12–5–01 Wednesday Pages 63149–63306 Converter & Industrial Corp., 63264 Northwestern Steel &...

1

12–5–01

Vol. 66 No. 234

Wednesday

Dec. 5, 2001

Pages 63149–63306

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:02 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\05DEWS.LOC pfrm07 PsN: 05DEWS

.

II

2

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001

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 $699, or $764 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 $264. Six monthsubscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The chargefor individual copies in paper form is $10.00 for each issue, or$10.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $2.00 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: 66 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

What’s NEW!

Federal Register Table of Contents via e-mail

Subscribe to FEDREGTOC, to receive the Federal Register Table ofContents in your e-mail every day.

If you get the HTML version, you can click directly to any documentin the issue.

To subscribe, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select:

Online mailing list archivesFEDREGTOC-LJoin or leave the list

Then follow the instructions.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:02 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\05DEWS.LOC pfrm07 PsN: 05DEWS

Contents Federal Register

III

Vol. 66, No. 234

Wednesday, December 5, 2001

Editorial Note: In the Federal Register of December 4,2001, the page numbers from all the entries in the table ofcontents were inadvertently replaced with Federal Registerdocument numbers. A corrected table of contents for theDecember 4, 2001, issue appears after the Reader Aidssection at the back of today’s Federal Register.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryNOTICESSuperfund program:

Hazardous substances priority list (toxicological profiles);correction, 63244

Agriculture DepartmentSee Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceSee Forest Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceRULESPlant-related quarantine, domestic:

Karnal bunt, 63151–63154NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 63210–63212Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Toledo Bend Reservoir, LA and TX; aquatic weed giantsalvinia; eradication and prevention of spread, 63212

Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:Veterinary medicinal products, pharmacovigilance;

periodic summary update reports management andcontrolled list of terms; guidelines, 63212–63214

Antitrust DivisionNOTICESCompetitive impact statements and proposed consent

judgments:Waste Management Inc., et al., 63258

National cooperative research notifications:Frame Relay Forum, 63258IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc., 63258–63259New Productivity Initiative, Inc., 63259Petroleum Environmental Research Forum, 63259Portland Cement Association, 63260VSI Alliance, 63259–63260Zyvex Corp., 63260

Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 63244–63245

Commerce DepartmentSee Foreign-Trade Zones BoardSee International Trade AdministrationSee National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for the Implementation of Textile AgreementsNOTICESCotton, wool, and man-made textiles:

Hong Kong, 63219–63221

Philippines, 63221–63222Poland, 63222–63223Slovak Republic, 63223Taiwan, 63223–63225Ukraine, 63225

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT):Textile and apparel products integration; export visa

requirements, 63225–63227

Copyright Office, Library of CongressNOTICESCopyright office and procedures:

Materials delayed due to disruption or suspension ofpostal or other transportation or communicationsservices, 63267–63268

Education DepartmentPROPOSED RULESPostsecondary education:

Higher Education Act Title IV program issues; negotiatedrulemaking committees; intent to establish, 63203–63204

Employment and Training AdministrationRULESAliens:

Nonimmigrants on H-1B visas in specialty occupationsand as fashion models, temporary employment; andpermanent employment, labor certification process

Electronic filing implementation, 63297–63303NOTICESAdjustment assistance:

Atofina Chemicals, Inc., 63262Borg Warner Air/Fluid Systems Corp., 63262–63263Chiquola Fabrics, LLC, 63263Elizabeth Webbing, Inc., 63263International Wire Insulated, 63263ISB Fashion, Inc., 63263–63264Joint Venture Tool & Mold, LLC, 63264JPS Converter & Industrial Corp., 63264Northwestern Steel & Wire Co., 63264Outboard Marine Corp., 63264–63265Pillowtech Corp., 63265Thrall Car North American Rail, 63266Tridelta Industries, Inc., 63266

Adjustment assistance and NAFTA transitional adjustmentassistance:

Innovative Home Products, Inc., 63261Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., et al., 63261–63262

NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance:Autoliv, ASP, Inc., 63266Freightliner LLC, 63266–63267York International Corp., 63267

Energy DepartmentSee Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection AgencyRULESAir pollution control:

State operating permits programs—Alaska, 63184–63188

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:03 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\05DECN.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 05DECN

IV Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Contents

Arizona, 63166–63168, 63175–63180Nevada, 63188–63192New Jersey, 63168–63170New York, 63180–63184Oklahoma, 63170–63175

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

Dichlobenil, etc., 63192–63199PROPOSED RULESAir quality implementation plans; approval and

promulgation; various States:Missouri, 63204–63208

NOTICESAir pollution control:

State operating permits programs—Maryland, 63236–63237

Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.:Chloropyrifos, 63237–63241

Executive Office of the PresidentSee Presidential Documents

Federal Aviation AdministrationRULESAir traffic operating and flight rules, etc.:

Grand Canyon National Park, AZ; special flight rules invicinity—

Special flight rules area and flight free zones;modification of dimensions, 63293–63296

Airworthiness directives:Airbus, 63154–63157Fokker, 63159–63162McDonnell Douglas, 63157–63159

NOTICESAeronautical land-use assurance; waivers:

Greater Kankakee Airport, IL; correction, 63281Stafford Municipal Airport, AZ, 63281–63282

Exemption petitions; summary and disposition, 63282–63283

Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.:Binghamton Regional Airport, NY, 63283–63284Dayton International Airport, OH, 63284Duluth International Airport, MN, 63284–63285Orlando International Airport, FL, 63285–63286Shanandoah Valley Regional Airport Commission, VA, et

al., 63286–63287

Federal Communications CommissionRULESRadio stations; table of assignments:

Georgia, 63199PROPOSED RULESTelevision stations; table of assignments:

Wisconsin, 63209NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 63241

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionRULESFiling fees; annual update, 63162–63163NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 63227Electric rate and corporate regulation filings:

Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC, et al., 63233–63235Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

John C. Jones Project, Waldo County, ME; facilitatorsimproving fish habitat, 63235

St. Louis, MI, 63235Hydroelectric applications, 63235–63236Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

ANR Pipeline Co., 63227–63228Copiah County Storage Co., 63228–63229El Dorado Irrigation District, 63229Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., 63230Kern River Gas Transmission Co., 63231KO Transmission Co., 63231National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 63231–63232Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 63232Portland General Electric Co. et al., 63232PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC, 63232Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co., 63233Transok, LLC, 63233

Federal Highway AdministrationNOTICESEnvironmental statements; notice of intent:

King County, WA, 63287–63288Mercer and Middlesex Counties, NJ, 63288–63289Waukesha County, WI, 63289

Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationNOTICESMotor carrier safety standards:

Driver qualifications—Aldridge, Terry J., et al; vision requirement

exemptions, 63289–63291

Federal Reserve SystemNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 63241–63243Banks and bank holding companies:

Change in bank control, 63243

Fish and Wildlife ServiceNOTICESEndangered and threatened species:

Recovery plans—Karner blue butterfly, 63248–63249

Endangered and threatened species permit applications,63247–63248

Food and Drug AdministrationRULESAnimal drugs, feeds, and related products:

Carprofen, 63165–63166Ivermectin liquid, 63166Ivermectin pour-on, 63164–63165Sponsor name and address changes—

Merial Ltd., 63163–63164

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

North CarolinaUnited Chemi-Con, Inc.; aluminum electrolytic

capacitor manufacturing plant, 63216

Forest ServiceNOTICESAppealable decisions; legal notice:

Southern Region; correction, 63214–63216

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


VFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Contents

See Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Food and Drug AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

Vital and Health Statistics National Committee, 63243–63244

Housing and Urban Development DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Low income housing:Difficult development areas and qualified census tracts;

statutorily mandated designation for tax credit;correction, 63246–63247

Public and Indian housing:Public Housing Assessment System—

Public housing agencies interim scoring methodologyand physical and financial condition scoringprocesses; correction, 63247

Indian Affairs BureauNOTICESMeetings:

Indian trust asset management; tribal consultation,63305–63306

Indian Trust Transition OfficeNOTICESMeetings:


Interior DepartmentSee Fish and Wildlife ServiceSee Indian Affairs BureauSee Indian Trust Transition OfficeSee Land Management BureauSee Minerals Management ServiceSee Reclamation BureauSee Special Trustee for American Indians OfficeNOTICESMeetings:


Internal Revenue ServicePROPOSED RULESIncome taxes:

Constructive and property transfers to third party onbehalf of spouse

Hearing cancelled, 63203

International Trade AdministrationNOTICESAntidumping:

Folding gift boxes from—China, 63216–63218

Steel concrete reinforcing bars from—Turkey, 63218

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:University of—

Connecticut et al., 63218

International Trade CommissionNOTICESImport investigations:

Top-of-stove stainless steel cooking ware from—Korea and Taiwan, 63255

Justice DepartmentSee Antitrust DivisionSee Parole CommissionNOTICESPollution control; consent judgments:

Acme Wrecking Co., Inc., et al., 63255–63256American Allied Additives, Inc., et al., 63256Equilon Pipeline Co., LLC, et al., 63256–63257Gallo Glass Co., 63257VanDerVeen, Calvin, et al., 63257

Privacy Act:Systems of records, 63257–63258

Labor DepartmentSee Employment and Training Administration

Land Management BureauNOTICESMeetings:

Steens Mountain Advisory Council, 63249–63250

Library of CongressSee Copyright Office, Library of Congress

Medicare Payment Advisory CommissionNOTICESMeetings, 63268

Minerals Management ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRULESFishery conservation and management:

West Coast States and Western Pacific fisheries—Pacific Coast groundfish, 63199–63202

NOTICESDeep seabed mining exploration licenses:

Ocean Minerals Co., 63218–63219

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., et al., 63268–63269Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Nuclear Management Co., LLC; correction, 63268

Parole CommissionNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 63260–63261

Presidential DocumentsPROCLAMATIONSSpecial observances:

World AIDS Day (Proc. 7510), 63149–63150

Public Health ServiceSee Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistrySee Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


VI Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Contents

See Food and Drug Administration

Reclamation BureauNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

American River Pump Station Project, Placer County, CA,63255

Securities and Exchange CommissionNOTICESSelf-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 63269–63271National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 63271–

63277Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 63277–63278

Social Security AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,63278

Special Trustee for American Indians OfficeNOTICESMeetings:


State DepartmentNOTICESForeign Service posts; designation for special fee payment

procedures, 63278–63279Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Future Leaders Exchange Program; Computer Training ofTrainers Workshop, 63279–63281

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

Jackson County Port Authority Railroad, 63291

Textile Agreements Implementation CommitteeSee Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry AgencySee Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Transportation DepartmentSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Federal Highway AdministrationSee Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationSee Surface Transportation Board

Treasury DepartmentSee Internal Revenue ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 63291

Veterans Affairs DepartmentNOTICESMeetings:

Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee, 63292Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs Advisory

Committee, 63292

Separate Parts In This Issue

Part IITransportation Department, Federal Aviation

Administration, 63293–63296

Part IIILabor Department, Employment and Training


Part IVDepartment of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Indian

Trust Transition Office, 63305–63306

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.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of ContentsLISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing listarchives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or changesettings); then follow the instructions.


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.

VIIFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Contents

3 CFRProclamations:7510.................................63149

7 CFR301...................................63151

14 CFR39 (3 documents) ...........63154,

63157, 6315993.....................................63294

18 CFR381...................................63162

20 CFR655...................................63298

21 CFR510 (2 documents) .........63163,

63164520 (2 documents) .........63165,

63166524...................................63164

26 CFRProposed Rules:1.......................................63203

34 CFRProposed Rules:Ch. VI...............................63203

40 CFR70 (7 documents) ...........63166,

63168, 63170, 63175, 63180,63184, 63188

180...................................63192Proposed Rules:52.....................................63204

47 CFR73.....................................63199Proposed Rules:73.....................................63209

50 CFR600...................................63199660...................................63199

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\05DELS.LOC pfrm07 PsN: 05DELS

Presidential Documents

63149

Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 234


Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 7510 of November 30, 2001

World Aids Day, 2001

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

This year marks the 20th year that the world has been fighting the diseasethat we now know as Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). AIDShas inflicted a terrible toll upon the world, taking millions of lives andcausing untold grief to the families and friends of its victims. An estimated40 million people worldwide are living with the Human ImmunodeficiencyVirus (HIV), which causes AIDS; and more than 8,000 people across theglobe die from AIDS every day. Sadly, since its inception, AIDS has claimedthe lives of more than 22 million individuals.

This year’s World AIDS Day theme is ‘‘I Care . . . Do You? Youth andAIDS in the 21st Century.’’ The goal underscoring this year’s theme isensuring greater education and involvement of young people in preventingHIV/AIDS. And it seeks to stress that every individual has both the responsi-bility and the opportunity to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS andto assist those suffering from the disease.

In many countries, including the United States, young people and adolescentsare at a higher risk for contracting HIV infection. We know from epidemiolog-ical data that young people under the age of 25 comprise half of all newHIV infections worldwide. This sobering reality is a clarion call to publichealth networks around the world to redouble their efforts in providinginformation to young people about preventing HIV/AIDS, and most impor-tantly, about abstinence and how it can help to prevent the spread ofthis disease.

The AIDS epidemic has had a devastating impact on diverse communities,and disadvantaged youth have borne the brunt of this devastation. Impover-ished conditions and depressed economic circumstances tend to accompanyan increased presence of HIV in these communities. We must develop andimplement better ways to communicate to youth about abstinence and othereffective measures that will help them to avoid the disease and to envisiona future filled with possibility.

We must also continue our efforts to develop a vaccine that will protectindividuals from becoming infected with HIV. Our children deserve to livein a world free from the fear of HIV/AIDS, and the United States willnot weaken in its resolve to lead the world towards that goal.

As we enter the third decade of the AIDS pandemic, our hearts go outto those who have been afflicted with or affected by this deadly disease.We resolve to stand together as a Nation and with the world to fightAIDS on all fronts. We resolve to provide the resources necessary to combatHIV/AIDS. And we resolve to ensure that those suffering with HIV/AIDSreceive effective care and treatment, compassionate understanding, and en-couraging hope.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United Statesof America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitutionand laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 1, 2001, asWorld AIDS Day. I invite the Governors of the States and the Commonwealthof Puerto Rico, officials of the other territories subject to the jurisdiction

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 07:43 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\05DED0.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 05DED0

63150 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Presidential Documents

of the United States, and the American people to join me in reaffirmingour commitment to combat HIV/AIDS. I encourage every American to partici-pate in appropriate commemorative programs and ceremonies in workplaces,houses of worship, and other community centers to reach out and protectand educate our children, and to help comfort all people who are livingwith HIV and AIDS.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth dayof November, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independ-ence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.

W[FR Doc. 01–30279

Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 07:43 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\05DED0.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 05DED0

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

63151

Vol. 66, No. 234


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health InspectionService

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 00–088–2]

Karnal Bunt; Regulated Areas

AGENCY: Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending theregulations by adding new areas to thelist of areas regulated because of Karnalbunt, a fungal disease of wheat, due tothe detection during the 2000 harvest ofbunted kernels in grain grown in theseareas. We are also removing certainfields from regulation because wheat isno longer grown in those fields orbecause fields previously classified asregulated areas have produced grain thathas tested negative for Karnal bunt.These actions will help prevent thespread of Karnal bunt into noninfestedareas of the United States and removefrom regulation certain fields whererestrictions no longer appear to bewarranted.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.Vedpal S. Malik, National Karnal BuntCoordinator, PPQ, APHIS, USDA, 4700River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD20737–1236; (301) 734–6774.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Karnal bunt is a fungal disease ofwheat (Triticum aestivum), durumwheat (Triticum durum), and triticale(Triticum aestivum X Secale cereale), ahybrid of wheat and rye. Karnal bunt iscaused by the fungus Tilletia indica(Mitra) Mundkur and is spread byspores, primarily through the plantingof infected seed. Some countries in the

international wheat market regulateKarnal bunt as a fungal diseaserequiring quarantine; therefore, withoutmeasures taken by the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service (APHIS),United States Department of Agriculture(USDA), to prevent its spread, thepresence of Karnal bunt in the UnitedStates could have significantconsequences with regard to the exportof wheat to international markets.

The regulations regarding Karnal buntare set forth in 7 CFR 301.89–1 through301.89–16 (referred to below as theregulations).

On April 20, 2001, we published inthe Federal Register (66 FR 20204–20208, Docket No. 00–088–1) a proposalto amend the regulations by adding newareas to the list of areas regulatedbecause of Karnal bunt due to thedetection during the 2000 harvest ofbunted kernels in grain grown in thoseareas. We also proposed to removefields from regulation because wheat isno longer grown in those fields orbecause the fields, which werepreviously classified as regulated areasbecause they were planted with seedthat was suspected to be contaminatedwith Karnal bunt, have now producedgrain that has tested negative for Karnalbunt.

We solicited comments concerningour proposal for 60 days ending June 19,2001. We did not receive any comments.Therefore, for the reasons given in theproposed rule, we are adopting theproposed rule as a final rule, withoutchange. However, since the publicationof the proposed rule, we have publishedtwo interim rules adding regulated areasin Texas. Specifically, in an interim ruleeffective on June 8, 2001, and publishedon June 14, 2001, (66 FR 32209–32210,Docket No. 01–058–1), we addedThrockmorton and Young Counties, TX,to the list of regulated areas in § 301.89–3(f) and solicited comments on thataction for 60 days ending on August 13,2001. Subsequently, we published asecond interim rule, effective on July 13,2001, and published on July 19, 2001(66 FR 37575–37576, Docket No. 01–063–1), that added Archer and BaylorCounties, TX, to that list, and solicitedcomments on that action for 60 daysending on September 17, 2001. Theaddition of those four counties to thelist of regulated areas is reflected in§ 301.89–3(f) in this rule.

Effective Date

This is a substantive rule that, in part,relieves restrictions and, pursuant to theprovisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), theprovisions of this rule that relieverestrictions may be made effective lessthan 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. This rule removescertain fields in Arizona and NewMexico from the list of areas regulatedbecause of Karnal bunt either becausewheat is no longer grown in those fieldsor because grain from those fields hastested negative for Karnal bunt. Thisaction will eliminate restrictions on themovement of wheat and other regulatedarticles from these fields.

This rule also adds certain fields inArizona to the list of regulated areas dueto the detection of Karnal bunt. Thisaction is necessary to help prevent thespread of the disease to noninfestedareas in the United States.Consequently, we find good cause under5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make theserestrictions effective less than 30 daysafter publication in the FederalRegister.

Therefore, the Administrator of theAnimal and Plant Health InspectionService has determined that this ruleshould be effective upon publication inthe Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866 and RegulatoryFlexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed underExecutive Order 12866. For this action,the Office of Management and Budgethas waived its review under ExecutiveOrder 12866.

Upon the initial detection of Karnalbunt in Arizona in March of 1996, aFederal quarantine and emergencyactions were imposed to prevent theinterstate spread of the disease to otherwheat producing areas in the UnitedStates. The quarantine has remained ineffect, although it has since beenmodified in terms of its physicalboundaries and restrictions on theproduction and movement of regulatedarticles.

Effects on Deregulated Areas

This final rule will remove fromregulation 9 fields in Arizona and 16fields in New Mexico, reducing the sizeof the regulated area in both States. Thefields that are being removed by thisrule cover about 290 acres in Arizonaand 530 acres in New Mexico.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 12:43 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 05DER1

63152 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

We estimate that one wheat producerin Arizona and six wheat producers inNew Mexico will be affected by thataspect of this rule. Under theregulations, wheat, durum wheat, andtriticale may only be moved fromregulated areas to nonregulated areas ifit tests negative for bunted kernels.Additionally, commercial wheat seedmay not be moved from regulated tononregulated areas. Producers whosefields are removed from regulation willbenefit because they will be able tomove wheat and other regulated articlesfrom these fields without restriction.

These benefits, however, are likely tobe minimal. Considering that the testingof grain for Karnal bunt is already a freeservice for all producers in regulatedareas, the elimination of testingrequirements removes an inconvenienceonly, not a financial burden. Further,little or no commercial wheat seed is, oris expected to be, grown in the affectedfields.

Similarly, this aspect of the rule willnot serve to significantly reduce theneed for equipment cleaning byproducers or by custom combineharvesters who routinely move theirmachines into and out of regulated areasto harvest wheat for multiple producers.In the past, there has been little need forsuch cleaning because crops harvestedin the affected fields have not producedbunted kernels, and equipment must becleaned only if it has been used toharvest host crops that test positive forKarnal bunt.

One field in Arizona will be removedfrom regulation because it is currentlybeing used for the construction ofhouses. In this case, no wheat producersor custom harvesters will be affectedbecause the field is not being used foragricultural purposes.

Effects on Regulated AreasThe new areas being added to the

regulated area in Arizona cover about23,100 acres and contain approximately600 fields. We estimate that about 15wheat producers and 6 custom combineharvesters will be affected by this aspectof the rule. However, the effect on eachis not likely to be significant. Aspreviously stated, the required graintesting is performed free of charge forproducers in regulated areas. Also, littleor no commercial wheat seed is, or isexpected to be, grown in the affectedfields. Finally, mechanized harvestingequipment does not have to be cleanedand disinfected prior to movement froma regulated area unless it has been usedto harvest crops that test positive forKarnal bunt.

Overall, the regulated agriculturalacreage in Arizona will increase by

about 22,810 acres to approximately281,000 acres. In New Mexico, regulatedagricultural acreage will decrease byapproximately 530 acres to about 3,300acres.

The Regulatory Flexibility Actrequires that agencies consider theeconomic effects of their rules on smallbusinesses, organizations, andgovernmental jurisdictions. In this case,entities that will be most affected by thisrule are wheat producers and customcombine harvesters. The size of theseentities is unknown. It is reasonable toassume, however, that most are small insize according to the U.S. SmallBusiness Administration’s (SBA)criteria. This assumption is based oncomposite data for providers of the sameand similar services. For example, in1997, of the 6,135 wheat and otherfarms in Arizona, 89 percent had annualsales of less than $0.5 million, the SBA’sthreshold for a small wheat farm.Similarly, in 1997, there were 366 U.S.firms involved in mechanical harvestingand related activities, includingcombining of crops. Of these firms, 93percent had less than $5.0 million inannual sales, which is the SBA’sthreshold for a small entity forbusinesses of that type.

Under these circumstances, theAdministrator of the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service hasdetermined that this action will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in theCatalog of Federal Domestic Assistanceunder No. 10.025 and is subject toExecutive Order 12372, which requiresintergovernmental consultation withState and local officials. (See 7 CFR part3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewedunder Executive Order 12988, CivilJustice Reform.

This rule: (1) Preempts all State andlocal laws and regulations that areinconsistent with this rule; (2) has noretroactive effect; and (3) does notrequire administrative proceedingsbefore parties may file suit in courtchallenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule contains noinformation collection or recordkeepingrequirements under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plantdiseases and pests, Quarantine,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFRpart 301 as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINENOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 7711, 7712, 7714,7731, 7735, 7751, 7752, 7753, and 7754; 7CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Section 301.75–15 also issued under Sec.204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 Stat.1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub.L. 106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421note).

2. In § 301.89–3, paragraph (f) isrevised to read as follows:

§ 301.89–3 Regulated areas.

* * * * *(f) The following areas or fields are

designated as regulated areas (maps ofthe regulated areas may be obtained bycontacting the Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, Plant Protection andQuarantine, 4700 River Road Unit 134,Riverdale, MD 20737–1236):

Arizona

La Paz County. (1) Beginning at thesoutheast corner of sec. 33, T. 5 N., R.21 W.; then west to the Colorado River;then north along the Colorado River tothe west edge of sec. 26, T. 6 N., R. 22W.; then north to the northwest cornerof sec. 26, T. 6 N., R. 22 W.; then eastto the northeast corner of sec. 27, T. 6N., R. 21 W.; then south to the southeastcorner of sec. 10, T. 5 N., R. 21 W.; thenwest to the southwest corner of sec. 10,T. 5 N, R. 21 W.; then south to the pointof beginning.

(2) Beginning at the southeast cornerof sec. 6, T. 7 N., R. 20 W.; then westto the southeast corner of sec. 35, T. 7N., R. 21 W.; then south to the southeastcorner of sec. 2, T. 6 N., R. 21 W; thenwest to the southeast corner of sec. 3, T.6 N., R. 21 W.; then south to thesoutheast corner of sec. 15, T. 6 N., R.21 W.; then west to the southwestcorner of sec. 13, T. 6 N., R. 22 W., thennorth to the northwest corner of sec. 25,T. 7 N., R. 22 W.; then east to thesouthwest corner of sec. 19, T. 7 N., R.21 W.; then north to the Colorado River;then northeast along the Colorado Riverto the north edge of sec. 32, T. 8 N., R.21 W.; then east to the northeast cornerof sec. 31, T. 8 N., R. 20 W.; then southto the point of beginning.


63153Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Maricopa County. (1) Beginning at thesoutheast corner of sec. 12, T. 6 S., R.6 W.; then west to the southwest cornerof sec. 7, T. 6 S., R. 6 W.; then north tothe northwest corner of sec. 7, T. 6 S.,R. 6 W.; then west to the southwestcorner of sec. 2, T. 6 S., R. 7 W.; thennorth to the northwest corner of sec. 14,T. 5 S., R. 7 W.; then east to thenortheast corner of sec. 18, T. 5 S., R.6 W.; then south to the southeast cornerof sec. 19, T. 5 S., R. 6 W.; then east tothe northeast corner of sec. 25, T. 5 S.,R. 6 W.; then south to the point ofbeginning.

(2) Beginning at the southeast cornerof sec. 34, T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; then westto the northeast corner of sec. 5, T. 1 S.,R. 2 W.; then south to the southeastcorner of sec. 8, T. 1 S., R. 2 W.; thenwest to the southeast corner of sec. 11,T. 1 S., R. 4 W.; then south to thesoutheast corner of sec. 14, T. 1 S, R. 4W.; then west to the southwest corner ofsec. 14, T. 1 S., R. 5 W.; then north tothe northwest corner of sec. 14, T. 1 N.,R. 5 W.; then east to the northwestcorner of sec. 17, T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; thennorth to the northwest corner of sec. 8,T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; then east to thenortheast corner of sec. 10, T. 1 N., R.2 W.; then south to the point ofbeginning.

(3) Beginning at the southeast cornerof sec. 28, T. 1 S., R. 2 E.; then west tothe southwest corner of sec. 30, T. 1 S.,R. 2 E.; then north to the southwestcorner of sec. 18, T. 1 S., R. 2 E.; thenwest to the southwest corner of sec. 14,T. 1 S., R. 1 E.; then north to thesouthwest corner of sec. 2, T. 1 S., R. 1E.; then west to the southwest corner ofsec. 4, T. 1 S., R. 1 E.; then north to thenorthwest corner of sec. 4, T. 1 S., R. 1E.; then west to the southwest corner ofsec. 36, T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; then north tothe southwest corner of sec. 25, T. 2 N.,R. 2 W.; then west to the southwestcorner of sec. 27, T. 2 N., R. 2 W.; thennorth to the northwest corner of sec. 3,T. 3 N., R. 2 W.; then east to thenortheast corner of sec. 1, T. 3 N., R. 1W.; then south to the northwest cornerof sec. 19, T. 3 N., R. 1 E.; then east tothe northeast corner of sec. 23, T. 3 N.,R. 1 E.; then south to the southeastcorner of sec. 35, T. 3 N., R. 1 E.; theneast to the northeast corner of sec. 1, T.2 N., R. 1 E.; then south to the northwestcorner of sec. 18, T. 1 N., R. 2 E.; theneast to the northeast corner of sec. 13,T. 1 N., R. 2 E.; then south to thesoutheast corner of sec. 12, T. 1 S., R.2 E.; then west to the southeast cornerof sec. 9, T. 1 S., R. 2 E.; then south tothe point of beginning.

(4) Beginning at the southeast cornerof sec. 34, T. 2 N., R. 5 E.; then west tothe southwest corner of sec. 31, T. 2 N.,

R. 5 E.; then north to the northwestcorner of sec. 7, T. 2 N., R. 5 E.; theneast to the northeast corner of sec. 10,T. 2 N., R. 5 E.; then south to the pointof beginning.

(5) Beginning at the intersection of theMaricopa/Pinal County line and thesouthwest corner of sec. 31, T. 2 S., R.5 E.; then north to the northwest cornerof sec. 31, T. 2 S., R. 5 E.; then west tothe southwest corner of sec. 25, T. 2 S.,R. 4 E.; then north to the southwestcorner of sec. 13, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; thenwest to the southwest corner of sec. 15,T. 2 S., R. 4 E; then north to thenorthwest corner of sec. 3, T. 2 S., R. 4E.; then east to the southwest corner ofsec. 35, T. 1 S., R. 4 E.; then north tothe northwest corner of sec. 35, T. 1 S.,R. 4 E.; then east to the northwest cornerof sec. 34, T. 1 S., R. 5 E.; then northto the northwest corner of sec. 22, T. 1S., R. 5 E.; then east to the northwestcorner of sec. 20, T. 1 S., R. 6 E.; thennorth to the northwest corner of sec. 8,T. 1 S., R. 6 E.; then east to the northeastcorner of sec. 7, T. 1 S., R. 7 E.; thensouth to the southeast corner of sec. 31,T. 1 S., R. 7 E.; then east to the northeastcorner of sec. 5, T. 2 S., R. 7 E.; thensouth to the southeast corner of sec. 5,T. 2 S., R. 7 E.; then east to theMaricopa/Pinal County line; then southand west along the Maricopa/PinalCounty line to the point of beginning.

(6) The following individual fields inMaricopa County are regulated areas:

301060505, 301060506, 301060601,301060602, 301060603 301060604,301102505, 301102506, 303111502,303111503, 304031904, 304031906,304073004, 304073005, 304073010,304081410, 304081413, 304081415,304081417, 304081505, 304081506,304082202, 304082302, 304082303,304082607, 304082703, 306013222,306013231, 306020404, 306020501,306020601, 306020623, 316123301,316123302, 316123303, 316131901,316131904, 316132302, 316132604,

Pinal County. (1) Beginning at theintersection of the Maricopa/PinalCounty line and the northwest corner ofsec. 7, T. 2 S., R. 8 E.; then east to thenortheast corner of sec. 8, T. 2 S., R. 8E.; then south to the southeast corner ofsec. 8, T. 2 S., R. 8 E.; then east to thenortheast corner of sec. 16, T. 2 S., R.8 E., then south to the southeast cornerof sec. 28, T. 2 S., R. 8 E.; then west tothe southeast corner of sec. 29, T. 2 S.,R. 8 E.; then south to the southeastcorner of sec. 32, T. 2 S., R. 8 E.; thenwest to the Maricopa/Pinal County line;then north along the Maricopa/PinalCounty line to the point of beginning.

(2) Beginning at the point ofintersection of the Maricopa/PinalCounty line and the northeast corner of

sec. 5, T. 3 S., R. 6 E.; then south to thesoutheast corner of sec. 32, T. 3 S., R.6 E.; then west to the southwest cornerof sec. 34, T. 3 S., R. 5 E.; then northto the southwest corner of sec. 3, T. 3S., R. 5 E.; then west to the southwestcorner of sec. 6, T. 3 S., R. 5 E.; thennorth to the Maricopa/Pinal Countyline; then east along the Maricopa/PinalCounty line to the point of beginning.

(3) Beginning at the southeast cornerof sec. 5, T. 6 S., R. 4 E.; then west tothe southwest corner of sec. 5, T. 6 S.,R. 3 E.; then north to the southwestcorner of sec. 28, T. 5 S., R. 3 E.; thenwest to the southwest corner of sec. 25,T. 5 S., R. 2 E.; then north to thesouthwest corner of sec. 24, T. 5 S., R.2 E.; then west to the southwest cornerof sec 23, T. 5 S., R. 2 E.; then north tothe northwest corner of sec. 35, T. 4 S.,R. 2 E.; then east to the northwest cornerof sec. 36, T. 4 S., R. 2 E.; then northto the northwest corner of sec. 25, T. 4S., R. 2 E.; then east to the northwestcorner of sec. 29, T. 4 S., R. 3 E.; thennorth to the northwest corner of sec. 20,T. 4 S.,R. 3 E.; then east to the northeastcorner of sec. 21, T. 4 S., R. 4 E.; thensouth to the northeast corner of sec. 4,T. 5 S., R. 4 E.; then east to the northeastcorner of sec. 3, T. 5 S., R. 4 E., thensouth to the southeast corner of sec. 22,T. 5 S., R. 4 E.; then west to thesoutheast corner of sec. 21, T. 5 S., R.4 E.; then south to the point ofbeginning.

(4) The following individual fields inPinal County are regulated areas:

307012207, 308102604, 308102605,309021801, 309021804, 309021812,309031304, 309033507, 309042544,309042545, 309042601, 309042607,309042619, 309042620, 309042621,309050104, 309050109, 309050122,309050207, 309050209,

Yuma County. The followingindividual fields in Yuma County areregulated areas: 321011103, 321033501,321033502, 321033503, 321033516,321033517, 321033518, 321033519,321040405, 321040911, 321040912,321040915, 321040917, 321040918,321040921, 321040922, 321041908,321041919, 323030401, 323030402,323030403, 323030404, 323030405,323030406, 323030501, 323030502,323030512, 323030513, 323030514,323030515, 323030521.

CaliforniaImperial County. Beginning at the

intersection of the Riverside/ImperialCounty line and the California/ArizonaState line; then west to the northwestcorner of sec. 1, T. 9 S., R. 21 E.; thensouth to the California/Arizona Stateline; then east and north along the Stateline to the point of beginning.



Riverside County. Beginning at theintersection of the Riverside/ImperialCounty line and the California/ArizonaState line; then west to the southwestcorner of sec. 31, T. 8 S., R. 22 E.; thennorth to the northwest corner of sec. 30,T. 7 S., R. 22 E.; then north andnortheast along the Palo Verde Valleyagriculture area to the California/Arizona State line; then south along theState line to the point of beginning.

New MexicoDona Ana County. The following

individual fields in Dona Ana Countyare regulated areas: 113040501,113040502, 113040506, 113040507,113040508, 113040602, 113040702,113040902, 113042601, 113042707,113042708, 113043401, 113043407,113050201, 113050202, 113050301,113060702, 113060703, 113060801,113060809, 113060901, 113060902,113070702, 113072701, 113072702,113072703, 113072704, 113072705,113072706, 113173103, 113210401,113210402, 113210403, 113210406,113210407, 113210808, 113212103,113212802, 113212806, 113241601,113242708,

Hildalgo County. The followingindividual fields in Hidalgo County areregulated areas: 123272403, 123353001.

Luna County. The followingindividual fields in Luna County areregulated areas: 129011301, 129012201,129013003, 129013006, 129060901,129060902, 129062001, 129062802,129232801, 129232805, 129232806,129300506, 129301104, 129301701,129301801, 129302702, 129303302,129440601, 129440602, 129440701,129440708, 129441701,

Sierra County. The followingindividual fields in Sierra County areregulated areas: 151013401, 151441201,151441202, 151441306, 151442201,151442601, 151442602, 151442603,151442604, 151442605, 151442606,151442607, 151442608, 151442609,151442610, 151442611, 151442612,151442613, 151442614, 151442701,151443501, 151443502, 151443503,151443601, 151443602, 151443603,151443604, 151453001, 151453101,151453102, 151453103, 151453104,151453106.

TexasArcher County. The entire county.Baylor County. The entire county.El Paso County. The following

individual fields in El Paso County areregulated areas: 441141301, 441142301,441142302, 441142303, 441142304,441142305, 441142306, 441142307,441142401, 441142402, 441142403,441142404, 441241301, 441241302,441252801, 441252803, 441252804,

441252901, 441253201, 441253302,441253401.

Hudspeth County. The followingindividual fields in Hudspeth Countyare regulated areas: 429050701,429050702, 429070101, 429070102.

McCulloch County. Beginning at theMcCulloch/San Saba County line andthe line of latitude 31.232299 N.; thenwest along the line of latitude 31.232299N. to the line of longitude –99.13473 W.;then north along the line of longitude–99.13473 W. to the line of latitude31.31004 N.; then east along the line oflatitude 31.31004 N. to the line oflongitude –99.11427 W.; then northalong the line of longitude –99.11427 W.to the line of latitude 31.283487 N.; theneast along the line of latitude 31.283487N. to the McCulloch/San Saba Countyline; then south to the point ofbeginning.

San Saba County. (1) Beginning at theSan Saba/Mills County line and the lineof longitude –98.5851 W.; then southalong the line of longitude –98.5851 Wto the line of latitude 31.167959 N.; thenwest along the line of latitude 31.167959N. to the line of longitude –98.903233W.; then north along the line oflongitude –98.903233 W. to the line oflatitude 31.310819 N.; then east alongthe line of latitude 31.310819 N. to theSan Saba/Mills County line; then southalong the San Saba/Mills County line tothe point of beginning.

(2) Beginning at the San Saba/McCulloch County line and the line oflatitude 31.283487 N.; then east alongthe line of latitude 31.283487 N. to theline of longitude –99.063487 W.; thensouth along the line of longitude–99.063487 W. to the line of latitude31.232299 N.; then west along the lineof latitude 31.232299 N. to the SanSaba/McCulloch County line; then northalong the San Saba/McCulloch Countyline to the point of beginning.

Throckmorton County. The entirecounty.

Young County. The entire county.

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day ofNovember 2001 .

W. Ron DeHaven,Acting Administrator, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service.[FR Doc. 01–30105 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–NM–349–AD; Amendment39–12526; AD 2001–23–51]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus ModelA300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R(Collectively Called A300–600) SeriesAirplanes; and Model A310 SeriesAirplanes

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Final rule; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: This document publishes inthe Federal Register an amendmentadopting airworthiness directive (AD)2001–23–51 that was sent previously toall known U.S. owners and operators ofcertain Airbus Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R (collectively calledA300–600) series airplanes; and ModelA310 series airplanes by individualnotices. This AD requires a one-timedetailed visual inspection to detectrepairs and alterations to, and damage ofthe vertical stabilizer attachmentfittings, including the main attachmentlugs and the transverse (side) loadfittings; and the rudder hinge fittings,hinge arms, and support fittings for allrudder hinges, and rudder actuatorsupport fittings; and repair, if necessary.This AD also requires that operatorsreport results of inspection findings tothe FAA. This action is prompted by anairplane accident shortly after takeofffrom John F. Kennedy InternationalAirport, Jamaica, New York. The actionsspecified by this AD are intended toprevent failure of the vertical stabilizer-to-fuselage attachment fittings ortransverse (side) load fittings, or rudder-to-vertical stabilizer attachment fittings,which could result in loss of the verticalstabilizer and/or rudder and consequentloss of control of the airplane.DATES: Effective December 10, 2001, toall persons except those persons towhom it was made immediatelyeffective by emergency AD 2001–23–51,issued on November 16, 2001, whichcontained the requirements of thisamendment.

Comments for inclusion in the RulesDocket must be received on or beforeJanuary 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–



349–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington 98055–4056.Comments may be inspected at thislocation between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00p.m., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays. Comments may besubmitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.Comments may also be sent via theInternet using the following address: [email protected]. Commentssent via fax or the Internet must contain‘‘Docket No. 2001–NM–349–AD’’ in thesubject line and need not be submittedin triplicate. Comments sent via theInternet as attached electronic files mustbe formatted in Microsoft Word 97 forWindows or ASCII text.

Information pertaining to this AD maybe examined at the FAA, TransportAirplane Directorate, Rules Docket,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Henry Offermann, Aerospace Engineer;Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch,ANM–115, FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; telephone (425)227–2676; fax (425) 227–1100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnNovember 16, 2001, the FAA issuedemergency AD 2001–23–51, which isapplicable to certain Airbus ModelA300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R(collectively called A300–600) seriesairplanes; and Model A310 seriesairplanes airplanes.

Background

On November 12, 2001, an AirbusModel A300 B4–605R airplane wasinvolved in an accident shortly aftertakeoff from John F. KennedyInternational Airport, Jamaica, NewYork. The cause of the accident is underinvestigation by the NationalTransportation Safety Board (NTSB).Although the NTSB has not determinedthe cause of the accident, it hasdetermined that the vertical stabilizerdeparted the airplane. In addition, therudder was found separated from thevertical stabilizer.

The vertical stabilizer on AirbusModel A300–600 series airplanes withAirbus Modification 4886 ismanufactured of advanced compositematerials. The vertical stabilizer onAirbus Model A310 series airplaneswith the same modification ismanufactured of the same materials.Failure of the vertical stabilizer-to-fuselage attachment fittings, transverse(side) load fittings, or rudder-to-verticalstabilizer attachment fittings, if notcorrected, could result in loss of thevertical stabilizer and/or rudder and

consequent loss of control of theairplane.

The FAA considers that, beforestructural failure, it may be possible todetect indications of possible failuremodes that could result in separation ofthe vertical stabilizer from the airplane.These indications include edgedelaminations, cracked paint, surfacedistortions, other surface damage, andfailure of the transverse (side) loadfittings. Similarly, indications of failureof the rudder assembly, which couldlead to failure of the vertical stabilizer,may also be detectable with such aninspection. Although neither the FAAnor the NTSB have reached conclusionswith respect to these possible failureson the accident airplane, we consider itprudent to require an inspection ofthese structures to identify any suchindication that may exist.

These airplane models aremanufactured in France and are type-certificated for operation in the UnitedStates under the provisions of section21.29 of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR 21.29) and theapplicable bilateral airworthinessagreement. The FAA has coordinatedthis action with the Direction Generalede l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which isthe airworthiness authority for France,and the DGAC has taken similar action.

Explanation of the Requirements of theRule

Since the unsafe condition describedis likely to exist or develop on otherairplanes of the same type designregistered in the United States, the FAAissued emergency AD 2001–23–51 toprevent failure of the vertical stabilizer-to-fuselage attachment fittings ortransverse (side) load fittings, or rudder-to-vertical stabilizer attachment fittings,which could result in loss of the verticalstabilizer and/or rudder and consequentloss of control of the airplane. The ADrequires a one-time detailed visualinspection to detect repairs andalterations to, and damage of the verticalstabilizer attachment fittings, includingthe main attachment lugs and thetransverse (side) load fittings; and therudder hinge fittings, hinge arms, andsupport fittings for all rudder hinges,and rudder actuator support fittings;and repair, if necessary. Damage of themetallic areas includes pulled or loosefasteners, wear areas, distorted flanges,cracks, and corrosion. Damage of thecomposite areas includes delamination;distorted surfaces that may indicatedelamination; cracks in the paintsurface; evidence of moisture damage;and cracked, splitting, or frayed fibers.This AD also requires that operators

report results of inspection findings tothe FAA.

Interim ActionThis is considered to be interim

action. The inspection report that isrequired by this AD will enable theFAA, DGAC, and manufacturer to obtainbetter insight into the potential unsafecondition, and eventually to developfinal action to address it, if necessary. Iffinal action is identified, the FAA mayconsider further rulemaking.

Determination of Rule’s Effective DateSince it was found that immediate

corrective action was required, noticeand opportunity for prior publiccomment thereon were impracticableand contrary to the public interest, andgood cause existed to make the ADeffective immediately by individualnotices issued on November 16, 2001, toall known U.S. owners and operators ofcertain Airbus Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R (collectively calledA300–600) series airplanes; and ModelA310 series airplanes. These conditionsstill exist, and the AD is herebypublished in the Federal Register as anamendment to section 39.13 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR39.13) to make it effective as to allpersons.

Comments InvitedAlthough this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirementsaffecting flight safety and, thus, was notpreceded by notice and an opportunityfor public comment, comments areinvited on this rule. Interested personsare invited to comment on this rule bysubmitting such written data, views, orarguments as they may desire.Communications shall identify theRules Docket number and be submittedin triplicate to the address specifiedunder the caption ADDRESSES. Allcommunications received on or beforethe closing date for comments will beconsidered, and this rule may beamended in light of the commentsreceived. Factual information thatsupports the commenter’s ideas andsuggestions is extremely helpful inevaluating the effectiveness of the ADaction and determining whetheradditional rulemaking action would beneeded.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe rule that might suggest a need tomodify the rule. All commentssubmitted will be available, both beforeand after the closing date for comments,in the Rules Docket for examination byinterested persons. A report that



summarizes each FAA-public contactconcerned with the substance of this ADwill be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA toacknowledge receipt of their commentssubmitted in response to this rule mustsubmit a self-addressed, stampedpostcard on which the followingstatement is made: ‘‘Comments toDocket Number 2001–NM–349–AD.’’The postcard will be date stamped andreturned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that thisregulation is an emergency regulationthat must be issued immediately tocorrect an unsafe condition in aircraft,and that it is not a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under ExecutiveOrder 12866. It has been determinedfurther that this action involves anemergency regulation under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it isdetermined that this emergencyregulation otherwise would besignificant under DOT RegulatoryPolicies and Procedures, a finalregulatory evaluation will be preparedand placed in the Rules Docket. A copyof it, if filed, may be obtained from theRules Docket at the location providedunder the caption ADDRESSES.


Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, 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


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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:

AD 2001–23–51 Airbus Industrie:Amendment 39–12526. Docket 2001-NM–349–AD.

Applicability: Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R (collectively calledA300–600) series airplanes; and Model A310series airplanes; certificated in any category;having a vertical stabilizer made ofcomposite material (reference AirbusModification 4886).

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 (e) 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 within the last 6 months.

To prevent failure of the vertical stabilizer-to-fuselage attachment fittings or transverse(side) load fittings, or rudder-to-verticalstabilizer attachment fittings, which couldresult in loss of the vertical stabilizer and/orrudder and consequent loss of control of theairplane, accomplish the following:

Compliance Time

(a) Within 15 days after the effective dateof this AD, do the inspections specified inparagraphs (b) and (c) of this AD.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, adetailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘Anintensive visual examination of a specificstructural area, system, installation, orassembly to detect damage, failure, orirregularity. Available lighting is normallysupplemented with a direct source of goodlighting at intensity deemed appropriate bythe inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surfacecleaning and elaborate access proceduresmay be required.’’

Inspection and Corrective Actions

(b) Perform a one-time detailed visualinspection to detect repairs and alterationsto, and damage of the vertical stabilizerattachment fittings, including the mainattachment lugs and the transverse (side)load fittings. Any alteration made to thecomposite structures, either duringproduction or post-production, is consideredareas of primary concern. Gain access to thevertical stabilizer attachment fittings byremoving external fairings and internalaccess covers and inspect both sides ofaffected attachment fittings. Damage of themetallic areas includes pulled or loosefasteners, wear areas, distorted flanges,cracks, and corrosion. Damage of thecomposite areas includes delamination;distorted surfaces that may indicatedelamination; cracks or abrading in the paintsurface; surface damage; evidence of

moisture damage; and cracked, splitting, orfrayed fibers.

(1) If any damage is found to the verticalstabilizer attachment fittings, including themain attachment lugs and the transverse(side) load fittings, before further flight,repair per a method approved by theManager, International Branch, ANM–116,FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

(2) If any repair or alteration to theattachment lug areas of the vertical stabilizerhas been accomplished previously, beforefurther flight, the repair or alteration must beapproved by the Manager, InternationalBranch, ANM–116.

(c) Perform a one-time detailed visualinspection to detect damage of the rudderhinge fittings, hinge arms, and supportfittings for all rudder hinges, and rudderactuator support fittings. Damage of themetallic areas includes pulled or loosefasteners, wear areas, distorted flanges,cracks, and corrosion. Damage of thecomposite areas includes delamination;distorted surfaces that may indicatedelamination; cracks or abrading in the paintsurface; surface damage; evidence ofmoisture damage; and cracked, splitting, orfrayed fibers. If any damage is found, beforefurther flight, repair per the manufacturer’sstructural repair manual, or per a methodapproved by the Manager, InternationalBranch, ANM–116.

Report

(d) Submit a report of inspection findings(both positive and negative) to the Manager,International Branch, ANM–116; fax (425)227–1149; at the applicable time specified inparagraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD. Thereport must include the inspection results, adescription of any repair, alteration, ordiscrepancy found, including digitalphotographs of the damaged area, theairplane serial number, and the number offlight cycles and flight hours on the airplane.Information collection requirementscontained in this AD have been approved bythe Office of Management and Budget (OMB)under the provisions of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.) and have been assigned OMB ControlNumber 2120–0056.

(1) For airplanes on which the inspectionis accomplished after the effective date ofthis AD: Submit the report within 5 daysafter performing the inspection required byparagraph (a) of this AD.

(2) For airplanes on which the inspectionhas been accomplished prior to the effectivedate of this AD: Submit the report within 5days after the effective date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager,International Branch, ANM–116. Operatorsshall submit their requests through anappropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, International Branch,ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods of



compliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the International Branch,ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(f) 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 airplane toa location where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

Effective Date

(g) This amendment becomes effective onDecember 10, 2001, to all persons exceptthose persons to whom it was madeimmediately effective by emergency AD2001–23–51, issued on November 16, 2001,which contained the requirements of thisamendment.

Issued in Renton, Washington, onNovember 26, 2001.Vi L. Lipski,Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–30082 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U



14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnellDouglas Model DC–8–33, –43, –51, –52,–53, and –55 Series Airplanes; ModelDC–8F–54, and –55 Series Airplanes;and Model DC–8–61, –61F, –62, –62F,–63, –63F, –71, –71F, –72, –72F, –73,and –73F Series Airplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD) that isapplicable to certain McDonnellDouglas Model DC–8–33, –43, –51, –52,–53, and –55 series airplanes; ModelDC–8F–54, and –55 series airplanes; andModel DC–8–61, –61F, –62, –62F, –63,–63F, –71, –71F, –72, –72F, –73, and–73F series airplanes. This actionrequires repetitive inspections of theelectrical connectors of the explosivecartridge wiring of the engine fireextinguisher containers to verify if theidentification number labels areinstalled and legible; repetitiveelectrical tests of all explosive cartridgewiring of the engine fire extinguishercontainers to verify proper installationand function; and corrective actions, if

necessary. This action is necessary todetect and correct cross-wired electricalconnectors of the fire extinguishingsystem, which could release fireextinguishing agent into the incorrectengine nacelle in the event of an enginefire.DATES: Effective December 20, 2001.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of December20, 2001.

Comments for inclusion in the RulesDocket must be received on or beforeFebruary 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–345–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington 98055–4056.Comments may be inspected at thislocation between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,Monday through Friday, except Federalholidays. Comments may be submittedvia fax to (425) 227–1232. Commentsmay also be sent via the Internet usingthe following address: [email protected]. Comments sentvia fax or the Internet must contain‘‘Docket No. 2001–NM–345–AD’’ in thesubject line and need not be submittedin triplicate. Comments sent via theInternet as attached electronic files mustbe formatted in Microsoft Word 97 forWindows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced inthis AD may be obtained from BoeingCommercial Aircraft Group, Long BeachDivision, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,Long Beach, California 90846,Attention: Data and ServiceManagement, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–0024). This information may beexamined at the FAA, TransportAirplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or atthe FAA, Los Angeles AircraftCertification Office, 3960 ParamountBoulevard, Lakewood, California; or atthe Office of the Federal Register, 800North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:William Bond, Aerospace Engineer,Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA,Los Angeles Aircraft CertificationOffice, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,Lakewood, California 90712–4137;telephone (562) 627–5253; fax (562)627–5210.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAhas received reports of electricalconnectors of the engine fireextinguishing agent containers beingcross-wired on certain McDonnell

Douglas DC–8 series airplanes. The fireextinguishing system on these airplanesconsists of independent left- and right-wing fixed fire extinguisherinstallations. Each wing installationincludes two containers with two fireextinguishing agent deployment linesper container. Either container of a winginstallation may be discharged intoeither engine nacelle of the same wing.In one incident, six of eight electricalconnectors of the explosive cartridgeswere found installed on the incorrectcartridge/discharge valve. Thesereported incidents were caused byunclear maintenance instructions andan inadequate wire harness design thatdoes not prevent cross-connecting theelectrical connectors. Cross-wiredelectrical connectors of the fireextinguishing system, if not corrected,could release fire extinguishing agentinto the incorrect engine nacelle in theevent of an engine fire.

Explanation of Relevant ServiceInformation

The FAA has reviewed and approvedBoeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8–26A046, dated November 7, 2001. Theservice bulletin describes procedures forrepetitive inspections of the electricalconnectors of the explosive cartridgewiring of the fire extinguishercontainers to verify if the identificationnumber labels are installed and legible;and installation of a label orreplacement of the label with a newlabel, if necessary. The service bulletinalso describes procedures for repetitiveelectrical tests of the explosive cartridgewiring of the fire extinguisher containerto verify proper installation andfunction, and for troubleshooting andrepairing the wiring of the FirexDischarge system, if necessary.

Explanation of the Requirements of theRule

Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other McDonnell DouglasModel DC–8–33, –43, –51, –52, –53, and–55 series airplanes; Model DC–8F–54,and –55 series airplanes; and ModelDC–8–61, –61F, –62, –62F, –63, –63F,–71, –71F, –72, –72F, –73, and –73Fseries airplanes of the same type design,this AD is being issued to detect andcorrect cross-wired electrical connectorsof the fire extinguishing system, whichcould release fire extinguishing agentinto the incorrect engine nacelle in theevent of an engine fire. This AD requiresaccomplishment of the actions specifiedin the service bulletin describedpreviously, except as discussed below.



Differences Between Proposed Rule andService Bulletin

Operators should note that, althoughthe service bulletin recommendsaccomplishing the inspection withintwo days (from the issue date of theservice bulletin), the FAA hasdetermined that a compliance time of 30days will not adversely affect safety, andwill allow the inspections and tests tobe performed at a base during regularlyscheduled maintenance where specialequipment and trained maintenancepersonnel will be available if necessary.In addition, there has only been onereported engine fire in the entire DC–8worldwide fleet in the last five years.Therefore, we find that a compliancetime of 30 days is warranted.


action until final action is identified, atwhich time the FAA may considerfurther rulemaking.

Determination of Rule’s Effective DateSince a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of thisregulation, it is found that notice andopportunity for prior public commenthereon are impracticable, and that goodcause exists for making this amendmenteffective in less than 30 days.


a final rule that involves requirementsaffecting flight safety and, thus, was notpreceded by notice and an opportunityfor public comment, comments areinvited on this rule. Interested personsare invited to comment on this rule bysubmitting such written data, views, orarguments as they may desire.Communications shall identify theRules Docket number and be submittedin triplicate to the address specifiedunder the caption ADDRESSES. Allcommunications received on or beforethe closing date for comments will beconsidered, and this rule may beamended in light of the commentsreceived. Factual information thatsupports the commenter’s ideas andsuggestions is extremely helpful inevaluating the effectiveness of the ADaction and determining whetheradditional rulemaking action would beneeded.

Submit comments using the followingformat:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.For example, discuss a request tochange the compliance time and arequest to change the service bulletinreference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specificchange to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons ordata) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe rule that might suggest a need tomodify the rule. All commentssubmitted will be available, both beforeand after the closing date for comments,in the Rules Docket for examination byinterested persons. A report thatsummarizes each FAA-public contactconcerned with the substance of this ADwill be filed in the Rules Docket.


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 rule does not havefederalism implications under ExecutiveOrder 13132.

The FAA has determined that thisregulation is an emergency regulationthat must be issued immediately tocorrect an unsafe condition in aircraft,and that it is not a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under ExecutiveOrder 12866. It has been determinedfurther that this action involves anemergency regulation under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it isdetermined that this emergencyregulation otherwise would besignificant under DOT RegulatoryPolicies and Procedures, a finalregulatory evaluation will be preparedand placed in the Rules Docket. A copyof it, if filed, may be obtained from theRules Docket at the location providedunder the caption ADDRESSES.


Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, 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:



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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:2001–25–01 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–12553. Docket 2001–NM–345–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–8–33, –43, –51,–52, –53, and –55 series airplanes; ModelDC–8F–54, and –55 series airplanes; andModel DC–8–61, –61F, –62, –62F, –63, –63F,–71, –71F, –72, –72F, –73, and –73F seriesairplanes; certificated in any category; aslisted in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8–26A046, dated November 7, 2001.

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 (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 as indicated, unlessaccomplished previously.

To detect and correct cross-wired electricalconnectors of the fire extinguishing system,which could release fire extinguishing agentinto the incorrect engine nacelle in the eventof an engine fire, accomplish the following:

Repetitive Inspections and Tests, andCorrective Action(s), if Necessary

(a) Within 30 days after the effective dateof this AD, do the action(s) specified inparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD perBoeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8–26A046,dated November 7, 2001.

(1) Do an inspection of the electricalconnectors of the explosive cartridge wiringof the engine fire extinguisher containers toverify if the identification number labels areinstalled and legible. If any identificationnumber label is missing or is not legible,before further flight, install a label or replacethe label with a new label, as applicable.Repeat the inspection after each maintenanceaction for the Firex Discharge system.

(2) Do an electrical test of all explosivecartridge wiring of the engine fireextinguisher containers to verify properinstallation and function, using the cockpitwarning lamps. If the lamp fails toilluminate, before further flight, troubleshootand repair the wiring of the Firex Dischargesystem. Repeat the test after eachmaintenance action for the Firex Dischargesystem.



Note 2: Inspections, tests, and correctiveactions, if necessary, done per BoeingBOECOM M–7200–01–02632, datedNovember 5, 2001, before the effective dateof this AD, are considered acceptable forcompliance with the requirements of this AD.


(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 (ACO),FAA. Operators shall submit their requeststhrough an appropriate FAA PrincipalMaintenance Inspector, who may addcomments and then send it to the Manager,Los Angeles ACO.

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


(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 airplane toa location where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(d) The actions shall be done in accordancewith Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8–26A046, dated November 7, 2001. Thisincorporation 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 Aircraft Group, Long BeachDivision, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, LongBeach, California 90846, Attention: Data andService Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–0024). Copies may be inspected at the FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at theFAA, Los Angeles Aircraft CertificationOffice, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,Lakewood, California; or at the Office of theFederal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

Effective Date

(e) This amendment becomes effective onDecember 20, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, onNovember 29, 2001.

Ali Bahrami,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–30084 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U



14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; FokkerModel F.28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD) that isapplicable to certain Fokker Model F.28Mark 0100 series airplanes. This actionrequires repetitive inspections of certainmain landing gear (MLG) main fittingsto detect forging defects, and rework ofthe main fittings if necessary. Thisaction is necessary to detect forgingdefects of the MLG main fittings, whichcould lead to cracking and result insignificant structural damage to theairplane and possible injury to theoccupants.

DATES: Effective December 20, 2001.The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of December20, 2001.

Comments for inclusion in the RulesDocket must be received on or beforeJanuary 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–327–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington 98055–4056.Comments may be inspected at thislocation between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,Monday through Friday, except Federalholidays. Comments may be submittedvia fax to (425) 227–1232. Commentsmay also be sent via the Internet usingthe following address: [email protected]. Comments sentvia the Internet must contain ‘‘DocketNo. 2001–NM–327–AD’’ in the subjectline and need not be submitted intriplicate. Comments sent via fax or theInternet as attached electronic files mustbe formatted in Microsoft Word 97 forWindows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced inthis AD may be obtained from FokkerServices B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AENieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands. Thisinformation may be examined at theFAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington; or at the Office of theFederal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TomRodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1137;fax (425) 227–1149.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CivilAviation Authority—The Netherlands(CAA–NL), which is the airworthinessauthority for the Netherlands, notifiedthe FAA that an unsafe condition mayexist on certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark0100 series airplanes. The CAA–NLadvises that, upon touchdown, a mainlanding gear (MLG) main fitting failed,causing the lower part of the mainfitting to break off, including the MLGsliding member, wheels, and brakes.Subsequent inspection revealed a crack,located 5 centimeters outboard from theinboard face of the upstop damperabutment, which measured 12millimeters in length and 2.5millimeters in depth. In that same area,an operator found 3 more MLG mainfittings with an indication of an eddycurrent defect. In several other cases,the crack was determined to be due toa forging defect. This condition, if notcorrected, could lead to cracking andresult in significant structural damage tothe airplane and possible injury to theoccupants.

Explanation of Relevant ServiceInformation

Messier-Dowty Limited has issuedMessier-Dowty Service Bulletin No.F100–32–101, including Appendices Aand B, dated October 25, 2001, whichdescribes procedures for twoinspections of the MLG fittings forcracking and rework of the MLG mainfittings within certain areas.

Service Bulletin No. F100–32–101refers to Messier-Dowty Service BulletinNo. F100–32–100, Revision 1, datedJune 19, 2001, and Fokker ServiceBulletin SBF100–32–131, dated October25, 2001, as additional sources ofservice information for the inspectionsand rework actions.

The CAA–NL classified Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin No. F100–32–100 as mandatory and issued Dutchairworthiness directive BLA 2001–080,dated June 29, 2001, for a one-time eddycurrent inspection and rework actions toassure the continued airworthiness ofthese airplanes in the Netherlands.

FAA’s DeterminationAlthough the previously referenced

Dutch airworthiness directive specifies



a one-time eddy current inspection onMLG main fittings and rework actionsper Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin No.F100–32–100, the FAA has determinedthat the initial and repetitiveinspections required by paragraph (a) ofthis AD and the rework actions, ifnecessary, required by paragraph (b) ofthis AD must be made per Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin No. F100–32–101. This determination was madebecause the manufacturer informed theFAA that findings made after theissuance of Service Bulletin F100–32–100 indicate the need for additionaleddy current inspections of the MLGmain fittings. Findings also reveal thatdetection of closed forging folds mightnot be possible and that the forgingfolds would open when the mainfittings are subjected to certain landingload levels. Because some detectableindications could be missed during theinitial inspection, repetitive inspectionsare required to identify all detectableforging fold defects. To address thesefindings, Messier-Dowty has issuedService Bulletin No. F100–32–101 tospecify additional inspections tosafeguard the structural integrity of theMLG. As a result, the inspectionsrequired by paragraph (a) of this ADmust be done per Service Bulletin No.F100–32–101 instead of Service BulletinNo. F100–032–100.

FAA’s ConclusionsThis airplane model is manufactured

in the Netherlands and is typecertificated for operation in the UnitedStates under the provisions of section21.29 of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR 21.29) and theapplicable bilateral airworthinessagreement. Pursuant to this bilateralairworthiness agreement, the CAA–NLhas kept the FAA informed of thesituation described above. The FAA hasexamined the findings of the CAA–NL,reviewed all available information, anddetermined that AD action is necessaryfor products of this type design that arecertificated for operation in the UnitedStates.

Explanation of Requirements of RuleSince an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other airplanes of the sametype design registered in the UnitedStates, this AD is being issued to detectforging defects of the MLG, and reworkof the MLG main fittings if necessary.This AD requires initial and repetitiveeddy current inspections of certain MLGmain fittings to detect forging defects,and rework of the main fittings ifnecessary. This AD also would requirethat operators report all findings of the

eddy current inspections to FokkerServices B.V. This AD requiresaccomplishment of the actions perMessier-Dowty Service Bulletin No.F100–32–101, as described previously,except as discussed below.

Differences Between DutchAirworthiness Directive and This AD

Operators should note that, asdescribed earlier, Dutch airworthinessdirective BLA 2001–080 specifies only aone-time eddy current inspection of theMLG main fittings and rework actionsper Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin No.F100–32–100, or a later revisionapproved by the CAA–NL. However,this AD requires an initial eddy currentinspection and repetitive inspections,and rework of the MLG main fittings ifnecessary, per Messier-Dowty ServiceBulletin No. F100–32–101. The CAA–NL has notified the FAA that it willissue a new Dutch airworthinessdirective to mandate the inspections,and rework if necessary, specified byService Bulletin No. F100–32–101.However, operators should note thatthis AD differs from Dutchairworthiness directive BLA 2001–080in that it would require continuing theinspections until a final terminatingaction is identified.

Operators also should note that a laterrevision of a service bulletin may not bereferenced in an AD because the use ofthe phrase ‘‘or a later revision’’ wouldviolate Office of the Federal Registerregulations regarding the approval ofmaterials that are incorporated byreference.

Differences Between the ServiceInformation and This AD

Operators should note the followingdifferences between Service BulletinNo. F100–32–101 and this AD:

• Although the referenced servicebulletin specifies only two eddy currentinspections, this AD requires an initialinspection and repetitive inspectionsuntil a final terminating action isidentified. The FAA point outs that theexclusion of continued inspections afteronly two inspections relies on a damagetolerance approach. This approach leadsthe manufacturer to the conclusion thatthe crack growth is of a magnitude thatwould not lead to failure prior tooverhaul. However, we do not agreewith such a conclusion as there are anumber of unknown variablesassociated with detecting andanticipating the effects of forging folddefects. For this reason, we havedetermined that requiring only twoinspections would not adequatelyaddress the identified unsafe conditionand that continued inspections until

accomplishment of a terminating actionare necessary to ensure the continuedairworthiness of the fleet.

• Although the referenced servicebulletin specifies that the partsmanufacturer may be contacted fordisposition of certain discrepancies, thisAD would require the repair of thoseconditions to be accomplished inaccordance with a method approved byeither the FAA, or CAA–NL (or itsdelegated agent). In light of the type ofrepair that would be required to addressthe identified unsafe condition, and inconsonance with existing bilateralairworthiness agreements, the FAA hasdetermined that, for this AD, a repairapproved by either the FAA or CAA–NL(or its delegated agent) would beacceptable for compliance with this AD.

• The referenced service bulletinspecifies that, after accomplishing theactions specified in that service bulletin,rework of the MLG main fittings is to beaccomplished per a new servicebulletin, Messier-Dowty ServiceBulletin F100–32–102. However,because the new service bulletin has notbeen issued yet, this AD cannot specifythat service bulletin. The new servicebulletin is expected to includeprocedures that would terminate theneed for the inspections required by thisAD.


action. The manufacturer has advisedthat it currently is developing reworkprocedures that will positively addressthe unsafe condition addressed by thisAD. Once this procedure is developed,approved, and available, the FAA mayconsider additional rulemaking.

Determination of Rule’s Effective DateSince a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of thisregulation, it is found that notice andopportunity for prior public commenthereon are impracticable, and that goodcause exists for making this amendmenteffective in less than 30 days.


a final rule that involves requirementsaffecting flight safety and, thus, was notpreceded by notice and an opportunityfor public comment, comments areinvited on this rule. Interested personsare invited to comment on this rule bysubmitting such written data, views, orarguments as they may desire.Communications shall identify theRules Docket number and be submittedin triplicate to the address specifiedunder the caption ADDRESSES. Allcommunications received on or before



the closing date for comments will beconsidered, and this rule may beamended in light of the commentsreceived. Factual information thatsupports the commenter’s ideas andsuggestions is extremely helpful inevaluating the effectiveness of the ADaction and determining whetheradditional rulemaking action would beneeded.

Submit comments using the followingformat:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.For example, discuss a request tochange the compliance time and arequest to change the service bulletinreference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specificchange to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons ordata) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe rule that might suggest a need tomodify the rule. All commentssubmitted will be available, both beforeand after the closing date for comments,in the Rules Docket for examination byinterested persons. A report thatsummarizes each FAA-public contactconcerned with the substance of this ADwill be filed in the Rules Docket.


Regulatory ImpactThe regulations adopted herein will

not 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.

The FAA has determined that thisregulation is an emergency regulationthat must be issued immediately tocorrect an unsafe condition in aircraft,and that it is not a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under ExecutiveOrder 12866. It has been determinedfurther that this action involves anemergency regulation under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it isdetermined that this emergencyregulation otherwise would besignificant under DOT RegulatoryPolicies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be preparedand placed in the Rules Docket. A copyof it, if filed, may be obtained from theRules Docket at the location providedunder the caption ADDRESSES.

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

safety, Incorporation by reference,Safety.

Adoption of the AmendmentAccordingly, pursuant to the

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



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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:2001–24–10 Fokker Services B.V.:

Amendment 39–12527. Docket 2001–NM–327–AD.

Applicability: Model F.28 Mark 0100 seriesairplanes, certificated in any category,equipped with Messier-Dowty main landinggear units having part numbers (P/N)201072011, 201072012, 201072013,201072014, 201072015, or 201072016, thatinclude main fitting subassemblies having P/Ns 201072283, 201072284, or 201251258(main fittings having P/Ns 201072383,201072384, or 201072389).

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 (f) of this AD. Therequest should include an assessment of theeffect of the modification, alteration, or repairon the unsafe condition addressed by thisAD; and, if the unsafe condition has not beeneliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unlessaccomplished previously.

Note 2: This AD references Messier-DowtyService Bulletin No. F100–32–101, includingAppendices A and B, dated October 25, 2001,which is not referenced in Dutchairworthiness directive BLA 2001–080, datedJune 29, 2001. In addition, this AD specifiesadditional inspections that are beyond thoseincluded in the service bulletin. Where thereare differences between the AD and theservice information, the AD prevails.

To detect forging defects of the mainlanding gear (MLG), which could lead tocracking and result in significant structuraldamage to the airplane and possible injury tothe occupants, accomplish the following:

Initial and Repetitive Inspections(a) Before the accumulation of 1,000 total

landings on a new MLG, or within 30 daysafter the effective date of this AD, whicheveroccurs later: Do an initial eddy currentinspection on all MLG main fittings to detectforging defects per Messier-Dowty ServiceBulletin No. F100–32–101, includingAppendices A and B, dated October 25, 2001.After accomplishment of the initialinspection, repeat the inspection thereafter atintervals not to exceed 500 landings or 6months, whichever occurs first, per theservice bulletin.

Rework(b) After any inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, before further flight,accomplish the applicable actions requiredby paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD.

(1) If any cracking is found within thelimits specified in Messier-Dowty ServiceBulletin No. F100–32–101, includingAppendices A and B, dated October 25, 2001:Rework the MLG main fitting per the servicebulletin.

(2) If any cracking is found that exceeds thelimits specified in Messier-Dowty ServiceBulletin No. F100–32–101, includingAppendices A and B, dated October 25, 2001:Rework the MLG main fitting per a methodapproved by the Manager, InternationalBranch, ANM–116, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, FAA; or the Civil AviationAuthority ‘‘ The Netherlands (CAA–NL) (orits delegated agent).

Exception to Service Information(c) During any action required by this AD,

if the service bulletin specifies to contactMessier-Dowty for an appropriate action:Before further flight, repair per a methodapproved by the Manager, InternationalBranch, ANM–116; or the CAA–NL (or itsdelegated agent).

Reporting Requirement(d) Within 7 days after accomplishing any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of thisAD: Submit a report of the inspectionfindings (positive and negative) to FokkerServices B.V, Technical Services Dept., P.O.Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, theNetherlands, fax number 31 (0) 252 627211.The report must include MLG crackindication, part number, serial number, crackdepth and length, and a description of anyrework of the MLG main fittingsaccomplished. Information collectionrequirements contained in this AD have beenapproved by the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMBControl Number 2120–0056.

Spares(e) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install on any airplane, an MLGmain fitting or main fitting subassemblyhaving a part number specified in Paragraph1.A of the ‘‘Effectivity’’ in Messier-Dowty



Service Bulletin No. F100–32–101, includingAppendices A and B, dated October 25, 2001,unless the MLG fitting has been inspected,and the rework actions accomplished ifnecessary, per the service bulletin.


(f) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager,International Branch, ANM–116. Operatorsshall submit their requests through anappropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, International Branch,ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the International Branch,ANM–116.


(g) 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 airplane toa location where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(h) Except for the actions required byparagraphs (b)(2) and (c) of this AD, theactions shall be done in accordance withMessier-Dowty Service Bulletin No. F100–32–101, including Appendices A and B,dated October 25, 2001. This incorporationby reference was approved by the Director ofthe Federal Register in accordance with 5U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies maybe obtained from Fokker Services B.V., P.O.Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, theNetherlands. Copies may be inspected at theFAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or atthe Office of the Federal Register, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,DC.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressedin Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 2001–080, dated June 29, 2001.

Effective Date

(i) This amendment becomes effective onDecember 20, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, onNovember 26, 2001.Vi L. Lipski,Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–30081 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

18 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. RM02–6–000]

Annual Update of Filing Fees

November 29, 2001.AGENCY: Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, DOE.ACTION: Final rule; annual update ofCommission filing fees.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 18 CFR381.104, the Commission issues thisupdate of its filing fees. This noticeprovides the yearly update using data inthe Commission’s Management,Administrative, and Payroll System tocalculate the new fees. The purpose ofupdating is to adjust the fees on thebasis of the Commission’s costs forFiscal Year 2000.EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 2002.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TroyCole, Office of the Executive Director,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Room 42–66,Washington, DC 20426, 202–219–2970.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Document AvailabilityIn addition to publishing the full text

of this document in the FederalRegister, the Commission provides allinterested persons an opportunity toview and/or print the contents of thisdocument via the Internet throughFERC’s Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov)and in FERC’s Public Reference Roomduring normal business hours (8:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 FirstStreet, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC20426.

From FERC’s Home Page on theInternet, this information is available inboth the Commission Issuance PostingSystem (CIPS) and the Records andInformation Management System(RIMS).—CIPS provides access to the texts of

formal documents issued by theCommission since November 14,1994.

—CIPS can be accessed using the CIPSlink or the Energy Information Online

icon. The full text of this document isavailable on CIPS in ASCII andWordPerfect 8.0 format for viewing,printing, and/or downloading.

—RIMS contains images of documentssubmitted to and issued by theCommission after November 16, 1981.Documents from November 1995 tothe present can be viewed and printedfrom FERC’s Home Page using theRIMS link or the Energy InformationOnline icon. Descriptions ofdocuments back to November 16,1981, are also available from RIMS onthe Web; requests for copies of theseand other older documents should besubmitted to the Public ReferenceRoom.

User assistance is available for RIMS,CIPS, and the Website during normalbusiness hours from our Help line at(202) 208–2222 (EMail to [email protected]) or the

Public Reference at (202) 208–1371(E-Mail [email protected]).During normal business hours,

documents can also be viewed and/orprinted in FERC’s Public ReferenceRoom, where RIMS, CIPS, and the FERCWebsite are available. User assistance isalso available.

The Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission) is issuingthis notice to update filing fees that theCommission assesses for specificservices and benefits provided toidentifiable beneficiaries. Pursuant to 18CFR 381.104, the Commission isestablishing updated fees on the basis ofthe Commission’s Fiscal Year 2000costs. The adjusted fees announced inthis notice are effective January 4, 2002.The Commission has determined withthe concurrence of the Administrator ofthe Office of Information and RegulatoryAffairs of the Office of Management andBudget, that this final rule is not a majorrule within the meaning of section 251of Subtitle E of Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 5U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission issubmitting this final rule to both housesof the United States Congress and to theComptroller General of the UnitedStates.

The new fee schedule is as follows:

Fees Applicable to the Natural Gas Policy Act

1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR 284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 381.403) ......................................................................... $8,230

Fees Applicable to General Activities

1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except under Part I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR 381.302(a)) .................... 16,5302. Review of a Department of Energy remedial order:



Amount in controversy$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) ....................................................................................................................................................... 10010,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) .............................................................................................................................................. 60030,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a)) ............................................................................................................................................. 24,140

3. Review of a Department of Energy denial of adjustment:Amount in controversy

$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) ....................................................................................................................................................... 10010,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) .............................................................................................................................................. 60030,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a)) ............................................................................................................................................. 12,650

4. Written legal interpretations by the Office of General Counsel. (18 CFR 381.305(a)) ................................................................... 4,740

Fees Applicable to Natural Gas Pipelines

1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR 284.224. (18 CFR 381.207(b)) .................................................................... 1 1,000

Fees Applicable to Cogenerators and Small Power Producers

1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power production facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ...................................................... 14,2202. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ......................................................................... 16,0903. Applications for exempt wholesale generator status. (18 CFR 381.801) ........................................................................................ 970

1 This fee has not been changed.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381Electric power plants, Electric

utilities, Natural gas, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Thomas R. Herlihy,Executive Director and Chief FinancialOfficer.

In consideration of the foregoing, theCommission amends Part 381, Chapter I,Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, asset forth below.

PART 381—FEES

1. The authority citation for Part 381continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w; 16 U.S.C.791–828c, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42U.S.C. 7101–7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App.U.S.C. 1–85.

§ 381.302 [Amended]

2. In § 381.302, paragraph (a) isamended by removing ‘‘$ 15,760’’ andadding ‘‘$ 16,530’’ in its place.

§ 381.303 [Amended]

3. In 381.303, paragraph (a) isamended by removing ‘‘$ 23,010’’ andadding ‘‘$ 24,140’’ in its place.

§ 381.304 [Amended]


§ 381.305 [Amended]


§ 381.403 [Amended]

6. Section 381.403 is amended byremoving ‘‘$ 7,840’’ and adding ‘‘$8,230’’ in its place.

§ 381.505 [Amended]

7. In § 381.505, paragraph (a) isamended by removing ‘‘$ 13,550’’ andadding ‘‘$ 14,220’’ in its place and byremoving ‘‘$ 15,340’’ and adding ‘‘$16,090’’ in its place.

§ 381.801 [Amended]

8. Section 381.801 is amended byremoving ‘‘$ 1,310’’ and adding ‘‘$ 970’’in its place.

[FR Doc. 01–30125 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 510

New Animal Drugs; Change ofSponsor’s Address

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

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending theanimal drug regulations to reflect achange of sponsor’s address for MerialLtd.DATES: This rule is effective December 5,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Lonnie W. Luther, Center for VeterinaryMedicine (HFV–102), Food and DrugAdministration, 7500 Standish Pl.,Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–0209.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MerialLtd., 2100 Ronson Rd., Iselin, NJ 08830–3077, has informed FDA of a change of

sponsor’s address to 3239 SatelliteBlvd., Bldg. 500, Duluth, GA 30096–4640. Accordingly, the agency isamending the regulations in 21 CFR510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) to reflect thechange.

This rule does not meet the definitionof ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) becauseit is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’Therefore, it is not subject to thecongressional review requirements in 5U.S.C. 801–808.


Administrative practice andprocedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs and redelegated tothe Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21CFR part 510 is amended as follows:

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFRpart 510 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,353, 360b, 371, 379e.

2. Section 510.600 is amended in thetable in paragraph (c)(1) by revising theentry for ‘‘Merial Ltd.’’ and in the tablein paragraph (c)(2) by revising the entryfor ‘‘050604’’ to read as follows:

§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and druglabeler codes of sponsors of approvedapplications.

* * * * *(c) * * *(1) * * *



Firm name and address Drug labeler code

* * * * * * *Merial Ltd., 3239 Satellite Blvd., Bldg. 500, Duluth,

GA 30096–4640..050604

* * * * * * *

(2) * * *

Drug labeler code Firm name and address

* * * * * * *050604 Merial Ltd., 3239 Satellite Blvd., Bldg. 500, Duluth, GA 30096–4640.

* * * * * * *

Dated: November 15, 2001.Claire M. Lathers,Director, Office of New Animal DrugEvaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.[FR Doc. 01–30038 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–S



21 CFR Parts 510 and 524

Ophthalmic and Topical Dosage FormNew Animal Drugs; Ivermectin Pour-On


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending theanimal drug regulations to reflectapproval of an abbreviated new animaldrug application (ANADA) filed byVirbac AH, Inc. The ANADA providesfor topical use of ivermectin on cattlefor treatment and control of variousspecies of external and internalparasites.

DATES: This rule is effective December 5,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Lonnie W. Luther, Center for VeterinaryMedicine (HFV–102), Food and DrugAdministration, 7500 Standish Pl.,Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–0209, e-mail: [email protected] INFORMATION: VirbacAH, Inc., 3200 Meacham Blvd., Ft.Worth, TX 76137, filed ANADA 200–

318 for VIRBAMEC (ivermectin) Pour-On. The ANADA provides for topicaluse of 0.5 percent ivermectin solutionon cattle for the treatment and controlof various species of gastrointestinalnematodes, lungworms, grubs, hornflies, lice, and mites. Virbac’sVIRBAMEC Pour-On is approved as ageneric copy of Merial Ltd.’s IVOMECPour-On for Cattle, approved underNADA 140–841. The ANADA 200–318is approved as of September 21, 2001,and the regulations in 21 CFR 524.1193are amended to reflect the approval. Thebasis of approval is discussed in thefreedom of information summary.

In addition, Virbac AH, Inc., has notbeen previously listed in the animaldrug regulations as a sponsor of anapproved application. At this time, 21CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to addentries for the firm.

In accordance with the freedom ofinformation provisions of 21 CFR part20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary ofsafety and effectiveness data andinformation submitted to supportapproval of this application may be seenin the Dockets Management Branch(HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday.

The agency has determined under 21CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of atype that does not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment. Therefore,neither an environmental assessmentnor an environmental impact statementis required.

This rule does not meet the definitionof ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’Therefore, it is not subject to thecongressional review requirements in 5U.S.C. 801–808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

Administrative practice andprocedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

21 CFR Part 524

Animal drugs.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs and redelegated tothe Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21CFR parts 510 and 524 are amended asfollows:

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS


Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,353, 360b, 371, 379e.

2. Section 510.600 is amended in thetable in paragraph (c)(1) byalphabetically adding an entry for‘‘Virbac AH, Inc.’’ and in the table inparagraph (c)(2) by numerically addingan entry for ‘‘051311’’ to read as follows:

§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and druglabeler codes of sponsors of approvedapplications.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *



Firm name and address Drug labeler code

* * * * * * *Virbac AH, Inc., 3200 Meacham Blvd., Ft. Worth,

TX 76137051311

* * * * * * *

(2) * * *

Drug labeler code Firm name and address

* * * * * * *051311 Virbac AH, Inc., 3200 Meacham Blvd., Ft. Worth,

TX 76137

* * * * * * *

PART 524—OPHTHALMIC ANDTOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEWANIMAL DRUGS


Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

§ 524.1193 [Amended]

4. Section 524.1193 Ivermectin pour-on is amended in paragraph (b) byadding ‘‘051311,’’ after ‘‘051259,’’ andin paragraph (e)(2) by removing‘‘Damalina’’ and by adding in its place‘‘Damalinia’’.

Dated: November 9, 2001.Stephen F. Sundlof,Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.[FR Doc. 01–30037 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–S



21 CFR Part 520

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs;Carprofen


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending theanimal drug regulations to reflectapproval of a supplemental new animaldrug application (NADA) filed by Pfizer,Inc. The supplemental NADA providesfor a once daily, 2-milligram per pound(mg/lb) dosage of carprofen, by oralcaplet, for the relief of pain andinflammation associated withosteoarthritis in dogs.DATES: This rule is effective December 5,2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Melanie R. Berson, Center for VeterinaryMedicine (HFV–110), Food and DrugAdministration, 7500 Standish Pl.,Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–7540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pfizer,Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY10017–5755, filed a supplement toapproved NADA 141–053 that providesfor veterinary prescription use ofRIMADYL (carprofen) Caplets for therelief of pain and inflammationassociated with osteoarthritis in dogs.The supplemental NADA provides for aonce daily, 2-mg/lb dosage for the oralcaplet dosage form. The supplementalapplication is approved as of September27, 2001, and the regulations areamended in 21 CFR 520.309 to reflectthe approval. The basis of approval isdiscussed in the freedom of informationsummary.

In accordance with the freedom ofinformation provisions of 21 CFR part20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary ofsafety and effectiveness data andinformation submitted to supportapproval of this application may be seenin the Dockets Management Branch(HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday.

Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act(21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), thisapproval for non-food-producinganimals qualifies for 3 years ofmarketing exclusivity beginningSeptember 27, 2001, because theapplication contains substantialevidence of effectiveness of the druginvolved or any studies of animal safetyrequired for approval of the applicationand conducted or sponsored by theapplicant.

The agency has determined under 21CFR 25.33(d)(1) that this action is of atype that does not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment. Therefore,neither an environmental assessmentnor an environmental impact statementis required.

This rule does not meet the definitionof ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) becauseit is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’Therefore, it is not subject to thecongressional review requirements in 5U.S.C. 801–808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520Animal drugs.Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs and redelegated tothe Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21CFR part 520 is amended as follows:

PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORMNEW ANIMAL DRUGS


Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.2. Section 520.309 is amended in

paragraph (a) by adding ‘‘(mg)’’ after‘‘milligrams’’; and by revising paragraph(d) to read as follows:

§ 520.309 Carprofen.* * * * *

(d) Conditions of use in dogs—(1)Amount—(i) Caplet. 2 mg per pound (/lb) of body weight once daily or 1 mg/lb twice daily.

(ii) Chewable tablet. 1 mg/lb twicedaily.

(2) Indications for use. For the reliefof pain and inflammation associatedwith osteoarthritis in dogs.

(3) Limitations. Federal law restrictsthis drug to use by or on the order ofa licensed veterinarian.






21 CFR Part 520

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs;Ivermectin Liquid


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending theanimal drug regulations to reflectapproval of an abbreviated new animaldrug application (ANADA) filed by FirstPriority, Inc. The ANADA provides fororal use of ivermectin solution in horsesfor the treatment and control of variousspecies of internal and cutaneousparasites.DATES: This rule is effective December 5,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Lonnie W. Luther, Center for VeterinaryMedicine (HFV–102), Food and DrugAdministration, 7500 Standish Pl.,Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–0209.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FirstPriority, Inc., 1585 Todd Farm Dr.,Elgin, IL 60123, filed ANADA 200–321for PRIMECTINTM (ivermectin) EquineOral Liquid. The application providesfor oral use of a 1.0 percent ivermectinsolution in horses for the treatment andcontrol of various species ofgastrointestinal nematodes, lungworms,stomach bots, and cutaneous larvae andmicrofilariae. First Priority’sPRIMECTINTM Equine Oral Liquid isapproved as a generic copy of MerialLtd.’s EQVALAN (ivermectin) OralLiquid for Horses, approved underNADA 140–439. ANADA 200–321 isapproved as of September 7, 2001, and21 CFR 520.1195 is amended to reflectthe approval. The basis of approval isdiscussed in the freedom of informationsummary.

In accordance with the freedom ofinformation provisions of 21 CFR part20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary ofsafety and effectiveness data andinformation submitted to supportapproval of this application may be seenin the Dockets Management Branch(HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday.

The agency has determined under 21CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of atype that does not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment. Therefore,neither an environmental assessmentnor an environmental impact statementis required.

This rule does not meet the definitionof ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) becauseit is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’Therefore, it is not subject tocongressional review requirements in 5U.S.C. 801–808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520Animal drugs.Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs and redelegated tothe Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21CFR part 520 is amended as follows:

PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORMNEW ANIMAL DRUGS


Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.2. Section 520.1195 is amended in

paragraph (b) by adding ‘‘058829,’’ after‘‘051259’’; by revising the heading ofparagraph (c) and paragraph (c)(1); inparagraph (c)(2) by removing ‘‘It is usedin horses’’; and in paragraph (c)(3) byremoving the first sentence to read asfollows:

§ 520.1195 Ivermectin liquid.

* * * * *(c) Conditions of use in horses—(1)

Amount. 200 micrograms per kilogramof body weight as a single dose bystomach tube or as an oral drench.


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AZ060–OPP; FRL–7112–8]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of theOperating Permits Program for thePinal County Air Quality ControlDistrict, AZ

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action tofully approve the Pinal County AirQuality Control District (Pinal orDistrict) operating permits program. ThePinal program was submitted inresponse to the directive in the 1990Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments thatpermitting authorities develop, andsubmit to EPA, programs for issuingoperating permits to all major stationarysources and to certain other sourceswithin the permitting authorities’jurisdiction. On October 30, 1996, EPAgranted interim approval to Pinal’soperating permits program. The Districtrevised its program to satisfy theconditions of the interim approval, andEPA proposed full approval in theFederal Register on September 20, 2001,contingent upon Pinal submitting therules to EPA as a revision to its part 70program. Pinal County did so, and EPAdid not receive any comments on theproposed action. This actionpromulgates final full approval of thePinal operating permits program.EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective onNovember 30, 2001.ADDRESSES: Copies of Pinal’s submittaland other supporting information usedin developing this final full approval areavailable for inspection during normalbusiness hours at the following location:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, California 94105. You mayalso see copies of the submitted title Vprogram at the following location: PinalCounty Air Quality Control District,Building F, 31 North Pinal Street,Florence, Arizona 85232.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Emmanuelle Rapicavoli, EPA Region 9,at (415) 972–3969 [email protected] INFORMATION: Thissection contains additional informationabout our final rulemaking, organized asfollows:I. Background on the Pinal County Air

Quality Control District operating permitsprogram

II. EPA’s Final ActionIII. Effective date of EPA’s full approval of

the Pinal County Air Quality ControlDistrict operating permits program

I. Background on the Pinal County AirQuality Control District OperatingPermits Program

The Clean Air Act (CAA)Amendments of 1990 required all stateand local permitting authorities todevelop operating permits programs thatmeet certain federal criteria. Pinal’soperating permits program wassubmitted in response to this directive.Because the District program



substantially, but not fully, met therequirements of part 70, EPA grantedinterim approval to the program in arulemaking published on October 30,1996. See 61 FR 55910. The interimapproval notice described theconditions that had to be met in orderfor the District program to receive fullapproval.

After Pinal revised its program toaddress the conditions of the interimapproval, EPA promulgated a proposalto approve the District’s title Voperating permits program on

September 20, 2001, contingent uponPinal submitting the rules that wereadopted on September 5, 2001, as arevision to its part 70 program. See 66FR 48402.

II. EPA’s Final ActionEPA is granting full approval to the

operating permits program submitted bythe Pinal County Air Quality ControlDistrict based on the revisions adoptedon September 5, 2001, and submitted toEPA on September 18, 2001, whichsatisfactorily address the program

deficiencies identified in EPA’s October30, 1996 interim approval (61 FR55910). In addition, EPA is approving,as a title V operating permits programrevision, additional changes to Pinal’srules. The deficiency corrections andthe additional program revisions aredescribed in detail in the September 20,2001 proposal and its accompanyingtechnical support document. See 66 FR48402.

The rules for which we are grantingfinal approval are listed below.

Rule No. Rule title Adoptiondate

Submittaldate

PCR 1–3–140 (79) ............................. Definitions (definition of stationary source only) ............................................ 9/5/01 9/18/01PCR 3–1–040 ..................................... Applicability and Classes of Permits .............................................................. 9/5/01 9/18/01PCR 3–1–045 ..................................... Transition from Installation and Operating Permit Program ........................... 9/5/01 9/18/01PCR 3–1–050 ..................................... Permit Application Requirements ................................................................... 9/5/01 9/18/01PCR 3–1–081 ..................................... Permit Conditions ........................................................................................... 9/5/01 9/18/01PCR 3–4–420 ..................................... Standards of Conditional Orders .................................................................... 9/5/01 9/18/01PCR 3–5–490 ..................................... Application for Coverage under a General Permit ......................................... 9/5/01 9/18/01PCR 3–5–550 ..................................... Revocations of Authority to Operate under a General Permit ....................... 9/5/01 9/18/01

In its program submission, PinalCounty did not assert jurisdiction overIndian country. To date, no tribalgovernment in Pinal County has appliedto EPA for approval to administer a titleV program in Indian country within theCounty. EPA regulations at 40 CFR part49 govern how eligible Indian tribesmay be approved by EPA to implementa title V program on Indian reservationsand in non-reservation areas over whichthe tribe has jurisdiction. EPA’s part 71regulations govern the issuance offederal operating permits in Indiancountry. EPA’s authority to issuepermits in Indian country waschallenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C.Cir. No. 99–1151). On October 30, 2001,the court issued its decision in the case,vacating a provision that would haveallowed EPA to treat areas over whichEPA determines there is a questionregarding the area’s status as if it isIndian country, and remanding to EPAfor further proceedings. EPA willrespond to the court’s remand andexplain EPA’s approach for furtherimplementation of part 71 in Indiancountry in a future action.

III. Effective Date of EPA’s FullApproval of the Pinal County AirQuality Control District OperatingPermits Program

EPA is using the good cause exceptionunder the Administrative Procedure Act(APA) to make the full approval of theDistrict’s program effective onNovember 30, 2001. In relevant part, theAPA provides that publication of ‘‘asubstantive rule shall be made not less

than 30 days before its effective date,except—* * * (3) as otherwiseprovided by the agency for good causefound and published with the rule.’’ 5U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Section 553(b)(3)(B) ofthe APA provides that good cause maybe supported by an agencydetermination that a delay in theeffective date is impracticable,unnecessary, or contrary to the publicinterest. EPA finds that it is necessaryand in the public interest to make thisaction effective sooner than 30 daysfollowing publication. In this case, EPAbelieves that it is in the public interestfor the program to take effect beforeDecember 1, 2001. EPA’s interimapproval of Pinal County’s programexpires on December 1, 2001. In theabsence of this full approval of PinalCounty’s amended program taking effecton November 30, the federal programunder 40 CFR part 71 wouldautomatically take effect in PinalCounty and would remain in place untilthe effective date of the fully-approvedstate program. EPA believes it is in thepublic interest for sources, the publicand Pinal County to avoid any gap incoverage of the state program, as such agap could cause confusion regardingpermitting obligations. Furthermore, adelay in the effective date isunnecessary because Pinal County hasbeen administering the title V permitprogram for 5 years under an interimapproval. Through this action, EPA isapproving a few revisions to the existingand currently operational program. Thechange from the interim approvedprogram which substantially met the

part 70 requirements, to the fullyapproved program is relatively minor, inparticular if compared to the changesbetween a state-established andadministered program and the federalprogram.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866,‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this finalapproval is not a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ and therefore is not subject toreview by the Office of Management andBudget. Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) theAdministrator certifies that this finalapproval will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because itmerely approves state law as meetingfederal requirements and imposes noadditional requirements beyond thoseimposed by state law. This rule does notcontain any unfunded mandates anddoes not significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, as described in theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(Public Law 104–4) because it approvespre-existing requirements under statelaw and does not impose any additionalenforceable duties beyond that requiredby state law. This rule also does nothave tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect onone or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, as



specified by Executive Order 13175,‘‘Consultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000). This rulealso does not have Federalismimplications because it will not havesubstantial 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, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thisrule merely approves existingrequirements under state law, and doesnot alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the State andthe Federal government established inthe Clean Air Act. This final approvalalso is not subject to Executive Order13045, ‘‘Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) orExecutive Order 13211, ‘‘ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May22, 2001), because it is not a significantregulatory action under Executive Order12866. This action will not impose anycollection of information subject to theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other thanthose previously approved and assignedOMB control number 2060–0243. Foradditional information concerning theserequirements, see 40 CFR part 70. 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.

In reviewing State operating permitprograms submitted pursuant to title Vof the Clean Air Act, EPA will approveState programs provided that they meetthe requirements of the Clean Air Actand EPA’s regulations codified at 40CFR part 70. In this context, in theabsence of a prior existing requirementfor the State to use voluntary consensusstandards (VCS), EPA has no authorityto disapprove a State operating permitprogram for failure to use VCS. It wouldthus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when it reviews an operatingpermit program, to use VCS in place ofa State program that otherwise satisfiesthe provisions of the Clean Air Act.Thus, the requirements of section 12(d)of the National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.272 note) do not apply.

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that 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 on November 30, 2001.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CleanAir Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for theappropriate circuit by February 4, 2002.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).)


Environmental protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Air pollution control, Intergovernmentalrelations, Operating permits, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 27, 2001.

Wayne Nastri,Regional Administrator, Region 9.

