8–29–01 Vol. 66 No. 168 Wednesday Aug. 29, 2001 Pages ...

1

8–29–01

Vol. 66 No. 168

Wednesday

Aug. 29, 2001

Pages 45563–45748

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:59 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\29AUWS.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 29AUWS

.

II

2

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 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 $638, or $697 for a combined Federal Register, FederalRegister Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA)subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Registerincluding the Federal Register Index and LSA is $253. Six monthsubscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The chargefor individual copies in paper form is $9.00 for each issue, or$9.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $2.00 foreach issue in microfiche form. All prices include regular domesticpostage and handling. International customers please add 25% forforeign handling. Remit check or money order, made payable tothe Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO DepositAccount, VISA, MasterCard or Discover. Mail to: New Orders,Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA15250–7954.There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearingin the Federal Register.How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and thepage number. Example: 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

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:59 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\29AUWS.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 29AUWS

Contents Federal Register

III

Vol. 66, No. 168

Wednesday, August 29, 2001

Agriculture DepartmentSee Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms BureauRULESAlcohol, tobacco, and other excise taxes:

Tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes—Importation restrictions, markings, repackaging, and

forfeited tobacco products destruction, 45613–45619

Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServicePROPOSED RULESPlant-related quarantine, foreign:

Phytosanitary certificates for imported fruits andvegetables, 45637–45648

Arts and Humanities, National FoundationSee National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNOTICESGrant and cooperative agreement awards:

DuPage County (IL) Health Department; correction toIllinois Health Department, 45682

Coast GuardRULESPorts and waterways safety:

Gulf of Alaska, Narrow Cape, Kodiak Island, AK; safetyzone

Correction, 45619

Commerce DepartmentSee International Trade AdministrationSee National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Trading CommissionRULESCommodity Futures Modernization Act; implementation:

Derivatives clearing organizations; regulatory framework,45604–45613

Education DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 45668–45669

Privacy Act:Systems of records, 45669

Employment and Training AdministrationNOTICESAdjustment assistance:

A-1 Manufacturing, Inc., 45694Double Springs Corp., 45697–45698Fernbrook & Co., 45694Garan Manufacturing Corp., 45698LTV Steel Mining Co., 45695Lucia, Inc., 45695OBG Manufacturing Co., 45695–45696Pottstown Precision Casting, Inc., 45698

Sappi Fine Paper Co., 45698–45699Saunders Brothers Rumford, 45696Spartan International Rosemont Plant, 45696Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 45697ZapatA Technologies, Inc., 45699

Adjustment assistance and NAFTA transitional adjustmentassistance:

Tower Automotive, 45696–45697NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance:

Tower Automotive, 45697

Energy DepartmentSee Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy OfficeSee Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESMeetings:

Environmental Management Site-Specific AdvisoryBoard—

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY, 45669

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy OfficeNOTICESMeetings:

Federal Energy Management Advisory Committee, 45669–45670

Environmental Protection AgencyRULESAir quality implementation plans; approval and

promulgation; various States:Tennessee, 45632–45634

Superfund program:National oil and hazardous substances contingency

plan—National priorities list update, 45634

PROPOSED RULESAir quality implementation plans; approval and

promulgation; various States:Tennessee, 45661

Pesticide programs:Pesticide labeling and other regulatory revisions;

notification to Agriculture Secretary, 45661–45662NOTICESGrants, State and local assistance:

Grantee performance evaluation reports—Various States, 45675

Meetings:Science Advisory Board, 45676–45677

Pesticide programs:Risk assessments; availability, etc.—

Lindane, 45677–45679Radiation protection programs:

Savannah River Site, SC—Transuranic radioactive waste proposed for disposal at

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; waste characterizationprogram documents availability, 45679–45680

Executive Office of the PresidentSee Management and Budget OfficeSee Presidential DocumentsSee Trade Representative, Office of United States

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:00 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\29AUCN.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 29AUCN

IV Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Contents

Federal Aviation AdministrationRULESAirworthiness directives:

Agusta S.p.A., 45565–45568Airbus, 45581–45583Bell, 45584–45594Boeing, 45572–45575, 45579–45581Bombardier, 45570–45572Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., 45577–45579McDonnell Douglas, 45568–45570, 45594–45596Raytheon, 45575–45577

Class D and Class E airspace, 45596–45597Class E airspace, 45597–45601Jet routes and VOR Federal airways, 45601–45603Restricted areas, 45604VOR Federal airways, 45603PROPOSED RULESAirworthiness directives:

Bombardier, 45653–45655Eurocopter France, 45651–45653McDonnell Douglas, 45655–45659SOCATA-Groupe Aerospatiale, 45648–45651

Class E airspace, 45659–45661NOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

South Suburban Airport, Chicago, IL; FAA site approvaland Illinois land acquisition; hearing and commentperiod, 45725–45726

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESHydroelectric applications, 45674–45675Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Alliance Energy Services Partnership, 45670Beacon Generating, LLC, 45671Caithness Energy Marketing, LLC, 45671Cogentrix Lawrence County, LLC, 45671–45672Huntington Beach Development, L.L.C, 45672Metro Energy, L.L.C, 45672–45673Midwest Generation, LLC, 45673Natural Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 45673PPL Brunner Island, LLC, 45673PSEG Lawrenceburg Energy Co., LLC, 45674

Federal Reserve SystemNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 45680

Financial Management ServiceSee Fiscal Service

Fiscal ServiceNOTICESSurety companies acceptable on Federal bonds:

Star Insurance Co.; termination, 45727–45728

Fish and Wildlife ServiceRULESMigratory bird hunting:

Seasons, limits, and shooting hours; establishment, etc.,45729–45747

PROPOSED RULESEndangered and threatened species:

Florida manatee; additional protection areasHearings, 45662–45663

NOTICESEndangered and threatened species permit applications,

45689–45690

Environmental statements; notice of intent:Gila and Maricopa Counties, AZ; Roosevelt Habitat

Conservation Plan, 45690–45691Marine mammal permit applications, 45691–45692

Food and Drug AdministrationNOTICESReports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Premarket notifications [510(k)s] for in vitro HIV drugresistance genotype assays, 45682–45683

Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Riskof Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD)and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD)

by Blood and Blood Products, 45683–45684

General Services AdministrationNOTICESAcquisition regulations:

Application for Leave (SF 71); form cancellation, 45680–45681

Agency information collection activities:Submission for OMB review; comment request, 45681

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee National Institutes of HealthSee Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Rural Communities Initiative; comment request, 45682

Immigration and Naturalization ServiceNOTICESImmigration:

Legal Immigration Family Equity Act and LIFE ActAmendments; legalization and family unityprovisions; filing address for application submissionscorrected, 45694

Interior DepartmentSee Fish and Wildlife Service

International Trade AdministrationNOTICESAntidumping:

Top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware from—Korea, 45664–45666

Welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from—Thailand, 45666–45667

International Trade CommissionNOTICESImport investigations:

Blast furnace coke from—China and Japan, 45692

Steel wire rod from—Canada and Mexico, 45692

Judicial Conference of the United StatesNOTICESMeetings:

Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on—Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and

Evidence Rules, 45693–45694


VFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Contents

Bankruptcy Procedure Rules, 45693Civil Procedure Rules, 45693Criminal Procedure Rules, 45693Practice and Procedure Rules, 45693

Justice DepartmentSee Immigration and Naturalization Service

Labor DepartmentSee Employment and Training Administration

Management and Budget OfficeNOTICESBalanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

Reaffirmation Act (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings):Sequestration update report; transmittal to President and

Congress, 45707

National Archives and Records AdministrationNOTICESElectronic copies previously covered by General Records

Schedule 20; records schedules availability andcomment request, 45699–45700

National Foundation on the Arts and the HumanitiesNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 45700–45701

National Institutes of HealthNOTICESEnvironmental statements; notice of intent:

Montgomery County, Bethesda, MD; NIH Main Campus,45684–45685

Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing,45685

Meetings:National Cancer Institute, 45685–45686National Center for Complementary and Alternative

Medicine, 45686National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,

45686–45687National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

45688National Institute on Aging, 45687National Institute on Drug Abuse, 45687Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center Board of

Governors, 45688Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially

exclusive:Attenuon LLC, 45688–45689

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRULESFishery conservation and management:

Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone—Rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish, 45635–45636

West Coast States and Western Pacific fisheries—West Coast salmon, 45634–45635

NOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; researchproposals, 45668

National Science FoundationNOTICESAntarctic Conservation Act of 1978; permit applications,

etc., 45701–45703

Northeast Dairy Compact CommissionNOTICESMeetings, 45703

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Environmental statements; availability, etc.:Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 45704Virginia Electric & Power Co., 45705Yankee Atomic Electric Co., 45705–45707

Office of Management and BudgetSee Management and Budget Office

Office of United States Trade RepresentativeSee Trade Representative, Office of United States

Presidential DocumentsPROCLAMATIONSSpecial observances:

Women’s Equality Day (Proc. 7458), 45563–45564

Public Debt BureauSee Fiscal Service

Public Health ServiceSee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee National Institutes of HealthSee Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration

Securities and Exchange CommissionNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 45707Investment Company Act of 1940:

Exemption applications—Commonfund Institutional Funds et al., 45707–45709Master Investment Portfolio et al., 45709–45712

Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:American Stock Exchange LLC, 45712–45713Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 45713International Securities Exchange LLC, 45713–45715National Securities Clearing Corp., 45715–45716Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 45716–45723

State DepartmentNOTICESSenior Executive Service:

Performance Review Board; membership, 45723

Substance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration

NOTICESMeetings:

Substance Abuse Treatment Center National AdvisoryCouncil, 45689

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

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., 45726–45727

Railroad services abandonment:Maryland Mass Transit Administration, 45727


VI Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Contents

Trade Representative, Office of United StatesNOTICESFree Trade Area of Americas:

Electronic commerce; U.S. private sector expertidentification request, 45723–45724

World Trade Organization:Canada and U.S.; consultations regarding preliminary

countervailing duty and critical circumstancesdeterminations concerning softwood lumber fromCanada, 45724–45725

Transportation DepartmentSee Coast GuardSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Surface Transportation Board

Treasury DepartmentSee Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms BureauSee Fiscal Service

Veterans Affairs DepartmentRULESAdjudication; pensions, compensation, dependency, etc.:

Application for benefits; duty to assist, 45620–45632

NOTICES

Meetings:Natural Research Advisory Council, 45728President’s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery

for Our Nation’s Veterans, 45728Special Medical Advisory Group, 45728

Separate Parts In This Issue

Part IIDepartment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

45729–45747

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


CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

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

VIIFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Contents

3 CFRProclamations:7458.................................45563

7 CFRProposed Rules:319...................................45637

14 CFR39 (11 documents) .........45565,

45568, 45570, 45572, 45573,45575, 45577, 45579, 45581,

45584, 4559471 (9 documents) ...........45596,

45597, 45598, 45599, 45600,45601, 45603

73.....................................45604Proposed Rules:39 (5 documents) ...........45648,

45651, 45653, 45655, 4565771 (2 documents) ...........45659,

45660

17 CFR39.....................................45604

27 CFR44.....................................4561346.....................................45613275...................................45613

33 CFR165...................................45619

38 CFR3.......................................45620

40 CFR52.....................................45632300...................................45634Proposed Rules:52.....................................45661152...................................45661156...................................45661

50 CFR20.....................................45730660...................................45634679...................................45635Proposed Rules:17.....................................45662

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:00 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\29AULS.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 29AULS

Presidential Documents

45563

Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 168


Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 7458 of August 24, 2001

Women’s Equality Day, 2001

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Women’s Equality Day marks the anniversary of women’s enfranchisementand a pivotal victory for women’s rights. Our Nation recognized a woman’sright to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, but theroots of the women’s rights movement go back to at least 80 years earlier.

In 1840, Elizabeth Cady Stanton met Lucretia Mott at the World’s Anti-Slavery Convention in London. They, along with the other women there,expected to join in the anti-slavery proceedings, but male delegates refusedto allow them to participate. Thus rebuffed, Mott and Stanton began ajourney that would lead to the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention. There, theDeclaration of Rights and Sentiments called for women’s equality, includingthe right to vote and to take part in our Nation’s great moral debates.

Nearly all women’s rights advocates also fought for the abolition of slavery.One hundred and fifty years ago, anti-slavery suffragette Sojourner Truthgave a powerful address expounding on the strength of women. Her impas-sioned call for women to actively participate in social justice movementsbecame a legendary link between abolition and suffrage. That same year,Susan B. Anthony met Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and they later joined HarrietTubman, Mary Ann Shad Cary, Lucy Stone, and other abolitionists to pursuethe goal of women’s suffrage. Many 19th Century abolitionist suffragettesdid not live to see the fruit of their work for women’s enfranchisement,but their efforts led the way for women to fight for and win recognitionof their rights as equal participants in our Republic.

Tremendous advancements have been made in the fight for equality. Butwe must remain diligent in enforcing our Nation’s laws. And we still havework to do in this area.

Today, thousands of people, mainly women and children, are traffickedinto the United States each year and forced to work in the sex industry,sweatshops, field labor, and domestic servitude. Beyond these vile acts,workplace discrimination and targeted violence continue to take place, de-spite their rejection by our communities and legal system.

Our efforts to ensure women equal rights must include the protection ofwomen from violence and equal access to justice. This is particularly vitalfor women who face geographic, cultural, and other barriers to social justiceservices. Women victimized by crime should receive equitable and compas-sionate care, including access to advocacy, emergency shelter, law enforce-ment protection, and legal aid. That is why my 2002 budget requests in-creased funding for Federal initiatives to combat violence against womenand to continue the guarantees of basic civil rights and liberties for women.

As we remember the well-known champions of women’s equality, we alsohonor the millions of women whose private efforts and personal idealscontinue to sustain and improve this land. On Women’s Equality Day, Icall upon all Americans to defend the freedoms gained by those who camebefore us and to continue to expand our shared vision of social justiceand equality.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 08:05 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\29AUD0.SGM pfrm06 PsN: 29AUD0

45564 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Presidential Documents

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 August 26, 2001, asWomen’s Equality Day. I call upon the people of the United States toobserve this day with appropriate programs and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourthday of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of theIndependence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.

W[FR Doc. 01–21962

Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 08:05 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\29AUD0.SGM pfrm06 PsN: 29AUD0

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

45565

Vol. 66, No. 168


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–SW–24–AD; Amendment39–12407; AD 2001–17–16]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AgustaS.p.A. Model A109E Helicopters

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedesan existing airworthiness directive (AD)for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109Ehelicopters that currently requiresvisually checking and inspecting eachtail rotor blade (blade) for a crack atspecified intervals. That AD alsorequires replacing any cracked bladewith an airworthy blade. Thisamendment contains the samerequirements but adds another blade tothe applicability. This amendment isnecessary because the added blade ismanufactured using the same process asthe blade that failed. The actionsspecified by this AD are intended toprevent failure of a blade andsubsequent loss of control of thehelicopter.

DATES: Effective September 13, 2001.The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of September13, 2001.

Comments for inclusion in the RulesDocket must be received on or beforeOctober 29, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), Office of theRegional Counsel, Southwest Region,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–SW–

24–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You mayalso send comments electronically tothe Rules Docket at the followingaddress: 9-asw–[email protected].

The service information referenced inthis AD may be obtained from Agusta,21017 Cascina Costa di Samarate (VA)Italy, Via Giovanni Agusta 520,telephone 39 (0331) 229111, fax 39(0331) 229605–222595. Thisinformation may be examined at theFAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,Southwest Region, 2601 MeachamBlvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas76137; or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Richard Monschke, Aviation SafetyEngineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort Worth,Texas 76193–0110, telephone (817)222–5116, fax (817) 222–5961.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnFebruary 2, 2001, the FAA issued AD2000–25–54, Amendment 39–12106 (66FR 10185, February 14, 2001), to requirevisually checking and subsequentlyinspecting each blade, P/N 109–8132–01–109, for a crack at specifiedintervals. That AD also requiresreplacing any cracked blade with anairworthy blade. That action wasprompted by five reports of crackedblades. That condition, if not corrected,could result in failure of a blade andsubsequent loss of control of thehelicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, theEnte Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile(ENAC), the airworthiness authority forItaly, notified the FAA that an unsafecondition may exist on Agusta ModelA109E helicopters with blades, P/N109–8132–01–107, that are not affectedby AD 2000–25–54. The ENAC advisesinspecting certain additional blades fora crack.

Agusta has issued Alert BollettinoTecnico No. 109EP–14, Revision A,dated March 19, 2001 (ABT), whichspecifies certain inspections for a crackin blades, part number (P/N) 109–8132–01–109 and –107. Agusta includedblade, P/N 109–8132–01–107, in itstechnical bulletin because the blade ismanufactured using the same process asused for P/N 109–8132–01–109. Cracksin blade, P/N 109–8132–01–109, werediscovered during maintenance and bya pilot due to an increase of vibratory

level, which did not affect the operationof the tail rotor. Agusta is investigatingthe reason for these cracks, and theinstructions in this ABT are given as aprecautionary measure. ENAC issuedAD 2001–094, dated March 22, 2001,requiring compliance with the ABT.

This helicopter model ismanufactured in Italy and is typedcertificated for operation in the UnitedStates under the provisions of 14 CFR21.29 and the applicable bilateralagreement. Pursuant to the applicablebilateral agreement, the ENAC has keptthe FAA informed of the situationdescribed above. The FAA hasexamined the findings of the ENAC,reviewed all available information, anddetermined that AD action is necessaryfor products of this type design that arecertificated for operation in the UnitedStates.

Since we have identified an unsafecondition that is likely to exist ordevelop on other Agusta Model A109Ehelicopters of the same type designregistered in the United States, this ADsupersedes AD 2000–25–54. This ADcontains the same requirements as AD2000–25–54 but adds blade, P/N 109–8132–01–107, to the applicability.Therefore, the AD requires the followingfor each blade, P/N 109–8132–01–107,and –109:

• Before each start of the engines,visually check both sides of each bladefor a crack.

• Within 10 hours time-in-service(TIS) and at specified intervals or beforethe next flight after any abnormal tailrotor vibration, inspect each blade for acrack using a 5-power or highermagnifying glass.

• Within 25 hours TIS and atspecified intervals, dye-penetrantinspect each blade for a crack.

• Replace each cracked blade with anairworthy blade before further flight.

The actions must be accomplished inaccordance with the ABT describedpreviously. The short compliance timeinvolved is required because thepreviously described critical unsafecondition can adversely affect thecontrollability and structural integrity ofthe helicopter. Therefore, the actionspreviously listed are required atfrequent compliance intervals, and thisAD must be issued immediately.

An owner/operator (pilot) mayperform the visual check required bythis AD and must enter compliance with

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:30 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29AUR1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 29AUR1

45566 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

paragraph (a) of this AD into the aircraftmaintenance records in accordance with14 CFR 43.11 and 91.417(a)(2)(v). ThisAD allows a pilot to perform this checkbecause it involves only a visual checkfor a crack in the blade and can beperformed equally well by a pilot or amechanic.

Since a situation exists that requiresthe 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.

The FAA estimates that 29 helicopterswill be affected by this AD, that it willtake approximately 1⁄2 work hour toconduct the 10-hour interval inspection,1 work hour to conduct the dye-penetrant inspection, and 1 work hourto replace each blade, and that theaverage labor rate is $60 per work hour.Consumable materials are expected tocost $35 per helicopter. Required partswill cost approximately $10,000 perhelicopter if both blades are replaced.Assuming each helicopter flies 200hours in 6 months, the 10-hourinspection is accomplished 20 times,and the dye-penetrant inspection isaccomplished 8 times, and both bladesare replaced once, the total cost impactof the AD on U.S. operators is estimatedto be $325,815.

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 should 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 in the RulesDocket for examination by interestedpersons. A report that summarizes eachFAA-public contact concerned with thesubstance of this AD will be filed in theRules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA toacknowledge receipt of their mailedcomments submitted in response to thisrule must submit a self-addressed,stamped postcard on which thefollowing statement is made:‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2001–SW–24–AD.’’ The postcard will be datestamped and returned to thecommenter.

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.

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

safety, Incorporation by reference,Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me by theAdministrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 14 CFR part 39as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byremoving Amendment 39–12106 (66 FR10185, February 14, 2001) and byadding a new airworthiness directive(AD), Amendment 39–12407, to read asfollows:

2001–17–16 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39–12407. Docket No. 2001–SW–24–AD.Supersedes AD 2000–25–54,Amendment 39–12106, Docket No.2000–SW–65–AD.

Applicability: Model A109E helicopters,with tail rotor blade (blade), part number (P/N) 109–8132–01–107 or –109, installed,certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopteridentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenotherwise modified, altered, or repaired inthe area subject to the requirements of thisAD. For helicopters that have been modified,altered, or repaired so that the performanceof the requirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance 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 previously.

To prevent failure of a blade andsubsequent loss of control of the helicopter,accomplish the following:

(a) Before each start of the engines, visuallycheck both sides of each blade for a crack inaccordance with Figure 1 of this AD forblade, P/N 109–8132–01–107, or Figure 2 ofthis AD for blade, P/N 109–8132–01–109. Anowner/operator (pilot), holding at least aprivate pilot certificate, may perform thevisual check required by this paragraph andmust record compliance with paragraph (a) ofthis AD in the aircraft maintenance recordsin accordance with 14 CFR 43.11 and91.417(a)(2)(v).


45567Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations



(b) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS),and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10hours TIS or before the next flight after anyabnormal tail rotor vibration, inspect eachblade for a crack using a 5-power or highermagnifying glass in accordance with theCompliance Instructions, Part II, of AgustaBollettino Tecnico No. 109EP–14, RevisionA, dated March 19, 2001 (ABT).

(c) Within 25 hours TIS and thereafter atintervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, dye-penetrant inspect each blade for a crack inaccordance with the ComplianceInstructions, Part III, of the ABT.

(d) If a crack is found, replace the bladewith an airworthy blade before further flight.

(e) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, RegulationsGroup, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA.Operators shall submit their requests throughan FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,who may concur or comment and then sendit to the Manager, Regulations Group.

Note 2: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the Regulations Group.

(f) Special flight permits are prohibited.(g) The inspections shall be done in

accordance with the ComplianceInstructions, Parts II and III, of Agusta Alert

Bollettino Tecnico No. 109EP–14, RevisionA, dated March 19, 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 Agusta, 21017 CascinaCosta di Samarate (VA) Italy, Via GiovanniAgusta 520, telephone 39 (0331) 229111, fax39 (0331) 229605–222595. Copies may beinspected at the FAA, Office of the RegionalCounsel, Southwest Region, 2601 MeachamBlvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas; or at theOffice of the Federal Register, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,DC.

(h) This amendment becomes effective onSeptember 13, 2001.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressedin Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile(Italy) AD No. 2001–094, dated March 22,2001.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 14,2001.

Eric Bries,Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21219 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–149–AD; Amendment39–12413; AD 2001–17–22]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnellDouglas Model DC–10 and MD–10Series Airplanes

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain McDonnellDouglas Model DC–10 and MD–10series airplanes, that requires aninspection of the one phase remotecontrol circuit breakers (RCCB) in themain avionics compartment and centeraccessory compartment to determinetheir part numbers and serial numbers,and replacement of RCCB’s with certainRCCB’s, if necessary. This action isnecessary to ensure that defective braze



joints of certain latch assemblies of theRCCB are not installed on the airplane.Defective braze joints could fail andprevent the RCCB from tripping duringan overload condition, which couldresult in a fire and smoke in certain wirebundles that are routed to and from themain avionics compartment or centeraccessory compartment. This action isintended to address the identifiedunsafe condition.

DATES: Effective October 3, 2001.The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of October 3,2001.

ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom Boeing Commercial AircraftGroup, Long Beach Division, 3855Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,California 90846, Attention: Data andService Management, Dept. C1-L5A(D800–0024). This information may beexamined at the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, Rules Docket,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington; or at the FAA, Los AngelesAircraft Certification Office, 3960Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,California; or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Natalie Phan-Tran, Aerospace Engineer,Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, FAA, Los Angeles AircraftCertification Office, 3960 ParamountBoulevard, Lakewood, California90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5343;fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aproposal to amend part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) toinclude an airworthiness directive (AD)that is applicable to certain McDonnellDouglas Model DC–10 and MD–10series airplanes was published in theFederal Register on November 29, 2000(65 FR 71074). That action proposed torequire an inspection of the one phaseremote control circuit breakers (RCCB)in the main avionics compartment andcenter accessory compartment todetermine their part numbers and serialnumbers, and replacement of RCCB’swith certain RCCB’s, if necessary.

Comments Received

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

Concur With the NPRM

Two commenters concur with theintent and requirements of the NPRM.

Request To Revise the ComplianceTime

One commenter, an operator, requeststhat the compliance time for the ‘‘on-condition’’ replacement of the RCCB berevised from ‘‘prior to further flight’’ to‘‘replacement before compliance date.’’The commenter notes that, before theproposed inspection is performed, theextent of the problem is unknown, andit would be hard for the operators toprocure sufficient RCCB’s. Thecommenter concludes that such anextension of the compliance time wouldprevent possible grounding of airplanes.

The FAA does not concur that thecompliance time for the ‘‘on-condition’’replacement should be revised. Weacknowledge the commenter’s concernabout the availability of replacementRCCB’s; however, the manufacturer hasadvised us that adequate parts for thereplacement of RCCB’s are available.Therefore, no change in this regard isnecessary to the final rule.

Conclusion

After careful review of the availabledata, including the comments notedabove, the FAA has determined that airsafety and the public interest require theadoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 446 ModelDC–10 and MD–10 series airplanes ofthe affected design in the worldwidefleet. The FAA estimates that 312airplanes of U.S. registry will be affectedby this AD, that it will takeapproximately 6 work hours perairplane to accomplish the requiredinspection, and that the average laborrate is $60 per work hour. Based onthese figures, the cost impact of theinspection required by this AD on U.S.operators is estimated to be $112,320, or$360 per airplane.

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

Regulatory Impact


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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, Incorporation by reference,Safety.


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:2001–17–22 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–12413. Docket 2000–NM–149–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–10 and MD–10series airplanes, as listed in Boeing AlertService Bulletin DC10–24A164, dated June22, 2000; certificated in any category.

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 an



alternative 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.


To prevent fire and smoke in certain wirebundles that are routed to and from the mainavionics compartment or center accessorycompartment, accomplish the following:

Inspection and Replacement, if Necessary

(a) Within 6 months after the effective dateof this AD, perform a one-time general visualinspection of the one phase remote controlcircuit breakers (RCCB) in the main avionicscompartment and center accessorycompartment to determine the part numbersand serial numbers (identified in Table 2 ofthe Accomplishment Instructions of theservice bulletin), in accordance with BoeingAlert Service Bulletin DC10–24A164, datedJune 22, 2000.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, ageneral visual inspection is defined as ‘‘Avisual examination of an interior or exteriorarea, installation, or assembly to detectobvious damage, failure, or irregularity. Thislevel of inspection is made under normallyavailable lighting conditions such asdaylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or drop-light, and may require removal or opening ofaccess panels or doors. Stands, ladders, orplatforms may be required to gain proximityto the area being checked.’’

(1) If any RCCB has a part number listedin Table 2 of the AccomplishmentInstructions of the service bulletin and thecorresponding serial number is NOTidentified in that table, no further action isrequired by this AD.

(2) If any RCCB has a part number listedin Table 2 of the AccomplishmentInstructions of the service bulletin and thecorresponding serial number is identified inthat table, before further flight, replace theRCCB with a RCCB having the same partnumber with a serial number that is NOTidentified in Table 2, in accordance with theservice bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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.

Special Flight Permit

(c) Special flight permits may be issued inaccordance with§§ 21.197 and 21.199 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to alocation where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(d) The actions shall be done in accordancewith Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10–24A164, dated June 22, 2000. 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; 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 onOctober 3, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August20, 2001.Vi L. Lipski,Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21495 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U



14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BombardierModel DHC–8–100, –200, and –300Series Airplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain Bombardier ModelDHC–8–100, –200, and –300 seriesairplanes, that requires a one-timedetailed visual inspection to detectdamage of the ladder plates and accesscover areas of the upper surface of thewings; repair, if necessary; andinstallation of new O-ring seals. Thisamendment is prompted by issuance ofmandatory continuing airworthinessinformation by a foreign civilairworthiness authority. The actionsspecified by this AD are intended toprevent damage of the upper wingladder plates, which could result in

displacement of the adjacent channelseals and consequent reduced lightningstrike protection of the fuel tanks.DATES: Effective October 3, 2001.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of October 3,2001.ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom Bombardier, Inc., BombardierRegional Aircraft Division, 123 GarrettBoulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K1Y5, Canada. This information may beexamined at the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, Rules Docket,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington; or at the FAA, New YorkAircraft Certification Office, 10 FifthStreet, Third Floor, Valley Stream, NewYork; or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:James E. Delisio, Aerospace Engineer,Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York AircraftCertification Office, 10 Fifth Street,Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York11581; telephone (516) 256–7521; fax(516) 568–2716.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aproposal to amend part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) toinclude an airworthiness directive (AD)that is applicable to certain BombardierModel DHC–8–100, –200, and –300series airplanes was published as asupplemental notice of proposedrulemaking (NPRM) in the FederalRegister on January 5, 2001 (66 FR1057). That action proposed to requirea one-time detailed visual inspection todetect damage of the ladder plates andaccess cover areas of the upper surfaceof the wings; repair, if necessary; andinstallation of new O-ring seals. Thataction also proposed to revise theinspection requirements of the originalNPRM by correcting a reference to arepair manual.

Comments

Interested persons have been affordedan opportunity to participate in themaking of this amendment. Nocomments were submitted.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that airsafety and the public interest require theadoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 516 ModelDHC–8–100, –200, and –300 series



airplanes in the worldwide fleet. TheFAA estimates that 235 Model DHC–8–100, –200, and –300 series airplanes ofU.S. registry will be affected by this AD,that it will take approximately 6 workhours per airplane to accomplish therequired actions, and that the averagelabor rate is $60 per work hour. Basedon these figures, the cost impact of theAD on U.S. operators is estimated to be$84,600, or $360 per airplane.


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.








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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:2001–17–23 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de

Havilland, Inc.): Amendment 39–12414.Docket 99–NM–371–AD.

Applicability: Model DHC–8–100, –200,and –300 series airplanes, having serialnumbers 003 through 528 inclusive and 531;certificated in any category.

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.


To prevent damage of the upper wingladder plates, which could result indisplacement of the adjacent channel sealsand consequent reduced lightning strikeprotection of the fuel tanks, accomplish thefollowing:

Inspection and Repair

(a) Within 9 months or at the nextmaintenance period during which the fueltanks are accessed after the effective date ofthis AD, whichever occurs earlier: Perform aone-time detailed visual inspection to detectdamage (i.e., fretting and/or corrosion) of theladder plates and access cover areas of theupper surface of the wings per paragraphIII.A., III.B., or III.C., as applicable, of theAccomplishment Instructions of BombardierService Bulletin 8–57–41, Revision ‘‘C’’,dated August 4, 2000.

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.’’

(1) If no damage is detected, prior tofurther flight, install new 0.103-inch-diameter O-ring seals per paragraph III.A.,III.B., or III.C., as applicable, of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the servicebulletin.

(2) If any damage is detected that is withinthe limits specified in de Havilland Dash 8Generic Structural Repair Schemes ManualPSM 1–8–3RS or PSM 1–82–3RS Chapter 57(‘‘Contents’’ and ‘‘Repair Index’’), beforefurther flight, repair the damage per deHavilland Dash 8 Generic Structural RepairSchemes Manual PSM 1–8–3RS or PSM 1–82–3RS Chapter 57 (‘‘Contents’’ and ‘‘RepairIndex’’), and install new 0.103-inch-diameterO-ring seals per paragraph III.A., III.B., orIII.C., as applicable, of the AccomplishmentInstructions of the service bulletin.

(3) If any damage is detected that is outsidethe limits specified in de Havilland Dash 8Generic Structural Repair Schemes ManualPSM 1–8–3RS or PSM 1–82–3RS Chapter 57(‘‘Contents’’ and ‘‘Repair Index’’), beforefurther flight, repair per a method approvedby the Manager, New York AircraftCertification Office (ACO), FAA, and installnew 0.103-inch-diameter O-ring seals.

Note 3: Although the Bombardier servicebulletin includes references to solvents thatare not available for use in the United States,operators may use appropriate substitutesolvents per standard industry maintenancepractices.


(b) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, New YorkACO, FAA. Operators shall submit theirrequests through an appropriate FAAPrincipal Maintenance Inspector, who mayadd comments and then send it to theManager, New York ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the New York ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(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.


(d) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2)and (a)(3) of this AD, the actions shall bedone in accordance with Bombardier ServiceBulletin 8–57–41, Revision ‘‘C’’, datedAugust 4, 2000. This incorporation byreference was approved by the Director of theFederal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may beobtained from Bombardier, Inc., BombardierRegional Aircraft Division, 123 GarrettBoulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5,Canada. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at theFAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office,10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream,New York; or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite700, Washington, DC.



Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressedin Canadian airworthiness directive CF–99–20, dated July 20, 1999.

Effective Date

(e) This amendment becomes effective onOctober 3, 2001.




14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BoeingModel 707 and 720 Series Airplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain Boeing Model 707and 720 series airplanes, that requires apreventive modification of the front sparfitting on the outboard engine nacelle.This action is necessary to preventfatigue cracking of the front spar fittingon the outboard engine nacelle, whichcould reduce the structural integrity ofthe nacelle, and result in separation ofthe engine from the airplane. Thisaction is intended to address theidentified unsafe condition.DATES: Effective October 3, 2001.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of October 3,2001.ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom Boeing Commercial AirplaneGroup, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,Washington 98124–2207. Thisinformation may be examined at theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA),Transport Airplane Directorate, RulesDocket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; or at the Office ofthe Federal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Duong Tran, Aerospace Engineer,Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington 98055–4056; telephone(425) 227–2773; fax (425) 227–1181.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aproposal to amend part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) toinclude an airworthiness directive (AD)that is applicable to certain BoeingModel 707 and 720 series airplanes waspublished in the Federal Register onJune 5, 2001 (66 FR 30105). That actionproposed to require a preventivemodification of the front spar fitting onthe outboard engine nacelle.

CommentsInterested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in themaking of this amendment. Nocomments were submitted in responseto the proposal or the FAA’sdetermination of the cost to the public.

ConclusionThe FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require theadoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost ImpactThere are approximately 13 Model

707 and 720 series airplanes of theaffected design in the worldwide fleet.The FAA estimates that 3 airplanes ofU.S. registry will be affected by this AD,that it will take approximately 64 workhours per airplane to accomplish therequired modification, and that theaverage labor rate is $60 per work hour.Required parts will cost approximately$1,300 per airplane. Based on thesefigures, the cost impact of the AD onU.S. operators is estimated to be$15,420, or $5,140 per airplane.



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 not

have federalism implications underExecutive Order 13132.








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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:2001–17–24 Boeing: Amendment 39–12415.

Docket 2000–NM–378–AD.Applicability: Model 707 and 720 series

airplanes, as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin1541, Revision 3, dated February 15, 1967;certificated in any category.

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 (c) 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.


To prevent fatigue cracking of the frontspar fitting on the outboard engine nacelle,



which could reduce the structural integrity ofthe nacelle, and result in separation of theengine from the airplane, accomplish thefollowing:

Preventive Modification(a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total

flight cycles, or within 24 months after theeffective date of this AD, whichever occurslater, install the preventive modification ofthe front spar fitting on the outboard enginenacelle. Do the modification (includingreplacement of the front spar fitting with anew, improved (stronger) fitting, andmodification of the front spar chord todistribute stress loads over the entire frontspar fitting) according to Boeing ServiceBulletin 1541, Revision 3, dated February 15,1967.

Note 2: Modification of the front sparfitting on the outboard engine nacelle(including replacement of the front sparfitting with a new, improved (stronger)fitting, and modification of the front sparchord to distribute stress loads over theentire front spar fitting) accomplished priorto the effective date of this AD according toBoeing Service Bulletin 1541, dated July 1,1962; Revision 1, dated January 29, 1963;Revision 2, dated February 11, 1964; orSupplement 1541(R–2)A, dated April 2,1964; is acceptable for compliance with therequirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

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

person shall install a front spar fitting, partnumber 65–2532 or 65–2532–5, on theoutboard engine nacelle on any airplane.


(c) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, SeattleAircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.Operators shall submit their requests throughan appropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

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


(d) 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.


(e) The preventive modification shall bedone in accordance with Boeing ServiceBulletin 1541, Revision 3, dated February 15,1967, which contains the following effectivepages:

Page No.Revision level

shown onpage

Date shownon page

1–4 ............... 3 ................... Feb. 15,1967.

Page No.Revision level

shown onpage

Date shownon page

5–21 ............. Supplement1541(R–2)A.

Apr. 2, 1964.

This incorporation by reference wasapproved by the Director of the FederalRegister in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtainedfrom Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at theOffice of the Federal Register, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,DC.

Effective Date(f) This amendment becomes effective on

October 3, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August20, 2001.Vi L. Lipski,Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21493 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BoeingModel 747 Series Airplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment supersedesan existing airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain Boeing Model 747series airplanes, that currently requiresinspection of the aft trunnion of thewing landing gear for cracks andcorrosion, and corrective action, ifnecessary. This amendment requiresnew repetitive inspections for cracks orcorrosion of the aft trunnion outercylinders of the wing landing gear,follow-on actions, and repetitiveoverhaul of the wing landing gear. Thenew actions also apply to airplanes notincluded in the applicability of theexisting AD. The actions specified bythis AD are intended to find and fixcracking or corrosion of the aft trunnionof the wing landing gear, which couldresult in collapse of the wing landinggear and consequent reducedcontrollability of the airplane.

DATES: Effective October 3, 2001.The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of October 3,2001.ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom Boeing Commercial AirplaneGroup, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,Washington 98124–2207. Thisinformation may be examined at theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA),Transport Airplane Directorate, RulesDocket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; or at the Office ofthe Federal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington 98055–4056; telephone(425) 227–2771; fax (425) 227–1181.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aproposal to amend part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)by superseding AD 90–06–18 R1,amendment 39–6706 (55 FR 33650,August 17, 1990), which is applicable tocertain Boeing Model 747 seriesairplanes, was published in the FederalRegister on April 25, 2001 (66 FR20763). The action proposed to continueto require inspection of the aft trunnionof the wing landing gear for cracks andcorrosion, and corrective action, ifnecessary. The action also proposed torequire new repetitive inspections forcracks or corrosion of the aft trunnionouter cylinders of the wing landing gear,follow-on actions, and repetitiveoverhaul of the wing landing gear. Thenew proposed actions would also applyto airplanes not included in theapplicability of the existing AD.

Comments

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

Clarify Requirements of Paragraph (c)for New Production Airplanes

One commenter states that paragraph(c) of the proposed rule does not givecredit for new-production airplanes andasks that the FAA clarify requirementsfor such new airplanes.

We infer that the commenter isconcerned about the compliance timefor the actions required by paragraph (c)of this AD, and we concur that we needto revise the compliance time toaccommodate new airplanes. As



paragraph (c) is written in the proposedrule, new airplanes delivered after 180days after the effective date of this ADmay be grounded until the actionsrequired by paragraph (c) of this AD aredone. Therefore, we have revised thecompliance time of paragraph (c) of thisAD to 180 days since the airplane’s dateof manufacture, or 180 days after theeffective date of this AD, whicheveroccurs later. We find that thiscompliance time will allow adequatetime for new airplanes to continue tooperate before complying withparagraph (c) of this AD withoutcompromising safety.

ConclusionAfter careful review of the available

data, including the comment notedabove, the FAA has determined that airsafety and the public interest require theadoption of the rule with the changepreviously described. The FAA hasdetermined that this change will neitherincrease the economic burden on anyoperator nor increase the scope of theAD.

Cost ImpactThere are approximately 1,132 Model

747 series airplanes of the affecteddesign in the worldwide fleet.

In AD 90–06–18 R1, the FAAestimated that the actions in that ADwould affect 163 airplanes of U.S.registry. The actions that are currentlyrequired by AD 90–06–18 R1 takeapproximately 45 work hours perairplane to accomplish, at an averagelabor rate of $60 per work hour. Basedon these figures, the FAA estimates thecost impact of the currently requiredactions on U.S. operators to be$440,100, or $2,700 per airplane, perinspection cycle.

The FAA estimates that this new ADwill affect 233 airplanes of U.S. registry.The new inspections required by thisAD will take approximately 8 workhours per airplane to accomplish, at anaverage labor rate of $60 per work hour.Based on these figures, the FAAestimates the cost impact of theserequired inspections on U.S. operatorsto be $111,840, or $480 per airplane, perinspection cycle.

The new overhaul required by this ADaction will take approximately 320 workhours per airplane to accomplish, at anaverage labor rate of $60 per work hour.Based on these figures, the FAAestimates the cost impact of the requiredoverhaul on U.S. operators to be$4,473,600, or $19,200 per airplane, peroverhaul.

The cost impact figures discussedabove are based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, andthat no operator would accomplishthose actions in the future if this ADwere not adopted. The cost impactfigures discussed in AD rulemakingactions represent only the timenecessary to perform the specific actionsactually required by the AD. Thesefigures typically do not includeincidental costs, such as the timerequired to gain access and close up,planning time, or time necessitated byother administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact









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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byremoving amendment 39–6706 (55 FR33650, August 17, 1990), and by addinga new airworthiness directive (AD),

amendment 39–12416, to read asfollows:2001–17–25 Boeing: Amendment 39–12416.

Docket 2000–NM–294–AD. SupersedesAD 90–06–18 R1, Amendment 39–6706.

Applicability: All Model 747 seriesairplanes, certificated in any category.

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)(1) 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.


To find and fix cracking or corrosion of theaft trunnion of the wing landing gear, whichcould result in collapse of the wing landinggear and consequent reduced controllabilityof the airplane, accomplish the following:

Restatement of Requirements of AD 90–06–18 R1

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions(Certain Airplanes)

(a) For airplanes listed in Groups 1, 2, and3 in Boeing Service Bulletin 747–32–2190,Revision 4, dated October 26, 1989, inspectas follows:

(1) Within the next 120 days after August17, 1990 (the effective date of AD 90–06–18R1, amendment 39–6706), perform a visualinspection, or a visual-plus-eddy-currentinspection, of the wing landing gear at thetrunnion, for cracks and corrosion, inaccordance with Boeing Service Bulletin747–32–2190, Revision 4, dated October 26,1989.

(2) If no cracks or corrosion are found,repeat the inspection described in paragraph(a)(1) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 6months if the visual inspection option wasselected for the previous inspection, or atintervals not to exceed 18 months if thevisual-plus-eddy-current inspection optionwas selected for the previous inspection.Doing paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this ADends the repetitive inspections required bythis paragraph.

(3) Except as provided by paragraph (a)(4)of this AD, if cracks or corrosion are found,prior to further flight, remove and rework orreplace cracked/corroded parts in accordancewith Boeing Service Bulletin 747–32–2190,Revision 4, dated October 26, 1989.

(4) If only corrosion is found, as analternative to paragraph (a)(3) of this AD,accomplish the terminating action describedin Boeing Service Bulletin 747–32–2190,Revision 4, dated October 26, 1989, within 12months after detection of corrosion, but nolater than 36 months after August 17, 1990;and high frequency eddy current inspect the



wing landing gear trunnion at intervals notto exceed 6 months, until the terminatingaction is accomplished. Doing paragraph (b),(c), or (d) of this AD ends the repetitiveinspections required by this paragraph.

Optional Terminating Action forRequirements of Paragraph (a)

(b) For airplanes listed in Groups 1, 2, and3 in Boeing Service Bulletin 747–32–2190,Revision 4, dated October 26, 1989:Modification in accordance with BoeingService Bulletin 747–32–2190, Revision 4,dated October 26, 1989, constitutesterminating action for the reinspectionrequirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Repetitive Detailed Visual Inspections andFollow-On Actions (All Airplanes)

(c) Within 180 days since the airplane’sdate of delivery or 180 days after the effectivedate of this AD, whichever occurs later, doa detailed visual inspection using aborescope to find cracking and corrosion ofthe aft trunnion outer cylinders of the winglanding gear. Do the inspection per Figure 2of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–32A2465, Revision 1, dated July 20, 2000.The detailed visual inspection is containedin Part 1 of the service bulletin. Thereafter,repeat the inspection at intervals not toexceed 6 months.

(1) If no corrosion or cracking is foundduring any inspection per paragraph (c) ofthis AD, before further flight, apply corrosionpreventative compound, per the servicebulletin. Repeat the application of corrosionpreventative compound after each inspectionper paragraph (c) of this AD.

(2) If any corrosion or cracking is foundduring any inspection per paragraph (c) ofthis AD, before further flight, repair per amethod approved by the Manager, SeattleAircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; orper data meeting the type certification basisof the airplane approved by a BoeingCompany Designated EngineeringRepresentative (DER) who has beenauthorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, tomake such findings. For a repair method tobe approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, asrequired by this paragraph, the approvalletter must specifically reference 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.’’

Overhaul (All Airplanes)

(d) At the applicable compliance timestated in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD,and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10years, overhaul the wing landing gear perFlag Note 2 of Figure 1 of Boeing AlertService Bulletin 747–32A2465, Revision 1,dated July 20, 2000. If any cracking orcorrosion outside the overhaul limits is

found during this overhaul, before furtherflight, repair per a method approved by theManager, Seattle ACO; or per data meetingthe type certification basis of the airplaneapproved by a Boeing Company DER who hasbeen authorized by the Manager, SeattleACO, to make such findings. For a repairmethod to be approved by the Manager,Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph,the approval letter must specificallyreference this AD. For affected airplanes,doing this overhaul ends the repetitiveinspections required by paragraph (a) of thisAD.

(1) For Group 1 airplanes listed in BoeingAlert Service Bulletin 747–32A2465,Revision 1, on which the wing landing gearhas NOT been modified per Flag Note 1 ofFigure 1 of the service bulletin: Overhaul thewing landing gear within 48 months after theeffective date of this AD.

(2) For Group 1 airplanes listed in BoeingAlert Service Bulletin 747–32A2465,Revision 1, on which the wing landing gearHAS been modified per Flag Note 1 of Figure1 of the service bulletin; OR for Groups 2 and3 airplanes listed in Boeing Alert ServiceBulletin 747–32A2465, Revision 1: Overhaulthe wing landing gear within 10 years sincedelivery of the airplane or last overhaul, orwithin 180 days after the effective date of thisAD, whichever comes later.


(e)(1) An alternative method of complianceor adjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, SeattleACO. Operators shall submit their requeststhrough an appropriate FAA PrincipalMaintenance Inspector, who may addcomments and then send it to the Manager,Seattle ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,approved previously in accordance with AD90–06–18 R1, amendment 39–6706, areapproved as alternative methods ofcompliance for paragraphs (a) and (b) of thisAD.



(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.


(g) Except as provided by paragraphs (c)(2)and (d) of this AD, the actions shall be donein accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin747–32–2190, Revision 4, dated October 26,1989; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–32A2465, Revision 1, dated July 20, 2000; asapplicable. This incorporation by referencewas approved by the Director of the FederalRegister in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtainedfrom Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at theOffice of the Federal Register, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,DC.

Effective Date

(h) This amendment becomes effective onOctober 3, 2001.




14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; RaytheonModel DH.125, HS.125, BH.125, andBAe. 125 (U–125 and C–29A) SeriesAirplanes; Model Hawker 800, Hawker800 (U–125A), Hawker 800XP, andHawker 1000 Airplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain Raytheon ModelDH.125, HS.125, BH.125, and BAe. 125(U–125 and C–29A) series airplanes;Model Hawker 800, Hawker 800 (U–125A), Hawker 800XP, and Hawker1000 airplanes, that requires aninspection for cracking or corrosion ofthe cylinder head lugs of the mainlanding gear (MLG) actuator and follow-on/corrective actions. This amendmentis prompted by reports of attachmentlugs cracking at the actuator cylinderhead. The actions specified by this ADare intended to prevent separation of thecylinder head lugs, which could preventthe MLG from extending and result ina partial gear-up landing.DATES: Effective October 3, 2001.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of October 3,2001.ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom Raytheon Aircraft Company,Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita,Kansas 67201–0085. This informationmay be examined at the Federal



Aviation Administration (FAA),Transport Airplane Directorate, RulesDocket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,Kansas; or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer,Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA,Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,Kansas 67209; telephone (316) 946–4129; fax (316) 946–4407.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aproposal to amend part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) toinclude an airworthiness directive (AD)that is applicable to certain RaytheonModel DH.125, HS.125, BH.125, andBAe 125 (U–125 and C–29A) seriesairplanes, and Hawker 800, Hawker 800(U–125A), Hawker 800XP, and Hawker1000 airplanes was published in theFederal Register on June 5, 2001 (66 FR30107). That action proposed to requirean inspection to detect cracking orcorrosion of the cylinder head lugs ofthe main landing gear (MLG) andfollow-on/corrective actions.

CommentsInterested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in themaking of this amendment. Nocomments were submitted in responseto the proposal or the FAA’sdetermination of the cost to the public.

ConclusionThe FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require theadoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost ImpactThere are approximately 1,000

airplanes of the affected design in theworldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that650 airplanes of U.S. registry will beaffected by this AD, that it will takeapproximately 20 work hours perairplane to accomplish the requiredinspection, and that the average laborrate is $60 per work hour. Based onthese figures, the cost impact of the ADon U.S. operators is estimated to be$780,000, or $1,200 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussedabove is based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any ofthe requirements of this AD action, andthat no operator would accomplishthose actions in the future if this ADwere not adopted. The cost impactfigures discussed in AD rulemakingactions represent only the timenecessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. Thesefigures typically do not includeincidental costs, such as the timerequired to gain access and close up,planning time, or time necessitated byother administrative actions.


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.








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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:2001–17–26 Raytheon Aircraft Company:

Amendment 39–12417. Docket 2000–NM–373–AD.

Applicability: Model DH.125, HS.125,BH.125, and BAe. 125 (U–125 and C–29A)series airplanes; Model Hawker 800, Hawker800 (U–125A), Hawker 800XP, and Hawker1000 airplanes; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplaneidentified in the preceding applicability

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


To prevent separation of the cylinder headlugs, which could prevent the main landinggear (MLG) from extending and result in apartial gear-up landing, accomplish thefollowing:

Inspection

(a) Perform an eddy current inspection ofthe actuator cylinder head lugs for crackingor corrosion per Raytheon Service Bulletin32–3391, dated August 2000, at the timespecified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or(a)(4) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) For actuator cylinder heads that have3,000 or less total landings as of the effectivedate of this AD: Perform the eddy currentinspection within 24 months after theeffective date of this AD.

(2) For actuator cylinder heads that have3,001 to 4,000 total landings as of theeffective date of this AD: Perform the eddycurrent inspection within 6 months after theeffective date of this AD.

(3) For actuator cylinder heads that havebeen in service for more than 7 years as ofthe effective date of this AD: Perform theeddy current inspection within 6 months ofthe effective date of this AD.

(4) For actuator cylinder heads that have4,001 or more total landings as of theeffective date of this AD: Perform the eddycurrent inspection within 10 landings afterthe effective date of this AD.

If No Cracking or Corrosion

(b) If no cracking or corrosion is foundduring the inspection required by paragraph(a) of this AD, before further flight,accomplish the follow-on actions (e.g.,‘‘vibro-etching’’ the MLG actuator data plate,painting a blue stripe on the actuatorcylinder head to indicate 1⁄32 inch oversizebushings, replacing bushings, and applyingcorrosion protection to the lug bores), perRaytheon Service Bulletin 32–3391, datedAugust 2000.

If Any Cracking or Corrosion

(c) If any cracking or corrosion is foundduring the inspection required by paragraph(a) of this AD, before further flight,accomplish either of the actions specified inparagraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, perRaytheon Service Bulletin 32–3391, datedAugust 2000.

(1) Replace the actuator of the MLG witha new or serviceable actuator, or

(2) Replace the actuator cylinder head witha new cylinder head.



Note 2: Raytheon Service Bulletin 32–3391,dated August 2000, references PrecisionHydraulics Cylinder Maintenance Manual(CMM) 32–30–1105 as an additional sourceof service information.


(d) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, WichitaAircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.Operators shall submit their requests throughan appropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.

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


(e) 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.


(f) The actions shall be done in accordancewith Raytheon Service Bulletin 32–3391,dated August 2000. This incorporation byreference was approved by the Director of theFederal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may beobtained from Raytheon Aircraft Company,Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas67201–0085. Copies may be inspected at theFAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or atthe FAA, Wichita Aircraft CertificationOffice, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,Wichita, Kansas; or at the Office of theFederal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

Effective Date

(g) This amendment becomes effective onOctober 3, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August20, 2001.

Vi L. Lipski,Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21491 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]




14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; IsraelAircraft Industries, Ltd., Model AstraSPX and 1125 Westwind Astra SeriesAirplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD) that isapplicable to certain Israel AircraftIndustries, Ltd., Model Astra SPX and1125 Westwind Astra series airplanes.This action requires one-time detailedvisual and eddy current inspections forcracking of the drag brace on the noselanding gear, and replacement of thedrag brace, if necessary. This action isnecessary to prevent failure of the noselanding gear. This action is intended toaddress the identified unsafe condition.DATES: Effective September 13, 2001.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of September13, 2001.

Comments for inclusion in the RulesDocket must be received on or beforeSeptember 28, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–261–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–261–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 GalaxyAerospace Corporation, One GalaxyWay, Fort Worth Alliance Airport, FortWorth, Texas 76177. This information

may be examined at the FAA, TransportAirplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or atthe Office of the Federal Register, 800North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DanRodina, Aerospace Engineer,International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125;fax (425) 227–1149.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CivilAviation Administration of Israel(CAAI), which is the airworthinessauthority for Israel, notified the FAAthat an unsafe condition may exist oncertain Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.,Model Astra SPX and 1125 WestwindAstra series airplanes. The CAAI advisesthat fatigue cracking has been found ondrag braces with part numbers25W272003–501 through 25W272003–507 inclusive installed on the noselanding gear. This condition, if notcorrected, could result in failure of thenose landing gear.

Explanation of Relevant ServiceInformation

Israel Aircraft Industries has issuedAstra Alert Service Bulletin 1125–32A–095, dated December 4, 2000. Theservice bulletin describes procedures forone-time detailed visual and eddycurrent inspections for cracking of theupper radius of the drag brace on thenose landing gear, and replacement ofthe drag brace, if necessary. The area tobe inspected is the fillet between thetrunnion axis and the body of the dragbrace. Accomplishment of the actionsspecified in the service bulletin isintended to adequately address theidentified unsafe condition. The CAAIclassified this service bulletin asmandatory and issued Israeliairworthiness directive 32–00–12–14,dated July 1, 2001, in order to assure thecontinued airworthiness of theseairplanes in Israel.

The Israeli airworthiness directivenotes that the drag brace on the noselanding gear is subject to repetitivedetailed visual and eddy currentinspections per Chapters 5 and 32 of theAstra Maintenance Manual, includingTemporary Revision 32–7, datedNovember 28, 2000, or a later revision.Such inspections are intended to ensurethat any cracking is detected in a timelymanner.

FAA’s Determination

Investigation of a nose landing gearoverhaul facility has led to theconclusion that a procedural and



inspection fault could result due toprevious installation of a drag brace thatcould be cracked. To ensure that suchdrag braces were not installed, we arerequiring an inspection of the drag bracewithin 25 flight hours after the effectivedate of this AD, unless accomplishedwithin the last 250 flight hours beforethe effective date of this AD.

FAA’s ConclusionsThese airplane models are

manufactured in Israel and are 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 CAAI haskept the FAA informed of the situationdescribed above. The FAA hasexamined the findings of the CAAI,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 toprevent failure of the nose landing gear.This AD requires accomplishment of theactions specified in the service bulletindescribed previously, except asdiscussed below.

Difference Between This AD, theService Bulletin, and the Foreign AD

While the effectivity statement of theservice bulletin includes only Model1125 Astra series airplanes with serialnumbers 004 through 039 inclusive, theforeign airworthiness directive statesthat any Model 1125 Astra and AstraSPX series airplane with a serial numberhigher than 039 on which the noselanding gear or the drag brace of thenose landing gear has been replacedmust be checked to determine whetherit is subject to this AD. Based on thisrecommendation in the foreignairworthiness directive and ourexamination of the findings of the CAAI,this AD requires inspection of all ModelAstra SPX and 1125 Westwind Astraseries airplanes with a drag brace havingpart numbers 25W272003–501 through25W272003–507 inclusive installed onthe nose landing gear.

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

the immediate adoption of thisregulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity 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.

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–261–AD.’’The postcard will be date-stamped andreturned to the commenter.


not have a substantial direct effect onthe States, on the relationship betweenthe national Government and the States,or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the variouslevels of government. Therefore, it isdetermined that this final rule does nothave federalism implications underExecutive Order 13132.








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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:2001–17–27 Israel Aircraft Industries,

LTD.: Amendment 39–12418. Docket2001–NM–261–AD.

Applicability: Model Astra SPX and 1125Westwind Astra series airplanes with a dragbrace having part numbers 25W272003–501through 25W272003–507 inclusive installedon the nose landing gear, certificated in anycategory.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplaneidentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenmodified, altered, or repaired in the areasubject to the requirements of this AD. Forairplanes that have been modified, altered, orrepaired so that the performance of therequirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance inaccordance with paragraph (c) 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.


To prevent failure of the nose landing gear,accomplish the following:

One-Time Inspections

(a) Within 25 flight hours after the effectivedate of this AD, unless accomplished withinthe last 250 flight hours before the effectivedate of this AD: Perform one-time detailedvisual and eddy current inspections forcracking of the drag brace on the noselanding gear, according to Astra (IsraelAircraft Industries) Alert Service Bulletin1125–32A–095, dated December 4, 2000.


Note 3: The drag brace on the nose landinggear is subject to repetitive detailed visualand eddy current inspections per Chapters 5and 32 of the Astra Maintenance Manual,including Temporary Revision 32–7, datedNovember 28, 2000.

Replacement

(b) If any cracking is found during anyinspection required by paragraph (a) of thisAD, before further flight, replace the dragbrace with a new, improved drag brace,according to Astra (Israel Aircraft Industries)Alert Service Bulletin 1125–32A–095, datedDecember 4, 2000.


(c) 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, TransportAirplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shallsubmit their requests through an appropriateFAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, whomay add comments and then send it to theManager, International Branch, ANM–116.

Note 4: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the International Branch,ANM–116.


(d) 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(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Astra (Israel Aircraft Industries) AlertService Bulletin 1125–32A–095, datedDecember 4, 2000. This incorporation byreference was approved by the Director of theFederal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may beobtained from Galaxy Aerospace Corporation,One Galaxy Way, Fort Worth AllianceAirport, Fort Worth, Texas 76177. Copiesmay be inspected at the FAA, TransportAirplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office ofthe Federal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressedin Israeli airworthiness directive 32–00–12–14, dated July 1, 2001.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective onSeptember 13, 2001.




14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BoeingModel 767 Series Airplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD) that isapplicable to all Boeing Model 767series airplanes. This action requires aone-time inspection to detect abrasiondamage and installation discrepanciesof the wire bundles located below theP37 panel, and corrective action, ifnecessary. This action is necessary todetect and correct such damage andother discrepancies, which could resultin arcing to structure and consequentfire or loss of function of affectedsystems. This action is intended toaddress the identified unsafe condition.DATES: Effective September 13, 2001.


Comments for inclusion in the RulesDocket must be received on or beforeOctober 29, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–258–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–258–AD’’ in thesubject line and need not be submittedin triplicate. Comments sent via theInternet as attached electronics filesmust be formatted in Microsoft Word 97for Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced inthis AD may be obtained from BoeingCommercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207.This information may be examined atthe FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; or at the Office ofthe Federal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer,Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft CertificationOffice, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington 98055–4056; telephone(425) 227–1279; fax (425) 227–1181.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAhas received a report of a fire in aBoeing Model 767–300 series airplaneduring routine maintenance. As themaintenance crew attempted to applyexternal electrical power to the airplane,fire erupted in the forward electrical/electronics bay, below the P37miscellaneous electrical equipmentpanel. The source of the fire was tracedto chafing and subsequent arcing ofpower wires belonging to electricalpower wire bundle W298, which isrouted from the P32 R generator powerpanel to the P37 panel. A stringer anda web were severely damaged by theelectrical arcing and had to be replaced.Some of the wires were severed, and theinsulation blanket was burned. It wasdiscovered that the routing of thebundle under the blanket violates wirebundle installation and routingrequirements.

An investigation and inspection ofother Model 767 series airplanes in thatoperator’s fleet revealed similar findings



at the same location, including chafedwires, loose or missing cable clamps,and other installation anomalies. Themanufacturer has received no reports ofsimilar incidents experienced by otheroperators of the affected airplanes.

Abrasion damage and installationdiscrepancies of the wire bundleslocated below the P37 panel couldresult in arcing to structure andconsequent fire or loss of function ofaffected systems.


The FAA has reviewed and approvedBoeing Alert Service Bulletins 767–24A0134 (for Model 767–200 and –300series airplanes) and 767–24A0135 (forModel 767–400ER series airplanes),both dated March 15, 2001. The alertservice bulletins describe proceduresfor:

• A one-time inspection to detectabrasion damage and installationdiscrepancies (including missingstandoffs; missing, chafed, or loosecable clamps; chafed grommets; andwire bundles located beneath aninsulation blanket) of the wire bundlesW232, W298, and W2130; and thewiring and grommet at the S–29Rintercostal penetration;

• Repair or replacement of anydamaged wires or worn components;

• Installation of protective sleevingover the wire bundles; and

• Relocation of the wiring supportstandoff on the S–29R intercostal toprovide more rigid support andadequate clearance between the bundleand the structural edges.

Accomplishment of the actionsspecified in the alert service bulletins isintended to adequately address theidentified unsafe condition.

Explanation of the Requirements of theRule

Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other airplanes of the sametype design, this AD is being issued todetect and correct abrasion damage andinstallation discrepancies of the wirebundles located below the P37 panel,which could result in arcing to structureand consequent fire or loss of functionof affected systems. This AD requiresaccomplishment of the actions specifiedin the alert service bulletins describedpreviously, except as discussed below.

Differences Between AD and AlertService Bulletins

The alert service bulletins recommendaccomplishment of the actions ‘‘at theearliest opportunity when parts,manpower and facilities are available.’’

This AD requires compliance within 90days. The FAA has determined that a90-day compliance time represents themaximum interval of time allowable foraffected airplanes to continue to safelyoperate before the required actions areaccomplished. Maintenance schedulesvary from operator to operator;therefore, the required compliance timewill ensure that the actions will beaccomplished during that maximuminterval.

In addition, the alert service bulletinsidentify airplanes having certain serialnumbers in the effectivity. However,this AD is applicable to all BoeingModel 767 series airplanes to ensurethat appropriate actions are taken toaddress the identified unsafe conditionfor the fleet.

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

the immediate adoption of thisregulation, it is found that notice andopportunity for public comment hereonare impracticable, and that good causeexists 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.




• Include justification (e.g., reasonsfor data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects of

the 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.

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 2001–NM–258–AD.’’ Thepostcard will be date stamped andreturned to the commenter.

Regulatory Impact


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.









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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:2001–17–28 Boeing: Amendment 39–12419.

Docket 2001–NM–258–AD.Applicability: All Model 767 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.Note 1: The AD applies to each airplane

identified 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.


To detect and correct abrasion damage andinstallation discrepancies of the wire bundleslocated below the P37 panel, which couldresult in arcing to structure and consequentfire or loss of function of affected systems,accomplish the following:

Inspection(a) Within 90 days after the effective date

of this AD: Do the actions required byparagraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this AD,in accordance with Boeing Alert ServiceBulletin 767–24A0134 (for Model 767–200and –300 series airplanes) and 767–24A0135(for Model 767–400ER series airplanes), bothdated March 15, 2001.

(1) Perform a one-time detailed visualinspection of the wire bundles located belowthe P37 panel to detect abrasion damage andwire installation discrepancies (includingmissing standoffs; missing, chafed, or loosecable clamps; chafed grommets; and wirebundles located beneath an insulationblanket). If any damage or other discrepancyis found, prior to further flight, performcorrective action in accordance with theapplicable alert service bulletin.

(2) Relocate the wire support standoff.(3) Install protective sleeving over the wire

bundles.Note. 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed 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.’’

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

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, SeattleAircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.Operators shall submit their requests throughan appropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.


Special Flight Patterns



(d) The actions shall be done in accordancewith Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–24A0134, dated March 15, 2001; or BoeingAlert Service Bulletin 767–24A0135, datedMarch 15, 2001; as applicable. 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 Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Copies maybe inspected at the FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington; or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite700, Washington, DC.

Effective Date

(e) This amendment becomes effective onSeptember 13, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August20, 2001.Vi L. Lipski,Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21488 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus ModelA300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes, andModel A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R (Collectively Called A300–600)Series Airplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Airbus ModelA300 B2 and B4 series airplanes, andcertain Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R,and F4–600R (collectively called A300–600) series airplanes. This actionrequires a one-time inspection to detectcracks in gear rib 5 (left and right) of themain landing gear (MLG) attachmentfittings at the lower flange and verticalweb, and repair if necessary. This actionis necessary to detect and correct fatiguecracking of the MLG attachment fittings,which could result in reduced structuralintegrity of the airplane. This action isintended to address the identifiedunsafe condition.DATES: Effective September 13, 2001.


Comments for inclusion in the RulesDocket must be received on or beforeSeptember 28, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–263–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–263–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 AirbusIndustrie, 1 Rond Point MauriceBellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.This information may be examined atthe FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; or at the Office ofthe Federal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DanRodina, Aerospace Engineer,International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125;fax (425) 227–1149.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDirection Generale de l’Aviation Civile(DGAC), which is the airworthinessauthority for France, recently notified



the FAA that an unsafe condition mayexist on certain Airbus Model A300 B2and B4 series airplanes, and certainModel A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R (collectively called A300–600)series airplanes. The DGAC advises thatan operator reported a 450-mm (18-inch)crack in the area of the attachmentfitting of the main landing gear (MLG).The crack was found during a routineinspection in the area of the lowerflange of gear rib 5 between theretraction jack attachment lug and therear spar. The crack was visible at theedge of the lower flange between holes48 and 49; it extended through the hole47 spotfacing and up into the web at 45degrees to the forward attachment flangeon the rear spar. The cracking occurredsignificantly earlier than predicted byanalysis, when the airplane hadaccumulated only 9,605 total flightcycles and 24,230 total flight hours.Fatigue cracking of the MLG attachmentfittings, if not corrected, could result inreduced structural integrity of theairplane.

Related RulemakingIn February 2000, the FAA issued AD

2000–05–07, amendment 39–11616 (65FR 12077, March 8, 2000). That ADcurrently requires repetitive inspectionsin the area where the 450-mm crack wasfound, and affects the same airplanesaffected by this new AD. Thecompliance time for the initialinspection required by AD 2000–05–07is 20,000 total flight cycles.


Airbus has issued All OperatorsTelexes (AOTs) A300–57A0239 (forModel A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes)and A300–600–57A6094 (for ModelA300–600 series airplanes), both datedAugust 2, 2001. The AOTs describeprocedures for a one-time detailedvisual inspection to detect cracking ingear rib 5 (left and right) of the MLGattachment fittings at the lower flangeand vertical web. The DGAC classifiedthese AOTs as mandatory and issuedFrench telegraphic airworthinessdirective T2001–364(B), dated August 2,2001, to ensure the continuedairworthiness of these airplanes inFrance.

The area of inspection described inthe AOTs is similar to that described inAirbus Service Bulletins A300–57A0234(for Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 seriesairplanes) and A300–57A6087 (forModel A300–600 series airplanes).Those service bulletins are cited as theappropriate sources of serviceinformation for accomplishment of theinspections and repair required by AD

2000–05–07. The AOTs differ from theservice bulletins in that the AOTsspecify only a one-time inspection,shorten the recommended compliancetime, and do not specifyaccomplishment of the additional, highfrequency eddy current inspection. TheAOTs refer to the service bulletins forrepair instructions.

FAA’s ConclusionsThese airplane models are

manufactured in France and are typecertificated for operation in the UnitedStates under the provisions of § 21.29 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateralairworthiness agreement. Pursuant tothis bilateral airworthiness agreement,the DGAC has kept the FAA informedof the situation described above. TheFAA has examined the findings of theDGAC, reviewed all availableinformation, and determined that ADaction is necessary for products of thistype design that are certificated foroperation in the United States.

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 toprevent fatigue cracking of the MLGattachment fittings, which could resultin reduced structural integrity of theairplane. This AD requiresaccomplishment of the actions specifiedin the AOTs described previously,except as discussed below.

Difference Between AD and AOTsThe AOTs refer to Airbus Service

Bulletins A300–57A0234 and A300–57A6087 for repair instructions. Thoseservice bulletins specify that themanufacturer may be contacted fordisposition of certain repair conditions.However, this AD requires the repair ofthose conditions to be accomplished inaccordance with a method approved byeither the FAA, or the DGAC (or itsdelegated agent). In light of the type ofrepair required to address the identifiedunsafe condition, and in consonancewith existing bilateral airworthinessagreements, the FAA has determinedthat, for this AD, a repair approved byeither the FAA or the DGAC isacceptable for compliance with this AD.

Interim ActionThis is considered to be interim

action. The manufacturer is gatheringdata that will enable it to obtain betterinsight into the nature, cause, andextent of the cracking, and eventually todevelop final action to address the

unsafe condition. Once final action hasbeen identified, the FAA may considerfurther rulemaking.

Determination of Rule’s Effective Date

Since a situation exists that requiresthe 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.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form ofa 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 thatsummarizes 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 2001–NM–263–AD.’’ The



postcard will be date stamped andreturned to the commenter.

Regulatory Impact









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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:2001–17–29 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–12420. Docket 2001–NM–263–AD.Applicability: The following airplanes,

certificated in any category:—Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes,

except those modified by AirbusModification 11932 (reference AirbusService Bulletin A300–57–0235, Revision01, including Appendix 01, dated February1, 1999; or earlier version); and

—Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R (collectively called A300–600) seriesairplanes; manufacturer serial numbers(MSNs) up to and including MSN 787;except those modified by AirbusModification 11932 (reference AirbusService Bulletin A300–57–6088, Revision01, including Appendix 01, dated February1, 1999; or earlier version).Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenotherwise modified, altered, or repaired inthe area subject to the requirements of thisAD. For airplanes that have been modified,altered, or repaired so that the performanceof the requirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance 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.


To prevent fatigue cracking of theattachment fittings of the main landing gear(MLG), which could result in reducedstructural integrity of the airplane,accomplish the following:

Note 2: The inspection required byparagraph (a) of this AD is also included inthe inspection requirement of paragraph (a)of AD 2000–05–07, amendment 39–11616. Asindicated by the phrase, ‘‘unlessaccomplished previously,’’ for any airplaneon which the initial inspection of AD 2000–05–07 has been accomplished before theeffective date of this AD, the inspectionspecified by paragraph (a) of this AD is notrequired.

Inspection

(a) Before the accumulation of 7,500 totalflight cycles, or within 100 flight cycles afterthe effective date of this AD, whicheveroccurs later: Perform a one-time detailedvisual inspection to detect cracks in gear rib5 (left and right) of the MLG attachmentfittings at the lower flange and vertical web,in accordance with Airbus All OperatorsTelex (AOT) A300–57A0239 (for Model A300B2 and B4 series airplanes) or A300–600–57A6094 (for Model A300–600 seriesairplanes), both dated August 2, 2001.

(1) If any cracking is detected and it isfound at one hole only and does not extendout of the spotface of the hole: Prior tofurther flight, repair in accordance with theapplicable AOT.

(2) If any cracking is detected and it isfound at more than one hole or extends outof the spotface of any hole: Repair inaccordance with a method approved by theManager, International Branch, ANM–116,FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or theDirection Generale de l’Aviation Civile (or itsdelegated agent).

Note 3: The AOTs refer to Airbus ServiceBulletins A300–57A0234 (for Model A300 B2and B4 series airplanes) and A300–57A6087(for Model A300–600 series airplanes) as

additional sources of service information forthe inspection and repair of any crackingfound during the inspection.


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

adjustment 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 5: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the International Branch,ANM–116.

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

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197and 21.199) to operate the airplane to alocation where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference(d) Except as required by paragraph (a)(2)

of this AD: The actions must be done inaccordance with Airbus All Operators TelexA300–57A0239, dated August 2, 2001; orAirbus All Operators Telex A300–600–57A6094, dated August 2, 2001; asapplicable. This incorporation by referencewas approved by the Director of the FederalRegister in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtainedfrom Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point MauriceBellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.Copies may be inspected at the FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at theOffice of the Federal Register, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,DC.

Note 6: The subject of this AD is addressedin French telegraphic airworthiness directiveT2001–364(B), dated August 2, 2001.

Effective Date

(e) This amendment becomes effective onSeptember 13, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August20, 2001.Vi L. Lipski,Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21487 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P





14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–SW–13–AD; Amendment39–12408; AD 2001–17–17]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BellHelicopter Textron, Inc. Model 47B,47B–3, 47D, 47D–1, 47G, 47G–2,47G2A, 47G–2A–1, 47G–3, 47G–3B,47G–3B–1, 47G–3B–2, 47G–3B–2A,47G–4, 47G–4A, 47G–5, 47G–5A, 47H–1, 47J, 47J–2, 47J–2A, and 47KHelicopters


SUMMARY: This amendment supersedesan existing airworthiness directive (AD)that applies to Bell Helicopter Textron,Inc. (BHTI) Model 47B, 47B–3, 47D,47D–1, 47G, 47G–2, 47G2A, 47G–2A–1,47G–3, 47G–3B, 47G–3B–1, 47G–3B–2,47G–3B–2A, 47G–4, 47G–4A, 47G–5,47G–5A, 47H–1, 47J, 47J–2, 47J–2A, and47K helicopters. That AD currentlyrequires either recurring liquidpenetrant or eddy current inspections ofthe main rotor blade grip (grip) threadsfor a crack. If a crack is detected, thatAD requires, before further flight,replacing the cracked grip with anairworthy grip. That AD also establishesa retirement life of 1200 hours time-in-service (TIS) for each grip. This ADcontains the same requirements as theexisting AD but adds two part numbers(P/N) to the applicability and requiresonly recurring eddy current inspectionsof the grip threads. This AD also

requires reporting any results of the gripinspections to the FAA RotorcraftCertification Office. This AD isprompted by the results of an accidentinvestigation, an operator surveyconducted by a trade association,various comments concerning thecurrent AD, and a further analysis offield service data. The actions specifiedby this AD are intended to preventfailure of a grip, loss of a main rotorblade, and subsequent loss of control ofthe helicopter.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Marc Belhumeur, Aviation SafetyEngineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,Rotorcraft Certification Office, FortWorth, Texas 76193–0170, telephone(817) 222–5177, fax (817) 222–5783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information

On May 12, 1987, the FAA issued AD86–06–08R1 (52 FR 24135, June 29,1987) that amended AD 86–06–08 (51FR 11300, April 2, 1986). Those AD’srequired an initial and repetitivefluorescent dye penetrant inspection ofeach grip. On August 31, 2000, the FAAissued Emergency AD 2000–18–51 thatsuperseded AD’s 86–06–08 and 86–06–08R1. AD 2000–18–51 requires initialand recurring liquid penetrant or eddycurrent inspections of the grip threadsfor a crack and, before further flight,replacing any cracked grip with anairworthy grip. That Emergency AD alsoestablishes a retirement life of 1200hours TIS for each grip. That EmergencyAD was published in the FederalRegister on November 15, 2000 (65 FR68884) as a final rule, request forcomments.

Airworthiness Directive 2000–18–51was prompted by the results of aninvestigation of an August 1998Canadian accident in which a grip failedon a BHTI Model 47G–2 helicopter dueto a fatigue crack. An analysis of fieldservice data revealed fatigue cracks inthe majority of the grips inspected. Therequirements of that AD are intended toprevent failure of a grip, loss of a mainrotor blade, and subsequent loss ofcontrol of the helicopter.

Since issuing AD 2000–18–51, othercracked grips with less than 1200 hoursTIS have been discovered including onegrip with a 2-inch crack through thegrip. Since then, the FAA has alsodetermined that the liquid penetrantinspection is inadequate for findingsmaller cracks in the grip threads.Additionally, two parts produced undera Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA),P/Ns R74–120–252–11 and R74–120–135–5, were inadvertently omitted fromthe applicability of AD 2000–18–51.Based on these findings, the earlieraccident investigation, a further analysisof field service data, the results of anoperator survey conducted by a tradeassociation, and several commentsreceived as a result of the issuance ofAD 2000–18–51 as a final rule, requestfor comments, the FAA issued a Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) onMarch 23, 2001 (66 FR 17105, March 29,2001) proposing to supersede AD 2000–18–51.

Interested persons have been affordedan opportunity to participate in themaking of this amendment. Dueconsideration has been given to thenumerous comments received from the17 commenters. The comments and theFAA’s responses are listed in thefollowing table:

Comment FAA response

1. A couple of commenters state that the FAA should make available tothe public all of the history related to the failed grips, to include thedamage history, manufacture date, and hours.

The FAA concurs and will place in the public docket anyinformationthat is not proprietary. Anyone wishing this information can obtain itby submitting a request under the Freedom of Information Act to theoffice provided under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT.

2. Several commenters state that the grips should be eddy current in-spected before initial installation to ensure that they are airworthy.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA has determined that the 300-hourTIS inspection interval is sufficient to ensure safety.

3. Several commenters question the accuracy of the information gath-ered from the Canadian accident. Many commenters state that the1998 accident seems to be a result of poor quality control. Severalother commenters state that the grip had a questionable history orincomplete records.

The FAA does not concur. The grip in question was within specifica-tions, and records indicate that the helicopter on which the grip wasinstalled was certified, equipped, and maintained in accordance withacceptable procedures.

4. A few commenters state that the FAA has not shown that the af-fected grips are unsafe after 1200 hours TIS. The commenters statethat if the FAA believes a crack will not propagate to failure within300 hours TIS for either the smaller or larger grip, the grip retirementlife should remain at the original 2500 hours for wood-blade gripsand 5000 hours for metal-blade grips.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA believes that a crack will not prop-agate to failure within 300 hours TIS only if the part life is limited to1200 hours TIS. After 1200 hours TIS, the probability of cracking istoo high and recurring inspections may not provide an adequatelevel of safety. Also, recurring inspections by themselves are not aterminating action.




5. A couple of commenters state that it is not clear who is responsiblefor reporting results of the grip eddy current inspection to the FAA.The commenters state that the nondestructive inspection (NDI) facil-ity should be responsible for reporting the results.

The FAA does not concur. The owners/operators are responsible forcomplying with the AD, including reporting the results of the gripeddy current inspections to the FAA. Furthermore, the NDI facilitytypically only receives minimal aircraft information when parts aresent to them for inspection; therefore, if they were required to reportto the FAA they would need to do an inquiry to obtain all the FAA-re-quested information.

6. Two commenters state that the public should be kept abreast of theon-going BHTI blade grip propagation tests. The commenters alsostate that if the tests show that a crack will not propagate to failurewithin 300, 400, 500, or 600 hours TIS, the FAA should change theeddy current inspections to match the BHTI test results.

