Therefore,section 217.756 could be deleted.

(d)(3) This subsection is discussed indetail in the front of this proposal andis the main reason for EPA’s proposeddisapproval in the alternative. Basically,this rule as written will result inpotential delay regarding

implementation of elements of thetrading program. This section providesopportunity for delay in implementationof the program until all States in EPARegion 5, and States on the Illinoisborder have their NOX SIPs approved byEPA or are covered by a FIP in fulleffect. As written, section 217.756(d)(3)is a major deficiency in the State’s plan.

(g) Effect on other authorities—Ratherthan referencing 40 CFR 96.4(b), the ruleshould reference 217.754(c).

Section 217.762

Throughout this section, when theState addresses allocation of allowancesfrom the new source set-aside, it usesthe phrase ‘‘to budget EGUs that havenot fully operated for the full 2000control period (italics supplied).’’ Readliterally, it could authorize an existingsource that was shut down for part of acontrol period to receive allowancesfrom the new source set-aside. The Stateshould clarify, perhaps by replacing theitalicised phrase with the phrase‘‘commenced commercial operation.’’This latter term is used in section217.768. The regulations should useconsistent terminology.

Section 217.768

(i) In this section the State shouldclarify the phrase ‘‘ * * * less thanone-half of the control period in2002 * * * ’’. Specifics on units andcriteria are needed to define this phrase.

Section 217.770

(a) The unit’s monitoring dataavailability should be 90 percent, not 80percent. The phrase, the‘‘ * * * control period prior to thecontrol period * * * ’’ is ambiguousdue to the double reference to ‘‘controlperiod.’’ This phrase should be clarified.

Section 217.774 Opt-in Units

(a)(2) By its terms, the provisionsauthorize units to opt-in even if all oftheir emissions are not vented to a stack.This provision should be revised so thatonly units that vent all emissions to astack may opt-in. 40 CFR part 96contains this limit. In addition, part (a)of this provision limits opt-ins tostationary boilers, combustion turbines,or combined cycle systems—all ofwhich vent to a stack.

Section 217.776

(b) Monitoring data availabilityshould be 90 percent, not 80 percent.

Section 217.778

(b)(3) The rule refers to ‘‘anyallowances allocated to that unit undersection 217.782 of this subpart for thecontrol period * * * (emphasis



added).’’ The emphasized term shouldbe revised to read ‘‘the same or earliercontrol period.’’

Section 217.780Throughout this section, the State

refers to a unit which changes itsregulatory status and becomes a budgetopt-in unit. In fact, this provision ismeant to address units which changetheir regulatory status and becomebudget units. Throughout this sectionthe phrase ‘‘ * * * budget opt-inunit * * * ’’ should be replaced withthe phrase ‘‘ * * * budgetEGU * * * ’’.

Section 217.782(b)(2)(B) This should refer to the year

of the control period not to the yearprior to the year of the control period.

III. Proposed Action

A. What Action Is EPA ProposingToday?

EPA objects to the provision inIllinois’ rule that defers the compliancedate for the program beyond May 1,2003, if any of the neighboring Statesand other States in Region 5 subject tothe NOX SIP Call do not have fullyapproved regulations or effectivefederally promulgated regulations by theend of 2002. EPA has also noted otherconcerns with the language of thisprovision and has noted otherdeficiencies in the rule.

EPA believes that Illinois can adopt arule that would ensure compliance byMay 1, 2003. In its current draft form,which creates the potential forcompliance delays beyond May 1, 2003,the drafted rule is unacceptable becauseit could cause compliance delaysbeyond the date currently established bythe State for attainment of the 1-hourozone standard in the St. Louis area.EPA proposes to approve the rule if theState adopts a final rule which assurescompliance with NOX emission controlsrequired by the rule by May 1, 2003 andcorrects the other deficiencies discussedin this document. In the alternative,EPA proposes to disapprove Illinois’rule if the State adopts the rule in itscurrent drafted form.

B. What Happens if Illinois SignificantlyChanges the Regulations During theFinal Adoption Process?

Since the EPA is proposing torulemake on the Illinois NOX rule undera parallel process, it must be recognizedthat a possibility exists that the State ofIllinois will adopt a final version of therule which differs from the version ofthe rule reviewed in this proposed rule.

If the State makes significant changesin the rule as a result of its own rule

public comment and adoption processand based on further deliberation and/or on comments other than based on thedeficiencies noted above, the EPA willre-evaluate the rule through a newproposed rule. If, on the other hand, theState only makes changes in the rule tocorrect the deficiencies addressed inthis proposed rule consistent with theanalysis presented here, the EPA willproceed to final rulemaking.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget(OMB) has exempted this regulatoryaction from the Executive Order 12866,entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning andReview.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),applies to any rule that: (1) isdetermined to be ‘‘economicallysignificant’’ as defined under ExecutiveOrder 12866, and (2) concerns anenvironmental health or safety risk thatEPA has reason to believe may have adisproportionate effect on children. Ifthe regulatory action meets both criteria,the Agency must evaluate theenvironmental health or safety effects ofthe planned rule on children, andexplain why the planned regulation ispreferable to other potentially effectiveand reasonably feasible alternativesconsidered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to ExecutiveOrder 13045 because it does not involvedecisions intended to mitigateenvironmental health or safety risks thatmay have a disproportionate effect onchildren.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPAmay not issue a regulation that is notrequired by statute, that significantlyaffects or uniquely affects thecommunities of Indian tribalgovernments, and that imposessubstantial direct compliance costs onthose communities, unless the Federalgovernment provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by the tribalgovernments, or EPA consults withthose governments. If EPA complies byconsulting, Executive Order 13084requires EPA to provide to the Office ofManagement and Budget, in a separatelyidentified section of the preamble to therule, a description of the extent of EPA’sprior consultation with representativesof affected tribal governments, asummary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need toissue the regulation. In addition,Executive Order 13084 requires EPA todevelop an effective process permittingelected officials and otherrepresentatives of Indian tribalgovernments ‘‘to provide meaningfuland timely input in the development ofregulatory policies on matters thatsignificantly or uniquely affect theircommunities.’’

Today’s proposed rule does notsignificantly or uniquely affect thecommunities of Indian tribalgovernments. This action does notinvolve or impose any requirements thataffect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, therequirements of section 3(b) ofExecutive Order 13084 do not apply tothis rule.

D. Executive Order 13132Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces ExecutiveOrders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875(Enhancing the IntergovernmentalPartnership). Executive Order 13132requires EPA to develop an accountableprocess to ensure ‘‘meaningful andtimely input by State and local officialsin the development of regulatorypolicies that have federalismimplications.’’ ‘‘Policies that havefederalism implications’’ is defined inthe Executive Order to includeregulations that have ‘‘substantial directeffects on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government.’’ UnderExecutive Order 13132, EPA may notissue a regulation that has federalismimplications, that imposes substantialdirect compliance costs, and that is notrequired by statute, unless the Federalgovernment provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by State and localgovernments, or EPA consults withState and local officials early in theprocess of developing the proposedregulation. EPA also may not issue aregulation that has federalismimplications and that preempts Statelaw unless the Agency consults withState and local officials early in theprocess of developing the proposedregulation.

This rule will not have substantialdirect effects on the States, on therelationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, because itmerely approves a state ruleimplementing a federal standard, and



does not alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities established in the CleanAir Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 6 of the Executive Order do notapply to this rule.

E. Regulatory FlexibilityThe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conducta regulatory flexibility analysis of anyrule subject to notice and commentrulemaking requirements unless theagency certifies that the rule will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.Small entities include small businesses,small not-for-profit enterprises, andsmall governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities because SIP approvals undersection 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act do not create any newrequirements but simply approverequirements that the State is alreadyimposing. Therefore, because theFederal SIP approval does not createany new requirements, I certify that thisaction will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of theFederal-State relationship under theClean Air Act, preparation of flexibilityanalysis would constitute Federalinquiry into the economicreasonableness of state action. TheClean Air Act forbids EPA to base itsactions concerning SIPs on suchgrounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded MandatesUnder sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signedinto law on March 22, 1995, EPA mustprepare a budgetary impact statement toaccompany any proposed or final rulethat includes a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated costs to State,local, or tribal governments in theaggregate; or to the private sector, of$100 million or more. Under section205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensomealternative that achieves the objectivesof the rule and is consistent withstatutory requirements. Section 203requires EPA to establish a plan forinforming and advising any smallgovernments that may be significantlyor uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approvalaction proposed does not include aFederal mandate that may result inestimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribalgovernments in the aggregate, or to theprivate sector. This Federal actionproposes to approve pre-existingrequirements under State or local law,and imposes no new requirements.Accordingly, no additional costs toState, local, or tribal governments, or tothe private sector, result from thisaction.


Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Intergovernmentalrelations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.


Dated: August 24, 2000.Francis X. Lyons,Regional Administrator, Region 5.[FR Doc. 00–22385 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P



[Docket OR–84–7299b; FRL–6858–2]

Approval and Promulgation of StateImplementation Plans; Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) proposes to approve therevisions to Oregon’s StateImplementation Plan which weresubmitted on November 10, 1999. Theserevisions consist of: Approval of the1993 carbon monoxide periodicemissions inventory for Grants Pass,Oregon; approval of the Grants Passcarbon monoxide maintenance plan;and redesignation of Grants Pass fromnonattainment to attainment for carbonmonoxide.

In the Final Rules section of thisFederal Register, the EPA is approvingthe State’s SIP submittal as a direct finalrule without prior proposal because theAgency views this as a noncontroversialsubmittal amendment and anticipatesno adverse comments. A detailedrationale for the approval is set forth inthe direct final rule. If no adversecomments are received in response tothis action, no further activity iscontemplated.

If the EPA receives adversecomments, the direct final rule will bewithdrawn and all public commentsreceived will be addressed in asubsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will notinstitute a second comment period. Anyparties interested in commenting on thisaction should do so at this time.DATES: Written comments must bereceived in writing by October 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to Debra Suzuki, Office ofAir Quality (OAQ–107), at the EPARegional Office listed below.

Copies of the State’s request and otherinformation supporting this action areavailable for inspection during normalbusiness hours at the followinglocations: EPA, Office of Air Quality(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,Washington 98101, and State of OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality,811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon97204–1390.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Debra Suzuki, Office of Air Quality(OAQ–107), EPA, Seattle, Washington,(206) 553–0985.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Foradditional information, see the DirectFinal rule which is located in the Rulessection of this Federal Register.

Dated: August 17, 2000.Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.[FR Doc. 00–22055 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


40 CFR Part 125

[FRL–6862–8]

Extension of Comment Period forNational Pollutant DischargeElimination System; RegulationsAddressing Cooling Water IntakeStructures for New Facilities;Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of extension of commentperiod for proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending thecomment period for the proposed ruleaddressing cooling water intakestructures for new facilities. Theproposed rule was published in theFederal Register on August 10, 2000 (65FR 49060). The comment period for theproposed rule is extended by 30 days,ending on November 9, 2000. In light ofissues raised by the regulatedcommunity and the plaintiffs in thelawsuit establishing the schedule forthis action, EPA agrees that extendingthe comment period to 90 days isappropriate due to the complexity and



the range of issues raised by theproposed rule.DATES: Comments on the proposed rulewill be accepted through November 9,2000.ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:Cooling Water Intake Structure (NewFacilities) Proposed Rule CommentClerk—W–00–03, Water Docket, MailCode 4101, EPA, Ariel Rios Building,1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,Washington, DC 20460. Commentsdelivered in person (including overnightmail) should be submitted to theCooling Water Intake Structure (NewFacilities) Proposed Rule CommentClerk—W–00–03, Water Docket, RoomEB 57, 401 M Street, S.W., WashingtonDC 20460. Please submit any referencescited in your comments. Submit anoriginal and three copies of your writtencomments and enclosures. No facsimiles(faxes) will be accepted. For informationon how to submit electronic comments,see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection below.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foradditional technical information,contact Deborah G. Nagle at (202) 260–2656, or James T. Morgan at (202) 260–6015. For additional economicinformation, contact Lynne Tudor at(202) 260–5384.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August10, 2000, EPA published proposedregulations under section 316(b) of theClean Water Act (CWA) addressingcooling water intake structures for newfacilities for public review and comment(65 FR 49060). The comment period wasscheduled to end on October 10, 2000.

EPA has received requests to extendthe comment period from the regulatedcommunity and from the plaintiffs inthe lawsuit establishing the schedule forthis action. In response to theserequests, EPA is extending the commentperiod 30 days, through November 9,2000, due to the complexity and therange of issues raised by the proposedrule. However, EPA does not believethat additional time beyond 90 days isneeded to comment adequately on theproposed rule. The regulatedcommunity has known since October1995 that EPA was operating under acourt order entered by the U.S. DistrictCourt, Southern District of New Yorkthat requires EPA to propose and take

final action on this rule. Thus, they havehad sufficient time to plan and conductresearch projects they would like to relyupon to support their comments (forexample, research into the survival ratesof organisms drawn into and laterdischarged from cooling water intakesystems). EPA conducted two publicmeetings on this rulemaking in 1998and has met on numerous occasionswith interested parties to discuss theAgency’s plans for regulating coolingwater intake structures. In particular, inMay and June 2000, EPA held a seriesof meetings with interested groups todescribe the draft framework for theproposed rule. EPA also made copies ofthe proposed rule and preambleavailable to representatives ofpotentially regulated industries, States,and environmental groups on July 21,2000, 19 days prior to publication of theproposed rule and preamble in theFederal Register.

In addition to accepting hard-copywritten comments, EPA will also acceptcomments submitted electronically.Electronic comments must be submittedas a Word Perfect 5/6/7/8 or ASCII fileand must be submitted to [email protected].

Dated: August 24, 2000.J. Charles Fox,Assistant Administrator for Water.[FR Doc. 00–22387 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–U


40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–30115C; FRL–6743–4]

RIN 2070–AD23

Pesticide Tolerance Processing Fees;Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed Rule; Reopening ofComment Period.

SUMMARY: On July 24, 2000 EPApartially reopened the comment periodon its proposed rule on toleranceprocessing fees to provide for publiccomment on additional data andinformation pertaining to fees for

pesticide inert ingredients. EPA allotted30 days for the submission of commentsand due to the pressing nature of theproposed regulation, stated that itwould not extend this 30–day commentperiod further. However, due to anoverwhelming request fromstakeholders for additional time, theAgency has decided to reopen andextend the comment period for anadditional 15–day period.

DATES: Written comments, identified bythe docket number OPP–30115C, mustbe received on or before September 15,2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may besubmitted by mail, electronically, or inperson. Please follow the detailedinstructions for each method asprovided in Unit I of the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section. To ensure properreceipt by EPA, it is essential that youidentify docket control number OPP–30115C in the subject line on the firstpage of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Carol Peterson, Office of PesticidePrograms (7506C), U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg.,1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephonenumber: (703) 305–6598; e-mail address:[email protected].


I. General Information

A. Does this Document Apply to Me?

This document may directly affectany person or company who mightpetition the Agency for new tolerances,hold a pesticide registration withexisting tolerances, or any person orcompany who is interested in obtainingor retaining a tolerance in the absenceof a registration. This group can includepesticide manufacturers or formulators,companies that manufacture inertingredients, importers of food, growergroups, or any person who seeks atolerance. Federal, State, local,territorial, or tribal government agenciesthat petition for, or hold, emergencyexemption tolerances are exempt fromthis rule. The vast majority ofpotentially affected categories andentities may include, but are not limitedto:

Category NAICS Examples of Potentially Affected Entities

Chemical Industry 325320 Pesticide chemical manufacturers, formulators115112 Chemical manufacturers of inert ingredients



This listing is not intended to beexhaustive, but rather provides a guidefor readers regarding entities likely to beregulated by this action. Other types ofentities not listed above also couldpotentially be affected by this notice.The six-digit North American IndustrialClassification System (NAICS) codeshave been provided to assist you andothers in determining whether or notthis notice applies to certain entities. Todetermine whether you or your businessis regulated by this action, you shouldcarefully examine the applicabilityprovisions in this document. If you haveany questions regarding theapplicability of this action to aparticular entity, consult the personlisted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get AdditionalInformation or Copies of this Documentor Other Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtainelectronic copies of this document andvarious support documents from theEPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulationsand Proposed Rules,’’ and then look upthe entry for this document under the‘‘Federal Register -- EnvironmentalDocuments.’’ You can also go directly tothe ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at http://www.epa.gov/homepage/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The official record forthis notice, including the publicversion, has been established underdocket control number OPP–30115C(including comments and datasubmitted electronically as describedbelow). A public version of this record,including printed, paper versions of anyelectronic comments, which does notinclude any information claimed asConfidential Business Information (CBI),is available for inspection in Rm. 119,Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson DavisHighway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m.to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,excluding legal holidays. The PublicInformation and Records IntegrityBranch telephone number is 703–305–5805.

C. How and to Whom Do I SubmitComments?

As described in Unit I.C of the July24, 2000 Federal Register document (65FR 45569) (FRL–6594–2), you maysubmit comments through the mail, inperson, or electronically. Please followthe instructions that are provided in theJuly 24, 2000 notice and be sure toidentify the appropriate docket number(i.e., ‘‘OPP–30115C’’) in the subject lineon the first page of your response.

D. How Should I Handle ConfidentialBusiness Information that I Want toSubmit to the Agency?

You may claim information that yousubmit in response to this document asCBI by marking any part or all of thatinformation as CBI. Information somarked will not be disclosed except inaccordance with procedures set forth in40 CFR part 2. A copy of the commentthat does not contain CBI must besubmitted for inclusion in the publicrecord. Information not markedconfidential will be included in thepublic docket by EPA without priornotice. If you have any questions aboutCBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,please consult the person identified inthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

E. What Should I Consider as I PrepareMy Comments for EPA?

We invite you to provide your viewson the information presented, newapproaches to be considered, thepotential impacts of the information(including possible unintendedconsequences), and any data orinformation that you would like theAgency to consider during thedevelopment of the final action. Youmay find the following suggestionshelpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly aspossible.

2. Describe any assumptions that youused.

3. Provide solid technical informationand/or data to support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden orcosts, explain how you arrived at theestimate.

5. Tell us what you support, as wellas what you disagree with.

6. Provide specific examples toillustrate your concerns.

7. Offer alternative ways to improvethe rule or collection activity.

8. Make sure to submit yourcomments by the deadline in thisnotice.

9. At the beginning of your comments(e.g., as part of the ‘‘Subject’’ heading),be sure to properly identify thedocument you are commenting on. Youcan do this by providing the docketnumber assigned to the notice, alongwith the name, date, and FederalRegister citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

The Agency issued a call foradditional comments relating to newdata and information toleranceprocessing fees for inert pesticideingredients. The background and thecontents of the document can be found

in the Federal Register documentpublished on July 24, 2000. The originalproposed rule can be found in theFederal Register document publishedon June 9, 1999. The comment periodfor the proposed rule is being reopenedfor an additional 15 days. Commentsmust now be submitted to the Agencyon or before September 15, 2000.

III. Do Any Regulatory AssessmentRequirements Apply to this Action?

Yes. This action discusses andrequests comments on additional dataand/or information related to aproposed rule that was previouslypublished in the Federal Register onJune 9, 1999 (64 FR 31039) (FRL–6028–2). For information about theapplicability of the regulatoryassessment requirements to theproposed rule and this supplementalproposal, please refer to the discussionin Unit VII of that document.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,Agricultural commodities, Pesticidesand pests, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Dated: August 23, 2000.

Susan B. Hazen,

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc 00–22388 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 a.m.]BILLING CODE 6560–50–S


40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6861–8]


AGENCY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed Deletion of theWheeling Disposal Service Company,Incorporated, Landfill Site (site) fromthe National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The EPA Region VII proposesto delete the Wheeling Disposal ServiceCompany, Incorporated, Landfill sitefrom the NPL and requests publiccomment on this action. The NPLconstitutes Appendix B to Part 300 ofthe National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan(NCP), which EPA promulgatedpursuant to Section 105 of theComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability



Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. TheEPA has determined that the site posesno significant threat to public health orthe environment, as defined byCERCLA; and therefore, furtherremedial measures pursuant to CERCLAare not appropriate.

We are publishing this rule withoutprior proposal because the Agencyviews this as a noncontroversialrevision and anticipates no dissentingcomments. A detailed rationale for thisapproval is set forth in the direct finalrule that appears elsewhere in this issueof the Federal Register. If no dissentingcomments are received, no furtheractivity is contemplated. If EPA receivesdissenting comments, the direct finalaction will be withdrawn, and all publiccomments received will be addressed ina subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will notinstitute a second comment period. Anyparties interested in commenting shoulddo so at this time.

DATES: Comments concerning thisAction must be received by October 2,2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed toCatherine Barrett, Remedial ProjectManager, Superfund Division, Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region VII, 901 North 5th Street, KansasCity, Kansas 66101. Comprehensiveinformation on this site is availablethrough the public docket which isavailable for viewing at the SiteInformation Repository at U.S. EPARegion VII, Superfund Division RecordsCenter, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101 or Wheeling LocalRepository, Rolling Hills Library, 514West Main Street, Savannah, Missouri.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Catherine Barrett, Remedial ProjectManager, Superfund Division, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 901North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas66101, telephone (913) 551–7704, fax(913) 551–7063.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Foradditional information, see the DirectFinal Action which is located in theRules Section of this Federal Register.

Dated: August 18, 2000.William Rice,Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.[FR Doc. 00–22378 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains documents other than rules orproposed rules that are applicable to thepublic. Notices of hearings and investigations,committee meetings, agency decisions andrulings, delegations of authority, filing ofpetitions and applications and agencystatements of organization and functions areexamples of documents appearing in thissection.

Notices Federal Register

52982

Vol. 65, No. 170


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Housing Service

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Rural Utilities Service

Farm Service Agency

Notice of Request for Extension of aCurrently Approved InformationCollection

AGENCIES: Rural Housing Service, RuralBusiness-Cooperative Service, RuralUtilities Service, Farm Service Agency,USDA.ACTION: Proposed collection; commentsrequested.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, thisnotice announces the subject agencies’intention to request an extension for acurrently approved informationcollection in support of the programs for7 CFR part 1956, subpart B, ‘‘DebtSettlement—Farmer Loan Programs andMulti-Family Housing.’’DATES: Comments on this notice must bereceived by October 30, 2000 to beassured of consideration.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Phillip Elder, Senior Loan Officer,USDA, FSA, Farm Loan Programs, LoanServicing Division, 1400 IndependenceAve. SW., Washington, DC 20250–0523,telephone (202) 690–4012. Electronicmail: [email protected] INFORMATION:

Title: Debt Settlement—Farm LoanPrograms and Multi-Family Housing.

OMB Number: 0575–0118.Expiration Date of Approval: October

31, 2000.Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved informationcollection.

Abstract: This regulation definesitems to be submitted by borrowers torequest settlement of their debt.

Information regarding past and presentincome, living expenses, debtrepayment, assets and liabilities isobtained. The information is used todetermine if acceptance of thesettlement offer is in the best interest ofthe Government and document theborrower’s request and offer.

Estimate of Burden: Public reportingfor this collection of information isestimated to average 8.5 hours perresponse.

Respondents: Individuals orhouseholds, businesses or other forprofit and farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents:2,900.

Estimated Number of Responses perRespondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Responses:2,900.

Estimated Total Annual Burden onRespondents: 24,650.

Copies of this information collectioncan be obtained from Barbara Williams,Regulations and PaperworkManagement Branch, Support ServicesDivision at (202) 692–0045.

Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whetherthe proposed collection of informationis necessary for the proper performanceof the functions of the subject agencies,including whether the information willhave practical utility; (b) the accuracy ofthe Agencies’ estimate of the burden ofthe proposed collection of informationincluding the validity of themethodology and assumptions used; (c)ways to enhance the quality, utility andclarity of the information to becollected; and (d) ways to minimize theburden of the collection of informationon those who are to respond, includingthrough the use of appropriateautomated, electronic, mechanical, orother technological collectiontechniques or other forms of informationtechnology. Comments may be sent toBarbara Williams, Regulations andPaperwork Management Branch,Support Services Division, U.S.Department of Agriculture, RuralDevelopment, STOP 0742, 1400Independence Ave. SW., Washington,DC 20250. All responses to this noticewill be summarized and included in therequest for OMB approval. Allcomments will also become a matter ofpublic record.

Dated: August 18, 2000.Jill Long Thompson,Under Secretary for Rural Development.

Dated: August 8, 2000.August Schumacher, Jr.,Undersecretary for Farm and ForeignAgricultural Services.[FR Doc. 00–22312 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–XV–U

BROADCASTING BOARD OFGOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: September 12, 2000; 9:30a.m.–5 p.m.; September 13, 2000; 9:30a.m.–11 a.m.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330Independence Ave., SW., Washington,DC 20237.

CLOSED MEETING: The members of theBroadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)will meet in closed session to reviewand discuss a number of issues relatingto U.S. Government-funded non-military international broadcasting.They will address internal procedural,budgetary, and personnel issues, as wellas sensitive foreign policy issuesrelating to potential options in the U.S.international broadcasting field. Thismeeting is closed because if open itlikely would either disclose matters thatwould be properly classified to be keptsecret in the interest of foreign policyunder the appropriate executive order (5U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would discloseinformation the premature disclosure ofwhich would be likely to significantlyfrustrate implementation of a proposedagency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B))In addition, part of the discussion willrelate solely to the internal personneland organizational issues of the BBG orthe International Broadcasting Bureau.(5 U.S.C. 552b.(c) (2) and (6))

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:Persons interested in obtaining moreinformation should contact eitherBrenda Hardnett or John Lindburg at(202) 401–3736.

Dated: August 25, 2000.John A. Lindburg,Legal Counsel.[FR Doc. 00–22507 Filed 8–29–00; 1:46 pm]BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:26 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 31AUN1

52983Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Notices

1 The Act expired on August 20, 1994. ExecutiveOrder 12924 (3 C.F.R., 1994 Comp. 917 (1995)),which has been extended by successive PresidentialNotices, the most recent being that of August 3,2000 (65 FR 48347, August 8, 2000), continued theRegulations in effect under the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.A.sections 1701–1706 (1991 & Supp. 2000)).

2 Pursuant to appropriate delegations of authoritythat are reflected in the Regulations, the Director,Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with theDirector, Office of Export Enforcement, exercisesthe authority granted to the Secretary by Section11(h) of the Act.

CENSUS MONITORING BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

Announcement Date: August 29, 2000.AGENCY: U.S. Census Monitoring Board.ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice, in compliancewith P.L. 105–119, sets forth themeeting date, time, and location for apublic meeting of the U.S. CensusMonitoring Board in Atlanta, Georgia.The agenda is to hear from communitybased groups regarding the operations ofthe census within the area.Additionally, the Board will have ageneral business meeting.DATE: September 11, 2000.TIME: 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.LOCATION: Assembly Room II, GeorgiaCapitol Education Center, 180 CentralAvenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Contact Clark Reid, 301–457–5080,Deputy Executive Director(Congressional Members) or RobertCunningham, 301–457–9900, DeputyExecutive Director (PresidentialMembers.)

Fred T. Asbell,Executive Director, Congressional Members.Mark Johnson,Executive Director, Presidential Members.[FR Doc. 00–22487 Filed 8–29–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–07–M


Economics and StatisticsAdministration

Decennial Census Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Economics and StatisticsAdministration, Department ofCommerce.ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the FederalAdvisory Committee Act (Public Law92–463, as amended by Pub. L. 94–409,Pub. L. 96–523, and Pub. L. 97–375), weare giving notice of a meeting of theDecennial Census Advisory Committee.The Committee will address policy,research, and technical issues related tothe American Community Survey,Census 2000 operations and activitiesand related decennial programs. Lastminute changes to the schedule arepossible, which could prevent us fromgiving advance notice.DATES: On Thursday, September 21,2000, the meeting will begin at 9 a.m.and adjourn at approximately 5 p.m. OnFriday, September 22, 2000, the meeting

will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn atapproximately 12:15 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting is at the HiltonAlexandria Mark Center Hotel, 5000Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Maxine Anderson-Brown, CommitteeLiaison Officer, Department ofCommerce, Bureau of the Census, Room1647, Federal Building 3, Washington,DC 20233; telephone 301–457–2308,TDD 301–457–2540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDecennial Census Advisory Committeeis composed of a Chair, Vice-Chair, andup to 40 member organizations, allappointed by the Secretary ofCommerce. The Committee considersthe goals of the decennial census andusers’ needs for information providedby that census. The Committee providesan outside user perspective about howresearch and design plans for the 2010decennial census, and the developmentof the American Community Survey andother related programs, will realizethose goals and satisfy those needs. Themembers of the Advisory Committeedraw on their experience with Census2000 planning and operationalprocesses, results of research studies,test censuses, and results of the Census2000 Evaluation Program to provideinput on the design and relatedoperations of the 2010 decennial census,the American Community Survey, andother related programs.

A brief period will be set aside at themeeting for public comment. However,individuals with extensive statementsfor the record must submit them inwriting to the Commerce Departmentofficial named above at least threeworking days prior to the meeting.Seating is available to the public on afirst-come, first-served basis.

The meeting is physically accessibleto people with disabilities. Requests forsign language interpretation or otherauxiliary aids should be directed to theCensus Bureau Committee LiaisonOfficer on 301–457–2308, TDD 301–457–2540.


James K. White,Associate Under Secretary for Management,Economics and Statistics Administration.[FR Doc. 00–22231 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–M


Bureau of Export Administration

Action Affecting Export Privileges;Dien’s Auto Salvage, Inc.; OrderDenying Export Privileges

On January 26, 2000, Dien’s AutoSalvage, Inc. was convicted in theUnited States District Court for theWestern District of Louisiana atLafayette on multiple counts of violatingthe Export Administration Act of 1979,as amended (currently codified at 50U.S.C.A. app. sections 2401–2420 (1991& Supp. 2000)) (the Act),1 among othercrimes. Specifically, Dien’s AutoSalvage, Inc. was convicted ofknowingly and intentionally exportingUnited States military vehicles andmilitary vehicle parts to Vietnamwithout obtaining the required exportlicense from the Department ofCommerce.

Section 11(h) of the Act provides that,at the discretion of the Secretary ofCommerce,2 no person convicted ofviolating the Act, or certain otherprovisions of the United States Code,shall be eligible to apply for or use anyexport license issued pursuant to, orprovided by, the Act or the ExportAdministration Regulations (currentlycodified at 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2000),as amended (65 FR 14862, March 20,2000)) (the Regulations), for a period ofup to 10 years from the date of theconviction. In addition, any licenseissued pursuant to the Act in whichsuch a person had any interest at thetime of conviction may be revoked.

Pursuant to sections 766.25 and750.8(a) of the Regulations, uponnotification that a person has beenconvicted of violating the Act, theDirector, Office of Exporter Services, inconsultation with the Director, Office ofExport Enforcement, shall determinewhether to deny that person’s exportprivileges for a period of up to 10 yearsfrom the date of conviction and shallalso determine whether to revoke anylicense previously issued to such aperson.

Having received notice of Dien’s AutoSalvage, Inc.’s conviction for violating


52984 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Notices

the Act, and after providing notice andan opportunity for Dien’s Auto Salvage,Inc. to make a written submission to theBureau of Export Administration beforeissuing an Order denying its exportprivileges, as provided in Section766.25 of the Regulations, I, followingconsultations with the Director, Officeof Export Enforcement, have decided todeny Dien’s Auto Salvage, Inc.’s exportprivileges for a period of 10 years fromthe date of its conviction. The 10-yearperiod ends on January 26, 2010. I havealso decided to revoke all licensesissued pursuant to the Act in whichDien’s Auto Salvage, Inc. had an interestat the time of its conviction.

Accordingly, it is hereby orderedI. Until January 26, 2010, Dien’s Auto

Salvage, Inc., 6157 Johnston Street,Lafayette, Louisiana 70503, may not,directly or indirectly, participate in anyway in any transaction involving anycommodity, software or technology(hereinafter collectively referred to as‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported fromthe United States, that is subject to theRegulations, or in any other activitysubject to the Regulations, including,but not limited to:

A. Applying for, obtaining, or usingany license, License Exception, orexport control document;

B. Carrying on negotiationsconcerning, or ordering, buying,receiving, using, selling, delivering,storing, disposing of, forwarding,transporting, financing, or otherwiseservicing in any way, any transactioninvolving any item exported or to beexported from the United States that issubject to the Regulations, or in anyother activity subject to the Regulations;or

C. Benefiting in any way from anytransaction involving any item exportedor to be exported from the United Statesthat is subject to the Regulations, or inany other activity subject to theRegulations.

II. No person may, directly orindirectly, do any of the following:

A. Export or reexport to or on behalfof the denied person any item subject tothe Regulations;

B. Take any action that facilitates theacquisition or attempted acquisition bythe denied person of the ownership,possession, or control of any itemsubject to the Regulations that has beenor will be exported from the UnitedStates, including financing or othersupport activities related to atransaction whereby the denied personacquires or attempts to acquire suchownership, possession or control;

C. Take any action to acquire from orto facilitate the acquisition or attemptedacquisition from the denied person of

any item subject to the Regulations thathas been exported from the UnitedStates;

D. Obtain from the denied person inthe United States any item subject to theRegulations with knowledge or reasonto know that the item will be, or isintended to be, exported from theUnited States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to serviceany item subject to the Regulations thathas been or will be exported from theUnited States and which is owned,possessed or controlled by the deniedperson, or service any item, of whateverorigin, that is owned, possessed orcontrolled by the denied person if suchservice involves the use of any itemsubject to the Regulations that has beenor will be exported form the UnitedStates. For purposes of this paragraph,servicing means installation,maintenance, repair, modification ortesting.

III. After notice and opportunity forcomment as provided in Section 766.23of the Regulations, any person, firm,corporation, or business organizationrelated to Dien’s Auto Salvage, Inc. byaffiliation, ownership, control, orposition of responsibility in the conductof trade or related services may also besubject to the provisions of this Order.

IV. This Order does not prohibit anyexport, reexport, or other transactionsubject to the Regulations where theonly items involved that are subject tothe Regulations are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origintechnology.

V. This Order is effective immediatelyand shall remain in effect until January26, 2010.

VI. In accordance with Part 756 of theRegulations, Dien’s Auto Salvage, Inc.may file an appeal from this Order withthe Under Secretary for ExportAdministration. The appeal must befiled within 45 days from the date ofthis Order and must comply with theprovisions of Part 756 of theRegulations.

VII. A copy of this Order shall bedelivered to Dien’s Auto Salvage, Inc.This Order shall be published in theFederal Register.


Eileen M. Albanese,Director, Office of Exporter Services.[FR Doc. 00–22249 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P


Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 52–2000]

Foreign-Trade Zone 44—Mount Olive,New Jersey, Area; Application forExpansion

An application has been submitted tothe Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board(the Board), by the New JerseyCommerce and Economic GrowthCommission, grantee of Foreign-TradeZone 44, requesting authority to expandits zone in the Mt. Olive, New Jersey,area, within the New York/NewarkCustoms port of entry. The applicationwas submitted pursuant to theprovisions of the Foreign-Trade ZonesAct, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),and the regulations of the Board (15 CFRpart 400). It was formally filed onAugust 22, 2000.

FTZ 44 was approved on October 19,1978 (Board Order 139, 43 FR 50234,10/27/78). The general-purpose zonecurrently consists of one site (77 acres)within the 650-acre International TradeCenter located in the Mt. OliveTownship of Morris County, NewJersey.

The applicant is now requestingauthority to expand its general purposezone to include an additional site:Proposed Site 2 (309 acres, 2 parcels)—Rockefeller Cranbury Industrial Park(Carter-Wallace, Inc./the RockefellerGroup), Half Acre Road and north ofCranbury Station Road in CranburyTownship, Middlesex County. Nospecific manufacturing requests arebeing made at this time. Such requestswould be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis.

In accordance with the Board’sregulations, a member of the FTZ Staffhas been designated examiner toinvestigate the application and report tothe Board.

Public comment on the application isinvited from interested parties.Submissions (original and 3 copies)shall be addressed to the Board’sExecutive Secretary at the addressbelow. The closing period for theirreceipt is October 30, 2000. Rebuttalcomments in response to materialsubmitted during the foregoing periodmay be submitted during the subsequent15-day period to November 14, 2000.

A copy of the application andaccompanying exhibits will be availablefor public inspection at each of thefollowing locations:Office of the Rockefeller Group, 500

International Drive—North, Suite 345,Mount Olive, NJ 07828;



Office of the Executive Secretary,Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room4008, U.S. Department of Commerce,14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230.Dated: August 24, 2000.

Dennis Puccinelli,Executive Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22217 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P


International Trade Administration

[A–588–046]

Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan:Notice of Rescission of AntidumpingDuty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of rescission ofantidumping duty administrativereview.

SUMMARY: On January 26, 2000, theDepartment of Commerce (‘‘theDepartment’’) published in the FederalRegister the notice of initiation of anadministrative review of theantidumping duty order onpolychloroprene rubber from Japan forDenki Kagaku Kogyo K.K. (‘‘Denka’’)and Tosoh Corporation (‘‘Tosoh’’). See65 FR 4228. This review was requestedby the petitioner, DuPont DowElastomers L.L.C. (‘‘DuPont’’), andcovers the period December 1, 1998,through November 30, 1999. We arenow rescinding this review as a resultof DuPont’s timely withdrawal of itsrequest for an administrative review forDenka and the non-shipper status ofTosoh.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nova Daly or Ron Trentham, Group II,Office 4, Office of AD/CVDEnforcement, Import Administration,International Trade Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, 14thStreet and Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)482–0989 or 482–6320, respectively.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and RegulationsUnless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references tothe provisions effective January 1, 1995,the effective date of the amendments tothe Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) by theUruguay Round Agreements Act. Inaddition, unless otherwise indicated, allcitations to the Department’s regulations

are to the regulations as codified at 19CFR Part 351 (1999).

BackgroundOn December 28, 1999, the petitioner,

DuPont, requested that the Departmentconduct an administrative review of theantidumping duty order onpolychloroprene rubber from Japan forthe period December 1, 1998, throughNovember 30, 1999, covering twoproducers and/or exporters: Denka andTosoh. No other interested partyrequested that the Department conductan administrative review. On January26, 2000, the Department initiated anadministrative review (65 FR 4228).

Scope of the ReviewImports covered by this review are

shipments of polychloroprene rubber,an oil resistant synthetic rubber alsoknown as polymerized chlorobutadieneor neoprene, currently classifiable underitems 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00,4003.00.00, 4462.15.21 and 4462.00.00of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule ofthe United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). HTSUSitem numbers are provided forconvenience and for the U.S. CustomsService purposes. The writtendescriptions remain dispositive.

Rescission of 1998/1999 AntidumpingDuty Administrative Review

On February 10, 2000, in response tothe Department’s questionnaire, Tosohstated that it had made no shipments tothe United States of the subjectmerchandise during the period ofreview (‘‘POR’’). The Departmentindependently confirmed with the U.S.Customs Service that there were noshipments from Tosoh during the POR.Therefore, in accordance with section351.213(d)(3) of the Department’sregulations, and consistent with ourpractice, we are treating this firm as anon-shipper for purposes of this review.Moreover, the Department invitedinterested parties to comment on ourintent to rescind this review withrespect to Tosoh. See RescissionMemorandum from Ron Trentham toHolly A. Kuga, dated August 4, 2000(‘‘Recission Memo’’). Interested partieswere given until the close of business onAugust 18, 2000, to submit theircomments. No parties submittedcomments. Therefore, we are rescindingthis review with respect to Tosoh (see,e.g. Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipeand Tube from Turkey: Final Resultsand Partial Recission of AntidumpingAdministrative Review, 63 FR 35190,35191 (June 29, 1998)).

On February 23, 2000, the petitionerfiled a letter with the Departmentwithdrawing its request that the

Department conduct an administrativereview of Denka’s sales. Thiswithdrawal complies with section351.213(d)(1) of the Department’sregulations which grants parties 90 daysfrom the publication of the notice ofinitiation of review to withdraw theirrequest for review. Because of the non-shipper status of Tosoh, DuPont’s timelyrequest for the termination of the reviewfor Denka, and the fact that there wereno responses to the Rescission Memo,the Department is rescinding this reviewin its entirety in accordance withsection 351.213(d) of our regulations.

This notice is in accordance withsection 751 of the Act and section351.213(d) of the Department’sregulations.

Dated: August 24, 2000.Holly A. Kuga,Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 00–22355 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P


International Trade Administration

[A–570–804]

Continuation of Antidumping DutyOrder: Sparklers from the People’sRepublic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of continuation ofantidumping duty order: Sparklers fromthe People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On February 3, 2000, theDepartment of Commerce (‘‘theDepartment’’), pursuant to sections751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930,as amended (‘‘the Act’’), determinedthat revocation of the antidumping dutyorder on sparklers from the People’sRepublic of China (‘‘PRC’’), is likely tolead to continuation or recurrence ofdumping. See 65 FR 5312 (February 3,2000).

On July 6, 2000, the InternationalTrade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’),pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act,determined that revocation of theantidumping duty order on sparklersfrom the PRC would be likely to lead tocontinuation or recurrence of materialinjury to an industry in the UnitedStates within a reasonably foreseeabletime. See 65 FR 41728 (July 6, 2000).Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR351.218(f)(4), the Department ispublishing notice of the continuation ofthe antidumping duty order on sparklersfrom the PRC.



EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy forImport Administration, InternationalTrade Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, 14th Street andConstitution Ave., NW., Washington,DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5050.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundOn July 1, 1999, the Department

initiated, and the Commission institutedsunset reviews (64 FR 35588 and 64 FR35689) of the antidumping duty orderon sparklers from the PRC, pursuant tosection 751(c) of the Act. As a result ofits review the Department found onFebruary 3, 2000, that revocation of theantidumping duty order on sparklersfrom the PRC would likely lead tocontinuation or recurrence of dumpingand notified the Commission of themagnitude of the margins likely toprevail were the order revoked. SeeFinal Results of Expedited SunsetReview: Sparklers From the People’sRepublic of China, 65 FR 5312(February 3, 2000).

On July 6, 2000, the Commissiondetermined, pursuant to section 751(c)of the Act, that revocation of theantidumping duty order on sparklersfrom the PRC would be likely to lead tocontinuation or recurrence of materialinjury to an industry in the UnitedStates within a reasonably foreseeabletime. See Sparklers from China, 65 FR41728 (July 6, 2000) and USITCPublication 3317 (July 2000),Investigation No. 731–TA–464 (Review).

ScopeThe merchandise subject to this

antidumping duty order is sparklersfrom the PRC. Sparklers are fireworkseach comprising a cut-to-length wire,one end of which is coated with achemical mix that emits bright sparkswhile burning. Sparklers are currentlyclassified under Harmonized TariffSchedule (‘‘HTS’’) of the United Statessubheading 3604.10.00. The HTSsubheading is provided for convenienceand customs purposes. The writtendescription remains dispositive.

DeterminationAs a result of the determination by the

Department and the Commission thatrevocation of the antidumping dutyorder on sparklers from the PRC wouldbe likely to lead to continuation orrecurrence of dumping and materialinjury to an industry in the UnitedStates, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) ofthe Act, the Department hereby ordersthe continuation of the antidumpingduty order on sparklers from the PRC.

The Department will instruct the U.S.Customs Service to continue to collectantidumping duty deposits at the ratesin effect at the time of entry for allimports of subject merchandise.

Normally, the effective date ofcontinuation of a finding, order, orsuspension agreement will be the dateof publication in the Federal Register ofthe Notice of Continuation. As providedin 19 CFR 351.218.(f)(4), the Departmentwill issue its determination to continuea finding, order, or suspendedinvestigation not later than seven daysafter the date of publication in theFederal Register of the Commission’sdetermination concluding the sunsetreview and immediately thereafter willpublish its notice of continuation in theFederal Register. In this instant case,however, the Department’s publicationof the Notice of Continuation wasdelayed. The Department has explicitlyindicated that the effective date ofcontinuation of this order is July 13,2000, seven days after the publication inthe Federal Register of theCommission’s determination. As aresult, pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)of the Act, the Department intends toinitiate the next five year review of thisorder not later than June 2005.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Troy H. Cribb,Acting Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 00–22354 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P


National Institute of Standards andTechnology

Judges Panel of the Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Award

AGENCY: National Institute of Standardsand Technology Department ofCommerce.ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the FederalAdvisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.2, notice is hereby given that there willbe a closed meeting of the Judges Panelof the Malcolm Baldrige NationalQuality Award on Thursday, September21, 2000. The Judges Panel is composedof nine members prominent in the fieldof quality management and appointedby the Secretary of Commerce. Thepurpose of this meeting is to review theconsensus process, determine possibleconflict of interest for site visitedcompanies, select applicants for sitevisits, begin stage III of the judgingprocess, review feedback to first stage

applicants, a debriefing on the State andLocal Workshop, and an update on 2001criteria. The application under reviewcontain trade secrets and proprietarycommercial information submitted tothe Government in confidence.DATES: The meeting will conveneSeptember 21, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. andadjourn at 4:30 p.m. on September 21,2000. The entire meeting will be closed.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe National Institute of Standards andTechnology, Red Training Room,Chemistry Building, Gaithersburg,Maryland 20899.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.Harry Hertz, Director, National QualityProgram, National Institute of Standardsand Technology, Gaithersburg,Maryland 20899, telephone number(301) 975–2361.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheAssistant Secretary for Administration,with the concurrence of the GeneralCounsel, formally determined on March31, 2000, that the meeting of the JudgesPanel will be closed pursuant to Section10(d) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, asamended by Section 5(c) of theGovernment in the Sunshine Act, P.L.94–409. The meeting, which involvesexamination of records and discussionof Award applicant data, may be closedto the public in accordance with Section522b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code,since the meeting is likely to disclosetrade secrets and commercial orfinancial information obtained from aperson and privileged or confidential.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Karen H. Brown,Deputy Director.[FR Doc. 00–22348 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–13–M



[I.D. 082500B]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery ManagementCouncil; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico FisheryManagement Council will convene apublic meeting of the SocioeconomicPanel (SEP).DATES: The meeting will be held onWednesday, September 20, 2000,



beginning at 1 p.m. through Friday,September 22, 2000, concluding at 4p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel, 2225Lois Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33607;telephone 813-877-6688.

Council address: Gulf of MexicoFishery Management Council, 3018 U.S.Highway 301 North, Suite 1000 Tampa,FL 33619.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Antonio B. Lamberte, Economist, Gulf ofMexico Fishery Management Council,3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite1000, Tampa, Florida 33619; telephone:813-228-2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SEPwill convene to review available socialand economic data on red snapper, redgrouper, vermilion snapper, and greateramberjack, and to determine the socialand economic implications of the levelsof acceptable biological catches thatmay be recommended by the Council’sReef Fish Stock Assessment Panel. TheSEP may recommend to the Council atotal allowable catch each for greateramberjack, red grouper, and vermilionsnapper for the 2001 fishing year.

Composing the SEP membership areeconomists, sociologists, andanthropologists from variousuniversities and state fishery agenciesthroughout the Gulf. They advise theCouncil on the social and economicimplications of certain fisherymanagement measures.

A copy of the agenda can be obtainedby calling 813-228-2815. Although othernon-emergency issues not on theagendas may come before the SEP fordiscussion, in accordance with theMagnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act,those issues may not be the subject offormal action during these meetings.Actions of the SEP will be restricted tothose issues specifically identified inthe agendas and any issues arising afterpublication of this notice that requireemergency action under Section 305(c)of the Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act,provided the public has been notified ofthe Council’s intent to take action toaddress the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessibleto people with disabilities. Requests forsign language interpretation or otherauxiliary aids should be directed to theCouncil office (see ADDRESSES) bySeptember 13, 2000.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Bruce C. Morehead,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 00–22322 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]Billing Code: 3510–22–S



[I.D. 082800D]

New England Fishery ManagementCouncil; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The New England FisheryManagement Council (Council) isscheduling a public meeting of itsAtlantic Herring Advisory Panel onSeptember 14, 2000 to consider actionsaffecting New England fisheries in theexclusive economic zone (EEZ).Recommendations from the panel willbe brought to the Herring OversightCommittee and the full Council forformal consideration and action, ifappropriate.

DATES: The meeting will be held onSeptember 14, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe Holiday Inn Portsmouth, 300Woodbury Avenue, Portsmouth, NH03801; telephone: (603) 431-8000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PaulJ. Howard, Executive Director, NewEngland Fishery Management Council;(978) 465-0492.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The panelwill develop recommendations forconditions and restrictions on permitsfor foreign vessels fishing for Atlanticherring in the U.S. EEZ. The Councilhas recommended to NMFS that up to5,000 metric tons (mt) of herring beavailable for foreign fishing in 2001. Todate, the Council has received a permitapplication from Lithuania for a portion(1,000 mt) of the total allowable foreignfishing specification (TALFF), inconjunction with an application topurchase 2,000 mt of herring throughjoint ventures (JV). The panel willdevelop recommendations on thisparticular permit, and providerecommendations on general conditionsand restrictions for any future permitapplications for the remainder of the2001 TALFF that may be forthcoming.

The panel also will discuss issues andoptions for a limited entry/controlled

access program for the herring fishery.Although the Council is not currentlyproposing such a program, it hasindicated that it may consider one in thefuture and requests the panel to discussthe matter.

A third item before the panel is theannual specification of limits on theamount of herring available for U.S. at-sea processing by vessels greater than165 feet in length and 750 gross tons(USAP). The Herring FisheryManagement Plan (pending publicationof a Final Rule) requires the Council tomake such a specification. The HerringPlan Development Team recommendsagainst retaining USAP as an annualspecification because it increases theproject’s uncertainty for potentialinvestors in a large domestic processingvessel and limits the potential for thisportion of the domestic allowableprocessing (DAP) specification to beutilized. If the Council decides to makethis change to the plan, it would haveto do so through a plan amendment orframework adjustment.

Although non-emergency issues notcontained in this agenda may comebefore this Panel for discussion, inaccordance with the Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and ManagementAct, those issues may not be the subjectof formal action during this meeting.Action will be restricted to those issuesspecifically identified in this notice andany issues arising after publication ofthis notice that require emergencyaction under Section 305(c) of theMagnuson-Stevens Act, provided thepublic has been notified of the Council’sintent to take action to address theemergency.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physicallyaccessible to people with disabilities.Requests for sign languageinterpretation or other auxiliary aidsshould be directed to Paul J. Howard(see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior tothe meeting dates.


Richard W. Surdi,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 00–22349 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]

Billing Code: 3510–22–S





[I.D.082400B]

Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Receipt of application for ascientific research permit (1260); receiptof applications to modify permits(1190).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of thefollowing actions regarding permits fortakes of endangered and threatenedspecies for the purposes of scientificresearch and/or enhancement: NMFShas received a permit application fromDr. Joseph Powers, Acting RegionalAdministrator - Southeast Region -NMFS (SER) (1260); NMFS has receiveda request to modify permit (1190) fromDr. Rebecca Lent, RegionalAdministrator - Southwest Region,NMFS (SWR).DATES: Comments or requests for apublic hearing on the application ormodification request must be received atthe appropriate address or fax numberno later than 5:00pm eastern standardtime on October 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: Written comments on theapplication or modification requestshould be sent to the appropriate officeas indicated below. Comments may alsobe sent via fax to the number indicatedfor the application or modificationrequest. Comments will not be acceptedif submitted via e-mail or the internet.The applications and related documentsare available for review in the indicatedoffice, by appointment:

For permits 1260, 1190: Office ofProtected Resources, EndangeredSpecies Division, F/PR3, 1315 East-WestHighway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (ph:301-713-1401, fax: 301-713-0376).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Terri Jordan, Silver Spring, MD (ph:301-713-1401, fax: 301-713-0376, e-mail:[email protected]).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

Issuance of permits and permitmodifications, as required by theEndangered Species Act of 1973 (16U.S.C. 1531–1543) (ESA), is based on afinding that such permits/modifications:(1) Are applied for in good faith; (2)would not operate to the disadvantageof the listed species which are thesubject of the permits; and (3) are

consistent with the purposes andpolicies set forth in section 2 of theESA. Authority to take listed species issubject to conditions set forth in thepermits. Permits and modifications areissued in accordance with and aresubject to the ESA and NMFSregulations governing listed fish andwildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222–226).

Those individuals requesting ahearing on an application listed in thisnotice should set out the specificreasons why a hearing on thatapplication would be appropriate (seeADDRESSES). The holding of suchhearing is at the discretion of theAssistant Administrator for Fisheries,NOAA. All statements and opinionscontained in the permit actionsummaries are those of the applicantand do not necessarily reflect the viewsof NMFS.

Species Covered in this NoticeThe following species are covered in

this notice:

Sea TurtlesGreen turtle (Chelonia mydas),

Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelysimbricata), Kemp’s ridley turtle(Lepidochelys kempii), Leatherbackturtle (Dermochelys coriacea),Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), oliveridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea).

New Applications ReceivedApplication 1260: The applicant has

requested a four year permit to takelisted sea turtles in the coastal waters ofthe Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.The research conducted in these areassupports the National Marine FisheriesService sea turtle recovery program.Research activities include: directed inwater research, aerial surveys, resourceassessment surveys, and fisherytechnology testing and implementation.Leatherback, loggerhead, green,hawksbill and Kemp’s ridley sea turtlesare the focus of the recovery efforts inthe southeast region.

Modification Requests ReceivedPermit #1190: The applicant requests

a modification to Permit 1190. Permit1190 authorizes research activities onsea turtles captured incidentally bylongline fishery vessels in the Hawaiianregion. These activities will aid inmonitoring the Hawaiian longlinefishery, a term and condition of theNovember 3, 1998 biological opinion onthat fishery. In addition, these researchactivities are described in the PacificSea Turtle Recovery Plans. Theincidental take of these turtles iscovered by the incidental take statementof the November 3, 1998 opinion. The

purpose of the research is to documentand evaluate the incidental take ofpelagic turtles by the longline fishery, tohelp estimate the impact of the fisheryon listed turtles as individuals and aspopulations, and to determine methodsto reduce that impact. Research willevaluate how incidental captures affectsea turtle anatomy and physiology as afunction of season, location of take,water temperature, species, size, time ofday, and gear configuration. The resultsof the research will help NMFS to bettermeet the goals and objectives of thePacific Sea Turtle Recovery Plans, theHooking Mortality Workshop, and therequirements of Section 7 BiologicalOpinions developed for this fishery, andultimately, to fulfill ESA responsibilitiesto protect, conserve, and recover listedspecies.

Incidentally-captured turtles will beexamined, tagged, weighed, measured,resuscitated using approved techniques,have tissue samples taken, and bereleased. Some of these turtles will havetransmitters attached. Dead turtles willbe removed from the marineenvironment for research purposes,including necropsy and collection of lifehistory data. Tissue samples may beused lab studies including thefollowing: toxicology, histopathology,and genetic studies to identify nestingorigins of incidentally taken turtles.

Modification #2 would increase theauthorized annual take of listed seaturtles from 10 green, 25 leatherback,150 loggerhead, 10 hawksbill and 25olive ridley sea turtles annually to 40green, 100 leatherback, 600 loggerhead,40 hawksbill and 100 olive ridley turtlesannually. The increases are necessarydue to higher numbers of observed takesexpected under court mandatedrequirements. On August 4, 2000 a courtorder was issued and filed in U.S.District Court, District of Hawaii,requiring the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) to increase its observercoverage to over 20% for the Hawaiilongline fishery (historically, NMFS hashad a 3%-5% coverage level for thefishery). The increases in maximumtakes requested are proportional to theincrease in observer coverage required.Additionally, the applicant requests anincrease in the number of hard-shelledturtles which may be tagged withsatellite transmitters from 15 to 50annually.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Barbara Schroeder,Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division,Office of Protected Resources, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 00–22321 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]Billing Code: 3510–22 –S




National Telecommunications andInformation Administration

Public Meeting To Develop GlobalPositioning System/UltrawidebandOperational Scenarios

AGENCY: National Telecommunicationsand Information Administration, U.S.Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Office of SpectrumManagement (OSM) of the NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA) will host a seriesof public meetings to develop theoperational scenarios to be consideredin the assessment of potentialinterference to Global PositioningSystem (GPS) receivers fromultrawideband (UWB) transmissionsystems. Interested parties are invited tomake presentations describing GPS/UWB operational scenarios they expectto be considered in the NTIA analysis.DATES: The first meeting will be heldfrom 9 a.m.–5 p.m., ThursdaySeptember 7, 2000.ADDRESSES: The first meeting will beheld at the U.S. Department ofCommerce, Room 3407, 1401Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,DC 20230. The meeting will be open tothe public. For updated information onthis meeting, please see NTIA’shomepage at <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/uwbtestplan/gpstestfr.htm>.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Steve Jones, Office of SpectrumManagement, telephone: (202) 482–2791; or electronic mail:<[email protected]>; or Ed Drocella,Office of Spectrum Management,telephone: (202) 482–2608; or electronicmail: <[email protected]>.

Media inquiries should be directed tothe Office of Public Affairs, NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration, at (202) 482–7002.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August14, 2000, the NTIA Measurement PlanTo Determine The Potential InterferenceImpact To Global Positioning SystemReceivers From UltrawidebandTransmission Systems was published inthe Federal Register. The measurementsdescribed in this document will notdevelop the operational scenarios or theassociated link budgets. Rather, themeasurements will define the maximumlevel of UWB emissions that can betolerated at the input of each GPSreceiver considered. The maximumtolerable UWB emission level will thenbe used in a separate link budgetanalysis for each specific UWB-to-GPS

operational scenario identified tocalculate the maximum permissibleoutput power of a UWB transmissionsystem, under given parametercombinations, that will ensurecompatibility with GPS receivers. Theoperational scenarios will be dependentupon both existing and projected GPSand UWB applications and will takeinto consideration circumstancesinvolving both single and multiple UWBtransmission systems. For eachapplication, a link budget will bedeveloped under assumptions and/orknown conditions that are defined bythe particular operational scenario.

Public Participation: The first meetingis open to the public and is physicallyaccessible to people with disabilities. Tofacilitate entry into the Department ofCommerce building, please have a photoidentification available and/or a U.S.Government building pass, if applicable.Any member of the public wishing toattend and requiring special services,such as sign language interpretation orother ancillary aids, should contactSteve Jones at least five (5) days prior tothe meeting at telephone (202) 482–2791or e-mail <[email protected]>.

Kathy D. Smith,Chief Counsel.[FR Doc. 00–22309 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–60–P


[OMB Control Number 0704–0267]

Information Collection Requirement;Defense Federal AcquisitionRegulation Supplement; CostAccounting Standards

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).ACTION: Notice and request forcomments regarding a proposedextension of an approved informationcollection requirement.

SUMMARY: In compliance with section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.chapter 35), DoD announces theproposed extension of a publicinformation collection requirement andseeks public comment on the provisionsthereof. DoD invites comments on: (a)Whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of DoD,including whether the information willhave practical utility; (b) the accuracy ofthe estimate of the burden of theproposed information collection; (c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the information collection onrespondents, including the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology.The Office of Management and Budget(OMB) has approved this informationcollection for use through March 31,2001, under OMB Control Number0704–0267. DoD proposes that OMBextend its approval for use throughMarch 31, 2004.DATES: DoD will consider all commentsreceived by October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Interested parties shouldsubmit written comments andrecommendations on the proposedinformation collection to: DefenseAcquisition Regulations Council, Attn:Ms. Sandra Haberlin,OUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139,3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC20301–3062. Telefax (703) 602–0350.

E-mail comments submitted via theInternet should be addressed to:[email protected].

Please cite OMB Control Number0704–0267 in all correspondence relatedto this issue. E-mail comments shouldcite OMB Control Number 0704–0267 inthe subject line.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Sandra Haberlin, at (703) 602–0289. Theinformation collection requirementsaddressed in this notice are available viathe Internet at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dars/dfars.html. Paper copies areavailable from Ms. Sandra Haberlin,OUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139,3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC20301–3062.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title, Associated Form, and OMBNumber: Defense Federal AcquisitionRegulation Supplement (DFARS) Part230, Cost Accounting Standards, andDD Form 1861; OMB Control Number0704–0267.

Needs and Uses: Contracting officersuse DD Form 1861, Contract FacilitiesCapital Cost of Money, in computingprofit objectives for negotiatedcontracts. The form enables contractingofficers to differentiate profit objectivesfor various types of contractor assets(land, buildings, equipment).

Affected Public: Businesses or otherfor-profit entities.

Annual Burden Hours: 445,400.Number of Respondents: 38,456.Responses Per Respondents: 1.16.Annual Responses: 44,648.Average Burden Per Response: 10

hours.Frequency: On occasion.

Summary of Information Collection

This information collection includesrequirements relating to DFARS Part



230, Cost Accounting StandardsAdministration. DFARS Subpart 230.70,Facilities Capital Employed forFacilities in Use, prescribes use of DDForm 1861 as a means of linking FormCASB–CMF and DD Form 1547, Recordof Weighted Guidelines Application.The contracting officer uses DD Form1861 to record and compute contractfacilities capital cost of money andfacilities capital employed, and carriesthe facilities capital employed amountto DD Form 1547 to develop a profitobjective. Completion of DD Form 1861requires contractor information notincluded on Form CASB–CMF, i.e.,distribution percentages of land,buildings, and equipment for thebusiness unit performing the contract.DFARS 230.7004–2 directs thecontracting officer to choose the mostpractical method of obtaining thisinformation, e.g., through the contractadministration office or corporateadministrative contracting officer, orthrough a solicitation provision.

Michele P. Peterson,Executive Editor, Defense AcquisitionRegulations Council.[FR Doc. 00–22092 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5000–04–M


Office of the Secretary

Proposed collection; comment request

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary ofDefense (Personnel and Readiness)ACTION: Notice.

In compliance with Section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995, the Office of theUnder Secretary of Defense (Personneland Readiness) announces the followingproposed reinstatement of a publicinformation collection and seeks publiccomment on the provisions thereof.Comments are invited on: (a) Whetherthe proposed collection of informationis necessary for the proper performanceof the functions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of burden of theproposed information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; and(d) ways to minimize the burden of theinformation collection on respondents,including through the use of automatedcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology.DATES: Consideration will be given to allcomments received by October 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposedinformation collection should be sent tothe Office of the Under Secretary ofDefense (Personnel and Readiness)(Force Management Policy) (MilitaryPersonnel Policy)/Accession Policy,ATTN: Major Brenda Leong, 4000Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC20301–4000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torequest more information on thisproposed information collection or toobtain a copy of the proposal andassociated collection instruments,please write to the above address or callat (703) 695–5529.

Title, Associated Form, and OMBControl Number: Police Record Check,DD Form 369, OMB Control Number:0704–0007.

Needs and Uses: This informationcollection requirement is necessary toobtain information about arrests andcriminal records on applicants to theArmed Forces of the United States. TheDD Form 369, Police Record Check, isused to identify any disqualifyinghistory regarding arrests or convictions.

Affected Public: State, Local or TribalGovernment.

Annual Burden Hours: 56,250.Number of Respondents: 125,000.Responses Per Respondent: 1.Average Burden Per Response: 27

minutes.Frequency: On occasion.


Summary of Information Collection

This information is collected toprovide the Armed Services withbackground information on anapplicant. History of criminal activity,arrests, or confinement is disqualifyingfor military service. The respondentswill be local and state law enforcementagencies. The DD Form 369, PoliceRecord Check, is the method ofinformation collection; responses are toreference any records on the applicant.The information will be used todetermine suitability of the applicant forthe military service.


Patricia L. Toppings,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.[FR Doc. 00–22252 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]




Proposed Collection; CommentRequest

AGENCY: Defense Finance andAccounting Service.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with Section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995, the DefenseFinance and Accounting Serviceannounces the proposed publicinformation collection and seeks publiccomment on the provisions thereof.Comments are invited on: (a) Whetherthe proposed collection of informationis necessary for the proper performanceof the functions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed information collection; (c)ways to enhance the quality, utility andclarity of the information to becollected; and (d) ways to minimize theburden of the information collection onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orother forms of information technology.DATES: Consideration will be given to allcomments received by October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposedinformation collection should be sent tothe Headquarters, Defense Finance andAccounting Service, DFAS–HQ/FCD,ATTN: Ms. Patricia J. Cristiano, 1931Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA22240–5291.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torequest more information on thisproposed information collection or toobtain a copy of the proposal andassociated collection instruments,please write to the above address, orcall, Ms. Patricia J. Cristiano (703) 607–5039.

Title, Associated Form, and OMBNumber: Personal Check CashingAgreement, DD Form 2761; OMBNumber 0730–0005.

Needs and Uses: The informationcollection requirement is necessary tomeet the Department of Defense’s (DoD)requirement for cashing personal checksoverseas and afloat by DoD disbursingactivities, as provided in 31 U.S.C. 3342.The DoD Financial ManagementRegulation, Volume 5, providesguidance to DoD Disbursing Officers inthe performance of this informationcollection. This allows the DoDdisbursing officer or authorized agentthe authority to offset the pay withoutprior notification, in cases where this



form has been signed subject toconditions specified within theapproved procedures.

Affected Public: Individual orhouseholds.

Annual Burden Hours: 193,000 hours.Number of Respondents: 386,000.Responses Per Respondent: 1.Average Burden Per Response: 30

minutes.Frequency: On occasion.


Summary of Information CollectionThe Personal Check Cashing

Agreement Form is designed exclusivelyto help the DoD disbursing officesexpedite the collection process ofdishonored checks. The front of theform will be completed and signed bythe authorized individual requestingcheck cashing privileges. By signing theform, the individual is freely andvoluntarily consenting to the immediatecollection from their current pay,without prior notice, for the face valueof any check cashed, pays any chargesassessed against the government by afinancial institution, in the event thecheck is dishonored. In the event thecheck is dishonored, the disbursingoffice will complete and certify thereverse side of the form and forward theform to the applicable payroll office forcollection from the individual’s currentpay.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Patricia L. Toppings,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.[FR Doc. 00–22253 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5001–10–M


Department of the Army

Advisory Committee Meeting Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Army Center of MilitaryHistory, DoD.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (P.L. 92–463),announcement is made of the followingcommittee meeting:

Name of Committee: Department ofDefense Historical Advisory Committee.

Date: 26 October 2000.Place: U.S. Army Center of Military

History, Building 35, 103 Third Avenue,Fort McNair, DC 20319–5058.

Time: 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (26 October2000).

Proposed Agenda: Review anddiscussion of the status of historicalactivities in the United States Army.

Purpose of the Meeting: Thecommittee will review the Army’shistorical activities for FY 2000 andthose projected for FY 2001 based uponreports and manuscripts receivedthroughout the period. And thecommittee will formulaterecommendations through the Chief ofMilitary History to the Chief of Staff,Army, and the Secretary of the Army foradvancing the use of history in the U.S.Army.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allcommunications regarding this advisorycommittee should be addressed to Dr.Jeffrey J. Clarke, U.S. Army Center ofMilitary History, ATTN: DAMH–ZC,103 Third Avenue, Fort McNair, DC20319–5058; telephone number (202)685–2709.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Themeeting of the advisory committee isopen to the public. Because of therestricted meeting space, however,attendance may be limited to thosepersons who have notified the AdvisoryCommittee Management Office inwriting at least five days prior to themeeting of their intention to attend the26 October 2000 meeting.

Any members of the public may filea written statement with the committeebefore, during, or after the meeting. Tothe extent that time permits, thecommittee chairman may allow publicpresentations or oral statements at themeeting.

Gregory D. Showalter,Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22221 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710–08–P



Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Armed Forces Institute ofPathology (AFIP), DoD.ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section10(a)(2) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act Public Law (92–463),announcement is made of the followingopen meeting:

Name of Committee: ScientificAdvisory Board (SAB).

Dates of Meeting: 2–3 November 2000.Place: Armed Forces Institute of

Pathology, Building 54, 14th St. &Alaska Ave., NW, Washington, DC20306–6000.

Time:8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. (2 November 2000)8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. (3 November 2000)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Ridgely Rabold, Center for AdvancedPathology (CAP), AFIP, Building 54,Washington, DC 20306–6000, phone(202) 782–2553.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General function of the board: TheScientific Advisory Board providesscientific and professional advice andguidance on programs, policies andprocedures of the AFIP.

Agenda: The Board will hear statusreports from the AFIP Deputy Director,Center for Advanced Pathology Director,the National Museum of Health andMedicine, and each of the pathologydepartments which the Board memberswill visit during the meeting.

Open board discussions: Reports willbe given on all visited departments. Thereports will consist of findings,recommended areas of further research,and suggested solutions. New trendsand/or technologies will be discussedand goals established. The meeting isopen to the public.

Gregory D. Showalter,Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22224 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710–08–M



Performance Review BoardsMembership

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is given of the namesof members of the Performance ReviewBoards for the Department of the Army.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 22, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy Quick, U.S. Army SeniorExecutive Service Office, AssistantSecretary of the Army (Manpower andReserve Affairs), 111 Army Pentagon,Washington, DC 20310–0111.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C.,requires each agency to establish, inaccordance with regulations, one ormore Senior Executive Serviceperformance review boards. The boardsshall review and evaluate the initialappraisal of senior executives’performance by supervisors and makerecommendations to the appointingauthority or rating official relative to theperformance of these executives.

The members of the PerformanceReview Board for the Office of theSecretary of the Army are:

1. Eric A. Orsini, Deputy AssistantSecretary of the Army (Logistics), Office



of the Assistant Secretary of the Army(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology);

2. Dr. Larry B. Stotts, Director forTechnology, Office of the AssistantSecretary of the Army (Acquisition,Logistics and Technology);

3. Ms. Marie Therese Dominguez,Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary ofthe Army (Civil Works), Office of theAssistant Secretary of the Army (CivilWorks);

4. Ms. Judith A. Guenther, Director ofInvestment, Office of the AssistantSecretary of the Army (FinancialManagement and Comptroller);

5. BG Hugh Tant, Director ofOperations and Support, Office of theAssistant Secretary of the Army(Financial Management andComptroller);

6. Mr. James T. Lipham, SpecialAssistant to the Assistant Secretary ofthe Army (Installations andEnvironment) for ResidentialCommunities Initiative, Office of theAssistant Secretary of the Army(Installations and Environment);

7. Mr. Raymond J. Fatz, DeputyAssistant Secretary of the Army(Environment, Safety and OccupationalHealth), Office of the Assistant Secretaryof the Army (Installations andEnvironment);

8. Mr. Paul W. Johnson, DeputyAssistant Secretary of the Army(Installations and Housing), Office of theAssistant Secretary of the Army(Installations and Environment);

9. Mr. Edward ‘‘Ray’’ Clark, PrincipalDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Army(Installations and Environment), Officeof the Assistant Secretary of the Army(Installations and Environment);

10. Mr. Elmer F. Williams, Director ofthe Civilian Personnel OperationsCenter Management Agency, Office ofthe Assistant Secretary of the Army(Manpower and Reserve Affairs);

11. Mr. David L. Snyder, DeputyAssistant Secretary of the Army(Civilian Personnel Policy), Office of theAssistant Secretary of the Army(Manpower and Reserve Affairs);

12. Ms. Elizabeth Throckmorton,Assistant Deputy for Civilian PersonnelPolicy, Office of the Assistant Secretaryof the Army (Manpower and ReserveAffairs);

13. Mr. Matt Reres, Deputy GeneralCounsel (Ethics and Fiscal), Office ofthe General Counsel;

14. Mr. Earl H. Stockdale, Jr., DeputyGeneral Counsel (Civil Works andEnvironment), Office of the GeneralCounsel;

15. Ms. Miriam F. Browning, Directorof Army Information, Office of theDirector of Information Systems,

Command, Control, Communicationsand Computers;

16. Mr. David Borland, Vice Directorto the Director of Information Systemsfor Command, Control, Communicationsand Computers, Office of the Director ofInformation Systems, Command,Control, Communications andComputers;

17. Mr. Thomas Druzgal, DeputyAuditor General, Army Audit Agency;

18. Ms. Joyce Morrow, Director forAudit Policy Plans and Resources, ArmyAudit Agency;

19. Mr. Francis Reardon, The AuditorGeneral, Army Audit Agency;

20. Mr. Craig D. Hunter, Director forInternational Development and SecurityAssistance, Office of the Deputy UnderSecretary of the Army (InternationalAffairs);

21. Mr. George C. Bruno, SpecialAssistant to the Deputy Under Secretaryof the Army (International Affairs),Office of the Deputy Under Secretary ofthe Army (International Affairs);

22. Mr. J. Douglas Sizelove, AssistantDeputy Under Secretary of the Army(Operations Research), Office of theDeputy Under Secretary of the Army(Operations Research);

23. Dr. Robin Buckelew, SpecialAssistant for Systems, Office of theDeputy Under Secretary of the Army(Operations Research);

24. Dr. Thomas J. Welch, AssociateDirector for Science and Technology,Office of Net Assessment, NationalDefense University;

25. MG Warren L. Freeman, Directorof the District of Columbia NationalGuard;

26. Ms. Tracey Pinson, Director,Office of Small and DisadvantagedBusiness Utilization;

27. Ms. Sandra R. Riley, DeputyAdministrative Assistant, Office of theAdministrative Assistant to theSecretary of the Army;

28. Ms. Kathryn A. Condon, SpecialAssistant for Resources and MilitarySupport, Office of the Under Secretaryof the Army;

29. Mr. Walter W. Hollis, DeputyUnder Secretary of the Army(Operations Research), Office of theDeputy Under Secretary of the Army(Operations Research);

30. Mr. Joel B. Hudson,Administrative Assistant, Office of theAdministrative Assistant to theSecretary of the Army; and

31. Mr. Frederick R. Budd, Director,Network Infrastructure ServicesAgency—Pentagon.

Gregory D. Showalter,Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22218 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710–08–P





SUMMARY: Notice is given of the namesof members of the Performance ReviewBoards for the Department of the Army.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy Quick, U.S. Army SeniorExecutive Service Office, AssistantSecretary of the Army (Manpower andReserve Affairs), 111 Army Pentagon,Washington, DC 20310–0111.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C.,requires each agency to establish, inaccordance with regulations, one ormore Senior Executive Serviceperformance review boards. The boardsshall review and evaluate the initialappraisal of senior executives’performance by supervisors and makerecommendations to the appointingauthority or rating official relative to theperformance of these executives.

The members of the 2000 PerformanceReview Board for the U.S. ArmyMateriel Command are:

1. Major General Bruce K. Scott,Commander, U.S. Army SecurityAssistance Command, U.S. ArmyMateriel Command;

2. Major General Paul Glazar,Adjutant of New Jersey;

3. Brigadier General Michael P.Lenears, Commanding General, U.S.Army Armament Research,Development and Engineering Center,U.S. Army Materiel Command;

4. Mr. Victor J. Ferlise, Deputy to theCommander, U.S. ArmyCommunications-Electronics Command,U.S. Army Materiel Command;

5. Ms. L. Marlene Cruze, ExecutiveDirector, Acquisition Center, U.S. ArmyAviation and Missile Command, U.S.Army Materiel Command;

6. Ms. Kathryn T. Szymanski, ChiefCounsel, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, U.S. ArmyMateriel Command;

7. Mr. Edward G. Elgart, Director, C3IAcquisition Center, U.S. ArmyCommunications-Electronics Command,U.S. Army Materiel Command;

8. Mr. Edward T. Bair, Deputy PEO,Intelligence and Electronic Warfare,Army Acquisition Executive;

9. Ms. Renata F. Price, ADCS for RDA-Science, Technology and Engineering,U.S. Army Materiel Command;



10. Dr. Chine I. Chang, Director, ArmyResearch Office, U.S. Army MaterielCommand;

11. Mr. John C. Lawkowski, AssistantDeputy Chief of Staff for ResourceManagement, U.S. Army MaterielCommand;

12. Dr. Mitra Dutta, Director, Researchand Technology Integration, U.S. ArmyResearch Office, U.S. Army MaterielCommand;

13. Mr. James L. Flinn III, Deputy tothe Commanding General, U.S. ArmyAviation and Missile Command, U.S.Army Materiel Command;

14. Mr. Paul Bogosian, Deputy PEO-Aviation, Army Acquisition ExecutivePEO;

15. Mr. Harold Holmes, Deputy forSystems Deployment, National MissileDefense Joint Program Office;

16. Mr. Robert J. Spazzarini, ChiefCounsel, U.S. Army Aviation andMissile Command, U.S. Army MaterielCommand;

17. Mr. Jimmy C. Morgan, Director,Armament and Chemical Acquisition &Logistics Agency, U.S. Army MaterielCommand;

18. Mr. Brian M. Simmons, TechnicalDirector, U.S. Army Test and EvaluationCommand, U.S. Army MaterielCommand;

19. Mr. David J. Shaffer, Director, U.S.Army Materiel Systems AnalysisActivity, U.S. Army Materiel Command;

20. Dr. NarayanaswamyRadhakrishnan, Director, ComputationalInformation Sciences Directorate, U.S.Army Research Laboratory, U.S. ArmyMateriel Command;

21. Mr. James L. Bacon, ProgramManager for Chemical DemilOperations, Army AcquisitionExecutive;

22. Ms. Melinda McMillon Darby,Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S.Army Materiel Command;

23. Mr. Truman W. Howard, Director,Weapon Science Directorate, Research,Development and Engineering Center,U.S. Army Aviation and MissileCommand, U.S. Army MaterielCommand;

24. Mr. Joseph T. Lehman, SeniorTechnical Executive for Fire Support,Fire Support Armaments Center(ARDEC), U.S. Army Tank-automotiveand Armaments Command, U.S. ArmyMateriel Command;

25. Mr. Vemula P. Rao, Vice Presidentfor Customer Engineering, U.S. ArmyTank-automotive and ArmamentsCommand, U.S. Army MaterielCommand; and

26. Mr. Anthony A. LaPlaca, Directorof CECOM Logistics and ReadinessCenter, U.S. Army Communications-

Electronics Command, U.S. ArmyMateriel Command.

Gregory D. Showalter,Army Federal Register, Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22220 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710–08–P





SUMMARY: Notice is given of the namesof members of the Performance ReviewBoards for the Department of the Army.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy Quick, U.S. Army SeniorExecutive Service Office, AssistantSecretary of the Army (Manpower andReserve Affairs), 111 Army Pentagon,Washington, DC 20310–0111.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section4314 (c)(1) through (5) of Title 5 U.S.C.,requires each agency to establish, inaccordance with regulations, one ormore Senior Executive Serviceperformance review boards. The boardsshall review and evaluate the initialappraisal of senior executives’performance by supervisors and makerecommendations to the appointingauthority or rating official relative to theperformance of the executives.

The members of the PerformanceReview Board for the U.S. ArmyConsolidated Commands are:

1. Mr. Joseph H. Plunkett, AssistantDeputy Chief of Staff for Personnel andInstallation Management, U.S. ArmyForces Command;

2. Mr. James S. Koons, AssistantDeputy Chief of Staff for Logistics andReadiness, U.S. Army Forces Command;

3. Mr. William S. Rich, Jr., Deputy/Technical Director, National GroundIntelligence Center, U.S. ArmyIntelligence and Security Command;

4. Mr. Richard A. McSeveney, Deputyto the Commander for InstallationSupport, U.S. Army Military District ofWashington;

5. Mr. John C. Metzler, Jr.,Superintendent, Arlington NationalCemetery;

6. Mr. William R. Lucas, Deputy to theCommander, Military TrafficManagement Command;

7. Mr. William J. Cooper, Director ofTransportation Engineering Agency,Military Traffic Management Command;

8. Mr. Mark J. Lumer, PrincipalAssistant Responsible for Contracting,

U.S. Army Space and Missile DefenseCommand;

9. Mr. Laurence H. Burger, Director ofSpace and Missile Defense Battle Lab,U.S. Army Space and Missile DefenseCommand;

10. Dr. Charles N. Davidson, Directorof U.S. Army Nuclear and ChemicalAgency, U.S. Army Training andDoctrine Command;

11. Mr. William M. Robinson,Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff forEngineering (International Affairs), U.S.Army Europe;

12. Ms. Toni B. Wainwright, AssistantDeputy Chief of Staff for Personnel(Civilian Personnel), U.S. Army Europe;and

13. MG Warren L. Freeman, Directorof the District of Columbia NationalGuard.

The members of the PerformanceReview Board for the Army AcquisitionExecutive are:

Army Acquisition Executive PotentialBoard Members

1. Mr. David Borland, Vice Director tothe Director of Information Systems forCommand, Control, Communicationsand Computers;

2. Dr. Walter F. Morrison, Jr., Directorfor Research, Office of AssistantSecretary of the Army (Acquisition,Logistics & Technology);

3. Mr. Edward T. Bair, ProgramExecutive Officer for Intelligence,Electronic Warfare & Sensors; and

4. Mr. T. Kevin Carroll, ProgramExecutive Officer for Standard ArmyManagement Information System.

The members of the PerformanceReview Board for the Chief of Staff are:

1. Dr. James J. Streilein, Director ofthe Army Evaluation Center, U.S. ArmyTest and Evaluation Command;

2. Dr. C. David Brown, Director forTechnical Mission, U.S. Army Test andEvaluation Command;

3. Dr. Jeffrey J. Clarke, Chief Historian,U.S. Army Center of Military History;

4. Mr. Robert N. Kittel, SpecialAssistant for Communications andTransportation, U.S. Army LegalServices Agency;

5. Ms. Janet C. Menig, DeputyAssistant Chief of Staff for InstallationManagement, Office of the AssistantChief of Staff for InstallationManagement;

6. Mr. Daniel J. Shedlowski, TechnicalDirector, U.S. Army Center for ArmyAnalysis;

7. Mr. Edgar B. Vandiver III, Directorof U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis;

8. Ms. Maureen T. Lischke, ChiefInformation Officer and ProgramExecutive Officer for InformationSystems, National Guard Bureau;



9. Mr. Christopher Gardner, AssistantChief, National Guard Bureau;

10. MG Warren L. Freeman,Commanding General, District ofColumbia National Guard;

11. MG Irene Trowell-Harris,Assistant, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force;

12. MG Robert A. Harding, AssistantDeputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence;

13. Ms. Jean Bennett, Director ofIntelligence Programs, Plans & Studies,Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff forIntelligence;

14. Mr. Thomas Dillon, Director ofForeign Disclosure, Office of the DeputyChief of Staff for Intelligence;

15. BG H.A. Curry, Director of Plans,Operations and Logistics Automation,Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff forLogistics;

16. BG Barbara Doornik, SpecialAssistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff forLogistics for Transportation forQuadrennial Defense Review, Office ofthe Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics;

17. Ms. Donna L. Shands, AssistantDirector of Supply and Maintenance,Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff forLogistics;

18. Mr. Joe R. Billman, Director ofLogistics Program Analysis, Office of theDeputy Chief of Staff for Logistics;

19. MG Phillip R. Kensinger, Jr.,Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff ofOperations and Plans, Office of theDeputy Chief of Staff for Operations andPlans;

20. BG William G. Webster, Jr.,Director of Training, Office of theDeputy Chief of Staff for Operations andPlans;

21. Mr. Vernon M. Bettencourt, Jr.,Technical Advisor to the Deputy Chiefof Staff for Operations and Plans, Officeof the Deputy Chief of Staff forOperations and Plans;

22. Mr. Wendell H. Lunceford, Jr.,Director of the Army Model andSimulation Office, Office of the DeputyChief of Staff for Operations and Plans;

23. BG William Heilman, Director ofHuman Resources, Office of the DeputyChief of Staff for Personnel;

24. MG Geoffrey Miller, AssistantDeputy Chief of Staff for Personnel,Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff forPersonnel;

25. Dr. Zita Simutis, TechnicalDirector, U.S. Army Research Institute;and

26. Dr. Edgar Johnson, Director of theU.S. Army Research Institute.

John A. Hall,Alternate Army Federal Register LiaisonOfficer.[FR Doc. 00–22243 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710–08–M


Department of the Army, Corps ofEngineers

Intent To Prepare a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement(DEIS), Lock and Dam 3 MississippiRiver Navigation Safety andEmbankments Projects

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,DoD.ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: Lock and Dam 3 is anavigation dam and lock on theMississippi River six miles upstreamfrom Red Wing, Minnesota. The lockand dam was built on a bend in theriver, and completed in 1938. Itsposition on a bend in the river makesdownbound navigation difficult,because of an outdraft current that tendsto sweep towboats and barges awayfrom the lock toward the gated part ofthe dam. The outdraft condition hasresulted in a number of accidents, andhas been cause for concern for manyyears. A related problem with Lock andDam 3 is maintaining the structuralintegrity of a set of three earthenembankments that connect the gatedpart of the dam to high ground on theWisconsin side. The upstreamembankment is federally-owned andcontains a series of rock overflowsections. The intermediate anddownstream embankments are privatelyowned. These embankments impoundMarsh and Gantenbein Lakes, andseparate them from the MississippiRiver. The three Wisconsin sideembankments divide the eight-foot headat the dam into three steps, and worktogether as part of Lock and Dam 3. Thedownstream embankment is erodingand is expected to fail in the nextdecade or two. Failure of thedownstream embankment wouldthreaten the intermediate and upstreamembankments.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Questions pertaining to the issues aboutthe DEIS may be addressed to Mr.Robert Whiting, Chief, Environmentaland Economic Analysis Branch, St. PaulDistrict, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,190 5th Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101,Telephone: (651) 290–5264.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. The potential exists for towboatoperators to lose control of their towsbecause of the outdraft current. Bargeshave broken loose and lodged in thedam gate bays, rendering the dam gatesinoperable, causing the water level inthe navigation pool to rise, overflowingthe earthen embankment. This kind of

event occurred in 1993, resulting insignificant erosion in the upperembankment near the gated part of thedam and in the lower embankment.

2. Two projects to address thenavigation safety and embankmentsconcerns have been proposed by the St.Paul District and approved by Corps ofEngineers Headquarters. A portedguardwall was proposed to guidedownbound towboats into the lock. Thisproject has not been funded. The St.Paul District also recommendedreconstructing the Wisconsin-sideembankment, following a downstreamalignment along the tailwater and thesouthern boundary of Gantenbein Lake.Recent surveys in the tailwateridentified the presence of a species-richmussel bed, including state-listedendangered species. In an effort toaddress the navigation safety andembankment concerns at Lock and Dam3, the St. Paul District is conducting are-evaluation of these related problems.

3. Significant resources and issues tobe addressed in the DEIS will bedetermined through coordination withFederal, State, and local agencies, thegeneral public; interested privateorganizations, industry, and the PrairieIsland Dakota Community. Anyone whohas an interest in participating in thedevelopment of the DEIS is invited tocontact the St. Paul District, Corps ofEngineers.

4. Major issues identified to date fordiscussion in the DEIS are:

a. Structural integrity and operationalreliability of Lock and Dam 3.

b. Risk of navigation accidents,erosion of embankments, and accidentaldrawdown of Pool 3.

c. Recreational boating opportunityand safety.

d. Natural resources including thefishery, native mussels, wildlife, aquaticand floodplain habitats.

e. Water quality, contaminants, andsediment transport processes.

5. Additional issues of interest may beidentified through public and agencymeetings. A notice of those meetingswill be provided to interested partiesand to local news media.

6. The effort to jointly address therelated navigation safety andembankments problems at Lock andDam 3 is considered major in scope.Depending on the alternative planproposed, the project could havesignificant effects on navigation, publicsafety, regional economics, floodplainwetlands, the fishery, native musselsand wildlife.

7. An environmental review will beconducted according to NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969,Council of Environmental Quality



Regulations, and applicable laws andregulations. The DEIS will be availableto the public in the summer of 2001.

Gregory D. Showalter,Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22223 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710–CY–P



Intent To Prepare Draft SupplementNo. 1 to the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement [FEIS] for Operationand Maintenance, Arkabutla Lake, EnidLake, Grenada Lake, and Sardis Lake,Mississippi

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Vicksburg District, DOD.ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The purpose of the proposedaction is to evaluate the environmentalimpacts of the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers proposed continued operationand maintenance activities at ArkabutlaLake, Enid Lake, Grenada Lake, andSardis Lake, Mississippi.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Ramona Warren (telephone (601) 631–5441), CEMVK–PP–PQ, 4155 ClayStreet, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39183–3435.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Arkabutla,Enid, Grenada, and Sardis Lakes are partof a comprehensive plan for floodcontrol on the Yazoo River and itstributaries above the head of theMississippi River backwater area. Theselakes are located in north Mississippi inthe Bluff Hills and North Central Hillssubprovinces section of the EasternHills province of the Central GulfCoastal plain. The four lakes are locatedfrom 25 to 100 miles south of Memphis,Tennessee.

Arkabutla Lake is located in Tate andDeSoto Counties, 25 miles south ofMemphis and 12 miles northwest ofColdwater, Mississippi. Enid Lake islocated in Yalobusha, Panola, andLafayette Counties, 72 miles south ofMemphis and 26 miles north ofGrenada, Mississippi. Grenada Lake islocated in Grenada, Calhoun, andYalobusha Counties, 100 miles south ofMemphis and 3 miles northeast ofGrenada, Mississippi. Sardis Lake islocated in parts of Panola, Lafayette, andMarshall Counties, 50 miles south ofMemphis and 11 miles northeast ofBatesville, Mississippi.

The Flood Control Acts of 15 May1938 (Public Law (PL) 391, 70th

Congress); 15 May 1928, amended 15June 1936 (PL–678, 74th Congress); 28August 1937 (PL–406, 75th Congress);28 June 1938 (PL–761, 75th Congress);18 August 1941 (PL–228, 77thCongress); 22 December 1944 (PL–534,78th Congress); 24 July 1946 (PL–526,79th Congress); and 27 October 1965(PL–89–298, 89th Congress) authorizedthe construction of the YazooHeadwater Project to control flooding onthe four primary tributaries of the YazooRiver. Flood control impoundmentswere constructed on the ColdwaterRiver (Arkabutla Lake), the YoconaRiver (Enid Lake), the Yalobusha andSkuna Rivers (Grenada Lake), and theLittle Tallahatchie River (Sardis Lake).Also, provisions were included for localstream channel improvements, leveeand auxiliary channel construction andappurtenant works as necessary toprovide protection from headwaterfloods of the Yazoo River system.

The Flood Control Act of 1944authorized the development ofrecreational facilities at Department ofthe Army water resource projects.Further provision for the administrationof these projects for recreation and fishand wildlife conservation andmanagement was made by threesubsequent flood control acts: the FloodControl Act of 1946; the Flood ControlAct of 3 September 1954 (PL–780, TitleIII, Sec. 209, 83d Congress); and theFlood Control Act of 23 October 1962(PL–87–874), Title II, Sec. 207, 87thCongress). These laws authorized theGovernment to lease land to privateindividuals and other governmentagencies for the development of therecreation and fish and wildliferesources on these projects. They alsoguaranteed within those limitationsestablished by the Secretary of the Armyand the State of Mississippi the publiccontrolled access to shoreline areas forfishing, boating, swimming, and otherrecreational purposes, and theprotection of fish and wildlife resources.

The primary authorized purpose ofthese lakes is flood control, but manyincidental benefits such as navigation,water supply, recreation, fish andwildlife, and timber have been realized.Lands surrounding the lakes are usedfor public recreation, agriculturalproduction, and conservation ofbiological resources.

The oldest and largest of the fourlakes, Sardis, was begun in June 1937and completed in October 1940.Construction of Arkabutla Lake wasbegun in 1940, and the lake wascompleted in June 1943. Initialconstruction of Enid Lake began inFebruary 1947, and the lake wascompleted in December 1952. Grenada

Lake was also begun in February 1947,and was completed in January 1954.

The significant issues tentativelyidentified for evaluation of theenvironmental impacts of operation andmaintenance activities include (1)impacts of flood control storage, (2)impacts of stream channel maintenance,and (3) impacts to resourcemanagement.

The National Environmental PolicyAct (40 CFR Part 1501, section 1501.7)requires all Federal agencies prior topreparing an EIS or EIS Supplement toconduct a process termed ‘‘scoping.’’This scoping process determines theissues to be addressed and identifies thesignificant issues related to a proposedaction. To accomplish this, publicscoping meetings are tentativelyscheduled to be held in Mississippi inSeptember 2000. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency; U.S. Fish andWildlife Service; Natural ResourcesConservation Service; MississippiDepartment of Environmental Quality;and Mississippi Department of Wildlife,Fisheries and Parks will be invited tobecome cooperating agencies. Allinterested agencies, groups, tribes, andindividuals will be sent copies of theDraft Supplemental EIS and FEIS.

The Draft Supplemental EIS isscheduled to be completed in August2001.

Robert Crear,Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer.[FR Doc. 00–22222 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710–PU–M



Intent To Prepare a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for Construction of aContainerized Cargo Terminal, onShoal Point, Adjacent to the Texas CityChannel, Texas City, GalvestonCounty, TX

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Galveston District, DoD.ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Galveston District intends toprepare a DEIS to access the social,economic and environmental effects ofthe proposed multi-phased constructionof a container terminal. The DEIS willaccess potential impacts on a range ofalternatives, including the preferredalternative. The Federal action isconsideration of a Department of ArmyPermit application for work under



Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Actof 1899 and section 404 of the CleanWater Act.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forfurther information and/or questionsabout the proposed action and DEIS,please contact Ms. Sharon ManzellaTirpak, Project Manager, by letter at U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box1229, Galveston, Texas 77553, bytelephone at (409) 766–3136, or by e-mail at [email protected] INFORMATION: TheGalveston District intends to prepare aDEIS on the proposed containerterminal which would be located onShoal Point, adjacent to the Texas CityShip Channel, Texas City, GalvestonCounty, Texas. The City of Texas City(Texas City) proposes this project.

1. Description of the Proposed Project:Texas City is proposing the constructionand operation of a container port facilitylocated on Shoal Point, adjacent to theTexas City Channel and Galveston Bay.The project site is a dredge materialdisposal area for the Texas City Channeland the Port of Texas City. The ShoalPoint project would be built in threephases, ultimately consisting of 400acres of container yard, six berths, anew turning basin, a land side accesscorridor and the deepening of theexisting Texas City Channel from 40 to45 feet. An estimated 8 million cubicyards of new dredged material would begenerated during Phase I. Potential totalbuild-out of Phases II and III wouldinclude an additional 3.2 million cubicyards of new dredged material.Approximately 1.2 acres of emergentmarsh, 10.3 acres of high marsh, 3.6acres of fresh water wetlands and 92.4acres of open water habitat would beimpacted by the proposed project,during Phase I. Potential total build-outof Phases II and III may impact anadditional 74 acres of open waterhabitat.

2. Scoping and Public InvolvementProcess: A scoping meeting to gatherinformation on the subjects to bestudied in detail in the DEIS will beconducted on October 3, 2000, at 7:00PM, at the Charles Doyle ConventionCenter, 2010 5th Avenue North (21stStreet and Phoenix Lane), Texas City,Texas. An informal open house,allowing for review of the proposedproject and questions and answers, willbe conducted between 5:00 and 7:00PM, prior to the scoping meeting.

3. Significant Issues: Issues associatedwith the proposed facilities to be givensignificant analysis in the DEIS arelikely to include, but may not be limitedto, the potential impacts of the proposeddredging, the beneficial uses of dredged

material, placement of fill, impact of airquality during construction andoperation of the facility and surfacetransportation facilities, and of induceddevelopments on: wetland resources;upland and aquatic biotic communities;water quality, fish and wildlife valuesincluding threatened and endangeredspecies; air quality; land forms andgeologic resources; communitycohesion; environmental justice;roadway traffic; socioeconomicenvironment; archaeological andcultural resources; recreation andrecreational resources; publicinfrastructure and services; energysupply and natural resources; hazardouswaste and materials; land use;aesthetics; public health and safety;navigation; flood plain values; shorelineerosion and accretion; and the needsand welfare of the people.

4. Technical Review andConsultation: Several State and FederalAgencies will be invited to providetechnical review of the DEIS. Thoseagencies include: the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, National MarineFisheries Service, United States Fishand Wildlife Service, the United StatesCoast Guard, Federal HighwaysAdministration, Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission, TexasGeneral Land Office and the TexasDepartment of Transportation.

5. Additional Review andConsultation: Additional review andconsultation that will be incorporatedinto the preparation of this DEIS willinclude: Compliance with the TexasCoastal Management Program;protection of cultural resources undersection 106 of the Historic PreservationAct; protection of navigation under theRivers and Harbors Act of 1899;protection of water quality undersection 401 of the Clean Water Act; andprotection of endangered and threatenedspecies under section 7 of theEndangered Species Act.

6. Availability of the DEIS: The DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement isprojected to be available in September2001. A Public Hearing will beconducted following the release of theDEIS.

Nicholas J. Buechler,Col., EN, Commanding.[FR Doc. 00–22219 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710–52–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Rehabilitation Services Administration

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of Final CompetitivePreference for Fiscal Year 2001 for theRehabilitation Long-Term Training andRehabilitation Continuing EducationPrograms.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary forthe Office of Special Education andRehabilitative Services announces theadditions of competitive preferencepoints to the competitions for theRehabilitation Long-Term Training andRehabilitation Continuing Educationprograms for fiscal year 2001. Thisnotice contains describes the additionalcompetitive preference points.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority is effectiveon October 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mary C. Lynch, U.S. Department ofEducation, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW,room 3322, Switzer Building,Washington, DC 20202–2649.Telephone: (202) 205–8291.

If you use a telecommunicationsdevice for the deaf (TDD) you may callthe Federal Information Relay Service(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8399. Internet:[email protected]. Individuals withdisabilities may obtain this document inan alternative format (e.g., Braille, largeprint, audiotape, or computer diskette)on request to the contact person listedin the preceding paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisnotice announces final competitivepreference points under theRehabilitation Long-Term Training andRehabilitation Continuing Educationprograms. These programs areauthorized under section 302 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

On June 30, 2000 the AssistantSecretary published a notice ofproposed competitive preference pointsfor these programs in the FederalRegister (65 FR 40615–40616).

Note: This notice of final competitivepreference points does not solicitapplications. A notice inviting applicationsunder this competition is published in aseparate notice in this issue of the FederalRegister.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to the AssistantSecretary’s invitation in the notice ofproposed competitive preference points,five parties submitted comments. Ananalysis of the comments and of thechanges in the proposed competitivepreference points follows. Technicaland other minor changes—andsuggested changes the AssistantSecretary is not legally authorized tomake under the applicable statutoryauthority—are not addressed.



Comment: Two commenterssupported the proposed competitivepreference points.

Discussion: None.Change: None.Comment: One commenter expressed

a concern that the proposed competitivepreference points duplicate existingpeer review criteria.

Discussion: While the existing peerreview criteria do overlap with theproposed competitive preference points,the selection criteria relating to outreachto employees with disabilities isincluded as a part of a much broadercriterion that includes outreach to allunderrepresented populations andgeneral issues related to quality ofproject personnel. For this reason, underthe current system, the impact of hiringpeople with disabilities on peerreviewer scores is negligible.

Change: None.Comment: One commenter expressed

concern about an increased burden onthe part of an applicant to documentpast and current practices, includingcounting currently employed personswith disabilities as well as numbers ofemployees with disabilities employed inthe past.

Discussion: The Assistant Secretarydoes not believe this constitutes anunreasonable burden, especially as suchinformation is often reported byapplicants in response to currentselection criteria.

Change: None.Comment: One commenter reported

that the majority of long term traininggrants are directly related to studentstipend support, with little support forrecruitment, hiring and retention ofstaff. Therefore it places an additionalburden on the applicant organization tohire people with disabilities with non-project funding.

Discussion: The Assistant Secretarybelieves that hiring of people withdisabilities is good practice regardless ofthe source of funds used for staff.

Change: None.Comment: One commenter challenged

the need for the proposed competitivepreference points, suggesting that theDepartment of Education should firstassess the current degree to whichgrantees are recruiting and hiringpersons with disabilities, and the degreeto which they are having difficulties indoing so. Decisions on competitivepreference points could be made basedupon the results of that assessment.

Discussion: The Assistant Secretarybelieves that the need is self-evident,and there is no need for an elaborateassessment to document this need.

Change: None.

Comment: One commenter expressedconcerns about accountability—forexample, a project may hire or havestrategies to hire people withdisabilities, but not fulfill thosestrategies once they secure the grant.

Discussion: The points are onlypartially distributed based upon a planor strategy to provide outreach and hirepeople with disabilities, not necessarilythe success of their efforts. It isimportant to note that past efforts willlikely have substantial influence on theactual number of points, if any, anapplicant receives.

Changes: None.Comment: Two commenters

expressed concern that there may beinequities in the way in whichapplicants define an ‘‘individual with adisability’’ resulting in unfairapplication of the competitivepreference points.

Discussion: The following ADAdefinition of an ‘‘individual withdisability’’, will serve as the basis forpurposes of competitive preferencepoints:

(i) Has a physical or mentalimpairment which substantially limitsone or more of such person’s major lifeactivities;

(ii) Has a record of such animpairment; or

(iii) Is regarded as having such animpairment.