40 CFR part 70, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations isamended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amendedby adding paragraph (d)(3) underArizona to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—ApprovalStatus of State and Local OperatingPermits Programs

* * * * *

Arizona

* * * * *(d) * * *

(3) revisions submitted on September 18,2001. Full approval is effective on November30, 2001.

* * * * *[FR Doc. 01–30100 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


40 CFR Part 70

[NJ002; FRL–7113–1]

Clean Air Act Final Full Approval ofOperating Permit Program; New Jersey


SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating finalfull approval of the operating permitprogram submitted by the State of NewJersey in accordance with Title V of theClean Air Act (the Act) and itsimplementing regulations. Thisapproved program allows New Jersey toissue federally enforceable operatingpermits to all major stationary sourcesand to certain other sources within theState’s jurisdiction.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 2001.ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’ssubmittal and other supportinginformation used in developing the finalfull approval are available for inspectionduring normal business hours at thefollowing location: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 2, 290Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NewYork 10007–1866.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Steven C. Riva, Chief, PermittingSection, Air Programs Branch, at theabove EPA office in New York or attelephone number (212) 637–4074.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thissection provides additional informationby addressing the following questions:

1. What is the operating permits program?2. What is being addressed in this

document?3. What are the program changes that EPA

is approving?4. What is involved in this final action?5. What is the effective date of EPA’s final

full approval of the New Jersey title Vprogram?

1. What Is the Operating PermitsProgram?

Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA)and its implementing regulations at 40CFR part 70 (part 70) direct all states todevelop and implement operatingpermit programs that meet certaincriteria. Operating permit programs areintended to consolidate into single



federally enforceable documents allCAA requirements that apply toindividual sources. This consolidationof all of the applicable requirements fora source enables the source, the public,and permitting authorities to moreeasily determine what CAArequirements apply and whether thesource is complying with them. Sourcesrequired to obtain operating permitsinclude ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollutionand certain other sources specified inCAA section 501 and in EPA’sregulations at 40 CFR 70.3.

The EPA reviews state programspursuant to title V of the CAA and part70, which outline the criteria forapproval or disapproval. Where aprogram substantially, but not fully,meets the requirements of part 70, EPAmay grant the program interim approvalwhich would be effective for two years.If a state does not have in place a fullyapproved program by the time theinterim approval expires, the federaloperating permit program under 40 CFRpart 71 (part 71) will be implemented.Due to unexpected circumstances thataffected states’ timeliness in developingfully approvable programs, EPAextended the effective date of all interimapprovals until December 1, 2001. Forany state that has not received fullapproval from EPA by December 1,2001, its interim approval will thenexpire and be immediately replaced bythe federal part 71 program. All sourcessubject to the federal program that donot have final part 70 permits alreadyissued to them by the state are thenrequired to submit a part 71 permitapplication and the appropriate feeswithin one year to their respective EPARegional offices under part 71.

2. What Is Being Addressed in ThisDocument?

New Jersey’s first version of itsoperating permit program substantially,but not fully, met the requirements ofpart 70; therefore, EPA granted theprogram interim approval on May 16,1996, which became effective on June17, 1996 (61 FR 24715). EPA identifiedfour issues that needed correction beforeNew Jersey would be eligible for fullapproval. New Jersey submitted acorrected program to EPA on May 31,2001, which addressed each of the fourdeficiencies.

On October 25, 2001, EPA proposedfull approval of New Jersey’s title Voperating permit program and providedthe public a period of 30 days to submitcomments on EPA’s proposed action (66FR 53969). During the 30-day commentperiod, EPA received no comments onthe proposed full approval. However,EPA finds it appropriate to clarify a

statement made in the ‘‘NonmajorSources Section’’ of the proposal. Whereit was stated that ‘‘[a]n exemption notonly relieves the subject sources fromthe permitting requirement; it alsorelieves them from the substantiverequirements,’’ EPA did not mean toimply that an exemption from thepermitting requirement would alsoexempt the subject source forsubstantive requirements in thestandard. The subject nonmajor sourcemust check the individual standards todetermine if requirements other than theneed to obtain a part 70 permit apply toit. This document finalizes EPA’s actionon the proposal.

3. What Are the Program Changes ThatEPA Is Approving?

The details on the program changescan be found in EPA’s proposed actionwhich was published in the October 25,2001 issue of the Federal Register (see66 FR 53969). In summary, EPAapproves the following changes to theNew Jersey Operating Permit Rule thatbecame effective on August 2, 1999:

(1) N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.20(b)(7);(2) N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.29(a) and

22.29(e); and(3) N.J.A.C. 7:27–22.1.

4. What Is Involved in This FinalAction?

The State of New Jersey has fulfilledthe conditions of the interim approvalgranted on May 16, 1996. EPA istherefore taking final action to fullyapprove New Jersey’s operating permitprogram. EPA is also taking final actionto approve other program changes madeby the State since the interim approvalwas granted as identified in the October25, 2001 issue of the Federal Registernotice (see 66 FR 53969). This final fullapproval has no expiration date.However, the State may revise itsoperating permit program as appropriatein the future by following theprocedures stipulated in 40 CFR 70.4(i).EPA may also exercise its oversightauthorities under section 502(i) of theAct to require changes to the State’sprogram consistent with the procedurestipulated in 40 CFR 70.10.

In its program submittal, New Jerseydid not assert jurisdiction over Indiancountry. To date, no tribal governmentin New Jersey has applied to EPA forapproval to administer a title V programin Indian country within the State. OnFebruary 12, 1998, EPA promulgatedregulations (40 CFR part 49) underwhich eligible Indian tribes may beapproved by EPA to implement a title Vprogram on Indian reservations and innon-reservation areas over which thetribe has jurisdiction. EPA has

promulgated regulations (40 CFR part71) governing the issuance of federaloperating permits in Indian country.EPA’s authority to issue permits inIndian country was challenged inMichigan v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. No. 99–1151). On October 30, 2001, the courtissued its decision in the case, vacatinga provision that would have allowedEPA to treat areas over which EPAdetermines there is a question regardingthe area’s status as if it is Indiancountry, and remanding to EPA forfurther proceedings. EPA will respondto the court’s remand and explain EPA’sapproach for further implementation ofpart 71 in Indian country in a futureaction.

5. What Is the Effective Date of EPA’sFinal Full Approval of the New JerseyTitle V Program?

EPA is using the good cause exceptionunder the Administrative Procedure Act(APA) to make the full approval of theState’s program effective on November30, 2001. In relevant part, section 553(d)provides that publication of ‘‘asubstantive rule shall be made not lessthan 30 days before its effective date,except—* * * (3) as otherwiseprovided by the agency for good causefound and published with the rule.’’Good cause may be supported by anagency determination that a delay in theeffective date is ‘‘impracticable,unnecessary, or contrary to the publicinterest.’’ APA section 553(b)(3)(B). EPAbelieves that it is necessary and in thepublic interest to make this actioneffective sooner than 30 days followingpublication. In this case, EPA believesthat it is in the public interest for theprogram to take effect before December1, 2001. EPA’s interim approval of NewJersey’s program expires on December 1,2001. In the absence of this fullapproval taking effect on November 30,2001, the federal part 71 program wouldautomatically take effect in New Jerseyand would remain in place until theeffective date of the fully-approved stateprogram. EPA believes it is in the publicinterest for sources, the public and theState to avoid any gap in coverage of theState program, as such a gap couldcause confusion regarding permittingobligations. Furthermore, a delay in theeffective date is unnecessary becauseNew Jersey has been administering thetitle V permit program for five yearsunder an interim approval. Through thisaction, EPA is approving a few revisionsto the existing and currently operationalprogram. The change from the interimapproved program which substantiallybut did not fully meet the part 70requirements, to the fully approvedprogram is relatively minor, in



particular if compared to the changesbetween a state-approved program andthe federal program. Finally, sources arealready complying with many of thenewly approved requirements as amatter of state law. Thus, there is littleor no additional burden with complyingwith these requirements under thefederally approved State program.

Administrative RequirementsUnder Executive Order 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this finalapproval is not a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ and therefore is not subject toreview by the Office of Management andBudget. Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) theAdministrator certifies that this finalapproval will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because itmerely approves state law as meetingfederal requirements and imposes noadditional requirements beyond thoseimposed by state law. This rule does notcontain any unfunded mandates anddoes not significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, as described in theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(Public Law 104–4) because it approvespre-existing requirements under statelaw and does not impose any additionalenforceable duties beyond that requiredby state law. This rule also does nothave tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect onone or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, asspecified by Executive Order 13175,‘‘Consultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000). This rulealso does not have Federalismimplications because it will not havesubstantial 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, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thisrule merely approves existingrequirements under state law, and doesnot alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the State andthe Federal government established inthe Clean Air Act. This final approvalalso is not subject to Executive Order13045, ‘‘Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May22, 2001), because it is not a significantregulatory action under Executive Order12866. This action will not impose anycollection of information subject to theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other thanthose previously approved and assignedOMB control number 2060–0243. Foradditional information concerning theserequirements, see 40 CFR part 70. 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.

In reviewing State operating permitprograms submitted pursuant to title Vof the Clean Air Act, EPA will approveState programs provided that they meetthe requirements of the Clean Air Actand EPA’s regulations codified at 40CFR part 70. In this context, in theabsence of a prior existing requirementfor the State to use voluntary consensusstandards (VCS), EPA has no authorityto disapprove a State operating permitprogram for failure to use VCS. It wouldthus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when it reviews an operatingpermit program , to use VCS in place ofa State program that otherwise satisfiesthe provisions of the Clean Air Act.Thus, the requirements of section 12(d)of the National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.272 note) do not apply.

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 on November 30, 2001.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CleanAir Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for theappropriate circuit by February 4, 2002.Filing a petition for reconsideration bythe Administrator of this final rule doesnot affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,Air pollution control, Intergovernmentalrelations, Operating permits, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 28, 2001.William J. Muszynski,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

For reasons set out in the preamble,chapter I, of the Code of FederalRegulations is amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amendedby adding paragraph (c) to the entry forNew Jersey to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—ApprovalStatus of State and Local OperatingPermit Programs

* * * * *

New Jersey

* * * * *(c) The New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection submitted programrevisions on September 17, 1999 and May 31,2001. The rule revisions contained in theSeptember 17, 1999 and May 31, 2001submittals adequately addressed theconditions of the interim approval effectiveon June 17, 1996, and which would expireon December 1, 2001. The State is herebygranted final full approval effective onNovember 30, 2001.



40 CFR Part 70

[OK–FRL–7113–7]

Clean Air Act Full Approval ofOperating Permits Program; State ofOklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final full approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating fullapproval of the Operating Permit



Program of the State of Oklahoma.Oklahoma’s Operating Permit Programwas submitted in response to thedirective in the 1990 Clean Air Act(CAA) Amendments that States develop,and submit to EPA, programs for issuingoperating permits to all major stationarysources and to certain other sourceswithin the States’ jurisdiction. The EPAgranted interim approval to Oklahoma’sOperating Permit Program on February5, 1996 (61 FR 4220). Oklahoma revisedits program to satisfy the conditions ofthe interim approval, and EPA proposedfull approval in the Federal Register onOctober 16, 2001.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 2001.ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’ssubmittal and other supportingdocumentation relevant to this actionare available for inspection duringnormal business hours at the U.S. EPA,Region 6, Air Permitting Section (6PD–R), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,Texas 75202–2733, and the OklahomaDepartment of Environmental Quality,707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City,Oklahoma 73102. Anyone wanting toexamine these documents should makean appointment with the appropriateoffice at least two working days inadvance.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Mary Stanton, Regional Title V AirOperating Permits Projects Manager, AirPermitting Section (6PD–R),Environmental Protection Agency,Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, at (214) 665–8377.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thissection provides additional informationby addressing the following questions:What is the Operating Permit Program?Why is EPA Taking this Action?What is Involved in this Final Action?What is the Effective Date of EPA’s Full

Approval of the Oklahoma Title Vprogram?

What is the Scope of EPA’s Full Approval?

What Is the Operating Permit Program?The CAA Amendments of 1990

required all States to develop OperatingPermit Programs that met certainFederal criteria. In implementing theOperating Permit Programs, thepermitting authorities require certainsources of air pollution to obtainpermits that contain all applicablerequirements under the CAA. The focusof the Operating Permit Program is toimprove enforcement by issuing eachsource a permit that consolidates all ofthe applicable CAA requirements into afederally enforceable document. Byconsolidating all of the applicablerequirements for a facility into a single

document, the source, the public, andthe regulators can more easily determinewhat CAA requirements apply and howcompliance with those requirements isdetermined.

Sources required to obtain anoperating permit under this programinclude ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollutionand certain other sources specified inthe CAA or in EPA’s implementingregulations. For example, all sourcesregulated under the acid rain program,regardless of size, must obtain operatingpermits. Examples of major sourcesinclude those that have the potential toemit 100 tons per year or more ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs),carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide,nitrogen oxides, or particulate matter;those that emit 10 tons per year of anysingle hazardous air pollutant (HAP)(specifically listed under the CAA); orthose that emit 25 tons per year or moreof a combination of HAPs. In areas thatare not meeting the National AmbientAir Quality Standards for ozone, carbonmonoxide, or particulate matter, majorsources are defined by the gravity of thenonattainment classification. Forexample, in ozone nonattainment areasclassified as serious, major sourcesinclude those with the potential ofemitting 50 tons per year or more ofVOCs.

Why Is EPA Taking This Action?Where an Operating Permit Program

substantially, but not fully met thecriteria outlined in the implementingregulations codified at 40 CFR part 70,EPA granted interim approvalcontingent on the State revising itsprogram to correct the deficiencies.Because Oklahoma’s Operating PermitProgram substantially, but not fully metthe requirements of part 70, EPAgranted interim approval to the programin a rulemaking published on February5, 1996 (61 FR 4220). Interim approvalof Oklahoma’s program expires onDecember 1, 2001.

What Is Involved in This Final Action?The Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) hasfulfilled the conditions of interimapproval granted on February 5, 1996.On October 16, 2001, EPA published adocument in the Federal Register (66FR 52562) proposing full approval ofOklahoma’s title V Operating PermitsProgram, and proposing approval ofcertain other program revisions. TheEPA received comments from oneperson during the comment period thatran from October 16, 2001, untilNovember 15, 2001. Two of thecomments agreed with EPA that thedeficiencies for the first, second, and

fourth conditions (transition schedulefor permit issuance, major sourcedefinition, and permit language content)for full approval have been corrected.The remainder of the commentsdisagreed with EPA’s position, and areset forth below.

1. Oklahoma Administrative Code/Tracking Part 70 Language

The first adverse comment was ageneral comment that Oklahoma shouldamend its operating permits regulationsso that the language tracks the languagein 40 CFR part 70. The commentercontends that Oklahoma’s regulationsmust track the language of 40 CFR part70 to retain the effect and intent of theClean Air Act. Otherwise, according tothe commenter, EPA is put in theposition of trying to renegotiate theClean Air Act.

EPA does not concur with thecomment. Part 70 provides for theestablishment of a comprehensive Stateair quality permitting programconsistent with the requirements of titleV of the Clean Air Act. 40 CFR 70.1(a).The state’s program does not have toexactly track the language in part 70, butit must be consistent with it. 40 CFR70.1(c). This allows for flexibility by theState to adopt the regulations to fit itsneeds while maintaining nationalconsistency. The EPA has determinedthat Oklahoma’s program is consistentwith part 70 with the exception of theminor issues outlined in the Notice ofDeficiency located elsewhere in thisFederal Register.

2. Insignificant Activities ListThe second adverse comment

questioned why the insignificantactivities definition in Oklahoma’s ruleand the approved list of insignificantactivities in Appendix I of Subchapter 8remain as a part of the OklahomaAdministrative Code if the EPA is notapproving the list. The commenterquestioned whether EPA has theauthority to approve the list andwhether the regulation tracks thelanguage of 40 CFR part 70.

The authority to approve aninsignificant activities list is found at 40CFR 70.5(c), which states that ‘‘theAdministrator may approve as a part ofthe State program a list of insignificantactivities and emissions levels whichneed not be included in permitapplications.’’ As EPA stated in theFederal Register when it granted finalinterim approval to Oklahoma, ‘‘eventhough insignificant activities are not arequired element of a part 70 program,a State that opts to establish suchactivities must nevertheless meet certainrequirements, including prior approval



by EPA.’’ 61 FR 4220, 4221. As EPAstated when it proposed granting fullapproval, the emission levels in thedefinition are consistent with the levelsin other approved State OperatingPermit Programs. Even though EPA didnot approve the list of insignificantactivities, the list remains a part ofOklahoma’s regulations as a matter ofstate law. However, it is not part ofOklahoma’s approved title V program.Therefore, EPA does not concur withthis comment.

3. Judicial Review

The third adverse comment involvedwhat the commenter characterized asthe ‘‘judicial review’’ process, but wasnot related to the deficiency as outlinedby EPA when we granted Oklahomainterim approval. The comment dealtwith whether certain constructionpermits are classified as a Tier II or TierIII permit and how this affects ‘‘judicialreview.’’ If a permit is characterized asTier II, the commenter claims that‘‘judicial review’’ is avoided because ofthe lack of an administrative hearing. Ifit is classified as a Tier III permit anda hearing is held, the commentercontends that certain regulationsgoverning administrative hearings suchas employment of the administrativelaw judge, declaratory rulingprocedures, restricting attendance atadministrative hearings in appropriatecases, and burden of proof restrictjudicial review.

EPA does not agree with thiscomment. Judicial review in thisinstance refers to the ability of anindividual to appeal a decision from anadministrative agency to state court, nothow (or whether) the state conducts anadministrative hearing. Thus, thecomments are not related to judicialreview but instead are related to the TierII and Tier III permit process as outlinedin Oklahoma Administrative Code(OAC) Title 252, Chapter 4. The EPA isnot approving this entire Chapter as apart of this action. As previously stated,EPA is not approving any provision ofSubchapter 8 which relates toconstruction permits, or any otherprovision contained in the submittalwhich does not pertain to Title V. 66 FRat 52564. The EPA found only one issuewith judicial review as it relates to thestate’s Operating Permit program (nojudicial review for persons who madeoral comments), and that deficiency hasbeen corrected. The EPA does notbelieve that these comments are relevantto any interim approval issue or to theaction that EPA is taking today.

4. Enhanced New Source Review (NSR)Procedures

The fourth adverse comment statesthat by not defining the term ‘‘EnhancedNew Source Review (NSR) procedures’’,Oklahoma has effectively avoided theNSR procedures in the Clean Air Act.The commenter believes that permitswhich should have been subject to 40CFR part 70 will be shielded from theNSR procedures. The commenter feelsthat the state should use the exactlanguage of 40 CFR part 70 in regardsto ‘‘Enhanced NSR procedures’’ and thatOklahoma is allowed to approve permitswithout using NSR procedures.

The commenter appears to believethat because Oklahoma used theundefined term ‘‘enhanced NSRprocedures’’ in the Title V context,certain sources that would haveotherwise been subject to NSRprocedures will no longer be subject tothose procedures. However, this is notthe case. The title V program and theNSR program have different proceduresand requirements. As noted in theOctober 16, 2001 proposed fullapproval, Oklahoma has deleted theterm ‘‘enhanced NSR procedures’’ fromits regulations and has instead made thecommitments detailed in the proposaland discussed in paragraph 6. Thus, wewill describe the issue in more generalterms. Under certain conditions, a statemay allow the incorporation into a part70 permit, the requirements frompreconstruction review permitsauthorized under an EPA-approvedprogram through the use of theadministrative permit amendmentprocess. As provided in 70.7(d)(1)(v),the EPA approved NSR permittingprogram must meet proceduralrequirements substantially equivalent tothe requirements of part 70 that wouldbe applicable to the change if the changewere subject to review as a permitmodification. Thus, the proceduresrequired by 40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(v) for useof the administrative amendmentprocess are in addition to the Clean AirAct’s New Source Review requirementsand do not abrogate those requirements.These procedures are not related to theinstallation of pollution controls asstated by the commenter. The EPA doesnot concur with these comments.

5. Options To Address Use ofAdministrative Amendment Process ToIncorporate Requirements FromPreconstruction Permits Into the Title VPermit

In the Federal Register, EPA statedthat it had given Oklahoma four optionsto address outstanding issues from thesixth and seventh interim approval

deficiencies. These options includedOklahoma either including provisionsin the title V permit that meet therequirements of 40 CFR 70.7 and 70.8(the option ultimately chosen byOklahoma) or amending the regulationto track the language in 40 CFR70.7(d)(1)(v). The commenter contendsthat the regulation should be amendedso that the language tracks the languagein part 70. Otherwise, according to thecommenter, it opens the door torenegotiate the language of the Clean AirAct.

As set forth in response to the firstcomment, a State does not have to usethe exact language of part 70 whenpromulgating its operating permitsprogram. Therefore, we do not agreewith this comment.

6. Permit LanguageAs stated in the Federal Register, EPA

and Oklahoma agreed on nineconditions it would include in itspermits to implement its desire to usethe administrative amendment processto incorporate requirements frompreconstruction permits into a title Vpermit. 66 FR at 52564. The commenterhad several objections to theseprovisions. Three of these commentsrelated to the 30 day public notice andcomment period, contending that 30days is insufficient to analyze thepermit and that the public will not haveanother 30 day comment period whenthe construction permit is incorporatedin the title V permit. However, thispermit condition is consistent with thefederal requirements outlined in 40 CFR70.7(h)(4) which requires the permittingauthority to provide at least 30 days forpublic comment.

The commenter also objected to therequirement that the public notice statethat EPA review, EPA objection, andpetitions to EPA will not be availablewhen the preconstruction requirementsare incorporated into a title V permit.However, EPA review, EPA objection,and the EPA petition process isavailable during the construction permitprocess. The purpose of requiring thislanguage in the public notice is to putthe public on notice that the time toobject to the permit is during theconstruction permit process, not when itis incorporated into the title V permit.This procedure is authorized by 40 CFR70.7(d)(1)(v), and thus we do not agreewith this comment.

Two comments related to the criteriafor determining what States are affected(i.e., affected states). The federaldefinition of ‘‘affected states’’ is foundat 40 CFR 70.2. Oklahoma’s definition(OAC 252:100–8–2) is consistent withthe federal definition.



1 The deficiencies relating to permit review byEPA and affected states has been corrected. SeeItem 7 above.

The commenter states that EPAreview, objections, and petitions shouldbe posted on the ODEQ and EPA websites. There is no legal requirement topost EPA review, objections, or petitionson Oklahoma’s or EPA’s website.However, EPA does post title Vpetitions and its response to the petitionon a website. These documents can befound at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb.htm.

Finally, the commenter asserts thatthe language of 40 CFR 70.7(f) and (g)should be a part of the OklahomaAdministrative Code (OAC) and not bemodified by OAC 252:100–8–7.3(a), (b),and (c). The language of 40 CFR 70.7(f)and (g) is not modified by OAC252:100–8–7.3(a), (b), and (c). Thecitations to the OklahomaAdministrative Code are to theprocedures for reopening permits thatEPA has approved as meeting the part70 requirements. They do not modify 40CFR 70.7(f) and (g). If EPA reopens apermit for cause, it will use theprocedures in 40 CFR 70.7(f) and (g).

7. Approval by the Governor

There were two comments relating tothe Governor’s approval of Oklahoma’sproposed revisions to OAC 252:100–8–8, which corrected the deficienciesrelating to permit review by EPA andaffected states. EPA noted that theGovernor must approve this regulationbefore it becomes effective. Thecommenter was concerned that theGovernor would not approve theserevisions. However, the Governor hasapproved these revisions, andOklahoma submitted these revisions toEPA by letter dated October 19, 2001.

8. Program Deficiencies

The commenter also asserted that theissues identified as additional programdeficiencies were not minor and thatthey should be corrected prior to fullapproval. The EPA stated in the October16, 2001 notice that it would publish anotice of deficiency concerningrevisions Oklahoma made to itsOperating Permits Program that did notmeet the requirements of part 70. Thesedeficiencies relate to publicparticipation, Tier I air qualityapplications, definitions, permitcontent, administrative permitamendments, minor permitmodification procedures, and permitreview by EPA and affected States.1These deficiencies were identified in aJune 12, 2001 letter to Oklahoma.

However, for the reasons discussedbelow, we disagree that thesedeficiencies prohibit us from grantingOklahoma full program approval at thistime.

In 1990, Congress amended the CAA,42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., by adding titleV, 42 U.S.C. 7661 to 7661f, whichrequires certain air pollutant emittingfacilities, including ‘‘major source[s]’’and ‘‘affected source[s],’’ to obtain andcomply with operating permits. See 42U.S.C. 7661a(a). Title V is intended tobe administered by local, state orinterstate air pollution control agencies,through permitting programs that havebeen approved by EPA. See 42 U.S.C.7661a(a). EPA is charged withoverseeing the State’s efforts toimplement an approved program,including reviewing proposed permitsand vetoing improper permits. See 42U.S.C. 7661a(i) and 7661d(b).Accordingly, title V of the CAAprovides a framework for thedevelopment, submission and approvalof state operating permit programs.Following the development andsubmission of a state program, the CAAprovides two different approval optionsthat EPA may utilize in acting on statesubmittals. See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d) and(g). Pursuant to section 502(d), EPA‘‘may approve a program to the extentthat the program meets the requirementsof the Act * * *’’. EPA may act on suchprogram submittals by approving ordisapproving, in whole or in part, thestate program. An alternative option foracting on state programs is provided bythe interim approval provision ofsection 502(g). This section states: ‘‘[i]fa program * * * substantially meets therequirements of this title, but is not fullyapprovable, the Administrator may byrule grant the program interimapproval.’’ This provision provides EPAwith the authority to act on Stateprograms that substantially, but do notfully, meet the requirements of title Vand part 70. Only those programsubmittals that meet the requirements ofeleven key program areas are eligible toreceive interim approval. See 40 CFR70.4(d)(3)(i)–(xi). Finally, section 502(g)directs EPA to ‘‘specify the changes thatmust be made before the program canreceive full approval.’’ 42 U.S.C.7661a(g); 40 CFR 70.4(e)(3). Thisexplicit directive encompasses another,implicit one: once a state corrects thespecified deficiencies, then it will beeligible for full program approval. EPAbelieves this is so even if deficiencieshave been identified sometime afterfinal interim approval, either becausethe deficiencies arose after EPA grantedinterim approval or, if the deficiencies

existed at that time, EPA failed toidentify them as such in proposing togrant interim approval.

Thus, an apparent tension existsbetween these two statutory provisions.Standing alone, section 502(d) appearsto prevent EPA from granting a stateoperating permit program full approvaluntil the state has corrected alldeficiencies in its program no matterhow insignificant, and withoutconsideration as to when suchdeficiency was identified. Alternatively,section 502(g) appears to require thatEPA grant a state program full approvalif the state has corrected those issuesthat the EPA identified in the finalinterim approval. The central question,therefore, is whether by virtue ofcorrecting the deficiencies identified inthe final interim approval Oklahoma iseligible at this time for full approval orwhether Oklahoma must also correctany new or recently identifieddeficiencies as a prerequisite toreceiving full program approval.

According to settled principles ofstatutory construction, statutoryprovisions should be interpreted so thatthey are consistent with one another.See Citizens to Save Spencer County v.EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 870 (D.C. Cir. 1979).Where an agency encountersinconsistent statutory provisions, itmust give maximum possible effect toall of the provisions, while remainingwithin the bounds of its statutoryauthority. Id. at 870–71. Wheneverpossible, the agency’s interpretationshould not render any of the provisionsnull or void Id. Courts have recognizedthat agencies are often delegated theresponsibility to interpret ambiguousstatutory terms in such a fashion. SeeChevron U.S.A, Inc. v. NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc., 467U.S. 837, 845 (1984). Harmoniousconstruction is not always possible,however, and furthermore should not besought if it requires distorting thelanguage in a fashion never imagined byCongress. Citizens to Save SpencerCounty, 600 F.2d at 870.

In this situation, in order to give effectto the principles embodied in title Vthat major stationary sources of airpollution be required to have anoperating permit that conforms tocertain statutory and regulatoryrequirements, and that operating permitprograms be administered and enforcedby state permitting authorities, theappropriate and more cohesive readingof the statute recognizes EPA’s authorityto grant Oklahoma full approval in thissituation while working simultaneouslywith the state, in its oversight capacity,on any additional problems that wererecently identified. To conclude



otherwise would disrupt the currentadministration of the state program andcause further delay in Oklahoma’sability to issue operating permits tomajor stationary sources. A smoothtransition from interim approval to fullapproval is in the best interest of thepublic and the regulated communityand best reconciles the statutorydirectives of title V.

Furthermore, requiring the State to fixall of the deficiencies that wereidentified in the June 12, 2001 letter toreceive full approval runs counter to theestablished regulatory process that isalready in place to deal with newlyidentified program deficiencies. Section502(i)(4) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.4(i)and 70.10 provides EPA with theauthority to issue notices of deficiency(‘‘NOD’’) whenever EPA makes adetermination that a permittingauthority is not adequatelyadministering or enforcing a part 70program, or that the State’s permitprogram is inadequate in any other way.The Oklahoma title V interim approvalexpires on December 1, 2001. Thisdeadline does not provide adequatetime for the State to correct newlyidentified issues prior to the expirationof interim approval. Allowing theState’s program to expire because ofissues identified as recently as June 12,2001 would cause disruption andfurther delay in the issuance of permitsto major stationary sources inOklahoma. As explained above, we donot believe that title V requires such aresult. Rather, the appropriatemechanism for dealing with additionaldeficiencies that are identifiedsometime after a program receivedinterim approval, but prior to beinggranted full approval is a NOD asdiscussed above. This process providesthe State an adequate amount of timeafter such findings to implement anynecessary changes without undulydisrupting the entire state operatingpermit program. As a result, addressingnewly identified problems separatelyfrom the full approval process will notcause these issues to go unaddressed.Therefore, the deficiencies EPAidentified are not a barrier to grantingfull approval to States.

9. Comments on Pre-ConstructionPermit

The commenter also made severalcomments regarding a preconstructionpermit. Since these comments do notpertain to the action proposed in theFederal Register notice or toOklahoma’s Operating Permits Program,EPA is not providing a response.

What Is the Effective Date of EPA’s FullApproval of the Oklahoma Title VProgram?

The EPA is using the good causeexception under the AdministrativeProcedure Act (APA) to make the fullapproval of the State’s program effectiveon November 30, 2001. In relevant part,the APA provides that publication of ‘‘asubstantive rule shall be made not lessthan 30 days before its effective date,except—* * * (3) as otherwiseprovided by the agency for good causefound and published with the rule.’’ 5U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Good cause may besupported by an agency determinationthat a delay in the effective date is‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contraryto the public interest.’’ 5 U.S.C.553(b)(3)(B). The EPA finds that it isnecessary and in the public interest tomake this action effective sooner than30 days following publication. In thiscase, EPA believes that it is in thepublic interest for the program to takeeffect before December 1, 2001. TheEPA’s interim approval of Oklahoma’sprogram expires on December 1, 2001.In the absence of the full approval ofOklahoma’s program taking effect onNovember 30, the federal program under40 CFR part 71 would automaticallytake effect in Oklahoma and wouldremain in place until the effective dateof the fully-approved state program.EPA believes it is in the public interestfor sources, the public, and the State ofOklahoma to avoid any gap in coverageof the State program, as such a gapcould cause confusion regardingpermitting obligations. Furthermore, adelay in the effective date isunnecessary because Oklahoma hasbeen administering the title V permitprogram for over five years under aninterim approval. Through this action,EPA is approving a few revisions to theexisting and currently operationalprogram. The change from the interimapproved program, which substantiallybut not fully met the part 70requirements, to the fully approvedprogram is relatively minor, inparticular if compared to the changesbetween a state-approved program andthe Federal program.

What Is the Scope of EPA’s FullApproval?

In its program submission, Oklahomadid not assert jurisdiction over Indiancountry. To date, no tribal governmentin Oklahoma has applied to EPA forapproval to administer a title V programin Indian country within the state. EPAregulations at 40 CFR part 49 governhow eligible Indian tribes may beapproved by EPA to implement a title V

program on Indian reservations and innon-reservation areas over which thetribe has jurisdiction. EPA’s part 71regulations govern the issuance offederal operating permits in Indiancountry. EPA’s authority to issuepermits in Indian country waschallenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C.Cir. No. 99–1151). On October 30, 2001,the court issued its decision in the case,vacating a provision that would haveallowed EPA to treat areas over whichEPA determines there is a questionregarding the area’s status as if it isIndian country, and remanding to EPAfor further proceedings. EPA willrespond to the court’s remand andexplain EPA’s approach for furtherimplementation of part 71 in Indiancountry in a future action.


‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this finalapproval is not a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ and therefore is not subject toreview by the Office of Management andBudget. Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), theAdministrator certifies that this finalapproval will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because itmerely approves State law as meetingFederal requirements and imposes noadditional requirements beyond thoseimposed by State law. This rule doesnot contain any unfunded mandates anddoes not significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, as described in theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(Public Law 104–4) because it approvespre-existing requirements under statelaw and does not impose any additionalenforceable duties beyond that requiredby state law. This rule also does nothave tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect onone or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, asspecified by Executive Order 13175,‘‘Consultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000). This rulealso does not have Federalismimplications because it will not havesubstantial 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, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The



rule merely approves existingrequirements under state law, and doesnot alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the State andthe Federal government established inthe Clean Air Act. This final approvalalso is not subject to Executive Order13045, ‘‘Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) orExecutive Order 13211, ‘‘ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May22, 2001), because it is not asignificantly regulatory action underExecutive Order 12866. This action willnot impose any collection ofinformation subject to the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.3501 et seq., other than those previouslyapproved and assigned OMB controlnumber 2060–0243. For additionalinformation concerning theserequirements, see 40 CFR part 70. 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 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 it

is published in the Federal Register.This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ asdefined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rulewill be effective on November 30, 2001.




Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated November 29, 2001.

Lawrence E. Starfield,Acting Deputy Regional Administrator,Region 6.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, Appendix A of part 70 isamended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]



2. Appendix A to part 70 is amendedunder the entry for Oklahoma by addingparagraph (b) to read as follows:


* * * * *

Oklahoma

* * * * *(b) The Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality submitted programrevisions on July 27, 1998. The rule revisionsadequately addressed the conditions of theinterim approval effective on March 6, 1996,and which will expire on December 1, 2001.The State is hereby granted final fullapproval effective on November 30, 2001.

* * * * *[FR Doc. 01–30149 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



40 CFR Part 70

[AZ062–OPP; FRL–7113–4]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of theOperating Permits Program; ArizonaDepartment of Environmental Quality,Maricopa County EnvironmentalServices Department, Pima CountyDepartment of Environmental Quality,AZ


SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action tofully approve the operating permitsprograms submitted by the State ofArizona (collectively ‘‘the Arizonaprograms’’) on behalf of the ArizonaDepartment of Environmental Quality(‘‘ADEQ’’ or ‘‘State’’), Maricopa CountyEnvironmental Services Department(‘‘MCESD’’ or ‘‘Maricopa’’), and PimaCounty Department of EnvironmentalQuality, Arizona (‘‘PDEQ’’ or ‘‘Pima’’).The Arizona programs were submittedin response to the directive in the 1990Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments thatpermitting authorities develop, andsubmit to EPA, programs for issuingoperating permits to all major stationarysources and to certain other sourceswithin the permitting authorities’jurisdiction. On October 30, 1996, EPAgranted interim approval to the ADEQ,MCESD and PDEQ operating permitsprograms. These agencies revised theirprograms to satisfy the conditions of theinterim approval, and EPA proposedfull approval of the ADEQ, MCESD, andPDEQ programs in the Federal Registeron October 2, 2001, October 18, 2001,and September 10, 2001, respectively.EPA received three comments on ourproposed full approval of the ADEQprogram and one comment on theMaricopa program. EPA’s responses areincluded in Section II of this action.

This action promulgates final fullapproval of the ADEQ, MCESD andPDEQ operating permits programs.EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective onNovember 30, 2001.ADDRESSES: Copies of the ADEQ,MCESD, and PDEQ submittals and othersupporting information used indeveloping this final full approval areavailable for inspection during normalbusiness hours at the following location:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, California 94105. You mayalso see copies of the submitted title Vprograms for each of the respectiveagencies at the following locations:



(1) ADEQ—Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 3033 Northcentral Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona85012–2809.

(2) MCESD—Maricopa CountyEnvironmental Services Department,Air Quality Division, 1001 NorthCentral Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix,Arizona 85004.

(3) PDEQ—Pima County Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 130 WestCongress Street, Tucson, Arizona85701

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Emmanuelle Rapicavoli, EPA Region 9,at 415–972–3969 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thissection contains additional informationabout our final rulemaking, organized asfollows:I. Background on the ADEQ, MCESD, and

PDEQ Operating permits programSII. Comments received by EPA on our

proposed rulemaking and EPA’s responsesIII. EPA’s final action.

I. Background on the ADEQ, MCESD,and PDEQ Operating Permits Programs

The Clean Air Act (CAA)Amendments of 1990 required all stateand local permitting authorities todevelop operating permits programs thatmeet certain federal criteria. The ADEQ,MCESD, and PDEQ operating permitsprograms were submitted in response tothis directive. Because the Arizonaprograms substantially, but not fully,met the requirements of part 70, EPAgranted interim approval to theprograms in a rulemaking published onOctober 30, 1996. See 61 FR 55910. Theinterim approval notice described theconditions that had to be met in orderfor the Arizona programs to receive fullapproval.

The State, Maricopa and Pima revisedtheir title V programs to address theconditions of the interim approval. EPApromulgated proposals to approve theADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ programs onOctober 2, 2001 (66 FR 50136), October18, 2001 (66 FR 52882), and September10, 2001 (66 FR 46972), respectively.

II. Comments Received by EPA on OurProposed Rulemaking and EPA’sResponses

EPA received three comment letterson our proposed full approval of theADEQ program and one comment letteron the Maricopa program. With oneexception, all of the comment lettersfocused exclusively on the need torevise the major source definition inPart 70. EPA published a final ruleaddressing this issue on November 27,2001 and therefore EPA is not

responding to those comments. EPA’sresponse to the remaining comments onthe ADEQ program, submitted by TheArizona Center for Law in the PublicInterest (ACLPI), is set out below.

1. Excess Emissions ProvisionACLPI objects to language in R18–2–

310 that establishes an affirmativedefense for violations occurring duringstartup and shutdown. EPA hasproposed to approve the removal ofR18–2–310 from the title V program:

In addition to proposing to approvethe rules listed in Table 1, EPA is alsoproposing to approve the removal ofR18–2–310, Excess Emissions, from theState’s title V program.See 66 FR 50138, October 2, 2001.Therefore, EPA construes ACLPI’scomment as supporting its proposedaction.

2. Reference Test Methods and CredibleEvidence

ACLPI contends that ADEQ’s title Vpermits routinely require only specifictest methods and do not allow foradditional credible evidence to bepresented to prove, or disprove, analleged violation. They state that theState’s operating permit program doesnot appear to include EPA’s credibleevidence rule. ACLPI concludes that,before Arizona’s title V program is fullyapproved, ADEQ must make thenecessary changes to include theCredible Evidence Rule.

EPA agrees with the commenter’spoint that state implementation plansand permits should not bar the use ofcredible evidence for determiningwhether a source is in compliance. Wedisagree, however, with thecommenter’s suggestion that a permitcondition that requires a source tomonitor in accordance with a specificmethod bars the use of additionalcredible evidence in determiningcompliance.

The preamble to EPA’s CredibleEvidence Revisions states that the‘‘regulation merely removes [from 40CFR parts 51, 52, 60 and 61] what somehave construed to be a regulatory bar tothe admission of non-reference test datato prove a violation of an emissionstandard.’’ See 62 FR 8315, February 24,1997. One aspect of EPA’s review of titleV programs and permits includes adetermination that no bars toenforcement are included. For example,EPA would consider language such as‘‘compliance shall be determined by testmethod X’’ as problematic. Contrary toACLPI’s position, neither the CAA norEPA’s regulations require part 70programs or permits to include specificreferences to credible evidence. The

presumption is that, absent languageprecluding its use, credible evidencecan be used. ACLPI argues, for example,that the North Star Steel draft permitrequires that the permittee shall performinitial and annual performance tests todetermine opacity using EPA Method 9.ACLPI suggests that this condition barsthe use of credible evidence to prove ordisprove an alleged violation. EPAdisagrees. Permits must imposemonitoring requirements on sourcesand, in order to be effective, mustspecify the type of monitoring a sourcemust undertake. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3).The language in the draft North StarSteel permit does not bar the use ofother credible evidence. It merely setsout the source’s monitoringobligations.EPA understands that ADEQshares our interpretation.

3. Arizona’s Confidentiality Provision

ACLPI commented that Arizona’soperating permits program is notapprovable because it does notadequately satisfy federal standards andthat A.R.S. 49–432 must be amended toaccommodate the public’s right to haveaccess to information. The opportunityfor public comment on EPA’s proposedaction to grant full approval of theADEQ program was limited to the issueof whether ADEQ corrected the itemsEPA had identified as programdeficiencies during the interim approvalprocess. Thus, EPA’s proposal to grantfull approval did not include ADEQ’sconfidentiality provisions, which EPAhad previously approved as part ofADEQ’s program. See 61 FR 55915,October 30, 1996. The comment istherefore beyond the scope of thisrulemaking. However, EPA will beresponding to this same comment,which was also raised by ACLPI duringthe 90-day public comment period,under separate cover by December 14,2001.

4. Definition of Major Source

ACLPI comments that EPA cannotlawfully approve Arizona’s major sourcedefinition unless EPA completes therulemaking process that will change thedefinition in part 70. EPA agrees withACLPI and in fact took that position inthe notice proposing full approval ofADEQ’s program. We stated that our fullapproval of the ADEQ program wascontingent on EPA finalizing changes tothe major source definition that wouldresult in ADEQ’s major sourcedefinition being consistent with part 70.See 66 FR 50138, October 2, 2001. EPAfinalized these changes in a rule signedby the Administrator on November 19,2001, and published in the Federal



Register on November 27, 2001 (See 66FR 59161).

5. Fugitive Emissions From AgriculturalEquipment

ACLPI states that there is nolegitimate reason to exclude agriculturalequipment from regulation under title Vand therefore, EPA cannot fully approveArizona’s title V program until A.R.S.§ 49–426(B) is amended to require thatagricultural sources count fugitiveemissions.

Arizona’s program does not excludeagricultural equipment from regulationunder title V. As noted in EPA’s noticegranting interim approval of ADEQ’stitle V program, the Arizona AttorneyGeneral submitted an opinion that thelegislature in no way sought to exemptany major sources when it granted anexemption to agricultural equipmentused in normal farm operations. Theopinion went on to state that this wasclarified by AAC R18–2–302(c)(3),which provides that agriculturalequipment used in normal farmoperations does not include equipmentthat requires a permit under title V oris subject to a standard under 40 CFRparts 60 or 61. EPA deferred to thatopinion, but noted that if there is asuccessful legal challenge to the ADEQ’sregulation, we would revisit this portionof the program approval. See 61 FR55915, October 30, 1996.

Part 70 currently requires that fugitiveemissions generated by sources that aresubject to a standard promulgated undersection 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Actmust be included when determiningwhether a source is major. Sources arealso required to count all fugitiveemissions of hazardous air pollutants.Under part 70, fugitive emissions fromany agricultural equipment regulated bysuch standards or that emits hazardousair pollutants must count towards themajor source threshold. ADEQ’s rulesare consistent with this approach.

After carefully reviewing andconsidering the issues raised by thecommenter, EPA is taking final action togive full approval to the Arizonaoperating permits program.

III. EPA’s Final Action

A. Full Approval of Operating PermitPrograms

EPA is granting full approval to theoperating permits programs submittedby ADEQ, MCESD, and, Pima based onthe revisions submitted for ADEQ onAugust 11, 1998, May 9, 2001, andSeptember 7, 2001, for MCESD onSeptember 7, 2001, and for PDEQ onMay 28, 1998 and November 9, 2001,which satisfactorily address the programdeficiencies identified in EPA’s October30, 1996 interim approval (61 FR55910). EPA is also approving, as titleV operating permits program revisions,additional changes made to the Arizonaprograms. These deficiency correctionsand additional program revisions aredescribed in detail in the FederalRegister notices proposing full approvalof the Arizona programs and theiraccompanying technical supportdocuments.

In our proposed approvals of theArizona programs, we noted that ADEQ,MCESD, and PDEQ had revised theirmajor source definition in anticipationof EPA finalizing a previously proposedchange (59 FR 44460; August 29, 1994)to the major source definition in part 70.Paragraph (c) of Arizona programs’definition of major source lists sourcecategories that must count fugitives.Subparagraph (xxvii) has been modifiedto read: ‘‘All other stationary sourcecategories regulated by a standardpromulgated as of August 7, 1980 undersection 111 or 112 of the Act, but onlywith respect to those air pollutants thathave been regulated for that category.’’Emphasis added. The addition of this1980 cutoff date restricts the types ofsources that are required to countfugitives towards the major sourcethreshold. At the time of our proposedfull approvals this change wasinconsistent with part 70. BecauseEPA’s proposed revision to the majorsource definition would incorporate the1980 cutoff date we proposed toapprove the ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQdefinition of major source contingent onEPA finalizing our proposed change topart 70.

On November 19, 2001, theAdministrator signed a rulemakingpackage that finalized EPA’s change toparagraph (2)(xvii) of the part 70definition of major source. The revisedparagraph now reads, ‘‘(xvii) Any otherstationary source category, which as ofAugust 7, 1980 is being regulated by astandard promulgated under section 111or 112 of the Act.’’ This change meansthat part 70 no longer requires states toprovide that sources in categoriessubject to standards under sections 111or 112 promulgated after August 7, 1980must include fugitive emissions indetermining major source status undersection 302 or part D of title I of theClean Air Act. As a consequence of thischange to part 70, the definition ofmajor source in the Arizona programs isno longer inconsistent with part 70 andis now fully approvable.

In addition to the above describedchange, EPA has deleted the phrase ‘‘butonly with respect to those air pollutantsthat have been regulated for thatcategory’’ from paragraph (c)(xvii) of thepart 70 definition of major source. EPAproposed to delete this phrase in its1995 supplemental proposal to revisepart 70. See 60 FR 45530, August 31,1995. States, including the Arizonaagencies, must revise their part 70programs accordingly, and submit therevision to EPA within 12 months of thedate of publication of the final rule. Ifa state can demonstrate that additionallegal authority is needed, the deadlinefor submittal of a revised program canbe extended to 24 months after EPA’srule is published.

For more details on these changes tothe part 70 major source definition,please see the notice signed by theAdministrator on November 19, 2001and published in the Federal Registeron November 27, 2001 (See 66 FR59161). Interested parties can downloadthe final rule from EPA’s website on theInternet under recent actions at thefollowing address: http//www.epa.gov/ttn.oarpg/ramain.html.

The rules for which we are grantingfull approval are listed in the tablesbelow.

TABLE 1.—ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Rule No. Rule title and specific sections being approved Effective Submitted

R18–2–101 (61) ................................. Definitions—definition of ‘‘Major source’’ only ................................................ 6/4/98 8/11/98R18–2–304 ......................................... Permit application processing procedures ..................................................... 12/20/99 5/9/01R18–2–306 ......................................... Permit contents ............................................................................................... 6/4/98 8/11/98R18–2–320 ......................................... Significant Permit Revisions ........................................................................... 12/20/99 5/9/01R18–2–331 ......................................... Material Permit Conditions ............................................................................. 6/4/98 8/11/98

In addition to proposing to approving the rules listed in Table 1, EPA is also removing R18–2–310, Excess Emissions,from the State’s title V program.



TABLE 2.—MARICOPA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Rule No. Rule title and specific sections proposed for approval Adopted Submitted

Regulation I, Rule 100 ....................... General Provisions and Definitions ................................................................• The following provisions from § 200, Definitions: § 200.26 ‘‘Building,

Structure, Facility, or Installation’’ § 200.58 ‘‘Insignificant Activity’’§ 200.60 ‘‘Major Source’’ § 200.107 ‘‘Trade Secret’’ § 200.108 ‘‘Trivial Ac-tivity’’

• § 402, Confidentiality of Information• § 500 Monitoring of Records

8/22/01 9/7/01

Regulation I, Rule 130 ....................... Emergency Provisions .................................................................................... 7/26/00 9/7/01Regulation II, Rule 200 ...................... Permit Requirements ......................................................................................

• § 308—Standards for Applications• § 312—Transition from Installation and Operating Permit Program to Uni-

tary Permit Program

8/22/01 9/7/01

Regulation II, Rule 210 ...................... Title V Permit Provisions ................................................................................• § 301.4(h)• § 302.1(j)• § 302.1(n)• § 404—Administrative Permit Amendments• § 405.1• § 408—Public Participation

2/7/01 9/7/01

Appendix D ......................................... List of Insignificant Activities ........................................................................... 8/22/01 9/7/01Appendix E ......................................... List of Trivial Activities .................................................................................... 8/22/01 9/7/01

TABLE 3.—PIMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Rule No. Rule title and specific sections being approved Adopted Submitted

17.04.340.A. (122) .............................. Words, phrases, and terms—definition of ‘‘Major source’’ only ..................... 9/11/01 11/9/0117.04.340.A. (109) .............................. Words, phrases, and terms—definition of ‘‘Insignificant activity’’ only ........... 4/7/98 5/28/9817.12.150 ............................................ Transition from installation and operating permit program to unitary permit

program.9/11/01 11/9/01

17.12.160 ............................................ Permit application processing procedures ..................................................... 4/7/98 5/28/9817.12.180 ............................................ Permit contents ............................................................................................... 4/7/98 5/28/9817.12.345 ............................................ Public notification ............................................................................................ 4/7/98 5/28/98

B. Effective Date of Full Approval

EPA is using the good cause exceptionunder the Administrative Procedure Act(APA) to make the full approval of theArizona programs effective onNovember 30, 2001. In relevant part, theAPA provides that publication of ‘‘asubstantive rule shall be made not lessthan 30 days before its effective date,except—* * * (3) as otherwiseprovided by the agency for good causefound and published with the rule.’’ 5U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Section 553(b)(3)(B) ofthe APA provides that good cause maybe supported by an agencydetermination that a delay in theeffective date is impracticable,unnecessary, or contrary to the publicinterest. EPA finds that it is necessaryand in the public interest to make thisaction effective sooner than 30 daysfollowing publication. In this case, EPAbelieves that it is in the public interestfor the Arizona programs to take effectbefore December 1, 2001. EPA’s interimapproval of the Arizona programsexpires on December 1, 2001. In theabsence of this full approval ofArizona’s amended programs takingeffect on November 30, the federalprogram under 40 CFR part 71 would

automatically take effect in Arizona andwould remain in place until theeffective date of the fully-approved stateprogram. EPA believes it is in the publicinterest for sources, the public, ADEQ,MCESD, and PCDEQ to avoid any gap incoverage of the Arizona program, assuch a gap could cause confusionregarding permitting obligations.Furthermore, a delay in the effectivedate is unnecessary because ADEQ,MCESD, and PCDEQ have beenadministering the title V permit programfor 5 years under an interim approval.Through this action, EPA is approvinga few revisions to the existing andcurrently operational program. Thechange from the interim approvedprogram which substantially met thepart 70 requirements, to the fullyapproved program is relatively minor, inparticular if compared to the changesbetween a state-established andadministered program and the federalprogram.

C. Scope of the Full ApprovalIn their program submissions, neither

ADEQ, Maricopa County nor PimaCountry asserted jurisdiction overIndian country. To date, no tribalgovernment in Arizona has applied to

EPA for approval to administer a title Vprogram in Indian country within thestate. EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 49govern how eligible Indian tribes maybe approved by EPA to implement a titleV program on Indian reservations and innon-reservation areas over which thetribe has jurisdiction. EPA’s part 71regulations govern the issuance offederal operating permits in Indiancountry. EPA’s authority to issuepermits in Indian country waschallenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C.Cir. No. 99–1151). On October 30, 2001,the court issued its decision in the case,vacating a provision that would haveallowed EPA to treat areas over whichEPA determines there is a questionregarding the area’s status as if it isIndian country, and remanding to EPAfor further proceedings. EPA willrespond to the court’s remand andexplain EPA’s approach for furtherimplementation of part 71 in Indiancountry in a future action.

D. Public Comment LettersOn May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a

rulemaking that extended the interimapproval period of 86 operating permitsprograms until December 1, 2001. (65FR 32035) The action was subsequently



challenged by the Sierra Club and theNew York Public Interest ResearchGroup (NYPIRG). In settling thelitigation, EPA agreed to publish anotice in the Federal Register thatwould alert the public that they mayidentify and bring to EPA’s attentionalleged programmatic and/orimplementation deficiencies in Title Vprograms and that EPA would respondto their allegations within specified timeperiods if the comments were madewithin 90 days of publication of theFederal Register notice.

Two groups submitted comments onwhat they believe to be deficiencieswith respect to the Arizona, MaricopaCounty and Pima County Title Vprograms. As stated in the FederalRegister notice published on October 2,2001 (66 FR 50136), October 18, 2001(66 FR 52882), and September 10, 2001(66 FR 46972) proposing to fullyapprove Arizona, Maricopa County andPima County operating permit programsrespectively, EPA takes no action onthose comments in today’s action.Rather, EPA expects to respond byDecember 14, 2001 to timely publiccomments on programs that haveobtained interim approval, and by April1, 2002 to timely comments on fullyapproved programs. We will publish anotice of deficiency (NOD) when wedetermine that a deficiency exists, or wewill notify the commenter in writing toexplain our reasons for not making afinding of deficiency. In addition, wewill publish a notice of availability inthe Federal Register notifying thepublic that we have responded inwriting to these comments and how thepublic may obtain a copy of ourresponse. An NOD will not necessarilybe limited to deficiencies identified bycitizens and may include anydeficiencies that we have identifiedthrough our program oversight.Furthermore, in the future, EPA mayissue an additional NOD if EPA or acitizen identifies other deficiencies.


‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this finalapproval is not a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ and therefore is not subject toreview by the Office of Management andBudget. Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) theAdministrator certifies that this finalapproval will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because itmerely approves state law as meetingfederal requirements and imposes noadditional requirements beyond thoseimposed by state law. This rule does not

contain any unfunded mandates anddoes not significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, as described in theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(Public Law 104–4) because it approvespre-existing requirements under statelaw and does not impose any additionalenforceable duties beyond that requiredby state law. This rule also does nothave tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect onone or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, asspecified by Executive Order 13175,‘‘Consultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000). This rulealso does not have Federalismimplications because it will not havesubstantial 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, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thisrule merely approves existingrequirements under state law, and doesnot alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the State andthe Federal government established inthe Clean Air Act. This final approvalalso is not subject to Executive Order13045, ‘‘Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) orExecutive Order 13211, ‘‘ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May22, 2001), because it is not a significantregulatory action under Executive Order12866. This action will not impose anycollection of information subject to theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other thanthose previously approved and assignedOMB control number 2060–0243. Foradditional information concerning theserequirements, see 40 CFR part 70. 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.

In reviewing State operating permitprograms submitted pursuant to title Vof the Clean Air Act, EPA will approveState programs provided that they meetthe requirements of the Clean Air Actand EPA’s regulations codified at 40CFR part 70. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirementfor the State to use voluntary consensusstandards (VCS), EPA has no authorityto disapprove a State operating permitprogram for failure to use VCS. It wouldthus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when it reviews an operatingpermit program , to use VCS in place ofa State program that otherwise satisfiesthe provisions of the Clean Air Act.Thus, the requirements of section 12(d)of the National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.272 note) do not apply.

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added bythe Small Business RegulatoryEnforcement Fairness Act of 1996,generally provides that before a rulemay take effect, the agencypromulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House of the Congressand to the Comptroller General of theUnited States. EPA will submit a reportcontaining this rule and other requiredinformation to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.House of Representatives, and theComptroller 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. section 804(2). Thisrule will be effective on November 30,2001.




Dated: November 28, 2001.Wayne Nastri,Regional Administrator, Region 9.




PART 70—[AMENDED]


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amendedby revising paragraphs (a) and (b), andadding paragraph (c)(3) under Arizonato read as follows:


* * * * *

Arizona

(a) Arizona Department of EnvironmentalQuality:

(1) Submitted on November 15, 1993 andamended on March 14, 1994; May 17, 1994;March 20, 1995; May 4, 1995; July 22, 1996;and August 12, 1996; interim approvaleffective on November 29, 1996; interimapproval expires December 1, 2001.

(2) Revisions submitted on August 11,1998, May 9, 2001 and September 7, 2001.Full approval is effective on November 30,2001.

(b) Maricopa County EnvironmentalServices Department:

(1) Submitted on November 15, 1993 andamended on December 15, 1993; January 13,1994; March 9, 1994; and March 21, 1995;July 22, 1996; and August 12, 1996; interimapproval effective on November 29, 1996;interim approval expires December 1, 2001.

(2) Revisions submitted on September 7,2001. Full approval is effective on November30, 2001.

(c) * * *(3) Revisions submitted on May 30, 1998

and November 9, 2001. Full approval iseffective on November 30, 2001.



40 CFR Part 70

[NY002; FRL–7113–3]

Clean Air Act Final Full Approval ofOperating Permit Program; State ofNew York


SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating finalfull approval of the operating permitprogram submitted by the State of NewYork in accordance with Title V of theClean Air Act (the Act) and itsimplementing regulations codified. Thisapproved program allows New York toissue federally enforceable operatingpermits to all major stationary sources

and to certain other sources within theState’s jurisdiction. However, becausecertain of the regulations are emergencyrules that will expire on December 21,2001, unless extended, EPA isapproving this program only until theexpiration date of the emergency rules.EPA has proposed approval ofpermanent rules that are substantivelythe same as the emergency rules and theState expects to submit those rules infinal adopted form shortly. Once theserules become effective, EPA willpromulgate another final programapproval to replace this action. In theinterim, the emergency rules will still bein effect and, therefore, New York willstill have a fully approved program. IfEPA has not approved the State’srevised permanent rules before theemergency rules expire, New York’s titleV permit program will expire and thefederal program will automaticallyapply. If New York’s emergency rulesexpire as discussed above and a federalprogram under part 71 takes effect in thestate, EPA will provide notice to thepublic within two weeks of the effectivedate of the federal program in asubsequent Federal Register document.Because EPA received adversecomments on the proposed actionpublished in the October 25, 2001Federal Register (66 FR 53966), thisaction responds to those comments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’ssubmittal and other supportinginformation used in developing thisfinal full approval are available forinspection during normal businesshours at the following location: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,New York, New York 10007–1866.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Steven C. Riva, Chief, PermittingSection, Air Programs Branch, at theabove EPA office in New York or attelephone number (212) 637–4074.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thissection provides additional informationby addressing the following questions:

1. What is the operating permit program?2. What is being addressed in this

document?3. What were the concerns raised by the

commenters?4. What is the public’s role in identifying

program deficiencies?5. What are the program changes that EPA

is approving?6. What is involved in this final action?7. What is the scope of EPA’s full

approval?8. What is the effective date of EPA’s final

full approval of the State of New York titleV program?

1. What Is the Operating PermitProgram?

Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act)and its implementing regulations at 40CFR part 70 (part 70) direct all states todevelop and implement operatingpermit programs that meet certaincriteria. Operating permit programs areintended to consolidate into singlefederally enforceable documents allrequirements of the Act that apply toindividual sources. This consolidationof all of the applicable requirements fora source enables the source, the public,and permitting authorities to moreeasily determine what requirements ofthe Act apply and whether the source iscomplying with them. Sources requiredto obtain operating permits include‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution andcertain other sources specified insection 501 of the Act and in EPA’sregulations at 40 CFR 70.3.

The EPA reviews state programspursuant to title V of the Act and part70, which outline the criteria forapproval or disapproval. Where aprogram substantially, but not fully,meets the requirements of part 70, EPAmay grant the program interim approvalwhich would be effective for two years.If a state does not have in place a fullyapproved program by the time theinterim approval expires, the federaloperating permit program under 40 CFRpart 71 (part 71) will automatically takeeffect. Due to unexpected circumstancesthat affected states’ timeliness indeveloping fully approvable programs,EPA extended the effective date of allinterim approvals until December 1,2001. For any state that has not receivedfull approval from EPA by December 1,2001, its interim approval will thenexpire and be immediately replaced bythe federal part 71 program. All sourcessubject to the federal program that donot have final part 70 permits alreadyissued to them by the state will berequired to submit a part 71 permitapplication and the appropriate feeswithin one year to their respective EPARegional offices under part 71.

2. What Is Being Addressed in ThisDocument?

New York State’s first version of itsoperating permit program substantially,but not fully, met the requirements ofpart 70; therefore, EPA granted interimprogram approval on November 7, 1996,which became effective on December 9,1996 (61 FR 57589). In the interimapproval rulemaking EPA identifiedeight issues that needed correctionbefore New York would be eligible forfinal full approval. New York Statesubmitted a corrected program to EPA



on June 8, 1998, which addressed threeof the deficiencies. The State submitteda second corrected program to EPA onOctober 5, 2001, which addressed threeadditional deficiencies. The latter threecorrections were submitted in final formas emergency rules, which will expireon December 21, 2001, unless extended.At the same time, New York submittedproposed permanent rules (which wereidentical to the emergency rules) whichwill replace the emergency rules, andwhich the State is currently in theprocess of adopting. The State willsubmit the permanent rules shortly afterthe completion of the State’s publiccomment process, and before theexpiration of the emergency rules.

As discussed in the proposedapproval notice (66 FR 53966), EPA nolonger considers the remaining twoissues to be deficiencies. First, becauseNew York State affords more time thanpart 70 requires for citizens to file apetition for judicial review, this issue isnot considered to be a programdeficiency. The second issue related tothe definition of ‘‘major source.’’ EPArecently promulgated regulationsrevising the definition of major source,which is now consistent with thedefinition included in the New YorkState operating permit program. Assuch, there is no longer a programdeficiency with respect to thisdefinition.

On October 25, 2001, EPA proposedfull approval of New York State’s titleV operating permit program andprovided the public a period of 30 daysto submit comments on EPA’s proposedaction (66 FR 53966). The proposedapproval concerned the three permanentrules submitted on June 8, 1998(effective on June 26, 1998) as well asthe emergency and draft permanentrules submitted on October 5, 2001.During the 30-day comment period, EPAreceived one comment letter datedNovember 23, 2001, from the New YorkPublic Interest Research Group(NYPIRG). The comments contained inthat letter are addressed below.

3. What Were the Concerns Raised bythe Commenters?

On November 23, 2001, we receiveda comment letter from NYPIRG on theproposed full approval of the New Yorkprogram. In this notice, we are onlyaddressing the comments which relateto our determination that New York hascorrected the interim approvaldeficiencies in its title V program. Mostof the comments submitted by NYPIRGare outside the scope of this actionbecause they do not address the interimapproval deficiencies and thesubsequent correction of these

deficiencies. Some of these issues havebeen raised previously by NYPIRG,either in its April 13, 1999 petition onthe New York State Title V program, insubsequent facility specific petitions, orin its March 11, 2001 letter submitted inresponse to EPA’s December 2000notice.

Of the remaining comments, four arenew allegations of deficiencies in theNew York State Title V program. Thatis, these allegations were not submittedin response to EPA’s December 2000notice that alerted the public to identifyand bring to EPA’s attention allegedprogrammatic and/or implementationdeficiencies in state operating permitprograms. These four comments are alsooutside of the scope of the eight issuesidentified by EPA in the November 7,1996 Federal Register notice grantinginterim program approval to New YorkState. Nonetheless, EPA will investigatethese allegations to ascertain whetherthey constitute a deficiency in the NewYork State’s Title V program, and EPAwill respond appropriately.

In its comment letter, NYPIRGchallenged our ability to proceed withfull approval of New York’s programwhen, according to the comment, theprogram does not clearly conform to therequirements of part 70.

EPA is aware that issues other thanthose listed in the November 7, 1996,interim approval may exist in the NewYork program. EPA agrees that theseissues must be addressed. For thereasons discussed below, however, wedisagree that newly identifieddeficiencies that may exist prohibit usfrom granting New York full programapproval at this time.

In 1990, Congress amended the CleanAir Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 to 7671q(‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘Act’’), by adding title V, 42U.S.C. 7661 to 7661f, which requirescertain air pollutant emitting facilities,including ‘‘major source[s]’’ and‘‘affected source[s],’’ to obtain andcomply with operating permits. See 42U.S.C. 7661a(a). Title V is intended tobe administered by local, state orinterstate air pollution control agencies,through permitting programs that havebeen approved by EPA. See 42 U.S.C.7661a(a). EPA is charged withoverseeing the State’s efforts toimplement an approved program,including reviewing proposed permitsand vetoing improper permits. See 42U.S.C. §§ 7661a(i) and 7661d(b).Accordingly, Title V of the CAAprovides a framework for thedevelopment, submission and approvalof state operating permit programs.Following the development andsubmission of a state program, the Actprovides two different approval options

that EPA may utilize in acting on statesubmittals. See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d) and(g). Pursuant to section 502(d), EPA‘‘may approve a program to the extentthat the program meets the requirementsof the Act * * *’’ EPA may act on suchprogram submittals by approving ordisapproving, in whole or in part, thestate program. An alternate option foracting on state programs is provided bythe interim approval provision ofsection 502(g). This section states: ‘‘If aprogram * * * substantially meets therequirements of this title, but is not fullyapprovable, the Administrator may byrule grant the program interimapproval.’’ This provision provides EPAwith the authority to act on Stateprograms that substantially, but do notfully, meet the requirements of Title Vand part 70. Only those programsubmittals that meet the requirements ofeleven key program areas are eligible toreceive interim approval. See 40 CFR70.4(d)(3)(i)–(xi). Finally, section 502(g)directs EPA to ‘‘specify the changes thatmust be made before the program canreceive full approval.’’ 42 U.S.C.7661a(g); 40 CFR 70.4(e)(3). Thisexplicit directive encompasses another,implicit one: Once a state corrects thespecified deficiencies then it will beeligible for full program approval. EPAbelieves this is so even if deficiencieshave been identified sometime afterfinal interim approval, either becausethe deficiencies arose after EPA grantedinterim approval or, if the deficienciesexisted at that time, EPA failed toidentify them as such in proposing togrant interim approval.

Thus, an apparent tension existsbetween these two statutory provisions.Standing alone, section 502(d) appearsto prevent EPA from granting a stateoperating permit program full approvaluntil the state has corrected alldeficiencies in its program no matterhow insignificant, and withoutconsideration as to when suchdeficiency was identified. Alternately,section 502(g) appears to require thatEPA grant a state program full approvalif the state has corrected those issuesthat the EPA identified in the finalinterim approval. The central question,therefore, is whether New York byvirtue of correcting the deficienciesidentified in the final interim approvalis eligible at this time for full approval,or whether New York must also correctany new or recently identifieddeficiencies that may exist as aprerequisite to receiving full programapproval.

According to settled principles ofstatutory construction, statutoryprovisions should be interpreted so thatthey are consistent with one another.



See Citizens to Save Spencer County v.EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 870 (D.C. Cir. 1979).Where an agency encountersinconsistent statutory provisions, itmust give maximum possible effect toall of the provisions, while remainingwithin the bounds of its statutoryauthority. Id. at 870–71. Wheneverpossible, the agency’s interpretationshould not render any of the provisionsnull or void. Id. Courts have recognizedthat agencies are often delegated theresponsibility to interpret ambiguousstatutory terms in such a fashion. SeeChevron U.S.A, Inc. v. NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc., 467U.S. 837, 845 (1984). Harmoniousconstruction is not always possible,however, and furthermore should not besought if it requires distorting thelanguage in a fashion never imagined byCongress. Citizens to Save SpencerCounty, 600 F.2d at 870.

In this situation, in order to give effectto the principles embodied in Title Vthat major stationary sources of airpollution be required to have anoperating permit that conforms tocertain statutory and regulatoryrequirements, and that operating permitprograms be administered and enforcedby state permitting authorities, theappropriate and more cohesive readingof the statute recognizes EPA’s authorityto grant New York full approval in thissituation while working simultaneouslywith the state, in its oversight capacity,on any additional problems that wererecently identified. To concludeotherwise would disrupt the currentadministration of the state program andcause further delay in the state’s abilityto issue operating permits to majorstationary sources. A smooth transitionfrom interim approval to full approval isin the best interest of the public and theregulated community and bestreconciles the statutory directives ofTitle V.

Furthermore, requiring the State to fixall of the deficiencies that may exist andthat have been recently identified priorto receiving full approval runs counterto the established regulatory processthat is already in place to deal withnewly identified program deficiencies.Section 502(i)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR70.4(i) and 70.10 provide EPA with theauthority to issue notices of deficiency(‘‘NOD’’) whenever EPA makes adetermination that a permittingauthority is not adequatelyadministering or enforcing a part 70program, or that the State’s permitprogram is inadequate in any other way.Consistent with these provisions, in itsNOD EPA will specify a reasonable timeframe for the permitting authority tocorrect the identified deficiency. The

New York Title V interim approvalexpires on December 1, 2001. Thisdeadline does not provide adequatetime for the State to correct newlyidentified issues that may exist prior tothe expiration of interim approval.Allowing the State’s program to expirebecause of issues identified as recentlyas March 2001 will cause disruptionand further delay in the issuance ofpermits to major stationary sources inNew York. As explained above, we donot believe that Title V requires such aresult. Rather, the appropriatemechanism for dealing with additionaldeficiencies that are identifiedsometime after a program receivedinterim approval but prior to beinggranted full approval is the notice ofprogram deficiency or administrationdeficiency as discussed herein. Thisprocess provides the State an adequateamount of time after such findings toimplement any necessary changeswithout unduly disrupting the entirestate operating permit program. As aresult, addressing newly identifiedproblems separately from the fullapproval process will not cause theseissues to go unaddressed. Moreover,proceeding in this manner allows for amore rational and orderly method foraddressing new issues as they arise.

In addition, NYPIRG submitted onecomment that directly relates to NewYork’s full program approval process.This comment relates to the definitionof ‘‘major source.’’ NYPIRG commentedthat EPA can only grant full approval ifa program complies with part 70 as itexists on the date of full programapproval. That is, approval cannot bebased on a determination that a programcomplies with proposed regulations.EPA agrees. The decision to grant fullapproval is based on the fact that thedefinition of major source in New YorkState’s program is now consistent withthe definition in part 70. In EPA’sproposed approval of the New YorkState program, it was noted that theagency had proposed revisions to part70 relative to the major sourcedefinition that, when finalized, wouldbe consistent with the definition in NewYork’s rules. New York’s definition ofmajor source, which lists sourcecategories that must include fugitiveemissions in determining major sourcestatus reads, in part: ‘‘All other sourcecategories regulated by a standard underSections 111, for which EPA hascompleted a rulemaking proceedingunder 302(j) of the Act or 112 of the Act,but only with respect to those airpollutants that have been regulated forthat category as of the effective date ofthis Part.’’ On November 27, 2001, the

Agency published in the FederalRegister a rule that finalized EPA’schange to paragraph (2)(xvii) of the part70 definition of major source. See 66 FR59161, November 27, 2001. The revisedparagraph now reads, ‘‘(xvii) Any otherstationary source category, which as ofAugust 7, 1980 is being regulated by astandard promulgated under section 111or 112 of the Act.’’ This change meansthat part 70 no longer requires states toprovide that sources in categoriessubject to standards under sections 111or 112 promulgated after August 7, 1980must include fugitive emissions indetermining major source status undersection 302 or part D of title I of the Act.The definition of major source in theNew York program is now consistentwith part 70. Although the New Yorkdefinition is different than the EPAdefinition, the State’s definition coversat least the same source categories aspart 70 (as revised) and, therefore, it isnow fully approvable.

In addition to the above describedchange, EPA has deleted the phrase ‘‘butonly with respect to those air pollutantsthat have been regulated for thatcategory’’ from paragraph (c)(xvii) of thepart 70 definition of major source. EPAproposed to delete this phrase in its1995 supplemental proposal to revisepart 70. See 60 FR 45530, August 31,1995. States, including New York, mustrevise their part 70 programsaccordingly, and submit the revision toEPA within 12 months of the date ofpublication of the final rule. If a statecan demonstrate that additional legalauthority is needed, the deadline forsubmittal of a revised program can beextended to 24 months after EPA’s ruleis published.

4. What Is the Public’s Role inIdentifying Program Deficiencies?

On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated arulemaking that extended the interimapproval period of 86 operating permitprograms until December 1, 2001. (65FR 32035). The action was subsequentlychallenged by the Sierra Club andNYPIRG. In settling the litigation, EPAagreed to publish a notice in the FederalRegister that would alert the public thatthey may identify and bring to EPA’sattention alleged programmatic and/orimplementation deficiencies in title Vprograms and that EPA would respondto their allegations within specified timeperiods if the comments were madewithin 90 days of publication of theFederal Register notice. EPA publishedthat notice on December 11, 2000. (65FR 77276).

Several citizens commented on whatthey believe to be deficiencies withrespect to the New York State Title V



program. As stated in the FederalRegister notice published on October25, 2001 proposing to fully approveNew York State’s operating permitprogram, EPA takes no action on thosecomments in today’s action. Rather,EPA expects to respond by December14, 2001, to timely public comments onprograms that had obtained interimapproval, and by April 1, 2002, totimely comments on fully approvedprograms. EPA will publish a notice ofdeficiency (NOD) when it is determinedthat a deficiency exists, or EPA willnotify the commenter in writing toexplain the agency’s reasons for notmaking a finding of deficiency. Inaddition, EPA will publish a notice ofavailability in the Federal Registernotifying the public that the agency hasresponded in writing to these commentsand how the public may obtain a copyof such a response. An NOD will notnecessarily be limited to deficienciesidentified by citizens and may includeany deficiencies that EPA has identifiedthrough its program oversight.Furthermore, in the future, EPA mayissue an additional NOD if EPA or acitizen identifies other deficiencies.

5. What Are the Program Changes ThatEPA Is Approving?

The details on the program changescan be found in EPA’s proposed actionwhich was published in the October 25,2001 issue of the Federal Register (see66 FR 53966). In summary, EPAapproves the three rule revisions thatbecame effective on June 26, 1998, andthe three other rule revisions that werepromulgated pursuant to emergencyrulemaking on September 21, 2001.

6. What Is Involved in This FinalAction?

The State of New York has adequatelyfulfilled the conditions of the interimapproval promulgated on November 7,1996. EPA is therefore taking finalaction to fully approve New York State’soperating permit program as revised bythe three permanent rules submitted onJune 8, 1998 and the three emergencyrules submitted on October 5, 2000.However, as previously discussed, sincethe emergency rules expire on December21, 2001, unless extended, this final fullapproval will expire if EPA has notapproved the State’s revised permanentrules before the emergency rules expire.New York State has commenced aseparate rulemaking proposal (that is,the ‘‘normal’’ rulemaking processutilized in the State of New York,including the opportunity for publicparticipation), containing the identicalregulatory changes. The permanentrules will replace the ‘‘emergency’’ rules

once the rulemaking proposal isfinalized. Today’s approval, however, iscontingent upon the final permanentrules being substantively the same asthe draft rules on which EPA proposedthis action and which were the same asthe emergency rules that are already ineffect. Once these permanent rulesbecome effective, EPA will promulgateanother final program approval toreplace this action. In the interim, theemergency rules will still be in effectand, therefore, New York will still havea fully approved program. If the State ofNew York fails to adopt rules that areeffective before expiration of theemergency rules, then the New YorkState operating permit program willexpire and the federal part 71 programwill automatically take effect. Aspreviously discussed, if necessary, EPAwill publish a notice in the FederalRegister within two weeks of theeffective date of the federal program.

New York State may revise itsoperating permit program as appropriatein the future by following theprocedures stipulated in 40 CFR 70.4(i).EPA may also exercise its oversightauthorities under section 502(i) of theAct to require changes to the State’sprogram consistent with the procedurestipulated in 40 CFR 70.10.

7. What Is the Scope of EPA’s FullApproval?

In its program submittal, New YorkState did not assert jurisdiction overIndian country. To date, no tribalgovernment in New York has applied toEPA for approval to administer a title Vprogram in Indian country within theState. On February 12, 1998, EPApromulgated regulations (40 CFR part49) under which eligible Indian tribesmay be approved by EPA to implementa title V program on Indian reservationsand in non-reservation areas over whichthe tribe has jurisdiction. EPA haspromulgated regulations (40 CFR part71) governing the issuance of federaloperating permits in Indian country.EPA’s authority to issue permits inIndian country was challenged inMichigan v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. No. 99–1151). On October 30, 2001, the courtissued its decision in the case, vacatinga provision that would have allowedEPA to treat areas over which EPAdetermines there is a question regardingthe area’s status as if it is Indiancountry, and remanding to EPA forfurther proceedings. EPA will respondto the court’s remand and explain EPA’sapproach for further implementation ofpart 71 in Indian country in a futureaction.

8. What Is the Effective Date of EPA’sFinal Full Approval of the State of NewYork Title V Program?

EPA is using the good cause exceptionunder the Administrative Procedure Act(APA) to make the full approval of theState’s program effective on November30, 2001. In relevant part, section 553(d)provides that publication of ‘‘asubstantive rule shall be made not lessthan 30 days before its effective date,except—* * * (3) as otherwiseprovided by the agency for good causefound and published with the rule.’’Good cause may be supported by anagency determination that a delay in theeffective date is ‘‘impracticable,unnecessary, or contrary to the publicinterest.’’ APA section 553(b)(3)(B). EPAfinds that it is necessary and in thepublic interest to make this actioneffective sooner than 30 days followingpublication. In this case, EPA believesthat it is in the public interest for theprogram to take effect before December1, 2001. EPA’s interim approval of NewYork State’s program expires onDecember 1, 2001. In the absence of thisfull approval taking effect on November30, the federal part 71 program wouldautomatically take effect in New YorkState and would remain in place untilthe effective date of the fully-approvedstate program. EPA believes it is in thepublic interest for sources, the publicand the State to avoid any gap incoverage of the State program, as sucha gap could cause confusion regardingpermitting obligations. Furthermore, adelay in the effective date isunnecessary because New York hasbeen administering the title V permitprogram for five years under an interimapproval. Through this action, EPA isapproving revisions to the existing andcurrently operational program. Thechange from the interim approvedprogram which substantially but did notfully meet the part 70 requirements, tothe fully approved program is relativelyminor, in particular if compared to thechanges between a state-approvedprogram and the federal program.Finally, sources are already complyingwith many of the newly approvedrequirements as a matter of state law.Thus, there is little or no additionalburden with complying with theserequirements under the federallyapproved State program.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866,‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this finalapproval is not a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ and therefore is not subject toreview by the Office of Management and



Budget. Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) theAdministrator certifies that this finalapproval will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because itmerely approves state law as meetingfederal requirements and imposes noadditional requirements beyond thoseimposed by state law. This rule does notcontain any unfunded mandates anddoes not significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, as described in theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(Public Law 104–4) because it approvespre-existing requirements under statelaw and does not impose any additionalenforceable duties beyond that requiredby state law. This rule also does nothave tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect onone or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, asspecified by Executive Order 13175,‘‘Consultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000). This rulealso does not have Federalismimplications because it will not havesubstantial 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, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thisrule merely approves existingrequirements under state law, and doesnot alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the State andthe Federal government established inthe Clean Air Act. This final approvalalso is not subject to Executive Order13045, ‘‘Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) orExecutive Order 13211, ‘‘ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May22, 2001), because it is not a significantregulatory action under Executive Order12866. This action will not impose anycollection of information subject to theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other thanthose previously approved and assignedOMB control number 2060–0243. Foradditional information concerning theserequirements, see 40 CFR part 70. Anagency may not conduct or sponsor, anda person is not required to respond to,a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB controlnumber.


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 on November 30, 2001.




Dated: November 29, 2001.William J. Muszynski,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

For reasons set out in the preamble,Appendix A of part 70 of title 40,chapter I, of the Code of FederalRegulations is amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended

by adding paragraph (c) in the entry forNew York to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—ApprovalStatus of State and Local OperatingPermit Programs

* * * * *

New York* * * * *

(c) The New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation submittedprogram revisions on June 8, 1998 andOctober 5, 2001. The rule revisions containedin the June 8, 1998 and October 5, 2001submittals adequately addressed theconditions of the interim approval effectiveon December 9, 1996, and which wouldexpire on December 1, 2001. The October 5,2001 submission consists of rules adoptedpursuant to New York’s emergencyrulemaking procedures. The State is herebygranted final full approval effective onNovember 30, 2001.



40 CFR Part 70[FRL–7113–9 ]

Clean Air Act Full Approval ofOperating Permits Program in Alaska


SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action tofully approve the operating permitsprogram submitted by the State ofAlaska. Alaska’s operating permitsprogram was submitted in response tothe directive in the 1990 Clean Air ActAmendments that permitting authoritiesdevelop, and submit to EPA, programsfor issuing operating permits to allmajor stationary sources and to certainother sources within the permittingauthority’s jurisdiction.DATES: Effective November 30, 2001.ADDRESSES: Copies of the State ofAlaska’s submittal and other supporting



information used in developing thisfinal, full approval are available forinspection during normal businesshours at the following location: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,Washington, 98101. Interested personswanting to examine these documentsshould make an appointment with theappropriate office at least 24 hoursbefore the visiting day. A reasonable feemay be charged for copies.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Denise Baker, EPA, Region 10, Office ofAir Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 6thAvenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–8087.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA)Amendments of 1990 require all stateand local permitting authorities todevelop operating permits programs thatmeet certain Federal criteria. The Stateof Alaska submitted a program inresponse to this directive. EPA grantedinterim approval to Alaska’s airoperating permits program on December5, 1996, (61 FR 64463). The interimapproval notice identified 19 remainingconditions that Alaska must meet inorder to receive full approval of its TitleV operating permits program.

After Alaska revised its operatingpermits program to address theconditions of the interim approval, EPApromulgated a proposal to approveAlaska’s Title V operating permitsprogram on July 26, 2001, (66 FR38966). At the same time, because EPAviewed the proposal as anoncontroversial action and did notanticipate adverse public comment onthe proposal, EPA also published adirect final rule approving the Alaskaoperating permits program (66 FR38940). EPA received one adversepublic comment on the proposal.Therefore, EPA removed the direct finalapproval on September 20, 2001, (66 FR48357). After carefully reviewing andconsidering the issues raised by thecommenter, EPA is taking final action togive full approval to the Alaskaoperating permits program.

II. What Is the Effective Date of EPA’sFull Approval of Alaska’s Title VProgram?

EPA is using the good cause exceptionunder the Administrative Procedure Act(APA) to make the full approval of thestate’s program effective on November30, 2001. In relevant part, the APAprovides that publication of ‘‘asubstantive rule shall be made not lessthan 30 days before its effective date,

except— * * * (3) as otherwiseprovided by the agency for good causefound and published with the rule.’’ 5U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Section 553(b)(3)(B) ofthe APA provides that good cause maybe supported by an agencydetermination that a delay in theeffective date is impracticable,unnecessary, or contrary to the publicinterest. EPA finds that it is necessaryand in the public interest to make thisaction effective sooner than 30 daysfollowing publication. In this case, EPAbelieves that it is in the public interestfor the program to take effect beforeDecember 1, 2001. EPA’s interimapproval of Alaska’s prior programexpires on December 1, 2001. In theabsence of this full approval of Alaska’samended program taking effect onNovember 30, the federal program under40 CFR part 71 would automaticallytake effect in Alaska and would remainin place until the effective date of thefully-approved state program. EPAbelieves it is in the public interest forsources, the public and the State ofAlaska to avoid any gap in coverage ofthe state program, as such a gap couldcause confusion regarding permittingobligations. Furthermore, a delay in theeffective date is unnecessary becauseAlaska has been administering the TitleV permit program for nearly five yearsunder an interim approval. Through thisaction, EPA is approving a few revisionsto the existing and currently operationalprogram. The change from the interimapproved program which substantiallymet the part 70 requirements, to thefully approved program is relativelyminor, in particular if compared to thechanges between a state-established andadministered program and the federalprogram.

III. Response to CommentsEPA received one comment letter in

response to our July 26, 2001, (66 FR38966) proposed approval notice for theAlaska Title V operating permitsprogram. The commenter stated thatEPA should withhold approval ofAlaska’s program until two issues wereresolved. First, the commenter statedthat ‘‘Alaska’s plan is not yet incompliance with the federal Clean AirAct and its implementing regulations(40 CFR part 70).’’ The commenterargued that Alaska had failed to meetseveral Title V requirements, includingthe requirement to include monitoring,recordkeeping and reporting sufficientto assure compliance with andenforcement of each applicablerequirement. Second, the commenterstated that ‘‘there is an ongoing reviewof Alaska’s entire Title V program thatwill not be completed until December 1,

2001.’’ The comments provided to EPAin response to our July 26, 2001, (66 FR38966) proposed approval notice forAlaska were made by the same partyand raised issues that had previouslybeen discussed in the commenter’sletter submitted on March 12, 2001, inresponse to 65 FR 77376 (December 11,2000).

A. Response to Issue #1—Assertion ThatAlaska Is Not Yet in Compliance WithCertain Requirements of the Title VProgram

On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated arulemaking that extended the interimapproval period of 86 operating permitsprograms, including Alaska, untilDecember 1, 2001 (65 FR 32035). Theaction was subsequently challenged bythe Sierra Club and the New YorkPublic Interest Research Group(NYPIRG). In settling the litigation, EPAagreed to publish a notice in the FederalRegister that would alert the public thatthey may identify and bring to EPA’sattention alleged programmatic and/orimplementation deficiencies in Title Vprograms that had received interim orfull approval. This notice was publishedon December 11, 2000 (65 FR 77376). Inthe notice, EPA committed to respond tothe merits of any such claims ofdeficiency on or before December 1,2001, for those states, such as Alaska,that have received interim approval andon or before April 1, 2002, for states thathave received full approval.

As noted above, one citizenorganization commented on what itbelieves to be deficiencies with respectto the Alaska Title V program. EPAtakes no action on those comments intoday’s action. Rather, EPA expects torespond by December 14, 2001, totimely public comments on programsthat have obtained interim approval,and by April 1, 2002, to timelycomments on fully approved programs.We will publish a notice of deficiency(NOD) when we determine that adeficiency exists, or we will notify thecommenter in writing to explain ourreasons for not making a finding ofdeficiency. In addition, we will publisha notice of availability in the FederalRegister notifying the public that wehave responded in writing to thesecomments and how the public mayobtain a copy of our response. A NODwill not necessarily be limited todeficiencies identified by citizens, andmay include any deficiencies that wehave identified through our programoversight. Furthermore, in the future,EPA may issue an additional NOD ifEPA or a citizen identifies otherdeficiencies.



For the reasons described below, EPAis not in the context of this actionresponding to the comments submittedafter the December 11, 2000, notice thatidentify potential new deficiencies.

B. Response to Issue #2—OngoingReview

The commenter referred to theongoing review of Alaska’s Title Vprogram, and took the position that EPAshould not grant full approval toAlaska’s program until that review iscompleted. In support of this, thecommenter asserted that the subjectmatter of the ongoing review, namely,the adequacy of the Alaska Title Vprogram, is essentially the same as thesubject matter of the proposal to fullyapprove the Alaska program. Thecommenter stated that EPA must baseits decision of whether to grant fullapproval on the adequacy of the Alaskaprogram as it currently exists, not as itexisted at the time of interim approval.The commenter further stated that EPAmust take into account any deficiencyexisting in the Alaska program,regardless of whether it had beenidentified in the granting of interimapproval. According to the commenter,any other position would eviscerateEPA’s oversight responsibilities.

For the reasons discussed below, wedisagree that any deficiencies that maybe identified following interim approvalwould prohibit us from granting Alaskafull program approval at this time.

In 1990, Congress amended the CleanAir Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 to 7671q(‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘Act’’), by adding Title V, 42U.S.C. 7661 to 7661f, which requirescertain air pollutant emitting facilities,including ‘‘major source[s]’’ and‘‘affected source[s],’’ to obtain andcomply with operating permits. See 42U.S.C. 7661a(a). Title V is intended tobe administered by local, state orinterstate air pollution control agencies,through permitting programs that havebeen approved by EPA. See 42 U.S.C.7661a(a). EPA is charged withoverseeing the State’s efforts toimplement an approved program,including reviewing proposed permitsand vetoing improper permits. See 42U.S.C. 7661a(i) and 7661d(b).Accordingly, Title V of the CAAprovides a framework for thedevelopment, submission and approvalof state operating permits programs.Following the development andsubmission of a state program, the Actprovides two different approval optionsthat EPA may utilize in acting on statesubmittals. See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d) and(g). Pursuant to section 502(d), EPA‘‘may approve a program to the extentthat the program meets the requirements

of the Act * * *’’ EPA may act on suchprogram submittals by approving ordisapproving, in whole or in part, thestate program. An alternative option foracting on state programs is provided bythe interim approval provision ofsection 502(g). This section states: ‘‘If aprogram * * * substantially meets therequirements of this title, but is not fullyapprovable, the Administrator may byrule grant the program interimapproval.’’ This provision provides EPAwith the authority to act on Stateprograms that substantially, but do notfully, meet the requirements of Title Vand part 70. Only those programsubmittals that meet the requirements ofeleven key program areas are eligible toreceive interim approval. See 40 CFR70.4(d)(3)(i)–(xi). Finally, section 502(g)directs EPA to ‘‘specify the changes thatmust be made before the program canreceive full approval.’’ 42 U.S.C.7661a(g); 40 CFR 70.4(e)(3). Thisexplicit directive encompasses another,implicit one: Once a state corrects thespecified deficiencies then it will beeligible for full program approval. EPAbelieves this is so even if deficiencieshave been identified sometime afterfinal interim approval, either becausethe deficiencies arose after EPA grantedinterim approval or, if the deficienciesexisted at that time, EPA failed toidentify them as such in proposing togrant interim approval.

Thus, an apparent tension existsbetween these two statutory provisions.Standing alone, section 502(d) appearsto prevent EPA from granting a stateoperating permits program full approvaluntil the state has corrected alldeficiencies in its program no matterhow insignificant, and withoutconsideration as to when suchdeficiency was identified. Alternatively,section 502(g) appears to require thatEPA grant a state program full approvalif the state has corrected those issuesthat the EPA identified in the finalinterim approval. The central question,therefore, is whether Alaska, by virtueof correcting the deficiencies identifiedin the final interim approval, is eligibleat this time for full approval, or whetherAlaska must also correct any new orrecently identified deficiencies that mayexist, as a prerequisite to receiving fullprogram approval.

According to settled principles ofstatutory construction, statutoryprovisions should be interpreted so thatthey are consistent with one another.See Citizens to Save Spencer County v.EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 870 (D.C. Cir. 1979).Where an agency encountersinconsistent statutory provisions, itmust give maximum possible effect toall of the provisions, while remaining

within the bounds of its statutoryauthority. Id. at 870–71. Wheneverpossible, the agency’s interpretationshould not render any of the provisionsnull or void. Id. Courts have recognizedthat agencies are often delegated theresponsibility to interpret ambiguousstatutory terms in such a fashion. SeeChevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc., 467U.S. 837, 845 (1984). Harmoniousconstruction is not always possible,however, and furthermore should not besought if it requires distorting thelanguage in a fashion never imagined byCongress. Citizens to Save SpencerCounty, 600 F.2d at 870.

In this situation, in order to give effectto the principles embodied in Title Vthat major stationary sources of airpollution be required to have anoperating permit that conforms tocertain statutory and regulatoryrequirements, and that operatingpermits programs be administered andenforced by state permitting authorities,the appropriate and more cohesivereading of the statute recognizes EPA’sauthority to grant Alaska full approvalin this situation while workingsimultaneously with the state, in itsoversight capacity, on any additionalissues that were recently identified. Toconclude otherwise would disrupt thecurrent administration of the stateprogram, by causing the program totransfer to administration by EPA, andwould cause further delay in Alaska’sability to issue operating permits tomajor stationary sources. A smoothtransition from interim approval to fullapproval is in the best interest of thepublic and the regulated communityand best reconciles the statutorydirectives of Title V.

Furthermore, requiring the State toaddress the deficiencies, if there areany, that have been identified in thepast year to receive full approval runscounter to the established regulatoryprocess that is already in place to dealwith newly identified programdeficiencies. Section 502(i)(4) of the Actand 40 CFR 70.4(i) and 70.10 providesEPA with the authority to issue noticesof deficiency (‘‘NOD’’) whenever EPAmakes a determination that a permittingauthority is not adequatelyadministering or enforcing a part 70program, or that the State’s permitprogram is inadequate in any other way.Consistent with these provisions, in itsNOD EPA will specify a reasonable timeframe for the permitting authority tocorrect any identified deficiency. TheAlaska Title V interim approval expireson December 1, 2001. This deadlinedoes not provide adequate time for theState to correct newly identified issues



prior to the expiration of interimapproval. Allowing the State’s programto expire because of issues identified asrecently as March 2001, will causedisruption and further delay in theissuance of permits to major stationarysources in Alaska. As explained, Title Vdoes not require such a result. Rather,the appropriate mechanism for dealingwith additional deficiencies that areidentified sometime after a programreceived interim approval but prior tobeing granted full approval is the noticeof program deficiency or administrationdeficiency as discussed herein. Thisprocess provides the State an adequateamount of time after such findings toimplement any necessary changeswithout disrupting the continuity of thestate operating permits program.Addressing newly identified issues on aseparate track from the granting of fullapproval still ensures that these issueswill be addressed in due course. Ratherthan undermining EPA’s oversightauthority as the commenter suggests,proceeding in this manner allows for amore rational and orderly method foraddressing new issues as they arise.

At this time, EPA has identified oneconcern regarding the Alaska Title Vprogram for which it has asked the Statefor an immediate response. Thisconcern relates to the rate of Title Vpermit issuance by Alaska. In responseto EPA’s request, Alaska has providedEPA with a commitment letter thatincludes a timeline and milestones forissuance of remaining permits.Specifically, the State has committed toissuing all outstanding Alaska Title Vair operating permits on or beforeDecember 1, 2003. EPA is satisfied thatthis timeline for issuance of remainingpermits represents reasonable progresstowards issuance of all permits.Accordingly, EPA is not issuing a noticeof deficiency because the State’scommitment that future permits will beissued consistent with state and federalrequirements addresses EPA’s concern.However, it will be important to ensurethat the State actually meets thiscommitment. EPA will monitor theState’s efforts over the next two years toensure the State is proceeding on a paceto meet the commitment and that thecommitment is ultimately met.

IV. What Is the Scope of EPA’s FullApproval?

In its program submission, Alaska didnot assert jurisdiction over Indiancountry. To date, no tribal governmentin Alaska has applied to EPA forapproval to administer a title V programin Indian country within the state. EPAregulations at 40 CFR part 49 governhow eligible Indian tribes may be

approved by EPA to implement a title Vprogram on Indian reservations and innon-reservation areas over which thetribe has jurisdiction. EPA’s part 71regulations govern the issuance offederal operating permits in Indiancountry. EPA’s authority to issuepermits in Indian country waschallenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C.Cir. No. 99–1151). On October 30, 2001,the court issued its decision in the case,vacating a provision that would haveallowed EPA to treat areas over whichEPA determines there is a questionregarding the area’s status as if it isIndian country, and remanding to EPAfor further proceedings. EPA willrespond to the court’s remand andexplain EPA’s approach for furtherimplementation of part 71 in Indiancountry in a future action.