The FAA partially concurs. Detailed test results are generally propri-etary to the manufacturer; however, if the BHTI blade grip propaga-tion tests justify a change to the eddy current inspection intervals,the FAA will adjust the intervals as appropriate.

7. Several commenters state that previous grip failures may have beeninitiated by sudden stoppage, trailer transporting, rotor over-speed,bad installation procedures, poor maintenance, or other misuse.

The FAA does not concur. Even though these types of abuses coulddamage the grips, there has been no clear connection betweenthese types of abuses and all the cracked grips.

8. One commenter states that all new blade grips with redesigned rootradii may still have cracking problems, and the FAA should issue aSpecial Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) to that effect andrecommend a voluntary eddy current inspection at 300-hour TIS in-tervals.

The FAA does not concur; it has no data to support recommending avoluntary eddy current inspection of the redesigned grips.

9. Two commenters state that the FAA should send notification of pro-posed AD action to each registered owner and not just post a noticein the Federal Register.

The FAA does not concur. Only emergency ADs are sent to each reg-istered owner followed by the publication of the final rule in the Fed-eral Register. In compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act,notification of proposed action is given by Federal Register notice.However, these published notices may be accessed via the Internet.

10. One commenter states that the reinstallation of the steel adapternuts to the aluminum grip during recurring inspections can create anunsafe condition. Another commenter states that frequent disman-tling of these components is harmful.

The FAA does not concur. Both the adapter and the grip should becleaned and inspected for any burrs, damage, or out-of tolerancethreads before any reinstallation. These grips have had recurring in-spections since 1985, and the service history suggests that re-installing the adapter to the grip threads causes no damage if doneproperly.

11. A few commenters state that an x-ray would be better than an eddycurrent inspection for finding cracks in the grip threads.

The FAA does not concur. There is no data that suggests that x-rayswould increase the likelihood of finding cracks in the grip threads.Compared to eddy current inspections, x-ray inspections are moreexpensive and do not offer any advantage other than finding internalflaws. Internal flaws are not a concern in grip-thread cracking. Thegrips cylindrical design also makes the x-ray inspection difficult toperform.

12. Many commenters state that the FAA does not know what causedthe problems with the grips, does not have sufficient or reliable data,and has based ADs on faulty equipment and questionable airworthi-ness records.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA has extensively researched thissafety concern and is continuously monitoring in-service problems ofthe fleet worldwide, taking into account accident data and service dif-ficulty information. The most common reason for cracking has beenhigh stress concentrations in the affected parts. All of the crackedgrips had a high stress concentration due to the sharp radii in thethread root.

13. One commenter states that there have been no instances in theU.S. fleet where the old 300-hour zyglo inspection has not main-tained an adequate level of safety; therefore, AD 86–06–08 ade-quately prevents an unsafe condition.

The FAA does not concur. Neither AD 86–06–08 nor AD 86–06–08 R1addressed the cracking found in grips with less than 1200 hours TIS.Also, the FAA has received reports outlining situations where zygloinspections have not found known cracks.

14. Two commenters state that a 300-hour TIS inspection intervalshould be allowed if the last inspection performed on the grips wasan eddy current inspection.

The FAA concurs and has made that change in this final rule.

15. Many commenters state that the FAA should change the require-ment of the initial inspection from ‘‘the initial inspection is within 10hours TIS for grips that have 300 hours or more hours TIS’’ to ‘‘aninitial inspection that is within 10 hours TIS for grips that have nothad any previous inspection and have 300 hours or more TIS’’.

The FAA concurs and has made that change in this final rule AD.

16. A commenter states that 8 days and revenue of $5,000 a dayshould be added to the economic impact of the AD.

The FAA does not concur. Although the FAA understands that someoperators could have their helicopters grounded for several days,which will result in a loss of revenue, any cost estimate based on as-sumed ground time and lost revenue would be speculative. The FAAbases its economic impact costs only on known parameters such aslabor and parts costs.

17. A commenter states that until everyone agrees on correct proce-dures, only a one-time inspection should be required.

The FAA does not concur. Data has shown that cracks can developany time during a grip’s service life, and inspecting the grips on aregular basis is needed to prevent a failure.

18. A couple of commenters point out that the Canadian and Australianairworthiness authorities have retained the original retirement lives ofthe grips and have not amended their current ADs, and according toa recent survey, the majority of the grips in Canada reach their re-tirement life with no defects.

The FAA partially concurs. Transport Canada and the Civilian AviationSafety Authority of Australia have changed the initial eddy current in-spection from 1200 hours TIS to 600 hours TIS. Neither authorityhas changed the grip’s retirement life; however, they have their ownrules and procedures and must make their own safety determina-tions.




19. One commenter states that the proposed AD should not be issued.The commenter explains his belief that the grip installed on the 1998Canadian accident fractured because water was lodged in the grip’sthread and because pitting was in the thread roots.

The FAA does not concur. The accident report states that water wasdislodged during disassembly of the grip from the hub. This does notmean that water was in the threads, nor does the report suggestwater in the threads. The report states that there was extensive pit-ting in the threads. The pits are 0.0008 inch or less and cannot beseen by the naked eye.

20. One commenter states that the 1971 and 1972 accidents that oc-curred in the U.S. were a result of installing the wrong grips.

The FAA does not concur. The grips involved in those accidents wereP/N 47–120–135–1 and –2. Those grips were approved for the BHTIModel 47 G–2 helicopters. The newer approved grips are P/N 47–120–135–3. There are no differences between either of these part-numbered grips at the threads.

21. Several commenters state that the problem with the failed/fracturedgrips is a manufacturing defect or a quality control problem. Manycommenters believe that the manufacturer should inspect each gripbefore it is sold and that the same requirement should be placed ongrips manufactured under PMA.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA has not found any manufacturingdefect or quality control problem.

22. One commenter states that an eddy current inspection of the grip,before further flight, should be added to the AD in the event of asudden stoppage occurrence. Also, as part of the reporting the re-quirements, add the question ‘‘Has this grip had any prior history in-volving a sudden stoppage incident or aircraft accident (sudden stop-page as defined in the Bell 47 Maintenance and Overhaul Instruc-tions)?’’.

The FAA does not concur. Although this type of abuse could damagegrips, there has been no documented connection between suddenstoppage and the cracked grips. Also, all sudden stoppages requireremoval and disassembly of the main rotor. If blade impact is violent,or if the drag brace belt is sheared and the aft side of the blade buttcontacts the aft outboard side of the grip, the complete hub assem-bly must be replaced.

23. One commenter states that the assumption that dye penetrant in-spections are not reliable cannot be accepted. The commenter alsostates that two labs, one of which is listed in Appendix 2 of the pro-posal as a recommended facility, state that, for the purpose of theproposed inspection, ‘‘the high sensitivity level of the dye penetrantmethod would be just as accurate as the eddy current method.’’ Ad-ditionally, the commenter states that United States has been using adye penetrant inspection method, probably testing more aircraft withmore hours than other countries, inspection. and we have had no ac-cidents’’.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA has received reports of confirmedcracks missed by a dye penetrant inspection and found by an eddycurrent inspection. Although dye penetrant inspections remain a reli-able inspection method, the FAA has determined that the eddy cur-rent inspection is more appropriate when inspecting for cracks in theblade grip threads.

24. One commenter states that few of the facilities identified in Appen-dix 2 of the proposal can perform the proposed tests because theydo not have the probe required to do so. This situation can cause ahardship on operators who are on tight schedules or live in remoteareas. The commenter states that there is no mention in the pro-posal of any alternate means of compliance when rapid inspectionservices or parts are not available.

The FAA does not concur. Paragraph (e) of the NPRM and paragraph(g) of this AD address the procedure for obtaining an alternativemethod of compliance (AMOC). Appendix 2 contains only a partiallist of known eddy current inspection facilities. If any of these facili-ties do not have the equipment or expertise to inspect the threads,then another facility will need to be found or an AMOC that providesan acceptable level of safety must be requested and approved bythe Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office.

25. Several commenters state that the inspection should be performedduring the normally scheduled 600 and 1200-hour inspections.

The FAA does not concur. Inspection intervals of 600 and 1200 hoursTIS do not provide an adequate level of safety based on the servicehistory of these grips.

26. One commenter states that the manufacturer changed threadstandards in the late 1970’s. The commenter believes that is whenthe problem supposedly started and AD 86–06–08 was issued.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA has determined that there was nophysical change to the thread standards or design in that timeframe.

27. One commenter asks why we don’t state the fact that all 4 grip fail-ures occurred on rotor systems that had suffered sudden stoppage.

The FAA does not concur. There is no data showing that sudden stop-page is connected to grip failures and the commenter did not provideany information showing that all 4 grip failures suffered sudden stop-page or that sudden stoppage contributed to the failures.

After careful review of the availabledata, including the comments notedabove, the FAA has determined that airsafety and the public interest require theadoption of the rule with the changesdescribed previously in the dispositionof comments 14 and 15. Additionally,the FAA discovered an error in two ofthe P/Ns given in paragraph (d) of theNPRM; those P/Ns are corrected in thisfinal rule. For better clarity, the FAAhas also reorganized the compliancetimes for performing the eddy currentinspections and has added an NDItesting facility to Appendix 2. The FAAhas determined that these changes willneither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scopeof the AD.

The FAA estimates that 1130helicopters of U.S. registry will beaffected by this AD, that it will takeapproximately 10 work hours perhelicopter to accomplish thedisassembly, inspection, and re-assembly of the grips from thehelicopter, and that the average laborrate is $60 per work hour. Requiredparts, if a grip needs to be replaced, willcost approximately $4,000 per grip(there are two grips on each helicopter).Based on these figures, the total costimpact of the AD on U.S. operators isestimated to be $9,718,000, assumingone inspection per helicopter and

replacement of both grips on eachhelicopter.


For the reasons discussed above, Icertify that this action (1) is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44



FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)will not have a significant economicimpact, positive or negative, on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A final evaluation hasbeen prepared for this action and it iscontained in the Rules Docket. A copyof it may be obtained from the RulesDocket at the FAA, Office of theRegional Counsel, Southwest Region,2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, FortWorth, Texas.


safety, Safety.





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

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

removing Amendment 39–11983 (65 FR68884, November 15, 2000), and byadding a new airworthiness directive(AD), Amendment 39–12408, to read asfollows:2001–17–17 Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.:

Amendment 39–12408. Docket No.2001–SW–13–AD. Supersedes AD 2000–18–51, Amendment 39–11983, DocketNo. 2000–SW–35–AD.

Applicability: Model 47B, 47B–3, 47D,47D–1, 47G, 47G–2, 47G2A, 47G–2A–1, 47G–3, 47G–3B, 47G–3B–1, 47G–3B–2, 47G–3B–2A, 47G–4, 47G–4A, 47G–5, 47G–5A, 47H–1,47J, 47J–2, 47J–2A, and 47K helicopters, withmain rotor blade grips, part number (P/N)47–120–135–2, 47–120–135–3, 47–120–135–5, 47–120–252–1, 47–120–252–7, 47–120–252–11, 74–120–252–11, 74–120–135–5,R47–120–252–11, and R47–120–135–5,installed, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopteridentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenotherwise modified, altered, or repaired inthe area subject to the requirements of thisAD. For helicopters that have been modified,altered, or repaired so that the performanceof the requirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance inaccordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.The request should include an assessment ofthe effect of the modification, alteration, orrepair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and if the unsafe condition has notbeen eliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.


To prevent failure of a main rotor bladegrip (grip), separation of a main rotor blade,and subsequent loss of control of thehelicopter, accomplish the following:

(a) Conduct an eddy current inspection ofthe threads of both grips for a crack inaccordance with Appendix 1 of this AD or anequivalent FAA-approved procedurecontaining the requirements of the procedurein Appendix 1:

(1) Within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS)since initial installation on any helicopter fora grip with less than 300 total hours TIS;

(2) Within 10 hours TIS for a grip with 300or more total hours TIS that has not had anyprevious dye penetrant or eddy currentinspection;

(3) Within 200 hours TIS since the last dyepenetrant inspection; OR

(4) Within 300 hours TIS since the lasteddy current inspection, whichever occursfirst.

(b) Thereafter, conduct the eddy currentinspection in accordance with Appendix 1 ofthis AD or an equivalent FAA-approvedprocedure containing the requirements of theprocedure in Appendix 1 at intervals not toexceed 300 hours TIS.

(c) Report the results of each inspection tothe FAA Rotorcraft Certification Officewithin 7 calendar days. Reportingrequirements have been approved by theOffice of Management and Budget andassigned OMB control number 2120–0056.

Note 2: See Appendix 2 of this AD for alist of known eddy current inspectionfacilities.

(d) If a crack is detected, before furtherflight, replace any cracked grip with anairworthy grip.

(e) On or before 1200 hours TIS, replaceeach grip with an airworthy grip.

(f) This AD establishes a retirement life of1200 hours TIS for the grips, P/N 47–120–135–2, 47–120–135–3, 47–120–135–5, 47–120–252–1, 47–120–252–7, 47–120–252–11,74–120–252–11, 74–120–135–5, R47–120–252–11, and R47–120–135–5.

(g) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, RotorcraftCertification Office, FAA. Operators shallsubmit their requests through an FAAPrincipal Maintenance Inspector, who mayconcur or comment and then send it to theManager, Rotorcraft Certification Office.

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

(h) Special flight permits may be issued inaccordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199to operate the helicopter to a location wherethe requirements of this AD can beaccomplished.

(i) This amendment becomes effective onOctober 3, 2001.

Appendix 1

Nondestructive Inspection Procedure

Task: Eddy Current (ET) Inspection of MastThreads for Cracks

1.0 Area of Inspection

1.1 The inboard inside diametermachined threads (reference figure 1).

2.0 Equipment

2.1 Zetec Miz-20/22, Phasec 2200 orequivalent piece of equipment.

2.2 Match molded ET probe SPC–193(100kHz) or equivalent. (See Figure 3.)

2.3 Reference standard EC–010–021, orequivalent. (See Figures 4 and 5.)

2.4 Light oil.

3.0 Personnel Requirements

3.1 Personnel performing the ETinspection must be minimally qualified to aLevel II in ET inspection, certified inaccordance with an industry acceptedstandard (such as ATA–105, NAS–410, orMIL–STD–410) or an FAA accepted companyprocedure.

4.0 Standardization

4.1 Connect probe to flaw detector andturn power on.

4.2 Adjust the Phasec 2000 as shown intable 1. Adjust all other equipment asnecessary.

4.3 Adjust the V:H gain ratio to 1.5:1–2:1.4.4 Monitor the crack response when

moving the probe in one direction onlyacross each EDM notch of the standard.Adjust the coarse gain for a crack responseof 2–3 units from the smallest (0.04″) notch.Record the number units of displacement andnoise level for each of the EDM notches.

5.0 Pre Inspection

5.1 The part shall be clean and free ofloose debris.

5.2 A thin coating of clean oil may beapplied to the teeth to help the ET probeslide easily.

6.0 Inspection

6.1 Place the probe into the threaded areaand slide it in the same direction as was doneon the standard while monitoring the screenfor root cracks. Moving the probe in the samedirection produces a repeatable display thatallows for more accurate flaw sizedetermination. Scan the probe along eachindividual thread until all the threads areinspected. (See Figures 2 and 3.)

7.0 Evaluation

7.1 Repeat standardization and rescanany areas where there is a vertical crack-likedeflection.

7.2 If indication persists, mark thelocation on the part. Record the number unitsof displacement, phase orientation, and noiselevel.

8.0 Accept/Reject Criteria

8.1 All repeatable crack-like indicationsabove the noise level detected shall be causefor rejection.



BILLING CODE 4910–13–C



Appendix 2

Partial List of Nondestructive InspectionTesting Facilities Identified by Operatorsand FAAMet Chem Testing Laboratories Inc.369 W. Gregson Ave. (3085 S.)Salt Lake City, Utah 84115–3440Phone: (801) 487–0801FAX: (801) 466–8790www.metchemtesting.comGalactic NDT Services 10728 D. South

Pipeline RDHurst, Texas 76053Phone: (800) 458–6387Global Testing Technologies1173 North Service Rd. Unit D3Oakville Toronto CanadaPhone: (905) 847–9300FAX: (905) 847–9330Paragon Services, Inc.1015 S. West St.Wichita, KS 67213Phone: (316) 945–5285FAX: (316) 945–0629NOE Services8775 E. Orchard Rd. #809Englewood, COPhone: (303) 741–0518FAX: (303) 741–0519Applied Technical Services, Inc.1190 Atlanta Industrial DriveMarietta, GA 30066Phone: (770) 423–1400FAX: (770) 514–3299Rotorcraft SupportVan Nuys CA 91406Phone: (818) 997–7667FAX: (818) 997–1513Palm Beach Aircraft Propeller, IncPalm Beach County Park Airport2633 Lantana RoadSuite 23, Bldg 1501Lantana, FL 33462Phone: (800) 965–7767FAX: (561) 965–7933Email: [email protected]: www.pbapi.comContact: Will Burbage

Other FAA approved repair facilities maybe used.

Appendix 3

AD Compliance Inspection Report (SampleFormat)

Bell Model 47 Main Rotor Blade Grip

Provide the following information and mailor fax it to:

Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office,Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth,Texas, 76193–0170, USA, Fax: 817–222–5783.Aircraft Registration No:Helicopter Model:Helicopter Serial Number:Owner and Operator of the Helicopter:

Grip #1 Grip #2

Part Number:Serial Number:

Hours TIS on the Part at Inspection:

Crack Found (Y/N)If yes, describe below.Description of FindingsWho performed the inspections?If a crack was found, describe the crack size,location, and orientation (provide a sketch orpictures with the grip part and serialnumber).Provide any other comments.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on August 15,2001.David A. Downey,Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, AircraftCertification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21749 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U



14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–NM–145–AD; Amendment39–12422; AD 98–24–02 R1]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnellDouglas Model MD–11 SeriesAirplanes


SUMMARY: This amendment revises anexisting airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain McDonnellDouglas Model MD–11 series airplanes,that requires a one-time inspection toidentify the part numbers of twodimmer controls for the overheadinstrument panel light and circuitbreaker lightplate located in the flightcompartment. For airplanes on which adimmer control having an incorrect partnumber is installed, that AD alsorequires replacing the dimmer controlwith a new part; modifying andreinstalling the existing dimmer control;or reinstalling a dimmer controlfollowing modification of the part by thepart manufacturer. That AD wasprompted by reports of smoke emittingfrom the overhead panels in the cockpitarea. The actions specified by that ADare intended to prevent an electricalfailure in the overhead dimmer controldue to overheating of a printed circuitboard capacitor in the dimmer control,which could result in rupture of thecapacitor and smoke in the flightcompartment. This amendment revisesthe term ‘‘serial numbers’’ in theapplicability statement to ‘‘fuselagenumbers.’’

DATES: Effective October 3, 2001.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations was approved previously bythe Director of the Federal Register asof November 30, 1998 (63 FR 63402,November 13, 1998).

ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom Boeing Commercial AircraftGroup, Long Beach Division, 3855Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,California 90846, Attention: Data andService Management, Dept. C1-L5A(D800–0024). This information may beexamined at the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, Rules Docket,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington; or at the FAA, Los AngelesAircraft Certification Office, 3960Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,California; or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer,Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, FAA, Los Angeles AircraftCertification Office, 3960 ParamountBoulevard, Lakewood, California90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5350;fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aproposal to amend part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)by revising AD 98–24–02, amendment39–10889 (63 FR 63402, November 13,1998), which is applicable to certainMcDonnell Douglas Model MD–11series airplanes, was published in theFederal Register on June 11, 2001 (66FR 31194). The action proposed tocontinue to require a one-timeinspection to identify the part numbersof two dimmer controls for the overheadinstrument panel light and circuitbreaker lightplate located in the flightcompartment. For airplanes on which adimmer control having an incorrect partnumber is installed, the action alsoproposed to continue to requirereplacing the dimmer control with anew part; modifying and reinstalling theexisting dimmer control; or reinstallinga dimmer control followingmodification of the part by the partmanufacturer. The action also proposedto revise the term ‘‘serial numbers’’ inthe applicability statement to ‘‘fuselagenumbers.’’

Comments

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



The commenter has no objection tothe proposed revision.

Conclusion

After careful review of the availabledata, including the comment notedabove, the FAA has determined that airsafety and the public interest require theadoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 174 ModelMD–11 series airplanes of the affecteddesign in the worldwide fleet. The FAAestimates that 65 airplanes of U.S.registry will be affected by this AD, thatit will take approximately 1 work hourper airplane to accomplish the requiredactions, and that the average labor rateis $60 per work hour. Based on thesefigures, the cost impact of the AD onU.S. operators is estimated to be $3,900,or $60 per airplane.


Regulatory Impact









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


removing amendment 39–10889 (63 FR63402, November 13, 1998), and byadding a new airworthiness directive(AD), amendment 39–12422, to read asfollows:98–24–02 R1 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–12422. Docket 2001–NM–145–AD. Revises AD 98–24–02,Amendment 39–10889.

Applicability: Model MD–11 seriesairplanes, fuselage numbers 447 through 597inclusive; certificate in any category.



To prevent an electrical failure in thedimmer control for the overhead instrumentpanel light and circuit breaker lightplate dueto overheating of a printed circuit board(PCB) capacitor in the dimmer control, whichcould result in rupture of the capacitor andsmoke in the flight compartment, accomplishthe following:

Inspection and Corrective Action, IfNecessary

(a) Within 30 days after November 30, 1998(the effective date of AD 98–24–02,amendment 39–10889), perform a one-timevisual inspection of the two dimmer controlsfor the overhead instrument panel light andcircuit breaker lightplate located in the flightcompartment to identify the part numbers ofthe dimmer controls.

(1) If all dimmer controls are identified aspart number (P/N) 263–2, no further actionis required by this AD.

(2) If any dimmer control is identified asP/N 263–1, within 30 days afteraccomplishing the inspection specified byparagraph (a) of this AD, accomplish theactions required by paragraph (a)(2)(i),(a)(2)(ii), or (a)(2)(iii) of this AD, inaccordance with McDonnell Douglas ServiceBulletin MD11–33–045, dated June 14, 1995.

(i) Replace any dimmer control, P/N 263–1, with a new dimmer control, P/N 263–2. Or

(ii) Modify any dimmer control, P/N 263–1, and reinstall the modified and reidentifieddimmer control in the flight compartment. Or

(iii) Remove any dimmer control, P/N 263–1; return it for modification andreidentification to Olin Aerospace Company,11441 Willows Road NE, Redmond,Washington 98073–9745; and reinstall themodified and reidentified dimmer control inthe flight compartment.

Spares

(b) As of November 30, 1998, no personshall install on any McDonnell DouglasModel MD–11 series airplane, a dimmercontrol, P/N 263–1, unless that dimmercontrol has been modified and reidentified toP/N 263–2 in accordance with McDonnellDouglas Service Bulletin MD11–33–045,dated June 14, 1995.


(c) 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 2: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the Manager, Los AngelesACO.


(d) Special flight permits may be issued inaccordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197and 21.199) to operate the airplane to alocation where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.


(e) Except as provided by paragraph (a) ofthis AD, the actions shall be done inaccordance with McDonnell Douglas ServiceBulletin MD11–33–045, dated June 14, 1995.The incorporation by reference of thisdocument was approved previously by theDirector of the Federal Register as ofNovember 30, 1998 (63 FR 63402, November13, 1998). Copies may be obtained fromBoeing Commercial Aircraft Group, LongBeach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,Long Beach, California 90846, Attention:Data and Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A(D800–0024). Copies may be inspected at theFAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at



the FAA, 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

(f) This amendment becomes effective onOctober 3, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August22, 2001.Ali Bahrami,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21746 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ANM–28]

Modification of Class D and Class EAirspace, Bellingham, WA

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action modifies the ClassD airspace at Bellingham, WA, byamending the effective hours tocoincide with the Bellingham AirportTraffic Control Tower (ATCT) hours ofoperation. This action also modifies theClass E airspace extension atBellingham International Airport whenthe Bellingham ATCT is closed. Theeffect of this action clarifies when two-way radio communication withBellingham ATCT is required andprovides adequate controlled airspacewhen the Bellingham ATCT is closed.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, November 1,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.00–ANM–28, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,Renton, Washington, 98055–4056;telephone number: (425) 227–2527.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On June 18, 2001, the FAA proposedto amend Title 14 Code of FederalRegulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) bymodifying Class D and Class E airspaceat Bellingham, WA, in order to clarifywhen two-way communications withthe Bellingham ATCT is required and toprovide adequate controlled airspace forIFR operations when the ATCT is closed(66 FR 32781). Interested parties wereinvited to participate in the rulemakingproceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal. A commentwas received from the FAA, AVN–500,National Aeronautical Charting Office.A revision to the legal description, aswritten in the Notice for Proposed RuleMaking (NPRM), was required to amenda small discrepancy in the airportcoordinates. This is considered aninsignificant modification to theairspace description as the correctionsdid not change the dimension of theproposed airspace action described inthe NPRM.

The RuleThis amendment to Title 14 Code of

Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFRpart 71) modifies Class D and Class Eairspace at Bellingham, WA, in order toclarify when two-way communicationswith the Bellingham ATCT is requiredand to provide adequate controlledairspace for IFR operations. This actionmodifies the Class D airspace area atBellingham, WA, by amending theeffective hours to coincide with theBellingham ATCT hours of operation.This action modifies the Class Eairspace extension at BellinghamInternational Airport when theBellingham ATCT is closed. The FAAestablishes Class D and Class E airspacewhere necessary to protect aircrafttransitioning between the terminal anden route environments, and to providelocal VFR sequencing by ATCTpersonnel. The effect of this proposal isdesigned to provide safe and efficientuse of the navigable airspace and topromote safe flight operations underInstrument Flight Rules (IFR) and VFRat Bellingham International Airport andbetween the terminal and en routetransition stages.

The area will be depicted onaeronautical charts for pilot reference.The coordinates for this airspace docketare based on North American Datum 83.Class D airspace areas designated for anairport, are published in Paragraph5000, and Class E airspace areasdesignated as surface areas, arepublished in Paragraph 6004 of FAAOrder 7400.9H dated September 1, 2000,and effective September 16, 2000, whichis incorporated by reference in 14 CFR71.1. The Class D and E airspacedesignation listed in this document willbe published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that thisregulation only involves an establishedbody of technical regulations for whichfrequent and routine amendments arenecessary to keep them operationallycurrent. It, therefore, (1) is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)does not warrant preparation of aRegulatory Evaluation as the anticipatedimpact is so minimal. Since this is aroutine matter that will only affect airtraffic procedures and air navigation, itis certified that this rule, will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).


In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationamends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, ANDCLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTINGPOINTS

1. The authority citation for 14 CFRpart 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal AviationAdministration Order 7400.9H,Airspace Designations and ReportingPoints, dated September 1, 2000, andeffective September 16, 2000, isamended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 General.

* * * * *

ANM WA D Bellingham, WA [Revised]Bellingham International Airport

(Lat. 48°47′34″ N., long. 122°32′15″ W.)That airspace extending upward from the

surface to and including 2,700 feet MSLwithin a 4-mile radius of BellinghamInternational Airport. This Class D airspaceis effective during specific dates and timesestablished in advance by a Notice toAirmen. The effective date and time willthereafter be continuously published in theAirport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace consistingof airspace extending upward from thesurface designated as an extension of ClassD airspace.

* * * * *

ANM WA E4 Bellingham, WA [Revised]

Bellingham International Airport(Lat. 48°47′34″ N., long. 122°32′15″ W.)

Whatcom VORTAC(Lat. 48°56′43″ N., long. 122°34′45″ W.)That airspace extending upward from the

surface within the 1.8 miles each side of the



Whatcom VORTAC 169° radial extendingnorth from the 4-mile radius of theBellingham International Airport to 2.7 milessouth of the VORTAC. This Class E airspaceis effective during specific dates and timesestablished in advance by a Notice toAirmen. The effective date and time willthereafter be continuously published in theAirport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August

15, 2001.Daniel A. Boyle,Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division,Northwest Mountain Region.[FR Doc. 01–21821 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



14 CFR Part 71


Revision of Class E Airspace, Jackson,WY

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This action corrects a finalrule published on May 23, 2001, thatinadvertently changed the name ofJackson, WY, to Jackson Hole, WY. Thisaction corrects the final rule byreflecting the proper city namedesignation in the text body and in thelegal description.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, September20, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.00–ANM–24, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington, 98055–4056;telephone number: (425) 227–2527.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May23, 2001, the FAA published a final rulethat revised Class E airspace at JacksonHole, WY (66 FR 28368). However, thataction incorrectly described the city asJackson Hole instead of the proper nameof Jackson throughout the document.This action corrects the final rule bychanging the city name from JacksonHole, WY, to Jackson, WY.

Correction to Final Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me, the Class Eairspace description at Jackson, WY, aspublished in the Federal Register onMay 23, 2001, (66 FR 28368), (FederalRegister Document No. 01–13049) iscorrected as follows:

§ 71.1 [Corrected]1. On pages 28368 and 28369, correct

all references to the city name in Docket00–ANM–24 from ‘‘Jackson Hole, WY’’to read ‘‘Jackson, WY’’. References tothe airport remain as published, JacksonHole Airport.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August15, 2001.Daniel A. Boyle,Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division,Northwest Mountain Region.[FR Doc. 01–21824 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



14 CFR Part 71


Revision of Class E Airspace, Sidney,MT


SUMMARY: This action revises the ClassE airspace at Sidney, MT. Newlydeveloped Area Navigation (RNAV)Standard Instrument ApproachProcedure (SIAP) at the Sidney-Richland Municipal Airport made thisaction necessary. Additional Class E1,200 feet controlled airspace, above thesurface of the earth is required tocontain aircraft executing the RNAV(Global Positioning System (GPS)) RWY1 and RNAV (GPS) RWY 19 at Sidney-Richland Municipal Airport.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, November 1,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.01–ANM–05, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,Renton, Washington, 98055–4056:telephone number: (425) 227–2527.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On June 15, 2001, the FAA proposedto amend Title 14 Code of FederalRegulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) byrevising Class E airspace at Sidney, MT,in order to accommodate new RNAVSIAPs at Sidney-Richland MunicipalAirport, Sidney, MT (66 FR 32593). Thisaction provides Class E5 airspace atSidney, MT, to meet current criteriastandards associated with the SIAP.Interested parties were invited toparticipate in the rulemakingproceeding by submitting writtencomments on the proposal. A comment

was received from the FAA, AVN–500,National Aeronautical Charting Office.A revision to the legal description, aswritten in the Notice for Proposed RuleMaking (NPRM), was required to amenda small discrepancy in the airportcoordinates. This is considered aninsignificant modification to theairspace description as the correctionsdid not change the dimension of theproposed airspace action described inthe NPRM.

The RuleThis amendment to Title 14 Code of

Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFRpart 71) revises Class E airspace atSidney, MT, in order to accommodatenew RNAV (GPS) SIAPs to the Sidney-Richland Municipal Airport, Sidney,MT. This amendment revises Class E5airspace at Sidney, MT, to meet currentcriteria standards associated with theRNAV and SIAP. The FAA establishesClass E airspace where necessary tocontain aircraft transitioning betweenthe terminal and en route environments.This rule is designed to provide for thesafe and efficient use of the navigableairspace and to promote safe flightoperations under Instrument FlightRules (IFR) at the Sidney-RichlandMunicipal Airport and between theterminal and en route transition stages.

The area will be depicted onaeronautical charts for pilot reference.The coordinates for this airspace docketare based on North American Datum 83.Class E airspace areas extending upwardfrom 700 feet or more above the surfaceof the earth, are published in Paragraph6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H datedSeptember 1, 2000, and effectiveSeptember 16, 2000, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR71.1. The Class E airspace designationlisted in this document will bepublished subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that thisregulation only involves an establishedbody of technical regulations for whichfrequent and routine amendments arenecessary to keep them operationallycurrent. It, therefore, (1) is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)does not warrant preparation of aRegulatory Evaluation as the anticipatedimpact is so minimal. Since this is aroutine matter that will only affect airtraffic procedures and air navigation, itis certified that this rule, will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act.




Navigation (air).






§ 71.1 [Amended]


Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areasextending upward from 700 feet or moreabove the surface of the earth.* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Sidney, MT [Revised]Sidney-Richland Municipal Airport, MT.

(Lat. 47°42′25″ N., long. 104°11′33″ W.)Sidney NDB

(Lat. 47°42′41″ N., long. 104°10′54″ W.)That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within the 7.9-mileradius of the Sidney-Richland MunicipalAirport, and within 8.3 miles east and 4miles west of the 356° bearing from theSidney NDB extending from the NDB to 16.1miles north of the NDB, and within 8.3 milessoutheast and 4 miles northwest of the 215°bearing from the Sidney NDB extending fromthe NDB to 16.1 miles southwest of the NDB;and that airspace extending upward from1,200 feet above the surface bounded by aline beginning at lat. 47°20′00″N., long.104°08′32″W; to lat. 47°37′10″N., long.104°48′00″ W.; to lat 47°45′34″N., long104°38′28″W.; to lat 47°52′00″N., long105°00′00″W.; to lat 48°03′00″N., long105°00′00″W.; to lat 47°53′30″N., long104°29′40″W.; to lat. 48°10′00″N., long.104°12′00″W.; to lat 47°46′10″N., long103°38′23″W., to the point of origin; andexcluding that airspace within Federalairways; the Poplar, MT, and Glasgow, MT,Class E airspace areas.





14 CFR Part 71


Modification of Class E Airspace,Lewistown, MT


SUMMARY: This action revises the ClassE airspace at Lewistown, MT. Newlydeveloped Area Navigation (RNAV)Standard Instrument ApproachProcedure (SIAP) at the LewistownMunicipal Airport made this actionnecessary. Additional Class E 700 feetand 1,200 feet controlled airspace,above the surface of the earth is requiredto contain aircraft executing the RNAVSIAP at Lewistown Municipal Airport.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, November 1,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.00–ANM–27, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,Renton, Washington, 98055–4056:telephone number: (425) 227–2527.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On April 10, 2001, the FAA proposedto amend Title 14 Code of FederalRegulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) byrevising Class E airspace at Lewistown,MT, in order to accommodate newRNAV SIAPs at Lewistown MunicipalAirport, Lewistown, MT (66 FR 18578).This amendment provides Class E5airspace at Lewistown, MT, to meetcurrent criteria standards associatedwith the SIAP. Interested parties wereinvited to participate in the rulemakingproceeding by submitting writtencomments on the proposal. A revision tothe legal description as written in theNotice for Proposed Rule Making(NPRM) was required to amend a smalldiscrepancy in the proposed action inorder to make the airspace easier tochart, and to correct an error in themagnetic declination for this location.This is considered an insignificantmodification to the airspace descriptionas the corrections did not change thedimension of the proposed airspaceaction described in the NPRM.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code ofFederal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFRpart 71) revises Class E airspace atLewistown, MT, in order to

accommodate a new SIAP to theLewistown Municipal Airport,Lewistown, MT. This amendmentrevises Class E5 airspace at Lewistown,MT, to meet current criteria standardsassociated with the RNAV and SIAP.The FAA establishes Class E airspacewhere necessary to contain aircrafttransitioning between the terminal anden route environments. This rule isdesigned to provide for the safe andefficient use of the navigable airspaceand to promote safe flight operationsunder Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) atthe Lewistown Municipal Airport andbetween the terminal and en routetransition stages.

The area will be depicted onaeronautical charts for pilot reference.The coordinates for this airspace docketare based on North American Datum 83.Class E airspace areas extending upwardfrom 700 feet or more above the surfaceof the earth, are published in Paragraph6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H datedSeptember 1, 2000, and effectiveSeptember 16, 2000, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR71.1. The Class E airspace designationlisted in this document will bepublished subsequently in the Order.



Airspace, Incorporation by reference,Navigation (air).








§ 71.1 [Amended]


Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areasextending upward from 700 feet or moreabove the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Lewistown, MT [Revised]

Lewistown Municipal Airport(Lat. 47°02′57″ N., long. 109°28′00″ W.)

Lewistown VORTAC(Lat. 47°03′11″ N., long. 109°36′22″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700feet above the surface within the 7.5-mileradius of the Lewistown Municipal Airport,and within 4.5 miles each side of theLewistown VORTAC 269° radial extendingfrom the 7.5-mile radius to 9.2 miles west ofthe VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each sideof the Lewistown VORTAC 089° radial fromthe 7.5-mile radius to 15.1 miles east of theVORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side ofthe Lewistown VORTAC 255° radialextending from the 7.5-mile radius to 15.3miles west of the VORTAC; that airspaceextending upward from 1,200 feet above thesurface bounded by a line beginning atlat.47°11′33″ N., long. 110°06′30″ W.; to lat.47°11′33″ N., long. 108°48′22″ W.; to lat.46°43′40″ N., long. 108°48′22″ W.; to lat.46°43′40″ N., long. 109°32′14″ W.; to lat.46°32′19″ N., long. 109°32′14″ W.; to lat.46°32′19″ N., long. 110°06′30″ W., to thepoint of origin; excluding that airspacewithin Federal Airways.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August15, 2001.

Daniel A. Boyle,Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division,Northwest Mountain Region.[FR Doc. 01–21822 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



14 CFR Part 71


Revision of Class E Airspace, FortBridger, WY


SUMMARY: This action revises the ClassE airspace at Fort Bridger, WY. Newlydeveloped Area Navigation (RNAV)Standard Instrument ApproachProcedure (SIAP) at the Fort BridgerAirport made this action necessary.Additional Class E 700 feet and 1200feet controlled airspace, above thesurface of the earth is required tocontain aircraft executing the RNAVSIAP at Fort Bridger Airport.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, September 6,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.00–ANM–26, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,Renton, Washington 98055–4056;telephone number: (425) 227–2527.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On April 10, 2001, the FAA proposedto amend Title 14 Code of FederalRegulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) byrevising Class E airspace at Fort Bridger,WY, in order to accommodate newRNAV SIAPs at Fort Bridger, Airport,Fort Bridger, WY (66 FR 18577). Thisamendment provides Class E5 airspaceat Fort Bridger, WY, to meet currentcriteria standards associated with theSIAP. Interested parties were invited toparticipate in the rulemakingproceeding by submitting writtencomments on the proposal. A revision tothe legal description as written in theNotice for Proposed Rule Making(NPRM) was required for chartingpurpose to amend an error in themagnetic variation for this location.Therefore, the airspace was rotated 10°north in order to provide adequateairspace to contain the SIAPs identifiedin the proposed action. This isconsidered an insignificant modificationto the airspace description as thedimension of the proposed airspacedescribed in the NPRM did not change.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code ofFederal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFRpart 71) revises Class E airspace at Fort

Bridger, WY, in order to accommodatea new SIAP to the Fort Bridger Airport,Fort Bridger, WY. This amendmentrevises Class E5 airspace at Fort Bridger,WY, to meet current criteria standardsassociated with the RNAV and SIAP.The FAA establishes Class E airspacewhere necessary to contain aircrafttransitioning between the terminal anden route environments. This rule isdesigned to provide for the safe andefficient use of the navigable airspaceand to promote safe flight operationsunder Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) atthe Fort Bridger Airport and betweenthe terminal and en route transitionstages.

The area will depicted onaeronautical charts for pilot reference.The coordinates for this airspace docketare based on North American Datum 83.Class E airspace areas extending upwardfrom 700 feet or more above the surfaceof the earth, are published in Paragraph6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H datedSeptember 1, 2000, and effectiveSeptember 16, 2000, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR71.1. The Class E airspace designationlisted in this document will bepublished subsequently in the Order.











§ 71.1 [Amended]


Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areasextending upward from 700 feet or moreabove the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Fort Bridger, WY[Revised]

Fort Bridger Airport, WY(Lat. 41°23′31″ N., long. 110°24′25″ W.)

Fort Bridger VORTAC(Lat. 41°22′42″ N., long. 110°25′27″ W.)That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within the 10-mileradius of the Fort Bridger Airport, and within8 miles each side of the Fort BridgerVORTAC 047° radial extending from the 10-mile radius to 24 miles northeast of theVORTAC; that airspace extending upwardfrom 1,200 feet above the surface within anarea bounded by a line beginning at lat.41°25′00″ N., long. 111°00′00″ W.; to lat.42°00°00″ N., long. 109°57′00″ W.; to lat.41°43′00″ N., long. 109°30′00″W.; to lat.41°25′00″ N., long. 109°30′00″ W.; to lat.41°08′00″ N., long. 110°30′00″ W.; to point oforigin, excluding that airspace within FederalAirways and the Evanston, WY, andKemmerer, WY, Class E airspace.





14 CFR Part 71


Revision of Class E Airspace, Vernal,UT

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This action corrects a finalrule published on July 23, 2001. Thefinal rule was published past the cut-offdate to meet the effective date of theairspace. Additionally, typographicalerrors in the airspace description hasmade this correction necessary. Thisaction corrects the final rule byreflecting the new effective date andcorrection of text in the legaldescription.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, November 1,2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.00–ANM–18, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W.,Renton, Washington 98055–4056;telephone number: (425) 227–2527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July23, 2001, the FAA published a final rulethat revised Class E airspace at Vernal,UT (66 FR 38149). However, that actionwas published beyond the date requiredto meet the effective date for chartingpurposes, therefore, this actionestablishes the new effective date asNovember 1, 2001. Additionally,typographical errors in the legaldescription are in need of correction toproperly reflect the intent of the action.This action corrects the effective date ofthe airspace and corrects typographicalerrors in the legal description.

Correction to Final Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me, the Class Eairspace description at Vernal, UT, aspublished in the Federal Register onJuly 23, 2001 (66 FR 38149), (FederalRegister Document No. 01–18236) iscorrected as follows:

§ 71.1 [Corrected]

1. On page 38149, revise the EFFECTIVEDATE: to read ‘‘0901 UTC, November 1,2001’’; in the legal description, line 11,delete the word ‘‘to’’ insert the word‘‘from’’, should read ‘‘from 1,200 feetabove the surface’’; in the legaldescription, line 16, insert ‘‘lat.’’ in frontof ‘‘39°43′00″N,’’ should read ‘‘lat.39°43′00″N’’.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August15, 2001.

Daniel A. Boyle,Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division,Northwest Mountain Region.[FR Doc. 01–21818 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]




14 CFR part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 2001–ASW–14]

Revision of Class E Airspace;Springhill, LA

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Direct final rule; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: This amendment revises theClass E airspace at Springhill, LA. Thedevelopment of a Nondirectional RadioBeacon (NDB) Standard InstrumentApproach Procedure (SIAP), atSpringhill Airport, Springhill, LA, hasmade this rule necessary. This action isintended to provide adequate controlledairspace extending upward from 700feet or more above the surface forInstrument Flight Rules (IFR) operationsto Springhill Airport, Springhill, LA.DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December27, 2001.

Comments must be received on orbefore October 15, 2001.ADDRESSES: Send comments on the rulein triplicate to Manager, AirspaceBranch, Air Traffic Division, FederalAviation Administration, SouthwestRegion, Docket No. 2001–ASW–14, FortWorth, TX 76193–0520. The officialdocket may be examined in the Officeof the Regional Counsel, SouthwestRegion, Federal AviationAdministration, 2601 MeachamBoulevard, Room 663, Fort Worth, TX,between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidays.An informal docket may also beexamined during normal business hoursat the Airspace Branch, Air TrafficDivision, Federal AviationAdministration, Southwest Region,Room 414, Fort Worth, TX.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, AirTraffic Division, Southwest Region,Federal Aviation Administration, FortWorth, TX 76193–0520, telephone 817–222–5593.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisamendment to 14 CFR part 71 revisesthe Class E airspace at Springhill, LA.The development of a NDB SIAP, atSpringhill Airport, Springhill, LA, hasmade this rule necessary. This action isintended to provide adequate controlledairspace extending upward from 700feet or more above the surface for IFRoperations to Springhill Airport,Springhill, LA.

Class E airspace designations arepublished in Paragraph 6005 of FAA



Order 7400.9H, dated September 1,2000, and effective September 16, 2000,which is incorporated by reference in 14CFR 71.1. The Class E airspacedesignation listed in this document willbe published subsequently in the order.

The Direct Final Rule ProcedureThe FAA anticipates that this

regulation will not result in adverse ornegative comment and therefore isissuing it as a direct final rule. Asubstantial number of previousopportunities provided to the public tocomment on substantially identicalactions have resulted in negligibleadverse comments or objections. Unlessa written adverse or negative comment,or a written notice of intent to submitan adverse or negative comment isreceived within the comment period,the regulation will become effective onthe date specified above. After the closeof the comment period, the FAA willpublish a document in the FederalRegister indicating that no adverse ornegative comments were received andconfirming the date on which the finalrule will become effective. If the FAAdoes receive, within the commentperiod, an adverse or negative comment,or written notice of intent to submitsuch a comment, a document will bepublished in the Federal Register. Thisdocument may withdraw the direct finalrule in whole or in part. Afterconsidering the adverse or negativecomment, we may publish anotherdirect final rule or publish a notice ofproposed rulemaking with a newcomment period.


a final rule and was not preceded by anotice of proposed rulemaking,comments are invited on this rule.Interested persons are invited tocomment on this rule by submittingsuch written data, views, or argument asthey may desire. Communicationsshould identify the Rules Docketnumber and be submitted in triplicate tothe address specified under the captionADDRESSES. All communicationsreceived on or before the closing datefor comments will be considered, andthis rule may be amended or withdrawnin light of the comments received.Factual information that supports thecommenter’s ideas and suggestions isextremely helpful in evaluating theeffectiveness of this action anddetermining whether additionalrulemaking action is needed.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe rule that might suggest a need to

modify 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 thisaction will 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 No. 2001ASW–14.’’ Thepostcard will be date stamped andreturned to the commenter.

Agency Findings

The regulations adopted herein willnot have substantial direct effects on theStates, on the relationship between thenational government and the States, oron the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government. Therefore, it isdetermined that this final rule will nothave federalism implications underExecutive Order 13132.

Further, the FAA has determined thatthis regulation is noncontroversial andunlikely to result in adverse or negativecomments and only involves anestablished body of technicalregulations that require frequent androutine amendments to keep themoperationally current. Therefore, Icertify that this regulation (1) is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact, positive or negative,on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. Since this rule involvesroutine matters that will only affect airtraffic procedures and air navigation, itdoes not warrant preparation of aRegulatory Flexibility Analysis becausethe anticipated impact is so minimal.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 71



Accordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me, the FederalAviation Administration amends 14CFR part 71 as follows:



Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1159–1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]


Paragraph 6005: Class E. airspace areasextending upward from 700 feet or moreabove the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW LA E5 Springhill, LA [Revised]

Springhill Airport, LA(Lat. 32°58′59″ N., long. 93°24′39″ W.)

Springhill NDB(Lat. 32°55′13″ N., long. 93°24′34″ W.)That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.4-mileradius of Springhill Airport and within 3.2miles each side of the 360° bearing of theSpringhill NDB extending from the 6.4-mileradius to 10.9 miles north of the airport.

* * * * *Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 21,

2001.Albert L. Viselli,Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,Southwest Region.[FR Doc. 01–21826 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA 2001–10002; AirspaceDocket No. 00–ASO–25]

RIN 2120–AA66

Realignment of Jet Routes and VORFederal Airways; FL


SUMMARY: This action realigns two jetroutes and four Very High FrequencyOmnidirectional Range (VOR) Federalairways in the vicinity of Gainesville,FL, due to the relocation of theGainesville, FL, Very High Frequency



Omnidirectional Range/Tactical AirNavigation (VORTAC) facility. Thisaction also changes the name of the‘‘Gainesville VORTAC’’ to ‘‘GatorsVORTAC.’’ The FAA is taking thisaction because the previous VORTACsite was unusable due to recurringflooding. The VORTAC has been movedto a new location at the Gainesville, FL,Airport. This action will enable moreefficient management of air traffic in theGainesville, FL, area.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, November 1,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PaulGallant, Airspace and Rules Division,ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic AirspaceManagement, Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;telephone: (202) 267–8783.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Gainesville, FL, VORTAC wasremoved from service on February 24,1998, due to flooding at the facility sitein the Paynes Prairie Reserve, FL. Waterentered the VORTAC building andcovered the access road with 2 to 3 feetof water. The Paynes Prairie Reserve siteis prone to flooding and, therefore, theFAA has determined that the bestcourse of action is to move the facilitypermanently to a new location at theGainesville Airport, FL, approximately 8miles north of the former site. Therelocation of the VORTAC requires thatsegments of the affected jet routes andVOR Federal airways be redescribed.

The Rule

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 byrevising the legal descriptions of two jetroutes (J–55 and J–85) and four VORFederal airways (V–157, V–441, V–537,and V–579), as a result of the relocationof the Gainesville, FL, VORTAC. TheFAA is taking this action because theVORTAC facility has been moved to anew site approximately 8 miles north ofits former location. The former site wasdeemed unsuitable due to recurringflooding which caused the VORTAC tobe shutdown. In addition, this actionchanges the name of the ‘‘GainesvilleVORTAC’’ to ‘‘Gators VORTAC.’’ Thisaction makes minor amendments in thelegal descriptions to align the affectedjet route and VOR Federal airwaysegments with the new VORTAC siteand reflect the new name of the facility.This action also restores a necessarynavigational aid, and portions of the jetroute and VOR Federal airwaystructures near Gainesville, FL, thathave been unusable since February1998.

The FAA obtained a new site, locatedat the Gainesville Regional Airport, toaccommodate the move of VORTACfacility. Site preparation, construction ofthe building, and installation of theantenna and associated equipment arecomplete. In addition, required flightinspections have been performed. Thisrule is necessary to revise thedescriptions of the affected VOR Federalairways and jet routes, as describedabove, to align them with the newgeographical position of the GatorsVORTAC.

The shutdown of the GainesvilleVORTAC in 1998 resulted in the loss ofan important National Airspace Systemnavigational aid at a key, high volumejuncture in north central Florida. As aresult of this outage, a number of factorshave impacted system efficiency andsafety, including: increased air trafficcontroller workload due to therequirement to issue revised routingsand air traffic control clearances;disruption of transition and arrivalroutes serving local terminal areas; andthe loss of a heavily used navigationalaid important to pilots flying under bothinstrument flight rules and visual flightrules (VFR). The VORTAC’s proximityto numerous restricted areas, whereinactivities hazardous to aviation areconducted, make it a particularlyimportant aid to assist VFR pilots inavoiding those areas. Because thisaction is needed for safety and systemefficiency reasons, the FAA finds thatnotice and public procedure under 5U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable andcontrary to the public interest.

The FAA has determined that thisregulation only involves an establishedbody of technical regulations for whichfrequent and routine amendments arenecessary to keep them operationallycurrent. Therefore, this regulation: (1) isnot a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under Executive Order 12866; (2) is nota ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department ofTransportation (DOT) RegulatoryPolicies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,February 26, 1979); and (3) does notwarrant preparation of a RegulatoryEvaluation as the anticipated impact isso minimal. Since this is a routinematter that will only affect air trafficprocedures and air navigation, it iscertified that this rule, whenpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities under thecriteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Jet routes and VOR Federal airwaysare published in paragraphs 2004 and6010(a), respectively, of FAA Order7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, andeffective September 16, 2000, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The jet routes and VOR Federalairways listed in this document will bepublished subsequently in the Order.


Navigation (air).

Adoption of Amendment


PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, ANDCLASS E, AIRSPACE AREAS;AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTINGPOINTS



§ 71.1 [Amended]


Paragraph 2004—Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J–55 [Revised]

From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 331° andGators, FL, 160°, radials; INT Gators 160° andCraig, FL, 192°, radials; Craig; INT Craig 004°and Savannah, GA, 197° radials; Savannah;Charleston, SC; Florence, SC; INT Florence003° and Raleigh-Durham, NC, 224° radials;Raleigh-Durham; INT Raleigh-Durham 035°and Hopewell, VA, 234° radials; Hopewell;INT Hopewell 030° and Nottingham, MD,174° radials. From Sea Isle, NJ; INT Sea Isle050° and Hampton, NY, 223° radials;Hampton; Providence, RI; Boston, MA;Kennebunk, ME; Presque Isle, ME; to MontJoli, PQ, Canada, excluding the portionwithin Canada.

* * * * *

J–85 [Revised]

From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 331°andGators, FL, 160° radials; Gators; Taylor, FL;Alma, GA; Colliers, SC; Spartanburg, SC;Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 357° andDRYER, OH, 172° radials; DRYER. Theportion within Canada is excluded.

* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a)—Domestic VOR FederalAirways.

* * * * *

V–157 [Revised]

From Key West, FL; INT Key West 038°and Dolphin, FL, 244° radials; Dolphin; INTDolphin 331° and La Belle, FL, 113° radials;La Belle; Lakeland, FL; Ocala, FL; INT Ocala



346° and Taylor, FL, 170° radials; Taylor, FL;Waycross, GA; Alma, GA; Allendale, SC;Vance, SC; Florence, SC; Fayetteville, NC;Kinston, NC; Tar River, NC; Lawrenceville,VA; Richmond, VA; INT Richmond 039° andPatuxent, MD, 228° radials; Patuxent;Smyrna, DE; Woodstown, NJ; Robbinsville,NJ; INT Robbinsville 044° and LaGuardia,NY, 213° radials; LaGuardia; INT LaGuardia032° and Deer Park, NY, 326° radials; INTDeer Park 326° and Kingston, NY, 191°radials; Kingston, NY; to Albany, NY. Theairspace within R–4005, R–4006, R–4007A,and R–6602A is excluded.

* * * * *

V–441 [Revised]

From Melbourne, FL, via INT Melbourne269° and Lakeland, FL, 081° radials;Lakeland; St. Petersburg, FL; INT St.Petersburg 011° and Ocala, FL, 208° radials;Ocala; Gators, FL; INT Gators 014° andBrunswick, GA, 223° radials; Brunswick; INTBrunswick 052° and Savannah, GA, 180°radials; to Savannah.

* * * * *

V–537 [Revised]

From Vero Beach, FL, via INT Vero Beach318° and Orlando, FL, 140° radials; INTOrlando 140° and Melbourne, FL, 298°radials; INT Melbourne 298° and Ocala, FL,145° radials; Ocala; Gators, FL; Greenville,FL; Moultrie, GA; Macon, GA.

* * * * *

V–579 [Revised]

From Lee County, FL; INT Lee County 310°and Sarasota, FL, 156° radials; Sarasota; St.Petersburg, FL; Gators, FL; Cross City, FL;Valdosta, GA; Tift Myers, GA; to Vienna, GA.

* * * * *Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23,

2001.Reginald C. Matthews,Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.[FR Doc. 01–21815 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA–2001–10178; AirspaceDocket No. 01–ANM–10]

RIN 2120–AA66

Amend Legal Description of FederalAirway V–611


SUMMARY: This action amends the legaldescription of Federal Airway 611 (V–611). The legal description for V–611,detailed in a final rule published in theFederal Register on December 12, 1997,

contained an inadvertent error in thesegment between Billings, MT, andLewistown, MT. This action correctsthat error.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, September 6,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KenMcElroy, Airspace and Rules Division,ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic AirspaceManagement, Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;telephone: (202) 267–8783.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FAA is taking this action tocorrect the mileage listed in thedescription of V–611. VOR Federalairways are published in paragraph6010 of FAA Order 7400.9H datedSeptember 1, 2000, and effectiveSeptember 16, 2000, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR71.1. The corrected description for V–611 will be listed in this document andbe published subsequently in the order.

Final Rule

This action amends Title 14 CFR part71 (part 71) by amending the legaldescription of V–611, detailed in a finalrule published in the Federal Registeron December 12, 1997, due to aninadvertent error in the segmentbetween Billings, MT, and Lewistown,MT. The FAA is taking this action tochange the referenced ‘‘38 miles,’’ toread ‘‘71 miles.’’ This action correctsthat error.

The FAA has determined that thisregulation only involves an establishedbody of technical regulations for whichfrequent and routine amendments arenecessary to keep them operationallycurrent. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Isnot a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under Executive Order 12866; (2) is nota ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)does not warrant preparation of aregulatory evaluation as the anticipatedimpact is so minimal. Since this is aroutine matter that will only affect airtraffic procedures and air navigation, itis certified that this rule, whenpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities under thecriteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

VOR Federal airways are published inparagraph 6010 of FAA Order 7400.9H,dated September 1, 2000, andeffectiveSeptember 16, 2000, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR71.1. The VOR Federal airway listed in

this document will be publishedsubsequently in the order.







Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p.389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]


Paragraph 6010(a)—Domestic VOR FederalAirways

* * * * *

V–611

From Newman, TX, via INT Newman 286°and Truth or Consequences, NM, 159°radials; Truth or Consequences; INT Truth orConsequences 028° and Socorro, NM, 189°radials; Socorro; Albuquerque, NM; INTAlbuquerque 036° and Santa Fe, NM, 245°radials; Santa Fe; Las Vegas, NM; Cimarron,NM; Pueblo, CO; Black Forest, CO; INT BlackForest 036° and Gill, CO, 149° radials; Gill;Cheyenne, WY; Muddy Mountain, WY; 5miles, 45 miles 71 MSL, Crazy Woman, WY;Sheridan, WY; Billings, MT; 71 miles 72MSL, INT Billings 347° and Lewistown, MT,104° radials; Lewistown; INT Lewistown322° and Havre, MT, 226° radials; to Havre.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20,2001.

Reginald C. Matthews,Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.[FR Doc. 01–21817 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]






14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA–2001–10285; AirspaceDocket No. 01–ASO–8]

RIN 2120–AA66

Change of Using Agency for RestrictedAreas R–3008A, R–3008B, R–3008C,and R–3008D; Grand Bay WeaponsRange, GA


SUMMARY: This action changes the nameof the using agency for Restricted AreasR–3008A, R–3008B, R–3008C, and R–3008D, Grand Bay Weapons Range, GA,from the ‘‘347th Fighter Wing’’ to the‘‘347th Rescue Wing.’’ This change isrequired due to the U.S. Air Force’srealignment of missions at Moody AirForce Base (AFB), GA, which is thesponsor of the Grand Bay WeaponsRange. This change is administrativeonly to reflect the proper host unit at thebase. The change will not affect thecurrent restricted area boundaries,altitudes, time of designation, or theactivities conducted within the areas.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, November 1,2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PaulGallant, Airspace and Rules Division,ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic AirspaceManagement, Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;telephone (202) 267–8783.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The U.S. Air Force is realigning themissions at Moody AFB, GA. Inconjunction with this change, the AirForce has redesignated host unit for thebase as the 347th Rescue Wing. The347th Rescue Wing serves as thesponsoring unit and scheduling activityfor Restricted Areas R–3008A, R–3008B,R–3008C, and R–3008D.

The Rule

This action amends 14 CFR part 73 bychanging the name of the using agencyfor Restricted Areas R–3008A, R–3008B,R–3008C, and R–3008D, Grand BayWeapons Range, GA, from ‘‘U.S. AirForce, 347th Fighter Wing, Moody AFB,GA,’’ to ‘‘U.S. Air Force, 347th RescueWing, Moody AFB, GA.’’ Thisadministrative change will not alter theboundaries, altitudes, time ofdesignation, or activities conducted

within the restricted areas; therefore, Ifind that notice and public procedureunder 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

Section 73.30 of part 73 wasrepublished in FAA Order 7400.8H,dated September 1, 2000.

This regulation is limited to anestablished body of technicalregulations for which frequent androutine amendments are necessary tokeep them operationally current.Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)does not warrant preparation of aregulatory evaluation as the anticipatedimpact is so minimal. It has beendetermined that this is a routine matterthat will only affect air trafficprocedures and air navigation, it iscertified that this rule, whenpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities under thecriteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

This action is a minor administrativechange to amend the designated usingagency of existing restricted areas. Thereare no changes to air traffic controlprocedures or routes as a result of thisaction. Therefore, this action is notsubject to environmental assessmentsand procedures in accordance with FAAOrder 1050.1D, ‘‘Policies andProcedures for ConsideringEnvironmental Impacts,’’ and theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969.


Airspace, Navigation (air).


In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationamends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE



§ 73.30 [Amended]

2. § 73.30 is amended as follows:* * * * *

R–3008A Grand Bay Weapons Range, GA[Amended]

By removing ‘‘Using agency. U.S. AirForce, 347th Fighter Wing, Moody AFB, GA’’and substituting ‘‘Using agency. U.S. Air

Force, 347th Rescue Wing, Moody AFB, GA’’in its place.

R–3008B Grand Bay Weapons Range, GA[Amended]

By removing ‘‘Using agency. U.S. AirForce, 347th Fighter Wing, Moody AFB, GA’’and substituting ‘‘Using agency. U.S. AirForce, 347th Rescue Wing, Moody AFB, GA’’in its place.

R–3008C Grand Bay Weapons Range, GA[Amended]


R–3008D Grand Bay Weapons Range, GA[Amended]


* * * * *Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23,

2001.Reginald C. Matthews,Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.[FR Doc. 01–21816 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADINGCOMMISSION

17 CFR Part 39

RIN 3038–AB66

A New Regulatory Framework forClearing Organizations

AGENCY: Commodity Futures TradingCommission.ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commodity FuturesTrading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or‘‘CFTC’’) is promulgating final rules toimplement provisions of the CommodityFutures Modernization Act of 2000governing derivatives clearingorganizations. The rules apply toderivatives clearing organizations thatare required to be registered, or whichvoluntarily apply to register, with theCommission.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Alan L. Seifert, Deputy Director,Division of Trading and Markets or LoisJ. Gregory, Special Counsel, Division ofTrading and Markets, CommodityFutures Trading Commission, ThreeLafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20581. Telephone (202)418–5260 or e-mail [email protected] [email protected].



1 See Appendix E of Pub.L. 106–554, 114 Stat.2763 (2000).

2 66 FR 24308.3 For purposes of this release, use of the term

‘‘derivatives clearing organization’’ means a DCOregistered, deemed to be registered, or required tobe registered, with the Commission pursuant tosection 5b of the Act.

4 Security futures products traded on a nationalsecurities exchange that is notice-registered withthe CFTC as a designated contract market must becleared by a securities clearing agency registeredunder the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Securities Exchange Act section 17A(b)(1). Securityfutures products traded on a contract market thatis notice-registered with the SEC may be cleared byeither a DCO or a securities clearing agency. Seesection 5b of the Act.

5 However, the Commission will considerrequests for other types of clearing arrangementspursuant to its exemptive authority under section4(c) of the Act.

6 This includes excluded or exempted contractstraded on a derivatives transaction executionfacility pursuant to any of the sub-provisions ofsection 5a of the Act.

7 Comment letters (CL) were received from theBoard of Trade Clearing Corporation (‘‘BOTCC’’),the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (‘‘CME’’), and theInternational Swaps and Derivatives Association(‘‘ISDA’’).

8 Section 5b(d) provides that a DCO ‘‘shall bedeemed to be registered’’ if it acts as the clearingorganization for a board of trade that wasdesignated as a contract market prior to the date ofenactment of the CFMA. See BOTCC CL at 2.

9 As noted in the proposing release, anorganization need not perform a direct creditenhancement function in order to be a DCO underthe Act. See section 1a(9)(ii) (providing that theterm DCO includes entities that provide for thesettlement or netting of agreements, contracts, ortransactions executed by participants in the DCO).Accordingly, and in response to BOTCC’s requestfor clarification, the term ‘‘clear’’ (and all forms ofthe verb) is meant to include these other services.See BOTCC CL at 6. An organization that intendsto provide settlement or other clearing-type serviceswithout accompanying credit enhancement muststill demonstrate compliance with all section 5bcore principles to obtain unconditional registrationas a DCO. The Commission may grant DCOregistration with conditions when and asappropriate.

10 The Act does not include an express time limitfor Commission consideration of applications tobecome registered DCOs.

11 An applicant’s representation of how it willoperate refers to the information the applicant mustinclude in its application describing the operationsand functions the applicant will undertake as aregistered DCO.

12 BOTCC CL at 3.13 Id.14 This information is essential to the

Commission’s oversight of DCOs. However, tradesecrets and other proprietary information may be

Continued


I. BackgroundOn May 14, 2001, the Commission

published for comment proposed part39 of its regulations to implementSection 5b of the Commodity ExchangeAct (‘‘Act’’), as added by the CommodityFutures Modernization Act of 2000(‘‘CFMA’’),1 governing derivativesclearing organizations.2 Section 5b(a)requires that contracts of sale of acommodity for future delivery, optionson such contracts, and options on acommodity be cleared only by aderivatives clearing organization(‘‘DCO’’) registered with theCommission,3 unless the contracts oroptions are in: (i) commodities excludedunder the Act, (ii) commoditiesexempted under the Act, or (iii) securityfutures products cleared by a securitiesclearing agency. With the exception ofsecurity futures products, which may becleared by a securities clearing agency,4contracts traded on a designatedcontract market, if cleared, must becleared by a DCO.5 Agreements,contracts and transactions in excludedor exempted commodities that aretraded on a derivatives transactionexecution facility, if cleared, may becleared through clearing organizationsother than DCOs.6 However, a clearingorganization that clears these contractsmay voluntarily apply, pursuant tosection 5b(b) of the Act, to register withthe Commission as a DCO. A DCO mayclear other contracts, agreements, ortransactions, including, but not limitedto, certain over-the-counter (‘‘OTC’’)derivative instruments referenced insection 5b(b) of the Act, and others,such as transactions in spot and forwardcontracts.

To be registered as a DCO, anapplicant must demonstrate that it

complies with fourteen core principlesset forth in the CFMA. Part 39 stipulatesthe form and provides guidance forwhat should be included in applicationsfor DCO registration, and sets forthprocedures for processing suchapplications. It also addresses ongoingcompliance by DCOs with the coreprinciples and other provisions of theAct and regulations, the enforceabilityof contracts cleared on DCOs, and fraud.Part 39 does not apply to the executionof transactions cleared by DCOs; itsprovisions apply only to the clearing oftransactions by DCOs.

The Commission received threecomment letters on proposed part 39.7Although the Commission has madevarious changes in response to thecomments as discussed below, the finalrules do not differ significantly fromthose that were proposed.

II. Final Part 39

A. Application and ApprovalProcedures

As did the proposed rule, final rule39.1 provides that part 39 applies to anyDCO that is registered, is required to beregistered, or which voluntarily appliesto be registered with the Commission.The Commission agrees with commentssuggesting that grandfathered DCOs alsobe specifically included in this scopeprovision and has accordingly amendedit to include DCOs that are ‘‘deemed tobe registered,’’ which is the languageused in the CFMA to refer tograndfathered DCOs.8 Thus, the finalpart 39 rules apply to any DCO, asdefined under section 1a(9) of the Act,9which is registered or deemed to beregistered with the Commission, isrequired to become so registered, orwhich voluntarily seeks to become so

registered. Final rule 39.3 provides thatan organization meeting allrequirements is ‘‘deemed registered’’sixty days after receipt of an applicationunless notified otherwise.10

Rule 39.3 also sets forth therequirements for registration. Asproposed, the rule required that anapplicant meet the definition of a DCOprovided by section 1a(9) of the Act,which in turn, requires that the entityperform certain functions. As noted byBOTCC, however, an applicant that hasnot been grandfathered pursuant tosection 5b(d) of the Act will not haveperformed the activities envisioned bythat definition. The Commission hasmodified the rule, therefore, to state thatan applicant need only represent that itwill operate in accordance with thedefinition of a DCO contained in section1a(9) of the Act.11

Other requirements of rule 39.3include submission by an applicant ofits rules and a demonstration that theapplicant is able to satisfy the coreprinciples of the Act to the extent thatits ability to do so is not self evidentfrom the applicant’s rules. As proposed,rule 39.3 also would have requiredapplicants to submit ‘‘any’’ agreementswith third parties that would enable theapplicant to comply with the coreprinciples and descriptions of ‘‘any’’system test procedures, tests conductedor test results. BOTCC commented that‘‘[t]hese materials can be voluminous.More importantly, these materialsfrequently will contain trade secrets ofthe submitting party or be subject todetailed confidentiality proceduresestablished by third-party systemproviders and other vendors.’’ 12 BOTCCtherefore recommended that the rule‘‘be amended to require an applicantonly to submit such information as isnecessary to demonstrate the applicant’scompliance with core principles.’’ 13

The Commission has modified the ruleto clarify that the agreements anddescriptions of system tests referred toin rule 39.3 that must be submitted arethose that will enable the applicant tocomply, or demonstrate the applicant’sability to comply, with the coreprinciples.14



entitled to protection under the Freedom ofInformation Act. See rule 39.3(a)(7). As has been thecase in the past, the staff is prepared to work withapplicants to arrange reasonable accommodations toaddress concerns about the relevance of disclosuresor the volume of submissions.

15 See CME CL at 1. They would, however, berequired under section 5c(c) of the Act to providecertification that the clearing of the new contract(s)complies with the Act and the Commission’sregulations. Self-certification procedures forproducts are provided under rule 40.2.

16 Part 40 of the regulations, which containsprovisions common to contract markets, derivativestransactions execution facilities and DCOs, wasadopted by the Commission on August 1, 2000. See66 FR 42256 (August 10, 2001).

17 This included Commission Regulation 1.31,which was updated and amended by theCommission in 1999 to provide broad, flexibleperformance standards for recordkeeping. It issubstantially similar to the recordkeepingrequirements maintained by the Securities andExchange Commission. Notwithstanding the basicnon-mandatory nature of the guidance provided inthe appendix to part 39, the Commission clarifiesthat, with respect to Core Principle K, a DCO’srecordkeeping must satisfy the performancestandards in Regulation 1.31 in order todemonstrate compliance with the core principle,because that rule has been reserved.

18 See BOTCC CL at 2.19 Id.20 Id. See generally the discussion regarding

information needed by the Commission to fulfill itsoversight function under section II. C. 3., infra.

21 BOTCC CL at 2.22 The Act limits a registered entity seeking

approval to request approval only ‘‘prior’’ to

implementation. The Commission is using itssection 4(c) exemptive authority with respect to thisprovision to provide DCOs with greater proceduralflexibility.

If an applicant does not meet theregistration requirements, Commissionstaff will inform the applicant of theshortcomings and notify it that review isbeing terminated under part 39 and willcontinue under section 6 of the Act.Within ten days of being notified, theapplicant may ask the Commissioneither to register it or to commenceregistration denial proceedings. Anapplicant also may withdraw itsapplication.

An applicant may request that theCommission approve any of its rulespursuant to the procedures andtimeframes for approval provided byrule 40.5. An applicant may requestapproval of one or more of its rules atthe time it makes its initial application,or thereafter. Under section 5b(c)(3) ofthe Act, an applicant also may requestthat the Commission issue an orderconcerning whether a rule or practice ofthe applicant is the leastanticompetitive means of achieving theobjectives, purposes, and policies of theAct. In considering any requests forsuch orders, the Commission willreview the analysis submitted by theapplicant with respect to the rule orpractice in question and will applysection 15(b) of the Act in a mannerconsistent with its previous applicationof section 15 to contract markets.

B. Existing Derivatives ClearingOrganizations

Section 5b(d) of the Act provides thatexisting DCOs shall be deemed to beregistered with the Commission to theextent that the DCO clears agreements,contracts, or transactions for a board oftrade that had been designated by theCommission as a contract market forsuch agreements, contracts, ortransactions prior to enactment of theCFMA. In response to comments, theCommission clarifies that clearingorganizations that are grandfatheredunder this provision need not apply tothe Commission to clear new contractsthat were not cleared before the date ofenactment of the CFMA.15

C. Derivatives Clearing Organizations

1. ExemptionAs proposed, rule 39.2 provided that

a DCO and the clearing of transactions

on a DCO would be exempt from allCommission regulations except for thosecontained in proposed parts 39 and40,16 and certain select regulationsrelating to, for example, the segregationof customer funds and recordkeeping.17

In response to comments noting thatonly subsection (b) of Commissionregulation 1.38 is relevant to theactivities of DCOs, the Commission hasamended proposed rule 39.2 to reserveonly that subsection.18 The Commissionalso has amended proposed rule 39.2 todelete reservation of the option anti-fraud provisions in Commissionregulation 33.10, because part 39contains its own anti-fraud rule, whichapplies to the activity of clearing optioncontracts otherwise covered byregulation 33.10.19 Parts 15 through 18of the Commission’s regulationscontinue to be reserved in final rule 39.2to the extent they are applicable. Theseprovisions are reserved in connectionwith the Commission’s authority tomake special calls pursuant to rule39.5(d).20

Final rule 39.2 continues to providethat the reserved regulations apply toDCOs as though they were set forth inpart 39 and included specific referenceto DCOs. The Commission agrees withBOTCC’s suggestion that this draftingconvention be extended so thatreferences in the regulations to theterms ‘‘clearinghouse’’ and ‘‘clearingorganization’’ shall be deemed to meana ‘‘derivatives clearing organization,’’and has modified rule 39.2accordingly.21

2. RulesRule 39.4 provides that a DCO may

request that the Commission approveany of its rules either prior to or afterimplementation of the rule(s).22 Such

requests will be processed under theapplicable procedures of part 40. Asprovided by part 40 and rule 39.4, anynew or amended rule not voluntarilysubmitted to the Commission forapproval must be submitted with acertification that the new rule oramendment complies with the Act. Alsoas provided by part 40 and added infinal rule 39.4, a DCO that accepts forclearing a new product that is not tradedon a designated contract market or aregistered derivatives transactionexecution facility must submit to theCommission any rules establishing theterms and conditions of the product thatmake it acceptable for clearing with acertification that the clearing of theproduct and the rules and terms andconditions comply with the Act and therules thereunder. A DCO also mayrequest, at any time, that theCommission issue an order concerningwhether any of its rules or practices isthe least anticompetitive means ofachieving the objectives, purposes, andpolicies of the Act. As with suchrequests accompanying applications, theCommission will review the analysissubmitted with respect to the rule orpractice in question and will applysection 15(b) of the Act in a mannerconsistent with its previous applicationof section 15 to contract markets.

3. Information

Rule 39.5 allows the Commission torequest certain information from DCOsin order to carry out its oversightfunction. For example, rule 39.5(b)allows the Commission to ask a DCO tosubmit, in writing, information deemednecessary to demonstrate that the DCOis operating in compliance with one ormore of the core principles. Such arequest is an informal method ofresolving compliance issues and isintended to be a preferable alternative tothe more formal procedures of section5c(d) of the Act. As proposed in rule39.3(e), the Commission has delegatedthe authority to request informationunder 39.5(b) to specified staff. Thisdelegation is consistent with thedelegation of authority in rule 37.8(d)regarding information relating totransactions on derivatives transactionexecution facilities and in rule 40.7(a)(1)regarding product and rule amendmentsand supplements. The authority underrule 39.5(b) is an important complementto the streamlined and reducedrequirements of the CFMA. In responseto concerns expressed by CME, the



23 See CME CL at 2–3. In order to performproperly its oversight function with respect to thecore principles, such a request may includeinformation related to the DCO’s broader businessas a clearing organization in addition to its businessas a registered DCO, because the ability to fulfill thelatter function may potentially be affected by theformer. See BOTCC CL at 5.

24 See BOTCC CL at 6, n.9. BOTCC notes that thisdistinction could be important in circumstanceswhere the insolvency of a clearing member or DCOparticipant interferes with normal clearingprocesses.

25 See BOTCC CL at 6.26 See ISDA CL at 3–4.27 See CME CL at 1–2.28 See CME CL at 2.

29 See BOTCC CL at 6.30 This is consistent with other anti-fraud

provisions such as Section 4(b) of the Act,Commission regulation 30.9 (concerning fraudinvolving foreign futures contracts) andCommission regulation 33.10 (concerning fraud inconnection with domestic exchange-traded optiontransactions). The Commission has held thatRegulations 30.9 and 33.10 require proof of scienter.See, e.g., In Re Staryk [1996–1998 Transfer Binder]Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 27,206 at 45,810 (CFTCDec. 18, 1997). The Commission also removed thewords ‘‘other’’ and ‘‘thereof’’ twice each from rule39.7. These words do not serve a useful purpose inthe rule and their removal does not change themeaning or application of the rule, but does makeit consistent with rule 1.1 recently adopted by theCommission. See 66 FR 42256 (August 10, 2001).Rule 1.1 concerns fraud in or in connection withtransactions in foreign currency subject to the Act.

Commission affirms its intent that rule39.5 be used only when there is areasonable basis upon which to requestinformation about the ongoingcompliance by a DCO with one or morecore principles.23

Rule 39.5(c) requires that large traderinformation be provided to theCommission by futures commissionmerchants, clearing members, andforeign brokers. In response tocomments, the Commission does notbelieve it is necessary to expand this listto include foreign traders or participantsin a DCO, as in each instance, the reportwould be filed through an entityincluded on the list. Rule 39.5(d)authorizes the Commission to makespecial calls for information concerningcustomer accounts from futurescommission merchants, clearingmembers, or foreign brokers.Commission staff will limit special callsas needed to carry out the Commission’soversight function with respect to DCOsand their operations.

4. EnforceabilityAs proposed, rule 39.6 provided that

a contract or transaction clearedpursuant to the rules of a DCO shall notbe void, voidable, subject to rescission,or otherwise invalidated or renderedunenforceable as a result of a violationby the DCO of the provisions of section5b of the Act or part 39, or as a resultof any Commission proceeding to alter,supplement, or require the DCO toadopt a specific rule or procedure, orrefrain from taking a specific action. Inits comment letter, ISDA stated that thereference to contracts or transactions‘‘cleared pursuant to the rules’’ maycreate ambiguity and uncertainty in thatit does not clearly cover contracts ortransactions cleared by non-registeredDCOs. ISDA suggested clarifying theapplicability of the enforceabilityprovision by substituting the words‘‘submitted to a derivatives clearingorganization for clearance’’ for ‘‘clearedpursuant to the rules.’’ The Commissionhas considered ISDA’s comment andhas amended final rule 39.6 in thismanner to clarify the rule’s applicabilityto DCOs that are required to register, aswell as those that are already registered,with the Commission. The Commissionbelieves this clarification is appropriatein that enforceability of contractsextends not only to DCOs properly

registered with the Commission, but tothose that should be, but are not,registered with the Commission andconsequently are in violation of Section5b(a) of the Act.

The Commission’s substitution of thewords ‘‘submitted to a derivativesclearing organization for clearance’’ infinal rule 39.6 also addresses BOTCC’ssuggestion that the Commission clarifythat the enforceability provision appliesto cleared transactions and to thosesubmitted for clearing, but for which theclearing process was delayed orinterrupted.24 In addition, in responseto BOTCC comments, the Commissionhas modified proposed rule 39.6 toapply to violations of any of theprovisions of the Act or of theCommission’s regulations, rather than toviolations of section 5b of the Act orpart 39 of the regulations only.25

5. Anti-fraudAs proposed, rule 39.7 prohibited

fraudulent actions by persons ‘‘in or inconnection with’’ the clearing oftransactions on a DCO. Both CME andISDA commented that the proposed rulecould be interpreted to apply to fraudwith respect to aspects of a transactioncleared by a DCO other than the activityof clearing. ISDA asserted that the ruleshould be narrowly construed to meanfraud specific to the clearing functionand not in connection with thesolicitation or execution of a transactionmerely because the transaction is alsocleared.26 CME stated that the rulecould be read to apply to the executionof transactions cleared by a DCO evenif the transaction would otherwise beoutside the Commission’s jurisdiction.27

CME argued that participants inderivatives markets unregulated by theCFTC will arrange to have suchtransactions cleared by non-DCOclearing organizations if there appears tobe any chance that rule 39.7 couldsubject their transactions to CFTCjurisdiction.28

In response to these comments, theCommission reaffirms that transactionsthat are outside the CFTC’s jurisdictiondo not become subject to its jurisdictionsimply because they are cleared by aDCO. Thus, rule 39.7 does not govern,cover, or relate to the solicitation orexecution of transactions. This isconsistent with rule 39.6, which

provides that a violation of anyCommission regulation, which wouldinclude rule 39.7, does not affect theenforceability of transactions submittedfor clearance on a DCO, and with theCFMA’s separate treatment of clearingfrom the transaction facilities for whichtransactions are cleared.