Change: None.Comment: Three commenters

expressed concern about inequitableassignment of points—how the pointswill be applied—number of people withdisability, full versus part time, onboard versus proposed, position on theproject, type of disability, etc? One ofthese commenters asked specificallyabout ‘‘bad timing’’ such as a case inwhich the organization has a good trackrecord in hiring people with disabilities,but recently loses an employee with adisability. The commenter asks if thisbad timing will result in a lower score.

Discussion: Peer reviewers willreceive a thorough orientation as to theapplicability of the points and how toassign them. As suggested in the noticeof proposed competitive priority, it willfocus primarily on past history of andstrategies for hiring staff withdisabilities, project staff and plans foroutreach to hire additional staff.

Change: None.Comment: Two commenters made

note that it may be difficult tosubstantiate information on people withdisabilities serving as project staff. Forexample, some people with disabilitiesprefer not to self disclose, and someuniversity policies do not allow their

departments to require an applicant/employee to report a disability.

Discussion: Based upon experiencewith current and former grantees, theAssistant Secretary believes thatsubstantiation will be a minor issue.

Change: None.Comment: Two commenters

expressed concerns over how to applythe points when compounded by otherfactors such as the ethnic compositionof staff and veteran/nonveteran status.

Discussion: The sole factor addressedin the competitive preference pointsconcerns disability. Other factors maybe addressed elsewhere in the otherselection criteria pertaining to aparticular competition.

Change: None.Comment: One commenter suggested

alternative strategies for accomplishingthe goal of hiring more people withdisabilities by OSERS-funded projects,including revising the current scoringsystem to include this dimension andhaving RSA staff work with existingprograms where needed.

Discussion: The Assistant Secretaryagrees that these may be effectivestrategies as supplements to theproposed competitive preference points,and may consider them independent ofthe competitive preference points.

Change: None.Comment: One commenter noted that

there was no documented consultationwith professional organizations in theformulation of the proposed competitivepreference points or in the formulationof this final notice.

Discussion: While no consultation isrequired in the formulation of suchnotices, the notice of proposedcompetitive preference points is anopportunity to obtain comments andinput from professional organizationsand others on these matters.

Change: None.Competitive Preference: The Assistant

Secretary will use the selection criteriain 34 CFR 385.31, 386.20 and 389.30 toevaluate applications under thisprogram. The maximum score for all thecriteria is 100 points; however, theAssistant Secretary will also use thefollowing criterion so that up to anadditional ten points may be earned byan applicant for a total possible score of110 points.

Within the Rehabilitation Long-TermTraining and Rehabilitation ContinuingEducation program, we will give thefollowing competitive preference under34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) to applicationsthat are otherwise eligible for fundingunder the competitions.

Up to ten (10) points based on theextent to which an application includes



effective strategies for employing andadvancing in employment qualifiedindividuals with disabilities in projectsawarded under the competition. Indetermining the effectiveness of thosestrategies, we will consider theapplicant’s prior success, as describedin the application, in employing andadvancing in employment qualifiedindividuals with disabilities.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document, as wellas all other Department of Educationdocuments published in the FederalRegister, in text or Adobe PortableDocument Format (PDF) on the Internetat either of the following sites:http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htmhttp://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use PDF you must have AdobeAcrobat Reader, which is available freeat either of the preceding sites. If youhave questions about using the PDF, callthe U.S. Government Printing Office(GPO), toll free, at 1–888–293–6498; orin the Washington, D.C. area at (202)512–1530.

Note: The official version of this documentis the document published in the FederalRegister. Free Internet access to the officialedition of the Federal Register and the Codeof Federal Regulations is available on GPOAccess at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFRParts 385, 386 and 389.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 774.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceNumber: 84.129 and 84.264, theRehabilitation Long-Term Training, andRehabilitation Continuing EducationProgram.)

Dated: August 25, 2000.Judith E. Heumann,Assistant Secretary for Special Education andRehabilitative Services.[FR Doc. 00–22244 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–P


[CFDA No.: 84.129L]

Rehabilitation Training: RehabilitationLong-Term Training—UndergraduateEducation in the RehabilitationServices; Notice Inviting Applicationsfor New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY)2001.

Purpose of Program

The Rehabilitation Long-TermTraining program provides financialassistance for—

(1) Projects that provide basic oradvanced training leading to anacademic degree in areas of personnel

shortages in rehabilitation as identifiedby the Assistant Secretary;

(2) Projects that provide a specifiedseries of courses or program of studyleading to award of a certificate in areasof personnel shortages in rehabilitationas identified by the Assistant Secretary;and

(3) Projects that provide support formedical residents enrolled in residencytraining programs in the specialty ofphysical medicine and rehabilitation.

Eligible Applicants: State and otherpublic or nonprofit agencies andorganizations, including Indian Tribesand institutions of higher education.

Deadline for Transmittal ofApplications: October 16, 2000.

Deadline for IntergovernmentalReview: December 18, 2000.

Applications Available: September 1,2000.

Estimated Available Funds: TheAdministration has requested$39,629,000 for the training program infiscal year 2001, of which an estimated$255,000 would be allocated for thiscompetition. The actual level offunding, if any, depends on finalcongressional action. However, we areinviting applications to allow enoughtime to complete the grant processbefore the end of the fiscal year, ifCongress appropriates funds for thisprogram.

Estimated Range of Awards: $65,000to $75,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:$75,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 3.Maximum Award: Consistent with 34

CFR 75.104(b), it is the practice of theAssistant Secretary to reject anyapplication that proposes a projectfunding level for any year that exceeds$75,000 in any project year.

Reasonable AccommodationLanguage: The Assistant Secretary willconsider, and may fund, requests foradditional funding as an addendum toan application to reflect the costs ofreasonable accommodations necessaryto allow individuals with disabilities tobe employed on the project as personnelon project activities.

Note: The Department is not bound by anyestimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.Page Limit: Part III of the application,

the application narrative, is where you,the applicant, address the selectioncriteria used by reviewers in evaluatingthe application. You must limit Part IIIto the equivalent of no more than 35pages, using the following standards:

(1) A page is 8.5″ × 11″ on one sideonly with 1″ margins at the top, bottom,and both sides.

(2) You must double space (no morethan three lines per vertical inch) alltext in the application narrative,including titles, headings, footnotes,quotations, references, and captions, aswell as all text in charts, tables, figures,and graphs.

If you use a proportional computerfont, you may not use a font smallerthan a 12-point font or an averagecharacter density greater than 18characters per inch. If you use anonproportional font or a typewriter,you may not use more than 12characters per inch.

The page limit does not apply to PartI, the cover sheet; Part II, the budgetsection, including the narrative budgetjustification; Part IV, the assurances andcertifications; or the one-page abstract,the resumes, the bibliography, or theletters of support. However, you mustinclude all of the application narrativein Part III.

If, in order to meet the page limit, youuse print size, spacing, or marginssmaller than the standards specified inthis notice, we will not consider yourapplication for funding.

Applicable Regulations: (a) TheEducation Department GeneralAdministrative Regulations (EDGAR) in34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82,85, 86 and 99; and (b) The regulationsfor this program in 34 CFR parts 385and 386.

Absolute Priority: Under 34 CFR75.105(c)(3) and 34 CFR 386.1, theAssistant Secretary gives an absolutepreference to applications that meet thefollowing priority. The AssistantSecretary funds under this competitiononly applications that propose toprovide training in the following area ofpersonnel shortage: UndergraduateEducation in the RehabilitationServices.

Selection Criteria: The AssistantSecretary will use the selection criteriain 34 CFR 385.31 and 386.20 to evaluateapplications under this program (Theseselection criteria will appear in theapplication package). The maximumscore for all the criteria is 100 points;however, the Assistant Secretary willalso use the following criterion so thatup to an additional ten points may beearned by an applicant for a totalpossible score of 110 points.

Within the Rehabilitation Long-TermTraining, we will give the followingcompetitive preference under 34 CFR75.105(c)(2)(i) to applications that areotherwise eligible for funding under thiscompetition.

Up to ten (10) points based on theextent to which an application includeseffective strategies for employing andadvancing in employment qualified



individuals with disabilities in projectsawarded under this competition. Indetermining the effectiveness of thosestrategies, we will consider theapplicant’s prior success, as describedin the application, in employing andadvancing in employment qualifiedindividuals with disabilities.

For Applications Contact: EducationPublications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box1398, Jessup, MD 20794–1398.Telephone (toll free): 1–877–433–7827.FAX: (301) 470–1244. If you use atelecommunication device for the deaf(TDD), you may call (toll free): 1–877–576–7734. You may also contact EDPubs via its web site: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or its E-mail address: [email protected].

Individuals with disabilities mayobtain a copy of the application packagein an alternative format by contactingthe Grants and Contracts Services Team,U.S. Department of Education, 400Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3317,Switzer Building, Washington, DC20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 205–9817. If you use a telecommunicationsdevice for the deaf (TDD), you may callthe Federal Information Relay Service(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. However,the Department is not able to reproducein an alternate format the standardforms included in the applicationpackage.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ellen Chesley, U.S. Department ofEducation, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,room 3318, Switzer Building,Washington, DC 20202–2649.Telephone (202) 205–9481. If you use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD), you may call the FederalInformation Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.

Individuals with disabilities mayobtain this document in an alternativeformat (e.g., Braille, large print,audiotape, or computer diskette) onrequest to the contact person listed inthe preceding paragraph.

Electronic Access to This DocumentYou may view this document, as well

as all other Department of Educationdocuments published in the FederalRegister, in text or Adobe PortableDocument Format (PDF) on the Internetat either of the following sites:http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htmhttp://www.ed.gov/news.htmlTo use PDF you must have AdobeAcrobat Reader, which is available freeat either of the previous sites. If youhave questions about using PDF, call theU.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),toll free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in theWashington, DC, area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of a document isthe document published in the FederalRegister. Free Internet access to the officialedition of the Federal Register and the Codeof Federal Regulations is available on GPOAccess at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772.



[CFDA No.: 84.264B]

Rehabilitation Continuing EducationPrograms (RCEP): Notice InvitingApplications for New Awards for FiscalYear (FY) 2001

Purpose of Program: To supporttraining centers that serve either aFederal region or another geographicalarea and provide for a broad, integratedsequence of training activities that focuson meeting recurrent and commontraining needs of employedrehabilitation personnel throughout amulti-State geographical area.

Eligible Applicants: State and publicor nonprofit agencies and organizations,including Indian tribes and institutionsof higher education.

Deadline for Transmittal ofApplications: October 16, 2000.

Deadline for IntergovernmentalReview: December 18, 2000.

Applications Available: September 1,2000.

Estimated Available Funds: TheAdministration has requested$39,629,000 for the Training Programfor FY 2001, of which an estimated$1,500,377 would be allocated for thiscompetition. The actual level offunding, if any, depends on finalcongressional action. However, we areinviting applications to allow enoughtime to complete the grant processbefore the end of the fiscal year, ifCongress appropriates funds for thisprogram.

Estimated Range of Awards:$475,000—$501,486.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:$499,000.

Maximum Awards By RehabilitationServices Administration (RSA) Region:Consistent with EDGAR 34 CFR75.104(b), it is the practice of theAssistant Secretary to reject anyapplication that proposes a projectfunding level for any year that exceedsthe stated maximum award amount forthat year.

MAXIMUM LEVEL OF AWARDS BY RSAREGION

Region V ....................................... $501,486Region VII ..................................... 499,916Region IX ...................................... 498,975

Reasonable AccommodationLanguage: The Assistant Secretary willconsider, and may fund, requests foradditional funding as an addendum toan application to reflect the costs ofreasonable accommodations necessaryto allow individuals with disabilities tobe employed on the project as personnelon project activities.

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF AWARDS

Region V ....................................... 1Region VII ..................................... 1Region IX ...................................... 1

Note: Applications under CFDA No.84.264B (Community RehabilitationProgram/Rehabilitation ContinuingEducation Program) are invited for theprovision of training for Department ofEducation Regions V, VII and IX, only. TheDepartment is not bound by any estimates inthis notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.Page Limit: Part III of the application,

the application narrative, is where you,the applicant, address the selectioncriteria used by reviewers in evaluatingthe application. You must limit Part IIIto the equivalent of no more than 45pages, using the following standards:

(1) A page is 8.5 inches by 11 inches,on one side only with 1 inch margins atthe top, bottom, and both sides.

(2) You must double space (no morethan three lines per vertical inch) alltext in the application narrative,including titles, headings, footnotes,quotations, references, and captions, aswell as all text in charts, tables, figures,and graphs.

If you use a proportional computerfont, you may not use a font smallerthan a 12-point font or an averagecharacter density greater than 18characters per inch. If you use anonproportional font or a typewriter,you may not use more than 12characters per inch.

The page limit does not apply to PartI, the cover sheet; Part II, the budgetsection, including the narrative budgetjustification; Part IV, the assurances andcertifications; or the one-page abstract,the resumes, the bibliography, or theletters of support. However, you mustinclude all of the application narrativein Part III.



If, in order to meet the page limit, youuse print size, spacing, or marginssmaller than the standards specified inthis notice, we will not consider yourapplication for funding.

Applicable Regulations: (a) TheEducation Department GeneralAdministrative Regulations (EDGAR) in34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82,85, and 86; and (b) The regulations forthis program in 34 CFR parts 385 and389.

Selection Criteria: The AssistantSecretary will use the selection criteriain 34 CFR 385.31 and 389.30 to evaluateapplications under this program (Theseselection criteria will appear in theapplication package). The maximumscore for all the criteria is 100 points;however, the Assistant Secretary willalso use the following criterion so thatup to an additional ten points may beearned by an applicant for a totalpossible score of 110 points.

Within the Rehabilitation ContinuingEducation Program, we will give thefollowing competitive preference under34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) to applicationsthat are otherwise eligible for fundingunder this competition.

Up to ten (10) points based on theextent to which an application includeseffective strategies for employing andadvancing in employment qualifiedindividuals with disabilities in projectsawarded under this competition. Indetermining the effectiveness of thosestrategies, we will consider theapplicant’s prior success, as describedin the application, in employing andadvancing in employment qualifiedindividuals with disabilities.

For Applications Contact: EducationPublications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box1398, Jessup, MD 20794–1398.Telephone (toll free): 1–877–433–7827.FAX: (301) 470–1244. If you use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD), you may call (toll free): 1–877–576–7734. You may also contact EDPubs via its web site (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html) or itsE-mail address ([email protected]).

Individuals with disabilities mayobtain a copy of the application packagein an alternative format by contactingthe Grants and Contracts Services Team,U.S. Department of Education, 400Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3317,Switzer Building, Washington, DC20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 205–8351. Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. However, the Department is notable to reproduce in an alternate formatthe standard forms included in theapplication package.

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C.Lynch, U.S. Department of Education,400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3322Switzer Building, Washington, DC20202–2649. Telephone: (202) 205–8291. Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.

Individuals with disabilities mayobtain this document in an alternativeformat (e.g., Braille, large print,audiotape, or computer diskette) onrequest to the contact person listed inthe preceding paragraph.

Electronic Access to This DocumentYou may view this document, as well

as all other Department of Educationdocuments published in the FederalRegister, in text or Adobe PortableDocument Format (PDF) on the Internetat either of the following sites:http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htmhttp://www.ed.gov/news.htmlTo use PDF you must have AdobeAcrobat Reader, which is available freeat either of the previous sites. If youhave questions about using PDF, call theU.S. Government Printing Office (GPO)toll free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in theWashington, DC area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of a document isthe document published in the FederalRegister. Free Internet access to the officialedition of the Federal Register, and the Codeof Federal Regulations is available on GPOAccess at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772.



President’s Board of Advisors onHistorically Black Colleges andUniversities Meeting

AGENCY: President’s Board of Advisorson Historically Black Colleges andUniversities, U.S. Department ofEducation.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth theschedule and agenda of the meeting ofthe President’s Board of Advisors onHistorically Black Colleges andUniversities. This notice also describesthe functions of the Board. Notice of thismeeting is required under Section10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act. Individuals who willneed accommodations for a disability inorder to attend the meeting (i.e.interpreting services, assistive listeningdevices, materials in alternative format)should notify Treopia Washington at202–502–7900 by no later than Tuesday,September 6, 2000.DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, September20, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe Washington Court Hotel, 525 NewJersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.20001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Treopia Washington, White HouseInitiative on Historically Black Collegesand Universities, U.S. Department ofEducation, 1990 K Street, NW, Suite8108, Washington, DC 20006–5120.Telephone: (202) 502–7900.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ThePresident’s Board of Advisors onHistorically Black Colleges andUniversities was established underExecutive Order 12876 of November 1,1993. The Board was established toadvise on federal policies that impactupon Historically Black Colleges andUniversities, to advise on strategies toincrease participation of HistoricallyBlack Colleges and Universities infederally sponsored programs andfunding opportunities, and to advise onstrategies to increase private sectorsupport for these colleges.

The meeting of the Board is open tothe Public. The meeting will focus onthe status and future of federal agencysupport for Historically Black Collegesand Universities.

Records are kept of all Boardprocedures and are available for publicinspection at the White House Initiativeon Historically Black Colleges andUniversities located at 1990 K Street,NW, Suite 8099, Washington, DC,20006, from the hours of 8:30 a.m. to5:00 p.m.

Claudio R. Prieto,Acting Assistant Secretary for PostsecondaryEducation.[FR Doc. 00–22286 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Bonneville Power Administration

Kangley-Echo Lake Transmission LineProject

AGENCY: Bonneville PowerAdministration (BPA), Department ofEnergy (DOE).



ACTION: Notice of scoping meeting andextension of comment period.

SUMMARY: This notice announces BPA’sscoping meeting for its Kangley-EchoLake Transmission Line ProjectEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)being prepared in accordance with theNational Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). This notice also extends theclose of comment for scoping from thepreviously published April 27, 2000, toOctober 2, 2000. BPA has establishedthis scoping period during which allinterested and affected persons andagencies are invited to comment on thescope of the proposed EIS. Scoping willhelp BPA ensure that a full range ofissues related to the development andimplementation of this project isaddressed in the EIS, and also willidentify significant or potentiallysignificant impacts that may result fromthe project. The Draft EIS is scheduledto be available for review and commentnext year.DATES: Comments may be made at anEIS scoping meeting to be held onWednesday, September 20, 2000, from4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the addressbelow. At the informal meeting, severalmembers of the project team will beavailable to answer questions andaccept oral and written comments.Written comments may also be sent tothe address below no later thanMonday, October 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: The public meeting will beheld at the Maple Valley CommunityCenter, 22010 SE 248th Street, MapleValley, Washington. Send commentletters and requests to be placed on theproject mailing list to Communications,Bonneville Power Administration—KC–7, P.O. Box 12999, Portland, Oregon,97212. The phone number of theCommunications office is 503–230–3478in Portland; toll-free 1–800–622–4519outside of Portland. Comments may alsobe sent to the BPA Internet address:[email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LouDriessen, Project Manager, BonnevillePower Administration—TNP–3, P.O.Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208–3621; phone number: 503–230–5525; ore-mail: [email protected]. You mayalso contact Gene Lynard,Environmental Project Manager,Bonneville Power Administration—KECN–4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland,Oregon, 97208–3621; phone number:503–230–3790; fax number: 503–230–5699; or e-mail: [email protected] INFORMATION: BPA ispreparing an EIS on the proposedconstruction of a transmission line incentral King County, Washington. The

new 500-kilovolt (kV) line wouldconnect an existing transmission line(near the community of Kangley) withour existing Echo Lake Substation, adistance of about nine miles. The majorreason for this proposal is to improvesystem reliability in the King Countyarea. Under normal growth in demand,system instability could develop asearly as the winter of 2002–03 with anoutage of the existing Raver to EchoLake 500-kV line. Another reason is toenhance the United States’ delivery ofpower to Canada as required under theColumbia River Treaty of 1961. Severalroutes are being considered. Four areeast of our existing 500-kV line that runsbetween the Raver and Echo LakeSubstations, all of which cross the CedarRiver Municipal Watershed. Threepossible routes lie west of thewatershed. Under all seven options,easements would need to be acquiredfor new rights-of-way and access roads.Once the environmental review iscomplete, BPA will decide whether andhow to proceed with the project. If BPAdecides to proceed, construction wouldlikely begin in 2002.

Maps and further information areavailable from BPA at the addressabove.

Issued in Portland, Oregon, on August 23,2000.Thomas C. McKinney,NEPA Compliance Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22302 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


Energy Information Administration

Agency Information Collection UnderReview by the Office of Managementand Budget

AGENCY: Energy InformationAdministration, Department of Energy.ACTION: Submission for OMB review;comment request.

SUMMARY: The Energy InformationAdministration (EIA) has submitted theenergy information collection listed atthe end of this notice to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) forreview and three-year extension undersections 3507(h)(1) and 3506(c) of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–13).

The entry contains the followinginformation: (1) The collection numbersand title; (2) a summary of the collectionof information, including the sponsor(i.e., the Department of Energycomponent), current OMB documentnumber (if applicable), type of request

(i.e, new, revision, extension, orreinstatement), and response obligation(i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or requiredto obtain or retain benefits), (3) adescription of the need and proposeduse of the information; (4) a descriptionof the likely respondents; and (5) anestimate of the total annual reportingburden (i.e., the estimated number oflikely respondents times the proposedfrequency of response per year times theaverage hours per response).DATES: Comments must be filed on orbefore October 2, 2000. If you anticipatethat you will be submitting commentsbut find it difficult to do so within thetime allowed by this notice, you shouldadvise the OMB DOE Desk Officer listedbelow of your intention to do so as soonas possible. The OMB DOE Desk Officermay be telephoned at (202) 395–3084.(Also, please notify the EIA contactlisted below.)ADDRESSES: Address comments to theDepartment of Energy Desk Officer,Office of Information and RegulatoryAffairs, Office of Management andBudget, 726 Jackson Place NW.,Washington, DC 20503. (Commentsshould also be addressed to theStatistics and Methods Group at theaddress below.)FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional informationshould be directed to Grace Sutherland,Statistics and Methods Group, (EI–70),Forrestal Building, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Washington, DC 20585–0670.Ms. Sutherland may be contacted bytelephone at (202) 426–1068, FAX at(202) 426–1081, or e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The energy information collection

submitted to OMB for review was:1. Forms EIA–851 and EIA–858,

‘‘Uranium Data Program’’2. Energy Information Administration;

OMB Number 1905–0160; Three-yearextension with revisions of currentlyapproved collections; Mandatory

3. EIA’s Uranium Data Programcollects basic data necessary to meetEIA’s legislative mandates as well as theneeds of EIA’s public and privatecustomers. Data collected includeuranium exploration, reserves,production, processing, and marketing.The data are used for analyses andpublications. Respondents arecompanies comprising the U.S. uraniumindustry.

4. Business or other for-profit5. 2,424 hours (18.36 hours per

response x 1.22 responses per year x 108respondents).



Statutory Authority: Sections 3507(h)(1)and 3506(c) of the Paperwork Reduction Actof 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–13).

Issued in Washington, DC, August 24,2000.

Jay H. Casselberry,Agency Clearance Officer, Statistics andMethods Group, Energy InformationAdministration.[FR Doc. 00–22301 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]



Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

[Docket No. RP00–503–000]

Crossroads Pipeline Company; Noticeof Proposed Changes in FERC GasTariff

August 25, 2000.

Take notice that on August 21, 2000,Crossroads Pipeline Company(Crossroads), tendered for filing as partof its FERC Gas Tariff, Original VolumeNo. 1 the following revised tariff sheetsto be effective March 27, 2000.

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 6First Revised Sheet No. 60First Revised Sheet No. 61First Revised Sheet No. 62First Revised Sheet No. 63First Revised Sheet No. 69

Crossroads indicated the that thepurpose of the filing is to comply withthe requirements of Order Nos. 637 and637–A with respect to the revised rulesgoverning capacity releases.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22255 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]




[Docket No. RP00–502–000]

Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.;Notice of Proposed Changes in FERCGas Tariff

August 25, 2000.

Take notice that on August 21, 2000,Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.(Granite State), tendered for filing aspart of its FERC Gas Tariff, ThirdRevised Volume No. 1 the followingrevised tariff sheets to be effectiveMarch 27, 2000.

Third Revised Sheet No. 297Second Revised Sheet No. 300Second Revised Sheet No. 301

Granite State indicated that thepurpose of the filing is to comply withthe requirements of Order Nos. 637 and637–A with respect to the revised rulesgoverning capacity releases.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22256 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]




[Docket Nos. RP00–428–000 and RP91–143–050]

Great Lakes Gas Transmission; Noticeof Extension of Comment Period

August 25, 2000.On August 21, 2000, the Public

Service Commission of the State of NewYork (New York), filed a request for anextension of time to September 5, 2000,within which to file comments in theabove-docketed proceeding. New Yorkavers it only recently learned of thesubject filing and needs more time tosecure a copy and an opportunity toreview it. As more fully detailed below,New York’s motion is granted.

On July 31, 2000, Great Lakes GasTransmission Limited Partnership(Great Lakes) filed a Joint Stipulationand Agreement Regarding Rates(Settlement) pursuant to Rule 602 of theCommission’s Rules of Practice andProcedures. In its motion, New Yorkfurther states it has an interest in theproceeding as it impacts the terms ofservice and the rates charged ratepayersin the state of New York.

Upon consideration, notice is herebygiven that an extension of time withinwhich parties may file comments in theabove-docketed proceeding is granted.Initial Comments on the Settlement willnow be due on September 5, 2000, andReply Comments will now be due onSeptember 14, 2000.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22257 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket Nos. CP00–40–000 and –001]

Florida Gas Transmission Company;Supplemental Notice of Intent toPrepare an Environmental ImpactStatement for the Proposed FGT PhaseV Expansion Project, Request forComments on Environmental Issues,and Notice of Public Scoping Meetingand Site Visit

August 25, 2000.On August 1, 2000, Florida Gas

Transmission Company (FGT) filed, inDocket No. CP00–40–001, to amend itspending application for the Phase V



1 FGT’s original application in Docket No. CP00–40–000 was filed with the Commission underSection 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act on December 1,1999 and consisted of about 215.4 miles of pipeline,15.7 miles of rehabilitated mainline, and 89,765horsepower of additional compression.

2 The original NOI for FGT’s Phase V ExpansionProject was issued by the Commission on February11, 2000, to all potentially interested parties.

3 A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usuallyinstalled adjacent to an existing pipeline andconnected to it at both ends. The loop allows moregas to be moved through the system.

4 FGT requested and received authorization inDocket No. CP99–94–000 to construct CompressorStation 24.

5 The appendices referenced in this notice are notbeing printed in the Federal Register. Copies areavailable on the Commission’s website at the‘‘RIMS’’ link or from the Commission’s PublicReference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 FirstStreet, NE, Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or call(202) 208–1371. For instructions on connecting toRIMS refer to the last page of this notice. Copies ofthe appendices were sent to all those receiving thisnotice in the mail.

Expansion Project.1 This amendmentreflects facility and routingmodifications proposed by FGT as aresult of community dialog, updatedsurvey and engineering information,and market changes.

The FERC staff will prepare anenvironmental impact statement (EIS)that will discuss the environmentalimpacts of the construction andoperation of the facilities proposed inthe FGT Phase V Expansion Project, asamended, in various counties ofMississippi, Alabama, and Florida.These facilities would consist of about191.5 miles of pipeline and 125,215horsepower (HP) of additionalcompression. This EIS will be used bythe Commission in its decision-makingprocess to determine whether theproject is in the public convenience andnecessity.

If you are a landowner on FGT’sproposed route and receive this notice,you may be contacted by a pipelinecompany representative about theacquisition of an easement to construct,operate, and maintain the proposedfacilities. The pipeline company wouldseek to negotiate a mutually acceptableagreement. However, if the project isapproved by the Commission, thatapproval conveys with it the right ofeminent domain. Therefore, if easementnegotiations fail to produce anagreement, the pipeline company couldinitiate condemnation proceedings inaccordance with state law.

A fact sheet prepared by the FERCentitled ‘‘An Interstate Natural GasFacility On My Land? What Do I NeedTo Know?’’ was attached to the projectnotice FGT provided to landownersalong and adjacent to the proposedroute. This fact sheet addresses anumber of typically asked questions,including the use of eminent domainand how to participate in theCommission’s proceedings. It isavailable for viewing on the FERCInternet website (www.ferc.fed.us).

This supplemental notice is beingsent to landowners of property crossedby and adjacent to FGT’s proposed routefor the newly proposed or modifiedfacilities; Federal, state, and localagencies; elected officials;environmental and public interestgroups; Indian tribes that might attachreligious and cultural significance tohistoric properties in the area ofpotential effects; local libraries andnewspapers; and parties that responded

to our original Notice of Intent toPrepare an Environmental ImpactStatement (NOI) for this project.2 Stateand local government representativesare encouraged to notify theirconstituents of this proposed action andencourage them to comment on theirareas of concern.

Additionally, with this notice we areasking those Federal, state, local andtribal agencies with jurisdiction and/orspecial expertise with respect toenvironmental issues to cooperate withus in the preparation of the EIS. Theseagencies may choose to participate oncethey have evaluated the proposalrelative to their agencies’responsibilities. Agencies who wouldlike to request cooperating agency statusshould follow the instructions for filingcomments described below.

The Southwest Florida WaterManagement District has alreadyexpressed an interest in being acooperating agency for this EIS.

Summary of the Proposed Project

FGT proposes to build additional newnatural gas pipeline and compressionfacilities to transport an annual averageof 305,819 million British thermal unitsper day of natural gas to serve newmarkets, primarily electric generationfacilities, in Florida. FGT requestsCommission authorization to:

• Construct about 191.5 miles ofpipeline including:

—88.4 miles of looping 3 on theexisting mainline in Mississippi,Alabama, and Florida;

—29.1 miles of new lateral inAlabama; and

—74.0 miles of new laterals andlateral loops in Florida;

• Install a total of about 125,215 hpof compression at eight existing, onepreviously planned 4, and three newcompressor stations;

• Construct two regulator stations;and

• Construct one meter station.FGT will also acquire from Koch

Gateway Pipeline Company (KGPC) aninterest in KGPC’s Mobile Bay Lateralthat would give FGT the rights to about50 percent of the available capacity onsystem. Concurrent with FGT’s filing inDocket No. CP00–40–000 (December 1,1999), KGPC filed an application in

Docket No. CP00–39–000 for approval toabandon by sale to FGT the interest inits Mobile Bay Lateral.

The general location of FGT’sproposed project facilities is shown onthe map attached as appendix 1. A moredetailed description of the facilities andthe changes proposed by FGT isincluded in appendix 2.5

FGT also made changes in theproposed routing of several facilities.FGT has notified all newly affectedlandowners of its new facilities androute changes, and sent copies of itsapplication to the Commission anddetailed route maps of the Phase VProject to libraries in the project area.Appendix 3 lists the libraries where youcan view these materials. The majorrouting changes are summarized below.

• Loop G—The right-of-way has beenrelocated to the east side of the existingFlorida Power Corporation (FPC)corridor. The pipeline is proposed to be5 feet inside the eastern edge of the FPCcorridor, southward from CompressorStation 26 to approximate milepost (MP)104.9 where it crosses the FPC corridorand ties in with the existing FGT WestLeg pipeline. Additional FGTpermanent easement will be acquiredeast of the FPC corridor.

• Gulf Power Lateral—The centerlineof the route was moved westwardapproximately 20 feet for approximately7.0 miles (from MP 16.3 to MP 23.2) toaccommodate the proposed expansionof State Highway 77 in Bay County,Florida. A minor route variation toavoid a parallel waterbody (approximateMP 9.0) was also made and resulted ina new landowner being affected.

• Compressor Station 16—Up to 10acres of additional land will bepurchased for the construction of thenew station.

• Compressor Station 31—The layoutof Compressor Station 31 has beenmodified to avoid placement of aboveground facilities in onsite wetlands.Additionally, the distance to the nearestnoise sensitive area has been increasedto approximately 900 feet.

• DeBary Regulator—The DeBaryRegulator has been relocated to thejunction of the Sanford and FP&LLaterals at MP 14.6/0.0 in VolusiaCounty, Florida.



Land Requirements for Construction

Construction of FGT’s proposedpipeline facilities would require about2,252.8 acres of land including theconstruction right-of-way, extraworkspaces, and contractor/pipe yards.In general, FGT proposes to use a 75- to100-foot-wide construction right-of-way.Following construction and restorationof the right-of-way and temporary workspaces, FGT would retain a 30- to 50-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way. Total land requirements for thenew permanent right-of-way would beabout 664.1 acres.

FGT proposes to acquire 80 acres forthe construction of the newly proposedcompressor stations and upgrades toexisting facilities, although only 28acres would be used duringconstruction. Once construction iscomplete, the lands used forconstruction would be restored.

The EIS Process

The National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) requires the Commission totake into account the environmentalimpacts that could result from an actionwhenever it considers the issuance of aCertificate of Public Convenience andNecessity. NEPA also requires us tosolicit and address concerns the publicmay have about proposals. We call this‘‘scoping.’’ The main goal of the scopingprocess is to focus the analysis in theEIS on the important environmentalissues. By this NOI, the Commissionrequests public comments on the scopeof the issues it will address in the EIS.All comments received are consideredduring the preparation of the EIS.

Our independent analysis of theissues will be in the Draft EIS whichwill be mailed to Federal, state, andlocal agencies, public interest groups,affected landowners and otherinterested individuals, Indian tribes,newspapers, libraries, and theCommission’s official service list forthis proceeding. A 45-day commentperiod will be allotted for review of theDraft EIS. We will consider allcomments on the Draft EIS and revisethe document, as necessary, beforeissuing a Final EIS. The Final EIS willinclude our response to each commentreceived on the Draft EIS and will beused by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether toapprove the project.

Currently Identified EnvironmentalIssues

The EIS will discuss impacts thatcould occur as a result of theconstruction and operation of theproposed project. We have already

identified a number of issues that wethink deserve attention based on apreliminary review of the proposedfacilities and the environmentalinformation provided by FGT. Theseissues are listed below. This is apreliminary list of issues and may bechanged based on your comments andour analysis.

• Soils and Geology—Impact on prime farmland soils.—Mixing of topsoil and subsoil

during construction.—Compaction of soil by heavy

equipment.—Erosion control and right-of-way

restoration.—Impact on mineral resources.—Potential geologic hazards

including sinkholes.• Water Resources—Impact on 95 perennial waterbodies

including Puppy Creek, Big Creek, LittleBear Creek, Clearwater Lake, GlobeCreek, Water Oak Creek, the MobileRiver, the St. John’s River, and theWekiva River.

—Impact on several Florida stateaquatic preserve areas associated withthe Wekiva and St. John’s Rivers.

—Impact on groundwater and surfacewater supplies.

—Impact on areas with shallowgroundwater.

—Effect of crossing waterbodies withcontaminated sediments.

—Potential for erosion and sedimenttransport to area waterbodies.

—Impact on wetland hydrology.• Biological Resources—Short- and long-term effects of

right-of-way clearing and maintenanceon wetlands, forests, riparian areas, andvegetarian communities of specialconcern.

—Impact on wildlife and fisheryhabitats.

—Impact on conservation areas.—Potential impact on Federal- and

state-listed threatened or endangeredspecies.

—Potential impact on U.S. ForestService-listed sensitive species.

• Cultural Resources—Effect on historic and prehistoric

sites.—Native American concerns.• Socioeconomics—Effect of the construction workforce

on demands for services in surroundingareas.

• Land Use—Impact on residential areas (77

residences within 50 feet of theconstruction work area).

—Impact on public lands and specialuse areas including the Lake ButlerWildlife Management Area, OcalaNational Forest, Seminole State Forest,

Rock Springs Run State Reserve, LowerWekiva River State Reserve, andWilliams Road County Park.

—Impact on future land uses andconsistency with local land use plansand zoning.

—Visual effect of the newaboveground facilities on surroundingareas.

• Air Quality and Noise—Construction impact on local air

quality and noise environment.—Impact on local air quality and

noise environment resulting from theinstallation of new compressionequipment and the construction andoperation of three new compressorstations.

• Pipeline Reliability and Safety• Cumulative Impact—Effect of the Phase V Expansion

Project combined with that of otherprojects that have been or may beproposed in the same region and similartime frames.

• Nonjurisdictional Facilities—Consideration of the effects of

construction of the pipeline facilitiesplanned by TECO/Peoples Gas System(Peoples) in connection with deliveriesfrom FGT for Peoples’ Daytona-areacustomers, and for the JacksonvilleElectric Authority’s Brandy BranchGenerating Station.

• Alternatives—Evaluation of possible alternatives

to the proposed project or portions ofthe project, and identification ofrecommendations on how to lessen oravoid impacts of the various resourceareas.

Public Participation and ScopingMeetings

You can make a difference by sendinga letter addressing your specificcomments or concerns about the project.By becoming a commentor, yourconcerns will be addressed in the EISand considered by the Commission. Youshould focus on the potentialenvironmental effects of the proposal,alternatives to the proposal (includingalternative routes), and measures toavoid or lessen environmental impact.The more specific your comments, themore useful they will be. Please followthese instructions carefully to ensurethat your comments are received in timeand properly recorded:

• Send two copies of your letter to:David P. Boergers, Secretary, FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Room 1A,Washington, D.C. 20426.

• Label one copy of the comments forthe attention of Gas Group 1, PJ–11.1;

• Reference Docket Nos. CP00–040–000 and –001; and



6 Other scoping meetings were held for thisproject in Prichard, Alabama (February 28, 2000);Southport, Florida (February 29, 2000); CrystalRiver, Florida (March 1, 2000); and Sanford, Florida(March 2, 2000).

• Mail your comments so that theywill be received in Washington, D.C. onor before September 25, 2000.

All commenters will be retained onour mailing list. If you do not want tosend comments at this time but stillwant to stay informed and receivecopies of the Draft and Final EISs, youmust return the attached InformationRequest (appendix 5). If you do not sendcomments or return the InformationRequest, you will be taken off themailing list.

In addition to or in lieu of sendingwritten comments, we invite you toattend a public scoping meeting theFERC will conduct in the project area.6The location and time for this meetingis: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 at7:00 p.m., Radisson-Hotel Tampa atSabal Park, 10221 Princess PalmAvenue, Tampa, FL 33610, (813) 246–7135.

The public meeting is designed toprovide you with more detailedinformation and another opportunity tooffer your comments on the proposedproject. FGT representatives will bepresent at the scoping meetings todescribe their proposal. Interestedgroups and individuals are encouragedto attend the meeting and to presentcomments on the environmental issuesthey believe should be addressed in theDraft EIS. A transcript of the meetingwill be made so that your commentswill be accurately recorded.

Site VisitOn September 13, 14, and 15, 2000,

we will also be conducting limited sitevisits to FGT’s proposed facilitylocations in Hillsborough, Citrus,Gilchrist, and Hernando Counties,Florida. Anyone interested inparticipating in the site visit maycontact the Commission’s Office ofExternal Affairs identified at the end ofthis notice for more details and mustprovide their own transportation.

Becoming an IntervenorIn addition to involvement in the EIS

scoping process, you may want tobecome an official party to theproceeding known as an ‘‘intervenor.’’Intervenors play a more formal role inthe process. Among other things,intervenors have the right to receivecopies of case-related Commissiondocuments and filings by otherintervenors. Likewise, each intervenormust provide 14 copies of its filings tothe Secretary of the Commission and

must send a copy of its filings to allother parties on the Commission’sservice list for this proceeding. If youwant to become an intervenor you mustfile a motion to intervene according toRule 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR385.214) (see appendix 4). Onlyintervenors have the right to seekrehearing of the Commission’s decision.

Affected landowners and parties withenvironmental concerns may be grantedintervenor status upon showing goodcause by stating that they have a clearand direct interest in the proceedingwhich would not be adequatelyrepresented by any other parties. You donot need intervenor status to have yourenvironmental comments considered.

Additional information about theproposed project is available from Mr.Paul McKee of the Commission’s Officeof External Affairs at (202) 208–1088 oron the FERC website (www.ferc.fed.us)using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link to information inthis docket number. Click on the‘‘RIMS’’ link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ from theRIMS Menu, and follow theinstructions. For assistance with accessto RIMS, the RIMS helpline can bereached at (202) 208–2222.

Similarly, the ‘‘CIPS’’ link on theFERC Internet website provides accessto the texts of formal documents issuedby the Commission, such as orders,notices, and rulemakings. From theFERC Internet website, click on the‘‘CIPS’’ link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ from theCIPS Menu, and follow the instructions.For assistance with access to CIPS, theCIPS helpline can be reached at (202)208–2474.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22258 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


[FRL–6861–6]

Agency Information CollectionActivities: Proposed Collection;Comment Request; SEA andRecordkeeping Requirements for On-Highway HD Engines, Nonroad LargeCI Engines, On-Highway LD Vehiclesand LD Trucks; Exemptions; EmissionDefect Information and VoluntaryEmission Recall Reports; MarineCertification and AB&T; MarineProduction Line Testing; Marine In-UseTesting Program

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.3501 et seq.), this document announcesthat EPA is planning to submit thefollowing continuing InformationCollection Request (ICR) to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB);Selective Enforcement Auditing andRecordkeeping Requirements for On-highway Heavy Duty Engines, NonroadLarge Compression Ignition Engines,On-highway Light Duty Vehicles andLight Duty Trucks, EPA ICR Number0011.09, OMB Control Number 2060–0064, expiration date: 8/30/00; Pre-Certification and Testing ExemptionReporting and Recordkeeping Require-ments, EPA ICR Number 0095.10, OMBControl Number 2060–0007, expirationdate: 7/31/00; Emission DefectInformation and Voluntary EmissionRecall Reports, EPA ICR Number0282.10, OMB Control Number 2060–0048, expiration date: 8/30/00; SparkIgnition Marine Engine Application forEmission Certification, andParticipation in the Averaging, Banking,and Trading Program, EPA ICR Number1722.02, Previous OMB Control Number2060–0321, expiration date:7/31/00.Marine Engine ManufacturersProduction Line Testing Reporting andRecordkeeping Requirements, EPA ICRNumber 1725.02, OMB Control Number2060–0323, expiration date: 7/31/00;Marine Engine Manufacturer In-UseTesting Program, EPA ICR Number1726.02, OMB Control Number 2060–0322, expiration date: 7/31/00.

Before submitting the ICR to OMB forreview and approval, EPA is solicitingcomments on specific aspects of theproposed information collection asdescribed below.DATES: Comments must be submitted onor before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Office of Transportation andAir Quality, Certification andCompliance Division, EngineCompliance Programs Group, Ariel RıosBuilding, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,Mail Code 6403J, Washington, DC20460. Interested persons may request acopy of the ICRs without charge fromthe contact person below.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nydia Y. Reyes-Morales, tel.: (202) 564–9264; fax: (202) 565–2057; e-mail: [email protected] INFORMATION:

Affected entities: Entities potentiallyaffected by this action are those whichmanufacture engines.

Title: Selective Enforcement andRecordkeeping Requirements for On-Highway Heavy Duty Engines, Nonroad



Large Compression Ignition Engines,On-Highway Light Duty Vehicles andLight Duty Trucks (OMB ControlNumber 2060–0064, EPA ICR Number0011.09) expiring 8/30/00.

Abstract: As part of the SelectiveEnforcement Auditing (SEA) Programs,authorized by Section 206(d) and 213(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),manufacturers are required to submitperiodic reports and information beforeand after SEAs. The informationrequested include pre-audit data (suchas projected annual sales, productionvolumes and voluntary assembly linetest data), and audit data (detailedproduction information, records for testequipment, test data and reports). Thisinformation is evaluated to determine ifproduction engines comply withapplicable exhaust emission standards.

Title: Pre-Certification and TestingExemption Reporting andRecordkeeping Requirements (OMBControl Number 2060–0007, EPA ICRNumber 0095.10) expiring 7/31/00.

Abstract: EPA may grant pre-certification and testing exemptions forengines to be used under certaincircumstances, such as displays,research, national security, andexportation. Pre-certificationexemptions are granted to IndependentCommercial Importers who want tobring an engine into the country to betested, modified, and eventuallycertified and resold. Some engines areexempt without application, subject tothe provisions of 40 CFR Subpart J. Theapplication and/or exemption recordskept under this information collectionare used to ensure that uncertifiedengines are not introduced intocommerce except for legitimatepurposes and are not available for useunless they are covered by anexemption.

Title: Emission Defect Informationand Voluntary Emission Recall Reports(OMB Control Number 2060–0048, EPAICR Number 0282.10) expiring on 8/30/00.

Abstract: Engine manufacturers arerequired, under the authority of Section208(a) of the CAA, to report emission-related defects found in a number ofengines. Manufacturers submitVoluntary Emission Recall Reports tonotify EPA when they initiate a recallcampaign. Defect Information andEmission Recall Reports are used byEPA to target potentially non-conforming engines for future testingand to ensure that engines comply withemission standards throughout theiruseful life.

Title: Spark Ignition Marine EngineApplication for Emission Certification,and Participation in the Averaging,

Banking, and Trading Program, EPA ICRNumber 1722.02, Previous OMB ControlNumber 2060–0321, expiration date: 7/31/00.

Abstract: Under Title II of the CleanAir Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.; CAA orthe Act), EPA is charged with issuingcertificates of conformity for thoseengines which comply with applicableemission standards. Such a certificatemust be issued before engines may belegally introduced into commerce. Toapply for a certificate of conformity,manufacturers are required to submitdescriptions of their plannedproduction line, including detaileddescriptions of the emission controlsystem, and test data. This informationis organized by ‘‘engine family’’ groupsexpected to have similar emissioncharacteristics. There are alsorecordkeeping and labelingrequirements.

Those manufacturers electing toparticipate in the Averaging Bankingand Trading Program for marine enginesare also required to submit informationregarding the calculation of projectedand actual generation and usage ofcredits in an initial report, end-of-the-year report and final report. Thesereports are used for certification andenforcement purposes. Manufacturerswill also maintain records for eightyears on the engine families included inthe program.

Title: Marine Engine ManufacturersProduction Line Testing Reporting andRecord-keeping Requirements (OMBControl Number 2060–0323, EPA ICRNumber 1725.02) expiring 7/31/00.

Abstract: The Production Line TestingProgram (PLT) is a self-audit program,promulgated under the authority ofSection 213(d) of the CAA, in whichmarine engine manufacturers testengines as they leave the assembly line.It’s objective is for EPA and themanufacturers to determine withstatistical certainty whether newengines in fact comply with emissionstandards. By detecting problems whileengines are still in production,noncomformities are detected andcorrected before engines are introducedinto commerce or soon after productionwhen engines are most easily located.EPA uses the data obtained through thePLT to determine compliance withemission regulations and whether aSelective Enforcement Audit is needed.

Title: Marine Engine Manufacturer-Based In-Use Emission Testing Program(OMB Control Number 2060–0322, EPAICR Number 1726.02) expiring 7/31/00.

Abstract: This information collectionrequires manufacturers of marineengines to submit to EPA quarterlyreports with emission data generated in

the manufacturer’s own in-use testingprogram. This information, collectedunder the authority of Sections 207(c)and 213(d) of the CAA, is used todetermine whether in-use marineengines comply with emissionstandards throughout their useful lives.

All the information requested by thesecollections is required for variousprograms’ implementation andactivities. The information is collectedby the Engine Compliance ProgramsGroup, Certification and ComplianceDivision, Office of Transportation andAir Quality, Office of Air and Radiation,except for information pertaining toLight Duty Vehicles and Light DutyTrucks which is collected by theVehicle Compliance Programs Group.Information submitted by manufacturersis held as confidential until the specificengine to which it pertains is availablefor purchase. Confidentiality toproprietary information is granted inaccordance with the Freedom ofInformation Act, EPA regulations at 40CFR 2, and class determinations issuedby EPA’s Office of General Counsel. Anagency may not conduct or sponsor, anda person is not required to respond to,a collection of information unless itdisplays a currently valid OMB controlnumber. The OMB control numbers forEPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFRpart 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicitcomments to:

(i) evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

(iv) minimize the burden of thecollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of appropriate automated electronic,mechanical, or other technologicalcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology, e.g., permittingelectronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The burden of theexisting ICRs is set forth in Table I.These burden estimates include theburden associated with the initial stagesof the programs. Since manufacturershave already spent the time required toinitiate the programs, we expect that,once we review the existing ICRs, therevised estimates will be substantiallyless.



TABLE I.—BURDEN STATEMENT

ICR

Estimatedaverageburdenhours/

response

Frequency

Number ofrespond-

ents(#enginefamilies)

Cost perresponse

(per enginefamily)

Capitaland startup cost

Operation/mainte-nancecosts

Purchaseof services

cost

SEA:On-Highway HDE ....................................... 984.8 1 22 $58,714 $0 $0 $0CI Engines .................................................. 1,644.8 1 46 $98,314 $0 $0 $0LDV/LDT ..................................................... 984.8 1 20 $7,710 $0 $0 $0

Exemptions:Pre-certification ........................................... 30 1 10 $1,140 $0 $0 $0Testing ........................................................ 190 1 40 $7,220 $0 $0 $0

Defect Information and Recall Reports ............. 174 1 38 $8,526 $0 $0 $0Marine Certification ............................................ 9,321.5 1 10(67) ($559,290) $0 $0 $0Marine AB&T ...................................................... 728 4 10 $42,524 $0 $0 $0Marine PLT ........................................................ 1,745 4 10 $104,502 $0 $0 $0Marine In-Use Prog ............................................ 938 14 11 $53,576 $0 $0 $0

Burden means the total time, effort, orfinancial resources expended by personsto generate, maintain, retain, or discloseor provide information to or for aFederal agency. This includes the timeneeded to review instructions; develop,acquire, install, and utilize technologyand systems for the purposes ofcollecting, validating, and verifyinginformation, processing andmaintaining information, and disclosingand providing information; adjust theexisting ways to comply with anypreviously applicable instructions andrequirements; train personnel to be ableto respond to a collection ofinformation; search data sources;complete and review the collection ofinformation; and transmit or otherwisedisclose the information.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Robert Brenner,Acting Assistant Administrator for Air andRadiation.[FR Doc. 00–22373 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


[FRL–6861–5]

Good Neighbor Environmental BoardMeeting

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Good NeighborEnvironmental Board (GNEB) will meeton the afternoon of Tuesday, September19th, and for the full day onWednesday, September 20, in El Paso,Texas, in its role as advisor to thePresident and Congress on creating andmaintaining an environmentallysustainable U.S.-Mexico border region.

In addition, on the following day,September 21st, Good Neighbor Boardmembers will take part in the currentlyscheduled plenary session of the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program NationalCoordinator’s meeting, where they willreport out on their activities and alsofacilitate a public comment session. Themeetings of both groups are open to thepublic.

Location: The Good NeighborEnvironmental Board meeting will takeplace at the Camino Real Hotel in ElPaso, Texas. It is located at 101 SouthEl Paso Street, El Paso, Texas, 79901.The hotel phone number is (915) 534–3000. The Camino Real is adjacent tothe Convention Center and PerformingArts Theater. It has underground feeparking, and there is a bus stop about 3blocks from the hotel.

Agenda: During the first afternoon,Tuesday the 19th, the draft agenda callsfor discussing ongoing Board businessincluding dissemination of the FourthReport to the President and Congress, abriefing on border region watersheds, aroundtable with Border XXI to giveinput from the Board on its proposednext phase, and break-out sessions forthe Board’s four workgroups. The draftagenda for Wednesday includes moreongoing Board business such as report-outs on border activities, early planningfor the Fifth Report, and a roundtablesession with Consejo Region 1 ofMexico and representatives from non-governmental groups.

Public Attendance: The public iswelcome to attend all portions of themeeting. Seating on both days isavailable on a first-come, first-servedbasis. Members of the public who planto file written statements and/or makebrief oral statements at the publiccomment session of the NationalCoordinator’s meeting on September21st, which Good Neighbor is scheduled

to facilitate, should contact theDesignated Federal Officer of the GoodNeighbor Environmental Board byThursday, September 7th.

Background: The Good NeighborEnvironmental Board was created by theEnterprise for the Americans InitiativeAct of 1992. An Executive Orderdelegates implementing authority to theAdministrator of EPA. The Board isresponsible for providing advice to thePresident and the Congress onenvironmental and infrastructure issuesand needs within the States contiguousto Mexico in order to improve thequality of life of persons residing on theUnited States side of the border. Thestatute calls for the Board to haverepresentatives from U.S. Governmentagencies; the governments of the Statesof Arizona, California, New Mexico andTexas; and private organizations withexpertise on environmental andinfrastructure problems along thesouthwest border. The Board meetsthree times annually. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency givesnotice of this meeting of the GoodNeighbor Environmental Boardpursuant to the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (Public Law 92–463).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Elaine M. Koerner, Designated FederalOfficer for the Good NeighborEnvironmental Board: Office ofCooperative EnvironmentalManagement, Office of theAdministrator, USEPA, MC1601A, 1200Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC20004, (202) 564–1484,[email protected]., or access theGNEB web-site at www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb.htm.



Dated: August 22, 2000.Elaine Koerner,Designated Federal Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22372 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


[FRL–6862–1]

Regulatory Reinvention (XL) PilotProjects

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice of Availability of PugetSound Naval Shipyard Project XL PhaseI Draft Final Project Agreement.

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting commentson the Phase I Draft Final ProjectAgreement (FPA) for Puget Sound NavalShipyard (PSNS), Bremerton,Washington. The FPA is a voluntaryagreement developed collaboratively byPSNS, the Washington State Departmentof Ecology (WDOE), and EPA. ProjectXL, announced in the Federal Registeron May 23, 1995 (60 FR 27872), isintended to provide regulated entitieswith the opportunity to developalternative strategies that will replace ormodify specific regulatory or proceduralrequirements on the condition that thealternative strategies produce greaterenvironmental benefits. PSNS isparticipating in EPA’s Project XL underthe auspices of EnvironmentalInvestment (ENVVEST). ENVVEST isthe Department of Defense’s program toparticipate in EPA’s Project XL.

The Puget Sound Naval Shipyardproposes to carry out this project in twophases. The first phase is explained inthis draft FPA. The Puget Sound NavalShipyard proposes to study the SinclairInlet and its surrounding watershed todocument its current health and theimpacting sources. Research would beconducted through the use of soundecological science and risk basedmanagement and employ techniquesconsistent with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency Ecological RiskAssessment Guidelines. Key elementsinclude development of a unifiedambient monitoring program,comprehensive electronic database, riskbased pollutant prioritization, and datato support the development of TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).

Regulatory flexibility is not beingsought nor granted pursuant to thisPhase I FPA. Rather, upon completionof the research in Phase, I, PSNS andrevelant stakeholders may propose pilotprojects to support obtaining regulatoryflexibility in Phase II of the XL/

ENVVEST project. These proposalswould require addenda to the FPA.Draft versions of proposed addendawould be announced in future FederalRegister notices for public comment.

The terms and conditions pertainingto this XL/ENVVEST pilot project arecontained in the draft Phase I FPA,upon which EPA is requesting commenttoday. The draft FPA sets forth theintentions of EPA, PSNS, and the WDOEwith regard to the implementation of thefirst phase of the project and theexpected benefits. After review of thecomments received during the publiccomment period and revision of theFPA, as appropriate, representatives ofthe EPA, the WDOE, and PSNS wouldsign the FPA.

DATES: The period for submission ofpublic comments ends on September 14,2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments on theproposed Final Project Agreementshould be sent to: Ms. Sherri Walker, USEPA, Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code1802, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, D.C. 20460. Commentsmay also be faxed to Sherri Walker at(202) 260–3125. Comments will also bereceived via electronic mail sent [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toobtain a copy of the Draft Final ProjectAgreement, contact: William Glasser,US EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,Seattle, WA 98101 , or Sherri Walker,US EPA, Mail Code 1802, Ariel RiosBuilding, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20460. The DraftFPA is also available at Puget SoundNaval Shipyard by contacting Ms. DianeManning, PSNS Code 1160, 1400Farragut Avenue, Bremerton, WA98314–5001; (360) 476–7111 or email:[email protected]. The FPA andrelated documents are also available viathe Internet at the following location:http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.Additional information on Project XL,including documents referenced in thisnotice, other EPA policy documentsrelated to Project XL, applicationinformation, and descriptions ofexisting XL projects and proposals, isavailable via the Internet at the websiteaddress listed above. Questionsregarding any of these documents can bedirected to William Glasser at (206)553–7215 or Sherri Walker at (202) 260–4295. If you wish to be included on thePSNS mailing list regarding futuremeetings contact Ms. Diane Manning aslisted above.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Elizabeth A. Shaw,Director, Office of Environmental PolicyInnovation.[FR Doc. 00–22380 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–M


[FRL–6862–7]

RIN 2040–AC20

Effluent Guidelines Plan

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice of effluent guidelinesplan.

SUMMARY: Today’s notice describes theAgency’s ongoing effluent guidelinesdevelopment efforts and announcesEPA’s plan for developing new andrevised effluent guidelines, whichregulate industrial discharges to surfaceWater Act requires EPA to publish anEffluent Guidelines Plan every twoyears. The Agency published a proposedplan on June 16, 2000, and publiccomments on the proposed plan arediscussed in today’s notice.EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: The public record for thisnotice is available for review in the EPAWater Docket, Room EB 57 East Tower,401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. from9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday, excluding legal holidays. Pleasecall (202) 260–3027 to schedule anappointment to see Docket materials.The EPA public information regulation(40 CFR part 2) provides that areasonable fee may be charged forcopying.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:James Lund, Engineering and AnalysisDivision (4303); telephone (202) 260–7811.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of This NoticeI. Regulated EntitiesII. Legal AuthorityIII. IntroductionIV. Effluent Guidelines Program BackgroundV. Effluent Guideline Regulations

Promulgated Since the Proposed PlanVI. Today’s Effluent Guidelines Plan

A. Rulemaking Activities Started in 1999B. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under

DevelopmentC. Summary of Changes from the Proposed

PlanVII. Future Direction of the Effluent

Guidelines ProgramA. Ways to Identify Industries for Future

Effluent Guidelines Development1. Targeting the Most Significant

Environmental Problems



2. Targeting Industry Sectors That May BeCandidates for Pollution Prevention andMulti-Media Rule Making

3. Targeting Sources That Are Difficult toPermit

B. Involving Stakeholders in the Year 2002Section 304(m) Plan

VIII. Public Comments Received on the June16, 2000 Notice

IX. Economic Impact Assessment; ExecutiveOrder 12866

I. Regulated Entities

Today’s plan does not containregulatory requirements. Rather, itidentifies industrial categories that EPAhas already chosen for new or revisedeffluent guidelines regulation and setsforth the schedules for those rulemakingefforts. Entities that could be affected bythe forthcoming effluent limitationsguidelines and standards identified inthis plan are:

Category ofentity

Examples of potentiallyaffected entities

Industry/com-mercial/agri-culture.

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard;Synthetic-Based DrillingFluids (oil and gas produc-tion); Centralized WasteTreatment; Metal Productsand Machinery (includingelectroplating, metal fin-ishing); Iron and SteelManufacturing; Coal Min-ing; builders and devel-opers engaged in con-struction, development,and redevelopment;Feedlots (swine, poultry,dairy and beef cattle);Aquatic Animal Production(fish hatcheries andfarms); Meat Products(slaughtering, rendering,packing, and processing ofred meat and poultry).

Federal Gov-ernment.

Metal Products and Machin-ery (including electro-plating, metal finishing);builders and developersengaged in construction,development, and redevel-opment.

State Govern-ment.


Local Govern-ment.


II. Legal AuthorityToday’s notice is published under the

authority of section 304(m) of the CleanWater Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(m).

III. IntroductionOn June 16, 2000, EPA published a

notice containing the Agency’sproposed section 304(m) plan for 2000(65 FR 37783). In that notice, EPA alsooutlined a preliminary framework bywhich EPA, working with its Statepartners, the regulated community, andconcerned citizens, can build upon thesuccesses of its effluent guidelinesprogram for the next decade andbeyond.

Today’s notice announces theAgency’s final section 304(m) plan for2000 and discusses comments receivedboth on the proposed section 304(m)plan for 2000 and on the framework fordeveloping future 304(m) plans.

IV. Effluent Guidelines ProgramBackground

With the 1972 passage of thelandmark Clean Water Act (CWA), EPAwas charged with developing effluentlimitations guidelines and standardsthat would provide a minimum,technology-based threshold for ongoingimprovements in effluent quality. Thelegislative history of CWA section304(b), which is the heart of the effluentguidelines program, describes the needto press toward higher levels of controlthrough research and development ofnew processes, modifications,replacement of obsolete plans andprocesses, and other improvements intechnology, taking into account the costof controls.

The Clean Water Act directs EPA topromulgate effluent limitationsguidelines and standards that, for mostpollutants, reflect the level of pollutantcontrol achievable by the best availabletechnologies economically achievablefor categories or subcategories ofindustrial point sources. See CWAsections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b),and 307(c). For point sources thatintroduce pollutants directly into theNation’s waters (i.e., direct dischargers),the limitations and standardspromulgated by EPA are implementedin National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permits.See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and402. For sources that discharge toPOTWs (i.e., indirect dischargers), EPApromulgates pretreatment standards thatapply directly to those sources and areenforced by POTWs backed by State andFederal authorities. See CWA sections307(b) and (c).

To date, EPA has promulgatedeffluent limitations guidelines for more

than 50 industrial categories affectingapproximately 30,000 facilities thatdischarge directly to the Nation’swaters. If EPA includes pretreatmentcontrols for sources that discharge intopublicly owned treatment works(POTWs), EPA’s effluent limitationsguidelines and standards regulate theeffluent from approximately 45,000facilities. These regulations accomplishwater quality improvements throughaffordable, cost-effective controls. Byrequiring cleaner industrial operations,these regulations help to ensure that theeconomic advances that result fromindustrial expansion are compatiblewith a clean environment and animproved quality of life.

Section 304(m) requires EPA topublish a plan every two years thatconsists of three elements. First, undersection 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is required toestablish a schedule for the annualreview and revision of existing effluentguidelines in accordance with section304(b). Section 304(b) applies to effluentlimitations guidelines for directdischargers and requires EPA to revisesuch regulations as appropriate. Second,under section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA mustidentify categories of sourcesdischarging toxic or nonconventionalpollutants for which EPA has notpublished effluent limitationsguidelines under 304(b)(2) or newsource performance standards (NSPS)under section 306. Finally, under304(m)(1)(C), EPA must establish aschedule for the promulgation ofeffluent limitations guidelines under304(b)(2) and NSPS for the categoriesidentified under subparagraph (B) notlater than three years after beingidentified in the 304(m) plan. Section304(m) does not apply to pretreatmentstandards for indirect dischargers,which EPA promulgates pursuant tosections 307(b) and 307(c) of the CleanWater Act.

On October 30, 1989, NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc., andPublic Citizen, Inc., filed an actionagainst EPA in which they alleged,among other things, that EPA had failedto comply with CWA section 304(m).Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to asettlement of that action in a consentdecree entered on January 31, 1992. Theconsent decree, which has beenmodified several times, established aschedule by which EPA is to proposeand take final action for eleven pointsource categories identified by name inthe decree, see Consent Decree, pars.2(a) and 4(a), and for eight other pointsource categories identified only as newor revised rules, numbered 5 through12, see Consent Decree par. 5(a).



The last date for EPA action under thedecree, as modified, is June 2004. Thedecree also established deadlines forEPA to complete studies of eightidentified and three unidentified pointsource categories. See Consent Decree,par. 3(a). The decree further providesthat the foregoing requirements shall beset forth in EPA’s section 304(m) plans.See Consent Decree, pars. 3(a), 4(a), 5(a).Under the decree, EPA is directed to usethe studies as well as other availableinformation to select the eight pointsource categories for which EPA hasagreed to issue new or revised rulesunder paragraph 5(a). Finally, theconsent decree provides that section304(m) plans issued subsequent to thedecree that are consistent with its termsshall satisfy EPA’s obligations undersection 304(m) with respect to thepublication of such plans. See ConsentDecree, par. 7(b).

The decree also required EPA toestablish an Effluent Guidelines TaskForce to make recommendations forimprovements to the effluent guidelinesprogram. See Consent Decree, par. 8.EPA did so in 1992. The Task Force,which was created to offer advice to theEPA Administrator on a process forexpediting the promulgation of effluentguidelines, among other topics, consistsof members appointed by the Agencyfrom industry, citizen groups, state andlocal governments, the academic andscientific communities, and EPA’sOffice of Research and Development. Itis a subcommittee of the NationalAdvisory Committee for EnvironmentalPolicy and Technology, which ischartered under the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. TheTask Force has held several publicmeetings each year since 1992 and hassubmitted recommendations to the EPAAdministrator.

V. Effluent Guideline RegulationsPromulgated Since the Proposed Plan

Since the June 16, 2000 publication ofthe proposed plan, EPA published onAugust 14, 2000 a final rule for theTransportation Equipment CleaningIndustry (65 FR 49666).

VI. Today’s Effluent Guidelines Plan

A. Rulemaking Activities Started in1999

EPA estimates that effluent guidelinesare responsible for preventing thedischarge of more than a billion poundsof toxic pollutants each year. While EPA

is very proud of this accomplishment,we recognize that water qualityproblems have not been eliminated.Despite successes in reducing waterpollution, approximately 40 percent ofthe waters assessed by States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions do not meetState or Tribal water quality standards.As reported by States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions in their 1998 section 305(b)water quality assessments,approximately 291,000 miles of riversand streams and 7.9 million acres oflakes are impaired. In addition, Statesidentified more than 20,000 impairedwaterbodies in their 1998 section 303(d)lists of impaired waters. Theoverwhelming majority of Americanslive within ten miles of a pollutedwaterbody. The pollutants mostfrequently identified as causing waterimpairment are siltation, excessnutrients, and harmful pathogens.Several effluent guidelines are currentlyunderway to help address siltation andnutrient problems, and, to a lesserextent, pathogens. In the proposed plan,EPA announced efforts that wereinitiated in late 1999 to develop new orrevised regulations for the meatproducts and aquatic animal productionindustries, both sources of nutrients tothis Nation’s waters.

EPA received no comments on theAgency’s selection of the meat productsindustry. However, EPA received manycomments on its decision to examineand develop effluent guidelines for theaquatic animal production industry.(EPA had originally used the termAquaculture to describe this industry.However, EPA has since recognized thatthe term Aquatic Animal Productionbetter reflects the operations that EPAexpects will be subject to theforthcoming effluent guidelines.) Someof the comments argued against EPA’sdecision to regulate aquatic animalproduction; others supported EPA’sdecision. Commenters on both sides ofthe aquatic animal productionregulation issue offered to work withEPA in the development of any aquaticanimal production effluent guidelines.EPA is discussing the tasks andinformation necessary to develop anaquatic animal production rule with theJoint Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s(JSA’s) Aquaculture Effluents TaskForce, which consists of representativesfrom trade associations, academia,federal and state agencies, professionalsocities, and non-governmentalorganizations. EPA welcomes the

assistance of all interested parties in thedevelopment of the guidelines and willprovide a number of opportunities forfurther involvement as we proceed withthe studies necessary to develop theregulation.

The aquatic animal productionindustry was first studied by EPA in1974 and has operated under guidanceissued in 1977. EPA chose to issueguidance in the late 1970s rather thanpromulgate a regulation at that time inorder to focus resources on otherindustries that EPA regarded as higherpriorities for the regulation of toxicpollutants.

As in the 1998 304(m) plan, EPA isbeginning new efforts to address classesof pollutants that continue to causewater quality impairments, specificallynutrients and organic pollutants. Intheir 1998 305(b) reports, 13 Statesidentified aquaculture operations assources contributing to water qualityimpairments, due largely to nutrientsand organic enrichment (low dissolvedoxygen impacts). EPA’s guidance wasinsufficient for many State permittingefforts; it reflected neither the growth inthe industry, nor the significanttechnological advances that have beenmade. Several States expressed interestin more current technical assistance andsupport, including a detailed analysis ofthe industry, its processes, controls, andfinancial ability to improve itsenvironmental performance. EPA’sdecision to begin developing effluentguidelines for this industry reflects theAgency’s commitment to launch thescientific study, data collection, andpublic involvement necessary to makethat happen.

All of the comments which EPAreceived concerning aquatic animalproduction, along with EPA’s responsesto the comments, are in the publicrecord for today’s notice. EPA will alsoforward the comments to the record forthe aquatic animal production rule andconsider them during that rule making.

We look forward to working with theU.S. Department of Agriculture and allother interested parties in obtaining themost accurate, up-to-date informationon which to base EPA’s rulemakingdecisions.

B. Effluent Guidelines Currently UnderDevelopment

The status of the regulations for newor revised effluent guidelines are setforth in Table 1.



TABLE 1.—EFFLUENT GUIDELINES CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT

Category Federal Register cite or date for Administrator’s signatureon proposed regulation Final action date 1

Centralized waste treatment .................................................. 60 FR 5464 (Jan. 27, 1995); 64 FR 2279 (Jan. 13, 1999) ... 8/31/00Synthetic-based drilling fluids (oil and gas production) ......... 64 FR 5487 (Feb. 3, 1999) ................................................... 12/00Coal mining ............................................................................ 65 FR 19439 (Apr. 11, 2000) ................................................ 12/01Iron and steel manufacturing ................................................. 10/00 ...................................................................................... 4/02Metal products and machinery, Phases I and II ................... 60 FR 28209 (May 30, 1995)—Phase I only; 10/00 (Phase

I and II).12/02

Construction and development .............................................. 3/02 ........................................................................................ 3/04Feedlots (poultry, swine, beef, and dairy subcategories) ..... 12/15/00 ................................................................................. 12/15/02Pulp, paper, and paperboard, Phases 2 & 3 ........................ 58 FR 66078 (Dec. 17, 1993) ............................................... 2000–2002Meat products ........................................................................ 12/01 ...................................................................................... 12/03Aquatic animal production ..................................................... 6/30/02 ................................................................................... 6/30/04

1 The dates shown are final action dates for all but Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) and Pulp and Paper. Final action dates are the datesof signature by the Administrator on a final regulation or a final decision not to establish or modify an effluent guideline. For CWT, the dateshown is the date of transmitting the final regulation to the Federal Register. For Pulp and Paper, the date represents an approximation.

C. Summary of Changes from theProposed Plan

Today’s Effluent Guidelines Plan issubstantively the same as the proposedplan. However, the TransportationEquipment Cleaning Effluent Guideline,shown in the proposed plan as‘‘currently under development’’ is nowpresented in today’s plan as a regulationthat was promulgated since theproposed plan. In addition, someclarifications were made in today’s planin response to comments received onthe proposed plan. In particular,clarifications were made in thediscussion of the selection of aquaticanimal production as one of theindustries selected for regulation. Moreinformation about the public commentssubmitted on the June 16, 2000 noticeis provided below in Section VIII.

VII. Future Direction of the EffluentGuidelines Program

The effluent guidelines program isone of EPA’s most successfulenvironmental protection programs.EPA develops performance standardsbased on demonstrated technologiesthat are affordable for the regulatedindustry as a whole. Supported bysound data and analysis, the effluentguidelines program strives for thegreatest pollutant reductions that can beeconomically achieved within theregulated community. In settingperformance standards, EPA considerspollution prevention approaches inaddition to more traditional treatmenttechnologies, with the result that the airand soil also benefit from wastewaterregulations.

Moreover, this program gives theregulated community considerableflexibility in achieving the performancestandards. Thus, dischargers areencouraged to develop less expensivealternatives to comply with theperformance standards than the model

technologies or processes identified bythe Agency. Invariably, the more cost-effective technologies and processesoften become the industry norm—in thisway yielding even greaterenvironmental results at lower cost thancontemplated by the regulation itself.

In the future, the effluent guidelinesprogram will evolve to face newchallenges. New or revised effluentguidelines can help solve the seriouswater quality problems still remainingin the Nation’s waterways, which aremost frequently caused by excessnutrients, sedimentation, pathogens,metals, and toxic pollutants. Also, morestringent levels of pollution reductionare now economically achievable insome industrial categories orsubcategories due to the emergence ofnew or innovative pollution controltechnologies. To help plan for thefuture, EPA plans to use the section304(m) planning process established bythe Clean Water Act to expand itsdialogue with the interested publicregarding how to use the effluentguidelines program to achieve thegreatest environmental benefits.

As discussed above, section 304(m)(1)requires EPA every two years to identifyindustry categories for new or revisedregulations and to establish a schedulefor final action on those rules.Consistent with the consent decreepertaining to section 304(m), EPAdischarged this duty in December 1999when it identified Aquatic AnimalProduction and Meat Products ascategories for new effluent guidelinesand established schedules for thoserules. The 2000 section 304(m) planreports that action. Now, EPA isbeginning the process for developing itssection 304(m) plan for the year 2002.

In the June 16, 2000 notice, EPAproposed a framework for developingfuture 304(m) plans. That proposedframework included (1) ways to identify

industries for future effluent guidelinesdevelopment and (2) a strategy forinvolving stakeholders in thedevelopment of the next 304(m) plan.

A. Ways To Identify Industries forFuture Effluent Guidelines Development

In the June 16, 2000 notice, EPAstated that criteria for selectingindustrial categories for new or revisedeffluent guidelines will be critical to our2002 section 304(m) plan development.In that notice, EPA proposed selectingindustries for effluent guidelinedevelopment by targeting the mostsignificant environmental problems, bytargeting industry sectors that may becandidates for pollution prevention andmulti-media rule making, and bytargeting industries that are difficult topermit.

1. Targeting the Most SignificantEnvironmental Problems

In the June 16, 2000 notice, EPAidentified three currently availablesources of information that EPA mightconsider using in the future to helpdetermine the most significantenvironmental problems and, thus,possible industrial categories for furtherexamination. (These data sources wouldnot be used as the basis for anyproposed regulations.)

First, EPA’s Office of PollutionPrevention and Toxics has developed arisk-related model called the ‘‘Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators’’(RSEI). This model can be used toperform screening-level analyses of thepotential risk-related, chronic humanhealth impacts associated with releasesreported in the Toxic Release Inventory.

Second, pursuant to section 303(d) ofthe Clean Water Act and EPA’simplementing regulations, States mustidentify waters where technology-basedeffluent limitations and other pollutioncontrol requirements are not stringent



enough to implement applicable waterquality standards for such waters. Thesesection 303(d) lists of waters identifythe pollutants and, where possible, thesource categories that may beresponsible for the water qualityimpairments.

Third, pursuant to section 305(b) ofthe Clean Water Act, States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions report on the qualityof their waters every two years,including information on pollutants andsources of pollution.

As stated in the June 16, 2000 notice,EPA notes that there is no overlapbetween the categories ranking highestusing the RSEI risk-related model andthe categories listed by the States ascontributing to siltation, nutrients, andpathogens. This finding is notparticularly surprising because theassessment factors differ, e.g., chronichuman health impacts in the case of theRSEI model, in contrast to emphases onaquatic ecosystem health as well asother designated use impairments, inthe case of the section 303(d) lists and305(b) reports.

EPA received comments on the use ofthese data sources identified in the June16, 2000 notice. The comments pointedout the limitations of these potentialsources of information. EPA is aware ofthe limitations of each of these sourcesof data, including—in the case of 303(d)lists and 305(b) reports—the uncertaintyin some instances whether theimpairments cited are due to nonpointsources or point sources, as well as thebroad range of information used by theStates in making these assessments(each with varying degrees of dataquality). EPA is also aware that, despitesignificant improvements to the Risk-Screening Environmental Indicatorsmodel in the past three years, we mustexercise caution in using it for industryselection purposes. EPA plans tocontinue the current practice ofevaluating and using other readily-available information to corroborate thefindings of these data sources indetermining which industrial categorieswarrant further examination.

EPA also received the comment thatonly States, EPA, or the regulatedentities should be authorized to submiteffluent samples in the effluentguidelines process. As a generalprinciple, EPA notes that it is open toconsidering any data that are relevantand reliable and that meet the Agency’srigorous quality assurance and qualitycontrol standards. EPA also understandsthat single-source data shouldsometimes not be used absent othercorroborating information.

EPA will consider all of thesecomments, in consultation with

interested stakeholders, as it proceedswith its section 304(m) planning processdescribed in Section VII.B. below. Inaddition, although EPA did not receiveany comments identifying any otherdata sources that might assist intargeting the most significantenvironmental problems, we remainopen to suggestions of data sources thatmay be of better quality for ourpurposes.

2. Targeting Industry Sectors That MayBe Candidates for Pollution Preventionand Multi-Media Rule Making

As stated in the June 16, 2000 notice,through its sector-based activities, suchas the Common Sense Initiative, EPArecognizes that addressing allenvironmental concerns from anindustry sector concurrently canimprove pollution prevention, resultingin better environmental results at lowercost than addressing the environmentalreleases one media at a time. EPA’s TaskForce on Coordinated Rulemaking,which was created to identify andinitiate sector-based rule makings thatwould benefit from a cross-Agency,multi-program coordinated effort, is oneattempt to capitalize on this concept.The Task Force on CoordinatedRulemaking is one source of informationon possible sectors for future effluentguidelines development.

Another source is EPA’s IntegratedUrban Strategy of the National AirToxics Program. Although this strategypresents a framework for reducing airtoxics (i.e., hazardous air pollutants) inurban areas, many of the sources thathave been identified contributepollutants to the water environment aswell. The link between wastewatertreatment and air emissions, like thelink between air emission treatment andwastewater, may point to a coordinatedapproach for addressing the highest risksources. Further coordination in thisarea is pending the results of theNational Air Quality Assessment that iscurrently underway.

One commenter, in support ofdetermining whether efforts beingundertaken in other EPA offices mightinfluence effluent guidelines, suggestedthat EPA consider the findings of theSurface Impoundment Study beingconducted by the Office of Solid Waste.This study, when completed, mayindicate a need to amend both solidwaste and water regulations. Given theinter-related nature of pollutant controlby the various media offices undervarious enabling statutes, resolvingenvironmental problems often requiresadjustments of several regulationsconcurrently. EPA recognizes thatchanges are sometimes needed, not only

to assure effectiveness, but also to avoidconflicting restrictions betweenprograms.

In a similar vein, EPA is currentlyexamining potential risks from Class Vinjection wells used by a wide varietyof commercial and industrial sources.Although not regulated by effluentguidelines, EPA is beginning to considerhow new effluent guidelines mayimpact the use of Class V injection wellsby the regulated industry. EPA hopesthat by sharing information betweenthese programs and coordinating theseefforts, environmental problems can besolved, not shifted.

3. Targeting Sources That Are DifficultTo Permit

As noted in the June 16, 2000 notice,effluent limitations guidelines establishnationally applicable standards that areimplemented through NPDES dischargepermits issued by authorized States andTribes or EPA. In the absence of theseregulations, permit writers mustdetermine technology-based limitationsusing their best professional judgment.Our State and Tribal regulatory partnersare some of the best sources ofinformation about the adequacy andcoverage of existing effluent limitationsguidelines. States and Tribes helped toidentify many of the sectors for whicheffluent guidelines are currently beingdeveloped or revised.

For example, one comment receivedon the June 16 notice suggested thatEPA revisit the Metal Molding andCasting Effluent Guideline in the nearfuture because of certain currentproblems in regulating this industrialcategory. The Agency is considering thiscomment and will use this industry asa specific example for discussion in theupcoming stakeholder process.

B. Involving Stakeholders in the Year2002 Section 304(m) Plan

As presented in the June 16, 2000notice, EPA also proposed an approachfor involving stakeholders in thedevelopment of the 2002 section 304(m)plan.

As EPA looks forward to the 2002section 304(m) plan, industry selectioncriteria will be critical. To help preparethe plan, EPA plans to engage allinterested parties in a dialogue. EPA isinterested in discussing not only thefactors that would indicate whichindustrial categories would provide thegreatest environmental benefit if subjectto new or revised effluent guidelines butalso the sources of data by which toevaluate those factors.

EPA plans to seek the views of asmany interested persons as possible,with particular emphasis on individuals



and organizations associated withindustry, environmental interest groups,and State, Tribal, and localgovernments. EPA will reach out tointerested stakeholders primarily byattending and, where possible,participating in meetings andconferences sponsored by members ofthose communities, as well as throughits Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ost)and less formal meetings.

The Agency has already launched thisdialogue through discussions with theEffluent Guidelines Task Force, whosemembership reflects a variety ofstakeholder viewpoints. Members of theEffluent Guidelines Task Force havealso agreed to assist EPA in thisstakeholder outreach effort.

At this point, EPA envisions that thisstakeholder outreach will culminate ina one or two day highly focusednational meeting of interestedstakeholders this winter. In addition toa discussion of factors for industryselection criteria and informationsources by which to evaluate thosefactors, EPA also seeks a discussion onwhether EPA’s procedures forimplementing the requirements ofsection 304(m), including the processfor selecting industrial categories fornew or revised effluent guidelines,should be codified in federalregulations. Relevant to that discussionwill be comments EPA received on theJune 16, 2000 notice that suggested thatnot only are such regulations notwarranted but also they could becounter-productive to efficient Agencymanagement of its resources and couldrestrict the Agency’s ability to considerother relevant information in theselection process. EPA plans to discussthis further with as many stakeholdersas possible. The Effluent GuidelinesTask Force has indicated its willingnessto work with EPA in conductingstakeholder outreach and refining our304(m) planning process.

Finally, as noted in the June 16, 2000notice, EPA plans to issue a final section304(m) plan in February 2002. EPA willuse the outcome of the stakeholderoutreach effort in developing this plan.

VIII. Public Comments Received on theJune 16, 2000 Notice

EPA accepted public comments onthe Proposed Plan through July 17,2000. The Agency received commentsfrom a variety of commenters includingindustry and agriculture, environmentalgroups, States, academia, andengineering consulting firms. Many ofthe comments received have beendiscussed in the text of today’s notice.The administrative record for today’snotice includes a complete set of all of

the comments submitted as well as theAgency’s responses.

IX. Economic Impact Assessment;Executive Order 12866

Today’s notice announces a plan forthe review and revision of existingeffluent guidelines and for the selectionof priority industries for newregulations. This notice is not a ‘‘rule’’subject to 5 U.S.C. 553 and does notestablish any requirements; therefore,EPA has not prepared an economicimpact assessment. EPA will provideeconomic impact analyses, regulatoryflexibility analyses, or regulatory impactassessments, as appropriate, for all ofthe future effluent guideline rulemakings developed by the Agency.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR51735, October 4, 1993), the Agencymust determine whether the regulatoryaction is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore,subject to Office of Management andBudget (OMB) review and therequirements of the Executive Order.The Order defines ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ as one that is likelyto result in a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on theeconomy of $100 million or more oradversely affect in a material way theeconomy, a sector of the economy,productivity, competition, jobs, theenvironment, public health or safety, orState, local, or tribal governments orcommunities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency orotherwise interfere with an action takenor planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetaryimpact of entitlements, grants, user fees,or loan programs or the rights andobligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issuesarising out of legal mandates, thePresident’s priorities, or the principlesset forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this planis not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under the terms of Executive Order12866 and is therefore not subject toOMB review.


J. Charles Fox,Assistant Administrator for Water.[FR Doc. 00–22383 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]



[FRL–6861–7]

Final Reissuance of General NPDESPermits (GP) for Alaskan MechanicalPlacer Mining (Permit Number AKG–37–0000) and Alaskan Medium-SizeSuction Dredging (Permit NumberAKG–37–1000)

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 10.ACTION: Final notice of reissuance of twogeneral permits.

SUMMARY: On June 30, 1999, two generalpermits regulating the activities ofmechanical placer mining and suctiondredge mining for gold placer miningoperations in the state of Alaskaexpired. On January 14, 2000, EPAproposed to reissue these two generalpermits. There was a 60 day commentperiod and public hearings were held inAnchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska.

During the comment period, EPAreceived comments on the mechanicalgeneral permit regarding Notice ofIntent (NOI) submittal, annual reportsubmittal and monitoring frequency. Aminer must submit an NOI to be coveredby the GPs. EPA has changed the datethat annual reports are due fromNovember 30 for the previous miningseason, to January 31 for the previouscalendar year. EPA did not make anychanges in monitoring frequency fromthose in the proposed permit.

EPA received similar comments asthose described above for the medium-size suction dredge general permit. Theresponses outlined in the previousparagraph also apply to the medium-size suction dredge permit. EPAreceived additional comments relatingto suction dredging including commentson suction dredge spacing, thedefinition of dredging operations, andthe use of winches. EPA did not changethe required spacing between suctiondredge operations, but did define adredging operation as one medium-sizedredge or one medium-size dredgeaccompanied by one small (four inch orless intake) dredge. EPA also specifieshow to determine if it is ‘‘apparent’’ thatan operation has occurred nearby. EPAclarified that the prohibition on winchesis on motorized winches, not on handwinches.

Other comments were received and aResponse to Comments was prepared foreach general permit.

At the time EPA proposed thesegeneral permits, EPA also gave noticethat the extended coverage under theprevious general permits would expirewith the reissuance of the new general



permits. EPA has determined that theextended coverage will expire eitherwhen a facility is authorized under thenew general permits or 150 days afterthe effective date of the new generalpermits, whichever is earlier.DATES: The general permits will beeffective October 2, 2000. For thosefacilities not seeking authorizationunder the new general permits,extended coverage under the previousgeneral permits will expire on February27, 2001.ADDRESSES: Copies of the GeneralPermits and Responses to Comments areavailable upon request. Written requestsmay be submitted to EPA, Region 10,1200 Sixth Avenue OW–130, Seattle,WA 98101. Electronic requests may bemailed to: [email protected] [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TheGeneral Permits, Fact Sheets andResponse to Comments may be found onthe Region 10 website at www.epa.gov/r10earth/offices/water.htm under theNPDES Permits section. Requests bytelephone may be made to AudreyWashington at (206) 553–0523 or toCindi Godsey at (907) 271–6561.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866: The Office ofManagement and Budget has exemptedthis action from the reviewrequirements of Executive Order 12866pursuant to Section 6 of that order.

The state of Alaska, Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC),has certified that the subject dischargescomply with the applicable provisionsof Sections 208(e), 301, 302, 306 and307 of the Clean Water Act.

The state of Alaska, Office ofManagement and Budget, Division ofGovernmental Coordination (ADGC),has conducted a review for consistencywith the Alaska Coastal ManagementProgram (ACMP) and has agreed withEPA’s determination that the generalpermits are consistent with the ACMP.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Under theRegulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5U.S.C. 601 et seq., a Federal agencymust prepare an initial regulatoryflexibility analysis ‘‘for any proposedrule’’ for which the agency ‘‘is requiredby section 553 of the AdministrativeProcedure Act (APA), or any other law,to publish general notice of proposedrulemaking.’’ The RFA exempts fromthis requirement any rule that theissuing agency certifies ‘‘will not, ifpromulgated, have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.’’ EPA hasconcluded that NPDES general permitsare permits, not rulemakings, under theAPA and thus not subject to APA

rulemaking requirements or the RFA.Notwithstanding that general permitsare not subject to the RFA, EPA hasdetermined that this general permit, asissued, will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.

Dated: August 23, 2000.Randall F. Smith,Director, Office of Water, Region 10, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.[FR Doc. 00–22374 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


Notice of Public InformationCollection(s) Being Reviewed by theFederal Communications Commission,Comments Requested

August 23, 2000.SUMMARY: The Federal CommunicationsCommission, as part of its continuingeffort to reduce paperwork burdeninvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to take thisopportunity to comment on thefollowing information collection, asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Anagency may not conduct or sponsor acollection of information unless itdisplays a currently valid controlnumber. No person shall be subject toany penalty for failing to comply witha collection of information subject to thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) thatdoes not display a valid control number.Comments are requested concerning (a)whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theCommission, including whether theinformation shall have practical utility;(b) the accuracy of the Commission’sburden estimate; (c) ways to enhancethe quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation collected; and (d) ways tominimize the burden of the collection ofinformation on the respondents,including the use of automatedcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology.DATES: Written comments should besubmitted on or before October 30,2000. If you anticipate that you will besubmitting comments, but find itdifficult to do so within the period oftime allowed by this notice, you shouldadvise the contact listed below as soonas possible.ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to LesSmith, Federal CommunicationsCommissions, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Room 1–A804, Washington, DC 20554or via the Internet to [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foradditional information or copies of theinformation collections contact LesSmith at (202) 418–0217 or via theInternet at [email protected] INFORMATION:

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0934.Title: Application for Equipment

Authorization—2.960, 2.962, 68.160 and68.162 Form FCC TCB 731.

Form No.: FCC TCB 731.Type of Review: Extension of

currently approved collection.Respondents: Business or other for

profit.Number of Respondents: 1,600.Estimated Time Per Response: 4

hours.Total Annual Burden: 6,400 hours.Total Annual Cost: $7,000 per

respondent.Needs and Uses: Commission rules

require approval prior to marketing ofequipment regulated under certain Part15 and Part 18 rule sections, based onshowing of compliance with technicalstandards established in the Rules foreach device operated under theapplicable Rule part. Rules governingcertain equipment operating thelicensed service also require equipmentauthorization as established in theprocedural Rules in Part 2 and Part 68.The Commission adopted new rules tostreamline its equipment authorizationprogram by allowingTelecommunications CertificationBodies to authorize equipment in aReport and Order, adopted December1998, Gen. Doc. 98–68. Such a showingof compliance aids in controllingpotential interference to radiocommunications, and the data gathered,as is necessary may be used forinvestigating complaints of harmfulinterference. Collection of thisinformation is approved underOMB#3060–0057. Commission Rulesestablished in Docket 98–68 establisheda framework for allowing private sectorapproval of equipment that is currentlyapproved as noted above. In addition,the rule changes established guidelinesfor implementation of MutualRecognition Agreements andArrangements with foreign tradepartners. To allow for private sector andforeign approval of equipment formarketing, the Commission madeprovisions to evaluate therecommendations of an accreditingbody in a given country as to thecompetency of a TelecommunicationsCertification Body (TCB) to approveequipment for marketing. Onceapproved by the accrediting body, and



‘‘Designated’’ by the Commission, theseTCB’s may accept Form 731 filings(OMB 3060–0057) from the public andevaluate the compliance of theequipment with the Commission’s Rulesand technical standards. If the TCBdetermines that the equipment compliesand should therefore receive a grant, theTCB is required to electronically submitthe Form 731 information, and theinformation required for grant, to theCommission via the Internet.

OMB Number: 3060–0213.Title: Section 73.3525 Agreements for

removing application conflicts.Form Number: None.Type of Review: Extension of

currently approved collection.Respondents: Business or other for-

profit.Number of Respondents: 38.Estimated time per response: 0.25–9

hours.Frequency of response: On occasion.Total annual burden: 39 hours.Total annual cost: $61,353.Needs and Uses: Section 73.3525

requires applicants for a constructionpermit for a broadcast station to obtainapproval from the FCC to withdraw,dismiss or amend its application whenthat application is in conflict withanother application pending before theFCC. This request for approval towithdraw, dismiss or amend anapplication should contain a copy of theagreement and an affidavit of each partyto the agreement.

The data is used by FCC staff to assurethat the agreement is in compliancewith its rules and regulations andSection 311 of the Communications Actof 1934, as amended.

In the event that the proposedwithdrawal of a conflicting applicationwould unduly impede achievement of afair, efficient and equitable distributionof radio service, the FCC must issue anorder providing further opportunity toapply for the facilities specified in theapplication(s) withdrawn. Upon releaseof this order, Section 73.3525(b)requires that the party proposingwithdrawal of its application give noticein a daily newspaper of generalcirculation published in the communityin which the proposed station wouldhave been located. This notice must bepublished twice a week for twoconsecutive weeks within the three-week period immediately followingrelease of the FCC’s order. Additionally,within 7 days of the last of publicationof the notice, the applicant proposing towithdraw shall file with the FCC astatement giving the dates on which thenotice was published, the text of thenotice, and the name and location of thenewspaper in which the notice was

published. The newspaper publicationgives interested parties an opportunityto apply for the facilities specified in thewithdrawn application(s).Federal Communications Commission.William F. Caton,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22241 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–U


[DA 00–1950]

Reminder of September 1, 2000,Deadline for Compliance WithRegulations for Human Exposure toRadiofrequency Emissions

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On September 1, 2000, allexisting transmitting facilities,operations and devices regulated by theCommission must be in compliancewith the Commission’s radiofrequency(RF) exposure guidelines, pursuant tothe Commission’s rules, or if not incompliance, file an EnvironmentalAssessment (EA).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert Cleveland, Office of Engineeringand Technology, (202) 418–2422 .SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asummary of the text of the PublicNotice, DA 00–1950, released August24, 2000. The document is available forinspection and copying during normalbusiness hours in the FCC ReferenceInformation Center, Room CY-A257, 44512th Street, SW., Washington, DC, andalso may be purchased from theCommission’s duplication contractor,International Transcription Service,(202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20036.

Summary of the Public Notice

1. This is the third in a series ofPublic Notices reminding licensees andgrantees of the September 1, 2000, RFcompliance requirement. For moreinformation, see Public Notice, ‘‘Year2000 Deadline for Compliance withCommission’s Regulations RegardingHuman Exposure to RadiofrequencyEmissions,’’ originally released February25, 2000; re-released as Public Notice,DA 00–912, April 27, 2000.

2. After September 1, 2000, if anyfacility, operation or device is found notto be in compliance with theCommission’s RF exposure guidelines,and if the required EA has not beenfiled, the Commission will consider this

to be a violation of its rules, resulting inpossible fines, forfeiture or other actionsdeemed appropriate by the Commission.Random spot checks for compliancewith the Commission’s RF exposureguidelines will be conducted.

3. Consumers should be aware thathand-held cellular and PCS telephonesthat were authorized by the FCC afterAugust 1, 1996, have been evaluated forcompliance with FCC guidelines.Furthermore, PCS devices subject toequipment authorization have beenrequired to comply with the RFguidelines since 1994. This means thata large number, if not the majority, ofcellular and PCS telephones now in usein the United States have already beenevaluated for compliance with the FCC’sRF exposure limits. To the extent that awireless device received an FCCauthorization prior to the August 1,1996, effective date, and is still beingproduced and marketed, manufacturersof such devices will be required to fileEAs if the device in question is not incompliance with the FCC’s RFguidelines.

4. Further information on theCommission’s RF exposure quidelinesand on evaluating compliance with theRF guidelines may be found at theCommission’s RF Safety Web page:www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. In particular,the Office of Engineering andTechnology’s Bulletin 65 andsupplements to this bulletin (allavailable at the Web Site for viewingand downloading) offer detailedguidance on evaluating compliance.Requests for information or copies ofthese documents can also be directed tothe FCC’s RF Safety Program in theOffice of Engineering and Technology,(202) 418–2464 or by e-mail to:[email protected].

5. For information on specific filingprocedures for EAs, licensees andgrantees should consult the followingweb sites or contact the appropriate FCCoffice or bureau:

• Wireless TelecommunicationsBureau: www.fcc.gov/wtb; Irene Griffith:(202) 418–1315.

• Mass Media Bureau: www.fcc.gov/mmb; FM (Brian Butler): (202) 418–2700; AM (Joseph Szczesny): (202) 418–2700; TV (John Morgan): (202) 418–1600.

• International Bureau: www.fcc.gov/ib; (202) 418–2222.

• Office of Engineering andTechnology: www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety;(202) 418–2464.



Federal Communications Commission.William F. Canton,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22242 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–U


[Report No. 2432]

Petition for Reconsideration andClarification of Action in RulemakingProceeding

August 25, 2000.Petition for Reconsideration and

Clarification has been filed in theCommission’s rulemaking proceedinglisted in this Public Notice andpublished pursuant to 47 CFR Section1.429(e). The full text of this documentis available for viewing and copying inRoom CY–A257, 445 12th Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C. or may be purchasedfrom the Commission’s copy contractor,ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800. Oppositions tothis petition must be filed by September15, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of theCommission’s rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)).Replies to an opposition must be filedwithin 10 days after the time for filingoppositions has expired.

Subject: Service Rules for the 746–764and 776–794 MHZ Bands, and Revisionsto Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules(WT Docket No. 99–168)

Number of Petitions Filed: 1.Federal Communications Commission.William F. Caton,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22240 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, andMergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this noticehave applied to the Board for approval,pursuant to the Bank Holding CompanyAct of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part225), and all other applicable statutesand regulations to become a bankholding company and/or to acquire theassets or the ownership of, control of, orthe power to vote shares of a bank orbank holding company and all of thebanks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as wellas other related filings required by theBoard, are available for immediateinspection at the Federal Reserve Bankindicated. The application also will beavailable for inspection at the offices ofthe Board of Governors. Interestedpersons may express their views inwriting on the standards enumerated inthe BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If theproposal also involves the acquisition ofa nonbanking company, the review alsoincludes whether the acquisition of thenonbanking company complies with thestandards in section 4 of the BHC Act(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwisenoted, nonbanking activities will beconducted throughout the United States.Additional information on all bankholding companies may be obtainedfrom the National Information Centerwebsite at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, commentsregarding each of these applicationsmust be received at the Reserve Bankindicated or the offices of the Board ofGovernors not later than September 18,2000.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of NewYork (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior VicePresident) 33 Liberty Street, New York,New York 10045–0001:

1. First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.,and Niagara Bancorp, MHC, both ofLockport, New York; to acquire 100percent of the voting shares of IroquoisBancorp, Inc., Auburn, New York, andCayuga Bank, Auburn, New York, andfor Iroquois Bancorp, Inc., Auburn, NewYork, to merge with First NiagaraFinancial Group, Inc., Lockport, NewYork.

In connection with this application,First Niagara Financial Group, Inc., andNiagara Bancorp, MHC, both ofLockport, New York, have applied toacquire direct and indirect ownership orcontrol of Homestead Savings FA, Utica,New York, a federal savings association,and thereby to engage in certaininsurance activities pursuant to 12 C.F.R225.28(b)(11)(iii), securities brokerageactivities pursuant to 12 CFR225.28(b)(7), providing investment andfinancial advisory services pursuant to12 CFR 225.28(b)(6), and owning,controlling or operating a savingsassociation pursuant to 12 CFR225.28(b)(4).

B. Federal Reserve Bank of KansasCity (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice

President) 925 Grand Avenue, KansasCity, Missouri 64198–0001:

1. Custer Bancorp, Westcliffe,Colorado; to acquire 100 percent of thevoting shares of Orchard ValleyFinancial Corp., Englewood, Colorado,and thereby indirectly acquire FirstState Bank of Hotchkiss, Hotchkiss,Colorado.

Dated: Board of Governors of the FederalReserve System, August 25, 2000.Robert deV. Frierson,Associate Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 00–22248 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6210–01–P


Administration for Children andFamilies

Proposed Information CollectionActivity; Comment Request

Proposed Projects

Title: Child Care and DevelopmentFund Plan for States/Territories

OMB No. 0970–0114Description: The Child Care and

Development Fund (CCDF) Plan forStates and Territories is required fromthe child care lead agency by section658E of the Child Care andDevelopment Block Grant Act of 1990(Pub. L. 101–508, 42 U.S.C. 9858). Theimplementing regulations for thestatutorily required Plan are at 45 CFR98.10 through 98.18. The Plan,submitted on the ACF–118, is requiredbiennially and remains in effect for twoyears. This Plan provides ACF and thepublic with a description of, andassurances about, the State’s child careprogram. The ACF–118 is approvedthrough October 31, 2001 making itavailable to States and Territoriesneeding to submit Plan Amendmentsthrough the end of the FY 2001 PlanPeriod. However, in July 2001, Statesand Territories will be required tosubmit their FY 2002–2003 Plans.Consistent with the statute andregulations, ACF requests extension ofthe ACF–118 with minor correctionsand modifications. The Tribal Plan(ACF–118A) is not affected by thisnotice.

Respondents: State and TerritorialLead Agencies.



ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Instrument Number ofrespondents

Number ofresponses

perrespondent

Averageburden

hours perresponse

Total bur-den hours

ACF–118 .......................................................................................................................... 56 .5 162.57 4,552

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours ..................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,552

In compliance with the requirementsof Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, theAdministration for Children andFamilies is soliciting public commenton the specific aspects of theinformation collection described above.Copies of the proposed collection ofinformation can be obtained andcomments may be forwarded by writingto the Administration for Children andFamilies, Office of Information Services,370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW.,Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACFReports Clearance Officer. All requestsshould be identified by the title of theinformation collection.

The Department specifically requestscomments on: (a) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information; (c)the quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (d)ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orother forms of information technology.Consideration will be given tocomments and suggestions submittedwithin 60 days of this publication.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Bob Sargis,Reports Clearance Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22298 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4184–01–M



Blood Products Advisory Committee;Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

This notice announces a forthcomingmeeting of a public advisory committeeof the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA). At least one portion of themeeting will be closed to the public.

Name of Committee: Blood ProductsAdvisory Committee.

General Function of the Committee:To provide advice andrecommendations to the agency onFDA’s regulatory issues.

Date and Time: The meeting will beheld on September 14, 2000, 8 a.m. to5 p.m. and September 15, 2000, 8 a.m.to 4 p.m.

Location: Hilton, 620 Perry Pkwy.,Gaithersburg, MD.

Contact Person: Linda A. Smallwood,Center for Biologics Evaluation andResearch (HFM–302), Food and DrugAdministration, 1401 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–3514, or FDA Advisory CommitteeInformation Line, 1–800–741–8138(301–443–0572 in the Washington, DCarea), code 19516. Please call theInformation Line for up-to-dateinformation on this meeting.