V. Administrative RequirementsUnder Executive Order 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this finalapproval is not a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ and therefore is not subject toreview by the Office of Management andBudget. Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) theAdministrator certifies that this finalapproval will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because itmerely approves state law as meetingfederal requirements and imposes noadditional requirements beyond thoseimposed by state law. This rule does notcontain any unfunded mandates anddoes not significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, as described in theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(Public Law 104–4) because it approvespre-existing requirements under statelaw and does not impose any additionalenforceable duties beyond that requiredby state law. This rule also does nothave tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect onone or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, asspecified by Executive Order 13175,‘‘Consultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000). This rulealso does not have Federalismimplications because it will not havesubstantial 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, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thisrule merely approves existingrequirements under state law, and doesnot alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the State andthe Federal government established inthe Clean Air Act. This final approvalalso is not subject to Executive Order13045, ‘‘Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) orExecutive Order 13211, ‘‘ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May22, 2001), because it is not a significantregulatory action under Executive Order12866. This action will not impose anycollection of information subject to theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other thanthose previously approved and assignedOMB control number 2060–0243. Foradditional information concerning theserequirements, see 40 CFR part 70. 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.

In reviewing State operating permitsprograms submitted pursuant to Title Vof the Clean Air Act, EPA will approveState programs provided that they meetthe requirements of the Clean Air Actand EPA’s regulations codified at 40CFR part 70. In this context, in theabsence of a prior existing requirementfor the State to use voluntary consensusstandards (VCS), EPA has no authorityto disapprove a State operating permitsprogram for failure to use VCS. It wouldthus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when it reviews an operatingpermits program, to use VCS in place ofa State program that otherwise satisfiesthe provisions of the Clean Air Act.Thus, the requirements of section 12(d)of the National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.272 note) do not apply.

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 it



is published in the Federal Register.This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ asdefined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). Thisrule will be effective November 30,2001.





L. John Iani,Regional Administrator, Region 10.


PART 70—[AMENDED]



2. In appendix A to part 70, the entryfor Alaska is amended by revisingparagraph (a) to read as follows:


* * * * *

Alaska

(a) Alaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation: submitted on May 31, 1995, assupplemented by submittals on August 16,1995, February 6, 1996, February 27, 1996,July 5, 1996, August 2, 1996, and October 17,1996; interim approval effective on December5, 1996; revisions submitted on June 5, 1996,October 3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May24, 1999; full approval effective on November30, 2001.

* * * * *[FR Doc. 01–30143 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



40 CFR Part 70

[NV 063–Pt70; FRL–7113–8]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of Title VOperating Permits Programs; ClarkCounty Department of Air QualityManagement, Washoe County DistrictHealth Department, and NevadaDivision of Environmental Protection,Nevada


SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action tofully approve the operating permitsprogram of the Clark CountyDepartment of Air Quality Management(‘‘Clark County’’), the Washoe CountyDistrict Health Department (‘‘WashoeCounty’’), and the Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection (‘‘NDEP’’).These three programs were submitted inresponse to the directive in the 1990Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments thatpermitting authorities develop, andsubmit to EPA, programs for issuingoperating permits to all major stationarysources and to certain other sourceswithin the permitting authorities’jurisdiction. EPA granted interimapproval to Clark County’s operatingpermits program on July 13, 1995, toWashoe County’s program on January 5,1995, and to NDEP’s program onDecember 12, 1995. All three permittingagencies revised their programs tosatisfy the conditions of interimapproval, and EPA proposed fullapproval in the Federal Register onOctober 10, 2001. EPA receivedcomments on our proposed approval ofClark County’s program from Mr. RobertHall of the Nevada EnvironmentalCoalition, and on our proposed approvalof NDEP’s program from NDEP. Aftercarefully reviewing and considering theissues raised by the commenters, EPA istaking final action to give full approvalto the Clark County and NDEP operatingpermits programs. EPA received nocomments on our proposed approval ofthe Washoe County program and we arealso granting full approval to thatprogram in today’s action.EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective onNovember 30, 2001.ADDRESSES: Copies of the three programsubmittals and other supportinginformation used in developing thisfinal full approval, including the twocomment letters on our proposedapproval, are available for inspectionduring normal business hours at the

following location: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 9, 75Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,California 94105.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Albright, EPA Region 9, at 415–972–3971 or at [email protected] INFORMATION: Thissection contains additional informationabout our final rulemaking, organized asfollows:I. Background on the Clark County, Washoe

County, and NDEP operating permitsprograms

II. Comments received by EPA on ourproposed rulemaking and EPA’sresponses

III. EPA’s final actionA. Full Approval of the Clark County,

Washoe County, and NDEP OperatingPermit Programs

B. Effective date of EPA’s full approvalC. The scope of EPA’s full approvalD. Citizen comment letters

I. Background on the Clark County,Washoe County, and NDEP OperatingPermits Programs

The Clean Air Act (CAA)Amendments of 1990 required all stateand local permitting authorities todevelop operating permits programs thatmeet certain federal criteria. ClarkCounty, Washoe County, and NDEPsubmitted their operating permitsprograms in response to this directive.Because the Clark County, WashoeCounty, and NDEP programssubstantially, but not fully, met therequirements of part 70, EPA grantedinterim approval to each program inthree separate rulemakings, publishedon July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36070), January5, 1995 (60 FR 1741), and December 12,1995 (60 FR 63631), respectively. Eachinterim approval notice described theconditions that had to be met in orderfor the programs to receive fullapproval.

After Clark County, Washoe County,and NDEP revised their programs toaddress the conditions of interimapproval, EPA proposed to approve allthree title V operating permits programson October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51620).

II. Comments Received by EPA on OurProposed Rulemaking and EPA’sResponses

EPA received two comment lettersduring the public comment period. Mr.Robert Hall, Nevada EnvironmentalCoalition, submitted a letter onNovember 9, 2001 commenting on ourproposed approval of the Clark Countyprogram and NDEP submitted a letter onNovember 9, 2001 commenting on ourproposed approval of the Nevadaprogram. Copies of these letters are



included in the docket for thisrulemaking maintained at the EPARegion 9 office.

A. Letter From Mr. Robert Hall, NevadaEnvironmental Coalition (NEC) DatedNovember 9, 2001

Mr. Hall, president of the NEC, raisednumerous issues in his comment letterwith respect to DAQM’s implementationof the Clean Air Act. EPA respondsbelow to those comments that aregermane to EPA’s proposal on October10, 2001, to approve the Clark CountyDAQM operating permits program basedupon the specific revisions made to theClark County program addressing theirinterim approval deficiencies. However,many of Mr. Hall’s comments relate tonon-title V air permitting issues or totitle V program issues that were not thesubject of EPA’s proposed action. Bothcategories of comments are beyond thescope of EPA’s proposed action, whichpertained specifically to whether ClarkCounty had corrected the issuesidentified as deficiencies when EPAgranted the program interim approval.In this notice, EPA is not responding tocomments submitted by Mr. Hall thatare beyond the scope of our presentrulemaking. Nevertheless, many of theconcerns raised by Mr. Hall are similarto issues that he raised in his commentletter submitted in response to EPA’s90-day public comment period thatprovided members of the public anopportunity to identify and bring toEPA’s attention alleged programmaticand/or implementation deficiencies intitle V programs. (65 FR 77376,December 11, 2000) The 90-daycomment period was made available aspart of EPA’s settlement of a lawsuitover EPA’s extension of all title Voperating permits program interimapprovals. As described in section III.Dof this notice, EPA expects to respondin writing to Mr. Hall’s earliercomments by December 14, 2001.

Set out below are the relevant issuesraised by Mr. Hall in his comment letterand EPA’s responses to the issues.

1. Program Submittal by the ClarkCounty Department of Air QualityManagement

Mr. Hall argues that because the titleV program interim approval wasoriginally granted to the Clark CountyHealth District and revisions to theinterim approved program weresubmitted by the Health District, EPAcannot grant full approval of the title Vprogram to the Clark CountyDepartment of Air Quality Management.Mr. Hall contends that the Clark Countyprogram submittal is legally insufficientunless the revised program is re-written

and re-submitted in the name of theClark County Department of Air QualityManagement.

As EPA noted in our proposedapproval of the Clark County title Vprogram (66 FR 51620, October 10,2001), on August 7, 2001, the Governorof Nevada officially transferredresponsibility for air qualitymanagement in Clark County from theCounty’s Health District to the newlycreated Department of Air QualityManagement, overseen by the Board ofCounty Commissioners of Clark County.In a letter dated June 21, 2001 to theClark County Commission, GovernorGuinn designates ‘‘the Board of CountyCommissioners as the regulatory,enforcement and permitting authorityfor implementing applicable provisionsof the federal Clean Air Act, anyamendments to that Act, and anyregulations adopted pursuant to that Actwithin Clark County.’’ The change isessentially a shift in the organizationallocation of the County’s air qualitymanagement program and all rules,regulations, and policies of the HealthDistrict that comprise Clark County’stitle V operating permits program werecarried over to the new Department,pursuant to the Governor’s designation.

In addition, the revised Clark Countytitle V operating permits program wassubmitted by Allen Biaggi,Administrator of the Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection, on behalf ofNevada Governor Kenny C. Guinn, ashis appointed designee. Thus, thecommenter’s suggestion that the revisedClark County program submittal wasmade by an entity lacking the necessarylegal authority under part 70 is clearlynot the case. Moreover, DAQM hasassured EPA that it assumes all airquality management commitments madeby the County’s Health District. Forthese reasons, EPA believes it isappropriate that full title V programapproval is granted to the Clark CountyDepartment of Air Quality Management.

2. Clark County Regulations Are NotSIP-Approved

Mr. Hall also comments that theapplicant submitted, as part of itsrevised title V operating permitsprogram, local regulations that are notapproved into the Nevada StateImplementation Plan (SIP), and that thesubmittal should have contained onlyrules that are SIP-approved. Thecommenter also claims that theapplicant does not identify the versions(by date of adoption) of the rulessubmitted.

The rules revised by Clark County toaddress interim approval deficienciesare Sections 0 (‘‘Definitions’’) and 19

(‘‘Part 70 Operating Permits’’). Mr. Hallis correct that neither of these two rulesare currently SIP-approved. However,Mr. Hall is mistaken in his belief thatthe rules constituting an agency’s title Voperating permits program need to beapproved into the SIP. Theestablishment of operating permitsprograms is separate and distinct fromthe state implementation plan process.The statutory requirements for operatingpermit programs are contained in title Vof the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7661–7661f),whereas the statutory requirements forstate implementation plans arecontained in title I of the Act (42 U.S.C.7410). Nothing in the Act requires thelocal regulations relied upon byagencies for establishing permittingprograms under title V of the Act to beincorporated into the stateimplementation plans required undertitle I of the Act.

Further, EPA’s regulationsimplementing title V, which arecodified at 40 CFR part 70, require thatsubmitted operating permits programsinclude identification of ‘‘the specificstatutes, administrative regulations, and,where appropriate, judicial decisionsthat demonstrate adequate authority’’ tocarry out all aspects of the program, andthat the statutes and regulations cited‘‘shall be in the form of lawfullyadopted State statutes and regulations.* * *’’ (See 40 CFR 70.4). While thesestatutes and regulations clearly need tobe consistent with the requirements oftitle V and 40 CFR part 70, they do notneed to be part of the State’simplementation plan. EPA hasdetermined that the revisions ClarkCounty made to Sections 0 and 19 areconsistent with the requirements of part70, which makes the revisionsapprovable as part of Clark County’stitle V operating permits program.

As for Mr. Hall’s assertion that therevised Clark County submittal does notidentify the versions of the rules uponwhich it is based, EPA disagrees. Therevised Clark County program submittalclearly identifies the versions ofSections 0 and 19 (the two regulationsrevised specifically to address interimapproval deficiencies) as being thoseadopted by Clark County on May 24,2001.

3. Clark County’s Definitions RuleMr. Hall further comments that Clark

County’s revised title V programsubmittal contains a revision to aregulation (Clark County Section 0—Definitions) that was recently vacatedby the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Thecommenter claims that since the date ofEPA’s proposed approval of the ClarkCounty title V program (October 10,



2001) is well after the date of the court’sdecision to vacate EPA’s approval ofClark County’s Section 0 (August 29,2001), EPA has erred in its proposal togrant full approval to the Clark Countyprogram, which relies, in part, on thisvacated rule section.

The commenter is correct that EPA’sfinal rulemaking approving ClarkCounty Section 0 (‘‘Definitions’’) andother rules into the Clark Countyportion of the Nevada SIP was recentlyvacated by the court. Mr. Hall is alsocorrect that the revised Clark Countyoperating permits program relies, inpart, on the definitions in Section 0.However, the commenter is incorrect inhis evaluation of the impact of thecourt’s action relative to the County’stitle V program. While the court didvacate EPA’s approval of Section 0 intothe SIP, this action does not vacateSection 0 as a valid Clark Countyregulation. Section 0 remains valid andlegally enforceable by Clark County. Asnoted in our response to issue 2 above,EPA regulations require that the rulescomprising programs submitted forapproval under part 70 must beenforceable by the State (or local entity),not EPA, and must meet therequirements of part 70. The ClarkCounty title V program was granted onlyinterim approval, in part, because thedefinition of ‘‘applicable requirement’’in Section 0 did not match thedefinition in 40 CFR 70.3. EPA is nowgranting full approval to the revisedClark County operating permits programbecause all of its interim approvaldeficiencies have been fixed, includingClark County’s modification of thedefinition of ‘‘applicable requirement’’in Section 0. Since Clark County’srevised definition of applicablerequirement is consistent with part 70and is contained in a rule (Section 0)that is valid and legally enforceable byClark County, EPA believes that thisinterim program deficiency previouslyidentified by the Agency has been fullyresolved.

4. EPA Unlawfully Extended InterimApproval

The commenter also cites his beliefthat the requirements of the CAA and 40CFR part 70 were not met when EPAextended interim approval of the ClarkCounty title V operating permitsprogram more than two years beyondthe August 14, 1995 initial interimapproval date. Mr. Hall further claimsthat EPA is required to implement afederal permitting program in ClarkCounty and to impose sanctions as setforth in 40 CFR 70.10.

On August 29, 1997, EPA published afinal rule in the Federal Register

extending interim approval of operatingpermits programs nationwide to October1, 1998 (62 FR 45732). In furtherrulemakings, EPA extended interimapprovals again, ultimatelypromulgating a final rule on May 22,2000 extending all operating permitsprogram interim approvals up toDecember 1, 2001 (65 FR 32035).Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA requires inpertinent part that ‘‘[a]ny petition forreview under this subsection shall befiled within sixty days from the datenotice of such promulgation, approval,or action appears in the FederalRegister.* * *’’ The sixty day windowfor filing challenges to the currentinterim approval extension closed onJuly 21, 2000. Clearly, Mr. Hall’s currentclaim that EPA unlawfully extendedinterim approval of the Clark Countyoperating permits program and hisrequest that EPA impose a federal part71 program and sanctions against ClarkCounty is not within the statutorily-mandated timeframe for such appeals.

Moreover, a timely challenge to EPA’ssubsequent extension of all operatingpermits program interim approvals wasbrought in the Court of Appeals for theD.C. Circuit against EPA, and asettlement agreement resolving thischallenge was entered November 21,2000, in Sierra Club and the New YorkPublic Interest Research Group v EPA.A component of that settlementagreement was that EPA would amend40 CFR part 70 to clarify that all existinginterim approved programs expire onDecember 1, 2001 and cannot beextended. EPA is, therefore, acting inaccordance with existing regulations ingranting final title V operating permitsprogram approval to Clark County,effective November 30, 2001, based onClark County’s revisions to theirprogram which adequately addressed allinterim approval deficiencies.

After carefully reviewing andconsidering the issues raised by Mr.Hall, EPA is taking final action to givefull approval to the Clark Countyoperating permits program.

B. Letter From Colleen Cripps, Bureau ofAir Quality, NDEP Dated November 9,2001

NDEP submitted a letter commentingon EPA’s October 10, 2001 notice, inwhich the Agency proposed to take noaction on four rule changes made by theState that were not required asconditions for receiving full programapproval. Specifically, EPA proposed totake no action on the State’s changes toNevada Administrative Code (NAC)sections 445B.094, 445B.187, 445B.290,and 445B.294 because EPA deemedthese changes to be unapprovable.

In its letter, NDEP requested that EPAreconsider approval of sections445B.094 and 445B.290 in our finalrulemaking. As noted in the technicalsupport document (TSD) for ourproposed action, EPA was concernedthat NAC section 445B.094 (thedefinition of ‘‘major source’’) did notprovide a major source threshold forPM10 sources in attainment areas nor inPM10 nonattainment areas that are notclassified as ‘‘serious’’ because of anexclusion in section 445B.094. NDEPclarified in their comments that theexclusion in section 445B.094 appliesonly to particulate matter greater than10 microns in size. Thus, there is noexclusion for PM10, which is particulatematter less than 10 microns in size.EPA’s concern about NAC section445B.290 (‘‘Class I–B application forClass I operating permit; filingrequirement’’) was that it appeared tonot require certain nonmajor affectedsources to apply for a Class I permit.NDEP’s comments clarified that whensection 445B.290 is read together withthe ‘‘Class I source’’ definition at NAC445B.036, there is a clear requirementthat all affected sources apply for andobtain Class I operating permits.

EPA agrees with NDEP that therevisions to NAC sections 445B.094 and445B.290 are consistent with therequirements of part 70 and today’saction grants approval to these twoadditional changes as part of our fullapproval of the NDEP operating permitsprogram.

III. EPA’s Final Action

A. Full Approval of the Clark County,Washoe County, and NDEP OperatingPermit Programs

EPA is granting full approval to theoperating permits programs submittedby Clark County, Washoe County, andNDEP based on the revisions submittedon June 1, 2001, May 8, 2001, and May30, 2001, respectively. The revisionssubmitted by the three agenciessatisfactorily address the programdeficiencies identified in EPA’s interimapprovals published on July 13, 1995 forClark County (60 FR 36070), January 5,1995 for Washoe County (60 FR 1741),and December 12, 1995 for NDEP (60 FR63631).

In addition, EPA is approving, as arevision to NDEP’s title V program,several additional rule changes made bythe State, including the revisionsdescribed in section II.B above tosections 445B.094 (definition of majorsource) and 445B.290 (class I operatingpermit filing requirement) upon whichEPA had proposed to take no action. Asdiscussed in greater detail in the



proposal, EPA also approves a revisionto NAC section 445B.138, the definitionof potential to emit (‘‘PTE’’), based onNDEP’s representations that it willimplement the PTE definition in amanner that is consistent with judicialdecisions and EPA policies. In thefuture, if NDEP does not implement thePTE definition consistent with ourguidance, and/or has not established asufficient compliance incentive absentfederal and citizen’s enforceability, EPAcould find that the State has failed toadminister or enforce its program andmay take action as authorized by 40 CFR70.10(b). Finally, EPA also finalizes theother rule revisions listed in Table 1 ofEPA’s October 10, 2001 proposedrulemaking.

B. Effective Date of Full ApprovalEPA is using the good cause exception

under the Administrative ProceduresAct (APA) to make the full approval ofthe Clark County, Washoe County, andNDEP programs effective on November30, 2001. In relevant part, the APAprovides that publication of ‘‘asubstantive rule shall be made not lessthan 30 days before its effective date,except—. . . (3) as otherwise providedby the agency for good cause found andpublished with the rule.’’ 5 U.S.C.553(d)(3). Section 553(b)(3)(B) of theAPA provides that good cause may besupported by an agency determinationthat a delay in the effective date isimpracticable, unnecessary, or contraryto the public interest. EPA finds that itis necessary and in the public interestto make this action effective sooner than30 days following publication. In thiscase, EPA believes that it is in thepublic interest for the program to takeeffect before December 1, 2001. EPA’sinterim approval of the Clark County,Washoe County, and NDEP programsexpires on December 1, 2001. In theabsence of this full approval of theamended programs taking effect onNovember 30, the federal program under40 CFR part 71 would automaticallytake effect statewide in Nevada andwould remain in place until theeffective date of fully-approvedprograms. EPA believes it is in thepublic interest for sources, the publicand the State and local permittingauthorities to avoid any gap in coverageof the part 70 program, as such a gapcould cause confusion regardingpermitting obligations. Furthermore, adelay in the effective date isunnecessary because Clark County,Washoe County, and NDEP have beenadministering title V permit programsfor 6 years under an interim approval.Through this action, EPA is approvinga few revisions to the existing and

currently operational programs. Thechange from the interim approvedprograms which substantially met thepart 70 requirements, to the fullyapproved programs is relatively minor,in particular if compared to the changesbetween state and locally-establishedand administered programs and thefederal program.

C. The Scope of EPA’s Full ApprovalIn their program submissions, Clark

County, Washoe County, and NDEP didnot assert jurisdiction over Indiancountry. To date, no tribal governmentin Nevada has applied to EPA forapproval to administer a title V programin Indian country within the state. EPAregulations at 40 CFR part 49 governhow eligible Indian tribes may beapproved by EPA to implement a title Vprogram on Indian reservations and innon-reservation areas over which thetribe has jurisdiction. EPA’s part 71regulations govern the issuance offederal operating permits in Indiancountry. EPA’s authority to issuepermits in Indian country waschallenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C.Cir. No. 99–1151). On October 30, 2001,the court issued its decision in the case,vacating a provision that would haveallowed EPA to treat areas over whichEPA determines there is a questionregarding the area’s status as if it isIndian country, and remanding to EPAfor further proceedings. EPA willrespond to the court’s remand andexplain EPA’s approach for furtherimplementation of part 71 in Indiancountry in a future action.

D. Citizen Comment LettersOn May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a

rulemaking that extended the interimapproval period of 86 operating permitsprograms until December 1, 2001. (65FR 32035) The action was subsequentlychallenged by the Sierra Club and theNew York Public Interest ResearchGroup (NYPIRG). In settling thelitigation, EPA agreed to publish anotice in the Federal Register thatwould alert the public that they mayidentify and bring to EPA’s attentionalleged programmatic and/orimplementation deficiencies in title Vprograms and that EPA would respondto their allegations within specified timeperiods if the comments were madewithin 90 days of publication of theFederal Register notice.

Two individuals commented on whatthey believe to be deficiencies withrespect to the Clark County title Vprogram. As stated in the FederalRegister notice published on October10, 2001 (66 FR 51620) proposing tofully approve Clark County’s operating

permits program, EPA takes no actionon those comments in today’s action.Rather, EPA expects to respond byDecember 14, 2001 to timely publiccomments on programs that haveobtained interim approval, and by April1, 2002 to timely comments on fullyapproved programs. We will publish anotice of deficiency (NOD) when wedetermine that a deficiency exists, or wewill notify the commenter in writing toexplain our reasons for not making afinding of deficiency. In addition, wewill publish a notice of availability inthe Federal Register notifying thepublic that we have responded inwriting to these comments and how thepublic may obtain a copy of ourresponse. An NOD will not necessarilybe limited to deficiencies identified bycitizens and may include anydeficiencies that we have identifiedthrough our program oversight.Furthermore, in the future, EPA mayissue an additional NOD if EPA or acitizen identifies other deficiencies.


‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this finalapproval is not a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ and therefore is not subject toreview by the Office of Management andBudget. Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) theAdministrator certifies that this finalapproval will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because itmerely approves state law as meetingfederal requirements and imposes noadditional requirements beyond thoseimposed by state law. This rule does notcontain any unfunded mandates anddoes not significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, as described in theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(Public Law 104–4) because it approvespre-existing requirements under statelaw and does not impose any additionalenforceable duties beyond that requiredby state law. This rule also does nothave tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect onone or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes, asspecified by Executive Order 13175,‘‘Consultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000). This rulealso does not have Federalismimplications because it will not havesubstantial direct effects on the States,on the relationship between the national



government and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thisrule merely approves existingrequirements under state law, and doesnot alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the State andthe Federal government established inthe Clean Air Act. This final approvalalso is not subject to Executive Order13045, ‘‘Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) orExecutive Order 13211, ‘‘ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May22, 2001), because it is not a significantregulatory action under Executive Order12866. This action will not impose anycollection of information subject to theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other thanthose previously approved and assignedOMB control number 2060–0243. Foradditional information concerning theserequirements, see 40 CFR part 70. 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.

In reviewing State operating permitprograms submitted pursuant to title Vof the Clean Air Act, EPA will approveState programs provided that they meetthe requirements of the Clean Air Actand EPA’s regulations codified at 40CFR part 70. In this context, in theabsence of a prior existing requirementfor the State to use voluntary consensusstandards (VCS), EPA has no authorityto disapprove a State operating permitprogram for failure to use VCS. It wouldthus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when it reviews an operatingpermit program , to use VCS in place ofa State program that otherwise satisfiesthe provisions of the Clean Air Act.Thus, the requirements of section 12(d)of the National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.272 note) do not apply.

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 on November 30, 2001.


List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,Air pollution control, Intergovernmentalrelations, Operating permits, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 29, 2001.Laura Yoshii,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.


PART 70—[AMENDED]


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended

by revising paragraphs (a) (b), and (c)under Nevada to read as follows:


* * * * *

Nevada* * * * *

(a) Nevada Division of EnvironmentalProtection:

(1) Submitted on February 8, 1995; interimapproval effective on January 11, 1996;interim approval expires December 1, 2001.

(2) Revisions submitted on May 30, 2001.Full approval is effective on November 30,2001.

(b) Washoe County District HealthDepartment:

(1) Submitted on November 18, 1993;interim approval effective on March 6, 1995;interim approval expires December 1, 2001.

(2) Revisions submitted on May 8, 2001.Full approval is effective on November 30,2001.

(c) Clark County Department of Air QualityManagement:

(1) Submitted on January 12, 1994 andamended on July 18 and September 21, 1994;interim approval effective on August 14,1995; interim approval expires on December1, 2001.

(2) Revisions submitted on June 1, 2001.Full approval is effective on November 30,2001.



40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300734A; FRL–6804–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

4-Amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one[Metribuzin], Dichlobenil,Diphenylamine, Sulprofos,Pendimethalin, and Terbacil; ToleranceActions


SUMMARY: This final rule establishes,modifies, and revokes specifictolerances for residues of the herbicidesdichlobenil, metribuzin, pendimethalin,and terbacil; the plant growth regulatordiphenylamine, and the insecticidesulprofos. EPA is revoking certaintolerances because EPA has canceledthe food uses associated with them. Theregulatory actions proposed in this finalrule are part of the Agency’sreregistration program under the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide, and RodenticideAct (FIFRA), and the tolerancereassessment requirements of theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act(FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended bythe Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)of 1996. By law, EPA is required byAugust 2002 to reassess 66% of thetolerances in existence on August 2,1996, or about 6,400 tolerances. Thisfinal rule revokes 29 tolerances, butonly one tolerance reassessment(sulprofos) is counted here toward theAugust, 2002 review deadline. Thetolerances associated with the other 28revocations were reassessed andcounted previously through theReregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)process.DATES: This regulation is effectiveMarch 5, 2002. Objections and requestsfor hearings, identified by docketcontrol number OPP–300734A, must be



received by EPA on or before February4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Written objections andhearing requests may be submitted bymail, in person, or by courier. Pleasefollow the detailed instructions for eachmethod as provided in Unit IV. of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensureproper receipt by EPA, your objectionsand hearing requests must identifydocket control number OPP–300734A inthe subject line on the first page of yourresponse.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bymail: Joseph Nevola, Special Reviewand Reregistration Division (7508C),Office of Pesticide Programs,Environmental Protection Agency, 1200Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington,DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; 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:

Categories NAICSExamples of Poten-tially Affected Enti-

ties

Industry 111 Crop production112 Animal production311 Food manufacturing32532 Pesticide manufac-

turing

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 this

document, 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/. A frequentlyupdated electronic version of 40 CFRpart 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_180/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html,a beta site currently under development.

2. In person. The Agency hasestablished an official record for thisaction under docket control numberOPP–300734A. 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

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

This final rule establishes, modifies,and revokes the tolerances for residuesof 4-Amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one,metribuzin, dichlobenil,diphenylamine, sulprofos,pendimethalin, and terbacil in or oncertain specified commodities.

The tolerances revoked by this ruleare no longer necessary to coverresidues of the relevant pesticides in oron domestically treated commodities orcommodities treated outside butimported into the United States. Thesepesticides are no longer used on thosespecified commodities within theUnited States, and no one commentedthat there was a need for EPA to retainthe tolerances to cover residues in or onimported foods. EPA has historicallyexpressed a concern that retention oftolerances that are not necessary tocover residues in or on legally treatedfoods could potentially encouragemisuse of pesticides within the United

States. Thus, it is EPA’s policy to issuea final rule revoking those tolerances forresidues of pesticide chemicals forwhich there are no active registrationsunder FIFRA, unless any personcommenting on the proposaldemonstrates a need for the tolerance tocover residues in or on importedcommodities or domestic commoditieslegally treated.

Today’s final rule does not revoke ormodify those tolerances for which EPAreceived comments demonstrating aneed for the tolerance to remain ascurrently expressed. Generally, EPAwill proceed with the revocation ormodification of these tolerances on thegrounds discussed above only if: (i)Prior to EPA’s issuance of a section408(f) order requesting additional dataor issuance of a section 408(d) or (e)order revoking the tolerances on othergrounds, commenters retract thecomment identifying a need for thetolerance to be retained, (ii) EPAindependently verifies that the toleranceis no longer needed or should beotherwise modified, or (iii) the toleranceis not supported by data thatdemonstrate that the tolerance meets therequirements under FQPA.

In the Federal Register of October 16,1998 (63 FR 55565) (FRL–6035–7), EPAissued a proposed rule to establish,revise, or revoke the tolerances listed inthis final rule. EPA proposedrevocations pertaining to pesticideswhose registrations were canceledbecause the registrant failed to pay therequired maintenance fee and/or theregistrant voluntarily canceled allregistered uses associated with thetolerance revocations for thesepesticides. Also, the October 16, 1998proposal invited public comment forconsideration and for support oftolerance retention under FFDCAstandards.

The following comments werereceived by the Agency in response tothe document published on October 16,1998:

1. Diphenylamine. A comment wasreceived from the European Union (EU)that expressed concern with EPA’sproposed actions to establish 0.01 ppm(the limit of detection) for residues ofdiphenylamine in milk, meat, fat, andmeat byproducts (excluding liver) ofcattle, goats, horses, and sheep. The EUbelieved that EPA’s evaluation appearedto consider the limit of detection as theonly acceptable limit for all thecommodities listed. The EU argued thatan accurate study of animal metabolismhas not been carried out by EPA beforetaking such action.

Also, the EU wrote that the EuropeanCommunity did an evaluation which led



to different proposed Maximum ResidueLimits (MRLs) for diphenylamine abouttwo years prior to the proposed rule. Inaddition, the EU believed that a clearimport tolerance and pesticide policyhad not been established by the Agency.

Agency response. A ReregistrationEligibility Decision (RED) fordiphenylamine was approved onSeptember 30, 1997. Through the REDprocess, EPA determined that thetolerances recommended in the REDdocument met the safety standardsunder FQPA. In particular, adequatedata indicate that tolerances for residuesin milk and meat could be increasedfrom the current level of 0.0 ppm andestablished as separate tolerances set at0.01 ppm. Both a 1996 study on edibletissues and milk from lactating dairycows, and a 1996 study on milk andtissues from lactating goats are cited inthe bibliography of the RED regardingtolerance recommendations for milk andmeat, fat, and meat byproducts(excluding liver) of cattle, goats, horses,and sheep. The Agency believes thatthese data sufficiently support EPA’sfinding.

When possible, EPA seeks toharmonize U.S. tolerances with CodexMRLs, although EPA may establish atolerance that is different. In this case,differences between Codex and U.S.tolerances on milk and meat at 0.01ppm is justified by data. Further, nodiphenylamine Codex MRLs are listedfor milk or meat in the Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations Statistical (FAOSTAT) databasefor pesticide residues in food, as of thelast update on September 2, 1999. Also,no diphenylamine MRLs are listed formilk or meat in the EU MRLs listed inEU’s Food Safety database for pesticideresidues, as of the last update on March12, 2001.

Since the time when the EU commenton import tolerances was received, EPApublished in the Federal Register onJune 1, 2000 (65 FR 35069) (FRL–6559–3) an import tolerance guidance entitled‘‘Pesticides; Guidance on PesticideImport Tolerances and Residue Data forImported Food; Request for Comment.’’In this document, EPA solicitedcomments on the approach reflected inthe guidance on how to obtain animport tolerance, both for establishingnew import tolerances and formodifying or maintaining existing U. S.tolerances for import purposes whenU.S. uses or registrations are canceled.

Therefore, EPA is establishingtolerances in 40 CFR 180.190 fordiphenylamine at 0.01 ppm for milk,meat, fat, and meat byproducts, exceptliver of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep.Also, EPA is establishing separate

tolerances at 0.1 ppm for liver of cattle,goats, horses, and sheep. In addition,EPA is establishing a tolerance at 30ppm for ‘‘apple, wet pomace’’ becausedata from an adequate apple processingstudy indicate that it is needed. EPA ischanging the name of the commoditytolerance ‘‘apple, preharvest orpostharvest, including wraps’’ in 40CFR 180.190 to ‘‘apple from preharvestor postharvest use, including use ofimpregnated wraps’’ to conform tocurrent Agency practice.

2. Terbacil. Comment from DuPontAgricultural Products. A comment wasreceived by the Agency from DuPontAgricultural Products agreeing with theproposed reassessment action forterbacil and the EPA Terbacil RED thatthe tolerance definition listed under 40CFR 180.209(a) and (b) should beidentical for all commodities, and alltolerances should be listed under onesection. However, DuPont requestedthat the terbacil tolerance expressionshould be further simplified byincluding only the parent andmetabolite A. DuPont claimed thatanalysis of all three minor metabolitesfor each commodity is not needed toassure compliance with the labeldirections since metabolites B and C arerarely detected. DuPont declared thatthe existing tolerance levels for terbacilare adequate to assure compliance withlabel directions, but that it would beappropriate to include the moreconservative, higher levels as proposedin the October 16, 1998 document forthose crops other than alfalfa forage andhay.

Agency response. The Agencybelieves the tolerances for terbacil mustinclude all the metabolites. A toleranceis the maximum pesticide chemicalresidue allowable in or on a food fromthe use of a pesticide registered underFIFRA. The term ‘‘pesticide chemicalresidue’’ is defined under section201(q)(2) of the FFDCA as ‘‘a pesticidechemical or any other substance that ispresent on or in the commodity or foodprimarily as a result of the metabolismor other degradation of a pesticidechemical.’’

EPA has determined that the pesticidechemical residues in the toleranceexpression for terbacil are the parentand its metabolites, labelled A, B, andC. The metabolites were included in theterbacil risk assessment as residues oftoxic concern (i.e., all four chemicalscontribute to the risk) and therefore, allfour should be regulated in the toleranceexpression. DuPont’s commentsregarding compliance with labeldirections do not offer any reason whymetabolites B and C should not beregulated as pesticide chemical residues

of toxic concern. The reason for thetolerance is to limit the risk, not merelyto ensure compliance with labeldirections, even though suchcompliance may be an important factorin limiting the risk. The Agency willmaintain the proposed toleranceexpression for terbacil.

Therefore, the tolerance expressionsare unified to include terbacil (3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil) and itsmetabolites [3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-hydroxymethyluracil], [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-7-hydroxymethyl 3,3-dimethyl-5H-oxazolo (3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one],and [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-3,3,7-trimethyl-5H-oxazolo (3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], calculated as terbacil. Inaccordance, 40 CFR 180.209, paragraphs(a)(1) and (a)(2) are combined. To reflectthe combined limit of detection forterbacil and its three regulatedmetabolites, EPA is increasing thetolerances for (i) peaches from 0.1 to 0.2ppm and revising the name to ‘‘peach,’’(ii) blueberries from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm andrevising the name to ‘‘blueberry,’’ and(iii) caneberries (blackberries,boysenberries, dewberries, loganberries,raspberries, and youngberries) from 0.1to 0.2 ppm and revising the name to‘‘caneberry.’’ Based upon availableresidue data, the Agency is increasingtolerances for (i) apples from 0.1 to 0.3ppm and revising the name to ‘‘apple,’’(ii) asparagus from 0.2 to 0.4 ppm, and(iii) sugarcane from 0.1 to 0.4 ppm.

Also, available data support theestablishment of lower alfalfatolerances. Therefore, EPA is decreasingthe tolerances for ‘‘alfalfa, forage’’ from5.0 to 1.0 ppm, and ‘‘alfalfa, hay’’ from5.0 to 2.0 ppm. The Agency hasdetermined that once these toleranceson alfalfa are decreased, the tolerancesfor residues of terbacil and itsmetabolites on all animal commoditiescould be revoked because there is noreasonable expectation of finite residuesin animal commodities 40 CFR180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is revokingthe tolerances in 40 CFR 180.209 forresidues of terbacil and its metabolitesin or on cattle, fat; cattle, mbyp; cattle,meat; goats, fat; goats, mbyp; goats,meat; hogs, fat; hogs, mbyp; hogs, meat;horses, fat; horses, mbyp; horses, meat;milk, fat; sheep, fat; sheep, mbyp; andsheep, meat.

In addition, EPA is revoking thetolerances for residues of terbacil and itsmetabolites in or on pears; pecans;sainfoin, forage; and sainfoin hay in 40CFR 180.209 because no registered usesexist.

Note, a tolerance for citrus fruitsappeared in the table under 180.209 inthe rule of October 16, 1998 (63 FR55565) because it existed at that time.



However, that citrus fruits tolerance hadbeen previously proposed for revocationon February 5, 1998 (63 FR 5907) (FRL–5743–9) and was later revoked in a finalrule published on October 26, 1998 (63FR 57067) (FRL–6035–6).

EPA is changing the name of thecommodity tolerances ‘‘mint hay(peppermint and spearmint)’’ given onone line in 40 CFR 180.209 by listingthe two tolerances on separate lines andrevising their names to ‘‘peppermint,tops’’ and ‘‘spearmint, tops’’ to conformto current Agency practice. EPA is alsorevising the name ‘‘strawberries’’ to‘‘strawberry.’’

No comments were received by theAgency concerning the following:

3. Metribuzin. In the codificationsection of the proposed rule (October16, 1998, 63 FR 55565), EPAinadvertently listed the tolerance formetribuzin on lentil in error as 0.5instead of the correct level of 0.05 ppm.That tolerance change was anunintended typographical error. Nochange concerning the lentil tolerancelevel was proposed for metribuzin. Thename change from lentils (dried) tolentil was proposed as one of the ‘‘otherterminology changes.’’ Therefore, EPA ischanging the tolerance name to ‘‘lentil,’’but the tolerance level will remain at0.05 ppm.

In the proposed rule of October 16,1998, the tolerance for sugarcanemolasses in 40 CFR 180.332 was notedto be listed incorrectly as 0.3 ppm, andwas proposed to be revised to reflect thecorrect tolerance of 2 ppm (August 24,1978, 43 FR 35915), along with aterminology revision to ‘‘sugarcane,molasses.’’ A final rule on May 24, 2000(65 FR 33691) (FRL–6043–1) transferredthe tolerance for sugarcane molasses at2.0 ppm from 185.250 to 180.332(a),increased the existing tolerance in 40CFR 180.332(a) for sugarcane molassesfrom 0.3 ppm to 2.0 ppm, and removedthe duplicate entry for sugarcanemolassses at 2.0 ppm created by thetransfer. Therefore, no further action inthis rule is required to implement themetribuzin RED regarding sugarcanemolasses.

The metribuzin RED, approved onMay 20, 1997, stated that the tolerancefor sweet corn should be revokedbecause there were no registered uses.However, a registered use for sweet cornwas approved in August, 1997.Therefore, the tolerance for corn, fresh(inc. sweet K + CWHR) is not revoked.EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR180.332 for residues of metribuzin andits metabolites in or on lentils, vine haybecause it is no longer considered asignificant livestock feed commodity;therefore a tolerance is not necessary.

In 40 CFR 180.332, EPA isestablishing tolerances for both barley,hay and wheat, hay at 7 parts permillion (ppm). EPA is increasingtolerances for asparagus from 0.05 to 0.1ppm and for soybeans from 0.1 to 0.3ppm, and is revising the name from‘‘soybeans ’’ to ‘‘soybean, seed.’’ Thetolerance for peas, vine hay is increasedfrom 0.05 to 4 ppm, and the named isrevised to ‘‘ pea, field, hay.’’

Other terminology changes are givenin the regulatory text as follows:‘‘Alfalfa, green ’’ to ‘‘alfalfa, forage;’’‘‘barley, milled fractions (except flour)’’to ‘‘barley, pearled barley;’’ ‘‘carrots ’’ to‘‘carrot;’’ ‘‘cattle, mbyp’’ to ‘‘cattle, meatbyproducts;’’ ‘‘corn, fodder’’ to ‘‘corn,field, stover’’ and ‘‘corn, sweet, stover;’’‘‘corn, forage’’ to ‘‘corn, field, forage’’and ‘‘corn, sweet, forage;’’ ‘‘corn, fresh(inc. sweet K+CWHR)’’ to ‘‘corn, sweet,kernel plus cob with husks removed;’’‘‘corn, grain (inc. popcorn)’’ to ‘‘corn,field, grain ’’ and ‘‘corn, pop, grain;’’‘‘eggs’’ to ‘‘egg;’’ ‘‘goats, fat;’’ to ‘‘goat,fat;’’ ‘‘ goats, mbyp;’’ to ‘‘goat, meatbyproducts;’’ ‘‘goats, meat;’’ to ‘‘goat,meat;’’ ‘‘grass’’ to ‘‘grass, forage;’’ ‘‘hogs,fat;’’ to ‘‘hog, fat;‘‘ ‘‘hogs, mbyp;’’ to‘‘hog, meat byproducts;’’ ‘‘hogs, meat;’’to ‘‘hog, meat;’’ ‘‘horses, fat;’’ to ‘‘horse,fat;’’ ‘‘horses, mbyp;’’ to ‘‘horse, meatbyproducts;’’ ‘‘horses, meat;’’ to ‘‘horse,meat;’’ ‘‘peas’’ to ‘‘pea, succulent;’’‘‘peas (dried)’’ to ‘‘pea, dry, seed;’’‘‘peas, forage’’ to ‘‘pea, field, vines;’’‘‘potatoes, processed (inc. potato chips)’’to ‘‘potato, processed potato waste ’’ and‘‘potato, chips;’’ ‘‘poultry, mbyp;’’ to‘‘poultry, meat byproducts;’’ ‘‘sainfoin’’to ‘‘sainfoin, forage;’’ ‘‘sheep, mbyp;’’ to‘‘sheep, meat byproducts;’’ ‘‘soybeans,forage’’ to ‘‘soybean, forage;’’ ‘‘soybeans,hay’’ to ‘‘soybean, hay;’’ ‘‘sugarcanemolasses’’ to ‘‘sugarcane, molasses;’’‘‘tomatoes’’ to ‘‘tomato;’’ and ‘‘wheat,milled fractions (except flour)’’ to‘‘wheat, bran;’’ ‘‘wheat, middlings;’’‘‘wheat, shorts;’’ and ‘‘wheat, germ.’’

4. Dichlobenil. In 40 CFR 180.231, themetabolite 2,6-Dichlorobenzamide(BAM) is added to the toleranceexpression of dichlobenil (2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile) and the metabolite2,6-dichlorobenzoic acid (2,6-DCBA) isdeleted from the tolerance expression.Based upon the available residue dataand to reflect the combined residues ofdichlobenil and BAM, tolerances forapples and pears are increased from0.15 to 0.5 ppm, and tolerances forblackberries, cranberries, andraspberries are decreased from 0.15 to0.10 ppm.

EPA is revoking the tolerances forresidues of dichlobenil and itsmetabolite in or on almond hulls;avocados; citrus; figs; and mangoes in

40 CFR 180.231 because no registereduses exist. The Agency is revoking thetolerance for nuts in 40 CFR 180.231and is establishing a tolerance for filbertat 0.1 ppm as a separate tolerancebecause no other tree nut uses are beingsupported by the registrant.

Terminology changes are given in theregulatory text as follows: ‘‘Apples’’ to‘‘apple,’’ ‘‘blackberries’’ to ‘‘blackberry,’’‘‘blueberries’’ to ‘‘blueberry,’’‘‘cranberries’’ to ‘‘cranberry,’’ ‘‘grapes’’to ‘‘grape,’’ ‘‘pears’’ to ‘‘ pear,’’‘‘raspberries’’ to ‘‘raspberry’’ and ‘‘stonefruits’’ to ‘‘fruit, stone, group.’’

5. Pendimethalin. In 40 CFR 180.361,EPA is establishing a tolerance at 0.1ppm for rice, straw; and is increasingthe tolerance on rice grain from 0.05 to0.1 ppm based on available field trialdata and to reflect the analyticalmethod’s limit of quantitation for thecombined residues of pendimethalinand its regulated metabolite. EPA alsocombines the tolerance for garlic, listedunder § 180.361(c) ‘‘Tolerances withregional registrations,’’ with§ 180.361(a), which lists tolerances forregistrations without regionalrestriction, since EPA has data thatsupport a national registration andtolerance for garlic at the same level (0.1ppm).

EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40CFR 180.361 for residues ofpendimethalin and its metabolite in oron peanut, forage because it is no longerconsidered a significant livestock feedcommodity; therefore a tolerance is notnecessary.

Terminology changes are given in theregulatory text as follows: ‘‘beans, lima(dry, snap)’’ to ‘‘bean, lima, seed’’ and‘‘bean, lima, succulent;’’ ‘‘beans, forage‘‘to ‘‘bean, forage ’’ ‘‘beans, hay’’ to‘‘bean, hay;’’ ‘‘corn, fodder’’ to ‘‘corn,field, stover’’ and ‘‘corn, sweet, stover;’’‘‘corn, forage’’ to ‘‘corn, field, forage’’and ‘‘corn, sweet, forage;’’ ‘‘corn, grain’’to ‘‘corn, field, grain’’ and ‘‘corn, pop,grain;’’ ‘‘corn, fresh (including sweet,K+CWHR)’’ to ‘‘corn, sweet, kernel pluscob with husks removed;’’ ‘‘cottonseed’’to ‘‘cotton, undelinted seed;’’ ‘‘onions,dry bulb’’ to ‘‘onion, dry bulb;’’‘‘peanuts’’ to ‘‘peanut;’’ ‘‘peas (exceptfield peas)’’ to ‘‘pea, succulent;’’‘‘potatoes’’ to ‘‘potato;’’ ‘‘sorghum,fodder‘‘ to ‘‘sorghum, grain, stover;’’‘‘sorghum, grain’’ to ‘‘sorghum, grain,grain;’’ ‘‘soybeans ’’ to ‘‘soybean, seed;’’‘‘soybeans, forage’’ to ‘‘soybean, forage;’’‘‘soybeans, hay’’ to ‘‘soybean, hay;’’ and‘‘sunflower, seeds’’ to ‘‘sunflower,seed.’’

6. Sulprofos. EPA is revoking thetolerance in 40 CFR 180.542 for residuesof sulprofos and its cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites in cottonseed oil



because no registered use exists. In theproposed rule, the cottonseed oiltolerance was listed in 40 CFR 185.3000(63 FR 55565); however, that tolerancewas moved into 40 CFR 180.542 and§ 185.3000 was removed (65 FR 33703,May 24, 2000) (FRL–6041–9).

B. What is the Agency’s Authority forTaking this Action?

EPA has issued ReregistrationEligibility Decisions (REDs) for theactive ingredients listed in this finalrule with the exception of sulprofos.During the reregistration process, EPAapproved the registrant’s request forvoluntary cancellation of sulprofosregistrations (61 FR 65218, December11, 1996) (FRL–5573–6). No activeregistrations exist for sulprofos.

EPA may issue a regulationestablishing, modifying, or revoking atolerance under FFDCA section 408(e).EPA is establishing, modifying, andrevoking tolerances to implement thetolerance recommendations madeduring the reregistration process. Aspart of the reregistration process, EPA isrequired to determine whether each ofthe amended tolerances meets the safetystandards under the Food QualityProtection Act (FQPA). The safetyfinding determination is found in detailin each RED for the active ingredient.RED recommendations, such asestablishing or modifying tolerances,require assessment under the FQPAstandard of ‘‘reasonable certainty of noharm.’’ However, tolerance revocationsrecommended in those REDs becausethere are no registered uses may berevoked in this document without suchassessment, because the tolerances areno longer necessary. REDs proposecertain tolerance actions to beimplemented to meet safety findingsand change commodity names andgroupings in accordance with new EPApolicy. Printed copies of the REDs maybe obtained from EPA’s National ServiceCenter for Environmental Publications(EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419,Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone1-800-490-9198; fax 513-489-8695 andfrom the National Technical InformationService (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000. Electroniccopies of the RED are available on theinternet at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

It is EPA’s general practice to revoketolerances for residues of pesticideactive ingredients on crop uses forwhich FIFRA registrations no longerexist. EPA has historically beenconcerned that retention of tolerancesthat are not necessary to cover residuesin or on legally treated foods may

encourage misuse of pesticides withinthe United States. Nonetheless, EPAwill establish and maintain toleranceseven when corresponding domestic usesare canceled if the tolerances, whichEPA refers to as ‘‘import tolerances,’’ arenecessary to allow importation into theUnited States of food containing suchpesticide residues. However, wherethere are no imported commodities thatrequire these import tolerances, theAgency believes it is appropriate torevoke tolerances for unregisteredpesticides in order to prevent potentialmisuse.

C. When Do These Actions BecomeEffective?

These actions become effective 90days following publication of this finalrule in the Federal Register. EPA hasdelayed the effectiveness of theserevocations for 90 days followingpublication of this final rule to ensurethat all affected parties receive notice ofEPA’s actions. Consequently, theeffective date is March 5, 2002. For thisfinal rule, tolerances that were revokedbecause registered uses did not existconcerned uses which have beencanceled for more than a year.Therefore, commodities containingthese pesticide residues should havecleared the channels of trade.

Any commodities listed in theregulatory text of this document that aretreated with the pesticides subject tothis final rule, and that are in thechannels of trade following thetolerance revocation or modification,shall be subject to FFDCA section408(1)(5), as established by the FQPA.Under this section, any residue of thesepesticides in or on such food shall notrender the food adulterated so long as itis shown to the satisfaction of FDA that,(i) the residue is present as the result ofan application or use of the pesticide ata time nd in a manner that was lawfulunder FIFRA, and (ii) the residue doesnot exceed the level that was authorizedat the time of the application or use tobe present on the food under a toleranceor exemption from a tolerance. Evidenceto show that food was lawfully treatedmay include records that verify thedates that the pesticide was applied tosuch food.

D. What is the Contribution to ToleranceReassessment?

By law, EPA is required to reassess66% or about 6,400 of the tolerances inexistence on August 2, 1996, by August2002. EPA is also required to assess theremaining tolerances by August, 2006.As of November 27, 2001, EPA hasreassessed over 3,830 tolerances. In thisdocument, EPA revokes 29 tolerances of

which 28 were previously counted asreassessed via the RED process.Therefore, one tolerance revocation iscounted here as a tolerancereassessment toward the August, 2002review deadline of FFDCA section408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.

III. Are There Any International TradeIssues Raised by this Final Action?

EPA is working to ensure that the U.S.tolerance reassessment program underFQPA does not disrupt internationaltrade. EPA considers Codex MaximumResidue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S.tolerances and in reassessing them.MRLs are established by the CodexCommittee on Pesticide Residues, acommittee within the CodexAlimentarius Commission, aninternational organization formed topromote the coordination ofinternational food standards. Whenpossible, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.tolerances with Codex MRLs. EPA mayestablish a tolerance that is differentfrom a Codex MRL; however, FFDCAsection 408(b)(4) requires that EPAexplain in a Federal Register documentthe reasons for departing from theCodex level. EPA’s effort to harmonizewith Codex MRLs is summarized in thetolerance reassessment section ofindividual REDs. The U.S. EPA hasdeveloped guidance concerningsubmissions for import tolerancesupport (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000)(FRL–6559–3). This guidance will bemade available to interested persons.Electronic copies are available on theinternet at http://www.epa.gov/. On theHome Page select ‘‘Laws andRegulations,’’ then select ‘‘Regulationsand Proposed Rules’’ and then look upthe entry for this document underFederal Register—EnvironmentalDocuments.’’ You can also go directly tothe Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

IV. Objections and Hearing Requests

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–300734A in the subjectline on the first page of yoursubmission. All requests must be inwriting, and must be mailed ordelivered to the Hearing Clerk on orbefore February 4, 2002.

1. Filing the request. Your objectionmust specify the specific provisions inthe regulation that you object to, and the



grounds for the objections (40 CFR178.25). 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. Objection/hearing fee payment. Ifyou file an objection or request ahearing, you must also pay the feeprescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) orrequest a waiver of that fee pursuant to40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail thefee to: EPA Headquarters AccountingOperations Branch, Office of PesticidePrograms, P.O. Box 360277M,Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identifythe fee submission by labeling it‘‘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 inUnit IV.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–300734A, 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 orASCII file format. Do not include anyCBI in your electronic copy. You mayalso submit an electronic copy of yourrequest at many Federal DepositoryLibraries.

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).

V. Regulatory AssessmentRequirements

This final rule establishes, modifies,and revokes tolerances establishedunder FFDCA section 408. The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) hasexempted these types of actions; i.e.,establishment and modification of atolerance, and tolerance revocation forwhich extraordinary circumstances donot exist, from review under ExecutiveOrder 12866, entitled RegulatoryPlanning and Review (58 FR 51735,October 4, 1993). Because this rule hasbeen exempted from review underExecutive Order 12866 due to its lack ofsignificance, this rule is not subject toExecutive Order 13211, ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This final rule does notcontain 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 anyspecial considerations under ExecutiveOrder 12898, entitled Federal Actions toAddress Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations (59 FR 7629, February 16,1994); or OMB review or any otherAgency 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). Pursuant tothe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agencypreviously assessed whetherestablishment of tolerances, exemptionsfrom tolerances, raising of tolerancelevels, expansion of exemptions, orrevocations of tolerances mightsignificantly impact a substantialnumber of small entities and concludedthat, as a general matter, these actionsdo not impose a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. These analyses for toleranceestablishments and modifications, andfor tolerance revocations werepublished on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950)and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR66020), respectively, and were providedto the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of theSmall Business Administration. Takinginto account these analyses, andavailable information concerning thepesticides listed in this rule, I certifythat this action will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPAhas reviewed its available data onimports and foreign pesticide usage andconcludes that there is a reasonableinternational supply of food not treatedwith canceled pesticides. Furthermore,the Agency knows of no extraordinarycircumstances that exist as to thepresent establishments, modifications,or revocations that would change EPA’sprevious analyses.

In addition, the Agency hasdetermined that this action will nothave a substantial direct effect on States,



on the relationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution 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 timely inputby 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).For these same reasons, the Agency hasdetermined that this rule does not haveany ‘‘tribal implications’’ as describedin Executive Order 13175, entitledConsultation and Coordination withIndian Tribal Governments (65 FR67249, November 6, 2000). ExecutiveOrder 13175 requires EPA to develop anaccountable process to ensure‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribalofficials in the development ofregulatory policies that have tribalimplications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribalimplications’’ is defined in theExecutive Order to include regulationsthat have ‘‘substantial direct effects onone or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the Federalgovernment and the Indian tribes, or onthe distribution of power andresponsibilities between the Federalgovernment and Indian tribes.’’ Thisrule will not have substantial directeffects on tribal governments, on therelationship between the Federalgovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the Federalgovernment and Indian tribes, asspecified in Executive Order 13175.Thus, Executive Order 13175 does notapply to this rule.

VI. 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, the

agency 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 this finalrule in the Federal Register. This finalrule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by5 U.S.C. 804(2).


Environmental protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Agricultural commodities, Pesticidesand pests, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Dated: November 20, 2001.Marcia E. Mulkey,Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 isamended as follows:

PART 180— [AMENDED]


Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and371.

2. Section 180.190 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 180.190 Diphenylamine; tolerances forresidues.

(a) General. Tolerances for residues ofthe plant regulator diphenylamine areestablished in or on the followingcommodities:

Commodity Parts per mil-lion

Apple, wet pomace 30.0Apple from preharvest or

postharvest use, includinguse of impregnated wraps

10.0

Cattle, fat 0.01Cattle, liver 0.1Cattle, meat byproducts, ex-

cept liver0.01

Cattle, meat 0.01Goat, fat 0.01Goat, liver 0.1Goat, meat byproducts, ex-

cept liver0.01

Goat, meat 0.01Horse, fat 0.01Horse, liver 0.1Horse, meat byproducts, ex-

cept liver0.01

Horse, meat 0.01Milk 0.01Sheep, fat 0.01Sheep, liver 0.1Sheep, meat byproducts, ex-

cept liver0.01

Sheep, meat 0.01

* * * * *3. Section 180.209 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 180.209 Terbacil; tolerances forresidues.

(a) General. Tolerances areestablished for combined residues of theherbicide terbacil (3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil) and its metabolites [3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-hydroxymethyluracil], [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-7-hydroxymethyl 3,3-dimethyl-5H-oxazolo (3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one],and [6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-3,3,7-trimethyl-5H-oxazolo (3,2-a) pyrimidin-5-one], calculated as terbacil, in or onraw agricultural commodities asfollows:

Commodity Parts per million

Alfalfa, forage 1.0Alfalfa, hay 2.0Apple 0.3Asparagus 0.4Blueberry 0.2Caneberry 0.2Peach 0.2Peppermint, tops 2.0Spearmint, tops 2.0Strawberry 0.1Sugarcane 0.4


revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 180.231 Dichlobenil; tolerances forresidues.

(a) General. Tolerances areestablished for the combined residues ofthe herbicide dichlobenil (2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile) and its metabolite2,6-dichlorobenzamide in or on thefollowing raw agricultural commodities:


Apple 0.5Blackberry 0.1Blueberry 0.15Cranberry 0.1Filbert 0.1Fruit, stone, group 0.15Grape 0.15Pear 0.5Raspberry 0.1


revising the table under paragraph (a) toread as follows:

§ 180.332 Metribuzin; tolerances forresidues.

(a) General. * * *


Alfalfa, forage 2.0Alfalfa, hay 7.0




Asparagus 0.1Barley, grain 0.75Barley, hay 7.0Barley, pearled barley 3.0Barley, straw 1.0Carrot 0.3Cattle, fat 0.7Cattle, meat 0.7Cattle, meat byproducts 0.7Corn, field, forage 0.1Corn, field, grain 0.05Corn, field, stover 0.1Corn, pop, grain 0.05Corn, sweet, forage 0.1Corn, sweet, kernel plus

cob with husks removed0.05

Corn, sweet, stover 0.1Egg 0.01Goat, fat 0.7Goat, meat 0.7Goat, meat byproducts 0.7Grass, forage 2.0Grass, hay 7.0Hog, fat 0.7Hog, meat 0.7Hog, meat byproducts 0.7Horse, fat 0.7Horse, meat 0.7Horse, meat byproducts 0.7Lentil 0.05Milk 0.05Pea, dry, seed 0.05Pea, field, hay 4.0Pea, field, vines 0.5Pea, succulent 0.1Potato 0.6Potato, chips 3.0Potato, processed potato

waste3.0

Potato waste, processed(dried)

3.0

Poultry, fat 0.7Poultry, meat 0.7Poultry, meat byproducts 0.7Sainfoin, forage 2.0Sainfoin, hay 7.0Sheep, fat 0.7Sheep, meat 0.7Sheep, meat byproducts 0.7Soybean, seed 0.3Soybean, forage 4.0Soybean, hay 4.0Sugarcane 0.1Sugarcane, molasses 2.0Tomato 0.1Wheat, bran 3.0Wheat, forage 2.0Wheat, germ 3.0Wheat, grain 0.75Wheat, hay 7.0Wheat, middlings 3.0Wheat, shorts 3.0Wheat, straw 1.0

* * * * *

6. Section 180.361 is amended byalphabetically adding the commodity‘‘garlic’’ in paragraph (c) to the table inparagraph (a), by revising paragraph (a),and removing the remaining text fromparagraph (c) and reserving it to read asfollows:

§ 180.361 Pendimethalin; tolerances forresidues.

(a) General. * * *


Bean, lima, seed 0.1Bean, lima, succulent 0.1Bean, forage 0.1Bean, hay 0.1Corn, field, forage 0.1Corn, field, grain 0.1Corn, field, stover 0.1Corn, pop, grain 0.1Corn, sweet, forage 0.1Corn, sweet, kernel plus

cob with husks removed0.1

Corn, sweet, stover 0.1Cotton, undelinted seed 0.1Garlic 0.1Onion, dry bulb 0.1Pea, succulent 0.1Peanut 0.1Peanut, hay 0.1Potato 0.1Rice, grain 0.1Rice, straw 0.1Sorghum, forage 0.1Sorghum, grain, grain 0.1Sorghum, grain, stover 0.1Soybean, forage 0.1Soybean, hay 0.1Soybean, seed 0.1Sugarcane 0.1Sunflower, seed 0.1

* * * * *(c) Tolerances with regional

registrations. [Reserved]* * * * *

§ 180.542 [Removed]

7. Section 180.542 is removed.

[FR Doc. 01–30103 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–2734; MM Docket No. 01–178; RM–10195]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Wadley,GA

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In response to a Notice ofProposed Rule Making, 66 FR 42622(August 14, 2001), this document allotsChannel 227A to Wadley, Georgia, andprovides Wadley with its first localaural transmission service. Thecoordinates for Channel 227A at Wadleyare 32–52–00 North Latitude and 82–24–15 West Longitude.DATES: Effective January 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau,(202) 418–2180.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asynopsis of the Commission’s Reportand Order, MM Docket No. 01–178,adopted November 14, 2001, andreleased November 23, 2001. The fulltext of this Commission decision isavailable for inspection and copyingduring normal business hours in theFCC’s Reference Information Center atPortals II, 44512th Street, SW, RoomCY–A257, Washington, DC, 20554. Thedocument may also be purchased fromthe Commission’s duplicatingcontractor, Qualex International, PortalsII, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY–B402,Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202863–2893. facsimile 202 863–2898, orvia e-mail [email protected].


Radio broadcasting.Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCASTSERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 73reads as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under Georgia, is amendedby adding Wadley, Channel 227A.Federal Communications Commission.John A. Karousos,Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and RulesDivision, Mass Media Bureau.[FR Doc. 01–30088 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 660

[Docket No. 001226367–0367–01; I.D.111901C]

Fisheries off West Coast States and inthe Western Pacific; Pacific CoastGroundfish Fishery; Trip LimitAdjustment for Dover Sole in theLimited Entry Trawl Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.



ACTION: Inseason adjustment; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces a 1,000 lb(454 kg)/trip limit of Dover sole in thelimited entry trawl fishery coastwide forthe month of December. This action,which is authorized by the Pacific CoastGroundfish Fishery Management Plan(FMP) and its implementing regulations,is within the 2001 optimum yield (OY)for Dover sole and is intended to allowlandings of Dover sole caughtincidentally in other flatfish fisheries.DATES: Changes to managementmeasures are effective 0001 hours localtime December 1, 2001, unlessmodified, superseded, or rescindedthrough the effective dates of the 2002specifications and managementmeasures for the Pacific Coastgroundfish fishery, which will bepublished in the Federal Register.Comments on this rule will be acceptedthrough December 20, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments to D.Robert Lohn, Administrator, NorthwestRegion, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point WayNE, Seattle, WA 98115–0070; or to RodMcInnis, Acting Administrator,Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 WestOcean Blvd, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA90802–4213.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Yvonne deReynier or Jamie Goen,Northwest Region, NMFS, 206–526–6140.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic AccessThis Federal Register document is

also accessible via the internet at thewebsite of the Office of the FederalRegister: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/aces/aces140.html.

The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMPand its implementing regulations at 50CFR part 660, subpart G, regulate fishingfor over 80 species of groundfish off thecoasts of Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia. Annual groundfishspecifications and managementmeasures are initially developed by thePacific Fishery Management Council(Council) and are implemented byNMFS. The specifications andmanagement measures for the currentfishing year (January 1 throughDecember 31, 2001) were published at66 FR 2338, January 11, 2001, as

amended at 66 FR 10208 (February 14,2001), at 66 FR 18409 (April 9, 2001),at 66 FR 22467 (May 4, 2001), at 66 FR28676 (May 24, 2001), at 66 FR 35388(July 5, 2001), at 66 FR 38162 (July 23,2001), at 66 FR 50851 (October 5, 2001),at 66 FR 54721 (October 30, 2001), andat 66 FR 55599 (November 2, 2001).

Among the more than 80 speciesmanaged under the FMP are Dover sole,thornyheads, sablefish, and flatfish(flatfish is used in this document tomean all flatfish listed at 50 CFR660.302, except Dover sole). In the trawlfishery, Dover sole is targeted alongwith thornyheads and sablefish.Because these species are targetedtogether with trawl gear, they aremanaged as part of a multi-speciescomplex consisting of Dover sole,thornyheads (shortspine and longspine),and sablefish, known as the DTScomplex. In addition to the directedfishery for the DTS complex, Dover soleis also caught incidentally in otherflatfish trawl fisheries on thecontinental shelf and slope.

Through August 2001, the bestavailable information from PacFINindicated that the DTS complex wasapproaching the commercial landedcatch OY for 3 of 4 species, Dover sole(92 percent), trawl-caught sablefish (89percent) and shortspine thornyhead(79.7 percent). Based onrecommendations from the Council’sSeptember meeting, NMFS closed thelimited entry trawl directed fishery forthe DTS complex, including Dover sole,from October 2, 2001, through theeffective date for the 2002 specificationsand management measures in order toavoid exceeding the target landed catchOY of Dover sole, sablefish andshortspine thornyhead (66 FR 50851,October 5, 2001). However, other flatfishtrawl fisheries, such as Petrale sole andarrowtooth flounder, have remainedopen since September. Thus, while ithas been illegal to land Dover sole andany DTS complex species caught withtrawl gear since October 2, 2001, Doversole is still caught as bycatch in theother flatfish fisheries that haveremained open and is assumed to bediscarded. This discard is accounted forin calculating total catch by applying adiscard rate recommended by theCouncil based on a trawl logbook

analysis of the incidental catch of Doversole in other flatfish fisheries.

PacFIN data have been updated sincethe September Council meeting. Thebest available information indicates that93 percent of the Dover sole allocationhad been taken through October 31,2001, leaving 515 mt of the Dover soleOY available for harvest. In order toaccount for the Dover sole caughtincidentally in the winter flatfishfisheries, the Council recommended atits October 29 through November 2,2001, meeting in Millbrae, CA, to allowa 1,000 lb (454 kg)/trip limit of Doversole in December for the limited entrytrawl fleet. This action would allowvessels to retain Dover sole that wouldotherwise have been incidentallyharvested and discarded. Allowing theincidental retention of Dover sole in theflatfish fisheries is not expected toincrease incidental interception ofsablefish and shortspine thornyheadbecause flatfish trawling requiresdifferent fishing techniques and occursin different fishing grounds than in thedirected DTS trawl fisheries. Takinginto account the number of vessels andtrips per vessel by other flatfish fisheriesover the past 3 years during the monthof December, opening up this trip limitfor incidentally caught Dover sole isexpected to add another 200 to 300 mtto the landed catch OY, well within theapproximately 500 mt of remaining OY.

NMFS Actions

NMFS concurs with the Council’srecommendation and hereby announcesa trip limit for the limited entry trawlfishery coastwide of 1,000 lb (454 kg)/trip of Dover sole from December 1,2001, through the effective date of the2002 specifications and managementmeasures for the Pacific Coastgroundfish fishery. This trip limit isintended to allow for Dover sole caughtincidentally in other flatfish trawlfisheries.

Accordingly, at 66 FR 2338, January11, 2001, as subsequently amended, inSection IV, under B. Limited EntryFishery, Table 3 is revised to read asfollows:

IV. NMFS Actions

B. Limited Entry Fishery

* * * * *





* * * * *

Classification

This action is authorized by theregulations implementing the FMP andthe annual specifications andmanagement measures published at 66FR 2338 (January 11, 2001), as amendedat 66 FR 10208 (February 14, 2001), at66 FR 18409 (April 9, 2001), at 66 FR22467 (May 4, 2001), at 66 FR 28676(May 24, 2001), at 66 FR 35388 (July 5,2001), and 66 FR 38162 (July 23, 2001),at 66 FR 50851 (October 5, 2001), at 66FR 54721 (October 30, 2001), and at 66FR 55599 (November 2, 2001), and arebased on the most recent data available.

The Assistant Administrator forFisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good causeto waive the requirement to provideprior notice and comment on this actionpursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), asproviding prior notice and opportunityfor comment would be impracticable. Itwould be impracticable because the triplimit allowance is only effective forapproximately the last 30 days of thefishing year. Dover sole is below itstarget landed catch OY for the 2001fishing year, and any delay in actionwould not provide enough time for thefisheries to have access to the remainingDover sole OY. Thus, any delay inaction would unnecessarily restrictcommercial fishers and impede NMFS’s

responsibility under the FMP to managegroundfish fisheries to achieve OY.

For these reasons, good cause alsoexists to waive the 30–day delay ineffectiveness requirement of 5 U.S.C.553 (d)(3).

This action is taken under theauthority of 50 CFR 660.323 (b)(1) andis exempt from review under ExecutiveOrder 12866.


Dated: November 30, 2001.Jonathan M. Kurland,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 01–30112 Filed 11–30–01; 4:02 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

63203

Vol. 66, No. 234


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–107151–00]

RIN 1545–AX99

Constructive Transfers and Transfersof Property to a Third Party on Behalfof a Spouse; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),Treasury.ACTION: Cancellation of notice of publichearing on proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document providesnotice of cancellation of a publichearing on proposed regulations relatingto the tax treatment of certainredemptions, during marriage orincident to divorce, of stock owned bya spouse or former spouse.DATES: The public hearing originallyscheduled for Friday, December 14,2001, at 10 a.m., is cancelled.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: GuyR. Traynor, Regulations Unit, AssociateChief Counsel, (202) 622–7180 (not atoll-free number).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A noticeof proposed rulemaking and notice ofpublic hearing that appeared in theFederal Register on Friday, August 3,2001, (66 FR 40659) announced that apublic hearing was scheduled forDecember 14, 2001, at 10 a.m., in theauditorium of the Internal RevenueService Building, 1111 ConstitutionAvenue NW., Washington, DC 20408.The subject of the public hearing isproposed regulations under section1041 of the Internal Revenue Code. Thepublic comment period for theseproposed regulations expired onNovember 23, 2001.

The notice of proposed rulemakingand notice of public hearing, instructedthose interested in testifying at thepublic hearing to submit a request tospeak and an outline of the topics to beaddressed. As of November 29, 2001, no

one has requested to speak. Therefore,the public hearing scheduled forDecember 14, 2001, is cancelled.

Guy R. Traynor,Federal Register Certifying Officer,Regulations Unit, Associate Chief Counsel(Income Tax & Accounting).[FR Doc. 01–30030 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

Student Financial Assistance

AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Notice of intention to establishnegotiated rulemaking committees onissues for programs authorized underTitle IV of the Higher Education Act of1965, as amended.

SUMMARY: We announce our intention toestablish two negotiated rulemakingcommittees to prepare proposedregulations under Title IV of the HigherEducation Act of 1965, as amended(HEA). Each committee will includerepresentatives with interests that aresignificantly affected by the subjectmatter of the proposed regulations. Wealso announce a meeting to discuss theagenda and the procedures for thenegotiated rulemaking sessions. Werequest nominations for members whorepresent individuals and organizationsof key stakeholder constituencies thatare involved in the student financialassistance programs authorized underTitle IV of the HEA to serve on thesecommittees.

DATES: We must receive yournominations for membership on thecommittees on or before December 19,2001. We will hold a public meeting onDecember 14, 2001, at the Department ofEducation in Washington, DC forinterested parties to discuss the agendaand the procedures for the negotiatedrulemaking sessions.ADDRESSES: Please send yournominations to Rose Fletcher, U.S.Department of Education, 1990 K Street,NW., Room 8061, Washington, DC20006, or fax to Rose Fletcher at (202)502–7873. You may also email yournominations to: [email protected].

The meeting on December 14, 2001will be held at the GSA Auditorium,Regional Office Building #3, 7th and D

Street, SW., Washington, DC from 9:00am to 12:00 pm. Anyone interested inattending the meeting should contactRose Fletcher at (202) 502–7812.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forinformation about the meetings and thenomination submission process: RoseFletcher, U.S. Department of Education,1990 K Street, NW., Room 8061,Washington, DC 20006. Telephone:(202) 502–7812.

For information about negotiatedrulemaking: Carney McCullough, U.S.Department of Education, 1990 K Street,NW., Room 8071, Washington, DC20006. Telephone (202) 502–7639.

If you use a telecommunicationsdevice for the deaf (TDD) you may callthe Federal Information 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 forinformation about the meetings listed inthe preceding paragraph.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Themeeting site is accessible to individualswith disabilities. If you will need anauxiliary aid or service to participate inthe meeting (e.g., interpreting service,assistive listening device, or materials inalternative format), notify the contactperson for information about themeeting listed in this notice in advanceof the scheduled meeting date. Althoughwe will attempt to meet a request wereceive, we may not be able to makeavailable the requested auxiliary aid orservice because of insufficient time toarrange it.

Regulatory Issues

We intend to act on regulatoryproposals to streamline the currentFederal student financial assistanceprogram regulations while maintainingor improving program integrity. Many ofthese proposals were submitted byindividuals and organizations inresponse to a request for suchrecommendations from the affectedpublic made on May 24, 2001 byRepresentative Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’McKeon and Representative Patsy Mink,the Chairman and Ranking Member ofthe Subcommittee on 21st CenturyCompetitiveness of the Education andthe Workforce Committee of the U.S.House of Representatives. TheSubcommittee received over 3,000

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 09:08 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 05DEP1

63204 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

responses on the regulations betweenMay and the end of July 2001. Thoseproposals that would not in fact requirestatutory amendments have beenprovided to the Department forconsideration.

In acting on these proposals andminor changes from the Department, weintend to advance the Administration’smanagement reform priorities by takingsteps that will provide immediate,concrete and measurable results in thenear term. In reforming the FederalGovernment, President Bush has calledfor an ‘‘active, but limited’’ role for theFederal Government that empowerscitizens to make decisions, ensuresresults through accountability, andpromotes innovation throughcompetition. To advance these goals, weintend to place priority on changes thatwill reduce the expense and difficulty ofcomplying with the current Federalstudent financial assistance regulations,reduce the operating costs ofadministering the programs throughgreater use of e-commerce, simplifyprocesses and improve service, andeffect other changes that will improveprogram management and the integrityof the student financial assistanceprograms.

Structure of the CommitteesWe anticipate having two negotiating

committees. The ultimate goal ofnegotiated rulemaking is to reach aconsensus on proposed regulationsthrough discussion and negotiationamong interested and affected parties,including the Department of Education.With this in mind, we will conductthese negotiations within a structurethat is designed to meet this goal fairlyand efficiently. One negotiatingcommittee will focus on student loanissues while the other will focus onother program issues. Our goal is toestablish committees that are largeenough to allow significantly affectedparties to be represented while keepingthe committees’ size manageable.

Nominations of individuals fromcoalitions of individuals andorganizations representing theconstituencies identified below arestrongly encouraged. Moreover, theDepartment encourages nominations ofindividuals who are actively involved inadministering the Federal studentfinancial assistance programs or whoseinterests are significantly affected by theregulations. The committees may alsocreate subgroups on particular topicsthat would involve additionalindividuals who are not members of thecommittees. Individuals who are notselected as members of the committeeswill be able to attend the meetings, have

access to the individuals representingtheir constituency, and will also be ableto participate in informal workinggroups on various issues between themeetings. The meetings will be open tothe public.

The Department has identified theconstituencies listed below as havinginterests that are significantly affectedby the subject matter of the negotiatedrulemakings. The Departmentanticipates that individuals representingeach of these constituencies willparticipate as members of one or both ofthe negotiated rulemaking committees.These constituencies are:

• Students.• Legal assistance organizations that

represent students• Financial aid administrators at

institutions of higher education.• Business officers and bursars at

institutions of higher education andinstitutional servicers (includingcollection agencies).

• Institutions of higher educationeligible to receive Federal assistanceunder Title III, Parts A and B and TitleV of the HEA, which includesHistorically Black Colleges andUniversities, Hispanic-ServingInstitutions, American Indian TriballyControlled Colleges and Universities,Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and otherinstitutions with a substantialenrollment of needy students as definedin Title III.

• Two-year public institutions ofhigher education.

• Four-year public institutions ofhigher education.

• Private, non-profit institutions ofhigher education.

• Private, for-profit institutions ofhigher education.

• Guaranty agencies and guarantyagency servicers (including collectionagencies).

• Lenders, secondary markets, andloan servicers.

While an individual selected torepresent a constituency may be arepresentative of a group, institution, orindustry participant, the individual willbe expected to represent the interests ofthe entire constituency on thecommittee and to confer with otherindividuals and representatives ofgroups within that constituency.

Nominations should include:• The name of the nominee and a

description of the interests that he orshe represents.

• Evidence of support fromindividuals or groups of theconstituency that he or she willrepresent.

• The nominee’s commitment that heor she will actively participate in good

faith in the development of theproposed regulations.

Schedule for NegotiationsWe will hold a total of three meetings

of each committee, all of which will beheld at the Department of Education inWashington, DC. The following is thetentative schedule for negotiations forthe committees. This schedule is subjectto change.Meeting 1: Week of January 14, 2002Meeting 2: Week of March 4, 2002Meeting 3: Week of April 22, 2002

The committee will use electronicmail to exchange documents anddiscuss proposals between meetings.

The schedule outlined above isexpected to allow sufficient time for usto provide the public with a 60-daycomment period for the proposedregulations, as well as to providesufficient time to address any issuesraised in the comment period, whilemeeting the November 1 statutorydeadline for publishing studentfinancial assistance regulations.

Electronic Access to This DocumentYou may view this document, in Text

or Adobe Portable Document Format(PDF) on the Internet at the followingsite: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.

To use the PDF you must have AdobeAcrobat Reader, which is available freeat this site. If you have questions aboutusing PDF, call the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office toll free at 1–888–293–6498; or in the Washington, DC 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.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a.

Dated: December 3, 2001.Rod Paige,Secretary of Education.[FR Doc. 01–30260 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–U


40 CFR Part 52

[MO 0134–1134; FRL–7112–9]

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; State ofMissouri

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).


63205Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve theState Implementation Plan (SIP)revision submitted by the state ofMissouri for the Doe Run primary leadsmelters in Herculaneum and Glover,Missouri (Doe Run-Herculaneum andDoe Run-Glover). The SIP submitted bythe state satisfies the applicablerequirements under the Clean Air Act(CAA) and demonstrates attainment ofthe National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS) for lead for the DoeRun-Herculaneum area. Approval of thisrevision will ensure that the Federallyapproved requirements are current andconsistent with state regulations andrequirements. The revision for Doe Run-Glover merely reflects a change inownership of the smelter. If EPAreceives adverse comments, thecomments will be addressed in thesubsequent final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe mailed to James F. Hirtz,Environmental Protection Agency, AirPlanning and Development Branch, 901North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas66101.

Copies of documents relative to thisaction are available for publicinspection during normal businesshours at the above-listed Region 7location. Interested persons wanting toexamine these documents should makean appointment with the office at least24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:James Hirtz at (913) 551–7472, or E-Mailhim at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Throughout this document whenever,‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we meanEPA. This section provides additionalinformation by addressing the followingquestions:

Background and Submittal Information

What is a SIP?What is the background for Doe Run-

Herculaneum?What is the Federal Approval process for a

SIP?What does Federal approval of a state

regulation mean to me?What is being addressed in this document?

EPA’s Proposed Actions

Have the requirements for approval of a SIPrevision been met under section 172 of theCAA?

What actions are we proposing today?

Background and Submittal Information

What Is a SIP?Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires states to develop airpollution regulations and controlstrategies to ensure that state air qualitymeets the national ambient air qualitystandards established by EPA. Theseambient standards are established undersection 109 of the CAA, and theycurrently address six criteria pollutants.These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide,nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit theseregulations and control strategies to usfor approval and incorporation into theFederally enforceable SIP. EachFederally approved SIP protects airquality primarily by addressing airpollution at its point of origin. TheseSIPs can be extensive, containing stateregulations or other enforceabledocuments and supporting informationsuch as emission inventories,monitoring networks, and modelingdemonstrations.

What Is the Background for Doe Run-Herculaneum?

On June 3, 1986, EPA issued a call fora revision to the Missouri SIP inresponse to violations of the NAAQS forlead in the vicinity of the Doe Runprimary lead smelter in Herculaneum,Missouri. Doe Run-Herculaneum is thelargest primary lead smelter in theUnited States with a productioncapacity of 250,000 tons of refined leadper year. The NAAQS for lead is 1.5micrograms (µg) of lead per cubic meter(m3) of air averaged over a calendarquarter. The state submitted a SIPrevision on September 6, 1990, and EPAgranted limited approval for Missouri’s1990 SIP revision on March 6, 1992 (57FR 8076), pending submission of asupplemental SIP revision meeting theapplicable requirements (Part D of TitleI of the CAA as amended in 1990).

A revised SIP meeting the part Drequirements was subsequentlysubmitted in 1994. The plan establishedJune 30, 1995, as the date by which theHerculaneum area was to have attainedcompliance with the lead standard.However, the plan did not result inattainment of the standard, andobserved lead concentrations in theHerculaneum area continued to showviolations of the standard. Therefore, onAugust 15, 1997, after taking andresponding to public comments, EPApublished a document in the FederalRegister finding that the Herculaneumnonattainment area had failed to attainthe lead standard by the June 30, 1995,deadline (62 FR 43647).

On January 10, 2001, Missourisubmitted a revised SIP to EPA for theDoe Run-Herculaneum area. The SIPrevision was found complete on January12, 2001. The SIP establishes August 14,2002, as the attainment date for the areaand satisfies the part D requirements ofthe CAA. The revised plan also containsa control strategy to address theviolations of the NAAQS whichoccurred after implementation of thecontrol measures in the 1995 SIPrevision. EPA believes that thedispersion and receptor modelingdemonstrate that the selected controlmeasures will result in attainment of theNAAQS for lead.

What Is the Federal Approval Processfor a SIP?

In order for state regulations to beincorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, states must formallyadopt the regulations and controlstrategies consistent with state andFederal requirements. This processgenerally includes a public notice,public hearing, public comment period,and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, orcontrol strategy is adopted, the statesubmits it to us for inclusion into theSIP. We must provide public notice andseek additional public commentregarding the proposed Federal actionon the state submission. If adversecomments are received, they must beaddressed prior to any final Federalaction by us.

All state regulations and supportinginformation approved by EPA undersection 110 of the CAA are incorporatedinto the Federally approved SIP.Records of such SIP actions aremaintained in the Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52,entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans.’’ The actual stateregulations which are approved are notreproduced in their entirety in the CFRoutright but are ‘‘incorporated byreference,’’ which means that we haveapproved a given state regulation witha specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a StateRegulation Mean to Me?

Enforcement of the state regulationbefore and after it is incorporated intothe Federally approved SIP is primarilya state responsibility. However, after theregulation is Federally approved, we areauthorized to take enforcement actionagainst violators. Citizens are alsooffered legal recourse to addressviolations as described in section 304 ofthe CAA.



What Is Being Addressed in ThisDocument?

Doe Run-Herculaneum

1. Control Strategy

As required by 40 CFR part 51,subpart N, each SIP must contain legallyenforceable compliance schedules andprovide for compliance as soon aspracticable. The Doe Run-HerculaneumSIP calls for full implementation of thecontrol strategy by July 31, 2002.Implementation of the control strategywill result in approximately a 99percent reduction in fugitive leademissions from sources that aremodeled as contributing significantly tononattainment in the Herculaneum area.

The SIP contains two regulatorydocuments: (1) A Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources (MDNR) lead rule,(10 CSR 10–6.120) adopted by MissouriAir Conservation Commission (MACC)on December 7, 2000, containingemission limits and a Work PracticeManual which specifies operatingprocedures for specific plant processesat the Doe Run-Herculaneum facility;and (2) an executed Consent Judgmentbetween the state of Missouri, MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources(MDNR), and MACC with Doe Run-Herculaneum. This judgment sets forththe administrative requirements for theimplementation of the control measuresat the Doe Run-Herculaneum facility.The plan includes contingencymeasures to be implemented within 6months following a violation of the leadstandard, after the attainment date ofAugust 14, 2002. The reader is referredto the EPA prepared technical supportdocument for a more completediscussion of the specific controlmeasures to be implemented in the SIP.

2. Attainment Demonstration

Section 192(a) of the CAA requiresthat SIPs must provide for attainment ofthe lead NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable but no later than five yearsfrom the date of an area’s nonattainmentdesignation. This five-year period alsoapplies as the new attainment datefollowing a finding of failure to attainthe lead NAAQS. (See sections179(d)(3), 172(a)(d), and 192(a).) MDNRsubmitted a revised SIP that met thepart D requirements in 1994, and whichestablished June 30, 1995, as the newattainment date for the Herculaneumarea. Violations of the NAAQS for leadwere still observed and EPA publisheda notice in the Federal Register onAugust 15, 1997, finding that theHerculaneum area failed to attain thelead standard. The determinationbecame effective on September 14, 1997.

The SIP submitted established anattainment date of August 14, 2002,which is within the statutory five-yearperiod. EPA has determined that thestate’s attainment date is as expeditiousas practicable.

In support of the revision to the DoeRun-Herculaneum lead SIP, a dispersionand receptor modeling methodologywas developed to predict ambient leadconcentrations. The dispersion modelthat was chosen was the steady stateEPA Gaussian plume Industrial SourceComplex Short-Term model (ISCST3,version 99155). The receptor modelingthat was chosen was Chemical MassBalance (CMB) receptor model version7. The CMB model was used toqualititavely evaluate the dispersionmodel to increase confidence in themodeling results and the controlstrategy.

The 2000 SIP revision emissioninventory relies heavily on sourcetesting and the utilization of the CMBreceptor model to provide probablesource contribution estimates (SCE) forthe major source categories. Thesecategories were defined by commonchemistry of the source’s particulateemissions. The model is a ‘‘best fit’’statistical model that estimates the mostprobable source contribution bycomparing the finger prints, orcharacteristics, of the emission sourceswith the measured ambient values.

Actual value dispersion modeling wasconducted in order to (1) determine themodel’s ability to replicate actual leadconcentrations monitored during thestudy, and thereby serve as a basis fordeveloping future control strategies, and(2) provide a set of SCEs forreconciliation with those obtained fromthe CMB receptor model. The actualvalue modeling was conducted with theactual emission rates, stack parameters,and local meteorological data collectedduring the study period. Thebackground value of 0.13 µg/m3 wasadded to the predicted air dispersionconcentrations. The maximumpredicted concentration by the ISCST3model, including background, is 1.456µg/m3, which is below the NAAQS forlead at 1.5 µg/m3.

3. Emission Inventory and Air QualityData

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requiresthat nonattainment plan provisionsinclude a comprehensive, accurate,current inventory of actual emissionsfrom all sources of relevant pollutants inthe nonattainment area.

Development of a comprehensive andaccurate emissions inventory wasnecessary to support modeling andcontrol strategy efforts. An hourly

emissions inventory was developed inorder to provide input to the ISCST3dispersion model. These rates wereestimated using equations developedfrom source testing at the facility orfrom published emission factors.

Speciated emissions data wasnecessary to provide input to the CMBreceptor model. Where possible, thesedata were obtained during sourcesampling efforts to identify fugitiveemission sources located at the facility.IN other cases, it was obtained from grabsamples collected at various locationswithin the facility or fromrepresentative sources.

The state submittal provides ahistorical summary of the air qualityfrom 1982 through the second calendarquarter of 2000. The average quarterlyambient lead concentrations at severalmonitors continue to remain above theNAAQS. The reader is referred to theEPA prepared technical supportdocument for a summary of ambientmonitoring data collected for the Doe-Run Herculaneum site.

4. Reasonably Available ControlMeasures (RACM) Including ReasonableAvailable Control Technology (RACT)

The submittal must containprovisions to assure that RACM(including RACT) are implemented (seesection 172(c)(1) of the CAA). (See 57FR 13498 and 57 FR 13560 dated April1, 1992, for EPA’s interpretation of theRACM and RACT requirements.)Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requiresthe implementation of all RACM whichinclude emissions reduction through theadoption of RACT as expeditiously aspracticable for all areas innonattainment to attain the nationalprimary ambient air quality standard.EPA interprets this requirement toimpose a duty on all nonattainmentareas to consider all available controlmeasures and to adopt and implementsuch measures as are reasonablyavailable to demonstrate attainment forthe area. EPA believes that measureswhich do not advance the date forattainment need not be implemented.

In the previous SIP (1993), Doe Run-Herculaneum prepared a RACT/RACMevaluation, and the plant has notchanged significantly nor is it expectedto significantly increase its emissionsthrough production increases. AllRACT/RACM measures wereimplemented as part of the previousSIP. In addition, the requirements under40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT, theFederal Maximum Achievable ControlTechnology (MACT) Standards forPrimary Lead Smelters, now apply forDoe Run-Herculaneum. This MACTrequired the preparation and use of a



standard operating procedures manualfor all baghouses used to controlprocess, process fugitive, or fugitivedust emission sources for lead. We notethat Missouri is currently in the processof addressing a number of issuesrelating to the delivery of leadconcentrate to the Doe Run-Herculaneum facility for processing,and is considering measures to decreaseor eliminate lead fugitive emissionsfrom truck hauling. Missouri hasanalyzed the air quality impact of thedelivery system (primarily involving thetransport and unloading of concentratefrom trucks) and has determined thatthe air quality impacts of fugitiveemissions from this process areminimal. Missouri also reran theattainment demonstration modeling todetermine the impact, if any, due to thecontribution of fugitive emissions fromthe truck hauling operation. Missouriconcluded that the air quality impactwas insignificant, and did not impactthe attainment demonstration. Missouricontinues to address otherenvironmental concerns relating totruck hauling, primarily relating to soilcontamination. However, based on thestate’s conclusions that the air qualityimpacts are negligible, and thereforefurther air pollution controls would notexpedite attainment, EPA does notbelieve that further consideration of theemissions associated with truck haulingis necessary for purposes of the CAArequirements regarding RACT/RACM. Inlight of the above MACT requirementsas well as enforceable limitations forfugitive emissions and the installationof process controls imposed by the staterule and Consent Judgement referencedpreviously, it would be unnecessary forEPA to have Doe Run-Herculaneumreevaluated RACT/RACM requirements.An assessment of these controlmeasures with dispersion and receptormodeling indicate no additionalmeasures will expedite attainment.

5. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires

that the SIP must provide for RFP asdefined in section 171(1) of the CAA.Section 171(1) defines RFP as annualincremental reductions in emissions ofthe relevant air pollutants as arerequired by Part D, or may reasonably berequired by EPA to ensure attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS by the applicabledate. Part D does not further requirespecific RFP measures for lead.

Doe Run-Herculaneum hasdemonstrated RFP as required bysection 172(c)(2) of the CAA. Forexample, Doe Run-Herculaneum isunder a compliance schedule, requiredby regulation and by the Consent

Judgement, for implementing (1)installation of emission controlequipment; (2) enclosure andventilation projects to reduce leademissions; (3) process throughputrestrictions and hours of operationlimitation; (4) work practice standards;and (5) contingency measures. EPA doesnot believe that additional incrementalreductions are needed to meet the RFPrequirement, since all controls to reducelead emissions are to be implementedwithin the year, and must be fullyimplemented by July 31, 2002. TheWork Practice Manual establishesprocess limits and control requirementsfor the plant and provides a guide toplant operators on how to minimizeemissions from certain plant operations.This manual was incorporated into thelead rule (10 CSR 10–6.120), andadopted by the MACC on December 7,2000, with the effective date of the rulebeing March 30, 2001.

6. New Source Review (NSR)Part D of Title I of the CAA requires

that the submittal include a permitprogram for the construction andoperation of new and modified majorstationary sources. Missouri rule 10CSSR 10–6.020 identifies the currentspecific descriptions of the leadnonattainment areas in Missouri,including the area in which the Doe Runfacility is located. Rule 10 CSR 10–6.020is utilized in conjunction with Missourirule 10 CSR 10–6.060 which requires apermit for construction of, or majormodification to, an installation withpotential to annually emit one hundred(100) tons or more of a nonattainmentpollutant, or a permit for a modificationat a major source with potential toannually emit one thousand twohundred (1,200) pounds of lead. Theserules have previously been approve byEPA as part of the SIP.

7. Contingency MeasuresPursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the

CAA, contingency measures have beenprepared that can be implemented ifEPA determines that the nonattainmentarea has failed to make reasonablefurther progress or fails to attain theNAAQS by the statutory deadline.

The state submission specifies anattainment date for the Herculaneumarea of August 14, 2002, as set in thestate SIP. If the area has a violation ofthe NAAQS during this quarter (July 1to September 30, 2002), or any quarterthereafter, the contingency controls willbe implemented after Doe Run-Herculaneum is notified by EPA and/orMDNR. Contingency measures whichinclude enclosures and installingadditional process controls will be

implemented within 6 months followingthe calendar quarter in which theviolation occurred.

In the event there is a secondviolation of the quarterly lead standardof 1.5 µ/m3, after implementation of theinitial contingency measures, Doe Run-Herculaneum has also agreed to curtailproduction utilizing one of threeemission and/or production curtailingmethods: Method (1), reduce main non-stack emissions by 20 percent; Method(2), limit production to 50,000 shorttons/quarter of refined lead produced;and, Method (3), adopt Method 1 andlimit production of refined leadproduction based upon the followingformula:P = 50,000 + (500 × (1¥A/E) × 100)P = refined lead production in short

tons/quarterA = The aggregate actual quarterly

emissions from all fugitive andstack lead emission sources at thefacility in tons; except from themain stack (30001)

E = the aggregate estimated quarterlyemissions from all fugitive andstack lead emission sources at thefacility in tons; except from themain stack (30001); where A/E can’tbe less than .8 or more than 1.0.

Doe Run-Herculaneum will alsomaintain current bids on the materialsnecessary to implement eachcontingency measure. Doe Run-Herculaneum also may substitute anysuch controls if Doe Run-Herculaneumcan demonstrate to MDNR and EPA thatthe alternative control measures wouldequal or exceed controls in the currentSIP. Changes to these contingencymeasures would require a publichearing at the state level, and EPAapproval as a formal SIP revision. Thesemeasures will help ensure compliancewith the lead NAAQS and meet therequirements of section 172(c)(9) of theCAA.