BOTCC also requested confirmationthat proof of scienter is needed forviolations of rule 39.7.29 TheCommission confirms that violations ofthe anti-fraud provision do require proofof scienter.30

D. Application Guidance andCompliance With Core Principles

In order to become registered, anapplicant must demonstrate the abilityto comply with the core principles forDCOs set forth in Section 5b of the Act.In order to remain registered, a DCOmust continue to comply with the coreprinciples. An applicant or DCO hasreasonable discretion in establishing themanner in which it demonstrates itsability to comply with the coreprinciples or its ongoing compliance.Appendix A to part 39 providesguidance that applicants and DCOs canuse to demonstrate initial ability tocomply and continuing compliancewith the core principles. The guidanceillustrates the manner in which aclearing organization may meet a coreprinciple and is not intended to be amandatory checklist.

The proposed guidance for CorePrinciple B—Financial Resources—addressed the ‘‘amount’’ of resourcesdedicated to supporting the clearingfunction. As proposed, this guidancereferred to the amount of resourcesavailable and their sufficiency to assurethat no break in clearing operations willoccur in a variety of market conditions.In response to comments, point 1 of theguidance has been modified to refer tothe ‘‘level’’ rather than the ‘‘amount’’ ofresources and assurance that no‘‘material adverse’’ break in clearing



31 See BOTCC CL at 7.32 See BOTCC CL at 7.33 See ISDA CL at 4; see also footnote 9, supra.34See BOTCC CL at 7.35See the application guidance for designation

criterion 7 of section 5(b) of the Act and theguidance on, and acceptable practices for,complying with core principles 7 and 10 of section5(d) of the Act; see also BOTCC CL at 7.

36See BOTCC CL at 8.37 See footnote 9 and text accompanying footnote

33.38 See BOTCC CL at 8.39 See ISDA CL at 4–5.40 See BOTCC CL at 8. 41 See section 5c(c)(2) of the Act.

operations will occur.31 Point 2continues to refer to the ‘‘nature’’ of theresources. The Commission recognizesthat it may be difficult to quantifyresource allocations. Thus, in the finalguidance it suggests that applicants orDCOs may provide informationdescribing the level and nature ofresources available to support theclearing function, rather than thespecific or exact amount of resourcesavailable at any one time. In addition,the Commission recognizes that certaintemporary breakdowns that do notmaterially affect the clearing functiondo and will occur. The Commissionnotes that the guidance relevant to thisissue addresses the allocation ofsufficient resources to preventbreakdowns of a serious andfundamental nature that wouldmaterially, adversely affect anapplicant’s or DCO’s ability to fulfill itsbasic clearing services.32 Furthermore,reference in the guidance to a creditenhancement function is not intendedto imply a requirement that a DCOprovide that function.33

Point 2 of the proposed guidanceunder Core Principle B—FinancialResources—addressed the updating andreporting of certain financialinformation. With respect to publicdisclosure, this guidance has beenamended so as to apply only ‘‘whenappropriate.’’ Information is notexpected to be made publicly availableif it is not appropriate to do so, as in thecase of certain confidential andproprietary financial and commercialinformation.34 The proposed guidanceon Core Principle L—PublicInformation—also referred to publicdisclosure and concerned rules andoperating procedures governing clearingand settlement systems. This guidancehas not been altered from its proposedform and is consistent with guidanceregarding public disclosure of similarmaterial by contract markets orapplicants therefor.35

As proposed, point 3 of the guidancefor Core Principle C—Participant andProduct Eligibility—suggested that anapplicant or DCO describe how it wouldestablish criteria for the transactions itwill clear, and point 2 of the guidancefor Core Principle D—RiskManagement—suggested providing adescription of how appropriate forms

and levels of collateral would beestablished and collected. In response tocomments, these points have beenreworded to clarify that the informationsuggested as relevant to demonstratingcompliance relates to the differentfactors the applicant or DCO willconsider in carrying out itsresponsibilities, rather than its internalprocedures.36 In addition, the words‘‘where applicable’’ have been added tosubpart (b) of point 2 of the guidance forCore Principle D, referring to sufficientresources to perform the centralcounterparty function, in recognition ofthe fact that the definition of DCO doesnot require the performance of a directcredit enhancement function.37

Point 1 of the guidance under CorePrinciple G—Default Rules andProcedures—has been revised to suggestmore clearly that relevant informationincludes how the applicant or DCOdefines default, what steps would betaken in the event of a default, and stepsthat would be taken in situations relatedto, but which may not constitute,default.38 Point 5 of the guidance forCore Principle G concerning defaultrules and procedures suggests thatapplicants or DCOs address rules andprocedures regarding priority ofcustomer accounts over proprietaryaccounts of defaulting members/participants. In response to comments,the Commission clarifies that this is notmeant, and should not be interpreted, toimply that customer priority proceduresare a necessary element in the structureof all DCOs.39 Rules and proceduresregarding priority of customer accountsare only relevant with respect to a DCOthat directly or indirectly clearscontracts for one or more accounts thatare customer accounts in the particularmarket for which it is clearing, whilealso clearing non-customer orproprietary accounts.

Point 2 of the proposed guidance forCore Principle I—System Safeguards—suggested that applicants or DCOsprovide confirmation that system testingand review will be performed orassessed by a qualified independentprofessional. In response to comments,the Commission has clarified that aqualified independent professional neednot necessarily be external to theorganization to be consideredindependent.40 An internal reviewermay qualify as independent if he/she isindependent of the activities being

audited and is organizationally able torender an objective assessment.

III. Section 4(c) FindingsSection 4(c) of the Act provides that,

in order to promote responsibleeconomic or financial innovation andfair competition, the Commission mayby rule, regulation or order exempt anyclass of agreements, contracts, ortransactions, either unconditionally oron stated terms or conditions, from anyof the requirements of any provision ofthe Act (except certain provisionsgoverning a group or index of securitiesand security futures products). Asrelevant here, when granting anexemption pursuant to section 4(c), theCommission must find that theexemption would be consistent with thepublic interest.

The Commission is using its section4(c) exemptive authority here to provideregistered entities with greaterprocedural flexibility than is containedin the Act. Pursuant to rule 39.4, a DCOmay request that the Commissionapprove its rules or rule amendmentsprior to their implementation, or anytime thereafter, notwithstanding theAct’s limitation on registered entitiesseeking approval to do so only prior toimplementation.41 The Commissionbelieves this exercise of exemptiveauthority should provide DCOs withgreater procedural flexibility.Accordingly, the Commission findsunder section 4(c) of the Act that theexemption is consistent with the publicinterest. The Commission also notes thatit will consider, under its section 4(c)exemptive authority, requests bydesignated contract markets to use theclearing services of organizations otherthan DCOs registered with theCommission.

IV. Consideration of Costs and BenefitsSection 15 of the Act, as amended by

section 119 of the CFMA, requires theCommission to consider the costs andbenefits of its action beforepromulgating a new regulation underthe Act. The Commission has appliedthe cost-benefit provisions of section 15in this rulemaking and understandsthat, by its terms, section 15 as amendeddoes not require the Commission toquantify the costs and benefits of a newregulation or to determine whether thebenefits of the proposed regulationoutweigh its costs. Rather, section 15simply requires the Commission to‘‘consider the costs and benefits’’ of itsaction.

The amended section 15 furtherspecifies that costs and benefits shall be



42 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982).43 47 FR 18618, 18619 (discussing contract

markets).

evaluated in light of five broad areas ofmarket and public concern: protectionof market participants and the public;efficiency, competitiveness, andfinancial integrity of futures markets;price discovery; sound risk managementpractices; and other public interestconsiderations. Accordingly, theCommission may, in its discretion, givegreater weight to any one of the fiveenumerated areas of concern and may inits discretion determine that,notwithstanding its costs, a particularrule is necessary or appropriate toprotect the public interest or toeffectuate any of the provisions or toaccomplish any of the purposes of theAct.

Part 39 is part of a package of relatedrule provisions implementing theCFMA. The Commission has consideredthe costs and benefits of part 39 and thecosts and benefits of the related ruleprovisions. Significantly, part 39 limitsthe period of time for Commissionreview of DCO applications to 60 days,thereby providing the important benefitof an expedited review, even though theAct does not specify any time limit forreview of DCO applications. Part 39 alsoprovides the benefit of substantial,additional, non-binding guidance toDCO applicants and DCOs as to howthey may comply with the statutory coreprinciples. The rules impose reporting,recordkeeping and other informationalrequirements on DCOs only when theyare mandated by, carry out, or are fullyconsistent with, the new provisions ofthe CFMA concerning DCOs.

The Commission has considered thecosts and benefits of this rule packagein light of the specific areas of concernidentified in the CFMA. The rulesimpose limited costs on DCOs inrequiring them to gather, compile, andsubmit certain information that theCommission needs in order to overseetheir clearing functions and to enforcetheir compliance with the Act. The ruleswill not increase costs related to marketcompetitiveness and will not affect theprice discovery function of markets. TheCommission believes that the anti-fraudprovision of part 39 benefits marketparticipants and the public interest bydeterring illegal behavior and that theenforceability provision of part 39benefits the public interest by furtheringlegal certainty.

After considering these factors, theCommission has determined topromulgate part 39. The Commissionnotes that it did not receive anycomments in response to the discussionregarding the costs and benefits of part39 included in the proposal. Moreover,insofar as the comments received raisedany matters that might be deemed to

relate to the costs and benefits of part39, the Commission has addressed themin the foregoing discussion and throughmodifications to the original proposal.

V. Implementation Issues; No-actionIn light of Congress’s intent to

implement the changes of the CFMAwithout delay, the Commissiondetermined when it proposed theserules that it would not bring anyenforcement action against any personwho complied with the proposed rulesduring the transition period between theeffective date of the amendments to theAct (generally December 21, 2000) andthe adoption of final implementingregulations. 66 FR at 24310. At thattime, the Commission also advisedpersons relying on that no-actionposition that they would be required tobring their conduct into compliancewith the final rules to the extent that thefinal rules differed from the proposedrules. Id.

The rules being adopted today willbecome effective October 29, 2001. Tothe extent that the final rules differ fromthe proposed rules, persons relying onthe no-action position of the proposedrules will be required to bring theirconduct into compliance with the finalrules in order to continue to rely on theno-action. Furthermore, the Commissionwill not bring any enforcement actionagainst any person who complies withthe final rules during the periodbetween their adoption and effectivedate.

VI. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility ActThe Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires thatagencies, in promulgating rules,consider the impact of those regulationson small entities. The rules adoptedherein would affect DCOs. TheCommission has previously establishedcertain definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ tobe used by the Commission inevaluating the impact of its rules onsuch entities in accordance with theRFA.42 In its previous determinations,the Commission has concluded thatcontract markets are not small entitiesfor purposes of the RFA.43 DCOs clearcontracts executed on contract marketsand other trading facilities. For reasonssimilar to those applicable to contractmarkets, DCOs, as defined in the CFMA,should not be considered small entities.In this regard, the Commission notesthat it did not receive any commentsregarding the RFA implications of part

39. Accordingly, the Commission doesnot expect the rules, as adopted herein,to have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities. Therefore, the ActingChairman, on behalf of the Commission,hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.605(b), that the promulgated rules willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities.

B. Paperwork Reduction ActPart 39 contains information

collection requirements. As required bythe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Commissionsubmitted a copy of this part to theOffice of Management and Budget(‘‘OMB’’) for its review. No commentswere received in response to theCommission’s invitation in theproposing release to comment on anypotential paperwork burden associatedwith part 39.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 39Commodity futures, Consumer

protection.In consideration of the foregoing, and

pursuant to the authority contained insection 7b of title 7 of the U.S.C., asadded by the Commodity FuturesModernization Act of 2000, Appendix Eof Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763(2000), the Commission hereby amendsChapter I of Title 17 of the Code ofFederal Regulations by adding part 39 toread as follows:

PART 39—DERIVATIVES CLEARINGORGANIZATIONS

Sec.39.1 Scope.39.2 Exemption.39.3 Procedures for registration.39.4 Procedures for implementing

derivatives clearing organization rulesand clearing certain new products.

39.5 Information relating to derivativesclearing organization operations.

39.6 Enforceability.39.7 Fraud in connection with the clearing

of transactions on a derivatives clearingorganization.

Appendix A to Part 39—ApplicationGuidance and Compliance With CorePrinciples

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7b as added by theCommodity Futures Modernization Act of2000, Appendix E of Pub. L. 106–554, 114Stat. 2763 (2000).

§ 39.1 Scope.The provisions of this part apply to

any derivatives clearing organization asdefined under section 1a(9) of the Actwhich is registered or deemed to beregistered with the Commission as a



derivatives clearing organization, isrequired to register as such with theCommission pursuant to section 5b(a) ofthe Act, or which voluntarily applies toregister as such with the Commissionpursuant to section 5b(b) or otherwise.

§ 39.2 Exemption.A derivatives clearing organization

and the clearing of agreements,contracts and transactions on aderivatives clearing organization areexempt from all Commission regulationsexcept for the requirements of this part39 and §§ 1.3, 1.12(f)(1), 1.20, 1.24, 1.25,1.26, 1.27, 1.29, 1.31, 1.36, 1.38(b), part40 and part 190 of this chapter, and asapplicable to the agreement, contract ortransaction cleared, parts 15 through 18of this chapter. The foregoing reservedregulations are applicable to aderivatives clearing organization and itsactivities as though they were set forthin this section and included specificreference to derivatives clearingorganizations. Any reference to the term‘‘clearinghouse’’ or ‘‘clearingorganization’’ contained in theregulations shall be deemed to refer toa derivatives clearing organization.

§ 39.3 Procedures for registration.(a) Registration by application. An

organization shall be deemed to beregistered as a derivatives clearingorganization sixty days after receipt bythe Commission of an application forregistration as a derivatives clearingorganization unless notified otherwiseduring that period, or, as determined byCommission order, registered uponconditions, if:

(1) The application is labeled as beingsubmitted pursuant to this part 39;

(2) The applicant represents that itwill operate in accordance with thedefinition of derivatives clearingorganization contained in section 1a(9)of the Act;

(3) The application includes a copy ofthe applicant’s rules;

(4) To the extent it is not self evidentfrom the applicant’s rules, theapplication demonstrates how theapplicant is able to satisfy each of thecore principles specified in section5b(c)(2) of the Act;

(5) The applicant submits agreementsentered into or to be entered intobetween or among the applicant, itsoperator or its participants, anddescriptions of system test procedures,tests conducted or test results, that willenable the applicant to comply, ordemonstrate the applicant’s ability tocomply, with the core principlesspecified in section 5b(c)(2) of the Act;

(6) The applicant does not amend orsupplement the application except as

requested by the Commission or forcorrection of typographical errors,renumbering or other nonsubstantiverevisions, during that period;

(7) The applicant identifies withparticularity information in theapplication that will be subject to arequest for confidential treatment andsupports that request for confidentialtreatment with reasonable justification;and

(8) The applicant has not instructedthe Commission in writing during thereview period to review the applicationpursuant to the time provisions of andprocedures under section 6 of the Act.

(b) Termination of part 39 review. If,during the sixty-day period for reviewprovided by paragraph (a) of thissection, it appears that the application’sform or substance fails to meet therequirements of this part, theCommission shall notify the applicantseeking registration that theCommission is terminating reviewunder this section and will review theproposal under the time period andprocedures of section 6 of the Act. Thistermination notification will state thenature of the issues raised and thespecific condition of registration thatthe applicant would violate, appears toviolate, or the violation of which cannotbe ascertained from the application.Within ten days of receipt of thistermination notification, the applicantseeking registration may request that theCommission render a decision whetherto register the applicant or to institutea proceeding to deny the proposedapplication under procedures specifiedin section 6 of the Act by notifying theCommission that the applicant views itssubmission as complete and final assubmitted.

(c) Withdrawal of application forregistration. An applicant forregistration may withdraw itsapplication by filing with theCommission such a request. Withdrawalof an application for registration shallnot affect any action taken or to be takenby the Commission based upon actions,activities, or events occurring during thetime that the application for registrationwas pending with the Commission.

(d) Guidance for applicants andregistrants. Appendix A to this partprovides guidance to applicants andregistrants on how the core principlesspecified in section 5b(c)(2) of the Actmay be satisfied.

(e) Delegation of authority. (1) TheCommission hereby delegates, until itorders otherwise, to the Director of theDivision of Trading and Markets or theDirector’s delegatees, with theconcurrence of the General Counsel orthe General Counsel’s delegatees, the

authority to exercise the functionsunder paragraphs (a) and (b) of thissection and under § 39.5.

(2) The Director of the Division ofTrading and Markets may submit to theCommission for its consideration anymatter which has been delegated in thisparagraph.

(3) Nothing in this paragraphprohibits the Commission, at itselection, from exercising the authoritydelegated in paragraph (e)(1) of thissection.

§ 39.4 Procedures for implementingderivatives clearing organization rules andclearing certain new products.

(a) Request for approval of rules. Anapplicant for registration, or a registeredderivatives clearing organization, mayrequest, pursuant to the procedures of§ 40.5 of this chapter, that theCommission approve any or all of itsrules and subsequent amendmentsthereto, including operational rules,prior to their implementation or,notwithstanding the provisions ofsection 5c(c)(2) of the Act, at any timethereafter, under the procedures of§ 40.5 of this chapter. A derivativesclearing organization may label as,‘‘Approved by the Commission,’’ onlythose rules that have been so approved.

(b) Self-certification of rules. Proposednew or amended rules of a derivativesclearing organization not voluntarilysubmitted for prior Commissionapproval pursuant to paragraph (a) ofthis section must be submitted to theCommission with a certification that theproposed new rule or rule amendmentcomplies with the Act and rulesthereunder pursuant to the proceduresof § 40.6 of this chapter.

(c) Acceptance of certain newproducts for clearing. A derivativesclearing organization that accepts forclearing a new product that is not tradedon a designated contract market or aregistered derivatives transactionexecution facility must submit to theCommission any rules establishing theterms and conditions of the product thatmake it acceptable for clearing with acertification that the clearing of theproduct and the rules and terms andconditions comply with the Act and therules thereunder pursuant to theprocedures of § 40.2 of this chapter.

(d) Orders regarding competition. Anapplicant or a registered derivativesclearing organization may request thatthe Commission issue an orderconcerning whether a rule or practice ofthe organization is the leastanticompetitive means of achieving theobjectives, purposes, and policies of theAct.



§ 39.5 Information relating to derivativesclearing organization operations.

(a) Upon request by the Commission,a derivatives clearing organization shallfile with the Commission suchinformation related to its business as aclearing organization, includinginformation relating to trade andclearing details, in the form and mannerand within the time as specified by theCommission in the request.

(b) Upon request by the Commission,a derivatives clearing organization shallfile with the Commission a writtendemonstration, containing suchsupporting data, information anddocuments, in the form and manner andwithin such time as the Commissionmay specify that the derivatives clearingorganization is in compliance with oneor more core principles as specified inthe request.

(c) Information regarding transactionsby large traders cleared by a derivativesclearing organization shall be filed withthe Commission, in a form and manneracceptable to the Commission, byfutures commission merchants, clearingmembers, foreign brokers or registeredentities other than a derivatives clearingorganization, as applicable. Provided,however, that if no such person or entityis required to file large traderinformation with the Commission, suchinformation must be filed with theCommission by a derivatives clearingorganization.

(d) Upon special call by theCommission, each futures commissionmerchant, clearing member or foreignbroker shall provide information to theCommission concerning customeraccounts or related positions cleared ona derivatives clearing organization orother multilateral clearing organizationin the form and manner and within thetime specified by the Commission in thespecial call.

§ 39.6 Enforceability.

An agreement, contract or transactionsubmitted to a derivatives clearingorganization for clearance shall not bevoid, voidable, subject to rescission, orotherwise invalidated or renderedunenforceable as a result of:

(a) A violation by the derivativesclearing organization of the provisionsof the Act or of Commission regulations;or

(b) Any Commission proceeding toalter or supplement a rule under section8a(7) of the Act, to declare anemergency under section 8a(9) of theAct, or any other proceeding the effectof which is to alter, supplement, orrequire a derivatives clearingorganization to adopt a specific rule or

procedure, or to take or refrain fromtaking a specific action.

§ 39.7 Fraud in connection with theclearing of transactions on a derivativesclearing organization.

It shall be unlawful for any person,directly or indirectly, in or inconnection with the clearing oftransactions by a derivatives clearingorganization:

(a) To cheat or defraud or attempt tocheat or defraud any person;

(b) Willfully to make or cause to bemade to any person any false report orstatement or cause to be entered for anyperson any false record; or

(c) Willfully to deceive or attempt todeceive any person by any meanswhatsoever.

Appendix A to Part 39—ApplicationGuidance and Compliance With CorePrinciples

This appendix provides guidanceconcerning the core principles with whichapplicants must demonstrate the ability tocomply and with which registeredderivatives clearing organizations mustcontinue to comply to be granted and tomaintain registration as a derivatives clearingorganization under section 5b of the Act and§ 39.3 and § 39.5 of the Commission’sregulations. The guidance follows each coreprinciple and can be used to demonstratecore principle compliance under § 39.3(a)(iv)and § 39.5(d). The guidance for each coreprinciple is illustrative only of the types ofmatters a clearing organization may address,as applicable, and is not intended to be amandatory checklist. Addressing the criteriaset forth in this appendix would help theCommission in its consideration of whetherthe clearing organization is in compliancewith the core principles. To the extent thatcompliance with, or satisfaction of, a coreprinciple is not self-explanatory from the faceof a clearing organization’s rules, anapplication pursuant to § 39.3 or asubmission pursuant to § 39.5 should includean explanation or other form ofdocumentation demonstrating that theclearing organization is able to or doescomply with the core principles.

Core Principle A: IN GENERAL—To beregistered and to maintain registration as aderivatives clearing organization, anapplicant shall demonstrate to theCommission that the applicant complies withthe core principles specified in thisparagraph. The applicant shall havereasonable discretion in establishing themanner in which it complies with the coreprinciples.

An entity preparing to submit to theCommission an application to operate as aderivatives clearing organization isencouraged to contact Commission staff forguidance and assistance in preparing itsapplication. Applicants may submit a draftapplication for review prior to thesubmission of an actual application withouttriggering the application review proceduresof § 39.3 of the Commission’s regulations.

The Commission also may require aderivatives clearing organization todemonstrate to the Commission that it isoperating in compliance with one or morecore principles.

Core Principle B: FINANCIALRESOURCES—The applicant shalldemonstrate that the applicant has adequatefinancial, operational, and managerialresources to discharge the responsibilities ofa derivatives clearing organization.

In addressing Core Principle B, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. The resources dedicated to supportingthe clearing function:

a. The level of resources available to theclearing organization and the sufficiency ofthose resources to assure that no materialadverse break in clearing operations willoccur in a variety of market conditions; and

b. The level of member/participant defaultsuch resources could support asdemonstrated through use of hypotheticaldefault scenarios that explain assumptionsand variables factored into the illustrations.

2. The nature of resources dedicated tosupporting the clearing function:

a. The type of the resources, includingtheir liquidity, and how they could beaccessed and applied by the clearingorganization promptly;

b. How financial and other materialinformation will be updated and reported tomembers, the public, if and whenappropriate, and to the Commission on anongoing basis; and

c. Any legal or operational impediments orconditions to access.

Core Principle C: PARTICIPANT ANDPRODUCT ELIGIBILITY—The applicant shallestablish (i) appropriate admission andcontinuing eligibility standards (includingappropriate minimum financialrequirements) for members of andparticipants in the organization; and (ii)appropriate standards for determiningeligibility of agreements, contracts, ortransactions submitted to the applicant.

In addressing Core Principle C, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Member/participant admission criteria:a. How admission standards for its clearing

members/participants would contribute tothe soundness and integrity of operations;and

b. Matters such as whether these criteriawould be in the form of organization rulesthat apply to all clearing members/participants, whether different levels ofmembership/participation would relate todifferent levels of net worth, income, andcreditworthiness of members/participants,and whether margin levels, position limitsand other controls would vary in accordancewith these levels.

2. Member/participant continuingeligibility criteria:

a. A program for monitoring the financialstatus of its members/participants; and

b. Whether and how the clearingorganization would be able to changecontinuing eligibility criteria in accordance



with changes in a member’s/participant’sfinancial status.

3. Criteria for instruments acceptable forclearing:

a. The criteria, and the factors consideredin establishing the criteria, for the types ofagreements, contracts, or transactions it willclear; and

b. How those criteria take into account thedifferent risks inherent in clearing differentagreements, contracts, or transactions andhow they affect maintenance of assets tosupport the guarantee function in varyingrisk environments.

4. The clearing function for eachinstrument the organization undertakes toclear.

Core Principle D: RISK MANAGEMENT—The applicant shall have the ability tomanage the risks associated with dischargingthe responsibilities of a derivatives clearingorganization through the use of appropriatetools and procedures.

In addressing Core Principle D, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Use of risk analysis tools andprocedures:

a. How the adequacy of the overall level offinancial resources would be tested on anongoing periodic basis in a variety of marketconditions;

b. How the organization would use specificrisk management tools such as stress testingand value at risk calculations; and

c. What contingency plans the applicanthas for managing extreme market events.

2. Use of collateral:a. What forms and levels of collateral

would be established and collected;b. How amounts would be adequate to

secure prudentially obligations arising fromclearing transactions and, where applicable,performing as a central counterparty;

c. The factors considered in determiningappropriate margin levels for an instrumentcleared and for clearing members/participants;

d. The appropriateness of required orallowed forms of margin given the liquidityand related requirements of the clearingorganization;

e. How the clearing organization wouldvalue open positions and collateral assets;and

f. The proposed margin collection scheduleand how it would relate to changes in thevalue of market positions and collateralvalues.

3. Use of credit limits:If systems would be implemented that

would prevent members/participants andother market participants from exceedingcredit limits and how they would operate.

Core Principle E: SETTLEMENTPROCEDURES—The applicant shall have theability to (i) complete settlements on a timelybasis under varying circumstances; (ii)maintain an adequate record of the flow offunds associated with each transaction thatthe applicant clears; and (iii) comply with theterms and conditions of any permittednetting or offset arrangements with otherclearing organizations.

In addressing Core Principle E, applicantsand registered derivatives clearing

organizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Settlement timeframe:a. Procedures for completing settlements

on a timely basis during times of normaloperating conditions; and

b. Procedures for completing settlementson a timely basis in varying marketcircumstances including during a periodwhen one or more significant members/participants have defaulted.

2. Recordkeeping:a. The nature and quality of the

information collected concerning the flow offunds involved in clearing and settlement;and

b. How such information would berecorded, maintained and accessed.

3. Interfaces with other clearingorganizations:

How compliance with the terms andconditions of netting or offset arrangementswith other clearing organizations would bemet, including, among others, commonbanking or common clearing programs.

Core Principle F: TREATMENT OFFUNDS—The applicant shall have standardsand procedures designed to protect andensure the safety of member and participantfunds.

In addressing Core Principle F, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Safe custody:a. The safekeeping of funds, whether in

accounts, in depositories, or with custodians,and how it would meet industry standards ofsafety;

b. Any written terms regarding the legalstatus of the funds and the specificconditions or prerequisites for movement ofthe funds; and

c. The extent to which the deposit of fundsin accounts in depositories or withcustodians would limit concentration of risk.

2. Segregation between customer andproprietary funds:

Requirements or restrictions regardingcommingling customer funds withproprietary funds, obligating customer fundsfor any purpose other than to purchase, clear,and settle the products the clearingorganization is clearing, or proceduresregarding customer funds which are subjectto cross-margin or similar agreements, andany other aspects of customer fundsegregation.

3. Investment standards:a. How customer funds would be invested

consistent with high standards of safety; andb. How the organization will gather and

keep associated records and data regardingthe details of such investments.

Core Principle G: DEFAULT RULES ANDPROCEDURES—The applicant shall haverules and procedures designed to allow forefficient, fair, and safe management of eventswhen members or participants becomeinsolvent or otherwise default on theirobligations to the derivatives clearingorganization.

In addressing Core Principle G, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Definition of default:a. The events that will constitute member

or participant default;b. What action the organization would take

upon a default and how the organizationwould otherwise enforce the definition ofdefault; and

c. How the organization would addresssituations related to but which may notconstitute an event of default, such as failureto comply with certain rules, failure tomaintain eligibility standards, actions takenby other regulatory bodies, or other events.

2. Remedial action:The authority pursuant to which, and how,

the clearing organization may takeappropriate action in the event of the defaultof a member/participant which may include,among other things, closing out positions,replacing positions, set-off, and applyingmargin.

3. Process to address shortfalls:Procedures for the prompt application of

clearing organization and/or member/participant financial resources to addressmonetary shortfalls resulting from a default.

4. Use of cross-margin programs:How cross-margining programs would

provide for clear, fair, and efficient means ofcovering losses in the event of a programparticipant default.

5. Customer priority rule:Rules and procedures regarding priority of

customer accounts over proprietary accountsof defaulting members/participants and,where applicable, in the context ofspecialized margin reduction programs suchas cross-margining or trading links with otherexchanges.

Core Principle H: RULE ENFORCEMENT—The applicant shall (i) maintain adequatearrangements and resources for the effectivemonitoring and enforcement of compliancewith rules of the applicant and for resolutionof disputes; and (ii) have the authority andability to discipline, limit, suspend, orterminate a member’s or participant’sactivities for violations of rules of theapplicant.

In addressing Core Principle H, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Surveillance:Arrangements and resources for the

effective monitoring of compliance with rulesrelating to clearing practices and financialsurveillance.

2. Enforcement:Arrangements and resources for the

effective enforcement of rules and authorityand ability to discipline and limit or suspenda member’s/participant’s activities pursuantto clear and fair standards.

3. Dispute resolution:Where applicable, arrangements and

resources for resolution of disputes betweencustomers and members/participants, andbetween members/participants.

Core Principle I: SYSTEM SAFEGUARDS—The applicant shall demonstrate that theapplicant (i) has established and willmaintain a program of oversight and riskanalysis to ensure that the automatedsystems of the applicant function properlyand have adequate capacity and security;



and (ii) has established and will maintainemergency procedures and a plan for disasterrecovery, and will periodically test backupfacilities sufficient to ensure daily processing,clearing, and settlement of transactions.

In addressing Core Principle I, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Oversight/risk analysis program:a. Whether a program addresses

appropriate principles and procedures for theoversight of automated systems to ensure thatits clearing systems function properly andhave adequate capacity and security. TheCommission believes that the guidelinesissued by the International Organization ofSecurities Commissions (IOSCO) in 1990 andadopted by the Commission on November 21,1990 (55 FR 48670), as supplemented inOctober 2000, are appropriate guidelines foran automated clearing system to apply.

b. Emergency procedures and a plan fordisaster recovery; and

c. Periodic testing of back-up facilities andability to provide timely processing, clearing,and settlement of transactions.

2. Appropriate periodic objective systemreviews/testing:

a. Any program for the periodic objectivetesting and review of the system, includingtests conducted and results; and

b. Confirmation that such testing andreview would be performed or assessed by aqualified independent professional.

Core Principle J: REPORTING—Theapplicant shall provide to the Commission allinformation necessary for the Commission toconduct the oversight function of theapplicant with respect to the activities of thederivatives clearing organization.

In addressing Core Principle J, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Information available to or generated bythe clearing organization that will be maderoutinely available to the Commission, uponrequest and/or as appropriate, to enable theCommission to perform properly its oversightfunction, including information regardingcounterparties and their positions, stress testresults, internal governance, legalproceedings, and other clearing activities;

2. Information the clearing organizationwill make available to the Commission on anon-routine basis and the circumstanceswhich would trigger such action;

3. The information the organizationintends to make routinely available tomembers/participants and/or the generalpublic; and

4. Provision of information:a. The manner in which all relevant

routine or non-routine information will beprovided to the Commission, whether byelectronic or other means; and

b. The manner in which any informationwill be made available to members/participants and/or the general public.

Core Principle K: RECORDKEEPING—Theapplicant shall maintain records of allactivities related to the business of theapplicant as a derivatives clearingorganization in a form and manneracceptable to the Commission for a period of5 years.

In addressing Core Principle K, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. The different activities related to theentity as a clearing organization for which itmust maintain records; and

2. How the entity would satisfy theperformance standards of Commissionregulation 1.31 (17 CFR 1.31), reserved inthis part 39 and applicable to derivativesclearing organizations, including:

a. What ‘‘full’’ or ‘‘complete’’ wouldencompass with respect to each type of bookor record that would be maintained;

b. The form and manner in which books orrecords would be compiled and maintainedwith respect to each type of activity forwhich such books or records would be kept;

c. Confirmation that books and recordswould be open to inspection by anyrepresentative of the Commission or of theU.S. Department of Justice;

d. How long books and records would bereadily available and how they would bemade readily available during the first twoyears; and

e. How long books and records would bemaintained (and confirmation that, in anyevent, they would be maintained for at leastfive years).

Core Principle L: PUBLICINFORMATION—The applicant shall makeinformation concerning the rules andoperating procedures governing the clearingand settlement systems (including defaultprocedures) available to market participants.

In addressing Core Principle L, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

Disclosure of information regarding rulesand operating procedures governing clearingand settlement systems:

a. Which rules and operating proceduresgoverning clearing and settlement systemsshould be disclosed to the public, to whomthey would be disclosed, and how theywould be disclosed;

b. What other information would beavailable regarding the operation, purposeand effect of the clearing organization’s rules;

c. How members/participants may becomefamiliar with such procedures beforeparticipating in operations; and

d. How members/participants will beinformed of their specific rights andobligations preceding a default and upon adefault, and of the specific rights, optionsand obligations of the clearing organizationpreceding and upon the member’s/participant’s default.

Core Principle M: INFORMATIONSHARING—The applicant shall (i) enter intoand abide by the terms of all appropriate andapplicable domestic and internationalinformation-sharing agreements; and (ii) userelevant information obtained from theagreements in carrying out the clearingorganization’s risk management program.

In addressing Core Principle M, applicantsand registered derivatives clearingorganizations may describe or otherwisedocument:

1. Applicable appropriate domestic andinternational information-sharing agreements

and arrangements including the differenttypes of domestic and internationalinformation-sharing arrangements, bothformal and informal, which the clearingorganization views as appropriate andapplicable to its operations.

2. How information obtained frominformation-sharing arrangements would beused to carry out risk management andsurveillance programs:

a. How information obtained from anyinformation-sharing arrangements would beused to further the objectives of the clearingorganization’s risk management program andany of its surveillance programs includingfinancial surveillance and continuingeligibility of its members/participants;

b. How accurate information is expected tobe obtained and the mechanisms orprocedures which would make timely useand application of all information; and

c. The types of information expected to beshared and how that information would beshared.

Core Principle N: ANTITRUSTCONSIDERATIONS—Unless appropriate toachieve the purposes of this Act, thederivatives clearing organization shall avoid(i) adopting any rule or taking any action thatresults in any unreasonable restraint of trade;or (ii) imposing any material anticompetitiveburden on trading on the contract market.

Pursuant to section 5b(c)(3) of the Act, aregistered derivatives clearing organization oran entity seeking registration as a derivativesclearing organization may request that theCommission issue an order concerningwhether a rule or practice of the organizationis the least anticompetitive means ofachieving the objectives, purposes, andpolicies of the Act. The Commission intendsto apply section 15(b) of the Act to itsconsideration of issues under this coreprinciple in a manner consistent with thatpreviously applied to contract markets.

Issued in Washington, DC on August 22,2001, by the Commission.Jean A. Webb,Secretary of the Commission.[FR Doc. 01–21670 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms

27 CFR Parts 44, 46 and 275

[T.D. ATF–465 ; Ref: Notice No. 913]

RIN 1512–AC35

Implementation of Public Laws 106–476 and 106–554, Relating to TobaccoImportation Restrictions, Markings,Repackaging, and Destruction ofForfeited Tobacco Products (2000R–492P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobaccoand Firearms (ATF), Department of theTreasury.



ACTION: Final rule (Treasury decision).

SUMMARY: This final rule amends theregulations governing tobacco productsin order to implement severalprovisions of the Imported CigaretteCompliance Act of 2000 included aspart of the Tariff Suspension and TradeAct of 2000. Sections 4002 and 4003 ofthis new law require that tobaccoproducts and cigarette papers and tubesmanufactured in the United States andlabeled or shipped for exportation(under the Internal Revenue Code of1986 (IRC)) can only be re-imported bythe original manufacturer or by anexport warehouse proprietor authorizedto do so by the original manufacturer(except for a personal use exemptiondiscussed below), provide that thosearticles labeled for exportation may notbe sold or held for sale for domesticconsumption in the United States unlessthey are removed from their exportpackaging and repackaged by theoriginal manufacturer into newpackaging that does not contain anexport label, and require the destructionof tobacco products forfeited undersection 5761(c) of the IRC.

This final rule also amends theregulations governing tobacco productsin order to implement section 315 of theConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2001.Travelers entering the United States, ifthey claim and are granted a personaluse exemption, are allowed to bring U.S.manufactured tobacco products labeledfor export back into the United States upto the quantity allowed entry free of taxand duty under Chapter 98 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States. In addition, a travelerclaiming such a personal use exemptionupon arrival at the border mayvoluntarily relinquish to the U.S.Customs Service any excess of suchquantity without incurring the penaltyunder section 5761(c) of the IRC.

This final rule implements thesechanges in the law by providing newand amended regulations in parts 44(formerly part 290), 46 (formerly part296) and 275 of title 27 of the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR). Note that theeffective date of the above provisions ofthe Imported Cigarette Compliance Actof 2000 is February 7, 2001. Section 315of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,2001 is retroactive to the effective dateof the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,January 1, 2000.DATES: This final rule is effective onOctober 29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Daniel Hiland, Regulations Division,Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20226; Telephone(202) 927–8210.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundOn December 22, 1999, the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearmspublished a temporary rule, T.D. ATF–421, in the Federal Register (64 FR71918, Dec. 22, 1999). This temporaryrule implemented several provisionsfound in section 9302 of the BalancedBudget Act of 1997 (Act), Pub. L. 105–33, 111 Stat. 672. Section 9302 of theAct had amended the Internal RevenueCode of 1986 at sections 5704(b), 5712,5754 and 5761(c). These amendments:placed restrictions on the importation ofpreviously exported tobacco products,required markings on tobacco productsor cigarette papers and tubes removed ortransferred without payment of thefederal excise tax, provided penalties forselling, relanding, or receiving, withinthe jurisdiction of the United States,tobacco products or cigarette papers andtubes which have been labeled andshipped for exportation and wereremoved after the effective date, andauthorized the Secretary to prescribeminimum capacity or activityrequirements as a criteria for issuance ofa manufacturer’s permit. These newprovisions of law became effectiveJanuary 1, 2000.

The temporary rule, T.D. ATF–421,implemented these changes in law byproviding new and amended regulationsin parts 200, 270, 275 and 290 of title27 of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR). Concurrently with the temporaryrule, ATF also published a notice ofproposed rulemaking, Notice No. 887(64 FR 71927, Dec. 22, 1999), thatsolicited comments regarding thetemporary regulations.

On April 18, 2000 the United StatesDistrict Court for the District ofColumbia in the civil action, World DutyFree Americas, Inc. v. Treasury, (D.D.C.No. 00–00404 (RCL)), issued atemporary injunction enjoining theTreasury Department from enforcing thetemporary regulations at 27 CFR 275.11and 27 CFR 275.83, in T.D. ATF–421, tothe extent that they prohibited theimportation of cigarettes purchased inU.S. duty free stores up to the limitallowed by the personal use exemptionprovided by 19 U.S.C. 1555 and theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States, 19 U.S.C. 1202,subheadings 9804.00.65, 9804.00.70 and9804.00.72.

Later, on November 9, 2000, thePresident signed the Tariff Suspensionand Trade Act of 2000, Public Law 106–476, 114 Stat. 2101, that included theImported Cigarette Compliance Act of

2000 (ICCA 2000). Several sections ofthe IRC that were amended by BalancedBudget Act of 1997 were furtheramended by the ICCA 2000, includingsections 5704(d), 5754 and 5761(c).These new amendments require thattobacco products and cigarette papersand tubes manufactured in the UnitedStates and labeled or shipped forexportation under the IRC can only bere-imported by the originalmanufacturer, or by an exportwarehouse proprietor authorized to doso by the original manufacturer. Also,articles labeled for exportation may notbe sold or held for sale for domesticconsumption in the United States unlessthey are removed from their exportpackaging and repackaged by theoriginal manufacturer into newpackaging that does not contain anexport label. Finally, the ICCA 2000requires the destruction of tobaccoproducts forfeited under section5761(c).

In addition, the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2001, signedDecember 21, 2000, Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763, amended the IRC atsection 5761(c) by adding language tothe law that provides that travelersentering the United States, if they claimand are granted a personal useexemption, are allowed to bring U.S.manufactured tobacco products labeledfor export back into the United States upto the quantity allowed entry free of taxand duty under Chapter 98 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States. In addition, a travelerclaiming such a personal use exemptionupon arrival at the border mayvoluntarily relinquish to the U.S.Customs Service any excess of suchquantity without incurring the penaltyunder section 5761(c). However, noquantity of tobacco products, other thanthe quantity allowed entry free of taxand duty under chapter 98 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States, may be relanded orreceived as a personal use quantity.

ATF believes that the above-describedchanges in the law are clear and leaveno discretion in implementation.However, because of the litigation thenpending in World Duty Free Americas,Inc. v. Treasury, ATF decided to issuea notice of proposed rulemaking prior tothe issuance of a final rule.

Notice of Proposed RulemakingOn March 26, 2001, ATF published a

notice of proposed rulemaking in theFederal Register (Notice No. 913, 66 FR16425, March 26, 2001) to solicit publiccomments on proposed regulations. Inthat notice, ATF proposed to amend theregulations in 27 CFR parts 275, 290



(currently part 44) and 296 (currentlypart 46) in order to implement severalof the new provisions of law found inthe ICCA 2000 and the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2001. The publicwas invited to submit comments on thisnotice for a period of 60 (sixty) daysending May 25, 2001.

Recodification of Parts 290 and 296Following the publication of Notice

No. 913 there were two separaterulemaking actions which affected thenumbering system for the regulationsthat were proposed in Notice No. 913.The regulations at 27 CFR part 290 havebeen recodified as 27 CFR part 44.Similarly the regulations at 27 CFR part296 have been recodified as 27 CFR part46. Thus, all references to parts 290 and296 in Notice 913 will now appear inthis final rule as parts 44 and 46respectively.

Comments on the NPRMIn response to Notice No. 913, ATF

received one letter of comment from Mr.Craig A. Johnson of Philip MorrisIncorporated. In his letter, Mr. Johnsonstated that Philip Morris Incorporatedurged prompt adoption (withoutchange) of the proposed rule, whichwould implement the provisions of theICCA 2000. He further stated that heunderstood that U.S. Customs will bepromulgating regulations to implementthe other provisions of this new lawwhich amends the Tariff Act of 1930and he urged ATF and U.S. Customs tocoordinate with each other to enforcethe law.

The proposed regulations have beenlargely adopted as proposed in NoticeNo. 913. The following is a summary ofthose sections of the IRC that wereamended by the Balanced Budget Act of1997 and further amended by the ICCA2000 and the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2001. Alsodiscussed are the sections of theregulations that have been amended bythis final rule.

Final Rule

Importation Restrictions

Balanced Budget ActSection 9302 of the Balanced Budget

Act of 1997 added a new section, 26U.S.C. 5754, to the IRC entitled,‘‘Restriction on importation ofpreviously exported tobacco products.’’This new section became effective onJanuary 1, 2000 and it placed severelimitations on the conditions underwhich previously exported tobaccoproducts, and cigarette papers and tubesmay be imported or brought back intothe United States. Section 5754 stated

that such products may only beimported or brought into the UnitedStates as provided in section 5704(d).The referenced section, 5704(d),allowed previously exported tobaccoproducts and cigarette papers and tubesto be released from Customs custody,without payment of tax, for transfer toa manufacturer of tobacco products orcigarette papers and tubes, or to theproprietor of an export warehouse.Thus, under section 5754, the onlycondition under which previouslyexported tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes could be imported orbrought into the United States was byrelease from Customs custody to amanufacturer or an export warehouseproprietor as an in-bond transfer.However, section 5704(d) allowedpreviously exported tobacco products tobe transferred to any manufacturer oftobacco products or cigarette papers andtubes, or to any export warehouseproprietor. The law did not mandatethat the previously exported productsreturn to the original manufacturer orexport warehouse proprietor asauthorized by the original manufacturer.

Imported Cigarette Compliance Act of2000

Section 4002 of the ICCA 2000 furtheramended sections 5754 and 5704(d) ofthe IRC whereby tobacco products andcigarette papers and tubes manufacturedin the United States and previouslyexported may be imported or broughtinto the United States, if such articlesare released from Customs custody withthe partial duty exemption provided insection 5704(d), or are returned to theoriginal manufacturer of such articles asprovided in section 5704(c). Further,section 5704(d) of the IRC was amendedby deleting a reference to ‘‘amanufacturer of’’ and inserting ‘‘theoriginal manufacturer of’’ tobaccoproducts or cigarette papers and tubes.The term ‘‘proprietor of an exportwarehouse’’ was also amended byinserting the phrase ‘‘authorized bysuch manufacturer to receive sucharticles’’ after the term ‘‘proprietor of anexport warehouse.’’ Therefore, theamended language of the law in 5704(d)now refers to ‘‘proprietor of an exportwarehouse authorized by suchmanufacturer to receive such articles.’’

Thus, with these amendments tosections 5754 and 5704(d), previouslyexported tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes of United Statesmanufacture may be imported orbrought into the United States by: (1)release from Customs custody under5704(d) to ‘‘the original manufacturer’’or to ‘‘the proprietor of an exportwarehouse authorized by such

manufacturer to receive such articles’’or, (2) return to the originalmanufacturer of such articles asprovided in 5704(c).

Amendments to the RegulationsThis final rule amends the regulations

at 27 CFR 275.82 to reflect the abovedescribed changes in the law at 26U.S.C. 5754. Further, amended section275.82(c) of the regulations is thesection that provides for the type ofimportations described under 26 U.S.C.5704(d) and amended section 275.82(d)of the regulations provides for the typeof importations described under 26U.S.C. 5704(c).

Tobacco Products Labeled for Export

Balanced Budget ActAs discussed above, section 9302 of

the Balanced Budget Act of 1997amended the IRC by adding section5754 which imposed restrictions on theimportation of previously exportedtobacco products. Thus, only articleswhich had been exported from theUnited States were subject to the re-importation restriction. It also amendedsection 5704(b) by providing thattobacco products, and cigarette papersand tubes may not be transferred orremoved under 26 U.S.C. 5704(b) unlessthey bear the proper marks, labels andnotices.


Section 4002 of the ICCA 2000 furtheramended the IRC by providing newlanguage at section 5754 wherebytobacco products and cigarette papersand tubes manufactured in the UnitedStates and ‘‘labeled for exportation’’ aresubject to the restrictions and penaltiesapplicable to this section. Thus, the newlanguage at section 5754 makes the lawapplicable to both exported articles andarticles labeled for export, but notexported. The Committee report thataccompanied the bill stated: ‘‘Theprovision expands the application of thespecial tax penalty for re-importingtobacco products to include the sale inthe U.S. domestic market of tobaccoproducts labeled for export (but notactually exported). Thus, this penaltycan be imposed in addition to thepresent-law penalties and othersanctions that apply to tobacco productsthat might be removed for export, butinstead are diverted into the U.S.domestic market.’’ S. Rep. No. 503,106th Cong., 2nd Sess. 89 (2000).

Amendments to the RegulationsThis final rule amends the regulations

at 27 CFR 275.82 to reflect the abovedescribed change in the law.



Specifically, 27 CFR 275.82(a) nowstates that the provisions of this sectionapply to ‘‘tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes manufactured in theUnited States and labeled forexportation.’’ The penalty provisions in27 CFR 275.83(a), which implementverbatim section 5761(c), alreadyapplied to articles ‘‘labeled or shippedfor exportation.’’ Therefore, sincearticles labeled for exportation arealready addressed in section 275.83, itwas not necessary to amend this sectionto add the term ‘‘labeled or shipped forexportation.’’

Returned Articles in the U.S. Market

Balanced Budget Act

Section 9302 of the Balanced BudgetAct of 1997 imposed a new civil penaltyon persons, other than manufacturers orexport warehouse proprietors, who sell,reland or receive tobacco products orcigarette papers or tubes that have beenlabeled or shipped for exportation underChapter 52 of the IRC. However, section9302(i) of this Act also provided that theamendments to the IRC under theBalanced Budget Act of 1997 onlyapplied to ‘‘articles removed’’ afterDecember 31, 1999. As a consequence,articles that were removed on or beforeDecember 31, 1999 were not subject tothe new penalty. Thus, relanded tobaccoproducts in packages bearing exportmarks that were lawfully removed fromCustoms custody and entered into theUnited States prior to January 1, 2000were lawful products and not subject tothe civil penalty, or other criminalprovisions of Chapter 52 of the IRC.


Section 4002 of the ICCA 2000 furtheramended the IRC by providing newlanguage at section 5754(a)(1)(C)whereby tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes manufactured in theUnited States and labeled forexportation may not be sold or held forsale for domestic consumption in theUnited States unless such articles areremoved from their export packagingand repackaged by the originalmanufacturer into new packaging thatdoes not contain an export label.Further, the provisions of section 4002take effect 90 days after enactment ofthe Act and, therefore, are effective onFebruary 7, 2001. See section 4002(d) ofthe ICCA 2000 for the effective date.

The consequence of this amendmentis that whereas the Balanced Budget Actof 1997 had allowed previouslyexported articles that were importedbefore January 1, 2000 to be legally soldon the domestic market, the ICCA 2000

makes the sale or holding for sale ofsuch articles illegal effective February 7,2001, unless they are removed fromtheir export packaging and repackagedby the original manufacturer into newpackaging that does not contain anexport label.

The Committee report thataccompanied the bill, stated: ‘‘Theprovision also authorizes the TreasuryDepartment to seize all export-labeledtobacco products found in the U.S.domestic market regardless of the dateof removal.’’ S. Rep. No. 503, 106thCong., 2nd Sess. 89 (2000).

Further, amended section 5754(a)(2)also provides that the restrictions onexport-labeled articles also apply toarticles that have been altered by aperson other than the originalmanufacturer. Thus, if a person placesstickers over the export label, orotherwise attempts to conceal or removethe export label on the packaging, therestrictions in 26 U.S.C. § 5754 stillapply to that article.

Amendments to the Regulations

This final rule amends the regulationsat 27 CFR 275.82(e) and (f), and46.166(b) and (c) (formerly 296.166(b)and (c)) to reflect these changes in thelaw.

Disposition of Forfeited TobaccoProducts

Balanced Budget Act

Section 9302 of the Balanced BudgetAct of 1997 amended the IRC by addinga new civil penalty at 26 U.S.C.§ 5761(c). The penalty applies topersons, other than manufacturers orexport warehouse proprietors, who sell,reland or receive tobacco products orcigarette papers or tubes that have beenlabeled or shipped for exportation underChapter 52 of the IRC. In addition to thecivil penalty, criminal penalties andforfeiture of the product and any vessel,vehicle or aircraft involved in relandingor removing such product could beimposed. However, section 5761(c) didnot specify how the Department of theTreasury should dispose of forfeitedtobacco products.


Section 4002(c) of the ICCA 2000amended section 5761(c) of the IRC byadding language which requires that allrelanded tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes shall be forfeited to theUnited States and destroyed. TheCommittee report that accompanied thebill stated, ‘‘The provision also providesthat tobacco products that are forfeitedto the Federal Government under

present-law provisions must bedestroyed (rather than being disposed ofin any manner administrativelydetermined by the TreasuryDepartment).’’ S. Rep. No. 503, 106thCong., 2nd Sess. 89 (2000).


This final rule amends the regulationsat section 275.83(c) by providing thatforfeited tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes will be destroyed.

Travelers Entering the United States

Balanced Budget Act

As discussed earlier, the BalancedBudget Act of 1997 amended the IRC byadding two new sections of law aimedat restricting the importation ofpreviously exported tobacco products.26 U.S.C. 5754 provided that onlymanufacturers of tobacco products andexport warehouses can importpreviously exported tobacco products.In addition, section 5761(c) providedpenalties for selling, receiving, andrelanding of tobacco products labeled orshipped for export. Neither section oflaw provided an exemption for travelersentering the United States with smallquantities of tobacco products forpersonal use.

This application of the law waschallenged by several operators of dutyfree stores in a civil action, World DutyFree Americas, Inc. v. Treasury. Thecourt in World Duty Free issued atemporary injunction enjoining theTreasury Department from enforcing thetemporary regulations at 27 CFR 275.11and 275.83 to the extent that theyprohibited the importation of cigarettespurchased in U.S. duty free stores up tothe limit allowed by the personal useexemption provided by 19 U.S.C. 1555and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule ofthe United States, 19 U.S.C. 1202,subheadings 9804.00.65, 9804.00.70 and9804.00.72.

ICCA 2000 and ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2001

As discussed earlier, on November 9,2000 the President signed the ICCA2000. Section 4003 of the ICCA 2000amended the IRC at section 5761(c) byinserting the following language: ‘‘Thissubsection and section 5754 shall notapply to any person who relands orreceives tobacco products in thequantity allowed entry free of tax andduty under subchapter IV of chapter 98of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule ofthe United States. No quantity oftobacco products other than the quantityreferred to in the preceding sentencemay be relanded or received as apersonal use quantity.’’



Shortly thereafter, on December 21,2000, the President also signed theConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2001.Section 315 of the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2001 furtheramended section 5761(c) in the IRC bysubstituting the following language:‘‘This subsection and section 5754 shallnot apply to any person who relands orreceives tobacco products in thequantity allowed entry free of tax andduty under chapter 98 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States, and such person mayvoluntarily relinquish to the Secretary atthe time of entry any excess of suchquantity without incurring the penaltyunder this subsection. No quantity oftobacco products other than the quantityreferred to in the preceding sentencemay be relanded or received as apersonal use quantity.’’

Under this revised language in thelaw, travelers entering the United States,if they claim and are granted a personaluse exemption, are allowed to bring U.S.manufactured tobacco products labeledfor export back into the United States upto the quantity allowed entry free of taxand duty under chapter 98 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States. In addition, a travelerclaiming such a personal use exemptionupon arrival at the border mayvoluntarily relinquish to the U.S.Customs Service any excess of suchquantity without incurring a penaltyunder this section. Only the numericalquantity allowable under theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States free of tax and duty maybe considered as a personal usequantity.

In addition, section 315 of theConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2001made the above described allowance fortravelers retroactive to January 1, 2000,when the original restrictions andpenalties imposed by the BalancedBudget Act of 1997 took effect.


In accordance with the abovedescribed amendments to the IRC, thisfinal rule amends the regulations at 27CFR 275.82(i) and 275.83(d) to providethat personal use quantities allowedunder the law are exempt from therestrictions and penalties applicable toreimported tobacco products. Further,the definition of ‘‘relanding’’ at 27 CFR275.11 has been amended to delete thesecond sentence relating to therelinquishment of tobacco products bytravelers, which is now delineated inthe revisions to 27 CFR 275.82 and275.83.

Reimportation of Unpackaged TobaccoProducts

During the comment period for Notice913, ATF noted a technicalinconsistency in the language of the lawat 26 U.S.C. 5754 and 5761(c). Thattechnical inconsistency and the solutionare discussed as follows.

Prior to the enactment of the ICCA2000, section 5754 of the IRC providedthat tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes previously exportedfrom the United States could beimported into the United States ‘‘only asprovided in section 5704(d)’’ (emphasisadded). Further, the correspondingpenalty in section 5761(c) specificallyexempted ‘‘(b) and (d) of section 5704’’.Thus, the importation of previouslyexported products under section5704(d) was exempt from the penaltyprovisions in section 5761(c).

With the passage of the ICCA 2000,section 5754 was amended to providethat tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes manufactured in theUnited States and labeled or shippedunder the IRC for exportation may beimported or brought into the UnitedStates, after their exportation, only ifsuch articles are either eligible to bereleased from customs custody ‘‘withthe partial duty exemption provided insection 5704(d) or are returned to theoriginal manufacturer of such article asprovided in section 5704(c).’’ Thus,under the revised language in section5754, products may be imported by theoriginal manufacturer under sections5704(c) or 5704(d).

However, a problem arises with thelanguage of the corresponding penaltyprovision in section 5761(c). Section5761(c) continues to provide a penaltyfor selling, receiving, or relandingtobacco products ‘‘except as provided in(b) and (d) of section 5704.’’ This is thesame language used in section 5754when it was first introduced by theBalanced Budget Act of 1997.

Thus, while section 5754 nowauthorizes importations under sections5704(c) and (d), the penalty provision in5761(c) only exempts from penaltythose imports that are made undersections 5704(b) and (d). Therefore,authorized importations under 5704(c)could still be subject to the penaltyimposed by section 5761(c). Thisappears to be a technical error in thelanguage of the law, with a result thatCongress did not intend.

After consideration of thisinconsistency, ATF has reviewed thelaw at 26 U.S.C. 5704(d) and determinedthat its language is broad enough toinclude the importation of bothpackaged articles and articles that ‘‘are

not put up in packages.’’ Thus, ATF hasconcluded that articles that might beimported under section 5704(c) can alsobe imported under section 5704(d) andthereby become exempt from thepenalty provision in section 5761(c).


In order to address this problem, ATFhas made some minor amendments tothe language of the regulations at 27CFR 275.82(c) and (d) and 275.83.Pursuant to these amendments, anoriginal manufacturer that intends toimport any bulk articles manufacturedin the United States and labeled forexportation may do so under 27 CFR275.82(d) (26 U.S.C. 5704(c). Sucharticles will be administratively deemedto be imported or brought in undersection 275.83(c) (26 U.S.C. 5704(d)).Thus, the potential penalty undersection 275.83 (26 U.S.C. 5761(c)) willbe avoided.

Miscellaneous Amendments

In addition to amendments describedabove, this final rule amended theauthority cite that appears after 27 CFR44.185 (formerly 27 CFR 290.185), Labelor Notice, to include a reference to 26U.S.C. 5704(b), which allows theSecretary to prescribe appropriatemarks, labels or notices.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Is This a Significant Regulatory ActionAs Defined by Executive Order 12866?

It has been determined that thisregulation is not a significant regulatoryaction as defined by Executive Order12866. Accordingly, this final rule is notsubject to the analysis required by thisExecutive Order.

How Does the Regulatory Flexibility ActApply to This Proposed Rule?

It is hereby certified that this finalrule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Accordingly, aregulatory flexibility analysis is notrequired. The revenue effects of thisrulemaking on small businesses flowdirectly from the underlying statute.Likewise, any secondary or incidentaleffects, and any reporting,recordkeeping, or other complianceburdens flow directly from the statute.Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(f), a copy ofthe proposed regulation was submittedto the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of theSmall Business Administration forcomment on its impact on smallbusiness. No comments were received.



Does the Paperwork Reduction ActApply to This Proposed Rule?

This final rule does not contain anynew collections of information nor doesit revise existing collections ofinformation to impose new burdens.Consequently, the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementingregulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do notapply to this rulemaking.

Drafting Information. The principalauthor of this document is Mr. DanielHiland, Regulations Division, Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

List of Subjects

27 CFR Part 44

Administrative practice andprocedure, Aircraft, Authoritydelegations, Cigars and cigarettes,Claims, Customs duties and inspection,Excise taxes, Exports, Foreign tradezones, Labeling, Packaging andcontainers, Penalties, Surety bonds,Tobacco products, Vessels, Warehouses.

27 CFR Part 46

Authority delegations, Cigars andcigarettes, Claims, Disaster assistance,Excise taxes, Exports, Packaging andcontainers, Penalties, Seizures andforfeitures, Surety bonds, Tobaccoproducts.

27 CFR Part 275

Administrative practice andprocedure, Authority delegations, Cigarsand cigarettes, Claims, Customs dutiesand inspection, Electronic fund transfer,Excise taxes, Imports, Labeling,Packaging and containers, Penalties,Reporting requirements, Seizures andforfeitures, Surety bonds, Tobaccoproducts, Warehouses.

Authority and Issuance

Accordingly, title 27, Chapter I, Codeof Federal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 44—EXPORTATION OFTOBACCO PRODUCTS ANDCIGARETTE PAPERS AND TUBES,WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAX, OR WITHDRAWBACK OF TAX

Paragraph 1. The authority citationfor part 44 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5142, 5143, 5146,5701, 5703–5705, 5711–5713, 5721–5723,5731, 5741, 5751, 5754, 6061, 6065, 6151,6402, 6404, 6806, 7011, 7212, 7342, 7606,7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.

Par. 2. The authority citation thatappears after § 44.185 is revised to readas follows:

§ 44.185 Label or notice.* * * * *(26 U.S.C. 5704, 5723)

PART 46—MISCELLANEOUSREGULATIONS RELATING TOTOBACCO PRODUCTS ANDCIGARETTE PAPERS AND TUBES

Par. 3. The authority citation for part46 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 2341–2346, 26 U.S.C.5704, 5708, 5751, 5754, 5761–5763, 6001,6601, 6621, 6622, 7212, 7342, 7602, 7606,7805; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h), 49 U.S.C. 782,unless otherwise noted.

Par. 4. Section 46.166 is revised toread as follows:

§ 46.166 Dealing in tobacco products.(a) All tobacco products purchased,

received, possessed, offered for sale,sold or otherwise disposed of, by anydealer must be in proper packageswhich bear the mark or notice asprescribed in parts 270 and 275 of thischapter. Tobacco products may be sold,or offered for sale, at retail from suchpackages, provided the products remainin the packages until removed by thecustomer or in the presence of thecustomer. Where a vending machine isused, tobacco products must similarlybe vended in proper packages ordirectly from such packages.

(b) Tobacco products manufactured inthe United States and labeled forexportation under chapter 52 of title 26,U.S.C. may not be sold or held for salefor domestic consumption in the UnitedStates unless such articles are removedfrom their export packaging andrepackaged by the original manufacturerinto new packaging that does notcontain an export label. This applies toarticles labeled for export even if thepackaging or the appearance of suchpackaging to the consumer of sucharticles has been modified or altered bya person other than the originalmanufacturer so as to remove or concealor attempt to remove or conceal(including by placement of a stickerover) the export label.

(c) For penalty and forfeitureprovisions applicable to the selling,relanding or receipt of articles whichhave been labeled or shipped forexportation, see § 275.83 of this chapter.

PART 275—IMPORTATION OFTOBACCO PRODUCTS ANDCIGARETTE PAPERS AND TUBES

Par. 5. The authority citation for part275 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 2342; 26 U.S.C. 5701,5703, 5704, 5705, 5708, 5712, 5713, 5721,5722, 5723, 5741, 5754, 5761, 5762, 5763,

6301, 6302, 6313, 6404, 7101, 7212, 7342,7606, 7652, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304,9306.

Par. 6. In § 275.11, the definition for‘‘Relanding’’ is amended by removingthe second sentence.


§ 275.82 Restrictions on tobacco productslabeled for export.

(a) The provisions of this sectionapply to tobacco products and cigarettepapers and tubes manufactured in theUnited States and labeled forexportation under parts 44 and 270 ofthis chapter.

(b) Articles described in paragraph (a)of this section may be transferred to orremoved from the premises of amanufacturer or an export warehouseproprietor only if such articles are beingtransferred or removed without tax asprovided in this part.

(c) Articles described in paragraph (a)of this section may only be imported orbrought into the United States, aftertheir exportation, under the provisionsof 26 U.S.C. 5704(d), by release fromCustoms custody for delivery to theoriginal manufacturer of such tobaccoproducts or cigarette papers or tubes orto the proprietor of an export warehouseauthorized by such manufacturer toreceive such articles. These products aretransferred in bond and are releasedfrom Customs custody without paymentof that part of the duty attributable tointernal revenue tax.

(d) Articles described in paragraph (a)of this section that are not put up inpackages may be imported or broughtinto the United States under 26 U.S.C.5704(c) by release from Customscustody without payment of tax fordelivery to the original manufacturer ofsuch articles. However, because sucharticles are also eligible for releaseunder 26 U.S.C. 5704(d), such articleswill be treated as though released undersection 5704(d), due to the penaltyprovisions in section 5761(c).

(e) Articles described in paragraph (a)of this section may not be sold or heldfor sale for domestic consumption in theUnited States unless such articles areremoved from their export packagingand repackaged by the originalmanufacturer into new packaging thatdoes not contain an export label. Thenew packages, marks and notices mustconform to the requirements of 27 CFRpart 270.

(f) The provisions of this section shallapply to articles labeled for export evenif the packaging or the appearance ofsuch packaging to the consumer of sucharticles has been modified or altered bya person other than the original



manufacturer so as to remove or concealor attempt to remove or conceal(including by placement of a stickerover) any export label.

(g) For purposes of this section, anarticle is labeled for export or containsan export label if it bears the mark,label, or notice required by § 44.185 ofthis chapter.

(h) For purposes of this section,references to exportation shall be treatedas including a reference to shipment tothe Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(i) The provisions of this section donot apply to any person who, whenentering U.S. manufactured tobaccoproducts labeled for export under parts44 and 270 of this chapter, claims andis granted an exemption from duty andtax for such products under chapter 98of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule ofthe United States. The quantity oftobacco products entered may notexceed the quantity limit imposed onsuch products under the applicabletariff provision. A traveler claiming anexemption under this subsection uponarrival at the border may voluntarilyrelinquish to the U. S. Customs Serviceat the time of entry any excess of suchquantity without incurring the penaltyunder section § 275.83.

(j) For civil penalties and forfeitureprovisions related to violations of thissection, see § 275.83. For a criminalpenalty applicable to any violation ofthis section see 26 U.S.C. 5762(b).


§ 275.83 Penalties and forfeiture forproducts labeled or shipped for export.

Except for the return of exportedproducts that are specifically authorizedunder § 275.82(b) and (c):

(a) Every person who sells, relands, orreceives within the jurisdiction of theUnited States any tobacco products orcigarette papers or tubes which havebeen labeled or shipped for exportationunder parts 44 and 270 of this chapter;

(b) Every person who sells or receivessuch relanded tobacco products orcigarette papers or tubes; and,

(c) Every person who aids or abets insuch selling, relanding, or receiving,shall, in addition to the tax and anyother penalty provided for in title 26U.S.C., be liable for a penalty equal tothe greater of $1,000 or 5 times theamount of the tax imposed by title 26U.S.C. All tobacco products andcigarette papers and tubes relandedwithin the jurisdiction of the UnitedStates shall be forfeited to the UnitedStates and destroyed. All vessels,vehicles and aircraft used in suchrelanding or in removing such products,papers, and tubes from the place where

relanded, shall be forfeited to the UnitedStates.

(d) The provisions of this section donot apply to any person who, whenentering U.S. manufactured tobaccoproducts labeled for export, claims andis granted an exemption from duty andtax for such products under chapter 98of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule ofthe United States. The quantity oftobacco products entered may notexceed the quantity limit imposed onsuch products under the applicabletariff provision. A traveler claiming anexemption under this subsection uponarrival at the border may voluntarilyrelinquish to the U. S. Customs Serviceat the time of entry any excess of suchquantity without incurring the penaltyunder this section.

(e) For purposes of this section,references to exportation shall be treatedas including a reference to shipment tothe Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Signed: July 9, 2001.Bradley A. Buckles,Director.

Approved: August 9, 2001.Timothy E. Skud,Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,(Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).[FR Doc. 01–21857 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810–31–P


Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Western Alaska–01–002]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone; Gulf of Alaska, Southeastof Narrow Cape, Kodiak Island, Alaska

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.ACTION: Temporary final rule;correction.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correctingthe effective period for a temporary finalrule for a safety zone in the Gulf ofAlaska, southeast of Narrow Cape,Kodiak Island, Alaska, that waspublished in the Federal Register onAugust 21, 2001. This correction isbeing made because of a late revision ofa rocket launch date. This correctionchanges the effective period from 2 p.m.to 7:30 p.m. each day from August 31,2001, through September 15, 2001, tothe same hours on a single day,September 17, 2001.DATES: Effective on August 29, 2001.ADDRESSES: The public docket for thisrulemaking is maintained by Coast

Guard Marine Safety Office Anchorage,510 ‘‘L’’ Street, Suite 100, Anchorage,AK 99501. Materials in the publicdocket are available for inspection andcopying at Coast Guard Marine SafetyOffice Anchorage. Normal office hoursare 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:LCDR Diane Kalina, Marine SafetyOffice Anchorage, at (907) 271–6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CoastGuard published a temporary final rulein the Federal Register on August 21,2001, (66 FR 43774) establishing atemporary safety zone in the Gulf ofAlaska, southeast of Narrow Cape,Kodiak Island, Alaska, effective from 2p.m. on August 31, 2001 through 7:30p.m. on September 15, 2001. The zoneis needed to protect the safety ofpersons and vessels operating in thevicinity during a rocket launch from theAlaska Aerospace DevelopmentCorporation (AADC), Narrow Cape,Kodiak Island facility. The AADCrecently revised the launch date toSeptember 17, 2001. The Coast Guard iscorrecting the effective date of the ruleto correspond with the new schedule forthe launch date. This correction changesthe 16-day effective period, betweenAugust 31 and September 15, 2001, toa single day, September 17, 2001.

In rule FR Doc. 01–21083 publishedon August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43774), makethe following corrections. On page43775, in the first column, on lines 3through 5, remove ‘‘each day betweenAugust 31, 2001 and September 15,2001’’ and replace it with ‘‘onSeptember 17, 2001’’. On page 43775, inthe first column, on lines 27 through 29,remove ‘‘each day between August 31,2001 and September 15, 2001’’ andreplace it with ‘‘on September 17,2001’’. On page 43775, in the secondcolumn, on lines 36 and 37, remove‘‘from August 31, 2001 to September 15,2001’’ and replace it with ‘‘onSeptember 17, 2001’’. On page 43776, inthe second column, on lines 4 through6, (paragraph (b)), remove ‘‘from 2 p.m.on August 31, 2001, until 7:30 p.m. onSeptember 15, 2001’’ with ‘‘from 2 p.m.through 7:30 p.m. on September 17,2001’’.

Dated: August 22, 2001.

W.J. Hutmacher,Captain, U.S. Coast Guard,Captain of thePort, Western Alaska.[FR Doc. 01–21833 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]




DEPARTMENT OF VETERANSAFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900–AK69

Duty To Assist

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends theDepartment of Veterans Affairs (VA)adjudication regulations to implementthe provisions of the Veterans ClaimsAssistance Act of 2000 (the VCAA),which was effective on November 9,2000. The intended effect of thisregulation is to establish clearguidelines consistent with the intent ofCongress regarding the timing and thescope of assistance VA will provide toa claimant who files a substantiallycomplete application for VA benefits orwho attempts to reopen a previouslydenied claim.DATES: Effective Date: This rule iseffective November 9, 2000, except forthe amendment to 38 CFR 3.156(a),which is effective August 29, 2001.

Applicability Dates: Except for theamendment to 38 CFR 3.156(a), thesecond sentence of 38 CFR 3.159(c), and38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(iii), the provisions ofthis final rule apply to any claim forbenefits received by VA on or afterNovember 9, 2000, as well as to anyclaim filed before that date but notdecided by VA as of that date. Theamendment to 38 CFR 3.156(a), thesecond sentence of 38 CFR 3.159(c), and38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(iii) apply to anyclaim to reopen a finally decided claimreceived on or after August 29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Janice Jacobs, Lead Consultant, StrategyDevelopment Staff, Compensation andPension Service, Veterans BenefitsAdministration, 810 Vermont Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20420, telephone(202) 273–7223.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In theVeterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000,Pub. L. 106–475 (the VCAA), Congressamended sections 5102 and 5103 ofTitle 38, United States Code, and addednew sections 5100 and 5103A,establishing new duties for VA in theclaims development and adjudicationprocess. Congress also amended section5107 by deleting the concept of a ‘‘well-grounded claim’’ previously containedin that section, while retaining theclaimant’s responsibility to present andsupport a claim for benefits. In section5103A(f) Congress stated that nothing insection 5103A was to be construed torequire VA to reopen a claim that has

been disallowed except when new andmaterial evidence is presented orsecured as described in section 5108.

In the Federal Register of April 4,2001 (66 FR 17834), VA published aproposal to amend 38 CFR 3.159 toimplement the VCAA. Interestedpersons were invited to submitcomments on or before May 4, 2001. Wereceived comments from variousorganizations and individuals,including the American Legion and theNational Veterans Legal ServicesProgram (jointly submitted); ParalyzedVeterans of America; Vietnam Veteransof America; Disabled AmericanVeterans; National Organization ofVeterans Advocates, Inc.; State ofFlorida Department of Veterans’ Affairs;the National Veterans Organization ofAmerica, Inc.; and other interestedpersons.

DefinitionsCompetent Medical Evidence and

Competent Lay Evidence. We proposedto define ‘‘competent medical evidence’’in § 3.159(a)(1) to mean evidenceprovided by a person who, througheducation, training, or experience, isqualified to offer medical diagnoses,statements or opinions. We proposedthat the term would include statementsconveying sound medical principlesfound in medical treatises, medical andscientific articles, and research reportsor analyses. We proposed to define‘‘competent lay evidence’’ in§ 3.159(a)(2) to mean evidence notrequiring that the person offering it havespecialized education, training, orexperience. We proposed that layevidence be competent if offered bysomeone who has knowledge of facts orcircumstances and conveys matters thatcan be described by a lay person.Accordingly, while a lay person wouldnot be competent or qualified to offermedical opinions or to diagnose amedical condition, a claimant or otherlay person would be competent todescribe symptoms of disabilityexperienced or observed in him/herselfor others. These definitions areconsistent with those discussed in thelegislative history of the VCAA, 146Cong. Rec. H9915 (daily ed. Oct. 17,2000) (explanatory statement on H.R.4864, as amended), and reflect existingcase law governing the VA claimsadjudication process.

One commenter stated that we shoulddelete these definitions as unnecessary.Other commenters objected to definingthese terms by regulation, stating that todo so may lead VA adjudicators to rejectevidence preliminarily at thedevelopment stage, or to become ‘‘miredin technical assessments of the

competency of the evidence.’’Consideration of the competency of theevidence is a necessary step inherent inthe adjudication process and one withwhich VA adjudicators are alreadyfamiliar. In our view, defining theseterms fosters a consistent application ofthese concepts in the adjudicationprocess, and ensures that a claimant islikewise aware of the types and natureof evidence that will help substantiate aclaim. Therefore, we have retained thesedefinitions in the regulatory language.

Two of these same commenters stated,alternatively, that because anassessment of the competency of theevidence should always be a part ofVA’s decision-making process, theinclusion of the word ‘‘competent’’ inthe regulatory definition was thereforeredundant. As previously stated, webelieve there is value in including thisdefinition in the regulatory language sothat the claimant understands how thisterm, used by Congress in the VCAAand discussed in the legislative historyof the Act, is applied to the evidencereceived by VA in support of a claim.

Another commenter suggested that werevise the definition to state thatcompetent lay or medical evidence mustalso be ‘‘credible.’’ The VCAA refers tocompetent evidence in the context ofdetermining when a VA medicalexamination or medical opinion isnecessary. It does not require that theevidence also be credible. Moreover,credibility is what a VA decisionmakerdetermines in weighing the competentevidence of record. It is not arequirement to be met in order forevidence to be considered competent.Therefore, we have made no change tothe proposed regulatory language basedon this comment.

With particular respect to theproposed definition of ‘‘competentmedical evidence,’’ one commenterthought the inclusion of medicaltreatises and other similar authoritativemedical writings resulted in an overlybroad definition that would lead VAdecisionmakers to misuse thesematerials by relying on them to deny aclaim. However, VA intentionallybroadened this definition to encompassthese materials for the benefit of theclaimant who may want to submit suchmaterials, which are commonly foundon the Internet or from other sources, insupport of a claim. VA adjudicatorshave always had access to authoritativemedical writings, such as Dorland’sMedical Dictionary and the MerckManual, as aids in deciding claims. Infact, 38 CFR 4.130, the schedule ofratings for mental disorders, specificallyincorporates the American PsychiatricAssociation’s Diagnostic and Statistical



Manual of Mental Disorders, FourthEdition, (DSM IV) and refers to its useas the basis for the schedule’snomenclature and diagnostic criteria. Inour view, both VA and the claimantbenefit from the claimant’s awarenessthat ‘‘competent medical evidence’’includes such materials and that he orshe may rely upon them to support aclaim. Therefore, no change to theregulatory language has been madebased on this comment.

Regarding the proposed definition ofcompetent lay evidence specifically, onecommenter suggested that the regulationshould provide that VA would acceptany lay statement as credible unlessrebutted by affirmative evidence. Thissuggestion reflects the manner in whichVA treated lay evidence on the issue ofservice incurrence in determiningwhether a claim was well grounded. Inpre-VCAA procedures, lay evidence wasgenerally accepted as credible for thepurpose of meeting the evidentiarythreshold well-grounded-claimrequirement of showing that there wassome evidence of an event, injury, ordisease in service. Nonetheless, when awell-grounded claim was considered onits merits, VA claim proceduresrequired that the decisionmakerconsider all the evidence of record,assigning appropriate weight to both thelay and medical evidence. We note, aswell, that if VA were to accept anyclaimant’s statement as true on its faceto establish the existence of an in-service event, injury or disease, withoutconsidering the veteran’s service recordsand other evidence, this practice wouldconflict with the intent of 38 U.S.C.1154(b). Under section 1154(b), in thecase of a combat veteran, VA mustaccept satisfactory lay evidence ofservice incurrence or aggravation of aninjury or disease alleged to have beenincurred or aggravated in combatservice, if such lay evidence isconsistent with the circumstances,conditions, or hardships of this combatservice even if there is no official recordof such incurrence or aggravation. Topermit every claimant, whether or nothe or she served in combat, and whetheror not the claimed injury is combat-related, to be able to establish in-serviceincurrence or aggravation based on theclaimant’s lay statement alone wouldnullify the meaning of section 1154(b).For all of these reasons, we have madeno change to the regulatory languagebased on these comments.

Another commenter wanted us tomake clear that lay evidence includesstatements from the claimant. Not everyclaimant is a lay person, however;claims for benefits are also filed byphysicians and nurses and their

statements might qualify as competentmedical evidence. Therefore, we havenot made the change to the proposedregulatory language suggested by thiscomment.