Agenda: On September 14, 2000, thefollowing committee updates aretentatively scheduled: (1) Summary ofthe Public Health Service AdvisoryCommittee on Blood Safety andAvailability meeting, (2) Hepatitis Cvirus lookback, (3) factor VIII and vonWillebrand factor standards, and (4)shortage issues (blood components andrecombinant factor VIII). In the morning,the committee will hear presentations,and discuss and make recommendationson the human immunodeficency virus(HIV) p24 antigen testing of plasma forfractionation (potential criteria fordiscontinuation). In the afternoon, thecommittee will hear presentations, anddiscuss and make recommendations ondeferral, as blood or plasma donors, ofmales who have had sex with males. OnSeptember 15, 2000, the followingupdates of recent meetings andworkshops are tentatively scheduledregarding: (1) Successful practices ofrecruiting blood donors, (2) cord blood,(3) tissue meeting on bone products, and(4) the joint meeting of theTransmissible SpongiformEncephalopathies Advisory Committeeand the Vaccine and Related BiologicalProducts Advisory Committee meeting.In the morning, the committee will hearpresentations, and discuss and make

recommendations on the current utilityof screening blood donors for syphilis.In the afternoon, the committee will sitas a medical device panel for theclassification of human leukocyteantigens (HLA) devices, and will hearthe report of the intramural site visit ofthe Laboratory of Molecular Virology,Division of Emerging and TransfusionTransmitted Diseases, Office of BloodResearch and Review (OBRR).

Procedure: On September 14, 2000,from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on September15, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., themeeting is open to the public. Interestedpersons may present data, information,or views, orally or in writing, on issuespending before the committee. Writtensubmissions may be made to the contactperson by September 1, 2000. Oralpresentations from the public will bescheduled from approximately 9:30 a.m.to 11:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. onSeptember 14, 2000; and from 11 a.m.to 11:30 a.m. and 1:45 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.on September 15, 2000. Time allottedfor each presentation may be limited.Those desiring to make formal oralpresentations should notify the contactperson before August 28, 2000, andsubmit arguments they wish to present,the names and addresses of proposedparticipants, and an indication of theapproximate time requested to maketheir presentation.

FDA regrets that it was unable topublish this notice 15 days prior to theSeptember 14 and 15, 2000, BloodProducts Advisory Committee meeting.Because the agency believes there issome urgency to bring these issues topublic discussion and qualifiedmembers of the Blood ProductsAdvisory Committee were available atthis time, the Commissioner of Foodand Drugs concluded that it was in thepublic interest to hold this meeting evenif there was not sufficient time for thecustomary 15-day public notice.

Closed Committee Deliberations: OnSeptember 15, 2000, from 3:30 p.m. to4 p.m., the meeting will be closed topermit discussion where disclosurewould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C.552b(c)(6)). The committee will discussreports of the review of individual



research programs in the Division ofEmerging and Transfusion TransmittedDiseases, OBRR, Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research.

Notice of this meeting is given underthe Federal Advisory Committee Act (5U.S.C. app. 2).

Dated: August 24, 2000.Linda A. Suydam,Senior Associate Commissioner.[FR Doc. 00–22463 Filed 8–29–00; 2:17 pm]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



Predicting Human Dose-ResponseRelationships From Multiple BiologicalModels: Issues With CryptosporidiumParvum; Public Workshop


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing apublic workshop sponsored by theinteragency Risk AssessmentConsortium (RAC) on the topic‘‘Predicting human dose-responserelationships from multiple biologicalmodels: Issues with Cryptosporidiumparvum.’’ The purpose of the workshopis to discuss the use of human andnonhuman models of infection anddisease to predict human dose-responserelationships for foodborne pathogens.The meeting will focus on researchprograms that are attempting to correlatedose-response data from human andnonhuman models, using the water- andfood-borne parasite C. parvum as asample organism. In the morningsession, the meeting will also include apresentation, targeted to the public, onthe role that dose-response modelingplays in setting food safety policy. Theafternoon session will include a panel-led technical discussion of bothbiological models and mathematicalanalysis (modeling) of biological data. Inaddition, an opportunity for publiccomment will be provided.

Date and Time: The meeting will beheld on September 28, 2000, from 8:30a.m. to 5 p.m.

Location: The meeting will be held atthe Conference Center (rm. 1D00),United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) Center at Riverside, 4700 RiverRd., Riverdale MD 20737–1238. Pleasesee transportation information in theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

Contact: Lauren Posnick for Center forFood Safety and Applied Nutrition

(CFSAN) (HFS–308), FDA, 200 C St.SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202–205–4588, [email protected], or WesleyLong, CFSAN (HFS–006), FDA, 200 CSt. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202–205–4024.

Registration: Preregistration isrequired by September 25, 2000. Walk-in registration is discouraged. Registeronline atwww.foodriskclearinghouse.umd.edu.or send registration information (name,title, affiliation, address, e-mail address,telephone and fax numbers) to ShihoSasamoto, CFSAN (HFS–006), 200 C St.SW., Washington, DC 20204, FAX 202–260–1654, 202–205–4355. If possible,please indicate whether you plan todrive and park your car in the Riversidelot. There is no registration fee. If youneed special accommodations due to adisability, please contact Wesley Long atleast 7 days in advance.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Riskassessment generally characterizes thenature and magnitude of the risksassociated with hazards to humanhealth. A risk assessment provides anopportunity to organize scientificinformation and thus helps to clarify thenecessary assumptions and degree ofscientific certainty of the data used inthe risk assessment. Risk assessmentsrequire specific information on thehazard and on the exposed populationsto provide meaningful information topublic health officials; this informationmay be considered in the developmentof risk-management decisions. Althoughrisk assessment methods are fairly wellestablished for evaluating chemicals infood, risk assessment for foodbornepathogens is far less developed. TheMay 1997 National Food Safety report tothe President noted that an intensivecommitment is necessary to fill this gapand develop critically needed methodsfor analyzing food safety data andaddressing its uncertainty.

A component of this effort has beenthe establishment of a joint RACcomposed of Federal agencies with foodsafety risk-management responsibilities.The role of the consortium is to advancethe science of microbial food safety riskassessment; to serve as advisors fordirection and review of Risk AssessmentClearinghouse activities; and to assistagencies in fulfilling their specific foodsafety regulatory mandates. Inaccordance with these goals, the RACwill host an open public meeting ondose-response relationships for humaninfections with the food- andwaterborne parasite C. parvum.

The dose-response relationship for afoodborne pathogen describes thequantitative likelihood of humans

becoming infected or ill given exposureto a certain number (or dose) ofpathogens. In general, researchers haveproposed using both human clinicaltrials and nonhuman biological modelsas sources of data for establishing dose-response relationships. Both approachesare problematic: Human trials arecomplicated by ethical difficulties andboth human trials and nonhumanbiological models may not accuratelyrepresent real world dose-responserelationships in humans. This meetingwill review research programs that areattempting to estimate human dose-response relationships from human,animal, and in vitro models, focusing onC. parvum as a model organism.Speakers at the meeting will discuss therelative usefulness of different types ofbiological models for C. parvum, thepotential for integrating data fromdifferent types of models, and the use ofbiological data to develop mathematicalmodels of human dose-responserelationships for C. parvum infections.

Specifically, the draft agenda includespresentations on the following topics:(1) Risk communication and dose-response modeling, including theimportance of dose-response modelingto the scientist and the public, and theneed for comprehensible dose-responsemodels that can form the basis forpublic policy formulation; (2) parasiteand host factors that affect theCryptosporidium-human dose-responserelationship, such as strain virulence,susceptible populations, and infectiondynamics; (3) biological models ofCryptosporidium infection, includingcell culture, animal, and human models;(4) the development and utility ofmathematical models based on datafrom various biological models; and (5)a scientific panel discussion on suchissues as: (a) The usefulness ofbiological models as a source of data formodeling human dose-responserelationships, (b) the potential forintegrating data from different biologicalmodels, (c) the adequacy of currentmodels for modeling human dose-response relationships, and (d) the needto identify alternate models or data.

The meeting will also include apublic comment period for generalcomments on Cryptosporidium, dose-response modeling, or other activities orissues related to risk assessment. Forplanning purposes, people who wish tospeak during the public commentperiod must register in advance bycontacting Wesley Long or LaurenPosnick (see Contact informationabove).

Parking at the USDA–Riverside Centeris limited. Entry into the parking lotcosts $2 (exact change required). The



Riverside Center is located withinwalking distance (0.8 mile) of theCollege Park station on Metrorail’sGreen Line. There is also Metrobusservice and free shuttle service from theCollege Park Metro station to theRiverdale Center. For more walking,Metro, and driving information/directions, see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/direct.html or http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/aphismap.html.

The program agenda will be posted onthe Internet atwww.foodriskclearinghouse.umd.edu.Following the workshop, a transcript ofthe meeting will be posted at the samesite.

Dated: August 24, 2000.William K. Hubbard,Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy,Planning, and Legislation.[FR Doc. 00–22230 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



[Docket No. 00D–1434]

Guidance for Industry on Waiver of InVivo Bioavailability andBioequivalence Studies for ImmediateRelease Solid Oral Dosage FormsBased on a BiopharmaceuticsClassification System; Availability


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing theavailability of a guidance for industryentitled ‘‘Waiver of In VivoBioavailability and BioequivalenceStudies for Immediate Release SolidOral Dosage Forms Based on aBiopharmaceutics ClassificationSystem.’’ The guidance providesrecommendations to sponsors ofinvestigational new drug applications(IND’s), new drug applications (NDA’s),abbreviated new drug applications(ANDA’s), and supplements to theseapplications who wish to request awaiver of in vivo bioavailability (BA)and bioequivalence (BE) studies forimmediate-release solid oral dosageforms.

DATES: Submit written comments onagency guidances at any time.ADDRESSES: Copies of this guidance forindustry are available on the Internet athttp://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm. Submit written requests for

single copies of this guidance to theDrug Information Branch (HFD–210),Center for Drug Evaluation andResearch, Food and DrugAdministration, 5600 Fishers Lane,Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist thatoffice in processing your requests.Submit written comments on theguidance to the Dockets ManagementBranch (HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mei-Ling Chen, Center for Drug Evaluationand Research (HFD–350), Food andDrug Administration, 5600 FishersLane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594–5688.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA isannouncing the availability of aguidance for industry entitled ‘‘Waiverof In Vivo Bioavailability andBioequivalence Studies for ImmediateRelease Solid Oral Dosage Forms Basedon a Biopharmaceutics ClassificationSystem.’’ This guidance providesrecommendations on when in vivo BA/BE studies may be waived for IND’s,NDA’s, and ANDA’s during either thepre- or postapproval period.

Although in vivo documentation ofBA and BE has been required for manydrug products, in some cases FDA hasallowed the use of in vitro methods fordocumenting BA and BE. As noted bothat 21 CFR 320.22, ‘‘Criteria for Waiverof Evidence of In Vivo Bioavailability orBioequivalence,’’ and at 21 CFR 320.24,‘‘Types of Evidence to EstablishBioavailability or Bioequivalence,’’many options exist to allowdemonstration of BA and BE through invitro methods. This guidance describesrecommendations for requesting waiversof in vivo BA/BE studies on the basis ofthe solubility and intestinalpermeability of the drug substance anddissolution characteristics of the drugproduct, based on a biopharmaceuticsclassification system.

This Level 1 guidance is being issuedconsistent with FDA’s good guidancepractices (62 FR 8961, February 27,1997). The guidance represents theagency’s current thinking on the waiverof in vivo BA and BE studies forimmediate-release solid oral dosageforms based on a biopharmaceuticsclassification system. It does not createor confer any rights for or on any personand does not operate to bind FDA or thepublic. An alternative approach may beused if such an approach satisfies therequirements of the applicable statutes,regulations, or both.

Interested persons may, at any time,submit written comments on the

guidance to the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above). Two copies ofany comments are to be submitted,except that individuals may submit onecopy. Comments are to be identifiedwith the docket number found inbrackets in the heading of thisdocument. The guidance and receivedcomments are available for publicexamination in the DocketsManagement Branch between 9 a.m. and4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Dated: August 18, 2000.Margaret M. Dotzel,Associate Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 00–22225 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F


Health Care Financing Administration

[Document Identifier: HCFA–P–15A]

Agency Information CollectionActivities: Proposed Collection;Comment Request

AGENCY: Health Care FinancingAdministration, HHS.

In compliance with the requirementof section 3506(c)(2)(A) of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, theHealth Care Financing Administration(HCFA), Department of Health andHuman Services, is publishing thefollowing summary of proposedcollections for public comment.Interested persons are invited to sendcomments regarding this burdenestimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including anyof the following subjects: (1) Thenecessity and utility of the proposedinformation collection for the properperformance of the agency’s functions;(2) the accuracy of the estimatedburden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,utility, and clarity of the information tobe collected; and (4) the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology tominimize the information collectionburden.

Type of Information CollectionRequest: Extension of a currentlyapproved collection;

Title of Information Collection:Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey(MCBS): Rounds 29–37;

Form No.: HCFA–P–15A (OMB#0938–0568);

Use: The MCBS is a continuous,multipurpose survey of a nationallyrepresentative sample of aged anddisabled persons enrolled in Medicare.The survey provides a comprehensive



source of information on beneficiarycharacteristics, needs, utilization, andsatisfaction with Medicare-relatedactivities.;

Frequency: Other: 3 times a year;Affected Public: Business or other for-

profit, and Not-for-profit institutions;Number of Respondents: 16,500;Total Annual Responses: 49,500;Total Annual Hours: 50,490.To obtain copies of the supporting

statement and any related forms for theproposed paperwork collectionsreferenced above, access HCFA’s WebSite address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail yourrequest, including your address, phonenumber, OMB number, and HCFAdocument identifier, [email protected], or call the ReportsClearance Office on (410) 786–1326.Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collections must be mailedwithin 60 days of this notice directly tothe HCFA Paperwork Clearance Officerdesignated at the following address:HCFA, Office of Information Services,Security and Standards Group, Divisionof HCFA Enterprise Standards,Attention: Dawn Willinghan (HCFA–P–15A), Room N2–14–26, 7500 SecurityBoulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850.

Dated: August 22, 2000.John P. Burke III,HCFA Reports Clearance Officer, HCFA Officeof Information Services, Security andStandards Group, Division of HCFAEnterprise Standards.[FR Doc. 00–22250 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120–03–P


Health Resources and ServicesAdministration

White House Initiative on AsianAmericans and Pacific Islanders,President’s Advisory Commission;Notice of Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Public Law 92–463), announcement ismade of the following NationalAdvisory body scheduled to conduct apublic meeting during the month ofSeptember 2000.

Name: President’s AdvisoryCommission on Asian Americans andPacific Islanders (AAPIs)

Date and Time:September 18, 2000; 9:00 a.m.—7:00

p.m. EDTSeptember 19, 2000; 8:00 a.m.—3:00

p.m. EDT

Place:

On September 18, 2000, at: New YorkUniversity, School of Law, TishmanAuditorium, 40 Washington SquareSouth, New York, NY 10012

On September 19, 2000, at: New YorkUniversity, School of Law,Greenberg Lounge, 40 WashingtonSquare South, New York, NY10012.

The meeting is open to the public.The President’s Advisory Commission

on AAPIs will conduct a public meetingon September 18, 2000, from 9:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. EDT inclusive, andsubsequent meeting on September 19,2000, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDTinclusive.

Agenda items will include, but willnot be limited to: testimony fromcommunity organizations andindividuals; approval of JulyCommission meeting minutes; reportsand recommendations fromCommissioners and subcommittees;administrative tasks; deadlines; andupcoming events.

The purpose of the Commission is toadvise the President on the issues facingAsian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Requests to address the Commissionshould be made in writing and shouldinclude the name, address, telephonenumber, and business or professionalaffiliation of the interested party. Formsto request an opportunity to testify canbe downloaded at: www.aapi.gov.Individuals or groups addressing similarissues are encouraged to combinecomments and present through a singlerepresentative. The allocation of timefor remarks may be adjusted toaccommodate the level of expressedinterest. Written requests should befaxed to (301) 443–0259.

Anyone who has interest in joiningany portion of the meeting or whorequires additional information aboutthe Commission should contact: Mr.Tyson Nakashima, Office of the WhiteHouse Initiative on AAPIs, ParklawnBuilding, Room 10–42, 5600 FishersLane, Rockville, MD, 20857, Telephone(301) 443–2492. Anyone who requiresspecial assistance, such as sign languageinterpretation, foreign languageinterpretation, or other reasonableaccommodations, should contact Mr.Nakashima no later than September 8,2000.

Dated: August 25, 2000.James J. Corrigan,Associate Administrator for Management andProgram Support.[FR Doc. 00–22310 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–15–P


Health Resources and ServicesAdministration

Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Public Law 92–463), announcement ismade of the following NationalAdvisory body scheduled to meetduring the month of September 2000.

Name: Advisory Committee onTraining in Primary Care Medicine andDentistry.

Date and Time: September 27, 2000;9:00 a.m.—3:00 p.m.

Place: Ramada Inn Bethesda, 8400Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland20814.

The meeting is open to the public.Purpose: The Advisory Committee

shall (1) provide advice andrecommendations to the Secretaryconcerning policy and programdevelopment and other matters ofsignificance concerning activities undersection 747 of the Public Health Service(PHS) Act; and (2) prepare and submitto the Secretary, the Committee onHealth, Education, Labor and Pensions(formerly the Committee on Labor andHuman Resources) of the Senate, andthe Committee on Commerce of theHouse of Representatives, a reportdescribing the activities of the AdvisoryCommittee, including findings andrecommendations made by theCommittee concerning the activitiesunder section 747 of the PHS Act. TheAdvisory Committee will meet twiceeach year and submit its first report tothe Secretary and the Congress byNovember 2001.

Agenda: Discussion of the focus of theprograms and activities authorizedunder section 747 of the PHS Act.Review of the work completed to dateby the two workgroups formed duringthe April 20–21, 2000, meeting of theAdvisory Committee.

Anyone interested in obtaining aroster of members, minutes of themeeting, or other relevant informationshould write or contact Dr. BarbaraBrookmyer, Deputy Executive Secretary,Advisory Committee on Training inPrimary Care Medicine and Dentistry,Parklawn Building, Room 9A–27, 5600Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland20857, telephone (301) 443–1468, [email protected]. The web addressfor the Advisory Committee is http://158.72.83.3/bhpr/dm/newladvisorylcommitteelonlprimar.htm.



Dated: August 25, 2000.James J. Corrigan,Associate Administrator for Management andProgram Support.[FR Doc. 00–22311 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–15–P


National Institutes of Health

National Center for ResearchResources; Notice of Closed Meeting

Pursuant to section 10(d) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given of the followingmeeting.

The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The contract proposals andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the contractproposals, the disclosures of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Center forResearch Resources Special Emphasis Panel,Operation & Maint. of a Chimpazee Long-Term Holding Facility.

Date: September 14, 2000.Time: 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate contract

proposals.Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One

Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814.Contact Person: Charles G. Hollingsworth,

DRPH, Director, Office of Review, NationalCenter for Research Resources, NationalInstitutes of Health, One Rockledge Drive,Room 6018, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC7965, Bethesda, MD 20892–7965, 301–435–0806, [email protected].

This notice is being published lessthan 15 days prior to the meeting dueto the timing limitations imposed by thereview and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine,93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333;93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389,Research Infrastructure, National Institutes ofHealth, HHS)

Dated: August 22, 2000.Anna Snouffer,Acting Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy.[FR Doc. 00–22269 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–M



National Institute of Nursing Research;Notice of Closed Meeting


The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute ofNursing Research Initial Review Group.

Date: October 19–20, 2000.Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120

Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814.Contact Person: Mary J. Stephens-Frazier,

PhD, Scientific Review Administrator,National Institute of Nursing Research,National Institutes of Health, NatcherBuilding, Room 3AN32, 45 Center Drive,Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594–5971.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research,National Institutes of Health, HHS).




National Institute of Nursing Research;Notice of Closed Meeting


The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercial

property such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute ofNursing Research Special Emphasis Panel.

Date: October 18, 2000.Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120

Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.Contact Person: Mary J. Stephens-Frazier,

PhD, Scientific Review Administrator,National Institute of Nursing Research,National Institutes of Health, NatcherBuilding, Room 3AN32, Bethesda, MD 20892,(301) 594–5971.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research,National Institutes of Health, HHS)




National Institute on Drug Abuse;Notice of Closed Meeting


The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The contract proposals andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the contractproposals, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute onDrug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel,‘‘National Hispanic Science Network on DrugAbuse.’’

Date: September 18, 2000.Time: 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate contract

proposals.Place: Neuroscience Center, National

Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd.,Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone ConferenceCall).

Contact Person: Eric Zatman, ContractReview Specialist, Office of Extramural



Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse,National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547,Bethesda, MD 20892–9547, (301) 435–1438.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse ScientistDevelopment Award for Clinicians, ScientificDevelopment Awards, and Research ScientistAwards; 93.278, Drug Abuse NationalResearch Service Awards for ResearchTraining; 93.279, Drug Abuse ResearchPrograms, National Institutes of Health, HHS)



National Institute of Health

National Institute on Alcohol Abuseand Alcoholism; Notice of ClosedMeeting


The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute onAlcohol Abuse and Alcoholism SpecialEmphasis Panel.

Date: August 31, 2000.Time: 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.Contact Person: Mark R. Green, PhD, Chief,

Extramural Project Review Branch, NationalInstitute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,National Institutes of Health, Suite 409, 6000Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–443–2860, [email protected].

This notice is being published lessthan 15 days prior to the meeting dueto the timing limitations imposed by thereview and funding cycle.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.271, Alcohol ResearchCareer Development Awards for Scientistsand Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol NationalResearch Service Awards for Research

Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs;93.891, Alcohol Center Grants, NationalInstitutes of Health, HHS)


DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANDURBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4566–N–11]

Notice of Proposed InformationCollection: Comment Request,Historically Black Colleges andUniversities (HBCUs) Program

AGENCY: Office of the AssistantSecretary for Community Planning andDevelopment, HUD.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed informationcollection requirement described belowwill be submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) forreview, as required by the PaperworkReduction Act. The Department issoliciting public comments on thesubject proposal.DATES: Comments Due Date: October 30,2000.ADDRESSES: Interested persons areinvited to submit comments regardingthis proposal. Comments should refer tothe proposal by name and/or OMBControl Number and should be sent to:Shelia E. Jones, Reports Liaison Officer,Department of Housing & UrbanDevelopment, 451 7th Street, SW, Room7230, Washington, DC 20410.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Delores Pruden of the Historically BlackColleges and Universities Program, 202–708–1590 (this is not a toll-free number)for copies of the proposed forms andother available documents.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDepartment is submitting the proposedinformation collection to OMB forreview, as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting commentsfrom members of the pubic and affectingagencies concerning the proposedcollection of information to: (1) Evaluatewhether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theagency, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’sestimate of the burden of the proposed

collection of information; (3) Enhancethe quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4)Minimize the burden of the collection ofinformation on those who are torespond; including through the use ofappropriate automated collectiontechniques or other forms of informationtechnology, e.g., permitting electronicsubmission of responses.

This Notice also lists the followinginformation:

Title of Proposal: Historically BlackColleges and Universities (HBCUs)Program.

OMB Control Number, if applicable:2506–0122.

Description of the need for theinformation and proposed use:Application information is needed todetermine competition winners, i.e.,which HBCUs are the most capable ofachieving the HUD HBCU ProgramObjective ‘‘To Expand their role andeffectiveness in addressing communitydevelopment needs, includingneighborhood revitalization, housingand economic development in theirlocalities, consistent with the purposesof Title I of the Housing and CommunityDevelopment Act of 1974’’. Theapplication for the competition requiresthe completion of form HUD–40076HBCU which includes: StandardForms (SF) 424, Application for FederalAssistance, 424B, Assurances-Non-Construction, LLL, Disclosure ofLobbying Activities, and forms HUD–424M, Funding Matrix, 50071,Certification of Payments to InfluenceFederal Transactions, 2992, CertificationRegarding Debarment, 50070,Certification For A Durg-FreeWorkplace, 28880, Applicant/RecipientDisclosure/Update Report, 2991,Certification of Consistency with theConsolidated Plan, 2990, Certification ofConsistency with the EZ/EC StrategicPlan, and optional forms HUD–2993,Acknowledgement of Applicationreceipt, and HUD–2994, ClientComments and Suggestions.

After awards are made, for bankingand payment purposes, grantees arerequired to submit a SF 1199, DirectDeposit Sign-Up Form, and HUD–20754, Line of Credit Control System(LOCCS) Form. Throughout the periodof performance for the grant, granteesare required to submit quarterly reportsso that (1) their performance can beevaluated; (2) their progress inachieving the program objective can bemeasured; and (3) documentation can begathered for the preparation of reports,including the annual report for theDepartment of Education. The quarterlyreports require the submission of the SF269A, Financial Status Report, and



forms HUD–441.1, Project ManagementSystem Baseline Plan, and 661.1, ProjectManagement System Progress Report. Atthe end of the period of performance,grantees must submit a final report,including the SF 269A and forms HUD–441.1 and 661.1

Agency form numbers, if applicable:Listed above.

Matters of affected public: HistoricallyBlack Colleges and Universities(HBCUs).

Estimation of the total number ofhours needed to prepare the informationcollection including number ofrespondents, frequency of response, andhours of response: There are 105 HBCUseligible to apply, annually, for the HUDHBCU Competition. The Departmentestimates that each applicant will use,an average of two hundred (200) hoursto prepare an application. Winners ofthe competition will be required tosubmit quarterly reports, a final report

and perform recordkeeping. TheDepartment estimates that for eachquarter, each grantee will use an averageof thirty-two (32) hours to completequarterly reports, and an average of ten(10) hours to do recordkeeping. At theend of the period of performance, theDepartment estimates that the granteewill use an average of seventy (70) hoursto complete a final report. See numberof respondents, frequency of response,and hours per response below.

Number ofrespondents

Number of re-sponses perrespondentfrequency

Total annualresponses

Hours perresponse

Total hours(annual hour

burden)

Applications from eligible applicants .................................... 105 1 105 200 21,000Number of grants awarded which require quarterly report-

ing ..................................................................................... 125 4 500 32 16,000Final Report ......................................................................... 10 1 10 70 700Recordkeeping ..................................................................... 125 4 500 10 5,000

Total .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,115 ........................ 42,700

Status of the proposed informationcollection: Revision of a currentlyapproved collection.

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Actof 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

Dated: August 28, 2000.Cardell Cooper,Assistant Secretary for Community Planningand Development.[FR Doc. 00–22351 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4210–29–M


[Docket No. FR–4483–FA–02]

Announcement of Funding Awards forthe HUD Rural Housing and EconomicDevelopment Program for Fiscal Year1999

AGENCY: Office of the AssistantSecretary for Community Planning andDevelopment, HUD.ACTION: Announcement of fundingawards.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department ofHousing and Urban DevelopmentReform Act of 1989, this announcementnotifies the public of funding decisionsmade by the Department in acompetition for funding under theNotice of Funding Availability (NOFA)for the Rural Housing and EconomicDevelopment Program. Thisannouncement contains the names of

the awardees and the amounts of theawards made available by HUD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jackie W. Mitchell, Director, Office ofRural Housing and EconomicDevelopment, Office of EconomicDevelopment, Office of CommunityPlanning and Development, 451 7thStreet, SW, Washington, DC 20410;telephone (202) 708–2290 (this is not atoll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access thisnumber via TTY by calling the FederalRelay Service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339. For general information on thisand other HUD programs, callCommunity Connections at 1–800–998–9999 or visit the HUD Website at http://www.hud.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RuralHousing and Economic DevelopmentProgram was enacted in TheDepartments of Veterans Affairs andHousing and Urban Development, andIndependent Agencies AppropriationsAct, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–276, approvedOctober 21, 1998; 112 Stat. 2461, 2475)(the ‘‘FY 1999 HUD AppropriationsAct’’) made $24 million in FY 1999funds available for competitive fundingunder the Rural Housing and EconomicDevelopment program. The FY 1999HUD Appropriations Act also specifiesthat certain unobligated fundsauthorized by the FY 1998 HUDAppropriations Act (Pub. L. 105–65,approved October 27, 1997; 111 Stat.1344, 1357) shall be made availableunder the Rural Housing and Economic

Development program. The amount ofunobligated funds from this source is $3million. Therefore, the total amount offunding made available under theNOFA was $27 million. Thecompetition was announced in theNOFA published in the Federal Registeron March 8, 1999 (64 FR 4483).Applications were rated and selected forfunding on the basis of selection criteriacontained in that Notice.

The Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance number for this program is14.250.

The Rural Housing and EconomicDevelopment Program is designed tobuild capacity at the State and locallevel for rural housing and economicdevelopment and to support innovativehousing and economic developmentactivities in rural areas. The funds madeavailable under this program wereawarded competitively, through aselection process conducted by HUD inconsultation with the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture.

A total of $27 million was awarded to91 projects nationwide. In accordancewith section 102(a)(4)(C) of theDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment Reform Act of 1989 (103Stat. 1987. 42 U.S.C. 3545), theDepartment is publishing the granteesand amounts of the awards in AppendixA to this document.

Dated: August 23, 2000.Cardell Cooper,Assistant Secretary for Community Planningand Development.



Applicant State City Grant

Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund .............................. AL Epes ...................................................... $207,800Design Corps ........................................................................................................ AL Newbern ................................................ 224,190Upper Sand Mountain United Methodist ............................................................... AL Sylvania ................................................. 47,300Metlakatla Indian Community ................................................................................ AK Metlakatla .............................................. 500,000Alaska Native Village of Tanacross ...................................................................... AK Tanacross .............................................. 600,000Community Resource Group, Inc ......................................................................... AR Fayetteville ............................................ 467,500Community Resource Group, Inc ......................................................................... AR Fayetteville ............................................ 222,000White Mountain Apache CDC ............................................................................... AZ McNary .................................................. 250,000Comite de Bien Estar ............................................................................................ AZ San Luis ................................................ 600,000Housing America Corporation ............................................................................... AZ Somerton ............................................... 75,000Fort Defiance Housing Corporation ...................................................................... AZ Window Rock ........................................ 200,000Bishop Indian Tribal Council ................................................................................. CA Bishop ................................................... 88,201Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc .................................................. CA Chico ..................................................... 451,397Yurok Tribe ............................................................................................................ CA Eureka ................................................... 200,000South County Housing Corporation ...................................................................... CA Gilroy ..................................................... 500,000Coachella Valley Housing Coalition ...................................................................... CA Indio ....................................................... 200,000Coachella Valley Housing Coalition ...................................................................... CA Indio ....................................................... 600,000I–5 Social Services Corporation ........................................................................... CA Mendota ................................................ 509,500Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians ................................................................... CA Redwood Valley .................................... 32,345Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Corporation .............................................................. CA San Luis Obispo .................................... 500,000Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation ....................................... CA Ukiah ..................................................... 194,877Everglades Community Association, Inc .............................................................. FL Homestead ............................................ 500,000Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc ................................................................... ID Boise ..................................................... 200,000Lincoln Hills Development Corporation ................................................................. IN Tell City ................................................. 160,000Iowa Finance Authority ......................................................................................... IA Des Moines ........................................... 600,000Mid-America Housing Partnership, Inc ................................................................. IA Cedar Rapids ........................................ 500,000Kentucky Farmworker Programs, Inc ................................................................... KY Bowling Green ....................................... 209,519Federation of Appalachian Housing Enterprises .................................................. KY Berea ..................................................... 482,374Kentucky Highlands Investments Corporation ...................................................... KY London .................................................. 461,854Kentucky Mountain Housing Development Corporation, Inc ................................ KY Manchester ............................................ 200,000Pendleton County Industrial Authority .................................................................. KY Falmouth ............................................... 200,000Northlake Community Development Corporation ................................................. LA Hammond .............................................. 176,008Garrett County, Maryland Community Action Committee .................................... MD Oakland ................................................. 504,000Eastern Maine Development Corporation ............................................................. ME Bangor ................................................... 129,500Five-Cap Inc .......................................................................................................... MI Scottsville .............................................. 500,000Bi-County Community Action Programs, Inc ........................................................ MN Bemidji ................................................... 500,000Three Rivers Community Action, Inc .................................................................... MN Zumbrota ............................................... 150,000Blackfeet Tribe ...................................................................................................... MT Browning ............................................... 600,000Blackfeet Tribe ...................................................................................................... MT Browning ............................................... 200,000Action for Eastern Montana, Inc ........................................................................... MT Glendive ................................................ 126,766Fort Belknap College ............................................................................................ MT Harlem ................................................... 200,000Rocky Mountain Development Council ................................................................. MT Helena ................................................... 109,369Montana Community Development Corporation ................................................... MT Missoula ................................................ 199,058Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes .................................................................. MT Poplar .................................................... 148,633The Heritage Institute ............................................................................................ MT Poplar .................................................... 501,219North Central NE Resource Conservation Development and Planning Council .. NE Bassett .................................................. 237,800Central Nebraska Community Services, Inc ......................................................... NE Loup City ............................................... 195,632Native Council on Economic and Community Development Corporation ............ NE Walthill ................................................... 150,000Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe ................................................................................... NC Hollister ................................................. 250,000WREN-Women’s Rural Entrepreneurial Network ................................................. NH Bethlehem ............................................. 150,000New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority ............................................................. NM Albuquerque .......................................... 600,000Housing and Economic Rural Opportunities ......................................................... NM Las Cruces ............................................ 165,445Pojoaque Housing Corporation ............................................................................. NM Santa Fe ................................................ 500,000Citizens for Affordable Homes, Inc ....................................................................... NV Carson City ........................................... 69,075Sullivan County Partnership for Economic Development ..................................... NY Monticello .............................................. 150,000Partnership for Economic Development ............................................................... NY Monticello .............................................. 500,000Bishop Sheen Ecumenical Housing Foundation, Inc ........................................... NY Rochester .............................................. 150,000Rural Opportunities, Inc ........................................................................................ NY Rochester .............................................. 390,065Adirondack Economic Development Corporation ................................................. NY Saranac Lake ........................................ 150,000Portage Area Development Corporation ............................................................... OH Ravena .................................................. 137,860Portage Area Development Corporation ............................................................... OH Ravena .................................................. 500,000Wa-Ro-Ma-Tri-County Action Foundation, Inc ...................................................... OK Claremore .............................................. 225,710Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma ..................................................................................... OK Anadarko ............................................... 143,660Little Dixie Community Action Agency .................................................................. OK Hugo ...................................................... 199,700Langston Community Development Corporation .................................................. OK Langston ................................................ 200,000Otoe-Missouria Tribe ............................................................................................. OK Red Rock .............................................. 97,805Citizen Potawatomi Nation .................................................................................... OK Shawnee ............................................... 198,928Casa of Oregon ..................................................................................................... OR Newberg ................................................ 200,000Technical College of the Low Country Foundation, Inc ....................................... SC Beaufort ................................................. 193,000Catawba Indian Nation .......................................................................................... SC Catawba ................................................ 600,000Catawba Indian Nation .......................................................................................... SC Catawba ................................................ 250,000Oti Kaga, Inc ......................................................................................................... SD Eagle Butte ............................................ 188,796The Lakota Fund ................................................................................................... SD Kyle ....................................................... 538,266Cangleska, Inc ...................................................................................................... SD Kyle ....................................................... 211,764




Rosebud Sioux Tribe ............................................................................................ SD Rosebud ................................................ 500,000Rosebud Sioux Tribe ............................................................................................ SD Rosebud ................................................ 196,800Rio Valle Rainbow, Inc .......................................................................................... TX El Paso .................................................. 44,960El Paso Collaborative for Comm. & Economic Development .............................. TX El Paso .................................................. 200,000Amigos Del Valle, Inc ............................................................................................ TX Mission .................................................. 600,000ACCION Texas, Inc .............................................................................................. TX San Antonio ........................................... 600,000The Center for Economic Opportunities, Inc ........................................................ TX San Juan ............................................... 500,000Virginia Eastern Shore Economic Empowerment & Housing Corporation ........... VA Nassawadox .......................................... 115,000Virginia Eastern Shore Economic Empowerment & Housing Corporation ........... VA Nassawadox .......................................... 175,000Swinomish Indian Tribal Community .................................................................... WA La Conner ............................................. 150,000Okanogan County Community Action Council ..................................................... WA Okanogan .............................................. 196,665Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development .......................... WA Olympia ................................................. 600,000Community Health Center La Clinica ................................................................... WA Pasco .................................................... 600,000Institute for Washington’s Future .......................................................................... WA Renton ................................................... 199,500The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe ........................................................................... WA Sequim .................................................. 117,702Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc .............................................................................. WI Superior ................................................. 200,000Mountain Partners in Community Development ................................................... WV Elkins ..................................................... 151,701



[Docket No. FR–4547–FA–02]

Announcement of Funding Awards forthe Rural Housing and EconomicDevelopment Program Fiscal Year2000

AGENCY: Office of the AssistantSecretary for Community Planning andDevelopment, HUD.ACTION: Announcement of fundingawards.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department ofHousing and Urban DevelopmentReform Act of 1989, this announcementnotifies the public of funding decisionsmade by the Department in acompetition for funding under theNotice of Funding Availability (NOFA)for the Rural Housing and EconomicDevelopment Program. Thisannouncement contains the names ofthe awardees and the amounts of theawards made available by HUD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jackie W. Mitchell, Director, Office ofRural Housing and EconomicDevelopment, Office of EconomicDevelopment, Office of CommunityPlanning and Development, 451 7thStreet, SW, Washington, DC 20410;telephone (202) 708–2290 (this is not atoll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access thisnumber via TTY by calling the FederalRelay Service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339. For general information on thisand other HUD programs, callCommunity Connections at 1–800–998–9999 or visit the HUD Website at http://www.hud.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RuralHousing and Economic Developmentprogram was authorized by theDepartment of Veteran’s Affairs,Housing and Urban Development andIndependent Agencies AppropriationsAct of 1999. The competition wasannounced in the NOFA published inthe Federal Register on February 16,2000 (65 FR 7970). Applications wererated and selected for funding on thebasis of selection criteria contained inthat Notice.

The Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance number for this program is14.250.

The Rural Housing and EconomicDevelopment Program is designed tobuild capacity at the State and locallevel for rural housing and economicdevelopment and to support innovativehousing and economic activities in ruralareas. Eligible applicants are local ruralnon-profit organizations, communitydevelopment corporations, Indiantribes, and State housing financeagencies. The funds made availableunder this program were awardedcompetitively, through a selectionprocess conducted by HUD inconsultation with the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture.

A total of $24,749,997 was awarded to103 projects nationwide. In accordancewith section 102(a)(4)(C) of theDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment Reform Act of 1989 (103Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), theDepartment is publishing the granteesand amounts of the awards in AppendixA to this document.

Dated: August 23, 2000.Cardell Cooper,Assistant Secretary for Community Planningand Development.

Appendix A—FY 2000 Rural Housing and Economic Development Competitive Grants


United Presbyterians of Wilcox County ................................................................ AL Catherine ............................................... 600,000Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance ....................................... AL Epes ...................................................... 237,800Upper Sand Mountain United Methodist Larger Parish, Inc. ................................ AL Sylvania ................................................. 600,000Alabama Rural Heritage Foundation, Inc. ............................................................ AL Thomaston ............................................ 100,000Calista Corporation, Inc. ....................................................................................... AK Anchorage ............................................. 50,000Native Village of Kotzebue .................................................................................... AK Kotzebue ............................................... 240,000Oagan Taygunguin Tribe of Sand Point ............................................................... AK Sand Point ............................................. 97,643Tatitlek IRA Council .............................................................................................. AK Tatitlek ................................................... 50,000Comite De Bein Estar, Inc. ................................................................................... AZ San Luis ................................................ 183,483Housing America Corporation ............................................................................... AZ Somerton ............................................... 50,000Prep Microbusiness and Housing Development Corporation ............................... AZ Tucson ................................................... 500,000California State University Foundation at Fresno ................................................. CA Fresno ................................................... 50,000




Habitat for Humanity Fresno, Inc. ......................................................................... CA Fresno ................................................... 200,000North Fork Community Development Council, Inc. .............................................. CA North Fork ............................................. 455,800Walking Shield American Indian Society .............................................................. CA Orange .................................................. 500,000Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians .............................................................. CA Thermal ................................................. 600,000Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians .............................................................. CA Thermal ................................................. 50,000Self-Help Enterprises ............................................................................................ CA Visalia .................................................... 100,000Rural California Housing Corporation ................................................................... CA West Sacramento .................................. 50,000Southwest Community Resources, Inc. ................................................................ CO Durango ................................................. 50,000Region 10 League for Economic Assistance & Planning ..................................... CO Montrose ............................................... 50,000National Council on Agriculture Life & Labor Research ....................................... DE Dover ..................................................... 50,000Immokalee Friendship House ............................................................................... FL Immokalee ............................................. 180,500Centro Campesino Farmworker Center, Inc. ........................................................ FL Florida City ............................................ 500,000Everglades Community Association, Inc. ............................................................. FL Florida City ............................................ 500,000Housing and Economic Leadership Partners, Inc. ............................................... GA Athens ................................................... 438,400Opportunities Now, Inc. (ACTION) ....................................................................... GA Athens ................................................... 100,000Lower Chattahoochee Regional Development Center ......................................... GA Columbus .............................................. 50,000Molokai Community Service Council .................................................................... HI Kaunakakai ............................................ 50,000Self-Help Housing Corporation of Hawaii ............................................................. HI Honolulu ................................................ 500,000Idaho Migrant Council, Inc. ................................................................................... ID Caldwell ................................................. 50,000Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho ...................................................................................... ID Lapwai ................................................... 50,000Shawnee Development Council, Inc. .................................................................... IL Karnak ................................................... 50,000Southern VI Corporation ....................................................................................... IN Huntingburg ........................................... 495,000Federation of Appalachian Housing Enterprises .................................................. KY Berea ..................................................... 502,425Federation of Appalachian Housing Enterprises .................................................. KY Berea ..................................................... 150,000Community Ventures Corporation, Inc. ................................................................. KY Lexington ............................................... 100,000Frontier Housing, Inc. ............................................................................................ KY Morehead .............................................. 100,000Enterprise Foundation, Inc. ................................................................................... MD Columbia ............................................... 50,000Maine Department of Economic and Community Development .......................... ME Augusta ................................................. 500,000Maine State Housing Authority ............................................................................. ME Augusta ................................................. 600,000Northern Maine Development Commission .......................................................... ME Caribou .................................................. 50,000Northern Lakes Economic Alliance ....................................................................... MI Boyne City ............................................. 50,000Little River Band of Ottawa Indians ...................................................................... MI Manistee ................................................ 500,000Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation .................................. MN Detroit Lakes ......................................... 500,000Prairie Island Indian Community ........................................................................... MN Welch .................................................... 50,000White Earth Reservation Housing Authority ......................................................... MN White Earth ........................................... 183,483Three Rivers Community and Economic Development ........................................ MS Itta Bena ................................................ 50,000Human Resource Development Council of District IX, Inc ................................... MT Bozeman ............................................... 50,000Blackfeet Tribe ...................................................................................................... MT Browning ............................................... 500,000Ktunaza Community Development Corporation ................................................... MT Elmo ...................................................... 50,000Bear Paw Development Corporation of Northern Montana .................................. MT Havre ..................................................... 100,000Fort Peck Assinboine & Sioux Tribes ................................................................... MT Poplar .................................................... 200,000Lake County Community Development Corporation ............................................ MT Ronan .................................................... 551,875Northeast Nebraska Economic Development District ........................................... NE Norfolk ................................................... 500,000Northeast Nebraska Economic Development District ........................................... NE Norfolk ................................................... 100,000Pryamid Lake Paiute Tribe ................................................................................... NV Nixon ..................................................... 495,291Monadnock Economic Development Corporation ................................................ NH Keene .................................................... 50,000Affordable Housing, Education and Development, Inc ......................................... NH Littleton .................................................. 240,000New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority ............................................................. NM Abiquiu .................................................. 600,000Community Action Agency of SNM, Inc. .............................................................. NM Las Cruces ............................................ 200,000Mesilla Valley Economic Development ................................................................. NM Las Cruces ............................................ 200,000Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and Improvement Corporation ........................ NY Mayville ................................................. 566,600Waccamaw-Siouan Development Association, Inc .............................................. NC Bolton .................................................... 50,000Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians ....................................................................... NC Cherokee ............................................... 500,000Lumbee Regional Development Association, Inc ................................................. NC Pembroke .............................................. 50,000East Tarboro-Princeville CDC ............................................................................... NC Tarboro .................................................. 200,000Fort Berthold Housing Authority ............................................................................ ND New Town ............................................. 500,000Fort Berthold Housing Authority ............................................................................ ND New Town ............................................. 50,000Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development .................................................. OH Athens ................................................... 105,904Adams-Brown Counties Economic Opportunities, Inc .......................................... OH Georgetown ........................................... 73,538Alabama/Quassarte Tribal Town .......................................................................... OK Henryetta ............................................... 50,000Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma .................................................................................... OK Miami ..................................................... 50,000Cherokee Nation ................................................................................................... OK Tahlequah ............................................. 360,000Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc ................................................ OR LaGrande .............................................. 200,000Campaign for Equal Justice .................................................................................. OR Portland ................................................. 100,000Umpqua Community Development Corporation ................................................... OR Rosenburg ............................................. 50,000Williamsburg Enterprise Community Comm. ........................................................ SC Kingstree ............................................... 50,000Oti Kaga, Inc. ........................................................................................................ SD Eagle Butte ............................................ 100,000Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for Housing, Inc .................................................. SD Pine Ridge ............................................. 50,000Rosebud Sioux Tribe ............................................................................................ SD Rosebud ................................................ 227,000Creative Compassion, Inc. .................................................................................... TN Crossville ............................................... 100,000Buffalo Valley, Inc. ................................................................................................ TN Hohenwald ............................................ 50,000Community Development Corporation of Northeast Tennessee .......................... TN Johnson City ......................................... 498,150Eastern Eight, CDC, Inc. ....................................................................................... TN Johnson City ......................................... 239,000Douglas Cherokee Economic Authority ................................................................ TN Morristown ............................................. 459,069




Middle Rio Grande Development Foundation Futuro Communities ..................... TX Carrizo Springs ..................................... 199,117Community Development Corporation of Brownsville .......................................... TX Brownsville ............................................ 500,000Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone Corporation ........................................... TX Mercedes ............................................... 600,000Community Action Council of South Texas .......................................................... TX Rio Grande City .................................... 183,483Community Development Corporation of Utah ..................................................... UT Salt Lake City ........................................ 395,600Virginia Eastern Shore Economic Empowerment and Housing ........................... VA Nassawadox .......................................... 136,000Crossroads Shelter, Inc. ....................................................................................... VA Wytheville .............................................. 50,000Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development .......................... WA Olympia ................................................. 183,483Washington State Housing Finance Commission ................................................ WA Seattle ................................................... 183,483Northwest Regional Facilitators ............................................................................ WA Spokane ................................................ 187,350Spokane Indian Housing Authority ....................................................................... WA Wellpinit ................................................. 500,000Wisconsin Business Innovation Corporation ........................................................ WI Spooner ................................................. 510,350CAP Services, Inc. ................................................................................................ WI Stevens Point ........................................ 440,000Mountain Partners in Community Development ................................................... WV Elkins ..................................................... 533,204The Conservation Fund ........................................................................................ WV Shepherdstown ..................................... 183,483The Conservation Fund ........................................................................................ WV Shepherdstown ..................................... 50,000STOP Abusive Family Environments, Inc. ............................................................ WV Welch .................................................... 183,483


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Notice of Receipt of Applications forPermit

Endangered Species

The following applicants haveapplied for a permit to conduct certainactivities with endangered species. Thisnotice is provided pursuant to Section10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, etseq.):

Applicant: Frank L. Fackovec,Southhamptom, NY, PRT–032292.

The applicant requests a permit toimport the sport-hunted trophy of onemale bontebok (Damaliscus pygargusdorcas) culled from a captive herdmaintained under the managementprogram of the Republic of South Africa,for the purpose of enhancement of thesurvival of the species.

Applicant: Honolulu Zoo, Honolulu,HI, PRT–032235.

The applicant requests a permit toimport one male and one female captiveheld river terrapin (Batagur baska) fromthe Singapore Zoo for the purpose ofpropagation for the enhancement of thesurvival of the species.

Applicant: James E. Norton/University of Illinois at Chicago,Chicago, IL, PRT–028420.

The applicant requests a permit toimport biological samples from CentralAmerican tapir (Tapirus bairdii)collected from wild, captive-held, andcaptive-born sources in Panama, forscientific research.

Applicant: Audubon ZoologicalGarden, New Orleans, LA, PRT–032341.

The applicant requests a permit toimport one captive-bred female jaguar(Panthera onca) from the GuadalajaraZoo, Mexico, for the purpose ofpropagation for the enhancement of thesurvival of the species.

Applicant: St. Louis Zoo, St. Louis,MO PRT–032266.

The applicant requests a permit toexport three male and one femalecaptive-bred black and white ruffedlemurs (Varecia v. variegata) toMadagascar, for the purpose of re-introduction to the wild for theenhancement of the survival of thespecies.

Applicant: Cleveland Metropark Zoo,Cleveland, OH, PRT–032267.

The applicant requests a permit toimport six wild caught Parma wallabies(Macropus parma) from New Zealand,for the purpose of propagation for theenhancement of the survival of thespecies.

Applicant: Oak Hill Center for Rareand Endangered Species, Luther, OK,PRT–032473.

The applicant requests a permit toimport two females captive bornclouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa),from the City of Belfast ZoologicalGardens, Belfast, Northern Ireland, forthe purpose of propagation for theenhancement of the survival of thespecies.

Marine Mammals

Applicant: Lawrence A. Franks,Sturgis, MI, PRT–032240.

The applicant requests a permit toimport a polar bear (Ursus maritimus)sport-hunted from the SouthernBeaufort Sea polar bear population,Canada for personal use.

Applicant: Allen Joseph Telmos, WestBloomfield, MI, PRT–030244.

The applicant requests a permit toimport a polar bear (Ursus maritimus)sport-hunted from the Arctic Bay polar

bear population, Canada for personaluse.

Written data or comments should besubmitted to the Director, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Office of ManagementAuthority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203and must be received by the Directorwithin 30 days of the date of thispublication.

Documents and other informationsubmitted with these applications areavailable for review, subject to therequirements of the Privacy Act andFreedom of Information Act, by anyparty who submits a written request fora copy of such documents to thefollowing office within 30 days of thedate of publication of this notice: U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Office ofManagement Authority, 4401 NorthFairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington,Virginia 22203. Phone: (703/358–2104);FAX: (703/358–2281).

Dated: August 28, 2000.Charlie Chandler,Chief, Branch of Permits, Office ofManagement Authority.[FR Doc. 00–22314 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P


Bureau of Indian Affairs

Notice of Intent to Prepare anEnvironmental Impact Statement forthe proposed Moapa Paiute PowerGenerating Station and AssociatedFacilities, Moapa Indian Reservation,Clark County, Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,Interior.ACTION: Notice; extension of publiccomment period and additional publicmeetings.



SUMMARY: This notice advises the publicthat the closing date of the publiccomment period on the scope andimplementation of an EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) for the proposedMoapa Paiute Power Generating Stationand Associated Facilities (previouslyreferred to as the Crystal PowerGenerating Station * * * .) announcedin the Federal Register on Wednesday,July 19, 2000, (FR 44806–44807) hasbeen extended from August 18, 2000, toOctober 1, 2000. In addition, two morepublic scoping meetings will be held onthe content of the EIS. The Bureau ofIndian Affairs also wishes to announcethat the Bureau of Land Managementwill be a cooperating agency in thepreparation of the EIS. All otherinformation in the earlier notice remainsthe same.

DATES: Comments on the scope andimplementation of this proposal mustarrive by October 1, 2000. The publicscoping meetings will be held onSeptember 19, 2000, from 6:00 p.m. to8:00 p.m., and September 20, 2000, from6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: You may mail or hand carrywritten comments to either (1) Amy L.Heuslein, Regional EnvironmentalProtection Officer, Western RegionalOffice, Bureau of Indian Affairs,Environmental Quality Services, P.O.Box 10, Phoenix, Arizona 85001,Telephone (602) 379–6750 or Telefax(602) 379–3833, or (2) Deborah Hamlin,Realty Specialist, Southern Paiute FieldStation, P.O. Box 720, St. George, Utah84771, Telephone (435) 674–9720 orTelefax (435) 674–9714.

The September 19, 2000, publicscoping meeting will be held at theTribal Hall, Number 1 Lincoln Street,Moapa Indian Reservation, Moapa,Nevada. The September 20, 2000, publicscoping meeting will be held in the FirstFloor Conference Room of the North LasVegas Airport, 2730 Airport Drive,North Las Vegas, NV 89032.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Amy L Heuslein, (602) 379–6750 orDeborah Hamlin, (435) 674–9720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisnotice is published pursuant to Section1503.1 of the Council of EnvironmentalQuality Regulations (40 CFR, Parts 1500through 1508) implementing theprocedural requirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, asamended (42 U.S.C. 437 et seq.)Department of the Interior Manual (510DM1–7) and is in the exercise ofauthority delegated to the AssistantSecretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

Public Comment Solicitation

Interested persons may submit writtencomments regarding the scope andimplementation of an EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) for the proposedMoapa Paiute Power Generating Stationand Associated Facilities to the locationidentified in the ADDRESSES section ofthis document. You may also commentvia the Internet [email protected] [email protected]. Please submitInternet comments as an ASCII file,avoiding the use of special charactersand any form of encryption. If you donot receive confirmation from thesystem that your message was received,contact us directly at (602) 379–6750 or(435) 674–9720, respectively.

Comments, including the names andhome addresses of respondents will beavailable for public review at the aboveaddresses during regular business hours,8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday throughFriday, except holidays. Individualrespondents may requestconfidentiality. If you wish us towithhold your name and/or youraddress from public review or fromdisclosure under the Freedom ofInformation Act, you must state thisprominently at the beginning of yourwritten comment. Such requests will behonored to the extent allowed by law.We will not, however, consideranonymous comments. All submissionsfrom organizations or businesses, andfrom individuals representingthemselves as representatives orofficials of organizations or businesses,will be made available for publicinspection in their entirety.

Dated: August 25, 2000.Kevin Gover,Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.[FR Doc. 00–22275 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–02–P


Bureau of Land Management

[UT–030–1652–00]

Notice of Intent To Prepare anEnvironmental Impact Statement forLivestock Grazing Management onAllotments Administered by theBureau of Land Management, GrandStaircase-Escalante NationalMonument, Utah

(A plan amendment may be requiredbecause alternatives considered could, ifselected, modify grazing managementcurrently administered under existingManagement Framework Plans)

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)and notice to conduct scoping forlivestock grazing management onallotments administered by the Bureauof Land Management (BLM), GrandStaircase-Escalante National Monument(GSENM), Kane and Garfield Counties,Utah.

A plan amendment to the BLM Paria,Vermilion, Zion, and EscalanteManagement Framework Plans (MFPs)may be required because alternativesconsidered during the preparation of theEIS could, if selected, modify grazingmanagement and allocations currentlymanaged under portions of the MFPs.SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)of the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969, the BLM, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will bepreparing an EIS to analyze the impactsof domestic livestock grazing throughrenewing grazing permits on 76allotments managed by GSENM.

The issues anticipated include: (1)Potential impacts to vegetativecommunities, wildlife, riparian/wetlandareas, and soil resources; (2) potentialimpacts to archaeological, historic, andpaleontological resources; (3) potentialimpacts to recreation activities; (4)potential impacts to the socio-economics of Kane and GarfieldCounties; (5) potential impacts ongrazing permittees.

Alternatives identified at this timeinclude: (1) issuing livestock grazingpermits based on the present permitteeapplications for permit renewal; (2)issuing new permits with the sameterms and conditions as the expiringpermits (No Action Alternative); (3)issuing a new permit with modificationsto the existing terms and conditions;and (4) a no grazing alternative.DATES: This notice announces thebeginning of the public scoping period.If you have information, data orconcerns related to the potentialimpacts of livestock grazingmanagement or have suggestions foradditional alternatives, please submitthem to address below. Public scopingcomments will be accepted on or beforeNovember 15, 2000. Three publicscoping open house informationsessions will be held on:

—September 18, 2000, 7–9 pm,Kanab, Utah;

—September 20, 2000, 7–9 pm, SaltLake City, Utah; and

—October 4, 2000, 7–9 pm, Escalante,Utah.ADDRESSES: Written scoping commentsshould be sent to: Monument Manager,



Bureau of Land Management, GrandStaircase-Escalante National Monument,180 West 300 North, Kanab, Utah 84741,ATTN: Livestock Grazing EIS. Publicscoping open house locations are:

—Kanab City Library, 533 East 300South, Kanab, Utah;

—Salt Lake City Marriott UniversityPark Hotel—Ballroom 1, 480 WakaraWay, Salt Lake City, Utah; and

—Escalante Community Center, 85North 100 West, Escalante, Utah.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:GSENM, Chris Killingsworth, AssistantMonument Manager BiologicalResources, 180 West 300 North, Kanab,Utah 84741, telephone (435) 644–4300.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EISwill cover permit renewal and grazingmanagement on 76 allotments managedby GSENM, including allotments withinGlen Canyon National Recreation Areaand on adjoining BLM lands. Thisprocess will conform with theregulations for grazing publicrangelands, the fundamentals forrangeland health, and Utah’s Standardsfor Rangeland Health and Guidelines forGrazing Management. Comments,including names and street addresses ofrespondents will be available for publicreview at the BLM Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Office inKanab, Utah and will be subject todisclosure under the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA). They may bepublished as part of the EIS and otherrelated documents. Individualrespondents may requestconfidentiality. If you wish to withholdyour name or street address from publicreview and disclosure under the FOIA,you must state this prominently at thebeginning of your written comment.Such requests will be honored to theextent allowed by law. All submissionsfrom organizations or businesses will bemade available for public inspection intheir entirety.

Sally Wisely,Utah State Director.[FR Doc. 00–22289 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P



[WY–040–00–2822 JL]

Emergency Motor Vehicle Closure ofBLM-Administered Public Lands,Sweetwater County, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Notice of Motor Vehicle Closureof BLM-Administered Public Land

Disturbed or Damaged by WildfireSuppression Activity within theWildhorse Basin Wildfire, Black ButteWildfire, Sage Creek Wildfire, andSheep Mountain Wildfire areas; BLMRock Springs Field Office, Wyoming.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) hereby gives noticethat, effective immediately, all tacks andland surface disturbance made firefighting vehicles and equipment whilesuppressing the 36,762-acre WildhorseBasin Wildfire, 1,844-acre Black ButteWildfire, 1,377-acre Sage CreekWildfire, and the 34,346-acre SheepMountain Wildfire, off of existing roadsand trails, are closed to all motorizedvehicle use to help reclaim the land topre-existing fire conditions.

A Burned Area EmergencyRehabilitation (BAER) Plan has beencompleted for these burned areas andsome of the implementation actionsinclude re-seeding areas with nativevegetation and constructing water barson primary and secondary fire controllines. Areas disturbed or damaged byheavy fire fighting equipment will besigned closed to motor vehicle use.Motorized vehicle travel on thesedistributed areas could causeunacceptable levels of soil erosion,impair wildfire habitat and culturalresources, and jeopardize the overallburn rehabilitation effort.

In addition, parts of the existingCherokee Trail (a National Register ofHistoric Places eligible property) andparts of some existing two-track trailsthat were damaged by suppressionactivity will be temporarily closed toenhance reclamation efforts and reduceerosion.EFFECTIVE DATE: This motor vehicle useclosure is effective August 31, 2000 andwill remain in effect until further notice.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: StanMcKee, Field Manager, Rock SpringsField Office, 280 Highway 191 North,Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901.Telephone: (307) 352–0201.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheWildhorse Basin Wildfire began with alighting strike on July 2, 2000. The fireencompassed 36,762 acres of federal,state, and private lands. The Black ButteWildfire began with a lightning strike onJuly 3, 2000. The fire encompassed1,844 acres of federal and private lands.The Sage Creek Wildfire began on July13, 2000 and is suspected to be humancaused. It burned 1,377 acres of federaland private lands. The Sheep MountainWildfire began with a lightning strike onAugust 10, 2000, and encompassed34,346 acres of federal, state, andprivate lands.

The Green River ResourceManagement Plan off-highway vehicle(OHV) designation for all the burn areasis ‘‘limited’’ to existing roads and trails.This OHV designation remainsunchanged by this use closure. Exceptfor parts of the Cherokee Trail and partsof a few existing two-tracks trails thatwere damaged by firefightingequipment, motor vehicle traffic willcontinue to be allowed on roads andtrails in the burned areas that existedbefore the areas were burned. Off-highway vehicle disturbance and tracksmade by firefighting equipment couldbe erroneously viewed as existing roadsand trails. Potential damage towatersheds, cultural resources, andvaluable wildfire habitat could occur ifthese disturbed areas and tracks areused for motor vehicle travel. Due to thefragile nature of the burned areas andpotential natural resource damage bymotorized vehicle use, the BLM hasfound it necessary to notify and remindthe public that motor vehicle travel isstill prohibited off the existing roadsand trails in burned area and that theoff-highway vehicle disturbance andtracks made by firefighting equipmentare not roads and trails.

Signs will be placed throughout theburned areas identifying the tracks,trails, and disturbed areas that areclosed to motor vehicle travel. Mapswill be available for the public at theRock Springs Field Office and otherlocations in Sweetwater County.

The emergency closure applies toselect BLM-administered lands withinthe Wildhorse Basin Wildfire, SageCreek Wildfire, and Sheep MountainWildfire area, Sweetwater County,approximately 25 miles southwest ofRock Springs, Wyoming, in Ts. 12, 13,14, 15, 18, 19 N., Rs. 101, 104, 105, 106,107 W., Sixth Principal Meridian. Theemergency closure applies to selectBLM-administered lands within theBlack Butte Wildfire, SweetwaterCounty, approximately 25 milessoutheast of Rock Springs, Wyoming, inTs. 18, 19 N., R. 101 W., Sixth PrincipalMeridan.

The closure prohibits the use of allmotorized vehicles off the existing roadsand trails and on damaged two-tracktrails as described above, with thefollowing exceptions of:

(1) Any Federal, State, or local officersengaged in fire, military, emergency, orlaw enforcement activities;

(2) BLM employees engaged in officialduties;

(3) Adjacent landowners, ranchers,and fence contractors accessing theirland and/or performing approved work.

Authority for closure orders isprovided under 43 CFR 8364.1.



Violations of this closure arepunishable by a fine not to exceed$1,000 and/or imprisonment not toexceed 12 months.

Stan McKee,Field Manager.[FR Doc. 00–22288 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–22–M



[AK–040–00–1410–00; AA–082598]

Realty Action; FLPMA Section 302Lease, Petersville, Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Notice of realty action, lease ofpublic land.

SUMMARY: Michelle Stevens (proponent)submitted a proposal for a ResidentialOccupancy Lease of public landpursuant to Section 302 of the FederalLand Policy and Management Act of1976 and regulations at Title 43 CFRPart 2920. The lease would allow forestablished improvements to remain onthe land for the duration of the lease.

The land is approximately 24 milesNorthwest of Talkeetna, Alaska, atPetersville: located in Section 21 andSection 28, T. 28 N., R. 8 W., SewardMeridian. The leased property wouldcontain portions of the Seattle No.1 andContact No.1 mining claims as shownon Mineral Survey 2384. The area isdescribed as:Seattle No.1, N.1⁄2, N.1⁄2 S.1⁄2Contact No. 1, beginning at corner 1, south

along line 1–2 for 985.35 feet, thence N.87° 50′ W. for 200 feet, thence N. 3° 43′ E.for 985.35 feet to North Boundary ofContact No. 1, thence S. 87° 50′ E. for 200feet to corner no. 1.The proposed lease contains approximately

20 acres.DATES: Interested parties may submitcomments on or before October 16,2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to NickDouglas, Field Manager, AnchorageField Office, 6881 Abbott Loop Road,Anchorage, Alaska 99507–2599.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Rodney Huffman, (907) 267–1244 or(800) 478–1263.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is anotice of a proposal for a ResidentialOccupancy Lease. No additionalproposals will be accepted. Theproponent will reimburse the UnitedStates for reasonable administrative feesand other costs incurred by the UnitedStates in processing the proposed lease.

The proposed lease would authorize theproponent’s improvements to remain onthe land.

1 Frame House1 Nodwell Trailer2 Frame Cabins1 Frame Storage Shed1 Cook Shack1 Shop

No new construction orimprovements would be authorized.The proposed lease would be offered tothe Applicant for a term of 10 years andwould require rent to be paid to theUnited States at fair market value. In theabsence of a timely objection, thisproposal may become the final decisionof the Department of the Interior.

Nicholas Douglas,Field Manager.[FR Doc. 00–22251 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P


National Park Service

Concession Contract Negotiations; ME

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Public notice.

SUMMARY: Public notice is hereby giventhat the National Park Service proposesto award a temporary concessioncontract authorizing the operation ofcarriage rides, horse camp, day useparking, facilities and services for thepublic at Acadia National Park, Mainefor a term not to exceed October 31,2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2000.

ADDRESSES: National Park Service,Concession Management Program,Boston Support Office, 15 State Street,Boston, MA 02109–3572, Telephone(617) 223–5209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thistemporary concession contract is beingawarded to Mr. Edward Winterberg,Seal Harbor, Maine. It is necessary toaward the contract is order to avoidinterruption of visitor services.

This action is issued pursuant to 36CFR Part 51.24(a). This is not a requestfor proposals and no prospectus is beingissued at this time. The Secretaryintends to issue a competitivesolicitation of offers for a long-termoperator to begin in 2001. You may beplaced on a mailing list for receivinginformation regarding the competitivesolicitation by sending a written requestto the above address.

Dated: July 18, 2000.Chrysandra L. Walter,Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region.[FR Doc. 00–22254 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

August 23, 2000.The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following publicinformation collection request (ICR) tothe Office of Management and Budget(OMB) for review and approval inaccordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of theICR, with applicable supportingdocumentation, may be obtained bycalling the Department of Labor. Toobtain documentation for BLS, ETA,PWBA, and OASAM contact Karin Kurz(202) 219–5096 ext. 159 or by E-mail [email protected]). To obtaindocumentation for ESA, MSHA, OSHA,and VETS contact Darrin King (202)219–5096 ext. 151 or by E-Mail to [email protected]).

Comments should be sent to Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM,.ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, orVETS, Office of Management andBudget, Room 10235, Washington, DC20503 (202) 395–7316), within 30 daysfrom the date of this publication in theFederal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested incomments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

• Enhance the burden of thecollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology,



e.g., permitting electronic submission ofresponses.

Type of Review: Revision of acurrently approved collection.

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.Title: Labor Market Information (LMI)

Cooperative Agreement.OMB Number: 1220–0079.

Affected Public: State, Local or TribalGovernment.

Information collection Respondents Frequency Totalresponses Average time Total hours

Work Statements ..................................................................... 55 1 55 1–2 hr .................... 55–110BIF (LMI 1A & B) ..................................................................... 55 1 55 1–6 hr .................... 55–330Quarterly Automated Financial Reports .................................. 48 4 192 10–50 min .............. 32–160Monthly Automated Financial Reports .................................... 48 *8 348 5–25 min ................ 32–160BLS Cooperative Financial Report (LMI 2A) ........................... 7 12 84 1–5 hr .................... 84–420Quarterly Status Report (LMI 2B) ........................................... 1–30 4 4–120 1 hr ........................ 4–12

Total .............................................................................. 1–55 774–890 ........................... 264–1300Avg. totals ..................................................................... 1055 .................. 832 ................................ 781

* Reports are not received for end-of-quarter months, i.e., December, March, June, September.

Total annualized capital/startupcosts: $0.

Total annual costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasingservices): $0.

Description: The LMI CooperativeAgreement includes all informationneeded by the State EmploymentSecurity Agencies to apply for funds toassist them to operate one or more of thefive LMI programs operated by theBureau of Labor Statistics, and, onceawarded, report on the status ofobligation and expenditure of funds, aswell as close out the CooperativeAgreement.

Ira L. Mills,Departmental Clearance Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22331 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–24–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and TrainingAdministration

[TA–W–37,735 and NAFTA–3842]

International Business MachinesCorporation (IBM), Storage TechnologyDivision, Disk SubstrateManufacturing, Rochester, Minnesota;Notice of Negative DeterminationRegarding Application forReconsideration

By application postmarked July 28,2000, petitioners request administrativereconsideration of the Department’snegative determination regardingeligibility to apply for Trade AdjustmentAssistance (TAA) petition number TA–W–37,735 and North American FreeTrade Agreement-TransitionalAdjustment Assistance (NAFTA–TAA)petition number NAFTA–3842,applicable to workers and formerworkers of International BusinessMachines Corporation (IBM), Storage

Technology Division, Disk SubstrateManufacturing, Rochester, Minnesota.The denial notices were signed on June29, 2000, and published in the FederalRegister on July 24, 2000, TA–W–37,735(65 FR 45620) and NAFTA–3842 (65 FR45621).

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c)reconsideration may be granted underthe following circumstances:

(1) If it appears on the basis of factsnot previously considered that thedetermination complained of waserroneous;

(2) if it appears that the determinationcomplained of was based on a mistakein the determination of facts notpreviously considered; or

(3) if in the opinion of the CertifyingOfficer, a misinterpretation of facts or ofthe law justified reconsideration of thedecision.

The petitioners report that IBM lost acontract to build disk drives for EMC;the contract was awarded to an overseascompany. IBM then decided to use glassdisks in their computers. The Rochesterglass plant now supplies 10% of theglass disks in IBM computers and diskdrives, with the remainder beingsourced from abroad. The petitionersadd that they were informed theRochester plant would never be a majorsupplier of these disks because theforeign competition was much cheaper,and the plant was now for researchpurposes. The petitioners also state thatit is doubtful that the subject firm is outof the aluminum business because IBMrecently signed a major contract withCompaq to be able to use each other’sstorage devices. Compaq uses aluminumdisks and imports them.

The Department did not investigatethe petitioners allegation of the subjectfirm’s reliance on imports of disksbecause the Rochester, Minnesota,worker group produced disk substrates,which is a component for IBM’s furtherproduction of storage disks at other

locations. The Department is required toexamine the impact of imports ofarticles like or directly competitive withthose produced by the workers’ firm.

The workers were denied eligibility toapply for TAA based on the finding thatthe contributed importantly criterion ofthe worker group eligibilityrequirements of Section 222 of theTrade Act of 1974, as amended, was notmet. Layoffs of workers producing disksubstrates was attributable to the changein technology. Fewer workers arerequired to produce glass disk substratesthan the aluminum magnesiummaterial.

The NAFTA–TAA petitioninvestigation for the same worker grouprevealed that criteria (3) and (4) ofparagraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of theTrade Act of 1974, as amended, werenot met. The subject firm did not importfrom Mexico or Canada, articles like ordirectly competitive with the disksubstrates produced by the workers ofthe firm. There was no shift inproduction from the Warrensburg plantto Mexico or Canada. The majorcontributing factor to the reduction inemployment at the Rochester,Minnesota plant was a change intechnology. The IBM Rochester plant isusing glass for manufacturing disksubstrates which requires fewer workersthan aluminum magnesium material.

Conclusion

After review of the application andinvestigative findings, I conclude thatthere has been no error ormisinterpretation of the law or of thefacts which would justifyreconsideration of the Department ofLabor’s prior decision. Accordingly, theapplication is denied.



Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th dayof August 2000.Grant D. Beale,Program Manager, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 00–22327 Filed 8–31–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–37,304 and NAFTA–3683]

Nova Bus, Inc., Transit Bus Division,Roswell, New Mexico; Dismissal ofApplication for Reconsideration

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) anapplication for administrativereconsideration was filed with theDirector of the Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance for workers atNova Bus, Inc., Transit Bus Division,Roswell, New Mexico. The applicationcontained no new substantialinformation which would bearimportantly on the Department’sdetermination. Therefore, dismissal ofthe application was issued.TA–W–37,304 and NAFTA–3683; Nova Bus,

Inc., Transit Bus Div., Roswell, NewMexico (August 8, 2000)

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day ofAugust, 2000.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 00–22324 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–37,740]

CompAir LeRoi, Independence,Virginia; Notice of RevisedDetermination on Reopening

By letter of July 10, 2000, one of thepetitioners requested administrativereconsideration of the Department’sdenial of Trade Adjustment Assistance(TAA) for workers and former workersof the subject firm.

The workers at CompAir LeRoi,Independence, Virginia, engaged inemployment related to the production ofair compressor pumps, were deniedeligibility to apply for TAA based on thefinding that criterion (3) of the workergroup eligibility requirements of Section222 of the Trade Act, as amended, wasnot met. The notice of negativedetermination was signed on June 14,

2000, and was published in the FederalRegister on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40134)

Review of the information providedby the subject firm shows that when thecompany implemented plans to shiftproduction to another domesticlocation, the final product to berelocated from Independence, Virginia,was the reciprocating compressor line.Further review of the informationcontained in the investigation file showsthat although the company intended totemporarily source assembledreciprocating compressors from aforeign supplier, no immediate plan wasin place for domestic production of thatproduct. During the first quarter of 2000,sales or production and employmentdeclined when production ceased, andcompany imports of reciprocatingcompressors began.

The workers were not separatedidentifiable by product line.

ConclusionAfter careful consideration of the new

facts obtained on reopening, it isconcluded that the workers of CompAirLeRoi, Independence, Virginia, wereadversely affected by increased importsof compressors like or directlycompetitive with the articles producedat the subject firm.

‘‘All workers of CompAir LeRoi,Independence, Virginia, who became totallyor partially separated from employment on orafter May 19, 1999, through two years fromthe date of this determination, are eligible toapply for adjustment assistance underSection 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 8th day ofAugust 2000.Grant D. Beale,Program Manager, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 00–22329 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–37,586]

Enefco International Limited, FootwearSubdivision, Waterjet Subdivision,Auburn, Maine; Amended CertificationRegarding Eligibility To Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance on July31, 2000, applicable to all workers ofEnefco International Limited, FootwearSubdivision located in Auburn, Maine.

The notice will soon be published in theFederal Register.

At the request of the State agency, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Newfindings show that the Department’scertification inadvertently omitted theworkers at the plant in the WaterjetSubdivision. The subject firm reportedincreased reliance on imports ofcushioning pads formerly produced bythe sole worker in the WaterjetSubdivision. Accordingly, theDepartment is amending thecertification to include workers in theWaterjet Subdivision EnefcoInternational Limited in Auburn, Maine.

The amended notice applicable toTA–W–37,586 is hereby issued asfollows:All workers of Enefco International Limited,Footwear Subdivision, Waterjet Subdivision,Auburn, Maine, who became totally orpartially separated from employment on orafter April 7, 1999 through July 31, 2002, areeligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 18th dayof August 2000.Grant D. Beale,Program Manager, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 00–22326 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–37,636]

Voyager Emblem Incorporated,Sanborn, New York; AmendedCertification Regarding Eligibility ToApply for Worker AdjustmentAssistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued a Notice ofCertification Regarding Eligibility toApply for Worker AdjustmentAssistance on July 19, 2000, applicableto workers of Voyager EmblemIncorporated, Sanborn, New York. Thenotice was published in the FederalRegister on August 1, 2000 (65 FR46954).

At the request of the State agency, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers produce embroidered emblems.New findings show that there wasprevious certification for the subjectfirm workers, TA–W–34,392, which wasissued on May 15, 1998. Thatcertification expired May 15, 2000. Toavoid an overlap in worker group



coverage, the certification for TA–W–37,636 is being amended to change theimpact date from April 19, 1999, to May16, 2000.

The amended notice applicable toTA–W–37,636 is hereby issued asfollows:

‘‘All workers of Voyager EmblemIncorporated, Sanborn, New York, whobecome totally or partially separated fromemployment on or after May 16, 2000through July 19, 2002, are eligible to applyfor adjustment assistance under Section 223of the Trade Act of 1974.’’

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th dayof August 2000.

Grant D. Beale,Program Manager, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 00–22328 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[NAFTA–4034]

Gynecare; Ethicon Division; MenloPark, California; Notice of Terminationof Investigation

Pursuant to Title V of the NorthAmerican Free Trade AgreementImplementation Act (Pub. L. 103–182)concerning transitional adjustmentassistance, hereinafter called NAFTA–TAA and in accordance with Section250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II,of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended(19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation wasinitiated on July 17, 2000, in responseto a petition filed by the company onbehalf of workers at Gynecare, EthiconDivision, Menlo Park, California.

The petitioner has requested that theinvestigation be terminated and apetition will be filed closer to the timethe workers will be separated.Consequently, further investigation inthis case would serve no purpose, andthe investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 18th dayof August, 2000.

Grant D. Beale,Program Manager, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 00–22330 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[NAFTA–04060]

Reliable Exploration, Inc., Billings,Montana; Notice of Termination ofInvestigation

Pursuant to Title V of the NorthAmerican Free Trade AgreementImplementation Act (Pub. L. 103–182)concerning transitional adjustmentassistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA–TAA), and in accordance with Section250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II,of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended(19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation wasinitiated on August 8, 2000 in responseto a petition filed on behalf of workersat Reliable Exploration, Incorporated,Billings, Montana.

In a letter dated August 10, 2000, thepetitioner requested that the petition forNAFTA–TAA be withdrawn.Consequently, further investigation inthis case would serve no purpose, andthe investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd dayof August 2000.Grant D. Beale,Program Manager, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 00–22325 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Advisory Committee Conference Call

AGENCY: National Council on Disability(NCD).SUMMARY: This notice sets forth theschedule of the forthcoming conferencecall for NCD’s advisory committee—Technology Watch. Notice of thismeeting is required under Section10(a)(1)(2) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (Pub. L. 92–463).

Technology Watch: NCD’s TechnologyWatch is a community-based, cross-disability, consumer task force ontechnology. Tech Watch providesinformation to NCD on issues relating toemerging legislation on technology andhelps monitor compliance with civilrights legislation, such as Section 508 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asamended.

DATES: September 15, 2000, 1:00 p.m.EDT.

For Technology Watch Information,Contact: Martin Gould, ResearchSpecialist, National Council onDisability, 1331 F Street NW, Suite1050, Washington, D.C. 20004; 202–

272–2004 (voice), 202–272–2074 (TTY),202–272–2022 (fax), [email protected](e-mail).

Agency Mission: The National Councilon Disability is an independent federalagency composed of 15 membersappointed by the President of theUnited States and confirmed by the U.S.Senate. Its overall purpose is to promotepolicies, programs, practices, andprocedures that guarantee equalopportunity for all people withdisabilities, regardless of the nature ofseverity of the disability; and toempower people with disabilities toachieve economic self-sufficiency,independent living, and inclusion andintegration into all aspects of society.

This committee is necessary toprovide advice and recommendations toNCD on assistive technology,information technology,telecommunication issues, andaccessibility for people with disabilities.

We currently have balancedmembership representing a variety ofdisabling conditions from across theUnited States.

Open Meeting/Conference Call: Thisadvisory committee conference call ofthe National Council on Disability willbe open to the public. However, due tofiscal constraints and staff limitations, alimited number of additional telephonelines will be available. Individuals canalso participate in the conference call atthe NCD office. Those interested injoining this conference call shouldcontact the appropriate staff memberlisted above.

Records will be kept of all TechnologyWatch meetings/conference calls andwill be available after the meeting forpublic inspection at the NationalCouncil on Disability.

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 24,2000.Jeffrey T. Rosen,General Counsel and Director of Policy.[FR Doc. 00–22247 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6820–MA–M

NATIONAL SKILL STANDARDSBOARD

Notice of Open Meeting

AGENCY: National Skill Standards Board.ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: The National Skill StandardsBoard was established by an Act ofCongress, the National Skill StandardsAct, Title V, Public Law 103–227. The25-member National Skill StandardsBoard will serve as a catalyst and beresponsible for the development andimplementation of a voluntary national



system of skill standards andcertification through voluntarypartnerships which have the full andbalanced participation of business,labor, education, civil rightsorganizations and other key groups.

Time and Place: The meeting will beheld from 8:30 a.m. to approximately12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 19,2000, in Ballroom A at The CrownePlaza Hotel, State and Lodge Streets,Albany, New York 12207. Phone: (518)462–6611 Fax: (518) 462–2901.

Agenda: The agenda for the BoardMeeting will include: An update fromthe Board’s committees; presentationsfrom representatives of the Educationand Training Voluntary Partnership(E&TVP), Hospitality and Tourism SkillStandards Council (HTSSC),Manufacturing Skill Standards Council(MSSC) and Sales & Service VoluntaryPartnership (S&SVP).

Public Participation: The meeting,from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., is open tothe public. Seating is limited and willbe available on a first-come, first-servedbasis. Seats will be reserved for themedia. Individuals with disabilitiesshould contact Leslie Donaldson at(202) 254–8628 if specialaccommodations are needed.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dave Wilcox, Executive Deputy Directorat (202) 254–8628.

Signed at Washington, DC, 24th day ofAugust, 2000.Edie West,Executive Director, National Skill StandardsBoard.[FR Doc. 00–22323 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–23–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

Agency Information CollectionActivities: Submission for the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC).ACTION: Notice of the OMB review ofinformation collection and solicitationof public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recentlysubmitted to OMB for review thefollowing proposal for the collection ofinformation under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC herebyinforms potential respondents that anagency may not conduct or sponsor, andthat a person is not required to respondto, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB controlnumber.

1. Type of submission, new, revision,or extension: Revision.

2. The title of the informationcollection: NRC Form 790,‘‘Classification Record.’’

3. The form number if applicable:NRC Form 790.

4. How often the collection isrequired: On occasion.

5. Who will be required or asked toreport: NRC employees, NRCcontractors, NRC licensees, and its onlycertificate holder who classify NRCinformation.

6. An estimate of the number ofresponses: 400.

7. The estimated number of annualrespondents: 324.

8. An estimate of the total number ofhours needed annually to complete therequirement or request: 27.

9. An indication of whether Section3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Notapplicable.

10. Abstract: Completion of the NRCForm 790 is a mandatory requirementfor licensees, contractors, and onlycertificate holders who classify anddeclassify NRC information inaccordance with Executive Order 12958,‘‘Classified National SecurityInformation,’’ the Atomic Energy Act,and implementing directives.

A copy of the final supportingstatement may be viewed free of chargeat the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, NW. (lower level),Washington, DC. OMB clearancerequests are available at the NRCworldwide web site (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/OMB/index.html).

The document will be available on theNRC home page site for 60 days after thesignature date of this notice.

Comments and questions should bedirected to the OMB reviewer listedbelow by October 2, 2000. Commentsreceived after this date will beconsidered if it is practical to do so, butassurance of consideration cannot begiven to comments received after thisdate. Amy Farrell, Office of Informationand Regulatory Affairs (3150–0052),NEOB–10202, Office of Managementand Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted bytelephone at (202) 395–3087.

The NRC Clearance Officer is BrendaJo. Shelton, 301–415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th dayof August 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Beth St. Mary,Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of theChief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 00–22342 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket No. 50–219]

Amergen Energy Company, LLC,Oyster Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation; Notice of Consideration ofApproval of Application RegardingProposed Corporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR–16 for the OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Stationcurrently held by AmerGen EnergyCompany, LLC (AmerGen or thelicensee), as the owner and licensedoperator. The indirect transfer would beto a new holding company, ExelonCorporation, for PECO Energy Company(PECO), a co-owner of AmerGen. Thefacility is located in Ocean County, NewJersey.

AmerGen is a limited liabilitycompany formed to acquire and operatenuclear power plants in the UnitedStates. British Energy, Inc. and PECOeach own 50 percent of AmerGen. In anapplication dated July 19, 2000, filed byAmerGen, AmerGen referenced anearlier license transfer application datedFebruary 28, 2000, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of theindirect transfer of the Oyster Creeklicense (and certain other licenses heldby AmerGen) that would occur as aresult of a proposed transfer of PECO’s50 percent interest in AmerGen toExelon Generation Company, LLC(EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom Corporation andPECO, under which mergerCommonwealth Edison Company,PECO, and EGC are to become direct orindirect subsidiaries of ExelonCorporation. The February 28, 2000,application was noticed separately andis still under consideration.

AmerGen indicated in the July 19,2000, application that the transfer ofPECO’s interest in AmerGen to EGC maybe delayed for an interim periodfollowing completion of the merger,pending the receipt of other regulatoryapprovals. During this interim period,PECO, which will have become a



subsidiary of Exelon Corporation uponthe closing of the merger, wouldcontinue to hold its interest in AmerGenand, thus, its indirect interest in theOyster Creek license, until its interest inAmerGen is transferred to EGC. The July19, 2000, application requests approvalof the indirect transfer of the OysterCreek license that would occur uponExelon Corporation becoming the newparent of PECO while PECO continuesto hold its interest in AmerGen for theabove interim period.

According to the July 19, 2000application, PECO shareholders willbecome shareholders of ExelonCorporation when PECO becomes asubsidiary of Exelon Corporation.AmerGen’s technical and financialqualifications, and its decommissioningfunding arrangements will beunchanged by the establishment of thenew holding company for PECO whilePECO continues to hold its interest inAmerGen. The application does notpropose any changes to the license ortechnical specifications, or physicalchanges to the facility or operationalchanges.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license,or any right thereunder, shall betransferred, directly or indirectly,through transfer of control of thelicense, unless the Commission shallgive its consent in writing. TheCommission will approve anapplication for the indirect transfer of alicense if the Commission determinesthat the underlying transaction effectingthe indirect transfer will not affect thequalifications of the holder of thelicense, and that the transfer isotherwise consistent with applicableprovisions of law, regulations, andorders issued by the Commissionpursuant thereto.

The filing of requests for hearing andpetitions for leave to intervene, andwritten comments with regard to thelicense transfer application, arediscussed below.

By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,

and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitionsfor leave to intervene should be servedupon: Kevin P. Gallen, Esq., Morgan,Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1800 M Street,NW, Washington, DC 20036–5869; theGeneral Counsel, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555 (e-mail address for filingsregarding license transfer cases only:[email protected]); and the Secretary ofthe Commission, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, in accordancewith 10 CFR 2.1313.

The Commission will issue a notice ororder granting or denying a hearingrequest or intervention petition,designating the issues for any hearingthat will be held and designating thePresiding Officer. A notice granting ahearing will be published in the FederalRegister and served on the parties to thehearing.

As an alternative to requests forhearing and petitions to intervene, byOctober 2, 2000, persons may submitwritten comments regarding the licensetransfer application, as provided for in10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission willconsider and, if appropriate, respond tothese comments, but such commentswill not otherwise constitute part of thedecisional record. Comments should besubmitted to the Secretary, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, and should citethe publication date and page number ofthis Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application dated July 19,2000, available for public inspection atthe Commission’s Public DocumentRoom, the Gelman Building, 2120 LStreet, NW., Washington, DC, andavailable electronically through theADAMS Public Electronic ReadingRoom link at the NRC Web site (http://www.NRC.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd dayof August 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Helen N. Pastis,Senior Project Manager, Section 1, ProjectDirectorate I, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22332 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P



AmerGen Energy Company, LLC,Clinton Power Station, Unit 1; Notice ofConsideration of Approval ofApplication Regarding ProposedCorporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicense No. NPF–62 for Clinton PowerStation, Unit 1, held by AmerGenEnergy Company, LLC (AmerGen or thelicensee), as the owner and licensedoperator. The indirect transfer would beto a new holding company, ExelonCorporation, for PECO Energy Company(PECO), a co-owner of AmerGen. Thefacility is located in DeWitt County,Illinois.

AmerGen is a limited liabilitycompany formed to acquire and operatenuclear power plants in the UnitedStates. British Energy, Inc., and PECOeach own 50 percent of AmerGen. In anapplication dated July 19, 2000, filed byAmerGen, AmerGen referenced anearlier license transfer application datedFebruary 28, 2000, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of theindirect transfer of the Clinton license(and certain other licenses held byAmerGen) that would occur as a resultof a proposed transfer of PECO’s 50percent interest in AmerGen to ExelonGeneration Company, LLC (EGC). EGCis to be formed in connection with apending merger between UnicomCorporation and PECO, under whichmerger Commonwealth EdisonCompany, PECO, and EGC are tobecome direct or indirect subsidiaries ofExelon Corporation. The February 28,2000, application was noticedseparately and is still underconsideration.

AmerGen indicated in the July 19,2000, application that the transfer ofPECO’s interest in AmerGen to EGC maybe delayed for an interim periodfollowing completion of the merger,pending the receipt of other regulatoryapprovals. During this interim period,



PECO, which will have become asubsidiary of Exelon Corporation uponthe closing of the merger, wouldcontinue to hold its interest in AmerGenand, thus, its indirect interest in theClinton license, until its interest inAmerGen is transferred to EGC. The July19, 2000, application requests approvalof the indirect transfer of the Clintonlicense that would occur upon ExelonCorporation becoming the new parent ofPECO while PECO continues to hold itsinterest in AmerGen for the aboveinterim period.




By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with the

requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)–(2).






For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Jon B. Hopkins,Senior Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate III, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22335 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P



Amergen Energy Company, LLC; ThreeMile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1;Notice of Consideration of Approval ofApplication Regarding ProposedCorporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR–50 for Three MileIsland Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1)held by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC(AmerGen or the licensee), as the ownerand licensed operator. The indirecttransfer would be to a new holdingcompany, Exelon Corporation, for PECOEnergy Company (PECO), a co-owner ofAmerGen. TMI–1 is located in DauphinCounty, Pennsylvania.

AmerGen is a limited liabilitycompany formed to acquire and operatenuclear power plants in the UnitedStates. British Energy, Inc. and PECOeach own 50 percent of AmerGen. In anapplication dated July 19, 2000, filed byAmerGen, AmerGen referenced anearlier license transfer application datedFebruary 28, 2000, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of theindirect transfer of the TMI–1 license(and certain other licenses held byAmerGen) that would occur as a resultof a proposed transfer of PECO’s 50percent interest in AmerGen to ExelonGeneration Company, LLC (EGC). EGCis to be formed in connection with apending merger between UnicomCorporation and PECO, under whichmerger Commonwealth EdisonCompany, PECO, and EGC are tobecome direct or indirect subsidiaries ofExelon Corporation. The February 28,2000, application was noticedseparately and is still underconsideration.

AmerGen indicated in the July 19,2000, application that the transfer ofPECO’s interest in AmerGen to EGC maybe delayed for an interim periodfollowing completion of the merger,pending the receipt of other regulatoryapprovals. During this interim period,



PECO, which will have become asubsidiary of Exelon Corporation uponthe closing of the merger, wouldcontinue to hold its interest in AmerGenand, thus, its indirect interest in theTMI–1 license, until its interest inAmerGen is transferred to EGC. The July19, 2000, application requests approvalof the indirect transfer of the TMI–1license that would occur upon ExelonCorporation becoming the new parent ofPECO while PECO continues to hold itsinterest in AmerGen for the aboveinterim period.




By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with the







For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Timothy G. Colburn,Senior Project Manager, Section 1, ProjectDirectorate I, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22343 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P



AmerGen Vermont, LLC; VermontYankee Nuclear Power Station; Noticeof Consideration of Approval ofProposed Direct and Indirect LicenseTransfers and Opportunity for aHearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an order ororders under 10 CFR 50.80 approvingcertain proposed direct and indirecttransfers of Facility Operating LicenseNo. DPR–28 for Vermont YankeeNuclear Power Station (VermontYankee) currently held by VermontYankee Nuclear Power Corporation, asthe owner and licensed operator. Thefacility is located in Vernon, Vermont.

A direct transfer of this license fromVermont Yankee Nuclear PowerCorporation to AmerGen Vermont, LLC(AmerGen Vermont) was approved bythe Nuclear Regulatory Commission byan order dated July 7, 2000. Theapproved direct transfer has not yetoccurred. At this time, AmerGenVermont is a wholly-owned subsidiaryof AmerGen Energy Company, LLC(AmerGen), which in turn is 50 percentowned by PECO Energy Company(PECO) and British Energy, Inc. PECOand Unicom Corporation intend tomerge and create a new holdingcompany, Exelon Corporation, whichwill become the direct or indirect parentof PECO, Exelon Generation Company,LLC (EGC), and other subsidiaries.PECO intends to transfer to EGC all ofits generating assets, including its 50percent interest in AmerGen, whichcurrently owns and holds the operatinglicenses for the Three Mile Island, Unit1, Clinton, and Oyster Creek nuclearfacilities. Depending upon the time ofthe above events, AmerGen Vermontplans to ultimately acquire the licensefor Vermont Yankee, or, following suchacquisition, hold such license, underthe following possible scenarios, whichmay be in addition to those alreadyapproved or subject to a pendingapplication dated February 28, 2000, assupplemented, referenced below: (1)AmerGen Vermont acquires the license



when AmerGen Vermont is whollyowned by AmerGen, which is in turn 50percent owned by EGC, which in turnis indirectly owned by ExelonCorporation (through Exelon VenturesCompany); (2) AmerGen Vermontacquires the license when AmerGenVermont is a wholly owned subsidiaryof AmerGen, which in turn is 50 percentowned by PECO, and PECO is asubsidiary of Exelon Corporation; (3)AmerGen Vermont holds the license,but indirectly transfers the license byreason of PECO becoming a subsidiaryof Exelon Corporation; and (4) AmerGenVermont holds the license, butindirectly transfers the license by reasonof PECO, either as a subsidiary ofExelon Corporation or as PECO existstoday, transferring its interest inAmerGen to EGC. Under any of theabove scenarios, British Energy, Inc.’sinterest in AmerGen will remainunchanged.

AmerGen Vermont filed anapplication dated August 14, 2000,describing the above possible scenariosand seeking Commission approvalunder 10 CFR 50.80 that wouldauthorize the direct or indirect transfersinvolved to occur. AmerGen Vermonthas previously filed an applicationdated February 28, 2000, andsupplements thereto, seeking approvalof a proposed indirect transfer of thelicense, presuming it has beentransferred to AmerGen Vermont, thatwould occur by virtue of PECO’sinterest in AmerGen being transferred toEGC. To the extent the February 28,2000, proposal is not subsumed by theAugust 14, 2000, application, theproposal in the former application willbe considered in conjunction with thosepresented in the latter.

No physical changes to the facility ofoperational changes, and no newchanges to the license or technicalspecifications are being proposed in theAugust 14, 2000, application. Accordingto the application, for the scenarioswhere EGC acquires PECO’s 50 percentinterest in AmerGen, no changes fromthe information provided by theFebruary 28, 2000, application, assupplemented, with respect to technicalor financial qualifications of AmerGenVermont are being presented in theAugust 14, 2000, application. Thedecommissioning funding arrangementswill be as presented in the applicationthat was approved by the July 7, 2000,Order.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license,or any right thereunder, shall betransferred, directly or indirectly,through transfer of control of thelicense, unless the Commission shallgive its consent in writing. The

Commission will approve anapplication for a direct transfer of alicense if the Commission determinedthat the proposed transferee is qualifiedto be the license holder, or for anindirect transfer of a license if theCommission determines that theunderlying transaction effecting theindirect transfer will not affect thequalifications of the holder of thelicense, and in either case if, inaddition, the Commission determinesthat the transfer is otherwise consistentwith applicable provisions of law,regulations, and orders issued by theCommission pursuant thereto.


By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitionsfor leave to intervene should be servedupon: Kevin P. Gallen, Esq., Morgan,Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1800 M Street,NW., Washington, DC 20036–5869; theGeneral Counsel, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555 (e-mail address for filingsregarding license transfer cases only:[email protected]); and the Secretary ofthe Commission, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, in accordancewith 10 CFR 2.1313.

The Commission will issue a notice ororder granting or denying a hearingrequest or intervention petition,

designating the issues for any hearingthat will be held and designating thePresiding Officer. A notice granting ahearing will be published in the FederalRegister and served on the parties to thehearing.


For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application dated August14, 2000, available for public inspectionat the Commission’s Public DocumentRoom, the Gelman Building, 2120 LStreet, NW., Washington, DC, andavailable electronically through theADAMS Public Electronic ReadingRoom link at the NRC Web site (http://www.NRC.gov).


For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Richard P. Croteau,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate I, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22336 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket No. 50–10, 50–237 and 50–249]

Commonwealth Edison Company;Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units1, 2 and 3; Notice of Consideration ofApproval of Application RegardingProposed Corporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicenses Nos. DPR–2, DPR–19 andDPR–25 for Dresden Nuclear PowerStation, Units 1, 2 and 3, currently heldby Commonwealth Edison Company(ComEd), as the owner and licensedoperator. The indirect transfer would beto a new holding company for ComEd,Exelon Corporation. ComEd is currently



a subsidiary of Unicom Corporation(Unicom). The facility is located inGrundy County, Illinois.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, ComEd referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the Dresden facilityoperating licenses (and other facilityoperating licenses held by ComEd,which transfers were the subject ofseparate notices) to a new proposedlicensee, Exelon Generation Company,LLC (EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom and PECO EnergyCompany (PECO), under which mergerEGC, ComEd, and PECO are to becomedirect or indirect subsidiaries of ExelonCorporation. ComEd indicated in theJuly 7, 2000, application that the directtransfer of the licenses to EGC may bedelayed for an interim period followingthe completion of the merger, pendingthe receipt of other regulatory approvalsof the direct transfer to EGC. During thisinterim period, ComEd, which will havebecome a subsidiary of ExelonCorporation upon the closing of themerger, would continue to hold theDresden licenses until they aretransferred to EGC. The July 7, 2000,application requests approval of theindirect transfer of the Dresden licensesthat would occur upon ExelonCorporation becoming the new parent ofComEd while ComEd continues to holdthe licenses for the above interimperiod. The direct transfer of thelicenses from ComEd to EGC wasrecently approved by the NRC onAugust 3, 2000.

According to the July 7, 2000,application, Unicom shareholders willbecome shareholders of ExelonCorporation. ComEd’s technical andfinancial qualifications, and itsdecommissioning funding arrangementwill be unchanged by the establishmentof the new holding company and thecorresponding indirect transfer of thelicenses. No changes to the licenses ortechnical specifications, and nophysical changes to the facility oroperational changes are being proposedin the application.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license,or any right thereunder, shall betransferred, directly or indirectly,through transfer of control of thelicense, unless the Commission shallgive its consent in writing. TheCommission will approve anapplication for the indirect transfer of alicense if the Commission determinesthat the underlying transaction effectingthe indirect transfer will not affect the

qualifications of the holder of thelicense, and that the transfer isotherwise consistent with applicableprovisions of law, regulations, andorders issued by the Commissionpursuant thereto.


By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitionsfor leave to intervene should be servedupon: Ms. Pamela B. Stroebel, SeniorVice President and General Counsel,Commonwealth Edison Company, P.O.Box 767, Chicago, Illinois 60690–0767;the General Counsel, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555 (e-mail address for filingsregarding license transfer cases only:[email protected]); and the Secretary ofthe Commission, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, in accordancewith 10 CFR 2.1313.


As an alternative to requests forhearing and petitions to intervene, byOctober 2, 2000, persons may submit

written comments regarding the licensetransfer application, as provided for in10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission willconsider and, if appropriate, respond tothese comments, but such commentswill not otherwise constitute part of thedecisional record. Comments should besubmitted to the Secretary, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, and should citethe publication date and page number ofthis Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application dated July 7,2000, as supplemented on July 13, 2000,available for public inspection at theCommission’s Public Document Room,the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,NW., Washington, DC, and availableelectronically through the ADAMSPublic Electronic Reading Room link atthe NRC Web site (http://www.NRC.gov).


For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Lawrence W. Rossbach,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate III, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22337 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374]

Commonwealth Edison Company;LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2;Notice of Consideration of Approval ofApplication Regarding ProposedCorporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicenses Nos. NPF–11 and NPF–18 forLaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2,currently held by CommonwealthEdison Company (ComEd), as the ownerand licensed operator. The indirecttransfer would be to a new holdingcompany for ComEd, ExelonCorporation. ComEd is currently asubsidiary of Unicom Corporation(Unicom). The facility is located inLaSalle County, Illinois.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, ComEd referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplements



thereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the LaSalle facilityoperating licenses (and other facilityoperating licenses held by ComEd,which transfers were the subject ofseparate notices) to a new proposedlicensee, Exelon Generation Company,LLC (EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom and PECO EnergyCompany (PECO), under which mergerEGC, ComEd, and PECO are to becomedirect or indirect subsidiaries of ExelonCorporation. ComEd indicated in theJuly 7, 2000, application that the directtransfer of the licenses to EGC may bedelayed for an interim period followingthe completion of the merger, pendingthe receipt of other regulatory approvalsof the direct transfer to EGC. During thisinterim period, ComEd, which will havebecome a subsidiary of ExelonCorporation upon the closing of themerger, would continue to hold theLaSalle licenses until they aretransferred to EGC. The July 7, 2000,application requests approval of theindirect transfer of the LaSalle licensesthat would occur upon ExelonCorporation becoming the new parent ofComEd while ComEd continues to holdthe licenses for the above interimperiod. The direct transfer of thelicenses from ComEd to EGC wasrecently approved by the NRC onAugust 3, 2000.