8. Enforceability

All measures and other elements inthe SIP must be enforceable by the stateand EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), and110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR13556). The state submittal includes aConsent Judgement and the lead rule (10CSR 10–6.120). The lead rule alsoincorporates a Work Practice Manual,which specifies operating proceduresfor specific plant processes.

The state submittal includes aConsent Judgment entered into by thestate and the Company which containsall of the control and contingencymeasures with enforceable dates forimplementation. Control measuresemployed by Doe Run-Herculaneum



involve engineering modifications to thefacility which include: Enclosureprojects, improved ventilation systemsbeing routed to stacks, improvedmaterial handling conveyors, andinstallation of air pollution controlequipment (baghouses). The Companyexpects to spend approximately$8,500,000 on these projects to controland reduce fugitive air emissions of leadthat are affecting the ambient airstandard for lead in the Herculaneumarea. These control measures will beimplemented by July 31, 2002.

Doe Run-GloverThe Missouri SIP submission contains

a state rule and a Consent Decree whichpertain to the Doe Run Company’sGlover lead smelter in Iron County,Missouri. Until 1998, this facility wasowned by the ASARCO Company. Dueto the change in ownership, the statefound it necessary to revise a state ruleand the Consent Decree which referredto the facility by ownership name.

The state rule, 10 CSR 10–6.120,‘‘Restriction of Emissions of Lead FromSpecific Lead Smelter-RefineryInstallations,’’ was revised in paragraph(2)(A) to change the owner name fromASARCO to Doe Run Company. Noother revisions pertaining to this facilitywere made in this rule revision. Thisrevision was adopted by the MissouriAir Conservation Commission onDecember 7, 2000, and became effectivein the state on March 30, 2001.

There was also a SIP-approvedConsent Decree for this facility withASARCO. This Consent Decree was alsorevised to reflect the change inownership and to update certainprovisions. These changes included: (1)Recognizing that the required capitalimprovements made by ASARCO hadindeed already been made; (2) addinglanguage that will terminate the ConsentDecree upon redesignation of the Gloverarea attainment with the understandingthat a new enforceable agreement willbe in place at that time to ensurecontinued operation of the controls.This is acceptable to EPA since amaintenance plan would be requiredprior to any redesignation of the area toattainment, and the maintenance planwould contain all requirements,including enforceable requirements ofany document which replaces theConsent Decree, which are necessary toensure continued attainment of the areafor the lead NAAQS; and (3) provisionwas added which allows the ConsentDecree to be modified if both partiesagree, or if there is a change inownership. These provisions wereadded to avoid having to go back tocourt to amend the Consent Decree.

EPA’s Proposed Actions

Have the Requirements for Approval ofa SIP Revision Been Met Under Section172 of the CAA?

The state submittal has met the publicnotice requirements for SIP submissionsin accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. Thesubmittal also satisfied thecompleteness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,appendix V. In addition, as explainedabove and in more detail in thetechnical support document which ispart of this document, the revisionmeets the substantive SIP requirementsof the CAA, including section 110 andimplementing regulations and part Dand is consistent with the guidance setforth in the ‘‘State Implementation Plansfor Lead Nonattainment Areas;Addendum to the General Preamble forthe Implementation of the Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990’’ (58 FR 67748).

What Actions Are We Proposing Today?EPA is proposing to find that the Doe

Run-Herculaneum nonattainment areaSIP submitted by Missouri on January10, 2001, meets the requirements ofsection 110, and part D of the CAA and40 CFR part 51. EPA is also proposingto approve the SIP submission whichrelates to the Doe Run-Glover facilitywhich is described above.

Administrative RequirementsUnder Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposedaction is not a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ and therefore is not subject toreview by the Office of Management andBudget. For this reason, this action isalso not subject to Executive Order13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning RegulationsThat Significantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May22, 2001). This proposed action merelyproposes to approve state law asmeeting Federal requirements andimposes no additional requirementsbeyond those imposed by state law.Accordingly, the Administrator certifiesthat this proposed rule will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this ruleproposes to approve pre-existingrequirements under state law and doesnot impose any additional enforceableduty beyond that required by state law,it does not contain any unfundedmandate or significantly or uniquelyaffect small governments, as describedin the Unfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

This proposed rule also does not havetribal implications because it will nothave a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, on the relationshipbetween the Federal Government andIndian tribes, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between theFederal Government and Indian tribes,as by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000). This actionalso does not have Federalismimplications because it does not havesubstantial direct effects on the States,on the relationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of governments, as specified inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,August 10, 1999). This action merelyproposes to approve a state ruleimplementing a Federal standard, anddoes not alter the relationship or thedistribution of power andresponsibilities established in the CAA.This proposed rule also is not subject toExecutive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks’’ ( 62 FR 19885,April 23, 1997), because it is noteconomically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’srole is to approve state choices,provided that they meet the criteria ofthe CAA. In this context, in the absenceof a prior existing requirement for theState to use voluntary consensusstandards (VCS), EPA has no authorityto disapprove a SIP submission forfailure to use VCS. It would thus beinconsistent with applicable law forEPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,to use VCS in place of a SIP submissionthat otherwise satisfies the provisions ofthe CAA. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) of the NationalTechnology Transfer and AdvancementAct of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do notapply. This proposed rule does notimpose an information collectionburden under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).


Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Carbon monoxide,Hydrocarbons, Incorporation byreference, Intergovernmental relations,Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,Particulate matter, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Sulfuroxides.


Nat Scurry,Acting Regional Administration, Region 7.[FR Doc. 01–30102 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]





47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–2753, MM Docket No. 01–325, RM–10136]

Television Broadcast Service; GreenBay, WI

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requestscomments on a petition filed by GreenBay 44, L.L.C., an applicant for aconstruction permit for a new televisionstation operating on channel 44 at GreenBay, Wisconsin, requesting thesubstitution of Channel 50 for channel44 at Green Bay. TV channel 50 can beallotted to Green Bay, Wisconsin, witha plus offset consistent with the criteriaset forth in the Commission’s PublicNotice, released on November 22, 1999,DA 99–2605. The coordinates forchannel 50+ at Green Bay are NorthLatitude 44–30–48 and West Longitude88–00–24. However, since thecommunity Green Bay is located within400 kilometers of the U.S.-Canadianborder, concurrence by the Canadiangovernment must be obtained for thisproposal. Pursuant to the provisionsoutlined in the Commission’s PublicNotice, we will not accept competingexpressions of interest in the use oftelevision channel 50+ at Green Bay.DATES: Comments must be filed on orbefore January 21, 2002, and reply

comments on or before February 5,2002.ADDRESSES: Federal CommunicationsCommission, 445 12th Street, SW.,Room TW–A325, Washington, DC20554. In addition to filing commentswith the FCC, interested parties shouldserve the petitioner, or its counsel orconsultant, as follows: Andrew S.Kersting, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth,11th Floor, 1300 North 17th Street,Arlington, Virginia 22209–3801(Counsel for Green Bay 44, L.L.C.).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PamBlumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)418–1600.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asynopsis of the Commission’s Notice ofProposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.01–325, adopted November 29, 2001,and released November 30, 2001. Thefull text of this document is available forpublic inspection and copying duringregular business hours in the FCCReference Information Center, Portals II,445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257,Washington, DC, 20554. This documentmay also be purchased from theCommission’s duplicating contractor,Qualex International, Portals II, 44512th Street, SW, Room CY–B402,Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202–863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, orvia-e-mail [email protected].

Provisions of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act of 1980 do not apply tothis proceeding.

Members of the public should notethat from the time a Notice of ProposedRule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commissionconsideration or court review, all exparte contacts are prohibited inCommission proceedings, such as thisone, which involve channel allotments.See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rulesgoverning permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding properfiling procedures for comments, see 47CFR 1.415 and 1.420.


Television broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in thepreamble, the Federal CommunicationsCommission proposes to amend 47 CFRpart 73 as follows:

PART 73—TELEVISION BROADCASTSERVICES


Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and336.

§ 73.606 [Amended]

2. Section 73.606(b), the Table ofTelevision Allotments under Wisconsinis amended by removing TV Channel 44and adding TV Channel 50+ at GreenBay.

Federal Communications Commission.Barbara A. Kreisman,Chief, Video Services Division, Mass MediaBureau.[FR Doc. 01–30036 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–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

63210

Vol. 66, No. 234




[Docket No. 01–097–1]

Notice of Request for Extension ofApproval of an Information Collection

AGENCY: Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Extension of approval of aninformation collection; commentrequest.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, thisnotice announces the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service’s intention torequest an extension of approval of aninformation collection in support ofregulations governing the importation offruits and vegetables.DATES: We invite you to comment onthis docket. We will consider allcomments we receive that arepostmarked, delivered, or e-mailed byFebruary 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: You may submit commentsby postal mail/commercial delivery orby e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send fourcopies of your comment (an original andthree copies) to: Docket No. 01–097–1,Regulatory Analysis and Development,PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 RiverRoad Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. Please state that your commentrefers to Docket No. 01–097–1. If youuse e-mail, address your comment [email protected]. Yourcomment must be contained in the bodyof your message; do not send attachedfiles. Please include your name andaddress in your message and ‘‘DocketNo. 01–097–1’’ on the subject line.

You may read any comments that wereceive on this docket in our readingroom. The reading room is located inroom 1141 of the USDA South Building,14th Street and Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC. Normal readingroom hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday, exceptholidays. To be sure someone is there tohelp you, please call (202) 690–2817before coming.

APHIS documents published in theFederal Register, and relatedinformation, including the names oforganizations and individuals who havecommented on APHIS dockets, areavailable on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forinformation on regulations governingthe importation of fruits and vegetables,contact Ms. Cynthia Stahl, ProgramAnalyst, Port Operations, PPQ, APHIS,4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD20737–1236; (301) 734–5281. For copiesof more detailed information on theinformation collection, contact Mrs.Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ InformationCollection Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Title: Importation of Fruits and

Vegetables.OMB Number: 0579–0136.Type of Request: Extension of

approval of an information collection.Abstract: The United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) isresponsible for, among other things, thecontrol and eradication of plant pests.The Plant Protection Act authorizes theDepartment to carry out this mission.

The Plant Protection and Quarantine(PPQ) program of USDA’s Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)is responsible for implementing theregulations that carry out the intent ofthe Act.

Under the regulations in 7 CFR 319.56through 319.56–8, a number of fruitsand vegetables may be imported into theUnited States, under specifiedconditions, from certain parts of theworld. These fruits and vegetablesinclude cole and mustard crops fromEcuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, andPeru; rhubarb from Guatemala; parsleyfrom Israel and Nicaragua; salicorniafrom Mexico; mint and rosemary fromNicaragua; Swiss chard from Peru;Belgian endive, chicory, and endivefrom Panama; pineapple from SouthAfrica; cantaloupe, honeydew melon,and watermelon from Brazil andVenezuela; and peppers from Spain.

Before entering the United States, allof these fruits and vegetables are subjectto inspection and disinfection at theirport of first arrival to ensure that noplant pests are inadvertently broughtinto the United States. Theseprecautions, along with otherrequirements, ensure that these itemscan be imported into the United Stateswith minimal risk of introducing exoticplant pests such as fruit flies.

Allowing these fruits and vegetablesto be imported requires the use ofcertain information collection activities,including the completion of importpermits, phytosanitary inspectioncertificates, and fruit fly monitoringrecords.

We are asking the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) toapprove our use of these informationcollection activities for an additional 3years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicitcomments from the public (as well asaffected agencies) concerning ourinformation collection. These commentswill help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theAgency, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of ourestimate of the burden of theinformation collection, including thevalidity of the methodology andassumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of theinformation collection on those who areto respond, through use, as appropriate,of automated, electronic, mechanical,and other collection technologies, e.g.,permitting electronic submission ofresponses.

Estimate of burden: The publicreporting burden for this collection ofinformation is estimated to average0.73227 hours per response.

Respondents: U.S. importers of fruitsand vegetables and plant health officialsof exporting countries.

Estimated annual number ofrespondents: 822.

Estimated annual number ofresponses per respondent: 2.2311.

Estimated annual number ofresponses: 1,834.

Estimated total annual burden onrespondents: 1,343 hours. (Due to

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 15:31 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 05DEN1

63211Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Notices

averaging, the total annual burden hoursmay not equal the product of the annualnumber of responses multiplied by thereporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will besummarized and included in the requestfor OMB approval. All comments willalso become a matter of public record.

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day ofNovember 2001.W. Ron DeHaven,Acting Administrator, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service.[FR Doc. 01–30107 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–34–P



[Docket No. 01–104–1]

Notice of Request for Reinstatement ofan Information Collection

AGENCY: Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Reinstatement of approval of aninformation collection; commentrequest.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, thisnotice announces the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service’s intention torequest a reinstatement of aninformation collection in support ofactivities to prevent the introductionand spread of diseases and parasitesharmful to honeybees.DATES: We invite you to comment onthis docket. We will consider allcomments we receive that arepostmarked, delivered, or e-mailed byFebruary 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: You may submit commentsby postal mail/commercial delivery orby e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send fourcopies of your comment (an original andthree copies) to: Docket No. 01–104–1,Regulatory Analysis and Development,PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 RiverRoad Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. Please state that your commentrefers to Docket No. 01–104–1. If youuse e-mail, address your comment [email protected]. Yourcomment must be contained in the bodyof your message; do not send attachedfiles. Please include your name andaddress in your message and ‘‘DocketNo. 01–104–1’’ on the subject line.

You may read any comments that wereceive on this docket in our readingroom. The reading room is located inroom 1141 of the USDA South Building,

14th Street and Independence AvenueSW., Washington, DC. Normal readingroom hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday, exceptholidays. To be sure someone is there tohelp you, please call (202) 690–2817before coming.

APHIS documents published in theFederal Register, and relatedinformation, including the names oforganizations and individuals who havecommented on APHIS dockets, areavailable on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forinformation regarding exotic beediseases and parasites, honeybees, andhoneybee semen, contact Ms. AnissaCraghead, Regulatory CoordinationSpecialist, Regulatory CoordinationStaff, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River RoadUnit 141, Riverdale, MD 20737, (301)734–5311. For copies of more detailedinformation on the informationcollection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles,APHIS’ Information CollectionCoordinator, at (301) 734–7477.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Exotic Bee Diseases andParasites; Honeybees and HoneybeeSemen.

OMB Number: 0579–0072.Type of Request: Reinstatement of an

information collection.Abstract: The United States

Department of Agriculture isresponsible for preventing theintroduction and spread of diseases andparasites harmful to honeybees, theintroduction of genetically undesirablegerm plasm of honeybees, and theintroduction and spread of undesirablespecies or subspecies of honeybees.

The introduction and establishment ofnew honeybee diseases, parasites, andundesirable honeybee strains into theUnited States could cause multimilliondollar losses to American agriculture.Diseases or parasites can weaken or killhoneybees, causing substantialreductions in the production of honeyand other honeybee products, as well asa reduction in pollination activity.Pollination is necessary for theproduction of many important crops,including forage, fruits, vegetables, andvegetable oils.

To protect the health of the U.S.honeybee population, we engage in anumber of information collectionactivities designed to allow us todetermine whether shipments ofhoneybees, honeybee semen, or bee-related items (such as beekeepingequipment) represent a possible risk ofintroducing exotic bee diseases,

parasites, or undesirable honeybeestrains into the United States.

Our primary means of obtaining thisvital information is requiring importersto apply to us for an import permit. Thepermit application provides us withinformation such as the amount of beesemen to be imported and the species orsubspecies of honeybee from which thesemen was collected; the country orlocality of origin; and the intended portof entry in the United States.

We also require importers andshippers to adhere to a number ofmarking and shipping requirements thatenable us to easily identify and processshipments of honeybees, honeybeesemen, and other restricted articleswhen they arrive at U.S. ports of entry.

These information-gatheringprocedures help us prevent the entry ofshipments that pose a potential healthrisk to the U.S. honeybee population.

We are asking the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) toapprove our use of these informationcollection activities.

The purpose of this notice is to solicitcomments from the public (as well asaffected agencies) concerning ourinformation collection. These commentswill help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theAgency, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of ourestimate of the burden of theinformation collection, including thevalidity of the methodology andassumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of theinformation collection on those who areto respond, through use, as appropriate,of automated, electronic, mechanical,and other collection technologies, e.g.,permitting electronic submission ofresponses.

Estimate of burden: The publicreporting burden for this collection ofinformation is estimated to average4.0625 hours per response.

Respondents: Importers and shippersof honeybees, honeybee semen, andother regulated articles.

Estimated annual number ofrespondents: 13.

Estimated annual number ofresponses per respondent: 1.23.

Estimated annual number ofresponses: 16.

Estimated total annual burden onrespondents: 65 hours. (Due toaveraging, the total annual burden hoursmay not equal the product of the annual


63212 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Notices

number of responses multiplied by thereporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will besummarized and included in the requestfor OMB approval. All comments willalso become a matter of public record.




[Docket No. 01–039–2]

Availability of an EnvironmentalAssessment and Finding of NoSignificant Impact

AGENCY: Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We are advising the publicthat an environmental assessment andfinding of no significant impact havebeen prepared by the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service relative to ademonstration project to eradicate andprevent the spread of the aquatic weedgiant salvinia in the Toledo BendReservoir and surrounding areas inLouisiana and eastern Texas. Theenvironmental assessment provides abasis for our conclusion that theimplementation of the demonstrationproject will not have a significantimpact on the quality of the humanenvironment. Based on its finding of nosignificant impact, the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service hasdetermined that an environmentalimpact statement need not be prepared.ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmentalassessment and finding of no significantimpact are available for publicinspection at USDA, room 1141, SouthBuilding, 14th Street and IndependenceAvenue SW., Washington, DC, between8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday throughFriday, except holidays. Personswishing to inspect theses documents arerequested to call (202) 690–2817 beforecoming.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.Alan V. Tasker, National Weed ProgramCoordinator, Invasive Species and PestManagement, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 RiverRoad Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–5225.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) is afree-floating aquatic fern, native toSouth America, with a tremendousgrowth rate and the potential tosignificantly affect water-reliantagricultural industries, recreation, andthe ecology of freshwater habitatsthroughout much of the United States.

The Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service (APHIS) listed giantsalvinia as a noxious weed in 1983.Under APHIS’ regulations, no personmay move giant salvinia into or throughthe United States, or interstate, unlesshe or she obtains a permit for themovement from APHIS.

In the past several years, giantsalvinia has been detected in the UnitedStates, mostly in association with thenursery trade in aquatic plants.Generally, detections have been insmall, confined sites and are currentlycontained or have been eradicated. Suchdetections have occurred in Alabama,Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana,Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, NorthCarolina, South Carolina, Texas, andVirginia. Of more serious andimmediate concern is the currentinfestation in the Toledo Bend Reservoirand the surrounding areas in Louisianaand eastern Texas. The Toledo BendReservoir infestation is a major one ina large body of water.

Because current efforts to eradicategiant salvinia in the Toledo BendReservoir and the surrounding areas inLouisiana and eastern Texas have beenunsuccessful, APHIS has evaluatedadditional control methods available tohelp eradicate this noxious weed. Thesecontrol methods include:

• An integrated control approachutilizing herbicides and mechanical,biological, and regulatory controls.

• A biological control program thatrequires no herbicide application.

On July 24, 2001, we published in theFederal Register (66 FR 38414–38415,Docket No. 01–039–1) a notice in whichwe announced the availability, forpublic review and comment, of anenvironmental assessment thatexamines the potential environmentaleffects of the giant salvinia controlmethods described above on the ToledoBend Reservoir and surrounding areasin Louisiana and eastern Texas. Wesolicited comments on theenvironmental assessment for 30 daysending on August 23, 2001. We receivedno comments by that date.

In this document, we are advising thepublic of APHIS’ record of decision andfinding of no significant impactregarding the use of the methodsdescribed above to control giant salvinia

in the Toledo Bend Reservoir andsurrounding areas in Louisiana andeastern Texas. This decision, which isbased on the findings of theenvironmental assessment, will allowAPHIS to begin giant salvinia controlactivities in the Toledo Bend Reservoirand surrounding areas.

The environmental assessment andfinding of no significant impact may beviewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/ppqdocs.html. You may request papercopies of the environmental assessmentand finding of no significant impact bycalling or writing to the person listedunder FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT. Please refer to the title of theenvironmental assessment whenrequesting copies. The environmentalassessment and finding of no significantimpact are also available for review inour reading room (information on thelocation and hours of the reading roomis listed under the heading ADDRESSES atthe beginning of this notice).

The environmental assessment andfinding of no significant impact havebeen prepared in accordance with: (1)The National Environmental Policy Actof 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of theCouncil on Environmental Quality forimplementing the procedural provisionsof NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA(7 CFR part 1), and (4) APHIS’ NEPAImplementing Procedures (7 CFR part372).




[Docket No. 01–099–1]

Draft Guidelines on Pharmacovigilanceof Veterinary Medicinal Products:Management of Periodic SummaryUpdate Reports (PSUs) (VICH TopicGL29) and Pharmacovigilance ofVeterinary Medicinal Products:Controlled List of Terms (VICH TopicGL30)

AGENCY: Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice of availability andrequest for comments.



SUMMARY: The International Cooperationon Harmonization of TechnicalRequirements for the Registration ofVeterinary Medicinal Products (VICH)has developed two draft guidelinestitled ‘‘Pharmacovigilance of VeterinaryMedicinal Products: Management ofPeriodic Summary Update Reports(PSUs)’’ and ‘‘Pharmacovigilance ofVeterinary Medicinal Products:Controlled List of Terms.’’ These draftguidelines provide, respectively,recommendations for the managementof the detection and investigation of theclinical effects of marketed veterinarymedicinal products and the terminologyused to describe veterinary medicinalproducts, animals, clinical signs, andassociated body systems and organs inadverse event reports. Because the draftguidelines apply to pharmacovigilanceand adverse event reporting onveterinary vaccines regulated by theAnimal and Plant Health InspectionService under the Virus-Serum-ToxinAct, we are requesting comments on thescope of each guideline and itsprovisions so that we may include anyrelevant public input on the drafts inthe Agency’s comments to the VICHSteering Committee.DATES: We invite you to comment onthis docket. We will consider allcomments we receive that arepostmarked, delivered, or e-mailed byFebruary 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: You may submit commentsby postal mail/commercial delivery orby e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send fourcopies of your comment (an original andthree copies) to: Docket No. 01–099–1,Regulatory Analysis and Development,PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 RiverRoad Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. Please state that your commentrefers to Docket No. 01–099–1. If youuse e-mail, address your comment [email protected]. Yourcomment must be contained in the bodyof your message; do not send attachedfiles. Please include your name andaddress in your message and ‘‘DocketNo. 01–099–1’’ on the subject line.

You may read any comments that wereceive on this docket in our readingroom. The reading room is located inroom 1141 of the USDA South Building,14th Street and Independence AvenueSW., Washington, DC. Normal readingroom hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday, exceptholidays. To be sure someone is there tohelp you, please call (202) 690–2817before coming.

APHIS documents published in theFederal Register, and relatedinformation, including the names of

organizations and individuals who havecommented on APHIS dockets, areavailable on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

You may request copies of the draftguidelines ‘‘Pharmacovigilance ofVeterinary Medicinal Products:Management of Periodic UpdateSummary Reports (PSUs)’’ and‘‘Pharmacovigilance of VeterinaryMedicinal Products: Controlled List ofTerms’’ by contacting the person listedunder FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.Albert P. Morgan, Center for VeterinaryBiologics-Licensing and PolicyDevelopment, VS, APHIS, 4700 RiverRoad Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–8245.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheInternational Cooperation onHarmonization of TechnicalRequirements for the Registration ofVeterinary Medicinal Products (VICH) isa unique project conducted under theauspices of the Office International desEpizooties that brings together theregulatory authorities of the EuropeanUnion, Japan, and the United States andrepresentatives from the animal healthindustry in the three regions. Thepurpose of VICH is to harmonizetechnical requirements for veterinaryproducts (both drugs and biologics).Regulatory authorities and industryexperts from Australia and New Zealandparticipate in an observer capacity. TheWorld Federation of the Animal HealthIndustry (COMISA, the ConfederationMondiale de L’Industrie de la SanteAnimale) provides the secretarial andadministrative support for VICHactivities.

The United States Government isrepresented in VICH by the Food andDrug Administration (FDA) and theAnimal and Plant Health InspectionService (APHIS). The FDA providesexpertise on veterinary drugs, whileAPHIS fills a corresponding role forveterinary biological products. As VICHmembers, APHIS and FDA participate inefforts to enhance harmonization andhave expressed their commitment toseeking scientifically based harmonizedtechnical requirements for thedevelopment of veterinary drugs andbiological products. One of the goals ofharmonization is to identify and reducethe differences in technicalrequirements for veterinary drugs andbiologics among regulatory agencies indifferent countries.

Two draft guidelines have been madeavailable by the VICH SteeringCommittee for comments by interested

parties. The first draft guideline,‘‘Pharmacovigilance of VeterinaryMedicinal Products: Management ofPeriodic Summary Update Reports(PSUs)’’ (VICH Topic GL29), is intendedto provide general recommendations forthe management of the detection andinvestigation of the clinical effects ofmarketed veterinary medicinalproducts. Because the draft guidelineapplies to some veterinary biologicalproducts regulated by APHIS under theVirus-Serum-Toxin Act—particularlywith regard to adverse event reporting—we are requesting comments on itsprovisions so that we may include anyrelevant public input on the draft in theAgency’s comments to the VICHSteering Committee.

The second draft guideline,‘‘Pharmacovigilance of VeterinaryMedicinal Products: Controlled List ofTerms’’ (VICH Topic GL30), is intendedto provide a controlled list ofterminology for describing clinical signsand associated body systems and organsfor reporting an adverse eventassociated with the use of veterinarymedicinal products. Again, because thedraft guideline applies to someveterinary biological products regulatedby APHIS under the Virus-Serum-ToxinAct—particularly with regard toensuring that consistent terminology isused to describe an adverse eventassociated with the use of a veterinarymedicinal product—we are requestingcomments on its provisions so that wemay include any relevant public inputon the draft in the Agency’s commentsto the VICH Steering Committee.

The two draft guidelines reflect,respectively, current APHIS thinking onthe management of PSUs and theappropriate terminology for use indescribing an adverse event concerningthe use of veterinary biologicalproducts. In accordance with the VICHprocess, once a final draft of eachdocument has been approved, theguideline will be recommended foradoption by the regulatory bodies of theEuropean Union, Japan, and the UnitedStates. As with all VICH documents,each final guideline will not create orconfer any rights for or on any personand will not operate to bind APHIS orthe public. Further, the VICH guidelinesspecifically provide for the use ofalternative approaches if thoseapproaches satisfy applicable regulatoryrequirements.

Ultimately, APHIS intends to considerthe VICH Steering Committee’s finalguidelines for use by U.S. veterinarybiologics licensees, permittees, andapplicants. In addition, we mayconsider the use of each final guidelineas the basis for proposed amendments to



the regulations in 9 CFR chapter I,subchapter E (Viruses, Serums, Toxins,and Analogous Products: Organisms andVectors). Because we anticipate thatapplicable provisions of the finalversions of ‘‘Pharmacovigilance ofVeterinary Medicinal Products:Management of Periodic SummaryUpdate Reports (PSUs)’’ and‘‘Pharmacovigilance of VeterinaryMedicinal Products: Controlled List ofTerms’’ may be introduced into APHIS’veterinary biologics regulatory programin the future, we encourage yourcomments on the draft guidelines.




Forest Service

Newspapers To Be Used forPublication of Legal Notice ofAppealable Decisions and Correctionsfor the Southern Region; Alabama,Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee,Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi,Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas,Oklahoma, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Texas, Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice and correction.

SUMMARY: Deciding Officers in theSouthern Region will publish notice ofdecisions subject to administrativeappeal under 36 CFR part 217 in thelegal notice section of the newspaperslisted in the Supplementary Informationsection of this notice. As provided in 36CFR part 217.5(d), the public shall beadvised through Federal Registernotice, of the principal newspaper to beutilized for publishing legal notice ofdecisions. Newspaper publication ofnotice of decisions is in addition todirect notice of decisions to thoseknown to be interested in or affected bya specific decision. The ResponsibleOfficial under 36 CFR part 215 gaveannual notice in the Federal Registerpublished on May 9, 2001, of principalnewspapers to be utilized for publishingnotice of proposed actions and ofdecisions subject to appeal under 36CFR part 215. The list of newspapers tobe used for 215 notice and decision iscorrected.DATES: Use of these newspapers forpurposes of publishing legal notice of

decisions subject to appeal under 36CFR part 217 and the use of thecorrected newspaper listed under 36CFR part 215 shall begin on or after thedate of this publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Norm Heintz, Acting Regional AppealsCoordinator, Southern Region, Planning,1720 Peachtree Road, NW., Atlanta,Georgia 30309, Phone: 404–347–5235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DecidingOfficers in the Southern Region willgive legal notice of decisions subject toappeal under 36 CFR part 217 in thefollowing newspapers which are listedby Forest Service Administrative unit.Where more than one newspaper islisted for any unit, the first newspaperlisted is the principal newspaper thatwill be utilized for publishing the legalnotice of decisions. Additionalnewspapers listed for a particular unitare those newspapers the DecidingOfficer expects to use for purposes ofproviding additional notice. Thetimeframe for appeal shall be based onthe date of publication of the legalnotice of the decision in the principalnewspaper. The following newspaperswill be used to provide notice.

Southern Region

Regional Forester Decisions

Affecting National Forest Systemlands in more than one state of the 14states of the Southern Region and theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico AtlantaJournal, published daily in Atlanta, GA.

Affecting National Forest Systemlands in only one state of the 14 statesof the Southern Region and theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico or onlyone Ranger District will appear in theprincipal newspaper elected by theNational Forest of that state or RangerDistrict.

National Forests in Alabama, Alabama

Forest Supervisor Decisions

Montgomery Advertiser, published daily inMontgomery, AL

District Ranger Decisions

Bankhead Ranger District: NorthwestAlabamian, published weekly (Wednesday& Saturday) in Haleyville, AL

Conecuh Ranger District: The Andalusia StarNews, published daily (Tuesday throughSaturday) in Andalusia, AL

Oakmulgee Ranger District: The TuscaloosaNews, published daily in Tuscaloosa, AL

Shoal Creek Ranger District: The AnnistonStar, published daily in Anniston, AL

Talladega Ranger District: The Daily Home,published daily in Talladega, AL

Tuskegee Ranger District: Tuskegee News,published weekly (Thursday) in Tuskegee,AL

Caribbean National Forest, Puerto Rico


El Nuevo Dia, published daily in Spanish inSan Juan, PR

San Juan Star, published daily in English inSan Juan, PR

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest,Georgia


The Times, published daily in Gainesville,GA


Armuchee Ranger District: Walker CountyMessenger, published bi-weekly(Wednesday & Friday) in LaFayette, GA

Toccoa Ranger District: The News Observerpublished bi-weekly (Tuesday & Friday) inBlue Ridge, GA

Brasstown Ranger District: North GeorgiaNews, published weekly (Wednesday) inBlairsville, GA

Tallulah Ranger District: Clayton Tribune,published weekly (Thursday) in Clayton,GA

Chattooga Ranger District:Northeast Georgian, published twice

weekly (Tuesday & Friday) in Cornelia,GA

Chieftain & Toccoa Record, publishedtwice weekly (Tuesday & Friday) inToccoa, GA

White County News Telegraph, publishedweekly (Thursday) in Cleveland, GA

The Dahlonega Nuggett, published weekly(Thursday) in Dahlonega, GA

Cohutta Ranger District: Chatsworth Times,published weekly (Wednesday) inChatsworth, GA

Oconee Ranger District: Eatonton Messenger,published weekly (Thursday) in Eatonton,GA

Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee


Knoxville News Sentinel, published daily inKnoxville, TN (covering McMinn, Monroe,and Polk Counties)

Johnson City Press, published daily inJohnson City, TN (covering Carter, Cocke,Greene, Johnson, Sullivan, Unicoi andWashington Counties)


Ocoee-Hiwassee Ranger District: Polk CountyNews, published weekly (Wednesday) inBenton, TN

Tellico-Hiwassee Ranger District: MonroeCounty Advocate, published tri-weekly(Wednesday, Friday and Sunday) inSweetwater, TN

Nolichucky-Unaka Ranger District: JohnsonCity Press, published daily in Johnson City,TN

Watauga Ranger District: Johnson City Press,published daily in Johnson City, TN

Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky


Lexington Herald-Leader, published daily inLexington, KY




Morehead Ranger District: Morehead News,published bi-weekly (Tuesday and Friday)in Morehead, KY

Stanton Ranger District: The Clay City Times,published bi-weekly (Thursday) inStanton, KY

London Ranger District: The Sentinel-Echo,published tri-weekly (Monday,Wednesday, and Friday) in London, KY

Somerset Ranger District: Commonwealth-Journal, published daily (Sunday throughFriday) in Somerset, KY

Stearns Ranger District: McCreary CountyRecord, published weekly (Tuesday) inWhitley City, KY

Redbird Ranger District: ManchesterEnterprise, published weekly (Thursday) inManchester, KY

National Forests in Florida, Florida


The Tallahassee Democrat, published dailyin Tallahassee, FL

District Ranger Decisions:

Apalachicola Ranger District: The LibertyJournal, published weekly (Wednesday) inBristol, FL

Lake George Ranger District: The Ocala StarBanner, published daily in Ocala, FL

Osceola Ranger District: The Lake CityReporter, published daily (Monday-Saturday) in Lake City, FL

Seminole Ranger District: The DailyCommercial, published daily in Leesburg,FL

Wakulla Ranger District: The TallahasseeDemocrat, published daily in Tallahassee,FL

Francis Marion & Sumter National Forest,South Carolina


The State, published daily in Columbia, SC


Enoree Ranger District: Newberry Observer,published tri-weekly (Monday,Wednesday, and Friday) Newberry, SC

Andrew Pickens Ranger District: The DailyJournal, published daily in Seneca, SC

Long Cane Ranger District: The AugustaChronicle, published daily in Augusta, GA

Wambaw Ranger District: Post and Courier,published daily in Charleston, SC

Witherbee Ranger District: Post and Courier,published daily in Charleston, SC

George Washington and Jefferson NationalForests, Virginia and West Virginia


Roanoke Times, published daily in Roanoke,VA


Lee Ranger District: Shenandoah ValleyHerald, published weekly (Wednesday) inWoodstock, VA

Warm Springs Ranger District: The Recorder,published weekly (Thursday) in Monterey,VA

James River Ranger District: VirginianReview, published daily (except Sunday) inCovington, VA

Deerfield Ranger District: Daily News Leader,published daily in Staunton, VA

Dry River Ranger District: Daily News Record,published daily (except Sunday) inHarrisonburg, VA

New River Ranger District: Roanoke Times,published daily in Roanoke, VA

Glenwood/Pedlar Ranger District: RoanokeTimes, published daily in Roanoke, VA

New Castle Ranger District: Roanoke Times,published daily in Roanoke, VA

Mount Rogers National Recreation Area:Briston Herald Courier, published daily inBriston, VA

Clinch Ranger District: Kingsport-TimesNews, published daily in Kingsport, TN

Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana


The Town Talk, published daily inAlexandria, LA


Caney Ranger District:Minden Press Herald, published daily in

Minden, LAHomer Guardian Journal, published

weekly (Wednesday) in Homer, LACatahoula Ranger District: The Town Talk,

published daily in Alexandria, LACalcasieu Ranger District: The Town Talk,

published daily in Alexandria, LAKisatchie Ranger District: Natchitoches

Times, published daily (Tuesday-Fridayand on Sunday) in Natchitoches, LA

Winn Ranger District: Winn ParishEnterprise, published weekly (Wednesday)in Winnfield, LA

Land Between the Lakes National RecreationArea, Kentucky and Tennessee

Area Supervisor Decisions

The Paducah Sun, published daily inPaducah, KY

National Forests in Mississippi, Mississippi

Forrest Supervisor Decisions:

Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson,MS


Bienville Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger,published daily in Jackson, MS

Chickasawhay Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS

Delta Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger,published daily in Jackson, MS

De Soto Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger,published daily in Jackson, MS

Holly Springs Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger,published daily in Jackson, MS

Homochitto Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger,published daily in Jackson, MS

Tombigbee Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger,published daily in Jackson, MS

National Forests in North Carolina, NorthCarolina


The Asheville Citizen-Times, published dailyin Asheville, NC

District Ranger Decisions:

Appalachian Ranger District: The AshevilleCitizen-Times, published daily inAsheville, NC

Cheoah Ranger District: Graham Star,published weekly (Thursday) inRobbinsville, NC

Croatan Ranger District: The Sun Journal,published weekly (Sunday through Friday)in New Bern, NC

Grandfather Ranger District: McDowell News,published daily in Marion, NC

Highlands Ranger District: The Highlander,published weekly (mid May–mid Nov Tues& Fri; mid Nov–mid May Tues only) inHighland, NC

Pisgah Ranger District: The Asheville Citizen-Times, published daily in Asheville, NC

Tusquitee Ranger District: Cherokee Scout,published weekly (Wednesday) in Murphy,NC

Uwharrie Ranger Distict: MontgomeryHerald, published weekly (Wednesday) inTroy, NC

Wayah Ranger District: The Franklin Press,published bi-weekly (Wednesday andFriday) in Franklin, NC

Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas andOklahoma


Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published dailyin Little Rock, AR


Caddo Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR

Fourche Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR

Jessieville/Winona Ranger District: ArkansasDemocrat-Gazette, published daily in LittleRock, AR

Mena/Oden Ranger District: ArkansasDemocrat-Gazette, published daily in LittleRock, AR

Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District:Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, publisheddaily in Little Rock, AR

Womble Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR

Choctaw Ranger District: Tulsa World,published daily in Tulsa, OK

Kiamichi Ranger District: Tulsa World,published daily in Tulsa, OK

Tiak Ranger District: Tulsa World, publisheddaily in Tulsa, OK

Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, Arkansas


The Courier, published daily (Tuesdaythrough Sunday) in Russellville, AR


Sylamore Ranger District: Stone CountyLeader, published weekly (Tuesday) inMountain View, AR

Buffalo Ranger District: Newton CountyTimes, published weekly in Jasper, AR

Bayou Ranger District: The Courier,published daily (Tuesday through Sunday)in Russellville, AR

Pleasant Hill Ranger District: Johnson CountyGraphic, published weekly (Wednesday) inClarksville, AR



Boston Mountain Ranger District: SouthwestTimes Record, published daily in FortSmith, AR

Magazine Ranger District: Southwest TimesRecord, published daily in Fort Smith, AR

St. Francis Ranger District: The Daily World,published daily (Sunday through Friday)in Helena, AR

National Forests and Grasslands in Texas,Texas

Forest Supervisor DecisionsThe Lufkin Daily News, published daily in

Lufkin, TX

District Ranger DecisionsAngelina National Forest: The Lufkin Daily

News, published daily in Lufkin, TXDavy Crockett National Forest: The Lufkin

Daily News, published daily in Lufkin, TXSabine National Forest: The Lufkin Daily

News, published daily in Lufkin, TXSam Houston National Forest: The Courier,

published daily in Conroe, TXCaddo & LBJ National Grasslands: Denton

Record-Chronicle, published daily inDenton, TX

The Responsible Official under 36CFR part 215 gave annual notice in theFederal Register published on May 9,2001, of principal newspapers to beutilized for publishing notices ofproposed actions and of decisionssubject to appeal under 36 CFR 215. Thelist of newspapers to be used for 215notice and decision is corrected asfollows:

National Forests in Alabama, Alabama

District Ranger Decisions:Bankhead Ranger District:Correct:Northwest Alabamian, published weekly

(Wednesday & Saturday) in Haleyville, AL

Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee


Tellico-Hiwassee Ranger District:Correct:Monroe County Advocate, published tri-

weekly (Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday)in Sweetwater, TN

Dated: November 28, 2001.David G. Holland,Deputy Regional Forester.[FR Doc. 01–30077 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–11–M


Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No.1202]

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status,United Chemi-Con, Inc. (AluminumElectrolytic Capacitors), Lansing,North Carolina

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts thefollowing Order:

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Actprovides for ‘‘. . . the establishment. . . of foreign-trade zones in ports ofentry of the United States, to expediteand encourage foreign commerce, andfor other purposes,’’ and authorizes theForeign-Trade Zones Board (the Board)to grant to qualified corporations theprivilege of establishing foreign-tradezones in or adjacent to U.S. Customsports of entry;

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15CFR part 400) provide for theestablishment of special-purposesubzones when existing zone facilitiescannot serve the specific use involved,and when the activity results in asignificant public benefit and is in thepublic interest;

Whereas, the Piedmont TriadPartnership, grantee of Foreign-TradeZone 230 (Greensboro, North Carolina),has made application for authority toestablish special-purpose subzone statusat the aluminum electrolytic capacitormanufacturing plant of United Chemi-Con, Inc., located in Lansing, NorthCarolina (FTZ Docket 25–2001, filed 6–18–2001);

Whereas, notice inviting publiccomment was given in the FederalRegister (66 FR 33948, 6–26–2001); and,

Whereas, the Board adopts thefindings and recommendations of theexaminer’s report, and finds that therequirements of the FTZ Act andBoard’s regulations are satisfied, andthat approval of the application is in thepublic interest;

Now, therefore, the Board herebygrants authority for subzone status at thealuminum electrolytic capacitormanufacturing plant of United Chemi-Con, Inc., located in Lansing, NorthCarolina (Subzone 230A), at the locationdescribed in the application, subject tothe FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations,including section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day ofNovember 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,Assistant Secretary of Commerce for ImportAdministration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.[FR Doc. 01–30171 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P


International Trade Administration

[A–570–866]

Notice of Amended FinalDetermination of Sales at Less ThanFair Value: Certain Folding Gift BoxesFrom the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of amended finaldetermination of sales at less than fairvalue.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2001.SUMMARY: We published in the FederalRegister our final determination for theinvestigation of certain folding giftboxes from the People’s Republic ofChina on November 20, 2001. SeeNotice of Final Determination of Salesat Less Than Fair Value: Certain CertainFolding Gift Boxes from the People’sRepublic of China, 66 FR 50408(November 20, 2001). We are amendingour final determination to correctministerial errors discovered by RedPoint Paper Products, Ltd.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Thomas Schauer or George Callen,Import Administration, InternationalTrade Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, 14th Street andConstitution Avenue, NW., Washington,DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 or(202) 482–0180, respectively.

Applicable Statute and RegulationsUnless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references tothe provisions effective January 1, 1995,the effective date of the amendmentsmade to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the TariffAct) by the Uruguay Round AgreementsAct. In addition, unless otherwiseindicated, all citations to theDepartment of Commerce’s (theDepartment’s) regulations refer to 19CFR part 351 (2000).

BackgroundOn November 13, 2001, the

Department determined that certainfolding gift boxes from the People’sRepublic of China are being, or arelikely to be, sold in the United States atless than fair value (LTFV), as providedin section 735(a) of the Tariff Act. SeeNotice of Final Determination of Salesat Less Than Fair Value: Certain CertainFolding Gift Boxes from the People’sRepublic of China, 66 FR 50408(November 20, 2001) (FinalDetermination). On November 19, 2001,respondent Red Point Paper ProductsLtd. (Red Point) timely filed an



allegation that the Department hadmade two ministerial errors in its finaldetermination.

Red Point’s submission alleges thefollowing errors: (1) The Departmentinadvertently used the value of labor for1998 rather than 1999 as published onthe Department’s web site, and (2) theDepartment inadvertently deductedmovement expenses incurred by RedPoint’s unaffiliated customer from theexport price.

On November 26, 2001, HarvardFolding Box Company and FieldContainer Company, LP (collectively,the petitioners), submitted commentsrebutting Red Point’s ministerial-errorallegations. The petitioners argue thatRed Point’s allegations are untimelyarguments for methodological changesrather than ministerial-error allegations.With regard to labor valuation, thepetitioners argue that Red Point’sallegation is an untimely argument as towhich surrogate value the Departmentshould use to value labor inputs. Withregard to movement expenses, thepetitioners contend that the Departmentused the same methodology in the FinalDetermination as it used in thePreliminary Determination and that RedPoint did not comment upon theDepartment’s deduction of thesemovement expenses in its case brief.The petitioners contend that Red Pointis asking the Department, under theguise of correcting a ministerial error, tochange a clearly articulatedmethodology and argue that theDepartment should not do so becausethe alleged errors were methodologicalchoices, not ministerial errors.

No other party alleged that there wereministerial errors in the FinalDetermination or commented about RedPoint’s allegations.

Scope of the InvestigationThe products covered by this

investigation are certain folding giftboxes. Certain folding gift boxes are atype of folding or knock-down cartonmanufactured from paper orpaperboard. Certain folding gift boxesare produced from a variety of recycledand virgin paper or paperboardmaterials, including, but not limited to,clay-coated paper or paperboard andkraft (bleached or unbleached) paper orpaperboard. The scope of theinvestigation excludes gift boxesmanufactured from paper or paperboardof a thickness of more than 0.8millimeters, corrugated paperboard, orpaper mache. The scope of theinvestigation also excludes those giftboxes for which no side of the box,when assembled, is at least nine inchesin length.

Certain folding gift boxes are typicallydecorated with a holiday motif usingvarious processes, including printing,embossing, debossing, and foilstamping, but may also be plain whiteor printed with a single color. Thesubject merchandise includes certainfolding gift boxes, with or withouthandles, whether finished orunfinished, and whether in one-piece ormulti-piece configuration. One-piecegift boxes are die-cut or otherwiseformed so that the top, bottom, andsides form a single, contiguous unit.Two-piece gift boxes are those with afolded bottom and a folded top asseparate pieces. Certain folding giftboxes are generally packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane, or other packagingmaterials, in single or multi-box packsfor sale to the retail customer. The scopeof the investigation excludes folding giftboxes that have a retailer’s name, logo,trademark or similar companyinformation printed prominently on thebox’s top exterior (such folding giftboxes are often known as ‘‘not-for-resale’’ gift boxes or ‘‘give-away’’ giftboxes and may be provided bydepartment and specialty stores at nocharge to their retail customers). Thescope of the investigation also excludesfolding gift boxes where both theoutside of the box is a single color andthe box is not packaged in shrink-wrap,cellophane, other resin-based packagingfilms, or paperboard.

Imports of the subject merchandiseare currently classified underHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States (HTSUS) subheadings4819.20.00.40 and 4819.50.40.60. Thesesubheadings also cover products that areoutside the scope of this investigation.Furthermore, although the HTSUSsubheadings are provided forconvenience and customs purposes, ourwritten description of the scope of thisinvestigation is dispositive.

Ministerial ErrorThe Department’s regulations define a

ministerial error as one involving‘‘addition, subtraction, or otherarithmetic function, clerical errorresulting from inaccurate copying,duplication or the like, and any othersimilar type of unintentional errorwhich the Secretary considersministerial.’’ See 19 CFR 351.224(f).

After reviewing Red Point’sallegations we have determined, inaccordance with 19 CFR 351.224, thatthe Final Determination includesministerial errors. We agree with RedPoint that we should not have deductedthe movement expenses incurred by RedPoint’s unaffiliated customer. Theseexpenses, which include international

freight, marine insurance, U.S. inlandfreight, U.S. brokerage & handlingexpenses, and U.S. Customs duties,were incurred by Lindy Bowman, notRed Point. See Red Point verificationreport dated September 13, 2001, atpage 7 and Lindy Bowman verificationreport dated September 17, 2001, atpage 4. We should have only deductedthose movement expenses incurred byRed Point, not those incurred by its U.S.customer. Contrary to the petitioners’assertion, this constitutes anunintentional error on our part.Accordingly, we have corrected thisministerial error.

We also agree with Red Point that weinadvertently used the labor value for1998 in the Final Determination. Thelabor value for 1999 to which Red Pointrefers was published on theDepartment’s website in September2001 and, therefore, was available forour use in the Final Determination. Seehttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/.Furthermore, we disagree with thepetitioners’ characterization that RedPoint’s allegation is an untimelyargument as to which surrogate valuethe Department should use for labor.The Department develops the surrogatevalue for the applicable laborcalculations; it is not submitted byinterested parties (as are most surrogatevalues). Finally, the revised labor ratecorresponds more closely in time withthe period of investigation than thesurrogate value we used in thePreliminary Determination. Thus, weshould have used the revised surrogatevalue for labor in the FinalDetermination. Our use of the samelabor rate we used in the PreliminaryDetermination was unintentional.Accordingly, we have corrected thisministerial error.

Amended Final DeterminationIn accordance with 19 CFR

351.224(e), we are amending the finaldetermination of the antidumping dutyinvestigation of certain folding giftboxes from the People’s Republic ofChina. For this amended finaldetermination, we did not deduct theaforementioned movement expensesincurred by Lindy Bowman from theU.S. price and we have used the revisedsurrogate value for labor. The revisedfinal weighted-average dumpingmargins for Red Point is 8.90 percent.The weighted-average dumping marginsfor all other companies remainunchanged.

Suspension of LiquidationIn accordance with section

735(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, we aredirecting the United States Customs



Service (Customs) to continuesuspending liquidation on all imports ofthe subject merchandise from thePeople’s Republic of China. Customsshall require a cash deposit or theposting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal valueexceeds the export price as indicated inthe chart above. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain ineffect until further notice.

International Trade CommissionNotification

In accordance with section 735(d) ofthe Tariff Act, we have notified theInternational Trade Commission of ouramended final determination.

This determination is issued andpublished in accordance with section735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of1930, as amended.

Dated: November 29, 2001.Richard W. Moreland,Acting Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 01–30169 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P



[A–489–807]

Certain Steel Concrete ReinforcingBars from Turkey; Notice of Extensionof Time Limit for Preliminary Results inAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReview

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2001.SUMMARY: The Department of Commerceis extending the time limit forcompletion of the preliminary results ofthe administrative review of theantidumping duty order on certain steelconcrete reinforcing bars from Turkey.The period of review is April 1, 2000,through March 31, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: IrinaItkin or Elizabeth Eastwood at (202)482–0656 or (202) 482–3874,respectively, Office of AD/CVDEnforcement, Import Administration,International Trade Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, 14thStreet and Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, allcitations to the Tariff Act of 1930, asamended (the Act), are references to theprovisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments madeto the Act by the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act. In addition, unlessotherwise indicated, all citations to theDepartment of Commerce’s (theDepartment’s) regulations are to 19 CFRpart 351 (2001).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May23, 2001, the Department published anotice of initiation of administrativereview of the antidumping duty orderon certain steel concrete reinforcing barsfrom Turkey. The period of review isApril 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.The review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise tothe United States.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of theAct, the Department shall make apreliminary determination in anadministrative review of anantidumping order within 245 days afterthe last day of the anniversary month ofthe date of publication of the order. TheAct further provides, however, that theDepartment may extend the 245-dayperiod to 365 days if it determines it isnot practicable to complete the reviewwithin the foregoing time period.Because it is not practicable to completethis administrative review within thetime limit mandated by section751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Departmentis extending the time limit forcompletion of the preliminary results.This review involves a number ofcomplicated issues including highinflation in Turkey during the period ofreview. Because we need additionaltime for our analysis, we have extendedthe deadline until April 30, 2002.

This extension is in accordance withsection 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (19U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)) and 19 CFR351.213(h)(2).

Dated: November 29, 2001.Richard W. Moreland,Deputy Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 01–30168 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P



University of Connecticut, et al.; Noticeof Consolidated Decision onApplications for Duty-Free Entry ofElectron Microscopes

This is a decision consolidatedpursuant to section 6(c) of theEducational, Scientific, and CulturalMaterials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part301). Related records can be viewedbetween 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite

4100W, Franklin Court Building, U.S.Department of Commerce, 1099 14thStreet NW., Washington, DC.

Docket Number: 01–017. Applicant:University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT06269–3136. Instrument: ElectronMicroscope, Model JEM–2010.Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan.Intended Use: See notice at 66 FR55913, November 5, 2001. Order Date:December 8, 2001.

Docket Number: 01–019. Applicant:University of California, Berkeley, CA94720. Instrument: Electron Microscope,Model CM200 FEG. Manufacturer: FEICompany, The Netherlands. IntendedUse: See notice at 66 FR 55913,November 5, 2001. Order Date: May 23,2001.

Docket Number: 01–021. Applicant:Baylor College of Medicine, Houston,TX 77030. Instrument: ElectronMicroscope, Model JEM–2010F andAccessories. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd.,Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 66 FR55914, November 5, 2001. Order Date:September 20, 2001.

Comments: None received. Decision:Approved. No instrument of equivalentscientific value to the foreigninstrument, for such purposes as theseinstruments are intended to be used,was being manufactured in the UnitedStates at the time the instruments wereordered. Reasons: Each foreigninstrument is a conventionaltransmission electron microscope(CTEM) and is intended for research orscientific educational uses requiring aCTEM. We know of no CTEM, or anyother instrument suited to thesepurposes, which was beingmanufactured in the United States at thetime of order of each instrument.

Gerald A. Zerdy,Program Manager, Statutory Import ProgramsStaff.[FR Doc. 01–30170 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P


National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

Deep Seabed Mining: ProposedExtension and Revision of ExplorationLicense

AGENCY: National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, U.S.Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of Receipt of Applicationto Extend Deep Seabed MiningExploration License USA–1 and ReviseExploration Plan.



SUMMARY: On September 20, 2001,Ocean Minerals Company (OMCO)submitted to the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA)an application for a five-year extensionof Deep Seabed Mining ExplorationLicense USA–1, pursuant to sections105(c)(2) and 107(a) of the Deep SeabedHard Mineral Resources (DSHMRA, 30U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and 15 CFR 970.515.OMCO has also proposed relatedexploration plan revisions.

NOAA has determined that thisproposal constitutes an application for amajor but not a significant revision tothe exploration plan and to the terms,conditions, and restrictions (TCRs) ofthe license under 15 CFR 970.513, andis commencing public reviewprocedures as prescribed in 15 CFR970.514(b). Pursuant to the DSHMRAand 15 CFR part 970, on August 29,1984, NOAA issued a license to OMCOto engage in deep seabed miningexploration in the Clarion-ClippertonFracture Zone area of the NortheasternEquatorial Pacific Ocean. Since thattime, the licensee, subject to the TCRsof the license and the regulatoryrequirements, has diligently pursued theactivities approved in the explorationplan of the license, directed towardapplication for a commercial permit.

In 1991, NOAA approved a revision tothe exploration plan for USA–I andextended the original license for anadditional five years. This explorationplan is a two-phased plan. During PhaseI, OMCO’s activities are designed tomonitor legal, technical and politicaldevelopments pertaining to deep seabedmining; analyze environmental andnodule resource data; and, reevaluatethe potential for commercial mining.During Phase II OMCO’s activities aredirected toward survey operations,upgrading the exploration ship andequipment, and delineation of the orebody.

OMCO is applying for a five-yearextension of the license based onsignificantly changed marketconditions, pursuant to 15 CFR 970.515.Section 107(a) of the DSHMRA providesthat the Administration shall extend alicense, on terms consistent with theAct and NOAA’s regulations, if thelicensee has complied with the licenseand associated exploration plan. Section105(c)(2) of the DSHMRA authorizesNOAA to approve a license revisionupon a finding that the revision willcomply with the requirements of the Actand implementing regulations. Arevision to the exploration plan is beingrequested to reflect accomplishment ofobjectives in Phase I of OMCO’s currentplan. For example, the substantialamounts of data received as a result of

the exchange of exploration databetween consortia during settlement ofoverlapping sites is sufficient todetermine if and at which locationsattractive mine sites occur in USA–I.This allows survey operations andupgrading of the mine ship andequipment to be delayed until Phase IIwhen detailed ore body delineationoccurs in conjunctions with theinitiation of scale-up pilot plantoperations.

This revision requests an extension ofthe term of the license until 2005 andproposes to extend Phase I for five yearsand to delay the initiation of the surveyoperations, ore body delineation andupgrade ship and equipment activitiesof Phase II. During the five-yearextension. OMCO will monitor domesticand international activities in thescientific, engineering, and financialfields that are important to the futuredevelopment of ocean mining. This willhelp to maintain industry viability andprovide information necessary to assessthe timeliness for inauguration of PhaseII. OMCO will also continue to monitornew environmental studies and datacollection.

Subject to 15 CFR 971.802, interestedpersons will be permitted to examinethe application for extension at thebelow listed address.

DATES: Individuals or organizationswishing to submit comments on theapplication should do so by February 4,2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be madeto John King, Acting Chief, CoastalPrograms Division (N/ORM3), Office ofOcean and Coastal ResourceManagement, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland,tel. 301–713–3155 extension 195, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Joseph Flanagan, Coastal ProgramsDivision (NORM/3), Office of Ocean andCoastal Resource Management, NOS,NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, SilverSpring, Maryland 20910, tel. (301) 713–3155, x201, [email protected].

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419Coastal Zone Management ProgramAdministration.


Jamison S. Hawkins,Deputy Assistant Administrator for OceanServices and Coastal Zone Management,National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Department of Commerce.[FR Doc. 01–30150 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–M

COMMITTEE FOR THEIMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILEAGREEMENTS

Announcement of Import RestraintLimits for Certain Cotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and OtherVegetable Fiber Textiles and TextileProducts Produced or Manufactured inHong Kong

November 29, 2001.AGENCY: Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements(CITA).ACTION: Issuing a directive to theCommissioner of Customs establishinglimits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Naomi Freeman, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,(202) 482–4212. For information on thequota status of these limits, refer to theQuota Status Reports posted on thebulletin boards of each Customs port,call (202) 927–5850, or refer to the U.S.Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information onembargoes and quota re-openings, referto the Office of Textiles and Apparelwebsite at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the AgriculturalAct of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, asamended.

The import restraint limits for textileproducts, produced or manufactured inHong Kong and exported during theperiod January 1, 2002 throughDecember 31, 2002 are based on limitsnotified to the Textiles Monitoring Bodypursuant to the Uruguay RoundAgreement on Textiles and Clothing(ATC).

Pursuant to the provisions of the ATC,the third stage of the integration oftextile and apparel products into theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade1994 will take place on January 1, 2002(see 60 FR 21075, published on May 1,1995). Accordingly, certain previouslyrestrained categories have beenmodified or eliminated and certainlimits have been revised. Integratedproducts will no longer be subject toquota.

In the letter published below, theChairman of CITA directs theCommissioner of Customs to establishthe 2002 limits. These limits have beenincreased, variously, for adjustmentspermitted under the flexibilityprovisions of the ATC.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTS



numbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 65 FR 82328,published on December 28, 2000).Information regarding the 2002CORRELATION will be published in theFederal Register.

D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of TextileAgreementsNovember 29, 2001.

Commissioner of Customs,Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section

204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, asamended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and theUruguay Round Agreement on Textiles andClothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit,effective on January 1, 2002, entry into theUnited States for consumption andwithdrawal from warehouse for consumptionof cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blendand other vegetable fiber textiles and textileproducts in the following categories,produced or manufactured in Hong Kong andexported during the twelve-month periodbeginning on January 1, 2002 and extendingthrough December 31, 2002, in excess of thefollowing levels of restraint:

Category Twelve-month restraintlimit

Group I200–220, 224–227,

300–326, 360–363, 369(1) 1,369pt. 2, 400–414,469pt. 3, 603, 604,611–620, 624–629and 666pt. 4, as agroup.

172,957,184 squaremeters equivalent.

Sublevels in Group I219 ........................... 49,169,630 square

meters.218/225/317/326 ...... 81,007,688 square

meters of which notmore than 4,461,587square meters shallbe in Category218(1) 5 (yarn dyedfabric other thandenim and jac-quard).

611 ........................... 7,752,255 square me-ters.

617 ........................... 4,891,128 square me-ters.

Group I subgroup200, 226/313, 314,

315, 369(1) and604, as a group.


Within Group I sub-group

200 ........................... 423,920 kilograms.226/313 .................... 88,199,757 square

meters.


314 ........................... 23,786,416 squaremeters

315 ........................... 11,760,084 squaremeters.

369(1) (shoptowels) 966,440 kilograms.604 ........................... 290,994 kilograms.Group II237, 239pt. 6, 332–

348, 351, 352,359(1) 7, 359(2) 8,359pt. 9, 433–438,440–448,459pt. 10, 633–648, 651, 652,659(1) 11, 659(2)12, 659pt. 13, and443/444/643/644(1), as a group.


Sublevels in Group II237 ........................... 1,421,853 dozen.331pt. 14 ................... 1,596,885 dozen pairs.333/334 .................... 335,135 dozen.335 ........................... 355,572 dozen.338/339 15 (shirts

and blouses otherthan tank tops andtops, knit).

3,022,255 dozen.

338/339(1) 16 (tanktops and knit tops).

2,270,635 dozen.

340 ........................... 2,894,127 dozen.345 ........................... 509,794 dozen.347/348 .................... 7,007,815 dozen of

which not more than6,917,815 dozenshall be in Cat-egories 347–W/348–W 17; and not morethan 5,242,583dozen shall be inCategory 348–W.

352 ........................... 8,363,147 dozen.359(1) (coveralls,

overalls andjumpsuits).

712,967 kilograms.

359(2) (vests) .......... 1,485,971 kilograms.433 ........................... 11,176 dozen.434 ........................... 11,996 dozen.435 ........................... 79,563 dozen.436 ........................... 103,627 dozen.438 ........................... 851,068 dozen.442 ........................... 99,127 dozen.443 ........................... 65,381 numbers.444 ........................... 44,887 numbers.445/446 .................... 1,406,700 dozen.447/448 .................... 70,743 dozen.631pt. 18 ................... 145,526 dozen pairs.633/634/635 ............. 1,503,252 dozen of

which not more than562,250 dozen shallbe in Categories633/634; and notmore than 1,154,327dozen shall be inCategory 635.

638/639 .................... 5,073,739 dozen.641 ........................... 876,720 dozen.644 ........................... 53,524 numbers.645/646 .................... 1,390,617 dozen.647 ........................... 656,465 dozen.


648 ........................... 1,249,850 dozen ofwhich not more than1,235,060 dozenshall be in Category648–W 19

652 ........................... 5,737,511 dozen.659(1) (coveralls,

overalls andjumpsuits).

788,016 kilograms.

659(2) (swimsuits) ... 333,759 kilograms.443/444/643/644(1)

(made-to-measuresuits).

62,109 numbers.

Group II subgroup336, 341, 342, 351,

636, 640, 642 and651, as a group.


Within Group II sub-group

336 ........................... 274,617 dozen.341 ........................... 2,929,522 dozen.342 ........................... 623,158 dozen.351 ........................... 1,237,298 dozen.636 ........................... 369,586 dozen.640 ........................... 1,110,296 dozen.642 ........................... 293,909 dozen.651 ........................... 400,253 dozen.Group III–only 852 ... 10,686,085 square

meters equivalent.Limits not in a group845(1) 20 (sweaters

made in HongKong).

1,136,476 dozen.

845(2) 21 (sweatersassembled inHong Kong fromknit-to-shape com-ponents, knit else-where).

2,720,291 dozen.

846(1) 22 (sweatersmade in HongKong).

183,779 dozen.

846(2) 23 (sweatersassembled inHong Kong fromknit-to-shape com-ponents, knit else-where).

442,838 dozen.

1 Category 369(1): only HTS number6307.10.2005.

2 Category 369pt.: all HTS numbers except4202.12.4000, 4202.12.8020, 4202.12.8060,4202.22.4020, 4202.22.4500, 4202.22.8030,4202.32.4000, 4202.32.9530, 4202.92.1500,4202.92.3016, 4202.92.6091, 5601.10.1000,5601.21.0090, 5701.90.1020, 5701.90.2020,5702.10.9020, 5702.39.2010, 5702.49.1020,5702.49.1080, 5702.59.1000, 5702.99.1010,5702.99.1090, 5705.00.2020, 5805.00.3000,5807.10.0510, 5807.90.0510, 6301.30.0010,6301.30.0020, 6302,51.1000, 6302.51.2000,6302.51.3000, 6302.51.4000, 6302.60.0010,6302.60.0030, 6302.91.0005, 6302.91.0025,6302.91.0045, 6302.91.0050, 6302.91.0060,6303.11.0000, 6303.91.0010, 6303.91.0020,6304.91.0020, 6304.92.0000, 6305.20.0000,6306.11.0000, 6307.10.1020, 6307.10.1090,6307.90.3010, 6307.90.4010, 6307.90.5010,6307.90.8910, 6307.90.8945, 6307.90.9905,6307.90.9982, 6406.10.7700, 9404.90.1000,9404.90.8040, 9404.90.9505 and HTS numberin 369(1).



3 Category 469pt.: all HTS numbers except5601.29.0020, 5603.94.1010, 6304.19.3040,6304.91.0050, 6304.99.1500, 6304.99.6010,6308.00.0010 and 6406.10.9020.

4 Category 666pt.: all HTS numbers except5805.00.4010, 6301.10.0000, 6301.40.0010,6301.40.0020, 6301.90.0010, 6302.53.0010,6302.53.0020, 6302.53.0030, 6302.93.1000,6302.93.2000, 6303.12.0000, 6303.19.0010,6303.92.1000, 6303.92.2010, 6303.92.2020,6303.99.0010, 6304.11.2000, 6304.19.1500,6304.19.2000, 6304.91.0040, 6304.93.0000,6304.99.6020, 6307.90.9984, 9404.90.8522and 9404.90.9522.

5 Category 218(1): all HTS numbers except5209.42.0060, 5209.42.0080, 5211.42.0060,5211.42.0080, 5514.32.0015 and5516.43.0015.

6 Category 239pt.: only HTS number6209.20.5040 (diapers).

7 Category 359(1): only HTS numbers6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020,6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052,6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010,6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025 and6211.42.0010.

8 Category 359(2): only HTS numbers6103.19.2030, 6103.19.9030, 6104.12.0040,6104.19.8040, 6110.20.1022, 6110.20.1024,6110.20.2030, 6110.20.2035, 6110.90.9044,6110.90.9046, 6201.92.2010, 6202.92.2020,6203.19.1030, 6203.19.9030, 6204.12.0040,6204.19.8040, 6211.32.0070 and6211.42.0070.

9 Category 359pt.: all HTS numbers except6115.19.8010, 6117.10.6010, 6117.20.9010,6203.22.1000, 6204.22.1000, 6212.90.0010,6214.90.0010, 6406.99.1550, 6505.90.1525,6505.90.1540, 6505.90.2060, 6505.90.2545and HTS numbers in 359(1) and 359(2).

10 Category 459pt.: all HTS numbers except6115.19.8020, 6117.10.1000, 6117.10.2010,6117.20.9020, 6212.90.0020, 6214.20.0000,6405.20.6030, 6405.20.6060, 6405.20.6090,6406.99.1505, 6406.99.1560.

11 Category 659(1): only HTS numbers6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020, 6103.43.2025,6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038, 6104.63.1020,6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000, 6104.69.8014,6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010,6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090,6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010, 6210.10.9010,6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017 and6211.43.0010.

12 Category 659(2): only HTS numbers6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010,6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040,6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010and 6211.12.1020.

13 Category 659pt.: all HTS numbers except6115.11.0010, 6115.12.2000, 6117.10.2030,6117.20.9030, 6212.90.0030, 6214.30.0000,6214.40.0000, 6406.99.1510, 6406.99.1540and HTS numbers in 659(1) and 659(2).

14 Category 331pt.: all HTS numbers except6116.10.1720, 6116.10.4810, 6116.10.5510,6116.10.7510, 6116.92.6410, 6116.92.6420,6116.92.6430, 6116.92.6440, 6116.92.7450,6116.92.7460, 6116.92.7470, 6116.92.8800,6116.92.9400 and 6116.99.9510.

15 Categories 338/339: all HTS numbers ex-cept 6109.10.0018, 6109.10.0023,6109.10.0060, 6109.10.0065, 6114.20.0005and 6114.20.0010.

16 Category 338/339(1): only HTS numbers6109.10.0018, 6109.10.0023, 6109.10.0060,6109.10.0065, 6114.20.0005 and6114.20.0010.

17 Category 347–W: only HTS numbers6203.19.1020, 6203.19.9020, 6203.22.3020,6203.22.3030, 6203.42.4005, 6203.42.4010,6203.42.4015, 6203.42.4025, 6203.42.4035,6203.42.4045, 6203.42.4050, 6203.42.4060,6203.49.8020, 6210.40.9033, 6211.20.1520,6211.20.3810 and 6211.32.0040; Category348–W: only HTS numbers 6204.12.0030,6204.19.8030, 6204.22.3040, 6204.22.3050,6204.29.4034, 6204.62.3000, 6204.62.4005,6204.62.4010, 6204.62.4020, 6204.62.4030,6204.62.4040, 6204.62.4050, 6204.62.4055,6204.62.4065, 6204.69.6010, 6204.69.9010,6210.50.9060, 6211.20.1550, 6211.20.6810,6211.42.0030 and 6217.90.9050.

18 Category 631pt.: all HTS numbers except6116.10.1730, 6116.10.4820, 6116.10.5520,6116.10.7520, 6116.93.8800, 6116.93.9400,6116.99.4800, 6116.99.5400 and6116.99.9530.

19 Category 648–W: only HTS numbers6204.23.0040, 6204.23.0045, 6204.29.2020,6204.29.2025, 6204.29.4038, 6204.63.2000,6204.63.3000, 6204.63.3510, 6204.63.3530,6204.63.3532, 6204.63.3540, 6204.69.2510,6204.69.2530, 6204.69.2540, 6204.69.2560,6204.69.6030, 6204.69.9030, 6210.50.5035,6211.20.1555, 6211.20.6820, 6211.43.0040and 6217.90.9060.

20 Category 845(1): only HTS numbers6103.29.2074, 6104.29.2079, 6110.90.9024,6110.90.9042 and 6117.90.9015.

21 Category 845(2): only HTS numbers6103.29.2070, 6104.29.2077, 6110.90.9022and 6110.90.9040.



The limits set forth above are subject toadjustment pursuant to the provisions of theATC and administrative arrangementsnotified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.

Products in the above categories exportedduring 2001 shall be charged to theapplicable category limits for that year (seedirective dated November 28, 2000) to theextent of any unfilled balances. In the eventthe limits established for that period havebeen exhausted by previous entries, suchproducts shall be charged to the limits setforth in this directive.

Products to be integrated into the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 onJanuary 1, 2002 (listed in the Federal Registernotice published on May 1, 1995, 60 FR21075) which are exported during 2001 shallbe charged to the applicable 2001 limits tothe extent of any unfilled balances. AfterJanuary 1, 2002, should those 2001 limits befilled, such products shall no longer becharged to any limit.

The conversion factors for mergedCategories 333/334, 633/634/635 and 638/639 are 33, 33.90 and 13, respectively. Theconversion factor for Category 239pt. is 8.79.

In carrying out the above directions, theCommissioner of Customs should construeentry into the United States for consumptionto include entry for consumption into theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined thatthese actions fall within the foreign affairsexception of the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 01–30045 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S


Adjustment of Import Limits for CertainCotton, Wool and Man-Made FiberTextiles and Textile Products and SilkBlend and Other Vegetable FiberApparel Produced or Manufactured inthe Philippines

November 29, 2001.

AGENCY: Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to theCommissioner of Customs adjustinglimits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Naomi Freeman, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,(202) 482–4212. For information on thequota status of these limits, refer to theQuota Status Reports posted on thebulletin boards of each Customs port,call (202) 927–5850, or refer to the U.S.Customs website at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov. Forinformation on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textilesand Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


The current limit for Category 335 isbeing increased for special swing fromGroup II, reducing the limit for GroupII to account for the special swing beingapplied to Category 335.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 65 FR 82328,published on December 28, 2000). Also



see 65 FR 69742, published onNovember 20, 2000.


Committee for the Implementation of TextileAgreements

November 29, 2001.


20229.Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directiveissued to you on November 14, 2000, by theChairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements. That directiveconcerns imports of certain cotton, wool andman–made fiber textiles and textile productsand silk blend and other vegetable fiberapparel, produced or manufactured in thePhilippines and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1,2001 and extends through December 31,2001.

Effective on December 5, 2001, you aredirected to adjust the limits for the followingcategories, as provided for under the UruguayRound Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

Category Adjusted twelve-monthlimit 1

Level in Group I335 ........................... 161,362 dozen.Group II ...................200–227, 300–326,

332, 359–O 2, 360,362, 363, 369–O 3,400–414, 434–438, 440, 442,444, 448, 459pt. 4,464, 469pt. 5, 600–607, 613–629,644, 659–O 6, 666,669–O 7, 670–O 8,831, 833–838,840–846, 850–858and 859pt. 9, as agroup.


1 The limits have not been adjusted to ac-count for any imports exported after December31, 2000.

2 Category 359–O: all HTS numbers except6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020,6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052,6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010,6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025, 6211.42.0010(Category 359–C); and 6406.99.1550 (359pt.).

3 Category 369–O: all HTS numbers except6307.10.2005 (Category 369–S);5601.10.1000, 5601.21.0090, 5701.90.1020,5701.90.2020, 5702.10.9020, 5702.39.2010,5702.49.1020, 5702.49.1080, 5702.59.1000,5702.99.1010, 5702.99.1090, 5705.00.2020and 6406.10.7700 (Category 369pt.).

4 Category 459pt.: all HTS numbers except6405.20.6030, 6405.20.6060, 6405.20.6090,6406.99.1505 and 6406.99.1560.

5 Category 469pt.: all HTS numbers except5601.29.0020, 5603.94.1010 and6406.10.9020.

6 Category 659–O: all HTS numbers except6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020, 6103.43.2025,6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038, 6104.63.1020,6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000, 6104.69.8014,6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010,6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090,6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010, 6210.10.9010,6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017, 6211.43.0010(Category 659–C); 6502.00.9030,6504.00.9015, 6504.00.9060, 6505.90.5090,6505.90.6090, 6505.90.7090, 6505.90.8090(Category 659–H); 6406.99.1510 and6406.99.1540 (Category 659pt.).

7 Category 669–O: all HTS numbers except6305.32.0010, 6305.32.0020, 6305.33.0010,6305.33.0020, 6305.39.0000 (Category 669–P); 5601.10.2000, 5601.22.0090,5607.49.3000, 5607.50.4000 and6406.10.9040 (Category 669pt.).

8 Category 670–O: all HTS numbers except4202.12.8030, 4202.12.8070, 4202.92.3020,4202.92.3031, 4202.92.9026 and6307.90.9907 (Category 670–L).

9 Category 859pt.: only HTS numbers6115.19.8040, 6117.10.6020, 6212.10.5030,6212.10.9040, 6212.20.0030, 6212.30.0030,6212.90.0090, 6214.10.2000 and6214.90.0090.

The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined thatthese actions fall within the foreign affairsexception to the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.[FR Doc.01–30046 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S


Announcement of Import RestraintLimits for Certain Cotton, Wool andMan-Made Fiber Textile ProductsProduced or Manufactured in Poland


EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Naomi Freeman, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce(202) 482–4212. For information on thequota status of these limits, refer to theQuota Status Reports posted on thebulletin boards of each Customs port,call (202) 927–5850, or refer to the U.S.Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information onembargoes and quota re-openings, referto the Office of Textiles and Apparelwebsite at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


The import restraint limits for textileproducts, produced or manufactured inPoland and exported during the periodJanuary 1, 2002 through December 31,2002 are based on the limits notified tothe Textiles Monitoring Body pursuantto the Uruguay Round Agreement onTextiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, theChairman of CITA directs theCommissioner of Customs to establishthe limits for the 2002 period.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 65 FR 82328,published on December 28, 2000).Information regarding the 2002CORRELATION will be published in theFederal Register at a later date.





204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, asamended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and theUruguay Round Agreement on Textiles andClothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit,effective on January 1, 2002, entry into theUnited States for consumption andwithdrawal from warehouse for consumptionof cotton, wool and man-made fiber textileproducts in the following categories,produced or manufactured in Poland andexported during the twelve-month periodbeginning on January 1, 2002 and extendingthrough December 31, 2002, in excess of thefollowing levels of restraint:


335 ........................... 292,701 dozen.338/339 .................... 3,152,180 dozen.410 ........................... 2,876,059 square me-

ters.433 ........................... 20,310 dozen.434 ........................... 11,078 dozen.435 ........................... 14,496 dozen.443 ........................... 241,589 numbers.611 ........................... 9,009,609 square me-

ters.645/646 .................... 461,570 dozen.




Products in the above categories exportedduring 2001 shall be charged to theapplicable category limits for that year (seedirective dated October 26, 2000) to theextent of any unfilled balances. In the eventthe limits established for that period havebeen exhausted by previous entries, suchproducts shall be charged to the limits setforth in this directive.


The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined thatthese actions fall within the foreign affairsexception to the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 01–30047 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S


Announcement of Import RestraintLimits for Certain Wool TextileProducts Produced or Manufactured inthe Slovak Republic




The import restraint limits for textileproducts, produced or manufactured inthe Slovak Republic and exportedduring the period January 1, 2002through December 31, 2002 are based onlimits notified to the TextilesMonitoring Body pursuant to the

Uruguay Round Agreement on Textilesand Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, theChairman of CITA directs theCommissioner of Customs to establishthe 2002 limits.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 65 FR 82328,published on December 28, 2000).Information regarding the availability ofthe 2002 CORRELATION will bepublished in the Federal Register at alater date.





204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, asamended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and theUruguay Round Agreement on Textiles andClothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit,effective on January 1, 2002, entry into theUnited States for consumption andwithdrawal from warehouse for consumptionof wool textile products in the followingcategories, produced or manufactured in theSlovak Republic and exported during thetwelve-month period beginning on January 1,2002 and extending through December 31,2002 in excess of the following limits:


410 ........................... 444,338 square me-ters.

433 ........................... 12,410 dozen.435 ........................... 18,745 dozen.443 ........................... 103,679 numbers.


Products in the above categories exportedduring 2001 shall be charged to theapplicable category limits for that year (seedirective dated October 27, 2000) to theextent of any unfilled balances. In the eventthe limits established for that period havebeen exhausted by previous entries, suchproducts shall be charged to the limits setforth in this directive.


The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairsexception of the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 01–30048 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S


Adjustment of Import Limits for CertainCotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, SilkBlend and Other Vegetable FiberTextiles and Textile ProductsProduced or Manufactured in Taiwan

November 29, 2001.

AGENCY: Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to theCommissioner of Customs adjustinglimits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RoyUnger, International Trade Specialist,Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.Department of Commerce, (202) 482–4212. For information on the quotastatus of these limits, refer to the QuotaStatus Reports posted on the bulletinboards of each Customs port, call (202)927–5850, or refer to the U.S. Customswebsite at http://www.customs.gov. Forinformation on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textilesand Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.



The current limits for certaincategories are being adjusted forcarryforward, special shift and thepartial undoing of special shift.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 65 FR 82328,published on December 28, 2000). Also



see 66 FR 11003, published on February21, 2001.



November 29, 2001.


20229.Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directiveissued to you on February 15, 2001, by theChairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements. That directiveconcerns imports of certain cotton, wool,man-made fiber, silk blend and othervegetable fiber textiles and textile products,produced or manufactured in Taiwan andexported during the twelve-month periodwhich began on January 1, 2001 and extendsthrough December 31, 2001.

Effective on December 5, 2001, you aredirected to adjust the current limits for thefollowing categories, as provided for underthe terms of the current bilateral textileagreement:

Category Twelve-month limit 1

Group I200–224, 225/317/

326, 226, 227,229, 300/301/607,313–315, 360–363, 369–L/670–L/870 2, 369–S 3,369–O 4, 400–414,464–469, 600–606, 611, 613/614/615/617, 618, 619/620, 621, 623,624, 625/626/627/628/629, 665, 666,669–P 5, 669–T 6,669–O 7, 670–H 8

and 670–O 9, as agroup.


Sublevels in Group I225/317/326 ............. 44,029,602 square

meters.619/620 .................... 16,298,603 square

meters.625/626/627/628/629 21,208,333 square

meters.

Category Twelve-month limit 1

Group II237, 239, 330–332,

333/334/335, 336,338/339, 340–345,347/348, 349, 350/650, 351, 352/652,353, 354, 359–C/659–C 10, 359–H/659–H 11, 359–O 12, 431–444,445/446, 447/448,459, 630–632,633/634/635, 636,638/639, 640,641–644, 645/646,647/648, 649, 651,653, 654, 659–S 13, 659–O 14,831–844 and 846–859, as a group


Sublevels in Group II331 ........................... 452,617 dozen pairs.338/339 .................... 1,048,319 dozen.345 ........................... 138,156 dozen.347/348 .................... 1,368,978 dozen of

which not more than1,164,527 dozenshall be in Cat-egories 347–W/348–W 15

435 ........................... 27,683 dozen.438 ........................... 30,823 dozen.445/446 .................... 147,084 dozen.631 ........................... 5,615,350 dozen pairs.647/648 .................... 5,602,291 dozen of

which not more than5,339,114 dozenshall be in Cat-egories 647–W/648–W 16.

Within Group II Sub-group

351 ........................... 333,765 dozen.447/448 .................... 22,728 dozen.651 ........................... 526,834 dozen.

1 The limits have not been adjusted to ac-count for any imports exported after December31, 2000.

2 Category 870; Category 369–L: only HTSnumbers 4202.12.4000, 4202.12.8020,4202.12.8060, 4202.92.1500, 4202.92.3016,4202.92.6091 and 6307.90.9905; Category670–L: only HTS numbers 4202.12.8030,4202.12.8070, 4202.92.3020, 4202.92.3031,4202.92.9026 and 6307.90.9907.

3 Category 369–S: only HTS number6307.10.2005.

4 Category 369–O: all HTS numbers except4202.12.4000, 4202.12.8020, 4202.12.8060,4202.92.1500, 4202.92.3016, 4202.92.6091,6307.90.9905 (Category 369–L); and6307.10.2005 (Category 369–S).

5 Category 669–P: only HTS numbers6305.32.0010, 6305.32.0020, 6305.33.0010,6305.33.0020 and 6305.39.0000.

6 Category 669–T: only HTS numbers6306.12.0000, 6306.19.0010 and6306.22.9030.

7 Category 669–O: all HTS numbers except6305.32.0010, 6305.32.0020, 6305.33.0010,6305.33.0020, 6305.39.0000 (Category 669–P); 6306.12.0000, 6306.19.0010 and6306.22.9030 (Category 669–T).

8 Category 670–H: only HTS numbers4202.22.4030 and 4202.22.8050.

9 Category 670–O: all HTS numbers except4202.22.4030, 4202.22.8050 (Category 670–H); 4202.12.8030, 4202.12.8070,4202.92.3020, 4202.92.3031, 4202.92.9026and 6307.90.9907 (Category 670–L).

10 Category 359–C: only HTS numbers6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020,6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052,6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010,6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025 and6211.42.0010; Category 659–C: only HTSnumbers 6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020,6103.43.2025, 6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038,6104.63.1020, 6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000,6104.69.8014, 6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054,6203.43.2010, 6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010,6203.49.1090, 6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010,6210.10.9010, 6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017and 6211.43.0010.

11 Category 359–H: only HTS numbers6505.90.1540 and 6505.90.2060; Category659–H: only HTS numbers 6502.00.9030,6504.00.9015, 6504.00.9060, 6505.90.5090,6505.90.6090, 6505.90.7090 and6505.90.8090.

12 Category 359–O: all HTS numbers except6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020,6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052,6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010,6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025 and6211.42.0010 (Category 359–C);6505.90.1540 and 6505.90.2060 (Category359–H).

13 Category 659–S: only HTS numbers6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010,6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040,6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010and 6211.12.1020.

14 Category 659–O: all HTS numbers except6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020, 6103.43.2025,6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038, 6104.63.1020,6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000, 6104.69.8014,6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010,6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090,6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010, 6210.10.9010,6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017 and6211.43.0010 (Category 659–C);6502.00.9030, 6504.00.9015, 6504.00.9060,6505.90.5090, 6505.90.6090, 6505.90.7090,6505.90.8090 (Category 659–H);6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010,6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040,6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010and 6211.12.1020 (Category 659–S).

15 Category 347–W: only HTS numbers6203.19.1020, 6203.19.9020, 6203.22.3020,6203.22.3030, 6203.42.4005, 6203.42.4010,6203.42.4015, 6203.42.4025, 6203.42.4035,6203.42.4045, 6203.42.4050, 6203.42.4060,6203.49.8020, 6210.40.9033, 6211.20.1520,6211.20.3810 and 6211.32.0040; Category348–W: only HTS numbers 6204.12.0030,6204.19.8030, 6204.22.3040, 6204.22.3050,6204.29.4034, 6204.62.3000, 6204.62.4005,6204.62.4010, 6204.62.4020, 6204.62.4030,6204.62.4040, 6204.62.4050, 6204.62.4055,6204.62.4065, 6204.69.6010, 6204.69.9010,6210.50.9060, 6211.20.1550, 6211.20.6810,6211.42.0030 and 6217.90.9050.



16 Category 647–W: only HTS numbers6203.23.0060, 6203.23.0070, 6203.29.2030,6203.29.2035, 6203.43.2500, 6203.43.3500,6203.43.4010, 6203.43.4020, 6203.43.4030,6203.43.4040, 6203.49.1500, 6203.49.2015,6203.49.2030, 6203.49.2045, 6203.49.2060,6203.49.8030, 6210.40.5030, 6211.20.1525,6211.20.3820 and 6211.33.0030; Category648–W: only HTS numbers 6204.23.0040,6204.23.0045, 6204.29.2020, 6204.29.2025,6204.29.4038, 6204.63.2000, 6204.63.3000,6204.63.3510, 6204.63.3530, 6204.63.3532,6204.63.3540, 6204.69.2510, 6204.69.2530,6204.69.2540, 6204.69.2560, 6204.69.6030,6204.69.9030, 6210.50.5035, 6211.20.1555,6211.20.6820, 6211.43.0040 and6217.90.9060.


Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 01–30049 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S


Announcement of Import RestraintLimits for Certain Wool TextileProducts Produced or Manufactured inUkraine




The Bilateral Textile Agreement ofJuly 22, 1998, as amended and extendedby exchange of notes on September 19,2000 and January 15, 2001, between theGovernments of the United States and

Ukraine establishes limits for certainwool textile products, produced ormanufactured in Ukraine and exportedduring the period beginning on January1, 2002 and extending throughDecember 31, 2002.

In the letter published below, theChairman of CITA directs theCommissioner of Customs to establishthe 2002 limits.

These limits may be revised ifUkraine becomes a member of theWorld Trade Organization (WTO) andthe United States applies the WTOagreement to Ukraine.






204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, asamended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and theBilateral Textile Agreement of July 22, 1998,as amended and extended by exchange ofnotes on September 19, 2000 and January 15,2001, between the Governments of theUnited States and Ukraine, you are directedto prohibit, effective on January 1, 2001,entry into the United States for consumptionand withdrawal from warehouse forconsumption of wool textile products in thefollowing categories, produced ormanufactured in Ukraine and exportedduring the twelve-month period beginning onJanuary 1, 2002 and extending throughDecember 31, 2002, in excess of the followinglevels of restraint:

Category Twelve-month limit

435 ........................... 97,527 dozen.442 ........................... 16,236 dozen.444 ........................... 70,359 numbers.448 ........................... 70,359 dozen.

The limits set forth above are subject toadjustment pursuant to the current bilateralagreement between the Governments of theUnited States and Ukraine.

These limits may be revised if Ukrainebecomes a member of the World TradeOrganization (WTO) and the United Statesapplies the WTO agreement to Ukraine.

Products in the above categories exportedduring 2001 shall be charged to theapplicable category limits for that year (seedirective dated January 30, 2001) to theextent of any unfilled balances. In the eventthe limits established for that period havebeen exhausted by previous entries, suchproducts shall be charged to the limits setforth in this directive.



Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.FR Doc. 01–30050 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S


Amendment of Export VisaRequirements for Textiles and TextileProducts Integrated into GATT 1994 inthe Third Stage

November 29, 2001.AGENCY: Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements(CITA).ACTION: Issuing a Directive to theCommissioner of Customs amendingexport visa requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LoriMennitt, International Trade Specialist,Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.Department of Commerce, (202) 482–3400.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The WorldTrade Organization (WTO) Agreementon Textiles and Clothing provides forthe staged integration of textiles andtextile products into the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)1994. The third stage of the integrationwill take place on January 1, 2002. Theproducts to be integrated on January 1,2002 were announced on April 26, 1995(see 60 FR 21075, published on May 1,1995).

This directive does not affect textilevisas that may be required under theAfrican Growth and Opportunity Act(AGOA).

The United States will not maintainvisa requirements on textiles and textileproducts integrated on January 1, 2002that are produced or manufactured in aWTO Member country. In the letter



published below, the Chairman of CITAdirects the Commissioner of Customs toeliminate existing visa requirements fortextiles and textile products integratedon January 1, 2002 and exported on orafter that date, produced ormanufactured in a WTO Membercountry. Existing visa requirements willbe maintained for goods exported priorto January 1, 2002 and for goods that arenot produced or manufactured in aWTO Member country.




November 29, 2001.

Commissioner of CustomsDepartment of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to Section

204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, asamended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and theWorld Trade Organization (WTO) Agreementon Textiles and Clothing, you are directed toamend the current visa requirements forcertain textiles and textile products producedor manufactured in WTO Member countriesand exported on or after January 1, 2002.

Effective on January 1, 2002, for goodsexported on and after that date, export visaswill not be required for textiles and textileproducts produced or manufactured in aWTO Member country and integrated intothe General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT) 1994 on January 1, 2002.

The following entire textile categories willbe integrated on January 1, 2002: 222, 223,350, 431, 464, 600, 606, 607, 621, 622, 649,650, 670, 800, 810, 831, 833, 834, 835, 836,838, 840, 842, 843, 844, 847, 850, 851, 858,870, and 871.

The following partial textile categories willbe integrated on January 1, 2002: 331, 359,369, 459, 469, 631, 659, 666, 669, and 859.A complete list of products in the partiallyintegrated categories is attached to this letter.This listing is based on the 2001 HarmonizedTariff Schedule of the United States.

Export visas will continue to be requiredfor non-integrated products, for productsintegrated on January 1, 2002 produced ormanufactured in a country that is not aMember of the World Trade Organization,and for products integrated on January 1,2002 that were exported prior to that date.D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.

Part Categories in Stage 3

Category HTS (2001)

331 6116101720331 6116104810331 6116105510331 6116107510331 6116926410331 6116926420331 6116926430331 6116926440331 6116927450331 6116927460331 6116927470331 6116928800331 6116929400331 6116999510359 6115198010359 6117106010359 6117209010359 6203221000359 6204221000359 6212900010359 6214900010359 6505901525359 6505901540359 6505902060359 6505902545369 4202124000369 4202128020369 4202128060369 4202224020369 4202224500369 4202228030369 4202324000369 4202329530369 4202921500369 4202923016369 4202926091369 5805003000369 5807100510369 5807900510369 6301300010369 6301300020369 6302511000369 6302512000369 6302513000369 6302514000369 6302600010369 6302600030369 6302910005369 6302910025369 6302910045369 6302910050369 6302910060369 6303110000369 6303910010369 6303910020369 6304910020369 6304920000369 6305200000369 6306110000369 6307101020369 6307101090369 6307903010369 6307904010369 6307905010369 6307908910369 6307908945369 6307909905369 6307909982369 9404901000369 9404908040

Category HTS (2001)

369 9404909505459 6115198020459 6117101000459 6117102010459 6117209020459 6212900020459 6214200000469 6304193040469 6304910050469 6304991500469 6304996010469 6308000010631 6116101730631 6116104820631 6116105520631 6116107520631 6116938800631 6116939400631 6116994800631 6116995400631 6116999530659 6115110010659 6115122000659 6117102030659 6117209030659 6212900030659 6214300000659 6214400000666 5805004010666 6301100000666 6301400010666 6301400020666 6301900010666 6302530010666 6302530020666 6302530030666 6302931000666 6302932000666 6303120000666 6303190010666 6303921000666 6303922010666 6303922020666 6303990010666 6304112000666 6304191500666 6304192000666 6304910040666 6304930000666 6304996020666 6307909984666 9404908522666 9404909522669 5807100520669 5807900520669 5810929030669 6305320010669 6305320020669 6305330010669 6305330020669 6305390000669 6306120000669 6306190010669 6306229030669 6307903020669 6307904020669 6307905020669 6308000020859 6115198040859 6117106020859 6212105030859 6212109040859 6212200030859 6212300030



Category HTS (2001)

859 6212900090859 6214102000859 6214900090

[FR Doc.01–30051 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S



[Docket No. IC01–561–001 FERC Form 561]

Information Collection Submitted forReview and Request for Comments

November 29, 2001.AGENCY: Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, DOE.ACTION: Notice of submission for reviewby the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission (Commission)has submitted the energy informationcollection listed in this notice to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) for review under provisions ofSection 3507 of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–13). Any interested person may filecomments on the collection ofinformation directly with OMB andshould address a copy of thosecomments to the Commission asexplained below. The Commissionreceived no comments in response to anearlier Federal Register notice of May 8,2001 (66 FR. 23240). The Commissionhas noted this fact in its submission toOMB.DATES: Comments regarding thiscollection of information are bestassured of having their full effect ifreceived on or before January 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Address comments to Officeof Management and Budget, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, Desk Officer, 725 17thStreet, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Acopy of the comments should also besent to Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, Office of the ChiefInformation Officer, Attention: Mr.Michael Miller, 888 First Street NE.,Washington, DC 20426.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael Miller may be reached bytelephone at (202)208–1415, by fax at(202)273–0873, and by e-mail:[email protected].


Description

The energy information collectionsubmitted to OMB for review contains:

1. Collection of Information: FERCForm 561 ‘‘Annual Report ofInterlocking Positions’’.

2. Sponsor: Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission.

3. Control No.: OMB No. 1902–0099.The Commission is now requesting thatOMB approve a three-year extension ofthe current expiration date, with nochanges to the existing collection. Thisis a mandatory information collectionrequirement.

4. Necessity of Collection ofInformation: Submission of theinformation is necessary to fulfill therequirements of Section 305 of theFederal Power Act (FPA), as amendedby Title II, Section 211 of the PublicUtility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978(PURPA). Submission of FERC Form561 satisfies the FPA section 305(b) and(c) annual reporting requirements forpublic utility officers and directors toreport officer and director positions theyhold with financial institutions,insurance companies, utility equipmentproviders, utility fuel providers, and autility’s top twenty customers of electricenergy. FPA Section 305(c)(3)(A)defines the public utilities who arerequired to file. FPA section 305(c)(2)requires that the filed information bemade available to the public. FPASection 305(c)(1) requires an annualfiling deadline of April 30th. Thenecessary filing information, therequired filers, the requirement to makethe information available to the publicand the filing deadline are all mandatedby the FPA. The Commission is notempowered to amend or waive thesestatutory requirements. Requirementsthe Commission has the authority toamend, such as format of the filing itselfand the number of required copies arefound at 18 46.1 and 131.31.

The Commission has used theinformation filed in FERC Form 561 forthe identification of: (1) Possibleinterlocking positions where therelationship is employed for thedirector’s own benefit or profit, or forthe benefit or profit of any other personor persons and to the detriment of theutility’s, or the public interest; (2) thepossible existence of control over a largenumber and geographically widespreadpublic utilities by a small group ofindividuals; (3) the lack of arm’s lengthdealings between public utilities andorganizations furnishing financialservices to consumers; and (4) theevasion by means of common control ofcompetition resulting in higher costsand poorer services to consumers.