One commenter stated that theregulation should indicate that layevidence may be considered as partiallycompetent so that a VA decisionmakerwill not disregard a lay statement in itsentirety if it should also happen tocontain a medical opinion which wouldnot be considered competent medicalevidence. We decline to make anychange in the proposed regulatorylanguage based on this commentbecause VA decisionmakers are alreadyobligated to consider all the evidence ofrecord, both lay and medical, whendeciding a claim. This would requireVA adjudicators to consider thoseportions of the lay evidence submittedthat are competent. Amending theregulation as suggested by this commentwould result in an unnecessaryredundancy.

Substantially Complete Application.We proposed to define a ‘‘substantiallycomplete application’’ for benefits in§ 3.159(a)(3) as one that contains theclaimant’s name; his or her relationshipto the veteran, if applicable; serviceinformation, if applicable; the benefitclaimed and any medical conditions onwhich it is based; and the claimant’ssignature. If applicable, as in claims fornonservice-connected disability ordeath pension, and parents’ dependencyand indemnity compensation, weproposed that a substantially completeapplication must also include astatement of income. This information isgenerally sufficient for VA to identifythe benefit claimed, and determinewhether the claimant is potentiallyeligible for it. This is basic informationVA needs in order to inform a claimantof the types of information and evidencethat would be required to substantiate aclaim.

One commenter suggested that weclarify the requirement of ‘‘serviceinformation’’ to state, instead,‘‘sufficient service information for theVA to verify the duration and characterof the claimed service, if applicable.’’This commenter stated that such achange would reflect VA’s duty to assistthe claimant in verifying service lest thelanguage of the regulation be interpretedto mean that the claimant has the soleresponsibility of establishing qualifyingservice. This is a reasonable suggestionand reflects current VA procedure.Therefore, the proposed regulatorydefinition of a ‘‘substantially completeapplication’’ in § 3.159(a)(3) has beenchanged to require ‘‘sufficient

information for VA to verify the claimedservice, if applicable.’’

Another commenter objected to theproposed requirement that asubstantially complete applicationidentify the benefit sought, on thegrounds that it should be VA’s burdento determine all the benefits to which aclaimant is entitled. Under section5107(a), it is the claimant’sresponsibility to present and support aclaim for benefits. Requiring a claimantto identify the benefit sought is anecessary prerequisite for VA to informa claimant of the information andevidence necessary to substantiate theclaim for that benefit. Therefore, nochange to the proposed regulatorylanguage has been made based on thiscomment.

Another commenter indicated that thecurrent application form, VA Form 21–526, Veteran’s Application forCompensation or Pension, is too long,and that instead of defining‘‘substantially complete application,’’VA should revise VA Form 21–526. Thisform is designed to elicit moreinformation than is required to file asubstantially complete application forbenefits. However, if it was completedin its entirety by the claimant, theinformation on the form would enableVA to immediately begin developmentof the claim because it requests theidentity of all relevant evidenceincluding medical treatment records.VA would not then be required to senda letter to the claimant seeking toidentify relevant records as it must doif the claimant submits only theminimal information necessary to file asubstantially complete application. Thissame commenter noted that therequirement in the regulation for thesignature of the claimant is at odds withthe new Veterans On-Line ApplicationProcess (VONAPP), a recent initiative ofVA, in which the agency acceptsapplications from claimants via theInternet. Currently, VA still requires asignature from the claimant inconjunction with such applications,although it is working cooperativelywith other agencies on establishingsecure on-line signature procedures.Therefore, we have not deleted thisdefinition per this commenter’ssuggestion.

Event In Service. We proposed todefine the term ‘‘event’’ in § 3.159(a)(4)to mean a ‘‘potentially harmfuloccurrence,’’ such as would beassociated with a particular dutyassignment or place of duty becausethere are circumstances in service otherthan an injury or disease that, under 38U.S.C. 1110, could meet the criteria ofan ‘‘incurrence’’ in service for



establishing entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits.Nonetheless, some commenters assertedthat the definition could be used towinnow out claims when, in theopinion of the VA decisionmaker, thein-service event is not perceived as‘‘potentially harmful.’’ One commenterstated that any occurrence in servicecould be seen as ‘‘potentially harmful.’’

We agree that many events in servicecould be seen as potentially harmful,and that the assessment of whether anevent in service was harmful isnecessarily a retrospective one. Thedefinition of ‘‘event’’ was intended to beexpansive and liberal, not limiting. Asreflected in the SupplementaryInformation accompanying the proposedrule, we believed the term couldencompass such ‘‘events’’ as exposure toenvironmental hazards as well as suchactivities as parachute jumping or beinga forward observer, although theseevents did not result in a specific injuryor disease or aggravation of a pre-existing condition while in service. Inour view, it is helpful for a claimant tounderstand that actual treatment inservice for a medical condition is not anabsolute requirement to establishservice connection, and we see utility indefining this term for the claimant. Toensure its expansive interpretation, wehave revised the proposed regulatorylanguage to state: ‘‘For purposes ofparagraph (c)(4)(i), ‘event’ means ‘one ormore incidents associated with places,types, and circumstances of servicegiving rise to disability.’ ’’ Thisdefinition is derived from the languageof section 1154(a) which provides thatin claims for service-connectedcompensation, consideration will begiven to the ‘‘places, types, andcircumstances of such veteran’s serviceas shown by such veteran’s servicerecord, the official history of eachorganization in which such veteranserved, such veteran’s medical records,and all pertinent medical and layevidence . . .’’ This definition wouldpermit a VA decisionmaker to considerany number of events, includingexposures to environmental hazards asan event in service that could have ledto the claimed disability for which theveteran seeks compensation.

Information. Some questions havebeen raised about the meaning of theterm ‘‘information,’’ which appears inthe VCAA with respect to theinformation necessary to complete anapplication and the information andevidence necessary to substantiate aclaim. Although the VCAA itself doesnot define the term, its legislativehistory gives guidance as to whatCongress intended the term to mean.

The history suggests that Congress wasreferring to non-evidentiary facts thatare necessary to complete an applicationor to substantiate claim. See 146 Cong.Rec. H9914, H9914 (daily ed. Oct. 17,2000) (identifying Social Securitynumber and addresses as types of‘‘information’’ necessary to substantiatea claim). We have defined the termaccordingly in § 3.159(a)(5).

VA’s Duty To Notify Claimants ofNecessary Information or Evidence ToSubstantiate a Claim

We proposed in § 3.159(b)(1) that, ifVA receives an application for benefitsthat is substantially complete, VAwould notify the claimant of theinformation and medical or lay evidencerequired to substantiate the claim. Asexplained in the SupplementaryInformation, it is clear from thelegislative history of the VCAA thatCongress intended the notice to informthe claimant of the type of medicalevidence required, such as diagnoses oropinions as well as the type of layevidence that could be used tosubstantiate the claim. We furtherproposed that the notice would alsoinform the claimant which informationand evidence the claimant is to provideand which information and evidenceVA will attempt to obtain on theclaimant’s behalf. This proposedregulatory language mirrored theprovisions in section 5103A.

We received a comment stating thatthe regulation should require VA, at thepoint in time when any evidence hasbeen received in a claim forcompensation benefits, to determinewhether that evidence satisfies anecessary element of the claim and soadvise the claimant. We decline torevise the regulation to accommodatethis suggestion; such a regulatoryrequirement would necessitate multiplereviews of a single claim and isadministratively unworkable. It would,moreover, increase the time it takes todecide a single claim, contributing tothe backlog of claims that awaitprocessing. The intent of Congress, asindicated in the plain language of theVCAA and in the legislative history, isthat VA advise a claimant as to theevidence and information necessary tosubstantiate a claim once VA receives asubstantially complete application.There is no indication that Congressintended that VA review each claim andadvise the claimant every time anyevidence relevant to it is received.When a decision is reached on a claim,the rating decision document will citeall relevant evidence obtained andconsidered, as well as any relevantevidence not obtained or considered.

That rating decision document is sharedwith the claimant as part of ournotification procedures.

Some commenters stated that theregulation should provide for multiplenotices to claimants of the informationand evidence required to be submittedby them. We have made no changebased on this suggestion becausemultiple notices would also beadministratively unworkable.Development of evidence is a sharedresponsibility, with the claimant havingthe responsibility to present andsupport a claim for benefits. 38 U.S.C.5107(a). If VA provides a clear andunderstandable notice to the claimant ofwhat information and evidence isnecessary to substantiate the claim, andwhat portion of that information andevidence VA will try to obtain, andwhat portion the claimant is required toprovide, we believe we have satisfiedour statutory duty. The notice will alsoprovide the claimant with a phonenumber to reach the VA employeesactually handling the claim, and theclaimant can easily contact VA if he orshe has additional concerns orquestions.

Other commenters stated that thisregulatory provision should state inmore specific detail what will berequired to be contained in every noticeto the claimant on what is needed toestablish entitlement for an individualclaim. It is neither reasonable noradministratively feasible to require byregulation the level of specificityadvocated by these commenters. Thestatutory notice required by the VCAAoccurs at an early point in the claimsprocess when the claimant often has notyet identified the evidence andinformation relevant to the claim, andVA does not yet know what kinds ofspecific evidence to try to obtain onbehalf of the claimant. Without knowingwhat this evidence is, VA cannot advisethe claimant as to whose responsibilityit will be to obtain it. VA attempts to beas specific as it can in these notices.However, the content of VA’s notice tothe claimant depends on the amount ofinformation and evidence VA alreadyhas regarding an individual claim, andcannot precisely be defined byregulation. Therefore, we have made nochange to the proposed regulatorylanguage based on these comments.

Another commenter stated that theregulation should specifically state thatthe notice required under section5103(a) will be sent to the claimantbefore a decision on the claim has beenmade. We agree and have changed thelanguage of § 3.159(b)(1) to state that VAwill send the required statutory notice‘‘When VA receives a complete or



substantially complete application forbenefits,’’ rather than ‘‘If VA receives’’this application.

One commenter stated that theregulation should require VA to tell theclaimant a date certain for thesubmission of requested informationand evidence. It has always been VA’spractice to advise the claimant that heor she has one year to submit requestedinformation or evidence, although it wasrequesting that the claimant submit theinformation or evidence within a shorterperiod of time. This procedure enablesVA to take action on the claim asquickly as possible. There are no plansto change this procedure; VA willcontinue to advise a claimant that he orshe has one year to submit requestedevidence, as indicated in § 3.159(b)(1) ofthe regulation. Additionally, we havenot revised the proposed regulatorylanguage to reflect the period of time inwhich VA will request that the claimantsubmit the requested information orevidence, because VA would like toretain the flexibility to vary the timeframe it currently specifies if in thefuture it is appropriate to do so.

One commenter stated that theregulation should provide that if VAreceives evidence that is inadequate tosubstantiate the claim, VA shouldcontact the claimant and give him or herthe opportunity to correct theinadequacy or bolster the evidence. Inour view, the regulatory languageensures that, with the claimant’scooperation, VA will have all theevidence relevant to the claim before itat the time a decision is made on theclaim. Whether all of this relevantevidence is sufficient to substantiate theclaim is a determination that is notmade until the claim is adjudicated. Ifall relevant evidence was obtained andconsidered but it is insufficient toestablish entitlement, VA issues a ratingdecision that informs the claimant of thereason(s) why entitlement was notestablished. The claimant has theopportunity to appeal the decision if itis unfavorable, which gives the claimantthe opportunity to present additionalevidence to support the appeal. Thisprocedure is consistent with long-standing adjudication practice whichwas not altered by the VCAA. Therefore,no change to the regulatory language hasbeen made based on this comment.

Mirroring the statutory language insection 5103(b), we proposed in§ 3.159(b)(1) that, if VA does not receivethe information and evidence requestedfrom the claimant within one year of thedate of the notice to the claimant, VAcannot pay or provide any benefitsbased on that application. We proposedthat VA would give a claimant a

reasonable period of time to respond tothe request for information or evidence,and if the claimant fails to respond, VAmay decide the claim based on all theinformation and evidence of record.Some decisions would be grants ofbenefits while some decisions would bedenials of benefits. We stated at§ 3.159(b) that if the claimantsubsequently submitted the requestedinformation or evidence within one yearof the date of VA’s request for it, VAwould make another decision. We notethat if such new information orevidence warrants a VA examination orfurther development, VA would takewhatever action is necessary toreconsider the claim on this newinformation or evidence.

A number of commenters objected tothis proposed provision for variousreasons. Some commenters felt thatVA’s failure to wait one full year for aclaimant to respond to a request forinformation or evidence woulddiscourage claimants from submittingthe requested evidence. This isspeculation that VA’s long-standingclaims process does not corroborate. Inour experience, claimants are generallycooperative with VA’s efforts to helpthem substantiate their claims, andrespond to VA requests for informationas quickly as possible, and usuallywithin the suggested time frame fordoing so.

Other commenters interpreted section5103(b) to provide that VA is prohibitedfrom deciding a claim without waitingfor one full year for information orevidence requested from the claimant.We believe such an interpretation isunreasonable and would clearlycontravene the intent of the VCAA.Section 5103(b) is essentially aneffective date provision governing theearliest date from which benefits may bepaid if a claimant submits requestedinformation and evidence. If interpretedas preventing VA from taking awardaction until the one year period expired,VA would be unable to grant a benefitwhen the claimant has not responded toa request for information or evidence,even though VA has obtained evidenceestablishing that the claimant is entitledto that benefit. Moreover, the procedureas proposed is identical to the mannerin which VA had adjudicated claims formany years prior to the VCAA andMorton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999),remanded sub nom. Morton v. Gober,243 F.3d 557 (Fed. Cir. 2000), opinionwithdrawn and appeal dismissed, 14Vet. App. 174, the court decision thatled to the passage of the VCAA. It is aprocedure familiar to veterans’ serviceorganizations and other veterans’advocates. Moreover, it is a procedure

that is responsive to the interests ofCongress as well as veterans’ advocatesin improving the timeliness of VAclaims processing. It is our experiencethat once evidence is not received inresponse to a request for it, extendingthe time period does not improve thechances of receiving it. Therefore, nochange to the proposed regulatorylanguage has been made based on thesecomments.

However, we have made one changefrom the proposed rule. Rather thanallowing VA to proceed to decide aclaim if the claimant has not responded‘‘within a reasonable period of time’’ toa request for information or evidence ora request for any pertinent evidence inthe claimant’s possession, the final rulewill allow VA to proceed to decide theclaim if the claimant has not responded‘‘within 30 days’’ of such requests.Specifying the period in which aclaimant may respond before VA maydecide the claim allows every claimantto know in advance the minimum timehe or she will have to respond to VA’srequest. This rule will not require VA todecide a claim 30 days after its requestif the claimant has not responded. Itwill merely allow VA to proceed on theclaim. Furthermore, a claimant need notnecessarily provide the evidence andinformation necessary to substantiatethe claim within 30 days. A claimantwould, however, be required to‘‘respond’’ in some fashion to VA’srequest in order to have VA delayfurther action on the claim to give theclaimant time to procure and submit therequested information and evidence.Such a response could merely requestVA to wait beyond the 30-day periodwhile the claimant attempts to gatherevidence.

One commenter stated that VA shoulddecide a claim without waiting for oneyear only if the claimant has fullyresponded to the request for informationor evidence, or if VA is granting theclaim. We agree that if VA can grant theclaim based on the evidence of recordit has obtained without the informationor evidence requested from theclaimant, it should do so as quickly aspossible, and this regulation isconsistent with such action. To clarifythat this evidence may include VAmedical examinations or opinions, wehave revised the regulatory language at§ 3.159(b)(1) to state that VA’s decisionon the claim would be based on all‘‘information and evidence contained inthe file, including information andevidence it has obtained on behalf of theclaimant and any VA medicalexaminations or medical opinions.’’

However, nothing in the VCAAexpressly requires that VA keep a claim



pending when the claimant has failed torespond to requests for information orevidence within 30 days. The duty toassist is not ‘‘always a one-way street’;the claimant cannot passively wait forVA’s assistance in circumstances wherehe or she may or should haveinformation that is essential to obtainingsupporting evidence. Zarycki v. Brown,6 Vet. App. 91 (1993); Wamhoff v.Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517 (1996).Nonetheless, in cases where theclaimant has failed to respond, VA’scase management system encouragespersonal phone contacts with theclaimant during which the veteransservice center representative can obtainby phone the information requested ofthe claimant. The case managementprocess also ensures that VA does nottake any action on a claim without firstinforming the claimant of what it needsto decide the claim, and this assuranceis reflected in the regulatory language at§ 3.159(b)(1).

Even in cases where a claimant failsto respond to VA’s request forinformation and evidence, and the claimis denied based on the other evidence ofrecord, the claimant still has anotherone year after the notification of thedenial to appeal the denial of the claim.At that time, he or she has anotheropportunity to submit the requestedevidence or new evidence. In addition,the claimant has a right to two de novoreviews of the claim, one by a DecisionReview Officer and another by theBoard of Veterans’ Appeals. In our view,the claimant suffers no prejudice fromthis long-standing practice of deciding aclaim based on the evidence of recordwhen the claimant has failed to timelyrespond to requests for information orevidence. Therefore, we havemaintained the proposed languagecodifying this procedure. However, wehave revised the proposed language toclarify that the one-year deadlineapplies to both the information andevidence necessary to substantiate theclaim and that the claimant is toprovide, as well as to the evidence inthe claimant’s possession that pertainsto the claim.

A comment from one serviceorganization stated that this regulationfailed to recognize that under § 3.156(b)and § 20.1304(b), evidence submitted inconnection with an appeal will beconsidered in connection with the claimon appeal even if it was not receivedwithin one year of the date VArequested it. We recognize that there isa potential conflict between §§ 3.156(b)and 20.1304(b) and section 5103(b)(1)and proposed § 3.159(b)(1). A possibletechnical amendment to section5103(b)(1), which would eliminate the

potential conflict, is being considered. Ifthe amendment does not materialize,VA will have to address theimplications section 5103(b)(1) has for§§ 3.156(b) and 20.1304(b).

One commenter stated that if VAdecides a claim less than one year fromthe time it requests information orevidence from a claimant, the claimantmay confuse the one-year time period inwhich to submit requested informationor evidence with the one year timeperiod allowed by statute for theclaimant to file an appeal. See 38 U.S.C.7105. The one-year time periods aremandated by statute, and VA cannotalter them by regulation. Therefore, nochange to the regulatory language hasbeen made based on this comment.

Several commenters argued for a‘‘good cause’’ exception for extendingthe statutory one year time period for aclaimant to submit requestedinformation or evidence, toaccommodate claimants who are‘‘seriously disabled,’’ mentallyincompetent or who have otherhardships caused by poverty, lack ofaccess to transportation, or remotenessof domicile. Two commenters cited thedifficulty experienced by claimants whotry to obtain service medical records tosubmit to VA as the basis for a goodcause exception. We have made nochange to the proposed regulatorylanguage to accommodate such anexception. There is no statutoryauthority permitting VA to create suchan exception. Section 5103(b)(1) statesthat if VA does not receive theinformation or evidence to be providedby a claimant ‘‘within one year from thedate of such notification, no benefit maybe paid or furnished’’ based on thatapplication. The statutory schemecreated by Congress places significantduties on VA to obtain the evidencerelevant to a claim. However, the VCAAreiterated that it is the claimant’s dutyto present and support a claim forbenefits, including the duty to submitinformation and evidence as designatedby VA in its statutory notice to theclaimant. Clearly, Congress envisionedone year to be an adequate amount oftime for the claimant to cooperate withVA’s efforts by submitting requestedinformation or evidence. Thisinformation or evidence would includesuch things as a stressor statement in aclaim for compensation for PTSD, or thename and address of treatingphysicians. We also note in response tothe commenters who cited the difficultyof obtaining service medical records thatin a compensation claim it is theresponsibility of VA rather than theclaimant to obtain those records if they

are relevant to the claim and maintainedor held by a governmental entity.

Duty To Inform a Claimant When AnApplication Is Incomplete

We proposed in § 3.159(b)(2) that, ifVA receives an incomplete applicationin which the claimant has failed toprovide the minimal informationrequired to permit VA to begindevelopment of the claim, we woulddefer assistance until the claimantsubstantially completed the application.This provision is plainly consistent withsection 5103A(a)(3). Nevertheless,several commenters objected to thisproposed language, reflecting amisunderstanding that VA would denyclaims contained in an incompleteapplication. As the regulatory languageclearly reflects, VA will defer assistanceon incomplete applications, not denythem. Therefore, no change to theregulatory language based on thesecomments has been made.

General Rule; VA’s Duty To Assist aClaimant in Obtaining Evidence

We proposed in § 3.159(c)(1) that VAwill make reasonable efforts to help aclaimant obtain relevant records fromnon-Federal-agency sources includingrecords from private medical careproviders, current or former employers,and other non-Federal governmentsources. We also proposed to retain theprior language of § 3.159 providing thatVA will not pay any fees charged by acustodian of the records.

One commenter stated that VA shouldrequest congressional authorization topay for costs associated with obtainingprivate medical records, a suggestionthat is beyond the scope of thisrulemaking. Other commenters statedthat VA should budget funds to pay forprivate medical records, also an issuethat is beyond the scope herein. Twocommenters stated that VA should makean exception and pay for private recordsfor claimants who are destitute ormentally incompetent. Because VA hasno statutory authority to expend fundsin this manner, we cannot create theexceptions suggested by thesecomments.

Consistent with the language ofsection 5103A(b)(1), we proposed inparagraphs (1)(i) and (2)(i) of § 3.159(c)that the claimant must adequatelyidentify any Federal and non-Federalrecords, providing enough informationto enable VA to request them. Weproposed that the claimant shouldidentify the custodian of the records, theapproximate time frame covered bythem, and in the case of medicaltreatment records, the condition forwhich treatment was provided. One



commenter stated that to require aclaimant to identify the custodian of therecords would be ‘‘undulyburdensome.’’ One commenter cited thedifficulty this may present for claimantswith memory problems. Thiscommenter stated that the claimantshould be required to give VA onlyenough information to allow VA topursue retrieval of the records. We agreethat VA needs only enough informationto try to retrieve the record, but believethat the identity of the custodian of therecord is critical and reasonableinformation to request of the claimant.It would be very impractical andinefficient for VA to try to obtainrecords without knowing who has them.Therefore, no change to the proposedregulatory language requiring theclaimant to identify who has custody ofthe records has been made based on thiscomment.

One commenter objected to thelanguage of the regulation at§ 3.159(c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i), and (c)(3) thatprovides that a claimant’s failure toadequately identify existing records‘‘may result in a denial of the benefitsought.’’ In this commenter’s view, thislanguage would encourage adjudicators‘‘to think in terms of denial of theclaim’’ particularly because of theregulatory authority in § 3.159(b)(1)providing that VA may decide a claimon the evidence of record if a claimantfails to timely respond to a request forinformation or evidence. Although thisproposed regulatory language reflects aprocedure that has been in place formany years, long before the well-grounded claim process, we havedeleted those sentences in§ 3.159(c)(1)(i) and (ii), (c)(2)(i) and (ii),(c)(3), and (e)(2) because they areunnecessary and state the obvious.

We also proposed that VA will assistclaimants by requesting relevant recordsin the custody of a Federal agency ordepartment. One commenter stressedthat VA should limit such requests toonly relevant records. The proposedlanguage already contained such alimitation, and we decline to make anychanges to the regulatory language thatwould result in a redundancy. The samecommenter suggested that VA shouldlimit the number of requests it makes forFederal records. However, such asuggestion directly contravenes theexpress language of section 5103A(b)(3),requiring VA to continue to attempt toobtain these records unless it isreasonably certain that they do not existor until further efforts to obtain themwould be futile. Therefore, we havemade no change to the proposed rule tolimit these efforts to a specific numberof attempts. One commenter suggested

that VA should define the word ‘‘futile’’by regulation. However, the proposedregulatory language at § 3.159(c)(2) gaveexamples of circumstances in which VAmay conclude that further efforts wouldbe futile and in our view there is noneed to further define suchcircumstances.

One commenter stated that theregulation should contain a ‘‘good faithextension’’ of the one-year time periodto secure Federal records; however,there is no such one year time period inthe VCAA and the inclusion of a goodfaith exception is unnecessary becauseVA is obligated to make repeated effortsto secure Federal records, which istantamount to ‘‘good faith efforts.’’

VA’s Duty To Notify a Claimant of ItsInability to Obtain Records

When VA is unable to obtain relevantrecords after making reasonable effortsto do so, section 5103A(b)(2) requiresVA to (1) notify the claimant that it isunable to obtain relevant records, (2)identify the records it cannot obtain, (3)briefly explain the efforts it made toobtain them, and (4) describe anyfurther action VA will take with respectto the claim. In the case of requests fornon-Federal agency or departmentrecords, we proposed in § 3.159(e)(1)that VA would provide the claimantwith written or oral notice of itsinability to obtain them at the time itmakes its final request for them. In thecase of requests for non-Federal agencyor department records, VA proposedthat it would provide oral or writtennotice after VA is reasonably certainthat the records do not exist or thatfurther efforts to try to obtain themwould be futile.

We received several commentsobjecting to the proposal to provide oralnotice to claimants when VA is unableto obtain records as proposed in§ 3.159(e). Some commenters stated thata message conveyed orally is moresubject to misunderstanding by aclaimant than a message conveyed byletter, and suggested that claimantsprefer contact by letter. However, inVA’s 2000 Survey of Veterans’Satisfaction with the VA Compensationand Pension Claims Process, 43.0percent of respondents who werecontacted by phone about their claimindicated they were ‘‘very satisfied ‘‘with the claims process. Only 28.3percent of the respondents who werenot contacted by phone stated that theywere ‘‘very satisfied’’ with the process.In response to another survey question,31.8 percent of the respondents statedthat they preferred phone contact withVA during the claims process whereasonly 15.9 percent stated they preferred

mail contact. We believe these datasupport VA’s decision to increase use ofthe phone to expedite the claimsprocess; not only is it practical, butclaimants prefer it. In our experience,phone contacts facilitate cooperationbetween VA and the claimant and affordclaimants the opportunity to askquestions about their claims, includingthe status of VA’s efforts to obtainrelevant records. While not all claimantsare available by phone during normalbusiness hours, VA has found that whenphone communications are successful,claim processing is expedited,benefiting both VA and the claimant.Ultimately, however, the decision onwhether to communicate with aclaimant by phone, letter, or othermeans such as e-mail or facsimile isbased on the availability of the claimantand the resources of the VA regionaloffice handling the claim. Thisregulatory language is intended toensure the flexibility needed forefficient, modern claims processing.

Moreover, nothing in the VCAAprecludes oral notice. In fact, thelegislative history of the VCAA showsthat Congress sought to accommodateVA’s plans to expand its options forcommunicating with claimants beyondthe written letter format. The legislativehistory of the VCAA shows thatCongress intentionally removed thewords ‘‘in person or in writing’’ fromformer 38 U.S.C. 5102 with respect tothe notice VA must give a claimantwhen the claimant has not submitted asubstantially complete application. 146Cong. Rec. H9913, H9914 (daily ed. Oct17, 2000) (explanatory statement onH.R. 4864, as amended). The removal ofthis language was intended to ‘‘permitveterans and VA to use current andfuture modes of communication.’’ Thus,VA’s proposal to use oralcommunication is consistent withcongressional intent.

Other commenters objected to theproposal to provide oral notice becausethey perceived there would be nowritten documentation of this notice.However, VA does make a record ofsuch oral contacts. VA’s casemanagement system uses a ClaimsAutomated Processing System (CAPS), asophisticated electronic developmentand notice tracking system. Any writtenor oral contact with a claimant isdocumented by date and subject matterof the communication. Alternatively,when appropriate, VA standardprocedure requires that oralconversations with a claimant bememorialized in writing, a procedurefrom which VA has no intention todeviate. See Veterans BenefitsAdministration’s Adjudication



Procedures Manual M21–1, Part III,¶11.17. Therefore we have added aprovision to § 3.159(e) to require VA tomake a record of any oral noticeconveyed to the claimant.

One commenter stated that theregulation should provide that if VAlearns that a requested medical recordno longer exists, after making reasonableefforts to obtain it, the claimant’s layevidence should be accepted as credibleevidence in its place. Because aclaimant, if a lay person, is notcompetent to provide medical evidence,we decline to make the changesuggested by this comment.

Medical Examinations and MedicalOpinions at VA Expense

Under section 5103A(d)(1), VA mustprovide a medical examination or obtaina medical opinion in compensationclaims ‘‘when such an examination oropinion is necessary to make a decisionon the claim.’’ Section 5103A(d)(2)provides that an examination or opinionis ‘‘necessary’’ if the evidence of record,considering all the information and layor medical evidence, includingstatements of the claimant: (1) Containscompetent evidence that the claimanthas a current disability or persistent orrecurrent symptoms of disability; and(2) indicates that the disability orsymptoms may be associated with theclaimant’s military service; but (3) doesnot contain sufficient medical evidenceto decide the claim.

We proposed to implement section5103A(d)(2) by providing in§ 3.159(c)(4)(i) that, in claims fordisability compensation, VA wouldprovide an examination or obtain amedical opinion if, after completing itsduty to assist a claimant in obtainingrecords from Federal agency and non-Federal agency sources, the evidence ofrecord does not contain sufficientcompetent medical evidence to decidethe claim, but: (1) Contains competentlay or medical evidence of a currentdiagnosed disability or of persistent orrecurrent symptoms of disability; (2)establishes that the veteran suffered anevent, injury or disease in service; and(3) indicates that the claimed disabilityor symptoms may be associated with theestablished event, injury or disease inservice or another service-connecteddisability.

Several commenters objected to thesimilarity between the proposedregulatory criteria for determining whena VA examination or opinion isnecessary and the former well-grounded-claim requirements. Althoughthe VCAA eliminated the need toestablish a well-grounded claim to beentitled to VA assistance, section

5103A(d)(2) specifies when anexamination or medical opinion will beconsidered necessary. Our regulatorycriteria are derived from thecorresponding statutory criteria atsection 5103A(d)(2). Any similaritybetween our regulatory criteria and theformer well-grounded-claimrequirements is due to the similaritybetween the statutory criteria and theformer well-grounded-claimrequirements. Therefore, no change wasmade to the proposed regulatorylanguage based on these comments.

One commenter stated that thisregulatory language should expresslystate that lay testimony may beconsidered when determining if amedical examination or medicalopinion is necessary to decide theclaim. Because the term ‘‘evidence’’ inthe proposed regulatory language at§ 3.159(c)(4) encompasses lay testimony,we decline to make the changesuggested by this comment. Anothercommenter stated that the‘‘information’’ of record should also beconsidered in determining whether amedical examination or medicalopinion was necessary. Accordingly, wehave added the term ‘‘information’’ tothe proposed regulatory language in§ 3.159(c)(4)(i) to state, ‘‘A medicalexamination or medical opinion isnecessary if the information or evidenceof record does not contain sufficientcompetent medical evidence to decidethe claim.’’

Another commenter suggested achange in the proposed regulatorylanguage at § 3.159(c)(4) to state that VAmust provide an examination or obtaina medical opinion where the ‘‘evidenceis inconclusive to establish serviceconnection.’’ However, the language ofsection 5103A(d)(2)(C) specifies that anexamination or medical opinion isnecessary when the record does notcontain sufficient medical evidence. Ifthe evidence lacking to establish serviceincurrence cannot be supplied by a VAexamination or medical opinion, thenproviding an examination or obtainingan opinion would not benefit the claim.Therefore, no change to the proposedregulatory language was made based onthis comment.

Several commenters objected to theproposed language requiring that theevidence of record establish that therewas an event, injury or disease inservice—the incurrence or aggravationelement for service connection. Insummary, these commenters felt thatthis criterion was too burdensome, andthat this determination should bepostponed until after a VA examinationhas been provided or a medical opinionobtained. Whether there was an injury

or disease in service, or an event leadingto injury or disease, is a finding of factmade by the VA decisionmaker. In ourview, it is unreasonable to require aclaimant to report for an unnecessaryVA examination or to ask a medicalexpert to review the record when theevidence that would result (theexamination report or medical opinion)would not be competent evidence of theincurrence or aggravation of a disease orinjury in service. In such cases, there isno reasonable possibility that theexamination would aid in substantiatingthe claim because it cannot provide themissing evidence. In the case of medicalopinion evidence, for instance, a doctorcannot link a current condition to aninjury or disease in service unless thatinjury or disease is shown to haveexisted. The evidence on this issue isindependent of the VA examination ormedical opinion. Therefore, no changehas been made to the regulatorylanguage to delete the criterion that theevidence establish an injury or diseasein service or an event leading to injuryor disease.

One commenter stated that evenwhere there is no evidence of an event,injury or disease in service, a VAexamination could establish theincurrence of an injury in some claims.The commenter offered as an examplethe case of a claim for compensation fora bone or muscle injury, for which adoctor could offer the opinion that acurrently diagnosed arthritis isconsistent with the veteran’s statementsdescribing a fall in service. However,this doctor’s opinion would address thenexus, or relationship, between thecurrent disability of arthritis and theclaimed injury in service; it would notestablish the underlying predicate issue,that is, whether the veteran, in fact, hada fall in service. This same commenterfurther stated that for disabilities thatare presumed under law to have beenincurred or aggravated in service basedon their manifestation during aspecified period after service, aphysician’s opinion could link thedisability to reported symptomsoccurring during the presumptiveperiod, thus establishing the existenceof the condition within the presumptiveperiod. VA agrees that, under thosecircumstances, a medical opinion couldlink the claimed presumptive disabilityto symptoms shown by other evidenceto have occurred during a presumptiveperiod. However, a medical opiniongiven after the presumptive periodcould not itself establish the presence ofsymptoms in the presumptive period.Section 3.307(c) ‘‘Prohibition of certainpresumptions’’ prevents VA from



accepting a physician’s opinion that apresumptive condition was present andmanifest to a compensable degreeduring an applicable presumptiveperiod based merely on the advancedstage of the current disability withoutother evidence of the condition duringservice or the presumptive period.Therefore, there would be no use inproviding an examination or obtainingan opinion in the absence of anyevidence of symptoms during thepresumptive period.

Another commenter stated that theSupplementary Informationaccompanying the proposed ruleassumed that only contemporaneousrecords such as service medical recordscould establish an in-service incurrenceof a disability, in disregard of theevidentiary value of lay testimony. Wehave revised the proposed regulatorylanguage to clarify that lay evidence canalso be considered in establishing thatan event, injury or disease occurred inservice. Under § 3.159(c)(4), VA willreview the ‘‘information and lay andmedical evidence of record’’ todetermine if an examination or medicalopinion is necessary to decide theclaim.

One commenter stated that in claimsfor secondary service connection, (for adisability caused or aggravated by aservice-connected condition), where theprimary condition is a presumptive one,there will be no evidence of an ‘‘event,injury or disease’’ in service that willmeet the regulatory requirement. Sincethe proposed regulatory languagespecifically provided for examinationsor medical opinions for secondaryservice connection conditions in§ 3.159(c)(4)(i)(C), we have made nochange based on this comment.

We received several comments on therequirement that the evidence of record‘‘indicate[ ]’’ that the claimed disabilityor symptoms ‘‘may be associated’’ withservice. Notably, neither Congress norVA in its proposed rule, required eithercompetent evidence or medicalevidence of such an association as aprerequisite to a VA examination ormedical opinion. VA proposed torequire only an indication by theevidence of record. Nonetheless, somecommenters misconstrued the proposedlanguage to require more. Othercommenters expressed the opinion thatthis regulatory language would requirethat the veteran ‘‘establish’’ that an in-service event caused his or her currentdisability. However, neither theproposed regulatory language nor theSupplementary Information stated thatthe claimant must provide suchevidence. In our view, the VCAA’s term,‘‘indicates,’’ is a clear signal of

Congress’ intent that the evidentiaryrecord need not definitively establishsuch an association or ‘‘nexus’’ betweencurrent disability and service; rather,the mere indication of such a possibleassociation based on all the informationand evidence of record would dictatethe necessity of a VA medicalexamination or opinion to clarify thisevidentiary point. Because theregulatory language proposed isconsistent with this interpretation, wemade no change to the regulation basedon these comments.

In § 3.159(c)(4)(ii), we statedcircumstances in which such anassociation with service may be shown,including continuity of symptoms afterdischarge from service, post-servicetreatment for a condition, or otherpossible association with service. Twocommenters stated that the examplesshould not include ‘‘evidence showingcontinuity of symptoms of a disabilitysince the veteran’s release from activeduty’’ because it is unnecessary in lightof the continuity provisions of§ 3.303(b). We agree, and have deletedthis language from the final rule.

Another commenter stated thatsymptoms of a presumptive conditionoccurring during a presumptive periodshould satisfy the statutory criteria thatthe evidence show that the currentcondition ‘‘may be associated’’ withservice. We agree that evidence ofsymptoms of a presumptive conditionmanifested to a compensable degreeduring a presumptive period would beevidence that a claimed presumptivecondition may be associated withservice. In such cases, a VA examinationmay be necessary to determine thedegree of disability caused by thepresumptive condition. When therecord shows evidence of symptoms ofa condition that may or may not be apresumptive one during an applicablepresumptive period, a VA medicalexamination or medical opinion wouldbe necessary because the medicalevidence is insufficient to determine ifthe symptoms are consistent with thecurrently diagnosed condition.

We have revised the regulatorylanguage at § 3.159(c)(4)(i)(B) to statethat VA will consider a medicalexamination or opinion necessary whenthe evidence of record does not containsufficient competent medical evidenceto decide the claim, but containscompetent lay or medical evidence of acurrent diagnosed disability orpersistent or recurrent symptoms ofdisability, and establishes that theveteran suffered an event, injury ordisease in service, or has a disease orsymptoms of a disease manifested

during an applicable presumptiveperiod.

Finally, one commenter stated thatthe regulation should expressly statethat a medical examination is notnecessary when sufficient medicalevidence has been submitted to decidethe claim. We have made no change tothe regulation based on this comment.The regulation states circumstances inwhich VA will be required to provide aVA medical examination or obtain amedical opinion. VA may certainlyschedule examinations in circumstancesother than those set forth in thisregulation; section 5103(g) states thatVA may provide more assistance thanrequired by statute. This regulation setsthe floor, not the ceiling for VAassistance in providing medicalexaminations or obtaining medicalopinions.

Circumstances Where VA Will RefrainFrom or Discontinue ProvidingAssistance

Section 5103A(a)(2) states that VA hasno duty to assist a claimant if or whenthere is no reasonable possibility thatVA assistance would help substantiatethe claim. We proposed to implementthat statutory provision in § 3.159(d) bystating that VA will refrain from ordiscontinue providing assistance whenthere is no reasonable possibility that itsassistance would substantiate a claim.We proposed three examples ofcircumstances in which VA will refrainfrom providing assistance: (1) When aclaimant applies for a benefit for whichhe or she is not legally eligible; (2) whena claimant asserts a claim that isinherently incredible or clearly lacksmerit; and (3) when a claimant claimsa benefit to which the claimant is notentitled as a matter of law. In somecases, VA’s determination that there isno reasonable possibility of VAassistance substantiating the claim maybe made on the face of a substantiallycomplete application. In other cases, thefutility of further assistance may notbecome apparent until some assistancehas been given. Therefore, we proposedthat VA will ‘‘discontinue’’ assistancewhen the evidence obtained indicatesthat there is no reasonable possibilitythat further assistance wouldsubstantiate the claim.

One commenter stated that there is noreason to define the statutory phrase,‘‘no reasonable possibility.’’ Wedisagree. The term is subject to varyinginterpretations, and it benefits both theclaimant and VA if VA defines the termand sets a standard.

One commenter objected to the firstcircumstance described, stating that itshould be VA’s duty to help the



claimant establish legal eligibility for abenefit if eligibility is not clear on theface of the application. As notedpreviously, we have amended thedefinition of a ‘‘substantially completeapplication’’ to indicate that it containsenough information for VA to verifyservice and character of discharge,which VA would need to determineeligibility. However, no amount of VAassistance can provide eligibility for abenefit to a claimant who is in factineligible. Therefore, we retain ourproposed rule that VA will refrain fromassisting to obtain evidence if theinformation on a substantially completeapplication indicates no reasonablepossibility that VA assistance willsubstantiate the claim because theclaimant is not legally eligible for thebenefit.

We also received comments to theproposed second circumstance, that is,when a claim is inherently incredible orclearly lacks merit. Some commentersfelt that VA would use this provision asa pretext to refuse assistance forpotentially meritorious claims. VA willnot do that. Some commenters statedthat certain mentally disabled claimantsmight assert claims that would seem‘‘inherently incredible’’ when inactuality these assertions may bemanifestations of their mental illness.The VCAA requires VA to notify aclaimant of the information andevidence necessary to substantiate aclaim in all claims for which asubstantially complete application hasbeen submitted, regardless of whetherVA is going to assist in obtainingevidence. If a VA decisionmakerdetermines that a claim is inherentlyincredible, the decisionmaker canrequest that the claimant submitinformation or evidence as provided bysection 5103(a) and § 3.159(b)(1) thatwould lead VA to conclude that itshould provide assistance tosubstantiate the claim. Moreover, theproposed rule would not preclude aclaimant from submitting informationand evidence that might lead VA tochange its determination that there is noreasonable possibility that VAassistance will help substantiate theclaim.

Other commenters felt that ‘‘clearlylacks merit’’ was too vague a term to beof useful guidance for either VA or aclaimant. Others stated objections to theterm ‘‘inherently incredible.’’ We haveretained both terms in the final rulebecause they are not mutually exclusiveand cover different circumstances. Itmay not be clear that a claim clearlylacks merit until VA has requested andreceived records relevant to the claim,whereas it may be appropriate to

conclude that a claim is inherentlyincredible on its face based merely onthe facts asserted in the claim or aftercertain development. On this sameissue, one service organizationcommented that we should consider astandard by which VA would provideassistance, ‘‘unless it can affirmativelydetermine that a medical expert couldnot find any association under currentmedical or scientific knowledge.’’ As asubstitute for ‘‘inherently incredible’’claims, we find merit in this suggestion,but believe that the standard, asphrased, may be construed to permit theVA adjudicator to apply his or her ownunsubstantiated medical opinion.Because this is contrary to long-standingveterans’ law principles, we have notrevised the final regulatory languagebased on this comment.

One commenter stated that the thirdcircumstance, ‘‘no entitlement under thelaw’’ should be deleted, asserting thatVA may develop such claims and comeup with evidence supportingentitlement under a new legal theory.We decline to make the change in theproposed regulatory language assuggested because this circumstanceencompasses claims for which there isno legal entitlement under any theory,such as claims for compensation for acongenital or developmental condition.

Reopened Claims and New andMaterial Evidence

The VCAA states that nothing insection 5103A ‘‘shall be construed torequire the Secretary to reopen a claimthat has been disallowed except whennew and material evidence is presentedor secured.’’ On the other hand, section5103(g) provides that nothing in section5103A precludes VA from providingsuch other assistance as the Secretaryconsiders appropriate. Accordingly, weproposed to provide limited assistanceto claimants trying to reopen finallydecided claims.

VA proposed that it would requestany existing records from Federalagencies or non-Federal agency sources,if reasonably identified by the claimant,in order to assist the claimant to reopenhis or her claim. In our view, suchassistance is appropriate because itcould be accomplished with minimaleffort and expense, although it would bea change from pre-VCAA procedures.These procedures arose from case lawthat required a claimant to first submitnew and material evidence sufficient toreopen a claim before VA could assist indeveloping additional evidence tosubstantiate it.

Given section 5103A(f)’s expresspreservation of the finality of VAdecisions, we proposed, however, to

provide less assistance in attempts toreopen final previously disallowedclaims than for original claims forcompensation. We proposed that VAwould not provide an examination orobtain a medical opinion to create newevidence that may or may not bematerial, given the substantial time,effort and expense involved in the VAexamination and medical opinionprocess. Some commenters objected tothis proposal on the grounds that itwould disadvantage persons whoseprevious claims were denied not on themerits but on the basis that they werenot well grounded, because many ofthese claimants may not have had theirclaims fully developed. However,claimants whose prior claims weredenied as not well grounded would notbe disadvantaged, since a claim that waspreviously denied as not well groundedshould be easy to reopen compared toa claim denied on the merits. If a claimwas denied as not well grounded, it wasdenied because of a lack of evidencerelating to a fact necessary to establisha claim. For example, a claim may havebeen denied as not well groundedbecause there was no competentevidence that a veteran has a currentdisability. If there were any competentevidence that the veteran did have acurrent disability, that evidence wouldconstitute new and material evidence,which would reopen the claim.

Some commenters stated that VAshould also provide a VA examinationor medical opinion to develop evidenceto reopen a claim. This regulationpresumes that a claim that was finallydecided on the merits had been fullydeveloped by VA, including a VAexamination or medical opinion wherenecessary, because under the provisionsof prior section 5107(a), VA had a dutyto assist a claimant who filed a well-grounded claim. In our view, it is morethan fair that VA impose some limit onthe expenditure of its finite resources insubsequent efforts to assist a claimantsubstantiate a claim after it has oncemade reasonable efforts to assist and theevidence failed to substantiate theclaim. Nevertheless, we have revised theproposed language of § 3.159(c)(4)(iii) toclarify that VA will consider providingan examination or obtaining a medicalopinion only if new and materialevidence is already presented orsecured.

We also proposed to change thedefinition of ‘‘new and materialevidence’’ in conjunction with VA’sproposal in § 3.159 to define whatactions it will take to assist a claimantin submitting evidence to reopen afinally denied claim. Severalcommenters objected to the proposed



change in definition on the grounds thatthe VCAA did not address this issue.However, in our view, it is helpful forthe claimant to understand the nature ofthe evidence that will reopen a claim, inlight of the fact that it will now be easierfor a claimant to reopen a claimbecause, unlike before, the claimantnow will have VA assistance inobtaining evidence that is potentiallynew and material. Therefore, we havenot withdrawn the proposed revision to§ 3.156 based on these comments.

We proposed to redefine ‘‘material’’evidence to mean ‘‘existing evidencethat relates specifically to the reasonwhy the claim was last denied.’’ Manycommenters felt this language was toorestrictive. We agree, and therefore haverevised the final regulatory language at§ 3.156(a) in a manner that moreaccurately conveys the meaningintended, to state that ‘‘Materialevidence means existing evidence that. . . relates to an unestablished factnecessary to substantiate the claim.’’

One commenter objected to theproposed definition because it did notprovide that VA would review anyevidence submitted as new and material‘‘in connection with evidencepreviously assembled.’’ This commenterstated that this omission may negativelyimpact claims where all the evidence ofrecord may lead to a differentconclusion on the issue of whether newand material evidence had beensubmitted, than does one piece ofevidence in isolation. We agree andhave changed the regulatory language tostate that ‘‘Material evidence meansexisting evidence that, by itself or whenconsidered with previous evidence ofrecord, relates to an unestablished factnecessary to substantiate the claim.’’

We also proposed that new andmaterial evidence ‘‘must raise areasonable possibility of substantiatingthe claim,’’ a requirement to whichseveral commenters objected. Withrespect to other claims for benefits, theVCAA provides that VA assistance isrequired unless there is no reasonablepossibility that this assistance wouldaid in substantiating the claim. Webelieve it is fair and reasonable to applythe same standard—that there be areasonable possibility that VAassistance would help substantiate theclaim—in determining whether a claimhas been reopened, triggering VA’s fullduty to assist by providing a VAexamination or obtaining a medicalopinion. Therefore, we have made nochange to the proposed regulatorylanguage based on these comments.

One commenter stated that theregulation should be revised to statespecifically that new and material

evidence could also be evidence thatsupports a different legal theory forentitlement. However, VA adjudicatorsare required to ‘‘grant[] every benefitthat can be supported in law,’’ under§ 3.103(a) which includes consideringall possible legal theories of entitlementin deciding a claim. The same standardwould apply in considering all legaltheories applicable to reopening a claim.Therefore, we have made no change tothe regulatory language based on thiscomment.

Additional Comments andAdministrative Procedure Act

One commenter stated that VA shouldconsider extending the comment periodfor another 30 days. We decline to doso. We are unaware of any commentsother than those submitted andreviewed in this document. Thesecomments were extensive and detailed.We have attempted to analyze thesecomments as quickly as possible toexpedite the development of this finalrule. As noted in the SupplementaryInformation accompanying the proposedrule, the United States Court of Appealsfor Veterans Claims has concluded thatthe Secretary’s authority to implementthe VCAA could be usurped by thecourt’s issuance of decisions as to theapplicability of the VCAA, and as aconsequence, judicial review of Board ofVeterans’ Appeals decisions on claimsaffected by the VCAA is nearing astandstill. Clearly, it is necessary toissue the final rule rather than extendthe comment period another 30 days.Further, for these reasons, we havefound good cause for not applying thedelayed effective date provisions of 5U.S.C. 553.

Another commenter suggested that weexpressly incorporate the ‘‘benefit of thedoubt’’ rule in § 3.159. However, since§ 3.102 already addresses this issue, andis not in conflict with § 3.159, wedecline to change the regulation assuggested.

Scope and ApplicabilityAs indicated by the proposal that

these regulations be contained in 38CFR part 3, this final rule applies onlyto claims for benefits that are governedby part 3. These benefits includecompensation, pension, dependencyand indemnity compensation, burialbenefits, monetary benefits ancillary tothose benefits, and special benefits.

These amendments are effectiveNovember 9, 2000, except for theamendment to 38 CFR 3.156(b), whichis effective August 29, 2001. Except forthe amendment to 38 CFR 3.156(a), thesecond sentence of 38 CFR 3.159(c), and38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(iii), the provisions of

this rule merely implement the VCAAand do not provide any rights other thanthose provided by the VCAA. Therefore,we will apply those provisions to anyclaim for benefits received by VA on orafter November 9, 2000, the VCAA’senactment date, as well as to any claimfiled before that date but not decided byVA as of that date.

The second sentence of § 3.159(c) and§ 3.159(c)(4)(iii), which relate to theassistance VA will provide to a claimanttrying to reopen a finally decided claim,provide rights in addition to thoseprovided by the VCAA. Authority toprovide such additional assistance isprovided by 38 U.S.C. 5103A(g), whichprovides that nothing in section 5103Ashall be construed to preclude VA fromproviding such other assistance to aclaimant in substantiating a claim as VAconsiders appropriate. Because we haveno authority to make these provisionsretroactively effective, they areapplicable on the date of this final rule’spublication. Accordingly, we will applythe second sentence of § 3.159(c),§ 3.159(c)(4)(iii), and the amendment to38 CFR 3.156(a), to any claim forbenefits received by VA on or afterAugust 29, 2001. We note that anyfuture exercises by the Secretary of thediscretionary authority granted by 38U.S.C. 5103A(g) will be accomplishedthrough rules published in accordancewith Administrative Procedure Actrulemaking procedures.

Unfunded MandatesThe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

requires (in section 202) that agenciesprepare an assessment of anticipatedcosts and benefits before developing anyrule that may result in expenditure byState, local, or tribal governments, in theaggregate, or by the private sector, of$100 million or more in any given year.This amendment will have noconsequential effect on State, local, ortribal governments.

Executive Order 12866This final rule has been reviewed by

the Office of Management and Budgetunder Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction ActAll collections of information under

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.3501–3520) referenced in this final rulehave existing OMB approval as forms.No changes are made in this final ruleto those collections of information.

Regulatory Flexibility ActThe Secretary hereby certifies that the

adoption of these amendments will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities as



they are defined in the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. Thisaction would not directly affect anysmall entities. Only individuals couldbe directly affected. Therefore, pursuantto 5 U.S.C. 605(b), these amendmentsare exempt from the initial and finalregulatory flexibility analysisrequirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance program numbers are 64.100,64.101, 64.104, 64.105, 64.106, 64.109, and64.110.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,Health care, Pensions, Veterans,Vietnam.

Approved: July 30, 2001.Anthony J. Principi,Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, 38 CFR part 3 is amended asfollows:

PART 3—ADJUDICATION

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation,and Dependency and IndemnityCompensation

1. The authority citation for part 3,subpart A continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unlessotherwise noted.

§ 3.102 [Amended]

2. In § 3.102, the fifth sentence isamended by removing ‘‘evidence; theclaimant is required to submit evidencesufficient to justify a belief in a fair andimpartial mind that the claim is wellgrounded.’’ and adding, in its place,‘‘evidence.’’.

3. Section 3.156(a) and its authoritycitation are revised to read as follows:

§ 3.156 New and material evidence.(a) A claimant may reopen a finally

adjudicated claim by submitting newand material evidence. New evidencemeans existing evidence not previouslysubmitted to agency decisionmakers.Material evidence means existingevidence that, by itself or whenconsidered with previous evidence ofrecord, relates to an unestablished factnecessary to substantiate the claim. Newand material evidence can be neithercumulative nor redundant of theevidence of record at the time of the lastprior final denial of the claim sought tobe reopened, and must raise areasonable possibility of substantiatingthe claim.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5103A(f), 5108)

* * * * *

4. Section 3.159 is revised to read asfollows:

§ 3.159 Department of Veterans Affairsassistance in developing claims.

(a) Definitions. For purposes of thissection, the following definitions apply:

(1) Competent medical evidencemeans evidence provided by a personwho is qualified through education,training, or experience to offer medicaldiagnoses, statements, or opinions.Competent medical evidence may alsomean statements conveying soundmedical principles found in medicaltreatises. It would also includestatements contained in authoritativewritings such as medical and scientificarticles and research reports or analyses.

(2) Competent lay evidence means anyevidence not requiring that theproponent have specialized education,training, or experience. Lay evidence iscompetent if it is provided by a personwho has knowledge of facts orcircumstances and conveys matters thatcan be observed and described by a layperson.

(3) Substantially complete applicationmeans an application containing theclaimant’s name; his or her relationshipto the veteran, if applicable; sufficientservice information for VA to verify theclaimed service, if applicable; thebenefit claimed and any medicalcondition(s) on which it is based; theclaimant’s signature; and in claims fornonservice-connected disability ordeath pension and parents’ dependencyand indemnity compensation, astatement of income.

(4) For purposes of paragraph (c)(4)(i)of this section, event means one or moreincidents associated with places, types,and circumstances of service giving riseto disability.

(5) Information means non-evidentiary facts, such as the claimant’sSocial Security number or address; thename and military unit of a person whoserved with the veteran; or the nameand address of a medical care providerwho may have evidence pertinent to theclaim.

(b) VA’s duty to notify claimants ofnecessary information or evidence. (1)When VA receives a complete orsubstantially complete application forbenefits, it will notify the claimant ofany information and medical or layevidence that is necessary tosubstantiate the claim. VA will informthe claimant which information andevidence, if any, that the claimant is toprovide to VA and which informationand evidence, if any, that VA willattempt to obtain on behalf of theclaimant. VA will also request that theclaimant provide any evidence in the

claimant’s possession that pertains tothe claim. If VA does not receive thenecessary information and evidencerequested from the claimant within oneyear of the date of the notice, VA cannotpay or provide any benefits based onthat application. If the claimant has notresponded to the request within 30days, VA may decide the claim prior tothe expiration of the one-year periodbased on all the information andevidence contained in the file, includinginformation and evidence it hasobtained on behalf of the claimant andany VA medical examinations ormedical opinions. If VA does so,however, and the claimant subsequentlyprovides the information and evidencewithin one year of the date of therequest, VA must readjudicate theclaim.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103)

(2) If VA receives an incompleteapplication for benefits, it will notifythe claimant of the informationnecessary to complete the applicationand will defer assistance until theclaimant submits this information.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5102(b), 5103A(3))

(c) VA’s duty to assist claimants inobtaining evidence. Upon receipt of asubstantially complete application forbenefits, VA will make reasonableefforts to help a claimant obtainevidence necessary to substantiate theclaim. In addition, VA will give theassistance described in paragraphs(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) to an individualattempting to reopen a finally decidedclaim. VA will not pay any fees chargedby a custodian to provide recordsrequested.

(1) Obtaining records not in thecustody of a Federal department oragency. VA will make reasonable effortsto obtain relevant records not in thecustody of a Federal department oragency, to include records from State orlocal governments, private medical careproviders, current or former employers,and other non-Federal governmentalsources. Such reasonable efforts willgenerally consist of an initial request forthe records and, if the records are notreceived, at least one follow-up request.A follow-up request is not required if aresponse to the initial request indicatesthat the records sought do not exist orthat a follow-up request for the recordswould be futile. If VA receivesinformation showing that subsequentrequests to this or another custodiancould result in obtaining the recordssought, then reasonable efforts willinclude an initial request and, if therecords are not received, at least onefollow-up request to the new source or



an additional request to the originalsource.

(i) The claimant must cooperate fullywith VA’s reasonable efforts to obtainrelevant records from non-Federalagency or department custodians. Theclaimant must provide enoughinformation to identify and locate theexisting records, including the person,company, agency, or other custodianholding the records; the approximatetime frame covered by the records; and,in the case of medical treatment records,the condition for which treatment wasprovided.

(ii) If necessary, the claimant mustauthorize the release of existing recordsin a form acceptable to the person,company, agency, or other custodianholding the records.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A(b))

(2) Obtaining records in the custody ofa Federal department or agency. VAwill make as many requests as arenecessary to obtain relevant recordsfrom a Federal department or agency.These records include but are notlimited to military records, includingservice medical records; medical andother records from VA medicalfacilities; records from non-VA facilitiesproviding examination or treatment atVA expense; and records from otherFederal agencies, such as the SocialSecurity Administration. VA will endits efforts to obtain records from aFederal department or agency only ifVA concludes that the records sought donot exist or that further efforts to obtainthose records would be futile. Cases inwhich VA may conclude that no furtherefforts are required include those inwhich the Federal department or agencyadvises VA that the requested recordsdo not exist or the custodian does nothave them.

(i) The claimant must cooperate fullywith VA’s reasonable efforts to obtainrelevant records from Federal agency ordepartment custodians. If requested byVA, the claimant must provide enoughinformation to identify and locate theexisting records, including thecustodian or agency holding the records;the approximate time frame covered bythe records; and, in the case of medicaltreatment records, the condition forwhich treatment was provided. In thecase of records requested to corroboratea claimed stressful event in service, theclaimant must provide informationsufficient for the records custodian toconduct a search of the corroborativerecords.

(ii) If necessary, the claimant mustauthorize the release of existing recordsin a form acceptable to the custodian oragency holding the records.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A(b))

(3) Obtaining records incompensation claims. In a claim fordisability compensation, VA will makeefforts to obtain the claimant’s servicemedical records, if relevant to the claim;other relevant records pertaining to theclaimant’s active military, naval or airservice that are held or maintained bya governmental entity; VA medicalrecords or records of examination ortreatment at non-VA facilitiesauthorized by VA; and any otherrelevant records held by any Federaldepartment or agency. The claimantmust provide enough information toidentify and locate the existing recordsincluding the custodian or agencyholding the records; the approximatetime frame covered by the records; and,in the case of medical treatment records,the condition for which treatment wasprovided.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A(c))

(4) Providing medical examinations orobtaining medical opinions. (i) In aclaim for disability compensation, VAwill provide a medical examination orobtain a medical opinion based upon areview of the evidence of record if VAdetermines it is necessary to decide theclaim. A medical examination ormedical opinion is necessary if theinformation and evidence of record doesnot contain sufficient competentmedical evidence to decide the claim,but:

(A) Contains competent lay ormedical evidence of a current diagnoseddisability or persistent or recurrentsymptoms of disability;

(B) Establishes that the veteransuffered an event, injury or disease inservice, or has a disease or symptoms ofa disease listed in § 3.309, § 3.313,§ 3.316, and § 3.317 manifesting duringan applicable presumptive periodprovided the claimant has the requiredservice or triggering event to qualify forthat presumption; and

(C) Indicates that the claimeddisability or symptoms may beassociated with the established event,injury, or disease in service or withanother service-connected disability.

(ii) Paragraph (4)(i)(C) could besatisfied by competent evidenceshowing post-service treatment for acondition, or other possible associationwith military service.

(iii) Paragraph (c)(4) applies to a claimto reopen a finally adjudicated claimonly if new and material evidence ispresented or secured.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A(d))

(d) Circumstances where VA willrefrain from or discontinue providing

assistance. VA will refrain fromproviding assistance in obtainingevidence for a claim if the substantiallycomplete application for benefitsindicates that there is no reasonablepossibility that any assistance VAwould provide to the claimant wouldsubstantiate the claim. VA willdiscontinue providing assistance inobtaining evidence for a claim if theevidence obtained indicates that there isno reasonable possibility that furtherassistance would substantiate the claim.Circumstances in which VA will refrainfrom or discontinue providingassistance in obtaining evidenceinclude, but are not limited to:

(1) The claimant’s ineligibility for thebenefit sought because of lack ofqualifying service, lack of veteran status,or other lack of legal eligibility;

(2) Claims that are inherentlyincredible or clearly lack merit; and

(3) An application requesting a benefitto which the claimant is not entitled asa matter of law.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A(a)(2))

(e) Duty to notify claimant of inabilityto obtain records. (1) If VA makesreasonable efforts to obtain relevantnon-Federal records but is unable toobtain them, or after continued efforts toobtain Federal records concludes that itis reasonably certain they do not existor further efforts to obtain them wouldbe futile, VA will provide the claimantwith oral or written notice of that fact.VA will make a record of any oral noticeconveyed to the claimant. For non-Federal records requests, VA mayprovide the notice at the same time itmakes its final attempt to obtain therelevant records. In either case, thenotice must contain the followinginformation:

(i) The identity of the records VA wasunable to obtain;

(ii) An explanation of the efforts VAmade to obtain the records;

(iii) A description of any furtheraction VA will take regarding the claim,including, but not limited to, notice thatVA will decide the claim based on theevidence of record unless the claimantsubmits the records VA was unable toobtain; and

(iv) A notice that the claimant isultimately responsible for providing theevidence.

(2) If VA becomes aware of theexistence of relevant records beforedeciding the claim, VA will notify theclaimant of the records and request thatthe claimant provide a release for therecords. If the claimant does not provideany necessary release of the relevantrecords that VA is unable to obtain, VA



will request that the claimant obtain therecords and provide them to VA.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A(b)(2))

(f) For the purpose of the noticerequirements in paragraphs (b) and (e)of this section, notice to the claimantmeans notice to the claimant or his orher fiduciary, if any, as well as to his orher representative, if any.(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5102(b), 5103(a))

§ 3.326 [Amended]5. In § 3.326(a), the first sentence is

amended by removing ‘‘well-grounded’’.[FR Doc. 01–21802 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–232–200118(a); FRL–7044–4]

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans:State ofTennessee

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving arevision to the State of Tennessee’s rulessubmitted on February 14, 2000. TheState of Tennessee is amending Chapter1200–3–22—Lead EmissionsStandards—to require EPA approval ofchanges to Reasonably AvailableControl Technology (RACT) emissionlimitations in permits for specific leadsources.DATES: This direct final rule is effectiveOctober 29, 2001 without further notice,unless EPA receives adverse commentby September 28, 2001. If adversecomment is received, EPA will publisha timely withdrawal of the direct finalrule in the Federal Register and informthe public that the rule will not takeeffect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should beaddressed to: Kimberly Bingham at theEPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia30303.

Copies of documents concerning thisaction are available at the followingaddresses for inspection during normalbusiness hours:Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia30303–8960.

Tennessee Department of Environmentand Conservation, Division of AirPollution Control, 9th Floor L&C

Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville,Tennessee 37243–1531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kimberly Bingham, Regulatory PlanningSection, Air Planning Branch, Air,Pesticides and Toxics ManagementDivision, Region 4, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Atlanta FederalCenter, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,Georgia 30303. The telephone number is(404) 562–9038. Ms. Bingham can alsobe reached via electronic mail [email protected].


I. Analysis of State of Submittal

Background

Section 107(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act(CAA) provides for areas to bedesignated as attainment,nonattainment, or unclassifiable withrespect to the lead national ambient airquality standard (NAAQS). States arerequired to submit recommendeddesignations for areas within theirstates. When an area is designatednonattainment, the state must prepareand submit a state implementation plan(SIP) pursuant to sections 110(a)(2) and172(c) of the CAA showing how the areawill be brought into attainment. Therequirements for all SIPs are containedin section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Section172(c) of the CAA specifies theprovisions applicable to areasdesignated as nonattainment for any ofthe NAAQS. EPA has also issued aGeneral Preamble describing how EPAwill review SIPs and SIP revisionssubmitted under Title I of the Act,including those State submittalscontaining lead nonattainment area SIPrequirements (see generally 57 FR 13498(April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April28, 1992)).

One of the specific requirements ofsection 172(c) is that states include intheir lead nonattainment SIPsreasonably available control technology(RACT) emission limitations for existingsources. The EPA defines RACT as thelowest emission limitation that aparticular source is capable of meetingby the application of control technologythat is reasonably available consideringtechnological and economic feasibility.When a state submits a leadnonattainment SIP that includes specificRACT emission limits for specificsources in the lead nonattainment areaand these requirements are federallyapproved by EPA into Tennessee’s SIP,any changes to those source-specificRACT emission limits requireTennessee to submit a revision to theSIP to EPA for approval.

Chapter 1200–3–22—Lead EmissionStandards

The State of Tennessee had languageincluded in this chapter of their SIP thatgranted the Tennessee Air Director theability to change the RACT emissionlimits for sources specified in the SIP atany given time without prior approvalfrom EPA. Region 4 requested that theState of Tennessee revise their SIP toprovide that any changes to the source-specific RACT emissions limits wouldrequire EPA approval. In response tothis request, the State of Tennesseesubmitted the following rule revision:

Paragraph (1) of rule 1200–3–22–.03Specific Emission Standards for ExistingSources of Lead was amended by adding thefollowing language: ‘‘The RACT emissionlevel specified as permit conditions on theoperating permit(s) must be submitted,reviewed and approved by the Administratorof the Environmental Protection Agency orhis designee.’’

II. Final ActionEPA is approving the aforementioned

rule revision submitted by the State ofTennessee, because it meets all CAArequirements. The EPA is publishingthis rule without a prior proposalbecause the Agency views this as anoncontroversial submittal andanticipates no adverse comments.However, in the proposed rules sectionof this Federal Register publication,EPA is publishing a separate documentthat will serve as the proposal toapprove the SIP revision if adversecomments are filed. This rule will beeffective October 29, 2001 withoutfurther notice unless the Agencyreceives adverse comments bySeptember 28, 2001.

If the EPA receives such comments,then EPA will publish a documentwithdrawing the final rule andinforming the public that the rule willnot take effect. All public commentsreceived will then be addressed in asubsequent final rule based on theproposed rule. The EPA will notinstitute a second comment period.Parties interested in commenting shoulddo so at this time. If no such commentsare received, the public is advised thatthis rule will be effective on October 29,2001 and no further action will be takenon the proposed rule.

III. Administrative RequirementsUnder Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action isnot a significant regulatory action’’ andtherefore is not subject to review by theOffice of Management and Budget. Forthis reason, this action is also notsubject to Executive Order 13211,‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That



Significantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May22, 2001)). This action merely approvesstate law as meeting federalrequirements and imposes no additionalrequirements beyond those imposed bystate law. Accordingly, theAdministrator certifies that this rulewill not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state lawand does not impose any additionalenforceable duty beyond that requiredby state law, it does not contain anyunfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, asdescribed in the Unfunded MandatesReform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).This rule also does not have asubstantial direct effect on one or moreIndian tribes, on the relationshipbetween the Federal Government andIndian tribes, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between theFederal Government and Indian tribes,as specified by Executive Order 13175(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), norwill it have substantial direct effects onthe States, on the relationship betweenthe national government and the States,or on the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,August 10, 1999), because it approves astate rule implementing a federalstandard, and does not alter therelationship or the distribution of powerand responsibilities established in theClean Air Act. This rule also is notsubject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR19885, 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 Clean Air Act. In this context, in theabsence of a prior existing requirementfor the State 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 Clean Air Act. Thus, therequirements of section 12(d) of theNational Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.272 note) do not apply. As required bysection 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuingthis rule, EPA has taken the necessarysteps to eliminate drafting errors andambiguity, minimize potential litigation,and provide a clear legal standard foraffected conduct. EPA has compliedwith Executive Order 12630 (53 FR8859, March 15, 1988) by examining thetakings implications of the rule inaccordance with the Attorney General’sSupplemental Guidelines for theEvaluation of Risk and Avoidance ofUnanticipated Takings’ issued under theexecutive order.

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 rule

cannot 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).

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 October 29, 2001.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, andwill 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, Airpollution control, Lead,Intergovernmental relation, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 24, 2001.Russell Wright,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Chapter I, title 40, Code of FederalRegulations, is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]


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

Subpart RR—Tennessee

2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended byrevising the entries for Section 1200–3–22–.03 to read as follows:

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *(e) EPA approved regulations.

EPA APPROVED TENNESSEE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject Adoption date EPA approval date Federal Register notice

* * * * * * *

Chapter 1200–3–22 Lead Emission Standards

* * * * * * *Section 1200–3–22–.03 ..... Specific Emission Stand-

ards for ExistingSources of Lead.

January 26, 2000 .............. October 29, 2001 .............. 66 FR 45633

* * * * * * *



[FR Doc. 01–21700 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–7045–2]

National Oil and Hazardous SubstancePollution Contingency Plan; NationalPriorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of deletion of theWestern Pacific Railroad Superfund sitefrom the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Region 9 announces thedeletion of the Western Pacific RailroadSite in Oroville, Butte County,California, from the National PrioritiesList (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of40 CFR part 300 which is the NationalOil and Hazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan (NCP), which EPApromulgated pursuant to Section 105 ofthe Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.EPA and the State of California, throughthe Department of Toxic SubstancesControl, have determined that the siteposes no significant threat to publichealth or the environment and,therefore, no further remedial measurespursuant to CERCLA are appropriate.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Holly Hadlock, Project Manager, U.S.EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,SFD–7–1, San Francisco, CA 94105,(415) 744–2244.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site tobe deleted from the NPL is the WesternPacific Railroad Site, Oroville, ButteCounty, California.

A Notice of Intent to Delete for thissite was published in the FederalRegister on July 18, 2001 (66 FR 37439).The closing date for comments on theNotice of Intent to Delete was August17, 2001. No comments were received,therefore, EPA has not prepared aResponsiveness Summary. EPAidentifies sites that appear to present asignificant risk to public health, welfare,or the environment and it maintains theNPL as the list of those sites. Any sitedeleted from the NPL remains eligiblefor Fund-financed remedial actions inthe unlikely event that conditions at thesite warrant such actions. Section300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states thatFund-financed actions may be taken at

sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion ofa site from the NPL does not affectresponsible party liability or impedeAgency efforts to recover costsassociated with response efforts.


Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Chemicals, Hazardoussubstances, Hazardous waste,Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,Reporting and record keepingrequirements, Superfund, Waterpollution control, and Water supply.

Dated: August 17, 2001.Laura Yoshii,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amendedas follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C.1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300is amended by removing the entry forthe ‘‘Western Pacific Railroad Co.’’ inOroville, California.[FR Doc. 01–21702 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 010502110–1110–01; I.D.081601B]

Fisheries Off West Coast States and inthe Western Pacific; West CoastSalmon Fisheries; Closure andInseason Adjustments for theRecreational and Commercial SalmonSeasons from Queets River, WA, toHumbug Mountain, OR

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Inseason closure, andadjustments to the 2001 annualmanagement measures for the oceansalmon fishery; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces thefollowing inseason actions for the oceansalmon fisheries: Closure of the

recreational selective fishery for markedhatchery coho in the area from CapeFalcon, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR,on July 19, 2001, at 2359 hours localtime (l.t.); reopening of the recreationalfishery for all salmon except coho onJuly 20, 2001; and modification of theweekly opening period and addition ofa limited retention regulation for thecommercial fishery from the QueetsRiver, WA, to Cape Falcon, OR, tofollow a cycle of 4 days open/3 daysclosed, and a limit of 65 chinook peropen period per boat. These actions arenecessary to conform to the 2001 annualmanagement measures for ocean salmonfisheries.DATES: Closure in the area from CapeFalcon, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR—effective 2359 hours l.t., July 19, 2001.Reopening in the area from Cape Falcon,OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR—effective 0001 hours l.t., July 20, 2001.Adjustments in the area from QueetsRiver, WA, to Cape Falcon, OR—effective 0001 hours l.t., July 20, 2001.All of the above inseason actions willremain effective until the effective dateof the 2002 management measures, aspublished in the Federal Register, oruntil further inseason actions areannounced in the Federal Register.Comments will be accepted throughSeptember 13, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentsto Donna Darm, Acting RegionalAdministrator, Northwest Region,NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point WayN.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115–0070;fax 206–526–6376; or Rebecca Lent,Regional Administrator, SouthwestRegion, NMFS, NOAA, 501 W. OceanBlvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA90802–4132; fax 562–980–4018.Comments will not be accepted ifsubmitted via e-mail or the Internet.Information relevant to this document isavailable for public review duringbusiness hours at the Office of theRegional Administrator, NorthwestRegion, NMFS.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Christopher Wright, 206–526–6140,Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Closure From Cape Falcon to HumbugMountain, OR

The Northwest RegionalAdministrator, NMFS (RegionalAdministrator), determined that therecreational quota of 55,000 markedcoho salmon for the area from CapeFalcon to Humbug Mountain had beenreached, and closed the fishery for allsalmon at midnight on July 19, 2001.Regulations governing the ocean salmonfisheries at 50 CFR 660.409 (a)(1) state



that, when a quota for any salmonspecies in any portion of the fisherymanagement area is projected by theRegional Administrator to be reached onor by a certain date, NMFS will, bynotification issued under 50 CFR660.411 (a)(2), close the fishery for allsalmon species in the portion of thefishery management area to which thequota applies, as of the date the quotais projected to be reached.

In the 2001 annual managementmeasures for ocean salmon fisheries (66FR 23185, May 8, 2001), NMFSannounced that the recreationalselective fishery for marked hatcherycoho in the area between Cape Falconto Humbug Mountain, OR, would openon June 22 through the earlier of July 31or the attainment of a 55,000–markedcoho quota; it was also announced thatthe recreational season for all salmonexcept coho would reopen the earlier ofAugust 1 or the attainment of the cohoquota.

The Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife (ODFW) reported the landedcatch, as of July 18, 2001, was 42,179marked coho salmon (77 percent of thequota). ODFW considered informationrelated to angler effort and catch rate,and estimated that the remainder of thequota would be taken by July 19, 2001.Therefore, ODFW recommended thatNMFS close the area, effective midnighton July 19, 2001. This would allow therecreational fishery for all salmonexcept coho to reopen July 20, 2001.

Adjustments in the Area From QueetsRiver to Cape Falcon

Based on information received fromthe Washington Department of Fish andWildlife (WDFW) and ODFW, theRegional Administrator determined thatmodification of the weekly openingperiod for the commercial salmonfishery from the Queets River, WA, toCape Falcon, OR, was justified to slowthe chinook catch rates, to bettermonitor the fishery, and to avoid anearly closure that would limit access tothe coho quota. The weekly openingperiod was modified to implement acycle of 4 days open/3 days closed anda limited retention regulation of 65chinook per open period per boat.Modification of fishing seasons isauthorized by regulations at 50 CFR660.409 (b)(1)(i). Modification of thespecies that may be caught and landedduring specific seasons, and theestablishment or modification of limitedretention regulations, is authorized byregulations at 50 CFR 660.409 (b)(1)(ii).

In the 2001 annual managementmeasures for ocean salmon fisheries (66FR 23185, May 8, 2001), NMFSannounced that the commercial fishery

for all salmon in the area from theQueets River, WA, to Cape Falcon, OR,would open the earlier of the dayfollowing closure of the U.S.-CanadaBorder to Leadbetter Pt. July troll fisheryor July 28, but not before July 20,through the earliest of September 30 orthe overall chinook quota (preseason6,000–chinook guideline) or a 63,000–marked coho guideline. The fishery wasscheduled to run continuously until 75percent of either guideline was caught,then it would revert to a cycle of 4 daysopen/3 days closed. The annualmeasures also indicated that trip limits,gear restrictions, and guidelines may beinstituted or adjusted inseason.

The U.S.-Canada Border to LeadbetterPt. July troll fishery was closed in aninseason action on July 9, 2001, at 2359hours l.t. (66 FR 38573, July 25, 2001).Therefore, the commercial fishery for allsalmon from Queets River to CapeFalcon opened July 20, 2001.

The WDFW and ODFW reported,during a conference call on July 18,2001, that the catch rate of chinookrelative to coho was higher thananticipated based on observations fromongoing fisheries. The states wereconcerned that the chinook quota for thecommercial fishery from Queets River toCape Falcon was likely to be reachedearly, leaving a major portion of thecoho quota unharvested. The statesrecommended that the fishery follow acycle of 4 days open/3 days closed, andthat a limit of 65 chinook per openperiod per boat be implementedeffective July 20, 2001, to control andbetter assess the progress of the fisheryand allow for further adjustments ifnecessary.

The Regional Administrator consultedwith representatives of the PacificFishery Management Council, WDFW,and ODFW regarding the above inseasonactions by conference call. The bestavailable information on July 18, 2001,indicated that the catch/effort data andprojections supported the recreationalselective fishery closure and thecommercial fishery seasonmodifications. The states will managethe fisheries in state waters adjacent tothe areas of the exclusive economiczone in accordance with these Federalactions. As provided by the inseasonnotice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411,actual notice to fishermen of the closurein the area from Cape Falcon to HumbugMountain, OR, effective 2359 hours l.t.,July 19, 2001, and the adjustments inthe area from Queets River to CapeFalcon effective 0001 hours l.t., July 20,2001, were given prior to the effectivedates by telephone hotline number 206–526–6667 and 800–662–9825, and byU.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners

broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and2182 kHz.

Because of the need for immediateaction to stop the fishery uponachievement of the quota for the areafrom Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain,OR, and for the season modifications forthe area from Queets River to CapeFalcon, NMFS has determined that goodcause exists for this notification to beissued without affording a prioropportunity for public commentbecause such notification would beunnecessary, impracticable, andcontrary to the public interest.Moreover, because of the immediateneed to stop a fishery upon achievementof a quota and modify a season becauseof estimates of effort and catch, theAssistant Administrator for Fisheries,NOAA, finds, for good cause, under 5U.S.C. 553 (d)(3), that delaying theeffectiveness of this rule for 30 days isimpracticable and contrary to publicinterest.

These actions do not apply to otherfisheries that may be operating in otherareas.

Classification

These actions are authorized by 50CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and areexempt from review under ExecutiveOrder 12866.


Dated: August 23, 2001.Dean Swanson,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 01–21858 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–S



50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 010112013–1013–01; I.D.082301D]

Fisheries of the Exclusive EconomicZone Off Alaska; Species in the RockSole/Flathead Sole/‘‘Other flatfish’’Fishery Category by Vessels UsingTrawl Gear in Bering Sea and AleutianIslands Management Area

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing directedfishing for species in the rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery



category by vessels using trawl gear inthe Bering Sea and Aleutian Islandsmanagement area (BSAI). This action isnecessary to prevent exceeding the 2001Pacific halibut bycatch allowancespecified for the trawl rock sole/flatheadsole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery category.DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska localtime (A.l.t.), August 24, 2001, through2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mary Furuness, 907–586–7228.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFSmanages the groundfish fishery in theBSAI exclusive economic zoneaccording to the Fishery ManagementPlan for the Groundfish Fishery of theBering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area(FMP) prepared by the North PacificFishery Management Council underauthority of the Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and ManagementAct. Regulations governing fishing byU.S. vessels in accordance with the FMPappear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2001 halibut bycatch allowancespecified for the BSAI trawl rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fisherycategory, which is defined at § 679.21

(e)(3)(iv)(B)(2), was established by theFinal 2001 Harvest Specifications andAssociated Management Measures forthe Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska (66FR 7276, January 22, 2001) as 854metric tons.