The filing of requests for hearing andpetitions for leave to intervene, and

written comments with regard to thelicense transfer application, arediscussed below.

By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicants may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)–(2).



As an alternative to requests forhearing and petitions to intervene, byOctober 2, 2000, persons may submitwritten comments regarding the licensetransfer application, as provided for in10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission willconsider and, if appropriate, respond tothese comments, but such commentswill not otherwise constitute part of thedecisional record. Comments should besubmitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, and should citethe publication date and page number ofthis Federal Register notice.



For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Donna M. Skay,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate III, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22338 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265]

Commonwealth Edison Company andMidAmerican Energy Company; QuadCities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1and 2; Notice of Consideration ofApproval of Application RegardingProposed Corporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving thetransfer of Facility Operating LicensesNos. DPR–29 and DPR–30 for QuadCities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1and 2, to the extent held byCommonwealth Edison Company(ComEd). ComEd currently owns 75% ofQuad Cities, Units 1 and 2, and is thelicensed operator of both stations. Theremaining interest in Quad Cities, Units1 and 2, is owned by MidAmericanEnergy Company. The indirect transferwould be to a new holding company forComEd, Exelon Corporation. ComEd iscurrently a subsidiary of UnicomCorporation (Unicom). The facility islocated in Rock Island County, Illinois.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, ComEd referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the Quad Cities facilityoperating licenses (and other facility



operating licenses held by ComEd,which transfers were the subject ofseparate notices) to a new proposedlicensee, Exelon Generation Company,LLC (EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom and PECO EnergyCompany (PECO), under which mergerEGC, ComEd, and PECO are to becomedirect or indirect subsidiaries of ExelonCorporation. ComEd indicated in theJuly 7, 2000, application that the directtransfer of the licenses to EGC may bedelayed for an interim period followingthe completion of the merger, pendingthe receipt of other regulatory approvalsof the direct transfer to EGC. During thisinterim period, ComEd, which will havebecome a subsidiary of ExelonCorporation upon the closing of themerger, would continue to hold theQuad Cities licenses until they aretransferred to EGC. The July 7, 2000,application requests approval of theindirect transfer of the Quad Citieslicenses that would occur upon ExelonCorporation becoming the new parent ofComEd while ComEd continues to holdthe licenses for the above interimperiod. The direct transfer of thelicenses from ComEd to EGC wasrecently approved by the NRC onAugust 3, 2000.




By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicants may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)-(2).



As an alternative to requests forhearing and petitions to intervene, byOctober 2, 2000, persons may submitwritten comments regarding the licensetransfer application, as provided for in10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission willconsider and, if appropriate, respond tothese comments, but such commentswill not otherwise constitute part of thedecisional record. Comments should besubmitted to the Secretary, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, and should cite

the publication date and page number ofthis Federal Register notice.



For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Stewart N. Bailey,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate III, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22339 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket Nos. 50–295 and 50–304]

Commonwealth Edison Company; ZionNuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2;Notice of Consideration of Approval ofApplication Regarding ProposedCorporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicenses Nos. DPR–39 and DPR–48 forZion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and2, currently held by CommonwealthEdison Company (ComEd), as the ownerand licensed operator. The indirecttransfer would be to a new holdingcompany for ComEd, ExelonCorporation. ComEd is currently asubsidiary of Unicom Corporation(Unicom). The facility is located in LakeCounty, Illinois.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, ComEd referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the Zion facilityoperating licenses (and other facilityoperating licenses held by ComEd,which transfers were the subject ofseparate notices) to a new proposedlicensee, Exelon Generation Company,LLC (EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom and PECO EnergyCompany (PECO), under which merger



EGC, ComEd, and PECO are to becomedirect or indirect subsidiaries of ExelonCorporation. ComEd indicated in theJuly 7, 2000, application that the directtransfer of the licenses to EGC may bedelayed for an interim period followingthe completion of the merger, pendingthe receipt of other regulatory approvalsof the direct transfer to EGC. During thisinterim period, ComEd, which will havebecome a subsidiary of ExelonCorporation upon the closing of themerger, would continue to hold theZion licenses until they are transferredto EGC. The July 7, 2000, applicationrequests approval of the indirect transferof the Zion licenses that would occurupon Exelon Corporation becoming thenew parent of ComEd while ComEdcontinues to hold the licenses for theabove interim period. The direct transferof the licenses from ComEd to EGC wasrecently approved by the NRC onAugust 3, 2000.




By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicants may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordance

with the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)-(2).




For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application dated July 7,2000, as supplemented on July 13, 2000,available for public inspection at theCommission’s Public Document Room,the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,NW., Washington, DC, and available

electronically through the ADAMSPublic Electronic Reading Room link atthe NRC Web site (http://www.NRC.gov).


For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.William C. Huffman,Project Manager, Decommissioning Section,Project Directorate IV and DecommissioningDivision of Licensing Project Management,Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.[FR Doc. 00–22340 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket Nos. Stn 50–456 and Stn 50–457]

Commonwealth Edison Company;Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2;Notice of Consideration of Approval ofApplication Regarding ProposedCorporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicenses Nos. NPF–72 and NPF–77 forBraidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,currently held by CommonwealthEdison Company (ComEd), as the ownerand licensed operator. The indirecttransfer would be to a new holdingcompany for ComEd, ExelonCorporation. ComEd is currently asubsidiary of Unicom Corporation(Unicom). The facility is located in WillCounty, Illinois.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, ComEd referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the Braidwood facilityoperating licenses (and other facilityoperating licenses held by ComEd,which transfers were the subject ofseparate notices) to a new proposedlicensee, Exelon Generation Company,LLC (EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom and PECO EnergyCompany (PECO), under which mergerEGC, ComEd, and PECO are to becomedirect or indirect subsidiaries of ExelonCorporation. ComEd indicated in theJuly 7, 2000, application that the directtransfer of the licenses to EGC may bedelayed for an interim period followingthe completion of the merger, pendingthe receipt of other regulatory approvalsof the direct transfer to EGC. During this



interim period, ComEd, which will havebecome a subsidiary of ExelonCorporation upon the closing of themerger, would continue to hold theBraidwood licenses until they aretransferred to EGC. The July 7, 2000,application requests approval of theindirect transfer of the Braidwoodlicenses that would occur upon ExelonCorporation becoming the new parent ofComEd while ComEd continues to holdthe licenses for the above interimperiod. The direct transfer of thelicenses from ComEd to EGC wasrecently approved by the NRC onAugust 3, 2000.




By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with the







For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.George F. Dick,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate III, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22344 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket Nos. Stn 50–454 and Stn 50–455]

Commonwealth Edison Company;Byron Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice ofConsideration of Approval ofApplication Regarding ProposedCorporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicenses Nos. NPF–37 and NPF–66 forByron Station, Units 1 and 2, currentlyheld by Commonwealth EdisonCompany (ComEd), as the owner andlicensed operator. The indirect transferwould be to a new holding company forComEd, Exelon Corporation. ComEd iscurrently a subsidiary of UnicomCorporation (Unicom). The facility islocated in Ogle County, Illinois.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, ComEd referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the Byron facilityoperating licenses (and other facilityoperating licenses held by ComEd,which transfers were the subject ofseparate notices) to a new proposedlicensee, Exelon Generation Company,LLC (EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom and PECO EnergyCompany (PECO), under which mergerEGC, ComEd, and PECO are to becomedirect or indirect subsidiaries of ExelonCorporation. ComEd indicated in theJuly 7, 2000, application that the directtransfer of the licenses to EGC may bedelayed for an interim period followingthe completion of the merger, pendingthe receipt of other regulatory approvalsof the direct transfer to EGC. During thisinterim period, ComEd, which will havebecome a subsidiary of ExelonCorporation upon the closing of themerger, would continue to hold theByron licenses until they are transferredto EGC. The July 7, 2000, applicationrequests approval of the indirect transferof the Byron licenses that would occur



upon Exelon Corporation becoming thenew parent of ComEd while ComEdcontinues to hold the licenses for theabove interim period. The direct transferof the licenses from ComEd to EGC wasrecently approved by the NRC onAugust 3, 2000.




By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors that

the Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.1308(b)(1)–(2).






For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.George F. Dick,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate III, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22345 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket Nos. 50–171, 50–277 and 50–278]

PECO Energy Company, Peach BottomAtomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2,and 3; Notice of Consideration ofApproval of Application RegardingProposed Corporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicenses Nos. DPR–12, DPR–44, andDPR–56 for Peach Bottom Atomic PowerStation, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, to theextent held by PECO Energy Company(PECO). PECO is currently the soleowner of Peach Bottom, Unit No. 1,holds a 42.49 percent ownershipinterest in Peach Bottom, Unit Nos. 2and 3, and is the licensed operator of allthree Peach Bottom units. Theremaining interests in Peach Bottom,Units 2 and 3, are owned by PublicService Electric and Gas Company(PSE&G), Delmarva Power & LightCompany, and Atlantic City ElectricCompany. The indirect transfer wouldbe to a new holding company for PECO,Exelon Corporation. The facility islocated in York County, Pennsylvania.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, PECO referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the Peach Bottomfacility operating licenses (and otherfacility operating licenses held byPECO, which transfers were the subjectof separate notices) to a new proposedlicensee, Exelon Generation Company,LLC (EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom Corporation andPECO, under which merger EGC,Commonwealth Edison Company, andPECO are to become direct or indirectsubsidiaries of Exelon Corporation.PECO indicated in the July 7, 2000,application that the direct transfer of thelicenses to EGC may be delayed for aninterim period following the completionof the merger, pending the receipt ofother regulatory approvals of the directtransfer to EGC. During this interimperiod, PECO, which will have becomea subsidiary of Exelon Corporation uponthe closing of the merger, wouldcontinue to hold the Peach Bottomlicenses until they are transferred toEGC. The July 7, 2000, applicationrequests approval of the indirect transferof the Peach Bottom licenses that would



occur upon Exelon Corporationbecoming the new parent of PECO whilePECO continues to hold the licenses forthe above interim period. The directtransfer of the licenses from PECO toEGC was recently approved by the NRCon August 3, 2000.

According to the July 7, 2000application, PECO shareholders willbecome shareholders of ExelonCorporation. PECO’s technical andfinancial qualifications, and itsdecommissioning funding arrangementwill be unchanged by the establishmentof the new holding company and thecorresponding indirect transfer of thelicenses. No changes to the licenses ortechnical specifications, and nophysical changes to the facility oroperational changes are being proposedin the application. The proposedindirect transfer does not involve anychange with respect to the non-operating ownership interests held byPSE&G, Delmarva Power & LightCompany, and Atlantic City ElectricCompany.



By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).

Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitionsfor leave to intervene should be servedupon J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, SeniorVice President and General Counsel,PECO Energy Company, 2301 MarketStreet, S26–1, Philadelphia, PA 19101;the General Counsel, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555 (e-mail address for filingsregarding license transfer cases only:[email protected]); and the Secretary ofthe Commission, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, in accordancewith 10 CFR 2.1313.





For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Bartholomew C. Buckley, Sr.,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate I, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22333 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket Nos. 50–352 AND 50–353]

PECO Energy Company, LimerickGenerating Station, Units 1 and 2;Notice of Consideration of Approval ofApplication Regarding ProposedCorporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of Facility OperatingLicenses Nos. NPF–39 and NPF–85 forLimerick Generating Station, Units 1and 2. PECO Energy Company (PECO) iscurrently the owner and the licensedoperator of Limerick, Units 1 and 2. Theindirect transfer would be to a newholding company for PECO, ExelonCorporation. The facility is located inMontgomery County, Pennsylvania.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, PECO referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the Limerick facilityoperating licenses (and other facilityoperating licenses held by PECO, whichtransfers were the subject of separatenotices) to a new proposed licensee,Exelon Generation Company, LLC(EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom Corporation andPECO, under which merger EGC,Commonwealth Edison Company, andPECO are to become direct or indirectsubsidiaries of Exelon Corporation.PECO indicated in the July 7, 2000,application that the direct transfer of thelicenses to EGC may be delayed for aninterim period following the completionof the merger, pending the receipt ofother regulatory approvals of the directtransfer to EGC. During this interimperiod, PECO, which will have becomea subsidiary of Exelon Corporation uponthe closing of the merger, wouldcontinue to hold the Limerick licensesuntil they are transferred to EGC. TheJuly 7, 2000, application requestsapproval of the indirect transfer of theLimerick licenses that would occur



upon Exelon Corporation becoming thenew parent of PECO while PECOcontinues to hold the licenses for theabove interim period. The direct transferof the licenses from PECO to EGC wasrecently approved by the NRC onAugust 3, 2000.

According to the July 7, 2000application, PECO shareholders willbecome shareholders of ExelonCorporation. PECO’s technical andfinancial qualifications, and itsdecommissioning funding arrangementwill be unchanged by the establishmentof the new holding company and thecorresponding indirect transfer of thelicenses. No changes to the licenses ortechnical specifications, and nophysical changes to the facility oroperational changes are being proposedin the application.



By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicant may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors that

the Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitionsfor leave to intervene should be servedupon: J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, SeniorVice President and General Counsel,PECO Energy Company, 2301 MarketStreet, S26–1, Philadelphia, PA 19101;the General Counsel, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555 (e-mail address for filingsregarding license transfer cases only:[email protected]); and the Secretary ofthe Commission, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakingsand Adjudications Staff, in accordancewith 10 CFR 2.1313.



For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application July 7, 2000,as supplemented on July 13, 2000,available for public inspection at theCommission’s Public Document Room,the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,NW., Washington, DC, and availableelectronically through the ADAMSPublic Electronic Reading Room link atthe NRC Web site (http://www.NRC.gov).


For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Bartholomew C. Buckley, Sr.,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate I, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22341 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]



[Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311]

PECO Energy Company, PublicService Electric and Gas Company,Salem Nuclear Generating Station, UnitNos. 1 and 2; Notice of Considerationof Approval of Application RegardingProposed Corporate Restructuring andOpportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering the issuance of an orderunder 10 CFR 50.80 approving theindirect transfer of PECO EnergyCompany’s (PECO’s) interest in FacilityOperating Licenses Nos. DPR–70 andDPR–75 for Salem Nuclear GeneratingStation, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. PECO holdsa 42.59 percent ownership interest inboth Salem units, which are operated byPublic Service Electric and GasCompany. The remaining interests inSalem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are owned byDelmarva Power & Light Company andAtlantic City Electric Company. Theindirect transfer would be to a newholding company for PECO, ExelonCorporation. The facility is located inSalem County, New Jersey.

In an application dated July 7, 2000,as supplemented by a submittal datedJuly 13, 2000, PECO referenced anearlier license transfer application datedDecember 20, 1999, and supplementsthereto, that requested approval of thedirect transfer of the Salem facilityoperating licenses (and other facilityoperating licenses held by PECO, whichtransfers were the subject of separatenotices) to a new proposed licensee,Exelon Generation Company, LLC(EGC). EGC is to be formed inconnection with a pending mergerbetween Unicom Corporation andPECO, under which merger EGC,Commonwealth Edison Company, andPECO are to become direct or indirectsubsidiaries of Exelon Corporation.PECO indicated in the July 7, 2000,application that the direct transfer of thelicenses to EGC may be delayed for aninterim period following the completionof the merger, pending the receipt ofother regulatory approvals of the directtransfer to EGC. During this interimperiod, PECO, which will have becomea subsidiary of Exelon Corporation uponthe closing of the merger, wouldcontinue to hold the Salem licensesuntil the licenses, to the extent nowheld by PECO, are transferred to EGC.The July 7, 2000, application requestsapproval of the indirect transfer of theSalem licenses that would occur uponExelon Corporation becoming the newparent of PECO while PECO continues



to hold the licenses for the aboveinterim period. The direct transfer of thelicenses from PECO to EGC was recentlyapproved by the NRC on August 3,2000.

According to the July 7, 2000application, PECO shareholders willbecome shareholders of ExelonCorporation. PECO’s technical andfinancial qualifications, and itsdecommissioning funding arrangementwill be unchanged by the establishmentof the new holding company and thecorresponding indirect transfer of thelicenses. No changes to the licenses ortechnical specifications, and nophysical changes to the facility oroperational changes are being proposedin the application. The proposedindirect transfer does not involve anychange with respect to the non-operating ownership interests held byDelmarva Power & Light Company andAtlantic City Electric Company, or theownership interests and operatingauthority held by Public Service Electricand Gas Company.



By September 20, 2000, any personwhose interest may be affected by theCommission’s action on the applicationmay request a hearing and, if not, theapplicants may petition for leave tointervene in a hearing proceeding on theCommission’s action. Requests for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene should be filed in accordancewith the Commission’s rules of practiceset forth in Subpart M, ‘‘PublicNotification, Availability of Documentsand Records, Hearing Requests andProcedures for Hearings on LicenseTransfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR part2. In particular, such requests andpetitions must comply with therequirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,and should address the considerationscontained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).

Untimely requests and petitions may bedenied, as provided in 10 CFR2.1308(b), unless good cause for failureto file on time is established. Inaddition, an untimely request orpetition should address the factors thatthe Commission will also consider, inreviewing untimely requests orpetitions, set forth in 10 CFR2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitionsfor leave to intervene should be servedupon: J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, SeniorVice President and General Counsel,PECO Energy Company, 2301 MarketStreet, S26–1, Philadelphia, PA 19101;Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Public ServiceElectric and Gas Company, NuclearBusiness Unit—N21, P.O. Box 236,Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 (tel: 609–339–5429, fax: 609–339–1234, and e-mail [email protected]); the GeneralCounsel, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings regarding licensetransfer cases only: [email protected]);and the Secretary of the Commission,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, inaccordance with 10 CFR 2.1313.




Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd dayof August 2000.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Robert J. Fretz,Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate I, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22334 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


Issuance, Availability of DraftRegulatory Guide, Draft StandardReview Plan, and Report;Announcement of Public Workshop

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Issuance of draft regulatoryguide, draft standard review plan, andreport; request for public comment; andannouncement of public workshop.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is issuing DraftRegulatory Guide DG–1104, ‘‘StandardFormat and Content for Applications ToRenew Nuclear Power Plant OperatingLicenses’’; a draft Standard Review Planfor License Renewal (SRP-LR),‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Reviewof License Renewal Applications forNuclear Power Plants’’; and a draftGeneric Aging Lessons Learned (GALL)report for public comment. Thesedocuments describe methods acceptableto the NRC staff for implementing thelicense renewal rule (10 CFR Part 54), aswell as techniques used by the NRC staffin evaluating applications for licenserenewals. The NRC is also announcinga public workshop to facilitate gatheringpublic comments on these draftdocuments. The NRC is especiallyinterested in stakeholder comments thatwill improve the safety benefits,effectiveness, and efficiency of thelicense renewal process.DATES: Commenters should submitcomments on Draft Regulatory GuideDG–1104, the draft SRP–LR, and thedraft GALL report, accompanied bysupporting data, by October 16, 2000.Comments received after this date willbe considered if it is practical to do so,but the Commission is able to assureconsideration only for commentsreceived on or before this date.

A public workshop will be held onMonday, September 25, 2000, from 8:30a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at NRC’s headquarters.To ensure that adequate copies ofhandouts are available, personsplanning to attend the workshop shouldcall the contact designated below by



September 15, 2000. Also, to ensurethere is adequate time allotted forpresentations, persons who wish tomake opening remarks or other formalpresentations at the workshop shouldcall the contact designated below bySeptember 15, 2000, to indicate the timerequested.ADDRESSES: Written comments may besubmitted to the Chief, Rules andDirectives Branch, Division ofAdministrative Services, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555. You may also providecomments via the NRC’s LicenseRenewal web site at <http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/LR/IRG/index.html>. This site provides theavailability to upload comments as files(any format) if your web browsersupports that function. For informationabout the web site, email<[email protected]>.

The public workshop will be held atthe NRC Auditorium, Two White FlintNorth, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,Maryland.

Electronic copies of all the documentsare available on NRC’s License Renewalweb site, at <http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/LR/IRG/index.html>.Electronic copies are also available inNRC’s Electronic Reading Room throughthe same web site: DG–1104 is underADAMS Accession NumberML003736097, the draft SRP–LR isunder ADAMS Accession numberML003742580, the GALL report is underADAMS Accession numberML003742594, and NEI 95–10 (Revision2) is under ADAMS Accession numberML003739319. All of these documentsare available for inspection or copyingfor a fee at the NRC’s Public DocumentRoom at 2120 L Street NW, Washington,DC (the PDR’s mailing address is MailStop LL–6, Washington, DC 20555;telephone (202) 634–3273; fax (202)634–3343). These license renewalguidance documents are notcopyrighted, and Commission approvalis not required to reproduce them.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RajAnand, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation, Mail Stop O–12G15, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001,Telephone (301) 415–1146, or email<[email protected]>.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Draft Regulatory Guide for LicenseRenewal

Draft Regulatory Guide DG–1104 isbeing issued for public comment as partof the implementation of the licenserenewal rule. This draft regulatory guideis being developed to provide a uniform

format and content acceptable to theNRC staff for structuring and presentingthe information to be compiled andsubmitted in an application for renewalof a nuclear power plant operatinglicense. DG–1104 proposes to endorseNuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidancedocument NEI 95–10, ‘‘IndustryGuideline for Implementing theRequirements of 10 CFR Part 54—TheLicense Renewal Rule,’’ Revision 2,dated August 2000, as an acceptablemethod for complying with therequirements of the license renewalrule.

DG–1104 supersedes Draft RegulatoryGuide DG–1047, which was issued forpublic comment in August 1996 topropose endorsement of NEI 95–10,Revision 0, dated March 1, 1996.Comments were received from NEI, U.S.Department of Energy, and severallicensees. Subsequent to receipt of thecomments, the Commission agreed withan NRC staff recommendation containedin SECY–97–118, ‘‘Activities Associatedwith Implementation of 10 CFR Part54,’’ dated June 5, 1997, to maintainDG–1047 in draft form to allowexperience to be gained from its trial useand from plant-specific and ownersgroup review activities. Since 1997, thelicense renewal process has evolvedsignificantly, gaining experience fromlicense renewal application reviews,owners group topical report reviews,and ongoing generic activities thatinvolved addressing a number of theissues identified in the comment letters.This experience is reflected in thecurrent versions of DG–1104, NEI 95–10, the SRP–LR, and the GALL report.Many previous comments are resolvedby the current versions of thesedocuments. Others are being resolved inthe ongoing reviews, or are no longerapplicable. Therefore, the NRC staff didnot address the resolution of theprevious comments separately. If aprevious comment was not resolved toa commenter’s satisfaction, thecomment may be submitted again.

DG–1104 and NEI 95–10 are beingdeveloped to provide guidance on thecontents of an application for licenserenewal that includes—

(1) Required general informationconcerning the applicant and the plant;

(2) Information contained in theintegrated plant assessment;

(3) An evaluation of time-limitedaging analyses (TLAAs);

(4) A supplement to the Final SafetyAnalysis Report (FSAR);

(5) Technical specification changesand their justification; and

(6) A supplement to theenvironmental report.

Specifically, guidance is providedfor—

(1) Identifying the structures andcomponents subject to agingmanagement review;

(2) Assuring that the effects of agingare managed;

(3) Identifying and evaluating TLAAs;(4) Establishing the format and

content of the license renewalapplication; and

(5) Preparing an FSAR supplement.As indicated in Revision 2 of NEI 95–

10, NEI intends NEI 95–10 to beconsistent with the GALL report and theSRP–LR. Because the GALL report andthe SRP–LR are evolving, NEI expects tomake further changes to NEI 95–10 toensure consistency with the regulatorydocuments before the NRC staff’s finalissuance of the regulatory guide. Forexample, the NEI guidance in Section4.1.1 of NEI 95–10 on scoping ofcomplex assemblies should beconsistent with that in Section 2.1 of theSRP–LR.

Draft Standard Review Plan for LicenseRenewal

The NRC staff has also revised a draftSRP–LR that proposes guidance to NRCstaff reviewers in performing safetyreviews of applications to renewlicenses of nuclear power plants inaccordance with the license renewalrule. A previous working draft SRP–LR,dated September 1997, is in the NRC’sPublic Document Room. The draft SRP–LR is being revised to incorporatelessons learned from the review of theinitial license renewal applications, aswell as relevant information from thedraft GALL report and DG–1104. Thedraft SRP–LR contains four majorchapters: (1) AdministrativeInformation; (2) Scoping and ScreeningMethodology for Identifying Structuresand Components Subject to AgingManagement Review, andImplementation Results; (3) AgingManagement Review Results; and (4)Time-Limited Aging Analyses. Inaddition, three Branch TechnicalPositions are in an appendix to the draftSRP–LR.

During the initial license renewalreviews, the NRC and the industryrecognized that most of the existingprograms at the plants could beadequate to manage aging effects forlicense renewal without change. Byletter dated March 3, 1999, NEIdocumented the industry’s views onhow existing plant programs andactivities should be credited for licenserenewal. The so-called ‘‘credit’’ issuewas: To what extent should the NRCstaff review existing programs relied onfor license renewal, to conclude that an



applicant has demonstrated reasonableassurance that such programs will beeffective in managing effects of aging onthe functionality of structures andcomponents in the period of extendedoperation? In an NRC staff paper datedJune 3, 1999, SECY 99–148, ‘‘Credit forExisting Programs for License Renewal,’’the NRC staff described options andprovided a recommendation forcrediting existing programs to improvethe efficiency of the license renewalprocess. By a staff requirementsmemorandum (SRM) dated August 27,1999, the Commission approved theNRC staff’s recommendation anddirected the NRC staff to focus thereview guidance in the SRP–LR onexisting programs that should beaugmented for license renewal. TheNRC staff developed the draft GALLreport that evaluates existing programsgenerically to document the basis fordetermining when generic existingprograms are adequate without changeand when generic existing programsshould be augmented for licenserenewal. The draft SRP–LR incorporatesthe draft GALL report by reference.

Draft Generic Aging Lessons LearnedReport

The draft GALL report builds on aprevious report, NUREG/CR–6490,‘‘Nuclear Power Plant Generic AgingLessons Learned (GALL),’’ datedDecember 1996, which is a systematiccompilation of plant aging information.The NRC staff held a public workshopon December 6, 1999, to invite earlypublic participation in the developmentof license renewal guidance documents.The NRC staff made an early draft GALLreport publicly available at the publicworkshop. Subsequent to the publicworkshop, NEI submitted significantindustry comments that were discussedin public meetings. The Union ofConcerned Scientists (UCS) alsosubmitted 5 technical reports for NRC’sconsideration in preparing the draftGALL report.

The draft GALL report presentsresults in a table format. The adequacyof the generic aging managementprograms in managing certain agingeffects for particular structures andcomponents are evaluated based on thereview of these 10 program attributes:scope of program, preventive actions,parameters monitored or inspected,detection of aging effects, monitoringand trending, acceptance criteria,corrective actions, confirmation process,administrative controls, and operatingexperience. If the evaluation determinesthat a program is adequate to managecertain aging effects for particularstructures and components without

change, the draft GALL report wouldindicate that no further NRC staffevaluation is recommended for licenserenewal. Otherwise, it wouldrecommend areas in which the NRCstaff should focus its review.

The GALL report is a technical basisdocument for the SRP–LR. The GALLreport should be treated in the samemanner as an approved topical reportthat is applicable generically. Anapplicant may reference the GALLreport in a license renewal applicationto demonstrate that the applicant’sprograms at its facility correspond tothose reviewed and approved in theGALL report, and that no further NRCstaff review is required. If the materialpresented in the GALL report isapplicable to the applicant’s facility, theNRC staff would find the applicant’sreference to the GALL report acceptable.In making this determination, the NRCstaff should consider whether theapplicant has identified specificprograms described and evaluated in theGALL report. However, the NRC staffshould not repeat its review of thesubstance of the matters described inthe GALL report. Rather, the NRC staffshould ensure that the applicant verifiesthat the approvals set forth in the GALLreport for generic programs apply to theapplicant’s programs. The focus of theNRC staff review should be onaugmented programs for licenserenewal. The NRC staff should alsoreview information that is not addressedin the GALL report, or is otherwisedifferent from that in the GALL report.

Solicitation of CommentsThe NRC is particularly interested in

comments that will focus on thefundamental question of the extent towhich existing programs adequatelymanage aging effects for the structuresand components within the scope oflicense renewal. To that end, weencourage individuals and organizationsto comment on (1) how well theimproved guidance articulates theattributes of existing programs thatadequately manage applicable agingeffects and (2) how well the improvedguidance identifies those areas whereexisting programs should be augmented.The comments should includesupporting justification in enough detailfor the NRC staff to evaluate the need forchanges in the guidance, as well asreferences to operating experience,industry standards, or other relevantreference materials that provide a soundtechnical basis for such changes. TheNRC is also interested in comments thatwill improve the clarity of thedocuments so that the improvedguidance will ensure a stable and

predictable evaluation standard forfuture renewal applications. Editorialand style comments are not necessarybecause we expect that the guidancedocuments will need to be reformattedand edited before they are issued infinal form. The NRC also intends toincorporate formatting changes thatresult from further improvements to thestandard form and content for renewalapplications.

Questions for Public CommentsAlthough the NRC invites public

comments on all information containedin these draft documents, responses tothe following questions are particularlysolicited.

1. The draft GALL report evaluatesmany existing programs for theiradequacy to manage aging for licenserenewal. In many cases, the draft GALLreport concludes that the existingprograms are adequate without change.Did the NRC staff provide sufficientcredit for existing programs in the draftGALL report? The commenter shouldprovide justification to support its view.

2. As a complement to Question 1, didthe NRC staff provide too much creditwithout a sufficient technical basis inthe draft GALL report? Again, thecommenter should provide justificationto support its view.

3. Many existing programs are basedon national codes and standards that areupdated as industry and technologyevolve. The Commission has a processto periodically incorporate updatedversions of the American Society ofMechanical Engineers (ASME) Boilerand Pressure Vessel Code into theregulations in 10 CFR 50.55a. The draftGALL report evaluation of existingprograms for their adequacy as agingmanagement programs for licenserenewal is based on the specifics of the1989 edition of Section XI of the ASMEcode for inservice inspection and the1992 edition of Subsections IWE andIWL of Section XI of the ASME code forcontainment inspections. These specificeditions were the editions incorporatedinto the regulations by the Commissionat the time when the bulk of the draftGALL report was being prepared. Sincethen, the Commission has incorporatedthe 1995 edition of the ASME code intothe regulations (64 FR 51370, September22, 1999). Before final issuance of theGALL report, the staff plans to reviewchanges to the ASME code between the1989 and 1995 editions to determine ifthe conclusions in the draft GALL reportremain valid. Should the changes affectany conclusions in the draft GALLreport, the affected conclusions will bere-evaluated and modified, asappropriate. By an April 13, 2000, staff



requirements memorandum (SRM), theCommission directed the staff tomaintain the current requirements thatlicensees update their inserviceinspection and inservice testingprograms every 10 years to the latestedition of the ASME Code that isincorporated by reference in NRCregulations. Therefore, the requirementsof 10 CFR 50.55a will result in futurechanges to those aging managementprograms that rely on the ASME Code.To ensure that the GALL reportconclusions will remain valid whenfuture editions of the ASME code areincorporated into the NRC regulationsby the 10 CFR 50.55a rulemaking, thestaff will perform an evaluation of theselater editions for their adequacy forlicense renewal using the 10-elementprogram evaluation described in theGALL report as part of the 10 CFR50.55a rulemaking.

There are other national codes andstandards that are referenced in the draftGALL report, such as those publishedby the American Concrete Institute(ACI), that are not subject to theCommission’s approval process in 10CFR 50.55a. How should the GALLreport reference editions of suchnational codes and standards? Shouldspecific code editions be cited, andthen, an applicant using a differentedition would have to verify that theapplicant’s edition is equivalent to thespecific edition cited in the GALL reportbefore the applicant can reference theGALL report evaluation?

4. The draft GALL report identifiesspecific aging effects, based onoperating experience or technicalexpertise, that should be managed forparticular structures and components.The NRC staff expects an applicant todiscuss, in its application, any agingeffects identified in the draft GALLreport for a particular structure orcomponent that the applicant hasdetermined to be not applicable to itsplant. However, NEI suggests that anapplicant need not address aging effectsthat were determined not to beapplicable. NEI suggests instead that theNRC staff should review the applicant’sprocess for identifying aging effects thatshould be managed for license renewal.However, the NRC staff believes thatsuch a process is too general andoperating experience has shown thataging effects are often system, structure,or component-specific. Although theNRC staff does not expect all agingeffects identified in the draft GALLreport would be applicable to aparticular plant, the draft GALL reportdoes not identify unlikely aging effectsand evaluate the associated agingmanagement programs. Thus, the NRC

staff believes that any such exceptiontaken by an applicant for its plantshould be justified as part of theapplication. Should an applicant berequired to justify, in its application, theomission of any aging effects identifiedin the GALL report, that the applicanthas determined not to be applicable?

Public Workshop

A public workshop is scheduledduring the public comment period onMonday, September 25, 2000, 8:30 amto 4:00 pm. The workshop will providethe participants an opportunity toobtain further information, askquestions, make comments during thediscussion, or otherwise facilitate thepublic in formulating and preparingwritten comments for NRCconsideration on draft DG–1104, draftSRP–LR, and the draft GALL report.

To ensure that all of the ideas raisedare recorded, the workshop will betranscribed and the NRC staff willprepare a summary report to categorizethe comments. This one-day sessionattempts to cover a wide range of viewsand aging management programs. TheNRC staff is planning an open forum forthe workshop to better solicit publiccomments. The agenda and format ofthe workshop have not been finalized.However, a tentative agenda for theworkshop follows:

• Registration• Open Remarks• License Renewal Rule and

Guidance Development Overview• Draft Regulatory Guide and

Industry Guideline (DG–1104 and NEI95–10)

• Draft Standard Review Plan forLicense Renewal (SRP–LR)

• Draft Generic Aging LessonsLearned (GALL) report

• Discussion of Federal RegisterNotice Questions

• Questions and Closing RemarksDated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of August, 2000.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David B. Matthews,Director, Division of Regulatory ImprovementPrograms, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22303 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


Proposed Guidelines for IncludingIndustry Initiatives in the RegulatoryProcess

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for publiccomment.

SUMMARY: The NRC staff has developedproposed guidelines to ensure thatfuture industry initiatives would betreated and evaluated in a consistentand predictable manner. The proposedguidelines would allow industryinitiatives to play an important role inachieving the NRC’s regulatory goals ofmaintaining safety, reducingunnecessary regulatory burden,improving efficiency, effectiveness, andrealism, and improving publicconfidence. The NRC staff is solicitingstakeholder comments from interestedparties related to the proposedguidelines for including industryinitiatives involving nuclear powerreactor licensees in the regulatoryprocess.

DATES: Comment period expires October16, 2000. Comments submitted after thisdate will be considered if it is practicalto do so, but assurance of considerationcannot be given except for commentsreceived on or before this date.ADDRESSEES: Submit written commentsto Chief, Rules and Directives Branch,Division of Administrative Services,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Mail Stop T6-D69, Washington, DC20555–0001. Written Comments mayalso be delivered to 11545 RockvillePike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:45 amto 4:15 pm, Federal workdays. Copies ofwritten comments received may beexamined at the NRC Public DocumentRoom, 2120 L Street, NW. (LowerLevel), Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JackFoster or Eric Benner, Division ofRegulatory Improvements Programs,Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001.Telephone: 301–415–3647 or 301–415–1171. email [email protected] or [email protected] INFORMATION:

BackgroundThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC), by a staff requirementsmemorandum (SRM) dated June 28,2000, approved issuing for publiccomment proposed guidelines forincluding industry initiatives in theregulatory process, as described inSECY–00–0116, ‘‘Industry Initiatives inthe Regulatory Process,’’ dated May 30,2000.

The NRC staff has met withstakeholders on several occasions (i.e.,on October 27, 1999, in Rosemont,Illinois; on December 21, 1999, andFebruary 17, 2000, in Rockville,Maryland; and, on March 28, 2000, in



Washington, DC during an industryinitiatives break-out session at theNRC’s Twelfth Annual RegulatoryInformation Conference) to solicit fromstakeholders information and individualviews regarding the development of aprocess to include industry initiatives inthe regulatory process. The staff alsoissued a Federal Register notice (FRN)on December 13, 1999 (64 FR 69574)soliciting additional stakeholdercomments on both the technical andregulatory aspects relating to thedevelopment of guidelines to allow thedrafting of a regulatory framework thatsupports the implementation of industryinitiatives, by January 15, 2000. Thisdate was chosen to give the staffsufficient time to incorporatestakeholder comments into theproposed guidelines. No commentswere received in response to the FRN.The meeting summaries are availablethrough ADAMS and on the NRC’s webpage at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/VII/index.html which haselectronic copies of all relevantbackground material such as meetingnotices, summaries, and transcripts;letters to and from the industry; andmilestones for implementing the subjectactivity.

The staff has been advocating the useof industry initiatives for several years,and the industry has respondedfavorably by forming specializedworking groups to address specifictechnical issues of interest. To date,methods for interaction between thestaff and these industry working groupshave developed in an ad hoc mannerand have generally been quitesuccessful. However, if theseinteractions are to become an integralpart of the regulatory process, theCommission has determined thatdeveloping and implementingguidelines for industry initiatives isappropriate.

Proposed Guidelines for IncludingIndustry Initiatives in the RegulatoryProcess

The staff has developed the followingproposed guidelines for includingindustry initiatives involving nuclearpower reactor licensees in the regulatoryprocess. These proposed guidelines areintended to ensure that future industryinitiatives proposed by applicableindustry groups (AIGs) would be treatedand evaluated in a consistent andcontrolled manner that is visible andopen to all stakeholders. An AIG couldbe the members of one or more OwnersGroups, an industry organization suchas the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) orthe Electric Power Research Institute(EPRI), or two or more licensees. If

multiple AIGs individually submitseparate initiatives regarding the sameissue, all industry initiatives will beaddressed pursuant to these guidelines.The nature of issues that may beaddressed through industry initiativesare very broad. Therefore, it is intendedthat the following guidelines provideflexibility in allowing the staff, AIGs,and other stakeholders to interact inpursuing industry initiatives. However,these guidelines provide the staff witha structured framework for processingissues from their identification throughimplementation to resolution. It isintended that, by promoting aconsistent, controlled and visibleprocess, these guidelines will assurethat safety is maintained whileproviding for efficient and effective useof resources, reduced unnecessaryregulatory burden and enhanced publicconfidence.

In addition, it is important to notethat these guidelines reference otherexisting NRC policies and procedures(e.g., generic communications, SECY–99–143; commitment tracking, SECY–00–0045; inspection/oversight, SECY–00–0049; enforcement policy, SECY–00–0061 and SECY–99–219;commitment policy, SECY–98–224; and,fees policy, 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171,among others). It is not the intent ofthese guidelines to create any newpolicies or procedures in those areas.The most recent version of theapplicable NRC policies and proceduresshould be utilized when implementingthese guidelines.

Description and Examples of IndustryInitiatives Process

The following describes the actionsassociated with each numbered stepindicated in the ‘‘Industry InitiativesProcess’’ flowchart, below. For thepurpose of these guidelines, there aretwo types of industry initiatives, Type 1and Type 2. Type 1 industry initiativesare further subdivided into two parts.Industry initiatives are defined as:

Type 1: Initiatives developed by AIGsin response to some issue of potentialregulatory concern (a) to substitute foror complement regulatory actions forissues within existing regulatoryrequirements, or (b) which are potentialcost beneficial safety enhancementissues outside existing regulatoryrequirements;

Type 2: Initiatives developed by AIGsto address issues of concern to theapplicable industry group but that areoutside existing regulatory requirementsand are not cost beneficial safetyenhancements, or that are used as aninformation gathering mechanism.

Type 1 Industry Initiative Examples

A Type 1a example of an existingprogram that compliments existingregulatory requirements via an industryinitiative is the Boiling Water ReactorVessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP).This program, in which all U.S. BWRlicensees participate, was instituted in1994 to address the potentialconsequences of intergranular stresscorrosion cracking (IGSCC) in the BWRcore shroud. It subsequently expandedin scope to address all BWR austeniticstainless steel and Alloy 600 safety-related components, the reactor vessel,and safety-related piping. This industry-led program developed approximately50 generic industry guidelines forinspection scope and frequency, flawevaluation, and mitigation and repair.All BWR owners committed to adhere tothe program or inform the staff of anyplant-specific deviations. Further, sincethe BWRVIP representatives agreedwhich components are safety-related,actions taken to inspect, evaluate, andrepair these components are covered bythe individual licensee’s 10 CFR Part 50,Appendix B, quality assurance (QA)program.

A second Type 1a industry initiativeexample is the framework for managingsteam generator (SG) tube integrityassociated with NEI–97–06, ‘‘SteamGenerator Program Guidelines.’’ Thisindustry initiative will involve licenseamendments by all pressurized waterreactor (PWR) licensees to change fromdeterministic to performance-basedtechnical specifications. In response tothe staff’s ongoing regulatorydevelopment effort, the PWR industryfocused its efforts on improving existingSG inspection guidance and developingadditional guidelines on otherprogrammatic elements related to SGtube integrity. The industry’s efforts toimprove industry guidance culminatedin the NEI 97–06 industry initiative,developed through the NEI NuclearStrategic Issues Advisory Committee,which establishes a framework forstructuring and strengthening existingSG programs. This industry initiativediscusses regulatory interfaces, licenseeresponsibilities, and a protocol forrevising referenced guidelines. It alsodefines the performance criteria thatlicensees shall use to measure tubeintegrity. It should be noted that thefinal staff review of NEI–97–06 is still inprogress.

An example of a Type 1b industryinitiative is the NEI guidelines that havebeen provided to licensees to addressshutdown risks. This risk-significantissue is not explicitly required byexisting regulations. The staff, using an



older version of NUREG/BR–0058which did not allow any credit forindustry initiatives, found this issue tobe valid for backfitting as a safetyenhancement pursuant to 10 CFR50.109. The rulemaking wasdiscontinued since the Commissionconcluded that existing industrypractices provide an adequate level ofsafety. The Commission also directedthat NUREG/BR–0058 be updated topermit appropriate credit for industryinitiatives. No enforcement wouldpresently be appropriate.

Type 2 Industry Initiative ExamplesA Type 2 industry initiative addresses

issues that are not related to a regulatoryrequirement and do not address a safetyconcern (e.g., productivity, balance ofplant system performance, or resourcemanagement). An example is site accessauthorization, in which industryrepresentatives determined that acommon approach would be beneficial.In this case, the staff and stakeholdersparticipants agreed that a commitmentto the NRC regarding the industryinitiative was unnecessary, andinspections and enforcement are notapplicable.

A second example of a Type 2industry initiative is one developed forinformation gathering purposes. In somecases, it may be necessary to collectadditional information to betterunderstand the significance of anemerging issue and how to address it inan efficient and effective manner. In thiscase, the information that is collectedwould be included in the industryinitiative action plan. Alternately, anyNRC activities to collect informationwould be conducted in accordance withthe guidance provided in SECY–99–143,‘‘Revisions to Generic CommunicationProgram,’’ and the applicable rules andregulations referenced therein.

Box 1—Issue IdentificationThere are many ways that an

emerging issue, potentially suitable forbeing addressed via an industryinitiative, may be identified. Theseinclude the NRC staff being informed bythe AIGs, the public, anothergovernment entity (domestic or foreign),through the staff’s own investigations(e.g., inspection, event assessment, orresearch studies), or other means. It isintended that a broad range ofinformation sources be considered inidentifying issues of concern.

However, it is important to note thatsome issues may fall into other NRCprocesses (e.g., allegations or petitionssubmitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206),and care should be taken to make surethat such issues are properly

characterized and assigned to theappropriate process for dispositioning.Issues arising from allegations orpetitions may be resolved in the longerterm by use of an industry initiative, butare not initially considered to becandidates for an industry initiative.

Emerging issues should bedocumented and the staff’s preliminaryevaluation of the technical and policyimplications presented to the Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation’s (NRR)Executive Team (ET) for review andinitial dispositioning (see Box 2, below).The staff’s preliminary evaluation of thetechnical and policy implications of theemerging issue would includeconsideration of:

(a) Whether or not the issue is anadequate protection issue,

(b) Whether or not there is animmediate safety concern,

(c) Which plants (types or specificplants) could the issue potentiallyinvolve,

(d) The likelihood that AIGs wouldpursue resolution through an industryinitiative,

(e) If AIGs decide that the issue isappropriate for resolution through anindustry initiative, should theresolution be handled through a Type 1or Type 2 industry initiative,

(f) If an industry initiative is notpursued, what other regulatory processwould be appropriate,

(g) Types of staff work that would beinvolved in resolving the issue (e.g.,prior review and approval, monitoring,inspection, etc.),

(h) Estimate of staff resources requiredfor industry initiative and other options,

(i) Whether or not a backfit potentialis involved,

(j) Whether or not the issue involvesan allegation or petition submittedpursuant to 10 CFR 2.206,

(k) Assessment against the outcomegoals,

(l) Plans for stakeholder involvement,(m) Options for how the plants could

resolve the issue,(n) Need for periodic reports to

monitor licensee implementation ofindustry initiative, and

(o) Need for Commission notificationand followup.

Other factors of consideration wouldbe included, as appropriate. Similarly,factors that industry or otherstakeholders identify should bedocumented (e.g., letter to the Directorof NRR), then reviewed as above.

In developing an emerging issue, itmay be appropriate to hold publicmeetings and/or workshops to obtainadditional information and individualviews regarding the issue fromappropriate stakeholders. However,

meetings and/or workshops held duringthis phase of the process should beprimarily for the purpose ofunderstanding the issue in order tofacilitate the rest of the processpresented in these guidelines, andshould not involve significantcommitments of staff resources.

The public should be notified of theissue, either by press release, genericcommunication, weekly highlight, orother appropriate media. At a minimum,any meetings and/or workshops shouldbe noticed in a timely manner and opento the public to allow publicparticipation (see Public Participation,below).

Box 2—NRR ET Approval To PursueIssue

The staff’s initial evaluation of theissue is reviewed by the NRR ET toensure that the emerging issue is ofsufficient importance either to meetwith the AIGs and other stakeholders topresent the NRC staff’s views on theappropriateness of addressing anemerging issue as an industry initiative,or to immediately pursue regulatoryaction, if justified (see Box 4, below).The staff’’s evaluation, as presented tothe NRR ET, should include, to theextent possible:

(1) Identification of applicableregulatory requirements (e.g.,regulations, technical specifications,design bases, commitments),

(2) Safety significance from both adeterministic and probabilistic riskassessment perspectives,

(3) Limitations in the amount ofinformation available or ability tocharacterize the issue,

(4) An assessment of the impact of theindustry initiatives on other NRCorganizations and a discussion of howthose organizations will be involved inthe further evaluation of the industryinitiative, and

(5) Staff recommendations.It is recognized that, in the early

stages of issue development, additionalinformation may be necessary to fullycharacterize or quantify the issue andthat information presented at this stagemay be somewhat preliminary andqualitative in nature. The NRR ET willrender a decision on whether to: (1) Notpursue the issue (see Box 3, below), (2)pursue the issue on an expedited basis(see Box 4, below) or, (3) pursue theissue via an industry initiative.

Consistent with the definitionsprovided in SECY–99–063, ‘‘The Use byIndustry of Voluntary Initiatives in theRegulatory Process,’’ SECY–99–143,‘‘Revisions to Generic CommunicationProgram,’’ and these guidelines, manyissues can be addressed through an



industry initiative. However, thoseissues that involve matters of adequateprotection shall not be addressed via theprocess provided in these guidelines.

Box 3—Not Pursue IssueThe NRR ET may decide that the issue

does not need to be pursued. Thisdecision would consider both the safetysignificance and the existing regulatorybases, and should be documented in amemorandum from the sponsoringorganization (e.g., division) to theDirector, NRR. If the issue is oneidentified by an AIG or otherstakeholder, the AIGs and otherinterested stakeholders should beinformed in writing of the decision andits bases.

The NRR decision to not pursue anissue at this time would not precludethe AIGs or individual licensees frompursuing an issue through otheravenues.

Box 4—Pursue Issue Resolution on anExpedited Basis

Some issues may need to be handledin a more expeditious manner than ispossible by an industry initiative. Someconsiderations that may be taken intoaccount when determining the urgencyof an issue may include the level of riskinvolved and the need for promptcorrective action. In the event that theNRR ET determines that the issuerequires expedited action, approachescould be taken that include activation ofthe appropriate Owners Group’sRegulatory Response Group (RRG),issuance of orders, or issuance of abulletin, as described in SECY–99–143.The staff may defer formal regulatoryactions while the appropriate OwnersGroup’s RRG is activated to address theissue. The AIGs, stakeholders and thepublic are kept informed through publicmeetings or other appropriate media, asdescribed in the Communications Plan,below.

Box 5—Establish Industry InitiativeIf an expedited resolution is

unnecessary and the NRR ETdetermines to pursue the issue throughan industry initiative, a letter would besent from the NRR Director to theidentified AIGs and other interestedstakeholders. These letters will includea description of the issue, provideappropriate references and backgroundinformation, identify the NRC contactfor the issue (see Project Management,below), and propose that an initialpublic meeting or workshop bescheduled to share information on theissue. The AIGs would be invited toevaluate the issue and to develop aproposal for addressing the issue, which

would be presented to the staff andother stakeholders at the proposedinitial public meeting/workshop.Stakeholders would be invited toprovide individual views regarding theissue and any proposed actions. Thestaff will need to evaluate the AIG’sproposal, and any stakeholderscomments or proposals, before anyfurther meetings and/or workshops onthe issue are held.

The public would be informed ofmeetings and/or workshops held on thisissue, and would be encouraged toattend and/or provide input (see PublicParticipation, below).

Since many different approaches maybe used to resolve the issue, multiplemeetings and/or workshops may beneeded at this point in the process inorder to exchange information, presentproposals from the stakeholders, and toreceive individual views on the possibleoptions for resolution of the issue.These interactions would include theNRC, AIGs and other stakeholders. Theobjectives are to better understand theissue, and to establish an industryinitiative action plan with tasks,milestones, resources required, andresponsible parties, to be utilized by theAIGs in pursuing issue resolution. TheAIGs industry initiative action planshould provide the basis for pursuingthe issue as an industry initiative, andthe need, as appropriate, for licenseecommitments to the industry initiative.The staff should establish its ownindustry initiative action task plan. Anindustry initiative communications planshould also be developed by the staff.Schedules should be establishedconsistent with the significance of theissue.

In some cases, it may be necessary tocollect additional information to betterunderstand the significance of anemerging issue and how to address it inan efficient and effective manner.Information needs could be addressedin the industry initiative action andcommunication plans, or may requiresome affirmative action on the part ofNRC. Any NRC activities to collectinformation would be conducted inaccordance with the guidance providedin SECY–99–143 and the applicablerules and regulations referenced therein.Any voluntary information collectionsare subject to Paperwork Reduction Actconsiderations and will be coordinatedwith the Offices of the Chief InformationOfficer (OCIO) and the General Counsel(OGC).

Possible approaches to resolving theissue could include actions such asdevelopment and implementation of anindustry program, voluntary licenseamendments, revision of industry

guideline documents, modifications tocodes and standards, or creation of aGeneric Safety Issue (GSI). In general,the intent would be to accomplish theissue resolution in the most efficientand effective manner.

Box 6—Regulatory Acceptance of theProposed Industry Initiative

The NRC staff should consider theproposed industry initiative action andcommunications plans developed inBox 5 as part of the Planning, Budgetingand Performance Management (PBPM)‘‘add/shed’’ budgeting process. Thereview should consider the backgroundof the issue and the details of theindustry initiative action andcommunications plans that have beendeveloped, including the proposedactions, milestones, resources andresponsible parties. The review shouldaddress how the industry initiativeaction and communications planssupports the NRC’s goals of maintainingsafety, reducing unnecessary burden,improving public confidence, andenhancing efficiency and effectiveness,and should be documented.

If the industry initiative action andcommunications plans developed inBox 5 are found acceptable by the NRRET, implementation of the industryinitiative action and communicationsplans will proceed as described inBoxes 8 and 9.

If the industry initiative action and/orcommunications plans developed inBox 5 are found unacceptable, the issuesleading to rejection of the industryinitiative action and/or communicationsplans should be publicallycommunicated to the AIGs and otherstakeholders. If an acceptably revisedindustry initiative action and/orcommunications plans cannot bedeveloped, the NRC will consider theneed for further regulatory action (seeBox 7, below).

The staff’s acceptance or rejection ofa proposed industry initiative will bepublished in the Federal Register andplaced on the NRC’s web page, and theCommission will be informed throughappropriate means.

Box 7—Determine AppropriateRegulatory Action

If the staff does not accept the AIG’sproposed actions to be taken, anindividual licensee in the AIG does notcommit to the industry initiative, or ifAIG member licensees fail to implementthe committed-to actions, the NRC staffmay independently take action. Afterhaving determined that the Type 1industry initiative issue involves eithera needed safety enhancement and/orcompliance with existing Rules and/or



regulations, the staff should takeregulatory actions (e.g., rule-making,issuing appropriate genericcommunications, orders, etc.) toappropriately address this issue, asneeded. Any regulatory actions takenwould be determined consistent withexisting Regulations and NRC policyand procedures. For items requiring abackfit analysis per 10 CFR 50.109,crediting of the industry initiativewould follow the position in NUREG/BR–0058, Revision 3, ‘‘RegulatoryAnalysis Guidelines of the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission,’’ or the latestapplicable guidance. The public shouldbe kept informed, through publicmeetings or other appropriate media,while the staff develops these regulatoryactions.

Box 8—Implementation of IndustryInitiative

Once approved, the industry initiativeaction and communications plansdeveloped in Box 6 should beimplemented by the AIGs andmonitored by the staff. The milestonesin the AIG’s industry initiative actionplan should be documented in thestaff’s task action plan, tracked in theNRR Director’s Quarterly Status Report(DQSR), and incorporated into the NRROperating Plan, as appropriate. Theindustry initiative action planmilestones would be monitored viaperiodic reviews and through periodicpublic meetings with the AIGs and otherstakeholders. NRC acceptance of theindustry initiative and associated actionand communications plans would bedocumented in a Federal Registernotice and a Regulatory Issue Summary(RIS), in accordance with SECY–99–143(see Communications Plan, below). Thepublic would be kept informed of theprogress in completing the industryinitiative action plan as outlined in theindustry initiative communicationsplan, and would be encouraged toprovide input (see Public Participation,below).

Box 9—Inspection and/or Monitoringand Enforcement

Resolution of Type 1a industryinitiative issues may require that AIGmember licensees implement changes intheir programs, technical specifications,or take other actions as established inthe industry initiative plan. Inspectionand/or monitoring of implementation ofthese activities would depend on thenature of the activities the AIGsimplement to address the issue.Enforcement would be available ifviolations of regulatory requirementsoccur.

Resolution of Type 1b industryinitiative issues would involve NRC re-assessment of the issue, and of theefficacy of an industry initiative toaddress the issue. Inspection and/ormonitoring of implementation of theseactivities would depend on the nature ofthe activities the AIGs implement toaddress the issue. Enforcement wouldbe available if violations of regulatoryrequirements occur.

Type 2 industry initiatives involveindustry actions outside existingregulatory requirements that are not costbeneficial safety enhancements, or thatare used as an information gatheringmechanism, and the need for NRCoverview is not anticipated, andenforcement action will not beavailable.

The need for inspection and/ormonitoring should be determinedconsistent with the NRC’s ReactorOversight Process, as described inInspection Manual Chapter 2515. Aninspection and/or monitoring plan willbe established on a case-by-case basis,consistent with the requirementsassociated with implementation of theissue and the revised risk-informed NRCinspection program, as described in theNRC’s Inspection Manual 2515. Theinspection and/or monitoring planwould include a decision makingprocess on whether to alter the baselineinspection program or develop atemporary instruction (TI) that will lookat risk significance, resources,cornerstone attributes, performanceindicator (PI) implications, etc., indetermining whether additionalinspections are needed. Specialinspections or monitoring of theprogress may not be necessary, and inmost cases it is expected that it will notbe, based on the nature of the actionstaken. For example, it is expected thatmany licensee activities will already beadequately covered by the existinginspection and oversight program.Inspections may be performed either byresident or regional inspectors or specialteams to determine if regulatoryrequirements are met. Monitoring maybe performed by either inspectors orNRR project managers (PMs), whereinthey would determine that licenseeshave taken actions committed to beperformed as part of the industryinitiative. Documentation of inspectionsor monitoring activities should be inaccordance with the NRC InspectionManual.

If a specific licensee, or the industrygroup in general, fails to adequatelyimplement the agreed upon actions, thiswould be addressed by NRC in thecontext of existing enforcement policyand/or additional regulatory action

consistent with the guidance above.Additional discussion on enforcement isfound below in the section‘‘Enforcement Guidelines Consistentwith Reactor Oversight ProcessImprovements.’’

Other Items

Project Management

Once it has been decided to pursueresolution of an issue via an industryinitiative, a lead project manager (LPM)from either NRR’s Division of LicensingProject Management (DLPM) or Divisionof Regulatory Improvement Programs(DRIP), as appropriate, should beappointed. The LPM will be responsiblefor: (1) Facilitating staff review of theindustry initiative, (2) assuring thatactivities described above areaccomplished, and (3) acting as thestaff’s point of contact between theAIGs, other stakeholders, and otherinterested members of the public.

A lead technical reviewer (LTR) willalso be assigned, from either theDivision of Engineering (DE), Divisionof Systems Safety and Analysis (DSSA),Division of Inspection ProgramsManagement (DIPM), or DRIP, asappropriate. The LTR will beresponsible for coordinating thetechnical review of the industryinitiative.

Public Participation

Ensuring that all stakeholders have anopportunity to participate is essential.As such, the industry initiativecommunications plan (see below)should be developed to ensure thatstakeholders will be notified of theissue, either by press release, genericcommunication, or other appropriatemedia. The stakeholders will be givenan opportunity to provide theirindividual views on the industryinitiative action plan, and to participatein all NRC-sponsored meetings and/orworkshops on the industry initiative. Ata minimum, any meetings and/orworkshops would be noticed on theNRC’s web pages in a timely mannerand open to the public to allow publicparticipation. The industry initiativeLPM will be responsible for encouraginginterested stakeholders to participate inthe process for consideration of theindustry initiative, exchanging relevantinformation with the staff and the AIGswhile the industry initiative action andcommunications plans are beingdeveloped, and then implemented.

The staff will disclose to the public allinformation supplied by or obtainedfrom industry, subject to relevantFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) andPrivacy Act exceptions, in support of



the industry initiative. The NRC willalso disclose all information suppliedby or obtained from industry (subject torelevant FOIA/Privacy Act exceptions)that it uses to assess (1) the quality ofimplementation of the industryinitiative by licensees and (2) theeffectiveness of the industry initiative inresolving the underlying issues. Thisdisclosure typically will be through thepublic docketing process.

Communications Plan

A communications plan will bedeveloped by the NRC staff for eachissue that is being addressed by anindustry initiative. The objective of thisindustry initiative communications planis to make the industry initiative visibleto all stakeholders and to allow easyaccess to relevant information.Guidance to the staff in thiscommunication plan would include theuse of the ADAMS system and an NRCindustry initiative web page, thatincludes:

(1) A summary of the issue;(2) Meeting announcements and

summaries and/or transcripts;(3) Non-proprietary versions of

submitted reports and staff evaluations;(4) Action plans;(5) Generic communications (e.g.,

regulatory issues summaries);(6) Periodic status reports, press

releases, weekly highlights, and/or,other appropriate media, issued in atimely manner to facilitate publicparticipation in the regulatory process;and,

(7) A final resolution summary.Primary responsibility for

implementation of the communicationsplan will be that of the assigned LPM.The NRC industry initiative web pagewill be maintained by the assignedLPM.

Resource Planning, Including Semi-Annual Meetings to Identify PotentialIndustry Initiatives

To effectively and efficientlydelineate expected resource needs andexpenditures for industry initiatives, thestaff should publicly meet on a regularbasis (approximately twice annually)with industry groups and otherstakeholders to obtain information onthe status of ongoing and potentialfuture industry initiatives. This could bean additional agenda item on pre-existing public meetings with industrygroups and representatives, and will benoticed accordingly. Additional noticedpublic meetings could be needed toaddress emerging or unanticipatedissues. The purpose of these regularlyscheduled public meetings is to providethe NRC staff with information that willsupport budgeting and resourceplanning, and any required staffresource reallocations. The LPM wouldhave primary responsibility forscheduling, conducting, anddocumenting these meetings. NRCshould address its resource needs usingthe ‘‘add/shed’’ process as part of thePBPM process in order to prioritizeresource expenditures.

Fees

The agency’s fee process, inaccordance with 10 CFR Part 170, ‘‘Feesfor Facilities, Materials, Import andExport Licenses, and Other RegulatoryServices under the Atomic Energy Actof 1954, as Amended,’’ allows for theexempting of fees for reviews under§ 170.11(a)(12), Exemptions.Specifically, this paragraph states that:

No application fees, license fees, renewalfees, or inspection fees shall be required for:A performance assessment or evaluation for

which the licensee volunteers at the NRC’srequest and which is selected by the NRC.

There would be no licensee-specificcharges associated with the generic staffreview of an industry initiative.

Tracking of Commitments Consistentwith Existing Regulatory Processes

Tracking of licensee commitmentsmade in accordance with the industryinitiative action plan, if any, will behandled by the individual licensee’sNRR PM and the industry initiativeLPM in accordance with SECY–00–0045. The NEI guidelines, referencedtherein, provide recommended actionsfor licensees’ management,implementation and documentation ofcommitments (Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5).The guidelines were found acceptableby the staff. Related correspondencewould be made publicly available, asappropriate.

Enforcement Guidelines Consistent withReactor Oversight ProcessImprovements

Licensee activities implemented asthe result of an industry initiative mayor may not be enforceable, dependingupon the nature of the issue beingaddressed. Licensee actions resultingfrom an industry initiative that arenecessary to maintain compliance withan existing regulatory requirementwould be enforceable. If an industryinitiative program addresses issuesoutside current regulatory requirements,or is for information gathering, it is notenforceable. If it is determined thatlicensees are not implementing theindustry initiative products as they havecommitted to, appropriate enforcementactions, if any, consistent with theguidance described below, will be takenby the staff, when appropriate.

PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LICENSEES FOR INDUSTRY INITIATIVES*

Type of industry initiative Industry action Enforcement guidance

1.a. Industry initiatives to address issues thatsubstitute for or complement regulatory ac-tions for issues within existing regulatory re-quirements (e.g., BWRVIP, NEI SG Guide-lines).

AIGs develop and implement program, withassociated licensee commitments, that isincluded in appropriate documents (e.g.,technical specifications, updated final safetyanalysis report, and/or plant procedures),and controlled by applicable regulatory re-quirements (e.g., 10 CFR Part 50, AppendixB program, 10 CFR 50.59, or Section 182of the Atomic Energy Act), if any.

If licensee does not implement the activitiesresulting from the industry initiative, and itsactions are not consistent with applicableregulatory requirements, if any, enforce-ment is available. The severity of the viola-tions would be established consistent withrevised reactor oversight process and theenforcement policy.



PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LICENSEES FOR INDUSTRY INITIATIVES*—Continued

Type of industry initiative Industry action Enforcement guidance

1.b. Industry initiatives to address potential costbeneficial safety enhancement issues outsideexisting regulatory requirements (e.g., shut-down risks, severe accident management).

AIGs develop and implement program, withassociated licensee commitments.

Commitment to industry initiative by licenseeis only link to NRC. Deviation or re-directionfrom committed program would cause NRCre-assessment of issue, and of the efficacyof an industry initiative to address the issue.Orders or rule-making are available as anoption if 10 CFR 50.109 criteria forbackfitting as a safety enhancement aresatisfied; if reasonable assurance criteriaare undermined, there is no need to furthersatisfy backfit criteria. Credit for industry ini-tiative would be considered in a backfitanalysis, consistent with Commission guid-ance to SECY–99–178, ‘‘Treatment of Vol-untary Initiatives in Regulatory Analysis,’’dated May 21, 1999.

2. Industry initiatives for issues that are outsideof regulatory requirements, not cost beneficialsafety enhancements, or that are used as aninformation gathering mechanism.

AIGs develop and implement program ............ No NRC overview or enforcement expected tobe needed on program.*

* Issues that involve adequate protection are outside the scope of industry initiatives.

7590–01–P





1 Because PLACA redomesticated as a Delawareinsurance company in 1992, the PLACA Account isnot subject to regulation by the Delaware insurancedepartment.

2 File No. 811–6484.3 File No. 333–88163. Two older registration

statements are in effect for other contracts under thePLACA Account, File Nos. 33–65195 and 33–65512.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th dayof August, 2000.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.David B. Matthews,Director, Division of Regulatory ImprovementPrograms, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 00–22496 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–C

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

[Rel No. IC–24620; File No. 812–11830]

Provident Mutual Life InsuranceCompany, et al.

August 24, 2000.AGENCY: The Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’).ACTION: Notice of application for anorder pursuant to section 6(c) of theInvestment Company Act of 1940(‘‘Act’’) granting exemptions from theprovisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c),and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c–1 thereunder, to permit the recapture ofcredits applied to contract accountvalue and to premium payments madeunder certain variable annuity contracts.

Applicants: Provident Mutual LifeInsurance Company (‘‘PMLIC’’),Provident Mutual Variable AnnuitySeparate Account (‘‘PMLIC Account’’),Providentmutual Life and AnnuityCompany of America (‘‘PLACA’’),Providentmutual Variable AnnuitySeparate Account (‘‘PLACA Account’’),and 1717 Capital Management Company(‘‘1717 Capital’’).

Summary of application: Applicantsseek an order of the Commission,pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act,exempting them from sections 2(a)(32),22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act andRule 22c–1 thereunder, to the extentnecessary to permit the recapture ofcertain credits applied to contractaccount value and to premiumpayments made in consideration of: (1)certain deferred variable annuitycontracts, described herein, that PLACAplans to issue (the ‘‘Contracts’’), or (2)variable annuity contracts that aresubstantially similar to the Contracts inall material respects that PLACA mayissue in the future (‘‘Future Contracts’’).Applicants also seek an order of theCommission, pursuant to section 6(c) ofthe Act, exempting (1) variable annuityseparate accounts, other than thePLACA Account, that PLACA hasestablished or may establish in thefuture (‘‘Future Accounts’’), (2) variableannuity separate accounts, including thePMLIC Account, that PMLIC has

established or may establish in thefuture (also, ‘‘Future Accounts’’), and (3)principal underwriters for such FutureAccounts that are under commoncontrol with PLACA or PMLIC and thatare registered as a broker-dealer underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 anda member of the National Association ofSecurities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’)(‘‘Future Underwriters’’), from sections2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Actand Rule 22c–1 thereunder, to theextent necessary to permit the recaptureof certain credits applied to contractaccount value and to premiumpayments made in consideration ofvariable annuity contracts issued in thefuture by PLACA or PMLIC through aFuture Account that are substantiallysimilar in all material respects to theContracts (also, ‘‘Future Contracts’’).

Filing Date: The application was filedon November 1, 1999, and amended andrestated on February 23, 2000. A secondamended and restated application wasfiled on August 22, 2000.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: Anorder granting the application will beissued unless the Commission orders ahearing. Interested persons may requesta hearing by writing to the Secretary ofthe Commission and serving Applicantswith a copy of the request, personally orby mail. Hearing requests should bereceived by the Commission by 5:30p.m. on September 18, 2000, and shouldbe accompanied by proof of service onApplicants in the form of an affidavit or,for lawyers, a certificate of service.Hearing requests should state the natureof the writer’s interest, the reason for therequest, and the issues contested.Persons may request notification of ahearing by writing to the Secretary ofthe Commission.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities andExchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549–0609.Applicants, c/o James G. Potter, Jr., Esq.,Provident Mutual Life InsuranceCompany, 1000 ChesterbrookBoulevard, Berwyn, PA 19312.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JaneG. Heinrichs, Senior Counsel, at (202)942–0699, or Keith E. Carpenter, BranchChief, at (202) 942–0679, Office ofInsurance Products, Division ofInvestment Management.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefollowing is a summary of theapplication. The complete application isavailable for a fee from theCommission’s Public Reference Branch,450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.20549–0102 (telephone (202) 942–8090).

Applicants’ Representations1. PLACA is a stock life insurance

company originally incorporated underthe laws of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania in 1958, and redomiciledas a Delaware insurance company in1992. It is a wholly owned subsidiary ofPMLIC, PLACA is licensed to dobusiness in 48 states and the District ofColumbia. As of December 31, 1998,PLACA had assets of approximately$1.5 billion. for purposes of the Act,PLACA is the depositor and sponsor ofthe PLACA Account as those terms havebeen interpreted by the Commissionwith respect to variable annuity separateaccounts.

2. PLACA established Account onMay 9, 1991, as a segregated investmentaccount under Pennsylvania law.1Under Delaware law, the assets of thePLACA Account attributable to theContracts through which interests in theAccount are issued are owned byPLACA but are held separately from allother assets of PLACA for the benefit ofthe owners of, and the persons entitledto payment under, those Contracts.Consequently, such assets are notchargeable with liabilities arising out ofany other business that PLACA mayconduct. Income, gains and losses,realized or unrealized, from eachsubaccount of the PLACA Account, arecredited to or charged against thatsubaccount without regard to any otherincome, gains or losses of PLACA. ThePLACA Account is a ‘‘separate account’’as defined by Rule 0–1(e) under the Act,and is registered with the Commissionas a unit investment trust.2

2. The PLACA Account currently isdivided into thirty-six subaccounts.Each subaccount invests exclusively inshares representing an interest in aseparate corresponding investmentportfolio (each, a ‘‘Portfolio’’) of one ofseveral series-type open-endmanagement investment companies.The assets of the PLACA Accountsupport several varieties of variableannuity contracts, including theContracts, and interests in the PLACAAccount offered through such contractsare registered under the 1933 Act onForm N–4.3

PMLIC is a mutual life insurancecompany chartered by theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania in1865. PMLIC is authorized to transactlife insurance and annuity business in



4 File No. 811–7708.5 File No. 33–70926.

Pennsylvania and in 50 otherjurisdictions. As of December 31, 1998,PMLIC had consolidated assets ofapproximately $8.7 billion andconsolidated liabilities of approximately$7.8 billion. For purposes of the Act,PMLIC would be the depositor andsponsor of any Future Account throughwhich is would issue any FutureContract as those terms have beeninterpreted by the Commission withrespect to variable annuity separateaccounts.

5. PMLIC established the PMLICAccount on May 9, 1999, as a segregatedinvestment account under Pennsylvanialaw. Under Pennsylvania law, assets ofthe PMLIC Account attributable to theContracts through which interests in thePMLIC Account are issued are owned byPMLIC but are held separately from allother assets of PMLIC, for the benefit ofthe owners of, and the persons entitledto payment under, those Contracts.Consequently, such assets are notchargeable with liabilities arising out ofany other business that PMLIC mayconduct. Income, gains and losses,realized or unrealized, from suchsubaccount of the PMLIC Account arecredited to or charged against thatsubaccount without regard to any otherincome, gains or losses of PMLIC. ThePMLIC Account is a ‘‘separate account’’as defined by Rule 0–1(e) under the Act,and is registered with the Commissionas a unit investment trust.4

6. The PMLIC Account currently isdivided into thirty-six subaccounts.Each subaccount invests exclusively inshares representing an interest in aseparate corresponding investmentportfolio (each a ‘‘Portfolio’’) of one ofseveral series-type open-endmanagement investment companies.The assets of the PMLIC Accountsupport several varieties of variableannuity contracts, including theContracts, and interests in the PMLICAccount offered through such contractsare registered under the 1933 Act onForm N–4.5

7. 1717 Capital is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of PMLIC. It serves as theprincipal underwriter of a number ofPMLIC and PLACA separate accountsregistered as unit investment trustsunder the Act, including the PLACAAccount and PMLIC Account, and is thedistributor of the variable life insurancecontracts or variable annuity contractsissued through such separate accounts,including the Contracts. 1717 Capital isregistered as a broker-dealer under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and isa NASD member.

8. The Contracts are flexible premiumvariable annuity contracts that PLACAmay issue to individuals or groups on a‘‘non-qualified’’ basis or in connectionwith employee benefit plans that receivefavorable federal income tax treatmentunder sections 401, 403(b), 408, 408A,or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code of1986, as amended. The Contracts makeavailable a number of subaccounts ofthe PLACA Account to which ownersmay allocate net premium paymentsand associated credits and to whichowners may transfer contract accountvalue. The Contracts also offer fixed-interest allocation options under whichPLACA credits guaranteed rates ofinterests for periods of one year or more.Transfers of contract value among andbetween the subaccounts and, subject tocertain restrictions, among and betweenthe subaccounts and the fixed-interestoptions, may be made at any time. TheContracts offer a variety of non-variableannuity payment options to owners. Inthe event of an owner’s death prior tothe annuity date, beneficiaries may electto received death benefits in the form ofone of these annuity payment optionsinstead of a lump sum. In general, theContracts offer most of the featurestypically found in variable annuitycontracts today.

9. The Contracts may only bepurchased with a minimum initialpremium of $10,000. PLACA maydeduct a premium tax charge frompremium payments in certain states, butotherwise deducts a charge for premiumtaxes upon surrender or annuitization ofthe Contract or upon the payment of adeath benefit, depending upon thejurisdiction. The Contracts provide foran annual administration fee of $40 thatPLACA deducts on the ContractAnniversary and a daily annuity chargededucted from the assets of the PLACAAccount at an annual rate of 1.40% ofthe Account’s average daily net assets.The Contracts also provide for a chargeof $25 for each transfer of contractaccount value in excess of 12 percontract year. Lastly, the Contractsentail two surrender charges: acontingent deferred sales charge(‘‘CDSC’’) and a death benefit charge.

10. The CDSC is equal to thepercentage of each premium paymentsurrendered, withdrawn, or annuitizedas specified in the table below. TheCDSC is separately calculated andapplied to each premium payment atany time that the payment (or part of thepayment) is surrendered or withdrawnor applied to an annuity paymentoption. No CDSC applies to contractaccount value representing a freewithdrawal amount or to contractaccount value in excess of aggregate

premium payments (less priorwithdrawals of premium payments).The CDSC is calculated using theassumption that contract account valueis withdrawn in the following order: (a)the free withdrawal amount for thecontract year, (b) the pro-rata amount ofany remaining recurring bonus credit(explained below), (c) premiumpayments, and (d) any remainingcontract account value. In addition, theCDSC is calculated using theassumption that premium payments arewithdrawn on a first-in, first-out basis.

11. The CDSC applicable to eachpremium payment diminishes as thepayment ages beyond five years. Apremium payment ages by contract year,such that it is in ‘‘year’’ 1 during thecontract year in which it is received andin ‘‘year’’ 2 throughout the subsequentcontract year and in ‘‘year’’ 3throughout the contract year after that,etc.

Age of each premium pay-ment in contract years

Charge(in percent)

1 ............................................ 8.02 ............................................ 8.03 ............................................ 8.04 ............................................ 8.05 ............................................ 8.06 ............................................ 6.57 ............................................ 5.08 ............................................ 3.59 ............................................ 2.010 and over .......................... 0.0

During the first contract year, the freewithdrawal amount is 10% of thepremium payments. For all othercontract years, the free withdrawalamount is 10% of the contract accountvalue at the start of that year.

12. The death benefit charge isdeducted when computing the deathbenefit upon the death of any ownerprior to the annuity date. The deathbenefit charge is equal to the dollaramount of standard bonus credits(described below) granted under theContract during the twelve monthspreceding the owner’s death. During thefirst nine Contract years, the deathbenefit equals the greater of:

• contract account value less thedeath benefit charge, or

• the total amount of premiums paidreduced by the amount of allwithdrawals prior to the date of death.During contract years ten and later, thedeath benefit equals the greater of:

• contract account value less thedeath benefit charge,

• total premiums paid as of the ninthContract anniversary reduced by theamount of all withdrawals prior to theninth Contract anniversary plus thepremiums paid since that anniversary



reduced, for each withdrawal since thatanniversary, by the withdrawaladjustment amount, or

• contract account value on the ninthContract anniversary plus totalpremiums paid since that anniversaryreduced, for each withdrawal since thatanniversary, by the withdrawaladjustment amount.The withdrawal adjustment amount isdetermined by multiplying the deathbenefit prior to the withdrawal by theratio of the amount of the withdrawal(including any surrender charge) to thecontract account value immediatelyprior to the withdrawal.

13. PLACA intends to offer two typesof bonus credits. One is what PLACArefers to as its standard bonus creditprovision under the Contracts, pursuantto which it credits an owner’s contractaccount value with an additionalamount in most circumstances when anet premium payment is applied. Inaddition, PLACA intends to offer a riderto the Contracts, described below, thatoffers a recurring bonus creditmechanism.

14. Under the standard bonus creditprovision, PLACA credits contractaccount value with an amount that is apercentage of each premium paymentmade by an owner, as shown in thestandard bonus credit table below. Thepercentage is a function of the totalamount of premiums received under aContract less the total amount of allwithdrawals (including any CDSC). Theamount credited is calculated bymultiplying the percentage by theexcess of (a) over (b), where:

(a) equals total premiums paid underthe Contract (including the currentpremium payment) less the totalwithdrawals (including any CDSC);

(b) equals the amount computed for(a) at the time that the most recentprevious credit was made.

STANDARD BONUS CREDIT TABLE

Total Premiums (Including theCurrent Premium) Less With-drawals (Including Surrender

Charges

Credit (inpercent)

From $10,000 to $24,999 ......... 1.5From $25,000 to $99,999 ......... 3.0From $100,000 to $499,999 ..... 4.0From $500,000 to $999,999 ..... 4.5$1,000,000 or more .................. 5.0

15. The standard bonus creditprovision also entails a ‘‘look-back’’feature. On each of the first threecontract anniversaries, PLACAdetermines a calculated credit amount.To the extent that the calculated creditamount exceeds the actual amountcredited to contract account value,

PLACA increases the contract accountvalue by the amount of such excess. Thecalculated credit amount is determinedby multiplying (a) by (b) where:

(a) equals the aggregate premiumspaid under the Contract minus theamount of withdrawals (including anyCDSC);

(b) equals the credit percentage for (a)as shown on the standard bonus credittable.

16. Under the standard bonus creditprovision, PLACA recaptures or retainsthe credited amount in the event thatthe owner exercises his or hercancellation right during thecancellation period. In addition, thedeath benefit charge can be viewed as arecapture of certain credited amountsunder the standard bonus creditprovision in as much as it is designedto reimburse PLACA for part of theexpense of the bonus credit.

17. Under the recurring bonus creditrider, owners may elect, up to 90 daysbefore the ninth contract anniversary(and separately, 90 days before the 18th,27th, and 36th contract anniversariesand every 9th contract anniversarythereafter until ten years prior to thematurity date), an additional credit byPLACA to contract account value as ofthe contract anniversary immediatelyfollowing the election. There is nocharge for the recurring bonus creditrider. The recurring credit is apercentage of the quantity called therecurring credit recapture base(‘‘RCRB’’). The RCRB is equal to thecontract account value on theappropriate contract anniversary minusthe aggregate premiums paid during thefive years prior to that contractanniversary. The RCRB is multiplied bythe percentages shown in the followingtable:

RECURRING BONUS CREDIT TABLE

Contract account value(adjusted)

Recurrigcredit

(in percent)

From $10,000 to $24,999 ......... 1.5From $25,000 to $99,999 ......... 3.0From $100,000 to $499,999 ..... 4.0From $500,000 to $999,999 ..... 4.5$1,000,000 or more .................. 5.0

18. Under the recurring bonus creditrider, PLACA recaptures or retains thecredited amount in the event that theowner exercises his or her right tosurrender the Contract or withdrawsurrender value from the Contract orapplies all or part of surrender value toan annuity payment option.

19. Although not a charge, in theevent of a withdrawal from the Contract,a percentage of a pro-rata amount of any

recurring credit granted during the priornine contract years is deducted fromcontract account value. The appropriatepercentage is determined from thefollowing schedule:

RECURRING BONUS CREDIT TABLE

Contract years sincerecurring credit was granted

Percent ofrecurring

credit(in percent)

1–5 ............................................ 1006 ................................................ 807 ................................................ 608 ................................................ 409 ................................................ 2010 and greater .......................... 0

The pro-rata amount of the recurringcredit to which the percentage isapplied is the product of (a) and (b)where:

(a) equals the radio of the amountbeing withdrawn in excess of any freewithdrawal amount to the lesser of (1)the RCRB, or (2) the contract accountvalue as of the withdrawal date; and

(b) equals the amount of recurringbonus credit that has not previouslybeen withdrawn.

20. Notwithstanding the schedule, theamount of this recapture deductionnever exceeds the amount of thewithdrawal. After any withdrawal, if theentire recurring credit has not beenrecaptured, then the remaining amountcan be recaptured upon subsequentwithdrawals. However, the total amountof deductions from contract accountvalue for this purpose never exceeds theamount of the recurring bonus credit.Likewise, in the event that a Contract issurrendered or annuitized, surrendervalue excludes the same percentage ofthe amount of any recurring creditgranted during the prior nine contractyears.

21. Because of the recaptureprovisions discussed above, the value ofa credit only ‘‘vests’’ or belongs to theowner as the recapture period for thecredit expires. As to standard bonuscredits resulting from premiums paidbefore the cancellation period, no partof the credit vests for the owner untilthe expiration of the cancellationperiod. After the expiration of thecancellation period, all standard bonuscredits vest in full for the owner theyear after PLACA grants them.Recurring bonus credits vest in full forthe owner according to the recurringbonus credit schedule.

22. Under both the standard bonuscredit provision and the recurring bonuscredit rider, PLACA credits amounts toan owner’s contract account value eitherby ‘‘purchasing’’ accumulation units of



an appropriate subaccount or adding tothe owner’s fixed interest allocationoption values. Both standard andrecurring bonus credits are allocatedaccording to the owner’s current netpremium allocation instructions.

23. With regard to variable accountvalue, several consequences flow fromthis. First, increases in the value ofaccumulation units representingstandard bonus credits belong to theowner immediately, but the initial valueof such units only belongs to the ownerwhen, or to the extent that, each vests.Similarly, the initial value ofaccumulation units representingrecurring bonus credits vests accordingto the schedule, but the difference, ifany, at any time between the‘‘unvested’’ value and the current valueof such units belongs entirely to theowner. Second, decreases in the value ofaccumulation units representing bonuscredits do not diminish the dollaramount of contract account valuesubject to recapture. Therefore, for bothstandard and recurring bonus credits,additional units must become subject torecapture as their value decreases.Stated differently, the proportionateshare of any owner’s variable accountvalue (or the owner’s interest in thePLACA Account) that PLACA can‘‘recapture’’ increases as variableaccount value (or the owner’s interest inthe PLACA Account) decreases. Thisdilutes somewhat, the owner’s interestin the PLACA Account vis-a-vis PLACAand in his or her variable account valuevis-a-vis PLACA.

24. Lastly, because it is notadministratively feasible to track theunvested value of bonus credits in thePLACA Account, PLACA deducts thedaily annuity charge from the entire netasset value of the Account. As a result,the daily annuity charge paid by anyowner is greater than that which he orshe would pay without the standardbonus credit and is greater still if he orshe elects the recurring bonus rider.

Applicants’ Legal Analysis1. Applicants request that the

Commission issue an order pursuant tosection 6(c) of the Act exempting themas well as Future Accounts and FutureUnderwriters from the provisions ofsections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) ofthe Act and Rule 22c–1 thereunder, tothe extent necessary to permit therecapture of certain credits applied tocontract account value and to premiumpayments made in consideration of theContracts and Future Contracts.

2. Subsection (i) of section 27provides that section 27 does not applyto any registered separate accountsupporting variable annuity contracts,

or to the sponsoring insurance companyand principal underwriter of suchaccount, except as provided inparagraph (2) of subsection (i).Paragraph (2) provides that it shall beunlawful for a registered separateaccount or sponsoring insurancecompany to sell a variable annuitycontract supported by the separateaccount unless the ‘‘contract is aredeemable security; and * * * [t]heinsurance company complies withSection 26(e). * * *’’ Section26(e)(A)(2) provides that it is unlawfulfor registered separate accounts orsponsoring insurance companies to sellany variable insurance contract ‘‘unlessthe fees and charges deducted under thecontract, in the aggregate, are reasonablein relation to the services rendered, theexpenses expected to be incurred, andthe risks assumed by the insurancecompany.’’ Applicants represent thatPLACA and PMLIC both comply withsection 26(e).

3. Section 2(a)(32) defines a‘‘redeemable security’’ as any security,other than short-term paper, under theterms of which the holder, uponpresentation to the issuer, is entitled toreceive approximately his proportionateshare of the issuer’s current net assets,or the cash equivalent thereof.

4. Section 22(c) of the Act authorizesthe Commission to make rules andregulations applicable to registeredinvestment companies and to principalunderwriters of, and dealers in, theredeemable securities of any registeredinvestment company. Rule 22c–1thereunder imposes requirements withrespect to both the amount payable onredemption of a redeemable securityand the time as of which such amountis calculated. Specifically, Rule 22c–1,in pertinent part, prohibits a registeredinvestment company issuing anyredeemable security, a persondesignated in such issuer’s prospectusas authorized to consummatetransactions in any such security, and aprincipal underwriter of, or dealer in,such security, from selling, redeeming,or repurchasing any such security,except at a price based on the currentnet asset value of such security, whichis next computed after receipt of atender of such security for redemption,or of an order to purchase to sell suchsecurity.

5. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizesthe Commission to exempt any person,security, or transaction or any class ofpersons, securities, or transactions fromany provision or provisions of the Actand/or any rule under it if, and to theextent that, such exemption is necessaryor appropriate in the public interest andconsistent with the protection of

investors and the purposes fairlyintended by the policy and provisions ofthe Act.

6. Applicants represent that therequested exemptions are appropriate inthe public interest and consistent withthe protection of investors and thepurposes fairly intended by the policyand provisions of the Act.

7. Applicants represent that therecapture of both standard bonus creditsand recurring bonus credits would not,at any time, deprive an owner of his orher proportionate share of the currentnet assets of the PLACA Account. Untilthe appropriate recapture periodexpires, PLACA retains the right to andinterest in each owner’s contractaccount value representing the dollaramount of any invested bonus credits.Therefore, if PLACA recaptures anybonus credit or part of a bonus credit inthe circumstances described above, itwould merely be retrieving its ownassets. PLACA would grant bonuscredits out of its general account assetsand the amount of the credits (althoughnot the earnings on such amounts)would remain PLACA’s until suchamounts vest with the owner. Thus, tothe extent that PLACA may grant andrecapture bonus credits in connectionwith variable account value, it wouldnot deprive, at the either time, anyowner of his or her then proportionateshare of PLACA Account assets.

8. Applicants represent that it is thenature of the bonus recapture provisionsas they apply to variable account valuethat an owner would obtain a benefitfrom a bonus credit in a rising marketbecause any earnings on the bonuscredit amount would vest with him orher immediately. Over time, of course,this would cause the owner’s share ofboth the Contract’s variable accountvalue and the PLACA Account’s netassets to be greater on a relative basisthan it would have been without thebonus credit. Conversely, in a fallingmarket an owner would suffer adetriment from a bonus credit becauselosses on the bonus credit amountwould also ‘‘vest’’ with him or herimmediately. As explained above, overtime this would cause the owner’s shareof both the Contract’s variable accountvalue and the PLACA Account’s netassets to decrease on a relative basis.

9. Applicants do not believe that thedynamics of PLACA’s proposed bonuscredit provisions would violate sections2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act. Tobegin with, section 2(a)(32) defines aredeemable security as one under theterms of which the holder, uponpresentation to the issuer, is entitled toreceive approximately his proportionateshare of the issuer’s current net asset



value. Taken together, these twosections of the Act do not require thatthe holder receive the exactproportionate share that his or hersecurity represented at a prior time.Therefore, the fact that the proposedbonus credit provisions have a dynamicelement that may cause the relativeownership positions of PLACA and aContract owner to shift due to PLACAAccount performance and the vestingschedule of such credits, would notcause the provisions to conflict withsection 2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A).Nonetheless, in order to avoid anyuncertainty as to full compliance withthe Act, Applicants seek exemptionsfrom these two sections.

10. PLACA’s recapture of any bonuscredit could be viewed as theredemption of such an interest at a priceother than net asset value. If such is thecase, then the bonus credit provisionscould be viewed as conflicting withsection 22(c) of the Act and Rule 22c–1 thereunder. Applicants contend,however, that the recapture of the bonuscredits does not violate section 22(c) ofthe Act or Rule 22c–1 thereunder. Thebonus credit recapture provisions do notgive rise to the evils that Rule 22c–1 wasdesigned to address. The Rule wasintended to eliminate or reduce, as faras was reasonably practicable, thedilution of the value of outstandingredeemable securities of registeredinvestment companies through theirredemption at a price above net assetvalue, or other unfair results, includingspeculative trading practices.

11. The evils prompting the adoptionof Rule 22c–1 were primarily the resultof backward pricing, the practice ofbasing the price of a mutual fund shareon the net asset value per sharedetermined as of the close of the marketon the previous day. Backward pricingpermitted certain investors to takeadvantage of increases or decreases innet asset value that were not yetreflected in the price, thereby dilutingthe values of outstanding shares.Applicants assert that the proposedbonus credit provisions pose no suchthreat of dilution.

12. Recaptures of bonus credits resultin a redemption of PLACA’s interest inan owner’s contract account value or inthe PLACA Account at a pricedetermined on the basis of theAccount’s current net asset value andnot at an inflated price. Moreover, theamount recaptured will always equalthe amount that PLACA paid from itsgeneral account for the credits.Similarly, although owners are entitledto retain any investment gainsattributable to the bonus credits, theamount of such gains would always be

computed at a price determined on thebasis of net asset value.

13. Because the harms that Rule 22c–1 was intended to address do not arisein connection with the proposed bonuscredit provisions, the Applicants assertthat the provisions do not conflict withthe Rule or section 22(c) itself.Nonetheless, in order to avoid anyuncertainty as to full compliance withthe Act, Applicants seek exemptionsfrom section 22(c) and Rule 22c–1.

14. Applicants also represent thateven if the proposed bonus creditingprovisions would conflict with sections2(a)(32), 22(c), or 27(i)(2)(A of the Act orRule 22c–1 thereunder, the Commissionshould grant the exemptions that theyrequest. This is because the bonus creditprovisions are generally very favorablefor prospective owners. The bonuscredits are obviously very beneficial toprospective owners. The recaptureprovisions of the Contracts and riderstemper this benefit somewhat, butowners, unless they die, retain theability to avoid the recapture. In thecase of the recurring bonus, owners donot have to provide any consideration inreturn for the bonus. They merely electit and it is granted. Although there is asmall downside in declining markets toboth standard and recurring bonuscredits if the owner withdrawssurrender value from the Contract,surrenders the Contract, or annuitizesthe Contract, and to the standard bonuscredits if the owner dies, the bonuscredit provisions and riders (includingtheir dynamic elements) are fullydisclosed in the prospectus for theContracts. They recapture provisions, onbalance, do not diminish the overallvalue of the bonus credit provisions andriders.

15. Applicants represent that thebonus credit recapture provisions arenecessary if PLACA is to offer the bonuscredits. Applicants assert that it wouldbe obviously unfair to PLACA to permitowners to keep their bonus credits upontheir exercise of the Contracts’cancellation right. Because no CDSCapplies to the exercise of thecancellation right, the owner couldobtain a windfall in the amount of thebonus credit at PLACA’s expense byexercising that right. Likewise, becauseno additional CDSC applies to awithdrawal of contract account value onwhich a recurring bonus credit iscomputed, withdrawal or annuitizationof such contract account value orsurrender of a Contract shortly after theaward of recurring bonus credits wouldafford an owner a similar windfall. Inthe event of such windfalls to owners,PLACA could not recover the cost ofgranting the bonus credits. This is

because PLACA intends to recoup thecosts of providing the bonus creditsthrough the charges under the Contract,particularly the daily annuity charge. Ifthe windfalls described above arepermitted, many owners will takeadvantage of them, greatly reducing thebase from which the daily annuitycharge is deducted and greatlyincreasing the amount of bonus creditsthat PLACA must provide. Therefore,for both standard bonus credits andrecurring bonus credits, the recaptureprovisions are the price of offering thecredits. PLACA simply cannot offer theproposed bonus credits without theability to recapture those credits in thecircumstances described herein.

16. Applicants represent that theCommission’s authority under section6(c) of the Act to grant exemptions fromvarious provisions of the Act and rulesthereunder is broad enough to permitorders of exemption that cover classes ofunidentified persons. Applicantsrequest an order of the Commission thatwould exempt them, Future Accounts,and Future Underwriters from theprovisions of sections 2(a)(32), 22(c),and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c–1 thereunder. The exemption of theseclasses of persons is appropriate in thepublic interest and consistent with theprotection of investors and the purposesfairly intended by the policy andprovisions of the Act because all of thepotential members of the class couldobtain the foregoing exemptions forthemselves on the same basis as theApplicants, but only at a cost to each ofthem that is not justified by any publicpolicy purpose. The Commission haspreviously granted exemptions toclasses of similarly situated persons invarious contexts and in a wide varietyof circumstances, including futureexemptions for recapturing bonuscredits under variable annuity contracts.

17. Applicants represent that FutureContracts will be substantially similar inall material respects to the Contractsand that each factual statement andrepresentation about the bonus creditprovisions of the Contracts (and anyrecurring bonus credit riders sold withthe Contracts) will be equally true ofFuture Contracts (and any recurringbonus credit riders sold with FutureContracts). Applicants also representthat each material representation madeby them about the PLACA Account and1717 Capital will be equally true ofFuture Accounts and FutureUnderwriters, to the extent that suchrepresentations relate to the issuesdiscussed in this application. Inparticular, each Future Account will beestablished as a segregated asset accountunder state insurance law, meet the



definition of a ‘‘separate account’’ inRule 0–1(e) under the Act, and beregistered as a unit investment trust.Likewise, each Future Underwriter willbe registered as a broker-dealer underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andbe a NASD member.

Applicants’ ConditionsApplicants represent that PMLIC and

PLACA will only offer recurring bonuscredit riders subject to the followingconditions:

1. Election letter. In connection withthe recurring bonus credit, PMLIC orPLACA will send a letter (the ‘‘Letter’’)that prominently discloses in conciseplain English that (a) the credit is mostsuitable for owners who expect tocontinue their Contracts for five or moreyears, and (b) if the Contract issurrendered or if contract account valueis withdrawn while the recurring bonusremains subject to recapture, then theowner may be worse off in certaincircumstances than if he or she had notelected the recurring bonus credit. TheLetter will disclose exactly how anowner who surrenders a Contract ormakes a withdrawal while the recurringbonus credit remains subject torecapture could be worse off as a resultof poor separate account investmentperformance than if he or she had notelected the recurring bonus credit.

2. Written Election. PMLIC or PLACAwill send the Letter directly to ownerseligible to elect the recurring bonuscredit and elections to receive the creditwill only be effective upon receipt byPMLIC or PLACA of an election signedby the owner on a duplicate copy of theLetter. PMLIC and PLACA willdistribute such duplicate Letters withelection signature forms along with theLetter. If the Letter is more than twopages in length, PMLIC and PLACA willuse a separate document to obtainowners’ elections of the recurring bonuscredit; which document willprominently disclose in concise plainEnglish the statements required incondition one above.

3. Records. PMLIC and PLACA willmaintain the following separatelyidentifiable records in an easilyaccessible place for review by theCommission staff: (a) Copies of any formof the Letter and any other writtenmaterials or scripts for presentations byrepresentatives regarding the recurringbonus credit, including the dates used,(b) records showing the number andpercentage (on a calendar quarter basis)of eligible owners that elect therecurring bonus credit, (c) recordsshowing the name and Contract numberof each owner who elects a recurringbonus credit, the amount of that owner’s

contract account value at the time thebonus credit is elected, the amount ofthe credit, the owner’s name, address,telephone number and date of birth, thedate that the owner signed the letter orelection form, the signed Letters orseparate documents that reflect owners’election of the recurring bonus credit,and where a commission (or othercompensation) is paid to a registeredrepresentative on or after the date of theelection of the credit, the amount ofsuch commission (or othercompensation), and the name of anysales representative involved with thesolicitation of the election of the creditor who receives any compensation inconnection with the contract after thedate of the election of the credit and hisor her CRD number, firm affiliation,telephone number, and branch officeaddress, (d) records of persistencyinformation for Contracts whose ownershave elected the recurring bonus credit,including the date(s) of any subsequentsurrender or withdrawal of contractaccount value and the amount of anyrecaptured bonus credit, and (e) logsrecording any owner complaints aboutthe recurring bonus credit riders, stateinsurance department inquiries aboutthe same, or litigation, arbitration orother proceedings regarding the riders.The logs will include the date of thecomplaint (or of commencement of anyproceeding), the name and address ofthe person making the complaint orcommencing the proceeding, the natureof the complaint or proceeding and thepersons involved in the complaint orproceeding. The foregoing records willbe retained for the longer of: (1) sixyears after the later of their creation orlast use, or (2) two years after therecapture period ends.

ConclusionApplicants request that the

Commission issue an order pursuant tosection 6(c) of the Act exempting themas well as Future Accounts and FutureUnderwriters from the provisions ofsections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A)of the Act and Rule 22c–1 thereunder,to the extent necessary to permit therecapture of certain credits applied tocontract account value and to purchasepayments made in consideration of theContracts and Future Contracts.

Applicants assert, based on thegrounds summarized above, that theirexemptive request meets the standardsset out in section 6(c) of the 1940 Act,namely, that the exemptions requestedare necessary or appropriate in thepublic interest and consistent with theprotection of investors and the purposesfairly intended by the policy andprovisions of the Act.

For the Commission, by the Division ofInvestment Management, pursuant todelegated authority.Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22272 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Release No. IC–24622]

Notice of Applications forDeregistration Under Section 8(f) of theInvestment Company Act of 1940

August 25, 2000.The following is a notice of

applications for deregistration undersection 8(f) of the Investment CompanyAct of 1940 for the month of August,2000. A copy of each application may beobtained for a fee at the SEC’s PublicReference Branch, 450 Fifth St., NW.,Washington, DC 20549–0102 (tel. 202–942–8090). An order granting eachapplication will be issued unless theSEC orders a hearing. Interested personsmay request a hearing on anyapplication by writing to the SEC’sSecretary at the address below andserving the relevant applicant with acopy of the request, personally or bymail. Hearing requests should bereceived by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. onSeptember 19, 2000, and should beaccompanied by proof of service on theapplicant, in the form of an affidavit or,for lawyers, a certificate of service.Hearing requests should state the natureof the writer’s interest, the reason for therequest, and the issues contested.Persons who wish to be notified of ahearing may request notification bywriting to the Secretary, SEC, 450 FifthStreet, NW., Washington, DC 20549–0609.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Diane L. Titus, at (202) 942–0564, SEC,Division of Investment Management,Office of Investment CompanyRegulation, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20549–0506.

Dreyfus Retirement Income Fund [FileNo. 811–8889]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On October 31,1999, applicant made a final liquidatingdistribution to its sole remainingshareholder based on net asset value.Expenses of $1,500 incurred inconnection with the liquidation werepaid by The Dreyfus Corporation,applicant’s investment adviser.

Filing Date: The application was filedon August 3, 2000.



Applicant’s Address: 200 ParkAvenue, New York, New York 10166.

Piper Institutional Funds Inc. [File No.811–7320]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. By June 30, 1998,applicant had made liquidatingdistributions to its shareholders basedon net asset value. Expenses of $10,461incurred in connection with theliquidation were paid by applicant’sinvestment adviser, Piper CapitalManagement, Inc.

Filing Dates: The application wasfiled on June 28, 2000, and amended onAugust 9, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: First AmericanAsset Management, U.S. Bank Place,601 Second Avenue South,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402.

The Parkstone Group of Funds [File No.811–5105]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. By June 16, 2000,each series of applicant had transferredits assets to a corresponding series of theArmada Funds based on net asset value.Expenses of $525,166 incurred inconnection with the reorganization werepaid by the acquiring funds andNational City Bank of Michigan/Illinois.


Applicant’s Address: One FreedomValley Drive, Oaks, Pennsylvania 19456.

The Berwyn Fund, Inc. [File No. 811–3890]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On May 3, 1999,applicant transferred its assets to TheBerwyn Funds based on net asset value.Expenses of $75,000 incurred inconnection with the reorganization werepaid by the two series of The BerwynFunds that resulted from thereorganization.

Filing Dates: The application wasfiled on May 23, 2000, and amended onMay 23, 2000, and August 20, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: 1189 LancasterAvenue, Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312.