6. Estimated Burden: 400 total burdenhours, 1,600 respondents, 1 responseannually, .25 hours per response(average).

7. Estimated Cost Burden toRespondents: 400 hours ÷ 2,080 hoursper year × $117,041 per year = $22,507,average cost per respondent = $14.

Statutory Authority: Sections 211 of thePublic Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978(PURPA) (16 U.S.C. 825d as amended and 16U.S.C. 2601) and Section 305 of the FederalPower Act (16 U.S.C. 825d).

David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–30117 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–P



[Docket No. RP99–301–033]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice ofNegotiated Rate

November 29, 2001.Take notice that on November 26,

2001, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR)tendered for filing three negotiated rateagreements between ANR and ChevronU.S.A. Inc. (Chevron) and threenegotiate rate agreements between ANRand BHP Billiton Petroleum (Deepwater)Inc. (BHP) pursuant to ANR’s RateSchedules PTS–2, ITS, and ITS(Liquifiables). ANR tenders theseagreements pursuant to its authority toenter into negotiated rate agreements.ANR requests that the Commissionaccept and approve the agreements to beeffective December 1, 2001.

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, NE., Washington, DC20426, 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. This filing may also beviewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link,select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 for



assistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.




[Docket No. CP02–25–000; Docket No.CP02–29–000; Docket No. CP02–30–000]

Copiah County Storage Company;Notice of Application


2001, Copiah County Storage Company(Copiah), 5400 Westheimer Court,Houston, Texas 77056–5310, filed in thecaptioned docket an application for acertificate of public convenience andnecessity and related authorizationspursuant to section 7 of the Natural GasAct, as amended, and the Commission’sRules and Regulations thereunder.Copiah requests authorization for thefollowing:

(i) A certificate of public convenienceand necessity pursuant to subpart A ofpart 157 authorizing Copiah toconstruct, own, operate, and maintainnatural gas storage facilities capable ofdelivering 300,000 dekatherms per day,consisting of a storage cavern and otherassociated and appurtenant facilities;

(ii) A blanket construction certificatepursuant to subpart F of part 157 topermit Copiah to construct, acquire andoperate additional facilities followingconstruction of the facilities for whichauthorization under subpart A of part157 is sought;

(iii) Authorization to provide storageservices at market based rates; and

(iv) A blanket certificate pursuant tosubpart G of part 284 authorizingCopiah to provide storage and hubservices on behalf of others, andapproval of the FERC Gas Tariffcontained in Exhibit P, pursuant towhich Copiah will provide suchservices consistent with Order Nos. 636and 637, et seq.,all as more thoroughly described in theapplication on file with the Commissionand open to public inspection. Thisfiling may be viewed on the web athttp://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (please call (202)208–2222for assistance).

Copiah further requests that theCommission grant waivers of thefollowing: (i) The requirement pursuantto § 284.7(e) that rates must be designedusing a straight-fixed variable ratedesign methodology; (ii) therequirement pursuant to § 157.6(b)(8) toprovide cost of service informationnecessary for determination of ratetreatment; (iii) the requirement pursuantto § 157.14 to include in the applicationExhibits K, L, N, and O; (iv) theaccounting and reporting requirementsunder parts 201 and 260.2; (v) therequirement pursuant to § 157.14(a)(10)to provide total gas supply information;and (vi) all other regulations to theextent such waivers may be necessary inorder to grant each of the authorizationsrequested in this application.

Copiah asks the Commission to issuea preliminary determination on non-environmental issues by February 20,2002, and a final certificate order byJuly 24, 2002, so that Copiah will beable to commence storage service inFebruary 2004 in order to provide itscustomers with storage services at theend of the 2003–2004 heating season.

The name, address, and telephonenumber of the person to whomcorrespondence and communicationsconcerning this Application should beaddressed is: Steven E. Tillman,Director of Regulatory Affairs, CopiahCounty Storage Company, P.O. Box1642, Houston, Texas 77251–1642,Phone: (713) 627–5113, Fax: (713) 627–5947.

Copiah proposes to build and operatea natural gas storage facility, the CopiahStorage Project, in Copiah County,Mississippi, collectively referred to asthe ‘‘Copiah Storage Project.’’ In thisapplication, Copiah requestsauthorization to develop the first of twopossible caverns on the Copiah site. Theproposed project will include theinstallation of approximately 13,350horsepower of compression,development of an underground storagecavern, and as many as five commonwell sites.

The compressor site will providecompression for injection andwithdrawal of natural gas to and fromstorage. The site of the compressor hasbeen proposed to be as close to thecavern and fresh water/brine disposalwells as practical given the existingtopography of the site. The compressorbuilding will house three 4,450 HPturbocharged gas engine-driven Arielreciprocating compressors along withancillary support and controlequipment, to provide a total ofapproximately 13,350 HP ofcompression.

The cavern will be created by solutionmining using groundwater and willextend approximately 5,500 feet belowthe ground surface. The cavern thatCopiah is seeking authorization todevelop in this application, the PrimaryCavern, will have an initial workingstorage capacity of approximately 3.3billion cubic feet (Bcf), withapproximately 300,000 Dekatherms perday (Dth/d) of deliverability capabilityand approximately 150,000 Dth/d ofinjection capability. Although Copiah iscurrently only seeking approval fordevelopment of one cavern at this time,Copiah identifies two cavern sitelocations in its application to allow foran alternative site in the eventirreversible drilling problems areencountered at the primary site eitherdue to geology or other complications.

The project also will include a seriesof wells, piping, valves, instruments,and controls to operate the solutionmining and brine disposal activitiesassociated with development of the gasstorage cavern. Each well site willcontain brine injection and/orfreshwater withdrawal wells, along withassociated ancillary facilities andservice roadways.

The Copiah Storage Project has beendesigned as a natural gas storage andultimately a hub services facility forinjection, storage, and withdrawal ofnatural gas. Copiah’s request forauthorization is based on anticipateddemand for its storage and hub servicesas well as market studies that projectsubstantial growth in natural gasdemand in the markets served byCopiah’s customers. Due to Copiah’sanalysis of current and expected growthin demand for storage and hub servicesin the Gulf Coast region, Copiahanticipates that the Copiah StorageProject will become subscribed ascapacity becomes available for service.Copiah states that the interest of themarket in these services is reflected inthe results of the Copiah open seasonduring which Copiah received non-binding nominations from five potentialcustomers for a total of approximately6.5 Bcf of natural gas storage. Thepotential customers indicated aninterest in signing contracts with aninitial contract term of 5–10 years at thetime that the Copiah facilities are closeto being placed into service.

Copiah proposes to provide firm andinterruptible services, which willenhance shipper options for thetransportation and storage of naturalgas. Copiah further proposes andrequests Commission authorization tocharge market-based rates for suchservices, which Copiah avers isappropriate as demonstrated by the



market power study included with theapplication.

Copiah has identified a pipelinelateral and a meter station that will beowned by a company other than Copiahand constructed in association with theCopiah Storage Project. Texas Easternwill construct, own and maintain anapproximately 1.5 miles of 24-inchdiameter pipeline lateral connectingTexas Eastern’s 30-inch Line 14 inCopiah County, Mississippi to theCopiah Storage Project. In addition,Texas Eastern will construct, own andmaintain a bi-directional meter stationwithin the Copiah Storage Projectproperty at a location directly adjacentto the compressor site at the terminus ofthe interconnection between the CopiahStorage Project and Texas Eastern’sproposed 1.5-mile pipeline lateral.Texas Eastern is responsible for allappropriate federal and state filings andpermits required for construction andoperation of the proposed meter stationand pipeline lateral. Texas Eastern hasindicated to Copiah that the TexasEastern meter station and lateral will beconstructed pursuant to its blanketauthority granted by the Commission inDocket No. CP82–535. Neither TexasEastern nor Copiah are requestingauthority to construct these facilities inthe instant Copiah application.

There are two ways to becomeinvolved in the Commission’s review ofthis project. First, any person wishing toobtain legal status by becoming a partyto the proceedings for this projectshould, on or before December 19, 2001,file with the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426, a motion tointervene in accordance with therequirements of the Commission’s Rulesof Practice and Procedure (18 CFR385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulationsunder the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). Aperson obtaining party status will beplaced on the service list maintained bythe Secretary of the Commission andwill receive copies of all documentsfiled by the applicant and by all otherparties. A party must submit 14 copiesof filings made with the Commissionand must mail a copy to the applicantand to every other party in theproceeding. Only parties to theproceeding can ask for court review ofCommission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have tointervene in order to have commentsconsidered. The second way toparticipate is by filing with theSecretary of the Commission, as soon aspossible, an original and two copies ofcomments in support of or in oppositionto this project. The Commission willconsider these comments in

determining the appropriate action to betaken, but the filing of a comment alonewill not serve to make the filer a partyto the proceeding. The Commission’srules require that persons filingcomments in opposition to the projectprovide copies of their protests only tothe party or parties directly involved inthe protest.

Persons who wish to comment onlyon the environmental review of thisproject should submit an original andtwo copies of their comments to theSecretary of the Commission.Environmental commenters will beplaced on the Commission’senvironmental mailing list, will receivecopies of the environmental documents,and will be notified of meetingsassociated with the Commission’senvironmental review process.Environmental commenters will not berequired to serve copies of fileddocuments on all other parties.However, the non-party commenterswill not receive copies of all documentsfiled by other parties or issued by theCommission (except for the mailing ofenvironmental documents issued by theCommission) and will not have the rightto seek court review of theCommission’s final order.

The Commission may issue apreliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to thecompletion of its review of theenvironmental aspects of the project.This preliminary determinationtypically considers such issues as theneed for the project and its economiceffect on existing customers of theapplicant, on other pipelines in the area,and on landowners and communities.For example, the Commission considersthe extent to which the applicant mayneed to exercise eminent domain toobtain rights-of-way for the proposedproject and balances that against thenon-environmental benefits to beprovided by the project. Therefore, if aperson has comments on communityand landowner impacts from thisproposal, it is important either to filecomments or to intervene as early in theprocess as possible.

Comments, protests, andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.

If the Commission decides to set theapplication for a formal hearing beforean Administrative Law Judge, theCommission will issue another noticedescribing that process. At the end ofthe Commission’s review process, a

final Commission order approving ordenying a certificate will be issued.

David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–30113 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]




[Project No. 184–065 California]

El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice ofPublic Meeting

November 29, 2001.

The Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission) is reviewingthe application for a new license for theEl Dorado Project (FERC No. 184),which was filed on February 22, 2000.The El Dorado Project, licensed to the ElDorado Irrigation District (EID), islocated on the South Fork AmericanRiver, in El Dorado, Alpine, andAmador Counties, California. Theproject occupies lands of the EldoradoNational Forest.

The EID, several state and federalagencies, and several non-governmentalagencies have agreed to ask theCommission for time to workcollaboratively with a facilitator toresolve certain issues relevant to thisproceeding. The purpose of this meetingis to discuss the interests of the parties.We invite the participation of allinterested governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and thegeneral public in this meeting.

The meeting will be held on Monday,December 10 and Tuesday, December11, 2001, from 9am until 4pm in theSacramento Marriott, located at 11211Point East Drive, Rancho Cordova,California.

For further information, pleasecontact Elizabeth Molloy at (202) 208–0771 or John Mudre at (202) 219–1208.







[Docket No. CP02–31–000]

Iroquois Gas Transmission System,L.P.; Notice of Application


2001, Iroquois Gas TransmissionSystem, L.P. (Iroquois), One CorporateDrive, Suite 600, Shelton, Connecticut06484, filed an application in the above-referenced docket number pursuant toSection 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act andParts 157 of the Commission’s Rules andRegulations, for a certificate of publicconvenience and necessity authorizingIroquois to construct and operate itsBrookfield Expansion Project(Brookfield Project). The application ison file with the Commission and opento public inspection. This filing may beviewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link,select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (please call (202) 208–2222for assistance).

In order to implement the BrookfieldProject, Iroquois requests authorizationto construct and operate a newcompressor unit, with 10,000 (nominal)horsepower, at a proposed compressorstation to be located in Brookfield,Connecticut. Iroquois has conductednon-binding open seasons for additionalfirm transportation capacity on itssystem. In addition, from September 5,2001 through September 19, 2001,Iroquois solicited its existing customersfor permanently released capacity thatcould be used by the expansionshippers. Because no shipper releasedcapacity, Iroquois has executedPrecedent Agreements with AstoriaEnergy Company, L.P. (Astoria Energy)and PPL EnergyPlus, LLC (PPL Energy)for firm transportation servicecommencing September 1, 2003. Theproposed facilities are designed toprovide up to 60,000 dekatherms perday of firm transportation capacity toAstoria Energy and up to 25,000dekatherms per day of firmtransportation capacity to PPL Energy.SCS Energy, LLC (SCS), an affiliate ofAstoria Energy, is developing a 1,000MW electric generation facility inAstoria, Queens, New York with aproposed in-service date of November 1,2003. PPL Energy is a marketingcompany seeking firm natural gasservice to South Commack, New York.

Iroquois states that the constructionand operation of the Brookfield Projectwill have minimal impact onlandowners and the environment.

Iroquois indicates that minimal treeclearing will take place at thecompressor station site, which willprovide an additional barrier tominimize potential visual and/or noiseimpacts of the new compressor unit.

The total cost of the Brookfield Projectis estimated to be approximately$24,637,000. Iroquois proposes tocharge its Part 284 open-access RTSrates for the new service and to roll thecosts of the project into its first Section4 rate proceeding which becomeseffective after the in-service date of theproposed facilities.

Any questions regarding theapplication be directed to Jeffrey A.Bruner, Vice President, General Counseland Secretary for Iroquois, OneCorporate Drive, Suite 600, Shelton,Connecticut 06484, at (203) 925–7200,or Donald F. Sanata, Jr., attorney forIroquois, Troutman Saunders, LLP, 401Ninth Street, NW., Suite 1000,Washington, DC 20004, at (202) 274–2815.

There are two ways to becomeinvolved in the Commission’s review ofthis project. First, any person wishing toobtain legal status by becoming a partyto the proceedings for this projectshould, on or before December 20, 2001,file with the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426, a motion tointervene in accordance with therequirements of the Commission’s Rulesof Practice and Procedure (18 CFR385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulationsunder the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). Aperson obtaining party status will beplaced on the service list maintained bythe Secretary of the Commission andwill receive copies of all documentsfiled by the applicant and by all otherparties. A party must submit 14 copiesof filings made with the Commissionand must mail a copy to the applicantand to every other party in theproceeding. Only parties to theproceeding can ask for court review ofCommission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have tointervene in order to have commentsconsidered. The second way toparticipate is by filing with theSecretary of the Commission, as soon aspossible, an original and two copies ofcomments in support of or in oppositionto this project. The Commission willconsider these comments indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but the filing of a comment alonewill not serve to make the filer a partyto the proceeding. The Commission’srules require that persons filingcomments in opposition to the projectprovide copies of their protests only to

the party or parties directly involved inthe protest.

Persons who wish to comment onlyon the environmental review of thisproject should submit an original andtwo copies of their comments to theSecretary of the Commission.Environmental commenters will beplaced on the Commission’senvironmental mailing list, will receivecopies of the environmental documents,and will be notified of meetingsassociated with the Commission’senvironmental review process.Environmental commenters will not berequired to serve copies of fileddocuments on all other parties.However, the non-party commenterswill not receive copies of all documentsfiled by other parties or issued by theCommission (except for the mailing ofenvironmental documents issued by theCommission) and will not have the rightto seek court review of theCommission’s final order.

The Commission may issue apreliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to thecompletion of its review of theenvironmental aspects of the project.This preliminary determinationtypically considers such issues as theneed for the project and its economiceffect on existing customers of theapplicant, on other pipelines in the area,and on landowners and communities.For example, the Commission considersthe extent to which the applicant mayneed to exercise eminent domain toobtain rights-of-way for the proposedproject and balances that against thenon-environmental benefits to beprovided by the project. Therefore, if aperson has comments on communityand landowner impacts from thisproposal, it is important either to filecomments or to intervene as early in theprocess as possible.

Comments, protests, andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s Website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.

If the Commission decides to set theapplication for a formal hearing beforean Administrative Law Judge, theCommission will issue another noticedescribing that process. At the end ofthe Commission’s review process, afinal Commission order approving ordenying a certificate will be issued.







Kern River Gas TransmissionCompany; Notice of Compliance Filing


2001, Kern River Gas TransmissionCompany submitted a clarification incompliance with the Commission’sletter order dated November 7, 2001 inthis docket number.

Kern River states that it has served acopy of this filing upon each persondesignated on the official service listcompiled by the Secretary in thisproceeding.

Any person desiring to protest saidfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426, in accordance with section385.211 of the Commission’s Rules andRegulations. All such protests must befiled in accordance with section 154.210of the Commission’s Regulations.Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceedings. Copies of this filing areon file with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection. Thisfiling may also be viewed on the web athttp://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.





KO Transmission Company; Notice ofTariff Filing


2001, KO Transmission Company (KOT)tendered for filing as part of its FERCGas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1,Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 10, bearing

a proposed effective date of December 1,2001.

KO Transmission states that thepurpose of the filing is to revise its fuelretainage percentage consistent withsection 24 of the General Terms andConditions of its Tariff. According toKOT, Columbia Gas TransmissionCorporation (Columbia) operates andmaintains a portion of KOT facilitiespursuant to the Operating Agreementreferenced in its Tariff at Original SheetNo. 7. Pursuant to that OperatingAgreement, Columbia retains certainvolumes associated with gas transportedon behalf of KOT. On March 5, 2001,Columbia notified KOT that under termsof the Operating Agreement, KOT willbe subject to a 1.39% retainage. By itsOctober 31, 2001 report to theCommission, in Docket No. RP01–262–002, Columbia has notified theCommission of its intention to reduceits transportation retainage adjustmentfrom 2.776% to 2.447%. Accordingly,KOT seeks to track this decrease in itsfuel retainage, pursuant to GT&C section24 of its Tariff. KOT thus files for a1.07% fuel retainage effective December1, 2001.

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, NE., Washington, DC20426, 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. This filing may also beviewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link,select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.






National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation;Notice of Compliance Filing

November 29, 2001.

Take notice that on November 26,2001, National Fuel Gas SupplyCorporation (National Fuel) tendered forfiling as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariffsheets listed on Appendix A to its filing.

National Fuel states that the purposeof the instant filing is to comply withthe Commission’s order issued October26, 2001, in Docket No. RP00–399–000,et al., (the October 26 Order) and OrderNo. 637. The October 26 Order directedNational Fuel to file actual tariff sheetsimplementing (1) the Commission’scurrent rebuttable presumption policyalong with a procedure for processingrequests to retain discounts within twohours of submission of a request, (2)Rate Schedule IAS’s rate for theTransportation Balancing Fee’s negativeimbalances, and (3) storage andtransportation settlement periodequality.

National Fuel states that copies of thisfiling were served upon its customers,interested state commissions and theparties on the official service listcompiled by the Secretary in thisproceeding.

Any person desiring to protest saidfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426, in accordance with section385.211 of the Commission’s Rules andRegulations. All such protests must befiled in accordance with section 154.210of the Commission’s Regulations.Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceedings. Copies of this filing areon file with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection. Thisfiling may also be viewed on the Webat http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the



instructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.





Natural Gas Pipeline Company ofAmerica; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 29, 2001.

Take notice that on November 21,2001, Natural Gas Pipeline Company ofAmerica (Natural) tendered for filing tobecome part of its FERC Gas Tariff,Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, FirstRevised Sheet No. 20C and First RevisedSheet No. 199D, to be effective January1, 2002.

Natural states that the purpose of thisfiling is to comply with theCommission’s ‘‘Order GrantingRehearing’’ issued in Docket No. RP01–246–000 on October 26, 2001.

Natural states that copies of the filinghave been mailed to all parties set outon the Commission’s official service listin Docket No. RP01–246–000.

Any person desiring to protest saidfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426, in accordance with section385.211 of the Commission’s rules andregulations. All such protests must befiled in accordance with section 154.210of the Commission’s regulations.Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceedings. Copies of this filing areon file with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection. Thisfiling may also be viewed on the Webat http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.




[Docket Nos. ER98–1643–004, ER97–2904–004, ER98–4643–002, ER98–13–015, ER94–24–035, ER98–3934–008, ER00–2395–001,ER00–2535–001, ER01–1166–002, andER00–3776–001]

Portland General Electric Company,Lake Benton Power Partners, LLC,Storm Lake Power Partners I, LLC,Enron Energy Services, Inc., EnronPower Marketing, Inc., Clinton EnergyManagement Services, Inc., EnronEnergy Marketing Corp., the NewPower Company, Enron SandhillLimited Partnership, Green PowerPartners I LLC; Notice of Filing

November 29, 2001.

Take notice that on November 16,2001, Portland General ElectricCompany (PGE) on behalf of itself andthe above-noted PGE affiliates (PGEAffiliates) filed a notice of status changewith the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission) inconnection with the pending mergerbetween Enron Corp. and Dynegy Inc.(Dynegy). The Notice provides that eachof the PGE Affiliates will treat IllinoisPower Company, an affiliate of Dynegyas an affiliate under its FERC marketrate tariff.

Copies of the filing were served uponall parties on the official service lists inthese proceedings.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest such filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,in accordance with Rules 211 and 214of the Commission’s Rules of Practiceand Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and385.214). All such motions and protestsshould be filed on or before December10, 2001. Protests will be considered bythe Commission to determine theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceedings. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of this filing are onfile with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection. Thisfiling may also be viewed on the Webat http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the

instructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–30118 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–P



[Docket No. ER01–2955–002]

PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC;Notice of Filing

November 29, 2001.

Take notice that on November 19,2001, PSEG Energy Resources & TradeLLC (PSEG) tendered for filing with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission(Commission) a Cover Page to theService Agreement covering the sale ofcapacity and energy to MEICO Inc.(MEICO) pursuant to the PSEGWholesale Power Market-Base SalesTariff now on file with the Commission(Docket No. ER99–3151–000, approvedon October 1, 1999). This Cover Pagereplaces the cover page that was filed onSeptember 14, 2001.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest such filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,in accordance with Rules 211 and 214of the Commission’s Rules of Practiceand Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and385.214). All such motions and protestsshould be filed on or before December10, 2001. Protests will be considered bythe Commission to determine theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceedings. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of this filing are onfile with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection. Thisfiling may also be viewed on the Webat http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s Website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.






[Docket No. ER02–311–000]

Southern Indiana Gas and ElectricCompany; Notice of Filing


2001, Southern Indiana Gas and ElectricCompany (SIGECO) tendered for filingwith the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission) a copy of theAgreement for Firm Point-to-PointTransmission Service which wasinadvertently left out of the Agreementsthat were filed by SIGECO on November12, 2001.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest such filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,in accordance with Rules 211 and 214of the Commission’s Rules of Practiceand Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and385.214). All such motions and protestsshould be filed on or before December10, 2001. Protests will be considered bythe Commission to determine theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceedings. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of this filing are onfile with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection. Thisfiling may also be viewed on the Webat http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s Website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.




[Docket No. PR02–4–000]

Transok, LLC; Notice of Petition forRate Approval


2001, Transok, LLC (Transok) submittedfor filing a revised fuel factor for its

Oklahoma Transmission System forFuel Year 2002 as calculated under theterms of Transok’s filed fuel tracker.Transok seeks an effective date ofJanuary 1, 2002.

Transok states that it is serving noticeof the filing and the revised fuelpercentage on all current shippers andon the Oklahoma CorporationCommission.

Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2), ifthe Commission does not act within 150days of the filing date, this rate will bedeemed to be fair and equitable and notin excess of an amount which interstatepipelines would be permitted to chargefor providing similar transportationservice. The Commission may, prior tothe expiration of the 150-day period,extend the time for action or institute aproceeding to afford interested partiesan opportunity for written commentsand for the oral presentations of views,data and arguments.

Any person desiring to participate inthis rate proceeding must file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,in accordance with rules 211 and 214 ofthe Commission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.211 and385.214). All motions must be filed withthe Secretary of the Commission on orbefore December 14, 2001. This petitionfor rate approval is on file with theCommission and is available for publicinspection. This filing may also beviewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link,select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.




[Docket No. EC02–29–000, et al.]

Allegheny Energy Supply Company,LLC, et al.; Electric Rate and CorporateRegulation Filings

November 28, 2001.Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Allegheny Energy Supply Company,LLC, and Allegheny Energy GlobalMarkets, LLC New Allegheny EnergySupply Company

[Docket No. EC02–29–000]Take notice that on November 21,

2001, Allegheny Energy SupplyCompany, LLC (AE Supply), AlleghenyEnergy Global Markets, LLC (GlobalMarkets), and New Allegheny EnergySupply Company (New AE Supply)filed with the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission an application pursuant tosection 203 of the Federal Power Act forauthorization of an intra-corporatereorganization whereby the membershipinterests in Global Markets will betransferred to AE Supply, its parent, orNew AE Supply in a merger transaction.New AE Supply will be organized as aMaryland company. Also on November26, 2001, AE Supply filed originalexecuted affidavits to the above-mentioned filing.

Comment date: December 12, 2001, inaccordance with Standard Paragraph Eat the end of this notice.

2. Conectiv Bethlehem, Inc.

[Docket No. EG01–278–000]Take notice that on November 21,

2001, Conectiv Bethlehem, Inc. (CBI)filed, pursuant to section 365.8 of theCommission’s regulations, Notice ofIntent to No Longer Maintain ExemptWholesale Generator Status.

Comment date: December 18, 2001, inaccordance with Standard Paragraph Eat the end of this notice. TheCommission will limit its considerationof comments to those that concern theadequacy or accuracy of the application.

3. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

[Docket No. ER01–3014–001]Take notice that on November 23,

2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM),submitted a compliance filing pursuantto PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 97 FERC¶61,068 (2001) to provide additionalinformation regarding the ownership ofthe generating facility located in RockSprings Maryland.

Copies of this compliance filing wereserved upon all persons designated onthe official service list compiled by theSecretary in Docket No. ER01–3014.


4. Midwest Independent TransmissionSystem Operator, Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–3142–000]Take notice that on November 26,

2001, Midwest IndependentTransmission System Operator, Inc. (theMidwest ISO) tendered for filing



proposed revisions to the Midwest ISOOpen Access Transmission Tariff(OATT), FERC Electric Tariff, FirstRevised Volume No. 1. In its filing, theMidwest ISO requested to withdrawincentive portions of Attachments Nand N–1, which were previouslysubmitted on October 15, 2001 in thisproceeding.

The Midwest ISO has electronicallyserved copies of its filing, withattachments, upon all Midwest ISOMembers, Member representatives ofTransmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISOAdvisory Committee participants,Policy Subcommittee participants, aswell as all state commissions within theregion. In addition, the filing has beenelectronically posted on the MidwestISO’s website at www.midwestiso,orgunder the heading ‘‘Filings to FERC’’ forother interested parties in this matter.


5. New England Power Pool


Take notice that on November 23,2001, the New England Power Pool(NEPOOL) Participants Committeesubmitted a report of compliance inresponse to requirements of theCommission’s unpublished letter orderissued October 25, 2001 in Docket No.ER02–02–000.

The NEPOOL Participants Committeestates that copies of these materials weresent to all persons identified on theservice list in the captioned proceeding,as well as the Participants which wereaccepted for, or terminated from,membership in NEPOOL by the October25 letter order.


6. Xcel Energy Services, Inc.


Take notice that on November 23,2001, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. (XES),on behalf of Public Service Company ofColorado (Public Service), submitted anOrder 614 compliant version of aSecond Amendment to the PowerPurchase Agreement between PublicService Company of Colorado and HolyCross Energy.


7. Florida Power Corporation


Take notice that on November 23,2001, Florida Power Corporation (FPC)

filed a revised Service Agreement withThe City of Homestead under FPC’sCost-Based Rates Tariff (CR–1), FERCElectric Tariff No. 9.

FPC is requesting an effective date ofOctober 2, 2001 for this revisedAgreement.

A copy of this filing was served uponthe Florida Public Service Commissionand the North Carolina UtilitiesCommission.


8. MidAmerican Energy Company


Take notice that on November 23,2001, MidAmerican Energy Company(MidAmerican), 401 Douglas Street,Sioux City, Iowa 51102, filed with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission(Commission) Revised Rate Schedule72, Western Area Power Administration,Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program,Contract for Firm Transmission Servicefrom Iowa Public Service Company(n/k/a MidAmerican Energy Company),dated January 18, 1989, modified byway of Revised Exhibit ‘‘A.’’

MidAmerican requests an effectivedate of September 1, 2001 for theAgreement.

MidAmerican has served a copy of thefiling on Western Area PowerAdministration, the Iowa UtilitiesBoard, the Illinois CommerceCommission, and the South DakotaPublic Utilities Commission.


9. Illinois Power Company


Take notice that on November 23,2001, Illinois Power Company (IllinoisPower), 500 South 27th Street, Decatur,Illinois 65251–2200, filed anInterconnection and OperatingAgreement entered into with AquilaPiatt County Power, LLC (Aquila) andsubject to Illinois Power’s Open AccessTransmission Tariff.

Illinois Power requests an effectivedate of November 13, 2001 for theInterconnection Agreement and seeks awaiver of the Commission’s noticerequirement. Illinois Power has served acopy of the filing on Aquila.


10. Illinois Power Company


Take notice that on November 23,2001, Illinois Power Company (Illinois

Power), 500 South 27th Street, Decatur,Illinois 65251–2200, filed with theCommission an Emergency EnergyTariff (Tariff). Illinois Power states thatit will offer emergency energy under theTariff for the purpose of complying withits obligations under Guide No. 5B ofthe Mid-America InterconnectedNetwork, Inc. (MAIN).

Illinois Power requests an effectivedate of February 2, 2001 for theEmergency Energy Tariff.

Illinois Power states that a copy ofthis filing has been mailed to eachMAIN member currently participatingin the Callable Reserves EmergencyEnergy Procedure under MAIN GuideNo. 5B.


11. Carolina Power & Light Company


Take notice that on November 23,2001, Carolina Power & Light Company(CP&L) tendered for filing an executedService Agreement between CP&L andthe following eligible buyer, ExelonGeneration Company, LLC. Service tothis eligible buyer will be in accordancewith the terms and conditions of CP&L’sMarket-Based Rates Tariff, FERCElectric Tariff No. 5.

CP&L requests an effective date ofNovember 1, 2001 for this ServiceAgreement.

Copies of the filing were served uponthe North Carolina Utilities Commissionand the South Carolina Public ServiceCommission.


12. Xcel Energy Services Inc.


Take notice that on November 23,2001, Northern States Power Companyand Northern States Power Company(Wisconsin) (jointly NSP), wholly-owned utility operating companysubsidiaries of Xcel Energy Inc.,tendered for filing a Short-Term FirmPoint-to-Point Transmission ServiceAgreement between NSP and enXco.NSP proposes the Agreement beincluded in the Xcel Energy OperatingCompanies FERC Joint Open AccessTransmission Tariff, First RevisedVolume No. 1, as Service Agreement194-NSP, pursuant to Order No. 614.

NSP requests that the Commissionaccept the agreement effectiveNovember 1, 2001.




13. Xcel Energy Services, Inc.; NorthernStates Power Company


Take notice that on November 23,2001, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. (XES),on behalf of Northern States PowerCompany (NSP) submitted for filingwith the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission) SupplementNo. 6 to the Transmission ServicesAgreement dated September 20, 1977, asamended between NSP and the State ofSouth Dakota.

NSP requests the letter agreements beaccepted for filing effective September1, 2001.


Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard orto protest such filing should file amotion to intervene or protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426, in accordance with rules 211 and214 of the Commission’s rules ofpractice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214). All such motions orprotests should be filed on or before thecomment date. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.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. This filing may also beviewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link,select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). Comments, protests andinterventions may be filed electronicallyvia the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.





[Project No. 6132–006]

Facilitators Improving SalmonidHabitat (FISH); Notice of Extension ofTime to Comment on EnvironmentalAssessment

November 29, 2001.

In accordance with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 andthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission’s (Commission’s)regulations, the Office of Energy Projectshas reviewed the application dated July11, 2001, requesting the Commission’sapproval to surrender the Exemptionfrom licensing and removal of a dam atthe John C. Jones Project, located on theMarsh Stream, a tributary of thePenobscot River, near the towns ofWinterport and Frankfort, in WaldoCounty, Maine, and has prepared anEnvironmental Assessment (EA) for theproposed and alternative actions. Anotice issued October 5, 2001,established November 5, 2001, as thedeadline for comments on the EA.

In response to our notice, severalrequests were made to extend ourNovember 5, 2001, comment deadlineby six months to prepare and presentnew information on recreational, publicsafety and environmental concerns andprojected reduction of property values.The parties cite the need to gatheradditional information, which should beadequately done in 60 days; this is inaddition to the several months that havepassed since the August 7, 2001,application public notice issuance date.Accordingly, we are granting anextension of 60 days from the date ofthis notice to file additional informationon our EA.

Comments should be addressed to:The Secretary, Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 FirstStreet, NE., Washington, DC, 20426.Please affix ‘‘John C. Jones Project No.6132–006’’ to the first page of yourcomments. All timely filed commentswill be considered in the Commissionorder addressing the proposed surrenderof exemption and dam removal.Comments, protests and interventionsmay be filed electronically via theInternet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructionson the Commission’s web site under the‘‘e-Filing’’ link.

For further information, pleasecontact Jack Hannula at (202) 219–0116.




[Project No. 11428–000 Michigan]

City of St. Louis, Michigan; Notice ofAvailability of Final EnvironmentalAssessment

November 29, 2001.In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 andthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission’s (Commission)regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No.486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of EnergyProjects has reviewed the applicationfor license for the Municipal DamHydroelectric Project, located on thePine River in Gratiot County, Michigan,and has prepared a Final EnvironmentalAssessment (FEA) for the project.

The FEA contains the staff’s analysisof the potential environmental impactsof the project and concludes thatlicensing the project, with appropriateenvironmental protective measures,would not constitute a major federalaction that would significantly affect thequality of the human environment.

A copy of the FEA is on file with theCommission and is available for publicinspection. The FEA may also beviewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link—select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).

For further information, contact SusanO’Brien at (202) 219–2840.




Notice of Transfer of License andSoliciting Comments, Motions ToIntervene, and Protests

November 29, 2001.Take notice that the following

application has been filed with the



Commission and is available for publicinspection:

a. Application Type: Transfer ofLicense.

b. Project No: 3820–007.c. Date Filed: November 16, 2001.d. Applicants: General Electric

Company (Transferor) and SouthernNew Hampshire Hydro-ElectricDevelopment Corp (Transferee).

e. Name and Location of Project: TheSomersworth Hydroelectric Project islocated on the Salmon Falls River inStafford County, New Hampshire andYork County, Maine.

f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal PowerAct, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).

g. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Mark E.Beliveau, Esquire, Sanders &McDermott, P.L.L.C., 234 LafayetteRoad, Hampton, NH 03843–5070 (603)926–8926/(fax) 603–926–0564,[email protected] (GeneralElectric Company); John N. Webster,President, Southern New HampshireHydro-Electric Development Corp, 293Main Street, P.O. Box 178, SouthBerwick, ME 03908, (207) 384–5334.

h. FERC Contact: Any questions onthis notice should be addressed to Mr.Lynn R. Miles at (202) 219–2671.

i. Deadline for filing comments and ormotions: January 7, 2002.

All documents (original and eightcopies) should be filed with: David P.Boergers, Secretary, Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 FirstStreet, NE, Washington DC 20426.Comments, protests and interventionsmay be filed electronically via theInternet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructionson the Commission’s web site under the‘‘e-Filing’’ link.

Please include the project number (P–3820–007) on any comments or motionsfiled.

j. Description of Proposal: Applicantspropose a transfer of the license for3820–000 from General ElectricCompany to Southern New HampshireHydro-Electric Development Corp.Substitution of Southern NewHampshire Hydro-Electric DevelopmentCorp for General Electric Company aslicensee for this project is being soughtin connection with Southern NewHampshire Hydro-Electric DevelopmentCorp’s intended acquisition of projectresources from General ElectricCompany.

k. Locations of the application: Acopy of the application is available forinspection and reproduction at theCommission’s Public Reference Room,located at 888 First Street, NE, Room2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling(202) 208–1371. Copies of this filing areon file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection. Thisfiling may also be viewed on the Webat http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’link, select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow theinstructions (call 202–208–2222 forassistance). A copy is also available forinspection and reproduction at theaddress in item g above.

l. Individuals desiring to be includedon the Commission’s mailing list shouldso indicate by writing to the Secretaryof the Commission.

Comments, Protests, or Motions toIntervene—Anyone may submitcomments, a protest, or a motion tointervene in accordance with therequirements of rules of practice andprocedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.In determining the appropriate action totake, the Commission will consider allprotests or other comments filed, butonly those who file a motion tointervene in accordance with theCommission’s rules may become a partyto the proceeding. Any comments,protests, or motions to intervene mustbe received on or before the specifiedcomment date for the particularapplication.

Filing and Service of ResponsiveDocuments—Any filings must bear inall capital letters the title‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, asapplicable, and the Project Number ofthe particular application to which thefiling refers. An additional copy must besent to the Director, Division ofHydropower Administration andCompliance, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, at the above-mentionedaddress. A copy of any motion tointervene must also be served upon eachrepresentative of the Applicantspecified in the particular application.

Agency Comments—Federal, state,and local agencies are invited to filecomments on the described application.A copy of the application may beobtained by agencies directly from theApplicant. If an agency does not filecomments within the time specified forfiling comments, it will be presumed tohave no comments. One copy of anagency’s comments must also be sent tothe Applicant’s representatives.





[Project No. 10455–021]

JDJ Energy Company; Notice ofExtension of Deadline for FilingComments and or Motions on Notice ofApplication for Amendment of License

November 29, 2001.Take notice that the deadline for filing

comments, motions to intervene, orprotests on the notice of application toamend the license for the RiverMountain Pumped StorageHydroelectric Project (Project No.10455–021), issued November 27, 2001,is extended to December 31, 2001.



[FRL–7112–7]

Announcement of a Federal OperatingPermits Program Consistent With 40CFR Part 71; Maryland; Delegation ofthe Title V Permitting Program

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Informational notice.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice isto announce that on December 1, 2001,a Federal operating permits programconsistent with the requirements of theClean Air Act (the Act) and theapplicable Federal regulations will beeffective in the State of Maryland.Furthermore, effective December 1,2001, EPA is granting the MarylandDepartment of the Environment’s(MDE’s) request for full delegation ofauthority to implement and enforce theAct’s Federal operating permitsprogram. Under this delegation, EPAretains its authority to object to theissuance of any permit, act uponpetitions submitted by the public, andcollect fees from all owners or operatorsof sources subject to the permittingprogram if it is demonstrated that MDEis not adequately implementing theprogram in accordance with theDelegation of Authority Agreement, theapplicable Federal regulations, and/orthe Act. The procedures for fulldelegation are specified in a Delegationof Authority Agreement between EPARegion III and MDE signed and dated onNovember 27, 2001.



EFFECTIVE DATES: The Federal operatingpermits program, 40 CFR part 71, willbe effective in the State of Maryland onDecember 1, 2001. The effective date forthe Delegation of Authority Agreementbetween EPA and MDE is December 1,2001.ADDRESSES: Copies of the letter thatrequests delegation of the federaloperating permits program and theDelegation of Authority Agreementbetween EPA and MDE are available forpublic inspection at EPA’s Region IIIOffice, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,PA 19103 and MDE, 2500 BroeningHighway, Baltimore, MD 21224.Effective December 1, 2001, allnotifications, requests, applications,reports and other correspondencerequired under 40 CFR part 71 for allPart 71 sources, shall be submitted toMDE’s Air Quality Permits Program atthe following address:

MDE Office—Air Quality PermitsProgram, Air and RadiationManagement, Maryland Department ofthe Environment, 2500 BroeningHighway, Baltimore, MD 21224. Attn:Permits Program Chief.

All reports, notifications, requests,petitions pursuant to the Federalpermitting program, 40 CFR part 71, andthe Delegation of Authority Agreementfrom all part 71 sources or the publicshould be submitted to EPA at thefollowing address:

EPA Office: Permit and TechnicalAssessment Branch (3AP11), AirProtection Division, EPA Region III,1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA19103. Attn: Chief, Permit andTechnical Assessment Branch.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Helene Drago, Permit and TechnicalAssessment Section (3AP11), AirProtection Division, EPA Region III,1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA19103, Telephone: 215–814–5796,email: [email protected] INFORMATION: Thepurpose of this notice is to announcethat on December 1, 2001, the Federaloperating permits program consistentwith the requirements of Title V of theClean Air Act (the Act) as set forthunder 40 CFR part 71 (part 71 program)will be effective in the State ofMaryland. Furthermore, effectiveDecember 1, 2001, EPA is granting theMaryland Department of theEnvironment’s (MDE’s) request for fulldelegation of authority to implementand enforce the part 71 Federaloperating permits program. Under thisdelegation, EPA retains its authority to(1) object to the issuance of any part 71permit, (2) act upon petitions submittedby the public, and (3) collect fees from

all owners or operators of sourcessubject to 40 CFR part 71 if it isdemonstrated that MDE is notadequately implementing the part 71program in accordance with theDelegation of Authority Agreement, 40CFR part 71, and/or the Act. Theprocedures for full delegation arespecified in a Delegation of AuthorityAgreement between EPA Region III andMDE signed and dated on November 27,2001.

On October 30, 1995 (60 FR 55231),the EPA published a proposed rule togrant interim approval of Maryland’soperating permits program, submitted toEPA pursuant to Title V of the Act and40 CFR part 70 (part 70 program). OnJuly 3, 1996 (61 FR 34733), EPApublished a final rule granting interimapproval of Maryland’s part 70operating permits program. Please seethese proposed and final rules for a fullexplanation of the reasons whyMaryland did not receive full approvalof its part 70 program. Under the Act,Maryland had two years after receivinginterim approval in which to correct theidentified deficiencies of its part 70program. In recognition of States’ effortsto implement the Title V permittingprogram and EPA’s own efforts to reviseits implementing regulations, EPAgranted several extensions to the interimapproval period. A lawsuit was filedagainst EPA on June 21, 2000 by theEarthJustice Legal Defense Fund onbehalf of the Sierra Club and the NewYork Public Interest Research Group,regarding these extensions. Insettlement of that litigation, EPAentered into a settlement agreementwhich provides that no furtherextensions of the interim approvalperiod will be granted for any part 70operating permit programs, includingthe State of Maryland’s, beyondDecember 1, 2001. MDE will not be ableto address all interim approvaldeficiencies by December 1, 2001. Inparticular, Maryland will not haveenacted legislation to provide,unambiguously, standing for judicialreview of its permits consistent withsection 502(b)(6) of the Act and 40 CFR70.4(b)(3)(x) and which meets theminimum threshold requirements ofArticle III of the U.S. Constitution fororganizations and individuals.Therefore, on December 1, 2001,Maryland will lose its interim approvalstatus of its part 70 permitting program.Pursuant to the Act, Maryland will berequired to implement a part 71 Federaloperating permit program effectiveDecember 1, 2001.

The Act and its implementingregulations under the part 71 authorizeEPA to delegate authority to any state

agency that submits adequate regulatoryprocedures for implementation andenforcement of the part 71 operatingpermits program. On September 24,2001, MDE requested full delegation ofauthority to implement and enforce thefederal operating permits programconsistent with the requirements ofTitle V of the Act and part 71. MDEprovided all necessary documentationthat the State of Maryland has adequateauthority and adequate resources toimplement and enforce the part 71Federal permitting program.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.10(b), EPAhereby notifies the public that effectiveDecember 1, 2001, it has granted MDE’srequest and is fully delegating theauthority to implement and enforce theFederal operating permits program asset forth under 40 CFR part 71. Underthis delegation, MDE has authority toimplement and enforce the Federaloperating permits program consistentwith the requirements of Title V as setforth under the part 71 program. Aspreviously stated, EPA retains itsauthority to (1) object to the issuance ofany part 71 permit, (2) act uponpetitions submitted by the public and(3) collect fees from all owners oroperators of part 71 sources if it isdemonstrated that MDE is notadequately implementing the part 71program in accordance with theDelegation of Authority Agreement, part71, and/or the Act. The full delegationis set forth in a Delegation of AuthorityAgreement between EPA Region III andMDE signed and dated on November 27,2001. If, at any time, EPA determinesthat MDE is not or cannot adequatelyimplement or enforce the requirementsof part 71, this delegation may berevoked, in whole or in part, pursuantto 40 CFR 71.10(c).

Dated: November 27, 2001.Donald S. Welsh,Regional Administrator, Region III.[FR Doc. 01–30101 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


[OPP–34203K; FRL–6811–4]

Chlorpyrifos; Receipt of Requests forEnd-Use Product Cancellations

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

SUMMARY: Companies that hold thepesticide registrations of end-usepesticide products containingchlorpyrifos [O,O-diethyl O-(3,5,6-



trichloro-2-pyridinyl)phosphorothioate]have asked EPA to cancel theirregistrations. Pursuant to section 6(f)(1)of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA isannouncing the Agency’s receipt ofthese requests from the registrants.These requests for voluntarycancellation are the result of aMemorandum of Agreement signed byEPA and the basic manufacturers of theactive ingredient chlorpyrifos on June 7,2000. Registrants identified in thisnotice requesting voluntary cancellationare in large part the customer of thesebasic manufacturers. Given the potentialrisks, both dietary and non-dietary, thatchlorpyrifos use poses, to children, EPAintends to grant the requestedcancellations. EPA also plans to issue acancellation order for the canceledregistrations at the close of the commentperiod for this announcement. Upon theissuance of the cancellation order, anydistribution, sale, or use of thesechlorpyrifos products will only bepermitted if such distribution, sale, oruse is consistent with the terms of thatorder.DATES: Comments, identified by docketcontrol number OPP–34203K, must bereceived on or before January 4, 2002.Comments on the requested registrationcancellations must be submitted to theaddress provided below and identifiedby docket control number OPP–34203K.

ADDRESSES: Comments may besubmitted by mail, electronically, or inperson. Please follow the detailedinstructions for each method asprovided in Unit I. of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensureproper receipt by EPA, it is imperativethat you identify docket control numberOPP–34203K in the subject line on thefirst page of your response.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TomMyers, Special Review andReregistration Division (7508C), Officeof Pesticide Programs, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington, DC 20460,telephone number: 703–308–8589; faxnumber: 703–308–8041; e-mail address:[email protected] INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the publicin general. You may be potentiallyaffected by this action if youmanufacture, sell, distribute, or usechlorpyrifos products. TheCongressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq., as added by the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, does not apply because this actionis not a rule, for purposes of 5 U.S.C.804(3). Since other entities may also beinterested, the Agency has notattempted to describe all the specificentities that may be affected by thisaction. If you have any 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/. To accessinformation about the risk assessmentfor chlorpyrifos, go to the Home Page forthe Office of Pesticide Programs or godirectly http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/chlorpyrifos.htm.

2. In person. The Agency hasestablished an official record for thisaction under docket control numberOPP–34203K. The official recordconsists of the documents specificallyreferenced in this action, any publiccomments received during an applicablecomment period, and other informationrelated to this action, including anyinformation claimed as ConfidentialBusiness Information (CBI). This officialrecord includes the documents that arephysically located in the docket, as wellas the documents that are referenced inthose documents. The public version ofthe official record does not include anyinformation claimed as CBI. The publicversion of the official record, whichincludes printed, paper versions of anyelectronic comments submitted duringan applicable comment period, isavailable for inspection in the PublicInformation and Records IntegrityBranch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday, excluding legalholidays. The PIRIB telephone numberis (703) 305–5805.

C. How and to Whom Do I SubmitComments?

You may submit comments throughthe mail, in person, or electronically. To

ensure proper receipt by EPA, it isimperative that you identify docketcontrol number OPP–34203K in thesubject line on the first page of yourresponse.

1. By mail. Submit your comments to:Public Information and RecordsIntegrity Branch (PIRIB), InformationResources and Services Division(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs(OPP), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier. Deliveryour comments to: Public Informationand Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),Information Resources and ServicesDivision (7502C), Office of PesticidePrograms (OPP), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Rm. 119, CrystalMall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday, excluding legal holidays. ThePIRIB telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

3. Electronically. You may submityour comments electronically by e-mailto: [email protected], or you cansubmit a computer disk as describedabove. Do not submit any informationelectronically that you consider to beCBI. Avoid the use of special charactersand any form of encryption. Electronicsubmissions will be accepted inWordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII fileformat. All comments in electronic formmust be identified by docket controlnumber OPP–34203K. Electroniccomments may also be filed online atmany Federal Depository Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI that I Wantto Submit to the Agency?

Do not submit any informationelectronically that you consider to beCBI. You may claim information thatyou submit to EPA in response to thisdocument as CBI by marking any part orall of that information as CBI.Information so marked will not bedisclosed except in accordance withprocedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.In addition to one complete version ofthe comment that includes anyinformation claimed as CBI, a copy ofthe comment that does not contain theinformation claimed as CBI must besubmitted for inclusion in the publicversion of the official record.Information not marked confidentialwill be included in the public versionof the official record without priornotice. If you have any questions aboutCBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,please consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.



E. What Should I Consider as I PrepareMy Comments for EPA?

You may find the followingsuggestions helpful for preparing yourcomments:

1. Explain your views as clearly aspossible.

2. Describe any assumptions that youused.

3. Provide copies of any technicalinformation and/or data you used thatsupport your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden orcosts, explain how you arrived at theestimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples toillustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improvethe notice or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit yourcomments by the deadline in thisnotice.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,be sure to identify the docket controlnumber assigned to this action in thesubject line on the first page of yourresponse. You may also provide thename, date, and Federal Registercitation.

II. Receipt of Requests to CancelRegistrations

A. Background

In a memorandum of agreement(‘‘Agreement’’) effective June 7, 2000,EPA and the basic manufacturers of theactive ingredient chlorpyrifos agreed toseveral voluntary measures that willreduce the potential exposure tochildren associated with chlorpyrifoscontaining products. EPA initiated thenegotiations with registrants afterfinding chlorpyrifos, as currentlyregistered, was an exposure riskespecially to children. As a result of theAgreement, registrants that hold thepesticide registrations of end-useproducts containing chlorpyrifos (whoare in large part the customer of thesebasic manufacturers) have asked EPA tocancel their registrations for theseproducts. Pursuant to section 6(f)(1) ofthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA isannouncing the Agency’s receipt ofthese cancellation requests from theregistrants.

In the Federal Register of September20, 2000 (65 FR 56886) (FRL–6743–7),EPA published a notice of the Agency’sreceipt of amendments andcancellations for manufacturing useproducts and associated end-useproducts for signatories of theMemorandum of Agreement signed onJune 7, 2000, and subsequent ancillaryagreements. These requests weresubmitted as a result of theMemorandum of Agreement that wassigned on June 7, 2000, between EPAand the basic manufacturers ofchlorpyrifos. A copy of theMemorandum of Agreement that wassigned on June 7, 2000, is located inOPP docket control number 34203D.

B. Requests for Voluntary Cancellationof End-Use Products

Pursuant to the Agreement and FIFRAsection 6(f)(1)(A), several registrantshave submitted requests for voluntarycancellation of registrations for theirend-use products. The registrations forwhich cancellations were requested areidentified in the following Table.

TABLE — END-USE PRODUCT REGISTRATION CANCELLATION REQUESTS

Company Reg. No. Product

Dragon Chemical Corpora-tion

16–101 Dursban 1/2 Granular Insecticide

16–123 Dragon Home Pest Control

16–139 Dragon Home Pest Killer

16–146 Dragon Termite and Soil Insect Killer

16–163 Dragon Crawling Insect Killer

16–172 Dragon Dursban 1% Granular Insecticide

The Scotts Company 239–2423 Ortho Lawn Insect Spray

239–2490 Ortho Home Pest Insect Control

239–2513 Ortho-Klor Soil Insect and Termite Killer

239–2517 Ortho-Klor Indoor & Outdoor Insect Killer

239–2520 Ortho Mole Cricket Bait Formula II

239–2521 Ortho Mole Cricket Bait Formula III

239–2570 Ortho-Klor 1% Dursban Lawn & Soil Granules

239–2633 Ortho Dursban Lawn Insect Formula II

239–2635 Ortho Multipurpose Borer & Insect Spray

Amvac Chemical Corpora-tion

5481–68 Alco Chlorpyrifos 1E Emulsifiable Insecticide

5481–121 Chlorpyrifos Granules 1

5481–216 Dursban-DDVP 2.50 Pest Control

5481–217 Dursban-DDVP 1.25

5481–221 Dursban 2E Insecticide

5481–222 Bilco Dursban 4E Insecticide

5481–240 Alco Bug Spray Flea, Ant and Roach Killer



TABLE — END-USE PRODUCT REGISTRATION CANCELLATION REQUESTS—Continued

Company Reg. No. Product

Contact Industries, a Divi-sion of Safeguard Chem-ical Corporation

10806–52 Contact Roach & Ant Killer II

10806–99 Contact Ant and Roach Killer IV

10806–100 Contact Ant and Roach Killer XV

10806–101 Contact Liquid Ant & Roach Killer V

10806–102 Contact Roach and Ant Killer XVI

Amrep, Incorporated 10807–116 Misty Ant, Roach, & Spider Residual Insecticide with Dursban

10807–187 Misty Aqueous Residual Spray

Drexel Chemical Company 19713–229 Drexel Chlorpyrifos 0.5G

19713–341 Leisur and Lawn Insect Control

Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA,registrants may request at any time, thatEPA cancel any of their pesticideregistrations. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRArequires that EPA provide a 30–dayperiod in which the public maycomment before the Agency may act onthe request for voluntary cancellation.Given the potential risks, both dietaryand non-dietary, that chlorpyrifos useposes, to children, EPA intends to grantthe requested cancellations at the closeof the comment period for thisannouncement.

III. Proposed Existing Stocks ProvisionsThe registrants have requested

voluntary cancellation of thechlorpyrifos registrations identified inthe Table. Pursuant to section 6(f) ofFIFRA, EPA intends to grant therequests for voluntary cancellations. Forpurposes of the cancellation order thatthe Agency intends to issue at the closeof the comment period for thisannouncement, the term ‘‘existingstocks’’ will be defined pursuant toEPA’s existing stocks policy at June 26,1991 (56 FR 29362) (FRL–3846–4) asthose stocks of a registered pesticideproduct, which are currently in theUnited States and which have beenpackaged, labeled, and released forshipment prior to the effective date ofthe cancellation. Any distribution, sale,or use of existing stocks after theeffective date of the cancellation orderthat the Agency intends to issue that isnot consistent with the terms of thatorder will be considered a violation ofsection 12(a)(2)(K) and/or 12(a)(1)(A) ofFIFRA.

1. Distribution or sale by registrants—i. Restricted use and package sizelimitations. Except for the purposes ofreturns for relabeling consistent withthe June 7, 2000, Memorandum ofAgreement, shipping for export

consistent with the requirements ofsection 17 of FIFRA, or proper disposal:

(a) The distribution or sale byregistrants of existing stocks of any ECformulation product listed in the Tablewill not be lawful under FIFRA, as ofthe date of publication of thecancellation order in the FederalRegister, unless the product is labeledas restricted use.

(b) The distribution or sale byregistrants of existing stocks of anyproduct listed in the Table (other thancontainerized baits in child resistantpackaging (CRP)) that is not an EC, willnot be lawful under FIFRA as of the dateof the cancellation notice, unless theproduct is either labeled for restricteduse or packaged in containers nosmaller than 15 gallons of a liquidformulation or 25 pounds of a dryformulation.

ii. Prohibited uses. Except for thepurposes of returns for relabelingconsistent with the June 7, 2000Memorandum of Agreement, shippingfor export consistent with therequirements of section 17 of FIFRA, orproper disposal, the distribution or saleof existing stocks by registrants of anyproduct identified in the Table thatbears instructions for any of thefollowing uses will not be lawful underFIFRA as of the date of publication ofthe cancellation order in the FederalRegister:

(a) Termite control, unless theproduct bears directions for use of amaximum 0.5% active ingredient (a.i.)chlorpyrifos end-use dilution.

(b) Post-construction termite control,except for spot and local termitetreatment, provided the label of theproduct states that the product may notbe used for spot and local treatmentafter December 31, 2002.

(c) Indoor residential except forcontainerized baits in CRP.

(d) Indoor non-residential except forcontainerized baits in CRP and productswith formulations other than EC thatbear labeling solely for one or more ofthe following uses: Warehouses, shipholds, railroad boxcars, industrialplants, manufacturing plants, foodprocessing plants, or processed woodproducts treated during themanufacturing process at themanufacturing site or at the mill.

(e) Outdoor residential except forproducts bearing labeling solely for oneor more of the following public healthuses: Individual fire ant moundtreatment by licensed applicators ormosquito control by public healthAgencies.

(f) Outdoor non-residential, non-agricultural except for products thatbear labeling solely for one or more ofthe following uses: Golf courses, roadmedians, and industrial plant sites,provided the maximum labelapplication rate does not exceed 1 lba.i./per acre; mosquito control for publichealth purposes by public healthAgencies; individual fire ant moundtreatment for public health purposes bylicensed applicators; and fence posts,utility poles, railroad ties, landscapetimbers, logs, pallets, woodencontainers, poles, posts, processed woodproducts, manhole covers, andunderground utility cable and conduits.

2. Retail and other distribution orsale. The retail sale of existing stocks ofproducts listed in the Table bearinginstructions for the prohibited uses setforth above in Units III.1.(ii) (a)-(f) ofthis document will not be lawful underFIFRA after December 31, 2001. Exceptas otherwise provided in this order, anyother distribution or sale (for example,return to the manufacturer forrelabeling) is permitted until stocks areexhausted.



3. Final distribution, sale and usedate for pre-construction termitecontrol. The distribution, sale or use ofany product listed in the Table bearinginstructions for pre-constructiontermiticide use will not be lawful underFIFRA after December 31, 2005, unlessprior to that date, EPA has issued awritten determination that such use maycontinue consistent with therequirements of FIFRA.

4. Use of existing stocks. Except forproducts bearing those uses identifiedabove in Unit III.3. of this document,EPA intends to permit the use ofexisting stocks of products listed in theTable until such stocks are exhausted,provided such use is in accordance withthe existing labeling of that product.

List of SubjectsEnvironmental protection,

Memorandum of Agreement, Pesticidesand pests.


Jack E. Housenger,Acting Director, Special Review andReregistration Division, Office of PesticidePrograms.

[FR Doc. 01–29779 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–S


Notice of Public InformationCollection(s) Being Reviewed by theFederal Communications Commission

November 20, 2001.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(s), 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 to

minimize 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 January 4, 2002.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 JudyBoley, Federal CommunicationsCommission, Room 1–C804, 445 12thStreet, SW., DC 20554 or via the Internetto [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foradditional information or copies of theinformation collection(s), contact JudyBoley at 202–418–0214 or via theInternet at [email protected] INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.: 3060–0262.Title: Section 90.179, Shared Use of

Radio Stations.Form No.: N/A.Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.Respondents: Business or other for-

profit, not-for-profit institutions, state,local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 41,000.Estimated Time Per Response: .75

hours.Frequency of Response:

Recordkeeping requirement.Total Annual Burden: 30,750 hours.Total Annual Cost: N/A.Needs and Uses: The Commission has

been directed by the United StatesCongress, in the Balanced Budget Act of1997, to dedicate 2.4 megahertz ofelectromagnetic spectrum in the 746–806 MHz band for public safety services.The First Report and Order and ThirdNotice of Proposed Rulemaking in WTDocket No. 96–86 amended service rulesto allow entities applying to theCommission for license to share theradio station on a non-profit costsharing basis. Section 90.179 requiresthat Part 90 licensees that share use oftheir private land mobile radio facilityon a non-profit, cost-shared basis keepa written sharing agreement as part ofthe station records. Regardless of themethod of sharing, an up-to-date list ofpersons who are sharing the station andthe basis of their eligibility under Part90 must be maintained. Thisrequirement is necessary to identifyusers of the systems should interferenceproblems develop. This information isused by the Commission to investigateinterference complaints and resolveinterference and operational complaintsthat may occur among the users.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0986.Title: Federal-State Joint Board on

Universal Service—Plan for Reformingthe Rural Universal Service SupportMechanism, CC Docket No. 96–45.

Form No.: N/A.Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.Respondents: Business or other for-

profit, state, local or tribal government.Number of Respondents: 1,300

respondents; 5,770 responses.Estimated Time Per Response: .81

hours per response (avg.).Frequency of Response: On occasion,

quarterly, annual, and one-timereporting requirements; third partydisclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 5,770 hours.Total Annual Cost: N/A.Needs and Uses: On May 23, 2001,

the Commission adopted rules fordetermining high-cost universal servicesupport for rural telephone companiesfor the next five years based uponproposals made by the Rural Task Force.The Commission also addressed certainproposals made by the Multi-Association Group (MAG) for reforminguniversal services applicable to ruralcarriers. The information will be used todetermine whether and to what extentrural telecommunications carriersproviding the data are eligible to receiveuniversal service support.Federal Communications Commission.Magalie Roman Salas,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–30087 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Agency Information CollectionActivities: Proposed Collection;Comment Request

AGENCY: Board of Governors of theFederal Reserve System (Board).ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with therequirements of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.chapter 35), the Board, the FederalDeposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),and the Office of the Comptroller of theCurrency (OCC) (the ‘‘agencies’’) maynot conduct or sponsor, and therespondent is not required to respondto, an information collection unless itdisplays a currently valid Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) controlnumber. The agencies, under theauspices of the Federal FinancialInstitutions Examination Council(FFIEC), propose to extend, without



revision, the following currentlyapproved information collections:Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S.Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks(FFIEC 002) and Report of Assets andLiabilities of Non–U.S. Branches thatare Managed or Controlled by a U.S.Branch or Agency of a Foreign Bank(FFIEC 002s). The Board, which collectsand processes these reports for the threeagencies, is publishing this notice onbehalf of the agencies. At the end of thecomment period, the comments andrecommendations received will beanalyzed to determine whether theFFIEC should modify the reports. TheBoard will then submit the reports toOMB for review and approval.DATES: Comments must be submitted onor before February 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Interested parties areinvited to submit written comments tothe agency listed below. All comments,which should refer to the OMB controlnumber, will be shared among theagencies.Written comments should beaddressed to Jennifer J. Johnson,Secretary, Board of Governors of theFederal Reserve System, 20th and CStreets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551,submitted by electronic mail toregs.comments&federalreserve.gov, ordelivered to the Board’s mailroombetween 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m., and tothe security control room outside ofthose hours. Both the mailroom and thesecurity control room are accessiblefrom the courtyard entrance on 20thStreet between Constitution Avenue andC Street, N.W. Comments received maybe inspected in room M–P–500 between9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except asprovided in section 261.12 of theBoard’s Rules Regarding Availability ofInformation, 12 CFR 261.12(a).

A copy of the comments may also besubmitted to the OMB desk officer forthe Board: Alexander T. Hunt, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Office of Management and Budget, NewExecutive Office Building, Room 3208,Washington, D.C. 20503.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acopy of the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002sreporting forms may be obtained at theFFIEC’s web site (www.ffiec.gov).Additional information or a copy of thereporting forms may also be requestedfrom Mary M. West, Federal ReserveBoard Clearance Officer, (202) 452–3829, Division of Research andStatistics, Board of Governors of theFederal Reserve System, 20th and CStreets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(TDD) users may contact CapriaMitchell (202) 872–4984, Board ofGovernors of the Federal Reserve

System, 20th and C Streets, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20551.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposal to extend, without revision,the following currently approvedcollections of information:

1. Report Title: Report of Assets andLiabilities of U.S. Branches andAgencies of Foreign Banks.Form Number: FFIEC 002.OMB Number: 7100–0032.Frequency of Response: Quarterly.Affected Public: U.S. branches andagencies of foreign banks.Estimated Number of Respondents: 354.Estimated Total Annual Responses:1,416.Estimated Time per Response: 22.50burden hours.Estimated Total Annual Burden: 31,860burden hours.

General Description of ReportThis information collection is

mandatory: 12 U.S.C. 3105(b)(2),1817(a)(1) and (3), and 3102(b). Exceptfor select sensitive items, thisinformation collection is not givenconfidential treatment (5 U.S.C.552(b)(8)). Small businesses (that is,small U.S. branches and agencies offoreign banks) are affected.

AbstractOn a quarterly basis, all U.S. branches

and agencies of foreign banks (U.S.branches) are required to file a detailedschedule on their assets and liabilitiesin the form of a condition report and avariety of supporting schedules. Thisinformation is used to fulfill thesupervisory and regulatory requirementsof the International Banking Act of1978. The data are also used to augmentthe bank credit, loan, and depositinformation needed for monetary policyand other public policy purposes. TheFederal Reserve System collects andprocesses this report on behalf of allthree agencies.2. Report Title: Report of Assets andLiabilities of a Non–U.S. Branch that isManaged or Controlled by a U.S. Branchor Agency of a Foreign (Non–U.S.) Bank.Form Number: FFIEC 002s.OMB Number: 7100–0273.Frequency of Response: Quarterly.Affected Public: U.S. branches andagencies of foreign banks.Estimated Number of Respondents: 114.Estimated Total Annual Responses: 456.Estimated Time per Response: 6 burdenhours.Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,736burden hours.

General Description of ReportThis information collection is

mandatory: 12 U.S.C. 3105(b)(2),1817(a)(1) and (3), and 3102(b) and isgiven confidential treatment (5 U.S.C.

552(b)(8)). Small businesses (that is,small U.S. branches and agencies offoreign banks) are affected.

AbstractOn a quarterly basis, all U.S. branches

and agencies of foreign banks arerequired to file detailed schedules ontheir assets and liabilities in the formFFIEC 002. The FFIEC 002s is a separatesupplement to the FFIEC 002 thatcollects information on assets andliabilities of any non–U.S. branch that is‘‘managed or controlled’’ by a U.S.branch or agency of the foreign bank.Managed or controlled means that amajority of the responsibility forbusiness decisions, including but notlimited to decisions with regard tolending or asset management or fundingor liability management, or theresponsibility for recordkeeping inrespect of assets or liabilities for thatforeign branch resides at the U.S. branchor agency. A separate FFIEC 002s mustbe completed for each managed orcontrolled non–U.S. branch. The FFIEC002s must be filed quarterly along withthe U.S. branch’s or agency’s FFIEC 002.

The data are used: (1) to monitordeposit and credit transactions of U.S.residents; (2) for monitoring the impactof policy changes; (3) for analyzingstructural issues concerning foreignbank activity in U.S. markets; (4) forunderstanding flows of banking fundsand indebtedness of developingcountries in connection with datacollected by the International MonetaryFund (IMF) and the Bank forInternational Settlements (BIS) that areused in economic analysis; and (5) toprovide information to assist in thesupervision of U.S. offices of foreignbanks, which often are managed jointlywith these branches.Request for Comment

Comments submitted in response tothis Notice will be shared among theagencies and will be summarized orincluded in the Board’s request for OMBapproval. All comments will become amatter of public record. Writtencomments should address the accuracyof the burden estimates and ways tominimize burden as well as otherrelevant aspects of the informationcollection requests. Comments areinvited on:(a) Whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the agencies’ functions,including whether the information haspractical utility;(b) The accuracy of the agencies’estimate of the burden of theinformation collection, including thevalidity of the methodology andassumptions used;



(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility,and clarity of the information to becollected;(d) Ways to minimize the burden of theinformation collection on respondents,including through the use of automatedcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology; and(e) Estimates of capital or start up costsand costs of operation, maintenance,and purchase of services to provideinformation.

Board of Governors of the FederalReserve System, November 29, 2001.

Jennifer J. Johnson,Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 01–30043 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;Acquisition of Shares of Bank or BankHolding Companies

The notificants listed below haveapplied under the Change in BankControl Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bankholding company. The factors that areconsidered in acting on the notices areset forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available forimmediate inspection at the FederalReserve Bank indicated. The noticesalso will be available for inspection atthe office of the Board of Governors.Interested persons may express theirviews in writing to the Reserve Bankindicated for that notice or to the officesof the Board of Governors. Commentsmust be received not later thanDecember 19, 2001.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago(Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer)230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago,Illinois 60690–1414:

1. Merrill G. Norton, and SuellynNorton, both of Danville, Illinois; toretain voting shares of VermilionBancorp, Inc., Danville, Illinois, andthereby indirectly retain voting shares ofAmerican Savings Bank of Danville,Danville, Illinois.

Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem, November 29, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson,Deputy Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 01–30044 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S


National Committee on Vital and HealthStatistics: Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, the Department ofHealth and Human Services announcesthe following advisory committeemeeting.

Name: National Committee on Vitaland Health Statistics (NCVHS),Subcommittee on Populations—Working Group on Quality.

Time and Date: 1:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m,December 12, 2001.

Place: Room 705A, Hubert H.Humphrey Building, 200 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.

Status: Open.Purpose: The purpose of the meeting

is to hear testimony on public andprivate sector data collection andreporting activities in the area of patientsafety. The presenters will be asked toaddress limitations in the current datainfrastructure for identifying andreporting on medical errors and othersafety-related measures of the quality ofhealth care in the U.S.

Notice: In the interest of security, theDepartment has instituted stringentprocedures for entrance to the Hubert H.Humphrey Building by non-governmentemployees. Thus, persons without agovernment identification card willneed to have the guard call for an escortto the meeting.

Contact Person for More Information:Substantive program information aswell as summaries of meetings and aroster of Committee members may beobtained from Stanley Edinger Ph.D.,Lead Staff Person for the HCVHSSubcommittee on Special Populations,Working Group on Quality, Agency forHealthcare Research and Quality, 6011East Jefferson Street, Suite 200, #106,Rockville, MD 20852, telephone (301)594–1598; or Marjorie S. Greenberg,Executive Secretary, NCVHS, NCHS,CDC, Room 1100, Presidential Building,6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville,Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458–4245. Information also is available onthe NCVHS home page of the HHSwebsite: http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/ncvhs,where an agenda for the meeting will beposted when available.

Dated: November 27, 2001.James Scanlon,Director, Division of Data Policy, Office ofthe Assistant Secretary for Planning andEvaluation.[FR Doc. 01–30151 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4151–05–M


National Committee on Vital and HealthStatistics; Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, the Department ofHealth and Human Services announcesthe following advisory committeemeeting.

Name: National Committee on Vitaland Health Statistics (NCVHS),Subcommittee on Standards andSecurity.

Time and Date: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,December 13, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.,December 14, 2001.

Place: Hubert H. Humphrey Building,Room 705A, 200 Independence Avenue,SW., Washington, DC.

Status: Open.Purpose: On the first day, the

Subcommittee will focus on the patientmedical record initiative. TheSubcommittee will participate in aquestion and answer session withStandards Developing Organizationsworking in the area of message formats,and will discuss the letter conveyingrecommendations on this topic to theSecretary. The topic for the second daywill be Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)administrative simplification standards.The Subcommittee will hear testimonyon industry readiness, and will discussthe 2001 report to Congress on the statusof HIPAA administrative simplificationimplementation.

Notice: In the interest of security,HHS has instituted stringent proceduresfor entrance to the Hubert H. Humphreybuilding by non-government employees.Persons without a governmentidentification card may need to have theguard call for an escort to the meeting.

Contact Person for More Information:Substantive program information aswell as summaries of meetings and aroster of committee members may beobtained from J. Michael Fitzmaurice,Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor forInformation Technology, Agency forHealth Care Research and Quality, 2101East Jefferson Street, #600, Rockville,MD 20852, phone: (301) 594–3938; orMarjorie S. Greenberg, ExecutiveSecretary, NCVHS, National Center forHealth Statistics, Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, Room 1100,Presidential Building, 6525 BelcrestRoad, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782,telephone (301) 458–4245. Informationalso is available on the NCVHS homepage of the HHS web site: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/ where an agendafor the meeting will be posted whenavailable.




James Scanlon,Director, Division of Data Policy, Office ofthe Assistant Secretary for Planning andEvaluation.[FR Doc. 01–30152 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry

[ATSDR–176]

Notice of the Revised Priority List ofHazardous Substances That Will Bethe Subject of Toxicological Profiles;Correction

A notice announcing the availabilityof the Revised CERCLA Priority List of275 Hazardous Substances based on themost recent information available toATSDR and EPA was published in theFederal Register on October 25, 2001,(66 FR 54014). This notice is correctedas follows:

On page 54014, in the third column,under the heading of:

ADDRESSES, the website for the 2001Priority List of Hazardous Substancesshould read: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/clist.html. On page 54015, in the firstcolumn, also under the heading of:

ADDRESSES, the website for the CEPReport should read: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cep.html.

All other information andrequirements of the October 25, 2001,notice remain the same.


Georgi Jones,Director, Office of Policy and External Affairs,Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry.[FR Doc. 01–30078 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



Centers for Disease Control andPrevention

[30 DAY–08–02]

Agency Forms Undergoing PaperworkReduction Act Review

The Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) publishes a list ofinformation collection requests underreview by the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) in compliance with thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.Chapter 35). To request a copy of theserequests, call the CDC Reports ClearanceOfficer at (404) 639–7090. Send writtencomments to CDC, Desk Officer, HumanResources and Housing Branch, NewExecutive Office Building, Room 10235,Washington, DC 20503. Writtencomments should be received within 30days of this notice.

Proposed Project: Evaluating ToolboxTraining Safety Program forConstruction and Mining—NEW—National Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health (NIOSH), Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC)proposes to evaluate the effectiveness ofvarious educational approachesutilizing ‘‘toolbox’’ safety trainingmaterials targeted to construction andmining industries. The mission of theNational Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health is to promote safetyand health at work for all peoplethrough research and prevention.

In comparison to other industries,construction and mining, workerscontinue to have the highest rates ofoccupational fatalities and injuries. TheBureau of Labor Statistics estimated for1999 that while the constructionindustry comprises only 6% of theworkforce, they account for 20% of thefatal occupational injuries across allindustry types (BLS, 1999). Similarly,though the mining industry comprisesless than .5% of the workforce, thisindustry reflects 2% of all fataloccupational injuries (BLS, 1999).

Research on the effectiveness of safetyand health training programs hasrevealed that training can lead toincreases in worker knowledge andawareness of workplace safety practices.However, fewer evaluations of safetytraining effectiveness have investigatedthe relationship between various

instructional approaches and the actualtransfer of safety training informationinto workplace practices. Preliminaryinput from employees, managers, andunion leaders representing constructionand mining concerns revealed a desirein these industries for affordable safetytraining materials that can be effectivelyadministered in short sessions on thejob. Representatives from theseindustries reported that safety trainingsessions need to establish a closerconnection between the safetyrecommendations and the backgroundexperiences and knowledge of theworkers.

An instructional approach that mayaddress these needs is often called‘‘toolbox’’ or ‘‘tailgate’’ training. Thistype of training is characterized by brief(15 minute) workplace safety lessons.Despite the popularity of toolbox safetytalks, research is needed to identify themost effective format for this medium.NIOSH will investigate the impact ofusing a narrative, case-studyinstructional approach versus a moretypical, didactic learn the facts’approach. Comparative analyses willexamine differences in knowledge gain,safety attitudes and beliefs, andworkplace behaviors. Findings from thisresearch will help identify theconditions critical to effective toolboxsafety training for mining andconstruction. The materials developedand evaluated during this study will bemade available to the public at theconclusion of the evaluation.

Construction and mining companieswho participate in the study will berandomly assigned to receive eightweekly toolbox safety training sessionsthat use either a case-study narrative orconventional instructional approach.The training sessions are designed tolast fifteen minutes. The impact of thesematerials will be evaluated through theexamination of changes in employeeknowledge gains, attitudes toward safetypractices, and the use of safetybehaviors prior to and following theirparticipation in the safety trainingprogram. Trainers will complete briefresponse cards each week. A sample oftrainers will participate in structuredinterviews.

Findings of the study will be reportedto participants and in the literature. Thetotal annual burden for this datacollection is 363 hours.

Respondents Number of re-spondents

Number ofresponses per

respondent

Avg. burdenper response

(in hrs.)

Worker Knowledge-Attitude Survey (Before Training) ................................................................ 640 1 15/60Worker Knowledge-Attitude Survey (After Training) ................................................................... 640 1 15/60



Respondents Number of re-spondents

Number ofresponses per

respondent

Avg. burdenper response

(in hrs.)

Instructor Feedback Cards .......................................................................................................... 64 8 5/60

Dated: November 28, 2001.Nancy E. Cheal,Acting Associate Director for Policy,Planning, and Evaluation, Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention.[FR Doc. 01–30041 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANDURBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4650–N–85]

Notice of Submission of ProposedInformation Collection to OMB; Section5(h) Homeownership Program forPublic Housing: Submission of Planand Reporting

AGENCY: Office of the Chief InformationOfficer, HUD.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed informationcollection requirement described belowhas been 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: January 4,2002.ADDRESSES: Interested persons areinvited to submit comments regardingthis proposal. Comments should refer tothe proposal by name and/or OMB

approval number (2577–0201) andshould be sent to: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr.,OMB Desk Officer, Office ofManagement and Budget, Room 10235,New Executive Office Building,Washington, DC 20503.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Wayne Eddins, Reports ManagementOfficer, Q, Department of Housing andUrban Development, 451 Seventh Street,Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail [email protected];telephone (202) 708–2374. This is not atoll-free number. Copies of the proposedforms and other available documentssubmitted to OMB may be obtainedfrom Mr. Eddins.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDepartment has submitted the proposalfor the collection of information, asdescribed below, to OMB for review, asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Noticelists the following information: (1) Thetitle of the information collectionproposal; (2) the office of the agency tocollect the information; (3) the OMBapproval number, if applicable; (4) thedescription of the need for theinformation and its proposed use; (5)the agency form number, if applicable;(6) what members of the public will beaffected by the proposal; (7) howfrequently information submissions willbe required; (8) an estimate of the totalnumber of hours needed to prepare theinformation submission including

number of respondents, frequency ofresponse, and hours of response; (9)whether the proposal is new, anextension, reinstatement, or revision ofan information collection requirement;and (10) the name and telephonenumber of an agency official familiarwith the proposal and of the OMB DeskOfficer for the Department.

This Notice Also List the FollowingInformation

Title of Proposal: Section 5(h)Homeownership Program for PublicHousing: Submission of Plan andReporting.

OMB Approval Number: 2577–0201.Form Numbers: None.Description of the Need for the

Information and its Proposed Use:Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) arerequired to submit to HUD a plan to sellpublic housing to residents. PHAsconsult with residents in developing theplan. Residents who desire to purchaseunder the homeownership plan submitan application to the PHA. PHAsprepare the detailed plan includingdescription of the property, terms andconditions of sales to the residents,budget estimate, counseling, trainingand technical assistance provided.

Respondents: Individuals orhouseholds, Not-for-profit institutions,State, Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: Annually.

Number of re-spondents × Frequency of

response × Hours per re-sponse = Burden hours

Reporting Burden ...................................................................... 73 1 74 5,421

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 5,421.Status: Reinstatement, without

change.

Authority: Sec. 3507 of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, asamended.


Wayne Eddins,Departmental Reports Management Officer,Office of the Chief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 01–30034 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



[Docket No. FR–4650–N–86]

Notice of Submission of ProposedInformation Collection to OMB;Reporting Requirements for theAuction of Section 221(g)(4)Multifamily Mortgages

AGENCY: Office of the Chief InformationOfficer, HUD.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed informationcollection requirement described belowhas been submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for

review, as required by the PaperworkReduction Act. The Department issoliciting public comments on thesubject proposal.

DATES: Comments Due Date: January 4,2002.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons areinvited to submit comments regardingthis proposal. Comments should refer tothe proposal by name and/or OMBapproval number (2502–0460) andshould be sent to: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr.,OMB Desk Officer, Office ofManagement and Budget Room 10235,New Executive Office Building,Washington, DC 20503.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Wayne Eddins, Reports ManagementOfficer, Q, Department of Housing andUrban Development 451 Seventh Street,Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail [email protected];telephone (202) 708–2374. This is not atoll-free number. Copies of the proposedforms and other available documentssubmitted to OMB may be obtainedfrom Mr. Eddins.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDepartment has submitted the proposalfor the collection of information, asdescribed below, to OMB for review, asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The Noticelists the following information: (1) Thetitle of the information collectionproposal; (2) the office of the agency tocollect the information; (3) the OMBapproval number, if applicable; (4) the

description of the need for theinformation and its proposed use; (5)the agency form number, if applicable;(6) what members of the public will beaffected by the proposal; (7) howfrequently information submissions willbe required; (8) an estimate of the totalnumber of hours needed to prepare theinformation submission includingnumber of respondents, frequency ofresponse, and hours of response; (9)whether the proposal is new, andextension, reinstatement, or revision ofan information collection requirement;and (10) the name and telephonenumber of an agency official familiarwith the proposal and the OMB DeskOfficer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the followinginformation:

Title of Proposal: ReportingRequirements for the Auction of Section221(g)(4) Multifamily Mortgages.

OMB Approval Number: 2502–0460.Form Numbers: HUD–93487, HUD–

93487–ADescription of the Need for the

Information and its Proposed use: HUDcollects information from assigningmortgages on form HUD–93487, ‘‘ProjectSummary Data Sheet’’, and makes theinformation available to biddersparticipating in the auction of Section221(g)(4) mortgages. Mortgagees thepurchase the montages will submit formHUD–93487–A, ‘‘Billing for Section221(g)(4) Monthly Interest EnhancementPayments;’’, in order to obtain theirmonthly interest enhancementpayments.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit

Frequency of Submission: Other93487–A—When a mortgagee makes anelection to assign a 221(g)(4) mortgage.

Number of re-spondents × Frequency of

response × Hours per re-sponse = Burden hours

Reporting Burden ...................................................................... 153 1.2 0.6 104

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 104.Status: Reinstatement, without

change.Authority: Sec. 3057 of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, asamended.

Dated: November 28, 2001.Wayne Eddins,Department Reports Management Officer,Office of the Chief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 01–30035 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4210–72–M


[Docket No. FR–4401–C–06]

Statutorily Mandated Designation ofDifficult Development Areas andQualified Census Tracts for Section 42of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;Correction

AGENCY: Office of the AssistantSecretary for Policy Development andResearch, HUD.ACTION: Notice; correction.

SUMMARY: This notice corrects thedesignation of 2002 Qualified CensusTracts for Guam, published in theFederal Register on September 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forquestions on how areas are designatedand on geographic definitions: StevenEhrlich, Economist, Division ofEconomic Development and PublicFinance, Office of Policy Developmentand Research, Department of Housingand Urban Development, 451 SeventhStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20410,telephone (202) 708–0426, [email protected]. Forspecific legal questions pertaining tosection 42 and this notice: Harold J.Gross, Senior Tax Attorney, Office of theGeneral Counsel, Department ofHousing and Urban Development, 451Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC20410, telephone (202) 708–3260, [email protected]. For questionsabout the ‘‘HUBZones’’ program:Michael P. McHale, AssistantAdministrator for Procurement Policy,Office of Government Contracting, Suite8800, Small Business Administration,409 Third Street, SW, Washington, DC20416, telephone (202) 205–6731, fax(202) 205–7324, [email protected]. A texttelephone is available for persons withhearing or speech impairments at (202)708–9300. (These are not toll-freetelephone numbers.) Additional copiesof this notice are available through HUD

User at (800) 245–2691 for a small feeto cover duplication and mailing costs.

Copies Available Electronically: Thisnotice and additional information aboutDifficult Development Areas andQualified Census Tracts are availableelectronically on the Internet (WorldWide Web) at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/qct.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnSeptember 11, 2001 (66 FR 47266), theDepartment published a list ofStatutorily Mandated DifficultDevelopment Areas (DDAs) andQualified Census Tracts (QCTs) forSection 42 of the Internal Revenue Codeof 1986. Designations were made for allU.S. states and territories. An erroraffecting the Guam QCT designationswas recently found. Five additionalcensus tracts in Guam should have beendesignated as QCTs. No QCTs outside ofGuam were affected by the error. NoDDAs were affected by the error.

Accordingly, FR Doc 01–22566, anotice published in the Federal Registeron September 11, 2001 (66 FR 47266),is corrected as follows:

On page 47370, the table underNonmetropolitan Part of State: Guam,the entries are corrected to read asfollows:

Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract Tract

Guam ................................................................. 9502.00 9512.00 9513.00 9526.00 9530.00 9539.98 9548.00 9555.00



Dated: November 21, 2001.Lawrence L. Thompson,General Deputy, Assistant Secretary for PolicyDevelopment and Research.[FR Doc. 01–30031 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4210–62–P


[Docket No. FR–4710–C–04]

Public Housing Assessment System(PHAS) Financial Condition andPhysical Condition Interim ScoringNotices Correction; Location forSubmission of Public Comments

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel,HUD.ACTION: Notice; correction.

SUMMARY: On November 26, 2001, HUDpublished two notices that advised ofinterim scoring processes under HUD’sPublic Housing Assessment System(PHAS) for the PHAS PhysicalCondition Indicator and for the PHASFinancial Condition Indicator. Thenotices also solicited public commentbut omitted the location where publiccomments could be submitted. Thisnotice provides that information.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forfurther information contact the RealEstate Assessment Center (REAC),Attention: Wanda Funk, U.S.Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, 1280 Maryland Avenue,SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024,telephone REAC’s Customer ServiceCenter at (888) 245–4860 (this is a tollfree number) or the Office of Public andIndian Housing, Attention: JudyWojciechowski, Director of PHASOperations, U.S. Department of Housingand Urban Development, 1280Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 800,Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202)708–4932 extension 3464. Persons withhearing or speech impairments mayaccess these telephone numbers via TTYby calling the Federal Information RelayService at (800) 877–8339. Additionalinformation is available from the REACweb site at http://www.hud.gov/reac/.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnNovember 26, 2001, HUD published twonotices that advised of interim scoringprocesses under HUD’s Public HousingAssessment System (PHAS) for thePHAS Physical Condition Indicator (66FR 59084) and for the PHAS FinancialCondition Indicator (66 FR 59126). Athird notice, the introductory notice tothe two interim scoring processes (66 FR59080) provided backgroundinformation on the PHAS and also the

basis for proposing interim scoringprocesses. All three notices solicitedpublic comment but inadvertentlyomitted the location where publiccomments could be sent.

This notice published today providesthat information. The address forsubmitted public comments on thesenotices is as follows:ADDRESSES: Interested persons areinvited to submit comments regardingthis rule to the Rules Docket Clerk,Regulations Division, Office of GeneralCounsel, Room 10276, Department ofHousing and Urban Development, 451Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC20410. Communications should refer tothe above docket number and title. Acopy of each communication submittedwill be available for public inspectionand copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30p.m. weekdays at the above address.

Dated: November 29, 2001.Aaron Santa Anna,Assistant General Counsel for Regulations.[FR Doc. 01–30032 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered Species PermitApplications

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service.ACTION: Notice of receipt of permitapplications.

SUMMARY: The following applicants haveapplied for a scientific research permitto conduct certain activities withendangered species pursuant to section10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531et seq.).

Permit No. TE–049668Applicant: California Department of

Fish and Game, Bishop, California.The applicant requests a permit to

take (capture, collect, sacrifice, andremove genetic samples) the Owens tuichub (Gila bicolor snyderi) inconjunction with physiologicalinvestigations in Inyo, Mono, andMadera Counties, California for thepurpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No. TE–050122Applicant: California Department of

Fish and Game, Bishop, California.The applicant requests a permit to

take (capture, mark with radio collars,tag, translocate, and collect biologicalsamples) the bighorn sheep (Oviscanadensis) in conjunction withecological research in Inyo and Mono

Counties, California for the purpose ofenhancing its survival.

Permit No. TE–802450

Applicant: Arthur E. Davenport, ElCajon, California.The permittee requests a permit

amendment to take (survey by pursuit)the Quino checkerspot butterfly(Euphydryas editha quino) and take(capture and tag) the San Bernardinokangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriamiparvus) in conjunction withdemographic studies on the San DiegoNational Wildlife Refuge, California forthe purpose of enhancing their survival.


Applicant: Coralie Hull Cobb, SanDiego, California.The permittee requests a permit

amendment to take (harass by survey,collect, and sacrifice) the Conservancyfairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio),longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinectalongiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp(Branchinecta sandiegonensis), vernalpool tadpole shrimp (Lepiduruspackardi), and Riverside fairy shrimp(Streptocephalus wootoni) throughouteach species’ range in conjunction withsurveys for the purpose of enhancingtheir survival.

DATES: Written comments on thesepermit applications must be received onor before January 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written data or commentsshould be submitted to the Chief,Endangered Species, EcologicalServices, Fish and Wildlife Service, 911NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon97232–4181; Fax: (503) 231–6243.Please refer to the respective permitnumber for each application whensubmitting comments. All commentsreceived, including names andaddresses, will become part of theofficial administrative record and maybe made available to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: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 within 20days of the date of publication of thisnotice to the address above; telephone:(503) 231–2063. Please refer to therespective permit number for eachapplication when requesting copies ofdocuments.



Dated: November 19, 2001.Rowan W. Gould,Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,Oregon.[FR Doc. 01–30042 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



Endangered and Threatened SpeciesPermit Applications

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications.

SUMMARY: The following applicants haveapplied for a scientific research permitto conduct certain activities withendangered species pursuant to section10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.1531, et seq.).


Applicant: Texas Parks & WildlifeDepartment, Austin, Texas.Applicant requests a permit to collect

plant materials for research andrecovery purposes from the followingplant species within Texas: Ashydogweed (Thymophylla tephroleuca),Black lace cactus (Echinocereusreichenbachii var. albertii), Bunchedcory cactus (Coryphantha ramillosa),American chaffseed (Schwalbeaamericana), Chisos Mountains hedgehogcactus (Echinocereus chisoensis var.chisoensis), Davis’green pitaya(Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii),Hinckley Oak (Quercus hinckleyi),Johnston’s frankenia (Frankeniajohnstonii), Large-fruited sand-verbena(Abronia macrocarpa), Little Agujapondweed (Potamogeton clystocarpus),Navasota ladies’ tresses (Spiranthesparksii), Nellie cory cactus(Coryphantha minima), Pima pineapplecactus (Coryphantha scheeri var.robustispina), Slender rush-pea(Hoffmannseggia tenella), Sneedpincushion cactus (Coryphantha sneediivar. sneedii), South Texas ambrosia(Ambrosia cheiranthifolia), Star cactus(Astrophytum asterias), Terlingua Creekcat’s eye (Cryptantha crassipes), Texastrailing phlox (Phlox nivalis ssp.Texensis), Texas ayenia (Ayenialimitaris), Texas poppy-mallow(Callirhoe scabriuscula), Texas prairiedawn-flower (Hymenoxys texana),Texas snowbells (Styrax texana),Tobusch fishhook cactus(Ancistrocactus tobuschii), Walker’smanioc (Manihot walkerae), Whitebladderpod (Lesquerella pallida), andZapata bladderpod (Lesquerellathamnophila). Applicant also requests

authorization to conduct presence/absence surveys for the Ocelot (Felispardalis), Southwestern willowflycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus),Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoidesborealis), Northern aplomado falcon(Falco femoralis septentrionalis),Whooping Crane (Grus americana) andInterior least tern (Sterna antillarum)within Texas.


Applicant: Plateau Integrated Land andWildlife Management, DrippingSprings, Texas.Applicant requests a permit to

conduct presence/absence surveys andnest monitoring for the Golden-cheekedwarbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) andBlack-capped vireo (Viero atricapillus)within Texas.


Applicant: Greg Clark, Chandler,Arizona.Applicant requests a permit for

recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for the CactusFerruginous Pygmy Owl (Glaucidiumbrasilianum) in Pima County, Arizona.


Applicant: Carothers Environmental,LLC, Sedona, Arizona.Applicant requests a permit for

recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for the followingspecies: Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl(Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum),Southwestern willow flycatcher(Empidonax traillii extimus), HualapaiMexican Vole (Microtus mexicanushualpaiensis), Humpback chub (Gilacypha), Razorback sucker (Xyrauchentexanus), and Kanab ambersnail(Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) withinArizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma andTexas.

DATES: Written comments on thesepermit applications must be received onor before January 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Written data or commentsshould be submitted to the Chief,Endangered Species Division, EcologicalServices, P.O. Box 1306, Room 4102,Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505)248–6649; Fax (505) 248–6788.Documents will be available for publicinspection by written request, byappointment only, during normalbusiness hours (8 to 4:30) at the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,New Mexico. Please refer to therespective permit number for eachapplication when submitting comments.All comments received, includingnames and addresses, will become part

of the official administrative record andmay be made available to the public.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Chief, Endangered Species Division,Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the aboveaddress. Documents and otherinformation submitted with theseapplications are available for review,subject to the requirements of thePrivacy Act and Freedom of InformationAct, by any party who submits a writtenrequest for a copy of such documentswithin 30 days of the date of publicationof this notice, to the address above.

Susan MacMullin,Assistant Regional Director, EcologicalServices, Region 2, Albuquerque, NewMexico.[FR Doc. 01–30053 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



Notice of Availability of the KarnerBlue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissasamuelis) Technical/Agency DraftRecovery Plan for Review andComment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Notice of document availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (Service) announces availabilityfor public review of a technical/agencydraft recovery plan for the endangeredKarner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissasamuelis). The Karner blue butterfly isknown to presently occur in sevenstates: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,Indiana, New Hampshire, New York,and Ohio, where it was recentlyreintroduced. The Service solicitsreview and comments from the publicon this draft plan.DATES: Comments on the draft recoveryplan must be received on or before April4, 2002 to receive consideration by theService.ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to reviewthe draft recovery plan may obtain acopy by contacting the Field Supervisorof the Green Bay Ecological ServicesField Office, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, 1015 Challenger Court, GreenBay, Wisconsin 54311 or by accessingthe website: http//midwest.fws.gov/endangered. Written comments andmaterials regarding the plan should beaddressed to the Field Supervisor at theabove address. Comments and materialsreceived will be available, byappointment, for public inspectionduring normal business hours, at theabove address.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Catherine Carnes, (at the above address)Telephone: (920) 465–7415. TTY usersmay contact Ms. Carnes through theFederal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundRestoring an endangered or

threatened animal or plant to the pointwhere it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is aprimary goal of the Service’sendangered species program. To helpguide the recovery effort, the Service isworking to prepare recovery plans formost of the listed species native to theUnited States. Recovery plans describeactions considered necessary forconservation of the species, establishcriteria for the recovery levels forreclassification and delisting, and anestimate of time and cost forimplementing the recovery measuresneeded.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.),requires the development of recoveryplans for listed species unless such aplan would not promote theconservation of a particular species.Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in1988, requires that public notice andopportunity for public review andcomment to be provided duringrecovery plan development. The Servicewill consider all information presentedduring a public comment period prior toapproval of each new or revisedrecovery plan. The Service and otherFederal agencies will also take thesecomments into account in the course ofimplementing approved recovery plans.