In accordance with § 679.21 (e)(7)(v),the Administrator, Alaska Region,NMFS (Regional Administrator), hasdetermined that the 2001 halibutbycatch allowance specified for thetrawl rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘otherflatfish’’ fishery in the BSAI has beencaught. Consequently, the RegionalAdministrator is closing directed fishingfor species in the rock sole/flatheadsole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery category byvessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

Maximum retainable bycatch amountsmay be found in the regulations at§ 679.20 (e) and (f).

Classification

This action responds to the bestavailable information recently obtainedfrom the fishery. The AssistantAdministrator for Fisheries, NOAA,finds that the need to immediatelyimplement this action to avoidexceeding the halibut bycatch allowance

for rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘otherflatfish’’ fishery category constitutesgood cause to waive the requirement toprovide prior notice opportunity forpublic comment pursuant to theauthority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures wouldbe unnecessary and contrary to thepublic interest. Similarly, the need toimplement these measures in a timelyfashion to avoid exceeding the halibutbycatch allowance for rock sole/flatheadsole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery categoryconstitutes good cause to find that theeffective date of this action cannot bedelayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under5 U.S.C. 553 (d), a delay in the effectivedate is hereby waived.

This action is required by 50 CFR679.21 and is exempt from review underExecutive Order 12866.


Dated: August 24, 2001.Richard W. Surdi,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 01–21829 Filed 8–24–01; 4:23 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

45637

Vol. 66, No. 168


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health InspectionService

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 00–014–1]

RIN 0579–AB18

Phytosanitary Certificates for ImportedFruits and Vegetables

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amendour regulations to require that aphytosanitary certificate accompany allfruits and vegetables imported into theUnited States, with certain exceptions.This proposal would includecommercial produce imported into theUnited States as well as fruits andvegetables brought in by travelers. Wewould exempt fruits and vegetables thatare dried, cured, frozen, or processed, aswell as fruits and vegetables thattravelers and shoppers bring into theUnited States for personal use throughland ports of entry located along theCanadian and Mexican borders. Theregulations currently do not require thatphytosanitary certificates accompanyproduce imported into this country,except for certain fruits and vegetablesgrown in designated foreign regions. Webelieve this change is necessary to helpprevent foreign plant pests from beingintroduced into and disseminatedwithin the United States. Ifimplemented, this proposal wouldrequire changes in the practices ofimporters and travelers who bringproduce into the United States fromother countries.DATES: We invite you to comment onthis docket. We will consider allcomments that we receive by October29, 2001.ADDRESSES: Please send four copies ofyour comment (an original and threecopies) to: Docket No. 00–014–1,Regulatory Analysis and Development,

PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 RiverRoad, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.Please state that your comment refers toDocket No. 00–014–1.

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: Mr.Wayne D. Burnett, Senior ImportSpecialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 RiverRoad Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–6799.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundThe Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.

7701–7772) authorizes the Secretary ofAgriculture to prohibit or restrict theimportation and entry into the UnitedStates of any plants and plant products,including fruits and vegetables, toprevent the introduction of plant pestsor noxious weeds into the United States.Under this authority, the Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)administers regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56through 319.56–8) (referred to below asthe regulations) that prohibit or restrictthe importation of fruits and vegetablesinto the United States from variousregions of the world to prevent theintroduction and dissemination of plantpests. One form of regulatory restrictionplaced on certain imported fruits andvegetables is that the shipment beaccompanied by a phytosanitarycertificate.

A phytosanitary certificate is adocument issued by a plant protectionofficial of a national government tofacilitate the international movement ofa plant or plant product. Aphytosanitary certificate attests to thephytosanitary status of the plant or

plant product, including the plant orplant product’s origin, as well ascertification that the plant or plantproduct has been inspected and/ortested, is considered to be free fromplant pests of quarantine significance,and is otherwise believed to be eligiblefor importation into the country ofdestination pursuant to thephytosanitary laws and regulations ofthat country. A phytosanitary certificatemay include additional declarationscontaining information required by theimporting country and not routinelynoted on the certificate.

The form, content and use ofphytosanitary certificates is governed bythe International Plant ProtectionConvention (IPPC). The IPPC is amultilateral treaty under the auspices ofthe Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations (FAO) and isadministered through the IPPCSecretariat located in FAO’s PlantProtection Service. The IPPC isrecognized by the World TradeOrganization in the Agreement on theApplication of Sanitary andPhytosanitary Measures as the sourcefor international standards forphytosanitary measures affecting trade.Over 100 governments, including theUnited States, are contracting parties tothe IPPC.

The use of phytosanitary certificatesin conjunction with the shipment ofagricultural and other plant material isthe approach that regulatory officialsaround the world are increasinglyrelying on to help reduce theintroduction and spread of plant pests.Phytosanitary certificates are recognizedas an internationally accepted form ofpest risk mitigation. Pest risk mitigationat the place of origin is often viewed asthe most viable means of preventing theintroduction of plant pests. Our tradingpartners and the IPPC have alsorecognized that the responsibility ofpest risk mitigation and quarantinecompliance can be shifted to theexporting country.

Phytosanitary certificates are in wideuse in international trade. APHIS issueshundreds of thousands of phytosanitarycertificates each year to facilitate theexport of U.S. agricultural products tocountries that require certificates toaccompany such products. We alsorequire that a number of agriculturalproducts imported into the UnitedStates be accompanied by a

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:28 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 29AUP1

45638 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules

phytosanitary certificate to ensurefreedom from certain plant pests.Articles that must have a phytosanitarycertificate to be imported into theUnited States include citrus from SouthAfrica (§ 319.56–2q); papayas fromBrazil and Costa Rica (§ 319.56–2w);cantaloupe, honeydew melons, andwatermelon from Brazil and Venezuela(§ 319.56–2aa); tomatoes from Spain,France, Morocco and Western Sahara(§ 319.56–2dd); pears from China(§ 319.56–2ee); Hass avocados fromMexico (§ 319.56–2ff); peppers fromSpain (§ 319.56–2gg); and garlic from anumber of countries (§ 319.56–2g).Phytosanitary certificates must alsoaccompany nursery stock, plants, roots,bulbs, seeds, and other plant productsimported into the United States under 7CFR 319.37 through 319.37–14.

On August 4, 1995, we published anadvance notice of proposed rulemaking(ANPR) in the Federal Register (60 FR39888–39889, Docket No. 95–04601).The ANPR sought comments onwhether all fruits and vegetablesimported into the United States shouldbe accompanied by a phytosanitarycertificate. This included commercialshipments of fruits and vegetables aswell as produce brought into the UnitedStates by travelers and shoppers. Themajority of comments submitted toAPHIS in response to the ANPRgenerally opposed the expanded use ofphytosanitary certificates. A number ofcommenters were particularlyconcerned that this requirement wouldcause significant disruptions and delaysin commercial shipments of producefrom Canada and Mexico. Otherscontended that the specific pest risk wasnot adequately demonstrated to justifythe uniform, widespread application ofthis requirement. After considering thecomments, we believe it is necessarythat we move forward with thisproposal, subject to certain exceptions,for the reasons discussed below.

In this document we are proposing toamend the regulations to require that aphytosanitary certificate accompany allfruits and vegetables imported into theUnited States, with certain exceptions.This proposal would apply to allcommercial shipments of fruits andvegetables imported into the UnitedStates, as well as to all fruits andvegetables brought in by individualtravelers for personal use. We wouldexempt fruits and vegetables that aredried, cured, frozen, or processed unlesswe determine that the drying, curing,freezing, or processing to which thefruits or vegetables have been subjecteddoes not entirely eliminate pest risk. Wewould also exempt fruits and vegetablesthat travelers and shoppers bring into

the United States for personal usethrough land ports of entry locatedalong the Canadian and Mexicanborders.

We define commercial shipment in§ 319.56–1 of the regulations as ashipment containing fruits andvegetables that an inspector identifies ashaving been produced for sale anddistribution in mass markets.Identification of a particular shipmentas commercial is based on a variety ofindicators, including, but not limited to,the quantity of produce, the type ofpackaging, identification of a grower orpacking house on the packaging, anddocuments consigning the shipment toa wholesaler or retailer.

Requiring fruits and vegetablesimported into the United States to beaccompanied by a phytosanitarycertificate would mean that U.S.importers would have to get thecertificate from an official agency of thecountry where the goods originate.Typically, this would entail aninspection by a plant protection officialof the foreign country, certification ofwhere in the country of origin the fruitor vegetables were grown or acquiredtheir phytosanitary status, and astatement that the shipment is free ofplant pests of quarantine significance.The certifying country usually charges afee for these services. Travelers to theUnited States from foreign countries,unless entering the United Statesthrough land border ports, also wouldbe required to obtain a phytosanitarycertificate for any fruits or vegetablesthey wish to bring into the country. Thiswould be true even for travelersbringing fruits and vegetables with themin baggage for personal use.

Because adoption of this proposalwould require changes in the practicesof importers and travelers who bringproduce into the United States, wewould conduct an intensive publicrelations and education campaign toalert importers and travelers to the newrequirements. We would also delay theeffective date of the rule until at least 6months after publication of the finalrule.

Inspection Role of APHISOver the past 200 years, several

thousand foreign plant and animalspecies have become established in theUnited States. About one in seven hasbecome invasive, leading to economicharm to the United States that runs inthe billions of dollars annually. Invasivespecies are nonindigenous organismswhose introduction can cause economicand environmental harm as well asharm to human health. Problemsassociated with invasive species are

national in scope and are becomingmore and more widespread. Once aninvasive species establishes itself, it isoften difficult and expensive to remove.Recent cases in which invasive specieshave had a significant effect on fruitsand vegetables in the United Statesinclude, among others, citrus canker,plum pox virus, and various fruit flies,including the Mediterranean fruit fly(Medfly), Mexican fruit fly, and Orientalfruit fly.

APHIS is one of three primary FederalInspection Service (FIS) agenciesresponsible for monitoring themovement of cargo and passengers intothe United States. The two other FISagencies are the U.S. Customs Service(U.S. Customs) in the Department of theTreasury and the Immigration andNaturalization Service (INS) in theDepartment of Justice. APHIS is the leadFederal agency responsible forpreventing the introduction of foreignplant pests and noxious weeds. Plantpests or noxious weeds new to or notknown to be widely prevalent in theUnited States constitute a potentialthreat to crops and other plants or plantproducts. It is the job of APHIS tofacilitate exports, imports, and interstatecommerce in agricultural products andother commodities in ways that willreduce, to the extent practicable, therisk of introducing plant pests ornoxious weeds into and within theUnited States.

At one time, U.S. Customs carried outall primary inspection activity involvingthe importation of food, plant, andanimal articles into the United States.This included initial screening as wellas actual inspection of cargo andbaggage. APHIS officials were generallycalled in by U.S. Customs only upondiscovery of plant and animal articles.

This allocation of duties has changedin recent years. Beginning in the 1980’s,APHIS assumed greater responsibility inconducting the initial screening of cargoand passengers with regard to food,plant, and animal products and now hasprimary responsibility for carrying outthe actual inspection of cargo, as well asbaggage, containing or suspected ofcontaining food, plant, and animalarticles. We also inspect nonagriculturalproducts that may carry plant pests. InFY 1999, we employed approximately2,000 inspectors at 126 land, sea, and airports of entry in carrying out theseservices, which we refer to asagricultural quarantine inspection (AQI)activities. By comparison, in the early1980’s we employed approximately1,200 inspectors. Expenditures for AQIactivities in FY 2000 totaledapproximately $182 million. For thesame fiscal year, APHIS received


45639Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules

approximately $26.8 million inappropriations for AQI activities alongwith $137.5 million in user fees, withremaining revenues coming from othersources such as reimbursable overtimeand issuance of phytosanitarycertificates.

The detection of plant pests incommercial shipments of fruits andvegetables is usually predicated oninspecting samples of the shipment.APHIS inspectors follow detailedguidelines on selecting a samplerepresentative of the entire shipment.Inspection of pedestrians, travelers, andpassenger vehicles follows a two-stageprocess, primary and secondaryinspection. During primary inspection,APHIS inspectors screen passengers,their baggage, and vehicles byquestioning the individuals, reviewingtheir written declaration, and visuallyobserving for possible referral for furtherexamination. We also use x-rayequipment and detector dogs to aid inthis process. Secondary inspectioninvolves more detailed questioning ofthe individual and a visual examinationof baggage contents, if necessary.Passenger and baggage inspection tendsto require more APHIS staffing andresources in comparison to other AQIactivities.

Historically, APHIS has not requiredall fruits and vegetables imported intothe United States to be accompanied bya phytosanitary certificate. We haveinstead relied largely on having well-trained personnel to inspect importedproduce. Port of entry inspection was,and continues to be, the primarysafeguard to which all importedproduce is subject. However, we areincreasingly using other ‘‘offshore’’safeguarding measures for importedfruits and vegetables, such aspreclearance inspection in the countryof origin, treatments, and phytosanitarycertification. These additional measureshave become crucial in augmentinginspection efforts in light of worldwidedevelopments and trends involving themovement of goods and people.

Effect of Growth in Trade and TravelIn recent years, opportunities for

international commerce and travel havereached unprecedented levels. This hasresulted in an explosive growth in bothcommercial and noncommercialshipments of fruits and vegetablesimported into the United States byshippers, travelers, and otherindividuals. For example, from 1995 to1999, the value of U.S. agriculturalimports increased from $30.6 billion toapproximately $38 billion. Fruits andvegetables represent a growing share ofthis import total as refrigerated

containerization and other technologicalimprovements have made it possible toship perishable commodities longerdistances. In 1999, the total value offruits and vegetables imported into theUnited States was $4.74 billion.Moreover, the number of internationalair passengers traveling to the UnitedStates has increased over 50 percentduring this same period, exceeding 60.8million passengers in FY 1999.

This growth in trade and travel hasnot only been with our major tradingpartners. The movement towards a moreglobalized marketplace has resulted inincreased trade and travel with anumber of other countries as well. Thishas presented us with new challenges inbetter understanding the pest complexesand potential pest risks associated withgoods from these regions.

In response to this growth ininternational activity, there has been anexpansion in the number of U.S. portsof entry. Unfortunately, the number ofpotential pathways for the movementand introduction of foreign, invasiveplant pests has increased with thisboom in global trade and travel, placinga tremendous demand on APHIS’inspection services.

Coupled with this unprecedentedgrowth in international commerce andtravel, APHIS and other FIS agencieshave been directed to carry out theirinspection responsibilities in a moretimely manner. Recognizing theimportance of trade to the nationaleconomy, we and our FIS partners haveresponded by adopting new customerservice standards to move the increasingvolume of passengers and cargo throughports of entry within specific timeperiods. For example, current standardscall for the agencies to clearinternational airline passengers within30 minutes of arrival. Similarly, APHIShas adopted standards to scheduleinspections of perishable cargo within 3hours of being notified of its arrival.

APHIS’ record in preventing theintroduction and establishment ofharmful agricultural invasive species inrecent years is noteworthy. Yet, theunprecedented growth in internationaltrade and travel has placed the currentsystem, which relies primarily oninspection at the port of entry, understress. Studies, reports, and other datahave documented how the current AQIsystem faces a number of challenges inkeeping pace with the increasingamount of produce entering this countrythrough commercial channels and bymeans of individual travelers. Forexample, a 1993 report by the U.S.Congressional Office of TechnologyAssessment concluded that policiesdesigned to protect the United States

from the introduction of harmfulinvasive species were not safeguardingour national interests. It furtherconcluded that the current system wasunable to keep pace with new pestpathways and introductions. Similarly,a 1997 report by the U.S. GovernmentAccounting Office (GAO) declared thatthe increasing flow of passengers andcargo is far outdistancing APHISinspection capabilities despite a 78percent increase in funding and a 44percent increase in staffing for AQIactivities since 1990. According to theGAO, the APHIS workload has beendirectly affected by the increase ininternational trade and travel, both inthe volume of cargo and number ofinternational passengers traveling to theUnited States. Furthermore, increases inthe number of ports of entry, as well asthe increased risk at existing ports dueto expanded volume, have extendedAPHIS’ workload.

Our own AQI monitoring survey andsampling data covering international airpassengers arriving in the United Statesraise similar concerns as to the effectthis growth in imported fruits,vegetables, and other agriculturalproducts is having on our inspectionefforts. Based on a sample of 149,431international air passengers arriving inthe United States in FY 1999, we foundthat 12,833 (or 8.6 percent) of thesepassengers were carrying some type ofplant item subject to inspection andpossible seizure. Further, we found that7,451 (5.0 percent) of these passengerscarried a plant item that was eitherprohibited or was subject to seizurebecause the plant item was infested orthe plant item’s origin could not beestablished. To the extent we cangeneralize, based on this sampling dataapproximately 5.2 million of the 60.8million international air travelersarriving in the United States in 1999would have carried some type of plantitem subject to inspection and possibleseizure, and that approximately 3.0million of these passengers carried plantitems that would have been prohibitedor subject to seizure because the itemwas infested or the item’s origin couldnot be established. Although we do notmaintain data on the types of plantitems brought in by air passengers, weknow from experience that most of theitems would be some form of fruits orvegetables.

An earlier study, an APHIS survey onMedfly exclusion efforts, covered a 12-month period over 1993 and 1994 andinvolved the inspection of 71,175passengers out of a total of 14,679,905passengers arriving at 12 airports, bothdirectly and via hub cities fromcountries where Medfly existed. Based



1 The Safeguarding Report is available uponwritten request from the person listed under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. It is also availableon the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/safeguarding.

on the number of quarantine pestsdetected during the survey, weestimated that approximately 11,000quarantine pests were imported by the14,679,905 passengers. These resultsprobably would have shown evenhigher pest detections, except that thesurvey did not include passengers fromAsia and Australia or non-Medfly hostmaterial and other produce that was notdeclared.

With respect to commercialshipments, our inspectors must nowcontend not only with an increasedvolume of imports, but also withchanging transportation modes andtechnologies. These include increaseduse of containerized cargo, andtransshipments through one or morecountries, as well as sharing of vesselcontainer space. These market-driventrends, while resulting in greatertransportation efficiencies, can makeinspection more problematic,particularly during high-volumeperiods. Container characteristics thataccount for productivity gains forindustry present challenges forinspectors, since the cargo is not aseasily accessible or observable forinspection. Unloading and reloading ofthe contents is costly, and the threat ofinvasive plant pest introductionsextends more readily beyond the port ofentry if the cargo is not unloaded untilreaching its final destination. Thisreverses the historical pattern wherespecies generally first appeared at portsof entry. Since containers are used andreused many times for many differenttypes of cargo, and shipped all over theworld, there is also the potential thatpests from previous shipments cancontaminate the container itself.

Requiring the unloading andreloading of cargo en route for purposesof inspection can be a time consumingand expensive process, while inspectingonly the accessible areas of theshipment does not necessarily yield asample representative of the entirecargo. In fact, in selecting a sample fromthe tailgate area of a container or truck,we have found that if infested cargo iselsewhere in the container or truck, itwill likely not be detected 40 to 60percent of the time. Phytosanitarycertification at the place of origin wouldhelp address pest risk concerns whilereducing the need for lengthy inspectionand the consequent delays anddisruptions as containers arrive in theUnited States for further shipment totheir final destination.

In an effort to objectively evaluate andimprove our ability to safeguard U.S.resources from invasive species, APHISrecently arranged to have the NationalPlant Board (NPB) conduct a thorough

review of all aspects of our safeguardingsystem. The review group, composed ofState, industry, academia, andenvironmental groups, conductedextensive research, interviews, sitevisits, and other interactions withAPHIS and its stakeholders. Inpreparing its evaluation, the reviewgroup focused on four major areas: Pestexclusion, responses to pests that breachthe exclusion system, use of permits tocontrol the movement of pests, andcollection and use of internationalinformation. The review group’s 1999report, ‘‘Safeguarding American PlantResources, A Stakeholder Review of theAPHIS-PPQ Safeguarding System’’(Safeguarding Report),1 contained over300 recommendations addressing thefour major areas of focus.

The Safeguarding Report identifies anumber of opportunities to enhance thesafeguarding system. In the area of pestexclusion, the Safeguarding Reportaddresses issues relating to preclearanceinspection in the country of origin,smuggling interdiction, handling ofcommercial cargo, initiatives withregard to the traveling public, port ofentry inspection, application oftechnology, risk analysis, utilization ofuser fees, and public education andawareness, to name just a few. As ofApril 2001, a number ofrecommendations contained in theSafeguarding Report have beenimplemented, including enactment ofthe Plant Protection Act, increased useof digital imaging for pest identification,and expanded collection of user fees.

The Safeguarding Report stronglyrecommends that we modify our riskmanagement strategy, which has reliedprimarily on port of entry inspections asthe main line of defense, to also includeother alternative measures to excludeinvasive species. It specifically urges usto take a more proactive approachtowards the prevention and detection ofharmful plant pests through greater useof offshore mitigation measures,including the use of phytosanitarycertificates, to supplement inspection atthe port of entry.

The Safeguarding Report alsospecifically recommends that weprohibit the importation of unprocessedfood and plant products by the travelingpublic, or, alternatively, require thatsuch items be accompanied by aphytosanitary certificate. Although atotal prohibition on these items wouldease enforcement and reduce theamount of potential host material

moving into the United States, we haveopted for a less restrictive measure ofallowing the continued importation ofproduce by the traveling public, subjectto the phytosanitary certificaterequirement. We believe this proposedcourse of action should significantlycurtail the quantity of produce broughtin by travelers and thereby reduce therisk of pest introduction, yet providethose travelers who wish to bring inproduce the opportunity to do so byprocuring a phytosanitary certificate.

As mentioned earlier, our proposalwould provide an exception to thephytosanitary certificate requirement forfruits and vegetables that are dried,cured, frozen, or processed. We wouldalso exempt noncommercial shipmentsof produce brought into the UnitedStates by travelers and shoppers throughland ports of entry located along ourborders with Canada and Mexico (seediscussion under heading, ‘‘Travelersand Shoppers Entering the United StatesThrough Land Border Ports’’).

Why Target Commercial ShipmentsCommercial shipments of fruits and

vegetables imported into the UnitedStates have increased significantly overthe last decade as shipping technologiesand other factors relating to trade havefacilitated the importation of largerquantities of perishable items to thiscountry. This trend is likely to continueas the global marketplace becomes moreintegrated and U.S. consumers come toexpect a year-round supply of variousvarieties of fruits and vegetables.

We have responded to the increasedflow of commercial shipments ofagricultural goods into this country withadditional staffing, resources, and othermeasures. However, the growth inimports has increased at a faster ratethan our ability to inspect usingtraditional means. The large amount ofprohibited material passing throughinspection undeclared or undetectedpersists. It is apparent that the currentreliance on inspection at the port ofentry is no longer sufficient, by itself, toadequately respond to the newdynamics governing the commercialmovement of imported fruits andvegetables into this country. Even withadditional staffing and resources, whatcan be done at the inspection site islimited, particularly if commercialshipments are to be released in a timelymanner.

Requiring phytosanitary certificatesfor commercial shipments of importedfruits and vegetables would helpalleviate the workload of APHISinspectors at the port of entry byproviding inspectors with verifiableinformation as to the place of origin



where the goods acquired their truephytosanitary status, i.e., where thegoods were exposed to possibleinfestation or contamination by pests.Normally, this will be the place wherethe commodity was grown. Thephytosanitary certificate would alsoprovide the added security that theshipment has already been inspected bya plant protection official of a nationalgovernment in the exporting country.

The required use of phytosanitarycertificates would also help mitigateinspection concerns relating tocontainer shipments. Containers presentchallenges for inspectors, since thecargo is often not easily accessible orobservable for inspection. Unloadingand reloading of the contents forpurposes of inspection can be a timeconsuming and expensive process,while inspecting only the accessibleareas of the shipment does notnecessarily yield a samplerepresentative of the entire cargo.Phytosanitary certification based oninspection at the place of origin wouldhelp address some of these concernsinvolving the use of containers. It wouldlessen the potential need for lengthyinspection and the consequent delaysand disruptions upon arrival in theUnited States.

Requiring phytosanitary certificatesfor commercial shipments of importedfruits and vegetables would also helpovercome inspection challenges byaccurately identifying the origin of theshipment’s contents. This is particularlyimportant when the shipment hasmoved through more than one countryprior to arrival in the United States. Itis becoming more common forperishable agricultural products to beshipped from the country whereproduced to intermediate layover pointsin other countries (for further handlingand storage) before shipment to thecountry of final destination. While instorage, these goods may be split up,combined with other consignments fromother regions, or be repackaged. Thelaws of the country where the goods arebeing temporarily stored may allow forcommingled shipments to be labeled asoriginating there so long as a portion ofthe shipment includes goods producedin that country. Such practices mayobscure the true origin of certaincontents in the shipment. For example,it may not be readily apparent that ashipment exported from a low-risk pestregion includes articles that wereproduced in a high-risk pest region.Phytosanitary certificates would helpalleviate identification issues relating tothe goods’ origin, since even goods thatare in a commingled shipment or

repackaged must still be certified as totheir place of origin.

Requiring phytosanitary certificatesfor all commercial shipments ofimported fruits and vegetables would bean important step in mitigating the pestrisk associated with the increasedvolume of commercial produce cominginto this country. It would help alleviateinspection concerns with respect tocargo shipped in containers as well asidentification issues involving thegoods’ place of origin. Ultimately,phytosanitary certification shouldexpedite the clearance process at theport of entry for commercial shippers,while providing needed additionalsecurity against the introduction anddissemination of invasive plant pestsinto the United States.

Why Target TravelersImported produce brought into the

United States by travelers poses a riskbecause:

• The origin of the produce is oftendifficult to determine;

• There is a greater chance that theproduce is grown in backyard gardenswith little or no pest control.Historically, decisions to allowimportation of produce have been basedon an evaluation of the pest riskassociated with commercial production,not backyard production;

• Travelers bring noncommercialvarieties with unknown susceptibility topests; and

• The fruits are often ripe or overripe,and, therefore particularly susceptible toinfestations.

The required use of phytosanitarycertificates would significantly reducethe total amount of fruits and vegetablesbrought in by travelers arriving by planeor other means of transportation,resulting in far less infested producebeing imported. For travelers who dobring in produce accompanied by aphytosanitary certificate, the inspectionprocess at the port of entry would bemore efficient as inspection officerscould better determine the origin of theproduce. There should also be moreconsistency in identifying productssubject to confiscation. Currently, it isoften difficult for inspectors todetermine the origin of produce wheninterviewing passengers. This can resultin items being seized that should not be,while other items are released thatshould be seized. If the number ofpassengers arriving with produce issignificantly reduced, then inspectionofficers currently required on thebaggage floor to facilitate entry ofproducts would be free to conduct morecargo sampling and other detection andcompliance activities.

We have considered the potentialdifficulty, particularly in the initialyears, of travelers procuring aphytosanitary certificate. For example,phytosanitary certificates are required toinclude detailed information aboutwhere the fruit or vegetable was grownand, in certain cases, where or how itwas treated. This kind of informationmay not be readily available to travelersor shoppers who purchase the productsat a market in a foreign country. Wehave also taken into account that, evenif readily available, the cost of obtaininga certificate may outweigh the benefitsfor those carrying small amounts ofproduce with them for personal use.However, the inconveniences andhardships to certain travelers would bemore than offset by the fact that thisrequirement would provide aconsiderable measure of addedprotection against the introduction offoreign plant pests by travelers.

Travelers and Shoppers Entering theUnited States Through Land BorderPorts

We are proposing to exemptnoncommercial shipments of producebrought in by travelers and shoppersentering the United States through landports along the Mexican and Canadianborders. We believe that the existingsystem of inspection provides sufficientprotection against the introduction ofplant pests in produce carried in byindividuals through these ports forpersonal use, and not for sale.

Vehicular and pedestrian traffic in themillions crosses our land bordersannually. In FY 2000, approximately90.9 million vehicles and 51.0 millionpedestrians entered the United Statesthrough our ports of entry along oursouthern border with Mexico. We do notmaintain similar statistics for vehiclesand pedestrians entering the UnitedStates from Canada. The high volume oftravelers and shoppers crossing our landborders is not a new phenomenon, buthas existed for decades now, due in partto the cultural and economic ties thathave developed along our borders withMexico and Canada. It has been a long-standing practice for a number ofshoppers and travelers to bringagricultural goods with them whencrossing the border. For example, basedon a sample of 52,982 vehicles and31,553 pedestrians entering the UnitedStates from Mexico in FY 2000, wefound that approximately 7 percent ofthe vehicles sampled and 8 percent ofthe pedestrians sampled carried sometype of plant article. (This data does notinclude passengers on buses.) Applyingthese percentages to the total number ofvehicles and pedestrians entering the



United States from Mexico, we estimatethat approximately 6.5 million vehiclesand 4.1 million pedestrians would havecarried some type of plant article.Although we do not maintain data onthe types of plant articles brought in byvehicles and pedestrians, we know fromexperience that most of the plantarticles would be fruits or vegetables.

We have found that the pest riskfactors discussed earlier with regard toimported produce brought into theUnited States by international travelersfrom around the world are not asapplicable in the case of shoppers andtravelers bringing in produce throughour land border ports of entry. Fruitsand vegetables that shoppers andtravelers carry in through our land portsalong the Mexican and Canadianborders tend to be purchased andconsumed in the vicinity of the borderarea. For instance, it is common for U.S.residents living along the Mexicanborder to purchase produce in Mexicofor local consumption in the UnitedStates. These groceries are referred tolocally as ‘‘mandado.’’ The purchase ofmandado represents a long-standingtradition and is symbolic of theculturally-blended society and economythat exists along the United States-Mexican border. A somewhat similarsituation occurs along the Canadianborder, although there is less traffic ofthis sort from Canada. The purchase andconsumption of produce within thegeneral area of the border is not as greata concern since land areas on either sideof the border generally share commonplant pests, so the risk of introducingnew or not widely prevalent plant pestsis minimal.

Based on our many years’ experiencein inspecting vehicle and pedestriantraffic along the Mexican and Canadianborders, we and our FIS partners havebecome familiar with the long-standingpractices of shoppers and travelersbringing in agricultural items. We arealso quite knowledgeable in the typesand varieties of fruits and vegetablesgrown in Mexico and Canada. Wheninspecting plant articles at land ports,we can act with a greater degree ofcertainty in determining the generalorigin of the article without the need ofcertification, such as whether the articlewas produced near the border area, orin a location in the interior of Mexicoor Canada, or somewhere outsideMexico or Canada. We also have greaterflexibility in not being subject to thestrict time standards that governinspection of commercial cargo andairport baggage. Therefore, we believethat the existing system of inspection atour land ports provides sufficientprotection against the introduction of

plant pests in produce carried in byindividuals for personal use without theneed of requiring phytosanitarycertification.

We are proposing that the exemptionfrom phytosanitary certification wouldapply only to shoppers and travelersentering the United States through ourland ports of entry, and would not beextended to travelers arriving in theUnited States by plane or boat fromMexico or Canada. There are severalreasons for doing this. First, there is agreater potential that these air or boatpassengers may have also traveled inareas outside of Mexico or Canada.There is also a greater potential thatproduce brought into the United Statesby these passengers may be carried tomore distant points from the border thatdo not necessarily share some of theplant pests common in our land areasalong the Mexican or Canadian borders.

We would also not extend thisexemption from phytosanitarycertification to commercial shipmentsarriving from Mexico and Canada. Webelieve that phytosanitary certificatesare necessary in the case of commercialshipments from Mexico and Canada inorder to mitigate the plant pest risksassociated with container shipmentsand to address the practice ofcommercial shipments moving throughmore than one country prior to arrivalin the United States.

Certification as a Risk Mitigation ToolGiven the likelihood of continued

growth in commercial andnoncommercial shipments of produceand the imperative to clear commercialcargo and international travelers in atimely, efficient manner, it is difficult toforesee how the current system, whichrelies primarily on port of entryinspection, can keep pace with theincreased flow of imported producewithout greater use of offshoremitigation measures to augment existingdetection efforts.

The required use of phytosanitarycertificates should greatly curtail thequantity of high-risk imports bytravelers. For commercial shipments,the phytosanitary certificate woulddocument the origin of each shipmentand ensure inspection in the country oforigin by a member of the foreign plantprotection organization, helping toensure shipment of clean commodities.

In our view, greater use and relianceon phytosanitary certificates, by boththe United States and other countries, isthe wave of the future. While port ofentry inspection must continue to playan important role, the historic view thatthis activity can function as the focalpoint for exclusion must be augmented

by greater emphasis on other viableapproaches, including detection,compliance, and mitigation of pest risksin the country of origin. A riskmanagement strategy that emphasizesthe increased use of phytosanitarycertificates and other offshore mitigationmeasures, along with continuedinspection activities at the port of entryshould, in the long run, allow forexpedited entry of commercial cargoand passengers while providing thenecessary level of quarantine security.

Proposed Changes to Part 319In § 319.56–1, we propose to amend

the definition of commercial shipmentand add definitions for the termsnoncommercial shipment andphytosanitary certificate.

Commercial shipment is defined inthe regulations as ‘‘a shipmentcontaining fruits and vegetables that aninspector identifies as having beenproduced for sale and distribution inmass markets. Such identification willbe based on a variety of indicators,including, but not limited to: quantity ofproduce, type of packaging,identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documentsconsigning the shipment to a wholesaleror retailer.’’ We would amend thedefinition of commercial shipment byrevising the phrase ‘‘fruits andvegetables’’ in the first sentence to read‘‘fruits or vegetables.’’ We would makethis change to be consistent with APHISinspection policy. We consider acommercial shipment, for purposes ofinspection and treatment, to consist ofa particular type of fruit or vegetable asopposed to a commingled lot of fruitsand vegetables. So if two types ofproduce enter the United States at thesame time as part of a singleconsignment, we would consider that tobe two shipments. We identifycommercial shipments on a commoditybasis in most circumstances since ourregulations for inspection and treatmentare based on the pest risks associatedwith specific fruits or vegetables. In thefirst sentence, we would also replace theword ‘‘imported’’ with the word‘‘produced.’’ While an article may havebeen ‘‘produced’’ for sale in the countryof origin, it loses its commercialcharacter if brought to this country byan individual for personal use.Inspectors identify a shipment to becommercial based on whether it issubject to sale and distribution at thetime it is ‘‘imported’’ into the UnitedStates. Also, we would delete the words‘‘mass markets’’ as used in the phrase‘‘for sale and distribution in massmarkets.’’ The key factor in identifyinga shipment as commercial is whether it



is produced for sale and distribution,and not whether distribution occurs ina mass market.

We would define noncommercialshipment as ‘‘a shipment containingfruits or vegetables that an inspectoridentifies as having been imported forpersonal use and not for sale.’’

We would define phytosanitarycertificate as ‘‘a document, includingelectronic versions, that is related to afruit or vegetable shipment and that: (1)Is patterned after the model certificate ofthe International Plant ProtectionConvention (IPPC), a multilateralconvention on plant protection underthe authority of the Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations; (2) is issued by an official of aforeign national plant protectionorganization; (3) is addressed to theplant protection service of the UnitedStates (Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service); (4) describes theshipment; (5) certifies the place of originfor all contents of the shipment; (6)certifies that the shipment has beeninspected and/or tested according toappropriate official procedures and isconsidered to be free from quarantinepests of the United States; and (7)contains any additional declarationsrequired under this subpart.’’

We propose to amend the regulationsat § 319.56–2(a) by providing that aphytosanitary certificate mustaccompany all commercial andnoncommercial shipments of fruits andvegetables imported into the UnitedStates, except for fruits and vegetablesthat are dried, cured, processed, orfrozen, and noncommercial shipmentsof fruits and vegetables brought into theUnited States through land ports ofentry located along U.S. borders withCanada and Mexico.

We propose to amend paragraphs (b)through (d) of § 319.56–2, which coverthe entry of fruits and vegetables underparticular situations or from particularcountries, to reflect the appropriateapplication of the new phytosanitarycertificate requirement. Under § 319.56–2(b), dried, cured, and processed fruitsand vegetables would not require aphytosanitary certificate unless APHISdetermines that the drying, curing, orprocessing to which the fruits orvegetables have been subjected has noteliminated the pest risk. We wouldamend §§ 319.56–2(c) and (d) to reflectthe applicability of the phytosanitarycertificate requirement to fruits andvegetables from Canada and to fruitsand vegetables imported into the U.S.Virgin Islands from the British VirginIslands. We would also make a technicalcorrection to § 319.37–2(c), for purposesof syntax and clarity, by substituting the

words ‘‘may not be imported’’ in placeof ‘‘are prohibited importation.’’ Wewould also move the phrase ‘‘inaccordance with § 319.37–2 of this part’’to appear earlier in the sentence.

Section 319.56–6 covers inspectionand other requirements at the port offirst arrival. We propose to amendparagraph (c) of this section to citeAPHIS’ authority to refuse entry ofimported fruits and vegetables if notaccompanied by a phytosanitarycertificate, when required.

We would leave unchanged thosesections of the regulations that alreadyrequire a phytosanitary certificate toaccompany specified fruits andvegetables from particular regions.These sections require specificdeclarations to appear on thephytosanitary certificates and wouldremain in effect.

Executive Order 12866 and RegulatoryFlexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewedunder Executive Order 12866. This rulehas been determined to be significantfor the purposes of Executive Order12866 and, therefore, has been reviewedby the Office of Management andBudget.

Below is an economic analysis for theproposed rule to require that all fruitsand vegetables imported into the UnitedStates be accompanied by aphytosanitary certificate, with certainexceptions. The economic analysisprovides a cost-benefit analysis asrequired by Executive Order 12866 andan analysis of the potential economiceffects on small entities as required bythe Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We do not have enough data for acomprehensive analysis of the economiceffects of this proposed rule on smallentities. Therefore, in accordance with 5U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initialregulatory flexibility analysis for thisproposed rule. We are invitingcomments about this proposed rule as itrelates to small entities. In particular,we are interested in determining thenumber and kind of small entities thatmay incur benefits or costs fromimplementation of this proposed rule,including the cost of procuring aphytosanitary certificate from othercountries, any other administrative andlogistical costs that might be incurred inprocuring these certificates, and anycosts associated with inspection.

Under the Plant Protection Act (7U.S.C. 7701–7772), the Secretary ofAgriculture is authorized to prohibit orrestrict the importation and entry intothe United States of any plant and plantproducts, including fruits andvegetables, to prevent the introduction

of plant pests or noxious weeds into theUnited States.

This proposed rule would require thatall fruits and vegetables imported intothe United States be accompanied by aphytosanitary certificate, with certainexceptions. We would exempt fruits andvegetables that are dried, cured, frozen,or processed, as well as noncommercialshipments of fruits and vegetablesbrought into the United States throughland ports of entry located along theCanadian and Mexican borders. TheUnited States does not currently requirea phytosanitary certificate for theimportation of fruits and vegetables,except in specific instances as detailedin the regulations.

This proposed rule has beenprompted by the need for offshore pestmitigation measures to augment port ofentry inspection efforts in response tothe explosive growth in the number ofand variety of commercial fruit andvegetable imports coming into thiscountry as well as the increased numberof travelers entering the United Statesfrom foreign countries. The primaryalternative to this proposed rule wouldbe to continue increasing our staffingand resources at port of entry inspectionfacilities. We could adjust our user feesto help offset any additional costsassociated with this effort. APHIS hastried to address the plant pest threatover the past decade through increasedstaffing at the inspection site. We havealso implemented new programs andtechnologies such as the deployment ofdetector dogs and the use of x-rayequipment at certain ports. Despitethese efforts, however, the large amountof prohibited material passing throughport of entry inspection undeclared andundetected persists.

We have also considered the potentialbenefits of including additionalquestions on the U.S. Customs form thattravelers complete prior to entry into theUnited States relating to any plantarticles they are carrying with them. Wehave explored this possibility with U.S.Customs since it is their form and isdesigned primarily to meet the needs ofU.S. Customs. However, even iftravelers could provide additionalinformation, such as where the articlewas purchased, in many cases it wouldnot provide us with definitive data as towhere and under what conditions theplant article was produced.

It is apparent that even withadditional staffing and other measures,what can be done at the inspection siteis limited, particularly if cargo andpassengers are to be inspected andreleased in a timely manner. As notedin the 1999 report, ‘‘SafeguardingAmerican Plant Resources, A



2 The Safeguarding Report is available uponwritten request from the person listed under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. It is also availableon the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/safeguarding.

3 APHIS, Policy & Program Development, PolicyAnalysis and Development, ‘‘Economic Analysis ofOptions for Eradicating Mexican fruit fly(Anastrepha ludens) from the Lower Rio GrandeValley of Texas,’’ March, 2000.

4 APHIS, Policy & Program Development, PolicyAnalysis and Development, ‘‘Economic Assessmentof Options for the Medfly Cooperative Program inFlorida,’’ February, 1998.

Stakeholder Review of the APHIS–PPQSafeguarding System’’ (SafeguardingReport),2 we must more vigorouslypursue offshore mitigation measuresthat augment our port of entryinspection efforts.

Offshore mitigation has severalimportant advantages. By conductinginspections at the point of origin, pestscan be intercepted before they enter thecountry instead of at U.S. ports.Additionally, inspection at the point oforigin is often more efficient andeffective as it allows for inspecting cargobefore it is packed for shipment ratherthan having to unpack and repack theshipment for inspection upon arrival atthe country of destination. We alreadyrequire phytosanitary certificates forselected fruits and vegetables exportedto the United States from othercountries. We are also working withcountries seeking to establishpreclearance programs for theinspection of a number of commodities.Right now we have APHIS personnelstationed abroad managing permanentpreclearance programs for fruits,vegetables, and flower bulbs destinedfor the United States from Mexico,Chile, and The Netherlands as well asair passenger preclearance programs inAruba, The Bahamas, Bermuda, andCanada.

We considered requiringphytosanitary certificates only forcommercial shipments of fruits orvegetables. We did not propose thisalternative because the risks posed byimported fruits and vegetables are notlimited to commercial shipments. Wealso considered prohibiting theimportation of unprocessed food andplant products by the traveling public asrecommended in the SafeguardingReport. A total prohibition on theseitems would ease enforcement andreduce the entry of potential hostmaterial carrying harmful pests.However, we have opted for a lessrestrictive measure of allowing thecontinued importation of produce bythe traveling public, with aphytosanitary certificate except asexplained below for produce fromMexico and Canada. We recognize thatit may be difficult for travelers to obtaina phytosanitary certificate in a numberof countries, particularly during theinitial years this rule is in effect if it isadopted. However, we expect that, ifthis proposal is implemented, a numberof countries will develop or improvetheir facilities and services for issuing

certificates to travelers and shoppers asis done for commercial importers.

We are exempting from thephytosanitary certificate requirementfruits and vegetables brought into theUnited States by travelers and shoppersfor personal use through land ports ofentry along the Canadian and Mexicanborders. We believe the continued useof screening and inspection fornoncommercial shipments crossing theCanadian and Mexican borders providesa sufficient safeguard.

The growth in the number and varietyof commercial shipments as well as theincreased number of travelers to theUnited States has significantly increasedthe risk of pest introduction.Establishment of foreign plant pests canhave a significant economic effect onthe United States. Not only do thesepests have the potential to causeeconomic harm to agriculturalproducers, but subsequent APHISmonitoring and eradication programscan be quite costly.

APHIS programs to controlMediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) andMexican fruit fly serve as examples inillustrating the potential costs. Theseparticular pests can enter the UnitedStates through both commercial cargoshipments and passenger baggage.APHIS studies of the Medfly andMexican fruit fly have shown thepotential for significant economic harmshould these pests become establishedin the United States. A recent APHISstudy 3 of the ongoing Texas ValleyMexican Fruit Fly Protocol estimatestotal costs of between $888 million and$928 million annually if the Mexicanfruit fly becomes established throughoutits possible range in the United States.These costs take into account additionalpest control and treatment for fruitproduction in California and Florida aswell as for projected crop losses. Therewould also be trade losses due to exportprohibitions, as well as quarantinetreatment costs, as other countries reactto protect themselves from the pest riskassociated with the affected produce.The Medfly program in Florida 4

provides a similar example. The totaleconomic effect of Medfly establishmentin Florida has been estimated at $308million annually. This includes costs for

pest control and treatment of fruit, aswell as projected crop losses.

Both of these existing programsillustrate the potential costs of newforeign plant pests entering andbecoming established in this countryand represent the types of programs andcosts that we hope to be able to avoidin the future, in part through this rule.

This proposed rule would primarilyaffect two major groups. The first groupwould be U.S. firms that import fruitsand vegetables into the United States.Import brokers who work with thesefirms would also be affected by the newcertification requirements. The secondgroup would be travelers who carryfruits and vegetables into the UnitedStates from foreign countries for theirown personal use. Based on our initialanalysis, it appears that the economiceffect of this proposed rule for both U.S.importers and travelers is likely to besmall.

In 1999, the total value of fruits andvegetables imported into the UnitedStates was $4.74 billion. Most of theseimports came from Mexico (40 percent),with the rest from Chile (10.5 percent),Costa Rica (10.1 percent), Canada (8.5percent) and Ecuador (7 percent). Theregulations currently requirephytosanitary certification only inspecific instances. In 1999, shipmentsrequiring certification accounted for$547.6 million or 11.6 percent of totalfruit and vegetable imports. The extentto which phytosanitary certification isrequired varies from country to country.Of the top five sources of fruits andvegetables listed above, 95.5 percent ofChile’s exports to the United States(based on value) require a phytosanitarycertificate, whereas only 1 percent ofMexico’s exports to the United Statesrequire certification.

U.S. ImportersBased on the number of import

permits APHIS issues, we expect thatbetween 800 and 1000 firms would beaffected by this proposed rule if it isadopted. Requiring a phytosanitarycertificate for all commercial shipmentsof fruits and vegetables imported intothe United States would mean that U.S.importers would have to get thecertificate from the government of thecountry where the goods originated.Typically, this would involve aninspection by the foreign government,certification of where in the country oforigin the fruits or vegetables weregrown, and a statement that theshipment or shipments are free fromplant pests of quarantine significance.

Our proposal would represent asignificant administrative change formany importers, especially those



importing from countries from whichwe do not typically requirephytosanitary certificates, such asCanada. The additional paperwork andinspection burden may result inadditional costs to importers who findit necessary to restructure theiroperations to meet the newrequirements. We do not expect thesecosts to be significant.

Foreign national plant protectionorganizations that issue phytosanitarycertificates usually charge a fee for theirservices. The fee is typically quite smallin comparison to the value of thecommercial shipment. The value ofcommercial shipments of fruits andvegetables can vary widely, from a fewthousand dollars to over $100,000. Thesize and value of a shipment willdepend on the type of goods, the originof the goods, the transportation methodused, and other factors. The majority ofcommercial fruit and vegetableshipments appear to range between$5,000 and $20,000 in value, based ondata from APHIS and the Census Bureauof the U.S. Department of Commerce. Incontrast, the fee that is charged for aphytosanitary certificate and inspectionis comparatively small. The actual feevaries from country to country and isbased solely on the criteria that theissuing country deems appropriate. Aspoints of reference for most shipments,Canada charges C$17 Canadian dollars($10.75US) and Mexico charges 244Mexican new pesos ($24.50US). Thestructure of the costs upon which thefee is based also varies from country tocountry. Spain does not charge a fee ifa phytosanitary certificate is required bythe importing country. If a certificate isnot required, Spain charges 0.0525percent of the customs value of theshipment, with a minimum of 795pesetas ($4.57US). The Netherlandscharges for the time required to conductthe inspection. This includes an initialfee of 48.50 Dutch guilders plus 31.50Dutch guilders for each 15 minutes. Atypical inspection of 15 to 30 minuteswould cost between 80 to 111.50 Dutchguilders ($34.72 to $48.39US). APHIScharges $50 for commercial shipmentsvalued at over $1,250.

The cost of obtaining a certificate incomparison to the average value of acommercial fruit and vegetableshipment can be illustrated in thefollowing example involving Canada.The Canadian government charges C$17for shipments valued above C$1,600,and C$7 for lesser valued shipments.For the higher valued shipments, thiswould mean a maximum cost ofapproximately 1 percent of the value ofthe shipment. For smaller shipments,the certification cost as a percentage of

the shipment’s value might be higher,but not significantly. For a shipmentvalued at C$500, the certification costwould be 1.4 percent of the value of theshipment. Since commercial shipmentsare usually valued much higher thanC$1,600, the fee charged for obtainingthe certificate would likely be a minorexpense. Consequently, based on ourinitial analysis, this proposed rulewould only marginally increase thecosts to importers.

A detailed analysis of the cumulativecosts of phytosanitary certification inrelation to the number of shipments orthe value of a shipment is not possibleat this time because certain criticalinformation is unavailable, and is to ourknowledge not collected. For example,we do not collect data that show thequantitative relationship between thenumber of shipments entering theUnited States and the number ofphytosanitary certificates issued forthose shipments. There may be one ormore phytosanitary certificates attachedto a single shipment, or conversely, onephytosanitary certificate may apply toseveral shipments. Without datashowing the relationship betweenshipments and certificates, it becomesdifficult to speak in a formal way aboutthe potential added costs due tophytosanitary certification. As such, weare inviting comments that address thisissue. However, we have made someestimation of the additional costs of thisproposal based on what information wehave coupled with our experience ininspecting shipments of fruit andvegetables at land, air, and sea ports ofentry. We have strived to beconservative in our estimates so as tonot underestimate the cumulative cost.

Our records show that 662,549commercial shipments of fruits andvegetables entered the United States in2000. In this specific context, weconsider a commercial shipment toconsist of a particular type of fruit orvegetable. So, if two types of produceenter the United States at the same timeas part of a single consignment, wewould consider that to be twoshipments. Out of the total of 662,549commercial shipments in 2000, 77,682shipments were received at U.S.maritime ports of entry; 99,316shipments were received at ports ofentry located at U.S. airports; and485,551 shipments were received at U.S.land ports of entry located along theCanadian and Mexican borders. Thisinformation covers FY 2000, with theexception of shipments entering U.S.land ports from Canada, which is basedon data covering calendar year 2000.Although we do not maintain data onthe number of phytosanitary certificates

that accompanied these commercialshipments, for purposes of this analysis,we are estimating a 1 to 1 ratio (i.e., onephytosanitary certificate per shipment)for commercial shipments that arrivedat our maritime ports, and a 1 to 3 ratio(i.e., one phytosanitary certificate per 3shipments) in the case of commercialshipments that arrived at our air andland ports. We are estimating a 1 to 1ratio in the case of maritime cargobecause such shipments almost alwaysarrive as one intact load of a particularcommodity. We are estimating a 1 to 3ratio for commercial shipments arrivingat our air and land ports since it is quitecommon for a single consignment ofproduce arriving by land or air toconsist of commingled lots of more thanone type of produce, resulting inmultiple shipments per consignment. Inthese situations, one phytosanitarycertificate could be issued to cover allof the shipments in the consignment.We are estimating here that onephytosanitary certificate wouldtypically cover 3 commercial shipmentsthat arrive at our air or land ports. Weinvite you to comment on theseestimated ratios.

Based on an 1 to 1 ratio for maritimeshipments, we estimate that totalmaritime shipments of 77,682 in 2000would have been accompanied by anestimated 77,682 phytosanitarycertificates. Using the ratio of 1 to 3 forair and land shipments, the 99,316shipments arriving by air would havebeen accompanied by a total of 33,105phytosanitary certificates, while the485,551 shipments coming through ourland ports would have beenaccompanied by a total of 161,850phytosanitary certificates. So weestimate that total fruit and vegetableshipments of 662,549 in 2000 wouldhave required the issuance of 272,637certificates if this proposed rule wereimplemented. If we use the cost of aphytosanitary certificate issued byAPHIS (i.e., $50), the total cost ofrequiring phytosanitary certificates forcommercial shipments of fruits andvegetables would be approximately$13.6 million (272,637 certificates x$50). Note that this total dollar amountincludes the cost of certificates that wealready require for certain fruits andvegetables under our regulations. Also,the $50 figure charged by APHIS isgenerally higher than the fees chargedby other countries as discussed above.

In addition to the actual fee forobtaining a phytosanitary certificate,there could be costs associated with theadditional time and disruption inhaving the shipment or shipmentsinspected and certified in the exportingcountry. Delays in having the shipments



inspected could result in further costs.We collect no data on these potentialcosts and are therefore inviting yourcomments that address this issue.

The other potential area where costscould be incurred is through the addedpaperwork and administrative burdensassociated with finding the appropriateofficials in foreign countries to issue thecertificates and learning what theappropriate procedures are for eachcountry. There are two main reasonswhy we do not expect that this will bea major issue for most importing firms.

First, it may be difficult to find theappropriate officials in some countriesto conduct the inspections and issue thephytosanitary certificates. However, weare proposing that any final rule wouldnot go into effect until 6 months afterpublication in the Federal Register.This advance notice should giveaffected parties sufficient time tocontact the plant protection agencies inthe countries that they are importingfrom and learn the procedures forprocuring a certificate. Furthermore,phytosanitary certificates are governedunder the International Plant ProtectionConvention (IPPC), a multilateral treatyunder the auspices of the UnitedNations Food and AgricultureSecretariat. This treaty has over 100countries as signatories. Signatories tothe IPPC agree that pest risk mitigationis the responsibility of the exportingcountry, and that they are willing andable to issue phytosanitary certificates.We expect any logistical oradministrative difficulties associatedwith discovering the requirements forobtaining a phytosanitary certificate inspecific countries to be short term inmost cases, and should be resolvedwithin the 6 month time window beforethe final rule goes into effect.

The second issue is that many firmsuse import brokers in order to facilitatethe movement of their shipments intothe United States. The broker’s primaryrole is to make arrangements and getappropriate documentation for theimport and export of goods. Firms thathire brokers will likely be able to avoidthe added burden of phytosanitarycertification since this task would fallwithin the purview of the broker. Thecertification burden as it applies tobrokers is less an issue, since this taskwould fall within the broker’s existingrole of obtaining necessarydocumentation in order to expedite themovement of goods on behalf of clients.

Essentially, these new administrativeburdens are not expected to have amajor impact because there should besufficient time to adapt to therequirements before they go into effect.In addition, many import firms will

continue to rely on a broker to handlethese issues for them.

Small EntitiesWe do not have enough information

to fully evaluate the potential effect ofthis proposed rule on small entities. Assuch, we are inviting commentsaddressing this issue. In particular, weare interested in determining thenumber and kinds of small entities thatmay incur benefits or costs fromimplementation of this proposed rule,and if there are any special issuesrelating to the business practices ofthese small entities that would makethem particularly different from largerfirms in their ability to comply with thisproposed rule. However, we have madesome initial conclusions.

Relevant small entities would includesmall U.S. wholesalers who importfruits and vegetables from foreigncountries. The Small BusinessAdministration defines a smallwholesaler of fresh fruits and vegetablesas one having less than 100 employees.While smaller firms are likely to importsmaller quantities than larger firms, thecost of a phytosanitary certificate likelyrepresents less than 1 percent of thevalue of a commercially viableshipment, and as such this issue shouldnot constitute a major impact.

Smaller firms would have to deal withthe same new administrative burdens asother larger firms. If these smaller firmschoose to employ an import broker, thenthey should be able to avoid anypotential problems by relying on thebroker. If they choose not to employ abroker, the firm will have to discoverthe requirements for obtaining aphytosanitary certificate and adjust itsprocedures accordingly. Smaller firmsare likely to import only from a fewcountries and, thus, will not have tolearn the requirements for manycountries. Additionally, the 6 monthperiod before the final rule would takeeffect should allow sufficient time toadjust operations as necessary. Weexpect any problems that are created incomplying with this rule, ifimplemented, to be short term in nature.As such, based on our initial analysis,the economic effects on these entitiesshould not be significant.

Travelers to the United States FromForeign Countries

Travelers to the United States fromforeign countries often bring fruits andvegetables with them in baggage forpersonal use. Under the proposed rule,travelers would need to obtain aphytosanitary certificate in the countryof origin for any fruits and vegetablesthey bring into the United States for

personal use. An exception to thisrequirement would apply to travelerscoming through land ports along theCanadian or Mexican borders.

It would likely be difficult forindividual travelers to obtain aphytosanitary certificate in a number ofcountries, particularly during the initialyears this rule is in effect, if it isadopted. Phytosanitary certificates arerequired to include detailed informationabout where the fruit or vegetable wasgrown and where and how it wastreated. This kind of information wouldnot likely be readily available to anindividual who purchased the produceat a market in a foreign country. Unlessa foreign government establishes aspecial program to facilitate issuance ofcertificates to the traveling public, mosttravelers would not know how to obtaina phytosanitary certificate from a foreigngovernment even if they did elect to paythe charge.

The typical fees charged by issuingcountries may be prohibitivelyexpensive for travelers. The cost ofobtaining a phytosanitary certificate canvary substantially, from no charge toover $50, based on our initial analysis.While these charges would beinconsequential for a commercialshipper, they could be greater than thevalue of material typically brought in bytravelers. APHIS will issuephytosanitary certificates to travelersleaving the United States on request atthe noncommercial rate of $23. While afew travelers do make use of thisservice, it is a fairly rare occurrence asit is typically not worthwhile fortravelers.

We have taken into account thepossibility that some travelers mayconsider not obtaining a phytosanitarycertificate and attempt to bring in fruitsand vegetables without declaring them.However, we believe few people wouldtake this risk. Persons who fail todeclare a prohibited item can be finedin addition to having the itemconfiscated.

In estimating the total cost of thisproposed rule on travelers, we knowthat in FY 1999 approximately 60.8million international air travelersarrived in the United States, and thatapproximately 5.2 million (or 8.6percent) of these air travelers arrivedwith a plant item. Although we do notmaintain data on the types of plantitems brought in by air passengers, weknow from experience that most of thesearticles would have been fruits orvegetables. We believe that once thephytosanitary certification requirementis in place, the vast majority ofinternational travelers arriving in theUnited States would forego bringing in



the typically small amount of fruit andvegetable items for personalconsumption since the cost orinconvenience in getting the certificatewould not make it worthwhile. Forpurposes of illustration, assuming 10percent (or 520,000) of the estimated 5.2million passengers that brought in aplant item in FY 1999 decided to obtaina phytosanitary certificate, the estimatedtotal cost of certification to thesetravelers would be approximately $11.9million. This estimation is based onusing the cost for issuing anoncommercial certificate in the UnitedStates (i.e., $23), which we believe to berepresentative of what other countrieswould charge for this service. Onceagain, we are inviting your commentsthat address this issue.

Consequently, this proposed rulewould make it more difficult fortravelers to carry fruits and vegetablesinto the United States for personal use.The availability of the requiredinformation, as well as the cost, willvary from country to country. In manycases, this proposed rule could preventindividuals from carrying fruits andvegetables with them when traveling tothe United States. This could mean asmall economic loss to all of thesetravelers, but we believe most travelersaffected will view this change more asan inconvenience, since they may not beable to bring in certain favorite fooditems.

It is worth noting that there are somecountries where it is common fortravelers and tourists to bring backspecific specialty fruits and vegetables.We do not expect that the proposed rulewill have a significant effect on this typeof item. In these cases, a marketspecifically directed at travelers andtourists exists. In order to protect thismarket, the country exporting thespecialty item will likely set up aprogram to inspect and certify the itemsfor travelers in an efficient and costeffective way. This may be in the formof pre-certified products being sold atairports or some other similar program.This market incentive would lessen theeffect of the proposed rule in placeswhere these specialty items exist.

We expect any costs to U.S. importersand travelers to be more than offset bythe added safeguarding of U.S.agriculture, the environment, and theeconomy against the introduction anddissemination of invasive plant pests,which cause economic harm to theUnited States in the billions of dollarsannually. The required use ofphytosanitary certificates should greatlyreduce the quantity of high-risk baggageimports. It will also provide theadditional security of foreign inspection

for commercial shipments at the placeof origin. We also believe that, in thelong run, as use of phytosanitarycertification gains further acceptanceand credibility, this measure will allowfor more expedited entry of commercialcargo and travelers from abroad, whilemaintaining the necessary level ofquarantine security against theintroduction and dissemination ofinvasive pests.

This proposed rule would also entailinformation collection requirements.These requirements are described in thisdocument under the heading‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act.’’

Executive Order 12988This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, CivilJustice Reform. If this proposed rule isadopted: (1) All State and local laws andregulations that are inconsistent withthis rule will be preempted; (2) noretroactive effect will be given to thisrule; and (3) administrative proceedingswill not be required before parties mayfile suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction ActIn accordance with section 3507(d) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the informationcollection or recordkeepingrequirements included in this proposedrule have been submitted for approval tothe Office of Management and Budget(OMB). Please send written commentsto the Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC20503. Please state that your commentsrefer to Docket No. 00–014–1. Pleasesend a copy of your comments to: (1)Docket No. 00–014–1, RegulatoryAnalysis and Development, PPD,APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River RoadUnit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238,and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA,room 404–W, 14th Street andIndependence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250. A comment toOMB is best assured of having its fulleffect if OMB receives it within 30 daysof publication of this proposed rule.

We are proposing to amend ourregulations to require that aphytosanitary certificate accompany allfruits and vegetables imported into theUnited States, with certain exceptions.

We are soliciting comments from thepublic (as well as affected agencies)concerning our proposed informationcollection and recordkeepingrequirements. These comments willhelp us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposedinformation collection is necessary forthe proper performance of our agency’s

functions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of ourestimate of the burden of the proposedinformation 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 (such as through the use ofappropriate automated, electronic,mechanical, or other technologicalcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology; e.g., permittingelectronic submission of responses).

Estimate of burden: Public reportingburden for this collection of informationis estimated to average 15 minutes perresponse.

Respondents: Plant health officialsemployed by the national governmentsof countries that export fruits andvegetables to the United States.

Estimated annual number ofrespondents: 4,000.

Estimated annual number ofresponses per respondent: 25.

Estimated annual number ofresponses: 100,000.

Estimated total annual burden onrespondents: 25,000 hours.

Copies of this information collectioncan be obtained from Mrs. CelesteSickles, APHIS’ Information CollectionCoordinator, at (301) 734–7477.


Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey,Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plantdiseases and pests, Quarantine,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINENOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 319would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 450, 7711–7714,7718, 7731, 7732, and 7751–7754; 21 U.S.C.136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. In § 319.56–1, the definition ofcommercial shipment would be revisedand new definitions would be added, inalphabetical order, for noncommercialshipment and phytosanitary certificateto read as follows:

§ 319.56–1 Definitions.

* * * * *Commercial shipment. A shipment

containing fruits or vegetables that aninspector identifies as having beenimported for sale and distribution. Such



identification will be based on a varietyof indicators, including, but not limitedto: Quantity of produce, type ofpackaging, identification of grower orpacking house on the packaging, anddocuments consigning the shipment toa wholesaler or retailer.* * * * *

Noncommercial shipment. Ashipment containing fruits or vegetablesthat an inspector identifies as havingbeen imported for personal use and notfor sale.* * * * *

Phytosanitary certificate. Adocument, including electronicversions, that is related to a fruit orvegetable shipment and that:

(1) Is patterned after the modelcertificate of the International PlantProtection Convention (IPPC), amultilateral convention on plantprotection under the authority of theFood and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations;

(2) Is issued by an official of a foreignnational plant protection organization;

(3) Is addressed to the plantprotection service of the United States(Animal and Plant Health InspectionService);

(4) Describes the shipment;(5) Certifies the place of origin for all

contents of the shipment;(6) Certifies that the shipment has

been inspected and/or tested accordingto appropriate official procedures and isconsidered to be free from quarantinepests of the United States; and

(7) Contains any additionaldeclarations required under thissubpart.* * * * *

3. In § 319.56–2, paragraphs (a), (b),(c), and (d) would be revised to read asfollows:

§ 319.56–2 Restrictions on entry of fruitsand vegetables.

(a) To be eligible for entry into theUnited States:

(1) All fruits and vegetables importedunder this subpart, whether commercialor noncommercial shipments, must befree from plants or portions of plants, asdefined in § 319.56–1; and

(2) All fruits and vegetables importedunder this subpart, whether commercialor noncommercial shipments, must beaccompanied by a phytosanitarycertificate, except for:

(i) Fruits and vegetables that aredried, cured, or processed as providedin paragraph (b) of this section;

(ii) Frozen fruits and vegetables asprovided in § 319.56–2c of this subpart;or

(iii) Noncommercial shipmentsbrought in from Canada or Mexicothrough land border ports.

(b) Dried, cured, or processed fruitsand vegetables (except frozen fruits andvegetables), including cured figs anddates, raisins, nuts, and dried beans andpeas, may be imported without permit,phytosanitary certificate, or othercompliance with this subpart. However,a permit, a phytosanitary certificate, andother safeguards may be required forany such articles when the DeputyAdministrator determines that thedrying, curing, or processing to whichthe fruits or vegetables have beensubjected does not entirely eliminatepest risk. Such determination withrespect to any such articles will becomeeffective after due notice.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph(a) of this section, fruits and vegetablesgrown in Canada may be imported intothe United States without furtherrestriction under this subpart, Provided,that, in accordance with § 319.37–2 ofthis part, potatoes from Newfoundlandand that portion of the Municipality ofCentral Saanich in the Province ofBritish Columbia east of the WestSaanich Road may not be imported intothe United States.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph(a) of this section and §§ 319.56–5,319.56–6, and 319.56–7, fruits andvegetables grown in the British VirginIslands may be imported into the U.S.Virgin Islands without further permit orrestriction other than the authorizationcontained in this paragraph. However,such fruits and vegetables are exemptedfrom the notice of arrival requirementsof § 319.56–5 only when an inspectorfinds that equivalent information isobtainable from the U.S. Collector ofCustoms.* * * * *

4. In § 319.56–6, paragraph (c) wouldbe revised to read as follows:

§ 319.56–6 Inspection and otherrequirements at the port of first arrival.

* * * * *(c) Refusal of entry. If an inspector

finds that an imported fruit or vegetableis prohibited, or is not accompanied byproper documentation such as aphytosanitary certificate, or is soinfested with a plant pest that, in thejudgment of the inspector, it cannot becleaned or treated, or contains soil orother prohibited contaminants, theentire lot may be refused entry into theUnited States.* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day ofAugust 2001.Bill Hawks,Under Secretary for Marketing and RegulatoryPrograms.[FR Doc. 01–21809 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–34–P



14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–CE–01–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA—Groupe Aerospatiale Models TB 9, TB10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes toadopt a new airworthiness directive(AD) that would apply to all SOCATA—Groupe Aerospatiale (SOCATA) ModelsTB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200airplanes. The proposed AD wouldrequire you to repetitively inspect thelower rudder hinge fitting for cracks.The proposed AD would also requireyou to repair any crack found inaccordance with a repair schemeobtained from the manufacturer throughthe Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). The proposed AD is the result ofmandatory continuing airworthinessinformation (MCAI) issued by theairworthiness authority for France. Theactions specified by the proposed ADare intended to detect and correctfatigue cracks in the lower rudder hingefitting. This condition could cause thelower rudder to detach from the controllinkage with consequent loss of controlof the airplane.DATES: The FAA must receive anycomments on this proposed rule on orbefore September 28, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to FAA, Central Region, Officeof the Regional Counsel, Attention:Rules Docket No. 2001–CE–01–AD, 901Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,Missouri 64106. Comments may beinspected at this location between 8a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to theproposed AD may be obtained fromSOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE,Customer Support, Aerodrome Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes, BP 930—F65009 TarbesCedex, France; telephone: (33)



(0)5.62.41.73.00; facsimile: (33)(0)5.62.41.76.54; or the Product SupportManager, SOCATA—GroupeAEROSPATIALE, North Perry Airport,7501 Pembroke Road, Pembroke Pines,Florida 33023; telephone: (954) 894–1160; facsimile: (954) 964–4191. Thisinformation also may be examined atthe Rules Docket at the address above.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KarlSchletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;telephone: (816) 329–4146; facsimile:(816) 329–4090.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How do I comment on the proposedAD? The FAA invites comments on thisproposed rule. You may submitwhatever written data, views, orarguments you choose. You need toinclude the rule’s docket number andsubmit your comments in triplicate tothe address specified under the captionADDRESSES. The FAA will consider allcomments received on or before theclosing date. We may amend theproposed rule in light of commentsreceived. Factual information thatsupports your ideas and suggestions isextremely helpful in evaluating theeffectiveness of the proposed AD actionand determining whether we need totake additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of theproposed AD I should pay attention to?The FAA specifically invites commentson the overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe proposed rule that might suggest aneed to modify the rule. You mayexamine all comments we receive beforeand after the closing date of the rule inthe Rules Docket. We will file a reportin the Rules Docket that summarizeseach FAA contact with the public thatconcerns the substantive parts of theproposed AD.

We are re-examining the writing stylewe currently use in regulatorydocuments, in response to thePresidential memorandum of June 1,1998. That memorandum requiresfederal agencies to communicate moreclearly with the public. We areinterested in your comments on whetherthe style of this document is clear, andany other suggestions you might have toimprove the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. Youcan get more information about thePresidential memorandum and the plainlanguage initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

How can I be sure FAA receives mycomment? If you want us toacknowledge the receipt of yourcomments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On thepostcard, write ‘‘Comments to DocketNo. 2001–CE–01–AD.’’ We will datestamp and mail the postcard back toyou.

DiscussionWhat events have caused this

proposed AD? The Direction Generalede l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which isthe airworthiness authority for France,recently notified FAA that an unsafecondition may exist on all SOCATAModels TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, andTB 200 airplanes. The DGAC reports anoccurrence of the lower rudderseparating from the control linkage on aModel TB 9 airplane. A break in thelower rudder hinge fitting caused thisproblem and was found during ascheduled inspection on the airplanewith more than 6,000 hours time-in-service (TIS). The DGAC reports thatmaterial fatigue caused cracks in thelower rudder hinge fitting.

What are the consequences if thecondition is not corrected? If thiscondition is not detected and corrected,the lower rudder could detach from thecontrol linkage with consequent loss ofcontrol of the airplane.

Is there service information thatapplies to this subject? SOCATA hasissued Service Bulletin SB 10–114 55,dated September 2000.

What are the provisions of this servicebulletin? The service bulletin includesprocedures for inspecting the lowerrudder hinge fitting for cracks. Thisdocument also includes informationabout where to obtain a repair schemefor a cracked lower rudder hinge fitting.

What action did the DGAC take? TheDGAC classified this service bulletin asmandatory and issued French ADNumber 2001–002(A), dated January 10,2001, in order to assure the continuedairworthiness of these airplanes inFrance.

Was this in accordance with thebilateral airworthiness agreement?These airplane models aremanufactured in France and are type

certificated for operation in the UnitedStates under the provisions of §21.29 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateralairworthiness agreement. Pursuant tothis bilateral airworthiness agreement,the DGAC has kept FAA informed of thesituation described above.

The FAA’s Determination and anExplanation of the Provisions of theProposed AD

What has FAA decided? The FAA hasexamined the findings of the DGAC;reviewed all available information,including the service informationreferenced above; and determined that:

—The unsafe condition referenced inthis document exists or could developon other SOCATA Models TB 9, TB 10,TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes ofthe same type design;

—The actions specified in thepreviously-referenced serviceinformation should be accomplished onthe affected airplanes; and

—AD action should be taken in orderto correct this unsafe condition.

What would the proposed AD require?This proposed AD would require you torepetitively inspect the lower rudderhinge fitting for cracks and repair anycrack found in accordance with a repairscheme obtained from the manufacturerthrough the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA).

Is there a modification I canincorporate instead of repetitivelyinspecting the lower rudder hingefitting? The FAA has determined thatlong-term continued operational safetywould be better assured by designchanges that remove the source of theproblem rather than by repetitiveinspections or other special procedures.With this in mind, FAA will continueto work with SOCATA in collectinginformation and in performing fatigueanalysis to determine whether a futuredesign change may be necessary.

Cost Impact

How many airplanes would theproposed AD impact? We estimate thatthe proposed AD affects 239 airplanes inthe U.S. registry.

What would be the cost impact of theproposed AD on owners/operators of theaffected airplanes? We estimate thefollowing costs to accomplish theproposed inspection:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost perairplane

Total cost onU.S.

operators

3 workhours × $60 per hour = $180 ............................ No parts required to perform the inspection ................ $180 $43,020



The FAA has no method ofdetermining the number of repetitiveinspections each owner/operator wouldincur over the life of each of the affectedairplanes so the cost impact is based onthe initial inspection.

We estimate the following costs toaccomplish any necessary repairs thatwould be required based on the resultsof the proposed inspections. We have noway of determining the number ofrepairs each owner/operator would

incur over the life of each of the affectedairplanes based on the results of theproposed inspections.

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost perAirplane

7 workhours × $60 = $420 ...................................................................................................................................... $300 $720

Regulatory Impact

Would this proposed AD impactvarious entities? The regulationsproposed herein would not have asubstantial direct effect on the States, onthe relationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government. Therefore, it isdetermined that this proposed rulewould not have federalism implicationsunder Executive Order 13132.

Would this proposed AD involve asignificant rule or regulatory action? Forthe reasons discussed above, I certifythat this proposed action (1) is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact, positive or negative,on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A copy of the draftregulatory evaluation prepared for thisaction has been placed in the RulesDocket. A copy of it may be obtained bycontacting the Rules Docket at thelocation provided under the captionADDRESSES.


Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authoritydelegated to me by the Administrator,the Federal Aviation Administrationproposes to amend part 39 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFRpart 39) as follows:



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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding anew airworthiness directive (AD) toread as follows:

SOCATA—Groupe Aerospatiale: Docket No.2001–CE–01–AD

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?This AD affects the following TB 9, TB 10,TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes, all serialnumbers, that are certificated in any category.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?Anyone who wishes to operate any of theabove airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?The actions specified by this AD are intendedto detect and correct fatigue cracks in thelower rudder hinge fitting. This conditioncould cause the lower rudder to detach fromthe control linkage with consequent loss ofcontrol of the airplane.

(d) What actions must I accomplish toaddress this problem? To address thisproblem, you must accomplish the following:

Actions Compliance Procedures

(1) Visually inspect the lower rudder hinge fit-ting for cracks.

Upon accumulating 2,000 hours time-in-serv-ice (TIS) on the rudder hinge fitting or with-in the next 100 hours TIS after the effectivedate of this AD, whichever occurs later, andthereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 cal-endar months.

In accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENTINSTRUCTIONS section of SOCATA Serv-ice Bulletin SB 10–114 55, dated Sep-tember 2000, and the applicable aircraftmaintenance manual.

(2) If any crack is found during any inspectionrequired in paragraph (d)(1) of this AD, ac-complish the following:

(i) Obtain a repair scheme from the manu-facturer through the FAA at the addressspecified in paragraph (f) of this AD; and

(ii) Incorporate this repair scheme

Prior to further flight after the inspection re-quired in paragraph (d)(1) of this AD.

In accordance with the repair scheme ob-tained from SOCATA GroupeAEROSPATIALE, Customer Support, Aero-drome Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes, BP 930—F65009 Tarbes Cedex, France; telephone:(33) 05.62.41.76.68; facsimile: (33)06.07.32.62.24; or the Product SupportManager, SOCATA—GroupeAEROSPATIALE, North Perry Airport, 7501Pembroke Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida33023; telephone: (954) 893–1450. Obtainthis repair scheme through the FAA at theaddress specified in paragraph (f) of thisAD.



Actions Compliance Procedures

(3) Report any cracks found during the initial in-spection required in paragraph (d)(1) of thisAD to the FAA with a copy to SOCATA. In-formation collection requirements containedin this regulation have been approved by theOffice of Management and Budget (OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Re-duction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)and have been assigned OMB Control Num-ber 2120–0056.

Upon completion of the initial inspection re-quired in paragraph (d)(1) of this AD.

Fill out the compliance form in SOCATA Serv-ice Bulletin SB 10–114 55, dated Sep-tember 2000. Send it to the FAA at the ad-dress specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.Send a copy to SOCATA at the address inparagraph (h) of this AD.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any otherway? You may use an alternative method ofcompliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of complianceprovides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Small AirplaneDirectorate, approves your alternative.Submit your request through an FAAPrincipal Maintenance Inspector, who mayadd comments and then send it to theManager, Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplaneidentified in paragraph (a) of this AD,regardless of whether it has been modified,altered, or repaired in the area subject to therequirements of this AD. For airplanes thathave been modified, altered, or repaired sothat the performance of the requirements ofthis AD is affected, the owner/operator mustrequest approval for an alternative method ofcompliance in accordance with paragraph (e)of this AD. The request should include anassessment of the effect of the modification,alteration, or repair on the unsafe conditionaddressed by this AD; and, if you have noteliminated the unsafe condition, specificactions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about anyalready-approved alternative methods ofcompliance? Contact Karl Schletzbaum,Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small AirplaneDirectorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, KansasCity, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4146; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane toanother location to comply with this AD? TheFAA can issue a special flight permit undersections 21.197 and 21.199 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and21.199) to operate your airplane to a locationwhere you can accomplish the requirementsof this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documentsreferenced in this AD? You may obtain copiesof the documents referenced in this AD fromSOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE, CustomerSupport, Aerodrome Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes,BP 930—F65009 Tarbes Cedex, France; or theProduct Support Manager, SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE, North PerryAirport, 7501 Pembroke Road, PembrokePines, Florida 33023. You may examine thesedocuments at FAA, Central Region, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506,Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressedin French AD Number 2001–002(A), datedJanuary 10, 2001.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August22, 2001.James E. Jackson,Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21754 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–78–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; EurocopterFrance Model AS 332C, L, L1, and L2Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Supplemental notice ofproposed rulemaking (SNPRM);reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: This SNPRM revises anearlier proposed airworthiness directive(AD) for Eurocopter France (ECF) ModelAS 332C, L, L1, and L2 helicopters thatwould have superseded an existing AD.That AD currently requires conductinga filter clogging warning test, and ifnecessary, replacing a blocked fuel filterelement with an airworthy fuel filterelement. The proposed AD would haverequired the same corrective actions asthe existing AD and would have addedanother fuel filter part number to theapplicability. That proposal wasprompted by the discovery of blockedfuel filter by-pass valves. This SNPRMrevises the proposed rule by: referencinga revision to the previously referencedservice information; adding a fuel filterpart number to the applicability; andclarifying other provisions throughoutthe AD. The actions specified by thisSNPRM are intended to prevent powerloss due to fuel starvation, engineflameouts, and a subsequent forcedlanding.DATES: Comments must be received onor before October 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), Office of theRegional Counsel, Southwest Region,Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–78–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may alsosend comments electronically to theRules Docket at the following address:[email protected]. Commentsmay be inspected at the Office of theRegional Counsel between 9 a.m. and 3p.m., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays.