The Taiwan Equity Fund, Inc. [File No.811–8290]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On June 27, 2000,applicant made its final liquidatingdistribution to shareholders based onnet asset value. Applicant’s custodian,Daiwa Securities Trust Company, hasretained $132,108 to cover current andanticipated liabilities and expenses.

Expenses of $66,211 incurred inconnection with the liquidation werepaid by applicant.

Filing Dates: The application wasfiled on July 13, 2000, and amended onAugust 18, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: c/o DaiwaSecurities Trust Company, OneEvertrust Plaza, Jersey City, New Jersey07302.

The Americas Income Trust Inc. [FileNo. 811–8094]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On July 24, 1998,applicant transferred its assets to FirstAmerican Investment Funds, Inc. basedon net asset value. Expenses of $19,524incurred in connection with thereorganization were paid by U.S. BankNational Association, investmentadviser to the acquiring fund.

Filing Dates: The application wasfiled on June 28, 2000, and amended onAugust 9, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: First AmericanAsset Management, U.S. Bank Place,601 Second Avenue South,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402.

INVESCO Specialty Funds, Inc. [FileNo. 811–8528]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. By February 15,2000, each of applicant’s 6 series hadtransferred all of their assets to acorresponding series of either INVESCOInternational Funds, Inc., INVESCOStock Funds, Inc., or INVESCO SectorFunds, Inc., based on net asset value.INVESCO Funds Group, Inc.,applicant’s investment adviser, paid$355,266 of the expenses incurred inconnection with the reorganization, andthe remaining $355,266 of expenseswere paid by applicant and theacquiring funds.

Filing Dates: The application wasfiled on July 24, 2000, and amended onAugust 17, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: 700 E. UnionAvenue, Denver, Colorado 80237.

Daruma Mid-Cap Value Fund [File No.811–7621]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On June 30, 2000,applicant distributed all of its assets toits shareholders based on net assetvalue. Expenses of $14,500 in incurredin connection with the liquidation werepaid by Daruma Asset Management,Inc., applicant’s investment adviser.

Filing Date: The application was filedon July 21, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: 60 East 42ndStreet, Suite 1111, New York, New York10165.

Norwest Advantage Funds [File No.811–4881]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On November 8,1999, applicant transferred its assets toWells Fargo Funds Trust based on netasset value. Expenses of $1,465,212incurred in connection with thereorganization were paid by Wells FargoBank, N.A., the administrator of theacquiring fund.

Filing Dates: The application wasfiled on June 19, 2000, and amended onJuly 28, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: Two PortlandSquare, Portland, Maine 04101.

Merrill Lynch Insured Equity Funds,Inc. [File No. 811–7539]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. Applicant nevermade a public offering of its securitiesand does not propose to make anypublic offering or engage in business ofany kind.

Filing Dates: The application wasfiled on June 7, 2000, and amended onJuly 26, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: c/o MerrillLynch Investment Managers, L.P., P.O.Box 9011, Princeton, New Jersey 08543–9011.

The Optimal Fund [File No. 811–9219]Summary: Applicant seeks an order

declaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On April 28,2000, applicant made a final liquidatingdistribution to its shareholders based onnet asset value. Expenses ofapproximately $13,300 incurred inconnection with the liquidation werepaid by applicant.

Filing Dates: The application wasfiled on May 26, 2000, and amended onJuly 21, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: 3400 InlandEmpire Blvd., Suite 101, Ontario,California 91764.

Colonial Massachusetts InsuredMunicipal Fund [File No. 811–9535]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. Applicant hasnever made a public offering of itssecurities and does not propose to makeany public offering or engage inbusiness of any kind.

Filing Date: The application was filedon July 17, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: One FinancialCenter, 11th Floor, Boston,Massachusetts 02111.



1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.3 See Letter dated August 21, 2000, from Paul B.

O’Kelly, Executive Vice President, CHX, to Alton S.Harvey, Office Head, Division of Market Regulation(‘‘Division’’), Commission (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).Amendment No. 1 requests accelerated approval ofthe proposed rule change on a pilot basis throughFebruary 28, 2001. See also Letter dated August 22,2000, from Paul B. O’Kelly, Executive VicePresident, CHX, to Alton S. Harvey, Office Head,Division, Commission (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’).Amendment No. 2 withdraws proposedamendments to Rule 37(b)(6).

4 ‘‘Dual Trading System issues’’ are securities thatare listed and traded on the CHX and either theNew York Stock Exchange or the American StockExchange.

First Investors High Yield Fund, Inc.[File No. 811–4674]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On March 14,2000, applicant transferred its assets toFirst Investors Fund for Income, Inc.based on net asset value. Expenses of$69,636 incurred in connection with thereorganization were paid by applicant,the acquiring fund, and applicant’sinvestment adviser.

Filing Date: The application was filedon June 20, 2000.

Applicant’s Address: 95 Wall Street,New York, New York 10005.

Evergreen Small Company GrowthFund (formerly Keystone SmallCompany Growth Fund (S–4)) [File No.811–101] Evergreen Small CompanyGrowth Fund II (formerly KeystoneSmall Company Growth Fund II) [FileNo. 811–7457]

Summary: Each applicant seeks anorder declaring that it has ceased to bean investment company. On January 24,1998, each applicant transferred all ofits assets to Evergreen Small CompanyGrowth Fund, a newly created series ofEvergreen Equity Trust, based on netasset value. First United National Bank,the parent of applicants’ investmentadviser, paid all expenses incurred inconnection with each reorganization.

Filing Date: Each application wasfiled on August 17, 2000.

Applicants’ Address: 200 BerkeleyStreet, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

Trust for Federal Securities [File No.811–2573]

Summary: Applicant seeks an orderdeclaring that it has ceased to be aninvestment company. On February 10,1999, applicant transferred its assets toProvident Institutional Funds based onnet asset value. Applicant incurred noexpenses in connection with thereorganization.


Applicants’ Address: 400 BellevueParkway, Wilmington, Delaware 19809.

For the Commission, by the Division ofInvestment Management, pursuant todelegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22318 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]



[Release No. 34–43204; File No. SR–CHX–00–22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Filing and Order GrantingAccelerated Approval of a ProposedRule Change and Amendment Nos. 1and 2 by The Chicago Stock Exchange,Incorporated Relating to the SecuritiesIndustry Transition to Decimal Pricing

August 24, 2000.Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2notice is hereby given that on July 17,2000, the Chicago Stock Exchange,Incorporated (‘‘CHX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’) theproposed rule change, as described inItems I and II below, which Items havebeen prepared by the CHX. The CHXamended the proposal on August 22,2000 and August 24, 2000,respectively.3 The Commission ispublishing this notice to solicitcomments on the proposed rule changefrom interested persons and to approvethe proposed rule change, as amended,on an accelerated basis.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Terms of Substance ofthe Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to amendcertain CHX rules that will be impactedby the securities industry transition todecimal pricing. Specifically, theExchange proposes to amend portions ofArticle XX, Rule 37. The text of theproposed rule change is available at theCommission and the CHX.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

In its filing with the Commission, theCHX included statements concerningthe purpose of, and basis for, theproposed rule change and discussed anycomments it received regarding theproposed rule change. The text of these

statements may be examined at theplaces specified in Item IV below. TheCHX has prepared summaries, set forthin sections A, B, and C below, of themost significant aspects of suchstatements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

1. PurposeThe Exchange proposes to amend

certain CHX rules that will be impactedby the transition to decimal pricing.Specifically, the Exchange proposesthree groups of changes to Article XX,Rule 37, which would (i) revise theExchange’s existing automated priceimprovement algorithms to provideprice improvement in decimalincrements; (ii) remove the ‘‘pendingauto-stop’’ functionality in theExchange’s systems; and (iii) allow aspecialist, on an issue by issue basis, toestablish an auto execution guaranteethat is not dependent on the ITS BestBid or Offer (‘‘ITS BBO’’) or NationalBest Bid or Offer (‘‘NBBO’’) size. TheExchange believes that decimal pricingis likely to affect the CHX tradingenvironment, and the interactionbetween the CHX and the nationalmarket system, in a manner thatnecessitates rule amendments, such asthese, that are designed to minimize theimpact of decimalization of tradingoperations. The Exchange willimplement the proposed rule change ona pilot basis through February 28, 2001.

Price Improvement Changes. TheExchange proposes to amend Rule 37(d),(e), (f) and (g), which govern theExchange’s price improvementprograms, known as SuperMAX Plus,SuperMAX, Enhanced SuperMAX andDerivative SuperMAX. Under theamended rules, each price improvementprogram would provide for priceimprovement of $.01 under thecircumstances set forth below. If thecriteria set forth below are not satisfied(or if an issue is trading in a decimalminimum price variation other than$.01), the orders would not be eligiblefor price improvement, but would beexecuted at the ITS BBO (or NBBO inthe case of Nasdaq National Market(‘‘Nasdaq NM’’) issues).

For orders of 100–199 shares (or more,if specified by the specialist andapproved by the Exchange) for DualTrading System issues 4 trading indecimals, SuperMAX Plus would



5 The existing SuperMAX Plus algorithm providesfor price improvement of 1⁄16 th of a point if the ITSBBO spread is 1⁄8 th of a point or greater and, in thecase of Dual Trading System issues, the last primarymarket sale is at least 1⁄16 th of a point lower than(for a buy order) or higher than (for a sell order) theITS BBO.

6 The existing SuperMAX algorithm provides fora price improvement of 1⁄16 th of a point if the ITSBBO spread is 1⁄8 th of a point or greater and thelast primary market sale is at least 1⁄8 th of a pointlower than (for a buy order) or higher than (for asell order) the ITS BBO.

7 Enhanced SuperMAX provides that undercertain circumstances, an eligible order is‘‘stopped’’ for a thirty-second ‘‘Time Out Period’’during which a specialist may seek a better pricefor the customer. If an order is stopped pursuant tothe Enhanced SuperMAX terms, the order isguaranteed no worse than the ITS BBO at the timethe order was stopped.

8 The existing Derivative SuperMAX algorithmprovides for price improvement of 1⁄64 th of a pointif the ITS BBO spread is 1⁄16 th of a point or greater.

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

provide for automatic execution at $.01lower than the ITS Best Offer (for a buyorder) or $.01 higher than the ITS BestBid (for a sell order) if the spreadbetween the ITS Best Bid and the ITSBest Offer is at least $.03 and the lastprimary market sale is at least $.03lower than the ITS Best Offer (for a buyorder) or higher than the ITS Best Bid(for a sell order).

For orders of 100–199 shares (or more,if specified by the specialist andapproved by the Exchange) for NasdaqNM issues trading in decimals,SuperMAX Plus would provide forexecution at $.01 lower than theNational Best Offer (‘‘NBO’’) (for a buyorder) or $.01 higher than the NationalBest Bid (‘‘NBB’’) (for a sell order) if thespread between the NBB and the NBOis at lest $.03.5

For orders of 200–499 shares (or more,if specified by the specialist andapproved by the Exchange) for DualTrading System issues trading indecimal pricing increments, SuperMAXwould provide for execution at $.01lower than the ITS Best Offer (for a buyorder) or $.01 higher than the ITS BestBid (for a sell order) if the spreadbetween the ITS Best Bid and the ITSBest Offer is at least $.05 and the lastprimary market sale is at least $.05lower than the ITS Best Offer (for a buyorder) or higher than the ITS Best Bid(for a sell order).6

For orders exceeding 499 shares forDual Trading System issues trading indecimal pricing increments, EnhancedSuperMAX 7 would provide forexecution at $.01 better than thestopped price if the first primary marketsale during the Time Out Period is atleast $.10 lower than the stopped price(for a buy order) or higher than thestopped price (for a sell order).

For order eligible for DerivativeSuperMAX (i.e., orders for certain issuesdesignated by the Exchange’s Board ofGovernors from time to time), in thecase of issues trading in decimals,

Derivative SuperMAX would providefor execution at $.01 lower than the ITSBest Offer (for a buy order) or $.01higher than the ITS Best Bid (for a sellorder) if the spread between the ITSBest Bid and the ITS Best Offer is at lest$.03.8

Removal of the Pending Auto-StopFunctionality. For similar reasons, theExchange proposes to amend Rule37(b)(10) to eliminate the Exchange’s‘‘pending auto-stop’’ function. Underthe current rule, all agency marketorders from 100 to 599 shares that arenot automatically executed because,among other things, the order sizeexceeds the quantity at the ITS BBO, aredesignated as ‘‘pending auto-stoporders.’’ Such orders are stopped, anddue an execution at the ITS BBO thirtyseconds after entry into the Exchange’sMidwest Automated Execution(‘‘MAX’’) system, unless the order hasbeen canceled, executed, manuallystopped, or put on hold during thethirty second period. Once an order isstopped, a text message to that effect isautomatically sent to the order-sendingfirm.

The Exchange believes that thisfeature is not practicable in the decimalpricing environment, given theanticipated dramatic increases in quotetraffic and the systems issues associatedwith generating administrativenotifications regrading pending auto-stop. Additionally, the Exchangebelieves that trading in decimals willsignificantly increase stock price pointsand, as a result, will likely decrease thequantities associated with the ITS BBOprice point and increase the rate ofchange in the ITS BBO price point. Bothof these factors will reduce a specialist’sability to offset the pending auto-stopguarantee to a degree that the CHX isnot now able to quantify. Under thesecircumstances, the Exchange believesthat it would be imprudent to continueto provide such a guarantee.

Changes Relating to RelationshipBetween Automatic ExecutionGuarantee and BBO Size. The rationaleset forth above relating to the likelydecrease in the quantities associatedwith the BBO price point also supportsthe Exchange’s proposed rule changepermitting CHX specialists to designateautomatic execution guarantee levelsthat are not dependent on the BBO.Under the current Rule 37(b)(11), anorder is not eligible for automaticexecution on the Exchange if the orderis larger than the then-current BBO size.If decimalization results in decreased

quantities at each price point, thisdecrease would effect a correspondingdecrease in the number of orderseligible for automatic execution on theExchange. To accommodate customerdemand for automatic execution, theExchange believes that the proposedrule change is necessary. As amended,the rule would permit a CNX specialistto designate, on an issue-by-issue basis,automatic execution guarantees thatcould exceed the BBO size. Such anelection would be strictly voluntary andthus would not operate to increase theexposure of any specialist who desiredto maintain the protections of theexisting rule.

2. Statutory Basis

The CHX believes that the proposedrule is consistent with the requirementsof the Act and the rules and regulationsthereunder that are applicable to anational securities exchange. Inparticular, the CHX believes that theproposed rule is consistent with section6(b)(5) 9 of the Act in that it is designedto promote just and equitable principlesof trade, to remove impediments to andto perfect the mechanism of a free andopen market and a national marketsystem and, in general, to protectinvestors and the public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe thatthe proposed rule change will imposeany inappropriate burden oncompetition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Comments on theProposed Rule Change Received fromMembers, Participants, or Others

The Exchange did not solicit orreceive written comments on theproposed rule change.

III. Commission’s Findings and OrderGranting Accelerated Approval of theProposed Rule Change

The Commission finds that theproposed rule change, as amended, isconsistent with the Act and the rulesand regulations under the Actapplicable to a national securitiesexchange and, in particular, therequirements of section 6(b) of theAct.10 Specifically, the Commissionfinds that the proposed rule change isconsistent with the section 6(b)(5) 11

requirements that the rules of anexchange be designed to promote justand equitable principles of trade, to



12 In approving this rule change, the Commissionhas considered its impact on efficiency,competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 13 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.3 See Letter dated August 21, 2000, from Paul B.

O’Kelly, Executive Vice President, CHX, to Alton S.Harvey, Office Head, Division of Market Regulation(‘‘Division’’), Commission (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).Amendment No. 1 requests accelerated approval ofthe proposed rule change on a pilot basis throughFebruary 28, 2001. Amendment No. 1 also extendsthe provisions of Rule 23 to Nasdaq NationalMarket securities. See also Letter dated August 22,2000, from Paul B. O’Kelly, Executive VicePresident, CHX, to Alton S. Harvey, Office Head,Division, Commission (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’).Amendment No. 2 withdraws the portion ofAmendment No. 1 that extends Rule 23 to NasdaqNational Market securities.

prevent fraudulent and manipulativeacts and, in general, to protect investorsand the public interest.12

The Commission believes that theproposed rule change may help tofacilitate a smooth transition to decimalpricing. For example, proposed Rules37(b)(10) and (11) should help to ensurethat customer demand for automaticexecution will continue to be satisfiedin a decimals environment. Specifically,proposed Rule 37(b)(11) permitsspecialists to guarantee, on an issue-by-issue basis, automatic executions oforders that exceed the ITS BBO orNBBO size at the specified price. TheCommission believes that decimalpricing could result in decreasedquantities at each price, which wouldresult in a corresponding decrease in thenumber of orders eligible for automaticexecution on the Exchange. Thus, theproposed rule change benefits investorsby providing specialists the flexibility toautomatically execute orders larger thanthe current ITS BBO or NBBO size.

In addition, Rule 37(b)(10) currentlyrequires all agency market orders from100 to 599 shares that are notautomatically executed because, amongother things, the order exceeds the ITSBBO quantity, to be designated as‘‘pending auto-stop orders.’’ Theseorders are stopped and due an executionat the ITS BBO thirty seconds after entryinto the Exchange’s MAX system. Asstated above, the Commission believesthat decimal pricing may result indecreased quantities at each price,which in turn would result in fewerautomatic executions. The Commissionbelieves that the proposed rule changemay help to alleviate this concern byeliminating the pending auto-stopfunction. The Commission believes thatthe removal of this provision will helpto ensure demand for automaticexecution continues to be satisfied.

Finally, proposed changes to Rule37(d), (e), (f), and (g) amend theExchange’s automated priceimprovement algorithms toaccommodate decimal pricing.Specifically, the proposal provides for a$.01 price improvement to orders thatmeet the requirements of the applicableprovisions of the rule. The Commissionbelieves that the proposal will benefitinvestors and the public interest bycontinuing to provide an opportunityfor price improvement for stocks thattrade in decimals.

The Commission believes that it isconsistent with the protection ofinvestors and the public interest and

therefore finds good cause for approvingthe proposed rule change prior to thethirtieth day after the date ofpublication of notice thereof in theFEDERAL REGISTER. The proposed rulechange is designed to permit a smoothtransition to decimal pricing, which isscheduled to begin in certain securitieson August 28, 2000. In addition, theCommission notes that the proposedrule change is being approved on a pilotbasis only, through February 28, 2001.In light of these factors, the Commissionfinds good cause to approve theproposed rule change on an acceleratedbasis.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited tosubmit written data, views, andarguments concerning the foregoing,including whether the proposed rulechange is consistent with the Act.Persons making written submissionsshould fix six copies thereof with theSecretary, Securities and ExchangeCommission, 450 Fifth Street, NW,Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies ofthe submissions, all subsequentamendments, all written statementswith respect to the proposed rulechange that are filed with theCommission, and all writtencommunications relating to theproposed rule change between theCommission and any person, other thanthose that may be withheld from thepublic in accordance with theprovisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe Commission’s Public ReferenceRoom. Copies of such filings will also beavailable for inspection and copying atthe principal office of the Exchange. Allsubmissions should refer to the File No.SR–CHX–00–22 and should besubmitted by September 21, 2000.

V. Conclusion

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant tosection 19(b)(2) of the Act, that theproposed rule change (SR–CHX–00–22),as amended, is approved throughFebruary 28, 20001.

For the Commission, by the Divisionof Market Regulation, pursuant todelegated authority.13

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22273 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]



[Release No. 34–43203; File No. SR–CHX–00–13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Filing and Order GrantingAccelerated Approval of a ProposedRule Change and Amendment Nos. 1and 2 by The Chicago Stock Exchange,Incorporated Relating to Participationin Crossing Transactions Effected onthe Exchange Floor

August 24, 2000.Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934(‘‘Act ’’)1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2notice is hereby given that on May 3,2000, the Chicago Stock Exchange,Incorporated (‘‘CHX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’) theproposed rule change, as described inItems I and II below, which Items havebeen prepared by the CHX. The CHXamended the proposal on August 22,2000 and August 23, 2000,respectively.3 The Commission ispublishing this notice to solicitcomments on the proposed rule changefrom interested persons and to approvethe proposed rule change, as amended,on an accelerated basis.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Terms of Substance ofthe Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to amendArticle XX, Rule 23 of the Exchange’srules governing participation in crossingtransactions effected on the Exchangefloor. The text of the proposed rulechange is available at the Commissionand the CHX.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

In its filing with the Commission, theCHX included statements concerningthe purpose of, and basis for, theproposed rule change and discussed any



4 In February and March of 2000, for example,share volume from brokered crossing transactionsconstituted approximately 13% of total sharevolume traded on the Exchange.

5 Some institutional customers prefer executinglarge crossing transactions at a single price and arewilling to forego the opportunity to achieve thepiecemeal price improvement that might resultfrom the break up of the cross transaction byanother Exchange member. Of course, the floorbroker will still retain the ability to present bothsides of the order at the post if the customers sodesire.

6 According to the Exchange, specialists andmarket makers rarely participate with respect totransactions involving less than 5,000 shares.Telephone conversation between Kathleen Boege,Associate General Counsel, CHX, and Sonia Patton,Attorney, Division, Commission (August 23, 2000).

7 These updated quotes will not be directed solelyto the floor broker. Anyone at the post may respondto the updated quotes.

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).11 In approving this rule change, the Commission

has considered its impact on efficiency,competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

comments it received regarding theproposed rule change. The text of thesestatements may be examined at theplaces specified in Item IV below. TheCHX has prepared summaries, set forthin sections A, B, and C below, of themost significant aspects of suchstatements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

1. PurposeThe Exchange proposes to amend

CHX Rule 23 governing participation incrossing transactions effected on thefloor of the Exchange, which representa significant component of Exchangevolume.4 Under current Rule 23, if afloor broker presents a crossingtransaction, another member mayparticipate, or ‘‘break up,’’ thetransaction, by offering (afterpresentation of the proposed crossingtransaction) to improve one side of thetransaction by the minimum pricevariation. The floor broker is theneffectively prevented fromconsummating the transaction as a‘‘clean cross,’’ which may be to thedetriment of the floor broker’scustomer.5 In instances where theminimum price variation is relativelysmall, it is very inexpensive for amember to break up crossingtransactions in this manner. Floorbrokers are currently experiencingdifficulty, for example, cleanly crossingtransactions in stocks which trade inminimum price variations of 1⁄64th.

Given the number of products that arecommencing trading in very smallminimum price increments, as well asthe certainty of small price incrementsonce the securities industry makes thetransition to decimal pricing, the floorbroker community, and other CHXmembers, are concerned that much ofthe crossing business and correspondingExchange volume could evaporate if thecurrent rules are not amended topreclude breaking up crossingtransactions. Accordingly, theExchange’s DecimalizationSubcommittee and Floor Broker TechSubcommittee have worked to achieve

consensus on the proposed rule change,which would strike a balance ofinterests of those members who areimpacted by crossing transactions.

Under the proposed rule change, afloor broker would be permitted toconsummate crossing transactionsinvolving 5,000 shares or more 6 withoutinterference by any specialist or marketmaker if, prior to presenting the crosstransaction, the floor broker firstrequests a quote for the subjectsecurity.7 These requests will place thespecialist and other market makers onnotice that the floor broker intends tocross within the bid-offer spread. Thisarrangement will ensure that a specialistor market maker retains the opportunityto better the cross price by updatingtheir quote, but will preclude them frombreaking up a cross transaction after thecross transaction is presented. Theproposed rule change will beimplemented on a pilot basis throughFebruary 28, 2001.

2. Statutory Basis

The CHX believes that the proposedrule change is consistent with therequirements of the Act and the rulesand regulations thereunder that areapplicable to a national securitiesexchange. In particular, the CHXbelieves that the proposed rule isconsistent with section 6(b)(5) 8 of theAct in that it is designed to promote justand equitable principles of trade, toremove impediments to and to perfectthe mechanism of a free and openmarket and a national market systemand, in general, to protect investors andthe public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe thatthe proposed rule change will imposeany inappropriate burden oncompetition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Comments on theProposed Rule Change Received fromMembers, Participants, or Others

The Exchange did not solicit orreceive written comments on theproposed rule change.

III. Commission’s Findings and OrderGranting Accelerated Approval of theProposed Rule Change

The Commission finds that theproposed rule change, as amended, isconsistent with the Act and the rulesand regulations under the Actapplicable to a national securitiesexchange and, in particular, therequirements of section 6(b) of the Act.9Specifically, the Commission finds thatthe proposed rule change is consistentwith the section 6(b)(5) 10 requirementsthat the rules of an exchange bedesigned to promote just and equitableprinciples of trade, to preventfraudulent and manipulative acts and,in general, to protect investors and thepublic interest.11

The Commission believes that theproposed rule change strikes areasonable balance between the abilityof floor brokers on the Exchange toexecute crossing transactions and theability of specialists and market makersto provide price improvement. Inaddition, the Commission believes thatrequiring floor brokers to request aquote in a particular security beforepresenting the transaction to be crossedwill provide specialists and marketmakers both sufficient notice that thecross is about to occur between the bidand offer spread and an opportunity toimprove their quote. The Commissionnotes that floor brokers would stillretain the ability to present both sidesof the order at the post if the customersso desire.

The Commission believes that it isconsistent with the protection ofinvestors and the public interest andtherefore finds good cause for approvingthe proposed rule change prior to thethirtieth day after the date ofpublication of notice thereof in theFederal Register. The proposed rulechange is designed to minimize possiblenegative effects on crossing transactionsof decimal pricing, which is scheduledto begin in certain securities on August28, 2000. In addition, the Commissionnotes that the proposed rule change isbeing approved on a pilot basis only,through February 28, 2001. In light ofthese factors, the Commission findsgood cause to approve the proposed rulechange on an accelerated basis.

IV. Solicitation of CommentsInterested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, andarguments concerning the foregoing,



12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

including whether the proposed rulechange is consistent with the Act.Persons making written submissionsshould file six copies thereof with theSecretary, Securities and ExchangeCommission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,Washington D.C. 20549–0609. Copies ofthe submissions, all subsequentamendments, all written statementswith respect to the proposed rulechange that are filed with theCommission, and all writtencommunications relating to theproposed rule change between theCommission and any person, other thanthose that may be withheld from thepublic in accordance with theprovisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe Commission’s Public ReferenceRoom. Copies of such filings will also beavailable for inspection and copying atthe principal office of the Exchange. Allsubmissions should refer to the File No.SR–CHX–00–13 and should besubmitted by September 21, 2000.

V. Conclusion

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant tosection 19(b)(2) of the Act, that theproposed rule change (SR–CHX–00–13),as amended, is approved throughFebruary 28, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.12

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22274 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Data Collection Available for PublicComments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, thisnotice announces the Small BusinessAdministration’s intentions to requestapproval on a new and/or currentlyapproved information collection.DATES: Submit comments on or beforeOctober 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Send all commentsregarding these information collectionsare necessary for the properperformance of the function of theagency, whether the burden estimate areaccurate, and if there are ways tominimize the estimated burden andenhance the quality of the collections, to

George Solomon, Supervisory BusinessDevelopment Officer, Office of BusinessInitiatives, Small BusinessAdministration, 409 3rd Street, SW.,Suite 6100.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:George Solomon, Supervisory BusinessDevelopment Officer, 202–205–6024 orCurtis B. Rich, Management Analyst,202–205–7030.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: ‘‘National Training ParticipantEvaluation Questionnaire.’’

Form No: 20.Description of Respondents:

Individuals Receiving SBA Training andCounseling Assistance.

Annual Responses: 26,000.Annual Burden: 6,500.Title: ‘‘SBA Counseling Evaluation.’’Form No: 1419.Description of Respondents: Small

Business Clients.Annual Responses: 2,800.Annual Burden: 476.

ADDRESSES: Send all commentsregarding whether this informationcollection is necessary for the properperformance of the function of theagency, whether the burden estimate isaccurate, and if there are ways tominimize the estimated burden andenhance the quality of the collection, toAlicia McPhie, Chief Equal Employmentand Opportunity, Office of EqualEmployment Opportunity & Civil RightsCompliance, Business Administration,409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6400.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Alicia McPhie, Chief Equal Employmentand Opportunity, 202–205–6750 orCurtis B. Rich, Management Analyst,202–205–7030.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: ‘‘Notice to New Borrowers.’’Form No: 793.Description of Respondents:

Companies are required to keep recordsin order for SBA to determine thecompliance status of the recipient.

Annual Responses: 26,420.Annual Burden: 6,044.

ADDRESSES: Send all commentsregarding whether this informationcollection is necessary for the properperformance of the function of theagency, whether the burden estimate isaccurate, and if there are ways tominimize the estimated burden andenhance the quality of the collection, toJacqueline Fleming, National TrainingCoordinator, Office of MinorityEnterprise Development, Small BusinessAdministration, 409 3rd Street, SW.,Suite 8000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jacqueline Fleming, National Training

Coordinator, 202–205–6177 or Curtis B.Rich, Management Analyst, 202–205–7030.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: ‘‘8(a) Electronic Applicationfollow-up Survey.’’

Form No: N/A.Description of Respondents: Potential

8(a) Applicants.Annual Responses: 106.Annual Burden: 17.

Jacqueline White,Chief, Administrative Information Branch.[FR Doc. 00–22234 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–M


[Declaration of Disaster #3271]

State of Minnesota; Amendment #4

In accordance with a notice from theFederal Emergency ManagementAgency, effective August 14, 2000, theabove-numbered Declaration is herebyamended to include Chippewa County,Minnesota as a disaster area due todamages caused by severe storms,flooding, and tornadoes beginning onMay 17, 2000, and continuing throughJuly 26.

In addition, applications for economicinjury loans from small businesseslocated in the contiguous counties ofKandiyohi and Swift in the State ofMinnesota may be filed until thespecified date at the previouslydesignated location. Any countiescontiguous to the above-named primarycounty and not listed herein have beenpreviously declared.

All other information remains thesame, i.e., the deadline for filingapplications for physical damage isAugust 29, 2000 and for economicinjury the deadline is March 30, 2001.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008.)

Dated: August 23, 2000.Herbert L. Mitchell,Acting Associate Administrator for DisasterAssistance.[FR Doc. 00–22235 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–P



State of Ohio

As a result of the President’s majordisaster declaration on August 21, 2000,I find that Lucas County, Ohioconstitutes a disaster area due todamages caused by severe storms and



flooding beginning on July 29, 2000, andcontinuing through August 2, 2000.Applications for loans for physicaldamage as a result of this disaster maybe filed until the close of business onOctober 20, 2000 and for economicinjury until the close of business onMay 21, 2001 at the address listed belowor other locally announced locations:U.S. Small Business Administration,

Disaster Area 2 Office, One BaltimorePlace, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308In addition, applications for economic

injury loans from small businesseslocated in the following contiguouscounties may be filed until the specifieddate at the above location: Fulton,Henry, Ottawa, and Wood Counties inOhio and Lenawee and MonroeCounties in Michigan.

The interest rates are:For Physical Damage: Per-

centHomeowners with credit available else-

where ..................................................... 7.375Homeowners without credit available

elsewhere ............................................... 3.687Businesses with credit available else-

where ..................................................... 8.000Businesses and non-profit organizations

without credit available elsewhere ...... 4.000Others (including non-profit organiza-

tions) with credit available elsewhere 6.750For Economic Injury:

Businesses and small agricultural co-operatives without credit availableelsewhere ............................................... 4.000

The number assigned to this disasterfor physical damage is 327606. Foreconomic injury the numbers are 9I0400for Ohio and 9I0500 for Michigan.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008).

Dated: August 23, 2000.Herbert L. Mitchell,Acting Associate Administrator for DisasterAssistance.[FR Doc. 00–22232 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–P



State of Washington

Okanogan County and the contiguouscounties of Chelan, Douglas, Ferry,Grant, Lincoln, Skagit, and Whatcom inthe State of Washington constitute adisaster area as a result of wildfires thatoccurred between July 22 and July 26,2000. Applications for loans forphysical damage as a result of thisdisaster may be filed until the close ofbusiness on October 23, 2000 and foreconomic injury until the close ofbusiness on May 23, 2001 at the addresslisted below or other locally announcedlocations: U.S. Small Business

Administration, Disaster Area 4 Office,P. O. Box 13795, Sacramento, CA95853–4795.

The interest rates are:

Percent

For Physical Damage:Homeowners with credit available

elsewhere .................................. 7.375Homeowners without credit avail-

able elsewhere .......................... 3.687Businesses with credit available

elsewhere .................................. 8.000Businesses and non-profit organi-

zations without credit availableelsewhere .................................. 4.000

Others (including non-profit orga-nizations) with credit availableelsewhere .................................. 6.750

For Economic Injury:Businesses and small agricul-

tural cooperatives withoutcredit available elsewhere 4.000

The numbers assigned to this disasterare 328205 for physical damage and9I4000 for economic injury.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008.)

Dated: August 23, 2000.Fred P. Hochberg,Acting Administrator.[FR Doc. 00–22233 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–P



State of Wisconsin; Amendment #5

In accordance with a notice from theFederal Emergency ManagementAgency, dated August 21, 2000, theabove-numbered Declaration is herebyamended to include Dodge andLafayette Counties in the State ofWisconsin as a disaster area due todamages caused by severe storms,tornadoes, and flooding beginning onMay 26, 2000 and continuing throughJuly 19, 2000.

In addition, applications for economicinjury loans from small businesseslocated in the contiguous counties ofFond du Lac in Wisconsin andStephenson in Illinois may be filed untilthe specified date at the previouslydesignated location. Any countiescontiguous to the above-named primarycounties and not listed herein have beenpreviously declared.

All other information remains thesame, i.e., the deadline for filingapplications for physical damage isSeptember 9, 2000 and for economicinjury the deadline is April 11, 2001.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008.)


Herbert L. Mitchell,Acting Associate Administrator for DisasterAssistance.[FR Doc. 00–22236 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3403]

Culturally Significant Objects Importedfor Exhibition Determinations:‘‘Morocco: Jews and Art in a MuslimLand’’

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of thefollowing determinations: Pursuant tothe authority vested in me by the Act ofOctober 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C.2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform andRestructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat.2681, et seq.), Delegation of AuthorityNo. 234 of October 1, 1999, andDelegation of Authority No. 236 ofOctober 19, 1999, as amended, I herebydetermine that the objects to beincluded in the exhibition ‘‘Morocco:Jews and Art in a Muslim Land,’’imported from abroad for the temporaryexhibition without profit within theUnited States, are of culturalsignificance. The objects are importedpursuant to loan agreements with theforeign lenders. I also determine that theexhibition or display of the exhibitobjects at the Jewish Museum in NewYork from on or about September 24,2000 to on or about February 11, 2001,is in the national interest. Public Noticeof these Determinations is ordered to bepublished in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forfurther information, including a list ofthe exhibit object, contact PaulManning, Attorney-Adviser, Office ofthe Legal Adviser, U.S. Department ofState (telephone: 202/619–5997). Theaddress is U.S. Department of State, SA–44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700,Washington, DC 20547–0001.


William B. Bader,Assistant Secretary for Educational andCultural Affairs, Department of State.[FR Doc. 00–22313 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–U




Coast Guard

[USCG–2000–7848]

Inland Tank Barge Certificates ofInspection; Administrative Changes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.ACTION: Notice of pilot program.

SUMMARY: A one-year cooperative pilotprogram will be implemented to testadministrative changes to inland tankbarge Certificates of Inspection (COI).The tank barge COI pilot programinitiative is based on a ChemicalTransportation Advisory Committee(CTAC) recommendation.DATES: A one-year cooperative pilotprogram will be implemented with theMarine Safety Office New Orleans andAmerican Commercial Barge Lines. Thepilot program will commence onSeptember 1, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forquestions on this notice, contactLieutenant Greg Herold, U.S. CoastGuard Headquarters, 2100 Second StreetSW., Washington, DC 20593–0001,telephone: 202–267–0084, facsimile:202–267–4570, e-mail:[email protected].


Request for Comments

We are not requesting comments atthis time. At the conclusion of the pilotprogram, if it is deemed successful, theCoast Guard will develop a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM) andpublish it in the Federal Register. Wewill solicit comments on any proposedregulatory changes at that time.

Background and Purpose

Currently, tank barges are required toinclude on their Certificate of Inspection(COI) an endorsement stating theauthorized grade of cargo under 46 CFR31.05–1(b) for flammable or combustiblecargoes, and/or a list of authorized cargonames, loading constraints andoperating limitations under 46 CFR151.04–1(c) and 46 CFR 151.10–15, forbulk liquid hazardous material cargoes.A typical chemical tank barge on inlandservice may be authorized to transportover one hundred cargoes. Listing eachof these cargoes on the vessel’s COI,along with other required endorsements,results in an awkward document thatcan amount to eight or more pages inlength. Additionally, cargoendorsements on the COI includeinformation such as Chemical HazardsResponse Information System (CHRIS)codes, cargo containment types, and

International Maritime Organization(IMO) pollution categories, which areextraneous to the COI and at timesconfusing to tank barge personnel.

Evaluation of the COI format andcontent currently used for chemical tankbarges, subject to the requirements of 46CFR subchapter O, was implemented aspart of an initiative by the PreventionThrough People (PTP) Subcommittee ofthe Chemical Transportation AdvisoryCommittee (CTAC). The Subcommitteereviewed the current document with thefollowing basic goals in mind:

• To assess the value of the writtenrequirements included on the COI to thetankerman,

• To determine how useful and easilyunderstood the requirements are, and

• To make recommendations forimprovements as necessary.

As a result of their work, one of thePTP Subcommittee’s recommendationswas to remove the cargo informationand conditions of carriage from the COI,and place it in a separate Bulk LiquidCargo Authority document. The BulkLiquid Cargo Authority documentwould be maintained as a mandatoryattachment to the vessel’s cargo transferprocedures, which are required to bekept aboard the vessel by 33 CFR155.740(c). Instead of endorsing the COIwith a list of cargoes, one COIendorsement would reference the BulkLiquid Cargo Authority document by itsU.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center(MSC) date of issue.

The change would constitute asignificant improvement to the currentCOI by reducing its length andimproving the format, content andlocation of the authorized cargoinformation. It would also eliminateduplicative work in cargo data entryperformed by the MSC and the localMarine Safety Offices (MSO), andstreamline the process for generatingCOIs.

Pilot ProgramThe pilot program will assess the

addition of a new Bulk Liquid CargoAuthority document produced by theU.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center(MSC) to be attached to the requiredcargo transfer procedures. Thedocument will include certain requiredchemical cargo endorsements from theinland tank barge COI. The document issimilar to those produced for chemicaltankships under 46 CFR 153. If the pilotprogram is successful, it will result in ashortened COI with a more detailed anduser-friendly cargo transfer procedures.

The one-year cooperative pilotprogram is proposed to evaluate therecommendations from the CTAC forstreamlining tank barge COIs. American

Commercial Barge Lines (ACBL) hasagreed to participate in the pilotprogram with a specified number ofbarges from their fleet. All COIs will beissued under the cognizance of theOfficer in Charge, Marine Inspection,New Orleans, LA, who has also agreedto participate in the pilot program. ACOI endorsement will be addedidentifying those barges participating inthe pilot program and directing anyspecific inquiries about the program toMSO New Orleans.

Access to the cargo authority andconditions of carriage information for allvessels enrolled in the program will beavailable by contacting the MSO NewOrleans 24-hr manned CommunicationsCenter, through the MSC’s CargoDivision (MSC–3) during workinghours, or the MSC’s Cargo Division DutyOfficer after hours.

Evaluation and Implementation

The pilot program will be evaluatedbased on the goals and expectedoutcomes of the program envisioned byCTAC.

The evaluation criteria include:• Ease of use/‘‘user friendliness’’ of

new COI,• Relevance of COI information,• Savings/loss of time compared to

existing COI format, and• Assessment of new Bulk Liquid

Cargo Authority document.If the pilot program is deemed

successful, a Notice of ProposedRulemaking will be developed to givethe public an opportunity to commenton the proposed nationwide program. Ifimplemented, we envision that eachtank barge will receive a COI, followinga successful inspection for certification,in the new format at the time their COIis due for reissue, along with theassociated Bulk Liquid Cargo Authoritydocument.

Dated: August 28, 2000.R.C. North,Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety andEnvironmental Protection.[FR Doc. 00–22315 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–15–P


Coast Guard

[CGD08–00–023]

Proposed Monkey Island BridgeProject; Calcasieu Pass at Cameron,Cameron Parish, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.ACTION: Notice of public hearing; requestfor comments



SUMMARY: The Coast Guard jointly withthe State of Louisiana, LouisianaDepartment of Transportation andDevelopment (LDOTD) will hold apublic hearing to receive comments onan application by LDOTD for CoastGuard approval of location and plans fora proposed bridge. The proposedlocation of the bridge is across CalcasieuPass, mile 2.2, on SR 1141 betweenCameron and Monkey Island, CameronParish, Louisiana. The hearing willallow interested persons to presentcomments and information concerningthe impact of the proposed bridgeproject on navigation and the humanenvironment.DATES: This hearing will be held onSeptember 28, 2000, commencing at 6p.m. Comments must be received byOctober 13, 2000. Requests to speak andrequests for services must be receivedby September 21, 2000.ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held atthe Cameron Court House, 119 SmithCircle, Cameron, Louisiana 70631.Written comments may be submitted to,and will be available for examinationbetween 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidaysat the office of the Eighth Coast GuardDistrict, Bridge Administration Branch,Commander (ob), 501 Magazine Street,New Orleans, Louisiana 70130–3396.Please submit all comments in anunbound format, no larger than 8 × 11inches, suitable for copying andelectronic filing. Persons wantingacknowledgement of receipt ofcomments should enclose a stamped,self-addressed postcard or envelope.

Requests to speak at the hearing maybe submitted to Mr. David Frank at thephone number listed under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.David Frank, Project Officer, BridgeAdministration Branch, telephone (504)589–2965.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundThe proposed project is to construct a

new bridge to replace the existing ferrycrossing from Cameron to MonkeyIsland. The bridge will be constructedon the same alignment as the ferrycrossing. The proposed bridge will be atwo-lane fixed bridge, approximately 30feet (9.14 m) wide and 990 feet (301.75m) long. The bridge would beconstructed so as to allow for 14 feet(4.27 m) of vertical clearance abovemean high water, elevation 1.5 feet (0.46m) and a horizontal clearance of 80 feet(24.38 m). The bridge will be skewed tothe channel at an angle of 60°. Thedistance between the piers is 110 feet

(33.53 m), but the horizontal clearanceperpendicular to the channel will be 80feet. The center span of the bridge willbe constructed as a removable steelgirder span that can be removed in caseof emergencies.

The proposed bridge will replace theexisting costly ferry operation andprovide a safer, more efficienttransportation facility for motoriststraveling between Cameron and MonkeyIsland. LDOTD’s objective in providingroads and bridges on the statemaintained highway system is to assurean unrestricted and safe flow ofcommerce via that system. Although theferry is operating on a 24-hour scheduleyear-round, motorists are delayed by theferry schedule. Replacing the ferry witha bridge will eliminate delays due to theferry and severe weather conditions.This is important in evacuatingresidents on the island during storms orhurricanes.

Consideration of approval of thelocation and plans for the proposedvehicular bridge is the actionprecipitating the Coast Guard’sinvolvement in this project. The CoastGuard, as lead Federal agency for theproposed project, has reviewed theapplicant-prepared EnvironmentalAssessment (EA). Based upon the EA,the Coast Guard has tentativelydetermined that the proposed actionwill not have a significant impact on theenvironment for purposes of theNational Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). A Coast Guard Finding of NoSignificant Impact (FONSI) will beprepared as the final environmentaldocument for the proposed projectunless significant impacts are identifiedas a result of this public notificationprocess to warrant the preparation of anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Only two alternatives are currentlybeing considered for this project. Thesealternatives are defined as the ‘build’and ‘no-build’ alternatives.

Potential impacts addressed in the EAinclude economic, social andcommunity, construction, wetland, fishand wildlife, navigation, water quality,floodplain, noise, air and culturalresources, hazardous waste, andsecondary and cumulative impacts.Information concerning availability ofthe EA may be obtained from Mr. DavidFrank at the phone number listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ProceduralIndividuals and representatives of

organizations that wish to presenttestimony at the Hearing or who want tobe placed on the project mailing list,may submit a request to Mr. DavidFrank at the telephone number listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT. Requests to speak should bereceived no later than September 21,2000 in order to ensure proper scheduleof the hearing. Attendees at the hearingwho wish to present testimony and havenot previously made a request to do so,will follow those on the previouslyestablished list. Depending upon thenumber of scheduled statements, theCoast Guard may limit the amount oftime required. Written statements andother exhibits in lieu of or in additionto oral statements at the Hearing may besubmitted to Mr. David Frank at theaddress listed under ADDRESSES untilSeptember 21, 2000, in order to beincluded in the Public Hearingtranscript.

Information on Services for IndividualsWith Disabilities

For information about facilities orservices for individuals with disabilitiesor to request special assistance at themeetings, contact the Commander,Eighth Coast Guard District (obc). Pleaserequest these services from Mr. DavidFrank, at the phone number under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or inwriting at the address listed underADDRESSES. Any requests for an oral orsign language interpreter must bereceived by September 21, 2000.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 513, 49 CFR 1.46.

Dated: August 23, 2000.Paul J. Pluta,Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,Eighth Coast Guard District.[FR Doc. 00–22317 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–15–P



Notice of Intent To ConductEnvironmental Scoping for anEnvironmental Assessment To BePrepared by the City of Chicago for ItsProposed O’Hare World GatewayProgram at O’Hare InternationalAirport in Chicago, Illinois

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice to hold a public scopingmeeting.

SUMMARY: The Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) is issuing thisnotice to advise Federal, State and localagencies, and the general public, that anopportunity will be given to provideinput as to the scope of anEnvironmental Assessment to beprepared by the City of Chicago for itsproposed O’Hare World Gateway



Program (WGP) for Chicago O’HareInternational Airport in Chicago,Illinois. The WGP is a comprehensiveeffort by the city of Chicago to provideimproved terminal space, additionalparking, taxiway improvements, cargosupport facilities, and Airport roadwayaccess improvements. The City ofChicago Department of Aviation hasmade a decision to initiate thepreparation of an EnvironmentalAssessment. The FAA has offered tofacilitate the environmental reviewprocess by soliciting scoping commentsform Federal, State and local agencies.If during the environmental reviewprocess the FAA finds that nosignificant adverse environmentalimpacts are associated with theproposed actions, then a Finding of NoSignificant Impact (FONSI) would beissued. If the FAA finds that significantadverse impacts would be associatedwith the proposed actions, anEnvironmental Impact Statement will beprepared.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:City of Chicago Department of

Aviation—Carol Wilinski, City ofChicago Department of Aviation,Chicago O’Hare International Airport,P.O. Box 66142, Chicago, Illinois,60666. Ms. Wilinski can be contacted at(773) 894–6900 (voice), (773) 686–3743(facsimile), or by e-mail [email protected].

Federal Aviation Administration (forinformational purposes)—Prescott C.Snyder, Airports EnvironmentalProgram Manger, Federal AviationAdministration, Chicago AirportsDistrict Office, Room 320, 2300 EastDevon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois60018. Mr. Snyder can be contacted at(847) 294–7538 (voice), (847) 294–7046(facsimile) or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At therequest of the City of Chicago, the FAAwill be reviewing an EnvironmentalAssessment to be prepared by the Cityof Chicago that will evaluate theenvironmental impact of the City ofChicago’s O’Hare World GatewayProgram (WGP). The WGP will addressthe operational pressures posed bychanging airline industry conditionsand efforts by the City of Chicago toaddress these pressures and improveconvenience and amenities for theflying public at O’Hare InternationalAirport.

The major physical elements of theoverall WGP include proposals for thefollowing terminal development, airsideimprovements, and landsideimprovements:

• Terminal development componentsinclude two new terminals (TD/T6), thereconstruction of an existing concoursefacility (T2, Concourse E/F), extensionof Concourse K, utility systems/Heating& Refrigeration plant modifications, andreplacement cargo facilities.

• Airside improvements includeconstruction and reconfiguration oftaxiways, aprons, and taxilanes inconjunction with new and reconfiguredterminal facilities. This would includeconstruction of an extension to TaxiwayB and partial reconstruction ofTaxiways A and B.

• Key landside components includeimprovements to terminal access roadsand curbfronts, extension of the O’Hareairport transit system (ATS), additionalparking, and consolidated rental carfacilities.

In addition to the plannedimprovements in the WGP, the City ofChicago will review for purposes ofassessing cumulative impacts any otherclearly defined projects for the years1997 through 2012. Included arerenewal and replacement projects,rehabilitation needs and on-goingcapital reinvestment. Also, the Airportis marketing undeveloped orunderutilized parcels of the northeastportion of the airport to attract privatecommercial development. Some of theprojects have already been evaluatedfrom the environmental perspective andwork has begun or is about to begin.Others are awaiting environmentalevaluation.

To ensure that all significant issuesrelated to the proposed actions areidentified, two scoping meetings will beheld as part of an ongoingcomprehensive public outreach effort bythe City of Chicago. Copies of a scopingdocument with additional detail can beobtained by contacting the City ofChicago Department of Aviationinformational contact person identifiedabove. Federal, State and local agenciesand other interested parties are invitedto make comments and suggestions toensure that the full range of issuesrelated to these proposed actions areaddressed and all significant issuesidentified. All reasonable alternativeswill be considered including the no-action option. Additional publicoutreach opportunities will be providedin the future for the public to reviewand comment on the draftEnvironmental Assessment.

Comments and suggestions should bereceived by the City of ChicagoDepartment of Aviation contact person,identified above, by close of businessFriday, October 20, 2000. Informationalcopies of comments may also be sent tothe FAA Contact identified above.

Public Scoping Meetings

To facilitate receipt of comments, twopublic scoping meetings will be held onThursday, October 5, 2000. An AgencyScoping Meeting will be held forFederal, State and local agencies from10:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. in the MichiganConference Room at the FederalAviation Administration’s Great LakesRegion Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue,Des Plaines, Illinois. All personsplanning to attend the agency scopingmeeting which is during office hoursshould bring picture identification andif possible call ahead to acknowledgetheir expected attendance. This willfacilitate issuance of a building securitypass.

A Public Scoping Workshop will beheld for members of the public andother interested parties between 5:00p.m.–8:00 p.m. on the same day,Thursday, October 5, 2000. Thismeeting will be held at the FountainBlue Banquets, 2300 S. MannheimRoad, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on August24, 2000.Philip M. Smithmeyer,Manager, Chicago Airports District Office,FAA, Great Lakes Region.[FR Doc. 00–22366 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



[Summary Notice No. PE–2000–39]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary ofPetitions Received; Dispositions ofPetitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of petitions forexemption received and of dispositionsof prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemakingprovisions governing the application,processing, and disposition of petitionsfor exemption (14 CFR Part 11), thisnotice contains a summary of certainpetitions seeking relief from specifiedrequirements of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR Chapter I),dispositions of certain petitionspreviously received, and corrections.The purpose of this notice is to improvethe public’s awareness of, andparticipation in, this aspect of FAA’sregulatory activities. Neither publicationof this notice nor the inclusion oromission of information in the summaryis intended to affect the legal status ofany petition or its final disposition.



DATES: Comments on petitions receivedmust identify the petition docketnumber involved and must be receivedon or before September 21, 2000.ADDRESSES: Send comments on anypetition in triplicate to: FederalAviation Administration, Office of theChief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–200), Petition Docket No. lllll,800 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20591.

The petition, any comments received,and a copy of any final disposition arefiled in the assigned regulatory docketand are available for examination in theRules Docket (AGC–2000), Room 915G,FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),800 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone(202) 267–3132.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cherie Jack (202) 267–7271, ForestRawls (202) 267–8033, or VanessaWilkins (202) 267–8029 Office ofRulemaking (ARM–1), Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant toparagraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 ofPart 11 of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 28,2000.Joseph A. Conte,Acting Assistant Chief Counsel forRegulations.

Dispositions of PetitionsDocket No.: 29983.Petitioner: Aviation Management

Systems, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

145.45(f).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit AMS to make itsIPM available electronically to itssupervisory, inspection, and otherpersonnel, rather than give a paper copyof the IPM to each of its supervisory andinspection personnel.

Grant, 07/26/00, Exemption No. 7303Docket No.: 28110.Petitioner: McKeeman Productions,

Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

105.43(a).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit nonstudentforeign national parachutists toparticipate in MPI-sponsored parachutejumping events without complying withthe parachute equipment and packingrequirements of § 105.43(a).

Grant, 08/10/00, Exemption No. 7310Docket No.: 30129.Petitioner: Central Oregon EAA

Chapter 617.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR135.251, 135.255, 135.353, andappendixes I and J to part 121.

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit EAA Chapter 617to conduct local sightseeing flights atMadras City County, Oregon airport fora one-day charitable event benefiting theExperimental Aircraft AssociationFoundation in August 2000, forcompensation or hire withoutcomplying with certain anti-drug andalcohol misuse prevention requirementsof part 135.

Grant, 08/11/00, Exemption No. 7314

Docket No.: 30114.Petitioner: Thunder Air Charter, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Thunder Air tooperate certain aircraft under part 135without a TSO–C112 (Mode S)transponder installed in the aircraft.


Docket No.: 30082.Petitioner: Southeast Air Charter, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit SAC to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.


Docket No.: 30124.Petitioner: Sandusky Flying Club.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.251, 135.255, 135.353, andappendixes I and J to part 121.

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit SFC to conductlocal sightseeing flights at SanduskyCity Airport for its one-day Dawn Patrolevent in August 2000, for compensationor hire, without complying with certainanti-drug and alcohol misuse preventionrequirements of part 135.


Docket No.: 30126.Petitioner: Historical Aviation

Organization of Logan County.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit HAOLC toconduct local sightseeing flights atBellefontaine Municipal Airport for itstwo-day Air Fest 2000 event in August2000, for compensation or hire, withoutcomplying with certain anti-drug andalcohol misuse prevention requirementsof part 135.

Grant, 08/11/00, Exemption No. 7312Docket No.: 25550.Petitioner: Department of the Army.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.169(a)(2) and (c).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit U.S. Army to fileinstrument flight rules flight plans inaccordance with the regulationsprescribed by the U.S. Army.

Grant, 08/08/00, Exemption No. 6528B







SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemakingprovisions governing the application,processing, and disposition of petitionsfor exemption (14 CFR Part 11), thisnotice contains a summary of certainpetitions seeking relief from specifiedrequirements of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR Chapter I),dispositions of certain petitionspreviously received, and corrections.The purpose of this notice is to improvethe public’s awareness of, andparticipation in, this aspect of FAA’sregulatory activities. Neither publicationof this notice nor the inclusion oromission of information in the summaryis intended to affect the legal status ofany petition or its final disposition.DATES: Comments on petitions receivedmust identify the petition docketnumber involved and must be receivedon or before September 21, 2000.ADDRESSES: Send comments on anypetition in triplicate to: FederalAviation Administration, Office of theChief Counsel, Attn: Rule docket (AGC–200), Petition No. lllll, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20591.

The petition, any comments received,and a copy of any final disposition arefiled in the assigned regulatory docketand are available for examination in theRules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),800 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone(202) 267–3132.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cherie Jack (202) 267–7271, ForestRawls (202) 267–8033, or VanessaWilkins (202) 267–8029 Office ofRulemaking (ARM–1), Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.



Dispositions of PetitionsDocket No. 30056.Petitioner: Galaxy Aerospace

Company and NORDAM Group.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

25.785(b).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit relief for thegeneral occupant protectionrequirements for occupants of multipleplace side-facing seats that are occupiedduring takeoff and landingmanufactured by ERDA, Inc. in anyIsrael Aircraft Industries Galaxy(A53NM) model aircraft manufacturedprior to January 1, 2004.

Grant, 08/02/00, Exemption No. 7296Docket No. 25588.Petitioner: The Soaring Society of

America, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

45.11 (a) and (d).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit all owners,operators, and manufacturers of glidersto continue to forgo the requirement tosecure an identification plate or displaythe model and serial number on theexterior of the aircraft at specifiedlocations.

Grant, 08/01/00, Exemption No. 4988EDocket No. 29909.Petitioner: KaiserAir, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit KaiserAir tooperate one Gulfstream American G–1159A airplane (Registration No.N740SS, Serial No. 369) equipped witha Sperry (Honeywell) VA–100 VoiceAdvisory/Ground Proximity Systemrather than an approved groundproximity warning system until thethird quarter of 2000.

Denial, 08/02/00, Exemption No. 7308Docket No. 29746.Petitioner: American Airlines, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.344 (a)(21) and (b)(3).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit American to (1)operate its Fokker 100 (F–100) airplaneswithout recording the leading edgeslats/flaps position; (2) complete therequired digital flight data recorder(DFDR) installations on its fleet ofBoeing 727–200 (B–727–200), F–100,and McDonnell Douglas MD–80 (MD–80) airplanes using an alternativecompliance schedule rather than at thenext heavy maintenance check afterAugust 18, 1999; and (3) extend by 14months the August 20, 2001, finalcompliance deadline for the installationof the required DFDRs on 2 Airbus 300–600 (A300–600) and 23 Boeing 757–200(B–757–200) airplanes.

Denial, 08/02/00, Exemption No. 7309

Docket No. 30080.Petitioner: Mid-Atlantic Freight, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit MAFI to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.


Docket No.: 28158.Petitioner: Twin Otter International,

Ltd.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.345(c)(2) and 135.143(c)(2).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit TOIL to operatethose airplanes under part 121 and part135 without a TSO–C112 (Mode S)transponder installed on each airplane.

Grant, 07/31/00, Exemption No. 6111C

Docket No.: 30112.Petitioner: Elk Flyers, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit Elk Flyers toconduct local sightseeing flights at St.Marys Municipal Airport for a one-daycharity airlift in August 2000, forcompensation or hire, withoutcomplying with certain anti-drug andalcohol misuse prevention requirementsof part 135.


Docket No.: 30076.Petitioner: TACA International

Airlines.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.344(b).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit TAI to operatefive Airbus A300 (A300) airplanes(Registration Nos. N59106, N59107,N59139, N59140, and N68142) without

installing the required DFDB on eachairplane until August 20, 2001.


Docket No.: 29284.Petitioner: Falcon Aviation

Consultants, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit FACI flightinstructors to conduct certain flightinstruction to meet recent experiencerequirements in a Beechcraft Bonanzaairplane equipped with a functioningthrowover control wheel in place offunctioning dual controls.

Grant, 08/02/00, Exemption No. 6803A

Docket No.: 27712.Petitioner: American Airlines.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.401(c), 121.433(c)(1)(iii), 121.440(a),and 121.441(a)(1) and (b)(1); appendix Fto part 121; and Special FederalAviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 58,paragraph 6(b)(3)(ii)(A).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit American to (1)combine recurrent flight and groundtraining and proficiency checks forAmerican’s pilots in command, secondsin command, and flight engineers in asingle annual training and proficiencyevaluation program (i.e., a single-visittraining program), and (2) meet the line-check requirements of § 121.440(a) andSFAR No. 58 through an alternativeline-check program.

Grant, 08/02/00, Exemption No. 5950C





Petition for Exemption; Summary ofPetition Received; Dispositions ofPetitions Issued


SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemakingprovisions governing the application,processing, and disposition of petitionsfor exemption (14 CFR Part 11), thisnotice contains a summary of certainpetitions seeking relief from specifiedrequirements of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR Chapter I),dispositions of certain petitions



previously received, and corrections.The purpose of this notice is to improvethe public’s awareness of, andparticipation in, this aspect of FAA’sregulatory activities. Neither publicationof this notice nor the inclusion oromission of information in the summaryis intended to affect the legal status ofany petition or its final disposition.DATES: Comments on petitions receivedmust identify the petition docketnumber involved and must be receivedon or before September 21, 2000.ADDRESSES: Sent comments on anypetition in triplicate to: FederalAviation Administration, Office of theChief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–200), Petition docket No. lllll,800 Independence Avenue, SW,Washington, DC 20591.

The petition, any comments received,and a copy of any final disposition arefiled in the assigned regulatory docketand are available for examination in theRules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),800 Independence Avenue, SW,Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)267–3132.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cherie Jack (202) 267–7271; ForestRawls (202) 267–8033, or VanessaWilkins (202) 267–8029, Office ofRulemaking (ARM–1), Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591.


Issued in Washington, DC, on August 28,2000.Joseph A. Conte,Acting Assistance Chief Counsel forRegulations.

Dispositions of PetitionsDocket No.: 30146.Petitioner: Frontier Flying Service,


119.67(a)(3)(i).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Mr. Hajdukovichto serve as Director of Operations of FFSwithout having at least 3 yearsexperience, within the last 6 years, aspilot in command of a large airplaneoperated under part 121 or part 135.

Denial, 08/07/00, Exemption No. 7304Docket No.: 30134.Petitioner: Punxsutawney Municipal

Airport Authority.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit PMAA to

conduct local sightseeing flights atPunxsutawney Airport for its two-dayannual airport awareness days event inAugust 2000, for compensation or hire,without complying with certain anti-drug and alcohol misuse preventionrequirements of part 135.


Docket No.: 30127.Petitioner: South Haven Area Regional

Airport Authority and the South HavenRotary Club.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR135.251, 135.255, 135.353, andappendixes I and J to part 121.

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit SHARAA andSHRC to conduct local sightseeingflights at South Haven Area RegionalAirport for a one-day Fly-In Breakfast inAugust 2000, for compensation or hire,without complying with certain anti-drug and alcohol misuse preventionrequirements of part 135.


Docket No.: 30111.Petitioner: Ketchum Air Service, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit Ketchum tooperate certain aircraft under part 135without a TSO–C112 (Mode S)transponder installed in the aircraft.


Docket No.: 30096.Petitioner: American Air Network,



Disposition: To permit AAN to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.


Docket No.: 30091.Petitioner: Fresh Water Adventures,



Disposition: To permit Fresh Water tooperate certain aircraft under part 135without a TSO–C112 (Mode S)transponder installed in the aircraft.


Docket No.: 29611.Petitioner: Kent State University

Flight Operations.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit Kent State to

conduct local sightseeing flights in thevicinity of Stow, Ohio, for its one-dayCommunity Aviation Day event inSeptember 2000, for compensation orhire, without complying with certainanti-drug and alcohol misuse preventionrequirements of part 135.


Docket No.: 30117.Petitioner: Robert Stone.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit Mr. Stone toconduct local sightseeing flights in thevicinity of Brookville, Ohio, for acharitable event in August 2000, forcompensation or hire, withoutcomplying with certain anti-drug andalcohol misuse prevention requirementsof part 135.


Docket No.: 30118.Petitioner: Mt. Sterling Aviation

Association-EAA Chapter #1227.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR


Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit Mt. Sterling toconduct local sightseeing flights at Mt.Sterling-Montgomery County Airport forits one-day airshow event in August2000, for compensation or hire, withoutcomplying with certain anti-drug andalcohol misuse prevention requirementsof part 135.


Docket No.: 28672.Petitioner: Alaska Airlines, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.709(b)(3).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Alaska Airlines’flight crewmembers who hold currentpilot certificates to install and/orremove medevac stretchers in AlaskaAirlines aircraft.

Grant, 07/31/00, Exemption No. 6603B




[Summary, Notice No. PE–2000–42]


AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.



ACTION: Notice of petitions forexemption received and of dispositionsof prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemakingprovisions governing the application,processing, and disposition of petitionsfor exemption (14 CFR Part 11), thisnotice contains a summary of certainpetitions seeking relief from specifiedrequirements of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR Chapter I),dispositions of certain petitionspreviously received, and corrections.The purpose of this notice is to improvethe public’s awareness of, andparticipation in, this aspect of FAA’sregulatory activities. Neither publicationof this notice nor the inclusion oromission of information in the summaryis intended to affect the legal status ofany petition or its final disposition.DATES: Comments on petitions receivedmust identify the petition docketnumber involved and must be receivedon or before September 21, 2000.ADDRESSES: Send comments on anypetition in triplicate to: FederalAviation Administration, Office of theChief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–200), Petition Docket No. lllll,800 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20591.

The petition, any comments received,and a copy of any final disposition arefiled in the assigned regulatory docketand are available for examination in theRules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),800 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone(202) 267–3132.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cherie Jack (202) 267–7271, ForestRawls (202) 267–8033, or VanessaWilkins (202) 267–8029 Office ofRulemaking (ARM–1), Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.



Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 29498.Petitioner: Eastern Cincinnati

Aviation, Inc.Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.251, 135.255, and 135.353, andappendices I and J to part 121.

Description of Relief Sought: Topermit ECA to conduct limited daylight,

visual flight rules sightseeing rides forcompensation or hire as defined in§ 135.1(c) without adopting a FederalAviation Administration (FAA)-approved anti-drug program and anFAA-approved alcohol misuseprevention program.

[FR Doc. 00–22370 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]




RTCA Special Committee 172; FutureAir-Ground Communications in theVHF Aeronautical Data Band (118–137MHz)

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (PublicLaw 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2),notice is hereby given for SpecialCommittee 172 meeting to be held July26–27, 2000, starting at 9:00 a.m. Themeeting will be held at RTCA, 1140Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020,Washington, DC 20036.

The agenda will include: September19: Plenary Session; (1) IntroductoryRemarks; (2) Review and ApproveAgenda; (3) Discuss need for RTCAMOPS as the basis for a TSO for VDLMode 2 Physical Layer MOPS (MOPSnew working paper WG3/WP140);(Continue detailed discussion duringWG–3); (4) review the status of DO–224A accomplishments and reviewoutstanding action items; (5) FormWorking Groups 2 and 3; September 20:(6) Continue in individual WorkingGroups; September 21: (7) Continueindividual Working Group discussionsas necessary; (8) Reconvene Plenary asrequired; (9) Other Business; (10) Dateand Location of Next meeting;September 22: (12) Optional day foradditional working group discussions asrequired; (13) Closing.

Attendance is open to the interestedpublic but limited to space availability.With the approval of the chairman,members of the public may present oralstatements at the meeting. Personswishing to present statements or obtaininformation should contact the RTCASecretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC20046; (202) 833–9339 (phone); (202)833–9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org(web site). Members of the public maypresent a written statement to thecommittee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24,2000.Janice L. Peters,Designated Official.[FR Doc. 00–22359 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



RTCA; Special Committee 192;National Airspace Review Planningand Analysis

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (P.L.92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice ishereby given for a Special Committee192 meeting to be held September 22,2000, starting at 10:00 a.m. The meetingwill be held at RTCA, Inc., 1140Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020,Washington, DC 20036.

The agenda will include: (1) Welcomeand Introductory Remarks; (2) Review/Approve Previous Meeting Minutes; (3)Review/Approve edited UserRecommendations on FAA Order7400.2, Procedures for HandlingAirspace Matters including detaileddiscussion on Class B and C airspacedesign specifications; (3) OtherBusiness; (4) Date and Location of NextMeeting; (4) Closing.

Attendance is open to the interestedpublic but limited to space availability.With the approval of the chairman,members of the public may present oralstatements at the meeting. Personswishing to present statements or obtaininformation should contact the RTCASecretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,NW., Washington, DC 20036; (202) 833–9339 (phone), (202) 833–9434 (fax), orhttp://www.rtca.org (web site). Membersof the public may present a writtenstatement to the committee at any time.




RTCA Special Committee 196; NightVision Goggle (NVG) Appliances &Equipment

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given for Special Committee(SC)–196 meeting to be held September



13–15, 2000, starting at 8:00 a.m. eachday. On September 13 and 14, themeeting will be held at the GSATraining Center, 490 L’Enfant Plaza EastPromenade, Suite 3208, Room 3A. OnSeptember 15, the meeting will takeplace at RTCA, 1140 ConnecticutAvenue, N.W., Suite 1020, Washington,DC 20036.

The agenda will include: September13–14: (1) Welcome and IntroductoryRemarks; (2) Agenda Overview; (3)Review/Approval of Previous MeetingMinutes; (4) Action Item Status Review;(5) Overview of SC–196 Working Group(WG) Activities: (a) WG–1, OperationalConcept/Requirements; (b) WG–2, NightVision Goggles Minimum OperationalPerformance Standards; (c) WG–3, NightVision Imaging System Lighting; (d)WG–4, Maintenance/Serviceability; (e)WG–5, Training Guidelines/Considerations; (6) WG–1 Final DraftOverview. September 15: (7) Risk andSystem Safety Assessment Discussion;(8) Operational Concept/RequirementsBallot Process; (9) Open Issue ListReview; (10) Other Business; (11)Establish Agenda for Next Meeting; (12)Date and Location of Next Meeting; (13)Workgroup Breakout Sessions; (14)Working Group Chairpersons meeting;(15) Closing.

Attendance is open to the interestedpublic but limited to space availability.With the approval of the chairman,members of the public may present oralstatements at the meeting. Personswishing to present statements or obtaininformation should contact the RTCASecretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC,20036; (202) 833–9339 (phone); (202)833–9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org(web site). Members of the public maypresent a written statement to thecommittee at any time.




RTCA Program ManagementCommittee

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given for ProgramsManagement Committee meeting to beheld September 13, 2000, starting at9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at

RTCA, Inc., 1140 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.

The agenda will include: (1) Welcomeand Introductory Remarks; (2) Review/Approve Summary of Previous Meeting;(3) Publication Consideration/Approval:(a) Final Draft, Minimum AviationSystem Performance Standards:Required Navigation Performance forArea Navigation, (RTCA Paper No. 229–00/PMC–100, prepared by SC–181); (b)Final Draft, Minimum OperationalPerformance Standards for theDepiction of Navigation Information onElectronic Maps, (RTCA Paper No. 230–00/PMC–101, prepared by SC–181); (c)Final Draft, DO–248A, Second AnnualReport for Clarification of DO–178b‘‘Software Considerations In AirborneSystems and Equipment Certification’’,(RTCA Paper No. 174–00/SC190–072,prepared by SC–190). (d) Final Draft,Interoperability Requirements for ATSApplications Using ARINC 622 DataCommunications, (RTCA Paper No.223–00/PMC–098, prepared by SC–189);(e) Final Draft, ApplicationsDescriptions for Initial Cockpit Displayof Traffic Information (CDTI)applications (RTCA Paper No. 224–00/PMC–099, prepared by SC–186); (f)Final Draft, DO–224A, Signal-in-SpaceMinimum Aviation System PerformanceStandards (MADPS) for Advanced VHFDigital Data Communications IncludingCompatibility with Digital VoiceTechniques, (RTCA Paper No. 241–00/PMC–103, prepared by SC–172); (g)Final Draft, Minimum OperationalPerformance Standards for 1090 MHzAutomatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B), (RTCA Paper No.242–00/PMC–104, prepared by SC–186);(4) Discussion: (a) Special Committee(SC)–188, High Frequency Data Link(HFDL); (b) SC–165 Work Program; (c)Document Production and PMC MeetingSchedule; (5) Action Item Review: (a)Action Item 00–01, Revised DocumentGuidance; (b) Action Item 00–05, SC–194, Chairmanship; (c) Action Item 00–06, SC–1186 Work Program Issues, (6)Other Business; (7) Date and Location ofNext Meeting; (8) Closing.

Attendance is open to the interestedpublic but limited to space availability.With the approval of the chairman,members of the public may present oralstatements at the meeting. Personswishing to present statements or obtaininformation should contact the RTCASecretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC20036; (202) 883–9339 (phone); (202)833–9334 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org(web site). Members of the public maypresent a written statement to thecommittee at any time.

Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, onAugust 24, 2000.Janice L. Peters,Designated Official.[FR Doc. 00–22363 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



Notice of Intent To Rule on ApplicationTo Impose and Use the Revenue Froma Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) atOrlando-Sanford, Sanford, Florida

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of intent to rule onapplication.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule andinvites public comment on theapplication to impose and use therevenue from a PFC at Orlando-SanfordInternational Airport under theprovisions of the Aviation Safety andCapacity Expansion Act of 1990 (TitleIX of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.101–508) and Part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).DATES: Comments must be received onor before October 2, 2000.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate to the FAA at the followingaddress: Orlando Airports DistrictOffice, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive;Suite 400; Orlando, Florida 32822.

In addition, one copy of anycomments submitted to the FAA mustbe mailed or delivered to Mr. Victor D.White, AAE, Executive Director of theSanford Airport Authority at thefollowing address: Sanford AirportAuthority, One Red Cleveland Blvd.,Suite 200, Sanford, Florida 32773.

Air carriers and foreign air carriersmay submit copies of written commentspreviously provided to the SanfordAirport Authority under section 158.23of Part 158.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Armando L. Rovira, Program Manager,Orlando Airports District Office, 5950Hazeltine National Drive; Suite 400;Orlando, Florida 32822, (407) 812–6331X–31. The application may be reviewedin person at this same location.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAproposes to rule and invites publiccomment on the application to imposeand use the revenue from a PFC atOrlando-Sanford International Airportunder the provisions of the AviationSafety and Capacity Expansion Act of1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget



Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.101–508) and Part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On August 25, 2000, the FAAdetermined that the application toimpose and use the revenue from a PFCsubmitted by Sanford Airport Authoritywas substantially complete within therequirements of section 158.25 of Part158. The FAA will approve ordisapprove the application, in whole orin part, no later than November 30,2000.

The following is a brief overview ofthe application.

PFC Application No.: PFC 00–01–C–00–SFB.

Level of the proposed PFC: $1.00.Proposed charge effective date:

January 1, 2001.Proposed charge expiration date:

December 31, 2026.Total estimated net PFC revenue:

$14,146,000.Brief description of proposed

project(s):

Completed Projects1. Runway 9R–27L and Taxiways B & C2. Airfield Signage3. Airport Master Plan Updated/Update

3DAAP/FAR Part 150/EA for AirportAccess Road

4. Construct Runway 9L–27R DeclaredDistance Enhancement/ConstructAccess Road Phase

5. Construct Terminal Access RoadIncluding Property Acquisition

6. Parking Transition to West OverflowLot

7. Construct ARFF Station8. ARFF Vehicles9. Acquire Land and Construct

Replacement Runway 9R–27L10. Taxiway B West Extension11. North Side Access Road12. Airport Master Development Plan13. Taxiway Fillets14. FAR 107 Security System15. Taxiways B & C Rehabilitation

New Projects

1. Taxiway A–4 Construction2. Taxiway A3. Relocate PAPI to Runway 9R–27L4. Electrical Feed Loop to Terminal,

ATCT & Airfield5. Domestic Terminal Expansion6. FAR 150 Noise Study7. Construct Taxiway Sierra, Connectors

and Lights (MITL)8. Rehabilitate Aviation Ramps9. Reconstruct Taxiways B, C & K10. Runway 9R–27L Lights (MIRL)11. ILS/MALSR12. Airport Master Plan13. ADA Lift Device14. Terminal Ramp Area Reconstruction

Class or classes of air carriers whichthe public agency has requested not berequired to collect PFCs: N/A.

Any person may inspect theapplication in person at the FAA officelisted above under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, uponrequest, inspect the application, noticeand other documents germane to theapplication in person at the SanfordAirport Authority.

Issued in Orlando, Florida on August 25,2000.John W. Reynolds, Jr.,Acting Manager, Orlando Airports DistrictOffice, Southern Region.[FR Doc. 00–22365 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M


Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

In accordance with Part 211 of Title49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),notice is hereby given that the FederalRailroad Administration (FRA) receiveda request for a waiver of compliancewith certain requirements of its safetystandards. The individual petition isdescribed below, including the partyseeking relief, the regulatory provisionsinvolved, the nature of the relief beingrequested, and the petitioner’sarguments in favor of relief.

Indiana Transportation Museum

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2000–7644]

The Indiana Transportation Museum(ITMZ) of Noblesville, Indiana,petitioned for a permanent waiver ofcompliance for one locomotive from therequirements of the Railroad SafetyAppliance Standards, 49 CFR Part 231,which requires all locomotives builtprior to April 1, 1977, be equipped withfour switching steps. ITMZ indicatesthat locomotive ITMZ 99 has steps thatare cast as an integral part of the frame.The locomotive is historic in nature andis utilized to haul demonstration trainsoperated by the museum. Thislocomotive is not used for switching.

Interested parties are invited toparticipate in these proceedings bysubmitting written views, data, orcomments. FRA does not anticipatescheduling a public hearing inconnection with these proceedings sincethe facts do not appear to warrant ahearing. If any interested party desiresan opportunity for oral comment, theyshould notify FRA, in writing, beforethe end of the comment period andspecify the basis for their request.

All communications concerning theseproceedings should identify the

appropriate docket number (e.g., WaiverPetition Docket Number 2000–7644) andmust be submitted to the Docket Clerk,DOT Docket Management Facility,Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 400 7thStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by FRA before final action istaken. Comments received after thatdate will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) atthe above facility. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the Internetat the docket facility’s web site at http://dms.dot.gov.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 25,2000.Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,Deputy Associate Administrator for SafetyStandards and Program Development.[FR Doc. 00–22290 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–06–P



Petition for Waiver of Compliance

In accordance with Part 211 of Title49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),notice is hereby given that the FederalRailroad Administration (FRA) receiveda request for extension of a waiver ofcompliance with certain requirements ofits safety standards. The individualpetition is described below, includingthe party seeking relief, the regulatoryprovisions involved, the nature of therelief being requested, and thepetitioner’s arguments in favor of relief.

Union Pacific Railroad Company

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2000–7669 (formally RSOP–96–1)]

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)seeks an extension of a waiver ofcompliance from certain sections of 49CFR Part 218, Subpart B—Blue SignalProtection of Workers. UP originallyrequested a permanent waiver of theprovisions of 49 CFR 218.25, Workerson a main track, at its El Paso, Texas,fueling facility.

UP has designated four additionaltracks at the fueling facility as maintracks for a total of six main tracks inthe facility, which are in the middle ofthe yard and are used for functionsnormally performed on yard tracks. UPoriginally requested relief so that theycould have the flexibility of treatingthese main tracks at the El Paso facility



as tracks other than main tracks so itmay have the option of protecting itsemployees working on, under, orbetween rolling equipment inaccordance with 49 CFR 218.25 or218.27, or a combination of both, in lieuof Part 218.25, Workers on a main track.UP believes that the safest and mostefficient method of protecting itsemployees in the El Paso facility isthrough the use of a combination of bluesignal protection and remotelycontrolled switches. This waiver waspreviously conditionally approved onMay 27, 1997, for a two-year period, anda one-year extension was granted onJune 24, 1999.

Interested parties are invited toparticipate in these proceedings bysubmitting written views, data, orcomments. FRA does not anticipatescheduling a public hearing inconnection with these proceedings sincethe facts do not appear to warrant ahearing. If any interested party desiresan opportunity for oral comment, theyshould notify FRA, in writing, beforethe end of the comment period andspecify the basis for their request.

All communications concerning theseproceedings should identify theappropriate docket number (WaiverPetition Docket Number 2000–7669) andmust be submitted to the Docket Clerk,DOT Docket Management Facility,Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 400 7thStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.Communications received within 30days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by FRA before final action istaken. Comments received after thatdate will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) atthe above facility. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the Internetat the docket facility’s web site at http://dms.dot.gov.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 25,2000.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,Deputy Associate Administrator for SafetyStandards and Program Development.[FR Doc. 00–22291 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]




Notice of Application for Approval ofDiscontinuance or Modification of aRailroad Signal System or Relief Fromthe Requirements of Title 49 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 236

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroadshave petitioned the Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA) seeking approvalfor the discontinuance or modificationof the signal system or relief from therequirements of 49 CFR Part 236 asdetailed below.

Docket No. FRA–2000–7375

Applicant: CSX Transportation,Incorporated, Mr. E. G. Peterson,Assistant Chief Engineer, Signal Designand Construction, 4901 Belfort Road,Suite 130 (S/C J–370), Jacksonville,Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposeddiscontinuance and removal of theexisting signal system, over the singlemain track Ferrysburg Drawbridge, nearGrand Havens, Michigan, milepost CGC43.8, on the Montague Subdivision,Detroit Service Lane. The proposalincludes removal of signals 1871, 1878,and 1878A, and operate trainmovements exclusively by the shorecontrol panels located on each side ofthe bridge.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is that the minimal track usage,one northbound and one southboundtrain daily, does not warrant the presenttype of signal system.

Any interested party desiring toprotest the granting of an applicationshall set forth specifically the groundsupon which the protest is made, andcontain a concise statement of theinterest of the Protestant in theproceeding. Additionally, one copy ofthe protest shall be furnished to theapplicant at the address listed above.

All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, D.C. 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.) at

DOT Central Docket ManagementFacility, Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.20590–0001. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the internetat the docket facility’s Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.

FRA expects to be able to determinethese matters without an oral hearing.However, if a specific request for an oralhearing is accompanied by a showingthat the party is unable to adequatelypresent his or her position by writtenstatements, an application may be setfor public hearing.







Applicant: CSX Transportation,Incorporated, Mr. E. G. Peterson,Assistant Chief Engineer, Signal Designand Construction, 4901 Belfort Road,Suite 130 (S/C J–370), Jacksonville,Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposedmodification of the traffic controlsystem, on the main track, at E.E.Dunleary, Kentucky, milepost CMG126.5, on the Big Sandy Subdivision,Appalachian Division, consisting thediscontinuance and removal of absolutecontrolled signals 294L and 294R.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is to eliminate facilities nolonger needed in present day operationsdue to the previous removal of thesiding.

Any interested party desiring toprotest the granting of an applicationshall set forth specifically the grounds



upon which the protest is made, andcontain a concise statement of theinterest of the Protestant in theproceeding. Additionally, one copy ofthe protest shall be furnished to theapplicant at the address listed above.

All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, D.C. 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) atDOT Central Docket ManagementFacility, Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.20590–0001. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the internetat the docket facility’s Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.





Notice of Application for Approval ofDiscontinuance or Modification of aRailroad Signal System or Relief fromthe Requirements of Title 49 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 236.



Applicants:

CSX Transportation, Incorporated, Mr.E. G. Peterson, Assistant ChiefEngineer, Signal Design andConstruction, 4901 Belfort Road, Suite130 (S/C J–350), Jacksonville, Florida32256

Norfolk Southern Corporation, Mr. W.C. Johnson, Chief Engineer S&EEngineering, 99 Spring Street, S.W.,Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Conrail Shared Assets, Mr. R. E. Inman,Chief Engineer—C&S, 1000 HowardBoulevard, Mount Laurel, NewJersey 08054

CSX Transportation, Incorporated,Norfolk Southern Corporation, andConrail Shared Asssets, jointly seekapproval of the proposed modificationof the signal system, on the main andside tracks, at Delray, Michigan,milepost CH–4.5, on the DetroitSubdivision, Detroit Service Lane,consisting the discontinuance andremoval of power-operated derails No.’s35, 52, and 53.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is that under current operatingconditions, the need for these derails donot exist, and their removal willincrease operating efficiency.



FRA expects to be able to determinethese matters without an oral hearing.However, if a specific request for an oralhearing is accompanied by a showingthat the party is unable to adequatelypresent his or her position by written

statements, an application may be setfor public hearing.







Applicant: CSX Transportation,Incorporated, Mr. E.G. Peterson,Assistant Chief Engineer, Signal Designand Construction, 4901 Belfort Road,Suite 130 (S/C J–370), Jacksonville,Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposedmodification of the traffic controlsystem, on the main and siding tracks,at S. E. Adairsville, milepost WA–68.0and N. E. Adairsville, milepost WA–68.9, on the W&A Subdivision, Atlanta,Division, near Adairsville, Georgia,consisting of the discontinuance andremoval of absolute controlled signals32LA, 32LB, 32LR, 36RA, 36RB, and36L, and conversion of the twoassociated power-operated switches tohand operation.

The reasons given for the proposedchanges are to increase efficiency andeliminate facilities no longer needed inpresent day operations, and a newpassing siding will be constructedbetween milepost WA–65.0 andmilepost WA–67.3.




1 A redacted version of the trackage rightsagreement between CTN and NS was filed with thenotice of exemption. The full version of theagreement, as required by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii),was concurrently filed under seal along with amotion for a protective order. A protective orderwas served on August 23, 2000.








[Docket No. FRA–2000–7377]Applicant: CSX Transportation,

Incorporated, Mr. E.G. Peterson,Assistant Chief Engineer, Signal Designand Construction, 4901 Belfort Road,Suite 130 (S/C J–370), Jacksonville,Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposed

modification of the traffic controlsystem, on the main and siding tracks,near Allen, Kentucky, on the Big SandySubdivision, Appalachian Division,consisting the discontinuance andremoval of absolute controlled signals178L, 178R, and 178RB, the hand-operated switch, and derail at E.E.Allen, milepost CMG 84.3, and thehand-operated switch and derail atmilepost CMG 84.4, associated with thecombining of the Allen Storage Trackwith the Adams Mine Storage Track.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is to increase efficiency andeliminate facilities no longer needed inpresent day operations.




Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25,2000.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,Deputy Associate Administrator for SafetyStandards and Program Development.[FR Doc. 00–22296 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]



Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33915]

Norfolk Southern Railway Company—Trackage Rights Exemption—CantonRailroad Company

Canton Railroad Company (CTN), aClass III rail common carrier, has agreedto grant overhead trackage rights toNorfolk Southern Railway Company(NS) over approximately 1780 feet ofCTN’s mainline of railroad between aconnection with NS at Station 100+92in Baltimore, MD, and a connectionwith NS at approximately Station 83.12in Baltimore City.1

NS reported that it intends toconsummate the transaction onSeptember 1, 2000, or as soon thereafteras the parties may agree and/or the timerequired for any necessary labor noticeis given.

The purpose of the trackage rights isto permit NS to facilitate thedevelopment of a more efficient facilityto serve a coal exporting facility inBaltimore, and to thus move traffic moresafely, efficiently and expeditiously inthe eastern Maryland region.

As a condition to this exemption, anyemployees affected by the trackagerights will be protected by theconditions imposed in Norfolk andWestern Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified inMendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease andOperate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

This notice is filed under 49 CFR1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false ormisleading information, the exemptionis void ab initio. Petitions to revoke theexemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)may be filed at any time. The filing ofa petition to revoke will notautomatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of allpleadings, referring to STB FinanceDocket No. 33915, must be filed withthe Surface Transportation Board, Officeof the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy of eachpleading must be served on John V.Edwards, Norfolk Southern RailwayCompany, Three Commercial Place,Norfolk, VA 23510–2191.

Board decisions and notices areavailable on our website at‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’



1 See Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc.—Acquisitionand Operation Exemption—Lines of LancasterNorthern Railway, Inc., Chester Valley Railway,Inc., East Penn Railways, Inc., and Bristol IndustrialTerminal Railway, Inc., STB Finance Docket No.33512 (STB served December 1, 1997).

Decided: August 24, 2000.By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22191 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P




KBN, Inc.—Control Exemption—Minnesota Northern Railroad, Inc. andSt. Croix Valley Railroad Company

KBN, Inc. (KBN), a noncarrier, hasfiled a verified notice of exemption tocontrol two Class III railroads,Minnesota Northern Railroad, Inc.(MNR) and St. Croix Valley RailroadCompany (SCVR), operating in the Stateof Minnesota. KBN is proposing toacquire all of the outstanding stock ofMNR and SCVR pursuant to a letter ofintent to sell by RailAmericaTransportation Corp. KBN further statesthat signing of a formal agreement isimminent.

The transaction was scheduled to beconsummated on or shortly after August15, 2000.

KBN states that: (i) These railroads donot connect with each other; (ii) theacquisition of control is not part of aseries of anticipated transactions thatwould connect the railroads with eachother or any railroad in their corporatefamily; and (iii) the transaction does notinvolve a Class I carrier. Therefore, thetransaction is exempt from the priorapproval requirements of 49 U.S.C.11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Boardmay not use its exemption authority torelieve a rail carrier of its statutoryobligation to protect the interests of itsemployees. Section 11326(c), however,does not provide for labor protection fortransactions under sections 11324 and11325 that involve only Class III railcarriers. Because this transactioninvolves Class III rail carriers only, theBoard, under the statute, may notimpose labor protective conditions forthis transaction.

If the verified notice contains false ormisleading information, the exemptionis void ab initio. Petitions to revoke theexemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)may be filed at any time. The filing ofa petition to revoke will notautomatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of allpleadings, referring to STB FinanceDocket No. 33911, must be filed withthe Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy of eachpleading must be served on Thomas F.McFarland, Jr., 20 North Wacker Drive,Suite 1330, Chicago, IL 60606–2902.


Decided: August 24, 2000.By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director,Office of Proceedings.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22357 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P




Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc.—Acquisition Exemption—Lines of theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania,Acting Through Its Department ofTransportation

Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc. (PERL),a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verifiednotice of exemption under 49 CFR1150.41 to acquire ownership rights intwo rail lines from the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania, acting through itsDepartment of Transportation. The firstrail line, known as the PerkiomenBranch, extends between approximatelymilepost 22.338, at Pennsburg, andmilepost 38.23, at Emmaus Junction,Emmaus, in Berks, Lehigh andMontgomery Counties, PA. The secondrail line, known as the Mount HopeIndustrial Track, extends betweenapproximately milepost 0.36 andmilepost 1.00, at Manheim, LancasterCounty, PA. The total distance of therail lines to be acquired isapproximately 16.53 route miles. PERLwill continue as the operator of the tworail lines.1

The parties report that they intend toconsummate the transaction on or soonafter the effective date of the exemption.The earliest the transaction can beconsummated is August 25, 2000, 7days after the exemption was filed.

If the notice contains false ormisleading information, the exemptionis void ab initio. Petitions to revoke theexemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke does notautomatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of allpleadings, referring to STB FinanceDocket No. 33916, must be filed withthe Surface Transportation Board, Officeof the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of eachpleading must be served on Kevin M.Sheys, Esq., Oppenheimer Wolff &Donnelly LLP, 1350 Eye Street, NW.,Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005–3324.


Decided: August 23, 2000.By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director,Office of Proceedings.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 00–22033 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P


Departmental Offices; Privacy Act of1974, as Amended; Systems ofRecords

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Treasury.ACTION: Notice of proposed new privacyact system of records.

SUMMARY: The Department of theTreasury proposes to add a newTreasury-wide system of records to itsinventory of records systems subject tothe Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a),as amended. This action is necessary tomeet the requirements of the PrivacyAct to publish in the Federal Registernotice of the existence and character ofrecords systems maintained by theagency (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)).DATES: The new system will be effectivewithout further notice October 10, 2000,unless comments are received thatwould result in a contrarydetermination.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent toDirector, Office of Personnel Policy,Room 6018 Metropolitan Square,Department of the Treasury,Washington, DC 20220.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Hank Reddick, Office of PersonnelPolicy, (202) 622–0735.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDepartment of the Treasury Child CareTuition Assistance Records system willcollect family income data fromDepartment of the Treasury employeesfor the purpose of determining theireligibility for child care tuitionassistance. It also will collect



information from the employee’s childcare provider(s) for verificationpurposes; e.g., that the provider islicensed. Collection of data will be bytuition assistance application formssubmitted by employees.

The new system of records report asrequired by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of thePrivacy Act has been submitted to theCommittee on Government Operationsof the House of Representatives, theCommittee on Governmental Affairs ofthe Senate, and the Office ofManagement and Budget, pursuant toAppendix I to OMB Circular A–130,‘‘Federal Agency Responsibilities forMaintaining Records AboutIndividuals,’’ dated February 8, 1996.

The proposed Treasury Child CareTuition Assistance Records—Treasury/DO .006 is published in its entiretybelow.

Dated: August 15, 2000.Shelia Y. McCann,Deputy Assistant Secretary (Administration).

Treasury/DO .006

SYSTEM NAME:Treasury Child Care Tuition

Assistance Records.

SYSTEM LOCATION:Department of the Treasury,1500

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20220. The locations at which thesystem is maintained by Treasurycomponents are:

1. a. Departmental Offices (DO):1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20220.b. The Office of Inspector General

(OIG): 740 15th Street, NW, Washington,DC 20220.

c. Treasury Inspector General for TaxAdministration (TIGTA): 1111Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC20224.

2. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms (ATF): 650 MassachusettsAvenue, NW, Washington, DC 20226.

3. Office of the Comptroller of theCurrency (OCC): 250 E Street, NW,Washington, DC 20219–0001.

4. United States Customs Service (CS):1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington DC 20229.

5. Bureau of Engraving and Printing(BEP): 14th & C Streets, SW,Washington, DC 20228.

6. Federal Law Enforcement TrainingCenter (FLETC): Glynco, Ga. 31524.

7. Financial Management Service(FMS): 401 14th Street, SW,Washington, DC 20227.

8. Internal Revenue Service (IRS):1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20224.

9. United States Mint (MINT): 801 9thStreet, NW, Washington, DC 2022.

10. Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD):200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV26101.

11. United States Secret Service(USSS): 950 H Street, NW, Washington,DC 20001.

12. Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS):1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC20552.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THESYSTEM:

Employees of the Department of theTreasury who voluntarily apply forchild care tuition assistance, theemployee’s spouse, their children andtheir child care providers.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Records may include application

forms for child care tuition assistancecontaining personal information,including employee (parent) name,Social Security Number, pay grade,home and work numbers, addresses,telephone numbers, total family income,names of children on whose behalf theparent is applying for tuition assistance,each child’s date of birth, informationon child care providers used (includingname, address, provider license numberand State where issued, tuition cost, andprovider tax identification number), andcopies of IRS Form 1040 and 1040A forverification purposes. Other recordsmay include the child’s social securitynumber, weekly expense, paystatements, records relating to directdeposits, verification of qualificationand administration for the child caretuition assistance.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:Pub. L. 106–58, section 643 and E.O.

9397.

PURPOSE:To establish and verify Department of

the Treasury employees’ eligibility forchild care subsidies in order for theDepartment of the Treasury to providemonetary assistance to its employees.Records are also maintained so theDepartment can make payments to childcare providers on an employee’s behalf.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THESYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS ANDTHE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

These records may be used to: (1)Disclose pertinent information to theappropriate Federal, State, or localagency responsible for investigating,prosecuting, enforcing, or implementinga statute, rule, regulation, or order,where the Department of the Treasurybecomes aware of an indication of aviolation or potential violation of civilor criminal law or regulation;

(2) Provide information to acongressional office from the record of

an individual in response to an inquiryfrom that congressional office made atthe request of that individual;

(3) Disclose information to anotherFederal agency, to a court, or a party inlitigation before a court or in anadministrative proceeding beingconducted by a Federal agency, whenthe Government is a party to the judicialor administrative proceeding. In thosecases where the Government is not aparty to the proceeding, records may bedisclosed if a subpoena has been signedby a judge;

(4) Disclose information to theNational Archives and RecordsAdministration for use in recordsmanagement inspections;

(5) Disclose information to theDepartment of Justice, or in aproceeding before a court, adjudicativebody, or other administrative bodybefore which the Department of theTreasury is authorized to appear, when:(a) The Department of the Treasury, orany component thereof; or (b) anyemployee of the Department of theTreasury in his or her official capacity;or (c) any employee of the Departmentof the Treasury in his or her individualcapacity where the Department ofJustice or the Department of theTreasury has agreed to represent theemployee; or (d) the United States,when the Department of the Treasurydetermines that litigation is likely toaffect the Department of the Treasury orany of its components; is a party tolitigation or has an interest in suchlitigation, and the use of such records bythe Department of Justice or theDepartment of the Treasury is deemedby the Department of the Treasury to berelevant and necessary to the litigation;provided, however, that the disclosureis compatible with the purpose forwhich records were collected;

(6) Provide records to the Office ofPersonnel Management, Merit SystemsProtection Board, Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission, Federal LaborRelations Authority, the Office ofSpecial Counsel, and GeneralAccounting Office for the purpose ofproperly administering Federalpersonnel systems or other agencies’systems in accordance with applicablelaws, Executive Orders, and regulations;

(7) Disclose information tocontractors, grantees, or volunteersperforming or working on a contract,service, grant, or cooperative agreement,or job for the Federal Government;

(8) Disclose information to a court,magistrate, or administrative tribunalwhen necessary and relevant in thecourse of presenting evidence, includingdisclosures to opposing counsel orwitnesses in the course of civil



discovery, litigation, or settlementnegotiations or in connection withcriminal law proceedings or in responseto a subpoena;

(9) Disclose information to unionsrecognized as exclusive bargainingrepresentatives under 5 U.S.C. chapter71, and other parties responsible for theadministration of the Federal labor-management program if needed in theperformance of their authorized duties.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:Information may be collected on

paper or electronically and may bestored as paper forms or on computers.

RETRIEVABILITY:By name; may also be cross-

referenced to Social Security Number.

SAFEGUARDS:When not in use by an authorized

person, paper records are stored inlockable file cabinets or secured rooms.Electronic records are protected by theuse of passwords.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Disposition of records is according to

the National Archives and RecordsAdministration (NARA) guidelines.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Treasury official prescribing policies

and practices: Director, Office ofPersonnel Policy, Room 6018-Metropolitan Square, Department of theTreasury, Washington, DC 20220.Officials maintaining the system andrecords for the Treasury componentsare:

1. a. DO: Director, Office of PersonnelResources, Department of the Treasury,Room 1462–MT, Washington, DC 20220.

b. Office of General Counsel:Administrative Officer, Department ofthe Treasury, Room 1417–MT,Washington, DC 20220.

c. OIG: Personnel Officer, 740 15thSt., NW, Suite 510, Washington, DC20220.

d. TIGTA: Director, ManagementResources & Support, 1111 ConstitutionAve., NW, TIGTA: IG:NS:HR, Room6402, Washington, DC 20224.

2. ATF: Chief, Personnel Division 650Massachusetts Ave., NW, Room 4100,Washington, DC 20226.

3. OCC: Director, Human ResourcesDivision Independence Square, 250 ESt., SW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC20219.

4. USCS: Personnel Director, HRM,1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room2.4a, International Trade Center,Washington, DC 20229.

5. BEP: Chief, Office of HumanResources. 14th & C St., SW, Room 202–13a, Washington, DC 20228.

6. FLETC: Human Resources Officer,Bldg 94, Room E–2, Glynco, GA 31524.

7. FMS: Director, Human ResourcesDivision, PG Center II Bldg, Rm. 114f,3700 East West Highway, Hyattsville,MD 20782.

8. IRS: Director Personnel PolicyDivision, 1111 Constitution Ave.,Building CP6—M:S:P, Washington, DC20224.

9. MINT: Assistant Director, HumanResources 801 9th Street, NW, Room6S34, Washington, DC 20220.

10. BPD: Child Care AssistanceProgram (CCAP) Coordinator P.O. Box1328, Room 302, Parkersburg, W. VA26106–1328.

11. USSS: Chief, Personnel Division950 H St., NW, 7th Floor, Washington,DC 20223.

12. OTS: Director, Human ResourcesDivision, 1700 G St., NW, 2nd Floor,Washington, DC 20552.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:Individuals seeking access to any

record contained in the system ofrecords, or seeking to contest itscontent, may inquire in accordance withinstructions given in the appendix foreach Treasury component appearing at31 CFR part 1, subpart C.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:See ‘‘Notification procedure’’ above.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:See ‘‘Notification procedure’’ above.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Information is provided by

Department of the Treasury employeeswho apply for child care tuitionassistance.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:None.



Departmental Offices; Privacy Act of1974; Altered Systems of Records

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Treasury.ACTION: Notice of Alterations to TwelvePrivacy Act Systems of Records.

SUMMARY: In accordance with therequirements of the Privacy Act of 1974,as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, theDepartment of the Treasury gives noticeof proposed alterations to twelvePrivacy Act systems of records. Theproposed alterations will update

existing notices and conform them tothe requirements of the Office of theFederal Register. The Department alsogives notice of the deletion of a PrivacyAct system of records.EFFECTIVE DATE: The proposedalterations will become effectivewithout further notice on October 2,2000, unless comments dictateotherwise.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent toDisclosure Services, Department of theTreasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20220, or by faxat (202) 622–3895.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DaleUnderwood, Deputy Assistant Director,Disclosure Services, (202) 622–0874.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As a resultof a compliance review, the Departmentfound that the following eight PrivacyAct systems of records notices should berevised by adding a ‘‘Purpose(s)’’statement to conform the notices to theformat required by the Office of theFederal Register.Treasury/DO .005—Grievance Records;Treasury/DO .010—Office of Domestic

Finance, Actuarial Valuation System;Treasury/DO .060—Correspondence

Files and Records on EmployeeComplaints and/or Dissatisfaction;

Treasury/DO .149—Foreign AssetsControl Legal Files;

Treasury/DO .156—Tax Court JudgeApplicants;

Treasury/DO .183—Private Relief TaxBill Files;

Treasury/DO .193—Employee Locatorand Automated Directory System, and

Treasury/DO .200—FinCEN Data Base.The list of the bureaus and other

components of the Departmentpublished in 31 CFR 1.20 was revisedon January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2333). ThreeTreasury-wide systems of recordsnotices (DO .005, DO .210, DO .211) arebeing updated to make the ‘‘systemlocation’’ consistent with the revisionand to add the street addresses to thebureau locations.