The document submitted for review isthe Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeidesmelissa samuelis) Technical/AgencyDraft Recovery Plan. Historically, thebutterfly occurred in 12 states and theProvince of Ontario. Its current rangehas been reduced to seven states:Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,Indiana, New Hampshire, New York,and Ohio, where it was recentlyreintroduced. Three of these states(Ohio, New Hampshire, and Minnesota)have only one extant Karner bluebutterfly population. Wisconsin andMichigan support the majority ofpopulations throughout the range.

The Karner blue butterfly was listedas endangered on January 21, 1992. Thebutterfly depends on savanna andbarrens habitats that support wildlupine (Lupinus perennis), the onlyplant Karner blue larvae (or caterpillars)are known to feed on. Threats to thebutterfly include continued loss andalteration of habitat due to commercial,residential, and agricultural

development, fragmentation, anddegradation through succession. Today,the butterfly inhabits remnant savannaand barrens habitats, as well as othermore disturbed habitat sites includingyounger forest stands, military bases,utility and roadway rights-of-way, andairports.

The primary objective of the draftrecovery plan is to restore and protectan adequate number of Karner bluebutterfly populations throughout itsrange to ensure long-term viability ofthe species in the wild. The planproposes a total of 13 recovery unitsthroughout a six state recovery area(Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,Indiana, New York, and NewHampshire). In order to reclassify thebutterfly from endangered to threatenedstatus, the plan proposes theestablishment of at least 28metapopulations within the recoveryunits. In order to remove the butterflyfrom the Federal list of ‘‘Threatened andEndangered Species,’’ the planrecommends a minimum of 29metapopulations be establishedthroughout the recovery units.

The draft recovery plan presents ablueprint for action by Federal and stateagencies, as well as other organizations,and private landowners interested inhelping in the recovery of thisendangered species. Recovery actionsinclude restoration and protection ofKarner blue butterfly habitat, populationmonitoring, continued refinement ofhabitat management guidelines,research to guide habitat managementand captive propagation efforts, andeducation and outreach efforts. Workingwith Federal, state and privatelandowners on a voluntary basis will benecessary to reduce the threats, andconserve, protect, and manage keyhabitat areas for the Karner bluebutterfly.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service solicits written commentson the recovery plan described. Allcomments received by the date specifiedwill be considered prior to approval ofthe plan. Comments should be sent tothe Field Supervisor, EcologicalServices Field Office, at the aboveaddress.

Authority: The authority for this action issection 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act,16 U.S.C. 1533(f).

Dated: November 9, 2001T.J. Miller,Acting Assistant Regional Director, EcologicalServices.[FR Doc. 01–30079 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P


Bureau of Land Management

[OR–027–1220–DG; G 2–0019]

Steens Mountain Advisory Council;Meetings

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management(BLM), Burns District, Interior.ACTION: Meetings notice for the SteensMountain Advisory Council.

SUMMARY: The Steens MountainAdvisory Council (SMAC) will meet atthe Bureau of Land Management (BLM),Burns District Office, 28910 Hwy 20West, Hines, Oregon 97738, onDecember 17 and 18, 2001; January 24and 25, 2002; February 28 and March 1,2002; April 4 and 5, 2002; June 13 and14, 2002; October 21 and 22, 2002; andDecember 2 and 3, 2002; and will meetin Frenchglen, Oregon 97736 on August15 and 16, 2002. All meeting sessionswill begin the first day at 8 a.m., localtime, and will end at 5 p.m., local time.The second day of each session willbegin at 8 a.m., local time, and will endat approximately 3 p.m., local time. TheApril 4 and 5, 2002; June 13 and 14,2002; and August 15 and 16, 2002,meeting sessions will consist ofmeetings on April 4, June 13, andAugust 15, followed by tours of theSteens Mountain CooperativeManagement and Protection Area(CMPA) on April 5, June 14, and August16, 2002, weather dependent. Topics tobe discussed by the SMAC at theDecember 17 and 18, 2001, meetinginclude selection of a chairperson;facilitation needs; Subbasins, Analysisof the Management Situation, InterimManagement Policy, and SpecialRecreation Permit Policy review;Federal Advisory Committee Act;cooperative agreements/incentives;winter recreation; signs; and othermatters as may reasonably come beforethe SMAC. Future meetings will covercategories such as education;transportation; recreation/public use;special designated areas; culturalresources; watersheds; projects; wildlife;partnerships/programs; volunteer-basedinformation; adaptive management;planning process; science committee/consultants; and socioeconomics. Allmeetings and tours are open to thepublic in their entirety. Information tobe distributed to the SMAC is requested10 days prior to the start of each SMACmeeting. Public comment is scheduledfor 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., local time, thefirst day of each meeting session. Theamount of time scheduled for publicpresentations and meeting times may beextended when the authorized



representative considers it necessary toaccommodate all who seek to be heardregarding matters on the agenda.

The SMAC was appointed by theSecretary of the Interior on August 14,2001, pursuant to the Steens MountainCooperative Management and ProtectionAct of 2000 (Act). The SMAC’s purposeis to provide representative counsel andadvice to the BLM regarding (1) newand unique approaches to managementof the land within the bounds of theSteens Mountain CMPA, (2) cooperativeprograms and incentives for landscapemanagement that meet human needs,maintain and improve the ecologicaland economic integrity of the area, and(3) preparation and implementation of amanagement plan for the Steens CMPA.

Under the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act management regulations(41 CFR 102–3.15(b)), in exceptionalcircumstances an agency may give lessthan 15 days notice of committeemeeting notices published in theFederal Register. In this case, thisnotice is being published less than 15days prior to the meeting due to theurgent need to meet legislativedeadlines to complete the Steens CMPAmanagement plan and to avoidadditional delays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Additional information concerning theSMAC may be obtained from RhondaKarges, Management Support Specialist,Burns District Office, 28910 Hwy 20West, Hines, Oregon 97738, (541) 573–4433, or [email protected] orfrom the following Web site http://www.or.blm.gov/Steens.

Dated: October 25, 2001.Thomas H. Dyer,Burns District Manager.[FR Doc. 01–30278 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–33–P


Office of the Secretary

Office of Planning and PerformanceManagement; Agency InformationCollection Activities: Submitted forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.ACTION: Notice of new informationcollection survey.

SUMMARY: To comply with therequirements of the Paper ReductionAct (PRA) of 1995, we are submitting toOMB for review and approval aninformation collection request (ICR) forthe Department of the Interior (DOI) toconduct voluntary customer satisfaction

surveys to gather input and feedbackfrom the public. The ICR is entitled‘‘DOI Programmatic Clearance forCustomer Satisfaction Surveys.’’ We arealso soliciting comments from thepublic on this ICR.DATES: Please submit written commentsby January 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: You may submit commentsdirectly to the Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:Desk Officer for the Department of theInterior (OMB Control Number 1040–NEW), 725 17th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20503. Mail orhandcarry a copy of your comments tothe Department of the Interior; Office ofPlanning and Performance Management;Mail Stop 5258–MIB; 1849 C Street,NW., Washington, DC 20240. If youwish to email comments, the emailaddress is:[email protected]. Reference‘‘DOI Programmatic Clearance forCustomer Satisfaction Surveys’’ in youremail subject line. Include your nameand return address in your emailmessage and mark your message forreturn receipt.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Norma Campbell, Office of Planning andPerformance Management, telephone(202) 208–1818. You also may contactthis office to obtain at no cost a copy ofthe collection of information that will besubmitted to OMB.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: DOI Programmatic Clearance forCustomer Satisfaction Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 1040–NEW.Abstract: The mission of DOI is to

protect and provide access to ourNation’s natural and cultural heritageand honor our trust responsibilities toIndian Tribes and our commitments toisland communities. DOI’s StrategicPlan Overview (FY 2000–2005) lays outfive goals as a framework for this work:(1) Protect the environment andpreserve our Nation’s natural andcultural resources; (2) providerecreation for America; (3) managenatural resources for a healthyenvironment and our strong economy;(4) provide science for a changingworld; and (5) meet our trustresponsibilities to Indian Tribes and ourcommitments to island communities.Each bureau’ s plan also contains goalsrequiring collaboration with thepublic—our partners and customers.Part of this communication occursthrough occasional surveys of thedifferent users and stakeholders of DOI’sproducts and services.

In the spirit of the PRA, DOI isconsolidating its ICRs related tocustomer surveys for all participating

offices and bureaus into oneprogrammatic ICR. This single ICR willease the public burden by submitting ageneric format and set of standards thatall customer survey-related collectionswould follow in DOI. Because theparticipating bureaus and offices havediffering customer and stakeholdergroups, there will not be one ‘‘boiler-plate’’ approach to customer research.The ICR will describe those differences,where apparent. Although, whereapplicable, similar questions will beasked in the surveys of the bureaus andoffices to allow better benchmarkingthroughout DOI.

BackgroundThe Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Pub.L. No.103–62) sets out to ‘‘improve Federalprogram effectiveness and publicaccountability by promoting a newfocus on results, service quality, andcustomer satisfaction’’ (Section 2.b.3). Inorder to fulfill this responsibility, DOI’sbureaus and offices must collect datafrom their respective user groups to (1)better understand the needs and desiresof the public and (2) respond to thoseneeds and desires accordingly.

This course of action is fortified byExecutive Order (E.O.) 12862(September 11, 1993) aimed at‘‘ensuring the Federal Governmentprovides the highest quality servicepossible to the American people.’’ TheE.O. discusses surveys as a means fordetermining the kinds and qualities ofservice desired by the FederalGovernment’s customers and fordetermining satisfaction levels forexisting service. These voluntarycustomer surveys will be used toascertain customer satisfaction withDOI’s bureaus and offices in terms ofservices and products. Previouscustomer surveys have provided usefulinformation to DOI’s bureaus and officesfor assessing how well we deliver ourservices and products, makingimprovements, and reporting on annualperformance goals as set out in GPRA-related documents. The results are usedinternally, and summaries are providedto OMB on an annual basis and are usedto satisfy the requirements and spirit ofE.O. 12862.

Furthermore, E.O. 12862 requiresagencies to provide a ‘‘means to addresscustomer complaints.’’ To that end,bureaus and offices may use customercomment cards as an opportunity forcustomers to provide feedback to theagencies on the service they havereceived.

More recently, President Bush’sManagement Agenda for 2001 calls forcitizen-centered government. The



Secretary of the Interior’s August 3,2001 memorandum, ‘‘ManagementExcellence and Citizen-CenteredService,’’ directs bureaus and offices tofocus on citizen-centered governance.The proposed OMB Guideline forEnsuring and Maximizing the Quality,Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity ofInformation Dissemination by FederalAgencies would require agencies tosubmit annual reports ‘‘detailing thenumber and nature of complaintsreceived by the agency regarding agencycompliance with these OMBguidelines.’’ Comment cards and othersurvey methods facilitated by thisprogrammatic clearance would providevaluable information to assist DOI’sbureaus and offices in following theAdministration’s guidance.

In addition to GPRA and E.O. 12862,the statutes, regulations, and SecretarialOrders that created each of the bureausand offices further enhance the need toengage the public and deliver qualityproducts and services to our customers.

The participating DOI bureaus andoffices anticipate performing theircustomer surveys under one ICR. Underthis proposal, DOI would request thatOMB review the procedures andquestion areas for these surveys as aprogram, rather than reviewing eachsurvey individually. Under theprocedures proposed here, DOI wouldconduct the necessary quality control(through a ‘‘secondary office of control’’within DOI), including assurances thatthe individual survey comports with theguidelines in this proposedprogrammatic ICR, and submit theparticular survey instruments andmethodologies for expedited review toOMB.

Participating Bureaus and OfficesThe proposed ICR covers most of the

organizational agencies in DOI.However, the National Park Service,which has one of the most maturecustomer survey programs in theFederal Government, will continueunder its own separate clearance giventhe complexity and specificity of itsprogram. The participating bureaus andoffices covered under the proposed ICRinclude:

• Bureau of Indian Affairs• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)• Bureau of Reclamation• US Fish & Wildlife Service• Office of Insular Affairs• Minerals Management Service• Office of the Secretary• Office of Surface Mining• US Geological Survey (USGS)

Current ActionsThe request to OMB will be for a 3-

year clearance to conduct customer

satisfaction surveys in the participatingDOI bureaus and offices. USGS andBLM, who have developed customerresearch programs, are currentlyoperating under 3-year programmaticclearances. Other participating bureausand offices have handled their ICRs ona case-by-case basis.

For example, under existingapprovals, USGS in 2000 surveyed usersof the on-line National Atlas, State andFederal land managing and naturalresource agencies, customers of ErosData Center (digital data and maps), andcustomers of Earth Science InformationCenters (topographic maps, USGSpublications). Over the last 3 years,BLM has surveyed users of recreationareas, grazing permittees, oil and gaspermittees, stakeholders and partners,and public room users, as well asconducted focus groups with variouscustomer groups. These collectionsoccur through one of six methodologies:(1) Intercept (a customer interacting inperson with one conducting the survey);(2) telephone interviews; (3) mailsurveys; (4) web-based surveys; (5) focusgroups; and (6) voluntary use ofcomment cards.

Examples of previously conductedcustomer surveys are available uponrequest. Our planned activities in thenext 3 fiscal years reflect our increasedemphasis on and expansion of theseactivities throughout DOI.

MethodologyIn all customer research, the goal of

DOI is to employ the best statisticalmodels that, in turn, will lead to thebest data from which soundmanagement decisions can be made.Therefore, an 80 percent response ratehas been set for all customer surveys,with a 70 percent response rate as basethreshold.

Different user and stakeholder groupsfunction and interact with therespective bureaus and offices indifferent ways. In order to meet theresponse rate goal, six differentmethodologies will be available for use.The methodology will be chosen basedon achieving statistical accuracy whilekeeping the cost as low as possible. Thesix methodologies that DOI’s bureausand offices will employ are: (1)Intercept, (2) telephone interviews, (3)mail surveys, (4) web-based surveys, (5)focus groups, and (6) comment cards. Inall cases, the goal is to achieve the 95percent confidence level with asampling error no greater than ±5percent. The total number ofrespondents sought for each survey willbe based on achieving this level. In mostcases, the respondent base will bepulled from a randomized sample of the

user population, and where necessary, astratified sample will be used to achieveaccurate statistical measures at theappropriate National, State, or regionallevel. In some cases where the userpopulation is small, the entirepopulation will need to be surveyed.

Intercept: In a face-to-face situation,the survey instrument is provided to arespondent who completes it while onsite and then returns it. The surveyproctor is prepared to answer anyquestions the respondent may haveabout how to fill out the instrument butdoes not interfere or influence how therespondents answer the questions. Thismethodology provides the highestresponse rate—typically between 80–85percent.

Telephone: Using existing databases,an interviewer will contact customerswho have had a specific experiencewith the agency. The interviewer willdial back until the customer has beenreached. Once contacted, the surveyrespondent is given a brief introductionto the survey, including its importanceand use. The interviewer will thenexpeditiously move through the surveyquestions. When this methodology isemployed, the typical response rate isbetween 70 and 85 percent, dependingon the customer group.

Mail: Using existing lists of customeraddresses, a three contact-approachbased on Dillman’s ‘‘Tailored DesignMethod’’ will be employed. The firstcontact is a cover letter explaining thata survey is coming to them and why itis important to the agency. The secondcontact will be the survey instrumentitself along with a postage-paidaddressed envelope to return the survey.The third contact will be a reminderpostcard sent 10 days after the surveywas sent. Finally, the respondents willreceive a letter thanking them for thewillingness to participate in the surveyand reminding them to return it if theyhave not already done so. At eachjuncture, the respondents will be givenmultiple ways to contact someone withquestions regarding the survey(including phone, FAX, web, andemail). If the survey has been lost, therespondent can request that another besent to them. Electronic mail issometimes used instead of postal mail tocommunicate with customers. Althoughthis is a cost-effective mode to survey alarge group of people, it does notusually generate the best response rate.Telephone calls to non-respondents canbe used to increase response rates.

Web-based: For products or servicesthat are provided through electronicmeans, whether e-commerce or web-based information, a web or emailsurvey may be most appropriate. During



the course of their web interaction,users can volunteer to add their name toa list of future surveys. From this list,a respondent pool will be selected inaccordance with the samplingprocedures outlined above. An emailwill be sent to them explaining the needand importance of the survey with aweb link to the survey. Within 5 days,a follow-up email will be sent to therespondents reminding them tocomplete the survey. Finally, therespondents will receive an emailthanking them for the willingness toparticipate in the survey and remindingthem to complete it if they have notalready. The respondent will alwayshave the option to submit the survey inpaper form, should they elect to do so.

Focus Groups: Some data andinformation are best collected throughmore subjective, conversational means.A focus group is an informal, small-group discussion designed to obtain in-depth qualitative information.Individuals are specifically invited toparticipate in the discussion, whether inperson or through technologicallyenhanced means (i.e., videoconferencing, on-line sessions).Participants are encouraged to talk witheach other about their experiences,preferences, needs, observations, orperceptions. A moderator whose role isto foster interaction leads theconversation. The moderator makes surethat all participants are encouraged tocontribute and that no individualdominates the conversation.Furthermore, the moderator managesthe discussion to make sure it does notstray too far from the topic of interest.Focus groups are most useful in anexploratory stage or when the bureausand offices want to develop a deeperunderstanding of a program or service.

Using the best in focus group researchpractices, groups will be constructed toinclude a cross-section of a givencustomer group. The questions andadditional probes used during the focusgroups will be consistent with the‘‘guideline menu’’ discussed below.

Comment Cards: As discussed in theBackground section above, agencieshave been instructed to provide a meansto address customer complaints. Tofacilitate this, comment cards may beemployed. Comment cards, whenprovided to a customer at the time aproduct or service is provided, offer anexcellent means to give the bureaus andoffices feedback. A comment cardshould have a limited number ofquestions and an opportunity tocomment. These comment cards providemanagers and service providers withdirect, specific, and timely informationfrom their customers about new service

problems as they crop up, orextraordinary performance, that couldnot be obtained through any othermeans.

Electronic users may be offered theopportunity to complete a commentcard via a ‘‘pop-up’’ window (or otherweb-enabled means that may beavailable). The ‘‘pop-up’’ window willnot appear for every user; rather, theusers will be randomly selected toreceive the survey. This practice iswidely used in private industry. In otherinstances, the electronic user may beoffered the option to self-select inanswering the electronic comment card.

Whether using paper or electroniccomment cards, the intent is to providea feedback mechanism. The data are notintended to be statistically significant.Although questions may includenumeric scales, those data should beconsidered only in an anecdotal fashionand not reported as a significantmeasure.

Remuneration/Incentives: A great dealof the literature related to customersatisfaction research recommends thatincentives, monetary and non-monetary,be used to increase response rates (seeD. Dillman publications, specificallyMail and Internet Surveys, 2000).Although bureaus and offices acting inwholly a regulatory role would not seekto provide remuneration to theirpermittees, bureaus and offices thatoperate in a more service-related modemay find incentives to be both helpfuland appropriate. Therefore, DOIproposes to handle remuneration/incentives on a case-by-case basis aspart of the expedited OMB review (i.e.,the 10-day expedited OMB review). Anagency may propose non-monetaryincentives; such as a discount at an on-site book store, a small souvenir, orcomplimentary access to a facility/site.

Topic Areas: The participatingbureaus and offices propose to surveycustomers in the following generalcategories:

• Authorized public land uses (i.e.,rights-of-way, land managementtransactions, mining, recreation, oil andgas, grazing, wildlife photographers,hunters, and fishers)

• Coal operators• Contractors/venders• Disabled persons and groups

representing disabled persons• Educators/researchers• Environmental groups• Governments representatives (State,

local, and foreign)• Grant recipients• Indian Tribes/Alaskan Natives/

Native Americans• Industry groups (i.e., mining, oil

and gas)

• Insular governments• Interested publics/special interest

groups (i.e., Friends groups for wildliferefuges)

• Law enforcement authorities,custom brokers, and brokers’associations

• Local communities• Private and public land

stakeholders (i.e., hunting, fishing,farming, banking, legal, real estaterepresentatives, and land trustoperators)

• Public information center users• Scientific data users and technical

assistance recipients• State wildlife agencies’

representatives• Taxidermists and falconers• Technical training recipients• Trade organizations• Utilities’ representatives• Visitors/Recreation• Volunteers (past, present,

prospective)• Zoo, aquarium, and botanical

garden stakeholdersThere are 11 topic areas that the

participating bureaus and offices areproposing to voluntarily obtaininformation from their customers andstakeholders. No one survey will coverall the topic areas; rather, this serves asa ‘‘guideline menu’’ from which theagencies would develop their questions.Example(s) of the types of questions thatwould be asked under each topic areprovided. Under the proposed ICR, theagencies could use these specificquestions or develop questions that fitwithin the generally understoodconfines of the topic area. Questionsmay be asked in languages other thanEnglish, i.e., Spanish, whereappropriate.

The surveys could be designed usingone of two generally accepted modes: (a)A statement for which the respondentuses a scaled answer (i.e., stronglyagree, strongly disagree, not applicable,etc., based on a Lichert Scale) or (b) aquestion that asks for a specificresponse (i.e., yes/no, demographics,open-ended improvement question,etc.). For questions that use the Lichertscale and a preset list of options, thedata will be reported in a numericfashion, including average response andpercent favorable. Open-endedquestions will be subjected to a contentanalysis and be reported on accordingly.

1. Communication/information/education:

a. Providing consistent and timelyinformation to the public.

b. Where did you obtain yourinformation about this site?

c. Making it easy for people to findout about proposed changes.



d. Educating people about particularprocesses.

e. Providing accurate, detailed andaffordable maps and brochures.

f. Providing useful web site, signs,publications, and exhibits.

g. Charging an appropriate fee for theinformation/material provided.

h. The information provided waseffective and helpful.

i. Providing quality web-basedinformation.

j. Engaging the public in the planningprocess.

2. Disability accessibility:a. Do you or does someone in your

party have a disability?b. If yes, how well does the agency

make buildings, facilities, and trailsaccessible to people with disabilities?

c. Accessibility to the programs andactivities that address my needs.

3. Facilities:a. Maintaining roads and trails.b. Maintaining a clean recreation site.c. Providing entrance/directional

signs to sites and facilities.d. Providing a facility that is

conducive to meeting specific userneeds.

4. Management practices:a. Responding to issues and problems

in a timely manner.b. Providing access to a supervisor to

resolve the problem.c. Understanding my needs.d. If you could make one

improvement to XXX service, whatwould it be?

5. Resource management:a. Providing reasonable access to

resources.b. The extent to which the natural and

cultural resources are protected.c. Getting public input when

identifying critical areas forconservation.

d. Preserving water resources andhabitat for fish, wildlife, and plants.

6. Rules, regulations, policies:a. Ensuring public awareness of rules

and regulations.b. Ensuring fair and consistent

policies for all users.c. The rules, regulations, and policies

are clear and in plain language.d. Providing adequate protest and

appeal policies to resolve issues anddisputes.

e. Adequately enforcing rules andregulations for all users.

7. Service delivery:a. Providing a single point of contact.b. The staff I interacted with were

courteous and friendly.c. The staff I interacted with were

knowledgeable about the rules andregulations.

d. The staff I interacted with wereable to answer my questions aboutnatural, historic, and cultural resources.

e. The staff listened to and consideredmy ideas.

f. The training I received provided theinformation I needed.

g. The response was timely.8.Technical assistance:a. Provides unbiased scientific and

technical support products and services.b. Reflects reasonable pricing.c. Quality of the execution of the

analysis and interpretation.d. Considered alternative

interpretations.e. Provides useful information.9. Program-specific: These questions

will reflect the specific details of aprogram that pertain to their customerrespondents. The questions will bedeveloped to address very specific and/or technical issues related to theprogram. The questions will be gearedtoward gaining a better understandingabout how to provide specific productsand services as well as the priority thepublic would give to specific programobjectives; they will not ask therespondents for their opinions aboutpolicies.

10. Overall satisfaction:a. Everything considered, how would

you rate your overall satisfaction withthe delivery of XXX program or service?

b. Values my relationship as acustomer.

c. I will contact or visit again forinformation or services.

d. I trust XXX agency to do a good jobperforming XXX mission.

11. General demographics:a. What is your zip code?b. How many times have you used

this service in the previous 12 months?c. How many people are in your

group?d. What activities did you participate

in?e. As part of your recreation in this

site/area, approximately how muchmoney did you spend in the localcommunity/area (e.g. lodging,equipment, food, fuel, maps/books,tours, guides)?

f. What was your total householdincome (before taxes) in 2000 (less than$20,000; $20,000 to $39,999; $40,000 to$59,999; $60,000 to $79,999; $80,000 to$99,999; $100,000 to $119,999; $120,000or more)?

g. What is the highest level ofeducation you have completed (somehigh school or less; high school graduateor GED; business school, trade school,or some college; college graduate; somegraduate school; masters, Ph.D., orprofessional degree)?

h. What is the primary languagespoken at home? (i.e., English, Spanish)

i. In what ethnic group would youplace yourself (Hispanic/Latino or non-Hispanic/Latino)?

j. In what race would you placeyourself (American Indian, Eskimo,Aleut; Asian or Pacific Islander; Blackor African America; White; NativeHawaiian)? Select one or more.

Uses of Data: Chiefly, these data arebeing collected to improve the serviceand products that the participatingbureaus and offices provide to thepublic. Managers and programspecialists use these data to identify:

• Service needs of customers• Strengths and weaknesses of

services• Ideas or suggestions for

improvement of services from ourcustomers

• Barriers to achieving customerservice standards

• Changes to customer servicestandards

• Baselines to measure change inimproving service delivery over time

• Improving public trust ingovernment

They also use this information tosupport all aspects of planning, frombuildings, roads, and interpretiveexhibits, to technical systems. Inconducting their management, planning,and monitoring activities, managers alsouse the information to effectivelyallocate their limited personnel andfinancial resources to the highestpriority elements.

While the information will not beused for regulatory development, DOIanticipates that the informationobtained could lead to reallocation ofresources, revisions in certain agencyprocesses and policies, anddevelopment of guidance related to theagency’s customer services. Ultimately,these changes should result inimprovement in services DOI providesto the public and, in turn, the publicperception of DOI.

In fulfilling the requirements ofGPRA, DOI and all of its bureaus andoffices have created a Strategic Plan incoordination with their respectivepublics. GPRA requires DOI to annuallyreport on its progress toward achievingthe goals outlined in the AnnualPerformance Plan. Some of the datacollected may be used as the basis or insupport of specific performancemeasures.

Frequency: The frequency varies bysurvey.

Estimated Number and Description ofRespondents: See attached ‘‘Table:Customer Types by ParticipatingBureau/Office’’ for list of respondents.This table shows the likely groups thatwould be surveyed by each bureau andoffice but is not intended to limit thebureaus and offices to such groups.



Estimated Annual Reporting andRecordkeeping ‘‘Hour’’ Burden: Weestimate that there are approximately120,000 respondents submitting 120,000responses (surveys and comment cards)annually. The average public reportingburden for a customer survey isestimated to be 15 minutes perrespondent. For comment cards, theaverage public reporting burden isestimated to be 3 minutes per response.Given these estimates, DOI anticipates abudget of 18,000 hours per year forthese proposed collections. We estimate,base on a $15 per hour valuation ofvolunteer time and the projected budgethours, an approximate aggregate cost torespondents of $270,000. Burdenincludes the total time, effort, orfinancial resources expended togenerate, maintain, retain, or disclose orprovide the information, including: (1)Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,acquiring, installing, and utilizingtechnology and systems for purposes ofcollecting, validating, verifying,processing, maintaining, disclosing, andproviding information; (3) adjusting theexisting ways to comply with anypreviously applicable instructions andrequirements; (4) training personnel torespond to a collection of information;(5) searching data sources; (6)completing and reviewing the collectionof information; and (7) transmitting orotherwise disclosing information. Pleasecomment on the accuracy of ourestimates and how DOI’s bureaus andoffices could minimize the burden ofthe collection information, includingthe use of automated techniques.

Estimated Annual Reporting andRecordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour cost’’

Burden: We have identified no ‘‘non-hour costs’’ burdens.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRAprovides that a Federal agency may notconduct or sponsor, and a person is notrequired to respond to, a collection ofinformation unless it displays acurrently valid OMB Control Number.Until OMB approves a collection ofinformation, you are not obligated torespond.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A)requires each agency ‘‘* * * to providenotice * * * and otherwise consultwith members of the public and affectedagencies concerning each proposedcollection of information * * *’’Agencies must specifically solicitcomments to: (a) Evaluate whether theproposed collection of information isnecessary for the agency to perform itsduties, including whether theinformation is useful; (b) evaluate theaccuracy of the agency’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation; (c) enhance the quality,usefulness, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (d)minimize the burden on therespondents, including the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology.Furthermore, we are interested in yourcomments regarding the need for andappropriateness of remuneration/incentives, or other suggestions you mayhave to increase response rates.

To comply with the publicconsultation process, on August 8, 2001,we published a Federal Register Notice(66 FR 41600) announcing that wewould submit this ICR to OMB forapproval. The notice provided the

required 60-day comment period. Nopublic comments were received.

If you wish to comment in responseto this notice, send your commentsdirectly to the offices listed under theADDRESSES section of this notice. OMBhas up to 60 days to approve ordisapprove the information collectionbut may respond after 30 days.Therefore, to ensure maximumconsideration, OMB should receivepublic comments by January 4, 2002.

Public Comment Policy: Our practiceis to make comments, including namesand home addresses of respondents,available for public review duringregular business hours. Individualrespondents may request that wewithhold their home address from therecord, which we will honor to theextent allowable by law. There may becircumstances in which we wouldwithhold from the record a respondent’sidentity, as allowable by law. If you, asa commenter, wish us to withhold yourname and/or address, you must statethis prominently as the beginning ofyour comment. However, we will notconsider anonymous comments. Wewill make all submissions fromorganizations or businesses, and fromindividuals identifying themselves asrepresentatives of organizations orbusinesses, available for publicinspection in their entirety.

DOI Information Collection Contact:Office of Planning and PerformanceManagement (202) 208–1818.

Dated: November 13, 2001.Norma J. Campbell,Director, Office of Planning and PerformanceManagement.

TABLE.—CUSTOMER TYPE BY PARTICIPATING BUREAU/OFFICE

Description BIA BLM BOR FWS Insu-lar Aff MMS OAPM OEP OSM USGS

Authorized public land uses ROW; Land Mgmt trans-actions, min.

x .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

Coal operators .................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... x ..........Contractors/vendors ........... Concessionaires ................. x .......... .......... x .......... .......... x .......... .......... ..........Disabilities .......................... .......... x .......... x .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........Environmental groups ........ .......... x .......... x .......... x .......... .......... .......... xGovernments ...................... State, local, foreign ............ x x x x .......... x .......... .......... .......... xGrant recipients .................. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... x .......... .......... ..........Indian Tribes/Alaskan vil-

lages.x .......... .......... x .......... .......... .......... .......... x x

Industry groups ................... .......... x x x .......... x x .......... .......... xInsular governments ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... x .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........Interested publics ............... Community and specific-in-

terest groups........... .......... x x .......... x .......... .......... x x

Law Enforcement ............... Forensics, importers/export-ers.

.......... .......... .......... x .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

Mining companies .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... xPublic information centers .. .......... x .......... x .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........Scientific data users ........... GIS ..................................... .......... .......... .......... x .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........State governments ............. x x x x .......... x .......... .......... x xState wildlife agencies ........ State biologists ................... x .......... .......... x .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........Universities/Educators ........ .......... .......... x x .......... x x x .......... ..........



TABLE.—CUSTOMER TYPE BY PARTICIPATING BUREAU/OFFICE—Continued

Description BIA BLM BOR FWS Insu-lar Aff MMS OAPM OEP OSM USGS

Utilities ................................ .......... .......... x .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........Visitors/Recreation ............. Visitors to federal land, bird

watcher........... x x x .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

[FR Doc. 01–30029 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–P


Bureau of Reclamation

American River Pump Station Project,Placer County, California

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,Interior.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time forreview of draft environmental impactstatement/environmental impact report(EIS/EIR).

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation(Reclamation) is extending the publicreview period for the Draft EIS/EIR forthe PCWA American River PumpStation Project to December 13, 2001.The notice of availability for the DraftEIS/EIR was published in the FederalRegister on September 13, 2001 (66 FR47685–47686). The public review periodwas originally to end on November 13,2001.

DATES: Public comments on the DraftEIS/EIR should be submitted on orbefore December 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on theDraft EIS/EIR should be addressed toMs. Carol Brown, Surface WaterResources, Inc., 2031 Howe Avenue,Suite 110, Sacramento, California95825. Requests for a printed copy ofthe Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR shouldalso be addressed to Ms. Carol Brown.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foradditional information, contact Mr.Roderick Hall, Reclamation, at (916)989–7279, TDD (916) 980–7285, or e-mail [email protected]; or Mr. BrentSmith, PCWA, at (530) 823–4889, or e-mail at [email protected].


Frank Michny,Regional Environmental Officer.[FR Doc. 01–30095 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADECOMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731–TA–267 and 268(Review) (Remand)]

Top-of-Stove Stainless Steel CookingWare From Korea and Taiwan; Noticeand Scheduling of RemandProceedings

AGENCY: United States InternationalTrade Commission.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. International TradeCommission (the Commission) herebygives notice of the court-ordered remandof its final antidumping investigation inTop-of-Stove Stainless Steel CookingWare from Korea and Taiwan No. 731–TA–267 and 268 (Review).EFFECTIVE DATE: November 29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:George Deyman, Office of Investigations,telephone 202–205–3197 or Laurent deWinter, Office of General Counsel,telephone 202–708–5452, U.S.International Trade Commission.Hearing-impaired individuals areadvised that information on this mattercan be obtained by contacting theCommission’s TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. General informationconcerning the Commission may also beobtained by accessing its Internet server(http://www.usitc.gov).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Reopening of the RecordFor purposes of its determination on

remand, the Commission is reopeningthe record in this investigation for thelimited purpose of (1) seeking basicinformation regarding subject productfrom Taiwan and (2) seeking to cure thepossible inclusion of non-subjectproducts in official import data. TheCommission will provide the parties anopportunity to file comments on anynew information received pertaining tothese subjects. A schedule for thesubmission of such comments will bepublished shortly.

Participation in the ProceedingsOnly those persons who were

interested parties to the originaladministrative proceedings (i.e., personslisted on the Commission Secretary’s

service list) may participate in theseremand proceedings.

Limited Disclosure of BusinessProprietary Information (BPI) Under anAdministrative Protective Order (APO)and BPI Service List

Information obtained during theremand investigation will be released toparties under the administrativeprotective order (‘‘APO’’) in effect in theoriginal investigation. Pursuant tosection 207.7(a) of the Commission’srules, the Secretary will make businessproprietary information gathered in thefinal investigation and this remandinvestigation available to additionalauthorized applicants, that are notcovered under the original APO,provided that the application is madenot later than seven (7) days afterpublication of the Commission’s noticeof reopening the record on remand inthe Federal Register. Applications mustbe filed for persons on the JudicialProtective Order in the related CIT case,but not covered under the original APO.A separate service list will bemaintained by the Secretary for thoseparties authorized to receive BPI underthe APO in this remand investigation.

Authority: This action is taken under theauthority of the Tariff Act of 1930, title VII.

Issued: November 29, 2001.By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–30075 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent DecreePursuant to the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act

In accordance with Departmentalpolicy, notice is hereby given that onNovember 14, 2001, a proposed consentdecree in the case captioned DowChemical Co., et al. v. Acme WreckingCo., Inc., et al., Civil Action Nos. C–1–97–0307, C–1–97–0308, and C–1–01–439 (S.D. Ohio), was lodged with theUnited States District Court for theSouthern District of Ohio. The proposed



de minimis consent decree relates to theSkinner Landfill Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’)in West Chester, Ohio. The proposedconsent decree would resolve civilclaims of the United States for responseactions and for the recovery of responsecosts at the Site under Sections 106 and107(a) of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act, asamended, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607(a),against Sealy, Inc., and Sealy MattressCo. (collectively ‘‘Sealy’’), AcmeWrecking Co., Inc. (‘‘Acme Wrecking’’),and the David Hirschberg Co.(‘‘Hirschberg’’). Under the proposedconsent decree: (1) Sealy would pay theUnited States $23,695, and would paythe parties that are performing the workat the Site (the ‘‘Skinner Landfill SiteGroup’’) $94,780; (2) Acme Wreckingwould pay the United States $14,000and would pay the Skinner Landfill SiteGroup $56,000; and (3) Hirschbergwould pay the United States $3,800, andwould pay the Skinner Landfill SiteGroup $15,200.

The Department of Justice willreceive, for a period of thirty (30) daysfrom the date of this publication,comments relating to the proposedconsent decree. Comments should beaddressed to the Assistant AttorneyGeneral of the Environment and NaturalResource Division, Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C. 20530, andshould refer to Dow Chemical Co. et al.v. Acme Wrecking Co., Inc. et al., CivilAction Nos. C–1–97–0308, and C–1–01–439 (S.D. Ohio), and DOJ Reference No.90–11–3–1620/2.

The proposed consent decree may beexamined at: (1) the Office of the UnitedStates Attorney for the Southern Districtof Ohio, 220 U.S.P.O. & Courthouse, 100E. 5th St., Cincinnati, OH 45202; and (2)the United States EnvironmentProtection Agency (Region 5), 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois60604–3590. Copies of the proposedconsent decrees may be obtained bymail from the Department of JusticeConsent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611,Washington, D.C. 20044. In requestingcopies, please refer to the above-referenced case and DOJ ReferenceNumber and enclose a check for $10.50(42 pages at 25 cents per pagereproduction cost) made payable to theConsent Decree Library.

William D. Brighton,Assistant Section Chief, EnvironmentEnforcement Section, Environment andNatural Resources Division.[FR Doc. 01–30156 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



Notice of Lodging of Consent DecreesPursuant to the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act

In accordance with Department ofJustice policy codified at 28 CFR 50.7and Section 122 of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensationand Liability Act of 1980, as amended(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622, 42 U.S.C.9622, notice is hereby given that onNovember 14, 2001, two proposedconsent decrees in United States v.American Allied Additives, Inc., et al.,No. 00–01014, were lodged with theUnited States District Court for theNorthern District of Ohio. The proposedconsent decrees would settle the UnitedStates’ claims against defendantsRichard Henry and Rauh Rubber, Inc.under CERCLA §§ 106 and 107, 42U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, in connectionwith the American Allied AdditivesSuperfund Site (‘‘Site’’) in Cleveland,Ohio. The proposed consent decree withMr. Henry would also resolve hiscounterclaim against the United Statesfor attorney fees and other expensespursuant to 5 U.S.C. 504.

The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (‘‘EPA’’) incurred unreimbursedcosts of approximately $148,000 inresponding to the release or threatenedrelease of hazardous substances at theSite. Mr. Henry and Rauh Rubber, Inc.are liable for response costs at the Siteas generators of waste disposed thereand are subject to civil penalties fornoncompliance with a UnilateralAdministrative Order issued by EPA forthe performance of an emergencyremoval at the site.

Under the proposed consent decrees,Mr. Henry agrees to pay a total of $2,500($500 for the claim under CERCLASection 106, and $2,000 for the claimunder CERCLA Section 107), and RauhRubber, Inc. agrees to pay a total of$10,000 ($3,000 for the claim underCERCLA Section 106, and $7,000 for theclaim under CERCLA Section 107).Payment is due within thirty (30) daysof entry of the respective consentdecree. Mr. Henry also agrees to dismisswith prejudice his counterclaim againstthe United States. Further, Mr. Henryand Rauh Rubber, Inc. will receive acovenant not to sue and contributionprotection for Site response costs, aswell as a covenant not to sue for civilpenalties for the violations alleged inthe complaint.

For a period of thirty (30) days fromthe date of this publication, theDepartment of Justice will receivecomments related to the proposed

consent decrees. Comments may besubmitted on one or both consentdecrees. Comments should be addressedto the Acting Assistant AttorneyGeneral, Environment and NaturalResources Division, U.S. Department ofJustice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20530, and should referto United States v. American AlliedAdditives, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.00–01014; D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–2–1318.

The consent decrees may be examinedat the Office of the United StatesAttorney, 1800 Bank One Center, 600Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio44114, and at the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region V, 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois60604. Copies of the consent decreesmay also be obtained by mail from theConsent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611,U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,DC 20044. In requesting a copy, pleaseenclose a check in the amount of $5.00for one consent decree (20 pages at 25cents per page reproduction cost), or$10.00 for both consent decrees (40pages at 25 cents per page reproductioncost).

William Brighton,Assistant Section Chief, EnvironmentalEnforcement Section, Environment andNatural Resources Division.[FR Doc. 01–30155 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–15–M


Notice of Lodging of Consent DecreePursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of1990

In accordance with Departmentalpolicy, notice is hereby given that aproposed Consent Decree in UnitedStates v. Equilon Pipeline Company,LLC, et al., (‘‘Settling Defendants’’),Civil Action No. H– 01 3171, waslodged on September 17, 2001, with theUnited States District Court for theSouthern District of Texas.

In this action the United States andthe State of Texas, pursuant to Section1002 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,(‘‘OPA’’), 33 U.S.C. 2702, seek naturalresource damages, including assessmentcosts, arising out of the discharge of oiland gasoline into the navigable watersof the United States and the State ofTexas in the vicinity of the San JacintoRiver on or about October 20, 1994.

The proposed Consent Decreeprovides for the Defendant’s purchase ofabout 100 acres of replacement propertyand payment of $250,000, to be used toconstruct estuarine and freshwaterhabitat. That payment will also produceabout $30,000 for management by the



Trustees of a mixed forest habitatpreservation site to be acquired by theDefendants.

The Department of Justice willreceive, for a period of thirty (30) daysfrom the date of this publication,comments relating to the proposedConsent Decree. Comments should beaddressed to the Assistant AttorneyGeneral for the Environment andNatural Resources Division, P.O. Box7611, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C. 20044–7611,and should refer to United States v.Equilon Pipeline Company, LLC, et al.,DOJ Ref. 90–5–1–1–4376/1.

The proposed Consent Decree may beexamined at the office of the UnitedStates Attorney, Southern District ofTexas, 911 Travis Street, Suite 1500,Houston, Texas 77208. A copy of theConsent Decree may also be obtained bymail from the Consent Decree Library,P.O. Box 7611, United StatesDepartment of Justice, Washington, D.C.20044–7611. In requesting a copy pleaserefer to the referenced case and enclosea check in the amount of $6.50 (25 centsper page reproduction costs), payable tothe Consent Decree Library.

Tom Mariani,Assistant Section Chief, EnvironmentalEnforcement Section, Environment andNatural Resources Division.[FR Doc. 01–30157 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–15–M


Notice of Lodging Proposed ConsentDecree

In accordance with DepartmentalPolicy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is herebygiven that a proposed consent decree inUnited States v. Gallo Glass Company,Civil Action No. C 01 3350 JL, (N.D.Cal.), was lodged with the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern Districtof California on November 8, 2001. Thisproposed Consent Decree concerns acomplaint filed by the United Statesagainst Gallo Glass Company and JackNeal and Son, Inc., pursuant to sections301(a) and 404 of the Clean Water Act,33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1344 and imposescivil penalties against the Defendantsfor the excavation and deep ripping of260 acres of wetlands and depositing fillmaterial into approximately 12.5 acresof drainage, swales, and creeks inwetlands adjacent to Washoe Creek, atributary to the Laguna de Santa RosaCreek and Russian River, located onStoney Point, near Cotati, SonomaCounty, California. Defendants alsocleared vegetation, woody debris, andplaced large boulders/rip-rap on

approximately 1000 linear feet of PorterCreek in Twin Valley, near Windsor, inSonoma County.

The proposed Consent Decreerequires the payment of civil penaltiesin the amount of $95,000 and prohibitsthe discharge of pollutants into thewaters of the United States. In additionto the civil penalty, the Consent Decreerequires Defendants, at their ownexpense and subject to approval by theCorps, to provide compensatorymitigation for the filled drainage, swalesand creeks in accordance with theapproved Mitigation Plan.

The Department of Justice will acceptwritten comments relating to thisproposed Consent Decree for thirty (30)days from the date of publication of thisnotice. Please address comments toCharles O’Connor, United StatesAttorney’s Office, 450 Golden Gate Ave.,16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102and refer to United States v. Gallo GlassCo.

The proposed Consent Decree may beexamined at the Clerk’s Office, UnitedStates District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, 450 Golden GateAve., 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA94102.

Stephen Samuels,Assistant Section Chief, EnvironmentalDefense Section, Environment and NaturalResources Division.[FR Doc. 01–30154 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–15–M


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Notice is hereby given that a proposedConsent Decree with C & A Diary inUnited States v. Calvin and AnnetteVanDerVeen, No. 00–1159–KI, waslodged on November 15, 2001, with theUnited States District Court for theDistrict of Oregon.

The proposed Consent Decree wouldresolve a lawsuit filed by the UnitedStates against Defendants in the UnitedStates District Court for the District ofOregon on August 22, 2000. Thecomplaint alleged that Defendants haddischarged manure from the C & ADairy, in McMinnville, Oregon, into acreek on at least four occasions betweenMarch 1998 and April 2000, in violationof sections 309(b) and (d) of the CleanWater Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) & (d); thecomplaint also alleged that Defendantshad failed to comply with a 1998 EPAadministrative order to ceasedischarging and to prepare a correctiveaction plan. The proposed ConsentDecree provides for the payment of a

$1,000 civil penalty and contains aprohibition against future discharges.

The Department of Justice willreceive, for a period of thirty (30) daysfrom the date of this publication,comments relating to the proposedConsent Decree. Comments should beaddressed to the Assistant AttorneyGeneral for the Environment andNatural Resources Division, Departmentof Justice, Washington, DC 20530, andshould refer to United States v. Calvinand Annette VanDerVeen, DOJ Ref.#90–5–1–1–06963.

The proposed Consent Decree may beexamined at the office of the UnitedStates Attorney, 1000 SW. 3rd Avenue,Suite 600, U.S. Courthouse, Portland,Oregon 97204; the Region 10 office ofthe Environmental Protection Agency,1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.A copy of the consent decree can beobtained by mail from the Departmentof Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O.Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. Inrequesting a copy refer to the referencedcase and enclose a check in the amountof $3.25 (25 cents per page reproductioncosts), payable to the Consent DecreeLibrary.

Robert Maher,Assistant Section Chief, EnvironmentalEnforcement Section.[FR Doc. 01–30153 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–15–M


[AAG/A Order No. 251–2001]

Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of theRemoval of a System of Records

Pursuant to the provisions of thePrivacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), theOffice of Intelligence Policy and Review(OIPR), Department of Justice isremoving a published Privacy Actsystem of records entitled ‘‘DomesticSecurity/Terrorism InvestigationsRecords System (JUSTICE/OIPR–004).’’This system notice was last published inthe Federal Register on January 26,1984 (49 CFR 3285).

JUSTICE/OIPR–004 is being removedbecause the records are not (nor havethey ever been) retrieved by individualnames or other personal identifiers. Therecords were filed and retrieved byentity/organization. Accordingly, thereis no statutory requirement to publish asystem notice, and the DomesticSecurity/Terrorism InvestigationsRecords System notice is removed fromthe Department’s compilation of PrivacyAct systems. The Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigation function wastransferred from OIPR to the Criminal



Division in 1995. The OIPR’s remainingrecords have been sent to the NationalArchives and Records Administration.

Dated: November 13, 2001.Janis A. Sposato,Acting Assistant Attorney General forAdministration.[FR Doc. 01–30158 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–AW–M


Antitrust Division

United States et al. v. WasteManagement, Inc. et al.; Joint MotionTo Modify Final Judgment

Notice is hereby given that a JointMotion to Modify the Final Judgmentwas filed with the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of NewYork in United States et al. v. WasteManagement, Inc. et al., Civil No. 98 CV7168 on October 23, 2001. TheComplaint alleged that WasteManagement’s proposed acquisitionEastern Environmental Services, Inc.would violate Section 7 of the ClaytonAct, 15 U.S.C. 18, by substantiallylessening competition in wastecollection and/or disposal in ninemarkets around the country. The FinalJudgment in the case required, amongother things, that Waste Managementdivest Eastern’s Kelly Run landfilllocated in Elizabeth, Pennsylvania.

A Competitive Impact Statement filedby the United States describes theComplaint, the Final Judgment, theindustry, and remedies to beimplemented by Waste Management.The Joint Motion to Modify the FinalJudgment seeks an Order from the Courtthat Waste Management shall have noobligation under the Final Judgment todivest the Kelly Run landfill. Copies ofthe Complaint, Hold SeparateStipulation and Order, Final Judgment,Competitive Impact Statement, and theJoint Motion to Modify the FinalJudgment are available for inspection inRoom 215 of the U.S. Department ofJustice, Antitrust Division, 325 7thStreet, NW, Washington, DC, and at theoffice of the Clerk of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District ofNew York, Brooklyn, New York. Copiesof any of these materials may beobtained upon request and payment ofa copying fee.

Public comment is invited within thestatutory 60-day comment period. Suchcomments and response thereto will bepublished in the Federal Register andfiled with the Court. Comments shouldbe directed to J. Robert Kramer II, Chief,Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division,

United States Department of Justice,1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000,Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–307–0924).

Constance K. Robinson,Director of Operations, and MergerEnforcement.[FR Doc. 01–30159 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–11–M


Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the NationalCooperative Research and ProductionAct of 1993—The Frame Relay Forum

Notice is hereby given that, onOctober 5, 2001, pursuant to Section6(a) of the National CooperativeResearch and Production Act of 1993,15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), TheFrame Relay Forum has filed writtennotifications simultaneously with theAttorney General and the Federal TradeCommission disclosing changes in itsmembership status. The notificationswere filed for the purpose of extendingthe Act’s provisions limiting therecovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actualdamages under specified circumstances.Specifically, 3Com Corporation, SanJose, CA; Avantel S.A., Cuajimalpa,Distrito Federal, Mexico; BRECISCommunications, San Jose, CA;Cabletron Systems, Rochester, NH;Caspian Systems, San Jose, CA; C–Dot,New Delhi, India; Comnet IletismHizmetleri, Istanbul, Turkey; CrosskeysSystems Corporation, Kanata, Ontario,Canada; CS Telecom, Fontenay auxRoses, France; Develcon Electronics,Toronto, Ontario, Canada; EICONTechnology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada;ENERGIS Communications, Ltd.,London, United Kingdom; EnnovateNetworks, Boxboro, MA; ExpandNetworks, Langhorne, PA; FujitsuNexion, Acton, MA; GN Nettest,Markham, Ontario, Canada; Hypercom,Inc., Phoenix, AZ; IIR Limited, London,United Kingdom; InComA, Ltd.,Moscow, Russia; InfinitecCommunications, Tulsa, OK; InstitutERIS, Massy, France; Intertek TestingServices, Lexington, KY; JTEC PTY Ltd.,Meadowbank, NSW, Australia;Krawutschke Consulting andManagement, Durmersheim, Germany;Motorola, Mississuaga, Ontario,CANADA; NetPlane, Dedham, MA;NetScout, Westford, MA; Next LevelCommunications, Rohnert Park, CA;Northgate-Cyberzone, Manila,Philippines; Norweb Telecon,Manchester, United Kingdom; Omnico,Fort Lauderdale, FL; Science Dynamics

Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ; SiemensAG, Munich, Germany; Sitara Networks,Waltham, MA; Spider Software Limited,Edinburgh, United Kingdom; SyncResearch, Irvine, CA; Trillium DigitalSystems, Inc., Los Angeles, CA; TTC,Germantown, MD; University of Hawaii,Honolulu, HI; and VerizonCommunications, Boston, MA havebeen dropped as parties to this ventrue.The following members have beeninvolved in acquisitions: ClarentCorporation, Redwood City, CAacquired ACT Networks, Brossard,Quebec, Canada; Global One, Paris,France acquire France Telecom, Issy desMeaux, France; Equant, Reston, VAacquired Global One, Reston, VA; andQwest Communications International,Denver, CO acquired US West, Denver,CO. The following members havechanged their names: FlukeCorporation, Everett, WA to FlukeNetworks, Inc., Everett, WA; and H3Comm. Consultancy, Felixstowe, UnitedKingdom to Accent-on-Networks,Felixstowe, United Kingdom.

No other changes have been made ineither the membership or plannedactivity of the group research project.Membership in this group researchproject remains open, and The FrameRelay Forum intends to file additionalwritten notification disclosing allchanges in membership.

On April 10, 1992, The Frame RelayForum filed its original notificationpursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. TheDepartment of Justice published a noticein the Federal Register pursuant toSection 6(b) of the Act on July 2, 1992(57 FR 29537).

The last notification was filed withthe Department on April 27, 2000. Anotice was published in the FederalRegister pursuant to Section 6(b) of theAct on August 9, 2000 (65 FR 48736).

Constance K. Robinson,Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.[FR Doc. 01–30160 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–11–M


Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the NationalCooperative Research and ProductionAct of 1993—IMS Global LearningConsortium, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, onOctober 11, 2001, pursuant to Section6(a) of the National CooperativeResearch and Production Act of 1993,15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), IMSGlobal Learning Consortium, Inc. hasfiled written notifications



simultaneously with the AttorneyGeneral and the Federal TradeCommission disclosing changes in itsmembership status. The notificationswere filed for the purpose of extendingthe Act’s provisions limiting therecovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actualdamages under specified circumstances.Specifically, Advanced DistributedLearning Co-Laboratories, Alexandria,VA; British EducationalCommunications and TechnologyAgency (Becta), Coventry, England,United Kingdom; Can Studios Ltd.,Sheffield, England, United Kingdom;Docent, Inc., Mountain View, CA; EpicGroup Plc, Brighton, England, UnitedKingdom; Learning Objects Networks,Inc., Waitsfield, VT; University ofWisconsin System, Madison, WI;NYUOnline, Inc., New York, NY; andScottish Ufl Ltd., Glasgow, Scotland,United Kingdom have been added asparties to this venture.

No other changes have been made ineither the membership or plannedactivity of the group research project.Membership in this group researchproject remains open, and IMS GlobalLearning Consortium, Inc. intends to fileadditional written notificationdisclosing all changes in membership.

On April 7, 2000, IMS GlobalLearning Consortium, Inc. filed itsoriginal notification pursuant to Section6(a) of the Act. The Department ofJustice published a notice in the FederalRegister pursuant to Section 6(b) of theAct on September 13, 2000 (65 FR55283).

The last notification was filed withthe Department on July 18, 2001. Anotice was published in the FederalRegister pursuant to Section 6(b) of theAct on August 15, 2001 (66 FR 42877).



Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the NationalCooperative Research and ProductionAct of 1993—New ProductivityInitiative, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, onOctober 4, 2001, pursuant to Section6(a) of the National CooperativeResearch and Production Act of 1993,15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), NewProductivity Initiative, Inc. has filedwritten notifications simultaneouslywith the Attorney General and theFederal Trade Commission disclosing

(1) the identities of the parties and (2)the nature and objectives of the venture.The notifications were filed for thepurpose of invoking the Act’s provisionslimiting the recovery of antitrustplaintiffs to actual damages underspecified circumstances. Pursuant toSection 6(b) of the Act, the identities ofthe parties are Platform Computing, Inc.,Markham, Ontario, CANADA; andHewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA. Thenature and objectives of the venture are(a) to promote the development andadoption of open, accessiblespecifications and standards relating toDistributed Resource Management(DRM) tools (‘‘Specifications’’); (b) topromote such specifications andsolutions worldwide to ensure theability for application developers tocreate soft- and hard-real-timeapplications for such technologies; toprovide for testing and conformityassessment of implementations in orderto ensure compliance withSpecifications; (c) to create and owndistinctive trademarks; (d) to operate abranding program based upondistinctive trademarks to create highcustomer awareness of, demand for, andconfidence in products designed incompliance with Specifications; and (e)to undertake such other activities asmay from time to time be appropriate tofurther the purposes and achieve thegoals set forth above.



Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the NationalCooperative Research and ProductionAct of 1993—Petroleum EnvironmentalResearch Forum (‘‘PERF’’)

Notice is hereby given that, onNovember 5, 2001, pursuant to section6(a) of the National CooperativeResearch and Production Act of 1993,15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),Petroleum Environmental ResearchForum (‘‘PERF’’) has filed writtennotifications simultaneously with theAttorney General and the Federal TradeCommission disclosing changes in itsmembership status. The notificationswere filed for the purpose of extendingthe Act’s provisions limiting therecovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actualdamages under specified circumstances.Specifically, Petrobras/Cenpes, Rio deJaneiro, BRAZIL has been added as aparty to this venture.

No other changes have been made ineither the membership or plannedactivity of the group research project.Membership in this group researchproject remains open, and PetroleumEnvironmental Research Forum(‘‘PERF’’) intends to file additionalwritten notification disclosing allchanges in membership.

On February 10, 1986, PetroleumEnvironmental Research Forum(‘‘PERF’’) filed its original notificationpursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. TheDepartment of Justice published a noticein the Federal Register pursuant tosection 6(b) of the Act on March 14,1986 (51 FR 8903).

The last notification was filed withthe Department on March 20, 2001. Anotice was published in the FederalRegister pursuant to section 6(b) of theAct on May 23, 2001 (66 FR 28547).



Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the NationalCooperative Research and ProductionAct of 1993—VSI Alliance

Notice is hereby given that, onOctober 12, 2001, pursuant to section6(a) of the National CooperativeResearch and Production Act of 1993,15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), VSIAlliance has filed written notificationssimultaneously with the AttorneyGeneral and the Federal TradeCommission disclosing changes in itsmembership status. The notificationswere filed for the purpose of extendingthe Act’s provisions limiting therecovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actualdamages under specified circumstances.Specifically, Cogency Semiconductor,Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ElixentLimited, Bristol, Avon, England, UnitedKingdom; FZI—ForschungszentrumInformatik an der Universitat,Karlshruhe, Germany; HGS Engineering,Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; Sammy Makar(individual member), Fremont, CA;Monterey Design Systems, Sunnyvale,CA; Semifore Technologies, Irvine, CA;SIPAC, Toejon, Republic of Korea; andVector 12 Corporation, Richmond,British Columbia, Canada have beenadded as parties to this venture. Also,Aristo Technology, Cupertino, CA;Element 14, Inc., Cambridge, England,United Kingdom; EnThink, Inc., SantaClara, CA; Fincitec Oy, Oulu, Finland;Schlumberger Technologies, Inc., San



Jose, CA; Simutech, San Jose, CA; andUniversite Pierre et Marie Curie(UPMC), Paris, France have beendropped as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made ineither the membership or plannedactivity of the group research project.Membership in this group researchproject remains open, and VSI Allianceintends to file additional writtennotification disclosing all changes inmembership.

On November 29, 1996, VSI Alliancefiled its original notification pursuant tosection 6(a) of the Act. The Departmentof Justice published a notice in theFederal Register pursuant to Section6(b) of the Act on March 4, 1997 (62 FR9812).

The last notification was filed withthe Department on July 5, 2001. Anotice was published in the FederalRegister pursuant to section 6(b) of theAct on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 39337).



Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to The NationalCooperative Research and ProductionAct of 1993—Portland CementAssociation

Notice is hereby given that, onOctober 16, 2001, pursuant to Section6(a) of the National CooperativeResearch and Production Act of 1993,15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),Portland Cement Association (‘‘PCA’’)has filed written notificationssimultaneously with the AttorneyGeneral and the Federal TradeCommission disclosing changes in itsmembership status. The notificationswere filed for the purpose of extendingthe Act’s provisions limiting therecovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actualdamages under specified circumstances.Specifically, CSR Rinker Materials, WestPalm Beach, FL has changed its name toRinker Materials Corporation; BlueCircle Canada, Detroit, MI has changedits name to St. Marys Cement (U.S.);Blue Circle Canada, Toronto, Ontario,Canada has changed its name to St.Marys Cement (Canada); LafargeCorporation, Herndon, VA has changedits name to Lafarge North America Inc.;and Rio Grande Portland Cement,Albuquerque, NM has changed its nameto GCC Rio Grande. Also, Blue Circle,Marietta, GA is no longer a party to thisventure.

No other changes have been made ineither the membership or plannedactivity of the group research project.Membership in this group researchproject remains open, and PCA intendsto file additional written notificationdisclosing all changes in membership.

On January 7, 1985, PCA filed itsoriginal notification pursuant to Section6(a) of the Act. The Department ofJustice published a notice in the FederalRegister pursuant to Section 6(b) of theAct of February 5, 1985 (50 FR 5015).

The last notification was filed withthe Department on July 25, 2001. Anotice was published in the FederalRegister pursuant to section 6(b) of theAct on September 25, 2001 (66 FR49044).

Constance K. Robinson,Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.[FR Doc. 01–30163 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the NationalCooperative Research and ProductionAct of 1993—Zyvex Corporation—Advanced Technology Program,National Institute of Standards andTechnology (‘‘Zyvex Corporation’’)

Notice is hereby given that, onOctober 15, 2001, pursuant to section6(a) of the National CooperativeResearch and Production Act of 1993,15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),Zyvex Corporation—AdvancedTechnology Program, National Instituteof Standards and Technology (‘‘ZyvexCorporation’’) has filed writtennotifications simultaneously with theAttorney General and the Federal TradeCommission disclosing (1) the identitiesof the parties and (2) the nature andobjectives of the venture. Thenotifications were filed for the purposeof involving the Act’s provisionslimiting the recovery of antitrustplaintiffs to actual damages underspecified circumstances. Pursuant tosection 6(b) of the Act, the identities ofthe parties are Zyvex Corporation,Richardson, TX; and Standard MEMS,Inc., Burlington, MA. The nature andobjectives of the venture are to developand demonstrate low-cost, computercontrolled, microscale components,with extension of this technology to

nanoscale assemblers for thecommercialization of nanotechnology.



Parole Commission

Public Announcement; Sunshine ActMeeting; Pursuant to The Governmentin the Sunshine Act (Public Law 94–409) (5 U.S.C. Section 552b)

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: ParoleCommission, Department of Justice.DATE AND TIME: 10:30 a.m., Thursday,December 6, 2001.PLACE: U.S. Parole Commission, 5550Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, ChevyChase, Maryland 20815.STATUS: Closed—Meeting.MATTERS CONSIDERED: The followingmatter will be considered during theclosed portion of the Commission’sBusiness Meeting:

Appeals to the Commission involvingapproximately two cases decided by theNational Commissioners pursuant to areference under 28 CFR 2.27. Thesecases were originally heard by anexaminer panel wherein inmates of theFederal prisons have applied for paroleand are contesting revocation of paroleor mandatory release.AGENCY CONTACT: Sam Robertson, CaseOperations, United States ParoleCommission, (301) 492–5962.

Dated: November 30, 2001.Rockne Chickinell,General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.[FR Doc. 01–30236 Filed 12–3–01; 10:57 am]BILLING CODE 4410–31–M


Parole Commission

Public Announcement; Sunshine ActMeeting; Pursuant to The Governmentin the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94–409) (5U.S.C. Section 552b).

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Department ofJustice, United States ParoleCommission.TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Thursday,December 6, 2001.PLACE: 5550 Friendship Blvd., FourthFloor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.STATUS: Open.MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Thefollowing matters have been placed on



the agenda for the open ParoleCommission meeting:

1. Approval of minutes of PreviousCommission Meeting.

2. Reports from the Chairman,Commissioners, Legal, Chief of Staff,Case Operations, and AdministrativeSections.

3. Approval of policy to apply 28 CFR§ 2.100 to combine initial hearings forDC prisoners with dispositionalrevocation hearings.AGENCY CONTACT: Sam Robertson, CaseOperations, United States ParoleCommission, (301) 492–5962.

Dated: November 30, 2001.Rockne Chickinell,General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.[FR Doc. 01–30242 Filed 12–3–01; 11:12 am]BILLING CODE 4410–31–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and TrainingAdministration

[TA–W–38,593 and NAFTA–04454]

Innovative Home Products, Inc.Birmingham, Michigan; 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 atInnovative Home Products, Inc.,Birmingham, Michigan. The applicationcontained no new substantialinformation which would bearimportantly on the Department’sdetermination. Therefore, dismissal ofthe application was issued.TA–W–38,593 and NAFTA–04454;

Innovative Home Products, Inc.,Birmingham, Michigan, (November 27,2001)

Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day ofNovember, 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–30070 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Notice of Determinations RegardingEligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance and NAFTATransitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presentssummaries of determinations regardingeligibility to apply for trade adjustmentassistance for workers (TA–W) issuedduring the period of November, 2001.

In order for an affirmativedetermination to be made and acertification of eligibility to apply forworker adjustment assistance to beissued, each of the group eligibilityrequirements of section 222 of the Actmust be met.

(1) That a significant number orproportion of the workers in theworkers’ firm, or an appropriatesubdivision thereof, have become totallyor partially separated,

(2) That sales or production, or both,of the firm or sub-division havedecreased absolutely, and

(3) That increases of imports ofarticles like or directly competitive witharticles produced by the firm orappropriate subdivision havecontributed importantly to theseparations, or threat thereof, and to theabsolute decline in sales or production.

Negative Determinations for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases theinvestigation revealed that criterion (3)has not been met. A survey of customersindicated that increased imports did notcontribute importantly to workerseparations at the firm.TA–W–39,242; Osram Sylvania

Products, Inc., Glass TechnologiesDiv., Wellsboro, PA

TA–W–39,609; Valeo Engine Cooling,Inc., Jamestown, NY

TA–W–39,711; L & N MetallurgicalProducts Co., Ellwood City, PA

TA–W–39,762; Edinboro Molding, Inc.,Edinboro, PA

TA–W–40,179; Ruppe Hosiery, Inc.,Kings Mountain, NC

TA–W–40,113; Kings Mountain HosieryMill, Inc., Kings Mountain, NC

In the following cases, theinvestigation revealed that the criteriafor eligibility have not been met for thereasons specified.

Increased imports did not contributeimportantly to worker separations at thefirm.TA–W–40,055; GFC Fabricating, LLC,

Berwick, PATA–W–39,273; United States Steel LLC,

Fairless Hills, PAAll workers of United States Steel

LLC, Fairless Hills, PA engaged inemployment related to the production oftin mill products are denied.

Affirmative Determinations for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

The following certifications have beenissued; the date following the company

name and location of eachdetermination references the impactdate for all workers of suchdetermination.TA–W–39,071; H.H. Fessler Knitting Co.,

Crown-Globe Div., Shoemakersville,PA: April 6, 2000.

TA–W–39,633; Gamco ManufacturingCo., Inc., Jamestown, TN: June 29,2000.

TA–W–39,902; Suncook Trim Corp.,Allenstown, NH: August 16, 2000.

TA–W–40,203; Hamrick’s, Inc., St.Matthews Plant, St. Matthews, SC:September 27, 2000.

TA–W–40,231; Weiser Lock, Tucson,AZ: December 29, 2001.

TA–W–40,189; Philadelphia GlassBending Co., Philadelphia, PA:September 10, 2001

TA–W–39,788; Lancer Partnership, Ltd.,Screw Machine Department, SanAntonio, TX: July 31, 2000.

Also, 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 as amended, theDepartment of Labor presentssummaries of determinations regardingeligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAAissued during the month of November,2001.

In order for an affirmativedetermination to be made and acertification of eligibility to apply forNAFTA–TAA the following groupeligibility requirements of section 250 ofthe Trade Act must be met:

(1) That a significant number orproportion of the workers in theworkers’ firm, or an appropriatesubdivision thereof, (including workersin any agricultural firm or appropriatesubdivision thereof) have become totallyor partially separated from employmentand either—

(2) That sales or production, or both,of such firm or subdivision havedecreased absolutely,

(3) That imports from Mexico orCanada of articles like or directlycompetitive with articles produced bysuch firm or subdivision have increased,and that the increases importscontributed importantly to suchworkers’ separations or threat ofseparation and to the decline in sales orproduction of such firm or subdivision;or

(4) That there has been a shift inproduction by such workers’ firm orsubdivision to Mexico or Canada ofarticles like or directly competitive witharticles which are produced by the firmor subdivision.



Negative Determinations NAFTA–TAA

In each of the following cases theinvestigation revealed that criteria (3)and (4) were not met. Imports fromCanada or Mexico did not contributeimportantly to workers’ separations.There was no shift in production fromthe subject firm to Canada or Mexicoduring the relevant period.NAFTA–TAA–05183; Cognis Corp., Lock

Haven, PANAFTA–TAA–05448; Kings Mountain

Hosiery Mills, Inc., Kings Mountain,NC

NAFTA–TAA–05102; General Mills,Carlisle, PA

NAFTA–TAA–05316; GFC Fabricating,LLC, Berwick, PA

NAFTA–TAA–05202; General CableCorp., Montoursville, PA

NAFTA–TAA–05229; Edinboro Molding,Inc., Edinboro, PA

NAFTA–TAA–05161; GreenbrierLeasing Corp., Gunderson, Inc.,Lake Oswego, OR

NAFTA–TAA–05106; L.E. Smith GlassCo., Mount Pleasant, PA

NAFTA–TAA–04684; Crane Pumps andSystems, Piqua, OH

NAFTA–TAA–05158; Valeo EngineCooling, Inc., Jamestown, NY

NAFTA–TAA–04750; H.H. FesslerKnitting Co., Crown-Globe Div.,Shoemakersville, PA

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–TAA

NAFTA–TAA–05296; Parker HannifinCorp., Integrated Hydraulics Div.,Lincolnshire, IL: August 17, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04840; Osram SylvaniaProducts, Inc., Glass TechnologiesDiv., Wellsboro, PA: May 1, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05057; GamcoManufacturing Co., Inc.,Jamestown, TN: July 9, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05447; VF Imagewear(West), Inc., Mathiston, MS: October16, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04636; Freightliner LLC,Truck Manufacturing Plant,Portland, OR: March 9, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05383; Hamrick’s, Inc.,St. Matthews Plant, St. Matthews,SC: September 27, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05329; Emerson ProcessManagement, Regulator Div.,McKinney, TX: September 11, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05442; Weiser Lock,Tucson, AZ: December 29, 2001.

I hereby certify that theaforementioned determinations wereissued during the month of November,2001. Copies of these determinations areavailable for inspection in Room C–5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,DC 20210 during normal business hours

or will be mailed to persons who writeto the above address.

Dated: November 26, 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–30055 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,029]

Atofina Chemicals, Inc. IncludingContract Workers of WashoreMechanical and Blessing Electric,Portland, Oregon; AmendedCertification Regarding Eligibility ToApply for Worker AdjustmentAssistance

In accordance with section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance on June19, 2001, applicable to workers ofAtofina Chemicals, Inc., Portland,Oregon. The notice was published in theFederal Register on July 5, 2001 (66 FR35463).

At the request of the State agency, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm.Information provided by the State andthe company shows that employees ofWashore Mechanical and BlessingElectric were employed by AtofinaChemicals, Inc. to repair chlorine andchlorate cells, perform pipemaintenance and installation duties andmaintain and install high voltageelectric systems necessary to producechloralkali chemicals at the Portland,Oregon location of the subject firm.

Worker separations occurred atWashore Mechanical and BlessingElectric as a result of worker separationsat Atofina Chemicals, Inc., Portland,Oregon.

Based on these findings, theDepartment is amending thecertification to include workers ofWashore Mechanical and BlessingElectric employed at Atofina Chemicals,Inc., Portland, Oregon.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofAtofina Chemicals, Inc., Portland,Oregon who were adversely affected byincreased imports.

The amended notice applicable toTA–W–39–029 is hereby issued asfollows:

All workers of Atofina Chemicals, Inc.,Portland, Oregon and all workers of Washore

Mechanical and Blessing Electric, Portland,Oregon engaged in activities related to theproduction of chloralkali chemicals atAtofina Chemicals, Inc., Portland, Oregon,who became totally or partially separatedfrom employment on or after April 4, 2000,through June 19, 2003, are eligible to applyfor adjustment assistance under Section 223of the Trade Act of 1974.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,900]

Borg Warner Air/Fluid SystemsCorporation, Water Quality Valley, MS;Notice of Negative Determination onReconsideration

On October 29, 2001, the Departmentissued an Affirmative DeterminationRegarding Application forReconsideration for the workers andformer workers of the subject firm. Thenotice will soon be published in theFederal Register.

The Department initially denied TAAto workers of Borg Warner Air/FluidSystems Corporation, Water Valley,Mississippi based on criterion (2) of thegroup eligibility requirements of section222 of the Trade Act of 1974, asamended, not being met. The workers atthe subject firm were engaged inemployment related to the production oftransmission control solenoids,transmission control modules, throttlebodies, and air suspension controlsolenoids.

The petitioner indicated that theDepartment of Labor reviewed thewrong sales and production period. Thepetitioner also indicated that the layoffspertaining to the original investigationwere the direct result of anticipatedreduced orders from the subject firm’smajor customer. The petitioner furtherindicated that increased imports ofautomobiles reduced the demand for thecustomers’ products and in turn thecustomer reduced their purchases fromthe subject plant.

The Department, upon the request ofthe petitioner, acquired additionalsubject plant sales and production datafor an additional portion of the relevantperiod. That data were not availableduring the initial investigation. Theadditional data obtained from the



company depict increases in plant salesand production.

The petitioner’s statement regardingreduced orders by their major customeris not relevant unless declines in salesand production occur during the periodof the investigation. Since plant salesand production increased during thescope of the initial investigation,criterion 2 of the group eligibilityrequirement was not met. If theseconditions changed since the initialdecision, the petitioners are encouragedto reapply for TAA group eligibility.

The petitioner’s statements thatincreased import competition ofautomobiles may have impacted thecustomer of the subject firm is not arelevant factor to the petition that wasfiled on behalf of workers producingcomponents for automobiles at thesubject plant. The products importedmust be like and directly competitivewith those products produced at thesubject firm to meet the ‘‘contributedimportantly’’ criterion.

Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm theoriginal notice of negativedetermination of eligibility to apply forworker adjustment assistance forworkers and former workers of BorgWarner Air/Fluid Systems Corporation,Water Valley, Mississippi.

Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day ofNovember 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–30065 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,326]

Chiquola Fabrics, LLC, Kingsport,Tennessee; Notice of Termination ofInvestigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the TradeAct of 1974, an investigation wasinitiated on May 29, 2001 in response toa petition filed by a company official onthe same date on behalf of workers atChiquola Fabrics, LLC, Kingsport,Tennessee. Chiquola Fabrics, LLCpurchased JPS Converter and IndustrialCorporation, Borden Plant, Kingsport,Tennessee, whose workers werecertified eligible to apply for TradeAdjustment Assistance (TA–W36,891).That certification has been amended toencompass workers at the same facility

employed by Chiquola Fabrics, LLC,Kingsport, Tennessee.

The petitioner in this case hasrequested that the petition bewithdrawn. Consequently, furtherinvestigation in this case would serveno purpose, and the investigation hasbeen terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 26th day ofNovember, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–30071 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,068]

Elizabeth Webbing, Inc., Central Falls,Rhode Island; Notice of AffirmativeDetermination Regarding Applicationfor Reconsideration

By letter of August 1, 2001, theworkers requested administrativereconsideration of the Department ofLabor’s Notice of NegativeDetermination Regarding Eligibility toApply for Worker AdjustmentAssistance, petition TA–W–39,068. Thedenial notice was signed on June 25,2001 and published in the FederalRegister on July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36329).

The Department has reviewed therequest for reconsideration and hasdetermined that further survey of majordeclining customers of the subject firmwould be appropriate.

Conclusion

After careful review of theapplication, I conclude that the claim isof sufficient weight to justifyreconsideration of the Department ofLabor’s prior decision. The applicationis, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day ofNovember, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–30058 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,666]

International Wire Insulated, ElkmontExtrusion, Elkmont, Alabama; Noticeof Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the TradeAct of 1974, an investigation wasinitiated on July 23, 2001 in response toa petition filed by a company official onbehalf of workers at International WireInsulated, Elkmont Extrusion, Elkmont,Alabama.

This case is being terminated uponthe petitioner’s request to withdraw thepetition. Consequently, furtherinvestigation in this case would serveno purpose, and the investigation hasbeen terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day ofNovember 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–30072 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,560]

ISB Fashion, Inc., New York, New York;Amended Certification RegardedEligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

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 August 29, 2001,applicable to workers of ISB Fashion,Inc., New York, New York. The noticewas published in the Federal Registeron September 11, 2001 (66 FR 47241).

At the request of the State agency, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers were engaged in the productionof women’s dresses. Findings show thatthe Department incorrectly set theworker certification impact date at June21, 2001. The impact date should beJune 21, 2000, one year prior to the dateof the petition.

Accordingly, the Department isamending the certification to properlyreflect this matter.

The amended notice applicable toTA–W–39,560 is hereby issued asfollows:



All workers of ISB Fashion, Inc., NewYork, New York who became totally orpartially separated from employment on orafter June 21, 2000, through August 29, 2003,are eligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–40,056]

Joint Venture Tool and Mold, LLCSaegertown, Pennsylvania; Notice ofTermination of Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the TradeAct of 1974, an investigation wasinitiated on September 17, 2001, inresponse to a company petition whichwas filed by the company on behalf ofworkers at Joint Venture Tool and Mold,Inc., Saegertown, Pennsylvania.

The petitioner has requested that thepetition be withdrawn. Consequently,further investigation in this case wouldserve no purpose, and the investigationhas been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 26th day ofNovember, 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–30073 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–36,891]

JPS Converter and Industrial Corp., aSubsidiary of JPS Textile, Inc., BordenPlant, Now Known as ChiquolaFabrics, LLC, Kingsport, Tennessee;Amended Certification RegardingEligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

In accordance with section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance onOctober 28, 1999, applicable to workersof JPS Converter and Industrial Corp., aSubsidiary of JPS Textile Group, Inc.,Borden Plant, Kingsport, Tennessee.

The notice was published in the FederalRegister on December 2, 1999 (64 FR67594).

At the request of the petitioners, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers are engaged in the productionof cotton and some cotton/polyesterblend fabrics, primarily for bookbindings.

The company reports that in August,1999, Chiquola Fabrics, LLC purchasedthe Borden Plant, Kingsport, Tennesseeof JPS Converter and Industrial Corp.and is now known as Chiquola Fabrics,LLC.

Information also shows that workersseparated from employment at thesubject firm, had their wages reportedunder a separate unemploymentinsurance (UI) tax account for ChiquolaFabrics, LLC.

Accordingly, the Department isamending the certificationdetermination to properly reflect thismatter.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofJPS Converter and Industrial Corp., aSubsidiary of JPS Textile Group, Inc.,Borden Plant, now known as ChiquolaFabrics, LLC who were adverselyaffected by increased imports.


All workers of JPS Converter and IndustrialCorp., a Subsidiary of JPS Textile Group, Inc.,Borden Plant, now known as ChiquolaFabrics, LLC, Kingsport, Tennessee whobecome totally or partially separated fromemployment on or after September 22, 1998,through October 28, 2001, are eligible toapply for adjustment assistance underSection 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,450]

Northwestern Steel and Wire CompanySterling, Illinois; Notice of RevisedDetermination on Reconsideration

On September 26, 2001, theDepartment issued an AffirmativeDetermination Regarding Applicationon Reconsideration applicable toworkers and former workers of the

subject firm. The notice was publishedin the Federal Register on November 9,2001 (66 FR 56713).

The Department initially denied TAAto workers of Northwestern Steel andWire Company, Sterling, Illinois,producing structural steel and steel rodbecause the ‘‘contributes importantly’’group eligibility requirement of section222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, asamended, was not met.

On reconsideration, the Departmentconducted further survey analysis ofmajor customers of Northwestern Steeland Wire Company, Sterling, Illinois.The survey revealed that variouscustomers increased their reliance onimported structural steel and wire rodduring the relevant period.

All workers at Northwestern Steelwere previously certified eligible toapply for TAA, TA–W–35, 174, whichexpired December 1, 2000.

ConclusionAfter careful review of the additional

facts obtained on reconsideration, Iconclude that increased imports ofarticles like or directly competitive withstructural steel and wire rod,contributed importantly to the declinesin sales or production and to the totalor partial separation of workers ofNorthwestern Steel and Wire Company,Sterling, Illinois. In accordance with theprovisions of the Act, I make thefollowing certification:

All workers of Northwestern Steel andWire Company, Sterling, Illinois, whobecame totally or partially separated fromemployment on or after December 2, 2000,through two years from date of certificationare eligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, DC this 26th day ofNovember 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–30068 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,424]

Outboard Marine Corp. (OMC), TheRalph Evinrude Test Center, Stuart,Florida; Notice of Termination ofInvestigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the TradeAct of 1974, an investigation wasinitiated on June 18, 2001 in responseto a worker petition which was filed onbehalf of workers at Outboard Marine



Corp. (OMC), The Ralph Evinrude TestCenter, Stuart, Florida.

An active certification covering thepetitioning group of workers is alreadyin effect (TA–W–38,565, as amended).Consequently, further investigation inthis case would serve no purpose, andthe investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day ofNovember, 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–30057 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,565 and TA–W–38,565A]

Outboard Marine Corp. (OMC),Waukegan, Illinois, Outboard MarineCorp. (OMC), The Ralph Evinrude TestCenter, Stuart, Florida; AmendedCertification Regarding Eligibility ToApply for Worker AdjustmentAssistance

In accordance with section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued a Notice ofCertification Regarding Eligibility toApply for Worker AdjustmentAssistance on April 30, 2001, applicableto workers of Outboard Marine Corp.(OMC), Waukegan, Illinois. The noticewas published in the Federal Registeron May 18, 2001 (66 FR 27690).

At the request of the petitioners, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers are engaged in the productionof marine products, primarily outboardmotors and parts.

New information shows that workerseparations occurred at The RalphEvinrude Test Center, Stuart, Floridafacility of Outboard Marine Corp.(OMC). Workers of Stuart, Floridaprovided research, development andquality control support services toOutboard Marine Corp.’s productionfacilities, including Waukegan, Illinois.

Accordingly, the Department isamending the certification to includethe workers of The Ralph Evinrude TestCenter, Stuart, Florida facility ofOutboard Marine Corp. (OMC).

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofOutboard Marine Corp. (OMC),Waukegan, Illinois who were adverselyaffected by increased imports.


All workers of Outboard Marine Corp.(OMC), Waukegan, Illinois (TA–W–38,565)and outboard Marine Corp. (OMC), TheRalph Evinrude Test Center, Stuart Florida(TA–W–38,565A). who became totally orpartially separated from employment on orafter January 5, 2000, through April 30, 2003,are eligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 16th day ofNovember, 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–30059 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,416 and TA–W–39,416C]

Pillowtech Corporation, FieldcrestCannon—Plant 4, Kannapolis, NorthCarolina, and Fieldcrest Cannon—Eagle & Phenix, Columbus, Georgia;Notice of Revised Determination onReconsideration

By letter of October 8, 2001, thecompany requested administrativereconsideration of the Department’sdenial of eligibility to apply for tradeadjustment assistance applicable toworkers and former workers ofPillowtex Corporation, FieldcrestCannon—Plant 4, Kannapolis, NorthCarolina (TA–W–39, 416) and PillowtexCorporation, Fieldcrest Cannon—Eagle& Phenix, Columbus, Georgia (TA–W–39, 416C).

The initial investigations resulted innegative determinations issued onAugust 14, 2001, and published in theFederal Register on August 23, 2001 (66FR 44379). The investigation findingsfor Pillowtex Corporation, FieldcrestCannon—Plant 4, Kannapolis, NorthCarolina (TA–W–39, 416) and PillowtexCorporation, Fieldcrest Cannon—Eagle& Phenix, Columbus, Georgia (TA–W–39, 416C) showed that increasedimports did not contribute importantlyto worker separations at the respectiveplants.

The company in their request forreconsideration provided additionaldocumentation pertaining to theproduct produced at Fieldcrest Cannon-Plant 4. The new data supplied by thecompany indicated that the companyincreased their reliance on importedsheeting fabric during the relevantperiod, contributing to the layoffs at thesubject plant.

The company also providedclarification concerning the yarn

produced at the Fieldcrest Cannon—Eagle and Phenix plant. The initialdecision was based on the subject plantproducing yarn. The new informationprovided by the company shows thatthe yarn produced at the subject facilitywas further processed into terry bathtowels, hand towels and washcloths atthe subject plant and then sold tooutside sources. A sister facility(Pillowtex Corporation, FieldcrestCannon—Plant 1, Kannapolis, NorthCarolina (TA–W–39, 416B) producingthe same products (terry bath towels,hand towels and washcloths) wascertified on August 14, 2001. Thecertification was based on aggregate U.S.imports of terry cloth towels andwashcloths increasing significantlyduring the relevant period, combinedwith the import to shipment ratioexceeding 170 percent.

Conclusion

After careful review of the additionalfacts obtained on reconsideration, Iconclude that increased imports ofarticles like or directly competitive withsheeting fabric and terry cloth towelsand washcloths, respectivelycontributed importantly to the declinesin sales or production and to the totalor partial separation of workers ofPillowtex Corporation, FieldcrestCannon—Plant 4, Kannapolis, NorthCarolina (TA–W–39, 416) and PillowtexCorporation, Fieldcrest Cannon—Eagle& Phenix, Columbus, Georgia (TA–W–39, 416C). In accordance with theprovisions of the Act, I make thefollowing certification:

All workers of Pillowtex Corporation,Fieldcrest Cannon—Plant 4, Kannapolis,North Carolina (TA–W–39, 416) andPillowtex Corporation, Fieldcrest Cannon—Eagle & Phenix, Columbus, Georgia (TA–W–39, 416C), who became totally or partiallyseparated from employment on or afterAugust 14, 2000, through two years from thedate of this certification are eligible to applyfor adjustment assistance under Section 223of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, DC this 13th day ofNovember, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–30067 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,694]

Thrall Car, Thrall Car North AmericanRail, Chicago Heights, Illinois;Dismissal of Application forReconsideration

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) anapplication for administrativereconsideration was filed with theDirector of the Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance for workers atThrall Car, Thrall Car North AmericanRail, Chicago Heights, Illinois. Theapplication contained no newsubstantial information which wouldbear importantly on the Department’sdetermination. Therefore, dismissal ofthe application was issued.TA–W–38,694; Thrall Car, Thrall Car North

American Rail, Chicago Heights, Illinois(November 13, 2001)


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39, 383]

Tridelta Industries, Inc. Mentor, Ohio;Notice of Revised Determination onReconsideration

By letter of July 19, 2001, thecompany requested administrativereconsideration regarding theDepartment’s Negative DeterminationRegarding Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance,applicable to the workers of the subjectfirm.

The initial investigation resulted in anegative determination issued on June8, 2001, based on the finding thatimports of pneumatic controls did notcontribute importantly to workerseparations at the Mentor plant. Thedenial notice was published in theFederal Register on June 27, 2001 (66FR 34254).

To support the request forreconsideration, the company officialprovide additional information, whichwas not provided during the initialinvestigation. The official indicated thatthe company that acquired the subject

plant began importing pneumaticcontrols shortly before the investigationwas instituted and continued to increasetheir imports of pneumatic controls tocompensate for the pneumatic controlsonce produced at the subject plant.

ConclusionAfter careful review of the additional

facts obtained on reconsideration, Iconclude that increased imports ofarticles like or directly competitive withthose produced at Tridelta Industries,Inc., Mentor, Ohio, contributedimportantly to the declines in sales orproduction and to the total or partialseparation of workers at the subjectfirm. In accordance with the provisionsof the Act, I make the followingcertification:

All workers of Tridelta Industries, Inc.,Mentor, Ohio, who became totally orpartially separated from employment on orafter May 18, 2000 through two years fromthe date of this certification, are eligible toapply for adjustment assistance underSection 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, DC this 5th day ofNovember 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–30066 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[NAFTA–04275]

Autoliv, ASP, Inc. CushionManufacturing Facility IncludingLeased Workers of Adecco, Ogden,Utah; Amended CertificationRegarding Eligibility To Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 250(A),Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification Regarding Eligibility toApply for NAFTA TransitionalAdjustment Assistance on March 8,2001, applicable to workers of Autoliv,ASP, Inc., Cushion ManufacturingFacility, Ogden, Utah. The Notice waspublished in the Federal Register onApril 5, 2001 (66 FR 18119).

At the request of the State agency, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm.Information provided by the State andthe company shows that leasedemployees of Adecco were employed atAutoliv, ASP, Inc., CushionManufacturing Facility to produce

cushions for airbags at the Ogden Utahlocation of the subject firm.

Workers separations occurred atAdecco as a result of worker separationsat Autoliv, ASP, Inc., CushionManufacturing Facility, Ogden, Utah.

Based on these findings, theDepartment is amending thecertification to include workers ofAdecco employed at Autoliv, ASP, Inc.,Cushion Manufacturing Facility, Ogden,Utah.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofAutoliv, ASP, Inc., CushionManufacturing Facility, Ogden, Utahadversely affected by a shift inproduction of airbag cushions toMexico.

The amended notice applicable toNAFTA—4275 is hereby issued asfollows:

All workers of Autoliv, ASP, Inc., CushionManufacturing Facility, Ogden, Utahincluding leased workers of Adecco, Ogden,Utah engaged in the production of cushionsfor airbags at Autoliv, ASP, Inc., CushionManufacturing Facility, Ogden, Utah, whobecame totally or partially separated fromemployment on or after November 6, 1999,through March 8, 2003, are eligible to applyfor NAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of theTrade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day ofNovember, 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–30063 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[NAFTA–4550]

Freightliner LLC, Mt. HollyManufacturing, Mt. Holly, NorthCarolina; Notice of RevisedDetermination on Reconsideration

By application of May 31, 2001, theInternational Union, UnitedAutomobile, Aerospace & AgriculturalImplement Workers of America (UAW),UAW Region 8 and Local Union 5285,requested administrativereconsideration of the Departmentsdenial Regarding Eligibility to Apply forNorth American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance(NAFTA–TAA), applicable to workersand former workers of the subject firm.The denial notice was issued on April13, 2001 and published in the FederalRegister on May 2, 2001 (66 FR 22007).



The workers produced medium andheavy duty trucks. The workers weredenied NAFTA–TAA on the basis thatthere was no shift in production (exceptfor a temporary shift) to Mexico orCanada, nor did imports from Canada orMexico contribute importantly toworkers’ separations.

The union provided additionalinformation indicating that a shift inplant production occurred during therelevant period. Information providedby the company verified that there wasa shift in business class truckproduction (cargo and cab-in-white forextended and crew cab) to Mexicoduring the relevant period. The shift inproduction to Mexico was the primaryfactor contributing to the layoffs at thesubject plant. The workers wereseparately identifiable.

ConclusionAfter careful review of the facts

obtained in the investigation, I concludethat there was a shift in production fromthe workers’ firm to Mexico of articleslike or directly competitive with thoseproduced by the subject firm. Inaccordance with the provisions of theTrade Act, I make the followingcertification:

All workers of Freightliner LLC, Mt. HollyTruck Manufacturing Plant, Mt. Holly, NorthCarolina, engaged in activities related to theproduction of business class trucks (cargoand cab-in-white for extended and crew cab),who became totally or partially separatedfrom employment on or after October 10,1999, through two years from the date ofcertification, are eligible to apply forNAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of the TradeAct of 1974.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[NAFTA–4523]

York International CorporationPortland, Oregon; Notice of NegativeDetermination Regarding Applicationfor Reconsideration

By application dated June 26, 2001,the Sheet Metal Workers’ InternationalAssociation, Local Union No. 16,requested administrativereconsideration of the Department’snegative determination regarding

eligibility to apply for North AmericanFree Trade Agreement-TransitionalAdjustment Assistance (NAFTA–TAA),applicable to workers and formerworkers of the subject firm. The denialnotice was signed on June 7, 2001, andwas published in the Federal Registeron June 27, 2001 (66 FR 34257).

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 orthe law justified reconsideration of thedecision.

The denial of NAFTA–TAA forworkers engaged in activities related tothe production of custom air handlingsystems at York InternationalCorporation, Portland, Oregon, wasbased on the finding that criteria (3) and(4) of the group eligibility requirementsof paragraph (a)(1) of section 250 of theTrade Act, as amended, were not met.There were no company imports ofcustom air handling systems fromMexico or Canada, nor did YorkInternational Corporation shiftproduction from Portland, Oregon toMexico or Canada. Major customers didnot reduce their purchases from thesubject firm.

The petitioner alleges thatcompetitors of the subject plant importproducts like and directly with what thesubject plant produced from Canada andMexico. The Department normallyanalyzes the impact of imports on thesubject firm workers through a survey ofdeclining customers to examine if thefirm’s domestic customers switchedpurchases from the subject firm in favorof foreign produced products during therelevant period. There were no subjectfirm customers’ sales declines duringthe relevant period. Therefore, anyimports from Canada or Mexico are nota major contributing factor to the workerseparations at the subject plant.

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.


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. RM 2001–7A]

Disruption or Suspension of Postal orOther Transportation orCommunications Services

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library ofCongress.ACTION: Determination of generaldisruption of postal services.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to newlypromulgated 37 CFR 201.8, the Registerof Copyrights announces herdetermination that there has been ageneral disruption or suspension ofpostal services that has delayed thereceipt by the Copyright Office ofdeposits, applications, fees, and othermaterials submitted to the Office bymeans of the United States PostalService.

DATES: The disruption of postal servicescommenced on October 18, 2001 andcontinues to the present.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David O. Carson, General Counsel, orPatricia Sinn, Senior Attorney, Office ofthe General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R,P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station,Washington, D.C. 20024–0400.Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax:(202) 707–8366.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnDecember 4, 2001, the Copyright Officepublished in the Federal Register aninterim regulation, to be codified at 37CFR 201.8, addressing generaldisruptions or suspensions of postal orother transportation or communicationsservices. The regulation implements 17U.S.C. 709 and governs thecircumstances under which the Registermay assign, as the date of receipt fordeposits, applications, fees and othermaterials submitted to the Office, thedate on which the materials would havebeen received but for a generaldisruption or suspension of postal orother transportation or communicationsservices.

The Register now publishes herdetermination that commencing onOctober 18, 2001, there has been ageneral disruption of postal services thathas affected the delivery of deposits,



applications, fees and other materialssubmitted to the Office. Persons whobelieve that they have been adverselyaffected by the disruption of postalservices should comply with theprovisions of 37 CFR 201.8.

When the disruption of postalservices has ended, the Register shallpublish a determination to that effect.

In the meantime, persons desiring toensure prompt receipt of materials bythe Copyright Office are encouraged touse alternative means such as deliveryby private carriers or personal deliveryrather than the United States PostalService.

Dated: December 3, 2001.

Marybeth Peters,Register of Copyrights.[FR Doc. 01–30290 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]


MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORYCOMMISSION

Commission Meeting

AGENCY: Medicare Payment AdvisoryCommission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Commission will hold itsnext public meeting on Thursday,December 13, 2001, and Friday,December 14, 2001, at the RonaldReagan Building, International TradeCenter, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW., Washington, DC. The meeting istentatively scheduled to begin at 10 a.m.on December 13, and at 9 a.m. onDecember 14.