The service information referenced inthe SNPRM may be obtained fromAmerican Eurocopter Corporation, 2701Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas75053–4005, telephone (972) 641–3460,fax (972) 641–3527. This informationmay be examined at the FAA, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, SouthwestRegion, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room663, Fort Worth, Texas.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PaulMadej, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA,Rotorcraft Directorate, RotorcraftStandards Staff, Fort Worth, Texas76193–0110, telephone (817) 222–5125,fax (817) 222–5961.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited toparticipate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communicationsshould identify the Rules Docketnumber and be submitted in triplicate tothe address specified above. Allcommunications received on or beforethe closing date for comments, specifiedabove, will be considered before takingaction on the proposed rule. Theproposals contained in this documentmay be changed because of thecomments received.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe proposed rule. All commentssubmitted will be available in the Rules



Docket for examination by interestedpersons. A report summarizing eachFAA-public contact concerned with thesubstance of this proposal will be filedin the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA toacknowledge receipt of their mailedcomments submitted in response to thisproposal must submit a self-addressed,stamped postcard on which thefollowing statement is made:‘‘Comments to Docket No. 99–SW–78–AD.’’ The postcard will be date stampedand returned to the commenter.

Availability of SNPRMsYou may obtain a copy of this SNPRM

by submitting a request to the FAA,Office of the Regional Counsel,Southwest Region, Attention: RulesDocket No. 99––SW–78–AD, 2601Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,Texas 76137.

DiscussionA proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39

for ECF Model AS332C, L, L1, and L2helicopters was published as a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in theFederal Register on April 14, 2000 (65FR 20104). That NPRM proposed tosupersede AD 99–13–02, Amendment39–11195 (64 FR 32399, June 17, 1999),which applies to ECF Model AS 332C,L, L1, and L2 helicopters. That NPRMwould have continued to require theactions specified in AD 99–13–02 butwould have added a fuel filter partnumber to the applicability. That NPRMwas prompted by the discovery ofblocked fuel filter by-pass valves. Thatcondition, if not corrected, could resultin power loss due to fuel starvation,engine flameouts, and a subsequentforced landing.

Since the issuance of that NPRM,Eurocopter France has issued AlertService Bulletin No. 01.00.56, datedJanuary 16, 2001 (ASB), which changescurrent compliance and operationalprocedures and adds a part number tothe affected fuel filters. The DirectionGenerale De L’Aviation Civile, which isthe airworthiness authority for France,classified this ASB as mandatory andissued AD’s 1998–318–071(A)R6 and1998–319–012(A)R6, both dated April18, 2001, to ensure the continuedairworthiness of these helicopters inFrance. The FAA has determined thatthe actions and all the fuel filter partnumbers specified in the SB should beincluded in this proposal. The word‘‘practicable’’ in the emergencyprocedure in paragraph (b) of the ADwould also be changed to ‘‘possible’’ bythis SNPRM to indicate that if both fuelfilter clogged lights illuminate, the pilotshould land as soon as possible. The

word ‘‘jammed’’ would also be replacedby ‘‘blocked’’ throughout the AD.

Since this change expands the scopeof the originally proposed rule, the FAAhas determined that it is necessary toreopen the comment period to provideadditional opportunity for publiccomment.

The FAA estimates that onehelicopter of U.S. registry would beaffected by the proposed AD, that itwould take approximately 3 work hoursto accomplish the proposed actions, andthat the average labor rate is $60 perwork hour. Based on these figures, thetotal cost impact of the proposed AD onU.S. operators is estimated to be $180,assuming no valve would need to bereplaced.

The regulations proposed hereinwould not have a substantial directeffect on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national Government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government. Therefore,it is determined that this proposalwould not have federalism implicationsunder Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, Icertify that this proposed regulation (1)is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under Executive Order 12866; (2) is nota ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact, positive or negative,on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A copy of the draftregulatory evaluation prepared for thisaction is contained in the Rules Docket.A copy of it may be obtained bycontacting the Rules Docket at thelocation provided under the captionADDRESSES.


safety, Safety.

The Proposed AmendmentAccordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by theAdministrator, the Federal AviationAdministration proposes to amend part39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations(14 CFR part 39) as follows:



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


removing Amendment 39–11195 (64 FR

32399, June 17, 1999) and by adding anew airworthiness directive to read asfollows:Eurocopter France: Docket No. 99–SW–78–

AD. Supersedes AD 99–13–02,Amendment 39–11195, Docket No. 99–SW–17–AD.

Applicability: Eurocopter France Model AS332C, L, L1, and L2 helicopters, with any ofthe following part-numbered fuel filtersinstalled, certificated in any category:

Vendor part num-ber

Eurocopter France partnumber

–4020P25 ............. (704A44620031)–4020P25–1 ......... (704A44620034)–4020P25–2 ......... (704A44620035)–4020P25–3 ......... (704A44620036)–4020P25–4 ......... (704A44620044)–4020P25–11 ....... (704A44620037)

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

Note 2: This AD does not apply to aircraftmodified per Eurocopter MOD 0726087 or incompliance with Eurocopter AS 332 ServiceNo. 28.00.38, dated March 15, 2001.


To prevent power loss due to fuelstarvation, an engine flameout, and asubsequent forced landing, accomplish thefollowing:

(a) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS),after any subsequent flight during whicheither fuel filter pre-clogging caution lightilluminates, and after each installation of anew fuel filter assembly or filter element:

(1) Verify that the fuel filter by-pass valve(valve) correctly closes for each engine fuelfilter in accordance with theAccomplishment Instructions, paragraph2.B.1. of Eurocopter France Alert ServiceBulletin Number 01.00.56 Revision 1, datedMarch 15, 2001 (ASB).

(2) Conduct a filter pre-clogging warningtest in accordance with paragraph 2.B.2. ofthe ASB.

(3) If a blocked fuel filter element (open orclosed) is detected during the pre-cloggingwarning test, clean the filter assembly inaccordance with paragraph 2.B.4. of the ASB.After cleaning the filter assembly, repeat therequirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this AD.

(4) When the pre-clogging warning testresult is satisfactory, repeat the requirementsof paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.

(b) Within 25 hours TIS, insert a copy ofthis AD into the Rotorcraft Flight Manual



(RFM) or make the following pen and inkaddition to the RFM Emergency Procedurefor fuel filter clogged caution lightillumination: ‘‘If both fuel filter cloggedcaution lights illuminate, land as soon aspossible.’’

(c) If both filter clogged caution lightsilluminate in flight, after landing, either:

(1) Accomplish the requirements ofparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this ADbefore further flight, or,

(2) Replace both fuel filter elements withairworthy fuel filter elements and conduct aone-time direct flight to a location where therequirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through(a)(4) of this AD can be accomplished beforefurther flight.

(d) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, RegulationsGroup, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA.Operators shall submit their requests throughan FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,who may concur or comment and then sendit to the Manager, Regulations Group.

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

(e) Special flight permits will not beissued.

(f) The inspections shall be done inaccordance with the AccomplishmentInstructions, paragraphs 2.B.1, 2.B.2., and2.B.4. of Eurocopter France Alert ServiceBulletin No. 01.00.56 Revision 1, datedMarch 15, 2001. This incorporation byreference was approved by the Director of theFederal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may beobtained from American EurocopterCorporation, Technical Support, 2701 ForumDrive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053–4005.Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Officeof the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,Texas; or at the Office of the Federal Register,800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,Washington, DC.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressedin Direction Generale De L’Aviation Civile(France) AD’s 1998–318–071(A)R6 and 1998–319–012(A)R6, both dated April 18, 2001.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 17,2001.

Eric Bries,Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21753 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U



14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–NM–112–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BombardierModel DHC–8–100, –200, and –300Series Airplanes


SUMMARY: This document proposes theadoption of a new airworthinessdirective (AD) that is applicable tocertain Bombardier Model DHC–8–100,–200, and –300 series airplanes. Thisproposal would require repetitiveinspections of the rudder pedaladjustment fittings for cracks andreplacement of cracked fittings withnew fittings. The proposal would alsoprovide an optional terminating action.This action is necessary to detect andcorrect cracking of the rudder pedaladjustment fittings, which could lead todeformation of the fittings, resulting injammed rudder pedals and loss ofrudder control, with consequentreduced controllability of the airplane.This action is intended to address theidentified unsafe condition.DATES: Comments must be received bySeptember 28, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket Number 2001–NM–112–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–112–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 inthe proposed rule may be obtained fromBombardier, Inc., Bombardier RegionalAircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard,Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.This information may be examined atthe FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,New York Aircraft Certification Office,10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, ValleyStream, New York.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DanParrillo, Aerospace Engineer, ANE–172,FAA, New York Aircraft CertificationOffice, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor,Valley Stream, New York 11581;telephone (516) 256–7505; fax (516)568–2716.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited toparticipate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communications shallidentify the Rules Docket number andbe submitted in triplicate to the addressspecified above. All communicationsreceived on or before the closing datefor comments, specified above, will beconsidered before taking action on theproposed rule. The proposals containedin this action may be changed in lightof the comments received.



• For each issue, state what specificchange to the proposed AD is beingrequested.


Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe proposed rule. All commentssubmitted will be available, both beforeand after the closing date for comments,in the Rules Docket for examination byinterested persons. A reportsummarizing each FAA-public contactconcerned with the substance of thisproposal will be filed in the RulesDocket.

Commenters wishing the FAA toacknowledge receipt of their commentssubmitted in response to this actionmust submit a self-addressed, stampedpostcard on which the followingstatement is made: ‘‘Comments toDocket Number 2001–NM–112–AD.’’The postcard will be date stamped andreturned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of thisNPRM by submitting a request to theFAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket



Number 2001–NM–112–AD, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington98055–4056.

DiscussionTransport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA), which is the airworthinessauthority for Canada, notified the FAAthat an unsafe condition may exist oncertain Bombardier Model DHC–8 –100,–200, and –300 series airplanes. TheTCCA advises that three incidents havebeen reported of stiff rudder pedaloperation. These incidents were due tocracking of the rudder pedal adjustmentfittings. If not corrected, cracking of therudder pedal adjustment fittings canlead to deformation of the fittings,resulting in jammed rudder pedals andloss of rudder control, with consequentreduced controllability of the airplane.


Bombardier, Inc., has issued AlertService Bulletin A8–27–91, datedSeptember 12, 2000, and Revision A,dated November 23, 2000, whichdescribe procedures for a detailed visualinspection of the rudder pedaladjustment fittings for cracks andreplacement of cracked fittings withnew aluminum or steel fittings. Newaluminum fittings would need to beinspected within 5,000 flight hours afterinstallation and thereafter at intervalsnot to exceed 1,000 flight hours.Replacement with steel fittings wouldconstitute terminating action for thepurposes of this AD. Accomplishmentof the actions specified in the servicebulletin is intended to adequatelyaddress the identified unsafe condition.

The TCCA classified this servicebulletin as mandatory and issuedCanadian airworthiness directive CF–2001–04, dated January 25, 2001, inorder to assure the continuedairworthiness of these airplanes inCanada. That airworthiness directivespecifies that, if there is any instance ofstiff operation or jamming of the rudderpedals during flight, the rudder pedaladjustment fittings must be inspected inaccordance with the Bombardier servicebulletin prior to further flight.

FAA’s ConclusionsThis airplane model is manufactured

in Canada and is type certificated foroperation in the United States under theprovisions of section 21.29 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR21.29) and the applicable bilateralairworthiness agreement. Pursuant tothis bilateral airworthiness agreement,the TCCA has kept the FAA informed ofthe situation described above. The FAAhas examined the findings of the TCCA,

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 ofProposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other airplanes of the sametype design registered in the UnitedStates, the proposed AD would requireaccomplishment of the actions specifiedin the service bulletin describedpreviously.

Cost ImpactThe FAA estimates that 188 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by thisproposed AD, that it would takeapproximately 1 work hour per airplaneto accomplish the proposed inspection,and that the average labor rate is $60 perwork hour. Based on these figures, thecost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.operators is estimated to be $11,280, or$60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussedabove is based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any ofthe proposed requirements of this ADaction, and that no operator wouldaccomplish those actions in the future ifthis proposed AD were not adopted. Thecost impact figures discussed in ADrulemaking actions represent only thetime necessary to perform the specificactions actually required by the AD.These figures typically do not includeincidental costs, such as the timerequired to gain access and close up,planning time, or time necessitated byother administrative actions.

Regulatory ImpactThe regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial directeffect on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national Government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government. Therefore,it is determined that this proposalwould not have federalism implicationsunder Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, Icertify that this proposed regulation (1)is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under Executive Order 12866; (2) is nota ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact, positive or negative,on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A copy of the draftregulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.A copy of it may be obtained bycontacting the Rules Docket at thelocation provided under the captionADDRESSES.


safety, Safety.





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


adding the following new airworthinessdirective:Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland,

Inc.) Docket 2001–NM–112–AD.Applicability: Model DHC–8–100, –200,

and –300 series airplanes, serial numbers 003to 563 inclusive, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplaneidentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenotherwise modified, altered, or repaired inthe area subject to the requirements of thisAD. For airplanes that have been modified,altered, or repaired so that the performanceof the requirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance 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.


To detect and correct cracking of therudder pedal adjustment fittings, whichcould lead to deformation of the fittings,resulting in jammed rudder pedals and lossof rudder control, with consequent reducedcontrollability of the airplane, accomplishthe following:

Inspection(a) Inspect the rudder pedal adjustment

fittings having part number (P/N) 82710038–101 for cracks, in accordance withBombardier Service Bulletin A8–27–91,dated September 12, 2000, or Revision A,dated November 23, 2000, at the timesspecified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) ofthis AD.

(1) Within 5,000 flight hours since the dateof manufacture of the airplane or 500 flighthours after the effective date of this AD,whichever occurs later, and



(2) Prior to further flight, whenever aninstance of stiff operation or jamming of therudder pedals occurs during flight.

(b) If no cracks are detected: Repeat theinspection of the rudder pedal adjustmentfittings having P/N 82710038–101, inaccordance with Bombardier Service BulletinA8–27–91, dated September 12, 2000, orRevision A, dated November 23, 2000, atintervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours,until accomplishment of paragraph (d) of thisAD.

(c) If cracks are detected: Prior to furtherflight, replace the rudder pedal adjustmentfittings having P/N 82710038–101 with newaluminum fittings having the same P/N(82710038–101), or with steel fittings havingP/N 82710080–101, in accordance withBombardier Service Bulletin A8–27–91,dated September 12, 2000, or Revision A,dated November 23, 2000.

Terminating Action

(d) Replacement of the rudder pedaladjustment fittings having P/N 82710038–101, with steel rudder pedal adjustmentfittings having P/N 82710080–101,constitutes terminating action for therepetitive inspections required by paragraphs(a) and (b) of this AD.


(e) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, New YorkAircraft Certification Office, FAA. Operatorsshall submit their requests through anappropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, New York ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the New York ACO.


(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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressedin Canadian airworthiness directive CF–2001–04, dated January 25, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August22, 2001.

Ali Bahrami,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21752 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U



14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnellDouglas Model MD–90–30 SeriesAirplanes


SUMMARY: This document proposes theadoption of a new airworthinessdirective (AD) that is applicable tocertain McDonnell Douglas Model MD–90–30 series airplanes. This proposalwould require installation of two arcingprotection brackets below and behindthe circuit breakers located in thegenerator control rack in the electrical/electronics compartment. This action isnecessary to prevent arcing betweencircuit breaker terminals and adjacentequipment and structure located in thegenerator control rack in the electrical/electronics compartment, which, if notcorrected, could result in possibleelectrical shock to maintenancepersonnel during maintenanceoperations. This action is intended toaddress the identified unsafe condition.DATES: Comments must be received byOctober 15, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–130–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–130–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 inthe proposed rule may be obtained fromBoeing Commercial Aircraft Group,Long Beach Division, 3855 LakewoodBoulevard, Long Beach, California90846, Attention: Data and ServiceManagement, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–

0024). This information may beexamined at the FAA, TransportAirplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or atFAA, Los Angeles Aircraft CertificationOffice, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,Lakewood, California.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:George Y. Mabuni, Aerospace Engineer,Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, FAA, Los Angeles AircraftCertification Office, 3960 ParamountBoulevard, Lakewood, California90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5341;fax (562) 627–5210.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments InvitedInterested persons are invited to

participate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communications shallidentify the Rules Docket number andbe submitted in triplicate to the addressspecified above. All communicationsreceived on or before the closing datefor comments, specified above, will beconsidered before taking action on theproposed rule. The proposals containedin this action may be changed in lightof the comments received.







Availability of NPRMsAny person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the



FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.2001–NM–130–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received a reportindicating that evidence of arcing wasfound between circuit breaker terminalsand adjacent equipment and structurelocated on the generator control rack inthe electrical/electronics compartment.Investigation revealed that arcingoccurred due to open access to circuitbreaker terminals. Such arcing, if notcorrected, could result in possibleelectrical shock to maintenancepersonnel during maintenanceoperations.


The FAA has reviewed and approvedMcDonnell Douglas Service BulletinMD90–24–007, dated February 7, 1996,which describes procedures forinstallation of two arcing protectionbrackets below and behind the circuitbreakers located in the generator controlrack in the electrical/electronicscompartment. Accomplishment of theactions specified in the service bulletinis intended to adequately address theidentified unsafe condition.


Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other products of this sametype design, the proposed AD wouldrequire accomplishment of the actionsspecified in the service bulletindescribed previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 26 ModelMD–90–30 series airplanes of theaffected design in the worldwide fleet.The FAA estimates that 14 airplanes ofU.S. registry would be affected by thisproposed AD, that it would takeapproximately 2 work hours perairplane to accomplish the proposedactions, and that the average labor rateis $60 per work hour. Required partswould cost approximately $200 perairplane. Based on these figures, the costimpact of the proposed AD on U.S.operators is estimated to be $4,480, or$320 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussedabove is based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any ofthe proposed requirements of this ADaction, and that no operator wouldaccomplish those actions in the future ifthis proposed AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in ADrulemaking actions represent only thetime necessary to perform the specificactions actually required by the AD.These figures typically do not includeincidental costs, such as the timerequired to gain access and close up,planning time, or time necessitated byother administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed hereinwould not have a substantial directeffect on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national Government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government. Therefore,it is determined that this proposalwould not have federalism implicationsunder Executive Order 13132.



Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, Safety.


Accordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me by theAdministrator, the Federal AviationAdministration proposes to amend part39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations(14 CFR part 39) as follows:



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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001–NM–130–

AD.Applicability: Model MD–90–30 series

airplanes, certificated in any category; asidentified in McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD90–24–007, dated February 7,1996.

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.


To prevent arcing between circuit breakerterminals and adjacent equipment andstructure located on the generator controlrack in the electrical/electronicscompartment, and consequent electricalshock to maintenance personnel duringmaintenance operations, accomplish thefollowing:

Installation

(a) Within one year after the effective dateof this AD, install two arcing protectionbrackets below and behind the circuitbreakers located in the generator control rackin the electrical/electronics compartment perthe Accomplishment Instructions ofMcDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD90–24–007, dated February 7, 1996.


(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.




Issued in Renton, Washington, on August22, 2001.Ali Bahrami,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21751 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U





14 CFR Part 39


RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnellDouglas Model DC–9–81, –82, –83, and–87 Series Airplanes; Model MD–88Airplanes; and Model MD–90–30 SeriesAirplanes


SUMMARY: This document proposes theadoption of a new airworthinessdirective (AD) that is applicable tocertain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87 series airplanes;Model MD–88 airplanes; and ModelMD–90–30 series airplanes. Thisproposal would require replacement ofcertain main landing gear (MLG) shockstrut piston assemblies with new orserviceable, improved assemblies,which would constitute terminatingaction for the requirements of certainother ADs. This action is necessary toprevent fatigue cracking of the MLGshock strut pistons, which could resultin failure of the MLG shock strut pistonsduring landing or jacking of theairplane, and consequent damage to theairplane structure and injury to thepassengers, flightcrew, or groundpersonnel. This action is intended toaddress the identified unsafe condition.DATES: Comments must be received bySeptember 28, 2001.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–197–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–197–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 inthe proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group,Long Beach Division, 3855 LakewoodBoulevard, Long Beach, California90846, 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.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Y. J. Hsu, Aerospace Engineer,Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, LosAngeles Aircraft Certification Office,3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,California 90712–4137; telephone (562)627–5323; fax (562) 627–5210.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments InvitedInterested persons are invited to

participate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communications shallidentify the Rules Docket number andbe submitted in triplicate to the addressspecified above. All communicationsreceived on or before the closing datefor comments, specified above, will beconsidered before taking action on theproposed rule. The proposals containedin this action may be changed in lightof the comments received.







Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of thisNPRM by submitting a request to theFAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.2001–NM–197–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports of threeinstances of failure of a main landinggear (MLG) shock strut piston onMcDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–82series airplanes and a Model MD–88airplane. Subsequent inspectionsrequired by ADs 96–19–09, amendment39–9756 (61 FR 48617, September 16,1996); 99–13–07, amendment 39–11201(64 FR 33392, June 23, 1999); and 2000–03–08, amendment 39–11567 (65 FR7719, February 16, 2000) also revealednumerous fatigue cracks in the areas ofthe torque link lugs and small radius onthe base of the jackball of the MLGshock strut pistons. Such fatiguecracking, if not corrected, could resultin failure of the MLG shock strut pistonsduring landing or jacking of theairplane, and consequent damage to theairplane structure and injury to thepassengers, flightcrew, or groundpersonnel.

The MLG shock strut pistons installedon McDonnell Douglas Model MD–90–30 series airplanes are similar in designto those installed on the affected ModelDC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87 seriesairplanes, and Model MD–88 airplanes.Therefore, all of these airplanes may besubject to the same unsafe condition.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

The FAA has previously issued threeother ADs that concern the MLG shockstrut pistons on McDonnell DouglasModel DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87series airplanes; Model MD–88airplanes; and Model MD–90–30 seriesairplanes:

1. AD 99–13–07, which is applicableto certain Model DC–9–81, –82, –83,and –87 series airplanes, Model MD–88airplanes, and Model MD–90–30 seriesairplanes, requires repetitiveinspections to detect cracking of theMLG shock strut pistons, andreplacement of a cracked piston with anew or serviceable part.

2. AD 2000–03–08, which isapplicable to certain Model MD–90–30series airplanes, requires repetitivefluorescent penetrant and magneticparticle inspection to detect fatiguecracking of the MLG shock strut pistons,and repair, if necessary.

3. AD 2001–09–18, which isapplicable to certain Model DC–9–81,–82, –83, and –87 series airplanes, and



Model MD–88 airplanes, requires,among other actions, repetitive dyepenetrant and magnetic particleinspection to detect cracks of the MLGshock strut pistons; repair andreplacement of discrepant parts; andinstallation of a preventativemodification; as applicable. (This ADsuperseded AD 96–19–09.)

This proposed AD would constituteterminating action for the requirementsof those ADs.


The FAA has reviewed and approvedBoeing Service Bulletin MD80–32–309,Revision 01, dated April 25, 2001 (forModel DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87series airplanes, and Model MD–88airplanes), and Boeing Service BulletinMD90–32–031, Revision 01, dated April25, 2001 (for Model MD–90–30 seriesairplanes); as applicable. The servicebulletins describe procedures forreplacement of the MLG shock strutpiston assemblies, left and right-handside, with new or serviceable, improvedassemblies, which would eliminate theneed for the requirements of certain ADs(described above). Accomplishment ofthe actions specified in the servicebulletins is intended to adequatelyaddress the identified unsafe condition.


Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other products of this sametype design, the proposed AD wouldrequire accomplishment of the actionsspecified in the service bulletinsdescribed previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,380McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81,–82, –83, and –87 series airplanes;Model MD–88 airplanes; and ModelMD–90–30 series airplanes of theaffected design in the worldwide fleet.The FAA estimates that 820 airplanes ofU.S. registry would be affected by thisproposed AD, that it would takeapproximately 28 work hours perairplane to accomplish the proposedactions, and that the average labor rateis $60 per work hour. The manufacturerhas committed previously to itscustomers that it will bear the cost ofreplacement parts, subject to theconditions in the warranty. As a result,the cost of those parts is not attributableto this proposed AD. Based on thesefigures, the cost impact of the proposedAD on U.S. operators is estimated to be$1,377,600, or $1,680 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussedabove is based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any ofthe proposed requirements of this ADaction, and that no operator wouldaccomplish those actions in the future ifthis proposed AD were not adopted. Thecost impact figures discussed in ADrulemaking actions represent only thetime necessary to perform the specificactions actually required by the AD.These figures typically do not includeincidental costs, such as the timerequired to gain access and close up,planning time, or time necessitated byother administrative actions.

Regulatory ImpactThe regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial directeffect on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national Government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government. Therefore,it is determined that this proposalwould not have federalism implicationsunder Executive Order 13132.



safety, Safety.





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


adding the following new airworthinessdirective:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001–NM–197–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–81, –82, –83,and –87 series airplanes, and Model MD–88airplanes, as listed in Boeing Service BulletinMD80–32–309, Revision 01, dated April 25,2001; and Model MD–90–30 series airplanes,as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–32–031, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2001;certificated in any category.



To prevent fatigue cracking of the mainlanding gear (MLG) shock strut pistons,which could result in failure of the MLGshock strut pistons during landing or jackingof the airplane, and consequent damage tothe airplane structure and injury to thepassengers, flightcrew, or ground personnel,accomplish the following:

Replacement

(a) Before the accumulation of 30,000 totallandings, or within 5,000 landings after theeffective date of this AD, whichever occurslater: Replace the MLG shock strut pistonassemblies, left and right-hand sides, withnew or serviceable, improved assemblies, perthe Accomplishment Instructions of BoeingService Bulletin MD80–32–309, Revision 01,dated April 25, 2001 (for Model DC–9–81,–82, –83, and –87 series airplanes, and ModelMD–88 airplanes); or Boeing Service BulletinMD90–32–031, Revision 01, dated April 25,2001 (for Model MD–90–30 series airplanes);as applicable.

Note 2: Accomplishment of thereplacement specified in Boeing ServiceBulletin MD80–32–309, dated January 31,2000 (for Model DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87series airplanes, and Model MD–88airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–32–031, dated January 31, 2000 (for ModelMD–90–30 series airplanes); as applicable;before the effective date of this AD, isconsidered acceptable for compliance withthe requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD.

Compliance With Requirements of OtherADs

(b) Accomplishment of the replacementrequired by paragraph (a) of this ADconstitutes terminating action for therequirements of ADs 99–13–07, amendment39–11201, 2000–03–08, amendment 39–11567, and 2001–09–18, amendment 39–12225.



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

adjustment 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.


Special Flight Permit(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197and 21.199) to operate the airplane to alocation where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August22, 2001.Ali Bahrami,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 01–21750 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U



14 CFR Part 71


Proposed Revision of Class EAirspace, Holyoke, CO

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Supplemental, Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: This Supplemental action isnecessary to put before the public thecorrect NPRM for Holyoke, CO. Theprevious NPRM that was published inthe Federal Register (66 FR 38224) onJuly 23, 2001, was published,inadvertently, with sections fromanother pending action for Yakima, WA.This action proposes to revise the ClassE airspace at Holyoke, CO. A newlyconstructed runway at the HolyokeAirport resulted in a change to theAirport Reference Point (ARP)coordinates. The change of the ARPcoordinates requires an amendment ofthe legal description of Holyoke AirportClass E airspace to reflect the newcoordinates.DATES: Comments must be received onor before October 15, 2001.ADDRESSES: Send comments on theproposal in triplicate to: Manager,Airspace Branch, ANM–520, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.00–ANM–32, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

An informal docket may also beexamined during normal business hoursin the office of the Manager, Air TrafficDivision, Airspace Branch, at theaddress listed above.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.00–ANM–32, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,Renton, Washington 98055–4056:telephone number: (425) 227–2527.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited toparticipate in this proposed rulemakingby submitting such written data, views,or arguments, as they may desire.Comments that provide the factual basissupporting the views and suggestionspresented are particularly helpful indeveloping reasoned regulatorydecisions on the proposal. Commentsare specifically invited on the overallregulatory, aeronautical, economic,environmental, and energy relatedaspects of the proposal.Communications should identify theairspace docket number and besubmitted in triplicate to the addresslisted above. Commenters wishing theFAA to acknowledge receipt of theircomments on this action must submit,with those comments, a self-addressedstamped postcard on which thefollowing statement is made:‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00–ANM–32.’’ The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to thecommenter. All communicationsreceived on or before the specifiedclosing date for comments will beconsidered before taking action on theproposed rule. The proposal containedin this action may be changed in thelight of comments received. Allcomments submitted will be availablefor examination at the address listedabove both before and after the closingdate for comments. A reportsummarizing each substantive publiccontact with FAA personnel concernedwith this rulemaking will be filed in thedocket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of thisNPRM by submitting a request to theFederal Aviation Administration,Airspace Branch, ANM–520, 1601 LindAvenue SW, Renton, Washington98055–4056. Communications mustidentify the docket number of thisNPRM. Persons interested in beingplaced on a mailing list for future

NPRM’s should also request a copy ofAdvisory Circular No. 11–2A, whichdescribes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering anamendment to Title 14 Code of FederalRegulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) byrevising Class E airspace legaldescription at Holyoke, CO. A newlyconstructed runway at the HolyokeAirport resulted in a change to the ARP,which has made this proposalnecessary. The airspace description forthe Class E5, 700-feet and 1,200-feetcontrolled airspace above the surface ofthe earth, at Holyoke would be changedby this proposal to reflect the new ARPreference. The intended effect of thisproposal is to provide the correct legaldescription for the airspace at Holyoke.

The area would be depicted onaeronautical charts for pilot reference.The coordinates for this airspace docketare based on North American Datum 83.Class E airspace areas extending upwardfrom 700-feet or more above the surfaceof the earth, are published in Paragraph6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H datedSeptember 1, 2000, and effectiveSeptember 16, 2000, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR71.1. The Class E airspace designationlisted in this document would bepublished subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that thisproposed regulation only involves anestablished body of technicalregulations for which frequent androutine amendments are necessary tokeep them operationally current. It,therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under ExecutiveOrder 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significantrule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policiesand Procedures (44 FR 11013; February26, 1979); and (3) does not warrantpreparation of a Regulatory Evaluationas the anticipated impact is so minimal.Since this is a routine matter that willonly affect air traffic procedures and airnavigation, it is certified that this rule,when promulgated, will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act.




In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationproposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 asfollows:






§ 71.1 [Amended]2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal AviationAdministration Order 7400.9H,Airspace Designations and ReportingPoints, dated September 1, 2000, andeffective September 16, 2000, isamended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace AreasExtending Upward From 700-feet or MoreAbove the Surface of the Earth.* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Holyoke, CO [Revised]Holyoke Airport, CO

(Lat. 40°34′10″N., long. 102°16′22″W.)Heginbotham NDB(Lat. 40°34′53″N., long. 102°16′59″W.)That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within the 6.7-mileradius of the Holyoke Airport, and within 2.5miles each side of the 325° bearing from theHeginbotham NDB extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7 miles northwest of the NDB;excluding that airspace within FederalAirways.





14 CFR Part 71

(Airspace Docket No. 2001–ASW–13)

Proposed Establishment of Class EAirspace; Angel Fire Airport, AngelFire, NM

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes toestablish Class E airspace at Angel FireAirport, Angel Fire, NM. Thedevelopment of an area navigation(RNAV) global positioning system (GPS)standard instrument approachprocedure (SIAP), to Angel Fire Airport,

Angel Fire, NM, has made this rulenecessary. The intended effect of thisproposal is to provide adequatecontrolled airspace for aircraft operatingin the vicinity of Angel Fire Airport,Angel Fire, NM.DATES: Comments must be received onor before October 29, 2001.ADDRESSES: Send comments on theproposal in triplicate to Manager,Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division,Federal Aviation Administration,Southwest Region, Docket No. 2001–ASW–13, Fort Worth, TX 76193–0520.The official docket may be examined inthe Office of the Regional Counsel,Southwest Region, Federal AviationAdministration, 2601 MeachamBoulevard, Fort Worth, TX, between 9a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday throughFriday, except Federal holidays. Aninformal docket may also be examinedduring normal business hours at theAirspace Branch, Air Traffic Division,Federal Aviation Administration,Southwest Region, 2601 MeachamBoulevard, Fort Worth, TX.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, AirTraffic Division, Federal AviationAdministration, Southwest Region, FortWorth, TX 76193–0520; telephone: (817)222–5593.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments InvitedInterested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemakingby submitting such written data, views,or arguments, as they may desire.Comments that provide the factual basissupporting the views and suggestionspresented are particularly helpful indeveloping reasoned regulatorydecisions on the proposal. Commentsare specifically invited on the overallregulatory, aeronautical, economic,environmental, and energy-relatedaspects of the proposal.Communications should identify theairspace docket number and besubmitted in triplicate to the addresslisted under the caption ADDRESSES.Commenters wishing the FAA toacknowledge receipt of their commentson this proposal must submit, withthose comments, a self-addressed,stamped, postcard containing thefollowing statement: ‘‘Comments to Air-space Docket No. 2001–ASW–13.’’ Thepostcard will be date and time stampedand returned to the commenter. Allcommunications received on or beforethe specified closing date for commentswill be considered before taking actionon the proposed rule. The proposalcontained in this action may be changedin the light of comments received. All

comments submitted will be availablefor examination in the Office of theRegional Counsel, Southwest RegionFederal Aviation Administration, 2601Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX,both before and after the closing date forcomments. A report summarizing eachsubstantive public contact with FAApersonnel concerned with thisrulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM’sAny person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)by submitting a request to theOperations Branch, Air Traffic Division,Federal Aviation Administration,Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX76193–0520. Communications mustidentify the notice number of thisNPRM. Persons interested in beingplaced on a mailing list for futureNPRM’s should also request a copy ofAdvisory Circular No. 11–2A thatdescribes the application procedure.

The ProposalThe FAA is considering an

amendment to 14 CFR part 71 toestablish Class E airspace at Angel FireAirport, Angel Fire, NM. Thedevelopment of a RNAV GPS SIAP toAngel Fire Airport, Angel Fire, NM, hasmade this rule necessary. The intendedeffect of this proposal is to provideadequate controlled airspace for aircraftoperating in the vicinity of Angel FireAirport, Angel Fire, NM.

The coordinates for this airspacedocket are based on North AmericanDatum 83. Designated Class E airspaceareas are published in Paragraph 6005 ofFAA Order 7400.9H, AirspaceDesignations and Reporting Points,dated September 1, 2000, and effectiveSeptember 16, 2000, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR§ 71.1. The Class E airspace designationlisted in this document would bepublished subsequently in the order.

Further, the FAA has determined thatthis proposed regulation only involvesan established body of technicalregulations for which frequent androutine amendments are necessary tokeep them operationally current.Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1)is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under Executive Order 12866; (2) is nota ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)does not warrant preparation of aRegulatory Evaluation as the anticipatedimpact is so minimal. Since this is aroutine matter that will only affect airtraffic procedures and air navigation, itis certified that this proposed rule willnot have a significant economic impact



on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act.




In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationproposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 asfollows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS E, ANDCLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTINGPOINTS


Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]


Paragraph 6005: Class E airspace areasextending upward from 700 feet or moreabove the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW NM E5 Angel Fire Airport, Angel Fire,NM [New]

Angel Fire Airport, NM

(Lat. 36°25′21″N., long. 105°17′21″W.)That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 7.5-mileradius of Angel Fire Airport and within 2miles either side of the 005° bearing from theairport extending form the 7.5-mile radius to11.1 miles north of the airport.

* * * * *

Issued in Fort Worth, TX on August 21,2001.

Albert L. Viselli,Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,Southwest Region.[FR Doc. 01–21825 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]



40 CFR Part 52

[TN–232–200118(b); FRL–7044–3]

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans: State ofTennessee

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving arevision to the State of Tennessee’s rulessubmitted on February 14, 2000. TheState of Tennessee is amending Chapter1200–3–22—Lead Emissions Standardsto require EPA approval of changes toReasonably Available ControlTechnology (RACT) emission levels inpermits for lead sources. In the FinalRules Section of this Federal Register,the EPA is approving the State’s SIPrevision as a direct final rule withoutprior proposal because the Agencyviews this as a noncontroversialsubmittal and anticipates no adversecomments. A detailed rationale for theapproval is set forth in the direct finalrule. If no adverse comments arereceived in response to this action, nofurther activity is contemplated. If EPAreceives adverse comments, the directfinal rule will be withdrawn and allpublic comments received will beaddressed in a subsequent final rulebased on this proposed rule. The EPAwill not institute a second commentperiod on this document. Any partiesinterested in commenting on thisdocument should do so at this time.DATES: Written comments must bereceived on or before September 28,2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to Kimberly Bingham, atthe EPA Regional Office listed below.The interested persons wanting toexamine these documents should makean appointment with the appropriateoffice at least 24 hours before thevisiting day. Copies of the documentsrelative to this action are available forpublic inspection during normalbusiness hours at the followinglocations.

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 4, Atlanta FederalCenter, Air, Pesticides, and ToxicsManagement Division, 61 ForsythStreet, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104.Tennessee Department of Environmentand Conservation, Division of AirPollution Control, 9th Floor L&C Annex,401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee37243–1531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kimberly Bingham of the EPA Region 4,Air Planning Branch at (404) 562–9038and at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Foradditional information see the directfinal rule which is published in theFinal Rules section of this FederalRegister.

Dated: July 24, 2001.Russell Wright,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.[FR Doc. 01–21701 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


40 CFR Parts 152 and 156

[OPP–250130; FRL–6750–8]

RIN 2070–AD14

Pesticide Labeling and OtherRegulatory Revisions; Notification tothe Secretary of Agriculture

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification to the Secretary ofAgriculture.

SUMMARY: This document notifies thepublic that the Administrator of EPAhas forwarded to the Secretary ofAgriculture a draft final rule undersection 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA). The draft final ruleaccomplishes a number of minorrevisions to pesticide labeling andprogram regulations. These revisionsreformat and update hazard labeling forclarity, interpret provisions of FIFRA asthey apply to nitrogen stabilizers, andcodify certain exclusions andexemptions for chemical sterilants.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bymail: Jean M. Frane, Field and ExternalAffairs Division 7506C, Office ofPesticide Programs, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington DC 20460;telephone number: 703–305–5944; e-mail address: [email protected].


I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected bythis action if you are a pesticideregistrant or producer. Potentiallyaffected categories and entities mayinclude, but are not limited to:



Categories NAICScodes

Examples of po-tentially affected

entities

Producers 32532 Pesticide pro-ducers

32531 Nitrogen stabilizerproducers

32561 Antimicrobial pro-ducers

Wholesalers 42269 Antimicrobialproducts

42291 Pesticide prod-ucts

This listing is not exhaustive, butrather provides a guide for readersregarding entities likely to be affected bythis action. Other types of entities notlisted in the table could also be affected.The North American IndustrialClassification System (NAICS) codeshave been provided to assist you andothers in determining whether or notthis action might apply to certainentities. If you have questions regardingthe applicability of this action to aparticular entity, consult the personlisted under FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT.

B. How Can I Get AdditionalInformation, Including Copies of thisDocument and Other RelatedDocuments?

1. Electronically. You may obtainelectronic copies of this document, andcertain other related documents thatmight be available electronically, fromthe EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access thisdocument, on the Home Page select‘‘Laws and Regulations, ’’ ‘‘Regulationsand Proposed Rules,’’ and then look upthe entry for this document under the‘‘Federal Register —EnvironmentalDocuments.’’ You can also go directly tothe Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The Agency hasextablished an official record for thisaction under docket control numberOPP–250130. 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 theducuments that are physically locatedin the docket, as well as the documentsthat are referenced in those documents.The public version of the offcial 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 Information

and 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. What Action is EPA Taking?

Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA providesthat the Administrator must provide theSecretary of Agriculture with a copy ofany regulation at least 30 days beforesigning it for publication in the FederalRegister. The draft final rule is notavailable to the public until after it hasbeen signed by EPA. If the Secretarycomments in writing regarding the draftfinal rule within 15 days after receivingit, the Administrator shall include in thefinal rule when published in theFederal Register the comments of theSecretary and the Administrator’sresponse to those comments. If theSecretary does not comment in writingwithin 15 days after receiving the draftfinal rule, the Administrator may signthe final rule for publication in theFederal Register anytime after the 15–day period.

III. Do Any Regulatory AssessmentRequirements Apply to thisNotification?

No. This document is not a rule,merely a notification of submission tothe Secretary of Agriculture. As such,none of the regulatory assessmentrequirements apply to this document.

IV. Will EPA Submit this Notification toCongress and the Comptroller General?

No. This action is not a rule forpurposes of the Congressional ReviewAct (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804(3), and will notbe submitted to Congress and theComptroller General. EPA will submitthe final rule to Congress and theComptroller General as required by theCRA.

List of Subjects in Parts 152 and 156

Environmental Protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Labeling, Occupational safety andhealth, Pesticides and pests, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements


Marcia E. MulkeyDirector, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–21708 Filed 8–28–00]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH80

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Notice of Public Hearingson the Proposed Rule To EstablishSixteen Additional Manatee ProtectionAreas in Florida

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of publichearings.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and WildlifeService, give notice that we are holdingpublic hearings on the proposed rule toestablish sixteen additional manateeprotection areas in Florida. We invite allinterested parties to submit commentson this proposal.DATES: We will hold public hearingsfrom 7 to 9 p.m. on Monday, September10, 2001, in Crystal River, Florida;Tuesday, September 11, 2001, inClearwater, Florida; Wednesday,September 12, 2001, in Venice, Florida;and Thursday, September 13, 2001, inMelbourne, Florida. The commentperiod will close on October 9, 2001.We will consider any commentsreceived by the closing date in the finaldecision on this proposal.ADDRESSES: We will hold the publichearings at the following locations:

• Crystal River at the Plantation Innand Conference Center, Magnolia Room,9301 W. Fort Island Trail, Crystal River,FL;

• Clearwater at the HarborviewConvention Center Clearwater Room,300 Cleveland Ave., Clearwater, FL;

• Venice at the Holiday Inn BanquetRoom, 455 N. U.S. 41 Bypass, Venice,FL;

• Melbourne at the Radisson Hotel &Conference Center, Oak Ballroom, 3101North Hwy. A1A, Melbourne, FL.

You may submit written commentsand materials concerning the proposalat the hearings or send them directly tothe Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Jacksonville FieldOffice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,6620 Southpoint Drive, South, Suite310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. Youmay also hand-deliver writtencomments to our Jacksonville FieldOffice, at the above address, or fax yourcomments to 904/232–2404.Additionally, you may send commentsby electronic mail (e-mail) [email protected].

Comments and materials received, aswell as supporting documentation used



in the preparation of this proposed rule,will be available for public inspection,by appointment, during normal businesshours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at theabove address. You may obtain copies ofthe proposed rule and draftenvironmental assessment from theabove address or by calling 904/232–2580, or from our website at http://northflorida.fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Hankla, Peter Benjamin, orCameron Shaw (see ADDRESSES section),telephone 904/232–2580; or visit ourwebsite at http://northflorida.fws.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wepublished a proposed rule to establish16 additional manatee protection areasin Florida in the Federal Register onAugust 10, 2001 (66 FR 42318). We areproposing this action under theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA),and the Marine Mammal Protection Actof 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361–1407) (MMPA), to further recovery ofthe Florida manatee (Trichechusmanatus latirostris) through a reductionin the level of take. In evaluating theneed for additional manatee protectionareas, we considered the needs of themanatee at an ecosystem level with thegoal of ensuring that adequate, protected

areas are available throughoutpeninsular Florida to satisfy thebiological requirements of the species,with a view toward the manatee’srecovery. We are proposing to designatefour areas in Hillsborough, Pinellas, andCitrus Counties, as manatee sanctuariesin which all waterborne activities wouldbe prohibited, with an exception forresidents. The remaining 12 areas,located in Pinellas, Sarasota, Charlotte,Desoto, Lee, and Brevard Counties,would be designated as manatee refugesin which certain waterborne activitieswould be prohibited or regulated. Wealso announced the availability of adraft environmental assessment for thisaction.

We announced the date, time andlocation of the public hearing inMelbourne with the notice of theproposed rule. We stated that additionalpublic hearings would be held at dates,times, and sites to be determined. Thisnotice provides information regardingthose additional hearings.

Public hearings are designed to gatherrelevant information that the public mayhave that we should consider in ourrule-making. During the hearing, wewill present information about theproposed action. We invite the public tosubmit information and commentseither at the hearings or in writing.

We may have to limit the time allottedfor oral statements, if the number ofpeople who wish to commentnecessitates such a limitation. Weencourage persons wishing to commentat the hearings to provide a written copyof their statement at the start of thehearing. There is no limit on the lengthof written comments. Persons may alsosend written comments to our office inthe ADDRESSES section at any timeduring the open comment period, whichcloses on October 9, 2001. We will giveequal consideration to oral and writtencomments. We are publishing legalnotices announcing the date, time, andlocation of the hearings in newspapers,concurrently with this Federal Registernotice.

Author: The primary author of thisnotice is Cameron Shaw (see ADDRESSESsection).

Authority: The authority for this action isthe Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Marine MammalProtection Act of 1972, as amended (16U.S.C. 1361–1407).

Dated: August 20, 2001.Thomas M. Riley,Acting Regional Director, Fish and WildlifeService.[FR Doc. 01–21906 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–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

45664

Vol. 66, No. 168


1 Same company as Han Il Stainless Ind. Co., Ltd.listed above.


International Trade Administration

[A–580–601]

Top-of-the-Stove Stainless SteelCooking Ware From the Republic ofKorea: Final Results and Rescission,in Part, of Antidumping DutyAdministrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of Final Results ofAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReview.

SUMMARY: On February 23, 2001, theDepartment of Commerce (theDepartment) published the preliminaryresults of administrative review of theantidumping duty order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware(cookware) from the Republic of Korea.The merchandise covered by this orderis cookware from the Republic of Korea.The review covers twenty-sevenmanufacturers of subject merchandise:Daelim Trading Co., Ltd. (Daelim), DongWon Metal Co., Ltd. (Dong Won),Chefline Corporation (Chefline), SamYeung Ind. Co., Ltd. (Samyeung),Namyang Kitchenflower Co., Ltd.(Namyang), Kyung-Dong Industrial Co.,Ltd. (Kyung-Dong), Ssang Yong Ind. Co.,Ltd. (Ssangyong), O. Bok Stainless SteelCo., Ltd. (O. Bok), Dong Hwa StainlessSteel Co., Ltd. (Dong Hwa), Il Shin Co.,Ltd. (Il Shin), Hai Dong Stainless SteelInd. Co., Ltd. (Hai Dong), Han IlStainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd. (Han Il),Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co. (Bae Chin), EastOne Co., Ltd. (East One), Charming ArtCo., Ltd. (Charming Art), Poong KangInd. Co., Ltd. (Poong Kang), Won JinInd. Co., Ltd. (Won Jin), Wonkwang Inc.(Wonkwang), Sungjin International Inc.(Sungjin), Sae Kwang Aluminum Co.,Ltd. (Sae Kwang), Woosung Co., Ltd.,(Woosung), Hanil Stainless Steel Ind.

Co., Ltd.,1 Seshin Co., Ltd. (Seshin),Pionix Corporation (Pionix), East WestTrading Korea, Ltd. (East West), CladCo., Ltd. (Clad), and B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd(B.Y.). The period of review (POR) isJanuary 1, 1999, through December 31,1999. Based on our analysis of thecomments received, we have madechanges in the margin calculations.Therefore, the final results differ fromthe preliminary results. The finalweighted-average dumping margins forthe reviewed firms are listed below inthe section entitled ‘‘Final Results of theReview.’’EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Paige Rivas or Ron Trentham, AD/CVDEnforcement, Office 4, Group II, ImportAdministration, International TradeAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th Street and ConstitutionAve., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;telephone: (202) 482–0651 or 482–6320,respectively.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, allcitations to the Tariff Act of 1930, asamended (the Act), are references to theprovisions effective January 1, 1995, theeffective date of the amendments madeto the Act by the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act (URAA). In addition,unless otherwise indicated, all citationsto the Department’s regulations are to 19CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On February 23, 2001, the Departmentpublished the preliminary results of the1999 administrative review of theantidumping duty order on cookwarefrom Korea. See Top-of-the-StoveStainless Steel Cooking Ware fromKorea: Preliminary Results andRescission, in Part, of AntidumpingDuty Administrative Review, 66 FR11259 (February 23, 2001) (PreliminaryResults). We invited parties to commenton our preliminary results of review. OnMarch 26, 2001, we received case briefsfrom the Stainless Steel CookwareCommittee (the petitioner) and DongWon and Daelim (the respondents). OnApril 2, 2001, we received rebuttalbriefs from the petitioner andrespondents. The Department has

conducted this administrative review inaccordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of ReviewThe merchandise subject to this

antidumping order is top-of-the-stovestainless steel cookware from Korea.The subject merchandise is all non-electric cooking ware of stainless steelwhich may have one or more layers ofaluminum, copper or carbon steel formore even heat distribution. The subjectmerchandise includes skillets, fryingpans, omelette pans, saucepans, doubleboilers, stock pots, dutch ovens,casseroles, steamers, and other stainlesssteel vessels, all for cooking on stove topburners, except tea kettles and fishpoachers. Excluded from the scope ofthe order are stainless steel oven wareand stainless steel kitchen ware. Thesubject merchandise is currentlyclassifiable under Harmonized TariffSchedule (HTS) item numbers7323.93.00 and 9604.00.00. The HTSitem numbers are provided forconvenience and Customs purposesonly. The written description remainsdispositive.

The Department has issued severalscope clarifications for this order. TheDepartment found that certain stainlesssteel pasta and steamer inserts (63 FR41545, August 4, 1998), certain stainlesssteel eight-cup coffee percolators (58 FR11209, February 24, 1993), and certainstainless steel stock pots and covers arewithin the scope of the order (57 FR57420, December 4, 1992). Moreover, asa result of a changed circumstancesreview, the Department revoked theorder on Korea in part with respect tocertain stainless steel camping ware (1)made of single-ply stainless steel havinga thickness no greater than 6.0millimeters; and (2) consisting of 1.0,1.5, and 2.0 quart saucepans withouthandles and with lids that also serve asfry pans (62 FR 3662, January 24, 1997).

Partial Recession of ReviewIn our preliminary results, we

determined that the followingcompanies made no shipments ofsubject merchandise to the UnitedStates during the POR: Sugjin, O. Bok,Won Jin, Hai Dong, Pionix, Seshin,Dong Hwa, Wonkwang, and CharmingArt. Our review of Customs import dataindicated that there were no entries ofsubject merchandise made by thesemanufacturers/exporters during thePOR. See Preliminary Results. Because

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:37 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 29AUN1

45665Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Notices

we received no comments frominterested parties on our preliminarydecision to rescind the review withrespect to the above companies, we havedetermined that no changes to ourdecision to rescind are warranted forpurposes of these final results.Therefore, we are rescinding this reviewwith respect to these manufacturers/exporters.

On March 17, 2000, counsel forChefline requested that the Departmentrescind the review with respect toWoosung. Woosung is Chefline’soriginal corporate name which waschanged to Chefline in March 1996.Since Chefline submitted uncontestedevidence on the record to support itsclaim and petitioner did not object toChefline’s request for recission withregard to Woosung, we preliminarilyrescinded the review with respect toWoosung. See Preliminary Results.Because we received no comments frominterested parties on our preliminarydecision to rescind the review withrespect to Woosung, we havedetermined that no changes to ourdecision to rescind are warranted forpurposes of these final results.Therefore, we are rescinding this reviewwith respect to Woosung.

Facts Available (FA)In accordance with section 776 of the

Act, we have determined that the use ofadverse FA is warranted for 14companies for these final results ofreview.

1. Application of FASection 776(a) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party withholdsinformation that has been requested bythe Department, fails to provide suchinformation in a timely manner or in theform or manner requested, significantlyimpedes a proceeding under theantidumping statute, or providesinformation which cannot be verified,the Department shall use, subject tosections 782(d) and (e), facts otherwiseavailable in reaching the applicabledetermination. In this review, asdescribed in detail below, the above-referenced companies failed to providethe necessary information in the formand manner requested, and, in someinstances, the submitted informationcould not be verified. Thus, pursuant tosection 776(a) of the Act, theDepartment is required to apply, subjectto section 782(d), facts otherwiseavailable.

Section 782(d) of the Act providesthat, if the Department determines thata response to a request for informationdoes not comply with the request, theDepartment will inform the person

submitting the response of the nature ofthe deficiency and shall, to the extentpracticable, provide that person theopportunity to remedy or explain thedeficiency. If that person submitsfurther information that continues to beunsatisfactory, or this information is notsubmitted within the applicable timelimits, the Department may, subject tosection 782(e), disregard all or part ofthe original and subsequent responses,as appropriate.

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act,notwithstanding the Department’sdetermination that the submittedinformation is ‘‘deficient’’ under section782(d) of the Act, the Department shallnot decline to consider suchinformation if all of the followingrequirements are satisfied: (1) Theinformation is submitted by theestablished deadline; (2) the informationcan be verified; (3) the information isnot so incomplete that it cannot serve asa reliable basis for reaching theapplicable determination; (4) theinterested party has demonstrated that itacted to the best of its ability; and (5)the information can be used withoutundue difficulties.

The Department has concluded that,because B.Y., Clad , Sae Kwang, EastOne, East West, Bae Chin, Han Il, IlShin, Kyung-Dong, Poong Kang,Namyang, Chefline, Sangyong andSamyeung failed to respond to theDepartment’s questionnaire, adetermination based on total FA iswarranted for these companies. See thePreliminary Results for a detaileddiscussion of this analysis.

2. Selection of FAIn selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) ofthe Act authorizes the Department touse an adverse inference if theDepartment finds that an interestedparty failed to cooperate by not actingto the best of its ability to comply withthe request for information. See, e.g.,Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes andTubes From Thailand: Final Results ofAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReview, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20(October 16, 1997). In the PreliminaryResults, the Department determined thatbecause B.Y., Clad, Sae Kwang, EastOne, East West, Bae Chin, Han Il, IlShin, Kyung-Dong, Poong Kang,Namyang, and Chefline wholly failed torespond to the Department’squestionnaire, they did not act to thebest of their respective ability, andtherefore an adverse inference iswarranted in applying FA for thesecompanies. Further, the Departmentdetermined that because Sangyongfailed to respond to sections B and C of

the Department’s questionnaire andSamyeung failed to respond to section Dof the Department’s questionnaire, thesecompanies failed to act to the best oftheir respective abilities, and thereforean adverse inference is warranted inapplying FA for these companies.

For the final results, no interestedparty comments were submittedregarding this issue and we continue tofind that the failure of the 14manufacturers/exporters listed aboveeither to respond to the Department’squestionnaire in this review, either inwhole or in part, demonstrates thatthese entities failed to cooperate by notacting to the best of their ability. Thus,consistent with the Department’spractice in cases where a respondentfails to respond to the Department’squestionnaire, in selecting FA for the 14manufacturers/exporters listed above anadverse inference is warranted. For adiscussion of the application of anadverse inference in this case, seePreliminary Results, 66 FR at 11262.

As adverse FA, we are assigning B.Y.,Clad, Sae Kwang, East One, East West,Bae Chin, Han Il, Il Shin, Kyung-Dong,Poong Kang, Namyang, Chefline,Sangyong and Samyeung the highestrate calculated for any respondent inany segment of this proceeding. Thisrate is 31.23 percent. See FinalDetermination of Sales at Less ThanFair Value; Certain Stainless SteelCookware from Korea, 51 FR 42873(November 26, 1986) (Final LTFVDetermination). For a discussion oncorroboration of the 31.23 percent FArate, see Memorandum on Applicationof Facts Available for Sam Yeung Ind.Co., Ltd. (Samyeung) in the PreliminaryResults of the 1999 AdministrativeReview, dated January 30, 2001. Also,for a general discussion of the relevanceof the selected FA rate for all non-cooperating respondents, seePreliminary Results, 66 FR at 11263–11264.

Analysis of Comments ReceivedAll issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to thisadministrative review are addressed inthe ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’(Decision Memorandum) from BernardT. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary,Import Administration, to FaryarShirzad, Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration, dated August 22, 2001,which is hereby adopted by this notice.A list of the issues which parties haveraised and to which we have responded,all of which are in the DecisionMemorandum, is attached to this noticeas an Appendix. Parties can find acomplete discussion of all issues raisedin this review and the corresponding


45666 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Notices

recommendations in this publicmemorandum which is on file in theCentral Records Unit, room B–099 of themain Department building. In addition,a complete version of the DecisionMemorandum can be accessed directlyon the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm. The paper copy andelectronic version of the DecisionMemorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary ResultsBased on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changesin the margin calculations. Thesechanges are discussed in the relevantsections of the Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of ReviewWe determine that the following

percentage weighted-average marginsexist for the period January 1, 1999through, December 31, 1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin(percent)

Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd ..... 16.03Dae-Lim Trading Co., Ltd ..... 1.67Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd ...... 31.23SsangYong Ind. Co., Ltd ...... 31.23Chefline Corporation ............. 31.23B.Y Enterprise, Ltd ............... 31.23Clad Co., Ltd ........................ 31.23Sae Skwang Aluminum Co.,

Ltd ..................................... 31.23East One Co., Ltd ................. 31.23East West Trading Korea,

Ltd ..................................... 31.23Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co ........ 31.23Han Il Stainless Steel Ind.

Co., Ltd ............................. 31.23Il Shin Co., Ltd ...................... 31.23Kyung-Dong Industrial Co.,

Ltd ..................................... 31.23Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd ..... 31.23Namyang Kitchen Flower

Co., Ltd ............................. 31.23

AssessmentThe Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,antidumping duties on all appropriateentries. The Department will issueappraisement instructions directly tothe Customs Service. In accordance with19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we havecalculated for Daelim and Dong Wonimporter-specific assessment rates basedon the ratio of the total amount ofantidumping duties calculated for theimporter-specific sales to the totalentered value of the same sales. For allother respondents, we based theassessment rate on the facts availablemargin percentage. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above deminimis, we will instruct Customs toassess antidumping duties on thatimporter’s entries of subjectmerchandise.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirementswill be effective upon publication ofthis notice of final results of theseadministrative reviews for all shipmentsof top-of-stove stainless steel cookingware from Korea entered, or withdrawnfrom warehouse, for consumption on orafter publication date of the final resultsof these administrative reviews, asprovided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:(1) The cash deposit rate for thereviewed companies will be the rateestablished in the final results of thisadministrative review, except if the rateis less than 0.5 percent ad valorem and,therefore, de minimis, no cash depositwill be required; (2) for exporters notcovered in this review, but covered inthe original LTFV investigation or aprevious review, the cash deposit ratewill continue to be the company-specific rate published in the mostrecent period; (3) if the exporter is nota firm covered in this review, a previousreview, or the original LTFVinvestigation, but the manufacturer is,the cash deposit rate will be the rateestablished for the most recent periodfor the manufacturer of themerchandise; and (4) if neither theexporter nor the manufacturer is a firmcovered in this or any previous reviewsor the LTFV investigation, the cashdeposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the‘‘all-others’’ rate established in theLTFV investigation. These depositrequirements, when imposed, shallremain in effect until publication of thefinal results of the next administrativereview.

Notification

This notice serves as a final reminderto importers of their responsibilityunder 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file acertificate regarding the reimbursementof antidumping duties prior toliquidation of the relevant entriesduring this review period. Failure tocomply with this requirement couldresult in the Secretary’s presumptionthat reimbursement of antidumpingduties occurred and the subsequentassessment of doubled antidumpingduties.

This notice also serves as a reminderto parties subject to administrativeprotective order (APO) of theirresponsibility concerning thedisposition of proprietary informationdisclosed under APO in accordancewith 19 CFR 351.305. Timelynotification of return/destruction ofAPO materials or conversion to judicialprotective order is hereby requested.Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is asanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing thisdetermination and notice in accordancewith sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of theAct.

Dated: August 21, 2001.Joseph A. Spetrini,Acting Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.

Appendix—Issues in DecisionMemorandum

Comments and Responses

1. Model Match Methodology.2. Circumstance of Sale Adjustment for

Commissions Incurred on Dong Won Sales inCanada.

3. Home Market Inland Freight Adjustmentfor Daelim.

4. Constructed Value Selling Expenses forDong Won and Daelim.

5. Imputed Inventory Carrying Costs forDong Won and Daelim.

6. Weighted-Average Third-CountryExpenses for Dong Won.

7. Conversion of Third-Country Expensesfrom Korean Won to U.S. Dollars for DongWon.

8. Matching Factors with Respect to DonWong’s Products.

9. Ministerial Error in Daelim’s MarginProgram Regarding Net interest Expense forthe Calculation of Constructed Value.

[FR Doc. 01–21834 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P


International Trade Administration

[A–549–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipesand Tubes From Thailand; Notice ofAmended Final Results ofAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReview in Accordance With Final CourtDecision

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of Amended FinalResults of Administrative Review inAccordance with Final Court Decisionon Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipesand Tubes from Thailand.

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2001, the U.S.Court of International Trade (CIT)affirmed the Department of Commerce’s(the Department’s) remanddetermination of the final results of theantidumping duty administrative reviewof Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipesand Tubes from Thailand for the periodMarch 1, 1997 to February 28, 1998, andentered a judgement order. As nofurther appeals have been filed and



there is now a final and conclusivecourt decision in this action, we areamending our final results.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD EnforcementGroup III, Office VII, Room 7866, ImportAdministration, International TradeAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th Street and ConstitutionAvenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;telephone: (202) 482–2243.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, allcitations to the Tariff Act of 1930, asamended (‘‘the Act’’), are references tothe provisions effective January 1, 1995,the effective date of the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act. In addition, unlessotherwise indicated, all citations to theDepartment’s regulations are to theregulations codified at 19 CFR part 351(2000).

Background

On October 21, 1999, the Departmentpublished its final results for theadministrative review of Certain WeldedCarbon Steel Pipes and Tubes fromThailand for the period March 1, 1997through February 28, 1998. See CertainWelded Carbon Steel Pipes and TubesFrom Thailand: Final Results ofAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReview, 64 FR 56759 (October 21, 1999)(Final Results).

In the Final Results, the Departmentused, as facts available, a simple averageof respondent’s, Saha Thai’s, claimedinvoice amounts for cash and guarantee-based duty drawback to calculate SahaThai’s duty drawback. The methodologyapplied in the Final Results increasedthe total amount of duty drawbackclaimed by respondent.

Following publication of the FinalResults, Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.,petitioner in this case, filed a lawsuitwith the CIT challenging theDepartment’s date of sale and dutydrawback determinations in the FinalResults.

On January 18, 2001, the CITremanded the above-referencedproceeding to the Department forreconsideration of the following issue:(1) to explain why the Department’sduty drawback methodology, whichemployed facts available, is consistentwith the objectives of the facts availableprovision, 19 U.S.C. 1677e(a) (Section776(a) of the Act), and accounts for gapsin respondent’s information; oralternatively, to calculate a new dutydrawback adjustment which isconsistent with this objective. In its

opinion, the CIT affirmed theDepartment’s determination thatrespondent was entitled to a dutydrawback adjustment to its export price,and also supported the Department’suse of facts otherwise available indetermining the appropriate adjustment.However, the CIT stated that theDepartment did not explain how its useof facts available corrects the problem ofreliance on Saha Thai’s claimedadjustment, i.e., excessive drawbackadjustment from inclusion of bankguarantee fees, and drawbackadjustment exceeding the actualamounts rebated. See Allied Tube andConduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F.Supp. 2d 1087 (CIT 2001).

As noted above, in the Final Results,the Department’s use of a simpleaverage in calculating a facts availableduty drawback amount resulted in anincrease in the total amount of dutydrawback claimed by the respondent.The Department had intended throughthe use of this approach, to applyneutral facts available by decreasingthose duty drawback amounts that wereabove the calculated average. However,because the invoice tonnage amountswere not taken into account in thecalculation of the average, theDepartment’s methodology resulted inan overall increase in the total dutydrawback amount claimed by therespondent.

Therefore, for the Draft Results ofRedetermination, we reconsidered ourmethodology in accordance with theCIT’s order and determined that thesimple average methodology applieddid not adequately function as amodified duty drawback adjustment forrespondent. Thus, the Departmentrecalculated the duty drawback amountto be applied to the relevant invoices byweight-averaging the reported cash andguarantee-based duty drawbackamounts by invoice quantity in order tomore appropriately apply facts availableto this duty drawback calculation. Thisresults in a weighted-average figure forduty drawback which is less than thepreviously-calculated figure. Thismethodology properly accounts for thetonnages in each invoice and results ina more appropriate application of factsavailable because the total dutydrawback amount is not increased abovethat which the respondent reported. Themethodology is consistent with the factsavailable provision because, although itneed not be the ‘‘best availableinformation,’’ Statement ofAdministrative Action at 869, reprintedin 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4198, based onevidence on the record the use of aweighted average, as opposed to asimple average, more appropriately

accounts for the gap in respondent’sinformation, thus promoting greateraccuracy in the margin calculation.

On February 14, 2001, the Departmentissued its Draft Results ofRedetermination to the plaintiff anddefendant-intervenor for comment.Neither party submitted comments tothe Department. Therefore, the FinalResults of Redetermination wereidentical to the Draft Results ofRedetermination.

On March 22, 2001, the CIT affirmedthe Department’s remand results,upholding the use of a weighted-averageof the claimed duty drawback as factsavailable. See Allied Tube and ConduitCorp. v. United States, No. 99–11–00715, 2001 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 40;Slip. Op. 01–03 (March 22, 2001).

We have recalculated the dumpingmargin for respondent based upon thechanges set forth above.

Amendment to Final Results of Review

Because no further appeals have beenfiled and there is now a final andconclusive decision in the courtproceeding, effective as of thepublication date of this notice, we areamending the Final Results andestablishing the following revisedweight-averaged dumping margin:

CompanyAmended

Final Results3/1/97–2/28/98

Saha Thai Steel Pipe Com-pany, Ltd ........................... 9.84%

The ‘‘All Others Rate’’ was notaffected by the Final Results ofRedetermination and remains at 15.67percent as determined in the LTFVinvestigation.

The Department has also revised theimporter specific duty assessment rates(see Final Results) and will instruct theU.S. Customs Service (Customs) toassess these revised antidumping dutieson all appropriate entries. TheDepartment will issue appraisementinstructions directly to Customs.

This notice is issued and published inaccordance with section 751(a)(1) of theAct.


Joseph A. Spetrini,Acting Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 01–21835 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P





[Docket No. 010710173–1215–03; I.D.050201A]

RIN 0648-AO91

Mid-Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil; Request for ResearchProposals (RFP); Closing DateExtension

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Closing date extension of noticeof solicitation for applications.

SUMMARY: NMFS published a notice inthe Federal Register on July 25, 2001,soliciting proposals for researchprojects. The notice described how theapplication and selection process forresearch projects to be funded by a set-aside from the Total AllowableLandings (TAL) of selected species willoperate. This document extends theclosing date for research proposals to nolater than 5 p.m., EDT on September 14,2001, in order to provide the fishingindustry and academia ampleopportunity to collaborate and apply forthe research set-aside allocations.DATES: The closing date for receipt ofproposals or addenda to preexistingproposals is extended until September14, 2001. All research proposals must bereceived no later than 5 p.m., EDT, onSeptember 14, 2001, in the NortheastRegional Office (see ADDRESSES).Applications that are postmarked butnot received by that time will not beaccepted. Facsimile applications willnot be accepted.ADDRESSES: Proposals must besubmitted to Patricia A. Kurkul,Regional Administrator, NMFS,Northeast Regional Office, 1 BlackburnDrive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Markproposals ‘‘Attention: Mid-AtlanticResearch Proposals.’’

Copies of the Standard Forms forsubmission of research proposals maybe found on the Internet in a PDF(Portable Document Format) version athttp://www.ofa.noaa.gov/grants/index.html under the title ‘‘GrantsManagement Forms,’’ or by contactingthe Council office (see FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Daniel Furlong, Executive Director,Mid-Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil, (302) 674–2331 or DavidGouveia, Fishery Policy Analyst, NMFS,(978) 281–9280.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In theFederal Register issue of July 25, 2001(66 FR 38636), a notice of request forproposals for research projectsestablished a deadline for receipt ofresearch proposals of August 24, 2001.The closing date for receipt ofapplications is hereby extended untilSeptember 14, 2001, in order to providethe fishing industry and academiaample opportunity to collaborate andapply for the research set-asideallocations. All applicants that havesubmitted proposals prior to the originalclosing date of August 24, 2001, will beallowed to modify their proposals byproviding a supplement, addendum, orre-submission of their researchproposal. Please refer to the July 25,2001, Federal Register notice for furtherinformation on proposal requirements.

Dated: August 23, 2001.John Oliver,Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator forFisheries National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 01–21830 Filed 8–24–01; 4:23 pm]BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.SUMMARY: The Leader, RegulatoryInformation Management Group, Officeof the Chief Information Officer invitescomments on the submission for OMBreview as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995.DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or beforeSeptember 28, 2001.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Crystal Thomas, Desk Officer,Department of Education, Office ofManagement and Budget, 725 17thStreet, NW., Room 10202, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503 or should be electronicallymailed to the internet [email protected] INFORMATION: Section3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requiresthat the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) provide interestedFederal agencies and the public an earlyopportunity to comment on informationcollection requests. OMB may amend orwaive the requirement for publicconsultation to the extent that publicparticipation in the approval processwould defeat the purpose of theinformation collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interferewith any agency’s ability to perform itsstatutory obligations. The Leader,Regulatory Information ManagementGroup, Office of the Chief InformationOfficer, publishes that notice containingproposed information collectionrequests prior to submission of theserequests to OMB. Each proposedinformation collection, grouped byoffice, contains the following: (1) Typeof review requested, e.g. new, revision,extension, existing or reinstatement; (2)Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)Description of the need for, andproposed use of, the information; (5)Respondents and frequency ofcollection; and (6) Reporting and/orRecordkeeping burden. OMB invitespublic comment.

Dated: August 23, 2001.John Tressler,Leader, Regulatory Information Management,Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of Postsecondary EducationType of Review: Revision.Title: Grant Application for the FIPSE

Comprehensive Program.Frequency: Annually.Affected Public: Not-for-profit

institutions; State, Local, or TribalGov’t, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping HourBurden:

Responses: 1,650.Burden Hours: 19,500.

Abstract: The ComprehensiveProgram is a discretionary grant awardprogram of the Fund for theImprovement of PostsecondaryEducation (FIPSE). Applications aresubmitted in two stages-preliminary andfinal. The program supports innovativereform projects that hold promise asmodels for the resolution of importantissues and problems in postsecondaryeducation. Grants made under thisprogram are expected to contribute newinformation in educational practice thatcan be shared with others. As its namesuggests, the Comprehensive Programmay support activities in any discipline,program, or student service. Nonprofitinstitutions and organization offeringpostsecondary education programs areeligible applicants. The ComprehensiveProgram has established a record ofmeaningful and lasting improvement toaccess and quality in postsecondaryeducation.

This information collection is beingsubmitted under the StreamlinedClearance Process for DiscretionaryGrant Information Collections (1890–0001). Therefore, the 30-day publiccomment period notice will be the onlypublic comment notice published forthis information collection.



Requests for copies of the proposedinformation collection request may beaccessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, orshould be addressed to Vivian Reese,Department of Education, 400 MarylandAvenue, SW, Room 4050, RegionalOffice Building 3, Washington, D.C.20202–4651. Requests may also beelectronically mailed to the internetaddress [email protected] or faxed to202–708–9346. Please specify thecomplete title of the informationcollection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/orthe collection activity requirementsshould be directed to Joseph Schubart at(202) 708–9266 or via his internetaddress [email protected] who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.

[FR Doc. 01–21769 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Privacy Act of 1974; System ofRecords

AGENCY: Student Financial Assistance,Department of Education.ACTION: Notice of a new system ofrecords; correction.

SUMMARY: On May 30, 2001, wepublished in the Federal Register (66FR 29420) a notice of a new system ofrecords entitled ‘‘StudentAuthentication Network Audit File.’’We recently discovered that weinadvertently numbered this system ofrecords ‘‘18–11–10.’’ This noticecorrects that number to read ‘‘18–11–13.’’

Correction

On page 29420, column one, underSUMMARY, and column three, the linebefore SYSTEM NAME, the number iscorrected to read ‘‘18–11–13.’’FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NeilSattler, Office of the Chief InformationOfficer, U.S. Department of Education,Student Financial Assistance, 400Maryland Avenue, SW., PortalsBuilding, room 604, Washington, DC20202–5132. Telephone: (202) 205–4348. 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) on

request to the contact person listed inthe preceding paragraph.

Electronic Access to This DocumentYou may view this document, as well

as all other Department of Educationdocuments published in the FederalRegister, in text or Adobe PortableDocument Format (PDF) on the Internetat the following site: www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.

To use PDF you must have AdobeAcrobat Reader, which is available freeat this site. If you have questions aboutusing PDF, call the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office (GPO), 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/nara/index.html/.

Dated: August 23, 2001.Greg Woods,Chief Operating Officer, Student FinancialAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–21766 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4001–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces ameeting of the EnvironmentalManagement Site-Specific AdvisoryBoard (EM SSAB), Paducah. TheFederal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires thatpublic notice of these meetings beannounced in the Federal Register.DATES: Thursday, September 20, 2001,5:30 p.m.–9:00 p.m.ADDRESSES: 111 Memorial Drive,Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.Don Seaborg, Deputy DesignatedFederal Officer, Department of EnergyPaducah Site Office, Post Office Box1410, MS–103, Paducah, Kentucky42001, (270) 441–6806.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose ofthe Board: The purpose of the Board isto make recommendations to DOE andits regulators in the areas ofenvironmental restoration and wastemanagement activities.

Tentative Agenda

5:30 p.m. Informal Discussion

6:00 p.m. Call to Order; ApproveMinutes

6:10–7:00 p.m. DDFO’s Comments;Board Response; Public Comments

7:00 p.m. Presentations8:30 p.m. Task Force and

Subcommittee Reports; BoardResponse; Public Comments

9:00 p.m. Administrative Issues9:30 p.m. AdjournCopies of the final agenda will beavailable at the meeting.

Public Participation: The meeting isopen to the public. Written statementsmay be filed with the Committee eitherbefore or after the meeting. Individualswho wish to make oral statementspertaining to agenda items shouldcontact Pat J. Halsey at the address or bytelephone at 1–800–382–6938, #5.Requests must be received five daysprior to the meeting and reasonableprovision will be made to include thepresentation in the agenda. TheDesignated Federal Officer isempowered to conduct the meeting in afashion that will facilitate the orderlyconduct of business. Each individualwishing to make public comment willbe provided a maximum of five minutesto present their comments as the firstitem of the meeting agenda.

Minutes: The minutes of this meetingwill be available for public review andcopying at the Freedom of InformationPublic Reading Room, 1E–190, ForrestalBuilding, 1000 Independence Avenue,SW, Washington, DC 20585 between9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday–Friday,except Federal holidays. Minutes willalso be available at the Department ofEnergy’s Environmental InformationCenter and Reading Room at 115Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre,Paducah, Kentucky between 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m. on Monday thru Friday orby writing to Pat J. Halsey, Departmentof Energy Paducah Site Office, PostOffice Box 1410, MS–103, Paducah,Kentucky 42001 or by calling her at 1–800–382–6938, #5.

Issued at Washington, DC on August 22,2001.Belinda G. Hood,Acting Deputy Advisory CommitteeManagement Officer.[FR Doc. 01–21787 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


Office of Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy

Federal Energy Management AdvisoryCommittee

AGENCY: Department of Energy.



ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces anopen meeting of the Federal EnergyManagement Advisory Committee(FEMAC). The Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (Pub. L. 92–B 463, 86Stat. 770) requires announcement ofthese meetings in the Federal Registerto allow for public participation.Executive Order 13123, ‘‘Greening theGovernment through Efficient EnergyManagement,’’ established the FederalEnergy Management AdvisoryCommittee (FEMAC) to provide publicand private sector input to the Secretaryof Energy on achieving new energyefficiency goals for Federal facilities.The U.S. Department of Energy’s Officeof Federal Energy ManagementPrograms (FEMP) coordinates FEMACactivities.

DATES: Wednesday, September 19, 2001;1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Thursday,September 20, 2001; 8:30 a.m. to 4:00p.m.

ADDRESSES: Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel,480 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington,DC 20024.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Steven Huff, Designated Federal Officerfor the Committee, Office of FederalEnergy Management Programs, U.S.Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–3507;[email protected]; http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/aboutfemp/femac.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose ofmeeting: To provide advice andguidance on a range of issues critical tomeeting mandated Federal energymanagement goals.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda willinclude discussion on the followingtopics:

Wednesday, September 19, 2001, andThursday, September 20, 2001• Federal energy management budget• Energy-savings performance contracts• Utility energy-efficiency service

contracts• Procurement of ENERGY STAR

(Registered Trademark) and otherenergy efficient products

• Building design• Process energy use• Applications of efficient and

renewable energy technology(including clean energy technology) atFederal facilities

• Other energy management issues andtopics

• Public comment periodPublic Participation: In keeping with

procedures, members of the public are

welcome to observe the business of theFederal Energy Management Committee.If you would like to file a writtenstatement with the committee, you maydo so either before or after the meeting.If you would like to make oralstatements regarding any of these itemson the agenda, you should contactSteven Huff at (202) 586–3507 [email protected]. You mustmake your request for an oral statementat least 5 business days before themeeting. Members of the public will beheard in the order they sign up at thebeginning of the meeting. Reasonableprovision will be made to include thescheduled oral statements on theagenda. The committee chair will makeevery effort to hear the views of allinterested parties. The chair willconduct the meeting to facilitate theorderly conduct of business. Thosewishing to address the committee willbe heard based on a ‘‘first-come, first-served’’ sign-up list for each session.With the limited time available, thecommittee also encourages writtenrecommendations, suggestions, positionpapers, etc., combined with a short oralsummary statement. Documents may besubmitted either before or following themeeting.

Minutes: The minutes of the meetingwill be available for public review andcopying within 30 days at the Freedomof Information Public Reading Room;Room 1E–190; Forrestal Building; 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,except Federal holidays.

Issued in Washington, DC on August 23,2001.Belinda Hood,Acting Deputy Advisory CommitteeManagement Officer.[FR Doc. 01–21786 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

[Docket No. ER01–2424–000]

Alliance Energy Services Partnership;Notice of Issuance of Order

August 23, 2001.Alliance Energy Services Partnership

(AESP) submitted for filing a rateschedule under which AESP will engagein wholesale electric power and energytransactions at market-based rates. AESPalso requested waiver of variousCommission regulations. In particular,AESP requested that the Commission

grant blanket approval under 18 CFRPart 34 of all future issuances ofsecurities and assumptions of liabilityby AESP.

On August 16, 2001, pursuant todelegated authority, the Director,Division of Corporate Applications,Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates,granted requests for blanket approvalunder Part 34, subject to the following:

Within thirty days of the date of theorder, any person desiring to be heardor to protest the blanket approval ofissuances of securities or assumptions ofliability by AESP should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214).

Absent a request to be heard inopposition within this period, AESPauthorized to issue securities andassume obligations or liabilities as aguarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwisein respect of any security of anotherperson; provided that such issuance orassumption is for some lawful objectwithin the corporate purposes of AESPand compatible with the public interest,and is reasonably necessary orappropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right torequire a further showing that neitherpublic nor private interests will beadversely affected by continuedapproval of AESP’s issuances ofsecurities or assumptions of liability.

Notice is hereby given that thedeadline for filing motions to interveneor protests, as set forth above, isSeptember 17, 2001.

Copies of the full text of the Order areavailable from the Commission’s PublicReference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E.,Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order mayalso be viewed 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.