The list of the system managers andaddresses for Treasury/DO .005—Grievance Records is also being reviseddue to changes in addresses andreorganizations within the Department,and to reformat the list of the systemmanagers by bureau.

In addition, the notice published onDecember 17, 1998, did not identify thecorrect system manager for Treasury/DO.060—Correspondence Files andRecords on Employee Complaints and/or Dissatisfaction.

Treasury/DO .190—GeneralAllegations and Investigative Records isamended to change the title to



‘‘Investigation Data ManagementSystem,’’ and to make changes in thesystem locations and a change in theaddress of the system manager. Twosystem locations, New York, NY andGlynco, GA, are being deleted, and foursystem locations, San Diego, CA; Miami,FL; Marlton, NJ; and Alexandria, VA,are being added.

A review of Treasury/DO .191—OIGManagement Information System (MIS)found that the title did not accuratelyreflect the categories of records in thesystem and is being renamed: ‘‘HumanResources and Administrative RecordsSystem.’’ Appendix A, Addresses of OIGoffices, is also amended to reflectcurrent system locations. In addition,the title of the OIG system manager isbeing changed in the following twoTreasury-wide system notices:Treasury/DO .210—Treasury Integrated

Financial Management and RevenueSystem, and

Treasury/DO .211—Telephone CallDetail Records.The review found that the Department

no longer maintains the records subjectto Treasury/DO .068—Time-In-GradeException Files. Consequently, thesystem of records is being deletedeffective August 31, 2000.

Because the described alterations arenot considered significant, the reportingrequirements of subsection (r) of thePrivacy Act of 1974 do not apply. Theproposed alterations to the Treasurysystems of records are set forth below.

Dated: August 15, 2000.Shelia Y. McCann,Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Administration).

Treasury/DO .005

SYSTEM NAME:

Grievance Records—Treasury/DO.Description of change: Remove the

current entry and add the following:

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Department of the Treasury, 1500Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20220. These records are located inpersonnel or designated offices in thebureaus in which the grievances werefiled. The locations at which the systemis maintained are:

(1)a. Departmental Offices (DO): 1500Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20220.

b. The Office of Inspector General(OIG): 740 15th Street, NW, Washington,DC 20220.


(2) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms (ATF): 650 MassachusettsAvenue, NW, Washington, DC 20226.

(3) Office of the Comptroller of theCurrency (OCC): 250 E Street, NW,Washington, DC 20219–0001.

(4) United States Customs Service(CS): 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington DC 20229.

(5) Bureau of Engraving and Printing(BEP): 14th & C Streets, SW,Washington, DC 20228.

(6) Federal Law Enforcement TrainingCenter (FLETC): Glynco, Ga. 31524.

(7) Financial Management Service(FMS): 401 14th Street, SW,Washington, DC 20227.

(7) Internal Revenue Service (IRS):1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20224.

(8) United States Mint (MINT):Judiciary Square Building, 633–3rdStreet, NW Washington, DC 20220.

(9) Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD):999–E Street, NW, Washington, DC20239.

(10) United States Secret Service(USSS): 950 H Street, NW, Washington,DC 20001.

(11) Office of Thrift Supervision(OTS): 1700 G Street, NW.,Washington,DC 20552.* * * * *

Description of change: Immediatelypreceding the heading, ‘‘Routine Uses ofRecords Maintained in the SystemIncluding Categories of Users and thePurposes of Such Uses,’’ add thefollowing entry:

PURPOSE(S):To adjudicate employee

administrative grievances filed underthe authority of 5 CFR Part 771 and theDepartment’s Administrative GrievanceProcedure.* * * * *

Description of change: Remove thecurrent entry and add the following:

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Records pertaining to administrative

grievances filed at the Departmentallevel: Director, Office of PersonnelPolicy, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Metropolitan Square, Washington, DC20220. Records pertaining toadministrative grievances filed at thebureau level:

(1)a. DO: Chief, Personnel Resources,1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,Metropolitan Square, Washington, DC20220.

b. OIG: Personnel Officer, 740–15thSt. NW, Rm. 510, Washington, DC20220.

c. TIGTA: National Director, HumanResources, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW,Rm. 6408, TIGTA: MRS, Washington,DC 20224.

(2) ATF: Chief, Personnel Division,650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 4100,Washington, DC 20226.

(3) OCC: Director, Human Resources,250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC20219.

(4) Customs: Assistant Commissioner,Office of Human ResourcesManagement, Ronald Reagan Building,Room 2.4A, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20229.

(5) BEP: Chief, Office of HumanResources, 14th & C Streets, SW, Room202–13A, E&P Annex, Washington, DC20228.

(6) FLETC: Human Resources Officer,Glynco, GA 31524.

(7) FMS: Director, PersonnelManagement Division, 3700 East WestHwy, Room 115–F, Hyattsville, MD20782.

(8) IRS: Director, Office of WorkforceRelations (M:S:L) 1111 ConstitutionAve. NW, Room 1515IR, Washington,DC 20224.

(9) Mint: Assistant Director forHuman Resources, 801 9th Street, NW,6th Floor, Washington, DC 20220

(10) BPD: Director, Human ResourcesDivision, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg,WV 26106–1328.

(11) USSS: Chief, Personnel Division,950 H Street, NW, Suite 7000,Washington, DC 20373–5802.

(12) OTS: Director, Human ResourcesDivision, 2nd Floor, 1700 G Street, NW,Washington, DC 20552.’’* * * * *

Treasury/DO .010

SYSTEM NAME:

Office of Domestic Finance, ActuarialValuation System—Treasury/DO.* * * * *


PURPOSE(S):

Public Law 95–595 requires thatannual actuarial valuations beconducted for Federal retirementsystems. In order to satisfy thisrequirement, participant data must becollected so that liabilities for theForeign Service Retirement andDisability System and the ForeignService Pension System can beactuarially determined.* * * * *



Treasury/DO .060

SYSTEM NAME:Correspondence Files and Records on

Employee Complaints and/orDissatisfaction—Treasury/DO.* * * * *


PURPOSE(S):To maintain a record of

correspondence related to employeecomplaints filed with the DepartmentalOffice of Personnel Policy.* * * * *


SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Director, Office of Personnel Policy,

Department of the Treasury,Washington, DC 20220.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .149

SYSTEM NAME:Foreign Assets Control Legal Files—

Treasury/DO.* * * * *

Description of change: Immediatelypreceding the heading, ‘‘Routine Uses ofRecords Maintained in the SystemIncluding Categories of Users and thePurposes of Such Uses,’’ insert thefollowing entry:

PURPOSE(S):These records are maintained to assist

in providing legal advice to the Officeof Foreign Assets Control and theagency regarding issues of compliance,enforcement, investigation, andimplementation matters related to theOffice of Foreign Assets Control and thestatutes and regulations administered bythe agency. These records are alsomaintained to assist in litigation relatedto the Office of Foreign Assets Controland the statutes and regulationsadministered by the agency.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .156

SYSTEM NAME:Tax Court Judge Applicants—



PURPOSE(S):To maintain records about candidates

for appointment to the Tax Court inorder to make recommendations to thePresident.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .183

SYSTEM NAME:Private Relief Tax Bill Files—



PURPOSE(S):The files of private relief tax bills

contain records of policy positions andissues involved in Congressional privaterelief tax bills.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .190

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: REMOVE THE CURRENTTITLE ‘‘GENERAL ALLEGATIONS ANDINVESTIGATIVE RECORDS—TREASURY/DO.’’ ANDADD THE FOLLOWING:

SYSTEM NAME:Investigation Data Management

System—Treasury/DO.Description of change: Remove the


SYSTEM LOCATION:Office of Inspector General (OIG),

Assistant Inspector General forInvestigations, 740 15th St., NW, Suite500, Washington, DC 20220; FieldOffices in Alexandria, VA; Marlton, NJ;Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; SanDiego, CA; Miami, FL, and Chicago, IL.Addresses may be obtained from thesystem manager.* * * * *


SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Assistant Inspector General for

Investigations, 740 15th St., NW, Suite500, Washington, DC 20220.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .191

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: REMOVE THE CURRENTTITLE ‘‘OIG MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM(MIS)’’ AND ADD THE FOLLOWING:

SYSTEM NAME:Human Resources and Administrative

Records System—Treasury/DO.* * * * *


CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:(1) Personnel system records contain

OIG employee name, office, start ofemployment, series/grade, title,separation date; (2) Tracking recordscontain status information on audits,investigations and other projects frompoint of request or annual planningthrough follow-up and closure; (3)Timekeeping records contain assignedprojects and distribution of time; (4)Equipment inventory records containassigned equipment; (5) Travel recordscontain dates, type of travel and costs;(6) Training records contain dates, titleof training, and costs.* * * * *


PURPOSE(S):The purpose of the system is to: (1)

manage effectively OIG resources andprojects; (2) capture accurate statisticaldata for mandated reports to theSecretary of the Treasury, the Congress,the Office of Management and Budget,the General Accounting Office, thePresident’s Council on Integrity andEfficiency and other Federal agencies;and (3) provide accurate informationcritical to the OIG’s daily operation,including employee performance andconduct.* * * * *


SAFEGUARDS:Access is limited to OIG employees

who have a need for such informationin the course of their work. A centralnetwork server is password protected byaccount name and user password.Access to records on magnetic media iscontrolled by computer passwords.Access to specific system records isfurther limited and controlled bycomputer security programs limitingaccess to authorized personnel.* * * * *


SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Assistant Inspector General for

Management Services, 740 15th St. NW,Suite 510, Washington, D. C. 20220.* * * * *

Description of change: Remove thecurrent entries and add the following:

APPENDIX A—ADDRESSES OF OIG OFFICES.HEADQUARTERS: Department of the

Treasury, Office of Inspector General,Office of the Assistant Inspector Generalfor Management Services, 740 15thStreet, NW, Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20220.



FIELD LOCATIONS: Contact SystemManager for addresses.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, (Offices of Audit andInvestigations), El Segundo, CA 90245–4320.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Office ofInvestigations, San Diego, CA 92101.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Office of Audit, SanFrancisco, CA 94105.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Offices of Audit andInvestigations, Miami, FL 33166–7710.

Department of the Treasury, Offices ofAudit and Investigations, Chicago, IL60690.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Office of Audit,Indianapolis, IN 46278.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Office of Audit, NewOrleans, LA 70130.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Office of Audit,Boston, MA 02110.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Offices of Audit andInvestigations, Marlton, NJ 08053.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Offices of Audit andInvestigations, Houston, TX 77057.

Department of the Treasury, Office ofInspector General, Office ofInvestigations, Alexandria, VA 22314.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .193

SYSTEM NAME:

Employee Locator and AutomatedDirectory System—Treasury/DO.* * * * *


PURPOSE(S):

The Employee Locator andAutomated Directory System ismaintained for the purpose of providingcurrent locator and emergencyinformation on all DO employees.* * * * *


RETRIEVABILITY:

Indexed by name.* * * * *


SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Manager, Telephone Operator

Services Branch, 1500 PennsylvaniaAve., NW, Washington, DC 20220.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .200

SYSTEM NAME:FinCEN Data Base—Treasury/DO.

* * * * *Description of change: Immediately

preceding the heading, ‘‘Routine Uses ofRecords Maintained in the SystemIncluding Categories of Users and thePurposes of Such Uses,’’ add thefollowing entry:

PURPOSE(S):The purpose of this system of records

is to support FinCEN’s efforts to providea government-wide, multi-sourceintelligence and analytical network tosupport the detection, investigation, andprosecution of domestic andinternational money laundering andother financial crimes, and otherdomestic and international criminal,tax, and regulatory matters.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .210

SYSTEM NAME:Treasury Integrated Financial

Management and Revenue System—Treasury/DO


SYSTEM LOCATION:Department of the Treasury, 1500

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20220. The locations at which thesystem is maintained by Treasurycomponents and their associated fieldoffices are:

(1) a. Departmental Offices (DO): 1500Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20220.

b. The Office of Inspector General(OIG): 740 15th Street, NW, Washington,D. C. 20220.


(2) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms (ATF): 650 MassachusettsAvenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20226.


(4) United States Customs Service(CS): 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington D.C. 20229.

(5) Bureau of Engraving and Printing(BEP): 14th & C Streets, SW,Washington, D.C. 20228.


(7) Financial Management Service(FMS): 401 14th Street, SW,Washington, D.C. 20227.

(7) Internal Revenue Service (IRS):1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, D.C. 20224.

(8) United States Mint (MINT):Judiciary Square Building, 633–3rdStreet, NW Washington, D.C. 20220.

(9) Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD):999–E Street, NW, Washington, D.C.20239.

(10) United States Secret Service(USSS): 950 H Street, NW, Washington,D.C. 20001.

(11) Office of Thrift Supervision(OTS): 1700 G Street, NW.,Washington,D.C. 20552.* * * * *

Description of change: Remove thecurrent entry for the Assistant InspectorGeneral for Resources and replace itwith the following:* * * * *

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:OIG: Assistant Inspector General for

Management Services, 740 15th St. NW.,Suite 510, Washington, DC 20220.* * * * *

Treasury/DO .211

SYSTEM NAME:Telephone Call Detail Records—

Treasury/DODescription of change: Remove the


SYSTEM LOCATION:Department of the Treasury, 1500

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20220. The locations at which thesystem is maintained by Treasurycomponents and their associated fieldoffices are:

(1) a. Departmental Offices (DO): 1500Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20220.

b. The Office of Inspector General(OIG): 740 15th Street, NW, Washington,D. C. 20220.


(2) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms (ATF): 650 MassachusettsAvenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20226.


(4) United States Customs Service(CS): 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington D.C. 20229.

(5) Bureau of Engraving and Printing(BEP): 14th & C Streets, SW,Washington, D.C. 20228.




(7) Financial Management Service(FMS): 401 14th Street, SW,Washington, D.C. 20227.

(7) Internal Revenue Service (IRS):1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, D.C. 20224.

(8) United States Mint (MINT):Judiciary Square Building, 633–3rdStreet, NW Washington, D.C. 20220.

(9) Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD):999–E Street, NW, Washington, D.C.20239.

(10) United States Secret Service(USSS): 950 H Street, NW, Washington,D.C. 20001.

(11) Office of Thrift Supervision(OTS): 1700 G Street, NW.,Washington,D.C. 20552.* * * * *

Description of change: Remove thecurrent entry for the OIG and replace itwith the following:* * * * *

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

* * * * *Assistant Inspector General for

Management Services, 740 15th St. NW.,Suite 510, Washington, DC 20220.* * * * *[FR Doc. 00–22261 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810–25–P


Internal Revenue Service

Privacy Act of 1974, As Amended;System of Records

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,Treasury.ACTION: Notice of proposed new privacyact system of records.

SUMMARY: In accordance with therequirements of the Privacy Act of 1974,as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, theDepartment of the Treasury, InternalRevenue Service, gives notice of aproposed new system of records entitled‘‘Treasury/IRS 22.062—Electronic FilingRecords.’’DATES: Comments must be received nolater than October 2, 2000. This newsystem of records will be effectiveOctober 10, 2000 unless the IRS receivescomments which would result in acontrary determination.ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent tothe Office of Governmental Liaison andDisclosure, Internal Revenue Service,1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20224. Comments willbe made available for inspection andcopying in the Freedom of InformationReading Room (1621) at the aboveaddress, upon request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:JoAnn Blank, National Director,Individual Electronic Filing Division,Electronic Tax Administration,OP:ETA:I, Internal Revenue Service,5000 Ellin Road, Lanham, MD 20706.Telephone number (202) 283–4790.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Theproposed system will allow the IRS tobetter serve the public through moreefficient administration of electronicfiling of returns. The proposed systemwill include records about current, past,and potential electronic filing providers,and records concerning marketing andimproving electronic filing processes.Records about electronic providers willbe used to determine their suitability toparticipate in the electronic filingprogram. Certain records will concernwhy electronic providers have beenrejected from participation, includingthe reasons for such rejection, or forsuspension or expulsion fromparticipation. Electronic providers areelectronic return originators, electronicreturn transmitters, and individualfiling software developers. Potentialelectronic filing providers areindividuals to whom the IRS wants tomarket the benefits of becoming anelectronic filing provider. An electronicreturn originator is: (a) An electronicreturn preparer who prepares returns fortaxpayers who intend to have theirreturns electronically filed, or (b) anelectronic return collector who acceptscompleted tax returns, including Forms8453 (U.S. Individual Income TaxDeclaration for Electronic Filing), fromtaxpayers who intend to have theirreturns electronically filed. Anelectronic return transmitter transmitsthe electronic portion of a returndirectly to the IRS. In order to protectthe public interest, IRS conductsbackground investigations of peoplewho apply to file returns electronicallyfor others. Principals of firms ororganizations who want toelectronically file for others must fileIRS Form 8633 (Application toParticipate in the Electronic FilingProgram). The information from Form8633 will be used for backgroundchecks, which may include fingerprintchecks and inquiries to the FBI askingwhether the applicant has a criminalhistory. Records in the system willinclude records with information frompeople who volunteer their opinionsconcerning how to improve electronicfiling procedures and ease of use.Records may also include informationabout people who attend seminars orotherwise express an interest inelectronic filing so they can receive

information about the benefits ofelectronic filing.

The proposed new system of recordsentitled ‘‘Electronic Filing Records—Treasury/IRS 22.062’’ is published in itsentirety below.

Dated: August 23, 2000.W. Earl Wright, Jr.,Director, Management and AdministrativePrograms.

Treasury/IRS 22.062

SYSTEM NAME:

Electronic Filing Records—Treasury/IRS.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

IRS National Office, District Offices,Service Centers, and ComputingCenters. (See IRS Appendix A foraddresses.)

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THESYSTEM:

Electronic return providers (electronicreturn preparers, electronic returncollectors, electronic return originators,electronic filing transmitters, individualfiling software developers) who haveapplied to participate, are participating,or have been rejected, expelled orsuspended from participation in theelectronic filing program (includingVolunteer Income Tax Assistance(VITA) volunteers). Individuals whoattend, or have indicated interest inattending, seminars and marketingprograms to encourage electronic filingand improve electronic filing programs(including individuals who provideopinions or suggestions to improveelectronic filing programs), or whootherwise indicate interest inparticipating in electronic filingprograms.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

Records pertaining to individualelectronic filing providers includingapplications to participate in electronicfiling, credit reports, conduct reports,law enforcement records, and otherinformation from investigations intosuitability for participation. Recordspertaining to marketing electronic filing,including surveys and opinions aboutimproving electronic filing programs.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

5 U.S.C. 301; 26 U.S.C. 6011, 6012,and 7803.

PURPOSES(S):

This system will maintain records foradministration and marketing ofelectronic filing programs.



ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THESYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS ANDTHE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

Disclosure of returns and returninformation may be made only asprovided by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Records other than returns and returninformation may be used to:

(1) Disclose pertinent information toappropriate Federal, state, or foreignagencies or instrumentalitiesresponsible for investigating orprosecuting the violations of, or forimplementing, a statute, rule,regulation, order, or license, where thedisclosing agency becomes aware of aviolation or potential violation of civilor criminal law or regulation orlicensing requirements;

(2) Disclose information to a Federal,state, or local agency maintaining civil,criminal, or other relevant enforcementinformation or other pertinentinformation, which has requestedinformation relevant to or necessary tothe requesting agency’s or the bureau’shiring or retention of an individual, orissuance of a security clearance, license,contract, grant, or other benefit;

(3) Disclose information in aproceeding before a court, adjudicativebody, or other administrative bodybefore which the agency is authorized toappear when: (a) The agency, or (b) anyemployee of the agency in his or herofficial capacity, or (c) any employee ofthe agency in his or her individualcapacity where the Department ofJustice or the agency has agreed torepresent the employee; or (d) theUnited States, when the agencydetermines that litigation is likely toaffect the agency, is a party to litigationor has an interest in such litigation, andthe use of such records by the agency isdeemed to be relevant and necessary tothe litigation or administrativeproceeding and not otherwiseprivileged;

(4) Provide information to acongressional office in response to aninquiry made at the request of theindividual to whom the record pertains;

(5) Provide information to thirdparties during the course of aninvestigation to the extent necessary toobtain information that is pertinent tothe investigation, including creditbureaus for credit checks andfingerprint records to the FBI or otherlaw enforcement agencies;

(6) Provide information to the newsmedia in accordance with guidelinescontained in 28 CFR 50.2 which relateto an agency’s functions relating to civiland criminal proceedings;

(7) Provide information to contractorsfor use in contracted services forelectronic filing programs;

(8) Disclose information to statetaxing authorities to promote joint andstate electronic filing, includingmarketing such programs and enforcingthe legal and administrativerequirements of such programs;

(9) Disclose to the public theidentities (including addresses) ofelectronic return originators, electronicreturn preparers, electronic returntransmitters, and individual filingsoftware developers, who have beensuspended, removed, or otherwisedisciplined. The Service may alsodisclose the effective date and durationof the suspension, removal, or otherdisciplinary action;

(10) Disclose information to a court,magistrate, or administrative tribunal inthe course of presenting evidence,including disclosures to opposingcounsel or witnesses in the course ofcivil discovery, litigation, or settlementnegotiations or in connection withcriminal law proceedings or in responseto a subpoena.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:Paper and magnetic media.

RETRIEVABILITY:By electronic filing provider name or

tax identification number (SSN, EIN,EFIN, PTIN) or document controlnumber (DCN).

SAFEGUARDS:Access controls will not be less than

those provided for by the Manager’sSecurity Handbook, IRM 1(16)12, andthe Automated Information SystemSecurity Handbook, IRM 2.10.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Records are maintained in accordance

with Records Disposition Handbook,IRM 1.15.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Official prescribing policies and

practices: Assistant Commissioner(Electronic Tax Administration).Officials maintaining the system:Assistant Commissioner (Electronic TaxAdministration), Business SystemsModernization Executive/ChiefInformation Officer, RegionalCommissioners, District Directors, IRSSubmission Processing Center Directors,Customer Service Center Directors,Computing Center Directors. (See IRSAppendix A for addresses.)

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:Individuals wishing to be notified if

they are named in this system ofrecords, or to gain access to records

maintained in the system of records mayinquire in accordance with instructionsappearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C,appendix B. Inquiries should beaddressed to the appropriate officialmaintaining the system (above).

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:See ‘‘Notification procedure’’ above.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:26 U.S.C. 7852(e) prohibits Privacy

Act amendment of tax records. See‘‘Notification procedure’’ above forseeking amendment to records that arenot tax records.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Information in this system is obtained

from the following sources: (1)Electronic filing providers; (2)informants and third party information;(3) city and state governments; (4) IRSand other Federal agencies; (5)professional organizations; (6) businessentities; and (7) participants inmarketing efforts or who have otherwiseindicated interest in electronic filingprograms.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:None.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANSAFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900–0365]

Proposed Information CollectionActivity: Proposed Collection;Comment Request

AGENCY: National CemeteryAdministration, Department of VeteransAffairs.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National CemeteryAdministration (NCA), Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA), is announcing anopportunity for public comment on theproposed collection of certaininformation by the agency. Under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of1995, Federal agencies are required topublish notice in the Federal Registerconcerning each proposed collection ofinformation, including each proposedrevision of a currently approvedcollection and allow 60 days for publiccomment in response to the notice. Thisnotice solicits comments on theinformation needed to request removalof remains from a national cemetery forinterment at another location.DATES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposed



collection of information should bereceived on or before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information toJoycelyn Hearn, National CemeteryAdministration (402B), Department ofVeterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,NW., Washington, DC 20420. Pleaserefer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0365’’in any correspondence.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Joycelyn Hearn at (202) 273–5181 orFAX (202) 273–6695.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under thePRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44U.S.C., 3501 ? 3520), Federal agenciesmust obtain approval from the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for eachcollection of information they conductor sponsor. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to Section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the followingcollection of information, NCA invitescomments on: (1) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of NCA?sfunctions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(2) the accuracy of NCA?s estimate ofthe burden of the proposed collection ofinformation; (3) ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4)ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orthe use of other forms of informationtechnology.

Title: Request for Disinterment, VAForm 40–4970.

OMB Control Number: 2900–0365.Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.Abstract: VA Form 40–4970 allows a

person who has a sincere wish andcogent reason to request removal ofremains from a national cemetery forinterment at another location. VA Form40–4970 is an affidavit that requiressignatories to execute the documentbefore a notary. Interments made innational cemeteries are permanent andfinal. Disinterments will be permittedfor cogent reasons, and then with priorwritten authorization only, usually bythe Cemetery Director. Approval can begranted when all immediate familymembers of the decedent, including theperson who initiated the interment, givetheir written consent. An order from acourt of local jurisdiction can beaccepted in lieu of submitting VA form40–4970.

Affected Public: Individuals orhouseholds.

Estimated Annual Burden: 55.

Estimated Average Burden PerRespondent: 10 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.Estimated Number of Respondents:

329.Dated: August 1, 2000.

By direction of the Acting Secretary.Donald L. Neilson,Director, Information Management Service.[FR Doc. 00–22276 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–P




AGENCY: Veterans BenefitsAdministration, Department of VeteransAffairs.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Veterans BenefitsAdministration (VBA), Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA), is announcing anopportunity for public comment on theproposed collection of certaininformation by the agency. Under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of1995, Federal agencies are required topublish notice in the Federal Registerconcerning each proposed collection ofinformation, including each proposedextension of a currently approvedcollection for which approval hasexpired, and allow 60 days for publiccomment in response to the notice. Thisnotice solicits comments on informationneeded by lenders to determine whetherany benefits related debts exist in theveteran-borrower’s name prior to theclosing of any VA-guaranteed loans ona automatic basis.DATES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposedcollection of information should bereceived on or before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information toNancy J. Kessinger, Veterans BenefitsAdministration (20S52), Department ofVeterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20420. Please referto ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0406’’ inany correspondence.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273–7079 orFAX (202) 275–5947.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under thePRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44U.S.C., 3501–3520), Federal agenciesmust obtain approval from the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for eachcollection of information they conduct

or sponsor. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to Section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the followingcollection of information, VBA invitescomments on: (1) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of VBA’sfunctions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation; (3) ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4)ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orthe use of other forms of informationtechnology.

Title: Verification of VA Benefit-Related Indebtedness, VA Form 26–8937.

OMB Control Number: 2900–0406.Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.Abstract: Lenders authorized to make

VA-guaranteed home or manufacturedloans on the automatic basis have beenrequired to determine through VAwhether any benefits related debts existin the veteran-borrower’s name prior tothe closing of any automatic loan.Lenders may not close any proposedautomatic loan until they have evidencefrom VA that there is no debt, or if adebt exists, or the veteran has agreed onan acceptable repayment plan, orpayments under a plan already in effectare current. The form also providesinformation advising the lender whetheror not the veteran is exempt from payingthe funding fee, which must becollected on all VA home loans unlessthe veteran is receiving service-connected disability compensation. Thisbenefits the lender by streamlining theprocedure to verify the veteran’s receiptof compensation. VA Form 26–8937 isdesigned to assist lenders and VA in thecompletion of debt checks in a uniformmanner.


Estimated Annual Burden: 6,250hours.



75,000.Dated: July 19, 2000.

By direction of the Secretary.Donald L. Neilson,Director, Information Management Service.[FR Doc. 00–22277 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–P







SUMMARY: The Veterans BenefitsAdministration (VBA), Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA), is announcing anopportunity for public comment on theproposed collection of certaininformation by the agency. Under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of1995, Federal agencies are required topublish notice in the Federal Registerconcerning each proposed collection ofinformation, including reinstatement,without change, of a previouslyapproved collection for which approvalhas expired, and allow 60 days forpublic comment in response to thenotice. This notice solicits comments onthe information needed to determineentitlement to income-dependentbenefits.DATES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposedcollection of information should bereceived on or before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information toNancy J. Kessinger, Veterans BenefitsAdministration (20S52), Department ofVeterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,NW., Washington, DC 20420. Pleaserefer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0518’’in any correspondence.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273–7079 orFAX (202) 275–5947.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under thePRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44U.S.C., 3501–3520), Federal agenciesmust obtain approval from the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for eachcollection of information they conductor sponsor. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to Section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the followingcollection of information, VBA invitescomments on: (1) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of VBA’sfunctions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation; (3) ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4)

ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orthe use of other forms of informationtechnology.

Title: Income Verification, VA Form21–0161a.

OMB Control Number: 2900–0518.Type of Review: Reinstatement,

without change, of a previouslyapproved collection for which approvalhas expired.

Abstract: VA’s compensation andpension programs require the accuratereporting of income by those who are inreceipt of income-dependent benefits.VA Form 21–0161 solicits informationfrom employers of beneficiaries whohave been identified has havinginaccurately reported their income toVA.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms;and State, Local, or Tribal Government.




114,000.Dated: August 8, 2000.






SUMMARY: The Veterans BenefitsAdministration (VBA), Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA), is announcing anopportunity for public comment on theproposed collection of certaininformation by the agency. Under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of1995, Federal agencies are required topublish notice in the Federal Registerconcerning each proposed collection ofinformation, including eachreinstatement, without change, of apreviously approved collection forwhich approval has expired, and allow60 days for public comment in response

to the notice. This notice solicitscomments for information needed tounderwrite VA-guaranteed loans.DATES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposedcollection of information should bereceived on or before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information toNancy J. Kessinger, Veterans BenefitsAdministration (20S52), Department ofVeterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,NW., Washington, DC 20420. Pleaserefer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0521’’in any correspondence.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273–7079 orFAX (202) 275–5947.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under thePRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44U.S.C., 3501–3520), Federal agenciesmust obtain approval from the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for eachcollection of information they conductor sponsor. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to Section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the followingcollection of information, VBA invitescomments on: (1) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of VBA’sfunctions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation; (3) ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4)ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orthe use of other forms of informationtechnology.

Title: Credit Underwriting Standardsand Procedures for Processing VAGuaranteed Loans.



Abstract: VA set forth, in regulatoryform, standards to be used by lenders inunderwriting VA-guaranteed loans andto obtain credit information. Lendersmust collect certain specific informationconcerning the veteran and the veteran’scredit history (and spouse or other co-borrower, as applicable), in order toproperly underwrite the veteran’s loan.A loan may not be guaranteed unless theveteran is a satisfactory credit risk. VArequires the lender to provide theDepartment with the credit informationto assure itself that applications for VA-



guaranteed loans are underwritten in areasonable and prudent manner.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, and Individuals or households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1 hour.Frequency of Response: On occasion.Estimated Number of Respondents:

200,000.

Dated: August 23, 2000.By direction of the Acting Secretary.Donald L. Neilson,Director, Information Management Service.[FR Doc. 00–22279 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–P



Proposed Information CollectionActivity; Proposed Collection;Comment Request

AGENCY: Veterans HealthAdministration, Department of VeteransAffairs.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Veterans HealthAdministration (VHA) is announcing anopportunity for public comment on theproposed collection of certaininformation by the agency. Under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of1995, Federal agencies are required topublish notice in the Federal Registerconcerning each proposed collection ofinformation, including each proposedreinstatement, without change, of apreviously approved collection forwhich approval has expired, and allow60 days for public comment in responseto the notice. This notice solicitscomments on the information needed todetermine which applicants are eligibleto receive a grant and/or per diem forthe homeless.DATES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposedcollection of information should bereceived on or before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information to AnnBickoff, Veterans Health Administration(193B1), Department of Veterans Affairs,810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington,DC 20420. Please refer to ‘‘OMB ControlNo. 2900–0554’’ in any correspondence.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AnnBickoff at (202) 273–8310.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under thePRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44U.S.C., 3501–3520), Federal agenciesmust obtain approval from the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for eachcollection of information they conduct

or sponsor. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to Section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the followingcollection of information, VHA invitescomments on: (1) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of VHA’sfunctions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(2) the accuracy of VHA’s estimate ofthe burden of the proposed collection ofinformation; (3) ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4)ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orthe use of other forms of informationtechnology.

Title: Homeless Provider Grant andPer Diem Program, VA Form 10–0361.



Abstract: VA requires the applicantfor grants and/or per diem to submitinformation that assists in thedetermination of funds to be awarded.The requested information addresses theability of the organization to effectivelyadminister a program and requires theorganization to demonstrate the qualityof the project, how the homelessveterans will be targeted, the need forthe program, the coordination withother agencies, and the project’s costeffectiveness. If this information werenot collected, VA would not be able toimplement the provisions of public Law102–592 in a responsible manner.

Affected Public: Not–for–profitinstitutions—State, Local or TribalGovernments.


Estimated Average Burden PerRespondent: 35 hours.


1,110.


Donald L. Neilson,Director, Information Management Service.[FR Doc. 00–22280 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]





AGENCY: National CemeteryAdministration, Department of VeteransAffairsACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National CemeteryAdministration (NCA), Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA), is announcing anopportunity for public comment on theproposed collection of certaininformation by the agency. Under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of1995, Federal agencies are required topublish notice in the Federal Registerconcerning each proposed collection ofinformation, including each proposedextension of a currently approvedcollection and allow 60 days for publiccomment in response to the notice. Thisnotice solicits comments on theinformation needed to requestadditional certificates, replacements orcorrections to a President MemorialCertificate (PMC).DATES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposedcollection of information should bereceived on or before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information toJoycelyn Hearn, National CemeteryAdministration (402B), Department ofVeterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20420. Please referto ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0567’’ inany correspondence.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Joycelyn Hearn at (202) 273–5181 orFAX (202) 273–6695.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under thePRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44U.S.C., 3501–3520), Federal agenciesmust obtain approval from the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for eachcollection of information they conductor sponsor. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to Section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the followingcollection of information, NCA invitescomments on: (1) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of NCA’sfunctions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(2) the accuracy of NCA’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation; (3) ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4)



ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orthe use of other forms of informationtechnology.

Title: PMC Insert, VA Form 40–0247.OMB Control Number: 2900–0567.Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.Abstract: The purpose of the PMC

Insert is to allow an eligible recipient,which includes the next of kin, otherrelatives or friends, i.e., survivingspouses, sons, daughters, grandchildren,and others, to request additionalcertificates and/or replacements orcorrected certificates upon receipt of theoriginal PMC. Replacements arerequested due to the PMCs being bent,water soaked, or other damaged duringmail handling; corrected PMCs arerequested due to an incorrect name ofthe deceased veteran. The PMC is a goldfoiled-embossed certificate containingthe Great Seal of the United States andbearing the President’s signature. It ismailed to relatives and friends ofdeceased, honorably dischargedveterans honoring their military serviceto our Nation. In most cases involvingrecent deaths, the local VA RegionalOffice originates the application processwithout a request from the next of kinas part of processing death benefitsclaims.

The PMC Insert is not self-initiated bythe general public/eligible recipients.There is no form or application that isused to initiate an original request.Original requests are normally in theform of letters and/or telephone callsfrom eligible recipients.


Estimated Annual Burden: 1,298.Estimated Average Burden Per

Respondent: 2 minutes.Frequency of Response: On occasion.Estimated Number of Respondents:

38,952.







SUMMARY: The Veterans BenefitsAdministration (VBA), Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA), is announcing anopportunity for public comment on theproposed collection of certaininformation by the agency. Under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of1995, Federal agencies are required topublish notice in the Federal Registerconcerning each proposed collection ofinformation, including reinstatement,without change, of a previouslyapproved collection for which approvalhas expired, and allow 60 days forpublic comment in response to thenotice. This notice solicits comments onthe form used to provide information toa child of a Vietnam veteran with SpinaBifida of potential entitlements to VAhealth care and vocational trainingprograms.DATES: Written comments andrecommendations on the proposedcollection of information should bereceived on or before October 30, 2000.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information toNancy J. Kessinger, Veterans BenefitsAdministration (20S52), Department ofVeterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20420. Please referto ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0518’’ inany correspondence.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273–7079 orFAX (202) 275–5947.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under thePRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44U.S.C., 3501–3520), Federal agenciesmust obtain approval from the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for eachcollection of information they conductor sponsor. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to section3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the followingcollection of information, VBA invitescomments on: (1) whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of VBA’sfunctions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation; (3) ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4)ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orthe use of other forms of informationtechnology.

Title: Spina Bifida Award AttachmentImportant Information, VA Form 21–0307.

OMB Control Number: 2900–0577.Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.Abstract: VA Form 21–0307 is used to

provide children of Vietnam veteranswith Spina Bifida with informationabout VA health care and vocationaltraining and gives steps they must taketo apply for such benefits.


Estimated Annual Burden: 500 hours.Estimated Average Burden Per

Respondent: 15 minutes.Frequency of Response: On occasion.Estimated Number of Respondents:

2,000.Dated: August 8, 2000.By direction of the Acting Secretary.

Donald L. Neilson,Director, Information Management Service.[FR Doc. 00–22282 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–P


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains editorial corrections of previouslypublished Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,and Notice documents. These corrections areprepared by the Office of the FederalRegister. Agency prepared corrections areissued as signed documents and appear inthe appropriate document categorieselsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

53095

Vol. 65, No. 170

Thursday, August 31, 2000.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

28 CFR Part 2

Paroling, Recommitting, andSupervising Federal Prisoners:Prisoners Serving Sentences Underthe District of Columbia Code

Correction

In rule document 00–18602 beginningon page 45885 in the issue of

Wednesday, July 26, 2000, make thefollowing correction:

§2.80 [Corrected]

On page 45893, in §2.80(h), in thefirst column, in the fifth line, starting at‘‘Total Points GuidelineRecommendation’’ and continuing tothe third column, ending with‘‘appropriate action:’’, should beremoved.

[FR Doc. C0–18602 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:51 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4734 Sfmt 4734 E:\FR\FM\31AUCX.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 31AUCX

Thursday,

August 31, 2000

Part II

State Justice InstituteGrant Guideline; Notice



STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

Grant Guideline

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.ACTION: Proposed Grant Guideline.

SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth theadministrative, programmatic, andfinancial requirements attendant toFiscal Year 2001 State Justice Institutegrants, cooperative agreements, andcontracts.

DATES: The Institute invites publiccomment on the Guideline until October2, 2000.ADDRESSES: Comments should bemailed to the State Justice Institute,1650 King Street (Suite 600),Alexandria, VA 22314 or e-mailed [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, orKathy Schwartz, Deputy Director, StateJustice Institute, 1650 King Street (Suite600), Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 684–6100.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuantto the State Justice Institute Act of 1984,42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as amended,the Institute is authorized to awardgrants, cooperative agreements, andcontracts to State and local courts,nonprofit organizations, and others forthe purpose of improving the quality ofjustice in the State courts of the UnitedStates.

Types of Grants Available and FundingSchedules

The SJI grant program is designed tobe responsive to the most importantneeds of the State courts. To meet thefull range of the courts’ diverse needs,the Institute offers five differentcategories of grants. The types of grantsavailable in FY 2001 and the fundingcycles for each program are providedbelow:

Project Grants. These grants areawarded to support innovativeeducation, research, demonstration, andtechnical assistance projects that canimprove the administration of justice inState courts nationwide. Except for‘‘Single Jurisdiction’’ project grantsawarded under section II.D. (see below),project grants are intended to supportinnovative projects of nationalsignificance. As provided in sectionV.C.1. of the Guideline, project grantsmay ordinarily not exceed $200,000 ayear; however, grants in excess of$150,000 are likely to be rare, andawarded only to support projects likelyto have a significant national impact.

Applicants must submit a conceptpaper (see section VI.) and, ordinarily,

an application (see section VII.) in orderto obtain a project grant. As indicated inSection VI.C.1., the Board may make an‘‘accelerated’’ grant of less than $40,000on the basis of the concept paper alonewhen the need for the project is clearand little additional information aboutthe operation of the project would beprovided in an application.

The FY 2001 mailing deadline forproject grant concept papers isNovember 22, 2000. Papers must bepostmarked or bear other evidence ofsubmission by that date. The Board ofDirectors will meet in early March 2001to invite formal applications based onthe most promising concept papers.Applications must be sent by April 25,2001 and awards will be approved bythe Board in early July. See sectionVII.A. for Project Grant applicationprocedures.

Single Jurisdiction Project Grants.Section II.D. reserves up to $300,000 forprojects addressing a critical need of asingle state or local jurisdiction. Toreceive a grant under this program, anapplicant must demonstrate that (1) theproposed project is essential to meetinga critical need of the jurisdiction and (2)the need cannot be met solely with Stateand local resources within theforeseeable future (sections II.D.1. and2.). See section VII.A. for SingleJurisdiction Grant applicationprocedures.

Technical Assistance Grants. SectionII.E. reserves up to $400,000 forTechnical Assistance Grants. Under thisprogram, a State or local court mayreceive a grant of up to $30,000 toengage outside experts to providetechnical assistance to diagnose,develop, and implement a response to ajurisdiction’s problems.

Letters of application for a TechnicalAssistance grant may be submitted atany time. Applicants submitting lettersbetween June 12 and September 29,2000 will be notified of the Board’sdecision by December 8, 2000; thosesubmitting letters between September30, 2000 and January 12, 2001 will benotified by March 23, 2001; thosesubmitting letters between January 13,2001 and March 9, 2001 will be notifiedby May 11, 2001; and those submittingletters between March 10, 2001 and June8, 2001 will be notified by August 3,2001. Applicants submitting lettersbetween June 9 and September 28, 2001will be notified of the Board’s decisionby December 15, 2001. See sectionVII.D. for Technical Assistance Grantapplication procedures.

Curriculum Adaptation Grants. Agrant of up to $20,000 may be awardedto a State or local court to replicate ormodify a model training program

developed with SJI funds. TheGuideline allocates up to $200,000 forthese grants in FY 2001.

Letters requesting CurriculumAdaptation grants may be submitted atany time during the fiscal year.However, in order to permit the Institutesufficient time to evaluate theseproposals, letters must be submitted nolater than 90 days before the projecteddate of the training program. See sectionVII.E. for Curriculum Adaptation Grantapplication procedures.

Scholarships. The Guideline allocatesup to $200,000 of FY 2001 funds forscholarships to enable judges and courtmanagers to attend out-of-Stateeducation and training programs.

Scholarships for eligible applicantsare approved largely on a ‘‘first come,first served’’ basis, although the Institutemay approve or disapprove scholarshiprequests in order to achieve appropriatebalances on the basis of geography,program provider, and type of court orapplicant (e.g., trial judge, appellatejudge, trial court administrator).Scholarships will be approved only forprograms that either (1) address topicsincluded in the Guideline’s SpecialInterest categories (section II.B.); (2)enhance the skills of judges and courtmanagers; or (3) are part of a graduateprogram for judges or court personnel.

Applicants interested in obtaining ascholarship for a program beginningbetween January 1 and March 31, 2001must submit their applications and anyrequired accompanying documentsbetween October 2 and December 1,2000. For programs beginning betweenApril 1 and June 30, 2001, theapplications and documents must besubmitted between January 5 and March5, 2001. For programs beginningbetween July 1 and September 30, 2001,the applications and documents must besubmitted between April 2 and June 1,2001. For programs beginning betweenOctober 1 and December 31, 2001, theapplications and documents must besubmitted between July 5 andSeptember 3, 2001. For programsbeginning between January 1 and March31, 2002, the applications anddocuments must be submitted betweenOctober 2 and November 30, 2001. Seesection VII.F for Scholarship applicationprocedures.

Continuation and Ongoing SupportGrants. Continuation grants (seesections III.F., V.B.2., and VII.B.) areintended to enhance the specificprogram or service begun during theinitial grant period. Ongoing supportgrants (see sections III.P., V.B.3., andVII.C.) may be awarded for up to a three-year period to support national-scopeprojects that provide the State courts



with critically needed services,programs, or products.

The Guideline establishes a target forcontinuation and ongoing supportgrants of approximately 25% of the totalamount projected to be available forgrants in FY 2001. Grantees shouldaccordingly be aware that the award ofa grant to support a project does notconstitute a commitment to provideeither continuation funding or ongoingsupport.

An applicant for a continuation orongoing support grant must submit aletter notifying the Institute of its intentto seek such funding, no later than 120days before the end of the current grantperiod. The Institute will then notify theapplicant of the deadline for submissionof its grant application.

Special Interest Categories

The Guideline includes nine SpecialInterest categories, i.e., those projectareas that the Board has identified asbeing of particular importance to theState courts this year. The selection ofthese categories was based on the Boardand staff’s experience and observationsover the past year; the recommendationsreceived from judges, court managers,lawyers, members of the public, andother groups interested in theadministration of justice; and the issuesidentified in recent years’ conceptpapers and applications.

Section II.B. of the ProposedGuideline includes the followingSpecial Interest categories: ImprovingPublic Confidence in the Courts;Education and Training for Judges andOther Key Court Personnel; DisputeResolution and the Courts; Applicationof Technology; Court Planning,Management, and Financing; SubstanceAbuse; Children and Families in Court;Improving the Courts’ Response toDomestic Violence; and TheRelationship Between State and FederalCourts.

Recommendations to Grantwriters

Recommendations to Grantwritersmay be found in Appendix A.

The following Grant Guideline isproposed by the State Justice Institutefor FY 2001:

Table of Contents

I. The Mission of the State Justice InstituteII. Scope of the ProgramIII. DefinitionsIV. Eligibility for AwardV. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of

AwardsVI. Concept PapersVII. ApplicationsVIII. Application Review ProceduresIX. Compliance RequirementsX. Financial Requirements

XI. Grant AdjustmentsAppendix A—Recommendations to Grant

WritersAppendix B—Questions Frequently Asked by

GranteesAppendix C—List of State Contacts

Regarding Administration of InstituteGrants to State and Local Courts

Appendix D—SJI Libraries: Designated Sitesand Contacts

Appendix E—Illustrative List of ModelCurricula

Appendix F—State Justice InstituteScholarship Application Forms (FormsS1 and S2)

Appendix G—Line-Item Budget Form (FormE)

Appendix H—Certificate of State ApprovalForm (Form B)

I. The Mission of the State JusticeInstitute

The Institute was established by Pub.L. 98–620 to improve the administrationof justice in the State courts of theUnited States. Incorporated in the Stateof Virginia as a private, nonprofitcorporation, the Institute is charged, bystatute, with the responsibility to:

A. Direct a national program offinancial assistance designed to assurethat each citizen of the United States isprovided ready access to a fair andeffective system of justice;

B. Foster coordination andcooperation with the Federal judiciary;

C. Promote recognition of theimportance of the separation of powersdoctrine to an independent judiciary;and

D. Encourage education for judges andsupport personnel of State court systemsthrough national and Stateorganizations, including universities.

To accomplish these broad objectives,the Institute is authorized to providefunds to State courts, nationalorganizations which support and aresupported by State courts, nationaljudicial education organizations, andother organizations that can assist inimproving the quality of justice in theState courts.

The Institute is supervised by an 11-member Board of Directors appointed bythe President, by and with the consentof the Senate. The Board is statutorilycomposed of six judges, a State courtadministrator, and four members of thepublic, no more than two of whom canbe of the same political party.

Through the award of grants,contracts, and cooperative agreements,the Institute is authorized to perform thefollowing activities:

A. Support research, demonstrations,special projects, technical assistance,and training to improve theadministration of justice in the Statecourts;

B. Provide for the preparation,publication, and dissemination ofinformation regarding State judicialsystems;

C. Participate in joint projects withFederal agencies and other privategrantors;

D. Evaluate or provide for theevaluation of programs and projectsfunded by the Institute to determinetheir impact upon the quality ofcriminal, civil, and juvenile justice andthe extent to which they havecontributed to improving the quality ofjustice in the State courts;

E. Encourage and assist in furtheringjudicial education;

F. Encourage, assist, and serve in aconsulting capacity to State and localjustice system agencies in thedevelopment, maintenance, andcoordination of criminal, civil, andjuvenile justice programs and services;and

G. Be responsible for the certificationof national programs that are intendedto aid and improve State judicialsystems.

II. Scope of the ProgramDuring FY 2001, the Institute will

consider applications for fundingsupport that address any of the areasspecified in its enabling legislation. TheBoard, however, has designated nineprogram categories as being of specialinterest. See section II.B.

A. Authorized Program Areas

The Institute is authorized to fundprojects addressing one or more of thefollowing program areas listed in theState Justice Institute Act, the BatteredWomen’s Testimony Act, the JudicialTraining and Research for ChildCustody Litigation Act, and theInternational Parental KidnappingCrime Act:

1. Assistance to State and local courtsystems in establishing appropriateprocedures for the selection andremoval of judges and other courtpersonnel and in determiningappropriate levels of compensation;

2. Education and training programsfor judges and other court personnel forthe performance of their general dutiesand for specialized functions, andnational and regional conferences andseminars for the dissemination ofinformation on new developments andinnovative techniques;

3. Research on alternative means forusing judicial and nonjudicial personnelin court decisionmaking activities,implementation of demonstrationprograms to test such innovativeapproaches, and evaluations of theireffectiveness;



4. Studies of the appropriateness andefficacy of court organizations andfinancing structures in particular States,and support to States to implementplans for improved court organizationand financing;

5. Support for State court planningand budgeting staffs and the provisionof technical assistance in resourceallocation and service forecastingtechniques;

6. Studies of the adequacy of courtmanagement systems in State and localcourts, and implementation andevaluation of innovative responses torecords management, data processing,court personnel management, reportingand transcription of court proceedings,and juror utilization and management;

7. Collection and compilation ofstatistical data and other information onthe work of the courts and on the workof other agencies which relates to andaffects the work of courts;

8. Studies of the causes of trial andappellate court delay in resolving cases,and establishing and evaluatingexperimental programs for reducingcase processing time;

9. Development and testing ofmethods for measuring the performanceof judges and courts, and experiments inthe use of such measures to improve thefunctioning of judges and the courts;

10. Studies of court rules andprocedures, discovery devices, andevidentiary standards to identifyproblems with the operation of suchrules, procedures, devices, andstandards, and the development ofalternative approaches to betterreconcile the requirements of dueprocess with the need for swift andcertain justice, and testing of the utilityof those alternative approaches;

11. Studies of the outcomes of casesin selected areas to identify instances inwhich the substance of justice metedout by the courts diverges from publicexpectations of fairness, consistency, orequity, and the development, testing,and evaluation of alternative approachesto resolving cases in such problemareas;

12. Support for programs to increasecourt responsiveness to the needs ofcitizens through citizen education,improvement of court treatment ofwitnesses, victims, and jurors, anddevelopment of procedures forobtaining and using measures of publicsatisfaction with court processes toimprove court performance;

13. Testing and evaluatingexperimental approaches to provideincreased citizen access to justice,including processes which reduce thecost of litigating common grievances,and alternative techniques and

mechanisms for resolving disputesbetween citizens;

14. Collection and analysis ofinformation regarding the admissibilityand quality of expert testimony on theexperiences of battered women offeredas part of the defense in criminal casesunder State law, as well as sources ofand methods to obtain funds to paycosts incurred to provide suchtestimony, particularly in casesinvolving indigent women defendants;

15. Development of training materialsto assist battered women, operators ofdomestic violence shelters, batteredwomen’s advocates, and attorneys to useexpert testimony on the experiences ofbattered women in appropriate cases,and individuals with expertise in theexperiences of battered women todevelop skills appropriate to providingsuch testimony;

16. Research regarding State judicialdecisions relating to child custodylitigation involving domestic violence;

17. Development of training curriculato assist State courts to develop anunderstanding of, and appropriateresponses to child custody litigationinvolving domestic violence;

18. Dissemination of information andtraining materials and provision oftechnical assistance regarding the issueslisted in paragraphs 14–17 above;

19. Development of national, regional,and in-State training and educationalprograms dealing with criminal andcivil aspects of interstate andinternational parental child abduction;and

20. Other programs, consistent withthe purposes of the State JusticeInstitute Act, as may be deemedappropriate by the Institute, includingprojects dealing with the relationshipbetween Federal and State courtsystems, such as where there isconcurrent State-Federal jurisdictionand where Federal courts, directly orindirectly, review State courtproceedings.

Funds will not be made available forthe ordinary, routine operation of courtsystems or programs in any of theseareas.

B. Special Interest Program Categories

1. General Description

The Institute is interested in fundingboth innovative programs and programsof proven merit that can be replicated inother jurisdictions. The Institute isespecially interested in funding projectsthat:

a. Formulate new procedures andtechniques, or creatively enhanceexisting arrangements to improve thecourts;

b. Address aspects of the Statejudicial systems that are in special needof serious attention;

c. Have national significance bydeveloping products, services, andtechniques that may be used in otherStates; and

d. Create and disseminate productsthat effectively transfer the informationand ideas developed to relevantaudiences in State and local judicialsystems, or provide technical assistanceto facilitate the adaptation of effectiveprograms and procedures in other Stateand local jurisdictions.

A project will be identified as aSpecial Interest project if it meets thefour criteria set forth above and (1) itfalls within the scope of the SpecialInterest program areas designatedbelow, or (2) information coming to theattention of the Institute from the Statecourts, their affiliated organizations, theresearch literature, or other sourcesdemonstrates that the project respondsto another special need or interest of theState courts.

Concept papers and applicationswhich address a Special Interestcategory will be accorded a preferencein the rating process. (See the selectioncriteria listed in sections VI.C.2. andVIII.B.

2. Specific Categories

The Board has designated the areasset forth below as Special Interestprogram categories. The order of listingdoes not imply any ordering of prioritiesamong the categories. For a completelist of projects supported in previousyears in each of these categories, pleasevisit the Institute’s Internet homepage athttp://www.statejustice.org and click onGrants by Category.

a. Improving Public Confidence in theCourts

This category includes demonstration,evaluation, research, and educationprojects designed to improve theresponsiveness of courts to publicconcerns regarding the fairness, equity,accessibility, timeliness, andcomprehensibility of the court process,and test innovative methods forincreasing the public’s trust andconfidence in the State courts.

(1) The Institute is particularlyinterested in supporting innovativeprojects that:

• Develop national strategies topromote the progress of State court taskforces and other court-sponsoredprograms to eliminate race and ethnicbias in the courts; implement task forcerecommendations at the State and locallevel; evaluate the impact of courtstrategies to address racial and ethnic



bias in jurisdictions in which task forcerecommendations have beenimplemented; establish mentoringrelationships with States that havesuccessfully implementedrecommendations to learn from theirexperiences; develop products thathighlight effective model programs andbest practices; and educate judges andcourt personnel about relevant productsdeveloped in different States (e.g.,model judicial education curricula,bench books, court conduct handbooks,codes of ethics, and relevantlegislation);

• Address court-community problemsresulting from the influx of legal andillegal immigrants, including projects toinform judges about the effects of recentFederal and State legislation andjudicial decisions regarding immigrants;

• Demonstrate and evaluateapproaches to implement the concept ofrestorative justice that ensure residents’and businesses’ safety and restore theoffender’s positive relationship with thecommunity, including methods forinvolving the community in thesentencing process, and programs thatinvolve education and mentoring bypositive role models;

• Evaluate long-term court-basedprograms that actively involve citizenvolunteers in a range of roles, andcompile information on ‘‘best practices’’with respect to the effective use ofvolunteers in the court environment;

• Educate and clearly communicateinformation to litigants and the publicabout judicial decisions, the trial andappellate court process, and courtoperations, and the standards courtsmaintain with respect to timeliness,access, and the elimination of bias; and

• Assure that judges and courtemployees meet the highest ethicalstandards and that judicial disciplinaryprocedures are known, fair, andeffective.

(2) The Institute also is interested insupporting projects that promote publictrust and confidence in the courts. Inparticular, the Institute seeks to supportprojects that would:

• Compile and disseminateinformation about practices being usedby courts around the country that showthe promise of enhancing public trustand confidence in the justice system;and

• Test and evaluate approachesdesigned to enhance public access to thecourts, including demonstrations ofinnovative collaborative efforts betweencourts and community institutions (e.g.,schools and public libraries) to enhanceaccess to courts by those who are notcomputer-literate and for whom it

would be a hardship to travel to acourthouse.

Applicants should be aware that theInstitute will not support new surveysto determine the sources of the public’sdissatisfaction with the courts.

(3) The Institute also continues to beinterested in supporting State and localcourt projects to implement the actionplans developed by the teams thatparticipated in the Institute-supportedNational Conference on Self-Represented Litigants Appearing inCourt held in Scottsdale, Arizona, onNovember 18–21, 1999. In this regard,however, applicants are advised thatInstitute funds may not be used todirectly or indirectly support legalrepresentation of individuals in specificcases.

b. Education and Training for Judgesand Other Key Court Personnel

The Institute is interested insupporting an array of projects that willcontinue to strengthen and broaden theavailability of court education programsat the State, regional, and nationallevels. This category is divided intothree subsections: (1) InnovativeEducational Programs; (2) CurriculumAdaptation Projects; and (3)Scholarships.

(1) Innovative Educational Programs.This category includes support for thedevelopment and pilot-testing ofinnovative, high-quality educationalprograms for trial and appellate judgesor court personnel that address keysubstantive and administrative issues ofconcern to the nation’s courts, or helplocal courts or State court systemsdevelop or enhance their capacity todeliver quality continuing education.Programs may be designed forpresentation at the local, State, regional,or national level. Ordinarily, courteducation programs should be based onsome form of assessment of the needs ofthe target audience; include clearlystated learning objectives that delineatethe new knowledge or skills thatparticipants will acquire (as opposed toa description of what will be taught);incorporate adult education principlesand multiple teaching/learningmethods; and result in the developmentof a disseminable curriculum as definedin section III.G.

(a) The Institute is particularlyinterested in the development ofeducation programs that:

• Include innovative self-directedlearning packages for use by appellate,trial, juvenile and family court judgesand personnel, and distance-learningapproaches for these audiences to assistthose who do not have ready access toclassroom-centered programs. These

packages and approaches shouldinclude the appropriate use of variousmedia and technologies such asInternet-based programming, interactiveCD–ROM or computer disk-basedprograms, videos, or other audio andvisual media, supported by writtenmaterials or manuals. They also shouldinclude a meaningful programevaluation and a self-evaluation processthat assesses pre-and post-programknowledge and skills;

• Familiarize faculty with theeffective use of innovative instructionaltechnology, including methods forpresenting information through web-based and other distance learningapproaches such as videos and satelliteteleconferences;

• Develop and test innovativemethods to evaluate the effectiveness ofweb-based and distance educationprograms;

• Assist local courts, State courtsystems, and court systems in ageographic region to develop or enhancea comprehensive program of continuingeducation, training, and careerdevelopment for judges and courtpersonnel as an integral part of courtoperations;

• Test the effectiveness of including avariety of experiential instructionalapproaches in judicial branch educationprograms such as field studies andinterchanges with community programs,organizations, and institutions;

• Encourage intergovernmental team-building, collaboration, and planningamong the judicial, executive, andlegislative branches of government, orcourts within a metropolitan area ormulti-State region; and

• Develop and test innovative short(one-half or one full day) educationalprograms on events on issues of criticalimportance to local courts or courts ina particular region.

(b) The Institute also continues to bevery interested in supporting projectsthat would implement action plans andstrategies developed by the State teamsat the National Symposium on theFuture of Judicial Branch Educationheld in St. Louis, Missouri, on October7–9, 1999, as well as proposals fromother applicants designed to assist inimplementing and disseminating thefindings and strategies discussed at theConference.

(c) The Institute also is interested insupporting the development and testingof curricula on issues of criticalimportance to the courts, includingthose listed in the other Special Interestcategories described in this Chapter, andthe following:

• Materials and curricula forappellate, trial, and juvenile and family



court judges addressing adolescent andyouth development, including the roleand impact of youth culture (cults andgangs), and the impact that exposure toviolence at home, in school, and in thecommunity has on children;

• The specific knowledge and skillsneeded to manage drug court programsfor adults, juveniles, or families;

• Federal and State environmentallaws and the effect those laws have ontrial and appellate court processes in theimpacted jurisdictions; and

• Training to enhance the ability ofcourt personnel to protect their safetyand that of jurors, litigants, witnesses,and other members of the public incourt facilities, and in managing casesinvolving individuals or organizationsunwilling to cooperate with legal oradministrative procedures.

(2) Curriculum Adaptation Projects.The Board is reserving up to $200,000to support projects that adapt a modelcurriculum previously developed withSJI funds and to pilot-test it todetermine its appropriateness, quality,and effectiveness for inclusion in thejurisdiction’s judicial branch educationprogram. An illustrative but non-inclusive list of the curricula that maybe appropriate for adaptation iscontained in Appendix E.

The goal of the CurriculumAdaptation program is to provide Stateand local courts with sufficient supportto modify a model curriculum, coursemodule, or national or regionalconference program developed with SJIfunds to meet a particular State’s orlocal jurisdiction’s educational needs;pilot-test it to determine itsappropriateness, quality, andeffectiveness; and train instructors topresent portions or all of thecurriculum. It is anticipated that theadapted curriculum will become part ofthe grantee’s ongoing educationalofferings.

Only State or local courts may applyfor Curriculum Adaptation funding.Application procedures may be found inSection VII.E.

(3) Scholarships for Judges and CourtPersonnel. The Institute is reserving upto $200,000 to support a scholarshipprogram for State judges and courtmanagers. The purposes of the Institutescholarship program are to:

• Enhance the skills, knowledge, andabilities of judges and court managers;

• Enable State court judges and courtmanagers to attend out-of-Stateeducational programs sponsored bynational and State providers that theycould not otherwise attend because oflimited State, local and personalbudgets; and

• Provide States, judicial educators,and the Institute with evaluativeinformation on a range of judicial andcourt-related education programs.

Scholarships will be granted toindividuals only for the purpose ofattending an out-of-State educationalprogram within the United States.Application procedures may be found inSection VII.F.

c. Dispute Resolution and the Courts

This category includes research,evaluation, and demonstration projectsto evaluate or enhance the effectivenessof court-connected dispute resolutionprograms. The Institute is interested inprojects that facilitate comparisonamong research studies by using similarmeasures and definitions; address thenature and operation of ADR programswithin the context of the court systemas a whole; and compare disputeresolution processes to attorneysettlement as well as trial. Specifictopics of interest include:

• Examining the timing for referralsto dispute resolution services, and theeffect of different referral methods oncase outcomes and time to disposition;

• Evaluating innovative court-connected dispute resolution programsfor resolving complex and multi-partylitigation, environmental hazards,managed health care, minor criminalcases, probate proceedings, and land-use disputes;

• Testing innovative approachesinvolving community partnerships,particularly in the contexts of juvenileand restorative justice, and examiningthe benefits such partnerships offer inensuring the quality of disputeresolution programs;

• Evaluating innovative applicationsof technology to facilitate disputeresolution processes; and

• Developing methods to eliminaterace, ethnic, or gender bias in court-connected dispute resolution programs,testing approaches for assuring thatsuch programs are open to all membersof the community served by the court,and assessing whether having amediator pool that reflects the diversityof the community it serves has animpact on the use of mediation byminorities and its effectiveness.

Applicants should be aware that theInstitute will not provide operationalsupport for ongoing ADR programs orstart-up costs of non-innovative ADRprograms. Courts also should be advisedthat it is preferable for an applicant touse its own funds to support theoperational costs of an innovativeprogram and request Institute funds tosupport related technical assistance,

training, and evaluation elements of theprogram.

d. Application of Technology

This category includes the testing ofinnovative applications of technology toimprove the operation of courtmanagement systems and judicialpractices at both the trial and appellatecourt levels.

The Institute seeks to support localexperiments with promising butuntested applications of technology inthe courts that include an evaluation ofthe impact of the technology in terms ofcosts, benefits, and staff workload, anda training component to assure that staffis appropriately educated about thepurpose and use of the new technology.In this context, ‘‘untested’’ includesnovel applications of technologydeveloped for the private sector thathave not previously been applied to thecourts.

The Institute is particularly interestedin supporting efforts to:

• Test and evaluate technologies that,if successfully implemented, wouldsignificantly re-engineer the way thatcourts currently do business;

• Develop and test standardsgoverning electronic access to courtrecords by the public;

• Evaluate approaches forelectronically filing pleadings, briefs,and other documents; approaches tointegrate electronic filing and electronicdocument management; and the impactof electronic court record systems oncase management and court procedures;

• Develop model rules or standards togovern the use of electronic filing andelectronic court records;

• Test innovative applications ofvoice recognition in the adjudicationprocess;

• Demonstrate and evaluate the use oftechnology to assist judicialdecisionmaking;

• Evaluate the use of digital audioand video technology in making arecord of court proceedings;

• Demonstrate and evaluate the use ofvideoconferencing technology to presenttestimony by witnesses in remotelocations, and appellate arguments (butsee the limitations specified below);

• Test and evaluate the effectivenessof automated systems that would enablecourts and other justice agencies tomeasure their performance with respectto internal processes and customerservice against benchmarks and strategicgoals;

• Assess the impact of the use ofmultimedia CD–ROM-based briefs onthe courts, parties, counsel, and the trialor appellate process; and



• Evaluate innovative applications oftechnology designed to preventcourthouse incidents that endanger thelives and property of judges, courtpersonnel, and courtroom participants.

Ordinarily, the Institute will notprovide support for the purchase ofequipment or software to implement atechnology that is commonly used bycourts, such as videoconferencingbetween courts and jails, opticalimaging for recordkeeping, andautomated management informationsystems. (See also section X.I.2.b.regarding other limits on the use ofgrant funds to purchase equipment andsoftware.)

e. Court Planning, Management,Financing

The Institute is interested insupporting projects that exploreemerging issues that will affect the Statecourts as they enter the 21st Century, aswell as projects that develop and testinnovative and collaborative problem-solving approaches for managing thecourts; for securing, managing, anddemonstrating the effective use of theresources required to fully meet theresponsibilities of the judicial branch;and for institutionalizing long-rangeplanning processes. In particular, theInstitute is interested in demonstration,evaluation, education, research, andtechnical assistance projects to:

• Facilitate collaboration,communication, information-sharing,and coordination between the juvenileand criminal courts, between courts andcriminal justice agencies, and betweencourts and court users;

• Identify and assess the effects ofcollaborative problem-solvingapproaches designed to assure qualityservices to court users;

• Strengthen judge and court managerskills in leadership, collaborativeplanning, case management, facilitation,and human resource development;

• Assess the effects of innovativemanagement approaches designed toassure quality services to court users;

• Enhance the core competenciesrequired of court managers and staff;

• Document and evaluate effectiveintergovernmental team-building,collaboration, and planning among thejudicial, executive, and legislativebranches of government, or courtswithin a metropolitan area or multi-State region;

• Facilitate, demonstrate, and assessthe effective use of judge-staff teams forimplementing change and encouragingexcellence in court operations; and

• Prevent harassment, threats, andincidents endangering the lives andproperty of judges, court employees,

jurors, litigants, witnesses, and othermembers of the public in court facilities.

f. Substance Abuse

This category includes education,technical assistance, research, andevaluation projects to assist courts inhandling a large volume of substanceabuse-related criminal, civil, juvenile,and domestic relations cases fairly andexpeditiously. (It does not includeproviding support for planning,establishing, operating, or enhancing alocal drug court. Applicants interestedin obtaining grants to plan, implement,operate, or enhance a drug courtprogram should contact the Drug CourtProgram Office, Office of JusticePrograms, U.S. Department of Justice.)

The Institute is particularly interestedin projects to:

• Identify and test innovativemethods to provide appropriate drugtreatment and services to juvenilestransferred to adult criminal court;

• Evaluate the effectiveness of‘‘family drug court’’ programs (i.e.,specialized calendars that provideintensely supervised, court-enforcedsubstance abuse treatment and otherservices to families involved in childneglect, child abuse, domestic violence,or other family cases);

• Document public sector and privatesector managed care programs thateffectively provide court-orderedtreatment and other services to adultsand juveniles; and

• Develop and test State, regional,and local educational programs forjudges and court staff on theimplications of managed care for theprovision of drug and alcohol treatment,mental health treatment, and otherservices to adult and juvenile offenders,neglected and abused children and theirfamilies, and persons subject to civilcommitment.

g. Children and Families in Court

This category includes education,demonstration, evaluation, technicalassistance, and research projects toidentify and inform judges ofinnovative, effective approaches forhandling cases involving children andfamilies. The Institute is particularlyinterested in projects to:

• Develop and test guidelines,curricula, and other materials for judgesthat address the implications ofsentencing juveniles as adults,including the need for age-appropriateservices like schooling, sentencingalternatives and guidelines, and pre-trialservices;

• Develop and test innovativeprotocol, procedures, educationalprograms, and other measures to

determine and address the service needsof children exposed to family violenceand the methods for mitigating thoseeffects when issuing protection,custody, visitation, or other orders;

• Develop guidelines and materials toassist judges and other court officersand personnel in critically analyzingpsychological evaluations of childrenand the credibility of clinical experts,their reports, and methods of evaluatingchildren;

• Compile and distribute informationabout innovative and successfulapproaches to sentencing and treatmentalternatives for serious youthfuloffenders;

• Develop and test restorative justiceapproaches that include victims ofoffenses committed by youthfuloffenders in the juvenile court process(other than victim-offender mediationprograms);

• Create and test educationalprograms, guidelines, and monitoringsystems to assure that the juvenilejustice system meets the needs of girlsand children of color;

• Develop and test innovativetechniques for enhancing collaboration,communication, information-sharing,and coordination of juvenile andcriminal courts and divisions;

• Design or evaluate informationsystems that not only provide aggregatedata, but also are able to trackindividual cases, individual juveniles,and specific families, so that judges andcourt managers can manage theircaseloads effectively, track placementand service delivery, and coordinateorders in different proceedingsinvolving members of the same family;and

• Develop and test educationalprograms to assure that everyonecoming into contact with courts servingchildren and families is treated withdignity, respect, and courtesy.

h. Improving the Courts’ Response toDomestic Violence

This category includes innovativeeducation, demonstration, technicalassistance, evaluation, and researchprojects to improve the fair and effectiveprocessing, consideration, anddisposition of cases concerningdomestic violence and gender-relatedviolent crimes, including projects to:

• Strengthen judges’ skills inleadership, collaborative planning, andfacilitation of community efforts toreduce and prevent domestic violence;

• Train custody evaluators, guardiansad litem, and other independentprofessionals appearing in custody andvisitation cases about domestic violence



and the impact witnessing suchviolence has on children;

• Coordinate juvenile, family, andcriminal court management of domesticviolence cases;

• Evaluate the effectiveness ofdomestic violence courts (i.e.,specialized calendars or divisions forconsidering domestic violence cases andrelated matters), including their impacton victims, offenders, and courtoperations;

• Develop guidelines, curricula, orother materials that address theappropriate role of probation inmonitoring domestic violence offenders;

• Assess the effectiveness ofincluding jurisdiction over familyviolence in a unified family court;

• Demonstrate effective ways toencourage collaboration among courts,criminal justice agencies, and socialservices programs in responding todomestic violence and gender-relatedcrimes of violence, and to assure thatthe courts are fully accessible to victimsof domestic violence and other gender-related violent crimes;

• Develop and test methods forfacilitating recognition and enforcementof protection orders issued by a State,Federal, or tribal court in anotherjurisdiction;

• Determine the effective use ofinformation contained in protectionorder files stored in court electronicdatabases, consistent with theprotection of the privacy and safety ofvictims of violence;

• Test the effectiveness of innovativesentencing and treatment approaches incases involving domestic violence andother gender-related crimes, includingsentences that incorporate regular orperiodic judicial review or restorativejustice measures; and

• Implement recommendations oraction plans addressing the co-occurrence of domestic violence andchild maltreatment that stem from theconference on Domestic Violence andChild Maltreatment—co-sponsored bySJI, the Department of Health andHuman Services, and the FordFoundation—to be held September 29–30, 2000, in Jackson, Wyoming.

Institute funds may not be used toprovide operational support to programsoffering direct services or compensationto victims of crimes. (Applicantsinterested in obtaining such operationalsupport should contact the Office forVictims of Crime (OVC), Office ofJustice Programs, U.S. Department ofJustice, or the agency in their State thatawards OVC funds to State and localvictim assistance and compensationprograms.)

i. The Relationship Between State andFederal Courts

This category includes education,research, demonstration, and evaluationprojects designed to facilitateappropriate and effectivecommunication, cooperation, andcoordination between State and Federalcourts. The Institute is particularlyinterested in innovative projects that:

(1) Develop and test curricula anddisseminate information regardingeffective methods being used at the trialcourt, State, and Circuit levels tocoordinate cases and administrativeactivities, and share facilities; and

(2) Develop and test new approachesto:

(a) Implement the habeas corpusprovisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of1996;

(b) Coordinate and process mass tortcases fairly and efficiently at the trialand appellate levels;

(c) Handle capital habeas corpus casesfairly and efficiently; and

(d) Share facilities, jury pools,alternative dispute resolution programs,information regarding persons onpretrial release or probation, and courtservices; and

(3) Involve judges in any systemiceffort to examine the efficacy, fairness,and speed of capital litigation.

C. ‘‘Think Pieces’’

This category addresses thedevelopment of essays of publishablequality directed to the court community.The essays should explore emergingissues that could result in significantchanges in court process or judicialadministration and their implicationsfor the future for judges, court managers,policy-makers, and the public. Grantssupporting such projects are limited tono more than $10,000. Applicantsshould follow the procedures forconcept papers requesting anaccelerated award of a grant of less than$40,000, which are explained in SectionVI.A.3.(b) of this Guideline.

Possible topics include, but are notlimited to:

• The impact of the ‘‘digital divide’’on pro se litigants who do not haveaccess to computers, particularly as itrelates to increasing electronic access tocourt documents and placing courtservices and processes on-line;

• The implications for determiningcourt jurisdiction in a cyberworld thatmay transcend State and national orother boundaries;

• An examination of the implicationsof cybercrime on the courts as potentialvictims suffering violations of privacy,security, and confidentiality;

• The implications of increasingcommerce via the Internet for the Statecourts, including unique problems thatmay arise and the new rules andprocedures that may be needed toaddress them;

• An exploration of issues related toprivacy, data security, and public accessto court records in our increasinglytechnological society;

• The potential for the creation of‘‘cybercourts’’ through the use of theInternet—a ‘‘courthouseless court’’instead of a paperless court—and howthe courts would have to be re-engineered to accommodate such adevelopment;

• The implications of changingexpectations about the proper role ofjudges—from adjudicators to problem-solvers—on court procedures, courtoperations, and judicial selection; and

• The potential use of local courtadvisory councils rooted in thecommunity as a method of promotingpublic trust and confidence in the court.

D. Single Jurisdiction ProjectsThe Board will set aside up to

$300,000 to support projects proposedby State or local courts that address theneeds of only the applicant State orlocal jurisdiction. A project under thissection may address any of the topicsincluded in the Special InterestCategories or Statutory Program Areas,but it need not be innovative. The Boardis particularly interested in supportingprojects to replicate programs,procedures, or strategies that have beendeveloped, demonstrated, or evaluatedthrough an SJI grant. An evaluationcomponent is not required if a grant isawarded to replicate another successfulSJI project; however, grants to supportreplications are subject to the samelimits on amount and duration as otherproject grants. (See section V.)Ordinarily, the Institute will not providesupport solely for the purchase ofequipment or software.

Concept papers for single jurisdictionprojects may be submitted by a Statecourt system, an appellate court, or alimited or general jurisdiction trialcourt. All awards under this categoryare subject to the matching requirementsset forth in sections III.O. and IX.A.8.a.

The application procedures for SingleJurisdiction grants are the same as theprocedures for Project Grants (seesection VII.A); however, in addition tothe information presented in theprogram narrative, Single Jurisdictiongrant applicants must also demonstratethat:

1. The proposed project is essential tomeeting a critical need of thejurisdiction; and



2. The need cannot be met solely withState and local resources within theforeseeable future.

E. Technical Assistance Grants

The Board will set aside up to$400,000 to support the provision oftechnical assistance to State and localcourts. The program is designed toprovide State and local courts withsufficient support to obtain technicalassistance to diagnose a problem,develop a response to that problem, andimplement any needed changes. TheInstitute will reserve sufficient fundseach quarter to assure the availability oftechnical assistance grants throughoutthe year.

Technical Assistance grants arelimited to no more than $30,000 each,and may cover the cost of obtaining theservices of expert consultants; travel bya team of officials from one court toexamine a practice, program, or facilityin another jurisdiction that theapplicant court is interested inreplicating; or both. Technicalassistance grant funds ordinarily maynot be used to support production of avideotape. Normally, the technicalassistance must be completed within 12months after the start-date of the grant.

Only a State or local court may applyfor a Technical Assistance grant. Theapplication procedures may be found insection VII.D.

III. Definitions

The following definitions apply forthe purposes of this Guideline:

A. Accelerated Award

A grant of up to $40,000 awarded onthe basis of a concept paper (includinga budget and budget narrative) when theneed for and benefits of the proposedproject are clear and an applicationwould not be needed to provideadditional information about theproject’s methodology and budget. Seesection VI.C.1. for more informationabout accelerated awards.

B. Acknowledgment of SJI Support

The prominent display of the SJI logoon the front cover of a written productor in the opening frames of a videotapedeveloped with Institute support, andinclusion of a brief statement on theinside front cover or title page of thedocument or the opening frames of thevideotape identifying the grant number.See section IX.A.11.a.(2) for the precisewording of the statement.

C. Application

A formal request for an Institute grantthat is invited by the Board of Directorsafter approval of a concept paper. A

complete application consists of: FormA—Application; Form B—Certificate ofState Approval (for applications fromlocal trial or appellate courts oragencies—see Appendix H); Form C—Project Budget/Tabular Format or FormC1—Project Budget/SpreadsheetFormat; Form D—Assurances;Disclosure of Lobbying Activities; adetailed 25-page description of the needfor the project and all related tasks,including the time frame for completionof each task, and staffing requirements;and a detailed budget narrative thatprovides the basis for all costs. Seesection VII. for a complete descriptionof application submission requirements.

D. Close-out

The process by which the Institutedetermines that all applicableadministrative and financial actions andall required grant work have beencompleted by both the grantee and theInstitute.

E. Concept Paper

A proposal of no more than eightdouble-spaced pages that outlines thenature and scope of a project that wouldbe supported with State Justice Institutefunds, accompanied by a preliminarybudget. See section VI. for a completedescription of concept paper submissionrequirements.

F. Continuation Grant

A grant lasting no longer than 15months to permit completion ofactivities initiated under an existingInstitute grant or enhancement of theproducts or services produced duringthe prior grant period. See section VII.B.for a complete description ofcontinuation application requirements.

G. Curriculum

The materials needed to replicate aneducation or training programdeveloped with grant funds including,but not limited to: the learningobjectives; the presentation methods; asample agenda or schedule; an outlineof presentations and relevantinstructors’ notes; copies of overheadtransparencies or other visual aids;exercises, case studies, hypotheticals,quizzes, and other materials forinvolving the participants; backgroundmaterials for participants; evaluationforms; and suggestions for replicatingthe program, including possible facultyor the preferred qualifications orexperience of those selected as faculty.

H. Curriculum Adaptation Grant

A grant of up to $20,000 to support anadaptation and pilot test of aneducational program previously

developed with SJI funds. See sectionVII.E. for a complete description ofcurriculum grant applicationrequirements.

I. Designated Agency or Council

The office or judicial body which isauthorized under State law or bydelegation from the State SupremeCourt to approve applications for fundsand to receive, administer, and beaccountable for those funds.

J. Disclaimer

A brief statement that must beincluded at the beginning of a documentor in the opening frames of a videotapeproduced with State Justice Institutefunding that specifies that the points ofview expressed in the document or tapedo not necessarily represent the officialposition or policies of the Institute. Seesection IX.A.11.a.(2) for the precisewording of this statement.

K. Grant Adjustment

A change in the design or scope of aproject from that described in theapproved application, acknowledged inwriting by the Institute. See section XI.Afor a list of the types of changesrequiring a formal grant adjustment.

L. Grantee

The organization, entity, or individualto which an award of Institute funds ismade. For a grant based on anapplication from a State or local court,grantee refers to the State SupremeCourt or its designee.

M. Human Subjects

Individuals who are participants in anexperimental procedure or who areasked to provide information aboutthemselves, their attitudes, feelings,opinions, and/or experiences through aninterview, questionnaire, or other datacollection technique.

N. Institute

The State Justice Institute.

O. Match

The portion of project costs not borneby the Institute. Courts or other units ofState or local government (not includingpublicly supported institutions ofhigher education) must provide a matchfrom private or public sources of notless than 50% of the total amount of theInstitute’s award. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d).Match includes both in-kind and cashcontributions. Cash match is the directoutlay of funds by the grantee to supportthe project. In-kind match consists ofcontributions of time, services, space,supplies, etc., made to the project by thegrantee or others (e.g., advisory board



members) working directly on theproject. Under normal circumstances,allowable match may be incurred onlyduring the project period. Whenappropriate, and with the prior writtenpermission of the Institute, match maybe incurred from the date of the Boardof Directors’ approval of an award.Match does not include project-relatedincome such as tuition or revenue fromthe sale of grant products, or the time ofparticipants attending an educationprogram. Amounts contributed as cashor in-kind match may not be recoveredthrough the sale of grant productsduring or following the grant period.

P. Ongoing Support Grant

A grant lasting 36 months to supporta project that is national in scope andthat provides the State courts withservices, programs or products forwhich there is a continuing importantneed. See section VII.C. for a completedescription of ongoing supportapplication requirements.

Q. Products

Tangible materials resulting fromfunded projects including, but notlimited to: Curricula; monographs;reports; books; articles; manuals;handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines;videotapes; audiotapes; computersoftware; and CD–ROM disks.

R. Project Grant

An initial grant lasting up to 15months to support an innovativeeducation, research, demonstration, ortechnical assistance project that canimprove the administration of justice inState courts nationwide. Ordinarily, aproject grant may not exceed $200,000a year; however, a grant in excess of$150,000 is likely to be rare andawarded only to support highlypromising projects that will have asignificant national impact. See sectionVII.A. for a complete description ofproject grant application requirements.

S. Project-Related Income

Interest, royalties, registration andtuition fees, proceeds from the sale ofproducts, and other earnings generatedas a result of a State Justice Institutegrant. Project-related income may not becounted as match. For a more completedescription of different types of project-related income, see section X.G.

T. Scholarship

A grant of up to $1,500 awarded to ajudge or court employee to cover thecost of tuition for and transportation toand from an out-of-State educationalprogram within the United States. See

section VII.F. for a complete descriptionof scholarship application requirements.

U. Single Jurisdiction Project Grant

A grant that addresses a critical butnot necessarily innovative need of asingle State or local jurisdiction thatcannot be met solely with State and/orlocal resources within the foreseeablefuture. See section II.D. for a descriptionof single jurisdiction projects andsections VI. and VII.A. for a completedescription of single jurisdiction projectapplication requirements.

V. Special Condition

A requirement attached to a grantaward that is unique to a particularproject.

W. State Supreme Court

The highest appellate court in a State,or, for the purposes of the Instituteprogram, a constitutionally orlegislatively established judicial councilthat acts in place of that court. In Stateshaving more than one court with finalappellate authority, State SupremeCourt means that court which also hasadministrative responsibility for theState’s judicial system. State SupremeCourt also includes the office of thecourt or council, if any, it designates toperform the functions described in thisGuideline.

X. Subgrantee

A State or local court which receivesInstitute funds through the StateSupreme Court.

Y. Technical Assistance Grant

A grant, lasting up to 12 months, ofup to $30,000 to a State or local courtto support outside expert assistance indiagnosing a problem and developingand implementing a response to thatproblem. See section VII.D. for acomplete description of technicalassistance grant applicationrequirements.

IV. Eligibility for Award

The Institute is authorized byCongress to award grants, cooperativeagreements, and contracts to thefollowing entities and types oforganizations:

A. State and local courts and theiragencies (42 U.S.C.10705(b)(1)(A)). Eachapplication for funding from a State orlocal court must be approved, consistentwith State law, by the State’s SupremeCourt or its designated agency orcouncil. The latter shall receive allInstitute funds awarded to such courtsand be responsible for assuring properadministration of Institute funds, inaccordance with section X.C.2. of this

Guideline. A list of persons to contactin each State regarding approval ofapplications from State and local courtsand administration of Institute grants tothose courts is contained in AppendixC.

B. National nonprofit organizationscontrolled by, operating in conjunctionwith, and serving the judicial branchesof State governments (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(B)).

C. National nonprofit organizationsfor the education and training of judgesand support personnel of the judicialbranch of State governments (42 U.S.C.10705(b)(1)(C)). An applicant isconsidered a national education andtraining applicant under section10705(b)(1)(C) if:

1. The principal purpose or activity ofthe applicant is to provide educationand training to State and local judgesand court personnel; and

2. The applicant demonstrates arecord of substantial experience in thefield of judicial education and training.

D. Other eligible grant recipients (42U.S.C. 10705(b)(2)(A)–(D)).

1. Provided that the objectives of theproject can be served better, the Instituteis also authorized to make awards to:

a. Nonprofit organizations withexpertise in judicial administration;

b. Institutions of higher education;c. Individuals, partnerships, firms,

corporations (for-profit organizationsmust waive their fees); and

d. Private agencies with expertise injudicial administration.

2. The Institute may also make awardsto Federal, State or local agencies andinstitutions other than courts forservices that cannot be adequatelyprovided through nongovernmentalarrangements (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(3)).

E. Inter-agency Agreements. TheInstitute may enter into inter-agencyagreements with Federal agencies (42U.S.C. 10705(b)(4)) and private fundersto support projects consistent with thepurposes of the State Justice InstituteAct.

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size ofAwards

A. Types of ProjectsThe Institute supports the following

general types of projects:1. Education and training;2. Research and evaluation;3. Demonstration; and4. Technical assistance.

B. Types of GrantsThe Institute supports the following

types of grants:

1. Project GrantsSee sections II.B. and D., VI., and

VII.A. The Institute places no annual



limitations on the overall number ofproject grant awards or the number ofawards in each special interest category.

2. Continuation Grants

See sections III.F. and VII.B. In FY2001, the Institute is allocating no morethan 25% of available grant funds forcontinuation and ongoing supportgrants.

3. Ongoing Support Grants

See sections III.P. and VII.C. SeeContinuation Grants above forlimitations on funding availability in FY2001.

4. Technical Assistance Grants

See section II.E. In FY 2001, theInstitute is reserving up to $400,000 forthese grants.

5. Curriculum Adaptation Grants

See sections II.B.2.b.(2), III.G., andVII.E. In FY 2001, the Institute isreserving up to $200,000 for adaptationsof curricula previously developed withSJI funding.

6. Scholarships

See section II.B.2.b.(3), III.T, andVII.F. In FY 2001, the Institute isreserving up to $200,000 forscholarships for judges and courtemployees. The Institute will reservesufficient funds each quarter to assurethe availability of scholarshipsthroughout the year.

C. Maximum Size of Awards

1. Except as specified below,applicants for new project grants andcontinuation grants may request fundingin amounts up to $200,000 for 15months, although new and continuationawards in excess of $150,000 are likelyto be rare and to be made, if at all, onlyfor highly promising proposals that willhave a significant impact nationally.

2. Applicants for ongoing supportgrants may request funding in amountsup to $600,000 over three years,although awards in excess of $450,000are likely to be rare. The Institute willordinarily release funds for the secondand third years of ongoing supportgrants on the following conditions: (1)The project is performing satisfactorily;(2) appropriations are available tosupport the project that fiscal year; and(3) the Board of Directors determinesthat the project continues to fall withinthe Institute’s priorities.

3. Applicants for technical assistancegrants may request funding in amountsup to $30,000.

4. Applicants for curriculumadaptation grants may request fundingin amounts up to $20,000.

5. Applicants for scholarships mayrequest funding in amounts up to$1,500.

D. Length of Grant Periods

1. Grant periods for all new andcontinuation projects ordinarily may notexceed 15 months.

2. Grant periods for ongoing supportgrants ordinarily may not exceed 36months.

3. Grant periods for technicalassistance grants and curriculumadaptation grants ordinarily may notexceed 12 months.

VI. Concept Papers

Concept papers are an extremelyimportant part of the applicationprocess because they enable theInstitute to learn the program areas ofprimary interest to the courts and toexplore innovative ideas, withoutimposing heavy burdens on prospectiveapplicants. The use of concept papersalso permits the Institute to betterproject the nature and amount of grantawards. The concept paper requirementand the submission deadlines forconcept papers and applications may bewaived by the Executive Director forgood cause (e.g., the proposed projectcould provide a significant benefit to theState courts or the opportunity toconduct the project did not arise untilafter the deadline).

A. Format and Content

All concept papers must include acover sheet, a program narrative, and apreliminary budget.

1. The Cover Sheet

The cover sheet for all concept papersmust contain:

a. A title that clearly describes theproposed project;

b. The name and address of the court,organization, or individual submittingthe paper;

c. The name, title, address (if differentfrom that in b.), and telephone numberof a contact person who can providefurther information about the paper;

d. The letter of the Special InterestCategory (see section II.B.2.) or thenumber of the statutory Program Area(see section II.A.) that the proposedproject addresses most directly; and

e. The estimated length of theproposed project.

Applicants requesting the Board towaive the application requirement andapprove a grant of less than $40,000based on the concept paper should addApplication Waiver Requested to theinformation on the cover page.

2. The Program Narrative

The program narrative of a conceptpaper should be no longer thannecessary, but must not exceed 8double-spaced pages on 81⁄2 by 11 inchpaper. Margins must be at least 1 inchand type size must be at least 12 pointand 12 cpi. The pages should benumbered. The narrative shoulddescribe:

a. Why is this project needed and howwould it benefit State courts? If theproject is to be conducted in a specificlocation(s), applicants should discussthe particular needs of the project site(s)to be addressed by the project, whythose needs are not being met throughthe use of existing materials, programs,procedures, services, or other resources,and the benefits that would be realizedby the proposed site(s).

If the project is not site-specific,applicants should discuss the problemsthat the proposed project wouldaddress, why existing materials,programs, procedures, services, or otherresources cannot adequately resolvethose problems, and the benefits thatwould be realized from the project byState courts generally.

b. What would be done if a grant isawarded? Applicants should include asummary description of the project to beconducted and the approach to be taken,including the anticipated length of thegrant period. Applicants requesting awaiver of the application requirementfor a grant of less than $40,000 shouldexplain the proposed methods forconducting the project as fully as spaceallows, and include a detailed taskschedule as an attachment to theconcept paper.

c. How would the effects and qualityof the project be determined?Applicants should include a summarydescription of how the project would beevaluated, including the criteria thatwould be used to measure its success orimpact.

d. How would others find out aboutthe project and be able to use theresults? Applicants should describe theproducts that would result, the degree towhich they would be applicable tocourts across the nation, and to whomthe products and results of the projectwould be disseminated in addition tothe SJI-designated libraries (e.g., Statechief justices, specified groups of trialjudges, State court administrators,specified groups of trial courtadministrators, State judicial educators,or other audiences). Applicantsproposing to develop web-basedproducts should provide for sending ahard-copy document to the SJI-designated libraries and other



appropriate audiences to alert them tothe availability of the web site orelectronic product (e.g., a written reportwith a reference to the web site, a pressrelease with the web site address andscreens printed from the web site, etc.).

3. The Budgeta. Preliminary Budget. A preliminary

budget must be attached to the narrativethat includes the information specifiedon Form E included in Appendix G ofthis Guideline. Applicants should beaware that prior written Instituteapproval is required for any consultantrate in excess of $300 per day and thatInstitute funds may not be used to paya consultant in excess of $900 per day.

b. Concept Papers RequestingAccelerated Award of a Grant of Lessthan $40,000. Applicants requesting awaiver of the application requirementand approval of a grant based on aconcept paper under C. in this sectionmust attach to Form E (see Appendix G)a budget narrative that explains thebasis for each of the items listed andindicates whether the costs would bepaid from grant funds, through amatching contribution, or from othersources. Courts requesting anaccelerated award must also attach aCertificate of State Approval—Form B(Appendix H) signed by the ChiefJustice of the State Supreme Court or theChief Justice’s designee.

4. Letters of Cooperation or SupportThe Institute encourages concept

paper applicants to attach letters ofcooperation and support from the courtsand related agencies that would beinvolved in or directly affected by theproposed project. Letters of support maybe sent under separate cover; however,to ensure sufficient time to bring themto the Board’s attention, support letterssent under separate cover must bereceived no later than January 5, 2001.

5. Page Limitsa. The Institute will not accept

concept papers with program narrativesexceeding eight double-spaced pages(see A.2. of this section). This page limitdoes not include the cover page, budgetform, letters of cooperation or support,or, for papers requesting acceleratedawards, the budget narrative and taskschedule. Additional material shouldnot be attached unless it is essential toimpart a clear understanding of theproject.

b. Applicants submitting more thanone concept paper may include materialthat would be identical in each conceptpaper in a cover letter. This materialwill be incorporated by reference intoeach paper and counted against the

eight-page limit for each. A copy of thecover letter should be attached to eachcopy of each concept paper.

6. Sample Concept Papers

Sample concept papers from previousfunding cycles are available from theInstitute upon request.

B. Submission Requirements

An original and three copies of allconcept papers submitted forconsideration in Fiscal Year 2001 mustbe sent by first class or overnight mailor by courier (but not by fax or e-mail)no later than November 22, 2000.

A postmark or courier receipt willconstitute evidence of the submissiondate. All envelopes containing conceptpapers should be marked CONCEPTPAPER and sent to: State JusticeInstitute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600,Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

Receipt of each concept paper will beacknowledged by the Institute inwriting. Extensions of the deadlines forsubmission of concept papers will notbe granted.

C. Institute Review

1. Review Process

Concept papers will be reviewedcompetitively by the Institute’s Board ofDirectors. Institute staff will prepare anarrative summary and a rating sheetassigning points for each relevantselection criterion for those conceptpapers which fall within the scope ofthe Institute’s funding program andmerit serious consideration by theBoard. Staff will also prepare a list ofthose papers that, in the judgment of theExecutive Director, propose projects thatlie outside the scope of the Institute’sprogram or are not likely to meritserious consideration by the Board. Thenarrative summaries, rating sheets, andlist of non-reviewed papers will bepresented to the Board for its review.Committees of the Board will reviewconcept paper summaries withinassigned program areas and preparerecommendations for the full Board.The full Board of Directors will thendecide which concept paper applicantswill be invited to submit formalapplications for funding. The decisionto invite an application is solely that ofthe Board of Directors.

The Board may waive the applicationrequirement and approve a grant basedon a concept paper for a projectrequiring less than $40,000 when theneed for and benefits of the project areclear and the methodology and budgetrequire little additional explanation.Applicants considering whether torequest consideration for an accelerated

award should make certain that theproposed budget is sufficient toaccomplish the project objectives in aquality manner. Because the Institute’sexperience has been that projects toconduct empirical research or a programevaluation ordinarily require a morethorough explanation of themethodology to be used than can beprovided within the space limitations ofa concept paper, the Board is unlikelyto waive the application requirement forsuch projects.

2. Selection Criteria

a. All concept papers will beevaluated on the basis of the followingcriteria:

(1) The demonstration of need for theproject;

(2) The soundness and innovativenessof the approach described;

(3) The benefits to be derived from theproject;

(4) The reasonableness of theproposed budget;

(5) The proposed project’srelationship to one of the ‘‘SpecialInterest’’ categories set forth in sectionII.B; and

(6) The degree to which the findings,procedures, training, technology, orother results of the project can betransferred to other jurisdictions.

Single jurisdiction concept paperswill be rated on the proposed project’srelation to one of the ‘‘Special Interest’’categories set forth in section II.B. andthe special requirements listed insection II.D. and VII.A.

b. In determining which conceptpapers will be approved for award orselected for development into fullapplications, the Institute will alsoconsider the availability of financialassistance from other sources for theproject; the amount and nature (cash orin-kind) of the applicant’s anticipatedmatch; whether the applicant is a Statecourt, a national court support oreducation organization, a non-court unitof government, or another type of entityeligible to receive grants under theInstitute’s enabling legislation (see 42U.S.C. 10705(b)), as amended, andsection IV of this Grant Guideline); theextent to which the proposed projectwould also benefit the Federal courts orhelp the State courts enforce Federalconstitutional and legislativerequirements; and the level ofappropriations available to the Institutein the current year and the amountexpected to be available in succeedingfiscal years.

3. Notification to Applicants

The Institute will send written noticeto all persons submitting concept



papers, informing them of the Board’sdecisions regarding their papers and ofthe key issues and questions that aroseduring the review process. A decisionby the Board not to invite an applicationmay not be appealed, but applicantsmay resubmit the concept paper or arevision thereof in a subsequent fundingcycle. The Institute will also notify therelevant State contact (see Appendix C)when the Board invites applicationssubmitted by courts within that State orthat specify a participating site withinthat State.

VII. Applications

A. Project GrantsAn application for a Project Grant

must include an application form;budget forms (with appropriatedocumentation); a project abstract andprogram narrative; a disclosure oflobbying form, when applicable; andcertain certifications and assurances.The Institute will send the requiredapplication forms to applicants invitedto submit a full application.

1. Forms

a. Application Form (FORM A)The application form requests basic

information regarding the proposedproject, the applicant, and the totalamount of funding requested from theInstitute. It also requires the signature ofan individual authorized to certify onbehalf of the applicant that theinformation contained in theapplication is true and complete; thatsubmission of the application has beenauthorized by the applicant; and that iffunding for the proposed project isapproved, the applicant will complywith the requirements and conditions ofthe award, including the assurances setforth in Form D.

b. Certificate of State Approval (FORMB)

An application from a State or localcourt must include a copy of FORM Bsigned by the State’s Chief Justice orChief Judge, the director of thedesignated agency, or the head of thedesignated council. The signaturedenotes that the proposed project hasbeen approved by the State’s highestcourt or the agency or council it hasdesignated. It denotes further that iffunding for the project is approved bythe Institute, the court or the specifieddesignee will receive, administer, andbe accountable for the awarded funds.

c. Budget Forms (FORM C or C1)

Applicants may submit the proposedproject budget either in the tabularformat of FORM C or in the spreadsheet

format of FORM C1. Applicantsrequesting $100,000 or more arestrongly encouraged to use thespreadsheet format. If the proposedproject period is for more than a year,a separate form should be submitted foreach year or portion of a year for whichgrant support is requested, as well as forthe total length of the project.

In addition to FORM C or C1,applicants must provide a detailedbudget narrative providing anexplanation of the basis for theestimates in each budget category. (See4. below in this section.)

If funds from other sources arerequired to conduct the project, either asmatch or to support other aspects of theproject, the source, current status of therequest, and anticipated decision datemust be provided.

d. Assurances (FORM D)

This form lists the statutory,regulatory, and policy requirementswith which recipients of Institute fundsmust comply.

e. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Applicants other than units of State orlocal government are required todisclose whether they, or another entitythat is part of the same organization asthe applicant, have advocated a positionbefore Congress on any issue, and toidentify the specific subjects of theirlobbying efforts. (See section IX.A.7.)

2. Project Abstract

The abstract should highlight thepurposes, goals, methods andanticipated benefits of the proposedproject. It should not exceed 1 single-spaced page on 81⁄2 by 11 inch paper.

3. Program Narrative

The program narrative for anapplication may not exceed 25 double-spaced pages on 81⁄2 by 11 inch paper.Margins must be at least 1 inch, andtype size must be at least 12-point and12 cpi. The pages should be numbered.This page limit does not include theforms, the abstract, the budget narrative,and any appendices containing resumesand letters of cooperation orendorsement. Additional backgroundmaterial should be attached only if it isessential to impart a clearunderstanding of the proposed project.Numerous and lengthy appendices arestrongly discouraged.

The program narrative should addressthe following topics:

a. Project Objectives

The applicant should include a clear,concise statement of what the proposedproject is intended to accomplish. In

stating the objectives of the project,applicants should focus on the overallprogrammatic objective (e.g., to enhanceunderstanding and skills regarding aspecific subject, or to determine how acertain procedure affects the court andlitigants) rather than on operationalobjectives (e.g., provide training for 32judges and court managers, or reviewdata from 300 cases).

b. Program Areas to be CoveredThe applicant should note the Special

Interest Category or Categories that areaddressed by the proposed project (seesection II.B.). If the proposed projectdoes not fall within one of the Institute’sSpecial Interest Categories, theapplicant should list the StatutoryProgram Area or Areas that areaddressed by the proposed project. (Seesection II.A.)

c. Need for the ProjectIf the project is to be conducted in a

specific location(s), the applicantshould discuss the particular needs ofthe project site(s) to be addressed by theproject and why those needs are notbeing met through the use of existingmaterials, programs, procedures,services, or other resources.

If the project is not site-specific, theapplicant should discuss the problemsthat the proposed project wouldaddress, and why existing materials,programs, procedures, services, or otherresources cannot adequately resolvethose problems. The discussion shouldinclude specific references to therelevant literature and to the experiencein the field.

d. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation(1) Tasks and Methods. The applicant

should delineate the tasks to beperformed in achieving the projectobjectives and the methods to be usedfor accomplishing each task. Forexample:

(a) For research and evaluationprojects, the applicant should includethe data sources, data collectionstrategies, variables to be examined, andanalytic procedures to be used forconducting the research or evaluationand ensuring the validity and generalapplicability of the results. For projectsinvolving human subjects, thediscussion of methods should addressthe procedures for obtainingrespondents’ informed consent,ensuring the respondents’ privacy andfreedom from risk or harm, and theprotection of others who are not thesubjects of research but would beaffected by the research. If the potentialexists for risk or harm to the humansubjects, a discussion should be



included that explains the value of theproposed research and the methods tobe used to minimize or eliminate suchrisk.