Topics for discussion include: Qualityimprovement for health plans andproviders; pass-through payments underthe prospective payment system forhospital outpatient department services;Medicare+Choice; measuring changes ininput prices in traditional Medicare;adjusting local differences in residenttraining costs; paying for services intraditional Medicare; and assessingpayment adequacy and updatingMedicare payments.

Agendas will be mailed on December4, 2001. The final agenda will beavailable on the Commission’s web site(www.MedPAC.gov)

ADDRESSES: MedPAC’s address is: 1730K Street, NW., Suite 800, Washington,DC 20006. The telephone number is(202) 653–7220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Diane Ellison, Office Manager, (202)653–7220.

Murray N. Ross,Executive Director.[FR Doc. 01–30040 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6820–BW–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–331]

Nuclear Management Company, LLC;Correction

The November 14, 2001 (66 FR57115), Federal Register contained a‘‘Notice of Issuance of Amendment toFacility Operating License.’’ On page57116, the date of September 24, 2001,should have been included in the list ofsupplemental letters to the applicationdated November 16, 2000.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th dayof November, 2001.Brenda L. Mozafari,Project Manager, Section 1, ProjectDirectorate III–1, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 01–30111 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,Inc., et al.; Joseph M. Farley NuclearPlant, Units 1 and 2; EnvironmentalAssessment and Finding of NoSignificant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is consideringissuance of amendments to FacilityOperating License Nos. NPF–2 andNPF–8, issued to Southern NuclearOperating Company Inc., et al. (thelicensee), for operation of the Joseph M.Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,located in Houston County, Alabama.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would amendthe Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs)for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,Units 1 and 2, and to delete licenseconditions that have been completed orare otherwise no longer in effect. Theseactivities have now been completed andthe license conditions are eitherobsolete or are no longer needed.

The proposed action is in response tothe licensee’s application datedDecember 8, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

When the FOLs, NPF–2 and NPF–8,were issued to the licensee, the NRCstaff deemed certain issues essential tosafety and/or essential to meetingcertain regulatory interests. These issueswere imposed as license conditions inthe FOLs, with deadlines for theirimplementation. Since the units werelicensed to operate in the late 1970s andearly 1980s, most of these licenseconditions have been fulfilled. For thelicense conditions that have beenfulfilled, the licensee proposed to havethem deleted from the FOLs.

The licensee also proposed to makechanges to correct administrative errorssuch as words inadvertently omitted,documents erroneously cited, etc.

The proposed amendments involveadministrative changes to the FOLsonly. No actual plant equipment,regulatory requirements, operatingpractices, or analyses are affected bythese proposed amendments.

Environmental Impacts of the ProposedAction

The NRC has completed its evaluationof the proposed action and concludesthat there is no significantenvironmental impact if theamendments are granted. No changeswill be made to the design and licensingbases, and applicable procedures at thetwo units at the Joseph M. FarleyNuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, willremain the same. Other than theadministrative changes, no otherchanges will be made to the FOLs,including the Technical Specifications.

The changes will not increase theprobability or consequences ofaccidents, no changes are being made inthe types of any effluents that may bereleased offsite, and there is nosignificant increase in the allowableindividual or cumulative occupationalradiation exposure. Accordingly, theCommission concludes that there are nosignificant radiological environmentalimpacts associated with the proposedaction.

With regard to potentialnonradiological impacts, the proposedaction does not involve any historicsites. It does not affect nonradiologicalplant effluents and has no otherenvironmental impact. Therefore, thereare no significant nonradiologicalenvironmental impacts associated withthe proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commissionconcludes that there are no significant



1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

nonradiological environmental impactsassociated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of theAlternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concludedthere is no measurable environmentalimpact associated with the proposedaction, any alternatives with equal orgreater environmental impact need notbe evaluated. As an alternative to theproposed action, the staff considereddenial of the proposed action. Denial ofthe application would result in nochange in current environmentalimpacts. The environmental impacts ofthe proposed action and the alternativeaction are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the useof any resources not previouslyconsidered in the Final EnvironmentalStatement related to the McGuireNuclear Station.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,on January 10, 2001, the staff consultedwith the Alabama State official, KirkWhatley of the Office of RadiationControl, Alabama Department of PublicHealth, regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed amendments.The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoingenvironmental assessment, theCommission concludes that theproposed amendments will not have asignificant effect on the quality of thehuman environment. Accordingly, theCommission has determined not toprepare an environmental impactstatement for the proposedamendments.

For further details with respect to theproposed action, see the licensee’s letterdated December 8, 2000. Documentsmay be examined, and/or copied for afee, at the NRC’s Public DocumentRoom, located at One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),Rockville, Maryland. Publicly availablerecords will be accessible electronicallyfrom the Agencywide DocumentsAccess and Management Systems(ADAMS) Public Electronic ReadingRoom on the Internet at the NRC website, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access toADAMS or if there are problems inaccessing the documents located inADAMS, contact the NRC PublicDocument Room (PDR) Reference staffat 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 orby email to [email protected].

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th dayof November, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Frank Rinaldi,Project Manager, Section 1, ProjectDirectorate II, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 01–30110 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

[Release No. 34–45115; File No. SR–CHX–2001–17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Filing of Proposed Rule Change byThe Chicago Stock Exchange,Incorporated, Relating to Eligibility ofLimit Orders for Trade ThroughProtection

November 28, 2001.Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘theAct’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2notice is hereby is given that on August6, 2001, the Chicago Stock Exchange,Incorporated (‘‘CHX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’)the proposed rule change as describedin Items I, II and III below, which Itemshave been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. TheCommission is publishing this notice tosolicit comments on the proposed rulechange from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Terms of Substance ofthe Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to amendCHX Article XX, Rule 37(b)(6), whichgoverns execution of limit orders in thespecialist’s book in the event of a tradethrough in the primary market. Theproposed rule change would requirethat a limit order be resident in thespecialist’s book for a time period of 0–15 seconds (as designated by thespecialist) before it would be eligible forlimit order protection. The text of theproposed rule change is available fromthe Office of the Secretary, the CHX andthe Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

In its filing with the Commission, theExchange included statementsconcerning the purpose of and basis for

the proposed rule change and discussedany comments it received regarding theproposed rule change. The text of thesestatements may be examined at theplaces specified in Item IV below. TheExchange has prepared summaries, setforth in sections A, B and C below, ofthe most significant aspects of suchstatements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

1. Purpose

The Exchange proposes to amendArticle XX, Rule 37(b)(6) of its rules,which governs execution of limit ordersin the specialist’s book in the event ofa trade through in the primary market.The proposed rule change wouldrequire that a limit order be resident inthe specialist’s book for a time period of0–15 seconds (as designated by thespecialist) before it would be eligible forlimit order protection.

Under current CHX rules, limit ordersresting in a specialists’s book areafforded trade through protection,which requires execution of the limitorders in the event of a pricepenetration in the primary market. Thelimit orders are entitled to priceprotection in their entirety regardless oftheir size. The Exchange represents that,at present, an order sender is able totake advantage of the time latencybetween a primary market executionand the reporting of the execution to thetape to gain these liquidity guarantees.The Exchange believes that an ordersender will do so by placing a largelimit order in a CHX specialist’s bookbetween the time of the primary marketexecution and the tape print. The limitorder will typically be priced at a pennyor two superior to the primary markettrade price. According to the Exchange,the print of the inferior priced primarymarket trade will cause an automaticexecution of the limit order in itsentirety on the CHX at the limit price,thus giving the order senderinexpensive access to large amounts ofliquidity.

In the example above, the Exchangeexplains that the limit order would notbe due an execution because it was not‘‘resting’’ on the specialist’s book at thetime the trade through occurred in theprimary market. Rather, it was resting atthe time the trade through executionwas reported to the tape. The Exchangebelieves that this practice exploits alimitation in the trade reporting systemthat equates ‘‘trade time’’ with ‘‘reporttime.’’ The Exchange believes that thispractice has grown more prevalent with



3 A specialist might chose a lesser time as acompetitive inducement to attract order flow.

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44900

(October 2, 2001), 66 FR 51694.4 In approving this proposed rule change, the

Commission has considered the proposed rule’simpact on efficiency, competition, and capitalformation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

5 15 U.S.C. 78f.6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).9 17 CFR 240.19d–1(c)(2).

the transition to a decimal pricingenvironment because the premiumneeded to secure the increased liquidity(the minimum price variation) has beenreduced to a penny.

The proposed rule change wouldprovide that before a limit order in thespecialist’s book is automaticallyexecuted following a price penetrationin the primary market, the limit ordermust have resided in the specialist’sbook for a time period of 0–15 seconds(as designed by the specialist).3 Thisrequirement is intended to precludeorder-senders from taking advantage ofthe time latency between a primarymarket execution and the reporting ofthe execution to the tape.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that theproposed rule change is consistent withthe requirements of the Act and therules and regulations thereunder thatare applicable to a national securitiesexchange, and, in particular, with therequirements of section 6(b).4 Inparticular, the proposed rule isconsistent with section 6(b)(5) of theAct 5 in that it is designed to promotejust and equitable principles of trade, toremove impediments to and to perfectthe mechanism of a free and openmarket and a national market system,and, 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 imposemy inappropriate burden oncompetition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Comments on theProposed Rule Change Received FromMembers, Participants or Others

Written comments were neithersolicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of theProposed Rule Change and Timing forCommission Action

Within 35 days of the date ofpublication of this notice in the FederalRegister or within such longer period (i)as the Commission may designate up to90 days of such date if it finds suchlonger period to be appropriate andpublishes its reasons for so finding or(ii) as to which the self-regulatoryorganization consents, the Commissionwill:

(A) by order approve the proposedrule change, or

(B) institute proceedings to determinewhether the proposed rule changeshould be disapproved.

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 file six copies thereof with theSecretary, Securities and ExchangeCommission, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,Washington DC 20549–0609. Copies ofthe submission, 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 filing will also beavailable for inspection and copying atthe principal office of the Exchange. Allsubmissions should refer to File No.SR–CHX–2001–17 and should besubmitted by December 26, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Divisionof Market Regulation, pursuant todelegated authority.6

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–30140 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Release No. 34–45117; File No. SR–CHX–2001–08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; OrderGranting Approval of Proposed RuleChange by the Chicago StockExchange, Incorporated, Amending ItsMinor Rule Violation Plan

November 29, 2001.On April 23, 2001, the Chicago Stock

Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CHX’’ or‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (‘‘Act’’)1 and Rule 19b–4

thereunder,2 a proposed rule changethat would amend CHX Article XII, Rule9(h), Minor Rule Violations, to includeCHX Article XX, Rule 43(d), Trading inNasdaq/NM Securities/ManualExecutions, in the Exchange’s MinorRule Violation Plan (‘‘Plan’’).Specifically, a member who fails tomanually execute a Nasdaq/NM marketor marketable limit order at the nationalbest bid or offer or better at the time ofits receipt or at the best price availablein another market place may be finedunder the Plan. Notice of the proposedrule change was published for commentin the Federal Register on October 10,2001.3 The Commission received nocomments on the proposal. This ordergrants approval of the proposed rulechange.

The Commission finds that theproposed rule change is consistent withthe requirements of the Act and therules and regulations thereunderapplicable to a national securitiesexchange4 and, in particular, therequirements of section 6 of the Act5and the rules and regulationsthereunder. The Commission findsspecifically that the proposed rulechange is consistent with section 6(b)(5)of the Act6 because it will help preventfraudulent and manipulative acts andpractices, as well as promote just andequitable principles of trade. TheCommission finds the proposal isconsistent with section 6(b)(6) of theAct,7 because the proposal provides amechanism for the appropriatediscipline for violations of certain rulesand regulations.

In addition, the Commission finds theproposal is consistent with section6(b)(7) of the Act8 because the proposalprovides a fair procedure for thedisciplining of members and personsassociated with members. Finally, theCommission finds the proposal isconsistent with Securities Exchange ActRule 19d–1(c)(2)9 that governs minorrule violation plans.

In approving this proposal, theCommission in no way minimizes theimportance of compliance with thisrule, and all other rules subject to theimposition of fines under the Plan. TheCommission believes that the violation



10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44251

(May 3, 2001), 66 FR 23750 (SR–NASD–2001–19)

4 See Letters to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,Commission, from D. Stuart Bowers, Senior VicePresident, Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., John H.Haynie, Managing Director, Wachovia Securities,Inc., Thomas F. Grabowski, Vice President, BNYClearing Services, LLC, Douglas W. Noll, First VicePresident, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,Incorporated, Michael D. Duffy, Director ofOperations, U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, and KenCameranesi, Senior Vice President, Wells FargoInvestments, dated May 17, 2001 (‘‘The Firms’;Letter’’); Harry D. Frisch, Esq., Senior VicePresident, iClearing LLC, dated June 7, 2001(‘‘iClearing Letter’’); Gregory P. Vitt, Senior VicePresident, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., dated June28, 2001 (‘‘A.G. Edwards Letter’’); and W. LeoMcBlain, Chairman and Cindy Foster, Chair, FIFService Bureau Committee, Financial InformationForum, dated June 28, 2001 (‘‘FIF Letter’’).

5 See Letter from Shirely H. Weiss, Office ofGeneral Counsel, NASD Regulation, Inc., toJonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 4,2001) (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Amendment No. 1responds to the Firms’ letter by reiterating thecommitment of NASD Regulation to work with itsmember firms to facilitate reporting requirementsunder proposed Rule 3150. Further, NASDRegulation represented that it conducted and wouldcontinue to conduct a series of meetings with theservice bureaus and member clearing firms toexplain and modify data element requirements.Moreover, NASD Regulation amended the proposedrule text to include both clearing and self-clearingmember firms.

6 See Letter from Patrice M. Gliniecki, VicePresident and Deputy General Counsel, NASDRegulation, Inc., to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,Commission (November 1, 2001) (‘‘Amendment No.2’’). Amendment No. 2 responds to comment lettersreceived by the Commission, as well as commentletters received by NASD Regulation from HarrisSchwartz, Nordea Securities, Inc., dated June 8,2001 (‘‘Nordea Letter’’); Bonnie K. Wachtel, CEOand Wendie L. Wachtel, COO, Wachtel & Co., Inc.,dated June 29, 2001 (‘‘Wachtel Letter’’); andMichael Viviano, Chairman, Operations Committee,Chrstopher R. Franke, Chairman, Self-Regulatoryand Supervisory Practices Committee, and GerardMcGraw, Chairman, Clearing Firms Committee,Securities Industry Association, dated July 19, 2001(‘‘SIA Letter’’). In particular, Amendment No. 2clarifies that only clearing and self-clearing firmsthat are members (not non-members) will berequired to report the prescribed data. AmendmentNo. 2 provides additional information on the dataelement requirements, and proposes a phase-inschedule for the implementation of reportingrequirements. Last, Amendment No. 2 amends therule text to include an exemptive provision fromthe reporting requirements, pursuant to the Rule9600 Series.

7 The Association anticipates requesting membersthat are clearing firms to submit data electronically.Telephone conversation between Shirley W. Weiss,Office of General Counsel, NASD Regulation, andHeidi Pilpel, Special Counsel, and Lisa Jones,Attorney, Division of Market Regulation,Commission (May 2, 2001).

of any self-regulatory organization’srules, as well as Commission rules, is aserious matter. However, in an effort toprovide the Exchange with greaterflexibility in addressing certainviolations, the Plan provides areasonable means to address ruleviolations that do not rise to the level ofrequiring formal disciplinaryproceedings. The Commission expectsthat the CHX will continue to conductsurveillance with due diligence, andmake a determination based on itsfindings whether fines of more or lessthan the recommended amount areappropriate for violations of rules underthe Plan, on a case by case basis, or ifa violation requires formal disciplinaryaction.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant tosection 19(b)(2) of the Act10, that theproposed rule change (SR–CHX–2001–08), be, and it hereby is, approved.

For the Commission, by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.11



[Release No. 34–45109; File No. SR–NASD–2001–19]

Self-Regulataory Organizations; OrderApproving a Proposed Rule Changeand Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Theretoby the National Association ofSecurities Dealers, Inc., Relating toReporting Requirements for ClearingMembers

November 27, 2001.On March 21, 2001, the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.(‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’), through itswholly owned subsidiary, NASDRegulation, Inc. (‘‘NASD Regulation’’)filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’),pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934(‘‘Act’’)1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 aproposed rule change relating toreporting requirements for members thatare clearing firms. The proposed rulechange was published for comment inthe Federal Register on May 9, 2001.3The Commission received five comment

letters on the proposed rule change.4 OnJune 6, 2001, NASD Regulation filedAmendment No. 1 to the proposed rulechange.5 On November 1, 2001, NASDRegulation filed Amendment No. 2 tothe proposed rule change.6 This orderapproves the proposed rule change asamended.

I. Description of the Proposed RuleChange

NASD Regulation is developing a newbusiness model regarding thesurveillance and examination of NASDmembers. The new program’s officialtitle is Integrated National Surveillanceand Information TechnologyEnhancements (commonly referred to as‘‘INSITE’’). INSITE will allow NASD

Regulation to concentrate itsexaminations on the higher-risksegments of the industry; focus thecontent of each examination on higher-risk topics; streamline the examinationprocess for the examiners and members;better coordinate regulatory findingswith other NASD Regulationdepartments; and provide specializedtraining to enhance and maintainexaminer’s competency levels.

According to NASD Regulation, thesurveillance component of the INSITEprogram will produce reports thatidentify member ‘‘exceptions’’ based onhistorical and current comparisons ofmember data. Further, the exceptionswill trigger follow-up reviews andpossible member examinations. Tofacilitate the surveillance component ofINSITE, NASD Regulation proposed toadopt Rule 3150 to require all membersthat are clearing firms (both those thatare self-clearing and those that clear forother firms) to report certain data (i.e.,data elements) to the NASD RegulationDepartment of Member regulation(‘‘Member Regulation’’).7 Under theNASD’s proposal, a clearing firmmember may enter into an agreementwith a third party pursuant to which thethird party agrees to fulfill the clearingfirm’s obligations under proposed Rule3150. Notwithstanding the existence ofsuch an agreement, NASD Regulationproposed that each member that is aclearing firm would be responsible forcomplying with the requirements of theproposed rule change.

The text of proposed Rule 3150 doesnot specify the data that must bereported to NASD Regulation. Initially,the data elements that NASD Regulationwill require its members that areclearing firms to submit to theAssociation pursuant to proposed Rule3150 included items such as tradecancellations (T+1 forward) and as-oftrades, aggregate net liquidating equityin each firm’s correspondents’proprietary accounts, and unsecuredcustomer debits. NASD Regulationrepresented that it would continue towork its clearing firm members and theSEC staff in identifying the data that isneeded in order to operate thesurveillance component of INSITE.NASD Regulation would also provide itsclearing firm members with advancenotice through the NASD Notice toMembers process (or similar guidance)of any changes to the required data



8 See note 4, supra.9 See note 6, supra.10 See The Firms Letter; iClearing Letter; SIA

Letter11 See A.G. Edwards Letter; SIA Letter.12 Currently, NASD members may review the

Firm Data Elements on NASD Regulation’s Website, http://www.nasdr.com/insite.htm, at ages 16–18. In the initial implementation of the INSITEprogram, NASD Regulation represents that no newdata elements will be added, and some dataelements may be eliminated. NASD Regulation doesnot anticipate materially expanding the dataelement requirements.

13 See Amendment No. 2, p. 3.

14 See id.15 Id.16 See SIA Letter.17 See note 13, supra.18 Id.19 Id.20 NASD Regulation represents that the INSITE

program may, in the future, require firms to reportcertain data elements less frequently. NASDRegulation will publish any change in the dailyreporting requirements well in advance of the dateon which that change will occur.

21 See note 13, supra.

22 See The Firms Letter; iClearing Letter; A. G.Edwards Letter.

23 See The Firms Letter; iClearing Letter.24 See Amendment No. 2, p. 4.25 Id.26 Id.27 Id.

elements. Moreover, NASD Regulationwould advise its clearing firm membersof the format to be used in transmittinginformation pursuant to proposed Rule3150, and the methodology by whichNASD Regulation will require itsclearing firm members to submit theinformation to the Association.

II. Summary of CommentsThe Commission received five

comment letters on the proposal.8 Inaddition, NASD Regulation receivedthree comment letters regarding theproposal.9 There were several issuesraised by commenters.

First, commenters requested thatNASD Regulation give further details onthe data elements that were to becollected.10 Further, commentersquestioned the usefulness of therequired data elements, since therequirements tend to duplicateinformation already provided byclearing and self-clearing firms throughFinancial and Operational CombinedUniform Single (‘‘FOCUS’’) Reports, theNASD’s Automated ConfirmationTransaction Service (‘‘ACT’’) and OrderAudit Trail System (‘‘OATS’’).11

In response to the commenters’request for clarification of the requireddata elements, the NASD Regulation hascreated an INSITE Web site from whichfirms may obtain information.12

Members may review the proposed FirmData Filing Technical Specificationsthat will be required under Rule 3150and a bullet point presentation of theINSITE Exam Program, which describesthe INSITE program in detail. The Website will also feature questions asked byclearing and self-clearing firms andNASD Regulation’s answers to theirquestions. NASD Regulation has alsorepresented that it will continue toreport modifications or clarifications ofthe reporting requirements on theINSITE Web site.13

In addition, starting in June 2001,NASD Regulation conducted a series ofworkshops with clearing and self-clearing firms around the country.According to NASD Regulation, thepurpose of these workshops was, among

other things, to explain the dataelements that firms would be requiredto report under proposed Rule 3150, toanswer the firms’ questions about thereporting process, and to gatheradditional information about the firms’capability to report requiredinformation.14 NASD Regulation statedthat it would continue to modify thereporting requirements as necessarybased on the information it hasreceived, and continues to receive, fromits member firms and service bureaus.15

Moreover, as suggested by the SIA,16

NASD Regulation is currently meetingwith a specially formed committee(‘‘SIA Committee’’) comprised oftechnology, compliance, operations, andlegal professionals to discuss suchissues as the data elements, theimplementation schedule for firmfilings, and reports to member firms.NASD Regulation staff expects to havean on-going relationship with theCommittee as a means of obtainingindustry input.17

In response to the commenters’concerns of the duplication of reportinginformation through FOCUS reports,ACT, and OATS, NASD Regulation hasrepresented that data reported throughOATS will not be duplicated, since thatdata pertains to orders, and the INSITEdata would pertain to transaction andaccount data. Similarly, informationreported through ACT does not providethe detail required by the INSITEprogram regarding cancellations andrebills.18

In addition, NASD Regulation notedthat some of the required dataduplicates information required to bereported in FOCUS Reports.19

According to NASD Regulation, thedifference is the frequency with whichINSITE information would be reported.INSITE information, which can changevery rapidly and which can have asignificant impact on a firm’s capital,would be reported on a daily basis,20

giving NASD Regulation theopportunity to discover capitalproblems almost as they occur, whereasFOCUS Reports are filed on a monthlyand quarterly basis.21 Furthermore,NASD Regulation believes that the data

elements also provide valuable insightsinto potential sales practice issues asthey arise.

Second, commenters were concernedthat they would not be able to submitthe data elements requested in thesuggested format due to technical flawsand inconsistencies.22 In addition,commenters wanted more details andresults of the testing completed by thethree pilot member firms.23

In response to the commenters’concerns, NASD Regulation representedthat it is in the process of conducting apilot program with three clearing firms(Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., Pershing, adivision of Donaldson, Lufkin & JenretteSecurities Corporation, and WexfordClearing Services Incorporated, adivision of Prudential SecuritiesIncorporated). These pilot firms areelectronically reporting on a daily basisa portion of the firm data elements, andthe pilot firms have not reported anysignificant problems in collecting andreporting this data. According to NASDRegulation, the pilot program hashelped NASD Regulation to identify andresolve any technical problemsexperienced by these firms.24 NASDRegulation expects, as with any newprogram or technology, that systemsfailures may arise. When that happens,firms will be expected to report thesefailures to NASD Regulation, correctthem as expeditiously as possible, andrestart the reporting process.25

Generally, NASD Regulation representsthat a system failure that has happenedin the normal course of doing business,and which a firm is attempting tocorrect, will not be viewed as adisciplinary matter.26

The proposed reporting program hasbeen designed to require firms toprovide summaries of information thatthey already collect, including, amongother things, aggregate net liquidatingequity, exchange and non-exchangetransactions, options transactions, debttransactions, customer accounts, shortinterest, unsecured customer debits,trade cancellations and as-of tradessummaries and detail. NASD Regulationis specifying the file formats. Firms mayreport this data via NASD Regulation’sForm Filing Web site or, for firms withconnectivity to the NASD OATS privatenetwork, through that file transferprotocol.27 NASD Regulation recognizesthat firms may have to make some



28 Id.29 Id.30 Id.31 See The Firms Letter; iClearing Letter; FIF

Letter.

32 Telephone conversation between Shirley H.Weiss, Office of General Counsel, NASD Regulationand Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel,Division of Market Regulation, Commission (Nov.27, 2001).

33 See Amendment No. 2, p. 5.34 Id.35 See Nordea Letter; Wachtel Letter.36 Id.37 NASD Regulation is also proposing a rule

change to Rule 9610 that will add Rule 3150 to therules under which members can seek exemptiverelief.

38 See Amendment No. 2, p. 6.39 Id.

40 When a clearing firm files data for its ownbusiness, NASD Regulation will treat it as a self-clearing firm for purposes of INSITE reportingrequirements. In any event, a clearing firm (or aself-clearing firm) is not required to report is ownaggregate net liquidating equity; instead, a clearingfirm must report the aggregate net liquidating equityof its correspondent firms. (See page 16 of theINSITE Firm Data Technical Specifications, whichstates that a self-clearing firm may report itsaggregate net liquidating equity as NULL, or novalue.)

41 In approving this rule, the Commission hasconsidered its impact on efficiency, competition,and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(9). TheCommission finds that Rule 3150 appropriatelybalances the need of NASD Regulation forregulatory information with the need to provideclearing firms flexibility in reporting suchinformation in a manner that is not undulyburdensome. For example, NASD Regulation hastailored the data elements, committed to providesix-months of notice of implementation, workedclosely with the industry on implementation ofRule 3150, and provided alternative methods forreporting, such as service bureaus.

42 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).43 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44135

(March 30, 2001), 66 FR 18334 (April 6, 2001)(order approving SR–NYSE–00–60).

44 NASD Regulation reiterates its commitmentthat it is collecting the data pursuant to Rule 3150solely for regulatory purposes. Telephoneconversation between Shirley H. Weiss, Office ofGeneral Counsel, NASD Regulation and FlorenceHarmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division ofMarket Regulation, Commission (Nov. 26, 2001).

programming changes in order to createthe daily summaries required by theINSITE program. The informationrequired to establish these programs iscurrently being made available on theINSITE Web site, and firms subject toproposed Rule 3150 should have ampletime to prepare for their participation inthe program.28 Further, members areadvised on the INSITE Web site thatNASD Business and TechnologySupport Services is the primary sourceof information about INSITE, and that itcan be used as a source for answers toquestions about reportingresponsibilities, technical specificationsfor reporting to the NASD, deadlines,and more.29

Moreover, as suggested by the SIA,NASD Regulation has represented that itis committed to developing a system onits Web site that will permit members toreview the information that has beenreported by firms, directly or on theirbehalf by clearing firms or servicebureaus. NASD Regulation will workwith its member firms to develop auseful format. NASD Regulation expectsthis system to be fully functional in thelatter part of 2002.30

Third, commenters were concernedthat the time frame of implementingproposed Rule 3150 would beunrealistic.31 In response to thecommenters concerns, NASD Regulationhas stated that its goal is to implementreporting requirements under proposedRule 3150 in as reasonable a manner aspossible in order to give clearing firms,self-clearing firms, and service bureaussufficient time to prepare. NASDRegulation plans to begin requiringreporting under proposed Rule 3150 asof December 10, 2001. The threemember firms that have beenparticipating in the pilot program willbe phased in first. All three firms willbe reporting the published Firm DataElements under proposed Rule 3150 bymid-January 2002.

NASD Regulation represents that itwill phase in all other members inseveral stages. NASD Regulation iscurrently working with the SIACommittee and FIF to establish thesedates. NASD Regulation will publish theschedule of phase-ins as soon as it hasbeen established, but in no event willNASD Regulation give member firmsless than six-months notice of theirstart-up date. NASD Regulation alsorepresents that it will take into accountbroker-dealers’ relationships with

service bureaus in establishing thephase-in schedules. NASD Regulationexpects Rule 3150 to be fullyimplemented by the end of 2002.32

NASD Regulation also proposed toamend proposed Rule 3150 to eliminatethe requirement that all data be reportedon a daily basis, in order to give NASDRegulation the flexibility it needs torequire that certain data elements bereported less frequently.33 As with thecurrent data elements, NASD Regulationwould announce any change in thereporting requirements well in advanceof their implementation.34

Fourth, commenters suggested thatthe Association include a provision forexemptive relief from the reportingrequirements of proposed Rule 3150.35

These commenters suggested that suchrelief might be based on the nature of afirm’s activities, its risk factors, and thesize of its capital reserves.36

In response to these commenters,NASD Regulation has decided toinclude a provision in proposed Rule3150 that would permit broker-dealersto request an exemption from thereporting requirements of proposed Rule3150 pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series.37

As stated in proposed Rule 3150(b),exemptions from any or all of the Rule3150 reporting requirements will begranted only under exceptional andunusual circumstances. According toNASD Regulation, the size of a firm willnot be the determinative factor indeciding whether to grant suchexemptions, since wholesaleexemptions based solely on the size ofa firm could jeopardize the strength ofthe INSITE program.

NASD Regulation also proposedadditional clarifications to proposedRule 3150.38 NASD Regulationproposed to amend the rule language toexplicitly refer to both clearing firmsand self-clearing firms.39 In addition,NASD Regulation proposed to amendthe rule language to clarify that theAssociation will only require itsmember clearing and self-clearing firmsto report prescribed data pertaining tothe member and any member broker-

dealer for which it clears.40 This shouldexclude from the parameters ofproposed Rule 3150 any broker-dealerthat is not registered with the NASD.

III. Discussion

After careful review, the Commissionfinds that the proposed rule change isconsistent with the requirements of theAct and the rules and regulationsthereunder applicable to a nationalsecurities association.41 In particular,the Commission finds the proposal isconsistent with section 15A(b)(6) of theAct,42 which requires, among otherthings, that the Association’s rules mustbe designed to prevent fraudulent andmanipulative acts and practices, topromote just and equitable principles oftrade, and, in general, to protectinvestors and the public interest.

The Commission believes that theAssociation’s proposal to enhance thesurveillance and examination of NASDmembers via the INSITE programshould help to prevent fraudulent andmanipulative acts and practices andpromote just and equitable principles oftrade because it authorizes theAssociation to require clearing and self-clearing members to report certain datato be analyzed for indications of salespractice violations. In addition, the dataelements reported pursuant to NASDRule 3150 and NYSE Rule 416 43 willassist regulators in addressing concernsabout microcap fraud.44



45 See Firm Data Filing Technical Specificationsunder Rule 3150, available at pp. 16–18 atwww.nasdr.com/insite.htm.

46 The Commission notes, however, that a seriesof systems failures raises issues as to a broker-dealer’s fulfillment of its regulatory responsibilities.See Lowell H. Listrom, 50 S.E.C. 883, 887 note 7(1992).

The Commission finds that the dataelements that NASD Regulation initiallywill require its clearing and self-clearingmembers to provide pursuant toproposed Rule 3150, including itemssuch as trade cancellations (T+1forward) and as-of trades, aggregate netliquidating equity in each firm’sproprietary accounts, and unsecuredcustomer debits, have been sufficientlyidentified by NASD Regulation as coredata that is needed in order to operatethe surveillance component ofINSITE.45 Further, the Association hasrepresented that in the initialimplementation of the INSITE program,no new data elements will be added,and some data elements may beeliminated. Moreover, the Associationnoted that it does not anticipatematerially expanding the data elementrequirements.

After careful consideration of thecommenters’ concerns about theintricacies and usefulness of the dataelements required pursuant to proposedRule 3150, the Commission believes thatNASD Regulation’s INSITE Web siteshould help to keep NASD membersinformed of all modifications andclarifications of the reportingrequirements. In addition, theCommission finds that NASDRegulation has been and will continueto be committed towards modifying thereporting requirements as necessarybased on the information that it receivesfrom member firms and service bureaus,thus promoting just and equitableprinciples of trade consistent with theAct.

The Commission has also carefullyconsidered the commenters’ concernsabout the duplication of reportinginformation through FOCUS reports,ACT and OATS. The Commission findsthat although some of the required dataduplicates information required to bereported in FOCUS reports, the requireddata pursuant to proposed Rule 3150will be reported on a daily basis, at leastinitially, which would give NASDRegulation the opportunity to discovercapital problems almost as they occur.Further, NASD Regulation hasrepresented that INSITE data wouldpertain to transaction and account data.Therefore, the Commission believes thatthe data elements should providevaluable insights into potential salespractice issues as they arise, consistentwith section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.

The Commission finds that NASDRegulation has sufficiently addressedcommenters’ concerns about any

possible technical flaws andinconsistencies of the INSITE program.The Commission believes that NASDRegulation’s pilot program with threeclearing firms should help to identifyany significant programs in collectingand reporting this data, and anytechnical problems experienced bymember firms. The Association notesthat should a system failure happen inthe normal course of doing business,and a firm is attempting to correct it, theAssociation would not view theviolation of Rule 3150 as a disciplinarymatter.46 Further, NASD Regulationrepresents that the reporting program isdesigned to require member firms toprovide summaries of information thatit already collects. Moreover, NASDRegulation is specifying the file formatsand providing information on theINSITE Web site on how to establish thereporting program should some firmsneed to make some programmingchanges. Therefore, the Commissionbelieves that the Association will workwith its member firms to develop auseful format.

After careful consideration of thecommenters’ concerns about theambiguous time frame of implementingreporting requirements pursuant toproposed Rule 3150, the Commissionfinds that the Association’s proposal tobegin requiring reporting underproposed Rule 3150 as of December 10,2001, phase in the three pilot memberfirms first, and thereafter phase in othermember firms in several stages shouldreasonably help the Association toimplement the reporting requirementsof proposed Rule 3150 by givingclearing and self-clearing firms, andservice bureaus sufficient time toprepare. The Commission believes thatthe representation by NASD Regulationthat it would give member firms no lessthan six-months notice of their start-update should provide clearing and self-clearing member firms adequate noticeto prepare for the reportingrequirements. Further, NASDRegulation has represented that it wouldtake into account broker-dealerrelationships with service bureaus inestablishing the phase-in schedules.

The Commission also finds that theAssociation’s proposal to include aprovision for exemptive relief from thereporting requirements of proposed Rule3150 should alleviate commentersconcerns that members under certaincircumstances should be exempted fromthe reporting requirements. The

Commission notes, in particular, thatthe size of a firm will not be thedeterminative factor in deciding to grantsuch exemption in order not tojeopardize the strength of the INSITEprogram.

IV. Amendments No. 1 and No. 2The Commission finds good cause for

approving Amendments No. 1 and 2prior to the thirtieth day after notice ofthe publication in the Federal Register.In addition to making minor technicalchanges to the proposed rule language,these amendments (1) explicitly refer toboth clearing firms and self-clearingfirms, and clarify that only memberclearing and self-clearing firms arerequired to report the prescribed data;(2) eliminate the requirement that alldata be reported on a daily basis; and (3)provide an exemption process from Rule3150. Additionally, these amendmentsaddress commenters’ concerns aboutduplicative data reporting and theproposed implementation date, andprovide the assurance of NASDRegulation that it will work in closecoordination with its member firms inimplementing the reportingrequirements under rule 3150.Accordingly, the Commission finds thatby providing Amendments Nos. 1 and 2to proposed Rule 3150 the Rule shouldenable the Association to detect unusualtrading patterns at an early stage andthereby better protect investors and thepublic interest from abusive salespractices. The Commission believes thatit is not necessary to separately solicitcomment on Amendment Nos. 1 and 2prior to approving this proposal becauseit finds that these changes to theproposed rule language respond to andincorporate suggestions made bycommenters to the original proposal.The Commission therefore finds thatacceleration of Amendments No. 1 and2 is appropriate.

V. Solicitation of CommentsInterested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, andarguments concerning Amendment Nos.1 and 2, including whether theproposed amendments are consistentwith the Act. Persons making writtensubmissions should file six copiesthereof with the Secretary, Securitiesand Exchange Commission, 450 FifthStreet, NW., Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of the submission, allsubsequent amendments, all writtenstatements with respect to the proposedamendments that are filed with theCommission, and all writtencommunications relating to theamendments between the Commissionand any person, other than those that



47 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).48 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

may be withheld from the public inaccordance with the provisions of 5U.S.C. 552, will be available forinspection and copying at theCommission’s Public Reference Room.Copies of such filing also will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe principal office of the NASD.

All submissions should refer to FileNo. SR–NASD–2001–19 and should besubmitted by December 26, 2001.

VI. ConclusionIt is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,47 that theproposed rule change (SR–NASD–2001–19), as amended, is approved.

For the Commission by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.48



[Release No. 34–45116; File No. SR–NASD–2001–84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Filing of Proposed Rule Change byNational Association of SecuritiesDealers, Inc. To Change theDescription of the MarketCapitalization Listing Standard toMarket Value of Listed Securities

November 28, 2001.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 November14, 2001, the National Association ofSecurities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’ or‘‘Association’’) through its subsidiary,The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.(‘‘Nasdaq’’), filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rulechange as described in Items I, II, andIII below, which Items have beenprepared by Nasdaq. The Commission ispublishing this notice to solicitcomments on the proposed rule changefrom interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Terms of Substance ofthe Proposed Rule Change

Nasdaq has filed with theCommission a proposed rule change tochange the description of the market

capitalization listing standard to marketvalue of listed securities. Nasdaq is alsoproposing to provide a definition of theterm ‘‘listed securities’’ in Nasdaq’sMarketplace Rules. Proposed newlanguage is in italics; proposeddeletions are in brackets.* * * * *

Rule 4200. Definitions

(a) For purposes of the Rule 4000Series, unless the context requiresotherwise:

(1)–(18) No change(19) ‘‘Listed securities’’ means

securities quoted on Nasdaq or listed ona national securities exchange.

Former (19)–(36) renumbered as (20)–(37)

(b) No change

Rule 4310. Qualification Requirementsfor Domestic and Canadian Securities

To qualify for inclusion in Nasdaq, asecurity of a domestic or Canadianissuer shall satisfy all applicablerequirements contained in paragraphs(a) or (b), and (c) hereof.

(a)–(b) No change(c) In addition to the requirements

contained in paragraph (a) or (b) above,and unless otherwise indicated, asecurity shall satisfy the followingcriteria for inclusion in Nasdaq:

(1) No change(2)(A) For initial inclusion, the issuer

shall have:(i) No change(ii) market value of listed securities

[market capitalization] of $50 million(currently traded issuers must meet thisrequirement and the bid pricerequirement under Rule 4310(c)(4) for90 consecutive trading days prior toapplying for listing); or

(iii) No change(B) For continued inclusion, the

issuer shall maintain:(i) No change(ii) market value of listed securities

[market capitalization] of $35 million; or(iii) No change(3) For initial inclusion, the issuer

shall have an operating history of atleast one year or a market value of listedsecurities [market capitalization] of $50million.

(4)–(7) No change(8)(A) No change(B) No change(C) A failure to meet the continued

inclusion requirements for market valueof listed securities [marketcapitalization] shall be determined toexist only if the deficiency continues fora period of 10 consecutive businessdays. Upon such failure, the issuersshall be notified promptly and shallhave a period of 30 calendar days from

such notification to achieve compliancewith the applicable continued inclusionstandard. Compliance can be achievedby meeting the applicable standard fora minimum of 10 consecutive businessdays during the 30 day complianceperiod.

(9)–(29) No change(d) No change

Rule 4320. Qualification Requirementsfor Non-Canadian Foreign Securitiesand American Depositary Receipts

To qualify for inclusion in Nasdaq, asecurity of a non-Canadian foreignissuer, an American Depositary Receipt(ADR) or similar security issued inrespect of a security of a foreign issuershall satisfy the requirements ofparagraphs (a), (b) or (c), and (d) and (e)of this Rule.

(a)–(d) No change(e) In addition to the requirements

contained in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c),and (d), the security shall satisfy thefollowing criteria for inclusion inNasdaq:

(1) No change(2)(A) For initial inclusion, the issuer

shall have:(i) No change(ii) market value of listed securities

[market capitalization] of U.S. $50million (currently traded issuers mustmeet this requirement for 90consecutive trading days prior toapplying for listing); or

(iii) No change(B) For continued inclusion, the

issuer shall maintain:(i) No change(ii) market value of listed securities

[market capitalization] of U.S. $35million; or

(iii) No change(C) No change(D) A failure to meet the continued

inclusion requirements for market valueof listed securities [marketcapitalization] shall be determined toexist only if the deficiency continues fora period of 10 consecutive businessdays, Upon such failure, the issuer shallbe notified promptly and shall have aperiod of 30 calendar days from suchnotification to achieve compliance withthe applicable continued inclusionstandard. Compliance can be achievedby meeting the applicable standard fora minimum of 10 consecutive businessdays during the 30 day complianceperiod.

(E) No change(3)–(25) No change(f) No change

Rule 4420. Quantitative DesignationCriteria

In order to be designated for theNasdaq National Market, an issuer shall



3 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(6).

be required to substantially meet thecriteria set forth in paragraphs (a), (b),(c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) below. InitialPublic Offerings substantially meetingsuch criteria are eligible for immediateinclusion in the Nasdaq National Marketupon prior application and with thewritten consent of the managingunderwriter that immediate inclusion isdesired. All other qualifying issues,excepting special situations, areincluded on the next inclusion dateestablished by Nasdaq.

(a)–(b) No change(c) Entry Standard 3An issuer designated under this

paragraph does not also need to be incompliance with the quantitativecriteria for initial inclusion in the Rule4300 series.

(1)–(5) No change(6) The issuer has:(A) a market value of listed securities

[market capitalization] of $75 million(currently traded issuers must meet thisrequirement and the bid pricerequirement under Rule 4420(c)(3) for90 consecutive trading days prior toapplying for listing); or

(B) No change(d)—(f) No change(g) Nasdaq will consider designating

as Nasdaq National Market securitiesSelected Equity-linked Debt Securities(SEEDS) that generally meet the criteriaof this paragraph (g). SEEDS are limited-term, non-convertible debt securities ofan issuer where the value of the debt isbased, at least in part, on the value ofanother issuer’s common stock or non-convertible preferred stock (orsponsored American DepositaryReceipts (ADPs) overlying such equitysecurities).

(1)–(2) No change(3) Minimum Standards Applicable to

the Linked SecurityAn equity security on which the value

of the SEEDS is based must:(A)(i) have a market value of listed

securities [market capitalization] of atleast $3 billion and a trading volume inthe United States of at least 2.5 millionshares in the one-year period precedingthe listing of the SEEDs;

(ii) have a market value of listedsecurities [market capitalization] of atleast $1.5 billion and trading volume inthe United States of at least 10 millionshares in the one-year period precedingthe listing of the SEEDS; or

(iii) have a market value of listedsecurities [market capitalization] of atleast $500 million and a trading volumein the United States of at least 15million shares in the one-year periodpreceding the listing of the SEEDS.

(B)–(C) No change(4)–(5) No change

(h) No change

Rule 4450. Quantitative MaintenanceCriteria

After designation as a NasdaqNational Market security, a securitymust substantially meet the criteria setforth in paragraphs (a) or (b), and (c),(d), (e), and (f) below to continue to bedesignated as a national market systemsecurity. A security maintaining itsdesignation under paragraph (b) neednot also be in compliance with thequantitative maintenance criteria in theRule 4300 series.

(a) No change(b) Maintenance Standard 2—

Common stock, Preferred Stock, Sharesor Certificates of Beneficial Interest ofTrusts and Limited Partnership Interestsin Foreign or Domestic Issues

(1) The issuer has:(A) a market value of listed securities

[market capitalization] of $50 million; or(B) No change(2)–(6) No change(c)–(g) No change

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

In its filing with the Commission,Nasdaq included statements concerningthe purpose of and basis for theproposed rule change and discussed anycomments it received on the proposedrule change. The text of these statementsmay be examined at the places specifiedin Item IV below. Nasdaq has preparedsummaries, set forth in sections A, B,and C below, of the most significantaspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

1. Purpose

The purpose of the proposed rulechange is to amend the description ofthe market capitalization listingstandard to market value of listedsecurities. One of the standards underwhich issuers can qualify for listing onThe Nasdaq National Market (‘‘NationalMarket’’) is to have a marketcapitalization of at least $75,000,000.Issuers may also qualify for continuedinclusion on the National market with atleast $50,000,000 in marketcapitalization. The minimum marketcapitalization standards for initial andcontinued inclusion on The NasdaqSmallCap Market are $50,000,000 and$35,000,000, respectively.

For purposes of initial listingeligibility, Nasdaq has historically

interpreted the term marketcapitalization to include only the valueof listed securities. In connection withcontinued listing eligibility, however,Nasdaq has also considered marketcapitalization to include classes of non-redeemable convertible preferred stock,provided that the conversion price was‘‘in the money.’’ This approach hascreated uncertainty among issuers andinvestors as to the definition andapplication of the market capitalizationlisting standard. Furthermore, Nasdaq’sMarketplace Rules do not define marketcapitalization and this term may bethought to include more than just thevalue of listed securities or non-redeemable convertible preferred stockthat is in the money. For example,issuers and investors may believe thatall unlisted convertible preferred stockor non-convertible preferred stock maybe included in the definition of marketcapitalization.

As such, Nasdaq proposes to changethe description of the marketcapitalization listing standard to marketvalue of listed securities. In conjunctionwith this change, Nasdaq also proposesto add to Nasdaq’s Marketplace Rules adefinition of the term ‘‘listedsecurities.’’ Nasdaq believes that thesemodifications will clarify for issuers andinvestors that initial and continuedlisting eligibility will be based onlyupon the value of an issuer’s securitiesthat are quoted on Nasdaq or listed ona national securities exchange.

2. Statutory Basis

Nasdaq believes that the proposedrule change is consistent with theprovisions of section 15A(b)(6) of theAct 3 in that the proposed rule change isdesigned to prevent fraudulent andmanipulative acts and practices, and toprotect investors and the public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Burden on Competition

Nasdaq does not believe that theproposed rule change will result in anyburden on competition that is notnecessary or appropriate in furtheranceof the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Comments on theProposed Rule Change Received FromMembers, Participants, or Others

Written comments were neithersolicited nor received.



4 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.3 See Letter from Richard S. Rudolph, Counsel,

Phlx, to Nancy J. Sanow, Senior Special Counsel,Division of Market Regulation, Commission, datedAugust 15, 2001 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).

4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44809(September 18, 2001), 66 FR 49056 (September 25,2001).

III. Date of Effectiveness of theProposed Rule Change and Timing forCommission Action

Within 35 days of the date ofpublication of this notice in the FederalRegister or within such longer period (i)as the Commission may designate up to90 days of such date if it finds suchlonger period to be appropriate andpublishes its reasons for so finding or(ii) as to which the self-regulatoryorganization consents, the Commissionwill:

A. by order approve such proposedrule change, or

B. institute proceedings to determinewhether the proposed rule changeshould be disapproved.

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 file six copies thereof with theSecretary, Securities and ExchangeCommission, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies ofthe submission, 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 inthe Commission’s Public ReferenceRoom. Copies of such filing will also beavailable for inspection and copying atthe principal office of the NASD. Allsubmissions should refer to File No.SR–NASD–2001–84 and should besubmitted by December 26, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.4

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–30141 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



[Release No. 34–45114; File No. SR–Phlx–2001–38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; OrderGranting Approval to Proposed RuleChange, and Amendment No. 1Thereto, by the Philadelphia StockExchange, Inc. Relating to theDefinition of a Controlled Account

November 28, 2001.

I. Introduction

On March 12, 2001, the PhiladelphiaStock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ or‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4thereunder,2 a proposed rule changerelated to the definition of a controlledaccount. On August 16, 2001, theExchange filed Amendment No. 1 to theproposed rule change.3 The proposedrule change was published for commentin the Federal Register on September18, 2001.4 This order approves theproposed rule change, as amended.

II. Description of the Proposed RuleChange

The Phlx proposes to amend thedefinition of controlled accounts underPhlx Rule 1014(g)(i) and Option FloorProcedure Advice (‘‘Advice’’) B–6. Theproposed rule change would also makecorresponding amendments to PhlxRule 1014(g)(i) and Advice B–6pertaining to the requirements to circlethe ‘‘yield’’ field on order tickets. Thisproposed rule change has been filed inresponse to the Ordering InstitutingPublic Administrative ProceedingPursuant to section 19(h)(1) of theSecurities Exchange Act Release No.43268 (September 11, 2000) andAdministrative Proceeding File 3–10282(the ‘‘Order’’). Under Section IV.B.j ofthe Order, the Exchange is required tocodify market maker practicespertaining to the allocation of orders.

Currently, Phlx Rule 1014(g) definesthe term controlled account to include‘‘any account controlled by or undercommon control with a member broker-dealer.’’ Phlx Option Specialists,Registered Options Traders (‘‘ROTs’’)

and other ‘‘firm proprietary’’ accounts(if for the account of a member broker-dealer) are included in this definition.Under the rule, if an account is not acontrolled account, it is considered acustomer account. Thus all otheraccounts, including non-memberbroker-dealer accounts, are consideredcustomer accounts. Except forspecialists and ROTs closing in-person,controlled accounts must yield priorityto customer accounts. Presently,member broker-dealers are required toyield priority to non-member broker-dealer accounts because such accountsare considered customer accounts underthe rule language. However, Phlx Rule1014(g) has been interpreted to yield thepriority of non-member broker-dealerorders to ‘‘true’’ customer orders, andtreat non-member broker-dealer orderson par with member broker-dealerorders on the floor of the Exchange. Thisproposed rule change would codify thefloor’s interpretation of the term‘‘controlled account.’’

Specifically, the proposed rule changewould amend the controlled accountdefinition to include a non-memberbroker-dealer account. Thus, non-member broker-dealers would berequired to yield priority to publiccustomer orders, and be treated on parwith orders for accounts of memberbroker-dealers. For instance, currently,where both a customer and a non-member broker-dealer order bid for 100contracts at the same time and at thesame price, the customer and the non-member broker-dealer would each beentitled to 50 contracts of an incomingorder to sell 100 contracts under therule. However, under the proposed rulechange, the customer’s bid would havepriority over the non-member broker-dealer and would receive the entireexecution of an incoming sell order for100 contracts at that price. In addition,under the proposed rule change, wherea non-member broker-dealer and a ROTboth bid for 100 contracts at the sametime and at the same price, the ROT andthe non-member broker-dealer wouldeach be entitled to 50 contracts asopposed to the result under the currentrule in which the non-member broker-dealer would have priority and beentitled to the entire execution of theincoming sell order for 100 contracts.

In addition, the proposed rule changewould amend Advice B–6 to clarify thatthere is no requirement to circle the‘‘yield’’ field on market maker ordertickets because unlike customer ordertickets, the tickets used for orders byROTs and other exchanges’ marketmakers (due to the processing needs ofclearing firms), do not have such acategory. This amendment would make



5 In approving this proposed rule change, theCommission has considered its impact onefficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15U.S.C. 78c(f).

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78f(b)(8).7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78f(b)(8).

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

Advice B–6 consistent with theexpanded definition of controlledaccount under the proposed rulechange. Currently, specialists and ROTsclosing-in person are not required tocircle the yield field; this requirementwould not change. Other controlledaccounts would still be required tocircle the yield field.

III. Discussion

After careful review, the Commissionfinds that the proposed rule change isconsistent with the Act and the rulesand regulations under the Actapplicable to a national securitiesexchange.5 In particular, the proposedrule change is consistent with sections6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Act.6 TheCommission finds that proposed rulechange is consistent with therequirements of section 6(b)(5) of theAct 7 because the proposed rule changeis designed to prevent fraudulent andmanipulative acts and practices, topromote just and equitable principles oftrade, and to remove impediments toand perfect the mechanism of a free andopen market, and, in general, to protectinvestors and the public interest. TheCommission also finds that theproposed rule change is consistent withsection 6(b)(5) of the Act because theproposed rule change is not designed topermit unfair discrimination betweencustomers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.Further, the Commission finds that theproposed rule change is consistent withsection 6(b)(8) of the Act 8 because theproposed rule change does not imposeany burden on competition notnecessary or appropriate in furtheranceof the purposes of the Act. In particular,the Commission finds that it isconsistent with sections 6(b)(5) and6(b)(8) of the Act 9 to treat non-memberbroker-dealers and member broker-dealers similarly by generally requiringthat orders for such accounts yield tocustomer orders. In this regard, this ruleis similar to protections offered tocustomer orders in other contexts.Further, the Commission finds thatparity between orders for non-memberbroker-dealers and member broker-dealers, except for members (i.e.,specialists and ROTs) that close in-person, is appropriate and consistentwith the Act.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant tosection 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 that theproposed rule change (SR–Phlx–2001–38), as amended, is approved.

For the Commission by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.11


SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

President’s Commission ToStrengthen Social Security

AGENCY: Social Security Administration(SSA).ACTION: Announcement of meetinglocation.

DATES: December 11, 2001 10:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.ADDRESSES: Park Hyatt Ballroom, ParkHyatt Washington, 24th at M StreetNW., Washington, DC 20037, (202) 789–1234.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheFederal Register notice announcing theDecember 11 meeting of the President’sCommission to Strengthen SocialSecurity did not include a meetinglocation. The purpose of thisannouncement is to provide the meetinglocation.

The Commission will meetcommencing Tuesday, December 11, at10:00 a.m. and ending at 6:00 p.m., witha break for lunch between 12:30 p.m.and 1:30 p.m. The Commission will bediscussing its draft Final Report.

Dated: November 30, 2001.Michael A. Anzick,Designated Federal Officer.[FR Doc. 01–30244 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4191–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Consular Affairs

[Public Notice 3850]

Designation of Certain Posts forSpecial Fee Payment Procedures

This public notice adds additionalposts, located in India and Vietnam, tothose already designated by the DeputyAssistant Secretary for Visa Services fortwo purposes related to the payment ofimmigrant visa fees. The first purpose

relates to the revised procedure forpayment of the fee for the processing ofthe application for an immigrant visa setforth in the Federal Register onSeptember 8, 2000, (65 FR 54598). Theeffective date of that notice was stayeduntil January 1, 2001 by a public noticein the Federal Register of December 14,2000, (65 FR 78243).

The second purpose is to identify theposts for which a fee pursuant to Item61 of the Schedule of Fees for ConsularServices (22 CFR 22.1) will be assessedfor advance review of and assistancewith the Affidavit of Support that isrequired in certain immigrant visa cases.Notice of this fee requirement wasadded to the visa regulation pertainingto the Affidavit of Support requirementin 22 CFR 40.41(b), and was effectiveJanuary 1, 2001.

The Department will publish furtherpublic notices as additionaldesignations are made.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary forVisa Services has designated the ForeignService posts in the following cities forparticipation in the new immigrant visaapplication processing fee paymentsystem and the fee for review of andassistance with the Affidavit of Supportrequired under section 213A of theImmigration and Nationality Act. Theeffective date of this notice is October 1,2001.Abidjan, Cote D’IvoireAccra, GhanaAddis Ababa, EthiopiaAlgiers, AlgeriaAntananarivo, MadagascarBogota, ColombiaCairo, EgyptChennai, IndiaCasablanca, MoroccoCiudad Juarez, MexicoCotonou, BeninDakar, SenegalDar-es-Salaam, TanzaniaDjibouti, DjiboutiFreetown, Sierra LeoneGeorgetown, GuyanaGuangzhou, ChinaHarare, ZimbabweHo Chi Minh City, VietnamJohannesburg, South AfricaKinshasa, Democratic Republic of the

CongoLagos, NigeriaLibreville, GabonLilongwe, MalawiLome, TogoLusaka, ZambiaManila, PhilippinesMonrovia, LiberiaMontreal, CanadaMumbai, IndiaNairobi, KenyaNew Delhi, India



Niamey, NigerOuagadougou, Burkina FasoPort-au-Prince, HaitiPraia, Cape Verde IslandsSanto Domingo, Dominican RepublicTirana, AlbaniaTunis, TunisiaYaounde, Cameroon

Dated: November 26, 2001.Wayne G. Griffith,Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services,U.S. Department of State.[FR Doc. 01–30136 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3851]

Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX)Computer Training of TrainersWorkshop; Request for Proposals

SUMMARY: The Office of CitizenExchanges, Division of the NISSecondary School Initiative of theUnited States Information Agency’sBureau of Educational and CulturalAffairs, announces an open competitionfor the Computer Training of TrainersWorkshop for the Future LeadersExchange (FLEX) program. The FLEXprogram brings secondary students fromthe New Independent States (NIS) of theformer Soviet Union to the U.S. for anacademic year. During their time in theU.S., FLEX students live with Americanhost families and attend U.S. highschools.

The primary goal of the ComputerTraining of Trainers Workshop is totrain the participants to educate othersin basic computer skills and Internetaccess. Public and private non-profitorganizations meeting the provisionsdescribed in Internal Revenue Codesection 26 USC 501c(3) may submitproposals to conduct a one-weekworkshop in Spring, 2002 to train aminimum of 30 FLEX students.

Participants will be selected fromamong a group of 1200 students. Weanticipate the maximum grant award tobe approximately $75,000. Cost sharingto maximize the number of participantswill be looked at very favorably.

Program Information

The recipient of the grant isresponsible for developing andconducting the Computer Training ofTrainers Workshop based on guidelinesset forth by the Division. The granteeorganization will also haveresponsibility for selecting participants.Additional responsibilities includecoordinating travel arrangements foreach participant from his/her host

community to the training site andreturn, and for providing room andboard for students during their time atthe workshop.

BackgroundAcademic year 2001/2002 is the ninth

year of the FSA/FLEX program, whichnow includes over 10,000 alumni. Thiscomponent of the NIS Secondary SchoolInitiative was originally authorizedunder the FREEDOM Support Act of1992 and is funded by annualallocations from the Foreign Operationsand Department of State appropriations.The goals of the program are to promotemutual understanding and foster arelationship between the people of theNIS and the U.S.; assist the successorgeneration of the NIS to develop thequalities it will need to lead in thetransformation of those countries in the21st century; and to promote democraticvalues and civic responsibility by givingNIS youth the opportunity to live inAmerican society for an academic year.

Other ComponentsTwo organizations have already been

awarded grants to perform functionsthat include recruitment, selection,international travel of all FLEXstudents, and ongoing follow-up withalumni upon their return to the NIS.Additionally, ‘‘placementorganizations’’ have been awardedgrants to place FSA/FLEX students inschools and homestays for the academicyear. The organization selected for theComputer Training of TrainersWorkshop will need to request that eachplacement organization disseminateinformation on the workshop to all itsstudents and assist in coordinatingtravel of finalists to the workshop site,and return.

OverviewWorkshop participants should be

selected according to computer ability,interest, and teaching potential as wellas motivation to help citizens of theircountries. The workshop shouldprovide an opportunity, first andforemost, for participants to learn aboutteaching methodologies that will enablethem to instruct others. In addition, thiscan serve as a venue for them toimprove their computer expertise sothey will be well-prepared to teachthese skills to others. Participantsshould learn about tools they can use toteach basic computer skills, keeping inmind that some of these tools may notbe available in their home countries.They should also gain an awareness ofhow computers can enhance societaldevelopment through communicationwith appropriate organizations, distance

learning projects, local language websites, etc. Particular attention should bepaid to those issues that will beespecially significant to people from theformer Soviet Union. The programshould be arranged for seven days,including arrival and departure.

Selection of workshop participantswill be completed by the recipient of thegrant through a merit-based, equitableselection process. Finalists mustrepresent all 12 NIS countries.

Guidelines

The workshop should be held inSpring 2002, preferably in March orApril. Proposals must effectivelydescribe the organization’s ability toaccomplish the following essentialcomponents of the program:

1. Provide a Computer Training ofTrainers Workshop, as described aboveand, preferably, at the time periodindicated.

2. Include a description of the studentselection process.

3. Describe training that will beprovided for organization staff on NISsociety and culture.

4. Provide housing and meals for thestudents throughout the program.

5. Arrange travel for students fromtheir U.S. host communities to thetraining site, and return, in coordinationwith FLEX placement organizations.(Note: Students will likely be comingfrom as many as 30 states.) Provideground transportation for students inthe training area, including to and fromairports.

6. Provide opportunities to attendcultural events in the area during non-class hours.

7. Provide staff to assist in case ofmedical emergencies.

8. Incorporate a program componentdesigned to facilitate students’transition from the computer workshopto their host communities.

9. Include a description of the waysin which students will be encouraged toshare what they have learned in theirU.S. host communities, and to teachothers when they return to their homecountries. Include a plan for howreturning students will interface withFLEX alumni associations that existthroughout the NIS.

10. Provide a mechanism in whichparticipants can continue tocommunicate with each other uponcompletion of the workshop.

11. Provide tools for evaluation of theprogram in terms of its impact on thestudents and its success in fulfillingobjectives, particularly the componentthat involves their teaching others intheir home countries. Plan for continuedactivity to build upon program



achievements without additional U.S.government support.

A competitive proposal willincorporate important elements ofAmerican/NIS culture in sessions thatare largely interactive and designed toappeal to high school-age students. Theprogram must be substantive andacademic while, at the same time, pacedrealistically to meet the needs of youngpeople. A strong proposal will reflect aclear, convincing agenda outliningexactly how the program will be carriedout and how outcomes will beaccomplished as a result of the grant.Knowledge of the current technologicalcapacity (Internet connectivity, e-mail,hardware and software) of NIS countriesis essential.

Please refer to the Program Objectives,Goals, and Implementation (POGI)section of the Solicitation Package forgreater detail regarding the design ofcomponent parts as well as otherprogram information.

Budget Guidelines

Organizations must submit proposalsthat arrange a program for a minimumof 30 students, but may increase thenumber of participants through costsharing. Proposals that maximize thenumber of students will be favorablyviewed. One grant will be awarded forthis activity. It is estimated that the totalcosts of the Computer Training ofTrainers Workshop will average $2,500per NIS participant for a one-weekprogram, including U.S. domestic travel.

Applicants must submit acomprehensive budget for the entireprogram. We anticipate awarding onegrant for approximately $75,000. Theremust be a summary budget as well asbreakdowns reflecting bothadministrative and program budgets.Please refer to the Solicitation Packagefor further details and for completebudget guidelines and formattinginstructions.

Allowable costs for the programinclude the following:

(1) Transportation for participantsfrom their host U.S. cities/towns toworkshop site.

(2) Daily travel to/from workshop sitelocation.

(3) Room and board during the timeof the workshop.

(4) Rental of facilities and equipment.(5) Fees for related activities/

excursions.(6) Honoraria for speakers/trainers, as

appropriate.(7) Supplies.(8) Security services.Please refer to the Solicitation

Package for complete budget guidelinesand formatting instructions.

Announcement Title and Number

All correspondence with the Bureauconcerning this RFGP should referencethe above title and number ECA/PE/C/PY–02–40.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: TheYouth Programs Division, Office ofCitizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C/PY, Room568, U.S. Department of State, 301 4thStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20547,phone: 202/619–6299, fax: 202/619–5311, e-mail: <[email protected]> torequest a Solicitation Package. TheSolicitation Package contains detailedaward criteria, required applicationforms, specific budget instructions, andstandard guidelines for proposalpreparation. Please specify BureauProgram Officer Anna Mussman on allother inquiries and correspondence.

Please read the complete FederalRegister announcement before sendinginquiries or submitting proposals. Oncethe RFGP deadline has passed, Bureaustaff may not discuss this competitionwith applicants until the proposalreview process has been completed.

To Download a Solicitation Packagevia Internet: The entire SolicitationPackage may be downloaded from theBureau’s web site at http://exchanges.state.gov/education/RFGPs.Please read all information beforedownloading.

Deadline for Proposals

All proposal copies must be receivedat the Bureau of Educational andCultural Affairs by 5 p.m. Washington,DC time on January 14, 2002. Faxeddocuments will not be accepted at anytime. Documents postmarked the duedate but received on a later date will notbe accepted. It is the responsibility ofeach applicant to ensure that itsproposal is received by the abovedeadline.

Applicants must follow allinstructions in the Solicitation Package.The original and seven copies of theapplication should be sent to: U.S.Department of State, SA–44, Bureau ofEducational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.:ECA/PE/C/PY–02–40, ProgramManagement, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534,301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC20547.

Diversity, Freedom and DemocracyGuidelines

Pursuant to the Bureau’s authorizinglegislation, programs must maintain anon-political character and should bebalanced and representative of thediversity of American political, social,and cultural life. ‘‘Diversity’’ should beinterpreted in the broadest sense andencompass differences including, but

not limited to ethnicity, race, gender,religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and physicalchallenges. Applicants are stronglyencouraged to adhere to theadvancement of this principle both inprogram administration and in programcontent. Please refer to the reviewcriteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’section for specific suggestions onincorporating diversity into the totalproposal. Public Law 104–319 providesthat ‘‘in carrying out programs ofeducational and cultural exchange incountries whose people do not fullyenjoy freedom and democracy,’’ theBureau ‘‘shall take appropriate steps toprovide opportunities for participationin such programs to human rights anddemocracy leaders of such countries.’’Public Law 106–113 requires that thegovernments of the countries describedabove do not have inappropriateinfluence in the selection process.Proposals should reflect advancement ofthese goals in their program contents, tothe full extent deemed feasible.

Review Process

The Bureau will acknowledge receiptof all proposals and will review themfor technical eligibility. Proposals willbe deemed ineligible if they do not fullyadhere to the guidelines stated hereinand in the Solicitation Package. Alleligible proposals will be reviewed bythe program office, as well as the PublicDiplomacy section overseas, whereappropriate. Eligible proposals will beforwarded to panels of Bureau officersfor advisory review. Proposals may alsobe reviewed by the Office of the LegalAdviser or by other Departmentelements. Final funding decisions are atthe discretion of the Department ofState’s Assistant Secretary forEducational and Cultural Affairs. Finaltechnical authority for assistanceawards (grants or cooperativeagreements) resides with the Bureau’sGrants Officer.

Review Criteria

Technically eligible applications willbe competitively reviewed according tothe criteria stated below. These criteriaare not rank ordered and all carry equalweight in the proposal evaluation:

1. Quality of the program idea:Proposals should exhibit originality,substance, precision, and relevance tothe Bureau’s mission.

2. Program planning: Detailed agendaand relevant work plan shoulddemonstrate substantive undertakingsand logistical capacity. Agenda and planshould adhere to the program overviewand guidelines described above.



3. Ability to achieve programobjectives: Objectives should bereasonable, feasible, and flexible.Proposals should clearly demonstratehow the organization will meet theprogram’s objectives and plan.

4. Support of Diversity: Proposalsshould demonstrate substantive supportof the Bureau’s policy on diversity.Achievable and relevant features shouldbe cited in both program administration(selection of participants, programvenue and program evaluation) andprogram content (orientation and wrap-up sessions, program meetings, resourcematerials and follow-up activities).

5. Institutional Capacity: Proposedpersonnel and institutional resourcesshould be adequate and appropriate toachieve the program or project’s goals.Proposing organization shoulddemonstrate it has experience withcomputer education, preferably withyouth, as well as familiarity with theculture of the New Independent States(NIS) of the former Soviet Union.

6. Track Record: Proposals shoulddemonstrate an institutional record ofsuccessful programs, includingresponsible fiscal management and fullcompliance with all reportingrequirements for past Bureau grants asdetermined by Bureau Grant Staff. TheBureau will consider the pastperformance of prior recipients and thedemonstrated potential of newapplicants.

7. Multiplier effect/impact: Proposedprograms should describe howworkshop participants will be motivatedand enabled to reach out to otherindividuals in their communities in theU.S. and in their home countries.

8. Follow-on Activities: Proposalsshould describe how the program willtrack participants to confirm that theyshare their knowledge and informationwith their U.S. communities andorganize ways to teach others in theirhome countries.

9. Project Evaluation: Proposalsshould include a plan to evaluate theactivity’s success. A draft surveyquestionnaire or other technique plusdescription of a methodology to use tolink outcomes to original projectobjectives are recommended. Successfulapplicants will be expected to submit afinal report after the project has beencompleted.

10. Cost-effectiveness/Cost Sharing:The overhead and administrativecomponents of the proposal, includingsalaries and honoraria, should be keptas low as possible. All other itemsshould be necessary and appropriate.Proposals should maximize cost-sharingthrough other private sector support as

well as institutional direct fundingcontributions.

Authority

Overall grant making authority forthis program is contained in the MutualEducational and Cultural Exchange Actof 1961, Public Law 87–256, asamended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is ‘‘toenable the Government of the UnitedStates to increase mutual understandingbetween the people of the United Statesand the people of other countries * * *;to strengthen the ties which unite uswith other nations by demonstrating theeducational and cultural interests,developments, and achievements of thepeople of the United States and othernations * * * and thus to assist in thedevelopment of friendly, sympatheticand peaceful relations between theUnited States and the other countries ofthe world.’’ The funding authority forthe program above is provided throughlegislation of the Freedom Support Act.

Notice

The terms and conditions publishedin this RFGP are binding and may notbe modified by any Bureaurepresentative. Explanatory informationprovided by the Bureau that contradictspublished language will not be binding.Issuance of the RFGP does notconstitute an award commitment on thepart of the Government. The Bureaureserves the right to reduce, revise, orincrease proposal budgets in accordancewith the needs of the program and theavailability of funds. Awards made willbe subject to periodic reporting andevaluation requirements.

Notification

Final awards cannot be made untilfunds have been appropriated byCongress, allocated and committedthrough internal Bureau procedures.

Dated: November 26, 2001.Patricia S. Harrison,Assistant Secretary for Educational andCultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State.[FR Doc. 01–30137 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–05–P



Public Notice for Waiver ofAeronautical Land-Use Assurance;Greater Kankakee Airport, Kankakee,IL

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.

ACTION: Corrected notice of intent ofwaiver with respect to land.

SUMMARY: Previous notice of intent ofwaiver with respect to land waspublished in the Federal Register onNovember 27, 2001 (page 59297). Thenotice provided that comments must bereceived on or before November 27,2001 and did not provide 30 days forpublic comment as required. Thiscorrected notice amends the date forcomments to be filed. Comments mustbe received on or before December 27,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Denis Rewerts, Program Manager, 2300East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL,60018. Telephone Number 847–294–7195/FAX Number 847–294–7046.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on November28, 2001.Philip M. Smithmeyer,Manager, Chicago Airports District Office,FAA, Great Lakes Region.[FR Doc. 01–30175 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



Notice of Intent To Rule on Request ToRelease Airport Land at the SaffordMunicipal Airport, Safford, ArizonaFrom Certain Restrictions Contained inthe Patent Dated April 3, 1956

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of intent to rule onrequest to release airport land fromcertain restrictions contained in thePatent No. 1158979 dated April 3, 1956.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule andinvites public comment on the release ofapproximately 183.30 acres of land atthe Safford Municipal Airport, Safford,Arizona, from certain restrictionscontained in the Patent dated April 3,1956. The purpose of the release is topermit the use of approximately 183.30acres of airport property to be developedfor non-aeronautical purposes, butremain dedicated airport land.DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate to the FAA at the followingaddress: Federal AviationAdministration, Airports Division, P.O.Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009. Inaddition, one copy of any commentssubmitted to the FAA must be mailed ordelivered to Mr. Ronald Jacobson, City



Manager, City of Safford, P.O. Box 272Safford, AZ 85548–0272.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Kevin Flynn, Supervisor, ArizonaStandards Section, Airports Division,AWP–623, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles,CA 90009, Telephone: (310) 725–3632.Arrangements may be made with Mr.Flynn to review the request to releasethe subject airport property from certainobligations in person at the FAAWestern-Pacific Regional office, 15000Aviation Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April5, 2000, new authorizing legislationbecame effective. That bill, the WendellH. Ford Aviation Investment andReform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21), Public Law 10–181 (Apr. 5, 2000;114 Stat. 61), requires that a 30-daypublic notice must be provided beforethe Secretary may waive any conditionimposed on an interest in surplusproperty.

The following is a brief overview ofthe request:

On April 3, 1956, the United StatesDepartment of Interior, acting under theauthority of section 16 of the FederalAirport Act of 1946, granted patent No.1158979 to the Town of Safford,Arizona for 692.66 acres to bedeveloped as a public use airport. TheCity of Safford has requested the releaseof approximately 183.30 acres ofdedicated airport land at the SaffordMunicipal Airport, Safford Arizonafrom certain restrictions contained inthe Patent dated April 3, 1956. Thepurpose of the release is to permit theuse of dedicated airport property fornon-aeronautical purposes. Netproceeds from the leasing anddevelopment of the subject land will beutilized by the city for capitalimprovements, operation, andmaintenance at the Safford MunicipalAirport.

Issued in Hawthorne, California, onNovember 15, 2001.Herman C. Bliss,Manager, Airports Division, Western-PacificRegion.[FR Doc. 01–30133 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



[Summary Notice No. PE–2001–92]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary ofDispositions of Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Disposition of priorpetitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemakingprovisions governing the application,processing, and disposition of petitionsfor exemption part 11 of Title 14, Codeof Federal Regulations (14 CFR), thisnotice contains a summary ofdispositions of certain petitionspreviously received. The purpose of thisnotice is to improve the public’sawareness of, and participation in, thisaspect of FAA’s regulatory activities.Neither publication of this notice northe inclusion or omission of informationin the summary is intended to affect thelegal status of any petition or its finaldisposition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Forest Rawls (202) 267–8033, SandyBuchanan-Sumter (202) 267–7271, orVanessa Wilkins (202) 267–8029, Officeof Rulemaking (ARM–1), FederalAviation Administration, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November29, 2001.Donald P. Byrne,Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Disposition of Petitions

Docket No.: FAA–2001–10789(previously Docket No. 29903).

Petitioner: Bain Aviation, Inc., dbaTavaero Jet Charter, Inc.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR135.143(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit TJC to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.

Grant, 11/13/2001, Exemption No.7146A.


Petitioner: Taconite Aviation, Inc.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143(c)(2).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit TAI to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.

Grant, 11/13/2001, Exemption No.6735B.


Petitioner: U.S. Air Force.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

91.209(a) and (b).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the USAF toconduct helicopter night-vision flight

training operations without lightedaircraft position lights at or below 500feet above ground level.



Petitioner: Air Logistics, L.L.C.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit Air Logistics tooperate certain aircraft under part 135without a TSO–C112 (Mode S)transponder installed in the aircraft.


Docket No.: FAA–2001–10920.Petitioner: Yute Air Taxi, Inc.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit YAT to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.

Grant, 11/13/2001, Exemption No.7658.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–10838.Petitioner: Frontline Aviation, Inc.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit FAI to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.


Docket No.: FAA–2001–10839.Petitioner: Alaska Flying Tours.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit AFT to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.


Docket No.: FAA–2001–10927.Petitioner: Miller Aero Services, Inc.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR


Disposition: To permit MAS to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.



Petitioner: Indiaanapolis Aviation,Inc.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR135.143(c)(2).



Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit IAI to operatecertain aircraft under part 135 withouta TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponderinstalled in the aircraft.

Grant, 11/13/2001, Exemption No.7082A.[FR Doc. 01–30131 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



[Summary Notice No. PE–2001–93]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary ofDispositions of Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of Dispositions of priorpetitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemakingprovisions governing the application,processing, and disposition of petitionsfor exemption part 11 of Title 14, Codeof Federal Regulations (14 CFR), thisnotice contains a summary ofdispositions of certain petitionspreviously received. The purpose of thisnotice is to improve the public’sawareness of, and participation in, thisaspect of FAA’s regulatory activities.Neither publication of this notice northe inclusion or omission of informationin the summary is intended to affect thelegal status of any petition or its finaldisposition.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Forest Rawls (202) 267–8033, SandyBuchanan-Sumter (202) 267–7271, orVanessa Wilkins (202) 267–8029, Officeof Rulemaking (ARM–1), FederalAviation Administration, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.

Issued in Washington, DC., on November29, 2001.Donald P. Byrne,Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Dispositions of PetitionsDocket No.: FAA–2001–10384

(previously Docket No. 29137).Petitioner: Weary Warriors Squadron.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

91.315, 119.21(g), and 119.21(a).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit WWS to operateits North American B–25 aircraft, whichis certificated in the limited category,for the purpose of carrying passengersfor compensation or hire.



Petitioner: Air Logistics, L.L.C.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

145.45(f).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Air Logistics toplace and maintain its InspectionProcedures Manual (IPM) in a numberof fixed locations within its facility inlieu of giving a copy of the IPM to eachof its supervisory and inspectionpersonnel.

Grant, 10/24/2001, Exemption No.7097A.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–10876.Petitioner: EAA Aviation Foundation,

Inc., and Experimental AircraftAssociation, Inc.

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR91.315, 119.5(g), and 119.21(a).

Description of Relief Sought/Disposition: To permit EAA to operateits Boeing B–17 airplane, which iscertificated in the limited category, forthe purpose of carrying its members forcompensation or hire in its formermilitary vintage airplane on local flightsfor educational and historical purposes.

Grant, 10/30/2001, Exemption No.6541C.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–9780.Petitioner: Schwartz Engineering

Company.Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR

25.813(e).Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit SEC to installinterior ‘‘hinged/slab’’ doors betweenpassenger compartments on one private-use Boeing Model 737–700 IGWairplane.

Denial, 11/02/2001, Exemption No.7656.

[FR Doc. 01–30132 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



Notice of Intent To Rule on Application02–05–C–00–BGM To Impose/Use theRevenue from a Passenger FacilityCharge (PFC) at Binghamton RegionalAirport, Binghamton, New York

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/use the revenuefrom a PFC at Binghamton RegionalAirport under the provisions of theAviation Safety and Capacity Expansion

Act of 1990 (Title IX of the OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act of 1990)(Public Law 101–508) and part 158 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR part 158).DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate to the FAA at the followingaddress: Federal AviationAdministration, New York AirportsDistrict Office, 600 Old Country Road,Suite 446, Garden City, New York11530.

In addition, one copy of anycomments submitted to the FAA mustbe mailed or delivered to Mr. Carl R.Beardsley, Jr., Deputy Commissioner ofAviation of the Broome CountyDepartment of Aviation at the followingaddress: Broome County Department ofAviation, 2534 Airport Road, Box 16,Johnson City, NY 13790.

Air carriers and foreign air carriersmay submit copies of written commentspreviously provided to the BroomeCounty Department of Aviation undersection 158.23 of part 158.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Philip Brito, Manager, New YorkAirports District Office, 600 OldCountry Road, Suite 446, Garden City,New York 11530, Telephone: (516) 227–3800. The application may be reviewedin person at the same location.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAproposes to rule and invites publiccomment on the application to impose/use the revenue from a PFC atBinghamton Regional Airport under theprovisions of the Aviation Safety andCapacity Expansion Act of 1990 (TitleIX of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law101–508) and part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On October 31, 2001, the FAAdetermined that the application toimpose/use the revenue from a PFCsubmitted by the Broome CountyDepartment of Aviation wassubstantially complete within therequirements of section 158.25 of part158. The FAA will approve ordisapprove the application, in whole orin part, no later than February 19, 2001.

The following is a brief overview ofthe application.

PFC Application No.: 02–05–C–00–BGM.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.Proposed charge effective date:

February 1, 2002.Proposed charge expiration date: July

31, 2006.Total estimated PFC revenue:

$1,445,438.



Brief description of proposedproject(s):

Impose Only:—Airport Service Road Improvements—

Phase I—ARFF Facility Refurbishment—Passenger Boarding Bridge Purchase—Runway 16–34 Refurbishment Design/

ConstructionImpose and Use:

—Snow Removal Equipment Purchase—Fire Rescue Equipment—Runway 16–34 RSA EMAS Design/

Construction—Airport Master Plan UpdateUse:—Maintenance Building

Construction—Construction PhaseClass of classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not berequired to collect PFCs: Non-Scheduled/On Demand Operators filingFAA Form 1800–31.

Any person may inspect theapplication in person at the FAA officelisted above under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAAregional airports office located at:Federal Aviation Administration,Eastern Region, Airports Division, AEA–610, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NewYork 11434–4809.

In addition, any person may, uponrequest, inspect the FAA application,notice and other documents germane tothe application in person at the BroomeCounty Department of Aviation.

Issued in Garden City, New York onNovember 27, 2001.Philip Brito,Manager, New York Airports District Office,Eastern Region.[FR Doc. 01–30176 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



Notice of Intent To Rule on ApplicationTo Impose a Passenger Facility Charge(PFC) at Dayton International Airportfor Use at Dayton International Airportand Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport,Dayton, Ohio


SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule andinvites public comment on theapplication to impose a PFC at DaytonInternational Airport for use at DaytonInternational Airport and Dayton-WrightBrothers Airport under the provisions ofthe Aviation Safety and Capacity

Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and part 158 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR part 158).DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate to the FAA at the followingaddress: Federal AviationAdministration, Detroit Airports DistrictOffice, Willow Run Airport, East, 8820Beck Road, Belleville, Michigan 48111.The application may be reviewed inperson at this location.

In addition, one copy of anycomments submitted to the FAA mustbe mailed or delivered to Mr. Eugene B.Conrad, Jr., A.A.E., Dayton InternationalAirport at the following address: DaytonInternational Airport, 3600 TerminalDrive, Suite 300, Vandalia, Ohio, 45377.

Air carriers and foreign air carriersmay submit copies of written commentspreviously provided to the DaytonInternational Airport under section158.23 of part 158.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Arlene B. Draper, Program Manager,Federal Aviation Administration,Detroit Airports District Office, WillowRun Airport, East, 8820 Beck Road,Belleville, Michigan 48111 (734–487–7282). The application may be reviewedin person at this same location.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAproposes to rule and invites publiccomment on the application to imposea PFC at Dayton International Airportand to use the revenue at DaytonInternational Airport and Dayton-WrightBrothers Airport under the provisions ofthe Aviation Safety and CapacityExpansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and part 158 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR part 158).

On September 27, 2001, the FAAdetermined that the application toimpose a PFC at Dayton InternationalAirport and to use the revenue atDayton International and Wright-Brothers Airports submitted by the Cityof Dayton was substantially completewithin the requirements of section158.25 of part 158. The FAA willapprove or disapprove the application,in whole or in part, not later thanDecember 26, 2001.


PFC application number: 01–03–C–00–DAY.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.Proposed charge effective date: March

1, 2004.

Proposed charge expiration date:August 1, 2014.

Total estimated PFC revenue:$64,670,915.00.

Brief description of proposed projects:Dayton International: Runway

Pavement Rehabilitation, EnvironmentalImpact Study, Deicing SystemImprovements, Backup Generator-Airfield, Aircraft Rescue and FireFighting (ARFF) Station Renovation andExpansion, Taxiways A and ZRehabilitation, Taxiway H, K, E, C, Land V Rehabilitation, Cargo andTerminal Aircraft Apron Rehabilitation,Land Acquisition-Approach andRunway Protection, Airfield SnowRemoval Equipment, ARFF VehicleReplacement (Rescue 22), BackupGenerator-Terminal, Terminal GateExpansion, Terminal Drive and RelatedRoads Rehabilitation, SouthwestTerminal Apron, Northeast DeicingApron, Computerized Airfield LightingControl System, Perimeter Road, FarPart 150 Noise Study—Phase 1, 2, andFinal, Airport Police OfficesRenovation. Dayton-Wright BrothersAirport: Land Acquisition andApproach Protection for Runway End20, Runway 2/20 and Other PavementRehabilitation. Class or classes of aircarriers which the public agency hasrequested to be required to collect PFCs:air taxi/commercial operators.

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 DaytonInternational Airport, 5300 RiversideDrive, Dayton, Ohio 44135.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on November27, 2001.Mark McClardy,Acting Manager, Planning and ProgrammingBranch, Airports Division, Great LakesRegion.[FR Doc. 01–30134 Filed 12–4–01; 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) atDuluth International Airport, DuluthMinnesota




SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule andinvites public comment on theapplication to impose and use therevenue from a PFC at DuluthInternational Airport under theprovisions of the Aviation Safety andCapacity Expansion Act of 1990 (TitleIX of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law101–508) and part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 part 158).DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate to the FAA at the followingaddress: Federal AviationAdministration, Minneapolis AirportsDistrict office, 6020 28th Avenue South,Room 102, Minneapolis, Minnesota55450–2706.

In addition, one copy of anycomments submitted to the FAA mustbe mailed or delivered to Mr. RaymondKlosowski, Executive Director, DuluthAirport Authority, at the followingaddress: Duluth Airport Authority,Duluth International Airport, 4701Grinder Drive, Duluth, MN 55811. Aircarriers and foreign air carriers maysubmit copies of written commentspreviously provided to the DuluthAirport Authority under section 158.23of part 158.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Gordon Nelson, Program Manager,Federal Aviation Administration,Airports District Office, 6020 28thAvenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55450–2706, (612) 713–4358.The applicaiton may be reviewed inperson at this same location.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAproposes to rule and invites publiccomment on the application to imposeand use the revenue from a PFC atDuluth International Airport Under theprovisions of the Aviation Safety andCapacity Expansion Act of 1990 (TitleIX of the Omnibus budgetReconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law101–508) and part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On October 18, 2001, the FAAdetermined that the application toimpose and use the revenue from a PFCsubmitted by the Duluth Airportauthority was substantially completewithin the requirements of section158.25 of part 158. The FAA willapprove or disapprove the application,in whole or in part, no later thanJanuary 16, 2002.


PFC application number: 01–05–C–00–DLH.

Level of the proposed FPC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: March1, 2002.

Proposed charge expiration date:March 1, 2003.

Total estimated FPC revenue:$554,556.00.

Brief description of proposed projects:Prepare PFC application; upgradesurveillance camera system (Phase II);repair and replace concrete panels forRunway 9–27 and reconstruct a segmentof Taxiway A; design Runway 9 Cat IIInstrument Landing System (ILS) andmidfield runway Visual Range (RVR);reconstruct passenger terminal apron;improve runway 9 safety area (westend); install runway 9 high intensityapproach lighting system withsequenced flashing lights (ALSF–2);acquire 8.5 acres of wetland credits;improve runway safety area at thesouthwest end of runway 3–21;construct perimeter road around thesouthwest end of Runway 3–21; install12,950 feet of 6-ft high security fenceand 2,700 feet of ten-foot high deerfence. Class or classes of air carrierswhich the public agency has requestednot be required to collect PFCs: non-scheduled part 135 Air Taxi/Commercial Operators (ATCO).

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 theapplicaiton in person at the DuluthAirport Authority Office.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, onNovember 27, 2001.Mark McClardy,Acting Manager, Planning/ProgrammingBranch, Airports Division, Great LakesRegion.[FR Doc. 01–30135 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



Subject of Intent To Rule onApplication To Impose and Use theRevenue From A Passenger FacilityCharge (PFC) at Orlando InternationalAirport, Orlando, Florida


SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule andinvites public comment on theapplication to impose and use therevenue from a PFC at Orlando

International Airport under theprovisions of the Aviation Safety andCapacity Expansion Act of 1990 (TitleIX of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law101–508) and part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 4, 2002.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate to the FAA at the followingaddress: Orlando Airports DistrictOffice, 5950 Hazeltine National Dr.,Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822.

In addition, one copy of anycomments submitted to the FAA mustbe mailed or delivered to Mr. C.W.Jennings, Executive Director of theGreater Orlando Aviation Authority atthe following address: Mr. C.W.Jennings, Executive Director, GreaterOrlando Aviation Authority, OneAirport Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32827–4399.

Air carriers and foreign air carriersmay submit copies of written commentspreviously provided to the GreaterOrlando Aviation Authority undersection 158.23 of part 158.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Bud Jackman, Program Manager,Orlando Airports District Office, 5950Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400,Orlando, FL 32822, (407) 812–6331,x22. 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 International Airport under theprovisions of the Aviation Safety andCapacity Expansion Act of 1990 (TitleIX of the Omnibus BudgetReconcilitation Act of 1990) (Public Law101–508) and part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On November 21, 2001, the FAAdetermined that the application toimpose and use the revenue from a PFCsubmitted by the Greater OrlandoAviation Authority was substantiallycomplete within the requirements ofsection 158.25 of part 158. The FAAwill approve or disapprove theapplication, in whole or in part, no laterthan March 14, 2002.


PFC Application No.: 02–09–C–00–MCO.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.Proposed charge effective date:

Februrary 1, 2014.Proposed charge expiration date:

February 1, 2017.



Total estimated net PFC revenue:$219,494,000.

Brief description of proposedprojoect(s):

Landside Terminal Level 1Modifications,

Six Bank Elevator Improvements,Baggage Conveyor System—Landside

Levels 1&2,Central Plant Improvements Phase 3,Fourth Runway (9,000 ft by 150 ft),Drainage Improvements (Wildlife

Attractants Mitigation),Intermodal Transit System (ITS),Replacement of 180,000 LF of

Pavement Joints for Runway 17–35,Satellite Aircraft Rescue and Fire

Fighting (ARFF) Facility,800 MHz Radio System—Digital

Upgrade,Baggage Sorting System Upgrade,Taxiway Lighting Improvements,Mobile Command Post,Surface Movement Guidance Control

System,Automated Guide way Transit (AGT)

Rehabilitation Program,Emergency Operations Center,Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

(ARFF) Vehicles.Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not berequired to collect PFCs: None.

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 GreaterOrlando Aviation Authority.

Dated: Issued in Orlando, Florida onNovember 28, 2001.W. Dean Stringer,Manager, Orlando Airports District Office,Southern Region.[FR Doc. 01–30177 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



Notice of Passenger Facility Charge(PFC) Approvals and Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFCApprovals and Disapprovals. In October2001, there were six applicationsapproved. Additionally, 11 approvedamendments to previously approvedapplications are listed.

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthlynotice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals

and disapprovals under the provisionsof the Aviation Safety and CapacityExpansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and part 158 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR part 158). This notice is publishedpursuant to paragraph d of 158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

Public Agency: Shenandoah ValleyRegional Airport Commission, WeyersCave, Virginia.

Application Number: 01–01–C–00–SHD.

Application Type: Impose and use aPFC.

PFC Level: $3.00.Total PFC Revenue Approved in this

Decision: $207,875.Earliest Charge Effective Date:

December 1, 2001.Estimated Charge Expiration Date:

December 1, 2006.Classes of Air Carriers Not Required

To Collect PFC’s: (1) Unscheduled Part135 air taxi/commercial operators forhire to the general public and (2)unscheduled Part 121 charter operatorsfor hire to the general public.

Determination: Approved. Based oninformation contained in the publicagency’s application, the FAA hasdetermined that each approved classaccounts for less than 1 percent of thetotal annual enplanements atShenandoah Valley Regional Airport.

Brief Description of Projects Approvedfor Collection and Use:

Develop PFC program andapplication.

Install medium intensity taxiwaylights, airfield guidance signs, andprecision approach path indicator.

Design and construct apronexpansion.

Design and rehabilitate generalaviation apron.

Design and construct runway safetyarea—runway 5.

Acquisition of snow removal andfriction testing equipment.

Update airport layout plan.Install stand-by emergency

generator.Decision Date: October 2, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Eleanor Schifflin, Eastern RegionAirports Division, (718) 553–3354.

Public Agency: City of Bismarck,North Dakota.

Application Number: 01–03–C–00–BIS.



Decision: $925,522.

Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1,2002.

Estimated Charge Expiration Date:January 1, 2004.

Classes of Air Carriers Not RequiredTo Collect PFC’s: Air taxis filing FAAForm 1800–31, except commuter aircarriers.

Determination: Approved. Based oninformation contained in the publicagency’s application, the FAA hasdetermined that the approved classaccounts for less than 1 percent of thetotal annual enplanements at BismarckMunicipal Airport.


Remove taxiway A–4 and constructtaxiway C–4.

Update security access system.Extend taxiway C and reconfigure

runway 13/31 exit taxiways.Remove taxiways A, A–1, A–3, C–

1, C–2, and associated electricalfacilities.

Abandon and remove runway 17/35and associated electrical facilities.

Replace general aviation apron.Update airport master plan—

terminal area study.Replace airport beacon.Terminal ramp rehabilitation.Purchase broom truck.PFC application preparation.

Decision Date: October 15, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Thomas T. Schauer, Bismarck AirportsDistrict Office, (701) 323–7380.

Public Agency: Port of Seattle,Washington.

Application Number: 01–06–U–00–SEA.

Application Type: Use PFC revenue.PFC Level: $3.00.Total PFC Revenue Approved in this

Decision: $50,000,000.Charge Effective Date: January 1,

2004.Estimated Charge Expiration Date:

September 1, 2021.Class of Air Carriers Not Required To

Collect PFC’s: No change from previousdecision.

Brief Description of Projects Approvedfor Collection and Use: Noise remedyprogram.

Decision Date: October 16, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Suzanne Lee-Pang, Seattle AirportsDistrict Office, (425) 227–2654.

Public Agency: County of VentureDepartment of Airports, Oxnard,California.

Application Number: 01–01–C–00–OXR.


PFC Level: $4.50.



Total PFC Revenue Approved in thisDecision: $872,000.

Earliest Charge Effective Date: January1, 2002.

Estimated Charge Expiration Date:June 1, 2007.

Class of Air Carriers Not Required ToCollect PFC’s: None.


Revise/amend updates to airportmaster plan and Part 150 noise study.

Rehabilitate airport pavement,runway 7/25 and exit taxiways.

Rehabilitate terminal loop road.Decision Date: October 19, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dave Delshad, Western Pacific RegionAirports Division, (310) 725–3627.

Public Agency: City of Harlingen,Texas.

Application Number: 01–02–C–00–HRL.



Decision: $5,032,330.Earliest Charge Effective Date: January

1, 2002.Estimated Charge Expiration Date:

February 1, 2006.Class of Air Carriers Not Required To

Collect PFC’s: Air taxi/commercialoperators operating under Part 135 andfiling FAA Form 1800–31.

Determination: Approved. Based oninformation contained in the publicagency’s application, the FAA hasdetermined that the approved classaccounts for less than 1 percent of thetotal annual enplanements at ValleyInternational Airport.


Construct air cargo apron.Extend Bodenhamer Drive.Install air cargo ramp lighting.Acquire and install passenger loading

bridge.Overlay access roads.Rehabilitate taxiway F.Construct runway 17 blast pad.Rehabilitate runways 17R/35L and 13/

31 lighting.Acquire 180 acres for runways 35L

and 35R protection zones.Construct taxiways L and M.Improve runways 15L and 35R safety

areas.Rehabilitate and extend taxiway C.Rehabilitate air carrier apron.Convert runway 8/26 to a taxiway.Reconstruct perimeter road.Rehabilitate north general aviation

apron.Rehabilitate west cargo apron.Rehabilitate taxiways J and K.Rehabilitate terminal.Rehabilitate terminal access road.PFC administrative costs.Decision Date: October 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.Thomas Wade, Southwest RegionAirports Division, (817) 222–5613.

Public Agency: County of Victoria,Texas.

Application Number: 01–03–C–00–VCT.