David P. Boergers,Secertary.[FR Doc. 01–21758 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]






[Docket No. ER01–2355–000]

Beacon Generating, LLC; Notice ofIssuance of Order

August 23, 2001.Beacon Generating, LLC (Beacon)

submitted for filing a rate scheduleunder which Beacon will engage inwholesale electric power and energytransactions at market-based rates.Beacon also requested waiver of variousCommission regulations. In particular,Beacon requested that the Commissiongrant blanket approval under 18 CFRpart 34 of all future issuances ofsecurities and assumptions of liabilityby Beacon.


Within thirty days of the date of theorder, any person desiring to be heardor to protest the blanket approval ofissuances of securities or assumptions ofliability by Beacon 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).

Absent a request to be heard inopposition within this period, Beacon isauthorized to issue securities andassume obligations or liabilities as aguarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwisein respect of any security of anotherperson; provided that such issuance orassumption is for some lawful objectwithin the corporate purposes of Beaconand compatible with the public interest,and is reasonably necessary orappropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right torequire a further showing that neitherpublic nor private interests will beadversely affected by continuedapproval of Beacon’s issuances ofsecurities or assumptions of liability.


Copies of the full text of the Order areavailable from the Commission’s PublicReference Branch, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426. The Order mayalso be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link,select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the

instructions (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.

David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21761 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–P



[Docket No. ER01–2353–000]

Caithness Energy Marketing, LLC;Notice of Issuance of Order

August 23, 2001.Caithness Energy Marketing, LLC

(Caithness Energy) submitted for filing arate schedule under which CaithnessEnergy will engage in wholesale electricpower and energy transactions atmarket-based rates. Caithness Energyalso requested waiver of variousCommission regulations. In particular,Caithness Energy requested that theCommission grant blanket approvalunder 18 CFR Part 34 of all futureissuances of securities and assumptionsof liability by Caithness Energy.


Within thirty days of the date of theorder, any person desiring to be heardor to protest the blanket approval ofissuances of securities or assumptions ofliability by Caithness Energy should filea motion to intervene or protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214).

Absent a request to be heard inopposition within this period, CaithnessEnergy is authorized to issue securitiesand assume obligations or liabilities asa guarantor, indorser, surety, orotherwise in respect of any security ofanother person; provided that suchissuance or assumption is for somelawful object within the corporatepurposes of Caithness Energy andcompatible with the public interest, andis reasonably necessary or appropriatefor such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right torequire a further showing that neitherpublic nor private interests will beadversely affected by continuedapproval of Caithness Energy’sissuances of securities or assumptions ofliability.






[Docket No. ER01–1819–000, ER01–1819–001]

Cogentrix Lawrence County, LLC;Notice of Issuance of Order

August 23, 2001.Cogentrix Lawrence County, LLC

(Cogentrix) submitted for filing a rateschedule under which Cogentrix willengage in wholesale electric power andenergy transactions at market-basedrates. Cogentrix also requested waiver ofvarious Commission regulations. Inparticular, Cogentrix requested that theCommission grant blanket approvalunder 18 CFR Part 34 of all futureissuances of securities and assumptionsof liability by Cogentrix.


Within thirty days of the date of theorder, any person desiring to be heardor to protest the blanket approval ofissuances of securities or assumptions ofliability by Cogentrix should file amotion to intervene or protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.



20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214).

Absent a request to be heard inopposition within this period, Cogentrixauthorized to issue securities andassume obligations or liabilities as aguarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwisein respect of any security of anotherperson; provided that such issuance orassumption is for some lawful objectwithin the corporate purposes ofCogentrix and compatible with thepublic interest, and is reasonablynecessary or appropriate for suchpurposes.

The Commission reserves the right torequire a further showing that neitherpublic nor private interests will beadversely affected by continuedapproval of Cogentrix’s issuances ofsecurities or assumptions of liability.






[Docket No. ER01–2390–000]

Huntington Beach Development,L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

August 23, 2001.On June 20, 2001, Huntington Beach

Development, L.L.C. (Huntington Beach)filed an application seeking authority tosell energy and capacity at market-basedrates under the terms of its proposedFERC Electric Tariff No.1. HuntingtonBeach also sought certain blanketapprovals and waivers of theCommission’s regulations. In particular,Huntington Beach requested that theCommission grant blanket approval

under 18 CFR Part 34 of all futureissuances of securities and assumptionsof liabilities by Huntington Beach. OnAugust 17, 2001, the Commission issuedan Order Conditionally AcceptingMarket-Based Rate Tariff (Order), in theabove-docketed proceeding.

The Commission’s August 17, 2001Order granted the request for blanketapproval under Part 34, subject to theconditions found in OrderingParagraphs (D), (E), and (G).

(D) Within 30 days of the date ofissuance of this order, any persondesiring to be heard or to protest theCommission’s blanket approval ofissuances of securities or assumptions ofliabilities by Huntington Beach shouldfile a motion to intervene or protest withthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426, in accordancewith Rules 211 and 214 of theCommission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure, 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.211 and385.214.

(E) Absent a request to be heardwithin the period set forth in OrderingParagraph (D) above, Huntington Beachis hereby authorized to issue securitiesand assume obligations or liabilities asguarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwisein respect of any security of anotherperson; provided that such issue orassumption is for some lawful objectwithin the corporate purposes ofHuntington Beach, compatible with thepublic interest, and reasonablynecessary or appropriate for suchpurposes.

(G) The Commission reserves the rightto modify this order to require a furthershowing that neither the public norprivate interests will be adverselyaffected by continued Commissionapproval of Huntington Beach’sissuances of securities or assumptions ofliabilities * * *.


Copies of the full text of the Order areavailable from the Commission’s PublicReference Branch, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426. The Order mayalso be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call202–208–2222 for assistance).Comments, protests, and interventionsmay be filed electronically via theinternet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions

on the Commission’s web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.




[Docket No. ER01–2317–000]

Metro Energy, L.L.C.; Notice ofIssuance of Order

August 23, 2001.Metro Energy, L.L.C. (Metro Energy)

submitted for filing a rate scheduleunder which Metro Energy will engagein wholesale electric power and energytransactions at market-based rates.Metro Energy also requested waiver ofvarious Commission regulations. Inparticular, Metro Energy requested thatthe Commission grant blanket approvalunder 18 CFR Part 34 of all futureissuances of securities and assumptionsof liability by Metro Energy.


Within thirty days of the date of theorder, any person desiring to be heardor to protest the blanket approval ofissuances of securities or assumptions ofliability by Metro Energy should file amotion to intervene or protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214).

Absent a request to be heard inopposition within this period, MetroEnergy is authorized to issue securitiesand assume obligations or liabilities asa guarantor, indorser, surety, orotherwise in respect of any security ofanother person; provided that suchissuance or assumption is for somelawful object within the corporatepurposes of Metro Energy andcompatible with the public interest, andis reasonably necessary or appropriatefor such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right torequire a further showing that neitherpublic nor private interests will beadversely affected by continuedapproval of Metro Energy’s issuances ofsecurities or assumptions of liability.




Copies of the full text of the Order areavailable from the Commission’s PublicReference Branch, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426. The Order mayalso be viewed 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. EL01–109–000]

Midwest Generation, LLC v.Commonwealth Edison Company;Notice of Filing

August 23, 2001.Take notice that on August 21, 2001,

Midwest Generation, LLC (Midwest)filed a complaint againstCommonwealth Edison Company(ComEd), requesting that theCommission, pursuant to its order inPJM Interconnection, LLC, 94 FERC¶ 61,251, order denying reh’g, 95 FERC¶ 61,333 (2001), order ComEd to ceaserequiring that Midwest purchase stationservice for Midwest’s generatingfacilities located in ComEd’s servicearea under ComEd’s retail salesagreements.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest this 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 or protestsmust be filed on or before September 10,2001. Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a motion tointervene. Answers to the complaintshall also be due on or before September10, 2001. Copies of this filing are on file

with the Commission and are availablefor public inspection. This filing mayalso be viewed 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.

David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21764 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]




[Docket No. MG01–21–001]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation;Notice of Filing

August 23, 2001.

On August 13, 2001, National FuelGas Supply Corporation submittedrevised standards of conduct.

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporationstates that it served copies of the filingon all customers and interested statecommissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or protest in thisproceeding with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 FirstStreet, NE., Washington, DC 20426, inaccordance with Rules 211 and 214 ofthe Commission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure. (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214)All such motions to intervene or protestshould be filed on or before September7, 2001. Protests will be considered bythe Commission in determining theappropriate action to be taken but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. 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 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 the

instructions on the Commission’s website under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.





[Docket No. EG01–125–000]

PPL Brunner Island, LLC; Notice ofAmended Application for CommissionRedetermination of Exempt WholesaleGenerator Status

August 23, 2001.

Take notice that on August 21, 2001,PPL Brunner Island, LLC (PPL BrunnerIsland) tendered for filing an AmendedRequest for Redetermination of ExemptWholesale Generator Status. Thisrequest amends a Request forRedetermination of Exempt WholesaleGenerator Status originally filed by PPLBrunner Island on February 2, 2001.

Any person desiring to be heardconcerning the amended application forexempt wholesale generator statusshould file a motion to intervene orcomments with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 FirstStreet, NE., Washington, DC 20426, inaccordance with Rules 211 and 214 ofthe Commission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.211 and385.214). The Commission will limit itsconsideration of comments to those thatconcern the adequacy or accuracy of theamended application. All such motionsand comments should be filed on orbefore September 6, 2001, and must beserved on the applicant. Any personwishing to become a party must file amotion to intervene. Copies of this filingare on 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.







[Docket No. ER01–2460–000]

PSEG Lawrenceburg Energy Company,LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

August 23, 2001.PSEG Lawrenceburg Energy

Company, LLC (PSEG Lawrenceburg)submitted for filing a rate scheduleunder which PSEG Lawrenceburg willengage in wholesale electric power andenergy transactions at market-basedrates. PSEG Lawrenceburg alsorequested waiver of various Commissionregulations. In particular, PSEGLawrenceburg requested that theCommission grant blanket approvalunder 18 CFR Part 34 of all futureissuances of securities and assumptionsof liability by PSEG Lawrenceburg.


Within thirty days of the date of theorder, any person desiring to be heardor to protest the blanket approval ofissuances of securities or assumptions ofliability by PSEG Lawrenceburg shouldfile a motion to intervene or protest withthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street, N.E.,Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordancewith Rules 211 and 214 of theCommission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.211 and385.214).

Absent a request to be heard inopposition within this period, PSEGLawrenceburg authorized to issuesecurities and assume obligations orliabilities as a guarantor, indorser,surety, or otherwise in respect of anysecurity of another person; providedthat such issuance or assumption is forsome lawful object within the corporatepurposes of PSEG Lawrenceburg andcompatible with the public interest, andis reasonably necessary or appropriatefor such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right torequire a further showing that neitherpublic nor private interests will beadversely affected by continuedapproval of PSEG Lawrenceburg’sissuances of securities or assumptions ofliability.


Copies of the full text of the Order areavailable from the Commission’s Public

Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E.,Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order mayalso be viewed 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.




Notice of Application Accepted forFiling and Soliciting Motions ToIntervene, Protests, and Comments

August 23, 2001.Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filedwith the Commission and is availablefor public inspection:

a. Type of Application: PreliminaryPermit.

b. Project No.: 12096–000.c. Date filed: July 30, 2001.d. Applicant: Green River 5

Associates.e. Name of Project: Green River Dam

5.f. Location: On the Green River in

Butler County, Kentucky, at the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers’ Green RiverLock and Dam 5. All lands of theproposed project are federal lands.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal PowerAct, 16 USC 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: David BrownKinloch, Soft Energy Associates, 414 S.Wenzel Street, Louisville, Kentucky40204, (502) 589–0975.

i. FERC Contact: Elizabeth Jones (202)208–0246.

j. Deadline for filing motions tointervene, protests, and comments: 60days from the issuance date of thisnotice.

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(12096–000) on any comments, protests,or motions filed.

The Commission’s Rules of Practiceand Procedure require all intervenersfiling a document with the Commissionto serve a copy of that document oneach person in the official service listfor the project. Further, if an intervenerfiles comments or documents with theCommission relating to the merits of anissue that may affect the responsibilitiesof a particular resource agency, theymust also serve a copy of the documenton that resource agency.

k. Description of the Project: Theproposed project would place turbinesin the existing lock chamber of the damthat was deactivated in 1951. Theproposed project would consist of: (1)An existing 301-foot-long, 25.5-foot-high, concrete dam; (2) an existing 360-foot-long, 56-foot-wide, lock chamber;(3) proposed series of axial flowpropeller turbines with a total installedcapacity of 2 MW; (4) existingdistribution line to be upgraded fromsingle-phase to three-phaseapproximately 1 mile in length; and (5)appurtenant facilities.

The project would have an estimatedannual generation of 8 GWH.

l. Copies of this filing are on file withthe Commission and are available forpublic inspection. Copies of this filingare on 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). A copy is also available forinspection and reproduction at theaddress in item ‘h’ above.

m. Preliminary Permit—Anyonedesiring to file a competing applicationfor preliminary permit for a proposedproject must submit the competingapplication itself, or a notice of intent tofile such an application, to theCommission on or before the specifiedcomment date for the particularapplication (see 18 CFR 4.36).Submission of a timely notice of intentallows an interested person to file thecompeting preliminary permitapplication no later than 30 days afterthe specified comment date for theparticular application. A competingpreliminary permit application mustconform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.

n. Preliminary Permit—Any qualifieddevelopment applicant desiring to file acompeting development applicationmust submit to the Commission, on orbefore a specified comment date for theparticular application, either acompeting development application or anotice of intent to file such an



application. Submission of a timelynotice of intent to file a developmentapplication allows an interested personto file the competing application nolater than 120 days after the specifiedcomment date for the particularapplication. A competing licenseapplication must conform with 18 CFR4.30(b) and 4.36.

o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intentmust specify the exact name, businessaddress, and telephone number of theprospective applicant, and must includean unequivocal statement of intent tosubmit, if such an application may befiled, either a preliminary permitapplication or a developmentapplication (specify which type ofapplication). A notice of intent must beserved on the applicant(s) named in thispublic notice.

p. Proposed Scope of Studies UnderPermit—A preliminary permit, if issued,does not authorize construction. Theterm of the proposed preliminary permitwould be 36 months. The workproposed under the preliminary permitwould include economic analysis,preparation of preliminary engineeringplans, and a study of environmentalimpacts. Based on the results of thesestudies, the Applicant would decidewhether to proceed with the preparationof a development application toconstruct and operate the project.

q. 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 aparty to the proceeding. Any comments,protests, or motions to intervene mustbe received on or before the specifiedcomment date for the particularapplication.

r. Filing and Service of ResponsiveDocuments—Any filings must bear inall capital letters the title‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘NOTICE OF INTENTTO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION’’,‘‘COMPETING APPLICATION’’,‘‘PROTEST’’, ‘‘MOTION TOINTERVENE’’, as applicable, and theProject Number of the particularapplication to which the filing refers.Any of the above-named documentsmust be filed by providing the originaland the number of copies provided bythe Commission’s regulations to: TheSecretary, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426. An additional

copy must be sent to Director, Divisionof Hydropower Administration andCompliance, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, at the above-mentionedaddress. A copy of any notice of intent,competing application or motion tointervene must also be served upon eachrepresentative of the Applicantspecified in the particular application.

s. 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.



[FRL–7045–3]

Availability of FY 00 GrantPerformance Reports for States ofAlabama, Florida, Mississippi, NorthCarolina, and South Carolina, andLocal Agencies Within Those States

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

SUMMARY: EPA’s grant regulations (40CFR 35.150) require the Agency toevaluate the performance of agencieswhich receive grants. EPA’s regulationsfor regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7)require that the Agency notify thepublic of the availability of the reportsof such evaluations. EPA recentlyperformed end-of-year evaluations offive state air pollution control programs[Alabama Department of EnvironmentalManagement, Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection, MississippiDepartment of Environmental Quality,North Carolina Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources,and South Carolina Department ofHealth and Environmental Control] and16 local programs [City of HuntsvilleDepartment of Natural Resources, AL;Jefferson County Department of Health,AL; Broward County EnvironmentalQuality Control Board, FL; JacksonvilleAir Quality Division, FL; HillsboroughCounty Environmental ProtectionCommission, FL; Dade CountyEnvironmental Resources Management,

FL; Palm Beach County Public HealthUnit, FL; Pinellas County Department ofEnvironmental Management, FL;Jefferson County Air Pollution ControlDistrict, KY; Forsyth CountyEnvironmental Affairs Department, NC;Mecklenburg County Department ofEnvironmental Protection, NC; WesternNorth Carolina Regional Air PollutionControl Agency, NC; Memphis-ShelbyCounty Health Department, TN;Chattanooga-Hamilton County AirPollution Control Bureau, TN; KnoxCounty Department of Air PollutionControl, TN; Nashville-Davidson CountyMetropolitan Health Department, TN].The 21 evaluations were conducted toassess the agencies’ performance underthe grants awarded by EPA underauthority of section 105 of the Clean AirAct. EPA Region 4 has prepared reportsfor each agency identified above andthese reports are now available forpublic inspection. The evaluations forthe Commonwealth of Kentucky, andthe States of Georgia and Tennessee willbe available for public review at a laterdate.

ADDRESSES: The reports may beexamined at the EPA’s Region 4 office,61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia30303, in the Air, Pesticides, and ToxicsManagement Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Gloria Knight, (404) 562–9064, forinformation concerning the stateagencies in Mississippi, North Carolinaand Tennessee, and the local agencies inthose states; or Marie Persinger (404)562–9048, for information concerningstate agencies in Alabama, Kentucky orGeorgia, and the local agencies in thosestates; or Vera Bowers, (404) 562–9053,for information concerning the stateagencies in Florida and South Carolina,and the local agencies in those states.They may be contacted at the aboveRegion 4 address.


A. Stanley Meiburg,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.[FR Doc. 01–21814 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]





[FRL–7046–7]

EPA Science Advisory Board;Notification of Public AdvisoryCommittee Meeting

Stage 2 Disinfectants and DisinfectionByproduct Rule Review (S2DBP) andthe Long Term 2 Enhanced SurfaceWater Treatment Rule Review (LT2R)

Action—Notification of a meeting toinitiate the EPA Science Advisory Board(SAB) review of elements associatedwith EPA’s proposed rules on the: 1)Stage 2 Disinfectants and DisinfectionByproducts Rule (S2DBPR) and (2) theLong Term 2 Enhanced Surface WaterTreatment Rule (LT2ESWTR).

Drinking Water Committee Meeting—Background and Approach

Pursuant to the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, Public Law 92–463,notice is hereby given that the DrinkingWater Committee of the EPA ScienceAdvisory Board (SAB) will meet onSeptember 25 and 26, 2001. Themeeting will be held in EPA’s Ariel RiosBuilding, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Washington, DC. On September25th, the meeting will be held in Room6530 of Ariel Rios Building (North side)from 8:30 am until 5:00 pm. OnSeptember 26th, the meeting will beheld in Room 6013 of the Ariel RiosBuilding from 8:30 am until noon. Alltimes noted are Eastern DaylightSavings Time. The meeting is open tothe public; however, seating is limitedand available on a first come basis.Important Notice: Documents that arethe subject of SAB reviews are normallyavailable from the originating EPA officeand are not available from the SABOffice—information concerningavailability of documents from therelevant Program Office is includedbelow.

Background Information—The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Science Advisory Board (SAB) isannouncing the initiation of tworeviews for the EPA Office of Water(OW). These reviews are mandated bySection 1412(e) of the Safe DrinkingWater Act (SDWA as amended inAugust 1996) which states:

The Administrator shall request commentsfrom the Science Advisory Board (establishedunder the Environmental Research,Development, and Demonstration Act of1978) prior to proposal of a maximumcontaminant level goal and national primarydrinking water regulation. The Board shallrespond, as it deems appropriate, within thetime period applicable for promulgation ofthe national primary drinking water standard

concerned. This subsection shall, under nocircumstances, be used to delay finalpromulgation of any national primarydrinking water standard.

The EPA Science Advisory Board wasestablished to provide independentscientific and technical advice,consultation, and recommendations tothe EPA Administrator on the technicalbases for EPA regulations. In this sense,the Board functions as a technical peerreview panel.

In the discussion below, we provideinformation on the charge that has beengiven to the Science Advisory Boardand a summary of the background foreach proposal.

1. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface WaterTreatment Rule

(a) General Information: The SafeDrinking Water Act requires EPA todevelop National Primary DrinkingWater Regulations for contaminantswhich have an adverse effect on thehealth of persons and where regulationprovides a meaningful opportunity forpublic health protection. EPA isdeveloping a Long Term 2 EnhancedSurface Water Treatment Rule toprovide for increased protection ofpublic water systems against microbialpathogens, with a specific focus onCryptosporidium. The intent of theproposed LT2ESWTR is to supplementexisting surface water treatment rulesthrough establishment of targetedtreatment requirements for systems withgreater vulnerability toCryptosporidium. Such systems includethose with high source water pathogenlevels and those that do not providefiltration. In addition, consistent withSDWA requirements for risk balancing,EPA will propose and finalize theLT2ESWTR simultaneously with theStage 2 Disinfectants and DisinfectionByproducts Rule. This coordinatedapproach is designed to ensure thatsystems maintain adequate microbialprotection while reducing risk fromdisinfection byproducts. A FederalStakeholder Advisory Committeereached an Agreement in Principleduring September 2000 withrecommendations for both rules (65 FR83015–83024).

(b) Charge—Long Term 2 EnhancedSurface Water Treatment Rule: EPArequests SAB comment on the followingparts of the Agency’s LT2ESWTRproposal and supporting documents: (1)The analysis of Cryptosporidiumoccurrence; (2) the pre- and post-LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium riskassessment; and (3) the treatment creditsfor microbial toolbox options.

2. Stage 2 Disinfectants and DisinfectionByproduct Rule Proposal

(a) General Information: The 1996Amendments to the Safe Drinking WaterAct require EPA to promulgate a Stage2 Disinfectants and DisinfectionByproducts Rule (Section 1412(b)(2)(C))by May 2002. The intent of the proposedS2DBPR is to reduce the variability ofexposure to disinfection byproducts(DBPs) for people served by differentpoints in the distribution systems ofpublic water supplies. EPA believes thatthis decreased exposure will result inreduced risk from reproductive anddevelopmental health effects andcancer. EPA is required under the SafeDrinking Water Act to promulgate therule as the second part of a staged setof regulations addressing DBPs.Consistent with SDWA requirements forrisk balancing, EPA will propose andfinalize the Long Term 2 EnhancedSurface Water Treatment Rule(LT2ESWTR) at the same time as theStage 2 DBP Rule in order to ensureparallel protection from microbial andDBP risks. A Federal StakeholderAdvisory Committee reached anAgreement in Principle in September2000 with recommendations for bothproposed rules (65 FR 83015–83024).

(b) Charge—Stage 2 Disinfectants andDisinfection Byproduct Rule Proposal:EPA requests SAB comment on (1)whether the locational running annualaverage (LRAA) standards for totaltrihalomethanes (TTHMs) andhaloacetic acids (HAA5), in conjunctionwith the initial distribution systemevaluation (IDSE) of the proposed Stage2 DBPR, more effectively achievespublic health protection than thecurrent running annual average (RAA)standards, given the existing knowledgeof DBP occurrence and the availablehealth effects data, and (2) whether theIDSE is capable of identifying newcompliance monitoring points thattarget high TTHM and HAA5 levels andwhether it is the most appropriate toolavailable to achieve this objective.

Process to be followed by the SAB forthis Review: (a) The review of these twoproposals will take place over twomeetings. The first, on September 25–26, 2001, will initiate the review. In thismeeting, the Drinking Water Committee,augmented by a small number ofpersons to add disciplinary expertise inpublic health, epidemiology, drinkingwater treatment, and statistical analysis,will be briefed by EPA representativeson the nature of the issue, the extent ofthe charge, and the context for theproposed rule and the review. Then, theCommittee and the Agency will explorethe issue from the standpoint of



acceptability of the charge,completeness of the backgroundmaterial provided by the Agency, theneed for additional expertise for theCommittee to be able to respond to thecharge, and clarifications necessary onissues identified by the Committee.Finally, the Committee will begin itsdiscussions of each rule with the intentof formulating a plan of action to beaccomplished to guide the remainder ofthe review.

A second meeting will be scheduledin November or December in order toallow the DWC to fully evaluate anddiscuss the issues and charge and todraft its recommendations to theAdministrator of EPA.

(b) Panel Development: The SABPanel for this review consists of themembership of the DWC, augmented byexperts in the following areas: a) publichealth, b) epidemiology, c) drinkingwater treatment for microbialcontamination, and d) statisticaltechniques for the determination of theoccurrence of microbes in drinkingwater. The names of members of thePanel for the September 25–26 meetingwill be posted on the SAB Website atwww.epa.gov/sab by the close ofbusiness on September 15, 2001. Duringits September meeting the Panel willdiscuss the need for additional personsto provide expertise and/or balance.Members of the public wishing tocomment on the composition andbalance of the /panel and/or wishing tosuggest persons to be added to the Panelfor the second meeting in November orDecember should send those commentsby mail to Mr. Thomas O. Miller,Designated Federal Officer, SABDrinking Water Committee (1400A),1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,Washington, DC, 20460; by email [email protected], or by Fax at (202)501–0582. These comments should besent so that they are received at the SABno later than October 12, 2001.Nominations for additions to the Panelshould be identified by name, expertise(see the four areas of expertise listedabove), occupation, position, address,email address, and telephone number.In addition, a nomination shouldcontain a short discussion of why thecandidate should be added to the Panel.The nomination should also include acurrent resume (preferably in electronicformat) that provides details on thenominee’s background, experience andqualifications to address the issuesbefore the Panel. These comments andsuggestions will be considered in theSAB’s decision on the final makeup ofthe review Panel for the November/December meeting. The final list ofnames for the SAB members and

consultants serving on the Panel will beposted on the SAB website by October19, 2001.

This clarification of and invitation forpublic input to the SAB panel selectionprocess is an attempt to explore andrespond to recommendations in a recentreport from the General AccountingOffice (GAO) on the operations of theOffice of the Science Advisory Board(GAO Report #GAO–01–531; see GAOWebsite: www.gao.gov).

For Further Information—Anymember of the public wishing furtherinformation concerning this meetingshould contact Mr. Thomas O. Miller,Designated Federal Officer, SABDrinking Water Committee as statedabove. For a copy of the draft meetingagenda, please contact Ms. WandaFields, Management Assistant at (202)564–4539, FAX at (202) 501–0582, oremail at: [email protected].

Materials that are the subject of thisreview are available on the EPA Websiteas noted in the section on the Chargeabove or from: a) Stage 2 DBPs, Ms.Mary Manibusan, US EPA Office ofWater (OW) (MS 4607), 1200Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20460, Phone: (202) 260–3688 or viaemail at [email protected]; andb) LT2, Mr. Dan Schmelling, US EPAOffice of Water (OW) (MS 4607), 1200Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,DC 20460, Phone: (202) 260–1439 or viaemail at [email protected].

Providing Oral or Written Comments atSAB Meetings

It is the policy of the EPA ScienceAdvisory Board to accept written publiccomments of any length, and toaccommodate oral public commentswhenever possible. The EPA ScienceAdvisory Board expects that publicstatements presented at its meetings willnot be repetitive of previouslysubmitted oral or written statements.

Oral Comments: In general, eachindividual or group wishing to make abrief oral presentation to the Panel mustcontact Mr. Thomas Miller, DFO for theDWC, no later than noon Eastern Time,Tuesday, September 18, 2001 in order tobe included on the agenda. The requestshould identify the name of theindividual who will make thepresentation, the organization (if any)they will represent, and anyrequirements for audio visualequipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35mm projector, chalkboard, etc.).Presentations at face-to-face meetingwill be limited to a total time of fiveminutes per speaker. For teleconferencemeetings, opportunities for oralcomment will usually be limited to nomore than three minutes per speaker

and no more than fifteen minutes totalfor all speakers together. Speakersshould provide to the SAB Staff Office,at least one week prior to the meetingdate, a) one signed hard copy of thecomments for the file and b) anelectronic version of the comments[acceptable file format: WordPerfect,Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM–PC/Windows 95/98 format)]. In addition,the speaker should bring to the meetingat least 35 copies of their comments andpresentation slides for distribution tothe reviewers and public at the meeting.

Written Comments: Although the SABaccepts written comments until the dateof the meeting (unless otherwise stated),written comments should be received inthe SAB Staff Office at least one weekprior to the meeting date so that thecomments may be made available to thecommittee for their consideration.Comments should be supplied to Mr.Miller (see contact information above)in the following formats: one hard copywith original signature, and oneelectronic copy via e-mail [acceptablefile format: WordPerfect, Word, or RichText files (in IBM–PC/Windows 95/98format)]. Those providing writtencomments and who attend the meetingare also asked to bring 35 copies of theircomments for public distribution.

Meeting Access—Individualsrequiring special accommodation atthese meetings, including wheelchairaccess to the conference room, shouldcontact Mr. Miller at least five businessdays prior to the relevant meeting sothat appropriate arrangements can bemade.

Dated: August 21, 2001.Donald G. Barnes,Staff Director, EPA Science Advisory Board.[FR Doc. 01–21811 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


[OPP–34239; FRL–6783–8]

Lindane; Availability of PreliminaryRisk Assessments

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces theavailability of documents that weredeveloped as part of EPA’s pilot publicparticipation process for makingreregistration eligibility decisions forthe organophosphate and certain other,non-organophosphate pesticides and fortolerance reassessments consistent withthe Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic



Act, as amended by the Food QualityProtection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Thesedocuments are the preliminary humanhealth and ecological fate and effectsrisk assessments and related documentsfor lindane. This notice starts a 60–daypublic comment period for thepreliminary risk assessments.Comments are to be limited to issuesdirectly associated with lindane andraised by the risk assessments or otherdocuments placed in the docket. Byallowing access and opportunity forcomment on preliminary riskassessments, EPA is seeking tostrengthen stakeholder involvement andhelp ensure that our decisions underFQPA are transparent and based on thebest available information. Thetolerance reassessment process willensure that the United States continuesto have the safest and most abundantfood supply. The Agency cautions thatrisk assessments at this stage arepreliminary only and that furtherrefinements of the risk assessments maybe appropriate for this pesticide. Thesedocuments reflect only the work andanalysis conducted as of the time theywere produced and it is appropriatethat, as new information becomesavailable and/or additional analyses areperformed, the conclusions they containmay change.DATES: Comments, identified by thedocket control number OPP–34239 forlindane, must be received on or beforeOctober 29, 2001.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 the docket controlnumber for lindane in the subject lineon the first page of your response.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mark Howard, Special Review andReregistration Division (7508C), Officeof Pesticide Programs, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington, DC 20460;telephone number: (703) 308–8172; e-mail address: [email protected] INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the publicin general. This action may, however, beof interest to those persons who are ormay be required to conduct testing ofchemical substances under the FederalFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Sinceother entities may also be interested, theAgency has not attempted to describe allthe specific entities that may be affectedby this action. 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/. 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/. In addition,copies of the preliminary riskassessments for lindane may also beaccessed at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

2. In person. The Agency hasestablished an official record for thisaction under docket control numberOPP–34239. The official record consistsof the documents specifically referencedin this action, 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. Toensure proper receipt by EPA, it isimperative that you identify the docketcontrol number for lindane, OPP–34239,in the subject line on the first page ofyour response.

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–34239. 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.

7. Make sure to submit yourcomments by the deadline in thisdocument.

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. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA is making available preliminaryrisk assessments that have beendeveloped as part of EPA’s process formaking reregistration eligibilitydecisions for the organophosphate andother pesticides and for tolerancereassessments consistent with theFFDCA, as amended by the FQPA. TheAgency’s preliminary human health andecological fate and effects riskassessments and other relateddocuments for lindane are available inthe individual pesticide dockets. Asadditional comments, reviews, and riskassessment modifications becomeavailable, these will also be docketed forlindane.

The Agency cautions that the lindanerisk assessments are preliminary onlyand that further refinements may beappropriate. These documents reflectonly the work and analysis conductedas of the time they were produced andit is appropriate that, as newinformation becomes available and/oradditional analyses are performed, theconclusions they contain may change.

The Agency is providing anopportunity, through this notice, forinterested parties to provide writtencomments and input to the Agency onthe preliminary risk assessments for thechemicals specified in this notice. Suchcomments and input could address, forexample, the availability of additionaldata to further refine the riskassessments, such as percent croptreated information or submission ofresidue data from food processingstudies, or could address the Agency’srisk assessment methodologies and

assumptions as applied to this specificchemical. Comments should be limitedto issues raised within the preliminaryrisk assessments and associateddocuments. EPA will provide otheropportunities for public comment onother science issues associated with thepesticide tolerance reassessmentprogram. Failure to comment on anysuch issues as part of this opportunitywill in no way prejudice or limit acommenter’s opportunity to participatefully in later notice and commentprocesses. All comments should besubmitted by October 29, 2001 using themethods in Unit I. of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Commentswill become part of the Agency recordfor lindane.

List of SubjectsEnvironmental protection, Chemicals,

Pesticides and pests.Dated: August 2, 2001.

Robert McNally,Acting Director, Special Review andReregistration Division, Office of PesticidePrograms.[FR Doc. 01–21569 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–S


[FRL–7046–6]

Waste Characterization ProgramDocuments Applicable to TransuranicRadioactive Waste From the SavannahRiver Site Proposed for Disposal at theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of availability; openingof public comment period.

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA, or ‘‘we’’) is announcingthe availability of, and soliciting publiccomments for 30 days on, Department ofEnergy (DOE) documents on wastecharacterization programs applicable tocertain transuranic (TRU) radioactivewaste at the Savannah River Site (SRS)proposed for disposal at the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Thedocuments are procedures and othermaterials related to the CentralCharacterization Project (CCP),established by DOE to augment theability of TRU waste sites tocharacterize and certify the waste inaccordance with EPA’s WIPPCompliance Criteria. The documents areavailable for review in the publicdockets listed in ADDRESSES. We willuse these documents to evaluate theCCP activities at SRS to characterize

SRS-generated contact-handled (CH)TRU debris waste during an inspectionconducted the week of September 24,2001. The purpose of the inspection isto verify that the CCP can properlycharacterize SRS-generated contact-handled (CH) TRU solid debris waste,consistent with the WIPP ComplianceCriteria and Condition 3 of EPA’s finalcertification decision for the WIPP.DATES: The EPA is requesting publiccomment on these documents.Comments must be received by EPA’sofficial Air Docket on or beforeSeptember 28, 2001.ADDRESSES: Comments should besubmitted to: Docket No. A–98–49, AirDocket, Room M–1500 (LE–131), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460.

DOE documents related to the CCP areavailable for review in the official EPAAir Docket in Washington, D.C., DocketNo. A–98–49, Category II–B2, and at thefollowing three EPA WIPP informationaldocket locations in New Mexico: inCarlsbad at the Municipal Library,Hours: Monday–Thursday, 10am–9pm,Friday–Saturday, 10am–6pm, andSunday, 1pm–5pm; in Albuquerque atthe Government PublicationsDepartment, General Library, Universityof New Mexico, Hours: vary bysemester; and in Santa Fe at the NewMexico State Library, Hours: Monday–Friday, 9am–5pm.

Copies of items in the docket may berequested by writing to Docket A–98–49at the address provided above, or bycalling (202) 260–7548. As provided inEPA’s regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, andin accordance with normal EPA docketprocedures, a reasonable fee may becharged for photocopying. Air DocketA–98–49 in Washington, DC, acceptscomments sent electronically or by fax(fax no.: 202–260–4400; E-mail: [email protected]).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Rajani D. Joglekar, Office of Radiationand Indoor Air, (202) 564–9310, or callEPA’s 24-hour, toll-free WIPPInformation Line, 1–800–331–WIPP, orvisit our website at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/announce.html.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DOEowns and operates the Waste IsolationPilot Project (WIPP) facility nearCarlsbad in southeastern New Mexico asa deep geologic repository for disposalof TRU radioactive waste. As defined bythe WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA)of 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102–579), asamended (Pub. L. No. 104–201), TRUwaste consists of materials containingelements having atomic numbers greaterthan 92 (with half-lives greater thantwenty years), in concentrations greater



than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emittingTRU isotopes per gram of waste. MostTRU waste consists of itemscontaminated during the production ofnuclear weapons, such as rags,equipment, tools, and organic andinorganic sludges.

On May 13, 1998, EPA announced itsfinal compliance certification decisionto the Secretary of Energy (publishedMay 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). Thisdecision states that the WIPP willcomply with the EPA’s radioactivewaste disposal regulations at 40 CFRpart 191, subparts B and C.

The final WIPP certification decisionincludes a condition that prohibitsshipment of TRU waste for disposal atWIPP from any site other than LANLuntil EPA has approved the proceduresdeveloped to comply with the wastecharacterization requirements of§ 194.24(c)(4) (Condition 3 of AppendixA to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA’sapproval process for waste generatorsites is described in § 194.8. As part ofEPA’s decision making process, DOE isrequired to submit to EPA relevantdocumentation of waste characterizationprograms at each DOE waste generatorsite seeking approval for shipment ofTRU radioactive waste to the WIPP. Inaccordance with § 194.8, EPA will placesuch documentation in the official AirDocket in Washington, D.C., and ininformational dockets in the State ofNew Mexico, for public review andcomment.

At the direction of DOE’s CarlsbadField Office (CBFO), Westinghouse TRUSolutions (WTS) has been developingthe CCP mainly to assist DOE facilitiesthat have generated small quantities ofTRU waste with meeting applicablewaste characterization requirements. Atthe present stage of development of theCCP, all required waste characterizationwill be managed by WTS at TRU wastesites prior to shipment to the WIPP. Forthe inspection announced today, theCCP will demonstrate their capabilitiesin characterizing TRU debris wastegenerated at SRS in accordance with theDOE/CBFO-implemented wastecharacterization (WC) and qualityassurance (QA) plans.

DOE/CBFO conducted an initial auditof the CCP at SRS on June 18–20, 2001,which EPA observed. DOE/CBFO hasscheduled a final audit for the week ofSeptember 24, 2001, to evaluate theadequacy, implementation, andeffectiveness of technical and qualityassurance activities related to the CCPTRU waste characterization of contact-handled, retrievably-stored debris wasteat SRS. The evaluation would lead DOE/CBFO to certify that the CCP-characterized CH TRU debris waste

meets all applicable requirements at 40CFR part 194. We will conduct anindependent inspection under § 194.8 atthe same time as DOE/CBFO’s audit toverify that the CCP has characterizedSRS-generated CH TRU debris wasteappropriately in accordance withCondition 3 of our WIPP CertificationDecision (Appendix A to 40 CFR part194) and § 194.24(c)(4). The CCP maynot ship transuranic waste from SRS tothe WIPP until EPA has approved theCCP’s waste characterization processesand quality assurance in accordancewith § 194.8.

The following documents related tothe CCP have been placed in Air DocketA–98–49, particularly: (1) ‘‘CCP–PO–001—Revision 2, 7/23/01—CCPTransuranic Waste Quality AssuranceCharacterization Project Plan’’ (2)‘‘CCP–PO–002—Revision 2, 7/23/01—CCP Transuranic Waste CertificationPlan’’ and (3) IWR NO. AC27750W—Revision 0, 7/23/01—Savannah RiverSite Statement of Work IE 8863 forClarification of SRS TRU Waste.’’ Thesedocuments describe the top-tierprogrammatic requirements for the CCP.In accordance with § 194.8 of the WIPPcompliance criteria, we are providingthe public 30 days to comment on thedocuments in the docket. EPA willreview other potentially relevantdocumentation and will interview CCPpersonnel during the inspection. Ourinspection activities and findings willbe summarized in our inspection report,which will be placed in Docket A–98–49.

If EPA determines that the provisionsin the documents available in the EPADocket are adequately implemented, wewill notify DOE by letter and place theletter in the official Air Docket inWashington, D.C., and in theinformational docket locations in NewMexico. We will not make adetermination of compliance prior tothe inspection or before the 30-daycomment period has closed.

Information on EPA’s radioactivewaste disposal standards (40 CFR part191), the compliance criteria (40 CFRpart 194), and EPA’s certificationdecision is filed in the official EPA AirDocket, Dockets No. R–89–01, A–92–56,and A–93–02, respectively, and isavailable for review in Washington,D.C., and at the three EPA WIPPinformational docket locations in NewMexico. The dockets in New Mexicocontain only major items from theofficial Air Docket in Washington, D.C.,plus those documents added to theofficial Air Docket after the October1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.

Dated: August 23, 2001.Jeffrey R. Holmstead,Assistant Administrator for Air andRadiation.[FR Doc. 01–21812 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Government in the Sunshine MeetingNotice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board ofGovernors of the Federal ReserveSystem.TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Tuesday,September 4, 2001.PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles FederalReserve Board Building, 20th and CStreets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.STATUS: Closed.MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Personnel actions (appointments,promotions, assignments,reassignments, and salary actions)involving individual Federal ReserveSystem employees.

2. Any items carried forward from apreviously announced meeting.CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to theBoard; 202–452–3204.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You maycall 202–452–3206 beginning atapproximately 5 p.m. two business daysbefore the meeting for a recordedannouncement of bank and bankholding company applicationsscheduled for the meeting; or you maycontact the Board’s Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronicannouncement that not only listsapplications, but also indicatesprocedural and other information aboutthe meeting.

Dated: August 24, 2001.Robert deV. Frierson,Deputy Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 01–21883 Filed 8–24–01; 4:33 pm]BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

GENERAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION

Office of Communications

Cancellation of a Standard Form by theOffice of Personnel Management(OPM)

AGENCY: Office of Communications,GSA.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Office of PersonnelManagement (OPM) cancelled SF 71,



Application for Leave since they nolonger prescribe any standard dataelements for requesting and approvingleave. Each agency needs to set theirown policy on how this process ishandled. OPM developed their ownform which they are happy to sharewith you but is NOT for mandatory use.You can obtain a copy of this form fromthe internet (Address: http://www.opm.gov/forms).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Barbara Williams, General ServicesAdministration, (202) 501–0581.DATES: Effective August 29, 2001.

Dated: August 21, 2001.Barbara M. Williams,Deputy Standard and Optional FormsManagement Officer, General ServicesAdministration.[FR Doc. 01–21806 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6820–34–M

GENERAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090–0243]

Submission for OMB Review andExtension; Comment Request EntitledGSAR 516.203–4, Contract Clause andGSAR 552.216–70 Economic PriceAdjustment (EPA)

AGENCY: General ServicesAdministration, GSA.ACTION: Notice of a request for anextension to an existing OMB clearance.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General ServicesAdministration (GSA) has submitted tothe Office of Management and Budget(OMB) a request to review and approvean extension of a previously approvedinformation collection requirementconcerning the Federal SupplySchedule (FSS) Multiple AwardSchedule (MAS) Economic PriceAdjustment (EPA) Clause.

Public comments are particularlyinvited on: Whether the informationcollection generated by the GSARClause, Economic Price Adjustment(EPA) is necessary to determine anofferor’s price is fair and reasonable;whether it will have practical utility;

whether our estimate of the publicburden of this collection of informationis accurate, and based on validassumptions and methodology; ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; andways in which we can minimize theburden of the collection of informationon those who are to respond, throughthe use of appropriate technologicalcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology.DATES: Comments may be submitted onor before October 29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JuliaWise, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA(202) 208–1168.ADDRESSES: Comments regarding thisburden estimate or any other aspect ofthis collection of information, includingsuggestions for reducing this burden,should be submitted to: EdwardSpringer, GSA Desk Officer, OMB,Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC20503, and a copy to Stephanie Morris,General Services Administration (MVP),1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035,Washington, DC 20405.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. PurposeThe General Services Administration

(GSA) has various missionresponsibilities related to theacquisition and provision of FSS MAScontracts. These mission responsibilitiesgenerate requirements that are realizedthrough the solicitation and award ofcontracts for various products andservices. Individual solicitations andresulting contracts may impose uniqueinformation collection and reportingrequirements on contractors notrequired by regulation, but necessary toevaluate particular programaccomplishments and measure successin meeting program objectives.

B. Annual Reporting BurdenRespondents: 3,857.Annual Responses: 5,786.Burden Hours: 3,857.

Obtaining Copies of ProposalsA copy of this proposal may be

obtained from the General ServicesAdministration, Acquisition PolicyDivision (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW.,Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, or

by telephoning (202) 501–4744, or byfaxing your request to (202) 501–4067.Please cite OMB Control No. 3090–0243,Contract Clause and Economic PriceAdjustment, in all correspondence.

David A. Drabkin,Deputy Associate Administrator, Office ofAcquisition Policy.[FR Doc. 01–21807 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6820–61–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Agency Information CollectionActivities: Submission for OMBReview; Comment Request

The Department of Health and HumanServices, Office of the Secretarypublishes a list of informationcollections it has submitted to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) forclearance in compliance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 5 CFR 1320.5.The following are those informationcollections recently submitted to OMB.

1. Assessment of State Laws,Regulations and Practices Affecting theCollection and Reporting of Racial andEthnic Data by Health Insurers andManaged Care Plans—NEW—One of theoverarching goals of Healthy People2010 is the elimination of healthdisparities, including those associatedwith race and ethnicity. The lack of datahas been identified as a barrier toperformance measurement for this goal.Therefore, the Office of Minority Healthis proposing a study which willexamine States’ laws and policiesconcerning the collection and use ofracial and ethnic data by health insurersand managed care plans. The studyinvolves visits to 13 States for an in-depth look at their policies andpractices, interviews with State officialsand representatives of the States’ majormanaged care plans and healthinsurance industry, and focus groupswith consumer and civil rightsorganizations. Respondents: State orlocal governments; businesses or otherfor-profit; non-profit institutions.

BURDEN INFORMATION

Instrument Number ofrespondents

Burden perresponse Burden hours

Administrator Interview guide ...................................................................................................... 78 4 312Consumer Focus Group .............................................................................................................. 130 2 260

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 208 572



OMB Desk Officer; Allison HerronEydt.

Copies of the information collectionpackages listed above can be obtainedby calling the OS Reports ClearanceOfficer on (202) 690–6207. Writtencomments and recommendations for theproposed information collection shouldbe sent directly to the OMB desk officerdesignated above at the followingaddress: Human Resources and HousingBranch, Office of Management andBudget, New Executive Office Building,Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW,Washington, DC 20503.

Comments may also be sent toCynthia Agens Bauer, OS ReportsClearance Officer, Room 503H,Humphrey Building, 200 IndependenceAvenue SW, Washington DC, 20201.Written comments should be receivedwithin 30 days of this notice.

Dated: August 17, 2001.Kerry Weems,Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.[FR Doc. 01–21731 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4150–29–M


Office of the Secretary

Request for Comments To Inform HHSInitiative on Rural Communities

SUMMARY: The Department of Health andHuman Services (HHS) is undertakingan examination of how each HHSagency’s program can be strengthened tobetter serve rural communities. HHSseeks public comments to inform thisprocess.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dianne McSwain, HHS Office ofIntergovermental Affairs, 202–401–5926or Marcia Brand, HHS Health andResources and Services Administration,Office of Rural Health Policy, 301–443–0835.DATES: All comments must be receivedon or before the close of business onSeptember 28, 2001.ADDRESSES: All comments should beaddressed to the HHS Initiative on RuralCommunities, Department of Health andHuman Services, Hubert H. HumphreyBuilding, 200 Independence Avenue,SW., Room 638–G, Washington, DC20201. Comments may also besubmitted through email to:[email protected]. Individualsand organizations submitting commentsare encouraged to include contactinformation for further clarification anda zip code to facilitate possible analysis

of geographic distribution of thecomments received.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July25, 2001, HHS Secretary Tommy G.Thompson announced the HHSInitiative on Rural Communities, aDepartment-wide effort to improve theprovision of health and human servicesto rural families and individuals. AnHHS Rural Task Force has been createdto conduct a program-by-programexamination of how HHS programs canimprove services to rural communities.This internal HHS Rural Task Force;will examine how existing programsserve rural communities; will identifyadministrative, regulatory and statutorybarriers to serving people in ruralcommunities; will consider the impactof the HHS funding on rural economies;and will make recommendations toimprove health care and social servicesto rural America. The HHS Task Forcewill report to the Secretary of Healthand Human Services on October 25,2001 with a detailed analysis of HHSprograms and a strategic plan forsustaining the commitment to ruralcommunities.

Recognizing the value of the insightand experience of those at the state,local, and tribal level serving ruralcommunities, the HHS Task Forceinvites the public to submit to us yourspecific written comments on issuessuch as (1) Improving ruralcommunities’ access to quality healthand human services; (2) strengtheningrural families; (3) strengthening ruralcommunities and supporting economicdevelopment; (4) partnering with State,local and Tribal governments to supportrural communities; and (5) supporting arural voice in federal policy making.

All comments should be submitted tothe Department of Health and HumanServices at the address noted above. Thecomments will be considered in thedevelopment of the report to SecretaryThompson and the ensuing strategicplan. Since the anticipated volume ofresponses will preclude a personalresponse to each of the comments, HHSwishes to thank you in advance for yourcomments.

Andrew C. Knapp,Acting Director, Office of IntergovernmentalAffairs.[FR Doc. 01–21732 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]



Centers for Disease Control andPrevention

[Program Announcement 01196]

Evaluation of Breast Cancer Incidence;Notice of Availability of Funds;Amendment

A notice announcing the availabilityof fiscal year (FY) 2001 funds for a grantprogram for an Evaluation of BreastCancer Incidence in DuPage County,Illinois, was published in the FederalRegister on August 7, 2001, [Vol. 66,No. 152, Page 41245]. This notice isamended as follows:

On page 41245, First Column, UnderSection A, Second Paragraph, SecondSentence, Lines 6–11, delete: ‘‘Throughthis program, the DuPage County HealthDepartment will be able to determinethe incidence of breast cancer in thecounty and to outline a plan to addressthe programmatic and health issuesidentified.’’ and change to: ‘‘Throughthis program, the Illinois Department ofHealth will be able to determine theincidence of breast cancer in DuPageCounty and to outline a plan to addressthe programmatic and health issuesidentified in the county.’’

On Page 41245, First Column, UnderSection B, First Sentence, delete:‘‘Assistance will be provided to theDuPage County Health Department inWheaton, Illinois.’’ and change to:‘‘Assistance will be provided only to theIllinois Department of Health.’’ On Page41245, First Column, Under Section B,Third Sentence, delete: ‘‘Eligibility islimited to the DuPage County HealthDepartment * * *’’ and change to:‘‘Eligibility is limited to the IllinoisDepartment of Health * * *’’.

Dated: August 23, 2001.John L. Williams,Director, Procurement and Grants Office,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[FR Doc. 01–21785 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4163–18–P


Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 01D–0286]

Draft ‘‘Guidance for Industry:Premarket Notifications [510(k)s] for InVitro HIV Drug Resistance GenotypeAssays;’’ Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.



ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing theavailability of a draft document entitled‘‘Guidance for Industry: PremarketNotifications [510(k)s] for In Vitro HIVDrug Resistance Genotype Assays’’dated August 2001. In Vitro HIV DrugResistance Genotype Assays are Class IIIdevices that FDA is consideringreclassifying as Class II, with specialcontrols. This document describes suchspecial controls, in draft, which wouldbe intended to assist manufacturers of InVitro HIV Drug Resistance GenotypeAssays to file premarket notifications[510(k)s] instead of premarket approvalapplications (PMAs) for this device.DATES: Submit written or electroniccomments on the draft guidance toensure their adequate consideration inpreparation of the final document byOctober 29, 2001. General comments onagency guidance documents arewelcome at any time.ADDRESSES: Submit written requests forsingle copies of the draft guidance to theOffice of Communication, Training, andManufacturers Assistance (HFM–40),Center for Biologics Evaluation andResearch (CBER), Food and DrugAdministration, 1401 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852–1448. Send oneself-addressed adhesive label to assistthe office in processing your requests.The document may also be obtained bymail by calling the CBER VoiceInformation System at 1–800–835–4709or 301–827–1800, or by fax by callingthe FAX Information System at 1–888–CBER–FAX or 301–827–3844. See theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section forelectronic access to the draft guidancedocument.

Submit written comments on thedocument to the Dockets ManagementBranch (HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submitelectronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nathaniel L. Geary, Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research (HFM–17),Food and Drug Administration, 1401Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6210.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability ofa draft document entitled ‘‘Guidance forIndustry: Premarket Notifications[510(k)s] for In Vitro HIV DrugResistance Genotype Assays’’ datedAugust 2001. These devices arecurrently Class III devices. FDA is

considering reclassification of HIV DrugResistance Assays as Class II devicessubject to special controls. After suchreclassification, this guidance, whenfinal, would serve as a special controlfor these devices.

This draft guidance is being issuedconsistent with FDA’s good guidancepractices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).This draft guidance documentrepresents the agency’s current thinkingon special controls for HIV DrugResistance Genotype Assays. It does notcreate or confer any rights for or on anyperson and does not operate to bindFDA or the public. An alternativeapproach may be used if such approachsatisfies the requirement of theapplicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

This draft document is beingdistributed for comment purposes onlyand is not intended for implementationat this time. Interested persons maysubmit to the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) written orelectronic comments regarding this draftguidance document. Submit written orelectronic comments to ensure adequateconsideration in preparation of the finaldocument by October 29, 2001. Twocopies of any comments are to besubmitted, except individuals maysubmit one copy. Comments should beidentified with the docket numberfound in the brackets in the heading ofthis document. A copy of the documentand received comments are available forpublic examination in the DocketsManagement Branch between 9 a.m. and4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

Persons with access to the Internetmay obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm orhttp://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm.


Margaret M. Dotzel,Associate Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 01–21734 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S


Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 97D–0318]

Draft ‘‘Guidance for Industry: RevisedPreventive Measures to Reduce thePossible Risk of Transmission ofCreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) andVariant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(vCJD) by Blood and Blood Products;’’Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing theavailability of a draft document entitled‘‘Guidance for Industry: RevisedPreventive Measures to Reduce thePossible Risk of Transmission ofCreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) andVariant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD)by Blood and Blood Products’’ datedAugust 2001. The draft guidancedocument provides comprehensivecurrent recommendations to allregistered blood and plasmaestablishments for deferral of donorswith possible exposure to the agent ofvCJD. The new recommendations areintended to minimize the possible riskof vCJD transmission from bloodproducts. When the draft guidance isfinalized, the guidance documententitled ‘‘Revised Preventive Measuresto Reduce the Possible Risk ofTransmission of Creutzfeldt-JakobDisease (CJD) and New VariantCreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) byBlood and Blood Products’’ datedNovember 1999 will be superseded.DATES: Submit written or electroniccomments on the draft guidance toensure their adequate consideration inpreparation of the final document bySeptember 28, 2001. General commentson agency guidance documents arewelcome at any time.ADDRESSES: Submit written requests forsingle copies of the draft guidance to theOffice of Communication, Training, andManufacturers Assistance (HFM–40),Center for Biologics Evaluation andResearch (CBER), Food and DrugAdministration, 1401 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852–1448. Send oneself-addressed adhesive label to assistthe office in processing your requests.The document may also be obtained bymail by calling the CBER VoiceInformation System at 1–800–835–4709or 301–827–1800, or by fax by callingthe FAX Information System at 1–888–CBER–FAX or 301–827–3844. See the



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section forelectronic access to the draft guidancedocument.

Submit written comments on thedocument to the Dockets ManagementBranch (HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submitelectronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Valerie A. Butler, Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research (HFM–17),Food and Drug Administration, 1401Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6210.


I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability ofa draft document entitled ‘‘Guidance forIndustry: Revised Preventive Measuresto Reduce the Possible Risk ofTransmission of Creutzfeldt-JakobDisease (CJD) and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) by Blood andBlood Products’’ dated August 2001.This guidance document containscomprehensive revisedrecommendations based upon advisorycommittee discussions and internalPublic Health Service and FDAdeliberations. We (FDA) have developedrecommendations for donor deferral,and product retrieval, quarantine, anddisposition based upon consideration ofrisk in the donor and product, and theeffect that withdrawals and deferralsmight have on the supply of life- andhealth-sustaining blood componentsand plasma derivatives. The newrecommendations are intended tominimize the possible risk of vCJDtransmission from blood products whilemaintaining their availability. When thedraft guidance is finalized, the guidancedocument entitled ‘‘Revised PreventiveMeasures to Reduce the Possible Risk ofTransmission of Creutzfeldt-JakobDisease (CJD) and New VariantCreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) byBlood and Blood Products’’ datedNovember 1999 (64 FR 65715,November 23, 1999) will be superseded.

This draft guidance is being issuedconsistent with FDA’s good guidancepractices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).This draft guidance documentrepresents the agency’s current thinkingon this topic. It does not create or conferany rights for or on any person and doesnot operate to bind FDA or the public.An alternative approach may be used ifsuch approach satisfies the requirementof the applicable statutes andregulations.

II. CommentsThis draft document is being

distributed for comment purposes onlyand is not intended for implementationat this time. Interested persons maysubmit to the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) written orelectronic comments regarding this draftguidance document. Submit written orelectronic comments to ensure adequateconsideration in preparation of the finaldocument by September 28, 2001. Twocopies of any comments are to besubmitted, except individuals maysubmit one copy. Comments should beidentified with the docket numberfound in the brackets in the heading ofthis document. A copy of the documentand received comments are available forpublic examination in the DocketsManagement Branch between 9 a.m. and4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

Persons with access to the Internetmay obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm orhttp://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm.

Dated: August 23, 2001.Margaret M. Dotzel,Associate Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 01–21920 Filed 8–27–01; 11:39 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–S


National Institutes of Health

Environmental Impact StatementSupplement: Montgomery County,Maryland

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health(NIH), DHHS.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347 (NationalEnvironmental Policy Act).ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The NIH is issuing this noticeto advise the public that a supplementto a final environmental impactstatement will be prepared for a revisionor update of the 1995 Master Plan forthe NIH Main Campus in Bethesda inMontgomery County, Maryland.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Janyce Hedetniemi, Director, Office ofCommunity Liaison, National Institutesof Health, Building 1, Room 259, OneCenter Drive, Bethesda, Maryland20892–0172, telephone: (301) 496–3931.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 322-acre NIH Bethesda Campusencompasses the largest biomedicalresearch facility in the world.

Approximately 17,000 people work atthe site in 65 buildings with more thanseven million square feet of floor space.The Office of the Director, NIHadministrative staff, and the researchersand laboratories of individual researchInstitutes and Centers are located on thecampus. The focal point of the campusis the Clinical Center Complex.

A Master Plan provides guidance incoordinating physical development interms of buildings, utilities, roads,parking, landscaping, and generaldesign guidelines. A Master Plan andEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)were prepared for the campus in 1995(1995 Master Plan, NIH Main Campus,Bethesda, Maryland, Final,Environmental Impact Statement for the1995 NIH Main Campus Master Plan, 2vol. The Final Master Plan and Final EISwere published in January 1996 afterapproval by the National CapitalPlanning Commission.

The NIH declared its intent in theoriginal documentation to update theMaster Plan at approximately five-yearintervals. The proposed action is toprepare the updated documentation.Since the development of the 1995Master Plan included a completeNational Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) scoping process and establishedbaseline environmental conditions andpotential cumulative impacts, and sincethe proposed action is an update/revision and not a new alternative, it isthe intent of NIH to issue draft and finalsupplements to the original Final EIS.NIH has kept the surroundingcommunity informed of planning issueson a continuing basis in the interimthrough the Community LiaisonCouncil.

Alternatives that will be consideredinclude (1) an update or revision of the1995 master plan, and (2) taking noaction.

No formal scoping meeting will beheld. Letters describing the proposedaction and soliciting comments will besent to appropriate Federal, State, andlocal agencies, and to privateorganizations and citizens who haveexpressed interest in this proposal. Apublic hearing will be held, and publicnotice will be given of the time andplace. The Draft EIS supplement will beavailable for public and agency reviewand comment. It is anticipated that theDraft will be available in November2001.

To ensure that the full range of issuesrelated to this proposed action areaddressed, comments are invited fromall interested parties. Comments andquestions should be directed to the NIHat the address listed above.



Dated: August 20, 2001.Yvonne T. Maddox,Acting Deputy Director, National Institutesof Health.[FR Doc. 01–21778 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–P



Government-Owned Inventions;Availability for Licensing

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health,Public Health Service, HHS.ACTION: Notice,

SUMMARY: The inventions listed beloware owned by agencies of the U.S.Government and are available forlicensing in the U.S. in accordance with35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditiouscommercialization of results offederally-funded research anddevelopment. Foreign patentapplications are filed on selectedinventions to extend market coveragefor companies and may also be availablefor licensing.ADDRESSES: Licensing information andcopies of the U.S. patent applicationslisted below may be obtained bycontacting Dale D. Berkley, Ph.D., J.D.,at the Office of Technology Transfer,National Institutes of Health, 6011Executive Boulevard, Suite 325,Rockville, Maryland 20852–3804;telephone: 301/496–7735 ext. 223; fax:301/402–0220; e-mail:[email protected]. A signedConfidential Disclosure Agreement willbe required to receive copies of thepatent applications.

Generalized MRI Artifact ReductionUsing Array Processing Method

Peter Kellman, Elliott McVeigh (NHLBI)DHHS Reference No. E–198–00/0 filed

03 Apr 2001The invention is a phased array

combining method for reducing artifactsin Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging.The method uses a constrainedoptimization that optimizes signal-to-noise subject to the constraint of nullingghost artifacts at known locations. Themethod is effective in reducing orcanceling artifacts that arise in a widevariety of MR applications, includingghost artifacts from echo planar imagingand Gradient Recalled Echo with EchoTrain (FGRE–ET) imaging used incardiac or other rapid imagingapplications. The strategy of usingphase encode acquisition orders withdistortion that results in ghosts,

followed by applying this phased arrayghost cancellation method has a numberof benefits, including reduced blur andgeometric distortion, reducedacquisition time (eliminating echoshifting), and reduced sensitivity toflow.

E-Portals in Commerce (E–PIC)Diana V. Mukitarian (OD)DHHS Reference No. E–147–00/0

The invention is a consolidateddatabase for storing and maintainingvendor contact information and contractservices that each can offer. Thepurpose of the invention is toconsolidate vendor sources into onedatabase, enabling vendors to easily addand update their contact information, toprovide a variety of search criteria forproviding sources for an organization’sacquisitions, and to make such a systemuser friendly and available to theorganization administrators. The systemserves as a gateway for the businesscommunity to gain access to theorganization’s contracts and allows theorganization to follow the acquisitioncycle at every step. The database isdesigned to serve as a center for allcommunication for any service vendorseeking to do business with theorganization. At any time anadministrator can visit the repository tolook for approved contractors andreview their performance on pastprojects, with the intention of seekingproposals for work via an automatedprocess. For more information, pleasedirect your web browser to http://sbo.od.nih.gov/epicfactsheet.pdf.

Dated: August 20, 2001.Jack Spiegel,Director, Division of Technology Developmentand Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer,National Institutes of Health.[FR Doc. 01–21780 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–P



National Cancer Institute; Notice ofClosed Meeting

Pursuant to section 10(d) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given of the followingmeeting.

The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could disclose

confidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National CancerInstitute Special Emphasis Panel, ProgramProject Application.

Date: October 3–5, 2001.Time: 5 p.m. to 12 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Holiday Inn—Georgetown, 2101

Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC20007.

Contact Person: Raymond A. Petryshyn,PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, GrantsReview Branch, Division of ExtramuralActivities, National Cancer Institute, NationalInstitutes of Health, 6116 Executive Blvd.,8th Fl. Room 8133, Bethesda, MD 20892,301/594–1216.

Any interested person may filewritten comments with the committeeby forwarding the statement to theContact Person listed on this notice. Thestatement should include the name,address, telephone number and whenapplicable, the business or professionalaffiliation of the interested person.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction;93.393, Cancer Cause and PreventionResearch; 93.394, Cancer Detection andDiagnosis Research; 93.395, CancerTreatment Research; 93.396, Cancer BiologyResearch; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support;93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399,Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health,HHS)

Dated: August 21, 2001.Laverne Y. Stringfield,Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy.[FR Doc. 01–21771 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–M



National Cancer Institute; Notice ofClosed Meeting


The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercial



property such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National CancerInstitute Special Emphasis Panel, Review andAnalysis of Tobacco Industry Documents.

Date: September 14, 2001.Time: 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Ave,

Chevy Chase, MD 20815.Contact Person: Gerald G. Lovinger, PhD.,

Scientific Review Administrator, GrantsReview Branch, Division of ExtramuralActivities, National Cancer Institute, NationalInstitutes of Health, 6116 ExecutiveBoulevard, Room 8101, Rockville, MD20892–7405, 301/496–7987.

Any interested person may filewritten comments with the committeeby forwarding the statement to theContact Person listed on this notice. Thestatement should include the name,address, telephone number and whenapplicable, the business or professionalaffiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction;93.393, Cancer Cause and PreventionResearch; 93.394, Cancer Detection andDiagnosis Research; 93.395, CancerTreatment Research; 93.396, Cancer BiologyResearch; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support;93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399,Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health,HHS)

Dated: August 21, 2001.LaVerne Y. Stringfield,Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy.[FR Doc. 01–21772 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–M



National Center for Complementaryand Alternative Medicine; Notice ofMeeting

Pursuant to section 10(d) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given of a meeting of theNational Institute Council forComplementary and AlternativeMedicine.

The meeting will be open to thepublic as indicated below, withattendance limited to space available.Individuals who plan to attend andneed special assistance, such as signlanguage interpretation or other

reasonable accommodations, shouldnotify the Contact Person listed belowin advance of the meeting.

The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National AdvisoryCouncil for Complementary and AlternativeMedicine.

Date: August 27, 2001.Open: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.Agenda: The agenda will include a Center

Initiative Update, an Interim Report of theWhite House Commission on CAM Policy,and other business of the Council.

Place: Neuroscience Conference Center,6001 Executive Boulevard, Conference RoomC and D, Rockville, MD 20852.

Closed: 3 p.m. to Adjournment.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Neuroscience Conference Center,

6001 Executive Boulevard, Conference RoomC and D, Rockville, MD 20852.

Contact Person: Jane F. Kinsel, NationalCenter for Complimenary Medicine, NationalInstitutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike,Building 31, Room 5B38, Bethesda, MD20892, (301) 435–5042, [email protected].

This notice is being published lessthan 15 days prior to the meeting dueto the timing limitations imposed by thereview and funding cycle.

Any interested person may filewritten comments with the committeeby forwarding the statement to theContact Person listed on this notice. Thestatement should include the name,address, telephone number and whenapplicable, the business or professionalaffiliation of the interested person.

Information is also available on theInstitute’s/Center’s home page:nccam.nih.gov/nccam/an/advisory/index.html, where an agenda and anyadditional information for the meetingwill be posted when available.


LaVerne Y. Stringfield,Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy.[FR Doc. 01–21770 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]




National Institute of Allergy andInfectious Diseases; Notice ofMeetings

Pursuant to section 10(d) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given of meetings of theNational Advisory of Allergy andInfectious Diseases Council.

The meetings will be open to thepublic as indicated below, withattendance limited to space available.Individuals who plan to attend andneed special assistance, such as signlanguage interpretation or otherreasonable accommodations, shouldnotify the Contact Person listed belowin advance of the meeting.

The meetings will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National AdvisoryAllergy and Infectious Diseases CouncilAllergy, Immunology and TransplantationSubcommittee.

Date: September 24, 2001.Closed: 8:30 AM to 11 AM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive,

Bethesda, MD 20892.Open: 12:15 PM to adjournment.Agenda: Open program advisory

discussions and presentations.Place: Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive,

Bethesda, MD 20892.Contact Person: John J. McGowan, Director,

Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID,Room 2142, 6700–B Rockledge Drive, MSC7610, Rockville, MD 20892–7610, 301–496–7291.

Name of Committee: National AdvisoryAllergy and Infectious Diseases CouncilMicrobiology and Infectious DiseasesSubcommittee.



Conference Room F1/F2, Bethesda, MD20892.

Open: 12:15 PM to adjournment.Agenda: Open program advisory

discussions and presentations.



Place: Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive,Conference Room F1/F2, Bethesda, MD20892.

Contact Person: John J. McGowan, Director,Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID,Room 2142, 6700–B Rockledge Drive, MSC7610, Rockville, MD 20892–7610, 301–496–7291.

Name of Committee: National AdvisoryAllergy and Infectious Diseases CouncilAcquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeSubcommittee.


applications.Place: Natcher Building, Conference Room

A, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.Open: 12:15 PM to adjournment.Agenda: Open program advisory

discussions and presentations.Place: Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive,

Conference Rooms E1/E2, Bethesda, MD20892.


Name of Committee: National AdvisoryAllergy and Infectious Diseases Council.

Date: September 24, 2001.Open: 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.Agenda: The meeting of the full Council

will be open to the public for generaldiscussion and program presentations.

Place: Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive,Conference Rooms E1/E2, Bethesda, MD20892.

Closed: 12 p.m. to 12:15 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant


Conference Rooms E1/E2, Bethesda, MD20892.


Information is also available on theInstitute’s/Center’s home page:www.niaid.nih.gov/facts/facts.htm,where an agenda and any additionalinformation for the meeting will beposted when available.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology,and Transplantation Research; 93.856,Microbiology and Infectious DiseasesResearch, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


LaVerne Y. Stringfield,Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy.[FR Doc. 01–21773 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]




National Institute on Aging; Notice ofMeeting

Pursuant to section 10(d) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given of a meeting of theNational Advisory Council on Aging.

The meeting will be open to thepublic as indicated below, withattendance limited to space available.Individuals who plan to attend andneed special assistance, such as signlanguage interpretation or otherreasonable accommodations, shouldnotify the Contact Person listed belowin advance of the meeting.


Name of Committee: National AdvisoryCouncil on Aging.

Date: September 24–25, 2001.Closed: September 24, 2001, 3 PM to 5 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: National Institutes of Health,

Building 1, Wilson Hall, 9000 Rockville Pike,Bethesda, MD 20892.

Open: September 25, 2001, 8 AM toAdjournment.

Agenda: Call to Order; Task Force onMinority Aging Research Report; ClinicalInvestigators Working Group Report; ProgramHighlights; and Working Group on ProgramReport.

Place: National Institutes of Health,Building 1, Wilson Hall, 9000 Rockville Pike,Bethesda, MD 20892.

Contact Person: Miriam F. Kelty, PHD,Director, Office of Extramural Affairs,National Institute on Aging, NationalInstitutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue,Suite 2C218, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–496–9322.

Information is also available on theInstitute’s/Center’s home page: www.nih.gov/nia/naca., where an agenda and anyadditional information for the meeting willbe posted when available.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.866, Aging Research,National Institutes of Health, HHS)




National Institute on Drug Abuse;Notice of Closing Meeting



Name of Committee: National Institute onDrug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel. TheTransition from Drug Use to Addiction:Unearthing the Switch.

Date: August 27, 2001.Time: 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Neuroscience Center, National

Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd.,Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone ConferenceCall).

Contact Person: Mark R. Green, PhD, Chief,Ceasrb, Office of Extramural Affairs, NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse, National Institutesof Health, DHHS, Suite 3158, 6001 ExecutiveBoulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892–9547, (301)435–1431.

This notice is being published lessthan 15 days prior to the meeting dueto the timing limitations imposed by thereview and funding cycle.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse ScientistDevelopment Award for Clinicians, ScientistDevelopment Awards, and Research ScientistAwards; 93.278, Drug Abuse NationalResearch Service Awards for ResearchTraining; 93.279, Drug Abuse ResearchPrograms, National Institutes of Health, HHS)






National Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences; Notice of ClosedMeeting


The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The contract proposals andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the contractproposals, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences SpecialEmphasis Panel Studies to Evaluate theToxicologic & Carcinogenic Potential ofChemical Via Inhalation for the NationalToxicology Program (RFP NIH–ES–01–13).

Date: September 14, 2001.Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate contract

proposals.Place: NIEHS-East Campus, 79 T W

Alexander Dr., Bldg. 4401, Rm EC–122,Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,(Telephone Conference Call).

Contact Person: Linda K. Bass, PHD,Scientific Review Administrator, ScientificReview Branch, Office of ProgramOperations, Division of Extramural Researchand Training, Nat. Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC–30,Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919–541–1307.

This notice is being published lessthan 15 days prior to the meeting dueto the timing limitations imposed by thereview and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.113, Biological Response toEnvironmental Health Hazards; 93.114,Applied Toxicological Research and Testing;93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures;93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste WorkerHealth and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHSSuperfund Hazardous Substances—BasicResearch and Education; 93.894, Resourcesand Manpower Development in theEnvironmental Health Sciences, NationalInstitutes of Health, HHS)




Clinical Center; Notice of Meeting

Pursuant to section 10(a) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given of a meeting of theBoard of Governors of the Warren GrantMagnuson Clinical Center.

The meeting will be open to thepublic, with attendance limited to spaceavailable. Individuals who plan toattend and need special assistance, suchas sign language interpretation or otherreasonable accommodations, shouldnotify the Contact Person listed belowin advance of the meeting.

Name of Committee: Board of Governors ofthe Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center.

Date: September 14, 2001.Time: 9 AM to 12 PM.Agenda: For discussion of planning,

operational, and clinical research issues.Place: National Institutes of Health,

Clinical Center Medical Board Room, 2C116,9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

Contact Person: Maureen E Gormley,Executive Secretary, Warren Grant MagnusonClinical Center, National Institutes of Health,Building 10, Room 2C146, Bethesda, MD20892, 301/496–2897.

Information is also available on theInstitute’s/Center’s home page:www.cc.nih.gov/, where an agenda andany additional information for themeeting will be posted when available.




Prospective Grant of ExclusiveLicense: Treatment of Cancer,Osteoporosis or any Disease InvolvingUnwanted or DysregulatedAngiogenesis

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health,Public Health Service, DHHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is notice, in accordancewith 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR404.7(a)(1)(i), that the NationalInstitutes of Health, Department ofHealth and Human Services, iscontemplating the grant of an exclusivelicense worldwide to practice theinvention embodied in the ProvisionalPatent Application No. 60/220,270,entitled ‘‘Biologically ActiveMacrolides, Compositions and UsesThereof’’, filed July 24, 2000, toAttenuon LLC, a U.S. corporationlocated at 10130 Sorrento Valley Rd.Suite B, San Diego, CA 92121. Thepatent rights of this invention have beenassigned to the United States ofAmerica. The proposed field of use maybe limited to the treatment of cancer,osteoporosis or any disease involvingunwanted or dysregulated angiogenesis.DATES: Only written comments and/orapplications for a license received bythe NIH Office of Technology Transferon or before October 29, 2001 will beconsidered.ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of thepatent application, inquiries, commentsand other materials relating to thecontemplated license should be directedto: Wendy R. Sanhai, Ph.D., TechnologyLicensing Specialist, Office ofTechnology Transfer, National Institutesof Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard,Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852–3804;Telephone: (301) 496–7736 ext. 244;Facsimile: (301) 402–0220; E-mail:[email protected]. A signedConfidential Disclosure Agreement willbe required to receive copies of thepatent application.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Theinvention describes the identification ofa novel class of polyunsaturatedmacrolides called the chondropsins.They are implicated in processesrelating to cellular proliferation,angiogenesis, tumor cell invasiveness,metastasis and drug resistance.

The prospective exclusive licenseterritory will be worldwide and will beroyalty-bearing. Said license may begranted within sixty (60) days from thedate of this published notice unless theNIH receives written evidence andargument establishing that granting thislicense is inconsistent with the termsand conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1)and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i).

Since the chondropsins were firstreported from an Australian collection,the prospective licensee will be requiredto comport with all applicable federaland country-of-collection policiesrelating to biodiversity. The prospectivelicensee will, therefore, be obligated tonegotiate and enter into an agreementwith the Australian Institute of Marine



Science (AIMS) in Townsville,Queensland.

Properly filed competing applicationsfor a license filed in response to thisnotice will be treated as objections tothe contemplated license. Commentsand objections submitted in response tothis notice will not be made availablefor public inspection, and, to the extentpermitted by law, will not be releasedunder the Freedom of Information Act,5 U.S.C. 552.

Dated: August 23, 2001.Jack Spiegel,Director, Division of Technology Developmentand Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer.[FR Doc. 01–21779 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–P


Substance Abuse and Mental HealthServices Administration

Center for Substance AbuseTreatment; Notice of Meeting

Pursuant to Pub. L. 92–463, notice ishereby given of a meeting of the Centerfor Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)National Advisory Council to be held inSeptember 2001. A portion of themeeting is open and includes discussionof the Center’s policy issues and currentadministrative, legislative, and programdevelopments. The Council will hearfeature presentations by SAMHSAActing Administrator Joseph H. AutryIII, M.D. and CSAT Director H. WestleyClark, M.D., J.D., M.P.H., CAS, FASAM.Significant issues to be discussed withthe Council include the HealthInsurance Portability Act and its impacton substance abuse; an informationexchange on the New FreedomInitiative; status reports on HIV/AIDS;OPIOID Accreditation; CSAT’s Faithand Community Partners Initiative;Healthcare Professional Impairment;and Health Disparities. Otheranticipated discussions includeConfidentiality Regulations and Parity.

If special accommodations are neededfor persons with disabilities, pleasenotify the Contact listed below.

The meeting will also include thereview, discussion, and evaluation ofgrant applications. Therefore a portionof the meeting will be closed to thepublic as determined by theAdministrator, SAMHSA, in accordancewith Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and (6) and5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(d).

Substantive program information, asummary of the meeting and roster ofCouncil members may be obtained fromthe contact listed below.

Committee Name: Center for SubstanceAbuse Treatment, National AdvisoryCouncil.

Meeting Date: September 12, 2001—8:30a.m.–5:00 p.m., September 13, 2001—9:00a.m.–1:00 p.m.

Place: Bethesda Hyatt Hotel, One BethesdaMetro, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.

Type: Closed: September 12, 2001—8:30a.m.–9:30 a.m.; Open: September 12, 2001—9:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m., September 13, 2001—9:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m.

Contact: Cynthia Graham, 5600 FishersLane, RW II, Ste 618, Rockville, MD 20857,Telephone: (301) 443–8923; FAX: (301) 480–6077, E-mail: [email protected].

Dated: August 22, 2001.Toian Vaughn,Committee Management Officer, SubstanceAbuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration.[FR Doc. 01–21782 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4162–20–P



Notice of Receipt of Applications forPermit

Endangered SpeciesThe public is invited to comment on

the following application(s) for a permitto conduct certain activities withendangered species. This notice isprovided pursuant to Section 10(c) ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).Written data, comments, or requests forcopies of these complete applicationsshould be submitted to the Director(address below) and must be receivedwithin 30 days of the date of this notice.PRT–046907

Applicant: David Andersen, Omaha, NE

The applicant request a permit toimport the sport-hunted trophy of onemale bontebok (Damaliscus pygargusdorcas) culled from a captive herdmaintained under the managementprogram of the Republic of South Africa,for the purpose of enhancement of thesurvival of the species.PRT–046908

Applicant: Harold W. Andersen, Omaha, NE

The applicant request a permit toimport the sport-hunted trophy of onemale bontebok (Damaliscus pygargusdorcas) culled from a captive herdmaintained under the managementprogram of the Republic of South Africa,for the purpose of enhancement of thesurvival of the species.PRT–041162

Applicant: International Animal Exchange,Ferndale, MI

The applicant requests a permit topurchase and resell in foreign commerce3.1 cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) from theHoedspruit Research and BreedingCenter, Waterkloof, South Africa to theFuji Safari Park/Koizumi African LionSafari Co., Ltd., Shizuoka-Ken, Japan forthe purpose of enhancement of thesurvival of the species through captivepropagation and conservationeducation.PRT—046986

Applicant: Minnesota Zoological Garden,Apple Valley, MN

The applicant requests a permit to re-export one male Komodo Island monitor(Varanus komodoensis) of wild origin toToronto Zoo, Ontario, Canada for thepurpose of enhancement of the survivalof the species through captivepropagation.