(b) For education and trainingprojects, the applicant should includethe adult education techniques to beused in designing and presenting theprogram, including the teaching/learning objectives of the educationaldesign, the teaching methods to be used,and the opportunities for structuredinteraction among the participants; howfaculty would be recruited, selected,and trained; the proposed number andlength of the conferences, courses,seminars, or workshops to be conductedand the estimated number of personswho would attend them; the materials tobe provided and how they would bedeveloped; and the cost to participants.

(c) For demonstration projects, theapplicant should include thedemonstration sites and the reasonsthey were selected, or if the sites havenot been chosen, how they would beidentified and their cooperationobtained; and how the program orprocedures would be implemented andmonitored.

(d) For technical assistance projects,the applicant should explain the typesof assistance that would be provided;the particular issues and problems forwhich assistance would be provided;how requests would be obtained and thetype of assistance determined; howsuitable providers would be selectedand briefed; how reports would bereviewed; and the cost to recipients.

(2) Evaluation. Every project designmust include an evaluation plan todetermine whether the project met itsobjectives. The evaluation should bedesigned to provide an objective andindependent assessment of theeffectiveness or usefulness of thetraining or services provided; the impactof the procedures, technology, orservices tested; or the validity andapplicability of the research conducted.In addition, where appropriate, theevaluation process should be designedto provide ongoing or periodic feedbackon the effectiveness or utility of theproject in order to promote itscontinuing improvement. The planshould present the qualifications of theevaluator(s); describe the criteria thatwould be used to evaluate the project’seffectiveness in meeting its objectives;explain how the evaluation would beconducted, including the specific datacollection and analysis techniques to beused; discuss why this approach wouldbe appropriate; and present a schedulefor completion of the evaluation withinthe proposed project period.

The evaluation plan should beappropriate to the type of projectproposed. For example:

(a) Research. An evaluation approachsuited to many research projects is areview by an advisory panel of theresearch methodology, data collectioninstruments, preliminary analyses, andproducts as they are drafted. The panelshould be comprised of independentresearchers and practitionersrepresenting the perspectives affectedby the proposed project.

(b) Education and Training. The mostvaluable approaches to evaluatingeducational or training programsreinforce the participants’ learningexperience while providing usefulfeedback on the impact of the programand possible areas for improvement.One appropriate evaluation approach isto assess the acquisition of newknowledge, skills, attitudes orunderstanding through participantfeedback on the seminar or trainingevent. Such feedback might include aself-assessment on what was learnedalong with the participant’s response tothe quality and effectiveness of facultypresentations, the format of sessions, thevalue or usefulness of the materialpresented, and other relevant factors.Another appropriate approach would beto use an independent observer whomight request both verbal and writtenresponses from participants in theprogram. When an education projectinvolves the development of curricularmaterials, an advisory panel of relevantexperts can be coupled with a test of thecurriculum to obtain the reactions ofparticipants and faculty as indicatedabove.

(c) Demonstration. The evaluationplan for a demonstration project shouldencompass an assessment of programeffectiveness (e.g., how well did itwork?); user satisfaction, if appropriate;the cost-effectiveness of the program; aprocess analysis of the program (e.g.,was the program implemented asdesigned, and/or did it provide theservices intended to the targetedpopulation?); the impact of the program(e.g., what effect did the program haveon the court, and/or what benefitsresulted from the program?); and thereplicability of the program orcomponents of the program.

(d) Technical Assistance. Fortechnical assistance projects, applicantsshould explain how the quality,timeliness, and impact of the assistanceprovided would be determined, anddevelop a mechanism for feedback fromboth the users and providers of thetechnical assistance.

Evaluation plans involving humansubjects should include a discussion of

the procedures for obtainingrespondents’ informed consent,ensuring the respondents’ privacy andfreedom from risk or harm, and theprotection of others who are not thesubjects of evaluation but would beaffected by it. Other than the provisionof confidentiality to respondents,human subject protection issuesordinarily are not applicable toparticipants evaluating an educationprogram.

e. Project ManagementThe applicant should present a

detailed management plan, includingthe starting and completion date foreach task; the time commitments to theproject of key staff and theirresponsibilities regarding each projecttask; and the procedures that wouldensure that all tasks are performed ontime, within budget, and at the highestlevel of quality. In preparing the projecttime line, Gantt Chart, or schedule,applicants should make certain that allproject activities, including publicationor reproduction of project products andtheir initial dissemination, would occurwithin the proposed project period. Themanagement plan must also provide forthe submission of Quarterly Progressand Financial Reports within 30 daysafter the close of each calendar quarter(i.e., no later than January 30, April 30,July 30, and October 30).

Applicants should be aware that theInstitute is unlikely to approve morethan one limited extension of the grantperiod. Therefore, the management planshould be as realistic as possible andfully reflect the time commitments ofthe proposed project staff andconsultants.

f. ProductsThe program narrative in the

application should contain a descriptionof the products to be developed (e.g.,training curricula and materials,videotapes, articles, manuals, orhandbooks), including when they wouldbe submitted to the Institute. The budgetshould include the cost of producingand disseminating the product to eachin-State SJI library, State chief justice,State court administrator, and otherjudges or court personnel.

(1) Dissemination Plan. Theapplication must explain how and towhom the products would bedisseminated; describe how they wouldbenefit the State courts, including howthey could be used by judges and courtpersonnel; identify development,production, and dissemination costscovered by the project budget; andpresent the basis on which products andservices developed or provided under



the grant would be offered to the courtscommunity and the public at large (i.e.,whether products would be distributedat no cost to recipients, or if costs areinvolved, the reason for chargingrecipients and the estimated price of theproduct). (See section IX.A.11.b.)Ordinarily, applicants should scheduleall product preparation and distributionactivities within the project period.

A copy of each product must be sentto the library established in each Stateto collect the materials developed withInstitute support. (A list of theselibraries is contained in Appendix D.)Applicants proposing to develop web-based products should provide forsending a hard-copy document to theSJI-designated libraries and otherappropriate audiences to alert them tothe availability of the web site orelectronic product (e.g., a written reportwith a reference to the web site, a pressrelease with the web site address andscreens printed from the web site, etc.).

Seventeen (17) copies of all projectproducts must be submitted to theInstitute. A master copy of eachvideotape, in addition to 17 copies ofeach videotape product, must also beprovided to the Institute.

(2) Types of Products and PressReleases. The type of product to beprepared depends on the nature of theproject. For example, in most instances,the products of a research, evaluation,or demonstration project should includean article summarizing the projectfindings that is publishable in a journalserving the courts communitynationally, an executive summary thatwould be disseminated to the project’sprimary audience, or both. Applicantsproposing to conduct empirical researchor evaluation projects with nationalimport should describe how they wouldmake their data available for secondaryanalysis after the grant period. (Seesection IX.A.14.a.).

The curricula and other productsdeveloped by education and trainingprojects should be designed for useoutside the classroom so that they maybe used again by original participantsand others in the course of their duties.

In addition, recipients of projectgrants must prepare a press releasedescribing the project and announcingthe results, and distribute the release toa list of national and State judicialbranch organizations. SJI will providepress release guidelines and a list ofrecipients to grantees at least 30 daysbefore the end of the grant period.

(3) Institute Review. Applicants mustsubmit a final draft of all written grantproducts to the Institute for review andapproval at least 30 days before theproducts are submitted for publication

or reproduction. For products in avideotape or CD–ROM format,applicants must provide for incrementalInstitute review of the product at thetreatment, script, rough-cut, and finalstages of development, or theirequivalents. No grant funds may beobligated for publication orreproduction of a final grant productwithout the written approval of theInstitute. (See section IX.A.11.e.)

(4) Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, andLogo. Applicants must also include inall project products a prominentacknowledgment that support wasreceived from the Institute and adisclaimer paragraph based on theexample provided in sectionIX.A.11.a.(2) of the Guideline. The ‘‘SJI’’logo must appear on the front cover ofa written product, or in the openingframes of a video, unless the Instituteapproves another placement.

g. Applicant StatusAn applicant that is not a State or

local court and has not received a grantfrom the Institute within the past twoyears should state whether it is either anational non-profit organizationcontrolled by, operating in conjunctionwith, and serving the judicial branchesof State governments; or a national non-profit organization for the education andtraining of State court judges andsupport personnel. See section IV. If theapplicant is a nonjudicial unit ofFederal, State, or local government, itmust explain whether the proposedservices could be adequately providedby non-governmental entities.

h. Staff CapabilityThe applicant should include a

summary of the training and experienceof the key staff members andconsultants that qualify them forconducting and managing the proposedproject. Resumes of identified staffshould be attached to the application. Ifone or more key staff members andconsultants are not known at the time ofthe application, a description of thecriteria that would be used to selectpersons for these positions should beincluded. The applicant also shouldidentify the person who would beresponsible for managing and reportingon the finances of the proposed project.

i. Organizational CapacityApplicants that have not received a

grant from the Institute within the pasttwo years should include a statementdescribing their capacity to administergrant funds, including the financialsystems used to monitor projectexpenditures (and income, if any), anda summary of their past experience in

administering grants, as well as anyresources or capabilities that they havethat would particularly assist in thesuccessful completion of the project.

Unless requested otherwise, anapplicant that has received a grant fromthe Institute within the past two yearsshould describe only the changes in itsorganizational capacity, tax status, orfinancial capability that may affect itscapacity to administer a grant.

If the applicant is a non-profitorganization (other than a university), itmust also provide documentation of its501(c) tax-exempt status as determinedby the Internal Revenue Service and acopy of a current certified audit report.For purposes of this requirement,‘‘current’’ means no earlier than twoyears prior to the present calendar year.

If a current audit report is notavailable, the Institute will require theorganization to complete a financialcapability questionnaire which must besigned by a Certified Public Accountant.Other applicants may be required toprovide a current audit report, afinancial capability questionnaire, orboth, if specifically requested to do soby the Institute.

j. Statement of Lobbying ActivitiesNon-governmental applicants must

submit the Institute’s Disclosure ofLobbying Activities Form, whichdocuments whether they, or anotherentity that is a part of the sameorganization as the applicant, haveadvocated a position before Congress onany issue, and identifies the specificsubjects of their lobbying efforts.

k. Letters of Cooperation or SupportIf the cooperation of courts,

organizations, agencies, or individualsother than the applicant is required toconduct the project, the applicantshould attach written assurances ofcooperation and availability to theapplication, or send them underseparate cover. To ensure sufficient timeto bring them to the Board’s attention,letters of support sent under separatecover must be received no more than 30days after the deadline for mailing theapplication.

4. Budget NarrativeThe budget narrative should provide

the basis for the computation of allproject-related costs. When theproposed project would be partiallysupported by grants from other fundingsources, applicants should make clearwhat costs would be covered by thoseother grants. Additional background orschedules may be attached if they areessential to obtaining a clearunderstanding of the proposed budget.



Numerous and lengthy appendices arestrongly discouraged.

The budget narrative should cover thecosts of all components of the projectand clearly identify costs attributable tothe project evaluation. Under OMBgrant guidelines incorporated byreference in this Guideline, grant fundsmay not be used to purchase alcoholicbeverages.

a. Justification of PersonnelCompensation

The applicant should set forth thepercentages of time to be devoted by theindividuals who would staff theproposed project, the annual salary ofeach of those persons, and the numberof work days per year used forcalculating the percentages of time ordaily rates of those individuals. Theapplicant should explain any deviationsfrom current rates or established writtenorganizational policies. If grant fundsare requested to pay the salary andrelated costs for a current employee ofa court or other unit of government, theapplicant should explain why thiswould not constitute a supplantation ofState or local funds in violation of 42U.S.C. 10706(d)(1). An acceptableexplanation may be that the position tobe filled is a new one established inconjunction with the project or that thegrant funds would support only theportion of the employee’s time thatwould be dedicated to new or additionalduties related to the project.

b. Fringe Benefit Computation

The applicant should provide adescription of the fringe benefitsprovided to employees. If percentagesare used, the authority for such useshould be presented, as well as adescription of the elements included inthe determination of the percentage rate.

c. Consultant/Contractual Services andHonoraria

The applicant should describe thetasks each consultant would perform,the estimated total amount to be paid toeach consultant, the basis forcompensation rates (e.g., the number ofdays multiplied by the daily consultantrates), and the method for selection.Rates for consultant services must be setin accordance with section X.I.2.c.Honorarium payments must be justifiedin the same manner as other consultantpayments. Prior written Instituteapproval is required for any consultantrate in excess of $300 per day; Institutefunds may not be used to pay aconsultant more than $900 per day.

d. TravelTransportation costs and per diem

rates must comply with the policies ofthe applicant organization. If theapplicant does not have an establishedtravel policy, then travel rates must beconsistent with those established by theInstitute or the Federal Government. (Acopy of the Institute’s travel policy isavailable upon request.) The budgetnarrative should include an explanationof the rate used, including thecomponents of the per diem rate and thebasis for the estimated transportationexpenses. The purpose of the travelshould also be included in the narrative.

e. EquipmentGrant funds may be used to purchase

only the equipment necessary todemonstrate a new technologicalapplication in a court or that isotherwise essential to accomplishing theobjectives of the project. Equipmentpurchases to support basic courtoperations ordinarily will not beapproved. The applicant shoulddescribe the equipment to be purchasedor leased and explain why theacquisition of that equipment isessential to accomplish the project’sgoals and objectives. The narrativeshould clearly identify whichequipment is to be leased and which isto be purchased. The method ofprocurement should also be described.Purchases for automatic data processingequipment must comply with sectionX.I.2.b.

f. SuppliesThe applicant should provide a

general description of the suppliesnecessary to accomplish the goals andobjectives of the grant. In addition, theapplicant should provide the basis forthe amount requested for thisexpenditure category.

g. ConstructionConstruction expenses are prohibited

except for the limited purposes set forthin section IX.A.16.b. Any allowableconstruction or renovation expenseshould be described in detail in thebudget narrative.

h. TelephoneApplicants should include

anticipated telephone charges,distinguishing between monthly chargesand long distance charges in the budgetnarrative. Also, applicants shouldprovide the basis used to calculate themonthly and long distance estimates.

i. PostageAnticipated postage costs for project-

related mailings, including distribution

of the final product(s), should bedescribed in the budget narrative. Thecost of special mailings, such as for asurvey or for announcing a workshop,should be distinguished from routineoperational mailing costs. The bases forall postage estimates should be includedin the budget narrative.

j. Printing/PhotocopyingAnticipated costs for printing or

photocopying project documents,reports, and publications should beincluded in the budget narrative, alongwith the bases used to calculate theseestimates.

k. Indirect CostsApplicants should describe the

indirect cost rates applicable to thegrant in detail. If costs often includedwithin an indirect cost rate are chargeddirectly (e.g., a percentage of the time ofsenior managers to supervise projectactivities), the applicant should specifythat these costs are not included withinits approved indirect cost rate. Theserates must be established in accordancewith section X.I.4. If the applicant hasan indirect cost rate or allocation planapproved by any Federal grantingagency, a copy of the approved rateagreement should be attached to theapplication.

l. MatchThe applicant should describe the

source of any matching contribution andthe nature of the match provided. Anyadditional contributions to the projectshould be described in this section ofthe budget narrative as well. If in-kindmatch is to be provided, the applicantshould describe how the amount andvalue of the time, services, or materialsactually contributed would bedocumented for audit purposes.Applicants should be aware that thetime spent by participants in educationcourses does not qualify as in-kindmatch.

Applicants that do not contemplatemaking matching contributionscontinuously throughout the course ofthe project or on a task-by-task basismust provide a schedule within 30 daysafter the beginning of the project periodindicating at what points during theproject period the matchingcontributions would be made. (Seesections III.O., IX.A.8., and X.E.1.)

5. Submission Requirementsa. Every applicant must submit an

original and four copies of theapplication package consisting of FORMA; FORM B, if the application is froma State or local court, or a Disclosure ofLobbying Form, if the applicant is not



a unit of State or local government; theBudget Forms (either FORM C or C–1);the Application Abstract; the ProgramNarrative; the Budget Narrative; and anynecessary appendices.

All applications invited by theInstitute’s Board of Directors must besent by first class or overnight mail orby courier no later than April 25, 2001.A postmark or courier receipt willconstitute evidence of the submissiondate. Please mark APPLICATION on theapplication package envelope and sendit to: State Justice Institute, 1650 KingStreet, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Receipt of each application will beacknowledged in writing. Extensions ofthe deadline for submission ofapplications will not be granted. See3.k. above in this section for deadlinesfor letters of support.

b. Applicants submitting more thanone application may include materialthat would be identical in eachapplication in a cover letter. Thismaterial will be incorporated byreference into each application andcounted against the 25-page limit for theprogram narrative. A copy of the coverletter should be attached to each copyof each application.

B. Continuation Grant Applications

1. Purpose and Scope

Continuation grants are intended tosupport projects with a limited durationthat involve the same type of activitiesas the previous project. They areintended to enhance the specificprogram or service produced orestablished during the prior grantperiod. They may be used, for example,when a project is divided into two ormore sequential phases, for secondaryanalysis of data obtained in an Institute-supported research project, or for moreextensive testing of an innovativetechnology, procedure, or programdeveloped with SJI grant support.Continuation grants should bedistinguished from ongoing supportgrants, which are awarded to supportcritically needed long-term nationalscope projects. See C. below in thissection.

The award of an initial grant tosupport a project does not constitute acommitment by the Institute to continuefunding. For a project to be consideredfor continuation funding, the granteemust have completed all project tasksand met all grant requirements andconditions in a timely manner, absentextenuating circumstances or priorInstitute approval of changes to theproject design. Continuation grants arenot intended to provide support for aproject for which the grantee has

underestimated the amount of time orfunds needed to accomplish the projecttasks.

2. Letters of IntentIn lieu of a concept paper, a grantee

seeking a continuation grant mustinform the Institute, by letter, of itsintent to submit an application for suchfunding as soon as the need forcontinued funding becomes apparentbut no less than 120 days before the endof the current grant period.

a. A letter of intent must be no morethan 3 single-spaced pages on 81⁄2 by 11inch paper and contain a concise butthorough explanation of the need forcontinuation; an estimate of the funds tobe requested; and a brief description ofanticipated changes in the scope, focus,or audience of the project.

b. Within 30 days after receiving aletter of intent, Institute staff will reviewthe proposed activities for the nextproject period and inform the grantee ofspecific issues to be addressed in thecontinuation application and the dateby which the application must besubmitted.

3. Application FormatAn application for a continuation

grant must include an application form,budget forms (with appropriatedocumentation), a project abstractconforming to the format set forth inA.2. of this section, a program narrative,a budget narrative, a Certificate of StateApproval—FORM B (Appendix H) if theapplicant is a State or local court, aDisclosure of Lobbying Activities form(from applicants other than units ofState or local government), and anynecessary appendices.

The program narrative shouldconform to the length and formatrequirements set forth in A.3. of thissection. However, rather than the topicslisted there, the program narrative of acontinuation application shouldinclude:

a. Project Objectives. The applicantshould clearly and concisely state whatthe continuation project is intended toaccomplish.

b. Need for Continuation. Theapplicant should explain whycontinuation of the project is necessaryto achieve the goals of the project, andhow the continuation would benefit theparticipating courts or the courtscommunity generally, by explaining, forexample, how the original goals andobjectives of the project would beunfulfilled if it were not continued; orhow the value of the project would beenhanced by its continuation.

c. Report of Current Project Activities.The applicant should discuss the status

of all activities conducted during theprevious project period. Applicantsshould identify any activities that werenot completed, and explain why.

d. Evaluation Findings. The applicantshould present the key findings, impact,or recommendations resulting from theevaluation of the project, if available,and how they would be addressedduring the proposed continuation. If thefindings are not yet available, theapplicant should provide the date bywhich they would be submitted to theInstitute. Ordinarily, the Board will notconsider an application for continuationfunding until the Institute has receivedthe evaluator’s report.

e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and GranteeCapability. The applicant should fullydescribe any changes in the tasks to beperformed, the methods to be used, theproducts of the project, and how and towhom those products would bedisseminated, as well as any changes inthe assigned staff or the grantee’sorganizational capacity. Applicantsshould include, in addition, the criteriaand methods by which the proposedcontinuation project would beevaluated.

f. Task Schedule. The applicantshould present a detailed task scheduleand timeline for the next project period.

g. Other Sources of Support. Theapplicant should indicate why othersources of support would be inadequate,inappropriate, or unavailable.

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide acomplete budget and budget narrativeconforming to the requirements set forthin A.4. in this section. Changes in thefunding level requested should bediscussed in terms of correspondingincreases or decreases in the scope ofactivities or services to be rendered. Inaddition, the applicant should estimatethe amount of grant funds that wouldremain unobligated at the end of thecurrent grant period.

5. References to Previously SubmittedMaterial

A continuation application should notrepeat information contained in apreviously approved application orother previously submitted materials,but should provide specific referencesto such materials where appropriate.

6. Submission Requirements

The submission requirements set forthin A.5. in this section, other than themailing deadline, apply to continuationapplications.



C. Ongoing Support Grants

1. Purpose and ScopeOngoing support grants are intended

to support projects that are national inscope and provide the State courts withservices, programs or products forwhich there is a continuing criticalneed. An ongoing support grant mayalso be used to fund longitudinalresearch that directly benefits the Statecourts. Ongoing support grants aresubject to the limits on size andduration set forth in V.C.2. and V.D.2.The Board will consider awarding anongoing support grant for a period of upto 36 months. The total amount of thegrant will be fixed at the time of theinitial award. Funds ordinarily will bemade available in annual increments asspecified in section V.C.2.

The award of an initial grant tosupport a project does not constitute acommitment by the Institute to provideongoing support at the end of theoriginal project period. A project iseligible for consideration for an ongoingsupport grant if:

a. The project is supported by and hasbeen evaluated under a grant from theInstitute;

b. The project is national in scope andprovides a significant benefit to theState courts;

c. There is a continuing critical needfor the services, programs or productsprovided by the project, indicated bythe level of use and support by membersof the court community;

d. The project is accomplishing itsobjectives in an effective and efficientmanner; and

e. It is likely that the service orprogram provided by the project wouldbe curtailed or significantly reducedwithout Institute support.

Each ongoing support applicationmust include an evaluation componentassessing its effectiveness and operationthroughout the grant period. Theevaluation should be independent butmay be designed collaboratively by theevaluator and the grantee. The designshould call for regular feedback from theevaluator to the grantee throughout theproject period concerningrecommendations for mid-coursecorrections or improvement of theproject, as well as periodic reports to theInstitute at relevant points in theproject.

An interim evaluation report must besubmitted 18 months into the 3-yeargrant period. The decision to releaseInstitute funds to support the third yearof the project will be based on theinterim evaluation findings and theapplicant’s response to any deficienciesnoted in the report, as well as the

availability of appropriations and theproject’s consistency with the Institute’spriorities.

A final evaluation assessing theeffectiveness, operation of, andcontinuing need for the project must besubmitted 90 days before the end of the3-year project period. In addition, adetailed annual task schedule must besubmitted not later than 45 days beforethe end of the first and second years ofthe grant period, along with anexplanation of any necessary revisionsin the projected costs for the remainderof the project period.

2. Letters of IntentIn lieu of a concept paper, an

applicant seeking an ongoing supportgrant must inform the Institute, byletter, of its intent to submit anapplication for such funding as soon asthe need for continuing fundingbecomes apparent but no less than 120days before the end of the current grantperiod. The letter of intent should be inthe same format as that prescribed forcontinuation grants in B.2. of thissection.

3. FormatAn application for an ongoing support

grant must include an application form;budget forms (with appropriatedocumentation); a Certificate of StateApproval—FORM B (Appendix H) if theapplicant is a State or local court; aDisclosure of Lobbying Activities form(from applicants other than units ofState or local government); a projectabstract conforming to the format setforth in A.2. of this section; a programnarrative; a budget narrative; and anynecessary appendices.

The program narrative shouldconform to the length and formatrequirements set forth in A.3. of thissection; however, rather than the topicslisted there, the program narrative ofapplications for ongoing support grantsshould address:

a. Description of Need for andBenefits of the Project. The applicantshould provide a detailed discussion ofthe benefits provided by the project toState courts around the country,including the degree to which Statecourts, State court judges, or State courtmanagers and personnel are using theservices or programs provided by theproject.

b. Demonstration of Court Support.The applicant should demonstratesupport for the continuation of theproject from the courts community.

c. Report on Current Project Activities.The applicant should discuss the extentto which the project has met its goalsand objectives, identify any activities

that have not been completed, andexplain why they have not beencompleted.

d. Evaluation Findings. The applicantshould attach a copy of the finalevaluation report regarding theeffectiveness, impact, and operation ofthe project, specify the key findings orrecommendations resulting from theevaluation, and explain how they wouldbe addressed during the next threeyears. Ordinarily, the Board will notconsider an application for ongoingsupport until the Institute has receivedthe evaluator’s report.

e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staffand Grantee Capability. The applicantshould describe fully any changes in theobjectives; tasks to be performed; themethods to be used; the products of theproject; how and to whom thoseproducts would be disseminated; theassigned staff; and the grantee’sorganizational capacity. The granteealso should describe the steps it wouldtake to obtain support from othersources for the continued operation ofthe project.

f. Task Schedule. The applicantshould present a general schedule forthe full proposed project period and adetailed task schedule for the first yearof the proposed new project period.

g. Other Sources of Support. Theapplicant should describe what efforts ithas taken to secure support for theproject from other sources.

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide acomplete three-year budget and budgetnarrative conforming to therequirements set forth in A.4. of thissection, and estimate the amount ofgrant funds that would remainunobligated at the end of the currentgrant period. Changes in the fundinglevel requested should be discussed interms of corresponding increases ordecreases in the scope of activities orservices to be rendered. A completebudget narrative should be provided forthe full project as well as for each year,or portion of a year, for which grantsupport is requested. The budget shouldprovide for realistic cost-of-living andstaff salary increases over the course ofthe requested project period. Applicantsshould be aware that the Institute isunlikely to approve a supplementalbudget increase for an ongoing supportgrant in the absence of well-documented, unanticipated factors thatwould clearly justify the requestedincrease.



5. References to Previously SubmittedMaterial

An application for an ongoing supportgrant should not repeat informationcontained in a previously approvedapplication or other previouslysubmitted materials, but should providespecific references to such materialswhere appropriate.


The submission requirements set forthin A.5. of this section, other than themailing deadline, apply to applicationsfor ongoing support grants.

D. Technical Assistance Grants


Technical assistance grants areawarded to State and local courts toobtain the assistance of outside expertsin diagnosing, developing, andimplementing a response to a particularproblem in a jurisdiction.

2. Application Procedures

In lieu of formal applications,applicants for Technical Assistancegrants may submit, at any time, anoriginal and three copies of a detailedletter describing the proposed project.Letters from an individual trial orappellate court must be signed by thepresiding judge or manager of that court.Letters from the State court system mustbe signed by the Chief Justice or StateCourt Administrator.

3. Application Format

Although there is no prescribed formfor the letter nor a minimum ormaximum page limit, letters ofapplication should include thefollowing information:

a. Need for Funding. What is thecritical need facing the court? Howwould the proposed technical assistancehelp the court meet this critical need?Why cannot State or local resourcesfully support the costs of the requiredconsultant services?

b. Project Description. What taskswould the consultant be expected toperform, and how would they beaccomplished? Which organization orindividual would be hired to providethe assistance, and how was thisconsultant selected? If a consultant hasnot yet been identified, what proceduresand criteria would be used to select theconsultant? (Applicants are expected tofollow their jurisdictions’ normalprocedures for procuring consultantservices.) What is the time frame forcompletion of the technical assistance?How would the court oversee the projectand provide guidance to the consultant,and who at the court would be

responsible for coordinating all projecttasks and submitting quarterly progressand financial status reports?

If the consultant has been identified,the applicant should provide a letterfrom that individual or organizationdocumenting interest in and availabilityfor the project, as well as theconsultant’s ability to complete theassignment within the proposed timeframe and for the proposed cost. Theconsultant must agree to submit adetailed written report to the court andthe Institute upon completion of thetechnical assistance.

c. Likelihood of Implementation.What steps have been or would be takento facilitate implementation of theconsultant’s recommendations uponcompletion of the technical assistance?For example, if the support orcooperation of specific court officials orcommittees, other agencies, fundingbodies, organizations, or a court otherthan the applicant would be needed toadopt the changes recommended by theconsultant and approved by the court,how would they be involved in thereview of the recommendations anddevelopment of the implementationplan?

d. Support for the Project from theState Supreme Court or its DesignatedAgency or Council. Written concurrenceon the need for the technical assistancemust be submitted. This concurrencemay be a copy of SJI Form B (seeAppendix H) signed by the Chief Justiceof the State Supreme Court or the ChiefJustice’s designee, or a letter from theState Chief Justice or designee. Theconcurrence may be submitted with theapplicant’s letter or under separatecover prior to consideration of theapplication. The concurrence also mustspecify whether the State SupremeCourt would receive, administer, andaccount for the grant funds, if awarded,or would designate the local court or aspecified agency or council to receivethe funds directly.

4. Budget and Matching StateContribution

A completed Form E, PreliminaryBudget (see Appendix G) and budgetnarrative must be included with theletter requesting technical assistance.The estimated cost of the technicalassistance services should be brokendown into the categories listed on thebudget form rather than aggregatedunder the Consultant/Contractualcategory.

The budget narrative should providethe basis for all project-related costs,including the basis for determining theestimated consultant costs, ifcompensation of the consultant is

required (e.g., the number of days pertask times the requested dailyconsultant rate). Applicants should beaware that consultant rates above $300per day must be approved in advance bythe Institute, and that no consultant willbe paid more than $900 per day. Inaddition, the budget should provide forsubmission of two copies of theconsultant’s final report to the Institute.

Recipients of technical assistancegrants do not have to submit an auditbut must maintain appropriatedocumentation to support expenditures.(See section IX.A.3.)


Letters of application may besubmitted at any time; however, all ofthe letters received during a calendarquarter will be considered at one time.Applicants submitting letters betweenJune 12 and September 29, 2000 will benotified of the Board’s decision byDecember 8, 2000; those submittingletters between September 30, 2000 andJanuary 12, 2001 will be notified byMarch 23, 2001; those submitting lettersbetween January 13, 2001 and March 9,2001 will be notified by May 11, 2001;and those submitting letters betweenMarch 10, 2001 and June 8, 2001 willbe notified by August 3, 2001.Applicants submitting letters betweenJune 9 and September 28, 2001 will benotified of the Board’s decision byDecember 15, 2001.

If the support or cooperation ofagencies, funding bodies, organizations,or courts other than the applicant wouldbe needed in order for the consultant toperform the required tasks, writtenassurances of such support orcooperation should accompany theapplication letter. Support letters alsomay be submitted under separate cover;however, to ensure that there issufficient time to bring them to theattention of the Board’s TechnicalAssistance Committee, letters sentunder separate cover must be receivednot less than three weeks prior to theBoard meeting at which the technicalassistance requests will be considered(i.e., by October 20, 2000, and February9, April 13, July 9, and October 26,2001).

E. Curriculum Adaptation Grants


Curriculum Adaptation grants areawarded to State and local courts tosupport replication or modification of amodel training program originallydeveloped with Institute funds.Ordinarily, the Institute will support theadaptation of a curriculum once (i.e.,with one grant) in a given State.



2. Application Procedures

In lieu of concept papers and formalapplications, applicants should submitan original and three photocopies of adetailed letter.

3. Application Format

Although there is no prescribedformat for the letter, or a minimum ormaximum page limit, letters ofapplication should include thefollowing information:

a. Project Description. What is the titleof the model curriculum to be adaptedand who developed it? Why is thiseducation program needed at thepresent time? What are the project’sgoals? What are the learning objectivesof the adapted curriculum? Whatprogram components would beimplemented, and what types ofmodifications, if any, are anticipated inlength, format, learning objectives,teaching methods, or content? Whowould be responsible for adapting themodel curriculum? Who would theparticipants be, how many would therebe, how would they be recruited, andfrom where would they come (e.g., fromacross the State, from a single localjurisdiction, from a multi-State region)?

b. Need for Funding. Why aresufficient State or local resourcesunavailable to fully support themodification and presentation of themodel curriculum? What is the potentialfor replicating or integrating theprogram in the future using State orlocal funds, once it has beensuccessfully adapted and tested?

c. Likelihood of Implementation.What is the proposed timeline,including the project start and end datesand the date(s) the program would bepresented? What process would be usedto modify and present the program?Who would serve as faculty, and howwere they selected? What measureswould be taken to facilitate subsequentpresentations of the program?(Ordinarily, an independent evaluationof a curriculum adaptation project is notrequired; however, the results of anyevaluation should be included in thefinal report.)

d. Expressions of Interest by Judgesand/or Court Personnel. Does theproposed program have the support ofthe court system leadership, and ofjudges, court managers, and judicialeducation personnel who are expectedto attend? (This may be demonstrated byattaching letters of support.)

e. Chief Justice’s Concurrence. Localcourts should attach a concurrence formsigned by the Chief Justice of the Stateor his or her designee. (See Form B,Appendix H.)

4. Budget and Matching StateContribution

Applicants should attach a copy ofbudget Form E (see Appendix G) and abudget narrative (see A.4. in thissection) that describes the basis for thecomputation of all project-related costsand the source of the match offered. Aswith other awards to State or localcourts, cash or in-kind match must beprovided in an amount equal to at least50% of the grant amount requested.

5. Submission RequirementsLetters of application may be

submitted at any time. However,applicants should allow at least 90 daysbetween the date of submission and thedate of the proposed program to allowsufficient time for needed planning.

F. Scholarships

1. Purpose and ScopeThe purposes of the Institute

scholarship program are to enhance theskills, knowledge, and abilities of judgesand court managers; enable State courtjudges and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programssponsored by national and Stateproviders that they could not otherwiseattend because of limited State, localand personal budgets; and provideStates, judicial educators, and theInstitute with evaluative information ona range of judicial and court-relatededucation programs.

Scholarships will be granted toindividuals only for the purpose ofattending an educational program inanother State. An applicant may applyfor a scholarship for only oneeducational program during any oneapplication cycle.

Scholarship funds may be used onlyto cover the costs of tuition andtransportation expenses. Transportationexpenses may include round-trip coachairfare or train fare. Scholarshiprecipients are strongly encouraged totake advantage of excursion or otherspecial airfares (e.g., reductions offeredwhen a ticket is purchased 21 days inadvance of the travel date or because thetraveler is staying over a Saturday night)when making their travel arrangements.Recipients who drive to a program sitemay receive $.325/mile up to theamount of the advanced-purchaseround-trip airfare between their homesand the program sites. Funds to paytuition and transportation expenses inexcess of $1,500 and other costs ofattending the program—such as lodging,meals, materials, transportation to andfrom airports, and local transportation(including rental cars)—at the programsite must be obtained from other sources

or borne by the scholarship recipient.Scholarship applicants are encouragedto check other sources of financialassistance and to combine aid fromvarious sources whenever possible.

A scholarship is not transferable toanother individual. It may be used onlyfor the course specified in theapplication unless attendance at adifferent course that meets the eligibilityrequirements is approved in writing bythe Institute. Decisions on such requestswill be made within 30 days after thereceipt of the request letter.

2. Eligibility Requirementsa. Recipients. Scholarships can be

awarded only to full-time judges of Stateor local trial and appellate courts; full-time professional, State or local courtpersonnel with managementresponsibilities; and supervisory andmanagement probation personnel injudicial branch probation offices. Seniorjudges, part-time judges, quasi-judicialhearing officers including referees andcommissioners, State administrative lawjudges, staff attorneys, law clerks, linestaff, law enforcement officers, andother executive branch personnel arenot eligible to receive a scholarship.

b. Courses. A Scholarship can beawarded only for a course presented ina State other than the one in which theapplicant resides or works that isdesigned to enhance the skills of new orexperienced judges and court managers;address any of the topics listed in theInstitute’s Special Interest categories; oris offered by a recognized graduateprogram for judges or court managers.The annual or mid-year meeting of aState or national organization of whichthe applicant is a member does notqualify as an out-of-State educationalprogram for scholarship purposes, eventhough it may include workshops orother training sessions.

Applicants are encouraged not to waitfor the decision on a scholarship toregister for an educational program theywish to attend.

3. Forms

a. Judicial Education ScholarshipApplication—FORM S–1 (Appendix F)

The application form requests basicinformation about the applicant and theeducational program the applicantwould like to attend. It also addressesthe applicant’s commitment to share theskills and knowledge gained with localcourt colleagues and to submit anevaluation of the program the applicantattends.

b. Scholarship ApplicationConcurrence—FORM S–2 (Appendix F)

Judges and court managers applyingfor Scholarships must submit the



written concurrence of the Chief Justiceof the State’s Supreme Court (or theChief Justice’s designee) on theInstitute’s Judicial EducationScholarship Concurrence form (seeAppendix F). The signature of thepresiding judge of the applicant’s courtcannot be substituted for that of theChief Justice or the Chief Justice’sdesignee. Court managers, other thanelected clerks of court, also must submita letter of support from their immediatesupervisors.


Scholarship applications must besubmitted during the periods specifiedbelow:

October 2 and December 1, 2000, forprograms beginning between January 1and March 31, 2001; January 5 andMarch 5, 2001, for programs beginningbetween April 1 and June 30, 2001;

April 2 and June 1, 2001, for programsbeginning between July 1 andSeptember 30, 2001;

July 5 and September 3, 2001, forprograms beginning between October 1and December 31, 2001; and

October 2 and November 30, 2001, forprograms beginning between January 1and March 31, 2002.

No exceptions or extensions will begranted. Applications sent prior to thebeginning of an application period willbe treated as having been sent one weekafter the beginning of that applicationperiod. All the required items must bereceived for an application to beconsidered. If the Concurrence form orletter of support is sent separately fromthe application, the postmark date of thelast item to be sent will be used inapplying the above criteria.

All applications should be sent bymail or courier (not fax or e-mail) to:Scholarship Program Coordinator, StateJustice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite600, Alexandria, VA 22314.

VIII. Application Review Procedures

A. Preliminary Inquiries

The Institute staff will answerinquiries concerning applicationprocedures. The staff contact will benamed in the Institute’s letteracknowledging receipt of theapplication.

B. Selection Criteria

1. Project, Continuation, and OngoingSupport Grant Applications

a. All applications will be rated on thebasis of the criteria set forth below. TheInstitute will accord the greatest weightto the following criteria:

(1) The soundness of themethodology;

(2) The demonstration of need for theproject;

(3) The appropriateness of theproposed evaluation design;

(4) The applicant’s management planand organizational capabilities;

(5) The qualifications of the project’sstaff;

(6) The products and benefitsresulting from the project including theextent to which the project will havelong-term benefits for State courts acrossthe nation;

(7) The degree to which the findings,procedures, training, technology, orother results of the project can betransferred to other jurisdictions;

(8) The reasonableness of theproposed budget;

(9) The demonstration of cooperationand support of other agencies that maybe affected by the project; and

(10) The proposed project’srelationship to one of the ‘‘SpecialInterest’’ categories set forth in sectionII.B.

b. For continuation and ongoingsupport grant applications, the keyfindings and recommendations ofevaluations and the proposed responsesto those findings and recommendationsalso will be considered.

c. In determining which applicants tofund, the Institute will also considerwhether the applicant is a State court,a national court support or educationorganization, a non-court unit ofgovernment, or other type of entityeligible to receive grants under theInstitute’s enabling legislation (see 42U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) andSection IV. above); the availability offinancial assistance from other sourcesfor the project; the amount and nature(cash or in-kind) of the applicant’smatch; the extent to which the proposedproject would also benefit the Federalcourts or help State courts enforceFederal constitutional and legislativerequirements; and the level ofappropriations available to the Institutein the current year and the amountexpected to be available in succeedingfiscal years.

2. Technical Assistance GrantApplications

Technical Assistance grantapplications will be rated on the basisof the following criteria:

a. Whether the assistance wouldaddress a critical need of the court;

b. The soundness of the technicalassistance approach to the problem;

c. The qualifications of theconsultant(s) to be hired, or the specificcriteria that will be used to select theconsultant(s);

d. Commitment on the part of thecourt to act on the consultant’srecommendations; and

e. The reasonableness of the proposedbudget.

The Institute also will consider factorssuch as the level and nature of thematch that would be provided, diversityof subject matter, geographic diversity,the level of appropriations available tothe Institute in the current year, and theamount expected to be available insucceeding fiscal years.

3. Curriculum Adaptation GrantApplications

Curriculum Adaptation grantapplications will be rated on the basisof the following criteria:

a. The goals and objectives of theproposed project;

b. The need for outside funding tosupport the program;

c. The appropriateness of theapproach in achieving the project’seducational objectives;

d. The likelihood of effectiveimplementation and integration into theState’s or local jurisdiction’s ongoingeducational programming; and

e. Expressions of interest by thejudges and/or court personnel whowould be directly involved in oraffected by the project.

The Institute will also consider factorssuch as the reasonableness of theamount requested, compliance withmatch requirements, diversity of subjectmatter, geographic diversity, the level ofappropriations available in the currentyear, and the amount expected to beavailable in succeeding fiscal years.

4. ScholarshipsScholarships will be awarded on the

basis of:a. The date on which the application

and concurrence (and support letter, ifrequired) were received;

b. The unavailability of State or localfunds to cover the costs of attending theprogram or scholarship funds fromanother source;

c. The absence of educationalprograms in the applicant’s Stateaddressing the topic(s) covered by theeducational program for which thescholarship is being sought;

d. Geographic balance among therecipients;

e. The balance of scholarships amongeducational programs;

f. The balance of scholarships amongthe types of courts represented; and

g. The level of appropriationsavailable to the Institute in the currentyear and the amount expected to beavailable in succeeding fiscal years.

The postmark or courier receipt willbe used to determine the date on which



the application form and other requireditems were sent.

C. Review and Approval Process

1. Project, Continuation, and OngoingSupport Grant Applications

Applications will be reviewedcompetitively by the Board of Directors.The Institute staff will prepare anarrative summary of each applicationand a rating sheet assigning points foreach relevant selection criterion. Whennecessary, applications may also bereviewed by outside experts.Committees of the Board will reviewapplications within assigned programcategories and preparerecommendations to the full Board. Thefull Board of Directors will then decidewhich applications to approve forgrants. The decision to award a grant issolely that of the Board of Directors.

Awards approved by the Board willbe signed by the Chairman of the Boardon behalf of the Institute.

2. Technical Assistance and CurriculumAdaptation Grant Applications

The Institute staff will prepare anarrative summary of each applicationand a rating sheet assigning points foreach relevant selection criterion.Applications will be reviewedcompetitively by a committee of theBoard of Directors. The Board ofDirectors has delegated its authority toapprove Technical Assistance andCurriculum Adaptation grants to thecommittee established for each program.

Approved awards will be signed bythe Chairman of the Board on behalf ofthe Institute.

3. ScholarshipsScholarship applications are reviewed

quarterly by a committee of theInstitute’s Board of Directors. The Boardof Directors has delegated its authorityto approve Scholarships to thecommittee established for the program.

Approved awards will be signed bythe Chairman of the Board on behalf ofthe Institute.

D. Return PolicyUnless a specific request is made,

unsuccessful applications will not bereturned. Applicants are advised thatInstitute records are subject to theprovisions of the Federal Freedom ofInformation Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

E. Notification of Board Decision1. The Institute will send written

notice to applicants concerning allBoard decisions to approve, defer, ordeny their respective applications. Forall except Scholarship applications, theInstitute also will convey the key issues

and questions that arose during thereview process. A decision by the Boardto deny an application may not beappealed, but it does not prohibitresubmission of a proposal based onthat application in a subsequent fundingcycle. With respect to awards other thanScholarships, the Institute will alsonotify the designated State contact listedin Appendix C when grants areapproved by the Board to supportprojects that will be conducted by orinvolve courts in that State.

2. The Board anticipates acting uponCurriculum Adaptation grantapplications within 45 days afterreceipt. Grant funds will be availableonly after Board approval andnegotiation of the final terms of thegrant.

3. The Institute intends to notify eachScholarship applicant of the Boardcommittee’s decision within 30 daysafter the close of the relevantapplication period.

F. Response to Notification of ApprovalWith the exception of those approved

for Scholarships, applicants have 30days from the date of the letter notifyingthem that the Board has approved theirapplication to respond to any revisionsrequested by the Board. If the requestedrevisions (or a reasonable schedule forsubmitting such revisions) have notbeen submitted to the Institute within30 days after notification, the approvalmay be automatically rescinded and theapplication presented to the Board forreconsideration.

IX. Compliance RequirementsThe State Justice Institute Act

contains limitations and conditions ongrants, contracts, and cooperativeagreements awarded by the Institute.The Board of Directors has approvedadditional policies governing the use ofInstitute grant funds. These statutoryand policy requirements are set forthbelow.

A. Recipients of Project Grants

1. AdvocacyNo funds made available by the

Institute may be used to support orconduct training programs for thepurpose of advocating particularnonjudicial public policies orencouraging nonjudicial politicalactivities. 42 U.S.C. 10706(b).

2. Approval of Key StaffIf the qualifications of an employee or

consultant assigned to a key project staffposition are not described in theapplication or if there is a change of aperson assigned to such a position, therecipient must submit a description of

the qualifications of the newly assignedperson to the Institute. Prior writtenapproval of the qualifications of the newperson assigned to a key staff positionmust be received from the Institutebefore the salary or consulting fee ofthat person and associated costs may bepaid or reimbursed from grant funds.

3. Audit

Recipients of project grants mustprovide for an annual fiscal audit whichincludes an opinion on whether thefinancial statements of the granteepresent fairly its financial position andfinancial operations are in accordancewith generally accepted accountingprinciples. (See section X.K. of theGuideline for the requirements of suchaudits.) Recipients of scholarships orcurriculum adaptation or technicalassistance grants are not required tosubmit an audit, but must maintainappropriate documentation to supportall expenditures.

4. Budget Revisions

Budget revisions among direct costcategories that individually orcumulatively exceed five percent of theapproved original budget or the mostrecently approved revised budgetrequire prior Institute approval.

5. Conflict of Interest

Personnel and other officialsconnected with Institute-fundedprograms must adhere to the followingrequirements:

a. No official or employee of arecipient court or organization shallparticipate personally through decision,approval, disapproval, recommendation,the rendering of advice, investigation, orotherwise in any proceeding,application, request for a ruling or otherdetermination, contract, grant,cooperative agreement, claim,controversy, or other particular matterin which Institute funds are used,where, to his or her knowledge, he orshe or his or her immediate family,partners, organization other than apublic agency in which he or she isserving as officer, director, trustee,partner, or employee or any person ororganization with whom he or she isnegotiating or has any arrangementconcerning prospective employment, orhas a financial interest.

b. In the use of Institute project funds,an official or employee of a recipientcourt or organization shall avoid anyaction which might result in or createthe appearance of:

(1) Using an official position forprivate gain; or



(2) Affecting adversely the confidenceof the public in the integrity of theInstitute program.

c. Requests for proposals orinvitations for bids issued by a recipientof Institute funds or a subgrantee orsubcontractor will provide notice toprospective bidders that the contractorswho develop or draft specifications,requirements, statements of work, and/or requests for proposals for a proposedprocurement will be excluded frombidding on or submitting a proposal tocompete for the award of suchprocurement.

6. Inventions and PatentsIf any patentable items, patent rights,

processes, or inventions are produced inthe course of Institute-sponsored work,such fact shall be promptly and fullyreported to the Institute. Unless there isa prior agreement between the granteeand the Institute on disposition of suchitems, the Institute shall determinewhether protection of the invention ordiscovery shall be sought. The Institutewill also determine how the rights inthe invention or discovery, includingrights under any patent issued thereon,shall be allocated and administered inorder to protect the public interestconsistent with ‘‘Government PatentPolicy’’ (President’s Memorandum forHeads of Executive Departments andAgencies, February 18, 1983, andstatement of Government Patent Policy).

7. Lobbyinga. Funds awarded to recipients by the

Institute shall not be used, indirectly ordirectly, to influence Executive Ordersor similar promulgations by Federal,State or local agencies, or to influencethe passage or defeat of any legislationby Federal, State or local legislativebodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).

b. It is the policy of the Board ofDirectors to award funds only to supportapplications submitted by organizationsthat would carry out the objectives oftheir applications in an unbiasedmanner. Consistent with this policy andthe provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, theInstitute will not knowingly award agrant to an applicant that has, directlyor through an entity that is part of thesame organization as the applicant,advocated a position before Congress onthe specific subject matter of theapplication.

8. Matching Requirementsa. All awards to courts or other units

of State or local government (notincluding publicly supportedinstitutions of higher education) requirea match from private or public sourcesof not less than 50% of the total amount

of the Institute’s award. For example, ifthe total cost of a project is anticipatedto be $150,000, a State court orexecutive branch agency may request upto $100,000 from the Institute toimplement the project. The remaining$50,000 (50% of the $100,000 requestedfrom SJI) must be provided as a match.A cash match, non-cash match, or bothmay be provided, but the Institute willgive preference to those applicants thatprovide a cash match to the Institute’saward. (For a further definition ofmatch, see section III.O.)

b. The requirement to provide matchmay be waived in exceptionally rarecircumstances upon the request of theChief Justice of the highest court in theState and approval by the Board ofDirectors. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d).

c. Other eligible recipients of Institutefunds are not required to provide amatch, but are encouraged to contributeto meeting the costs of the project. Ininstances where match is proposed, thegrantee is responsible for ensuring thatthe total amount proposed is actuallycontributed. If a proposed contributionis not fully met, the Institute mayreduce the award amount accordingly,in order to maintain the ratio originallyprovided for in the award agreement(see section X.E).

9. NondiscriminationNo person may, on the basis of race,

sex, national origin, disability, color, orcreed be excluded from participation in,denied the benefits of, or otherwisesubjected to discrimination under anyprogram or activity supported byInstitute funds. Recipients of Institutefunds must immediately take anymeasures necessary to effectuate thisprovision.

10. Political ActivitiesNo recipient may contribute or make

available Institute funds, programpersonnel, or equipment to any politicalparty or association, or the campaign ofany candidate for public or party office.Recipients are also prohibited fromusing funds in advocating or opposingany ballot measure, initiative, orreferendum. Officers and employees ofrecipients shall not intentionallyidentify the Institute or recipients withany partisan or nonpartisan politicalactivity associated with a political partyor association, or the campaign of anycandidate for public or party office. 42U.S.C. 10706(a).

11. Products

a. Acknowledgment, Logo, andDisclaimer

(1) Recipients of Institute funds mustacknowledge prominently on all

products developed with grant fundsthat support was received from theInstitute. The ‘‘SJI’’ logo must appear onthe front cover of a written product, orin the opening frames of a videoproduct, unless another placement isapproved in writing by the Institute.This includes final products printed orotherwise reproduced during the grantperiod, as well as reprintings orreproductions of those materialsfollowing the end of the grant period. Acamera-ready logo sheet is availablefrom the Institute upon request.

(2) Recipients also must display thefollowing disclaimer on all grantproducts: ‘‘This [document, film,videotape, etc.] was developed under[grant/cooperative agreement] numberSJI–[insert number] from the StateJustice Institute. The points of viewexpressed are those of the [author(s),filmmaker(s), etc.] and do notnecessarily represent the officialposition or policies of the State JusticeInstitute.’’

b. Charges for Grant-Related Products/Recovery of Costs

(1) When Institute funds fully coverthe cost of developing, producing, anddisseminating a product (e.g., a report,curriculum, videotape or software), theproduct should be distributed to thefield without charge. When Institutefunds only partially cover thedevelopment, production, ordissemination costs, the grantee may,with the Institute’s prior writtenapproval, recover its costs fordeveloping, producing, anddisseminating the material to thoserequesting it, to the extent that thosecosts were not covered by Institutefunds or grantee matchingcontributions.

(2) Applicants should disclose theirintent to sell grant-related products inboth the concept paper and theapplication. Grantees must obtain thewritten prior approval of the Institute oftheir plans to recover project coststhrough the sale of grant products.Written requests to recover costsordinarily should be received during thegrant period and should specify thenature and extent of the costs to berecouped, the reason that such costswere not budgeted (if the rationale wasnot disclosed in the approvedapplication), the number of copies to besold, the intended audience for theproducts to be sold, and the proposedsale price. If the product is to be soldfor more than $25, the written requestalso should include a detaileditemization of costs that will berecovered and a certification that thecosts were not supported by either



Institute grant funds or granteematching contributions.

(3) In the event that the sale of grantproducts results in revenues that exceedthe costs to develop, produce, anddisseminate the product, the revenuemust continue to be used for theauthorized purposes of the Institute-funded project or other purposesconsistent with the State JusticeInstitute Act that have been approved bythe Institute. See sections III.S. and X.G.for requirements regarding project-related income realized during theproject period.

c. Copyrights

Except as otherwise provided in theterms and conditions of an Instituteaward, a recipient is free to copyrightany books, publications, or othercopyrightable materials developed inthe course of an Institute-supportedproject, but the Institute shall reserve aroyalty-free, nonexclusive andirrevocable right to reproduce, publish,or otherwise use, and to authorizeothers to use, the materials for purposesconsistent with the State JusticeInstitute Act.

d. Distribution

In addition to the distributionspecified in the grant application,grantees shall send:

(1) Seventeen (17) copies of each finalproduct developed with grant funds tothe Institute, unless the product wasdeveloped under either a CurriculumAdaptation or a Technical Assistancegrant, in which case submission of 2copies is required.

(2) A master copy of each videotapeproduced with grant funds to theInstitute.

(3) One copy of each final productdeveloped with grant funds to thelibrary established in each State tocollect materials prepared with Institutesupport. (A list of the libraries iscontained in Appendix D. Labels forthese libraries are available from theInstitute upon request.) Grantees thatdevelop web-based electronic productsmust send a hard-copy document to theSJI-designated libraries and otherappropriate audiences to alert them tothe availability of the web site orelectronic product. Recipients ofcurriculum adaptation and technicalassistance grants are not required tosubmit final products to State libraries.

(4) A press release describing theproject and announcing the results to alist of national and State judicial branchorganizations provided by the Institute.

e. Institute ApprovalNo grant funds may be obligated for

publication or reproduction of a finalproduct developed with grant fundswithout the written approval of theInstitute. Grantees shall submit a finaldraft of each written product to theInstitute for review and approval. Thesedrafts shall be submitted at least 30 daysbefore the product is scheduled to besent for publication or reproduction topermit Institute review andincorporation of any appropriatechanges agreed upon by the grantee andthe Institute. Grantees shall provide fortimely reviews by the Institute ofvideotape or CD–ROM products at thetreatment, script, rough cut, and finalstages of development or theirequivalents, prior to initiating the nextstage of product development.

f. Original MaterialAll products prepared as the result of

Institute-supported projects must beoriginally-developed material unlessotherwise specified in the awarddocuments. Material not originallydeveloped that is included in suchproducts must be properly identified,whether the material is in a verbatim orextensive paraphrase format.

12. Prohibition Against LitigationSupport

No funds made available by theInstitute may be used directly orindirectly to support legal assistance toparties in litigation, including casesinvolving capital punishment.

13. Reporting Requirementsa. Recipients of Institute funds other

than Scholarships must submitQuarterly Progress and FinancialReports within 30 days of the close ofeach calendar quarter (that is, no laterthan January 30, April 30, July 30, andOctober 30). Two copies of each reportmust be sent. The Quarterly ProgressReports shall include a narrativedescription of project activities duringthe calendar quarter, the relationshipbetween those activities and the taskschedule and objectives set forth in theapproved application or an approvedadjustment thereto, any significantproblem areas that have developed andhow they will be resolved, and theactivities scheduled during the nextreporting period.

b. The quarterly financial status reportmust be submitted in accordance withsection X.H.2. of this Guideline. A finalproject progress report and financialstatus report shall be submitted within90 days after the end of the grant periodin accordance with section X.L.1. of thisGuideline.

14. Research

a. Availability of Research Data forSecondary Analysis

Upon request, grantees must makeavailable for secondary analysis adiskette(s) or data tape(s) containingresearch and evaluation data collectedunder an Institute grant and theaccompanying code manual. Granteesmay recover the actual cost ofduplicating and mailing or otherwisetransmitting the data set and manualfrom the person or organizationrequesting the data. Grantees mayprovide the requested data set in theformat in which it was created andanalyzed.

b. Confidentiality of InformationExcept as provided by Federal law

other than the State Justice Institute Act,no recipient of financial assistance fromSJI may use or reveal any research orstatistical information furnished underthe Act by any person and identifiableto any specific private person for anypurpose other than the purpose forwhich the information was obtained.Such information and copies thereofshall be immune from legal process, andshall not, without the consent of theperson furnishing such information, beadmitted as evidence or used for anypurpose in any action, suit, or otherjudicial, legislative, or administrativeproceedings.

c. Human Subject Protection

All research involving human subjectsshall be conducted with the informedconsent of those subjects and in amanner that will ensure their privacyand freedom from risk or harm and theprotection of persons who are notsubjects of the research but would beaffected by it, unless such proceduresand safeguards would make the researchimpractical. In such instances, theInstitute must approve proceduresdesigned by the grantee to providehuman subjects with relevantinformation about the research aftertheir involvement and to minimize oreliminate risk or harm to those subjectsdue to their participation.

15. State and Local Court Applications

Each application for funding from aState or local court must be approved,consistent with State law, by the State’sSupreme Court, or its designated agencyor council. The Supreme Court or itsdesignee shall receive, administer, andbe accountable for all funds awarded onthe basis of such an application. 42U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). Appendix C to thisGuideline lists the person to contact ineach State regarding the administration



of Institute grants to State and localcourts.

16. Supplantation and Construction

To ensure that funds are used tosupplement and improve the operationof State courts, rather than to supportbasic court services, funds shall not beused for the following purposes:

a. To supplant State or local fundssupporting a program or activity (suchas paying the salary of court employeeswho would be performing their normalduties as part of the project, or payingrent for space which is part of thecourt’s normal operations);

b. To construct court facilities orstructures, except to remodel existingfacilities or to demonstrate newarchitectural or technologicaltechniques, or to provide temporaryfacilities for new personnel or forpersonnel involved in a demonstrationor experimental program; or

c. Solely to purchase equipment.

17. Suspension of Funding

After providing a recipient reasonablenotice and opportunity to submitwritten documentation demonstratingwhy fund termination or suspensionshould not occur, the Institute mayterminate or suspend funding of aproject that fails to comply substantiallywith the Act, the Guideline, or the termsand conditions of the award. 42 U.S.C.10708(a).

18. Title to Property

At the conclusion of the project, titleto all expendable and nonexpendablepersonal property purchased withInstitute funds shall vest in the recipientcourt, organization, or individual thatpurchased the property if certification ismade to and approved by the Institutethat the property will continue to beused for the authorized purposes of theInstitute-funded project or otherpurposes consistent with the StateJustice Institute Act. If such certificationis not made or the Institute disapprovessuch certification, title to all suchproperty with an aggregate or individualvalue of $1,000 or more shall vest in theInstitute, which will direct thedisposition of the property.

B. Recipients of Curriculum Adaptationand Technical Assistance Grants

In addition to the compliancerequirements in A. in this section,recipients of Curriculum Adaptationand Technical Assistance grants mustcomply with the followingrequirements.

1. Curriculum Adaptation Grantees

Recipients of Curriculum Adaptationgrants must:

a. Comply with the same quarterlyreporting requirements as other Institutegrantees (see A.13. above in thissection);

b. Include in each grant product aprominent acknowledgment thatsupport was received from the Institute,along with the ‘‘SJI’’ logo and adisclaimer paragraph (see A.11.a. abovein this section); and

c. Submit one copy of the manuals,handbooks, or conference packetsdeveloped under the grant at theconclusion of the grant period, alongwith a final report that includes anyevaluation results and explains how thegrantee intends to present the programin the future.

2. Technical Assistance Grantees

Recipients of Technical Assistancegrants must:

a. Comply with the same quarterlyreporting requirements as other Institutegrantees (see A.13. above in thissection);

b. Ensure that each technicalassistance report prepared by aconsultant includes a prominentacknowledgment that support wasreceived from the Institute, along withthe ‘‘SJI’’ logo and a disclaimerparagraph (see A.11.a. above in thissection);

c. Submit to the Institute one copy ofa final report that explains how itintends to act on the consultant’srecommendations, as well as a copy ofthe consultant’s written report; and

d. Complete a Technical AssistanceEvaluation Form at the conclusion ofthe grant period.

C. Scholarship Recipients

1. Scholarship recipients areresponsible for disseminating theinformation received from the course totheir court colleagues locally, and ifpossible, throughout the State (e.g., bydeveloping a formal seminar, circulatingthe written material, or discussing theinformation at a meeting or conference).

Recipients also must submit to theInstitute a certificate of attendance atthe program, an evaluation of theeducational program they attended, anda copy of the notice of any scholarshipfunds received from other sources. Acopy of the evaluation must be sent tothe Chief Justice of their State. A Stateor local jurisdiction may imposeadditional requirements on scholarshiprecipients.

2. To receive the funds authorized bya scholarship award, recipients must

submit a Scholarship Payment Voucher(Form S3) together with a tuitionstatement from the program sponsor,and a transportation fare receipt (orstatement of the driving mileage to andfrom the recipient’s home to the site ofthe educational program).

Scholarship Payment Vouchersshould be submitted within 90 daysafter the end of the course which therecipient attended.

3. Scholarship recipients areencouraged to check with their taxadvisors to determine whether thescholarship constitutes taxable incomeunder Federal and State law.

X. Financial Requirements

A. Purpose

The purpose of this section is toestablish accounting systemrequirements and offer guidance onprocedures to assist all grantees,subgrantees, contractors, and otherorganizations in:

1. Complying with the statutoryrequirements for the award,disbursement, and accounting of funds;

2. Complying with regulatoryrequirements of the Institute for thefinancial management and dispositionof funds;

3. Generating financial data to be usedin planning, managing, and controllingprojects; and

4. Facilitating an effective audit offunded programs and projects.

B. References

Except where inconsistent withspecific provisions of this Guideline, thefollowing regulations, directives andreports are applicable to Institute grantsand cooperative agreements under thesame terms and conditions that apply toFederal grantees. The followingcirculars supplement the requirementsof this section for accounting systemsand financial recordkeeping andprovide additional guidance on howthese requirements may be satisfied.(Circulars may be obtained from OMBby calling 202–395–3080 or visiting theOMB website at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB.)

1. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular A–21, Cost Principlesfor Educational Institutions.

2. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular A–87, Cost Principlesfor State and Local Governments.

3. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular A–88 (revised), IndirectCost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-upat Educational Institutions.

4. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular A–102, UniformAdministrative Requirements for



Grants-in-Aid to State and LocalGovernments.

5. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular A–110, Grants andAgreements with Institutions of HigherEducation, Hospitals and other Non-Profit Organizations.

6. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular A–128, Audits of Stateand Local Governments.

7. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular A–122, Cost Principlesfor Non-profit Organizations.

8. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular A–133, Audits ofInstitutions of Higher Education andOther Non-profit Institutions.

C. Supervision and MonitoringResponsibilities

1. Grantee ResponsibilitiesAll grantees receiving awards from

the Institute are responsible for themanagement and fiscal control of allfunds. Responsibilities includeaccounting for receipts andexpenditures, maintaining adequatefinancial records, and refundingexpenditures disallowed by audits.

2. Responsibilities of State SupremeCourt

a. Each application for funding froma State or local court must be approved,consistent with State law, by the State’sSupreme Court, or its designated agencyor council. (See III.I.)

b. The State Supreme Court or itsdesignee shall receive all Institute fundsawarded to such courts; be responsiblefor assuring proper administration ofInstitute funds; and be responsible forall aspects of the project, includingproper accounting and financialrecordkeeping by the subgrantee. Theseresponsibilities include:

(1) Reviewing Financial Operations.The State Supreme Court or its designeeshould be familiar with, andperiodically monitor, its subgrantees’financial operations, records system,and procedures. Particular attentionshould be directed to the maintenanceof current financial data.

(2) Recording Financial Activities.The subgrantee’s grant award or contractobligation, as well as cash advances andother financial activities, should berecorded in the financial records of theState Supreme Court or its designee insummary form. Subgrantee expendituresshould be recorded on the books of theState Supreme Court or evidenced byreport forms duly filed by thesubgrantee. Non-Institute contributionsapplied to projects by subgranteesshould likewise be recorded, as shouldany project income resulting fromprogram operations.

(3) Budgeting and Budget Review. TheState Supreme Court or its designeeshould ensure that each subgranteeprepares an adequate budget as the basisfor its award commitment. The detail ofeach project budget should bemaintained on file by the State SupremeCourt.

(4) Accounting for Non-InstituteContributions. The State Supreme Courtor its designee will ensure, in thoseinstances where subgrantees arerequired to furnish non-Institutematching funds, that the requirementsand limitations of the SJI GrantGuideline are applied to such funds.

(5) Audit Requirement. The StateSupreme Court or its designee isrequired to ensure that subgrantees havemet the necessary audit requirementsset forth by the Institute (see sections K.below and IX.A.3.)

(6) Reporting Irregularities. The StateSupreme Court, its designees, and itssubgrantees are responsible forpromptly reporting to the Institute thenature and circumstances surroundingany financial irregularities discovered.

D. Accounting System

The grantee is responsible forestablishing and maintaining anadequate system of accounting andinternal controls for itself and forensuring that an adequate system existsfor each of its subgrantees andcontractors. An acceptable and adequateaccounting system:

1. Properly accounts for receipt offunds under each grant awarded and theexpenditure of funds for each grant bycategory of expenditure (includingmatching contributions and projectincome);

2. Assures that expended funds areapplied to the appropriate budgetcategory included within the approvedgrant;

3. Presents and classifies historicalcosts of the grant as required forbudgetary and evaluation purposes;

4. Provides cost and property controlsto assure optimal use of grant funds;

5. Is integrated with a system ofinternal controls adequate to safeguardthe funds and assets covered, check theaccuracy and reliability of theaccounting data, promote operationalefficiency, and assure conformance withany general or special conditions of thegrant;

6. Meets the prescribed requirementsfor periodic financial reporting ofoperations; and

7. Provides financial data forplanning, control, measurement, andevaluation of direct and indirect costs.

E. Total Cost Budgeting and AccountingAccounting for all funds awarded by

the Institute must be structured andexecuted on a total project cost basis.That is, total project costs, includingInstitute funds, State and local matchingshares, and any other fund sourcesincluded in the approved project budgetserve as the foundation for fiscaladministration and accounting. Grantapplications and financial reportsrequire budget and cost estimates on thebasis of total costs.

1. Timing of Matching ContributionsMatching contributions need not be

applied at the exact time of theobligation of Institute funds. Ordinarily,the full matching share must beobligated during the award period;however, with the prior writtenpermission of the Institute,contributions made following approvalof the grant by the Institute’s Board ofDirectors but before the beginning of thegrant may be counted as match.Grantees that do not contemplatemaking matching contributionscontinuously throughout the course of aproject, or on a task-by-task basis, arerequired to submit a schedule within 30days after the beginning of the projectperiod indicating at what points duringthe project period the matchingcontributions will be made. If aproposed cash match is not fully met,the Institute may reduce the awardamount accordingly to maintain theratio of grant funds to matching fundsstated in the award agreement.

2. Records for MatchAll grantees must maintain records

which clearly show the source, amount,and timing of all matchingcontributions. In addition, if a projecthas included, within its approvedbudget, contributions which exceed therequired matching portion, the granteemust maintain records of thosecontributions in the same manner as itdoes Institute funds and requiredmatching shares. For all grants made toState and local courts, the StateSupreme Court has primaryresponsibility for grantee/subgranteecompliance with the requirements ofthis section. (See C.2. above in thissection.)

F. Maintenance and Retention ofRecords

All financial records, supportingdocuments, statistical records, and allother records pertinent to grants,subgrants, cooperative agreements, orcontracts under grants must be retainedby each organization participating in aproject for at least three years for



purposes of examination and audit.State Supreme Courts may imposerecord retention and maintenancerequirements in addition to thoseprescribed in this section.

1. Coverage

The retention requirement extends tobooks of original entry, sourcedocuments supporting accountingtransactions, the general ledger,subsidiary ledgers, personnel andpayroll records, canceled checks, andrelated documents and records. Sourcedocuments include copies of all grantand subgrant awards, applications, andrequired grantee/subgrantee financialand narrative reports. Personnel andpayroll records shall include the timeand attendance reports for allindividuals reimbursed under a grant,subgrant or contract, whether they areemployed full-time or part-time. Timeand effort reports will be required forconsultants.

2. Retention Period

The three-year retention period startsfrom the date of the submission of thefinal expenditure report or, for grantswhich are renewed annually, from thedate of submission of the annualexpenditure report.

3. Maintenance

Grantees and subgrantees areexpected to see that records of differentfiscal years are separately identified andmaintained so that requestedinformation can be readily located.Grantees and subgrantees are alsoobligated to protect records adequatelyagainst fire or other damage. Whenrecords are stored away from thegrantee’s/subgrantee’s principal office, awritten index of the location of storedrecords should be on hand, and readyaccess should be assured.

4. Access

Grantees and subgrantees must giveany authorized representative of theInstitute access to and the right toexamine all records, books, papers, anddocuments related to an Institute grant.

G. Project-Related Income

Records of the receipt and dispositionof project-related income must bemaintained by the grantee in the samemanner as required for the project fundsthat gave rise to the income and must bereported to the Institute. (See H.2. belowin this section) The policies governingthe disposition of the various types ofproject-related income are listed below.

1. InterestA State and any agency or

instrumentality of a State, includinginstitutions of higher education andhospitals, shall not be held accountablefor interest earned on advances ofproject funds. When funds are awardedto subgrantees through a State, thesubgrantees are not held accountable forinterest earned on advances of projectfunds. Local units of government andnonprofit organizations that are granteesmust refund any interest earned.Grantees shall ensure minimumbalances in their respective grant cashaccounts.

2. RoyaltiesThe grantee/subgrantee may retain all

royalties received from copyrights orother works developed under projects orfrom patents and inventions, unless theterms and conditions of the grantprovide otherwise.

3. Registration and Tuition FeesRegistration and tuition fees shall be

used to pay project-related costs notcovered by the grant, or to reduce theamount of grant funds needed tosupport the project. Registration andtuition fees may be used for otherpurposes only with the prior writtenapproval of the Institute. Estimates ofregistration and tuition fees, and anyexpenses to be offset by the fees, shouldbe included in the application budgetforms and narrative.

4. Income From the Sale of GrantProducts

a. When grant funds fully cover thecost of producing and disseminating alimited number of copies of a product,the grantee may, with the written priorapproval of the Institute, sell additionalcopies reproduced at its expense at areasonable market price, as long as theincome is applied to court improvementprojects consistent with the State JusticeInstitute Act. When grant funds onlypartially cover the costs of developing,producing and disseminating a product,the grantee may, with the written priorapproval of the Institute, recover costsfor developing, reproducing, anddisseminating the material to the extentthat those costs were not covered byInstitute grant funds or granteematching contributions. If the granteerecovers its costs in this manner, thenamounts expended by the grantee todevelop, produce, and disseminate thematerial may not be considered match.

b. If the sale of products occurs duringthe project period, the costs and incomegenerated by the sales must be reportedon the Quarterly Financial StatusReports and documented in an auditable

manner. Whenever possible, the intentto sell a product should be disclosed inthe concept paper and application orreported to the Institute in writing oncea decision to sell products has beenmade. The grantee must requestapproval to recover its productdevelopment, reproduction, anddissemination costs as specified insection IX.A.11.b.

5. OtherOther project income shall be treated

in accordance with dispositioninstructions set forth in the grant’s termsand conditions.

H. Payments and Financial ReportingRequirements

1. Payment of Grant FundsThe procedures and regulations set

forth below are applicable to allInstitute grant funds and grantees.

a. Request for Advance orReimbursement of Funds. Grantees willreceive funds on a ‘‘check-issued’’ basis.Upon receipt, review, and approval of aRequest for Advance or Reimbursementby the Institute, a check will be issueddirectly to the grantee or its designatedfiscal agent. A request must be limitedto the grantee’s immediate cash needs.The Request for Advance orReimbursement, along with theinstructions for its preparation, will beincluded in the official Institute awardpackage.

b. Continuation and Ongoing SupportAwards. For purposes of submittingRequests for Advance orReimbursement, recipients ofcontinuation and ongoing supportgrants should treat each grant as a newproject and number the requestsaccordingly (i.e., on a grant rather thana project basis). For example, the firstrequest for payment from a continuationgrant or each year of an ongoing supportgrant would be number 1, the secondnumber 2, etc. (See Appendix B,Questions Frequently Asked byGrantees, for further guidance.)

c. Termination of Advance andReimbursement Funding. When agrantee organization receiving cashadvances from the Institute:

(1) Demonstrates an unwillingness orinability to attain program or projectgoals, or to establish procedures thatwill minimize the time elapsingbetween cash advances anddisbursements, or cannot adhere toguideline requirements or specialconditions;

(2) Engages in the improper awardand administration of subgrants orcontracts; or

(3) Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports; the Institute may



terminate advance financing and requirethe grantee organization to finance itsoperations with its own working capital.Payments to the grantee shall then bemade by check to reimburse the granteefor actual cash disbursements. In theevent the grantee continues to bedeficient, the Institute may suspendreimbursement payments until thedeficiencies are corrected.

d. Principle of Minimum Cash onHand. Grantees should request fundsbased upon immediate disbursementrequirements. Grantees should timetheir requests to ensure that cash onhand is the minimum needed fordisbursements to be made immediatelyor within a few days. Idle funds in thehands of subgrantees impair the goals ofgood cash management.

2. Financial Reporting

a. General Requirements. To obtainfinancial information concerning theuse of funds, the Institute requires thatgrantees/subgrantees submit timelyreports for review.

b. Two copies of the Financial StatusReport are required from all grantees,other than scholarship recipients, foreach active quarter on a calendar-quarter basis. This report is due within30 days after the close of the calendarquarter. It is designed to providefinancial information relating toInstitute funds, State and local matchingshares, project income, and any othersources of funds for the project, as wellas information on obligations andoutlays. A copy of the Financial StatusReport, along with instructions for itspreparation, is included in each officialInstitute Award package. If a granteerequests substantial payments for aproject prior to the completion of agiven quarter, the Institute may requesta brief summary of the amountrequested, by object class, to support theRequest for Advance or Reimbursement.

c. Additional Requirements forContinuation and Ongoing SupportGrants. Grantees receiving continuationor ongoing support grants shouldnumber their quarterly Financial StatusReports on a grant rather than a projectbasis. For example, the first quarterlyreport for a continuation grant or eachyear of an ongoing support awardshould be number 1, the second number2, etc.

3. Consequences of Non-ComplianceWith Submission Requirement

Failure of the grantee to submitrequired financial and progress reportsmay result in suspension or terminationof grant payments.

I. Allowability of Costs

1. General

Except as may be otherwise providedin the conditions of a particular grant,cost allowability is determined inaccordance with the principles set forthin OMB Circular A–87, Cost Principlesfor State and Local Governments; A–21,Cost Principles Applicable to Grantsand Contracts with EducationalInstitutions; and A–122, Cost Principlesfor Non-Profit Organizations. No costsmay be recovered to liquidateobligations incurred after the approvedgrant period. Circulars may be obtainedfrom OMB by calling 202–395–3080 orvisiting the OMB website atwww.whitehouse.gov/OMB.

2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval

a. Pre-agreement Costs. The writtenprior approval of the Institute isrequired for costs considered necessaryto the project but which occur prior tothe award date of the grant.

b. Equipment. Grant funds may beused to purchase or lease only thatequipment essential to accomplishingthe goals and objectives of the project.The written prior approval of theInstitute is required when the amount ofautomated data processing (ADP)equipment to be purchased or leasedexceeds $10,000 or software to bepurchased exceeds $3,000.

c. Consultants. The written priorapproval of the Institute is requiredwhen the rate of compensation to bepaid a consultant exceeds $300 a day.Institute funds may not be used to paya consultant more than $900 per day.

d. Budget Revisions. Budget revisionsamong direct cost categories thatindividually or cumulatively exceedfive percent of the approved originalbudget or the most recently approvedrevised budget require prior Instituteapproval.

3. Travel Costs

Transportation and per diem ratesmust comply with the policies of thegrantee. If the grantee does not have anestablished written travel policy, thentravel rates must be consistent withthose established by the Institute or theFederal Government. Institute fundsmay not be used to cover thetransportation or per diem costs of amember of a national organization toattend an annual or other regularmeeting of that organization.

4. Indirect Costs

These are costs of an organization thatare not readily assignable to a particularproject but are necessary to theoperation of the organization and the

performance of the project. The cost ofoperating and maintaining facilities,depreciation, and administrativesalaries are examples of the types ofcosts that are usually treated as indirectcosts. The Institute’s policy requires allcosts to be budgeted directly; however,if a grantee has an indirect cost rateapproved by a Federal agency as setforth below, the Institute will acceptthat rate.

a. Approved Plan Available. (1) TheInstitute will accept an indirect cost rateor allocation plan approved for a granteeduring the preceding two years by anyFederal granting agency on the basis ofallocation methods substantially inaccord with those set forth in theapplicable cost circulars. A copy of theapproved rate agreement must besubmitted to the Institute.

(2) Where flat rates are accepted inlieu of actual indirect costs, granteesmay not also charge expenses normallyincluded in overhead pools, e.g.,accounting services, legal services,building occupancy and maintenance,etc., as direct costs.

(3) When utilizing total direct costs asthe base, organizations with approvedindirect cost rates usually excludecontracts under grants from anyoverhead recovery. The negotiatedagreement will stipulate that contractsare excluded from the base for overheadrecovery.

b. Establishment of Indirect CostRates. To be reimbursed for indirectcosts, a grantee must first establish anappropriate indirect cost rate. To dothis, the grantee must prepare anindirect cost rate proposal and submit itto the Institute within three monthsafter the start of the grant period toassure recovery of the full amount ofallowable indirect costs. The rate mustbe developed in accordance withprinciples and procedures appropriateto the type of grantee institutioninvolved as specified in the applicableOMB Circular.

c. No Approved Plan. If an indirectcost proposal for recovery of actualindirect costs is not submitted to theInstitute within three months after thestart of the grant period, indirect costswill be irrevocably disallowed for allmonths prior to the month that theindirect cost proposal is received.

J. Procurement and PropertyManagement Standards

1. Procurement Standards

For State and local governments, theInstitute has adopted the standards setforth in Attachment O of OMB CircularA–102. Institutions of higher education,hospitals, and other non-profit



organizations will be governed by thestandards set forth in Attachment O ofOMB Circular A–110.

2. Property Management Standards

The property management standardsas prescribed in Attachment N of OMBCirculars A–102 and A–110 apply to allInstitute grantees and subgranteesexcept as provided in section IX.A.18.All grantees/subgrantees are required tobe prudent in the acquisition andmanagement of property with grantfunds. If suitable property required forthe successful execution of projects isalready available within the grantee orsubgrantee organization, expenditures ofgrant funds for the acquisition of newproperty will be consideredunnecessary.

K. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation

Each recipient of a grant from theInstitute other than a scholarship,curriculum adaptation, or technicalassistance grant must provide for anannual fiscal audit. This requirementalso applies to a State or local courtreceiving a subgrant from the StateSupreme Court. The audit may be of theentire grantee or subgranteeorganization or of the specific projectfunded by the Institute. Auditsconducted in accordance with theSingle Audit Act of 1984 and OMBCircular A–128, or OMB Circular A–133,will satisfy the requirement for anannual fiscal audit. The audit must beconducted by an independent CertifiedPublic Accountant, or a State or localagency authorized to audit governmentagencies. Grantees must send two copiesof the audit report to the Institute.Grantees that receive funds from aFederal agency and satisfy auditrequirements of the cognizant Federalagency must submit two copies of theaudit report prepared for that Federalagency to the Institute in order to satisfythe provisions of this section. CognizantFederal agencies do not send reports tothe Institute. Therefore, each granteemust send copies of this report directlyto the Institute.

2. Resolution and Clearance of AuditReports

Timely action on recommendationsby responsible management officials isan integral part of the effectiveness of anaudit. Each grantee must have policiesand procedures for acting on auditrecommendations by designatingofficials responsible for: follow-up;maintaining a record of the actionstaken on recommendations and timeschedules; responding to and acting on

audit recommendations; and submittingperiodic reports to the Institute onrecommendations and actions taken.

3. Consequences of Non-Resolution ofAudit Issues

Ordinarily, the Institute will not makea new grant award to an applicant thathas an unresolved audit reportinvolving Institute awards. Failure ofthe grantee to resolve audit questionsmay also result in the suspension ortermination of payments for activeInstitute grants to that organization.

L. Close-Out of Grants

1. Grantee Close-Out Requirements

Within 90 days after the end date ofthe grant or any approved extensionthereof (see L.2. below in this section),the following documents must besubmitted to the Institute by grantees(other than scholarship recipients):

a. Financial Status Report. The finalreport of expenditures must have nounliquidated obligations and mustindicate the exact balance ofunobligated funds. Any unobligated/unexpended funds will be deobligatedfrom the award by the Institute. Finalpayment requests for obligationsincurred during the award period mustbe submitted to the Institute prior to theend of the 90-day close-out period.Grantees on a check-issued basis, whohave drawn down funds in excess oftheir obligations/expenditures, mustreturn any unused funds as soon as it isdetermined that the funds are notrequired. In no case should any unusedfunds remain with the grantee beyondthe submission date of the finalfinancial status report.

b. Final Progress Report. This reportshould describe the project activitiesduring the final calendar quarter of theproject and the close-out period,including to whom project productshave been disseminated; provide asummary of activities during the entireproject; specify whether all theobjectives set forth in the approvedapplication or an approved adjustmenthave been met and, if any of theobjectives have not been met, explainwhy not; and discuss what, if anything,could have been done differently thatmight have enhanced the impact of theproject or improved its operation.

These reporting requirements apply atthe conclusion of any non-scholarshipgrant, even when the project willcontinue under a continuation orongoing support grant.

2. Extension of Close-Out Period

Upon the written request of thegrantee, the Institute may extend the

close-out period to assure completion ofthe grantee’s close-out requirements.Requests for an extension must besubmitted at least 14 days before theend of the close-out period and mustexplain why the extension is necessaryand what steps will be taken to assurethat all the grantee’s responsibilitieswill be met by the end of the extensionperiod.

XI. Grant AdjustmentsAll requests for programmatic or

budgetary adjustments requiringInstitute approval must be submitted ina timely manner by the project director.All requests for changes from theapproved application will be carefullyreviewed for both consistency with thisGuideline and the enhancement of grantgoals and objectives.

A. Grant Adjustments Requiring PriorWritten Approval

There are several types of grantadjustments that require the priorwritten approval of the Institute.Examples of these adjustments include:

1. Budget revisions among direct costcategories that individually orcumulatively exceed five percent of theapproved original budget or the mostrecently approved revised budget. Seesection X.I.2.d.

For continuation and ongoing supportgrants, funds from the original awardmay be used during the new grantperiod and funds awarded through acontinuation or ongoing support grantmay be used to cover project-relatedexpenditures incurred during theoriginal award period, with the priorwritten approval of the Institute.

2. A change in the scope of work tobe performed or the objectives of theproject (see D. below in this section).

3. A change in the project site.4. A change in the project period,

such as an extension of the grant periodand/or extension of the final financial orprogress report deadline (see E. below).

5. Satisfaction of special conditions, ifrequired.

6. A change in or temporary absenceof the project director (see F. and G.below).

7. The assignment of an employee orconsultant to a key staff position whosequalifications were not described in theapplication, or a change of a personassigned to a key project staff position(see section IX.A.2.).

8. A change in or temporary absenceof the person responsible for managingand reporting on the grant’s finances.

9. A change in the name of the granteeorganization.

10. A transfer or contracting out ofgrant-supported activities (see H.below).



11. A transfer of the grant to anotherrecipient.

12. Preagreement costs (see sectionX.I.2.a.).

13. The purchase of automated dataprocessing equipment and software (seesection X.I.2.b.).

14. Consultant rates (see sectionX.I.2.c.).

15. A change in the nature or numberof the products to be prepared or themanner in which a product would bedistributed.

B. Requests for Grant Adjustments

All grantees and subgrantees mustpromptly notify their SJI programmanagers, in writing, of events orproposed changes that may requireadjustments to the approved projectdesign. In requesting an adjustment, thegrantee must set forth the reasons andbasis for the proposed adjustment andany other information the programmanager determines would help theInstitute’s review.

C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval

If the request is approved, the granteewill be sent a Grant Adjustment signedby the Executive Director or hisdesignee. If the request is denied, thegrantee will be sent a writtenexplanation of the reasons for thedenial.

D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant

Major changes in scope, duration,training methodology, or othersignificant areas must be approved inadvance by the Institute. A grantee maymake minor changes in methodology,approach, or other aspects of the grantto expedite achievement of the grant’sobjectives with subsequent notificationof the SJI program manager.

E. Date Changes

A request to change or extend thegrant period must be made at least 30days in advance of the end date of thegrant. A revised task plan shouldaccompany a request for a no-costextension of the grant period, along witha revised budget if shifts among budgetcategories will be needed. A request tochange or extend the deadline for thefinal financial report or final progressreport must be made at least 14 days inadvance of the report deadline (seesection X.L.2.).

F. Temporary Absence of the ProjectDirector

Whenever an absence of the projectdirector is expected to exceed acontinuous period of one month, theplans for the conduct of the projectdirector’s duties during such absence

must be approved in advance by theInstitute. This information must beprovided in a letter signed by anauthorized representative of the grantee/subgrantee at least 30 days before thedeparture of the project director, or assoon as it is known that the projectdirector will be absent. The grant maybe terminated if arrangements are notapproved in advance by the Institute.

G. Withdrawal of/Change in ProjectDirector

If the project director relinquishes orexpects to relinquish active direction ofthe project, the Institute must benotified immediately. In such cases, ifthe grantee/subgrantee wishes toterminate the project, the Institute willforward procedural instructions uponnotification of such intent. If the granteewishes to continue the project under thedirection of another individual, astatement of the candidate’squalifications should be sent to theInstitute for review and approval. Thegrant may be terminated if thequalifications of the proposedindividual are not approved in advanceby the Institute.

H. Transferring or Contracting Out ofGrant-Supported Activities

No principal activity of a grant-supported project may be transferred orcontracted out to another organizationwithout specific prior approval by theInstitute. All such arrangements must beformalized in a contract or other writtenagreement between the parties involved.Copies of the proposed contract oragreement must be submitted for priorapproval of the Institute at the earliestpossible time. The contract or agreementmust state, at a minimum, the activitiesto be performed, the time schedule, thepolicies and procedures to be followed,the dollar limitation of the agreement,and the cost principles to be followed indetermining what costs, both direct andindirect, will be allowed. The contractor other written agreement must notaffect the grantee’s overall responsibilityfor the direction of the project andaccountability to the Institute.

State Justice Institute Board ofDirectorsRobert A. Miller, Chairman, Chief

Justice, Supreme Court of SouthDakota, Pierre, SD

Joseph F. Baca, Vice-Chairman, Justice,New Mexico Supreme Court, SantaFe, NM

Sandra A. O’Connor, Secretary, StatesAttorney of Baltimore County,Towson, MD

Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., ExecutiveCommittee Member, Senior Vice-

President, The National GeographicSociety, Washington, DC

Robert N. Baldwin, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court ofVirginia, Richmond, VA

Carlos R. Garza, Esq., AdministrativeJudge (ret.), Vienna, VA

Sophia H. Hall, Presiding Judge,Juvenile Court, Circuit Court of CookCounty, Chicago, IL

Tommy Jewell, District Judge,Albuquerque, NM

Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice,Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines,IA

Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara &McNamara, Columbus, OH

Florence K. Murray, Justice (ret.),Supreme Court of Rhode Island,Providence, RI

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (exofficio)

David I. Tevelin,Executive Director.

Appendix A—Recommendations toGrant Writers

Over the past 14 years, Institute staff havereviewed approximately 3,800 conceptpapers and 1,700 applications. On the basisof those reviews, inquiries from applicants,and the views of the Board, the Instituteoffers the following recommendations to helppotential applicants present workable,understandable proposals that can meet thefunding criteria set forth in this Guideline.

The Institute suggests that applicants makecertain that they address the questions andissues set forth below when preparing aconcept paper or application. Concept papersand applications should, however, bepresented in the formats specified in sectionsVI. and VII. of the Guideline, respectively.

1. What is the subject or problem you wishto address?

Describe the subject or problem and howit affects the courts and the public. Discusshow your approach will improve thesituation or advance the state of the art orknowledge, and explain why it is the mostappropriate approach to take. When statisticsor research findings are cited to support astatement or position, the source of thecitation should be referenced in a footnote ora reference list.

2. What do you want to do?Explain the goal(s) of the project in simple,

straightforward terms. The goals shoulddescribe the intended consequences orexpected overall effect of the proposedproject (e.g., to enable judges to sentencedrug-abusing offenders more effectively, or todispose of civil cases within 24 months),rather than the tasks or activities to beconducted (e.g., hold three training sessions,or install a new computer system).

To the greatest extent possible, anapplicant should avoid a specializedvocabulary that is not readily understood bythe general public. Technical jargon does notenhance a paper, nor does a clever butuninformative title.

3. How will you do it?



Describe the methodology carefully so thatwhat you propose to do and how you woulddo it are clear. All proposed tasks should beset forth so that a reviewer can see a logicalprogression of tasks, and relate those tasksdirectly to the accomplishment of theproject’s goal(s). When in doubt aboutwhether to provide a more detailedexplanation or to assume a particular level ofknowledge or expertise on the part of thereviewers, provide the additionalinformation. A description of project tasksalso will help identify necessary budgetitems. All staff positions and project costsshould relate directly to the tasks described.The Institute encourages applicants to attachletters of cooperation and support from thecourts and related agencies that will beinvolved in or directly affected by theproposed project.

4. How will you know it works?Include an evaluation component that will

determine whether the proposed training,procedure, service, or technologyaccomplished the objectives it was designedto meet. Concept papers and applicationsshould present the criteria that will be usedto evaluate the project’s effectiveness;identify program elements which will requirefurther modification; and describe how theevaluation will be conducted, when it willoccur during the project period, who willconduct it, and what specific measures willbe used. In most instances, the evaluationshould be conducted by persons notconnected with the implementation of theprocedure, training, service, or technique, orthe administration of the project.

The Institute has also prepared a morethorough list of recommendations to grantwriters regarding the development of projectevaluation plans. Those recommendationsare available from the Institute upon request.

5. How will others find out about it?Include a plan to disseminate the results of

the training, research, or demonstrationbeyond the jurisdictions and individualsdirectly affected by the project. The planshould identify the specific methods whichwill be used to inform the field about theproject, such as the publication of law reviewor journal articles, or the distribution of keymaterials. A statement that a report orresearch findings ‘‘will be made available to’’the field is not sufficient. The specific meansof distribution or dissemination as well asthe types of recipients should be identified.Reproduction and dissemination costs areallowable budget items.

6. What are the specific costs involved?The budget in both concept papers and

applications should be presented clearly.Major budget categories such as personnel,benefits, travel, supplies, equipment, andindirect costs should be identified separately.The components of ‘‘Other’’ or‘‘Miscellaneous’’ items should be specified inthe application budget narrative, and shouldnot include set-asides for undefinedcontingencies.

7. What, if any, match is being offered?Courts and other units of State and local

government (not including publicly-supported institutions of higher education)are required by the State Justice Institute Actto contribute a match (cash, non-cash, or

both) of at least 50 percent of the grant fundsrequested from the Institute. All otherapplicants also are encouraged to provide amatching contribution to assist in meetingthe costs of a project.

The match requirement works as follows:If, for example, the total cost of a project isanticipated to be $150,000, a State or localcourt or executive branch agency may requestup to $100,000 from the Institute toimplement the project. The remaining$50,000 (50% of the $100,000 requested fromSJI) must be provided as match.

Cash match includes funds directlycontributed to the project by the applicant, orby other public or private sources. It does notinclude income generated from tuition fees orthe sale of project products. Non-cash matchrefers to in-kind contributions by theapplicant, or other public or private sources.This includes, for example, the monetaryvalue of time contributed by existingpersonnel or members of an advisorycommittee (but not the time spent byparticipants in an educational programattending program sessions). When match isoffered, the nature of the match (cash or in-kind) should be explained and, at theapplication stage, the tasks and line items forwhich costs will be covered wholly or in partby match should be specified.

8. Which of the two budget forms shouldbe used?

Section VII.A.1.c. of the SJI GrantGuideline encourages use of the spreadsheetformat of Form C1 if the application requests$100,000 or more. Form C1 also works wellfor projects with discrete tasks, regardless ofthe dollar value of the project. Form C, thetabular format, is preferred for projectslacking a number of discrete tasks, or forprojects requiring less than $100,000 ofInstitute funding. Generally, use the formthat best lends itself to representing mostaccurately the budget estimates for theproject.

9. How much detail should be included inthe budget narrative?

The budget narrative of an applicationshould provide the basis for computing allproject-related costs, as indicated in sectionVII.A.4. of the Guideline. To avoid commonshortcomings of application budgetnarratives, applicants should include thefollowing information:

Personnel estimates that accurately providethe amount of time to be spent by personnelinvolved with the project and the totalassociated costs, including current salariesfor the designated personnel (e.g., ProjectDirector, 50% for one year, annual salary of$50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs arecomputed using an hourly or daily rate, theannual salary and number of hours or daysin a work-year should be shown.

Estimates for supplies and expensessupported by a complete description of thesupplies to be used, the nature and extent ofprinting to be done, anticipated telephonecharges, and other common expenditures,with the basis for computing the estimatesincluded (e.g., 100 reports × 75 pages each ×.05/page = $375.00). Supply and expenseestimates offered simply as ‘‘based onexperience’’ are not sufficient.

In order to expedite Institute review of thebudget, make a final comparison of the

amounts listed in the budget narrative withthose listed on the budget form. In the rushto complete all parts of the application ontime, there may be many last-minutechanges; unfortunately, when there arediscrepancies between the budget narrativeand the budget form or the amount listed onthe application cover sheet, it is not possiblefor the Institute to verify the amount of therequest. A final check of the numbers on theform against those in the narrative willpreclude such confusion.

10. What travel regulations apply to thebudget estimates?

Transportation costs and per diem ratesmust comply with the policies of theapplicant organization, and a copy of theapplicant’s travel policy should be submittedas an appendix to the application. If theapplicant does not have a travel policyestablished in writing, then travel rates mustbe consistent with those established by theInstitute or the Federal Government (a copyof the Institute’s travel policy is availableupon request). The budget narrative shouldstate which policies apply to the project.

The budget narrative also should includethe estimated fare, the number of personstraveling, the number of trips to be taken, andthe length of stay. The estimated costs oftravel, lodging, ground transportation, andother subsistence should be listed andexplained separately. It is preferable for thebudget to be based on the actual costs oftraveling to and from the project or meetingsites. If the points of origin or destination arenot known at the time the budget is prepared,an average airfare may be used to estimatethe travel costs. For example, if it isanticipated that a project advisory committeewill include members from around thecountry, a reasonable airfare from a centralpoint to the meeting site, or the average ofairfares from each coast to the meeting sitemay be used. Applicants should arrangetravel so as to be able to take advantage ofadvance-purchase price discounts wheneverpossible.

11. May grant funds be used to purchaseequipment?

Generally, grant funds may be used topurchase only the equipment that isnecessary to demonstrate a new technologicalapplication in a court, or that is otherwiseessential to accomplishing the objectives ofthe project. The budget narrative must list theequipment to be purchased and explain whythe equipment is necessary to the success ofthe project. Written prior approval isrequired when the amount of computerhardware to be purchased or leased exceeds$10,000, or the software to be purchasedexceeds $3,000.

12. To what extent may indirect costs beincluded in the budget estimates?

It is the policy of the Institute that all costsshould be budgeted directly; however, if anindirect cost rate has been approved by aFederal agency within the last two years, anindirect cost recovery estimate may beincluded in the budget. A copy of theapproved rate agreement should be submittedas an appendix to the application.

If an applicant does not have an approvedrate agreement and cannot budget directly forall costs, an indirect cost rate proposal



should be prepared in accordance withsection X.I.4. of the Guideline, based on theapplicant’s audited financial statements forthe prior fiscal year. (Applicants lacking anaudit should budget all project costsdirectly.)

13. What meeting costs may be coveredwith grant funds?

SJI grant funds may cover the reasonablecost of meeting rooms, necessary audio-visual equipment, meeting supplies, andworking meals.

14. Does the budget truly reflect all costsrequired to complete the project?

After preparing the program narrativeportion of the application, applicants mayfind it helpful to list all the major tasks oractivities required by the proposed project,including the preparation of products, andnote the individual expenses, includingpersonnel time, related to each. This willhelp to ensure that, for all tasks described inthe application (e.g., development of avideotape, research site visits, distribution ofa final report), the related costs appear in thebudget and are explained correctly in thebudget narrative.

Appendix B—Questions FrequentlyAsked by Grantees

The Institute’s staff works with grantees tohelp assure the smooth operation of theproject and compliance with the Guideline.On the basis of monitoring more than 1,000grants, the Institute staff offers the followingsuggestions to aid grantees in meeting theadministrative and substantive requirementsof their grants.

1. After the grant has been awarded, whenare the first quarterly reports due?

Quarterly Progress Reports and FinancialStatus Reports must be submitted within 30days after the end of every calendar quarter—i.e., no later than January 30, April 30, July30, and October 30—regardless of theproject’s start date. The reporting periodscovered by each quarterly report end 30 daysbefore the respective deadline for the report.When an award period begins December 1,for example, the first quarterly progressreport describing project activities betweenDecember 1 and December 31 will be due onJanuary 30. A financial status report shouldbe submitted even if funds have not beenobligated or expended.

By documenting what has happened overthe past three months, quarterly progressreports provide an opportunity for projectstaff and Institute staff to resolve anyquestions before they become problems, andmake any necessary changes in the projecttime schedule, budget allocations, etc. Thequarterly progress report should describeproject activities, their relationship to theapproved timeline, and any problemsencountered and how they were resolved,and outline the tasks scheduled for thecoming quarter. It is helpful to attach copiesof relevant memos, draft products, or otherrequested information. An original and onecopy of a quarterly progress report andattachments should be submitted to theInstitute.

Additional quarterly progress report orfinancial status report forms may be obtainedfrom the grantee’s Program Manager at SJI, or

photocopies may be made from the supplyreceived with the award.

2. Do reporting requirements differ forcontinuation and ongoing support grants?

Recipients of continuation or ongoingsupport grants are required to submitquarterly progress and financial statusreports on the same schedule and with thesame information as recipients of grants forsingle new projects.

A continuation grant and each yearly grantunder an ongoing support award should beconsidered as a separate phase of the project.The reports should be numbered on a grantrather than project basis. Thus, the firstquarterly report filed under a continuationgrant or a yearly increment of an ongoingsupport award should be designated asnumber one, the second as number two, andso on, through the final progress andfinancial status reports due within 90 daysafter the end of the grant period.

3. What information about project activitiesshould be communicated to SJI?

In general, grantees should provide priornotice of critical project events such asadvisory board meetings or training sessionsso that the Institute Program Manager canattend, if possible. If methodological,schedule, staff, budget allocations, or othersignificant changes become necessary, thegrantee should contact the Program Managerprior to implementing any of these changes,so that possible questions may be addressedin advance. Questions concerning thefinancial requirements, quarterly financialreporting, or payment requests should beaddressed to the Institute’s Grants FinancialManager listed in the award letter.

It is helpful to include the grant numberassigned to the award on all correspondenceto the Institute.

4. Why are special conditions attached tothe award document?

In some instances, a list of specialconditions is attached to the awarddocument. Special conditions may beimposed to establish a schedule for reportingcertain key information, assure that theInstitute has an opportunity to offersuggestions at critical stages of the project,and provide reminders of some (but notnecessarily all) of the requirements containedin the Grant Guideline. Accordingly, it isimportant for grantees to check the specialconditions carefully and discuss with theirProgram Managers any questions or problemsthey may have with the conditions. Mostconcerns about timing, response time, andthe level of detail required can be resolvedin advance through a telephone conversation.The Institute’s primary concern is to workwith grantees to assure that their projectsaccomplish their objectives, not to enforcerigid bureaucratic requirements. However, ifa grantee fails to comply with a specialcondition or with other grant requirements,the Institute may, after proper notice,suspend payment of grant funds or terminatethe grant.

Sections IX., X., and XI. of the GrantGuideline contain the Institute’sadministrative and financial requirements.Institute Finance Division staff are alwaysavailable to answer questions and provideassistance regarding these provisions.

5. What is a Grant Adjustment?A Grant Adjustment is the Institute’s form

for acknowledging the satisfaction of specialconditions, or approving changes in grantactivities, schedule, staffing, sites, or budgetallocations requested by the project director.It also may be used to correct errors in grantdocuments or deobligate funds from thegrant.