Decision: $182,356.Earliest Charge Effective Date: January

1, 2002.Estimated Charge Expiration Date:

March 1, 2004.Class of Air Carriers Not Required To

Collect PFC’s: None.Brief Description of Projects Approved

for Collection and Use:Acquire aircraft rescue and

firefighting vehicle.Acquire airfield sweeper.Update airport master plan.Rehabilitate runways 12L/30R and 17/

35.Rehabilitate medium intensity

taxiway lights on taxiways A and B.Decision Date: October 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.Thomas Wade, Southwest RegionAirports Division, (817) 222–5613.

Amendments to PFC Approvals

Amendment No. City, State Amendmentapproved date

Original ap-proved net

PFC revenue

Amended ap-proved net

PFC revenue

Original esti-mated charge

exp. date

Amended esti-mated charge

exp. date

99–03–C–01–PLB Plattsburgh, NY ..................................... 09/26/01 $63,764 $7,264 03/01/01 02/01/9998–05–C–01–MEI Meridian, MS .......................................... 10/01/01 121,650 234,082 09/01/02 02/01/04*92–01–C–02–PSP Palm Springs, CA ................................ 10/09/01 81,888,919 76,883,179 11/01/32 07/01/2400–03–C–01–BHM Birmingham, AL .................................... 10/11/01 8,000,000 13,500,000 11/01/02 04/01/0398–05–C–02–BNA Nashville, TN ........................................ 10/16/01 2,355,000 2,855,000 10/01/01 11/01/01*96–03–C–02–MGW Morgantown, WV ............................... 10/16/01 18,450 18,450 02/01/02 02/01/02*99–05–C–01–MGW Morgantown, WV ............................... 10/16/01 192,739 192,739 07/01/05 06/01/04*97–03–C–02–MIA Miami, FL .............................................. 10/18/01 253,011,000 253,011,000 01/01/04 02/01/03*99–01–C–01–AEX Alexandria, LA ..................................... 10/20/01 5,378,352 5,378,352 11/01/20 07/01/12*99–02–C–01–PUW Pullman, WA ....................................... 10/24/01 714,731 714,731 03/01/05 05/01/0495–02–C–01–SF Sacramento, CA ...................................... 10/31/01 7,327,560 6,049,560 03/01/97 03/01/97

NOTE: The amendments denoted by an asterisk (*) include a change to the PFC level charged from $2.00 or $3.00 per enplaned passenger to$4.50 per enplaned passenger. For Morgantown, WV, this change is effective on December 1, 2001. For Palm Springs, CA, Miami, FL, Alexan-dria, LA, and Pullman, WA, this change is effective on January 1, 2002.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November29, 2001.

Sheryl Scarborough,Program Analyst, Passenger Facility ChargeBranch.[FR Doc. 01–30174 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: KingCounty Washington

AGENCY: Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), King CountyDepartment of Transportation,Washington.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare adraft supplemental environmentalimpact statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: The FHWA, in cooperationwith the Washington State Departmentof Transportation and King CountyDepartment of Transportation, is issuingthis notice to advise the public that asupplemental to the final environmentalimpact statement (EIS) will be preparedon the proposal to replace the ElliottBridge on 149th Avenue Southeastwhere it crosses the Cedar River



approximately three miles east ofdowntown Renton in King County,Washington.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Elizabeth Healy, Transportation andEnvironmental Engineer, FederalHighway Administration, 711 SouthCapital Way, Suite 501, Olympia,Washington, 98501–1284, Telephone:(360) 753–9480 or Tina Morehead,Senior Environmental Engineer, KingCounty, Road Services Division,Department of Transportation, KingStreet Center M.S. KSC–0231, 201 SouthJackson Street, Seattle, WA 98104–3856,Telephone: (206) 296–3733.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheRecord of Decision for the original EISfor the improvements (FHWA–WA–EIS–92–4–F) was signed on November 21,1995. In the original EIS, the proposedimprovements to the Elliott Bridgeprovided a three-lane bridge (two travellanes and one center lane) withpedestrian sidewalk and associatedapproach road realignment.Improvements to the bridge were andstill are considered necessary to providefor traffic circulation, roadway safety,and structural stability.

After approval and subsequent appealof the local shoreline substantialdevelopment permit, King Countywithdrew its shoreline permitapplication based on issues related tothe federal Endangered Species Act.Since that withdrawal, the county hasreevaluated the original purpose andneed for the project, reviewed andexpanded the alternatives considered,and determined that a supplemental EISneeds to be prepared.

Alternatives under considerationinclude four action alternatives inaddition to the no-action alternative.The four action alternatives include:Alternative IS—replacing the existingbridge with a new bridge approximately50 feet east of the existing bridge andconstructing two offset tee-intersectionsto provide connections to SoutheastJones Place and Jones Road; Alternative4S—replacing the existing bridge with anew bridge approximately 820 feet eastof the existing bridge and constructinga new road alignment from the existingtee intersection of 152nd AvenueSoutheast and SR 169 northeastly to tieinto the existing 154th Place Southeastapproximately 1,100 feet north of thenew bridge, and constructing a newintersection with Jones Road;Alternative 5S—similar to 4S but thenew bridge would be locatedapproximately 180 feet further east; andAlternative 7Sb replacing the existingbridge with a new bridge approximately65 feet west of the existing bridge and

constructing a tee intersection toprovide connection to Southeast JonesPlace and a right turn lane from 154thPlace Southeast to Jones Road.

No formal scoping period will beheld. Letters describing the proposedaction and soliciting comments will besent to approximate Federal, State, andlocal agencies, and to privateorganizations and citizens who havepreviously expressed or are known tohave interest in this proposal.Subsequent to distribution of the draftsupplemental EIS, a public hearing willbe held during the draft supplementalEIS comment period. The location andtime of the public hearing will beannounced in the local news media andthrough a public mailing when it isscheduled. The draft supplemental EISwill be available for public and agencyreview prior to the public hearing.Release of the draft supplemental EISfor public comment and the publichearing will also be announced in thelocal news media as these dates areestablished.

Comments or questions concerningthis proposed action and thesupplemental EIS should be directed tothe FHWA or King County at theaddress provided above. (Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance ProgramNumber 20.205, Highway Research,Planning, and Construction. Theregulations implementing ExecutiveOrder 12372 regarding intergovernmentconsultation on Federal programs andactivities apply to this program.)

Issued on: November 28, 2001.Elizabeth Healy,Transportation and Environmental Engineer.[FR Doc. 01–30167 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–22–M



Environmental Impact Statement:Mercer and Middlesex Counties, NJ

AGENCY: Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), USDOT.ACTION: Notice of scoping forum.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatthe Federal Highway Administrationand the New Jersey Department ofTransportation will be holding aScoping Forum for the purpose ofsoliciting public comments on the scopeof work to be performed for the PennsNeck Area Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS).

The Scoping Forum will include briefpresentations to introduce the overallstudy and the project team; describe the

study’s background and objectives;review the process that will be followedto evaluate all potential solutions; andintroduce the technical studies,categories of possible actions, and rangeof impacts that the EIS will assess for allpotential options. The remainder of thesession will be a public commentperiod, wherein the public will beinvited to offer statements of up to fiveminutes each, commenting on thestudy’s scope of work and on the rangeof solutions to be considered in the EIS.SCHEDULE FOR SCOPING FORUM

Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2001.Time: Presentation, followed by

continuous public comment period 11a.m. to 7 p.m.; Repeat of presentationfollowed by continuation of publiccomment period, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.

Place: West Windsor TownshipMunicipal Building, 271 ClarksvilleRoad, West Windsor, NJ.

If needed, a supplemental publiccomment period will be held onThursday, December 6th at the WestWindsor Municipal Complex, from 7p.m. to 11 p.m., to accommodateadditional speakers who could not bescheduled due to time limitations.COMMENT DUE DATE: All comments madeduring the Scoping Forum publiccomment period will be recorded andbecome part of the official record of theproceedings. Written statements on thescope of work for the Penns Neck AreaEIS may also be submitted, either at theScoping Forum, or by forwarding themto Helen Neuhaus & Associates (seeinformation below). All statementsreceived by January 7, 2002, will beincluded in the official record.AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: Documentsrelated to the project and ScopingForum can be reviewed on the projectwebsite at www.pennsneckareaseis.org.They are also available at any of thefollowing project repositories (pleasecall for hours):

West Windsor Township PublicLibrary, 333 N. Post Road, WestWindsor, NJ (609) 799–0462

Princeton Township Clerk’s Office,369 Witherspoon Street, PrincetonTownship, NJ (609) 924–5176

Princeton Borough Clerk’s Office,Borough Hall, 1 Monument Drive,Princeton, NJ (609) 497–7622

Plainsboro Public Library, 641Plainsboro Road, Plainsboro, NJ (609)275–2898

Rutgers University TransportationPolicy Institute, 33 Livingston Avenue,New Brunswick, NJ (732) 932–6812

Ext. 593, New Jersey Department ofTransportation, 1035 Parkway Avenue,Ewing, NJ (609) 530–2824

[Ask for Andy Fekete]



AGENCY SCOPING MEETING: A scopingmeeting for public agencies will be heldat a later date.PRE-REGISTRATION FOR SCOPING FORUMAND FURTHER INFORMATION: For furtherinformation regarding the Penns NeckArea EIS, please contact RandellPrescott, Program Operations Director orAmy Fox, Environmental Coordinator,Federal Highway Administration, 840Bear Tavern Road, Suite 310, WestTrenton, NJ 08628. To pre-register andreserve a speaking time during thepublic comment period, please contactHelen Neuhaus by phone: (212) 532–4175; mail: 432 Park Avenue South,New York, NY 10016; email:[email protected]; or fax: (212) 532–7479.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Number 20.205, Highway Research,Planning and Construction. The regulationsimplementing Executive Order 12372regarding intergovernmental consultation ofFederal programs and activities apply to thisprogram)

Issued on: November 21, 2001.Randell Prescott,Program Operations Director, FHWA—NewJersey Division, Trenton.[FR Doc. 01–30085 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–22–M



Environmental Impact Statement:Waukesha County, WI

AGENCY: Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), DOT.ACTION: Supplemental notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing thisnotice to advise the public that anenvironmental impact statement will beprepared for transportationimprovements in the State TrunkHighway (STH) 83 corridor betweenCounty Trunk Highway (CTH) ‘‘NN’’ atthe north limits of the Village ofMukwonago and STH 16, WaukeshaCounty, Wisconsin. The north terminuswas extended since the notice of intentwas published in the Federal Registeron March 26, 2001 (66 FR 16520).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Richard C. Madrzak, Field OperationsEngineer, Federal HighwayAdministration, 567 D’Onofrio Drive,Madison, Wisconsin, 53719–2814;telephone: (608) 829–7510. You mayalso contact Ms. Carol Cutshall,Director, Bureau of Environment,Wisconsin Department ofTransportation, P.O. Box 7965,

Madison, Wisconsin, 53707–7965;telephone: (608) 266–9626.


Electronic Access

An electronic copy of this documentmay be downloaded by using acomputer, modem and suitablecommunications software from theGovernment Printing Offices’ ElectronicBulletin Board Service at (202) 512–1661. Internet users may reach theOffice of Federal Register’s home pageat: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and theGovernment Printing Offices’ databaseat: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

The FHWA, in cooperation with theWisconsin Department ofTransportation, will prepare a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)on a proposal to provide safety,operational and capacity improvementson an approximate 27 kilometer (17mile) section of STH 83 between CTH‘‘NN’’ at the north limits of the Villageof Mukwonago and STH 16, WaukeshaCounty.

This notice is supplementary to thenotice of intent, which was published inthe Federal Register on March 26, 2001at 66 FR 16520. The purpose of thesupplemental notice of intent is toextend the project limits about 6kilometers (4 miles) at the northterminus. The previous north terminuswas Interstate Highway 94. The revisednorth terminus is STH 16.

To ensure that the full range of issuesrelated to this proposed action areaddressed, and all substantive issues areidentified, comments and suggestionsare invited from all interested parties.Comments or questions concerning thisproposed action and the EIS should bedirected to FHWA or the WisconsinDepartment of Transportation at theaddresses provided in the caption FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Number 20.205, Highway Planningand Construction. The regulationsimplementing Executive Order 12372regarding intergovernmental consultation onFederal programs and activities apply to thisprogram)

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: November 29, 2001.

Richard C. Madrzak,Field Operations Engineer, Federal HighwayAdministration, Madison, Wisconsin.[FR Doc. 01–30086 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



Federal Motor Carrier SafetyAdministration

[Docket Nos. FMCSA–99–5748 and FMCSA–99–5578 (formerly FHWA–99–5748 andFHWA–99–5578)]

Qualification of Drivers; ExemptionApplications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier SafetyAdministration (FMCSA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemption;request for comments.

SUMMARY: This notice announces theFMCSA’s decision to renew theexemptions from the vision requirementin 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) for 18individuals.

DATES: This decision is effectiveNovember 30, 2001. Comments frominterested persons should be submittedby January 4, 2002.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 commentsreceived will be available forexamination and copying at the aboveaddress from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,Monday through Friday, except Federalholidays. Those desiring notification ofreceipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or youmay print the acknowledgment pagethat appears after submitting commentselectronically.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forinformation about the visionexemptions in this notice, Ms. SandraZywokarte, Office of Bus and TruckStandards and Operations, (202) 366–2987; for information about legal issuesrelated to this notice, Mr. JosephSolomey, Office of the Chief Counsel,(202) 366–1374, FMCSA, Department ofTransportation, 400 Seventh Street,SW., Washington, DC 20590. Officehours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,e.t., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

You may see all comments onlinethrough the Document ManagementSystem (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit.

Background

Eighteen individuals have requestedrenewal of their exemptions from thevision requirement in 49 CFR



391.41(b)(10) which applies to drivers ofcommercial motor vehicles (CMVs) ininterstate commerce. They are Terry J.Aldridge, Jerry D. Bridges, Michael L.Brown, Roosevelt Bryant, Jr., Duane D.Burger, Ralph E. Eckels, Jerald C. Eyre,Gary R. Gutschow, Richard J. Hanna,James J. Hewitt, Albert E. Malley, EldonMiles, Craig W. Miller, Rodney M.Mimbs, Walter Moniowczak, Thomas E.Walsh, Kevin P. Weinhold, and ThomasA. Wise. Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and31136(e), the FMCSA may grant anexemption for a renewable 2-year periodif it finds ‘‘such exemption would likelyachieve a level of safety that isequivalent to, or greater than, the levelthat would be achieved absent suchexemption.’’ Accordingly, the FMCSAhas evaluated the 18 petitions forrenewal on their merits and decided toextend each exemption for a renewable2-year period.

On November 30, 1999, the agencypublished a notice of final dispositionannouncing its decision to exempt 33individuals, including 11 of theseapplicants for renewal, from the visionrequirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) (64FR 66962). The qualifications,experience, and medical condition ofeach applicant were stated anddiscussed in detail at 64 FR 40404 (July26, 1999). Three comments werereceived, and their contents werecarefully considered by the agency inreaching its final decision to grant thepetitions (64 FR 66962). On September23, 1999, the agency published a noticeof final disposition announcing itsdecision to exempt 32 individuals,including 7 of these applicants forrenewal, from the vision requirement in49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) (64 FR 51568). Thequalifications, experience, and medicalcondition of each applicant were statedand discussed in detail at 64 FR 27027(May 18, 1999). Two comments werereceived, and their contents werecarefully considered by the agency inreaching its final decision to grant thepetitions (64 FR 51568). The agencydetermined that exempting theindividuals from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)was likely to achieve a level of safetyequal to, or greater than, the level thatwould be achieved without theexemption as long as the vision in eachapplicant’s better eye continued to meetthe standard specified in 49 CFR391.41(b)(10). As a condition of theexemption, therefore, the agencyimposed requirements on theindividuals similar to the grandfatheringprovisions in 49 CFR 391.64(b) appliedto drivers who participated in theagency’s former vision waiver program.

These requirements are as follows: (1)That each individual be physically

examined every year (a) by anophthalmologist or optometrist whoattests that vision in the better eye meetsthe standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),and (b) by a medical examiner whoattests the individual is otherwisephysically qualified under 49 CFR391.41; (2) that each individual providea copy of the ophthalmologist’s oroptometrist’s report to the medicalexaminer at the time of the annualmedical examination; and (3) that eachindividual provide a copy of the annualmedical certification to the employer forretention in the driver’s qualificationfile and retain a copy of the certificationon his/her person while driving forpresentation to a duly authorizedFederal, State, or local enforcementofficial.

Basis for Renewing ExemptionsUnder 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an

exemption may be granted for no longerthan 2 years from its approval date andmay be renewed upon application for anadditional 2-year period. In accordancewith 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), eachof the 18 applicants has satisfied theentry conditions for obtaining anexemption from the vision requirements(63 FR 30285; 63 FR 54519; 63 FR66226; 64 FR 16517), and each hasrequested timely renewal of theexemption. These 18 applicants havesubmitted evidence showing that thevision in their better eye continues tomeet the standard specified at 49 CFR391.41(b)(10), and that the visionimpairment is stable. In addition, areview of their records of safety whiledriving with their respective visiondeficiencies over the past 2 yearsindicates each applicant continues tomeet the vision exemption standards.These factors provide an adequate basisfor predicting each driver’s ability tocontinue to drive safely in interstatecommerce. Therefore, the FMCSAconcludes that extending the exemptionfor a period of 2 years is likely toachieve a level of safety equal to thatexisting without the exemption for eachrenewal applicant.

Discussion of CommentsThe Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety (AHAS) expresses continuedopposition to the FMCSA’s proceduresfor renewing exemptions from thevision requirement in 49 CFR391.41(b)(10). Specifically, the AHASobjects to the agency’s extension of theexemptions without any opportunity forpublic comment prior to the decision torenew and reliance on a summarystatement of evidence to make itsdecision to extend the exemption ofeach driver.

The issues raised by the AHAS wereaddressed at length in 66 FR 17994(April 4, 2001). We will not addressthese points again here, but referinterested parties to that earlierdiscussion.

ConclusionIn accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315

and 31136(e), the FMCSA extends theexemptions from the vision requirementin 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) granted to TerryJ. Aldridge, Jerry D. Bridges, Michael L.Brown, Roosevelt Bryant, Jr., Duane D.Burger, Ralph E. Eckels, Jerald C. Eyre,Gary R. Gutschow, Richard J. Hanna,James J. Hewitt, Albert E. Malley, EldonMiles, Craig W. Miller, Rodney M.Mimbs, Walter Moniowczak, Thomas E.Walsh, Kevin P. Weinhold, and ThomasA. Wise, subject to the followingconditions: (1) That each individual bephysically examined every year (a) byan ophthalmologist or optometrist whoattests that the vision in the better eyecontinues to meet the standard in 49CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medicalexaminer who attests that the individualis otherwise physically qualified under49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individualprovide a copy of the ophthalmologist’sor optometrist’s report to the medicalexaminer at the time of the annualmedical examination; and (3) that eachindividual provide a copy of the annualmedical certification to the employer forretention in the driver’s qualificationfile and retain a copy of the certificationon his/her person while driving forpresentation to a duly authorizedFederal, State, or local enforcementofficial. Each exemption will be validfor 2 years unless rescinded earlier bythe FMCSA. The exemption will berescinded if: (1) The person fails tocomply with the terms and conditionsof the exemption; (2) the exemption hasresulted in a lower level of safety thanwas maintained before it was granted; or(3) continuation of the exemption wouldnot be consistent with the goals andobjectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and31136(e).

Request for CommentsThe FMCSA has evaluated the

qualifications and driving performanceof the 18 applicants here and extendstheir exemptions based on the evidenceintroduced. The agency will review anycomments received concerning aparticular driver’s safety record anddetermine if the continuation of theexemption is consistent with therequirements at 49 U.S.C. 31315 and31136(e). While comments of this naturewill be entertained at any time, theFMCSA requests that interested partieswith information concerning the safety



1 JCPA is a public agency and politicalsubdivision in the State of Mississippi.

records of these drivers submitcomments by January 4, 2002. Allcomments will be considered and willbe available for examination in thedocket room at the above address. TheFMCSA will also continue to file in thedocket relevant information whichbecomes available. Interested personsshould continue to examine the docketfor new material.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31136 and 31315;and 49 CFR 1.73.

Issued on: November 30, 2001.Julie Anna Cirillo,Assistant Administrator.[FR Doc. 01–30080 Filed 11–30–01; 1:49 pm]BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P


Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34134]

Jackson County Port AuthorityRailroad—Operation Exemption—Jackson County Port Authority

Jackson County Port AuthorityRailroad (JCPARR), a noncarrier, hasfiled a verified notice of exemptionunder 49 CFR 1150.31 to operateapproximately 2.9 miles of rail lineowned by the Jackson County PortAuthority (JCPA).1 The lines to beoperated include: (1) The Bayou Casottetrackage which extends approximately 1mile from a connection with the BayouCasotte Branch of CSX Transportation,Inc. (CSXT) to JCPA’s Bayou CasotteTerminals where it serves two publiccargo terminals, a distance (includingside tracks) of approximately 1.4 miles;and (2) the Pascagoula River trackagewhich connects with the WestPascagoula Branch of CSXT and extendssouthward into JCPA’s Pascagoula RiverTerminals where it serves four publiccargo terminals and a grain elevator, adistance (including side tracks) ofapproximately 1.5 miles. JCPARRcertifies that its projected revenues as aresult of this transaction will not exceedthose that would qualify it as a Class IIIrail carrier.

The transaction was expected to beconsummated on or after November 24,2001.

If the verified notice contains false ormisleading information, the exemptionis void ab initio. Petitions to reopen theproceeding to revoke the exemptionunder 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filedat any time. The filing of a petition torevoke will not automatically stay thetransaction.

An original and 10 copies of allpleadings, referring to STB FinanceDocket No. 34134, must be filed withthe Surface Transportation Board, Officeof the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy of eachpleading must be served on John D.Heffner, 555 Twelfth Street, NW., Suite950N, Washington, DC 20004.

Board decisions and notices areavailable on our web site at‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: November 27, 2001.By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–29997 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

November 29, 2001.The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following publicinformation collection requirement(s) toOMB for review and clearance under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995,Public Law 104–13. Copies of thesubmission(s) may be obtained bycalling the Treasury Bureau ClearanceOfficer listed. Comments regarding thisinformation collection should beaddressed to the OMB reviewer listedand to the Treasury DepartmentClearance Officer, Department of theTreasury, Room 2110, 1425 New YorkAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before January 4, 2002, tobe assured of consideration.

Departmental Offices/Office of ForeignExchange Operations/Market Room

OMB Number: 1505–0010.Form Number: FC–2.Type of Review: Revision.Title: Monthly Consolidated Foreign

Currency Report of Major MarketParticipants.

Description: Collection of informationon Form FC–2 is required by law. FormFC–2 is designed to collect timelyinformation on foreign exchange spot,forward, and futures purchased andsold; net options positions, deltaequivalent value long or short; and netreported dealing position long or short.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:22.

Estimated Burden Hours PerRespondent: 4 hours.

Frequency of Response: Monthly.Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

1,056 hours.OMB Number: 1505–0012.Form Number: FC–1.Type of Review: Revision.Title: Weekly Consolidated Foreign





Estimated Burden Hours PerRespondent: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Weekly.Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

1,144 hours.OMB Number: 1505–0014.Form Number: FC–3.Type of Review: Revision.Title: Quarterly Consolidated Foreign





Estimated Burden Hours PerRespondent: 8 hours.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly.Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

1,920 hours.Clearance Officer: Lois K. Holland,

(202) 622–1563, Departmental Offices,Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20220.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt,(202) 395–7860, Office of Managementand Budget, Room 10202, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,Departmental Reports Management Officer.[FR Doc. 01–30104 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810–25–P



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANSAFFAIRS

Advisory Committee on Geriatrics andGerontology, Notice of Meeting

The Department of Veterans Affairsgives notice that a meeting of theGeriatrics and Gerontology AdvisoryCommittee (GGAC) will be held onDecember 19–20, 2001, in the BoardRoom of the Hotel Lombardy located at2019 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC. The Committee willmeet from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. (EST)on December 19 and from 8:30 a.m.until noon on December 20. OnDecember 19, the topics to be presented/discussed include:

• Site visits to five new GeriatricResearch, Education, and ClinicalCenters (GRECCs)

• Update on current issues of theMillennium Act

• Geriatrics and Extended CareInitiatives

• Status of Geriatric FellowshipProgramOn December 20, the Committee willdiscuss administrative matters and thegeneral status of the program. Themeeting will be open to the public.Individuals who wish to attend themeeting should contact Jacqueline

Holmes, Staff Assistant, Geriatrics andExtended Care Strategic HealthcareGroup at (202) 273–8539.


By Direction of the Secretary.Nora E. Egan,Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc. 01–30089 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANSAFFAIRS

Advisory Committee on Prostheticsand Special-Disabilities Programs;Notice of Meeting

The Department of Veterans Affairs(VA) gives notice under Public Law 92–463 that a meeting of the AdvisoryCommittee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs (Committee) willbe held Tuesday, December 11, 2001, atVA Headquarters, Room 742, 810Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington,DC. The meeting will convene at 8 a.m.and adjourn at 4 p.m. The purpose ofthe Committee is to advise theDepartment on its prosthetic programsdesigned to provide state-of-the-artprosthetics and the associatedrehabilitation research, development,and evaluation of such technology. The

Committee also advises the Departmenton special disability programs which aredefined as any program administered bythe Secretary to serve veterans withspinal cord injury, blindness or visionimpairment, loss of or loss of use ofextremities, deafness or hearingimpairment, or other seriousincapacities in terms of daily lifefunctions.

The Advisory Committee onProsthetics and Special-DisabilitiesPrograms will receive briefings by theNational Program Directors of theSpecial-Disabilities Programs regardingthe status of their activities over the lastsix months and present any criticalissues requiring the Committee’sconsideration.

The meeting is open to the public. Forthose wishing to attend, contact KathyPessagno, Veterans HealthAdministration (113), phone (202) 273–8512, Department of Veterans Affairs,810 Vermont Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20420, prior to themeeting.


Nora E. Egan,Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc. 01–30090 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]



Wednesday,

December 5, 2001

Part II

Department ofTransportationFederal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93Modifications of the Dimensions of theGrand Canyon National Park Rules Areasand Free Flight Zone; Final Rule





14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. FAA–1999–5926]

RIN 2120–AG74

Modifications of the Dimensions of theGrand Canyon National Park SpecialFlight Rules Area and Flight FreeZones

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On April 4, 2000, the FAApublished two final rules regardingcommercial air tour operations overGrand Canyon National Park (GCNP).The first rule, Commercial Air TourLimitation in Grand Canyon NationalPark Special Flight Rules Area, limitedthe number of commercial air touroperations that may be flown in theGCNP Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)on an annual basis. This rule becameeffective on May 4, 2000. The secondrule, Modifications of the Dimensions ofthe Grand Canyon National Park SpecialFlight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones,modified the airspace in the SFRA toaccommodate a new route system forcommercial air tour operations and toexpand the amount of airspace overallprotected by flight free zones. This ruleinitially was scheduled to becomeeffective December 1, 2000. Afterseveral delays, the new routes andairspace were adopted for the west endof the GCNP SFRA on April 19, 2001.The routes and airspace on the east endof the GCNP SFRA were stayed severaltimes after adoption of the final rule.The east and routes and airspace arescheduled to be implemented December1, 2001. This rule extends theimplementation of the AirspaceModification Final Rule until February20, 2003.DATES: The effective date of 14 CFR93.305(a) and (b), delayed untilDecember 1, 2001 (66 FR 16582, March26, 2001), is further delayed untilFebruary 20, 2003. This rule wasoriginally published at 61 FR 69330 onDecember 31, 1996, April 4, 2000 (65 FR17736).

The amendments to 14 CFR 93.305(a)and (b) originally published April 4,2000 (65 FR 17736) and most recentlydelayed until December 1, 2001 (66 FR16582, March 26, 2001) are furtherdelayed until February 20, 2003.ADDRESSES: You may view a copy of thisfinal rule, Modification of theDimensions of the Grand Canyon

National Park Special Flight Rules Areaand Flight Free Zones, through theInternet at: http://dms.dot.gov, byselecting docket numbers FAA–01–9218. You may also review the publicdockets on this regulation in person inthe Docket Office between 9:00 a.m. and5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,except Friday holidays. The DocketOffice is on the plaza level of the NassifBuilding at the Department ofTransportation, 400 7th St., SW., Room401, Washington, DC, 20590.

As an alternative, you may search theFederal Register’s Internet site athttp://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs foraccess to this final rule.

You may also request a paper copy ofthis final rule from the Office ofRulemaking, Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAve., SW., Washington, DC, 20591, orby calling (202) 267–9680.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Howard Hesbitt, Flight StandardsService, (AFS–200), or Ken McElroy,Airspace and Rules Division, ATA–400,Federal Aviation Administration,Seventh and Maryland Streets, SW.,Washington, DC 20591; Telephone:(202) 493–4981.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Small Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act

The Small Business RegulatoryEnforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of1996 requires FAA t comply with smallentity requests for information or adviceabout compliance with statutes andregulations within its jurisdiction.Therefore, any small entity that has aquestion regarding this document maycontact their local FAA official, or theperson listed under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT. You can find outmore about SBRFA on the Internet atour site, http://www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. For more information onSBREFA, e-mail us 9–AWA–[email protected].

Background

On April 4, 2000, the FederalAviation Administration published twofinal rules, the Modification of theDimensions of the Grand CanyonNational Park Special Flight Rules Areaand Flight Free Zones (AirspaceModification), and the Commercial AirTour Limitation in the Grand CanyonNational Park Special Flight Rules Area(Commercial Air Tour Limitation). See65 FR 17736; 65 FR 17708; April 4,2000. The FAA also publishedconcurrently a notice of availability ofCommercial Routes for the GrandCanyon National Park (Routes Notice).

See 65 FR 17698, April 4, 2000. TheCommercial Air Tour Limitations finalrule was implemented, effective May 4,2000. The Airspace Modification finalrule and the routes set forth in theNotice of Availability were scheduled tobecome effective December 1, 2000. TheFinal Supplemental EnvironmentalAssessment for Special Flight Rules inthe Vicinity of Grand Canyon NationalPark (SEA) was completed on February22, 2000, and the Finding of NoSignificant Impact was issued onFebruary 25, 2000.

Following the publication of the finalrules, the United States Air TourAssociation and seven air tour operatorspetitioned the United States DistrictCourt of Appeals for the District ofColumbia to review the rules. SeeUSATA v. FAA, et al. (Docket No.001201). During the course of litigation,the USATA raised new safety concernsregarding the new routes in the east endof the GCNP SFRA. AS a result, the FAAfirst delayed implementation of theroutes until December 28, 2000(November 20, 2000; 65 FR 69848) sothat it could evaluate the new issues.During this evaluation, the FAAdetermined that modifications could bemade to the routes to enhance safety. OnDecember 13, 2000, the FAA publisheda second Notice of Availability seekingcomment on proposed changes to routesin the east-end of the GCNP SFRA (65FR 78071). Subsequently, the FAAdelayed the implementation of theroutes until April 1, 2001. (66 FR 2001,January 4, 2001).

During the comment period for thesecond Notice of Availability, additionalsafety concerns were raised regardingthe proposed revisions to the east endroutes. Consequently, the FAA decidedto implement the modifications to theroute structure of the GCNP SFRA intwo phases. First, on April 19, 2001, theFAA implemented the routes andairspace in the west-end (defined as allareas of the SFRA west of the Dragoncorridor) of the GCNP SFRA thatoriginally were published on April 4,2000. Also, on April 19, 2001, the SFRAboundary in the eastern part of theGCNP SFRA over the Navajo Nationlands was extended five miles to theeast. Second, the route structure on theeast-end (Dragon Corridor and allairspace east of that Corridor) in theGCNP SFRA was stayed until December1, 2001 to enable the FAA and NPS todetermine what changes should bemade in the east end of GCNP.Accordingly, the routes now flownremain almost exactly as that shownunder Special Federal AviationRegulation (SFAR) 50–2, with only



slight modification to certain entry andexit points.

The FAA is working on proposedchanges to the route structure andairspace modification in the east end ofGCNP. This process involves printingmaps depicting those changes,performing an environmentalassessment of the proposed routes,publishing a proposal and notice ofavailability of the map in the FederalRegister, and reviewing comments onthe proposed changes. Because thisprocess is not complete, it is necessaryto gain extend the effective date of theApril 2000 final rule airspacemodifications. That date now isextended until February 20, 2003. Partof this delay results from the increasedworkload since the events of September11, 2001. Additionally, the FAA hasdetermined that any new routes shouldbe implemented in the winter when touractivity is limited and operators areconducting new pilot training. Given allof these constraints, the FAA has foundthat it is necessary to delay theimplementation of the east end airspaceuntil February 20, 2003. In themeantime, the FAA and NPS willcontinue to move forward on a revisedeast end route structure.

The FAA notes that the changes to theroutes and airspace in the West end ofGCNP finalized in the April 2000 rulehave been in effect since April 19, 2001.Those changes were implemented tofurther the goal of substantialrestoration of natural quiet in GCNP.

Immediate Effective DateThe FAA finds that good cause exists

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this final ruleto become final rule upon issuance. TheFAA and NPS must propose and receivecomments on new air tour routes in theeast end of GCNP requiring themodification of the airspace in GCNP.Therefore, the FAA has determined thatto address the safety concerns ofoperators, it is necessary to further delaythe implementation date of the airspacechanges codified in April 2000. TheFAA notes that the delay only affectsthe east end of the GCNP SFRA; changesto the west end have been in effect sinceApril 19, 2001.

Environmental ReviewIn March 2001, the FAA completed a

written reevaluation (WR) of theFebruary 22, 2000 Final SupplementalEnvironmental Assessment (FSEA) forSpecial flight rules in the Vicinity ofGrand Canyon National Park (GCNP).The WR examined the potentialenvironmental impacts associated witha phased implementation of theAirspace rule and the Commercial Air

Tour Route Modifications described inthe February 2000 FSEA. The phasedapproach involved implementation ofthe ‘‘preferred’’ alternative airspace andair tour route structure as described inthe February 2000 FSEA for the GCNPSFRA west of Dragon Corridor. Since nochanges to the western portion of theGCNP SFRA as described in the FSEAremained valid for the stage-oneairspace and routes implementation atthe west-end of the GCNP SFRA. TheFAA also reviewed the plannedimplementation of the stage-oneairspace, routes, and routemodifications on the east-end anddetermined that they were notsignificant changes from the plansanalyzed under the ‘‘no action’’alternative in the February 2000 FSEA.Therefore, the FAA determined that theproposed route revisions to the SFAR50–2 route structure conformed to the‘‘no action’’ alternative analyzed in theFSEA. The FAA determined that thedata and analyses contained in theFebruary 2000 FSEA were stillsubstantially valid and all pertinentconditions and requirements of the priorapproval have or would be met in theApril 2001 action.

While the delayed implementation ofthe east-end route and airspace structurelessened the percentage of the GCNPsubstantially restored to natural quiet, itwas only a temporary delay. In addition,given that the majority of the revisedroutes and airspace for GCNP wereimplemented during phase one, thephased implementation process resultedin a gain of substantial restoration ofnatural quiet for GCNP as described inthe February 2000 FSEA.

Therefore for the above reasons andpursuant to FAA Order 1050.1D,Paragraph 92, the FAA determined thatthe contents of the final SupplementalEnvironmental Assessment and itsconclusions issued on February 22,2000 were still valid. Additionally, theFAA found that the previous Section106 Determination of No Adverse Effectto Traditional Cultural Propertiesidentified by Native Americans issuedfor the FSEA was also still valid. Copiesof the written reevaluation were placedin the public docket for the April 2001rulemaking, were circulated tointerested parties, and were available forinspection at the same time and locationas the April 2001 final rule. Thefindings of the March 2001 WR remainvalid for this final rule extending theApril 2001 Airspace Rule.

Economic AnalysisThe economic analysis completed for

the final rule published April 4, 2000evaluates the east-end and the west-end

operations separately since these aredistinct markets. This action does notaffect the April 19, 2001implementation of the west-endairspace structure, and the economicanalysis from the April 4, 2000 finalrule remains valid. At this time the FAAis delaying further the implementationof the east-end routes; however, it is nottaking a final action. If the agency takesa final action that is different than thatpublished on April 4, 2000, then it maybe necessary to complete a revisedeconomic evaluation.

Initial Regulatory FlexibilityDetermination and Assessment

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)of 1980 establishes ‘‘as a principle ofregulatory issuance that agencies shallendeavor, consistent with the objectiveof the rule and of applicable statutues,to fit regulatory and informationalrequirements to the scale of thebusiness, organization, and governmentjurisdictions subject to regulation.’’ Toachieve that principle, the RFA requiresagencies to solicit and consider flexibleregulatory proposals and to explain therationale for their actions. The RFAcovers a wide range of small entities,including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and smallgovernmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review todetermine whether a proposed or finalrule will have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. If the determination is that itwill, the agency must prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis asdescribed in the RFA. However, if anagency determines that a proposed orfinal rule is not expected to have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities,section 605(b) of the RFA provides thatthe head of the agency may so certifyand a regulatory flexibility analysis isnot required. The certification mustinclude a statement providing thefactual basis for this determination, andthe reasoning should be clear.

This final rule will have only a deminimus cost impact on the certificateholders. Accordingly, pursuant to theRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.605(b), the Federal AviationAdministration certifies that this finalrule will not have a significant impacton a substantial number of smallentities.

International Trade Impact AssessmentThe Trade Agreement Act (TAA) of

1979 prohibits Federal agencies fromengaging in any standard or relatedactivities that create unnecessaryobstacles to the foreign commerce of the



United States. Legitimate domesticobjectives, such as safety, are notconsidered unnecessary obstacles. TheTAA also requires consideration ofinternational standards and whereappropriate, that they be the basis forU.S. standards. In addition, consistentwith the Administration’s belief in thegeneral superiority and desirability offree trade, it is the policy ofAdministration to remove or diminishto the extent feasible, barriers tointernational trade, including bothbarriers affecting the export of Americangoods and services to foreign countriesand barriers affecting the import offoreign goods and services into theUnited States. In accordance with theabove Act and policy, the FAA hasassessed the potential effect of this finalrule and has determined that it willhave only a domestic impact andtherefore no effect on any trade-sensitive activity.

Federalism ImplicationsThis amendment will not 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. Therefore, inaccordance with Executive Order 12612,it is determined that this amendmentwould not have sufficient Federalismimplications to warrant the preparationof a Federalism Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform ActTitle II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as

Public Law 104–4 on March 22, 1995,requires each Federal agency, to theextent permitted by law, to prepare awritten assessment of the effects of anyFederal mandate in a proposed or finalagency rule that may result in theexpenditure of $100 million or more(when adjusted annually for inflation)in any one year by State, local, andtribal governments in the aggregate, orby the private sector. Section 204(a) ofthe Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires theFederal agency to develop an effectiveprocess to permit timely input byelected officers (or their designees) ofState, local, and tribal governments ona proposed ‘‘significantintergovernmental mandate.’’ A‘‘significant intergovernmentalmandate’’ under the Act is anyprovision in the Federal agencyregulation that would impose anenforceable duty upon State, local, andtribal governments in the aggregate of$100 million (adjusted annually forinflation) in any one year. Section 203of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, whichsupplements section 204(a), providesthat, before establishing any regulatoryrequirements that might significantly oruniquely affect small governments, theagency shall have developed a plan,which, among other things, mustprovide for notice to potentially affectedsmall governments, if any, and for ameaningful and timely opportunity forthese small governments to provideinput in the development of regulatoryproposals. The FAA has determined thatthis rule will not impose any unfundedmandates.


Air traffic control, Airports,Navigation (Air).

Adoption of Amendments

Accordingly, the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) amends 14 CFRpart 93 as follows:

PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFICRULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFICPATTERNS


Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709, 44711,44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506–46507,47122, 47508, 47528–47531.

§ 93.305 [Amended]

2. Section 93.305 (a) and (b)published on December 31, 1996 (61 FR69330), and most recently delayed untilDecember 1, 2001 (see 66 FR 16582,March 26, 2001) are further delayeduntil February 20, 2003.

3. The amendments to Section 93.305published on April 4, 2000 (65 FR17736), and most recently delayed untilDecember 1, 2001 (see 66 FR 16582,March 26, 2001) are further delayeduntil February 20, 2003.

Issued in Washington, DC on November 29,2001.Jane F. Garvey,Administrator.[FR Doc. 01–30012 Filed 11–30–01; 3:34 pm]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M


Wednesday,

December 5, 2001

Part III

Department of LaborEmployment and Training Administration

20 CFR Part 655Labor Condition Applications andRequirements for Employers UsingNonimmigrants on H–1b Visas;Implementation of Electronic Filing; FinalRule



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


20 CFR Part 655

[RIN 1205–AB29]

Labor Condition Applications andRequirements for Employers UsingNonimmigrants on H–1B Visas;Implementation of Electronic Filing

AGENCIES: Employment and TrainingAdministration and Wage and HourDivision, Employment StandardsAdministration, Labor.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor isamending its regulations governing thefiling and processing of labor conditionapplications (LCAs) for the employmentof nonimmigrant aliens on H–1B visasin specialty occupations and as fashionmodels. The amendments will allowemployers to submit LCAselectronically, utilizing web based formsand instructions.DATES: Effective Date: This Final Rule iseffective on January 14, 2002.

Compliance Dates: Affected parties donot have to comply with the revisedinformation collection requirements inthis rule (i.e., provisions relating to thenew Form ETA 9035–E), until theDepartment publishes in the FederalRegister a notice approving the revisionof the information collection provisions.For further information on collectioninformation, see SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Denis Gruskin, Senior Specialist,Division of Foreign Labor Certifications,Employment and TrainingAdministration, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, NW, Room C–4318,Washington, DC 20210.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Is the H–1B NonimmigrantProgram?

On November 29, 1990, theImmigration and Nationality Act (INA)was amended by the Immigration Act of1990 (IMMACT 90) (Pub. L. 101–649,104 Stat. 4978) to create the ‘‘H–1B visaprogram’’ for the temporaryemployment in the United States (U.S.)of nonimmigrants in ‘‘specialtyoccupations’’ and as ‘‘fashion models ofdistinguished merit and ability.’’ TheH–1B provisions of the INA govern thetemporary entry of foreign‘‘professionals’’ to work in ‘‘specialtyoccupations’’ in the United States underH–1B visas. 8 U.S.C.

1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1182(n), and1184(c). The H–1B category of specialtyoccupations consists of occupationsrequiring the theoretical and practicalapplication of a body of highlyspecialized knowledge and theattainment of a Bachelor’s or higherdegree in the specific specialty as aminimum for entry into the occupationin the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1).In addition, an H–1B nonimmigrant ina specialty occupation must possess fullState licensure to practice in the UnitedStates (if required), completion of therequired degree, or experienceequivalent to the degree and recognitionof expertise in the specialty. 8 U.S.C.1184(i)(2). The category of ‘‘fashionmodel’’ requires that the nonimmigrantbe of distinguished merit and ability. 8U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).

The H–1B provisions of the INA havebeen amended several times since 1990.A detailed legislative history of the H–1B nonimmigrant program can be foundin the preamble to the Interim FinalRule published on December 20, 2000,to implement changes made to the INAby the American Competitiveness andWorkforce Improvement Act of 1998.See 65 FR at 80117.

II. Why Is the DepartmentImplementing an Electronic FilingSystem?

The current regulations permitemployers to submit labor conditionapplications (LCAs) by facsimiletransmission (FAX) or by mail.Although submission of LCAs by FAXand processing of such applicationshave generally been more efficient thansubmission and processing of LCAs bymail, operational problems delayed theprocessing of some LCAs submitted byFAX for the first several months of itsoperation. To improve customer service,the Department will, through this FinalRule, provide employers the option toutilize an electronic filing system whichwill permit employers to fill out theirLCAs on a Department of Labor websiteand submit them electronically to theDepartment’s Employment and TrainingAdministration (ETA). The electronicfiling system will be convenient andless burdensome for employers, since,unlike a system based on filingapplications by FAX or by mail, the newsystem will allow the filing of anapplication without the submission of a‘‘hard copy,’’ which is required for filingof an application by mail or by FAX.Electronic filing will permit moreefficient ETA electronic processing ofLCAs without the technical andadministrative uncertainties inherent inthe technology currently available toprocess applications that are submitted

by FAX. Further, since the scope of theDepartment’s review of LCAs undersection 212(n)(1)(D) of the INA islimited to ‘‘completeness and obviousinaccuracies,’’ the filing and processingof LCAs is particularly amenable to anelectronic filing system. Because theelectronic filing system includesguidance to the employers in filling outtheir LCAs ‘‘on line,’’ the LCAs willhave fewer incomplete or obviouslyinaccurate entries and will, therefore,ordinarily be acceptable for immediateelectronic certification.

III. What Changes Are Being Made ToImplement an Electronic Filing System?

The creation of an electronic filingand certification system requireschanges in the current regulations,because the regulations explicitlypermit only two types of submission:FAX transmission and hard copy byU.S. Mail. (20 CFR 655.720(a) and (b)).Therefore, in this Final Rule, theDepartment is amending the regulationsat §§ 655.700, 655.705, 655.720,655.730, 655.731, 655.732, 655.733,655.734, 655.736, 655.740, 655.750,655.760, and 655.805, to implement anew labor condition application form(Form ETA 9035E) and a new electronicsubmission and certification system.The new LCA form is identical in allrespects to the existing LCA (Form ETA9035), except that the new formcontains additional ‘‘blocks’’ to bemarked by the employer to acknowledgethat the submission is being madeelectronically and that the employerwill be bound by the LCA obligationsthrough such submission. TheDepartment has developed a customer-friendly website (www.lca.doleta.gov)which can be accessed by employers toelectronically fill out and submit theForm ETA 9035E. The website includesdetailed instructions, prompts andchecks to help employers fill out the9035E. This process is designed to helpinsure that employers enter the H–1Bprogram based on accurate LCAinformation and with explicit,immediate notice of the obligations.

Additionally, the Department’swebsite provides an option to permitemployers that frequently file LCAs toset up secure files within the ETAelectronic filing system containinginformation which is common to anyLCA they may wish to file. Under thisoption, each time an employer files anLCA, the information common to all itsLCAs would be entered automaticallyby the electronic filing system and theemployer would only have to enter thedata that was specific to the new LCAit wished to file in the instance at hand.



The electronic submission andcertification system implemented bythis Rule requires that the new LCAform be printed and signed by theemployer immediately after ETAprovides the electronic certification.The signed form must then bemaintained in the employer’s files anda copy of the signed form must bemaintained in the public access file;another copy of the signed form must besubmitted to the Immigration andNaturalization Service (INS) to supportthe Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker,INS Form I–129. This requirement isfunctionally equivalent to the currentrequirement that employers retain thesigned original certified LCA in theirfiles, and place a copy of this LCA in thepublic access file. This Rule alsoprovides additional proceduralguidance which clarifies theinterrelationship between theDepartment’s regulations and the INSregulations on the matter of theemployer’s acceptance of its H–1Bobligations under the LCA.

Since the Department does not yethave the technology to satisfy thestatutes that deal with electronicsignatures on Governmentapplications—Government PaperworkElimination Act (44 U.S.C. 3504 n.) and/or the Electronic Records and Signaturesin Global and National Commerce Act(E–SIGN) (15 U.S. C. 7001–7006)—weare not implementing either of thesestatutes in this Rule. We consider it tobe essential that an electronic LCA filingand certification system be madeavailable as soon as possible. In theevent that such technology becomesavailable in the future, the Departmentwill modify the electronic LCA systemto comply with these statutes and willprovide appropriate notice(s) andinstructions to employers. We view it asinadvisable to delay the electronic LCAsystem while we develop this additionaltechnology.

IV. Why Is a Final Rule BeingPublished Without Notice andComment?

The Department is promulgating thisRule in final form. This Rule makes nosubstantive alteration in the regulationsand does not alter the rights of anyparties. The Rule makes changes whichconstitute a ‘‘rule of agencyorganization, procedure, or practice’’which may be published in final formpursuant to section 553(b)(A) of theAdministrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.553(b)(A)).

V. Executive Order 12866We have determined that this Rule is

not an ‘‘economically significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaningof Executive Order 12866, in that it willnot have an economic 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.

While the Rule is not economicallysignificant, the Office of Managementand Budget reviewed this Rule becauseof the extensive interest on the part ofthe regulated community in the mattersaddressed in this Rule.

VI. Small Business RegulatoryEnforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This Rule is not a rule as defined bysection 251 of the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, 5U.S.C. 804(3)(C). It is a rule of agencyorganization, procedure or practice thatdoes not substantially affect the rights orobligations of parties other than theDepartment of Labor.

VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995

This Rule will not result in theexpenditure by State, local and tribalgovernments, in the aggregate, or by theprivate sector, of $100 million or morein any 1 year, and it will notsignificantly or uniquely affect smallgovernments. Therefore, no actions aredeemed necessary under the provisionsof the Unfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because no notice of proposedrulemaking is required for this Rule (5U.S.C. 553(b)), the requirements of theRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,et seq. pertaining to regulatoryflexibility analysis, do not apply to thisFinal Rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

IX. Executive Order 13132

This Rule will not have a substantialdirect effect on the States, on therelationship between the NationalGovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government. Therefore, inaccordance with Executive Order 13132,we have determined that this Rule doesnot have sufficient federalismimplications to warrant the preparationof a summary impact statement.

X. Assessment of Federal Regulationsand Policies on Families

This Rule does not affect family well-being.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

Summary: Sections 655.700, 655.705,655.720, 655.730, 655.731, 655.732,655.733, 655.734, 655.736, 655.740,655.750, 655.760, and 655.805 havebeen amended to reflect the option ofelectronic submission of the Form ETA9035–E. The amendments parallel thecurrent provisions for submission,recordkeeping and posting requirementsfor hard copies prepared for submissionby mail or by FAX. The new LCA formis the same as the existing LCA (FormETA 9035), except that the new formcontains additional ‘‘blocks’’ to bemarked by the employer to acknowledgethat the submission is being madeelectronically and that the employerwill be bound by the LCA obligationsthrough such submission. ETAestimates that the time to fill out andsubmit a Form ETA 9035–Eelectronically and to comply withrecordkeeping and notice requirementsunder the regulations will be the sameas for hard copies of Form ETA 9035prepared for submission by mail or byFAX. It should be noted, however, thatbecause of certain operational problemswith the FAX system, applicationssubmitted by FAX are submitted onaverage 1.1 times. Such duplicationdoes not occur with respect toapplications submitted by mail and theDepartment does not anticipateduplicate submissions of formssubmitted electronically.

Need: The creation of an optionalelectronic filing and certification systemrequires changes in the currentregulations because the regulationsexplicitly permit only two types ofsubmission: FAX transmission and hardcopy by U.S. mail (20 CFR 655.720(a)and (b)).

Respondents and frequency ofresponse: Employers submit LCAs whenthey wish to employ an H–1Bnonimmigrant worker. ETA estimates,based on its operating experience withthe H–1B program, that in the upcomingyear employers will file approximately260,000 LCAs (including duplicate FAXsubmissions). Specifically, ETAestimates that it will receive 7,000 hardcopies submitted by mail, 123,000 hardcopies submitted by FAX (whichincludes 12,300 duplicate submissions),and 130,000 LCAs submittedelectronically.

Estimated total annual burden: DOLestimates that the completion of LCAs,complying with recordkeepingrequirements and providing a copy toeach H–1B nonimmigrant will result ina total burden of 247,700 hours in theupcoming year (7,000 hard copiessubmitted by mail x 1 hour + 123,000



FAX submissions (which includes12,300 duplicate submissions) x .90hours + 130,000 electronic submissionsx 1 hour = 247,700 hours, or about 57minutes per application submitted).

Request for comments: The public isinvited to provide comments on therevised information collectionrequirement so that the Department ofLabor may:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposedcollections of information are necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burdens of thecollections of information, including thevalidity of the methodology andassumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility andclarity of the information to becollected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of thecollections 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.

Written comments should be sent tothe Office of Management and Budget,Office of Information and RegulatoryAffairs, Attention: Desk Officer forDepartment of Labor, Employment andTraining Administration, 725 17thStreet, NW., Washington, DC 20503.Comments should be received byJanuary 4, 2002.

The revised information collectionrequirements are not effective until theyhave been approved by OMB. A noticewill be published in the FederalRegister when approval is obtained ofthe revision to the informationcollection.

Copies of the information collectionrequest submitted to OMB may beobtained by contacting Denis Gruskin,Senior Specialist, Division of ForeignLabor Certifications, Employment andTraining Administration, 200Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–4318, Washington, DC 20210.Telephone (202) 693–2953 (this is not atoll-free number).

XII. Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Number

This program is listed in the Catalogof Federal Domestic Assistance at17.252.

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 655Administrative practice and

procedure, Agriculture, Aliens,

Employment, Forest and forestproducts, Health professions,Immigration, Labor, Longshore work,Migrant labor, Penalties, Reportingrequirements, Students, Wages.

Accordingly, subparts H and I of part655 of title 20 of the Code of FederalRegulations are amended as follows:

Subpart H—Labor ConditionApplications and Requirements forEmployers Using Nonimmigrants onH–1B Visas


Authority: Section 655.0 issued under 8U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) and (ii), 1182(m) and(n), 1184, 1188, and 1288(c) and (d); 29U.S.C. 49 et seq.; sec. 3(c)(1), Pub. L. 101–238, 103 Stat. 2099, 2102 (8 U.S.C. 1182note); sec. 221(a), Pub. L. 101–649, 104 Stat.4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note); sec. 323,Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2149; Title IV,Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 106–95, 113 Stat. 1312 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); and8 CFR 213.2(h)(4)(i).

Section 655.00 issued under 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(H)(ii), 1184, and 1188; 29 U.S.C.49 et seq.; and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i).

Subparts A and C issued under 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and 1184; 29 U.S.C. 49 etseq.; and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i).

Subpart B issued under 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184, and 1188; and 29U.S.C. 49 et seq.

Subparts D and E issued under 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a), 1182(m), and 1184; 29U.S.C. 49 et seq. and sec. 3(c)(1), Pub. L. 101–238, 103 Stat. 2099, 2103 (8 U.S.C. 1182note).

Subparts F and G issued under 8 U.S.C.1184 and 1288(c); and 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.

Subparts H and I issued under 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1182(n), and 1184; 29U.S.C. 49 et seq.; sec 303(a)(8), Pub. L. 102–232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 U.S.C. 1182note); and Title IV, Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat.2681.

Subparts J and K issued under 29 U.S.C. 49et seq.; and sec 221(a), Pub. L. 101–649, 104Stat. 4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note).

Subparts L and M issued under 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c), 1182 (m) and 1184; and29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.

2. Section 655.700 is amended byrevising the third sentence of paragraph(b)(1) to read as follows:

§ 655.700 What statutory provisionsgovern the employment of H–1Bnonimmigrants and how do employersapply for an H–1B visa?

* * * * *(b) * * *(1) * * * The LCA (Form ETA 9035

or ETA 9035E) and cover page (FormETA 9035CP, containing the fullattestation statements that areincorporated by reference in Form ETA9035 and ETA 9035E) may be obtainedfrom http://ows.doleta.gov, from DOL

regional offices, and from theEmployment and TrainingAdministration (ETA) national office.* * ** * * * *

3. Section 655.705 is amended byrevising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 655.705 What federal agencies areinvolved in the H–1B program, and what arethe responsibilities of those agencies andof employers?* * * * *

(c) Employer’s responsibilities. Eachemployer seeking an H–1Bnonimmigrant in a specialty occupationor as a fashion model of distinguishedmerit and ability has severalresponsibilities, as described more fullyin this subpart and subpart I of this part,including—

(1) The employer shall submit acompleted labor condition application(LCA) on Form ETA 9035 or Form ETA9035E in the manner prescribed in§ 655.720. By completing andsubmitting the LCA, and in addition bysigning the LCA, the employer makescertain representations and agrees toseveral attestations regarding anemployer’s responsibilities, includingthe wages, working conditions, andbenefits to be provided to the H–1Bnonimmigrants (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1));these attestations are specificallyidentified and incorporated by referencein the LCA, as well as being set forth infull on Form ETA 9035CP. The LCAcontains additional attestations forcertain H–1B-dependent employers andemployers found to have willfullyviolated the H–1B programrequirements; these attestations imposecertain obligations to recruit U.S.workers, to offer positions to U. S.workers who are equally or betterqualified than the H–1Bnonimmigrant(s), and to avoid thedisplacement of U.S. workers (either inthe employer’s workforce, or in theworkforce of a second employer withwhom the H–1B nonimmigrant(s) isplaced, where there are indicia ofemployment with that second employer(8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)(E)–(G)). Theseadditional attestations are specificallyidentified and incorporated by referencein the LCA, as well as being set forth infull on Form ETA 9035CP. If the LCAis certified by ETA, notice of thecertification will be sent to theemployer, either by return FAX (wherethe Form ETA 9035 was submitted byFAX), by hard copy (where the FormETA 9035 was submitted by U.S. Mail),or by electronic certification (where theForm ETA 9035E was submittedelectronically). The employer reaffirmsits acceptance of all of the attestation



obligations by submitting the LCA to theImmigration and Naturalization Servicein support of the Petition forNonimmigrant Worker, INS Form I–129,for an H–1B nonimmigrant. See INSregulation 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(2),which specifies that the employer willcomply with the terms of the LCA forthe duration of the H–1Bnonimmigrant’s authorized period ofstay.

(2) The employer shall maintain theoriginal signed and certified LCA in itsfiles, and shall make a copy of the LCA,as well as necessary supportingdocumentation (as identified under thissubpart), available for publicexamination in a public access file atthe employer’s principal place ofbusiness in the U.S. or at the place ofemployment within one working dayafter the date on which the LCA is filedwith ETA.

(3) The employer then may submit acopy of the certified, signed LCA to INSwith a completed petition (Form I–129)requesting H–1B classification.

(4) The employer shall not allow thenonimmigrant worker to begin workuntil INS grants the alien authorizationto work in the United States for thatemployer or, in the case of anonimmigrant previously afforded H–1Bstatus who is undertaking employmentwith a new H–1B employer, until thenew employer files a nonfrivolouspetition (Form I–129) in accordancewith INS requirements.

(5) The employer shall developsufficient documentation to meet itsburden of proof with respect to thevalidity of the statements made in itsLCA and the accuracy of informationprovided, in the event that suchstatement or information is challenged.The employer shall also maintain suchdocumentation at its principal place ofbusiness in the U.S. and shall makesuch documentation available to DOLfor inspection and copying uponrequest.

4. Section 655.720 is revised to readas follows:

§ 655.720 Where are labor conditionapplications to be filed and processed?

(a) Facsimile transmission (FAX). Ifthe employer submits the LCA (FormETA 9035) by FAX, the transmissionshall be made to 1–800–397–0478(regardless of the intended place ofemployment for the H–1Bnonimmigrant(s)). (Note: the employersubmitting an LCA via FAX shall notuse the FAX number assigned to an ETAregional office, but shall use only the 1–800–397–0478 number designated forthis purpose.) The cover pages to FormETA 9035 (i.e., Form ETA 9035CP)

should not be FAXed with the FormETA 9035.

(b) U.S. Mail. If the employer submitsthe LCA (Form ETA 9035) by U.S. Mail,the LCA shall be sent to the ETA servicecenter at the following address: ETAApplication Processing Center, P.O. Box13640, Philadelphia PA 19101(regardless of the intended place ofemployment for the H–1Bnonimmigrant(s)).

(c) Electronic submission. If theemployer submits the LCA (Form ETA9035E) by electronic transmission, thesubmission shall be made on theDepartment of Labor WEB page atwww.lca.doleta.gov (regardless of theintended place of employment for theH–1B nonimmigrant(s)). The employershall follow the instructions in theelectronic submission process, whichinclude the requirement that theemployer shall print out and sign theLCA immediately after ETA’scertification, shall maintain the ‘‘signedoriginal’’ in its files, shall place a copyof the ‘‘signed original’’ in the publicaccess file, and shall submit a copy ofthe ‘‘signed original’’ to the Immigrationand Naturalization Service in support ofthe Form I–129 petition for the H–1Bnonimmigrant. In the event that ETAimplements the Government PaperworkElimination Act (44 U.S.C.A. 3504 n.)and/or the Electronic Records andSignatures in Global and NationalCommerce Act (E–SIGN) (15U.S.C.7001–7006) for the submissionand certification of the ETA 9035E,instructions will be provided (by publicnotice(s) and by instructions on theDepartment’s WEB page) to employersas to how the requirements of thesestatutes will be met in the ETA–9035Eprocedures.

(d) All matters other than theprocessing of LCAs (e.g., prevailingwage challenges by employers) that arethe responsibility of ETA are within thejurisdiction of the Regional CertifyingOfficers in the ETA regional officesidentified in § 655.721.

5. Section 655.730 is amended byrevising paragraphs (b) and paragraph(c)(1) introductory text to read asfollows:

§ 655.730 What is the process for filing alabor condition application?* * * * *

(b) Where and when is an LCA to besubmitted? An LCA shall be submittedby the employer to ETA in accordancewith the procedure prescribed in§ 655.720 no earlier than six monthsbefore the beginning date of the periodof intended employment shown on theLCA. It is the employer’s responsibilityto ensure that a complete and accurate

LCA is received by ETA. Incomplete orobviously inaccurate LCAs will not becertified by ETA. ETA will process allLCAs sequentially upon receiptregardless of the method used by theemployer to submit the LCA (i.e., FAX,or U.S. Mail, or electronic submission,as prescribed in § 655.720) and willmake a determination to certify or notcertify the LCA within seven workingdays of the date the LCA is received byETA.

(c) What is to be submitted? FormETA 9035 or ETA 9035E.

(1) General. One completed and datedForm ETA 9035 or ETA 9035E shall besubmitted to ETA by the employer (orby the employer’s authorized agent orrepresentative) in accordance with theprocedure prescribed in § 655.720. Insubmitting the Form ETA 9035 or theETA 9035E, the employer, or itsauthorized agent or representative onbehalf of the employer, attests that thestatements in the Form are true andpromises to comply with the attestationrequirements set forth in full in the ETA9035–CP. The Form ETA 9035 must beused if the employer uses FAX or U.S.Mail for submission; this Form mustbear the original signature of theemployer (or that of the employer’sauthorized agent or representative)when it is submitted to ETA. The FormETA 9035E must be used for electronicsubmission; this Form must be printedout and signed by the employerimmediately upon certification by ETA.The signed original of the Form ETA9035 or the Form ETA 9035E must bemaintained by the employer in its files,as set forth at § 655.720(c) and§ 655.760(a)(1), if it is submitted by FAXor by electronic submission to ETA. Acopy of the signed, certified Form ETA9035 or ETA 9035E must be madeavailable in the public access file, as setforth at § 655.760(a)(1). The signature ofthe employer or its authorized agent orrepresentative on Form ETA 9035 orForm ETA 9035E constitutes theemployer’s representation of the truth ofthe statements on the Form andacknowledges the employer’s agreementto the labor condition statements(attestations), which are specificallyidentified in Forms ETA 9035 and ETA9035E, as well as set forth in the coverpages (Form ETA 9035CP) andincorporated by reference in Forms ETA9035 and ETA 9035E. Another copy ofthe signed, certified Form ETA 9035 orETA 9035E must be submitted to theImmigration and Naturalization Servicein support of the Form I–129 petition,thereby reaffirming the employer’sacceptance of all of the attestationobligations in accordance with 8 CFR214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(2). The labor



condition statements (attestations) aredescribed in detail in §§ 655.731through 655.735, and 655.736 through655.739 (if applicable). Copies of FormETA 9035 and cover pages Form ETA9035CP are available from ETA regionaloffices and on the ETA website at http://ows.doleta.gov. Form ETA 9035E isfound on the DOL WEB page atwww.lca.doleta.gov, where theelectronic submission is made. EachForm ETA 9035 and ETA 9035E shallidentify the occupational classificationfor which the LCA is being submittedand shall state:* * * * *

§ 655.731 [Amended]

6. Section 655.731 is amended in theintroductory text, the first sentence ofparagraph (a), and the first sentence ofparagraph (b)(1), by inserting the phrase‘‘or 9035E’’ after the phrase ‘‘Form ETA9035’’.

§ 655.732 [Amended]

7. Section 655.732 is amended in theintroductory text by inserting the phrase‘‘or 9035E’’ after the phrase ‘‘Form ETA9035’’.

§ 655.733 [Amended]

8. Section 655.733 is amended in theintroductory text by inserting the phrase‘‘or 9035E’’ after the phrase ‘‘Form ETA9035’’.

9. Section 655.734 is amended in theintroductory text by revising the phrase‘‘Form ETA 9035’’ to read ‘‘Form ETA9035 or 9035 E’’ and by revising (a)(3)and the first sentence of paragraph (b)as follows:

§ 655.734 What is the fourth LCArequirement, regarding notice?

An employer seeking to employ H–1Bnonimmigrants shall state on Form ETA9035 or 9035E that the employer hasprovided notice of the filing * * *.

(a) * * *(3) The employer shall, no later than

the date the H–1B nonimmigrant reportsto work at the place of employment,provide the H–1B nonimmigrant with acopy of the LCA (Form ETA 9035, orForm ETA 9035E) certified by ETA andsigned by the employer (or by theemployer’s authorized agent orrepresentative). Upon request, theemployer shall provide the H–1Bnonimmigrant with a copy of the coverpages, Form ETA 9035CP.

(b) * * * The employer shall developand maintain documentation sufficientto meet its burden of proving thevalidity of the statement referenced inparagraph (a) of this section and attestedto on Form ETA 9035 or 9035E. * * ** * * * *

10. Section 655.736 is amended in thefirst sentence of paragraph (e) byinserting the phrase ‘‘or 9035E’’ after thephrase ‘‘Form ETA–9035’’.

11. Section 655.740 is amended byrevising the first sentence of paragraph(a)(1), and paragraphs (a)(2)(i), and(a)(2)(ii) as follows:

§ 655.740 What actions are taken on laborcondition applications?

(a) * * *(1) Certification on labor condition

application. Where all items on FormETA 9035 or Form ETA 9035E havebeen completed, the form is notobviously inaccurate, and in the case ofForm ETA 9035, it contains thesignature of the employer or itsauthorized agent or representative, theregional Certifying Officer shall certifythe labor condition application unless itfalls within one of the categories setforth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.* * *.

(2) * * *(i) When the Form ETA 9035 or 9035E

is not properly completed. Examples ofa Form ETA 9035 or 9035E which is notproperly completed include instanceswhere the employer has failed to checkall the necessary boxes; or where theemployer has failed to state theoccupational classification, number ofnonimmigrants sought, wage rate,period of intended employment, placeof intended employment, or prevailingwage and its source; or, in the case ofForm ETA 9035, where the applicationdoes not contain the signature of theemployer or the employer’s authorizedrepresentative.

(ii) When the Form ETA 9035 or ETA9035E contains obvious inaccuracies.An obvious inaccuracy will be found ifthe employer files an application inerror—e.g., where the Administrator,Wage and Hour Division, after noticeand opportunity for a hearing pursuantto subpart I of this part, has notifiedETA in writing that the employer hasbeen disqualified from employing H–1Bnonimmigrants under section 212(n)(2)of the INA. Examples of other obviousinaccuracies include stating a wage ratebelow the FLSA minimum wage,submitting an LCA earlier than sixmonths before the beginning date of theperiod of intended employment,identifying multiple occupations on asingle LCA, identifying a wage which isbelow the prevailing wage listed on theLCA, or identifying a wage range wherethe bottom of such wage range is lowerthan the prevailing wage listed on theLCA.* * * * *

12. Section 655.750 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 655.750 What is the validity period of thelabor condition application?

(a) Validity of certified laborcondition applications. A laborcondition application which has beencertified pursuant to the provisions of§ 655.740 shall be valid for the period ofemployment indicated on Form ETA9035 or ETA 9035E by the authorizedDOL official. The validity period of alabor condition application shall notbegin before the application is certified(whether through the FAX submissionor U.S. Mail submission of the FormETA 9035, or the electronic submissionof the Form ETA 9035E) or exceed threeyears. However, in the eventemployment pursuant to section 214(m)of the INA commences prior tocertification of the labor conditionapplication, the attestation requirementsof the subsequently certified applicationshall apply back to the first date ofemployment. Where the labor conditionapplication contains multiple periods ofintended employment, the validityperiod shall extend to the latest dateindicated or three years, whichevercomes first.* * * * *

13. Section 655.760 is amended byrevising paragraph (a)(1) to read asfollows:

§ 655.760 What records are to be madeavailable to the public, and what recordsare to be retained?

(a) * * *(1) A copy of the certified labor

condition application (Form ETA 9035or Form ETA 9035E) and cover pages(Form ETA 9035CP). If the Form ETA9035 is submitted by facsimiletransmission, the application containingthe original signature shall bemaintained by the employer in its files.If the Form ETA 9035E is submittedelectronically, a printout of the certifiedapplication shall be signed by theemployer and maintained in its files.* * * * *

14. Section 655.805 is amended byrevising paragraph (d) to read asfollows:

§ 655.805 What violations may theAdministrator investigate?* * * * *

(d) The provisions of this part becomeapplicable upon the date that theemployer’s LCA is certified pursuant to§§ 655.740 and 655.750, or upon thedate employment commences pursuantto section 214(m) of the INA, whicheveris earlier. The employer’s submissionand signature on the LCA (whetherForm ETA 9035 or Form ETA 9035E)each constitutes the employer’srepresentation that the statements on



the LCA are accurate and itsacknowledgment and acceptance of theobligations of the program. Theemployer’s acceptance of theseobligations is re-affirmed by theemployer’s submission of the petition(Form I–129) to the INS, supported bythe LCA. See 8 CFR214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(2), which specifiesthat the employer will comply with the

terms of the LCA for the duration of theH–1B nonimmigrant’s authorized periodof stay. If the period of employmentspecified in the LCA expires or theemployer withdraws the application inaccordance with § 655.750(b), theprovisions of this part will no longerapply with respect to such application,except as provided in § 655.750(b)(3)and (4).

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day ofNovember, 2001.Emily Stover DeRocco,Assistant Secretary for Employment andTraining.Annabelle T. Lockhart,Acting Administrator Wage and HourDivision.[FR Doc. 01–30054 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–P


Wednesday,

December 5, 2001

Part IV

Department of theInteriorOffice of the SecretaryBureau of Indian AffairsOffice of Special Trustee for AmericanIndiansOffice of Indian Trust Transition

Tribal Consultation on Indian Trust AssetManagement; Notice




Office of the Secretary

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Office of Special Trustee for AmericanIndians

Office of Indian Trust Transition

Tribal Consultation on Indian TrustAsset Management

AGENCIES: Office of the Secretary,Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of theSpecial Trustee for American Indians,Office of Indian Trust Transition,Interior.ACTION: Notice of tribal consultationmeetings.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary,along with the Bureau of Indian Affairs,the Office of Special Trustee forAmerican Indians, and Office of IndianTrust Transition will conduct meetingson Indian trust asset management. Thepurpose is to discuss a proposedreorganization of the Department’s trustresponsibility functions to improve themanagement of Indian trust assets. AnyIndian tribe, band, nation or individualis encouraged to attend the meeting andto submit written comments.DATES: The second consultation meetingwill be held in Minneapolis, Minnesotaon December 20, 2002 at 9 a.m. The firstconsultation meeting is scheduled to beheld in Albuquerque, New Mexico onDecember 13, 2001. The dates times andlocations of additional meetings will beannounced shortly. All writtencomments must be received by February15, 2002.ADDRESSES: The location of theAlbuquerque consultation has changed.The Albuquerque meeting will be heldon December 13, 2002 at the HyattRegency, 330 Tijeras Street NW,Albuquerque, New Mexico. The

Minneapolis consultation will be held atthe Doubletree Hotel, 7901 24th AvenueSouth, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Sendwritten comments to the Office of theSecretary, Attn: Office of the executiveSecretariat, 1849 C Street NW.,MS7229–MIB, Washington, DC 20240.Send written comments by electronicmail to www.doi.gov/oait.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Wayne R. Smith, Deputy AssistantSecretary Indian Affairs, 1849 C StreetNW., MS4140–MIB, Washington, DC20240, (202) 208–7163, Fax (202) 208–5320.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thepurpose of the meeting is to involveaffected and interested parties in theprocess of organizing the Department’strust asset management responsibilityfunctions. The Department hasdetermined that there is a need fordramatic change in the management ofIndian trust assets. This need has beenmade apparent in several ways. Anindependent consultant has analyzedimportant components of theDepartment’s trust reform activities andmade several recommendations,including the recommendation that theDepartment consolidate trust functionsunder a single entity. Concerns havealso been raised in the Cobell v. Nortoncase, which is currently pending in theFederal District Court for the District ofColumbia. Internal review has alsosupported reorganization. Additionally,a recent report commissioned by theDepartment of the Interior hassupported reorganization. This report,developed by the EDS Corporation,should be available online atwww.doi.gov by December 10, 2002. Anew office in the Department, the Officeof Indian Trust Transition, has beencreated to plan and supportreorganization. While preliminaryactions have been taken by theDepartment, the plan is still in the earlystages of development. The meeting is

the first in a series of public meetings.Future meetings have been tentativelyscheduled in Oklahoma City, OK onJanuary 3, 2002; Rapid City, SD onJanuary 10, 2002; Palm Springs, CA onJanuary 17, 2002; Anchorage, AK onJanuary 23, 2002; and Washington, DC,on February 1, 2002. The dates andlocations of these meetings will beannounced in a future notice.

Written comments, including names,street addresses, and other contactinformation of persons submittingcomments, will be available for publicreview at the address stated in theADDRESSES section. Interested personsmay examine the written commentsduring regular business hours (7:45 a.m.to 4:15 p.m. EST), Monday throughFriday, except Federal holidays.Individuals who submit comments mayrequest confidentiality. If you wish us towithhold your name, street address, andother contact information (such as fax orphone number) from public review orfrom disclosure under the Freedom ofInformation Act, you must state thisprominently at the beginning of yourcomment. We will honor your request tothe extent allowable by law. We willmake available for public inspection intheir entirety all submissions fromorganizations or businesses, and fromindividuals identifying themselves asrepresentatives or officials oforganizations or businesses.

This meeting supports administrativepolicy on tribal consultation byencouraging maximum directparticipation of representatives of tribalgovernments, tribal organizations, andother interested persons in importantprocesses.

Dated: December 3, 2001.

J. Steven Griles,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–30327 Filed 12–4–01; 10:09 am]



i

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 234


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) 523–3447Privacy 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 Web

Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publicationsis located at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara

Federal Register information and research tools, including PublicInspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at:http://www.nara.gov/fedreg

E-mail

FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) isan open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digitalform of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital formof the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML andPDF links to the full text of each document.

To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and selectOnline mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list(or change settings); then follow the instructions.

PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mailservice that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws.

To subscribe, go to http://hydra.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.htmland select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then followthe instructions.

FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannotrespond to specific inquiries.

Reference questions. Send questions and comments about theFederal Register system to: [email protected]

The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents orregulations.

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, DECEMBER

60139–62906......................... 362907–63148......................... 463149–63306......................... 5

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING DECEMBER

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 CFR

Proclamations7507.................................629077508.................................629097509.................................629117510.................................63149

5 CFR

6001.................................60139

7 CFR

301...................................63151Proposed Rules:352...................................63005

9 CFR

94.....................................62913

12 CFR

5.......................................62914Proposed Rules:Ch. IX...............................63008

14 CFR

39 ...........60140, 60143, 60144,60145, 62915, 63154, 63157,

6315993.....................................63294Proposed Rules:39.........................63009, 6301071.....................................60162

18 CFR

381...................................63162

20CFR

655...................................63298

21 CFR

510.......................63163, 63164520.......................63165, 63166524...................................63164556...................................62916558...................................62916

26 CFR

Proposed Rules:1.......................................63203

30 CFR

256...................................60147944...................................62917

33 CFR

117 .........62935, 62936, 62938,62939, 62940

165.......................60151, 62940

37 CFR

201...................................62942

34 CFR

Proposed Rules:Ch. VI...............................63203

38 CFR

20.....................................60152

40 CFR

70 ...........62945, 62946, 62949,62951, 62954, 62961, 62967,62969, 63166, 63168, 63170,63175, 63180, 63184, 63188

180...................................63192261.......................60153, 62973Proposed Rules:52.....................................6320480.....................................60153

42 CFR

411...................................601541001.................................62980

44 CFR

Proposed Rules:61.....................................60176

47 CFR

1.......................................6299273 ............60156, 60157, 6319976.....................................62992Proposed Rules:73.....................................63209

49 CFR

571...................................60157Proposed Rules:107...................................63096171...................................63096172...................................63096173...................................63096177...................................63096178...................................63096180...................................63096

50 CFR

17.....................................62993600...................................63199622...................................60161635...................................63003648...................................63003660...................................63199Proposed Rules:648...................................63013

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\05DECU.LOC pfrm07 PsN: 05DECU

ii Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / 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 DECEMBER 5,2001

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAnimal and Plant HealthInspection ServicePlant-related quarantine,

domestic:Karnal bunt; published 12-5-

01ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYHazardous waste:

Corrective ActionManagement Units; wastemanagement standardsduring cleanup; published11-20-01

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationAnimal drugs, feeds, and

related products:Carprofen; published 12-5-

01Ivermectin pour-on;

published 12-5-01Sponsor name and address

changes—Merial Ltd.; published 12-

5-01

COMMENTS DUE NEXTWEEK

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAnimal and Plant HealthInspection ServicePlant pest regulations;

comments due by 12-10-01;published 10-9-01 [FR 01-25229]

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAnimal and Plant HealthInspection ServicePlant Protection and

Quarantine TreatmentManual; incorporation byreference:Limes; hot water treatment;

comments due by 12-10-01; published 11-8-01 [FR01-28065]

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTNational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationFishery conservation and

management:

Alaska; fisheries ofExclusive EconomicZone—King and tanner crab;

comments due by 12-10-01; published 11-30-01 [FR 01-29772]

Magnuson-Stevens Actprovisions—Domestic fisheries;

exempted fishing permitapplications; commentsdue by 12-14-01;published 11-29-01 [FR01-29640]

Domestic fisheries;exempted fishing permitapplications; commentsdue by 12-14-01;published 11-29-01 [FR01-29641]

International fisheriesregulations:Fraser River sockeye and

pink salmon; inseasonorders; comments due by12-12-01; published 11-27-01 [FR 01-29495]

Marine mammals:Atlantic Large Whale Take

Reduction Plan;comments due by 12-13-01; published 11-28-01[FR 01-29601]

CONSUMER PRODUCTSAFETY COMMISSIONFlammable Fabrics Act:

Mattresses/bedding; openflame ignition; flammabilitystandard; comments dueby 12-10-01; published10-11-01 [FR 01-25442]

DEFENSE NUCLEARFACILITIES SAFETY BOARDTestimony by employees and

production of official recordsin legal proceedings;comments due by 12-14-01;published 11-14-01 [FR 01-28543]

EDUCATION DEPARTMENTPostsecondary education:

Higher Education Act TitleIV program issues;negotiated rulemakingcommittees; intent toestablish; comments dueby 12-14-01; published12-5-01 [FR 01-30260]

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir quality implementation

plans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:Wisconsin; comments due

by 12-10-01; published11-8-01 [FR 01-27829]

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYHazardous waste management

system:

RCRA hazardous wastemanagement facilities;standardized permit,corrective action, andfinancial responsibility;comments due by 12-11-01; published 10-12-01[FR 01-24204]

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYPesticides; tolerances in food,

animal feeds, and rawagricultural commodities:Sethoxydim; comments due

by 12-10-01; published10-10-01 [FR 01-25021]

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYSuperfund program:

National oil and hazardoussubstances contingencyplan—National priorities list

update; comments dueby 12-10-01; published11-8-01 [FR 01-27831]

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYSuperfund program:

National oil and hazardoussubstances contingencyplan—National priorities list

update; comments dueby 12-10-01; published11-8-01 [FR 01-27832]

Water programs:Pollutants analysis test

procedures; guidelines—Mecury; measurement

method; comments dueby 12-10-01; published10-9-01 [FR 01-24886]

Water supply:Underground injection

control program—Texas; Class I, III, IV,

and V injection wells;comments due by 12-10-01; published 11-8-01 [FR 01-27835]

Texas; Class III brinemining injection wells;comments due by 12-10-01; published 11-8-01 [FR 01-27836]

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONDigital television stations; table

of assignments:Mississippi; comments due

by 12-14-01; published10-26-01 [FR 01-26943]

Practice and procedure:Satellite Digital Audio Radio

Service; terrestrialrepeater networksauthorization; commentsdue by 12-14-01;published 11-23-01 [FR01-29328]

Radio stations; table ofassignments:Florida; comments due by

12-10-01; published 11-9-01 [FR 01-28205]

Missouri; comments due by12-10-01; published 10-31-01 [FR 01-27348]

Texas; comments due by12-10-01; published 10-31-01 [FR 01-27347]

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONTelevision stations; table of

assignments:Florida; comments due by

12-13-01; published 11-5-01 [FR 01-27639]

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationAnimal drugs, feeds, and

related products:Imported food products of

animal origin; drugresidue tolerances;comments due by 12-10-01; published 8-10-01 [FR01-20161]

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTGrants:

Substance Abuse andMental Health ServiceAdministration; mentalhealth and substanceabuse emergencyresponse criteria;comments due by 12-10-01; published 10-11-01[FR 01-25451]

HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENTFederal Housing EnterpriseOversight OfficePractice and procedure:

Federal National MortgageAssociation (Fannie Mae)and Federal Home LoanMortgage Corporation(Freddie Mac)—Corporate governance;

comments due by 12-13-01; published 11-9-01 [FR 01-28214]

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTFish and Wildlife ServiceMigratory bird hunting:

Light goose populations;harvest management;comments due by 12-11-01; published 10-12-01[FR 01-25612]Correction; comments due

by 12-14-01; published11-7-01 [FR 01-27940]

JUSTICE DEPARTMENTDrug EnforcementAdministrationSchedules of controlled

substances:


iiiFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Reader Aids

Tetrahydrocannabinols;placement into Schedule IClarification; comments

due by 12-10-01;published 10-9-01 [FR01-25023]

JUSTICE DEPARTMENTImmigration andNaturalization ServiceImmigration:

Foreign language alienbroadcasters; specialfourth preferenceimmigrant visas;comments due by 12-10-01; published 10-11-01[FR 01-25478]

LABOR DEPARTMENTEmployment and TrainingAdministrationDisaster unemployment

assistance program;eligibility clarification due toSeptember 11 terroristattacks; comments due by12-13-01; published 11-13-01 [FR 01-28412]

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSIONSpent nuclear fuel and high-

level radioactive waste;independent storage;licensing requirements:Approved spent fuel storage

casks; list; comments dueby 12-14-01; published11-14-01 [FR 01-28511]

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSIONSpent nuclear fuel and high-

level radioactive waste;independent storage;licensing requirements:Approved spent fuel storage

casks; list; comments dueby 12-14-01; published11-14-01 [FR 01-28512]

SMALL BUSINESSADMINISTRATIONBusiness loans:

Loan guaranty and amounts,minimum guaranteeddollar amount of 7(a)loans, financingpercentages, etc.;comments due by 12-14-01; published 11-14-01[FR 01-28371]

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTCoast GuardDrawbridge operations:

Pennsylvania; commentsdue by 12-10-01;published 10-10-01 [FR01-25425]

Vessel documentation:Coastwise trade vessels;

foreign ownership; ‘‘soldforeign’’ interpretation;

comments due by 12-11-01; published 9-12-01 [FR01-22815]

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Airbus; comments due by12-14-01; published 11-19-01 [FR 01-28794]

Bell; comments due by 12-11-01; published 10-12-01[FR 01-25695]


Bell; comments due by 12-14-01; published 10-15-01[FR 01-25692]


Boeing; comments due by12-10-01; published 10-24-01 [FR 01-26713]

General Electric Co.;comments due by 12-10-01; published 10-10-01[FR 01-25400]

Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd.;comments due by 12-10-01; published 11-7-01 [FR01-27653]

Sikorsky; comments due by12-11-01; published 10-12-01 [FR 01-25696]

SOCATA-GroupeAEROSPATIALE;comments due by 12-12-01; published 11-14-01[FR 01-28420]

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTNational Highway TrafficSafety AdministrationMotor vehicle safety

standards:Side impact protection and

fuel system integrity—Radial tires instead of

bias ply tires used onmoving barriers;comments due by 12-10-01; published 10-10-01 [FR 01-25428]

Transportation RecallEnhancement,Accountability, andDocumentation (TREAD)Act; implementation:Foreign safety recalls and

campaigns related topotential defects;information reporting;comments due by 12-10-

01; published 10-11-01[FR 01-25429]

TREASURY DEPARTMENTThrift Supervision OfficeSavings and loan holding

companies:Authority to engage in

financial activities;comments due by 12-10-01; published 11-8-01 [FR01-27889]

VETERANS AFFAIRSDEPARTMENTLoan guaranty:

Prepurchase counselingrequirements; commentsdue by 12-10-01;published 10-11-01 [FR01-25459]

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/plawcurr.html.

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/nara005.html. Some laws maynot yet be available.

H.R. 768/P.L. 107–72Need-Based Educational AidAct of 2001 (Nov. 20, 2001;115 Stat. 648)

H.R. 2620/P.L. 107–73Departments of VeteransAffairs and Housing andUrban Development, andIndependent AgenciesAppropriations Act, 2002 (Nov.26, 2001; 115 Stat. 651)

H.R. 1042/P.L. 107–74To prevent the elimination ofcertain reports. (Nov. 28,2001; 115 Stat. 701)

H.R. 1552/P.L. 107–75Internet Tax NondiscriminationAct (Nov. 28, 2001; 115 Stat.703)

H.R. 2330/P.L. 107–76Agriculture, RuralDevelopment, Food and Drug

Administration, and RelatedAgencies Appropriations Act,2002 (Nov. 28, 2001; 115Stat. 704)

H.R. 2500/P.L. 107–77

Departments of Commerce,Justice, and State, theJudiciary, and RelatedAgencies Appropriations Act,2002 (Nov. 28, 2001; 115Stat. 748)

H.R. 2924/P.L. 107–78

To provide authority to theFederal Power MarketingAdministration to reducevandalism and destruction ofproperty, and for otherpurposes. (Nov. 28, 2001; 115Stat. 808)

Last List November 23, 2001

Public Laws ElectronicNotification Service(PENS)

PENS is a free electronic mailnotification service of newlyenacted public laws. Tosubscribe, go to http://hydra.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html or send E-mailto [email protected] the following textmessage:

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.


Contents Federal Register

iv

Vol. 66, No. 233

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

Editorial Note: In the Federal Register of December 4,2001, all the page numbers were inadvertently omitted fromthat issue’s table of contents. A corrected table of contentsfor the December 4, 2001, issue follows:

Agriculture DepartmentSee Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceSee Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

AdministrationNOTICESSenior Executive Service:

Performance Review Boards; membership, 63014

Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceRULESExportation and importation of animals and animal

products:Bovine spongiform encephalopathy; disease status

change—Czech Republic, 62913–62914

PROPOSED RULESPlant quarantine safeguard regulations:

Untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit fromMexico transiting U.S. to foreign countries, 63004–63007

NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 63014–63015

Army DepartmentNOTICESPrivacy Act:

Systems of records, 63046–63050

Arts and Humanities, National FoundationSee National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request;correction, 63061

Meetings:Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect

National Task Force, 63061National Center for Infectious Diseases—

Scientific Counselors Board, 63061–63062Smoking and Health Interagency Committee, 63062

Children and Families AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 63062Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Family Violence Prevention and Services Program,63127–63147

Coast GuardRULESDrawbridge operations:

Connecticut, 62940

Maine, 62938–62939Missouri River, MO, IA, KS, and NE, 62936–62938New Jersey, 62939–62940New York, 62935–62936

Ports and waterways safety:Crystal River, FL; security zones, 62940–62942

Commerce DepartmentSee International Trade AdministrationSee National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOTICESSenior Executive Service:

Performance Review Board; membership, 63017–63018

Committee for the Implementation of Textile AgreementsNOTICESCotton, wool, and man-made textiles:

Indonesia, 63025–63027Jamaica, 63027–63028Macau, 63028–63029Macedonia, 63029–63030Malaysia, 63030–63031Philippines, 63031–63033Romania, 63033–63034Singapore, 63034–63035Sri Lanka, 63035–63036Thailand, 63036–63037Turkey, 63037–63038United Arab Emirates, 63038–63040Uruguay, 63040

Comptroller of the CurrencyRULESCorporate activities:

Federal branches and agencies; operating subsidiariesCorrection, 62914

Copyright Office, Library of CongressRULESCopyright office and procedures:

Materials delayed due to disruption or suspension ofpostal or other transportation or communicationsservices, 62942–62945

Defense DepartmentSee Army DepartmentNOTICESCourts-Martial Manual; amendments, 63040–63046

Education DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 63050–63051Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Special education and rehabilitative services—American Indians with disabilities; vocational

rehabilitation service projects, 63051–63052

Energy DepartmentSee Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:55 Dec 04, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\05DECL.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 05DECL

vFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2001 / Contents

Environmental Protection AgencyRULESAir pollution control:

State operating permits programs—District of Columbia, 62954–62960Hawaii, 62945–62946Illinois, 62946–62949Indiana, 62969–62972Michigan, 62949–62951Minnesota, 62967–62969Virginia, 62961–62967Wisconsin, 62951–62954

Hazardous waste:Identification and listing—

Exclusions, 62973–62979

Executive Office of the PresidentSee Presidential DocumentsSee Trade Representative, Office of United States

Federal Aviation AdministrationRULESAirworthiness directives:

Rolls-Royce Corp., 62915–62916PROPOSED RULESAirworthiness directives:

CFE Co., 63008–63009Rolls-Royce plc, 63009–63012

Federal Communications CommissionRULESCommon carrier services:

Commercial mobile radio services—Wireless enhanced 911 service conditions; public

safety answering point clarification; Richardson,TX; correction, 63093

Practice and procedure:Interim filing procedures; implementation, 62991–62993

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESElectric rate and corporate regulation filings:

CP&L Holdings, Inc., et al., 63053–63056Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, et al., 63056–

63057Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

John C. Jones Project, Waldo County, ME; facilitatorsimproving fish habitat, 63057–63058

Hydroelectric applications, 63058–63059Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

California Independent System Operator Corp., 63052LG&E Power, Inc., et al., 63052Total Peaking Services, L.L.C., 63053Transok, LLC, 63053

Federal Housing Finance BoardPROPOSED RULESFederal home loan bank system:

Multiple Federal home loan bank memberships, 63007

Federal Reserve SystemNOTICESBanks and bank holding companies:

Change in bank control, 63059Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 63059Permissible nonbanking activities, 63059

Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63059–63060

Fish and Wildlife ServiceRULESEndangered and threatened species:

Mississippi gopher frog, 62993–63002NOTICESEndangered and threatened species permit applications,

63065Environmental statements; notice of intent:

Coyote Springs Investments Multiple Species HabitatConservation Plan, NV, 63065–63066

Leelanau County, MI; land exchange on South FoxIsland, 63066

Food and Drug AdministrationRULESAnimal drugs, feeds, and related products:

Diclazuril, 62916–62917

General Services AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Travel and transportation; Standard Tender of Service,63061

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards AdministrationNOTICESAgency designation actions:

Various States, 63015–63017

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Children and Families AdministrationSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services

DepartmentSee National Institutes of Health

Health Care Financing AdministrationSee Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services

Department

Immigration and Naturalization ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Inspector General Office, Health and Human ServicesDepartment

RULESMedicare and State health care programs; fraud and abuse:

Ambulance replenishing safe harbor under anti-kickbackstatute, 62979–62991

Interior DepartmentSee Fish and Wildlife ServiceSee Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

International Trade AdministrationNOTICESAntidumping:

Cased pencils from—China, 63018

Industrial nitrocellulose from—France, 63018


vi Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2001 / Contents

Overseas trade missions:2002 trade missions—

Assistant Secretarial Business Development Mission toBotswana and South Africa et al., 63019

Justice DepartmentSee Immigration and Naturalization Service

Labor DepartmentSee Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Library of CongressSee Copyright Office, Library of Congress

Maritime AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


National Foundation on the Arts and the HumanitiesNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNOTICESMotor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.:

Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 63090Mazda Motors Corp., 63091

National Institutes of HealthNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Meetings:National Institute of Nursing Research, 63063–63064National Library of Medicine, 63064

Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partiallyexclusive:

AriaVax, Inc., 63064–63065

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRULESFishery conservation and management:

Atlantic highly migratory species—Atlantic bluefin tuna, 63002

Northeastern United States fisheries—Atlantic bluefish, 63002–63003

PROPOSED RULESFishery conservation and management:

Northeastern United States fisheries—New England Fishery Management Council; meetings,

63012–63013NOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Coastal Ocean Program, 63019–63025

National Transportation Safety BoardNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 63074

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

United States Enrichment Corp.—Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 63077–63078

Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63078Regulatory guides; issuance, availability, and withdrawal,

63078–63079Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. et al., 63074–63076PSEG Nuclear LLC, 63076–63077

Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 63069–63073

Office of United States Trade RepresentativeSee Trade Representative, Office of United States

Personnel Management OfficeNOTICESSenior Executive Service:

Performance Review Board; membership, 63079

Presidential DocumentsPROCLAMATIONSSpecial observances:

National Diabetes Month (Proc. 7507), 62907–62908National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month

(Proc. 7509), 62911–62912National Hospice Month (Proc. 7508), 62909–62910

Public Health ServiceSee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee National Institutes of Health

Research and Special Programs AdministrationPROPOSED RULESHazardous materials:

Hazardous materials transportation—Cargo tank motor vehicles; construction and

maintenance requirements, 63095–63126

Securities and Exchange CommissionNOTICESSelf-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

American Stock Exchange LLC, 63080–63083Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 63083–63084New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 63084–63087Pacific Exchange, Inc., 63087–63088

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:Public utility holding company filings, 63079–63080

Social Security AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,63088

State DepartmentNOTICESMeetings:

Labor Diplomacy Advisory Committee, 63088–63089


viiFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2001 / Contents

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement OfficeRULESPermanent program and abandoned mine land reclamation

plan submissions:Utah, 62917–62935

Textile Agreements Implementation CommitteeSee Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

Trade Representative, Office of United StatesNOTICESMeetings:

Industry Sector Advisory Committees—Small and Minority Business, 63089

World Trade Organization:Brazil—

Consultations regarding antidunping duties by U.S. onsilicon metal; correction, 63089

Transportation DepartmentSee Coast GuardSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Maritime AdministrationSee National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationSee Research and Special Programs Administration

Treasury DepartmentSee Comptroller of the Currency

NOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Separate Parts In This Issue

Part IITransportation Department, Research and Special Programs


Part IIIHealth and Human Services Department, Children and

Families Administration, 63127–63147

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.To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of ContentsLISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing listarchives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or changesettings); then follow the instructions.


Date post:	09-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trankiet
View:	240 times
Download:	12 times