6. What schedule should be followed insubmitting requests for reimbursements oradvance payments?

Requests for reimbursements or advancepayments may be made at any time after theproject start date and before the end of the90-day close-out period. However, theInstitute follows the U.S. Treasury’s policylimiting advances to the minimum amountrequired to meet immediate cash needs.Given normal processing time, granteesshould not seek to draw down funds forperiods greater than 30 days from the date ofthe request.

7. Do procedures for submitting requestsfor reimbursement or advance payment differfor continuation or ongoing support grants?

The basic procedures are the same for anygrant. A continuation grant or the yearlygrant under an ongoing support awardshould be considered as a separate phase ofthe project. Payment requests should benumbered on a grant rather than a projectbasis. The first request for funds from acontinuation grant or a yearly incrementunder an ongoing support award should bedesignated as number one, the second asnumber two, and so on through the finalpayment request for that grant.

8. If things change during the grant period,can funds be reallocated from one budgetcategory to another?

The Institute recognizes that someflexibility is required in implementing aproject design and budget. Thus, granteesmay shift funds among direct cost budgetcategories. When any one reallocation or thecumulative total of reallocations is expectedto exceed five percent of the approved projectbudget, a grantee must specify the proposedchanges, explain the reasons for the changes,and request Institute approval.

The same standard applies to continuationand ongoing support grants. In addition,prior written Institute approval is required toshift leftover funds from the original awardto cover activities to be conducted under therenewal award, or to use renewal grantmonies to cover costs incurred during theoriginal grant period.

9. What is the 90-day close-out period?Following the last day of the grant, a 90-

day period is provided to allow for all grant-related bills to be received and posted, andgrant funds drawn down to cover theseexpenses. No obligations of grant funds maybe incurred during this period. The last dayon which an expenditure of grant funds canbe obligated is the end date of the grantperiod. Similarly, the 90-day period is notintended as an opportunity to finish anddisseminate grant products. This shouldoccur before the end of the grant period.

During the 90 days following the end of theaward period, all monies that have beenobligated should be expended. All paymentrequests must be received by the end of the



90-day ‘‘close-out-period.’’ Any unexpendedmonies held by the grantee that remain afterthe 90-day follow-up period must be returnedto the Institute. Any funds remaining in thegrant that have not been drawn down by thegrantee will be deobligated.

10. Are funds granted by SJI ‘‘Federal’’funds?

The State Justice Institute Act providesthat, except for purposes unrelated to thisquestion, ‘‘the Institute shall not beconsidered a department, agency, orinstrumentality of the Federal Government.’’42 U.S.C.10704(c)(1). Because SJI receivesappropriations from Congress, some granteeauditors have reported SJI grants funds as‘‘Other Federal Assistance.’’ Thisclassification is acceptable to SJI but is notrequired.

11. If SJI is not a Federal Agency, do OMBcirculars apply with respect to audits?

Unless they are inconsistent with theexpress provisions of the SJI Grant Guideline,Office of Management and Budget (OMB)Circulars A–110, A–21, A–87, A–88, A–102,A–122, A–128 and A–133 are incorporatedinto the Grant Guideline by reference.Because the Institute’s enabling legislationspecifically requires the Institute to‘‘conduct, or require each recipient toprovide for, an annual fiscal audit’’ (see 42U.S.C. 10711(c)(1)), the Grant Guideline setsforth options for grantees to comply with thisstatutory requirement. (See Section X.K.)

SJI will accept audits conducted inaccordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984and OMB Circulars A–128 or A–133 to satisfythe annual fiscal audit requirement. Granteesthat are required to undertake these audits inconjunction with Federal grants may includeSJI funds as part of the audit even if thereceipt of SJI funds would not require suchaudits. This approach gives grantees anoption to fold SJI funds into thegovernmental audit rather than to undertakea separate audit to satisfy SJI’s Guidelinerequirements.

In sum, educational and nonprofitorganizations that receive payments from theInstitute that are sufficient to meet theapplicability thresholds of OMB Circular A–133 must have their annual audit conductedin accordance with Government AuditingStandards issued by the Comptroller Generalof the United States rather than withgenerally accepted auditing standards.Grantees in this category that receiveamounts below the minimum thresholdreferenced in Circular A–133 must alsosubmit an annual audit to SJI, but they wouldhave the option to conduct an audit of theentire grantee organization in accordancewith generally accepted auditing standards;include SJI funds in an audit of Federal fundsconducted in accordance with the SingleAudit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A–128or A–133; or conduct an audit of only the SJIfunds in accordance with generally acceptedauditing standards. (See Guideline sectionX.K.) Circulars may be obtained from OMBby calling 202–395–3080 or visiting the OMBwebsite at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB.

12. Does SJI have a CFDA number?Auditors often request that a grantee

provide the Institute’s Catalog of FederalDomestic Assistance (CFDA) number for

guidance in conducting an audit inaccordance with Government AccountingStandards.

Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it hasnot been issued such a number, and there areno additional compliance tests to satisfyunder the Institute’s audit requirementsbeyond those of a standard governmentalaudit.

Moreover, because SJI is not a Federalagency, SJI funds should not be aggregatedwith Federal funds to determine if theapplicability threshold of Circular A–133 hasbeen reached. For example, if in fiscal year1999 grantee ‘‘X’’ received $10,000 in Federalfunds from a Department of Justice (DOJ)grant program and $20,000 in grant fundsfrom SJI, the minimum A–133 thresholdwould not be met. The same distinctionwould preclude an auditor from consideringthe additional SJI funds in determining whatFederal requirements apply to the DOJ funds.

Grantees who are required to satisfy eitherthe Single Audit Act, OMB Circulars A–128or A–133, and who include SJI grant fundsin those audits, need to remember thatbecause of its status as a private non-profitcorporation, SJI is not on routing lists ofcognizant Federal agencies. Therefore, thegrantee needs to submit a copy of the auditreport prepared for such a cognizant Federalagency directly to SJI. The Institute’s auditrequirements may be found in section X.K. ofthe Grant Guideline.

Appendix C—List of State ContactsRegarding Administration of InstituteGrants to State and Local Courts

Mr. Frank Gregory, Administrative Director,Administrative Office of the Courts, 300Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104,(334) 242–0300.

Ms. Stephanie J. Cole, AdministrativeDirector of the Courts, Alaska CourtSystem, 303 K Street, Anchorage, AK99501, (907) 264–0547.

Mr. Eliu F. Paopao, Court Administrator,High Court of American Samoa, P.O. Box309, Pago Pago, AS 96799, 011 (684) 633–1150.

Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Directorof the Courts, Supreme Court of Arizona,1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411,Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 542–9301.

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director,Administrative Office of the Courts,Supreme Court of Arkansas, JusticeBuilding, Little Rock, AR 72201, (501) 682–9400.

Mr. William C. Vickrey, State CourtAdministrator, Administrative Office of theCourts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, SanFrancisco, CA 94102, (415) 865–4200.

Honorable Gerald (Jerry) A. Marroney, StateCourt Administrator, Colorado JudicialDepartment, 1301 Pennsylvania Street,Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203, (303) 837–3668.

Honorable Robert C. Leuba, Chief CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court ofConnecticut, 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford,CT 06106, (860) 566–4461.

Michael E. McLaughlin, Deputy Director,Administrative Office of the Courts, CarvelState Office Building, 11th Floor, 820 N.

French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801,(302) 577–8481.

Ms. Anne B. Wicks, Acting Executive Officer,District of Columbia Courts, 500 IndianaAvenue, N.W., Suite 1500, Washington,D.C. 20001, (202) 879–1700.

Mr. Kenneth R. Palmer, State CourtsAdministrator, Florida Supreme CourtBuilding, 500 South Duval Street,Tallahassee, FL 32399–1900, (850) 922–5081.

Mr. Jay Martin, Interim Director,Administrative Office of the Courts, 47Trinity Avenue, Suite 414, Atlanta, GA30334, (404) 656–5171.

Mr. Daniel J. Tydingco, Executive Officer,Supreme Court of Guam, Guam JudicialCenter, Suite 300, 120 West O’Brien Drive,Hagatna, Guam 96910–5174, 011 (671)475–3278.

Mr. Michael F. Broderick, AdministrativeDirector of the Courts, The Judiciary, Stateof Hawaii, 417 S. King Street, Room 206,Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 539–4900.

Ms. Patricia Tobias, Administrative Directorof the Courts, Supreme Court Building, 451West State Street (Zip Code 83702), PostOffice Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720–0101,(208) 334–2246.

Mr. Joseph A. Schillaci, Director,Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts,222 N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor, Chicago,IL 60601, (312) 793–3250.

Ms. Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director,Division of State Court Administration,Indiana Supreme Court, 115 W.Washington, Suite 1080, Indianapolis, IN46204–3417, (317) 232–2542.

Mr. William J. O’Brien, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court of Iowa,State House, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515)281–5241.

Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, JudicialAdministrator, Kansas Judicial Center, 301West Tenth Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (785)296–4873.

Ms. Cicely Jaracz Lambert, Director,Administrative Office of the Courts, 100Millcreek Park, Frankfort, KY 40601–9230,(502) 573–2350.

Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator,Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1555 PoydrasStreet, Suite 1540, New Orleans, LA70112–3701, (504) 568–5747.

Mr. James T. Glessner, State CourtAdministrator, Administrative Office of theCourts, P.O. Box 4820, 62 Elm Street,Portland, ME 04112–4820, (207) 822–0792.

Mr. Frank Broccolina, State CourtAdministrator, Administrative Office of theCourts, Maryland Judicial Center, 580Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401,(410) 260–1290.

Honorable Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, ChiefJustice for Administration andManagement, Administrative Office of theTrial Courts, Two Center Plaza, Fifth Floor,Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742–8575.

Mr. John D. Ferry, Jr., State CourtAdministrator, 309 N. Washington Square,Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 373–2222

Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator,Supreme Court of Minnesota, 25Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155,(651) 296–2474

Mr. Rick D. Patt, Acting Director,Administrative Office of the Courts,



Supreme Court of Mississippi, P.O. Box117, Jackson, MS 39205, (601) 354–7408

Mr. Michael L. Buenger, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court of Missouri,P.O. Box 104480, Jefferson City, MO 65110,(573) 751–3585

Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State CourtAdministrator, Office of the CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court of Montana,Justice Building, Room 315, 215 NorthSanders, Post Office Box 203002, Helena,MT 59620–3002, (406) 444–2621

Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State CourtAdministrator, Administrative Office of theCourts/Probation, State Capitol Building,Room 1220, Post Office Box 98910,Lincoln, NE 68509–8910, (404) 471–3730

Ms. Karen Kavanau, State CourtAdministrator, Administrative Office of theCourts, Supreme Court Building, 201 SouthCarson Street, Suite 250, Carson City, NV89701–4702, (775) 684–1717

Mr. Donald Goodnow, Director,Administrative Office of the Courts, TwoNoble Drive, Concord, NH 03301, (603)271–2521

Honorable Richard J. Williams, ActingAdministrative Director, AdministrativeOffice of the Courts, Post Office Box 037,RJH Justice Complex, 25 Market Street,Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 292–1747

Mr. John M. Greacen, Director,Administrative Office of the Courts, 237Don Gaspar, Room 25, Sante Fe, NM87501–2178, (505) 827–4800

Honorable Jonathan Lippman, ChiefAdministrative Judge, New York StateUnified Court System, Office of CourtAdministration, 25 Beaver Street, NewYork, NY 10004, (212) 428–2100

Honorable Thomas W. Ross, AdministrativeDirector of the Courts, North CarolinaAdministrative Office of the Courts, 2 EastMorgan Street (Zip Code 27601), PostOffice Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602, (919)733–7107

Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court of NorthDakota, State Capitol Building, 600 EastBoulevard Avenue, Dept. 180, Bismarck,ND 58505–0530, (701) 328–4216

Ms. Margarita M. Palacios, Director of Court,Supreme Court of the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box2165 CK, Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 235–9800

Mr. Steven C. Hollon, AdministrativeDirector, Supreme Court of Ohio, RhodesOffice Tower, 30 East Broad Street,Columbus, OH 43266–0419, (614) 466–2653

Mr. Howard W. Conyers, AdministrativeDirector of the Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 521–2450

Ms. Kingsley W. Click, State CourtAdministrator, Office of the State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court Building,Salem, OR 97310, (503) 986–5900

Mr. Zygmont A. Pines, Acting CourtAdministrator, Administrative Office ofPennsylvania Courts, Supreme Court ofPennsylvania, 1515 Market Street, Suite1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102, (215) 560–6337

Ms. Mercedes M. Bauermeister,Administrative Director of the Courts,

General Court of Justice, Office of CourtAdministration, 6 Vela Street, Post OfficeBox 190917, Hato Rey, PR 00919, (787)763–3358

Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court of RhodeIsland, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI02903, (401) 277–3263

Ms. Rosalyn Woodson Frierson, Director,South Carolina Court Administration, 1015Sumter Street, Suite 200, Columbia, SC29201, (803) 734–1800

Mr. Daniel Schenk, Acting State CourtAdministrator, Unified Judicial System,500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501,(605) 773–3474

Ms. Cornelia A. Clark, Director,Administrative Office of the Courts,Tennessee Supreme Court, 511 UnionStreet, Suite 600, Nashville, TN 37243–0607, (615) 741–2687

Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, AdministrativeDirector, Office of Court Administration,Tom C. Clark State Courts Building, PostOffice Box 12066 (Zip Code 78711–2066),205 West 14th Street, Suite 600, Austin, TX78701, (512) 463–1625

Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator,450 South State, Post Office Box 140241,Salt Lake City, UT 84114–0241, (801) 578–3806

Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator,Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 StateStreet, Montpelier, VT 05609–0701, (802)828–3278

Ms. Glenda L. Lake, Territorial Court of theVirgin Islands, P.O. Box 70, CharlotteAmalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00804,(340) 774–6680

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court of Virginia,100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor,Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786–6455

Ms. Mary Campbell McQueen, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court ofWashington, Temple of Justice, P.O. Box41174, Olympia, WA 98504–1174, (360)357–2121

Mr. James M. Albert, Administrative Director,West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,E–100, State Capitol Bldg., 1900 KanawhaBlvd. East, Charleston, WV 25305–0833,(304) 558–0145

Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts,Room LL2, 119 Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. (Zip Code 53703), Post Office Box1688, Madison, WI 53702, (608) 266–6828

Ms. Holly A. Hansen, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court ofWyoming, Supreme Court Building, 2301Capital Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82002,(307) 777–7480

Appendix D—SJI Libraries: DesignatedSites and Contacts

Alabama

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Timothy A. Lewis, State Law Librarian,Alabama Supreme Court Bldg., 300 DexterAvenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, (334)242–4347

Alaska

Anchorage Law Library

Ms. Cynthia S. Fellows, State Law Librarian,Alaska State Court Law Library, 820 W.

Fourth Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501, (907)264–0583

Arizona

State Law Library

Ms. Gladys Ann Wells, CollectionDevelopment, Research Division, ArizonaDept. of Library, Archives and PublicRecords, State Law Library, 1501 W.Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602)542–4035

Arkansas

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director,Administrative Office of the Courts,Supreme Court of Arkansas, JusticeBuilding, Little Rock, AR 72201, (501) 682–9400

California


Mr. William C. Vickrey, State CourtAdministrator, Administrative Office of theCourts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, SanFrancisco, CA 94102, (415) 865–4200

Colorado


Ms. Lois Calvert, Supreme Court LawLibrarian, Colorado State Judicial Building,2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203,(303) 837–3720

Connecticut

State Library

Ms. Denise D. Jernigan, Head, Law/Legislative Reference Unit, ConnecticutState Library, Hartford, CT 06106, (860)566–2516

Delaware


Mr. Michael E. McLaughlin, Deputy Director,Administrative Office of the Courts, CarvelState Office Building, 820 North FrenchStreet, 11th Floor, P.O. Box 8911,Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577–8481

District of Columbia

Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts

Ms. Anne B. Wicks, Acting Executive Officer,District of Columbia Courts, 500 IndianaAvenue, N.W., Suite 1500, Washington,D.C. 20001, (202) 879–1700

Florida


Mr. Kenneth R. Palmer, State CourtsAdministrator, Florida Supreme CourtBuilding, 500 South Duval Street,Tallahassee, FL 32399–1900, (850) 922–5081

Georgia


Mr. Jay Martin, Interim Director,Administrative Office of the Courts, 47Trinity Avenue, Suite 414, Atlanta, GA30334, (404) 656–5171



HawaiiSupreme Court Library

Ms. Ann Koto, State Law Librarian, TheSupreme Court Law Library, 417 SouthKing St., Room 119, Honolulu, HI 96813,(808) 539–4965

IdahoAOC Judicial Education Library/State LawLibrary

Ms. Beth Peterson, State Law Librarian, IdahoState Law Library, Supreme CourtBuilding, 451 West State St., Boise, ID83720, (208) 334–3316

IllinoisSupreme Court Library

Ms. Brenda Larison, Supreme Court ofIllinois Library, 200 East Capitol Avenue,Springfield, IL 62701–1791, (217) 782–2425

IndianaSupreme Court Library

Dennis Lager, Supreme Court Librarian,Supreme Court Library, State House, Room316, Indianapolis, IN 46204, (317) 232–2557

IowaAdministrative Office of the Court

Dr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive Director,Judicial Education & Planning, Office ofthe State Court Administrator, State CapitalBuilding, Des Moines, IA 50319–0001,(515) 281–8279

KansasSupreme Court Library

Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, KansasSupreme Court Library, 301 West 10thStreet Topeka, KS 66612, (913) 296–3257

KentuckyState Law Library

Ms. Sallie Howard, State Law Librarian, StateLaw Library, State Capital, Room 200,Frankfort, KY 40601, (502) 564–4848

Louisiana

State Law Library

Ms. Carol Billings, Director, Louisiana LawLibrary, 301 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,LA 70112, (504) 568–5705

Maine

State Law and Legislative Reference Library

Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian, 43State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333,(207) 287–1600

Maryland

State Law Library

Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director, MarylandState Law Library, Court of Appeal Building,361 Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, MD 21401,(410) 260–1430

Massachusetts

Middlesex Law Library

Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Librarian, MiddlesexLaw Library, Superior Court House, 40Thorndike Street, Cambridge, MA 02141,(617) 494–4148

Michigan

Michigan Judicial Institute

Mr. Kevin Bowling, Director, MichiganJudicial Institute, 222 Washington SquareNorth, P.O. Box 30205, Lansing, MI 48909,(517) 334–7804

Minnesota

State Law Library (Minnesota JudicialCenter),

Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State LawLibrarian, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 25Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155,(612) 297–2084

Mississippi

Mississippi Judicial College

Mr. Leslie Johnson, Director, University ofMississippi, P.O. Box 8850, University, MS38677, (601) 232–5955

Montana

State Law Library

Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian,State Law Library of Montana, 215 NorthSanders, Helena, MT 59620, (406) 444–3660

Nebraska


Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State CourtAdministrator, Administrative Office of theCourts/Probation, State Capitol Building,Room 1220, Post Office Box 98910,Lincoln, NE 68509–8910, (402) 471–2197

Nevada

National Judicial College

Clara Kelly, Law Librarian, National JudicialCollege, Judicial College Building,University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89550,(702) 784–6747

New Jersey

New Jersey State Library

Marjorie Garwig, Supervising Law Librarian,New Jersey State Law Library, 185 WestState Street, P.O. Box 520, Trenton, NJ08625–0250, (609) 292–6230

New Mexico


Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian, SupremeCourt Library, Post Office Drawer L, SantaFe, NM 87504, (505) 827–4850

New York


Ms. Colleen Stella, Principal Law Librarian,New York State Supreme Court LawLibrary, Onondaga County Court House401 Montgomery Street, Syracuse, NY13202, (315) 435–2063

North Carolina


Ms. Louise Stafford, Librarian, NorthCarolina Supreme Court Library, P.O. Box28006, 2 East Morgan Street, Raleigh, NC27601, (919) 733–3425

North Dakota


Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant LawLibrarian, Supreme Court Law Library, 600East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 182, 2ndFloor, Judicial Wing, Bismarck, ND 58505–0540, (701) 328–2229

Northern Mariana Islands

Supreme Court of the Northern MarianaIslands Honorable Miguel Sablan Demapan,Chief Justice, Supreme Court of theCommonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands, P.O. Box 2165 CK, Saipan, MP96950, (670) 236–9700

Ohio


Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian, SupremeCourt Law Library, Supreme Court of Ohio,30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH43266–0419, (614) 466–2044

Oklahoma


Mr. Howard W. Conyers, AdministrativeDirector of the Courts, 1915 North Stiles,Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405)521–2450

Oregon


Ms. Kingsley W. Click, State CourtAdministrator, Office of the State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court Building,Salem, OR 97310, (503) 986–5900

Pennsylvania

State Library of Pennsylvania

Ms. Kathy Hale, State Justice Depository,State Library of Pennsylvania, CollectionManagement, Room G–48 Forum Building,P.O. Box 1601, Harrisburg, PA 17105–1601,(717) 787–5718

Puerto Rico

Office of Court Administration

Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Esq., Director, Areaof Planning and Management, Office ofCourt Administration, P.O. Box 917, HatoRey, PR 00919,

Rhode Island

Roger Williams Law School Library

Mr. Kendall Svengalis, Law Librarian, LichtJudicial Complex, 250 Benefit Street,Providence, RI, (401) 254–4546

South Carolina

Coleman Karesh Law Library (University ofSouth Carolina School of Law)

Mr. Steve Hinckley, Library Director,Coleman Karesh Law Library, U.S.C. LawCenter, University of South Carolina,Columbia, SC 29208, (803) 777–5944

South Dakota

State Law Library

Librarian, 500 East Capitol, Pierre, SouthDakota 57501, (605) 773–4898



Tennessee

Tennessee State Law Library

Judge Cornelia A. Clark, Director,Administrative Office of the Courts,Tennessee Supreme Court, 511 Union,Nashville, TN 37243–0607, (615) 741–2687

Texas

State Law Library

Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State LawLibrary, P.O. Box 12367, Austin, TX 78711,(512) 463–1722

U.S. Virgin Islands

Library of the Territorial Court of the VirginIslands (St. Thomas)

Librarian, The Library, Territorial Court ofthe Virgin Islands, Post Office Box 70,Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. VirginIslands 00804

Utah

Utah State Judicial Administration Library

Ms. Debbie Christiansen, Utah State JudicialAdministration Library, AdministrativeOffice of the Courts, 450 South State, P.O.Box 140241, Salt Lake City, UT 84114–0241, (801) 533–6371

Vermont

Supreme Court of Vermont

Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator,Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 StateStreet, Montpelier, VT 05609–0701, (802)828–3278

Virginia


Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State CourtAdministrator, Supreme Court of Virginia100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor,Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786–6455

Washington

Washington State Law Library

Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian,Washington State Law Library, Temple ofJustice, P.O. Box 40751, Olympia, WA98504–0751, (206) 357–2136

West Virginia


Mr. Richard H. Rosswurm, Chief Deputy,West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,State Capitol 1900 Kanawha, Charleston,WV 25305, (304) 348–0145

Wisconsin

State Law Library

Ms. Jane Colwin, Director of Public Services,State Law Library, 310 E. State Capitol,P.O. Box 7881, Madison, WI 53707, (608)261–2340

Wyoming

Wyoming State Law Library

Ms. Kathy Carlson, Law Librarian, WyomingState Law Library, Supreme CourtBuilding, 2301 Capitol Avenue, Cheyenne,WY 82002 (307) 777–7509

NATIONAL

American Judicature Society

Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for Informationand Library Services, 180 North MichiganAvenue, #600, Chicago, IL 60601, (312)558–6900,

National Center for State Courts

Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/SerialsLibrarian, 300 Newport Avenue,Williamsburg, VA 23187–8798, (804) 253–2000

JERITT

Maureen E. Conner, Ph.D., ExecutiveDirector, (The JERITT Project), 1407 S.Harrison, Suite 330 Nisbet, East Lansing,MI 48823–5239, (517) 353–8603, (517)432–3965 (fax), e-mail: [email protected],website: http://jeritt.msu.edu

Appendix E—Illustrative List of ModelCurricula

The following list includes examples ofmodel SJI-supported curricula that Statejudicial educators may wish to adapt forpresentation in education programs forjudges and other court personnel with theassistance of a Curriculum Adaptation Grant.Please refer to section VII.E. for informationon submitting a letter application for aCurriculum Adaptation Grant. A list of allSJI-supported education projects is availableon the SJI website (http://www.statejustice.org). Please also check withthe JERITT project (517/353–8603) or http://jeritt.msu.edu and with your State SJI-designated library (see Appendix D) forinformation on other SJI-supported curriculathat may be appropriate for in-Stateadaptation.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Judicial Settlement Manual (NationalJudicial College: SJI–89–089)

Improving the Quality of DisputeResolution (Ohio State University College ofLaw: SJI–93–277)

Comprehensive ADR Curriculum forJudges (American Bar Association: SJI–95–002)

Domestic Violence and Custody Mediation(American Bar Association: SJI–96–038)

Court Coordination

Bankruptcy Issues for State Trial CourtJudges (American Bankruptcy Institute: SJI–91–027)

Intermediate Sanctions Handbook:Experiences and Tools for Policymakers(Center for Effective Public Policy: IAA–88–NIC–001)

Regional Conference Cookbook: A PracticalGuide to Planning and Presenting a RegionalConference on State-Federal JudicialRelationships (U.S. Court of Appeals for the9th Circuit: SJI–92–087)

Bankruptcy Issues and Domestic RelationsCases (American Bankruptcy Institute: SJI–96–175)

Court Management

Managing Trials Effectively: A Program forState Trial Judges (National Center for StateCourts/National Judicial College: SJI–87–066/067, SJI–89–054/055, SJI–91–025/026)

Caseflow Management Principles andPractices (Institute for Court Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI–87–056)

A Manual for Workshops on ProcessingFelony Dispositions in Limited JurisdictionCourts (National Center for State Courts: SJI–90–052)

Managerial Budgeting in the Courts;Performance Appraisal in the Courts;Managing Change in the Courts; CourtAutomation Design; Case Management forTrial Judges; Trial Court PerformanceStandards (Institute for Court Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI–91–043)

Strengthening Rural Courts of LimitedJurisdiction and Team Training for Judgesand Clerks (Rural Justice Center: SJI–90–014,SJI–91–082)

Interbranch Relations Workshop (OhioJudicial Conference: SJI–92–079)

Integrating Trial Management andCaseflow Management (Justice ManagementInstitute: SJI–93–214)

Leading Organizational Change (CaliforniaAdministrative Office of the Courts: SJI–94–068)

Privacy Issues in Computerized CourtRecord Keeping: An Instructional Guide forJudges and Judicial Educators (NationalJudicial College: SJI–94–015)

Managing Mass Tort Cases (NationalJudicial College: SJI–94–141)

Employment Responsibilities of StateCourt Judges (National Judicial College: SJI–95–025)

Dealing with the Common Law Courts: AModel Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff(Institute for Court Management/NationalCenter for State Courts: SJI–96–159)

Caseflow Management (JusticeManagement Institute: SJI–98–041)

Courts and Communities

A National Program for Reporting on theCourts and the Law (American JudicatureSociety: SJI–88–014)

Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Trainingand Implementation Project (NationalOrganization for Victim Assistance: SJI–89–083)

National Guardianship Monitoring Project:Trainer and Trainee’s Manual (AmericanAssociation of Retired Persons: SJI–91–013)

Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury andthe Justice System and When Implementingthe Court-Related Needs of Older People andPersons with Disabilities: An InstructionalGuide (National Judicial College: SJI–91–054)

You Are the Court System: A Focus onCustomer Service (Alaska Court System: SJI–94–048)

Serving the Public: A Curriculum for CourtEmployees (American Judicature Society:SJI–96–040)

Courts and Their Communities: LocalPlanning and the Renewal of Public Trustand Confidence: A California StatewideConference (California Administrative Officeof the Courts: SJI–98–008)

Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts(Mid-Atlantic Association for CourtManagement: SJI–98–208)

Trial Court Judicial Leadership Program:Judges and Court Administrators Serving theCourts and Community (National Center forState Courts: SJI–98–268)



ACA National Conference: Public Trustand Confidence (Arizona Courts Association:SJI–99–063)

Criminal Process

Search Warrants: A Curriculum Guide forMagistrates (American Bar AssociationCriminal Justice Section: SJI–88–035)

Diversity, Values, and Attitudes

Troubled Families, Troubled Judges(Brandeis University: SJI–89–071)

The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Valuesin Judicial Education (National Council ofJuvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI–90–058)

Enhancing Diversity in the Court andCommunity (Institute for Court Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI–91–043)

Cultural Diversity Awareness in NebraskaCourts from Native American Alternatives toIncarceration Project (Nebraska Urban IndianHealth Coalition: SJI–93–028)

Race Fairness and Cultural AwarenessFaculty Development Workshop (NationalJudicial College: SJI–93–063)

A Videotape Training Program in Ethicsand Professional Conduct for NonjudicialCourt Personnel and The Ethics Fieldbook:Tool For Trainers (American JudicatureSociety: SJI–93–068)

Court Interpreter Training Course forSpanish Interpreters (International Instituteof Buffalo: SJI–93–075)

Doing Justice: Improving Equality Beforethe Law Through Literature-Based Seminarsfor Judges and Court Personnel (BrandeisUniversity: SJI–94–019)

Indian Welfare Act; Defendants, Victims,and Witnesses with Mental Retardation(National Judicial College: SJI–94–142)

Multi-Cultural Training for Judges andCourt Personnel (St. Petersburg JuniorCollege: SJI–95–006)

Ethical Standards for Judicial Settlement:Developing a Judicial Education Module(American Judicature Society: SJI–95–082)

Code of Ethics for the Court Employees ofCalifornia (California Administrative Officeof the Courts: SJI–95–245)

Workplace Sexual Harassment Awarenessand Prevention (California AdministrativeOffice of the Courts: SJI–96–089)

Just Us On Justice: A Dialogue on DiversityIssues Facing Virginia Courts (VirginiaSupreme Court: SJI–96–150)

When Bias Compounds: Insuring EqualTreatment for Women of Color in the Courts(National Judicial Education Program: SJI–96–161)

When Judges Speak Up: Ethics, the Public,and the Media (American Judicature Society:SJI–96–152)

Family Violence and Gender-Related ViolentCrime

National Judicial Response to DomesticViolence: Civil and Criminal Curricula

(Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI–87–061, SJI–89–070, SJI–91–055).

Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for RuralCourts (Rural Justice Center: SJI–88–081)

Judicial Training Materials on SpousalSupport; Judicial Training Materials on ChildCustody and Visitation (Women Judges’ Fundfor Justice: SJI–89–062)

Judicial Response to Stranger andNonstranger Rape and Sexual Assault(National Judicial Education Program: SJI–92–003)

Domestic Violence & Children: ResolvingCustody and Visitation Disputes (FamilyViolence Prevention Fund: SJI–93–255)

Adjudicating Allegations of Child SexualAbuse When Custody Is In Dispute (NationalJudicial Education Program: SJI–95–019)

Handling Cases of Elder Abuse:Interdisciplinary Curricula for Judges andCourt Staff (American Bar Association: SJI–93–274)

Health and Science

Environmental Law Resource Handbook(University of New Mexico Institute forPublic Law: SJI–92–162)

A Judge’s Deskbook on the BasicPhilosophies and Methods of Science: ModelCurriculum (University of Nevada, Reno: SJI–97–030)

Judicial Education For Appellate CourtJudges

Career Writing Program for AppellateJudges (American Academy of JudicialEducation: SJI–88–086)

Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovationsfor Appellate Courts (National Center forState Courts: SJI–94–002)

Judicial Education Faculty, and ProgramDevelopment

The Leadership Institute in JudicialEducation and The Advanced LeadershipInstitute in Judicial Education (University ofMemphis: SJI–91–021)

‘‘Faculty Development InstructionalProgram’’ from Curriculum Review (NationalJudicial College: SJI–91–039)

Resource Manual and Training for JudicialEducation Mentors (National Association ofState Judicial Educators: SJI–95–233)

Institute for Faculty Excellence in JudicialEducation, (National Council of Juvenile andFamily Court Judges: SJI–96–042)

Orientation, Mentoring, and ContinuingProfessional Education of Judges and CourtPersonnel

Legal Institute for Special and LimitedJurisdiction Judges (National Judicial College:SJI–89–043, SJI–91–040)

Pre-Bench Training for New Judges(American Judicature Society: SJI–90–028)

A Unified Orientation and MentoringProgram for New Judges of All Arizona TrialCourts (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI–90–078)

Court Organization and Structure (Institutefor Court Management/National Center forState Courts: SJI–91–043)

Judicial Review of Administrative AgencyDecisions (National Judicial College: SJI–91–080)

New Employee Orientation FacilitatorsGuide (Minnesota Supreme Court: SJI–92–155)

Magistrates Correspondence Course(Alaska Court System: SJI–92–156)

Computer-Assisted Instruction for CourtEmployees (Utah Administrative Office of theCourts: SJI–94–012)

Bench Trial Skills and Demeanor: AnInteractive Manual (National Judicial College:SJI 94–058)

Ethical Issues in the Election of Judges(National Judicial College: SJI–94–142)

Professional Development for CourtManagers: Educational Criteria in the 21stCentury (National Association for CourtManagement: SJI–96–148)

Innovative Approaches to ImprovingCompetencies of General Jurisdiction Judges(National Judicial College: SJI–98–001)

Juveniles and Families in Court

Fundamental Skills Training Curriculumfor Juvenile Probation Officers (NationalCouncil of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:SJI–90–017)

Child Support Across State Lines: TheUniform Interstate Family Support Act fromUniform Interstate Family Support Act:Development and Delivery of a JudicialTraining Curriculum (ABA Center onChildren and the Law: SJI–94–321)

Strategic and Futures Planning

Minding the Courts into the TwentiethCentury (Michigan Judicial Institute: SJI–89–029)

An Approach to Long-Range StrategicPlanning in the Courts (Center for PublicPolicy Studies: SJI–91–045)

Substance Abuse

Effective Treatment for Drug-InvolvedOffenders: A Review & Synthesis for Judgesand Court Personnel (EducationDevelopment Center, Inc.: SJI–90–051)

Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, andthe Judiciary (Professional Development andTraining Center, Inc.: SJI–91–095)

Gaining Momentum: A Model Curriculumfor Drug Courts (Florida Office of the StateCourts Administrator: SJI–94–291)

Judicial Response to Substance Abuse:Children, Adolescents, and Families(National Council of Juvenile and FamilyCourt Judges: SJI–95–030)

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–P













[FR Doc. 00–21924 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6820–SC–C


Thursday,

August 31, 2000

Part III

Office of PersonnelManagementScience and Technology (S&T)Reinvention Laboratory PersonnelDemonstration Project, Department of theArmy, Aviation Research, Development,and Engineering Center (AVRDEC) andMissile Research, Development, andEngineering Center (MRDEC); Notice



OFFICE OF PERSONNELMANAGEMENT

Science and Technology (S&T)Reinvention Laboratory PersonnelDemonstration Project, Department ofthe Army, Aviation Research,Development, and Engineering Center(AVRDEC) and Missile Research,Development, and Engineering Center(MRDEC)

AGENCY: Office of PersonnelManagement (OPM).ACTION: Notice of amendment of theAVRDEC and MRDEC demonstrationproject plans to merge the two separatedemonstrations into one project. Theresulting project is designated the S&TReinvention Laboratory PersonnelDemonstration Project at the U.S. ArmyAviation & Missile Research,Development, and Engineering Center(AMCOM RDEC).

SUMMARY: 5 U.S.C. 4703 authorizes OPMto conduct demonstration projects thatexperiment with new and differentpersonnel management concepts todetermine whether such changes inpolicy or procedures will result inimproved Federal personnelmanagement.

Public Law 103–337, October 5, 1994,permits the Department of Defense(DOD), with the approval of OPM, tocarry out personnel demonstrationprojects at S&T ReinventionLaboratories. Pursuant to 5 CFR470.315, this notice amends theAVRDEC and the MRDEC projects tomerge the separate demonstrations intoone project.

Both demonstration projects wereapproved on June 27, 1997 andimplemented on September 28, 1997.The formation of the Army Aviation andMissile Command (AMCOM), a directedBRAC 95 action, took place on October11, 1997. This BRAC action placed bothdemonstration projects under theorganizational control of AMCOM. Thedemonstration organizations (MRDECand AVRDEC) were not merged at theformation of AMCOM to avoid excessivepersonnel turbulence and to ensurecontinued customer support during theBRAC transitions.

However, Army planning includedthe eventual merger of the MRDEC andAVRDEC after several years ofoperation. For this reason, the FederalRegister notice for both AVRDEC andMRDEC included the statement that‘‘Successor organizations which mayresult from actions associated with the1995 Base Realignment and ClosureCommission (BRAC) or futureCommissions will continue coverage in

the demonstration project.’’Headquarters, U.S. Army MaterielCommand Permanent Orders 063–1,dated March 4, 1999, redesignated andreorganized the MRDEC as the AMCOMRDEC, discontinued the AVRDEC, andmerged the AVRDEC with the AMCOMRDEC.DATES: This amendment to the AVRDECand MRDEC demonstration projects maybe implemented beginning on the dateof August 31, 2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

AVRDEC: Mr. David Knepper,Aviation Research, Development, andEngineering Center, U.S. Army Aviationand Missile Command, ATTN:AMSAM–RD, Redstone Arsenal,Alabama 35898–5000, phone 256–876–1522.

MRDEC: Ms. Lana Hargrove, MissileResearch, Development, andEngineering Center, U.S. Army Aviationand Missile Command, ATTN:AMSAM–RD, Redstone Arsenal,Alabama 35898–5000, phone 256–955–6734.

OPM: Mr. Gary Hacker, U.S. Office ofPersonnel Management, 1900 E StreetNW, Room 7458, Washington, DC20415, phone 202–606–2820.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

OPM approved and published thefinal plans in the Federal Register forthe following S&T ReinventionLaboratory Demonstration Projects:

A. MRDEC final publication onFriday, June 27, 1997, Volume 62,Number 124, Part IV, page 34876.

B. AVRDEC final publication onFriday, June 27, 1997, Volume 62,Number 124, Part V, page 34905.

C. AVRDEC correction to thedefinition of competitive area andpublication on Monday, March 8, 1999,Volume 64, Number 44, page 11074.

D. Publication of an amendment toinclude competitive examining andDistinguished Scholastic AchievementAppointment authorities as part of theAVRDEC and the MRDEC plans.Published in the Federal Register onThursday, March 11, 1999, Volume 64,Number 47, page 12216.

The AVRDEC and the MRDECdemonstration projects involvesimplified job classification, paybanding, a performance-basedcompensation system, employeedevelopment provisions, and modifiedreduction-in-force procedures.

2. Overview

This action is in response to areorganization directed by the U.S.Army Materiel Command that re-

designates the MRDEC as the U.S. ArmyAviation & Missile Research,Development, and Engineering Center(AMCOM RDEC) effective October 1,2000, and merges the AVRDEC with thenewly established AMCOM RDEC.

Dated: August 24, 2000.Office of Personnel Management.Janice R. Lachance,Director.

I. Executive Summary

The Department of the Army designedthe personnel demonstration projects tobe generally similar to the system in useat the Navy personnel demonstrationknown as China Lake. The projects andthis amendment are built upon theconcepts of linking performance to payfor all covered positions; simplifying thepaperwork in the processing ofclassification and other personnelactions; emphasizing partnershipsamong management, employees, and theunion; and delegating authorities to linemanagers.

The projects are beneficial to both theAVRDEC and the MRDEC and will becontinued. This conforms with theprovision on successorship in theFederal Register, June 27, 1997, Volume62, Number 124, at page 34881, sectionIIE, and at page 34909, section IID, thatstates, ‘‘Successor organizations whichmay result from actions associated withthe 1995 Base Realignment and ClosureCommission (BRAC) or futureCommissions will continue coverage inthe demonstration project.’’ Theconsolidation re-designating the MRDECand merging the AVRDEC with the newAMCOM RDEC results from 1995 BRACactions.

II. Introduction

The personnel demonstration at themerged AMCOM RDEC laboratory willprovide its managers the authority,control, and flexibility to achieve aquality laboratory and quality products.The successor project will allow theAMCOM RDEC to compete moreeffectively for high-quality personneland strengthen the manager’s role inpersonnel management.

Basic provisions are unchanged fromeach of the approved demonstrationprojects. Except as described in sectionIII that follows, provisions of theMRDEC plan will be followed for theconsolidated AMCOM RDEC project.

Employee notification will be madeby delivery of a copy of this notice.Training for supervisors and employeeswill be accomplished along withimplementation.



III. Specific Provisions

A. Participating Organization

The AMCOM RDEC will haveapproximately 1,953 employees coveredby the project, approximately 1,502from the MRDEC and approximately 451from the AVRDEC. The majority of theemployees are located at RedstoneArsenal, Alabama, with the remainingemployees located at Fort Rucker,Alabama; Mesa, Arizona; Moffett Field,California; Eglin Air Force Base, Florida;Orlando, Florida; Andover,Massachusetts; Dallas, Texas; Fort Bliss,Texas; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Eustis,Virginia; Hampton, Virginia; andWashington, DC.

B. Occupational Series by OccupationalFamily

The AVRDEC has the followingoccupational series that will be added tothose in Appendix A of the MRDECfinal plan pursuant to the mergedproject.

Engineers & Scientists

0180 Psychologist Series (EngineeringResearch Psychologist, EngineeringPsychologist)

0801 General Engineer (HumanFactors Engineer)

Technical and Business Support0018 Safety & Occupational Health

Management0510 Accounting0905 General Attorney1035 Public Affairs1060 Photography1071 Audio Visual Production1084 Visual Information1103 Industrial Property Management

Specialist1601 General Facilities & Equipment2181 Aircraft OperationGeneral Support0525 Accounting Technician1105 Purchasing2102 Transportation Clerk and

Assistant

C. Labor Participation

Former AVRDEC and former MRDECemployees are currently represented asstated in the Federal Register, June 27,1997, Volume 62, Number 124, at page34881, section IIF. (The term MRDEC isreplaced with the term AMCOM RDEC.)Currently, no union represents AMCOMRDEC employees at the Fort Eustis andLangley, Virginia, geographic locations.

D. Performance-Based Actions

Former AVRDEC and former MRDECemployees are currently covered by theprovisions in the Federal Register, June

27, 1997, Volume 62, Number 124, atpages 34885 and 34886 for this topic.

E. Calculation of Performance Pay PoolFunds

The AMCOM RDEC Management ofOperations and Business Office, inconsultation with the union(s)representing AMCOM employeescovered by this demonstration project,will calculate the total performance paypool funds and allocate them to paypools or teams as appropriate. Thisallocation, approved by the ExecutiveDirector, will be achieved early in theannual performance appraisal cycle.These provisions replace the lastparagraph of section IIIB (PerformancePay Pool) in the Federal Register, June27, 1997, Volume 62, Number 124, atpage 34887.

F. Competitive Areas

All positions included in thedemonstration project at a specificgeographic location will be considered aseparate competitive area (exception:positions at Fort Eustis and Hampton(NASA-Langley), Virginia will becombined into one competitive area).



Thursday,

August 31, 2000

Part IV

EnvironmentalProtection AgencySolicitation Notice: EnvironmentalEducation Grants Program; Fiscal Year2001; Notice




[FRL–6861–4]

Solicitation Notice: EnvironmentalEducation Grants Program; Fiscal Year2001

Contents

Section I—Overview and DeadlinesSection II—Eligible Applicants and ActivitiesSection III—Funding PrioritiesSection IV—Requirements for Proposals &

Matching FundsSection V—Review and Selection ProcessSection VI—Grantee ResponsibilitiesSection VII—Resource Information & Mailing

ListAppendices—Federal Forms and Instructions

Section I.—Overview and Deadlines

A. Purpose of SolicitationThis document solicits grant

proposals from education institutions,environmental and educational publicagencies, and not-for-profitorganizations to support environmentaleducation projects, as defined in thisnotice. This solicitation notice containsall the information and forms necessaryto prepare a proposal. If your project isselected as a finalist after the evaluationprocess is concluded, EPA will provideyou with additional Federal formsneeded to process your proposal. Thesegrants require non-federal matchingfunds for at least 25% of the total costof the project.

The Environmental Education GrantsProgram provides financial support forprojects which design, demonstrate, ordisseminate environmental educationpractices, methods, or techniques,including assessing environmental andecological conditions or specificenvironmental issues or problems. Thisprogram is authorized under Section 6of the National EnvironmentalEducation Act of 1990 (the Act) (Pub. L.101–619).

B. Environmental Education versusEnvironmental Information

Environmental Education: Increasespublic awareness and knowledge aboutenvironmental issues and provides theskills to make informed decisions andtake responsible actions. It does notadvocate a particular viewpoint orcourse of action. It teaches individualshow to weigh various sides of an issuethrough critical thinking and itenhances their own problem-solvingskills.

Environmental Information: Proposalsthat simply disseminate ‘‘information’’will not be funded. These would beprojects that provide facts or opinionsabout environmental issues or problems,

but may not enhance critical-thinking,problem solving or decision-makingskills. Although information is anessential element of any educationaleffort, environmental information is not,by itself, environmental education.

C. Due Date and Grant Schedule(1) Due Date—November 15, 2000.

This is the postmark due date for anoriginal proposal signed by anauthorized representative plus one copyto be mailed to EPA. Proposals mailedor sent after this date will not beconsidered for funding.

(2) Rejection Letters—EPAHeadquarters and 10 Regional Officessend these out at different times asdetermined by scheduling toaccommodate review teams. Letters areusually sent between April and June.

(3) Start Date for Projects—July 1,2001 is the earliest start date thatapplicants should plan on and enter ontheir application forms and timelines.

D. Addresses for Mailing ProposalsProposals requesting over $25,000 in

Federal environmental education grantfunds must be mailed to EPAHeadquarters in Washington, DC;proposals requesting $25,000 or lessmust be mailed to the EPA RegionalOffice where the project takes place.The Headquarters address and the list ofRegional Office mailing addresses bystate is included at the end of thisnotice.

E. Funding Limits Per ProposalEPA anticipates funding of less than

$3 million for this annual grant cycle,subject to appropriations and theavailability of funds. Sinceimplementation of this grants programin 1992, there has been a great deal ofpublic enthusiasm for developingenvironmental education projects.Consequently, EPA has consistentlyreceived many more applications forthese grants than can be supported withavailable funds. The competition forgrants is intense, especially atHeadquarters which usually receivesabout 250 proposals and is able to fundless than 5% of the applicants. Regionaloffices generally fund about 15% ofproposals seeking over $5,000 and morethan 30% of proposals for $5,000 orless.

Grants in excess of $150,000 haveseldom been awarded through thisprogram. Although the Act sets amaximum limit of $250,000 inenvironmental education grant funds forany one project, because of limitedfunds, EPA prefers to award smallergrants to more recipients. Also,Congress requires that at least 25% of

available funds go to small grants of$5,000 or less. In summary, you willsignificantly increase your chance ofbeing funded if you request $5,000 orless from a Regional Office or $100,000or less from Headquarters.

Section II.—Eligible Applicants andActivities

F. Eligible Applicants

Any local education agency, stateeducation or environmental agency,college or university, not-for-profitorganization as described in Section501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,or noncommercial educationalbroadcasting entity may submit aproposal. ‘‘Tribal education agencies’’which may also apply include a schoolor community college which iscontrolled by an Indian tribe, band, ornation, which is recognized as eligiblefor special programs and servicesprovided by the United States to Indiansbecause of their status as Indians andwhich is not administered by theBureau of Indian Affairs. These termsare defined in Section 3 of the Act and40 CFR 47.105.

Applicant organizations must belocated in the United States and themajority of the educational activitiesmust take place in the United States,Canada and/or Mexico. A teacher’sschool district, an educator’s nonprofitorganization, or a faculty member’scollege or university may apply, but anindividual teacher, educator, or facultymember may not. Tribal organizationsalso do not qualify unless they meet thecriteria listed above.

G. Multiple or Repeat Proposals

An organization may submit morethan one proposal if the proposals arefor different projects. No organizationwill be awarded more than one grant forthe same project during the same fiscalyear. Applicants who received one ofthese grants in the past may submit anew proposal to expand a previouslyfunded project or to fund an entirelydifferent one. Each new proposal will beevaluated based upon the specificcriteria set forth in this solicitation andin relation to the other proposalsreceived in this fiscal year. Due tolimited resources, EPA does notgenerally sustain projects beyond theinitial grant period. This grant programis geared toward providing seed moneyto initiate new projects or to advanceexisting projects that are ‘‘new’’ in someway, such as reaching new audiences ornew locations. If you have received agrant from this program in the past, itis essential that you explain how yourcurrent proposal is ‘‘new.’’



H. Restrictions on CurriculumDevelopment

EPA strongly encourages applicants todemonstrate or disseminate existingenvironmental education materials(curricula, training materials, activitybooks, etc.) rather than designing newmaterials, because experts indicate thata significant amount of qualityeducational materials have already beendeveloped and are under-utilized. EPAwill consider funding new materialsonly where the applicant demonstratesthat there is a need, e.g., that existingeducational materials cannot be adaptedwell to a particular local environmentalconcern or audience, or existingmaterials are not otherwise accessible.The applicant must specify what stepsthey have taken to determine this need,e.g., you may cite a conference wherethis need was discussed, the results ofinquiries made within your communityor with various educational institutions,or a research paper or other publisheddocument. Further, EPA recommendsthe use of a publication entitledEnvironmental Education Materials:Guidelines for Excellence which wasdeveloped in part with EPA funding.These guidelines containrecommendations for developing andselecting quality environmentaleducation materials. On our website‘‘www.epa.gov/enviroed/resources’’ youmay view these guidelines and findinformation about ordering copies.

I. Ineligible Activities

Environmental education fundscannot be used for:

(1) Technical training ofenvironmental managementprofessionals;

(2) Environmental ‘‘information’’projects that have no educationalcomponent, as described in Section I(B);

(3) Lobbying or political activities, inaccordance with OMB Circulars A–21,A–87 and A–122;

(4) Non-educational research anddevelopment; or

(5) Construction projects EPA willnot fund construction activities such asthe acquisition of real property (e.g.,buildings) or the construction ormodification of any building. EPA may,however, fund activities such ascreating a nature trail or building a birdwatching station as long as these itemsare an integral part of the environmentaleducation project, and the cost is arelatively small percentage of the totalamount of federal funds requested.

Section III.—Funding Priorities

J. Educational Priorities

All proposals must satisfy thedefinition of ‘‘environmental education’’under Section I(B) and also address oneof the following educational priorities.Headquarters will fund the proposals forlarger grants (over $25,000 in Federalfunds) that address any of the top threecategories listed below; and regionaloffices will fund grants in any of sevencategories listed below. The order of thelist is random and does not indicate aranking. Please read the definitions thatare included in this section to preventyour application from being rejected forfailure to correctly address a priority.

Headquarters Priorities (Federal fundsin excess of $25,000):

(1) Capacity Building: Increasingcapacity to develop and delivercoordinated environmental educationprograms across a state or acrossmultiple states.

(2) Education Reform: Utilizingenvironmental education as a catalyst toadvance state, local, or tribal educationreform goals.

(3) Community Issues: Designing andimplementing model projects to educatethe public about environmental issuesand/or health issues in theircommunities through community-basedorganizations or through print, film,broadcast, or other media.

Regional Office Priorities ($25,000 orless in Federal funds):

(1–3) All of the Above(4) Health: Educating teachers,

students, parents, community leaders,or the public about human-healththreats from environmental pollution,especially as it affects children, andhow to minimize human exposure topreserve good health.

(5) Teaching Skills: Educatingteachers, faculty, or nonformaleducators about environmental issues toimprove their environmental educationteaching skills, e.g., through workshops.

(6) Career Development: Educatingstudents in formal or nonformal settingsabout environmental issues toencourage environmental careers.

(7) Environmental Justice: Educatinglow-income or culturally-diverseaudiences about environmental issues,thereby advancing environmentaljustice.

Definitions: The terms used above andin Section IV are defined as follows:

Capacity Building refers to developingeffective leaders and organizations thatdesign, implement, and linkenvironmental education programsacross a state or states to promote long-term sustainability of the programs.Effective efforts address both leadership

and organizational needs, as well ascoordination to decrease fragmentationof effort and duplication acrossprograms. Coordination should involveall major education and environmentaleducation providers (e.g. state educationand natural resource agencies, tribaleducation agencies, schools and schooldistricts, professional educationassociations, and nonprofit educationand environmental educationorganizations). Examples of capacitybuilding activities include identifyingand assessing needs and settingpriorities; identifying, evaluating andlinking programs; developing andimplementing strategic plans;identifying funding sources andresources; facilitating communicationand networking; promoting sustainedprofessional development; andsponsoring leadership seminars. Forpurposes of this definition, States andtribal lands are equivalent and thuscapacity building can take place‘‘across’’ either or both.

Note: Proposals must identify existingcapacity building efforts, if any, and discusshow the proposed project will support theseefforts.

Education Reform refers to state,local, or tribal efforts to improve studentacademic achievement. Where feasible,collaboration with private sectorproviders of technology and equipmentis recommended. Education reformefforts often focus on changes incurriculum, instruction, assessment orhow schools are organized. Curriculumand instructional changes may includeinquiry and problem solving, real-worldlearning experiences, project-basedlearning, team building and groupdecision-making, and interdisciplinarystudy. Assessment changes may includedeveloping content and performancestandards and realigning curriculumand instruction to the new standardsand new assessments. School sitechanges may include creating magnetschools or encouraging parental andcommunity involvement.

Note: All proposals must identify existingeducational improvement needs and goalsand discuss how the proposed project willaddress these needs and goals.

Environmental issue is one ofimportance to the community, state, orregion being targeted by the project, e.g.,one community may have significant airpollution problems which makesteaching about human health effectsfrom it and solutions to air pollutionimportant, while rapid development inanother community may threaten anearby wildlife habitat, thus makinghabitat or ecosystem protection a highpriority issue.



Environmental Justice refers to the fairtreatment of people of all races,cultures, and income with respect to thedevelopment, implementation andenforcement of environmental laws,regulations, and policies. Fair treatmentmeans that no racial, ethnic, orsocioeconomic group should bear adisproportionate share of the negativeenvironmental consequences that mightresult from the operation of industrial,municipal, and commercial enterprisesand from the execution of federal, state,local, and tribal programs and policies.

Partnerships refers to the forming of acollaborative working relationshipbetween two or more organizations suchas governmental agencies, not-for-profitorganizations, educational institutions,and/or the private sector. It may alsorefer to intra-organizational unions suchas the science and art departmentswithin a university collaborating on aproject.

Wide application refers to a projectthat targets a large and diverse audiencein terms of numbers or demographics; orthat can serve as a model programelsewhere.

Section IV.—Requirements forProposals and Matching Funds

K. Contents of Proposal and Scoring

The proposal must contain twostandard federal forms, a work planwith budget, and appendices, asdescribed below. Please followinstructions and do not submitadditional items. EPA will make copiesof your proposal for use by grantreviewers. Unnecessary attachments andforms create a paperwork burden for thereviewers.

Federal Forms: Application forFederal Assistance (SF–424) and BudgetInformation (SF–424A): The SF–424 andSF–424A are required for all federalgrants and must be submitted as part ofyour proposal. These two forms, alongwith instructions and examples, areincluded at the end of this notice. Onlyfinalists will be asked to submitadditional federal forms needed toprocess their proposal.

Work Plan and Appendices: A workplan describes your proposed projectand your budget. Appendices establishyour timeline, your qualifications, andyour partnerships with otherorganizations, where applicable. Includeall five sections described below whichwill be evaluated and scored byreviewers. The highest possible scoreper proposal is 100 points as outlined inthis section and in paragraph (N).

(1) Project Summary: Provide thefollowing overview of your entire

project in this format and on one pageonly:

(a) Organization: Describe: (1) yourorganization, and (2) list your keypartners for this grant, if applicable.Partnerships are encouraged andconsidered to be a major factor in thesuccess of projects.

(b) Summary Statement: Provide anoverview of your project that explainsthe concept and your goals andobjectives. This should be a very basicexplanation in layman’s terms toprovide a reviewer with anunderstanding of the purpose andexpected outcome of your educationalproject.

(c) Educational Priority: Identifywhich priority listed in Section III youwill address, such as education reform.Proposals may address severaleducational priorities, however, EPAcautions against losing focus onprojects. Evaluation panels often selectprojects with a clearly defined purpose,rather than projects that attempt toaddress multiple priorities at theexpense of a quality outcome.

(d) Delivery Method: Explain how youwill reach your audience, such asworkshops, conferences, interactiveprograms, etc.

(e) Audience: Describe thedemographics of your target audienceincluding the number and types youexpect to reach, such as, teachers,students, specific grade levels, ethniccomposition, members of the generalpublic, etc.

(f) Costs: List the types of activities forwhich the EPA portion of grant fundswill be spent.

The project summary will be scoredon how well you provide an overviewof your entire project using the formatand topics stated above.

Summary—Maximum Score: 10 Points

(2) Project Description: Describeprecisely what your project willachieve—why, how, when, with what,and who will benefit. Explain eachaspect of your proposal in enough detailto answer a grant reviewer’s questions.This section is intended to provide youwith the flexibility to be creative anddoes not require any specific format fordescribing your project. However, youshould address the following to ensurethat grant reviewers can fullycomprehend and score your project.Address each criteria in any sequencethat best demonstrates the strengths ofyour project.

This subsection will be scored on howwell you design and describe yourproject and how effectively your projectmeets the following criteria:

(a) Why: Explain the purpose of yourproject and how it will address aneducational priority listed in Section III,such as education reform or children’shealth; and address an environmentalissue, such as clean air, ecosystemprotection, or cross-cutting issues.Explain the importance to yourcommunity, state, or region. Specify ifthe project has the potential for wideapplication, and/or can serve as a modelfor use in other locations with a similaraudience.

(b) Who: Explain who will conductthe project; identify the target audienceand demonstrate an understanding ofthe needs of that audience (includingcultural diversity where appropriate);explain your recruitment plan to attractyour target audience; and clarify if youhave incentives such as stipends orcontinuing education credits.

(c) How: Explain your strategy,objectives, activities, delivery methods,and outcomes to establish for reviewersthat you have realistic goals andobjectives and will use effectivemethods to achieve them. Clarify for thereviewers how you will complete allbasic steps from beginning to end. Donot omit steps that lead up to or followthe actual delivery methods, e.g., if youplan to make a presentation about yourproject at a local or national conference,specify where.

(d) With What: Demonstrate that theproject uses or produces qualityeducational products or methods thatteach critical-thinking, problem-solving,and decision-making skills. (Please noterestrictions on the development ofcurriculum and educational materials inSection H.)

Description—Maximum Score: 40Points (10 Points for Each of (a) Through(d))

(3) Project Evaluation: Explain howyou will ensure that you are meeting thegoals and objectives of your project.Evaluation plans may be quantitativeand/or qualitative and may include, forexample, evaluation tools, observation,or outside consultation.

The project evaluation will be scoredon how well your plan will: (a) measurethe project’s effectiveness; and (b) applyevaluation data gathered during yourproject to strengthen it.

Evaluation—Maximum Score: 10 Points(5 Points Each for (a) and (b))

(4) Budget and Timeframe: Clarifyhow EPA funds and non-federalmatching funds will be used for specificitems or activities, such as personnel/salaries, fringe benefits, travel,equipment, supplies, contract costs, andindirect costs. Include a table which



lists each major proposed activity, andthe amount of EPA funds and/ormatching funds that will be spent oneach activity. Smaller grants withuncomplicated budgets may have a tablethat lists only a few activities. Budgetperiods not to exceed one-year arepreferred by EPA for all grants and aremandatory for small grants of $5,000 orless. Budget periods for larger grantscannot exceed two-years.

Please Note the following fundingrestrictions:

—Indirect costs may be requestedonly if your organization has alreadyprepared an indirect cost rate proposaland has it on file, subject to audit.

—Funds for salaries and fringebenefits may be requested only for thosepersonnel who are directly involved inimplementing the proposed project andwhose salaries and fringe benefits aredirectly related to specific products oroutcomes of the proposed project. EPAstrongly encourages applicants torequest reasonable amounts of fundingfor salaries and fringe benefits to ensurethat your proposal is competitive.

—EPA will not fund the acquisition ofreal property (including buildings) orthe construction or modification of anybuilding.

Matching Funds Requirement: Non-federal matching funds of at least 25%of the total cost of the project arerequired, and EPA encouragesadditional matching funds wherepossible. The match may be provided bythe applicant or a partner organizationor institution, and may be provided incash or by in-kind contributions andother non-cash support. In-kindcontributions often include salaries orother verifiable costs and this valuemust be carefully documented. In thecase of salaries, applicants may useeither minimum wage or fair marketvalue. If the match is provided by apartner organization, the applicant isstill responsible for properaccountability and documentation. Allgrants are subject to Federal audit.

Important: The matching non-federalshare is a percentage of the entire costof the project. For example, if the 75%federal portion is $10,000, then theentire project should, at a minimum,have a budget of $13,333, with therecipient providing a contribution of$3,333. To assure that your match issufficient, simply divide the Federallyrequested amount by three. Your matchmust be at least one-third of therequested amount to be sufficient. For a$5,000 EPA grant your match cannot beless than $1,667.

Other Federal Funds: You may useother Federal funds in addition to thoseprovided by this program, but not for

activities that EPA is funding. You maynot use any federal funds to meet anypart of the required 25% matchdescribed above, unless it is specificallyauthorized by statute. If you havealready been awarded federal funds fora project for which you are seekingadditional support from this program,you must indicate those funds in thebudget section of the work plan. Youmust also identify the project officer,agency, office, address, phone number,and the amount of the federal funds.

This subsection will be scored on: (a)how well the budget information clearlyand accurately shows how funds will beused; (b) whether the funding request isreasonable given the activities proposed;and (c) whether the funding provides agood return on the investment.

Budget—Maximum Score: 15 points (5Points for each of (a) Through (c))

(5) Appendices:(a) Timeline—Include a ‘‘timeline’’ to

link your activities to a clear projectschedule and indicate at what pointover the months of your budget periodeach action, event, product,development, etc. occurs.

(b) Key Personnel—Attach a one pageresume for the key personnelconducting the project (Maximum ofthree resumes please).

(c) Letters of Commitment—If theapplicant organization has partners,such as schools, state agencies, or otherorganizations, include one page lettersof commitment from partners explainingtheir role in the proposed project. Donot include letters of endorsement orrecommendation or have them mailedin later; they will not be considered inevaluating proposals.

Please do not submit otherappendices or attachments such asvideo tapes or sample curricula. EPAmay request such items if your proposalis among the finalists underconsideration for funding.

This subsection will be scored basedupon: (1) Whether the timeline clarifiesthe workplan and allows reviewers todetermine that the project is wellthought out and feasible as planned; (2)whether the key personnel are qualifiedto implement the proposed project; and(3) whether letters of commitment areincluded (if partners are used) and theextent to which a firm commitment ismade.

Appendices—Maximum Score: 15Points (5 Points Each (a) Through (c))

(6) Bonus Points: Reviewers have theflexibility to provide up to 10 bonuspoints for exceptional projects based onthe following criteria. (a) A maximum of5 bonus points for: addressing an

educational priority or environmentalissue well, strong partnerships, solidrecruitment plan for teachers or othertarget audience, creative use ofresources, innovation, or other strengthsnoted by the reviewers. (b) A maximumof 5 bonus points for a well explainedand easily read proposal. Factors forpoints could include: clear and concise,well organized, no unnecessary jargon,or other strengths noted by thereviewers who evaluate and compareproposals.

Bonus Points—Maximum Score: 10Points (5 Points Each for (a) and (b))

L. Page LimitsThe Work Plan should not exceed 5

pages. ‘‘One page’’ refers to one side ofa single-spaced typed page. The pagesmust be letter sized (8 1⁄2 x 11 inches),with margins at least one-half inch wideand with normal type size (10 or 12font), rather than extremely small type.This page limit applies to Parts 1, 2, and3 of the Work Plan, (i.e., the Summary,Project Description, and ProjectEvaluation). Parts 4 and 5 (i.e. Budgetand Appendices) are not included inthese page limits.

M. Submission Requirements andCopies

The applicant must submit oneoriginal and one copy of the proposal (asigned SF–424, an SF–424A, a workplan, a budget, and the appendiceslisted above). Do not include otherattachments such as cover letters, tablesof contents, additional federal forms orappendices other than those listedabove. Grant reviewers often lowerscores on proposals for failure to followinstructions. The SF–424 should be thefirst page of your proposal and must besigned by a person authorized to receivefunds. Blue ink for signatures ispreferred. Proposals must bereproducible; they should not be bound.They should be stapled or clipped oncein the upper left hand corner, on whitepaper, and with page numbers. Mailingaddresses for submission of proposalsare listed at the end of this document.

Section V.—Review and SelectionProcess

N. Proposal ReviewProposals submitted to EPA

headquarters and regional offices will beevaluated using the same criteria, asdefined here and in Section IV of thissolicitation. Proposals will be reviewedin two phases—the screening phase andthe evaluation phase. During thescreening phase, proposals will bereviewed to determine whether theymeet the basic requirements of this



document. Only those proposals whichmeet all of the basic requirements willenter the full evaluation phase of thereview process. During the evaluationphase, proposals will be evaluatedbased upon the quality of their workplans. Reviewers conducting thescreening and evaluation phases of thereview process will include EPAofficials and external environmentaleducators approved by EPA. At theconclusion of the evaluation phase, thereviewers will score work plans basedupon the scoring system described inmore detail in Section IV. In summary,the maximum score of 100 points can bereached as follows:

(1) Project Summary—10 Points(2) Project Description—40 Points(3) Project Evaluation—10 Points(4) Budget—15 Points(5) Appendices—15 Points(6) Bonus Points—10 Points (Only for

outstanding proposals)

O. Final Selections

After individual projects areevaluated and scored by reviewers, asdescribed under Section IV, EPAofficials in the regions and atheadquarters will select a diverse rangeof finalists from the highest rankingproposals. In making the finalselections, EPA will take into accountthe following:

(1) Effectiveness of collaborativeactivities and partnerships, as needed tosuccessfully develop or implement theproject;

(2) Environmental and educationalimportance of the activity or product;

(3) Effectiveness of the deliverymechanism (i.e., workshop, conference,etc.);

(4) Cost effectiveness of the proposal;and

(5) Geographic distribution ofprojects.

P. Notification to Applicants

Applicants will receive aconfirmation that EPA has receivedtheir proposal once EPA has received allproposals and entered them into acomputerized database, usually withintwo months of receipt. EPA will contactfinalists no later than early summer torequest additional federal forms andother items as recommended byreviewers.

Section VI.—Grantees Responsibilities

Q. Responsible Officials

The Act requires that projects beperformed by the applicant or by aperson satisfactory to the applicant andEPA. All proposals must identify anyperson other than the applicant who

will assist in carrying out the project.These individuals are responsible forreceiving the grant award agreementfrom EPA and ensuring that all grantconditions are satisfied. Recipients areresponsible for the successfulcompletion of the project.

R. Incurring Costs

Grant recipients may begin incurringcosts on the start date identified in theEPA grant award agreement. Activitiesmust be completed and funds spentwithin the time frames specified in thedocument.

S. Reports and Work Products

Specific financial and other reportingrequirements will be identified in theEPA grant award agreement. Grantrecipients receiving more than $100,000from EPA will be required to submitformal semi-annual progress reports;and grantees for less may be required tosubmit brief semi-annual reports. Grantrecipients will submit two copies oftheir final report and two copies of allwork products to the EPA project officerwithin 90 days after the expiration ofthe budget period. This report will beaccepted as the final requirement unlessthe EPA project officer notifies you thatchanges must be made.

Section VII.—Resource Informationand Mailing List

T. Internet: www.epa.gov/enviroed

Resources: Please visit our websitewhere you can view and download thissolicitation notice, tips for developingsuccessful grant applications,descriptions of projects funded underthis program by state, and othereducation links and resource materials.The ‘‘Excellence in EE’’ series ofpublications listed there includesguidelines for: developing andevaluating educational materials; theinitial preparation of environmentaleducators; and using environmentaleducation in grades K–12 to supportstate and local education reform goals.In addition, a tutorial for grantapplicants is available at: www.epa.gov/seahome/grants/src/grant.htm

Forms: If you receive this solicitationelectronically and if the standard federalforms for Application (SF–424) andBudget (SF–424A) cannot be printed byyour equipment, you may locate themthe following ways (but please read ourinstructions which have been modifiedfor this grant program): The FederalRegister in which this document ispublished contains the forms and isavailable to be copied at many publiclibraries; many federal offices use theforms and have copies available; or you

may call or write the appropriate EPAoffice listed at the end of this document.

U. Other FundingPlease note that this is a very

competitive grants program. Limitedfunding is available and many grantapplications are expected to be received.Therefore, EPA cannot fund allapplications. If your project is notfunded, you may wish to review alisting of other EPA grant programs inthe Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance. This publication is availableat local libraries, colleges, anduniversities.

V. Regulatory ReferencesThe Environmental Education Grant

Program Regulations, published in theFederal Register on March 9, 1992,provides additional information onEPA’s administration of this program(57 FR 8390; Title 40 CFR, part 47 or 40CFR part 47). Also, EPA’s generalassistance regulations at 40 CFR part 31applies to state, local, and Indian tribalgovernments and 40 CFR part 30 appliesto all other applicants such as nonprofitorganizations.

W. Classification of NoticeUnder 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business RegulatoryEnforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPAsubmitted a report containing this ruleand other required information to theU.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the ComptrollerGeneral of the General AccountingOffice prior to publication of this rule intoday’s Federal Register. This rule isnot a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5U.S.C. 804 (2).

The Office of Management and Budget(OMB) has approved the informationcollection requirements contained inthis solicitation under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.3501 et seq. and has assigned OMBcontrol number 2030–0006.

X. Mailing List for Year 2002Environmental Education Grants

EPA develops an entirely new mailinglist for the grants program each year.The Fiscal Year 2002 mailing list willautomatically include all applicantswho submit proposals for a FY 2001grant and anyone who specificallyrequests the next Solicitation Notice. Ifyou do not submit a proposal for theyear 2001 and wish to be added to ourfuture mailing list, mail your request—please do not telephone—along withyour name, organization, address, andphone number to: EnvironmentalEducation Grant Program (Year 2002),EPA Office of Environmental Education,



(1704 A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Dated: August 25, 2000.John Kasper,Acting Deputy Associate Administrator,Office of Communications, Education, andMedia Relations.

Mailing Addresses and InformationApplicants who need more

information about this grant program orclarification about specific requirementsin this Solicitation Notice, may contactthe Environmental Education Office inWashington, D.C. for grant requests ofmore than $25,000 or their EPA regionaloffice for grant requests of $25,000 orless.

U.S. EPA Headquarters—For ProposalsRequesting More Than $25,000 FromEPA

Mail proposals to: EnvironmentalEducation Grant Program, Office ofEnvironmental Education (1704 A),1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, D.C. 20460.

Information: Diane Berger and SheriJojokian, (202) 260–8619.

U.S. EPA Regional Offices—ForProposals Requesting $25,000 or Less

Mail the proposal to the RegionalOffice where the project will take place,rather than where the applicant islocated, if these locations are different.

EPA Region I—CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VTMail proposals to: U.S. EPA, Region I,

Enviro Education Grants (MGM), 1Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA02114.

Hand-deliver to: 10th Floor MailRoom, Boston, MA (M–F 8am–4pm).

Information: Kristen Conroy, (617)918–1069.

EPA Region II—NJ, NY, PR, VIMail proposals to: U.S. EPA, Region

II, Enviro Education Grants, Grants andContracts Management Branch, 290Broadway, 27th Floor, New York, NY10007–1866.

Information: Teresa Ippolito, (212)637–3671.

EPA Region III—DC, DE, MD, PA, VA,WV

Mail proposals to: U.S. EPA, RegionIII, Enviro Education Grants, GrantsManagement Section (3PM70), 1650Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029.

Information: Nan Ides, (215) 814–5546.

EPA Region IV—AL, FL, GA, KY, MS,NC, SC, TN

Mail proposals to: U.S. EPA, RegionIV, Enviro Education Grants, Office of

External Affairs, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,Atlanta, GA 30303.

Information: Benjamin Blair, (404)562–8321.

EPA Region V—IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI

Mail proposals to: U.S. EPA, RegionV, Enviro Education Grants, GrantsManagement Section (MC–10J), 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604.

Information: Megan Gavin, (312) 353–5282.

Region VI—AR, LA, NM, OK, TX

Mail proposals to: U.S. EPA, RegionVI, Enviro Education Grants (6XA), 1445Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202.

Information: Jo Taylor, (214) 665–2204.

Region VII—IA, KS, MO, NE

Mail proposal to: U.S. EPA, RegionVII, Enviro Education Grants, Office ofExternal Programs, 901 N. 5th Street,Kansas City, KS 66101.

Information: Denise Morrison, (913)551–7402.

Region VIII—CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY

Mail proposals to: U.S. EPA, RegionVIII, Enviro Education Grants, 999 18thStreet (80C), Denver, CO 80202–2466.

Information: Cece Forget, (303) 312–6605.

Region IX—AZ, CA, HI, NV, AmericanSamoa, Guam, Northern Marianas

Mail proposals to: U.S. EPA, RegionIX, Enviro Education Grants, Commun.& Gov’t Relations (CGR–3), 75Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA94105.

Information: Stacey Benfer, (415) 744–1161.

Region X—AK, ID, OR, WA

Mail proposals to: U.S. EPA, RegionX, Enviro Education Grants, PublicEnvironmental Resource Center, 1200Sixth Avenue (EXA–124), Seattle, WA98101

Information: Sally Hanft, (800) 424–4372, (206) 553–1207.

Instructions for the SF 424–Application

This is a standard Federal form to beused by applicants as a required facesheet for the Environmental EducationGrants Program. These instructions havebeen modified for this program only anddo not apply to any other Federalprogram.

1. Check the box marked ‘‘Non-Construction’’ under ‘‘Application.’’

2. Date application submitted toFederal agency (or State if applicable) &applicant’s control number (ifapplicable).

3. State use only (if applicable).

4. If you are currently funded for arelated project, enter present Federalidentifier number. If not, leave blank.

5. Legal name of applicantorganization, name of primaryorganizational unit which willundertake the grant activity, completeaddress of the applicant organization,and name and telephone number of theperson to contact on matters related tothis application.

6. Enter Employer IdentificationNumber (EIN) as assigned by theInternal Revenue Service. You canobtain this number from your payrolloffice. It is the same FederalIdentification Number which appears onW–2 forms. If your organization doesnot have a number, you may obtain oneby calling the Taxpayer Servicesnumber for the IRS.

7. Enter the appropriate letter in thespace provided.

8. Check the box marked ‘‘new’’ sinceall proposals must be for new projects.

9. Enter U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

10. Enter 66.951 EnvironmentalEducation Grants Program.

11. Enter a brief descriptive title of theproject.

12. List only the largest areas affectedby the project (e.g., State, counties,cities).

13. Self-explanatory (see Section IV,K4 in Solicitation Notice).

14. In (a) list the CongressionalDistrict where the applicantorganization is located; and in (b) anyDistrict(s) affected by the program orproject. If your project covers manyareas, several congressional districtswill be listed. If it covers the entirestate, simply put in STATEWIDE. If youare not sure about the congressionaldistrict, call the County VoterRegistration Department.

15. Amount requested or to becontributed during the funding/budgetperiod by each contributor. Line (a) isfor the amount of money you arerequesting from EPA. Lines (b–e) are forthe amounts either you or anotherorganization are providing for thisproject. Line (f) is for any programincome which you expect will begenerated by this project. Examples ofprogram income are fees for servicesperformed, income generated from thesale of a brochure produced with thegrant funds, or admission fees to aconference financed by the grant funds.The total of lines (b–e) must be at least25% of line (g), as this grant has a matchrequirement of 25% of the TotalAllowable Project Costs. Value of in-kind contributions should be includedon appropriate lines as applicable. Ifboth basic and supplemental amounts



are included, show breakdown on anattached Budget sheet. For multipleprogram funding, use totals and showbreakdown using same categories asitem 15.

16. Check (b) (NO) since yourapplication does not have to be sentthrough the state clearinghouse forreview.

17. This question applies to theapplicant organization, not the personwho signs as the authorizedrepresentative. Categories of debtinclude delinquent audit disallowances,loans and taxes.

18. The authorized representative isthe person who is able to contract orobligate your agency to the terms andconditions of the grant. (Please signwith blue ink.) A copy of the governingbody’s authorization for you to sign thisapplication as official representativemust be on file in the applicant’s office.

Instructions for the SF–424A—Budget

This is a standard Federal form usedby applicants as a basic budget. Theseinstructions have been modified for thisgrant program only and do not apply toany other Federal Program. Do not fillin Section A—Budget Summary.

Complete Section B—BudgetCategories—Columns (1), (2) and (5)

For each major program, function oractivity, fill in the total requirements forfunds by object class categories. Pleaseround figures to the nearest dollar.

All applications should contain abreakdown by the relevant object classcategories shown in Lines (a–h):columns (1), (2), and (5) of Section B.Include Federal funds in column (1) andnon-Federal (matching) funds in column(2), and put the totals in column (5).Many applications will not have entriesin all object class categories. Line 6(i)—Show the totals of lines 6(a) through6(h) in each column. Line 6(j)—Showthe amount of indirect costs, but ONLYif your organization has alreadyprepared an ‘‘indirect cost rate’’proposal and has it on file, subject toaudit. Line 6(k)—Enter the total ofamounts of Lines 6(i) and 6(j). Line 7—Program Income—Enter the estimatedamount of income, if any, expected to begenerated from this project. Do not addor subtract this amount from the totalproject amount. Describe the nature andsource of income in the detailed budgetdescription.

Detailed Itemization of Costs: Theproposal must also contain a detailedbudget description as specified in theNotice in Section IV, K4, and shouldconform to the following:

Personnel: List all participants in theproject by position title. Give thepercentage of the budget period forwhich they will be fully employed onthe project (e.g., half-time for half thebudget period equals 25%, full-time forhalf the budget period equals 50%, etc.).Give the annual salary and the total costover the budget period for all personnellisted.

Travel: If travel is budgeted, showdestination and purpose of travel aswell as costs.

Equipment: Identify all equipment tobe purchased and for what purpose itwill be used.

Supplies: If the supply budget is lessthan 2% of total costs, you do not needto itemize.

Contractual: Specify the nature andcost of such services. EPA may requirereview of contracts for personal servicesprior to their execution to assure that allcosts are reasonable and necessary tothe project.

Construction: Not allowable for thisprogram.

Other: Specify all other costs underthis category.

Indirect Costs: Provide an explanationof how indirect charges were calculatedfor this project.BILLING CODE 6560–50–P









[FR Doc. 00–22384 Filed 8–30–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–C


i

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 170


CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION

Federal Register/Code of Federal RegulationsGeneral Information, indexes and other finding

aids202–523–5227

Laws 523–5227

Presidential DocumentsExecutive orders and proclamations 523–5227The United States Government Manual 523–5227

Other ServicesElectronic and on-line services (voice) 523–4534Privacy Act Compilation 523–3187Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523–6641TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523–5229

ELECTRONIC RESEARCH

World Wide WebFull text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and otherpublications:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/naraFederal Register information and research tools, including PublicInspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access:

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg

E-mailPENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an E-mailservice for notification of recently enacted Public Laws. Tosubscribe, send E-mail to

[email protected] the text message:

subscribe PUBLAWS-L your nameUse [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe toPENS. We cannot respond to specific inquiries.Reference questions. Send questions and comments about theFederal Register system to:

[email protected] Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents orregulations.

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, AUGUST

46859–47242......................... 147243–47652......................... 247653–47824......................... 347825–48134......................... 448135–48346......................... 748347–48600......................... 848601–48884......................... 948885–49188.........................1049189–49468.........................1149469–49718.........................1449719–49894.........................1549895–50126.........................1650127–50400.........................1750401–50594.........................1850595–50906.........................2150907–51212.........................2251213–51514.........................2351515–51746.........................2451747–51996.........................2551997–52286.........................2852287–52638.........................2952639–52904.........................3052905–53156.........................31

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING AUGUST

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Registerpublishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), whichlists parts and sections affected by documents published sincethe revision date of each title.

3 CFRProclamations:7332.................................478257333.................................522877334.................................526397335.................................52903Executive Orders:12722 (See Notice of

July 28, 2000) ..............4724112724 (See Notice of

July 28, 2000) ..............4724112924 (See Notice of

August 3, 2000) ...........4834713165...............................4946913166...............................50121Administrative Orders:Notices:July 28, 2000 ...................47241August 3, 2000 ................48347Memorandums:August 21, 2000 ..............52289Presidential Determinations:No. 00-27 of July 21,

2000 .............................47827No. 2000-28 of August

22, 2000 .......................52291

4 CFR

Proposed Rules:28.....................................52674

5 CFR

330 ..........47829, 52293, 52641532...................................50127550...................................48135595...................................48135610...................................48135831...................................52295842...................................522951201.................................488851203.................................488851204.................................488851205.................................488861206.................................488861207.................................488861208.................................498952640.................................47830Proposed Rules:531...................................49948532.......................48641, 501651800.................................49949

7 CFR

2.......................................4947197.....................................47243225...................................50127246...................................51213253...................................47831272...................................49719274...................................49719278...................................52642301 .........50595, 51515, 51516,

51517, 52296353...................................50128371...................................49471457...................................47834905...................................50907920...................................49472927...................................48136929...................................48349930...................................48139945...................................48142982...................................472451240.................................483181479.................................478401710.................................517471717.................................517471718.................................517471755.................................517491951.....................50401, 505983015.................................494743016.................................494743019.................................49474Proposed Rules:46.....................................4818547.....................................48185205...................................48642300...................................50655305...................................47908319 ..........47908, 50655, 50938905...................................468791216.................................506661240.................................483241755.................................517731940.................................47695

8 CFR

Proposed Rules:103...................................50166212...................................46882214...................................50166236...................................46882241...................................46882248...................................50166264...................................50166

9 CFR

78.....................................4765393.....................................4685994 ............50603, 51518, 51997130...................................51997Proposed Rules:1...........................47908, 506072...........................47908, 5060779.....................................49770

10 CFR

Ch.1 .................................476545.......................................5287472.....................................50606Proposed Rules:2.......................................5093730.....................................4920740.....................................5204961.....................................49207

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:51 Aug 30, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\31AUCU.LOC pfrm01 PsN: 31AUCU

ii Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Reader Aids

431 ..........48828, 48838, 48852

12 CFR

220...................................51519360...................................491891805.................................49642Proposed Rules:14.....................................50882208...................................50882225...................................47696308...................................52352343...................................50882536...................................50882

13 CFR

113...................................52875120...................................49481121 ..........48601, 49726, 50744400...................................51521500...................................51522Proposed Rules:107...................................49511

14 CFR

11.........................47247, 5085021.....................................4724725.........................47247, 4784133.....................................4888739 ...........46862, 47248, 47252,

47255, 47660, 48144, 48351,48353, 48355, 48358, 48360,48362, 48364, 48368, 48371,48373, 48605, 48607, 49481,49727, 49728, 49730, 49732,49734, 49735, 49897, 49899,49901, 49903, 49905, 50131,50617, 50619, 50621, 50623,50627, 50628, 50630, 50632,50909, 51229, 51750, 51752,51754, 52010, 52012, 52297,

52298, 5290547.....................................5230171 ...........47258, 47259, 47260,

47261, 47843, 48146, 48147,48608, 48609, 48888, 49192,50281, 50405, 50635, 50636,51229, 51522, 51523, 51757,

52015, 52301, 5281173.........................49483, 5013391.....................................5074497 ...........48889, 48891, 48893,

51524, 51525, 51528121.......................50744, 51742125.......................50744, 517421204.................................476631253.................................52876Proposed Rules:23.....................................4951339 ...........47356, 47701, 48399,

48401, 48402, 48404, 48643,48645, 48646, 48648, 48931,48933, 48936, 48937, 48941,48943, 48945, 48947, 48950,49523, 49775, 49952, 50166,50466, 50468, 50667, 51254,51256, 51259, 51260, 51560,51562, 51775, 52049, 52363,52364, 52365, 52367, 52369,52371, 52373, 52675, 52676,

52677, 5295871 ...........48651, 50470, 50744,

51263, 52375, 5296073.....................................5296191.....................................51512121...................................50945135...................................51512

139.......................50669, 50945217...................................50946241...................................50946298...................................50946

15 CFR

8a.....................................52877287...................................48894Proposed Rules:922...................................41264

16 CFR

2.......................................50632423.......................47261, 48148Proposed Rules:1700.................................52678

17 CFR

1...........................47843, 515294.......................................4784830.....................................47275210...................................51692211...................................51692228...................................51692230...................................47281231...................................47281240.......................51692, 51716243...................................51716249.......................51692, 51716250...................................52644271...................................47281Proposed Rules:1...........................49208, 520513.......................................492084.......................................492085.......................................4920815.....................................4920820.....................................4920835.....................................4920836.....................................4920837.....................................4920838.....................................4920839.....................................49208100...................................49208140...................................49208155...................................49208166...................................49208170...................................49208180...................................49208210...................................49954240 ..........47900, 48406, 49954

18 CFR

101...................................47664125.......................48148, 50638154...................................47284161...................................47284225.......................48148, 50638250...................................47284284...................................47284330...................................47294356...................................48148385...................................472941317.................................52877Proposed Rules:342...................................47355352...................................50376357...................................50376385...................................50376

20 CFR

404...................................50746416...................................50746652...................................49294655...................................51138

660...................................49294661...................................49294662...................................49294663...................................49294664...................................49294665...................................49294666...................................49294667...................................49294668...................................49294669...................................49294670...................................49294671...................................49294Proposed Rules:416...................................49208440...................................49208655...................................50170656...................................51777

21 CFR

56.....................................5230271.....................................5175873.....................................48375170...................................51758171...................................51758172...................................48377177...................................52907178...................................52908201.......................46864, 48902310...................................48902333...................................52302341...................................46864344...................................48902514...................................47668524...................................50912556...................................50913558 ..........50133, 50913, 50914640...................................52016811...................................51532868...................................47669876...................................48609884...................................473051240.................................499061304.................................494831308.................................473061310.....................47309, 48546Proposed Rules:341...................................51780514...................................51782822...................................52376890...................................50949

22 CFR

41.........................52305, 52306146...................................52878229...................................52879

23 CFR

1335.................................489051270.................................51532Proposed Rules:630...................................52962658...................................50471

24 CFR

3.......................................5287930.....................................50592903...................................494842003.................................50904Proposed Rules:5.......................................5084292.....................................50842200...................................50842236...................................50842574...................................50842582...................................50842

583...................................50842891...................................50842982...................................50842

25 CFRProposed Rules:0.......................................47859142...................................47704

26 CFR

1 .............48379, 49909, 50281,50405, 50638, 52909

25.....................................5216331.....................................50405301.......................49909, 50405602...................................52909Proposed Rules:1 ..............48185, 48198, 49955301...................................49955

27 CFR

6.......................................520188.......................................5201810.....................................5201811.....................................52018Proposed Rules:9.......................................48953178...................................52054

28 CFR

1.......................................483792.......................................5309554.....................................5288091.....................................48392

29 CFR

36.....................................528814022.................................497374044.................................49737

30 CFR

250...................................49485948...................................50409Proposed Rules:70.....................................4921572.....................................4921575.....................................4921590.....................................49215206...................................49957920...................................49524

31 CFR

28.....................................52881

32 CFR

196...................................52885199.......................48911, 49491310...................................48169701...................................481701615.................................476701698.................................47670Proposed Rules:317...................................48202

33 CFR

100 .........47316, 48612, 48613,49493, 49914, 52645

117 .........46868, 46870, 50135,51538, 52021, 52022, 52307

165 .........47318, 47321, 48381,48383, 48614, 48616, 49495,49497, 49915, 50917, 51539,51540, 52646, 52647, 52649

401...................................52912Proposed Rules:26.....................................50479


iiiFederal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Reader Aids

84.....................................47936117 ..........50480, 51787, 52057151...................................48548155...................................48548157...................................48548158...................................48548160...................................50481161...................................50479165...................................50479183...................................47936323...................................50108

34 CFR

600...................................49134668.......................47590, 49134674...................................47634675...................................49134682 .........47590, 47634, 49124,

49134685 .........47590, 47634, 49124,

49134690.......................47590, 49134

36 CFR

242...................................515421211.................................52886Proposed Rules:242...................................51648293...................................482051250.................................512701254.................................51270

37 CFR

1...........................49193, 50092102...................................52916201.......................46873, 48913202...................................48913204...................................48913

38 CFR

21.....................................5176323.....................................52889Proposed Rules:4.......................................4820536.....................................46882

39 CFR

20 ............47322, 48171, 52023111 .........48385, 50054, 49917,

52308Proposed Rules:111.......................47362, 52480

40 CFR

Ch. I .................................47323Ch. IV...............................481085.......................................528909...........................48286, 5013635.....................................4828649.....................................5141252 ...........46873, 47326, 47336,

47339, 47862, 49499, 49501,50651, 52028, 52313, 52315,

52650, 52651, 5293160.....................................4891462.....................................4986863 ............47342, 52319, 5258870.........................48391, 4991981 ............50651, 52651, 5293182.....................................52938132...................................47864180 .........47874, 47877, 48617,

48620, 48626, 48634, 48637,49922, 49924, 49927, 49936,50431, 50438, 51544, 52660,

52938271...................................48392300 .........48172, 48930, 49503,

49739, 50137, 52062, 52947,52948

302...................................47342442...................................49666Proposed Rules:2.......................................526849.......................................4906251.....................................4882552 ...........47363, 47705, 48652,

49527, 50669, 51564, 52391,52392, 52690, 52967, 52978

60.....................................5205861.....................................5067263.........................52166, 5239269.....................................4770670.....................................4995780.........................47706, 4805881.........................52690, 5297886.........................47706, 48058122...................................49062123...................................49062124...................................49062125.......................49062, 52978141...................................49638142...................................49638180...................................52979194...................................52061232...................................50108260...................................51080261.......................48434, 50284264...................................51080266...................................50284271...................................51080300 .........47363, 48210, 49527,

49528, 49776, 50170, 51567,52062, 52980

41 CFRCh. 102 ............................48392101...................................48392101–4...............................52890Proposed Rules:101–11.............................48655102–193...........................48655102–194...........................48655102–195...........................48655

42 CFR59.....................................4905770.....................................49906130...................................47348410.......................47026, 47054412.......................47026, 47054413 ..........47026, 47054, 47670419...................................47670457...................................52042482...................................47026485.......................47026, 47054Proposed Rules:405...................................50171413...................................47706

43 CFR

41.....................................528911880.................................512293500.................................50446

44 CFR

Ch. I .................................5226019.....................................52892295...................................52260

45 CFR

160...................................50312

162...................................50312265...................................52814270...................................52814310...................................50786618...................................528921351.................................501392555.................................52893Proposed Rules:309...................................508001304.................................523941306.................................52394

46 CFR

27.....................................52043307...................................47678506...................................49741Proposed Rules:25.....................................4793667.....................................49529172...................................48548

47 CFR

Ch. I .................................506530...........................47678, 512341 .............47348, 47678, 49742,

51768, 523232......................................48174,22.........................49199, 4920254.........................47882, 4994164 ............47678, 48393, 5204773 ...........48183, 48639, 50141,

50142, 50449, 50653, 51235,51236, 51552, 51769, 52348,

5295074.....................................4817478.....................................48174101...................................48174Proposed Rules:Ch. I .................................495301 ..............47366, 48658, 5240136.....................................5017254 ............47940, 49216, 5017269.....................................5157273 ...........47370, 48210, 50951,

51277, 51278, 51279, 51575,51576, 51577

76.....................................4821178.....................................4821180.....................................5017390.....................................51788

48 CFR

Ch. 15 ..............................47323201...................................52950202...................................52950208...................................52950209...................................52954211...................................52950212...................................50143215...................................52950217...................................50148219 ..........50148, 50149, 52950222.......................50150, 52950223...................................52954225...................................52950226...................................52950236.......................50148, 50151242.......................50143, 52950247...................................50143252 ..........50150, 50152, 52950253...................................529501804.................................501521807.................................468751812.................................501521819.................................468751830.................................49205

1852.................................50152Proposed Rules:2 ..............50872, 52244, 522844.......................................508725.......................................508726.......................................508727.......................................508729.......................................5087212.........................50872, 5228413.....................................5087214.....................................5087219.....................................5087222.....................................5087232.....................................5224434.....................................5087235.....................................5087236.....................................5087246.....................................5228452.........................52244, 52284

49 CFR

1.......................................4976310.....................................4818425.........................52858, 5289471.....................................50154107...................................50450171...................................50450172...................................50450173...................................50450174...................................50450175...................................50450177...................................50450178...................................50450179...................................50450180...................................50450213...................................52667385...................................50919544...................................49505553...................................51236571...................................51769Proposed Rules:37.....................................48444172...................................49777175...................................49777222...................................46884229...................................46884243...................................50952350...................................49780390...................................49780393...................................48660394...................................49780395...................................49780398...................................49780571...................................47945575...................................46884

50 CFR

17.....................................5067220.....................................5149621.....................................49508100...................................51542222...................................52348223...................................52348230...................................49509300...................................52672622 .........50158, 51248, 42350,

52955635 ..........47214, 49941, 50162648 .........46877, 47648, 49942,

50164, 40563600...................................51992679 .........47693, 47906, 47907,

49766, 49946, 50935, 51553,51722, 52672, 52956

Proposed Rules:17 ...........49530, 49531, 49781,


iv Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Reader Aids

49958, 51577, 51578, 51903,52691

20.........................50483, 51174

100...................................51648216.......................48669, 51584224...................................49782

600...................................52404635.......................46885, 48671648...................................49959

679...................................52405697...................................50952


vFederal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Reader Aids

REMINDERSThe items in this list wereeditorially compiled as an aidto Federal Register users.Inclusion or exclusion fromthis list has no legalsignificance.

RULES GOING INTOEFFECT AUGUST 31,2000

DEFENSE DEPARTMENTFederal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR):Pollution Control and Clean

Air and Water Act;published 8-31-00

Technical amendments;published 8-31-00

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir quality implementation

plans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:California; published 8-1-00

Pesticides; tolerances in food,animal feeds, and rawagricultural commodities:Buprofezin; published 8-31-

00Superfund program:

National oil and hazardoussubstances contignecyplan—Naitonal priorities list

update; published 8-31-00

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONRadio stations; table of

assignments:Various States; published 8-

31-00

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationFood additives:

Adjuvants, production aids,and sanitizers—Trimethylolethane;

published 8-31-00Indirect food additives:

Polymers; published 8-31-00

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTCoast GuardDrawbridge operations:

New York; published 8-1-00

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Sikorsky; published 8-16-00

COMMENTS DUE NEXTWEEK

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAgricultural MarketingServiceNational Organic Program:

Reasonable securityprovision; comments dueby 9-8-00; published 8-9-00

Pears (Bartlett) grown in—Oregon and Washington;

comments due by 9-5-00;published 7-6-00

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAnimal and Plant HealthInspection ServiceAnimal welfare:

Pain and distress; definitionsand reporting; commentsdue by 9-8-00; published7-10-00

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTNational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationMarine mammals:

Subsistence taking; harvestestimates—Northern fur seals;

comments due by 9-8-00; published 8-9-00

DEFENSE DEPARTMENTDefense Contract AuditAgencyPrivacy Act; implementation;


ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir quality implementation

plans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:California; comments due by

9-8-00; published 8-9-00Solid waste:

U.S. Filter RecoveryServices; generators andtransporters of USFRS XLwaste; comments due by9-7-00; published 8-17-00

Superfund program:National oil and hazardous

substances contingencyplan—National priorities list

update; comments dueby 9-6-00; published 8-7-00

National priorities listupdate; comments dueby 9-6-00; published 8-7-00

Water pollution; effluentguidelines for point sourcecategories:

Coal mining; comments dueby 9-8-00; published 7-6-00

Water supply:Underground injection

control program—Class I municipal wells in

Florida; comments dueby 9-5-00; published 7-7-00

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONCommon carrier services:

Tariffs—National Exchange Carrier

Association, Inc.;access tariffsparticipation changes;notice period shortened;comments due by 9-8-00; published 8-24-00

Digital television stations; tableof assignments:Florida; comments due by

9-5-00; published 7-17-00Texas; comments due by 9-

5-00; published 7-17-00Radio stations; table of

assignments:Oregon; comments due by

9-5-00; published 7-25-00Television broadcasting:

Cable television systems—Cable Operations and

Licensing Systems;electronic filing;comments due by 9-6-00; published 8-7-00

FEDERAL RESERVESYSTEMBank holding companies and

change in bank control(Regulation Y):Financial holding companies,

permissible activities;acting as finder;comments due by 9-5-00;published 8-3-00

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationHuman drugs:

Sunscreen products (OTC);final monograph;comments due by 9-6-00;published 6-8-00

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTHealth Care FinancingAdministrationMedicare:

Hospital outpatient services;prospective paymentservicesNew or innovative medical

devices, drugs, andbiologicals; criteriarevisions for pass-

through payments, etc.;comments due by 9-5-00; published 8-3-00

HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENTFreedom of Information Act

regulations; revision;comments due by 9-8-00;published 7-10-00

Low income housing:Housing assistance

payments (Section 8)—Tenant-based certificate

and voucher programsmerger into HousingChoice VoucherProgram; commentsdue by 9-8-00;published 7-10-00

Mortgage and loan insuranceprograms:Multifamily projects;

prohibited purchasers inforeclosure sales;comments due by 9-5-00;published 7-5-00

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTFish and Wildlife ServiceEndangered and threatened

species:Critical habitat

designations—Piping plover; Great

Lakes breedingpopulation; commentsdue by 9-5-00;published 7-6-00

Piping plover; winteringpopulations along Gulfand Atlantic coasts;comments due by 9-5-00; published 7-6-00

Findings on petitions, etc.—Cape Sable seaside

sparrow; comments dueby 9-8-00; published 7-10-00

Migratory bird hunting:Seasons, limits, and

shooting hours;establishment, etc.;comments due by 9-8-00;published 8-22-00

LABOR DEPARTMENTMine Safety and HealthAdministrationCoal mine safety and health:

Respirable coal mine dust;concentrationdetermination; andunderground coal mineoperators’ dust controlplans and compliancesampling for respirabledust; comments due by 9-8-00; published 8-11-00

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENTOFFICEPrevailing rate systems;



vi Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 170 / Thursday, August 31, 2000 / Reader Aids

POSTAL SERVICEInternational Mail Manual:

Express Mail Service; fivepercent discount;comments due by 9-6-00;published 8-7-00

SOCIAL SECURITYADMINISTRATIONSocial security benefits and

supplemental securityincome:Federal old age, survivors,

and disability insuranceand aged, blind, anddisabled—False or misleading

statement penalties;administrativeprocedures; commentsdue by 9-8-00;published 7-10-00

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTCoast GuardPorts and waterways safety:

San Pedro Bay, CA;regulated navigation area;comments due by 9-5-00;published 7-21-00

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTAmericans with Disabilities

Act; implementation:

Accessibility guidelines;conforming amendments;comments due by 9-7-00;published 8-8-00

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Aerotechnik s.r.o.;comments due by 9-6-00;published 8-9-00

Boeing; comments due by9-5-00; published 8-10-00

LET Aeronautical Works;comments due by 9-6-00;published 8-9-00

New Piper Aircraft, Inc.;comments due by 9-8-00;published 7-21-00

Rolls-Royce, plc; commentsdue by 9-5-00; published7-7-00

Wytwornia Sprzetu;comments due by 9-8-00;published 8-21-00

Airworthiness standards:Special conditions—

Boeing Model 747-2G4Bseries airplanes;comments due by 9-5-00; published 8-4-00

Class E airspace; commentsdue by 9-5-00; published 7-14-00

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS

This is a continuing list ofpublic bills from the currentsession of Congress whichhave become Federal laws. Itmay be used in conjunctionwith ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public LawsUpdate Service) on 202–523–6641. This list is alsoavailable online at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg.

The text of laws is notpublished in the FederalRegister but may be orderedin ‘‘slip law’’ (individualpamphlet) form from theSuperintendent of Documents,U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402(phone, 202–512–1808). Thetext will also be madeavailable on the Internet fromGPO Access at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html. Some laws maynot yet be available.

H.R. 3519/P.L. 106–264

Global AIDS and TuberculosisRelief Act of 2000 (Aug. 19,2000; 114 Stat. 748)

Last List August 22, 2000

Public Laws ElectronicNotification Service(PENS)

PENS is a free electronic mailnotification service of newlyenacted public laws. Tosubscribe, go to www.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html orsend E-mail [email protected] withthe following text message:

SUBSCRIBE PUBLAWS-LYour Name.

Note: This service is strictlyfor E-mail notification of newlaws. The text of laws is notavailable through this service.PENS cannot respond tospecific inquiries sent to thisaddress.