Marine Mammals

The public is invited to comment onthe following application(s) for a permitto conduct certain activities with marinemammals. The application(s) wassubmitted to satisfy requirements of theMarine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) andthe regulations governing marinemammals (50 CFR 18).

Written data, comments, or requestsfor copies of these completeapplications or requests for a publichearing on these applications should besubmitted to the Director (addressbelow) and must be received within 30days of the date of this notice. Anyonerequesting a hearing should givespecific reasons why a hearing would beappropriate. The holding of such ahearing is at the discretion of theDirector.PRT–043735

Applicant: Thomas Edward Ferry, Ponca,NE

The applicant requests a permit toimport a polar bear (Ursus maritimus)sport hunted from the Viscount Melvillepolar bear population in Canada forpersonal use. On June 15, 2001 [66 FR32636], the permit request wasmistakenly published as a sport-huntedbear from the Northern Beaufort Seapopulation.PRT–044833

Applicant: Jack A. Wilkinson, Kalispell,MT

The applicant requests a permit toimport a polar bear (Ursus maritimus)sport hunted from the SouthernBeaufort Sea polar bear population inCanada for personal use. On July 11,2001 [66 FR 36296], the permit requestwas mistakenly published as a sport-



hunted bear from the Northern BeaufortSea population.PRT–046899

Applicant: Andy Krook, New Ipswich, NH

The applicant requests a permit toimport a polar bear (Ursus maritimus)sport hunted from the SouthernBeaufort Sea polar bear population inCanada for personal use.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicehas information collection approvalfrom OMB through March 31, 2004,OMB Control Number 1018–0093.Federal Agencies may not conduct orsponsor and a person is not required torespond to a collection of informationunless it displays a current valid OMBcontrol number.

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 30days of the date of publication of thisnotice to: U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Division of ManagementAuthority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203,telephone 703/358–2104 or fax 703/358–2281.

Dated: August 17, 2001.Anna Barry,Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits,Office of Management Authority.[FR Doc. 01–21768 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P


Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan(RHCP) for Gila and MaricopaCounties, Arizona

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Department of the Interior.ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)and notice of public scoping meetingrelated to the Roosevelt HabitatConservation Plan (RHCP).

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA), thisnotice advises the public that the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)intends to prepare an EIS to evaluate theimpacts of and alternatives for thepossible issuance of an incidental takepermit (ITP), pursuant to section10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973, as amended (Act), to theSalt River Project (SRP). SRP proposesto be an applicant for an ITP, throughdevelopment and implementation of theRHCP, as required by the Act for

issuance of an ITP. The RHCP willprovide the measures to minimize andmitigate the effects of the proposedtaking of listed and sensitive speciesand the habitats upon which theydepend.DATES AND ADDRESSES: Writtencomments on alternatives and issues tobe addressed in the EIS are requested byNovember 22, 2001, and should be sentto Mr. David Harlow, Field Supervisor,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,Phoenix, AZ 85021 at 602/242–0210.Oral and written comments also will beaccepted at a public scoping meeting tobe held on October 22, 2001, 6–8 p.m.at the offices of the Salt River Project,1521 Project Drive, Tempe, Arizona.

Written comments received by theService become part of the public recordassociated with this action. Thosecomments, as well as the names andaddresses of anyone who providescomments may and can be disclosed torequesters of information associatedwith this notice under the Freedom ofInformation Act.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE EIS,CONTACT: On the EIS, Contact: Ms.Sherry Barrett, Assistant FieldSupervisor, Tucson Suboffice, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, 300 WestCongress, Room 6J, Tucson, AZ 85701 at520/670–4617, or Mr. Jim Rorabaugh,Arizona State Office, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, 2321 West Royal PalmRoad, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021 at602/242–0210.

For further information on the RHCP,Contact: Mr. John Keane, ExecutiveEnvironmental Policy Analyst, SaltRiver Project, P.O. Box 52025, PAB355,Phoenix, AZ 85072–2025 at 602/236–5087, or Mr. Steve Dougherty, SeniorEcologist, ERO Resources Corporation,1842 Clarkson Street, Denver, CO 80218at 303/830–1188.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisnotice advises the public that theService intends to gather informationnecessary to determine impacts andformulate alternatives for the EIS relatedto the potential issuance of an ITP toSRP and the development andimplementation of the RHCP, whichwill provide measures to minimize andmitigate the effects of the incidental takeof federally listed species.

BackgroundRoosevelt Dam and reservoir

(Roosevelt) is operated by SRP inconjunction with three other reservoirson the Salt River and two reservoirs onthe Verde River as integral features ofthe Salt River Reclamation Project(Project), authorized by the Reclamation

Act of 1902, and pursuant to a 1917contract with the United States. Sincecompletion in 1911, Roosevelt hasprovided water for power generation,irrigation, municipal and other uses.Currently, the reservoir system supplieswater to more than 1.6 million peoplein the cities of Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler,Tempe, Glendale, Gilbert, Scottsdale,Tolleson, and Avondale. In addition,water is provided to irrigate agriculturallands within the Project and for otheruses. Also, water is delivered to the SaltRiver Pima-Maricopa IndianCommunity, Fort McDowell IndianCommunity, Gila River IndianCommunity, Buckeye IrrigationCompany, Roosevelt Irrigation District,Roosevelt Water Conservation District,and others. Roosevelt and the other SRPreservoirs also provide a variety ofrecreational uses and environmentalbenefits in central Arizona.

Due to dry conditions in centralArizona for the past several years, thereservoir level behind Roosevelt Damhas been below normal. As a result,riparian vegetation has invaded andflourished in the portion of the storagespace historically used by SRP to storewater for use in the Phoenixmetropolitan area. Animals that useriparian habitat have followed thevegetation growth and now occupyareas within the reservoir. In particular,a population of southwestern willowflycatchers (Empidonax traillii extimus),which is listed as endangered underfederal law, now occupies habitatwithin the storage space at Roosevelt.Thus, periodic refilling of the reservoirmay adversely affect habitat used by thesouthwestern willow flycatcher andother sensitive species.

Purpose and Need for ActionSection 9 of the Act prohibits the

‘‘taking’’ of threatened and endangeredspecies. The Service may, however,under limited circumstances, issuepermits to take federally listed andcandidate species, when such a taking isincidental to, and not the purpose of,otherwise lawful activities. Regulationsgoverning permits for endangeredspecies are at 50 CFR 17.22. The term‘‘take’’ under the Act means to harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,trap, capture, or collect, or attempt toengage in any such conduct. Theproposed permit would allow approvedincidental take associated with SRP’sfilling of the reservoir space andcontinued operation of Roosevelt,consistent with its purpose as a waterstorage and power generation facility.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act andregulations at 50 CFR 17.32 containprovisions for issuing ITPs to non-



federal entities for the take ofendangered and threatened species,provided the following criteria are met:

1. The taking will be incidental;2. The applicant will, to the

maximum extent practicable, minimizeand mitigate the impacts of such taking;

3. The applicant will develop aHabitat Conservation Plan (HCP) andensure that adequate funding for theHCP will be provided;

4. The taking will not appreciablyreduce the likelihood of the survivaland recovery of the species in the wild;and

5. Any other measures that theService may require as being necessaryor appropriate for the purposes of theHCP to be met.

Proposed ActionThe proposed action is the issuance of

an ITP for listed and sensitive speciesfor SRP’s operation of Roosevelt,pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended. SRP will develop andimplement the RHCP, as required bysection 10(a)(1)(B) of the EndangeredSpecies Act. The RHCP will providemeasures to minimize and mitigate theeffects of the proposed taking on listedand sensitive species and their habitats.The biological goal of the RHCP is toensure that any take of listed specieswill not appreciably reduce thelikelihood of the survival and recoveryof the species.

As proposed, the ITP would enableSRP to continue the operation ofRoosevelt to store and release water andto generate power.

SRP is expected to apply for an ITPfor the following federally listed andcandidate species: southwestern willowflycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus),bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),and the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzusamericanus).

SRP also is seeking to address andcover any other rare and/or sensitivespecies that may be affected by SRP’soperation of Roosevelt. Unlisted speciesthat are addressed as if they were listed,and that are found to be adequatelyconserved by the RHCP, will beautomatically encompassed by the ITPshould they be listed as federallythreatened or endangered species atsome time in the future. Other listedspecies for which SRP is not seekingpermit coverage also may benefit fromthe conservation measures provided inthe RHCP.

AlternativesAlternatives currently being

considered by the Service include thefollowing:

1. Proposed Action by the Service—Issuance of an ITP by the Serviceauthorizing the continued operation ofRoosevelt by SRP with implementationof the RHCP involving measures tominimize and mitigate the potential takeof federally listed species.

2. No Action by the Service—Noissuance of an ITP by the Service; thiswould require SRP to do everythingwithin its control to avoid any take offederally listed species associated withits continued operation of Roosevelt.

3. Other Section 10 Alternatives—Issuance of an ITP by the Service for theRHCP involving modifications tooperation of Roosevelt and SRP’s otherreservoirs on the Salt and Verde Riversalong with additional measures tominimize and mitigate the potential takeof federally listed species. It isanticipated that the EIS will include oneor two reservoir operation alternativesthat fall in the range between theProposed Action and the No Action bythe Service.

4. Section 7 Consultation—Thisalternative would involve reinitiation ofconsultation on Roosevelt under Section7 of the Act. The Service completed aconsultation with the Bureau ofReclamation in 1996 involving theadditional reservoir capacity created byconstruction at Roosevelt.

Additional InformationIt is anticipated that SRP will request

a permit duration of 50 years.Implementation of the RHCP will resultin the establishment of measures thatwill provide for the conservation ofcovered species and their habitats inperpetuity. Research and monitoring, incombination with adaptivemanagement, will be used to facilitateaccomplishment of these goals.

The Service will conduct anenvironmental review that analyzes theproposed action, as well as a range ofreasonable alternatives and theassociated impact of each. The EIS willbe the basis for the Service’s evaluationof impacts to the species and to theenvironment, and the range ofalternatives to be evaluated. The EIS isexpected to provide biologicaldescriptions of species and habitats andthe effects of the proposed action on:vegetation, wetlands, wildlife,threatened or endangered species andspecies of concern, geology and soils,visual resources, air quality, waterresources, flood control, water quality,archaeology, historic structures,traditional cultural properties, land use,recreation, hydropower, water use, localeconomy, and environmental justice.

Comments and suggestions are invitedfrom all interested parties to ensure that

a range of issues and alternatives relatedto the proposed action are identified.The review of this project will beconducted according to therequirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, asamended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),National Environmental Policy ActRegulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508),and other appropriate federal laws,regulations, policies and guidance.

Related Project DocumentationIt is anticipated that the EIS process

will make full use (includingincorporation by reference, asappropriate, pursuant to NEPA) ofdocuments prepared by other entitiesregarding the environmental andsocioeconomic issues in the projectarea, copies of which will be availablefor public inspection at the office of Mr.John Keane, Executive EnvironmentalPolicy Analyst, Salt River Project, P.O.Box 52025, PAB355, Phoenix, AZ85072–2025 at 602/236–5087.

After the environmental review iscompleted, the Service will publish anotice of availability and a request forcomment on the draft EIS and SRP’spermit application, which will includethe RHCP.

The draft EIS is expected to becompleted by January 2002.

Dated: August 21, 2001.Bryan Arroyo,Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region,Albuquerque, New Mexico.[FR Doc. 01–21743 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



Notice of Issuance of Permit for MarineMammals

On May 22, 2001, a notice waspublished in the Federal Register[volume 66] FR (28196), that anapplication had been filed with the Fishand Wildlife Service by John L. VanHorn, for a permit (PRT–042638) toimport one polar bear taken from theMcClintock Channel population,Canada in April 2000 for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on August2, 2001, as authorized by the provisionsof the Marine Mammal Protection Act of1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 etseq.) the Fish and Wildlife Serviceauthorized the requested permit subjectto certain conditions set forth therein.

On May 22, 2001, a notice waspublished in the Federal Register[volume 66] FR (28196), that anapplication had been filed with the Fish



1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of theCommission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19CFR 207.2(f)).

2 Commissioners Lynn M. Bragg and Marcia E.Miller dissenting. Vice Chairman Deanna TannerOkun not participating.

3 Members of the committee are: Acme Steel Co.,Chicago, IL; DTE Energy Services Inc., Ann Arbor,MI; Koppers Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; andShenango Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.

1 Vice Chairman Okun and CommissionerHillman dissenting.

and Wildlife Service by Danny M.Spindler for a permit (PRT–042635) toimport one polar bear taken from theLancaster Sound population, Canada forpersonal use.

Notice is hereby given that on August7, 2001, as authorized by the provisionsof the Marine Mammal Protection Act of1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 etseq.) the Fish and Wildlife Serviceauthorized the requested permit subjectto certain conditions set forth therein.

On June 6, 2001, a notice waspublished in the Federal Register[volume 66] FR (30476), that anapplication had been filed with the Fishand Wildlife Service by Charles F.Mervar for a permit (PRT–043244) toimport one polar bear taken from theLancaster Sound population, Canada forpersonal use.

Notice is hereby given that July 30,2001, as authorized by the provisions ofthe Marine Mammal Protection Act of1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 etseq.) the Fish and Wildlife Serviceauthorized the requested permit subjectto certain conditions set forth therein.

Documents and other informationsubmitted for thEse applications areavailable for review by any party whosubmits a written request to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Division ofManagement Authority, 4401 NorthFairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington,Virginia 22203, telephone (703) 358–2104 or fax (703) 358–2281.

Dated: August 17, 2001.Anna Barry,Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits,Division of Management Authority.[FR Doc. 01–21767 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADECOMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–951–952(Preliminary)]

Blast Furnace Coke From China andJapan

DeterminationsOn the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigations, the UnitedStates International Trade Commission(Commission) determines,2 pursuant tosection 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that thereis no reasonable indication that anindustry in the United States is

materially injured or threatened withmaterial injury, or that theestablishment of an industry in theUnited States is materially retarded, byreason of imports from China and Japanof blast furnace coke, provided for insubheading 2704.00.0025 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States, that are alleged to be soldin the United States at less than fairvalue (LTFV).

Background

On June 29, 2001, a petition was filedwith the Commission and the UnitedStates Department of Commerce(Commerce) by the Committee for FairCoke Trade,3 and the UnitedSteelworkers of America, AFL–CIO,Pittsburgh, PA, alleging that an industryin the United States is materiallyinjured or threatened with materialinjury by reason of LTFV imports ofblast furnace coke from China andJapan. Accordingly, effective June 29,2001, the Commission institutedantidumping duty investigations Nos.731–TA–951–952 (Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of theCommission’s investigations and of apublic conference to be held inconnection therewith was given byposting copies of the notice in the Officeof the Secretary, U.S. InternationalTrade Commission, Washington, DC,and by publishing the notice in theFederal Register of July 6, 2001 (66 FR35669). The conference was held inWashington, DC, on July 20, 2001, andall persons who requested theopportunity were permitted to appear inperson or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted itsdeterminations in these investigations tothe Secretary of Commerce on August13, 2001. The views of the Commissionare contained in USITC Publication3444 (August 2001), entitled BlastFurnace Coke From China and Japan:Investigations Nos. 731–TA–951–952(Preliminary).

Issued: August 24, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21801 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]


INTERNATIONAL TRADECOMMISSION

[Investigation No. NAFTA–312–1]

Certain Steel Wire Rod

Determination

On the basis of the information in theinvestigation, the Commissiondetermines 1 that a surge in imports ofcertain steel wire rod from Canada andMexico, respectively, undermines theeffectiveness of the import relief on wirerod provided for in PresidentialProclamation 7273 of February 16, 2000.

Background

Following receipt of a request filed onJuly 24, 2001, on behalf of Co-SteelRaritan, GS Industries, Inc., KeystoneSteel & Wire Company, and North StarSteel Texas Inc., the Commissioninstituted investigation No. NAFTA–312–1 under section 312(c)(2) of theNorth American Free Trade AgreementImplementation Act (19 U.S.C.3372(c)(2)) to determine whether a surgein U.S. imports of certain steel wire rodfrom Canada and/or Mexico underminesthe effectiveness of the import relief onwire rod provided for in PresidentialProclamation 7273 of February 16, 2000(65 FR 8624, February 18, 2000).

Notice of the institution of theCommission’s investigation and of thescheduling of a staff conference to beheld in connection therewith was givenby posting copies of the notice in theOffice of the Secretary, U.S.International Trade Commission,Washington, DC, and by publishing thenotice in the Federal Register of August3, 2001 (66 F.R. 40722). The staffconference was held in Washington, DC,on August 8, 2001; all persons whorequested the opportunity werepermitted to appear in person or bycounsel.

The Commission submitted itsfindings to the President on August 23,2001, and will transmit its written viewsto the President on September 7, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: August 24, 2001.

Donna R. Koehnke,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21800 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]




JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THEUNITED STATES

Meeting of the Judicial ConferenceCommittee on Rules of Practice andProcedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of theUnited States Committee on Rules ofPractice and Procedure.ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules ofPractice and Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be opento public observation but notparticipation.

Date: January 10–11, 2002.Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.Address: Loews Ventana Canyon,

7000 North Resort Drive, Tucson, AZ.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JohnK. Rabiej, Chief, Rules CommitteeSupport Office, Administrative Office ofthe United States Courts, Washington,DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.

Dated: August 22, 2001.John K. Rabiej,Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.[FR Doc. 01–21726 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 2210–55–M


Meeting of the Judicial ConferenceAdvisory Committee on Rules of CivilProcedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of theUnited States Advisory Committee onRules of Civil Procedure.ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee onRules of Civil Procedure will hold atwo-day meeting on proposals to amendCivil Rule 23. The meeting will be opento public observation but notparticipation.

Date and Time: October 22, 2001,from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. October 23, 2001,from 8:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Address: University of Chicago LawSchool, 1111 East 60 Street, Chicago,Illinois.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JohnK. Rabiej, Chief, Rules CommitteeSupport Office, Administrative Office ofthe United States Courts, Washington,DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.



Meeting of the Judicial ConferenceAdvisory Committee on Rules ofCriminal Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of theUnited States Advisory Committee onRules of Criminal Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of opening meeting.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee onRules of Criminal Procedure will hold atwo-day meeting. The meeting will beopen to public observation but notparticipation.

Date: October 29–30, 2001.Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.Address: El Dorado Hotel, 309 West

San Francisco Street, Santa Fe, NM.




Meeting of the Judicial ConferenceAdvisory Committee on Rules ofBankruptcy Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of theUnited States Advisory Committee onRules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee onRules of Bankruptcy Procedure willhold a two-day meeting. The meetingwill be open to public observation butnot participation.

Date: September 13–14, 2001.Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.Address: John Carver Inn, 25 Summer

Street, Plymouth, MA


Dated: August 22, 2001.John K. Rabiej,Chief, rules Committee Support Office.[FR Doc. 01–21729 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 2210–55–M


Meeting of the Judicial ConferenceAdvisory Committees on Rules ofBankruptcy, Civil, and CriminalProcedure, and Rules of Evidence

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of theUnited States Advisory Committees onRules of Bankruptcy, Civil, andCriminal Procedure, and Rules ofEvidence.ACTION: Notice of open hearings.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committees onRules of Bankruptcy, Civil, andCriminal Procedure, and Rules ofEvidence have proposed the followingrules:

Bankruptcy Rules: 1007, 2003, 2009,and 2016, and new Rule 7007.1, andOfficial Forms 1, 5, and 17.

Civil Rules: 23, 51, and 53.Criminal Rule: 35.Evidence Rules: 608 and 804.Public hearings are scheduled to be

held on the amendments to:• Bankruptcy Rules in Washington,

D.C., on January 4, 2002;• Civil Rules in San Francisco,

California, on November 30, 2001; inWashington, DC, on January 22, 2002;and in Dallas, Texas, on February 4,2002;

• Criminal Rules in Atlanta, Georgia,on January 7, 2002; and

• Evidence Rules in Washington, DC,on January 23, 2002.

The Judicial Conference Committeeon Rules of Practice and Proceduresubmits these rules for public comment.All comments and suggestions withrespect to them must be placed in thehands of the Secretary as soon asconvenient and, in any event, not laterthan February 15, 2002. Those wishingto testify should contact the Secretary atthe address below in writing at least 30days before the hearing. All writtencomments on the proposed ruleamendments should be mailed to: PeterG. McCabe, Secretary, Committee onRules of Practice and Procedure of theJudicial Conference of the United States,Thurgood Marshall Federal JudiciaryBuilding, Washington, DC 20544.

Comments on the proposed ruleamendments may also be sentelectronically via the Internet at <http://www.uscourts.gov/rules>. Inaccordance with established proceduresall comments submitted on theproposed amendments are available topublic inspection.

The text of the proposed ruleamendments and the accompanyingCommittee Notes can be found at theUnited States Federal Courts’ Home



Page at <http://www.uscourts.gov/rules>on the Internet.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JohnK. Rabiej, Chief Rules CommitteeSupport Office, Administrative Office ofthe United States Courts, Washington,DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

[INS No. 2115N–01]

RIN 1115–AG06

Filing Address for SubmittingApplications Under the LegalImmigration Family Equity (LIFE) ActLegalization Provisions and LIFE ActAmendments Family Unity Provisions

AGENCY: Immigration and NaturalizationService, Justice.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2001, at 66 FR29661, the Department of Justicepublished an interim rule in the FederalRegister. The supplementaryinformation portion of the interim ruleprovided an incorrect address to be usedfor applicants under section 1104 of theLegal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE)Act (otherwise known as LIFELegalization) and section 1504 of theLIFE Act Amendments (LIFE ActAmendment Family Unity). This noticeserves to advise the public of the correctaddress to which applications for LIFELegalization and LIFE Act AmendmentsFamily Unity should be filed.Accordingly, all applications filed inrelation to LIFE Legalization (such asForms I–485, Application to RegisterPermanent Residence or Adjust Status,and supporting documents, Forms I–765, Application for EmploymentAuthorization, and Forms I–131,Application for Travel Document) andLIFE Act Amendments Family Unity(Forms I–817, Application for FamilyUnity Benefits) should be mailed to:United States Immigration andNaturalization Service, P.O. Box 7219,Chicago, Illinois 60680–7219.DATES: This notice is effective August29, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Daniel Renaud, Chief, FieldCoordination Branch, 800 K Street NW,Room 1000, Washington, DC 20536,telephone (202) 514–2982.

Dated: August 15, 2001.James W. Ziglar,Commissioner, Immigration andNaturalization Service.[FR Doc. 01–21796 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and TrainingAdministration

[TA–W–39,204]

A–1 Manufacturing, Inc., GarmentCorporation of America, Brilliant,Alabama: Amended CertificationRegarding Eligibility To Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility To Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance on June29, 2001, applicable to workers of A–1Manufacturing, Inc., Brilliant, Alabama.The notice was published in the FederalRegister on July 20, 2001 (66 FR 38026).

At the request of the company, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers were engaged in the productionof rental uniforms, such as coveralls,jackets, jumpsuits, and shopcoats.Information received from the companyshows that the Garment Corporation ofAmerica is the parent firm of A–1Manufacturing, Inc., Brilliant, Alabama.Information also shows that someworkers separated from employment atthe subject firm had their wagesreported under a separateunemployment insurance (UI) taxaccount for Garment Corporation ofAmerica.

Accordingly, the Department isamending the certification to properlyreflect this matter.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofA–1 Manufacturing, Inc., Brilliant,Alabama who were adversely affectedby increased imports of rental uniforms,such as coveralls, jackets, jumpsuits,and shopcoats.

The amended notice applicable to[TA–W–39,204] is hereby issued asfollows:

All workers of A–1 Manufacturing, Inc.,Garment Corporation of America, Brilliant,Alabama who became totally or partiallyseparated from employment on or after April16, 2000, through June 29, 2003, are eligibleto apply for adjustment assistance underSection 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day ofAugust, 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–21844 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38, 283, TA–W–38, 283A]

Fernbrook and Co. Plant #2 Palmerton,PA, and Fernbrook and Co. Plant #1Palmerton, PA; Amended CertificationRegarding Eligibility To Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance onJanuary 31, 2001, applicable to workersof Fernbrook #2. Palmerton,Pennsylvania. The notice was publishedin the FEDERAL REGISTER on March 2,2001 (66 FR 13086).

At the request of the petitioners, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers were engaged in the productionof ladies’ pants.

New information shows that workerseparations occurred at Plant #1 ofFernbrook and Co., Palmerton,Pennsylvania. The workers are engagedin employment related to theproduction of pants and shorts.

Accordingly, the Department isamending the certification to coverworkers of Fernbrook and Co., Plant #1,Palmerton, Pennsylvania.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofFernbrook and Co. adversely affected byincreased imports.

The amended notice applicable toTA–W–38, 283 is hereby issued asfollows:

All workers of Fernbrook and Co., Plant #2,Palmerton, Pennsylvania (TA–W–38, 283)and Plant #1, Palmerton, Pennsylvania (TA–W–38, 283A) who became totally or partiallyseparated from employment on or afterOctober 23, 1999, through January 31, 2003,are eligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington D.C. this 14th day ofAugust, 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–21839 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,898]

LTV Steel Mining Company IncludingWorkers of Cleveland Cliffs MiningCompany Hoyt Lakes, MN; AmendedCertification Regarding Eligibility ToApply for Worker AdjustmentAssistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance on May17, 2001, applicable to workers of LTVSteel Mining Company, Hoyt Lakes,Minnesota who were engaged in theproduction of taconite pellets. Thenotice was published in the FederalRegister on May 25, 2001 (66 FR 28928).

At the request of the UnitedSteelworkers of America, Local Union4108, the Department reviewed thecertification for workers of the subjectfirm. The company reports thatmanagement staff at the subject firm wasprovided by Cleveland Cliffs MiningCompany. Administrative functions,including production management andaccounting services supported theproduction of taconite pellets at thesubject firm.

Accordingly, the Department isamending the certification to includeworkers of Cleveland Cliffs MiningCompany employed at LTV SteelMining Company, Hoyt Lakes,Minnesota.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofLTV Steel Mining Company adverselyaffected by increased imports.


All workers of LTV Steel Mining Company,Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota, engaged inemployment related to the production oftaconite pellets; and, all workers of ClevelandCliffs Mining Company employed at LTVSteel Mining Company, Hoyt lakes,Minnesota, who became totally or partiallyseparated from employment on or afterMarch 5, 2000 through May 17, 2003, areeligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day ofAugust, 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–21838 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,852]

Lucia, Inc., Winston-Salem, NorthCarolina; Amended CertificationRegarding Eligibility To Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance on June11, 2001, applicable to workers of Lucia,Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina.The notice was published in the FederalRegister on June 27, 2001 (FR 66 34254).

At the request of the State agency, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers produce ladies’ apparel. Newfindings show that there was a previouscertification, TA–W–35,829, asamended, issued on March 31, 1999 forworkers of Lucia, Inc., Winston-SalemNorth Carolina who were engaged inemployment related to the production ofladies’ apparel. That certificationexpired March 31, 2001. To avoid anoverlap in worker group coverage, thiscertification is being amended to changethe impact date from March 2, 2000 toApril 1, 2001, for workers of the subjectfirm.

The amended notice applicable toTA–W–38,852 is hereby issued asfollows:

All workers of Lucia, Inc., Winston-Salem,North Carolina who became totally orpartially separated from employment on orafter April 1, 2001, through June 11, 2003, areeligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 15th day ofAugust, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–21837 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,586, TA–W–38,586A]

OBG Manufacturing Company,OshKosh B’Gosh, Inc., Liberty, KY,and OBG Manufacturing Company,OshKosh B’Gosh, Inc., Albany, KY;Amended Certification RegardingEligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance onMarch 21, 2001, applicable to workersof OBG Manufacturing Company,OshKosh B’Gosh, Inc., Liberty,Kentucky. The notice was published inthe Federal Register on April 16, 2001(66 FR 19521).

At the request of the company, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Newinformation shows that workerseparations occurred at the Albany,Kentucky facility of OBG ManufacturingCompany, OshKosh B’Gosh, Inc. Theworkers are engaged in employmentrelated to the production of children’sapparel.

Accordingly, the Department isamending the certification to coverworkers of OBG ManufacturingCompany, OshKosh B’Gosh, Inc.,Albany, Kentucky.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofOBG Manufacturing Company, OshKoshB’Gosh, Inc. adversely affected byincreased imports.


All workers of OBG ManufacturingCompany, OshKosh B’Gosh, Inc., Liberty,Kentucky (TA–W–38,586) and Albany,Kentucky (TA–W–38,586a) engaged inemployment related to the production ofchildren’s apparel, who became totally orpartially separated from employment on orafter January 12, 2000 through March 21,2003, are eligible to apply for adjustmentassistance under Section 223 of the Trade Actof 1974.




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–37,955]

J.A. Thurston Co., Inc., Now Known asSaunders Brothers Rumford, Rumford,ME; Amended Certification RegardingEligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility To Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance onAugust 28, 2000, applicable to workersof J.A. Thurston Co., Inc., Rumford,Maine. The notice was published in theFederal Register on September 22, 2000(65 FR 57386).

At the request of the State agency, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers are engaged in the productionof dowels. The company reports that inApril, 2001, Saunders Brotherspurchased J.A. Thurston Co., Inc., andbecame known as Saunders BrothersRumford.

Information also shows that workersseparated from employment at thesubject firm, had their wages reportedunder a separate unemploymentinsurance (UI) tax account for SaundersBrothers Rumford.

Accordingly, the Department isamending the certificationdetermination to properly reflect thismatter.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofJ.A. Thurston Co., Inc., now known asSaunders Brothers Rumford who wereadversely affected by increased imports.


All workers of J.A. Thurston Co., Inc., nowknown as Saunders Brothers Rumford,Rumford, Maine who became totally orpartially separated from employment on orafter August 4, 1999, through August 28,2002, are eligible to apply for adjustmentassistance under Section 223 of the Trade Actof 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day ofAugust, 2001.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39, 364]

Spartan International Rosemont Plant,Jonesville, South Carolina; Notice ofTermination of Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the TradeAct of 1974, an investigation wasinitiated on June 4, 2001, in response toa worker petition which was filed onbehalf of workers at SpartanInternational Rosemont Plant,Jonesville, South Carolina.

This case is being terminated becausethe Department was unable to locate anofficial of the Company to obtain theinformation necessary to issue adetermination. Consequently, furtherinvestigation in this case would serveno purpose, and the investigation hasbeen terminated.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,358 and NAFTA–4241]

Tower Automotive, Kalamazoo,Michigan; Notice of NegativeDetermination Regarding Applicationfor Reconsideration

By application dated March 30, 2001,the International Union, UnitedAutomobile, Aerospace & AgriculturalImplement Workers of America (UAW),requested administrativereconsideration of the Department’snegative determination regardingeligibility to apply for Trade AdjustmentAssistance (TAA) and North AmericanFree Trade Agreement—TransitionalAdjustment Assistance (NAFTA–TAA),applicable to workers and formerworkers of the subject firm. The denialnotices were signed on January 31,2001, and published in the FederalRegister on March 2, 2001 (66 FR52539).

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c)reconsideration may be granted underthe following circumstances:

(1) If it appears on the basis of factsnot previously considered that thedetermination complained of waserroneous;

(2) If it appears that the determinationcomplained of was based on a mistakein the determination of facts notpreviously considered; or

(3) If in the opinion of the CertifyingOfficer, a misinterpretation of facts or ofthe law justified reconsideration of thedecision.

The UAW asserts that for theNAFTA–TAA petition denial, thefinding that the customers of TowerAutomotive did not import stampings isincorrect. The UAW states that FordMotor Company was one of the majorcustomers and acknowledges movingwork, including 72 different dies formetal stamped components, from theKalamazoo facility to Hermosillo,Mexico. The UAW states that Fordreports that the parts made in Mexicoare being used in the production of anon-U.S. market automobile. Further,the UAW believes that some portion ofthe Mexican parts production is beingimported for use in the U.S. market, andthat a survey should be conducted foreach of those 72 components.

The Department issued the NAFTA–TAA denial to workers producing metalstampings at Tower Automotive, basedon the finding that the subject firm didnot shift production of those articlesfrom Kalamazoo, Michigan, to Mexicoor Canada, nor did the company orcustomers import articles like ordirectly competitive with thoseproduced by the workers. If Ford didmove the stamping production toMexico, that is not a basis for certifyingthe Tower Automotive workers. Only ifthose stampings were being returned tothe U.S. from Mexico could the workergroup be certified for NAFTA–TAA. Thesurvey of the major customers of thesubject firm showed that none importedmetal stampings from Canada or Mexicoin 1999 or 2000. The survey conductedincluded articles like or directlycompetitive with those made by theworkers at the subject firm and wouldinclude the articles made with the 72dies cited by the UAW.

The UAW asserts that for the TAApetition denial, the Department wasincorrect in basing the failure to meetcriterion (3) of the group eligibilityrequirements of Section 222 of theTrade Act of 1974, solely on the findingthat the company did not import metalstampings. The Department concurswith the UAW on this issue. Thedecision document for [TA–W–38,385]failed to include the results of thecustomer survey used for the petitioninvestigation for [NAFTA–4241]. TheDepartment’s NAFTA customer surveyasked the respondents to provideinformation not limited to importpurchases of metal stampings from



Mexico or Canada, but additionally, allother import purchases. The inclusionof this information would not havereversed the findings for criterion (3).

The UAW also submitted import datafor automobiles that they believe arelike or directly competitive with theFord Escort, the automobile for whichthe Tower Automotive supplied parts.Under the Trade Act of 1974, asamended, the Department is required toexamine the imports of articles like ordirectly competitive with thoseproduced at the workers’ firm.Consequently, for both the TAA andNAFTA–TAA petitions, the Departmentdoes not consider automobiles to be likeor directly competitive with thestampings produced by the workers atTower Automotive, Kalamazoo,Michigan.

ConclusionAfter review of the application and

investigative findings, I conclude thatthere has been no error ormisinterpretation of the law or of thefacts which would justifyreconsideration of the Department ofLabor’s prior decisions. Accordingly,the application is denied.

Signed at Washington, DC this 8th day ofAugust 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–21848 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[NAFTA–4241]

Tower Automotive, Kalamazoo,Michigan; Affirmative FindingRegarding Qualification as aSecondarily Affected Worker GroupPursuant to the Statement ofAdministrative Action Accompanyingthe North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA) ImplementationAct

The Department of Labor hereinpresents the results of an investigationregarding qualification as a secondarily-impacted firm, pursuant to theStatement of Administrative Actionaccompany the North American FreeTrade Agreement (NAFTA)Implementation Act.

In order for an affirmative finding tobe made, the following requirementsmust be met:

(1) The subject firm must be asupplier—such as of components,

unfinished or semifinished goods—to afirm that is directly affected by importsfrom Mexico or Canada of articles likeor directly competitive with articlesproduced by that firm or shifts inproduction of such articles to thosecountries; or

(2) The subject firm must assemble orfinish products made by a directly-impacted firm; and

(3) The loss of business with thedirectly-affected firm must havecontributed importantly to workerseparations at the subject firm.

The investigation revealed thatrequirements (1) and (3) are met.

The workers of Tower Automotive,Kalamazoo, Michigan, produced metalstampings.

Evidence revealed that the majorcustomer for which the subject firmsupplies stampings shifted productionto Mexico to serve that market.

Based on this evidence, I determinethat workers of Tower Automotive,Kalamazoo, Michigan, qualify assecondarily affected pursuant to theStatement of Administrative Actionaccompanying the North American FreeTrade Agreement Implementation Act.

For further information on assistanceunder Title I of the WorkforceInvestment Act (WIA) which may beavailable to workers included under thisdetermination, contact: Mr. John S.Palmer, Jr., Deputy Director, WorkforcePrograms, Michigan Department ofCareer Development, 201 N. WashingtonSquare, Victor Office Center, 7th Floor,Lansing, Michigan 48913.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 8th day ofAugust 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–21849 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39, 667]

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.Wheeling, West Virginia; Notice ofTermination of Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the TradeAct of 1974, an investigation wasinitiated on July 23, 2001, in responseto a petition filed by the UnitedSteelworkers of America on behalf ofworkers at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel,Corp., Wheeling, West Virginia, BeechBottom, West Virginia, Allenport,Pennsylvania, Steubenville, Ohio,

Martins Ferry, Ohio, and Yorkville,Ohio.

The petitioning group of workers, inaddition to the Wheeling-PittsburghSteel, Corp. workers in Beech Bottom,West Virginia, Allenport, Pennsylvania,Steubenville, Ohio, Martins Ferry, Ohio,and Yorkville, Ohio, are subject to anongoing investigation for which adetermination has not yet been issued[TA–W–39, 015]. Consequently, furtherinvestigation in this case would serveno purpose, and the investigation hasbeen terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day ofAugust 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–21842 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–39,353]

Double Springs Corp., GarmentCorporation of America, DoubleSprings, Alabama; AmendedCertification Regarding Eligibility toApply for Worker AdjustmentAssistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance on June29, 2001, applicable to workers ofDouble Springs Corp., Double Springs,Alabama. The notice was published inthe Federal Register on July 20, 2001(66 FR 38026).

At the request of the company, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers were engaged in the productionof work shirts. Information receivedfrom the company shows that theGarment Corporation of America is theparent firm of Double Springs Corp.,Double Springs, Alabama. Informationalso shows that some workers separatedfrom employment at the subject firmhad their wages reported under aseparate unemployment insurance (UI)tax account for Garment Corporation ofAmerica.


The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofDouble Springs Corp., Double Springs,Alabama who were adversely affectedby increased imports of work shirts.




All workers of Double Springs Corp.,Garment Corporation of America, DoubleSprings, Alabama who became totally orpartially separated from employment on orafter May 14, 2000, through June 29, 2003,are eligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day ofAugust, 2001.Linda G. Poole,Certifying Officer, Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 01–21845 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,617; TA–W–38,617B]

Garan Manufacturing Corp; 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 onFebruary 9, 2001, applicable to workersof Garan Manufacturing Corporation,Carthage, Mississippi. The notice waspublished in the Federal Register onApril 5, 2001 (66 FR 18118).

At the request of the petitioners, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Theworkers are engaged in the productionof children’s knitwear.

New information shows that workerseparations occurred at GaranManufacturing’s General Offices locatedin Starkville, Mississippi. The generaloffices provide support functionsincluding manufacturing management,accounting, quality control, engineeringand customer service functions for thesubject firms’ production facilitiesincluding Carthage, Mississippi.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofGaran Manufacturing Corporationadversely affected by increased importsof children’s knitwear.



All workers of Garan ManufacturingCorporation, Carthage, Mississippi (TA–W–38,617) and General Offices, Starkville,

Mississippi (TA–W–38,617B) who becametotally or partially separated fromemployment on or after January 19, 2000,through February 9, 2003, are eligible toapply for adjustment assistance underSection 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington DC this 13th day ofAugust, 2001.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Pottstown Precision Casting, Inc./Harvard Industries, Inc., FormerlyKnown as Doehler Jarvis, Stowe,Pennsylvania; Notice of AffirmativeDetermination Regarding Applicationfor Reconsideration

By letter dated May 2, 2001, theInternational Union, UnitedAutomobile, Aerospace & AgriculturalImplement Workers of America (UAW),requested administrativereconsideration of the Department ofLabor’s Notice of NegativeDetermination Regarding Eligibility toApply for Trade Adjustment Assistance,applicable to workers of the subjectfirm. The denial notice was signed onFebruary 20, 2001 and published in theFederal Register on April 5, 2001 (66 FR18117).

The Department’s review of theapplication shows that informationprovided supports reopening of thepetition investigation.

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 15th day ofAugust, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–21846 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38, 545]

Sappi Fine Paper Company, NorthAmerica, Muskegon, Michigan; Noticeof Negative Determination RegardingApplication for Reconsideration

By application dated April 30, 2001,the company requested reconsiderationof the Department’s negativedetermination regarding eligibility toapply for Trade Adjustment Assistance(TAA), applicable to workers and formerworkers of the subject firm. The denialnotice was signed on February 27, 2001,and published in the Federal Registeron April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18117).



(2) If it appears that the determinationcomplained of was based on a mistakein the determination of facts notpreviously considered; or

(3) If in the opinion of the CertifyingOfficer, a misinterpretation of facts or ofthe law justified reconsideration of thedecision.

The investigation findings for theFebruary 27 denial of TAA for workersof Sappi Fine Paper Company,producing coated paper used incommercial printing in Muskegon,Michigan showed that criterion (3) ofthe group eligibility requirements ofSection 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, asamended, was not met. Theinvestigation revealed that sales atSappi Fine Paper Company increasedfrom 1999 through 2000. There were nocompany imports of articles like ordirectly competitive with coatedpublication paper.

The petitioner asserts that increasedforeign competition was a major factorin company layoffs because it haseroded the competitive position of thesubject firm. However, declines inemployment at the Sappi PaperCompany are attributed to thecompany’s decision to reorganize.

Conclusion

After review of the application andinvestigative findings, I conclude thatthere has been no error ormisinterpretation of the law of the factswhich would justify reconsideration ofthe Department of Labor’s priordecision. Accordingly, the application isdenied.



Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day ofAugust 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–21851 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–38,983]

ZapatA Technologies, Inc.; Hazelton,Pennsylvania; Notice of NegativeDetermination Regarding Applicationfor Reconsideration

By applications of May 9 and May 16,2001, petitioners requestedadministrative reconsideration of theDepartment’s negative determinationregarding eligibility for workers andformer workers of the subject firm toapply for Trade Adjustment Assistance(TAA). The denial notice applicable toworkers of ZapatA Technologies, Inc.,Hazelton, Pennsylvania, was issued onApril 20, 2001, and was published inthe Federal Register on May 9, 2001 (66FR 23733).



(2) if it appears that the determinationcomplained of was based on a mistakein the determination of facts notpreviously considered; or

(3) if in the opinion of the CertifyingOfficer, a misinterpretation of facts or ofthe law justified reconsideration of thedecision.

The petitioners suggest that fiftypercent of their work involved technicaland support services, and that thoseintangible articles ‘‘are now beingimported to various plants’’ includingthe ZapatA, Inc., Muskogee, Oklahomaplant, other U.S. and world-widelocations. The petitioners attacheddocumentation from the company thateffective February 1, 2001, technicalinformation, business, sales, andtechnical services were to be transferredto a sister plant in Spain.

Only in very limited instances areservice workers certified for TAA,namely the worker separations must becaused by a reduced demand for theirservices from a parent or controllingfirm or subdivision whose workersproduce an article and who arecurrently under a certification for TAA.

If import impact had been establishedfor the production workers at ZapatATechnologies, Inc., Hazelton,Pennsylvania, only then, could thepetitioners be included in a certificationfor TAA.

The petitioners also described howthe parent company, ZapatAInternational, who also sells crowns andenclosures to the bottling industry, haslost business to competitors. TheDepartment’s petition investigationunder the Trade Act of 1974, wasspecifically for the workers at ZapatATechnologies, Inc., Hazelton,Pennsylvania. The petition investigationis conducted for the workers’appropriate firm or subdivision, not ona company-wide or industry-wide basis.

The Department’s denial of the TAApetition filed on behalf of workersproducing bottle cap manufacturingmachinery at ZapatA finding that thecontributed importantly criterion ofSection 222 of the Trade Act of 1974,was not met. The production at thesubject firm was primarily for the exportmarket. Thus, the workers were notaffected by increased imports. Althoughthe company did shift production ofbottle cap manufacturing machineryabroad, that is not a basis for workergroup certification under the Trade Act.

ConclusionAfter review of the application and

investigative findings, I conclude thatthere has been no error ormisinterpretation of the law or of thefacts which would justifyreconsideration of the Department ofLabor’s prior decision. Accordingly, theapplication is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 13th dayof August 2001.Edward A. Tomchick,Director, Division of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 01–21847 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDSADMINISTRATION

Records Schedules for ElectronicCopies Previously Covered by GeneralRecords Schedule 20; Availability andRequest for Comments

AGENCY: National Archives and RecordsAdministration (NARA).ACTION: Notice of availability ofproposed records schedules; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The National Archives andRecords Administration (NARA)publishes notice at least once monthly

of certain Federal agency requests forrecords disposition authority (recordsschedules). Once approved by NARA,records schedules provide mandatoryinstructions on what happens to recordswhen no longer needed for currentGovernment business. They authorizethe preservation of records ofcontinuing value in the NationalArchives of the United States and thedestruction, after a specified period, ofrecords lacking administrative, legal,research, or other value. Notice ispublished for records schedules inwhich agencies propose to destroyrecords not previously authorized fordisposal or reduce the retention periodof records already authorized fordisposal.

This request for comments pertainssolely to schedules for electronic copiesof records created using wordprocessing and electronic mail wherethe recordkeeping copies are alreadyscheduled. (Electronic copies arerecords created using word processingor electronic mail software that remainin storage on the computer system afterthe recordkeeping copies are produced.)

These records were previouslyapproved for disposal under GeneralRecords Schedule 20, Items 13 and 14.The agencies identified in this noticehave submitted schedules pursuant toNARA Bulletin 99–04 to obtain separatedisposition authority for the electroniccopies associated with program recordsand administrative records not coveredby the General Records Schedules.NARA invites public comments on suchrecords schedules, as required by 44U.S.C. 3303a(a). To facilitate review ofthese schedules, their availability forcomment is announced in FederalRegister notices separate from thoseused for other records dispositionschedules.

DATES: Requests for copies must bereceived in writing on or before October15, 2001. On request, NARA will senda copy of the schedule. NARA staffusually prepare appraisalmemorandums concerning a proposedschedule. These, too, may be requested.Requesters will be given 30 days tosubmit comments.

Some schedules submitted inaccordance with NARA Bulletin 99–04group records by program, function, ororganizational element. These schedulesdo not include descriptions at the fileseries level, but, instead, providecitations to previously approvedschedules or agency records dispositionmanuals (see SupplementaryInformation section of this notice). Tofacilitate review of such dispositionrequests, previously approved schedules



or manuals that are cited may berequested in addition to schedules forthe electronic copies. NARA willprovide the first 100 pages at no cost.NARA may charge $.20 per page foradditional copies. These materials alsomay be examined at no cost at theNational Archives at College Park (8601Adelphi Road, College Park, MD).ADDRESSES: To request a copy of anyrecords schedule identified in thisnotice, write to the Life CycleManagement Division (NWML),National Archives and RecordsAdministration (NARA), 8601 AdelphiRoad, College Park, MD 20740–6001.Requests also may be transmitted byFAX to 301–713–6852 or by e-mail [email protected].

Requesters must cite the controlnumber, which appears in parenthesesafter the name of the agency whichsubmitted the schedule, and mustprovide a mailing address. Those whodesire appraisal reports and/or copies ofpreviously approved schedules ormanuals should so indicate in theirrequest.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael Miller, Director, ModernRecords Programs (NWM), NationalArchives and Records Administration,8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD20740–6001. Telephone: (301) 713–7110; E-mail: [email protected] INFORMATION: Each yearFederal agencies create billions ofrecords on paper, film, magnetic tape,and other media. To control thisaccumulation, agency records managersprepare schedules proposing retentionperiods for records and submit theseschedules for NARA approval, using theStandard Form (SF) 115, Request forRecords Disposition Authority. Theseschedules provide for the timely transferinto the National Archives ofhistorically valuable records andauthorize the disposal of all otherrecords after the agency no longer needsthe records to conduct its business.Routine administrative records commonto most agencies are approved fordisposal in the General RecordsSchedules (GRS), which are dispositionschedules issued by NARA that applyGovernment-wide.

On March 25, 1999, the Archivistissued NARA Bulletin 99–04, whichtold agencies what they must do toschedule electronic copies associatedwith previously scheduled programrecords and certain administrativerecords that were previously scheduledunder GRS 20, Items 13 and 14. OnDecember 27, 1999, the Archivist issuedNARA Bulletin 2000–02, whichsuspended Bulletin 99–04 pending

NARA’s completion in FY 2001 of anoverall review of scheduling andappraisal. On completion of this review,which will address all records,including electronic copies, NARA willdetermine whether Bulletin 99–04should be revised or replaced with analternative scheduling procedure.However, NARA will accept andprocess schedules for electronic copiesprepared in accordance with Bulletin99–04 that are submitted after December27, 1999, as well as schedules that weresubmitted prior to this date.

Schedules submitted in accordancewith NARA Bulletin 99–04 only coverthe electronic copies associated withpreviously scheduled series. Agenciesthat wish to schedule hithertounscheduled series must submitseparate SF 115s that cover bothrecordkeeping copies and electroniccopies used to create them.

In developing SF 115s for theelectronic copies of scheduled records,agencies may use either of twoscheduling models. They may add anappropriate disposition for theelectronic copies formerly covered byGRS 20, Items 13 and 14, to every itemin their manuals or records scheduleswhere the recordkeeping copy has beencreated with a word processing orelectronic mail application. Thisapproach is described as Model 1 inBulletin 99–04. Alternatively, agenciesmay group records by program,function, or organizational componentand propose disposition instructions forthe electronic copies associated witheach grouping. This approach isdescribed as Model 2 in the Bulletin.Schedules that follow Model 2 do notdescribe records at the series level.

For each schedule covered by thisnotice the following information isprovided: name of the Federal agencyand any subdivisions requestingdisposition authority; the organizationalunit(s) accumulating the records or astatement that the schedule has agency-wide applicability in the case ofschedules that cover records that may beaccumulated throughout an agency; thecontrol number assigned to eachschedule; the total number of scheduleitems; the number of temporary items(the record series proposed fordestruction); a brief description of thetemporary electronic copies; andcitations to previously approved SF115s or printed disposition manuals thatscheduled the recordkeeping copiesassociated with the electronic copiescovered by the pending schedule. If acited manual or schedule is availablefrom the Government Printing Office orhas been posted to a publicly availableWeb site, this too is noted.

Further information about thedisposition process is available onrequest.

Schedule Pending1. Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Agency-wide (N9–311–01–1, 56items, 56 temporary items). Electroniccopies of documents created usingelectronic mail and word processingthat relate to such agency programs andactivities as office administration, auditsand investigations, budgeting, thecontinuity of Government program,disaster assistance, emergencyoperations and mobilization programs,the Federal Insurance Administrationprogram, informational services,planning and management, personneland payroll, procurement, property andspace management, radiologicaldefense, records management,telecommunications, temporaryhousing, and training and education.This schedule follows Model 2 asdescribed in the SupplementaryInformation section of this notice.Recordkeeping copies of these files areincluded in the agency’s FilesMaintenance and Records Dispositionmanual (FEMA Manual 5400.2).

Dated: August 21, 2001.Michael J. Kurtz,Assistant Archivist for Records Services—Washington, DC.[FR Doc. 01–21783 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7515–01–P

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THEARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts;Proposed Collection; CommentRequest

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National Endowment forthe Arts, as part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, conducts a preclearanceconsultation program to provide thegeneral public and Federal agencieswith an opportunity to comment onproposed and/or continuing collectionsof information in accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)). This program helpsto ensure that requested data can beprovided in the desired format,reporting burden (time and financialresources) is minimized, collectioninstruments are clearly understood, andthe impact of collection requirements onrespondents can be properly assessed.Currently, the National Endowment forthe Arts is soliciting commentsconcerning the proposed information



collection request for generic approvalfor customer service focus groups, shortoral/written questionnaires to smalltarget audiences, and structuredinterviews with individualsrepresentative of external customergroups. A copy of the collection requestcan be obtained by contacting the officelisted below in the address section ofthis notice.DATES: Written comments must besubmitted to the office listed in theaddress section below on or beforeOctober 26, 2001. The NationalEndowment for the Arts is particularlyinterested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of theAgency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

• Minimize the burden of thecollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology,e.g., permitting the electronicsubmissions of responses.ADDRESSES: Laurence M. Baden, DeputyChairman for Management & Budget,National Endowment for the Arts, 1100Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 628,Washington, DC 20506–001, telephone(202) 682–5408 or (202) 682–5496 forTTY and TDD (these are not a toll-freenumbers), fax (202) 682–5798.

Laurence M. Baden,Deputy Chairman for Management andBudget.[FR Doc. 01–21733 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7536–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permit Applications ReceivedUnder the Antarctic Conservation Actof 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541)

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.ACTION: Notice of permit applicationsreceived under the AntarcticConservation Act of 1978, Public Law95–541.

SUMMARY: The National ScienceFoundation (NSF) is required to publish

notice of permit applications received toconduct activities regulated under theAntarctic Conservation Act of 1978.NSF has published regulations underthe Antarctic Conservation Act at Title45 Part 670 of the Code of FederalRegulations. This is the required noticeof permit applications received.DATES: Interested parties are invited tosubmit written data, comments, orviews with respect to these permitapplications by September 26, 2001.Permit applications may be inspected byinterested parties at the Permit Office,address below.ADDRESSES: Comments should beaddressed to Permit Office, Room 755,Office of Polar Programs, NationalScience Foundation, 4201 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nadene G. Kennedy at the aboveaddress or (703) 292–7405.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheNational Science Foundation, asdirected by the Antarctic ConservationAct of 1978 (Pub. L. 94–541), hasdeveloped regulations that implementthe ‘‘Agreed Measures for theConservation of Antarctic Fauna andFlora’’ for all United States citizens. TheAgreed Measures, developed by theAntarctic Treaty Consultative Parties,recommended establishment of a permitsystem for various activities inAntarctica and designation of certainanimals and certain geographic areasrequiring special protection. Theregulations establish such a permitsystem to designate Specially ProtectedAreas and Sites of Special ScientificInterest.

The applications received are asfollows:1. Applicant; Permit Application No.

2002–007Rennie S. Holt, Director, U.S. AMLR

Program, Southwest FisheriesScience Center, National MarineFisheries Service, 8604 La JollaShores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92038

Activity for Which Permit Is RequestedTake, Import into the U.S.A., and

Enter Specially Antarctic ProtectedArea. The applicant proposes to conductship-supported and land-basedpenniped studies in the region of theAntarctic Peninsula as a continuation ofstudies conducted from 1996–2001.Continuing studies encompassingcensus surveys, attendance, diving,foraging, diet, age determination,pathology, and long term monitoring(censusing/tagging) of Antarctic furseals, Elephant, Crabeater, Leopard,Weddell, and Ross seals will beconducted at the AMLR Program

campsite at Cape Shirreff, LivingstonIsland (Antarctic Specially ProtectedArea #149), including the San TelmoIslands. A compete census of the sealpopulation will be conducted as well astagging of up to 600 new fur seal pups.Attendance, diving and foraging studieswill require instrumentation (TDR’s) ofup to 60 fur sales. Enema, scat and milkcollection will be used to study the dietbehavior of fur seals throughout theaustral summer. Blood and other tissuesamples will be collected to initiatepathology studies since prior samplecollection detected the presence ofBrucellis within the fur seal population.

The application also proposes tocontinue seabird research conducted inthe past. The studies will includecensuses and banding of all sea birds. Asubset of chinstrap and Gentoopenguins will be captured, andweighed. A subset of adult penguinswill have blood and stomach samplescollected, where as others will haveinstruments temporarily attached tocollect diving/foraging information inan attempt to examine the populationdynamics of these species. All collectedsamples will be returned to theSouthwest Fisheries Science Center forprocessing and analysis.

In addition the applicant proposes tosalvage bones and carcasses of deadseals and other cetacean species foundon shore for importation to the U.S.These materials will be stored at theSouthwest Fisheries Science Center foreducational and research to purposes.Location: Cape Shirreff, Livingston

Island (ASPA #149) and the AntarcticPeninsula region

Dates: November 15, 2001 to April 15,2006

2. Applicant; Permit Application No.2002–008

Vickie Usher Russell, CNN Producer,132 Geneva Street, Decatur, GA30030

Activity for Which Permit Is Requested

Enter Antarctic Specially ProtectedAreas. The applicant will be filming aTV documentary for CNN showcasingthe exciting scientific research andremarkable and demanding workingconditions scientists and supportpersonnel endure in Antarctica. Theteam proposes to film researchconducted in the field and thereforeproposes to enter Cape Royds penguinrookery (ASPA #121) to film scientistsworking with the penguins. In additionthe documentary team proposes to focussome attention on the early Antarcticexplorers and proposes to film as manyof the Ross Island historic huts aspossible. Therefore they plan to enter



and film at Shackleton’s Hut a BackdoorBay, Cape Royds (ASPA #156), Scott’sTerra Nova Hut, Cape Evans (ASPA#154), and Scott’s Discovery Hut, HutPoint, Ross Island (ASPA #157). Thedocumentary hopes to bring theexcitement and mystery of Antarctica toviewers who might never have a chanceto view it themselves.Location:

Cape Royds penguin rookery (ASPA#121)

Scott’s Terra Nova Hut, Cape Evans,Ross Island (ASPA #154)

Shackleton Hut at Backdoor Bay, CapeRoyds, Ross Island (ASPA #156)

Scott’s Discovery Hut, Hut Point, RossIsland (ASPA #157).

Dates: December 1, 2001 to February 28,2002.


Terry J. Wilson, Department ofGeological Sciences, Ohio StateUniversity, 155 S. Oval Mall,Columbus, OH 43210


Enter Antarctic Specially ProtectedArea. The applicant proposes to studythe structure of volcanoes and volcaniccinder cones in Northern Victoria Land.Part of the study area falls withinAntarctic Specially Protect Area #159,the Summit of Mt. Melbourne, whichthe applicant proposes to enter. Thestudy requires aerial observation andphotography of all volcanic vents andcones within the area. Overflight of thesite will be by helicopter at an elevationequal to or greater than ∼ 1500 meters.Two short-duration landings are neededfor ground observations to confirmmapping of the volcanic structures. Thelanding sites will be selected on glacialice in-filling the caldera therebyavoiding any sensitive areas. All workin the area will be completed within oneday.Location: Summit of Mt Melbourne—

ASPA #159Dates: November 1, 2001 to January 10,

20024. Applicant; Permit Application No.

2002–010Terry J. Wilson, Department of

Geological Sciences, Ohio StateUniversity, 155 S. Oval Mall,Columbus, OH 43210


Enter Antarctic Specially ProtectedArea. The applicant proposes to enterCape Crozier, Antarctic SpeciallyProtected Area #124, for the purpose ofcollecting samples from volcanic ventsfor age dating. The volcanic cones to besampled lie partially within the ASPA

at the Knoll near the southwest cornerof the site, and Post Office Hill at theapex of the boundary of the northernportion of the ASPA. Access to the sitewill be via helicopter landing at the sitedesignated by the Management Plan.The applicant proposes to be in the sitefor only a couple hours.Location: Cape Crozier, Ross Island—

ASPA #124Dates: November 25, 2001 to February

10, 20015. Applicant; Permit Application No.

2002–011Robert A. Blanchette, Department of

Plant Pathology, University ofMinnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108–6030

Activity for Which Permit Is RequestedEnter Antarctic Specially Protected

Area and Import into the U.S.A. Theapplicant is working on a cooperativeproject with the Antarctic Heritage Trust(AHT) to help preserve the historic hutsand artifacts in the Ross Sea region.Over the past 9–10 decades significantdeterioration has occurred within thehuts and on many historic artifacts. Toprevent further degradation and todevelop successful control strategies,the applicant proposes to enter thehistoric huts at Cape Evans (ASPA#154), Cape Royds (ASPA #156), HutPoint (ASPA #157), and Cape Adare(ASPA #158) to conduct basic scientificinvestigations to better understand thedeterioration taking place in this polarenvironment. Areas of deterioration willbe sampled in and around the huts, aswell as assessing the damage from moldgrowth on hut interiors, and historicalchemical and fuel spills. Wood and soilsamples will be collected and returnedto the U.S. for further analysis. Theapplicant proposes to salvage bones orfeathers that may be contained in thesoil samples.Location:

Historic huts and environs at CapeEvans (ASPA #154), Cape Royds(ASPA #156), Hut Point (ASPA#157), and Cape Adare (ASPA#158—McMurdo Sound, RossIsland and Ross Sea vicinity.

Dates: December 1, 2001 to March 1,2003


Thomas W. Yelvington, President,Raytheon Polar Services Company,61 Inverness Drive East, Suite 300,Englewood, CO 80112


Enter Antarctic Specially ProtectedArea. Hallett Station was jointlyoperated and occupied by the U.S. and

New Zealand from 1957 to 1973,primarily for the study of geophysicsand later for biological studies of theAdelie penguin population. Last seasonan Environmental Site Assessment wasconducted indicating a need for a multi-year remediation program to bringclosure of Hallett Station into fullcompliance with the Protocol on theEnvironmental Protection to theAntarctic Treaty. In a joint effort withthe New Zealand program, participantswill camp in the vicinity of old HallettStation while conducting theremediation program. The initial phasewill involve fencing off areas ofpetroleum contaminated surface waterand soil which have been identified asposing the greatest threat to the penguinpopulation at Cape Hallett. During thismulti-year remediation project, theapplicant proposes to enter AntarcticSpecially Protected Area #106 for thepurposes of collecting glacial ice formaking water for the nearby camp.Entry into the Protected Area will bekept to a minimum.

Location: Cape Hallett, Victoria Land—ASPA #106

Dates: October 1, 2001 to April 15, 2006


John T. Lisle, Lockheed Martin,NASA Road One, Mail Stop C23,Houston, TX 77058


Import Non-Indigenous Species intoAntarctica. The applicant proposes tointroduce into Antarctica the twosamples each of the followingcommercial bacterial cultures: E. coli,Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonasstutzeri, Acinetobacter calcoacetius,Enterococcus aerogenes, andClostridium perfingens. These bacterialcultures will be used as quality controlswhen performing assays. The assaysinclude isolation and enumeration offecal coliform, fecal enteroccocci, andfecal associated Clostridiumperfringens. The applicant will alsoperform standard plasmid transferexperiments using several of thebacterial cultures. The control culturesare necessary, as the conditions underwhich the experiments are performedare extremely cold and a method toensure the assays are performingcorrectly under Antarctic conditions iscritical for data to be considered valid.All plasmid transfer experiments will beconducted within a contained system inthe laboratory at McMurdo Station. Allcultures and samples will be bleachedand autoclaved before disposing of thematerial into the biohazard waste stream



at McMurdo Station for removal/retrograde from the continent.Location: McMurdo Station, AntarcticaDates: October 1, 2001 to November 30,

20018. Applicant; Permit Application No.

2002–014Robert Semper, Exploratorium, 3601

Lyon Street, San Francisco, CA94123


Enter Antarctic Specially ProtectedAreas. The applicant proposes to enterseveral Antarctic Specially ProtectedAreas for the purpose of filmingscientific research in the field anddocument the historic huts in the RossIsland vicinity. The applicant proposesto enter the Cape Royds penguinrookery (ASPA 121) to film researchersworking with Adelie penguins. Inaddition, the applicant proposes to enterand film the historic huts and environsat Cape Evans (ASPA 154), Cape Royds(ASPA 156), and Discovery Hut at HutPoint (ASPA #157). The film project isan effort to create a different approachto telling the story of basic scientificresearch and the infrastructure it takesto support it to a vast audience ofmuseum and online visitors. Viewers,by means of a webcast, will have theopportunity to metaphorically look overthe shoulder of scientists as they workin the field or laboratory. In addition,filming the huts will add the element ofhistory and adventure for those who arenot normally interested in scientificactivities.Location:

Cape Royds penguin rookery, RossIsland—ASPA #121

Scott’s Terra Nova Hut, Cape Evans,Ross Island—ASPA #154

Shackleton’s Hut at Backdoor Bay,Cape Royds, Ross Island—ASPA#156

Scott’s Discovery Hut, Hut Point, RossIsland—ASPA #157

Dates: November 1, 2001 to January 31,2002

Nadene G. Kennedy,Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.[FR Doc. 01–21795 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACTCOMMISSION

Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Northeast Dairy CompactCommission.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Compact Commissionwill hold its regular monthly meeting toconsider matters relating toadministration and enforcement of theprice regulation. This meeting will beheld in Concord, New Hampshire,continuing the Commission’s programof holding a meeting in each of theCompact states. In addition to receivingreports and recommendations of itsstanding Committees, the Commissionwill receive a number of informationalreports about the impact of the over-order price regulation in NewHampshire.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 10 a.m.on Wednesday, September 5, 2001.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe Courtyard by Marriott, GrapponeConference Center, 70 ConstitutionAvenue, Concord, New Hampshire03301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Daniel Smith, Executive Director,Northeast Dairy Compact Commission,64 Main Street, Room 21, Montpelier,VT 05602. Telephone (802) 229–1941.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256.

Dated: August 22, 2001.Daniel Smith,Executive Director.[FR Doc. 01–21744 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 1650–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

Documents Containing Reporting orRecordkeeping Requirements: Officeof Management and Budget (OMB)Review

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC).ACTION: Notice of the OMB review ofinformation collection and solicitationof public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recentlysubmitted to OMB for review thefollowing proposal for the collection ofinformation under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission, new, revision,or extension: Revision.

2. The title of the informationcollection: Proposed Rule, 10 CFR Part50, Releasing Part of a Power ReactorSite or Facility for Unrestricted UseBefore the NRC Approves the LicenseTermination Plan.

3. The form number if applicable: Notapplicable.

4. How often the collection isrequired: Each time a licensee requests

NRC approval of a release of part of itssite or facility (partial site release)before NRC approval of its LTP.

5. Who will be required or asked toreport: Power reactor licensees.

6. An estimate of the number ofresponses: An average of two partial sitereleases each year.

7. The estimated number of annualrespondents: Two.

8. An estimate of the total number ofhours needed annually to complete therequirement or request: Part 50: 934hours (for each of 2 partial site releases:438 hours reporting + 24 hoursrecordkeeping; + 10 hours for update ofone LTP submittal); Part 51: 240 hours(120 hours per response).

9. An indication of whether section3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies:Applicable

10. Abstract: The NRC is amending itsregulations in part 50 to establish aprocess for allowing power reactorlicensees to release part of their site forunrestricted use before receivingapproval of their License TerminationPlan (LTP). The proposed rule wouldadd section 50.83 to 10 CFR Part 50describing the criteria and theregulatory framework that a powerreactor licensee must use to requestNRC approval for a partial site release.The proposed new section would allowlicensees to submit a letter request or,depending on radiological conditions, alicense amendment application. Ineither case, the submittal woulddocument the licensee’s completion of anumber of evaluations, surveys,recordkeeping, and reporting that wouldestablish licensee compliance withhealth and safety considerations.

Submit, by September 28, 2001,comments that address the followingquestions:

1. Is the proposed collection ofinformation necessary for the NRC toproperly perform its functions? Does theinformation have practical utility?

2. Is the burden estimate accurate?3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected?

4. How can the burden of theinformation collection be minimized,including the use of automatedcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology?

A copy of the submittal may beviewed free of charge at the NRC PublicDocument Room, One White FlintNorth, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O–1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. Theproposed rule indicated in ‘‘The title ofthe information collection’’ is or hasbeen published in the Federal Registerwithin several days of the publicationdate of this Federal Register Notice. The



OMB clearance package and rule areavailable at the NRC worldwide website: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/OMB/index.html for 60 days after thesignature date of this notice and are alsoavailable at the rule forum site, http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

Comments and questions should bedirected to the OMB reviewer bySeptember 28, 2001: Bryon Allen, Officeof Information and Regulatory Affairs(3150–0011, and –0021) NEOB–10202,Office of Management and Budget,Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted bytelephone at (202) 395–3087.

The NRC Clearance Officer is BrendaJo. Shelton, 301–415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd dayof August 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Beth C. St. Mary,Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of theChief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 01–21855 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket No. 50–247]

Consolidated Edison Company of NewYork, Inc.; Indian Point NuclearGenerating Unit No. 2 EnvironmentalAssessment and Finding of NoSignificant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission is considering issuance ofan amendment to Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR–26, issued toConsolidated Edison Company of NewYork, Inc., (the licensee), for operationof the Indian Point Nuclear GeneratingUnit No. 2 (IP2), located in WestchesterCounty, New York. Therefore, asrequired by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC isissuing this environmental assessmentand finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed ActionThe proposed action would revise the

Technical Specifications (TSs) toincorporate editorial revisions,clarifications, and corrections.Specifically, the proposed amendmentwould: (1) Provide updated informationand corrections to the TS cover page,table of contents, and list of figures, (2)revise TS 4.5.E, ‘‘Control Room AirFiltration System,’’ to remove anincorrect system test description andprovide consistent test values for systemflow rate and filter efficiency, (3) reviseTS 6.2.1.a, ‘‘Facility Management andTechnical Support,’’ to reference the

Quality Assurance Program Descriptionas the location of the documentationrather than the Updated Final SafetyAnalysis Report, (4) revise TS 6.9.1.7,‘‘Monthly Operating Report,’’ to changethe recipient of the Monthly OperatingReport, and (5) correct the periodicity ofthe Radioactive Effluent Release Reportfrom semi-annual to annual in TS 6.15,‘‘Offsite Dose Calculation Manual’’ andTS 6.16, ‘‘Major Changes to RadioactiveLiquid, Gaseous and Solid WasteSystems.’’ In addition, the amendmentwould revise TS Figure 5.1–1Bconcerning the indicated vent locationassociated with Indian Point Unit 3(IP3). The labels for the IP3 plant ventand the machine shop were reversed.

The proposed action is in accordancewith the licensee’s application datedDecember 11, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed tomake the TSs clearer and editoriallyaccurate and to correct the system testdescription and clarify the test valuesfor the control room air filtrationsystem.

Environmental Impacts of the ProposedAction

The NRC has completed its evaluationof the proposed action and concludesthat the changes correct editorial errorsthat currently exist in the TSs andprovide additional clarifications. Theproposed action does not modify thefacility or affect the manner in whichthe facility is operated.

The proposed action will notsignificantly increase the probability orconsequences of accidents, no changesare being made in the types of effluentsthat may be released off site, and thereis no significant increase inoccupational or public radiationexposure. Therefore, there are nosignificant radiological environmentalimpacts associated with the proposedaction.

With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposedaction does not have a potential to affectany historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has noother environmental impact. Therefore,there are no significant non-radiologicalenvironmental impacts associated withthe proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes thatthere are no significant environmentalimpacts associated with the proposedaction.

Environmental Impacts of theAlternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposedaction, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’alternative). Denial of the applicationwould result in no change in currentenvironmental impacts. Theenvironmental impacts of the proposedaction and the alternative action aresimilar.

Alternative Use of Resources

The action does not involve the use ofany different resource than thosepreviously considered in the FinalEnvironmental Statement for IP2, datedSeptember 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

On August 21, 2001, the staffconsulted with the New York Stateofficial, Mr. John P. Spath of the EnergyResearch and Development Authority,regarding the environmental impact ofthe proposed action. The State officialhad no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmentalassessment, the NRC concludes that theproposed action will not have asignificant effect on the quality of thehuman environment. Accordingly, theNRC has determined not to prepare anenvironmental impact statement for theproposed action.

For further details with respect to theproposed action, see the licensee’s letterdated December 11, 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. Publicallyavailable records will be accessibleelectronically from the ADAMS PublicLibrary component on the NRC Website, http://www.nrc.gov (the PublicElectronic Reading Room). If you do nothave access to ADAMS or if there areproblems in accessing the documentslocated in ADAMS, contact the NRCPublic Document Room (PDR) Referencestaff at 1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st dayof August 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Peter S. Tam,Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate,Division of Licensing Project Management,Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.[FR Doc. 01–21853 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]





[Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281]

Virginia Electric and Power Company;Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and2; Environmental Assessment andFinding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission is considering issuance ofamendments to Facility OperatingLicense (FOL) Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37, issued to Virginia Electric andPower Company (the licensee), foroperation of the Surry Power Station,Units 1 and 2, respectively, located inSurry County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise theFOLs and the Technical Specifications(TS) to remove obsolete licenseconditions, make editorial changes tothe FOLs, and implement associatedchanges to the TS and Bases as follows:

1. Removal of license conditionsassociated with completed facilitymodifications (including the SteamGenerator Repair Program and supportmodifications related to Leak-Before-Break Technology);

2. Removal of superseded licenseconditions (addressing security);

3. Relocation of secondary waterchemistry monitoring programrequirements from the FOLs to the TS;

4. Removal of expired licenseconditions and TS (addressing servicewater piping restoration);

5. Editorial changes.The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application datedSeptember 22, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is neededbecause some requirements in the SurryFOLs have become obsolete. In addition,the need for editorial changes has beenidentified.

Environmental Impacts of the ProposedAction

The NRC has completed its evaluationof the proposed action and concludesthat the proposed license amendmentsand associated changes to the TS areadministrative in nature and have noeffect on plant equipment or plantoperation.

The proposed action will notsignificantly increase the probability orconsequences of accidents, no changesare being made in the types of effluentsthat may be released off site, and thereis no significant increase in

occupational or public radiationexposure. Therefore, there are nosignificant radiological environmentalimpacts associated with the proposedaction.

With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposedaction does not have a potential to affectany historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has noother environmental impact. Therefore,there are no significant non-radiologicalenvironmental impacts associated withthe proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes thatthere are no significant environmentalimpacts associated with the proposedaction.

Environmental Impacts of theAlternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposedaction, the staff considered denial of theproposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’alternative). Denial of the applicationwould result in no change in currentenvironmental impacts. Theenvironmental impacts of the proposedaction and the alternative action aresimilar.

Alternative Use of Resources

The action does not involve the use ofany different resource than thosepreviously considered in the FinalEnvironmental Statement Related toOperation of Surry Power Station Unit1, May 1972, or the Final EnvironmentalStatement Related to Operation of SurryPower Station Unit 2, June 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

On August 6, 2001, the staff consultedwith the Virginia State official, Mr. LesFoldesi of the Virginia Department ofHealth, Bureau of Radiological Health,regarding the environmental impact ofthe proposed action. The State officialhad no comments.


On the basis of the environmentalassessment, the NRC concludes that theproposed action will not have asignificant effect on the quality of thehuman environment. Accordingly, theNRC has determined not to prepare anenvironmental impact statement for theproposed action.

For further details with respect to theproposed action, see the licensee’s letterdated September 22, 2000. Documentsmay be examined, and/or copied for afee, at the NRC’s Public DocumentRoom (PDR), located at One White FlintNorth, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),Rockville, Maryland. Publicly availablerecords will be accessible electronicallyfrom the ADAMS Public Library

component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public ElectronicReading Room). If you do not haveaccess to ADAMS or if there areproblems in accessing the documentslocated in ADAMS, contact the NRCPDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,or 301–415–4737, or by e-mail [email protected].

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd dayof August 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Gordon E. Edison,Senior Project Manager, Section 1, ProjectDirectorate II, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 01–21854 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


[Docket No. 72–31]

Yankee Atomic Electric Company;Issuance of EnvironmentalAssessment and Finding of NoSignificant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC or Commission) isconsidering issuance of an exemption,pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from theprovisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), and 72.214 to YankeeAtomic Electric Company (YAEC). Therequested exemption would allowYAEC to deviate from the requirementsof Certificate of Compliance 1025 (theCertificate), Appendix A, TechnicalSpecifications (TS), Items 3.1.2,surveillance frequencies for CanisterVacumn drying pressure, 3.1.3,surveillance frequencies for CanisterHelium Backfill Pressure, 3.1.5, CanisterMaximum Time in Vacuum Drying, and3.1.6, Maximum Time in Transfer Cask.The exemption would allow YAEC touse extended operating times inLimiting Condition for Operation (LCO)3.1.5 and 3.1.6 and make surveillancerequirements in LCO 3.1.2 and 3.1.3consistent with LCO 3.1.5 for the fuelloading campaign at Yankee NuclearPower Station (YNPS) in Rowe,Massachusetts.

Environmental Assessment (EA)Identification of Proposed Action: By

letter dated April 3, 2001, assupplemented on June 6 and July 30,2001, YAEC requested an exemptionfrom the requirements of 10 CFR72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), and72.214 to deviate from the requirementsof Certificate of Compliance 1025,Appendix A, Items LCO 3.1.2, 3.1.3,3.1.5 and 3.1.6. YAEC is a general



licensee, authorized by NRC to usespent fuel storage casks approved under10 CFR part 72, Subpart K.

YAEC plans to use the NAC–MPCcask system to store spent nuclear fuel,generated at YNPS, at an independentspent fuel storage installation (ISFSI)located in Rowe, Massachusetts, on theYNPS site. The YNPS ISFSI has beenconstructed for interim dry storage ofspent nuclear fuel.

By exempting YAEC from 10 CFR72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), and72.214, YAEC will be authorized toextend loaded canister vacuum dryingand the time spent fuel is in the transfercask for canister heat loads that arelower than the design basis heat load.

The time duration from completion ofdraining the Canister throughcompletion of vacuum dryness testingand the introduction of helium backfillshall not exceed the time shown for thespecified heat loads:

Total heat loads (L)(kW) Time limit(hours)

10.5 < L ≤ 12.5 ..................... 38.8.5 < L ≤ 10.5 ..................... 48.6.5 < L ≤ 8.5 ....................... 58.4.5 < L ≤ 6.5 ....................... 83.

L ≤ 4.5 .......................... Not limited.

The time duration from end ofexternal forced air or in-pool cooling ofthe Canister through completion ofvacuum dryness testing and theintroduction of helium backfill shall notexceed the time shown for the specifiedheat loads:

Total heat loads(L)(kW)

Time limit(hours)

Forcedair In-pool

10.5 < L ≤ 12.5 ......... 10 108.5 < L ≤ 10.5 ......... 12 126.5 < L ≤ 8.5 ........... 16 164.5 < L ≤ 6.5 ........... 40 40

The time duration from theintroduction of helium backfill of theCanister through completion of theCanister transfer operation from theTransfer Cask to the Concrete cask is notlimited.

The surveillance requirements toverify canister cavity vacumn dryingpressure is within limits is to beperformed prior to transport operations.

The surveillance requirements toverify canister helium backfill pressureis within limits is to be performed priorto transport operations.

The specifications above would be inlieu of those in the current Certificate ofCompliance No. 1025, Rev. 0, AppendixA, LCO 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5 and 3.1.6. The

proposed action before the Commissionis whether to grant this exemptionunder 10 CFR 72.7.

On September 9, 2000, assupplemented July 27, 2001, the caskdesigner, NAC International (NAC),submitted to NRC an application toamend Certificate of Compliance No.1025. The requested amendmentincludes the same revisions to LCO3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 in AppendixA to the Certificate as requested in thisexemption. The NRC staff has reviewedthe application and determined thatextending operating times in TS LCO3.1.5 and 3.1.6 and revising thesurveillance requirements in LCO 3.1.2and 3.1.3 would have minimal impacton the design basis and would not posea threat to public health and safety.

Need for the Proposed Action: Therevised LCO 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 increase TStimes, which are likely to reduce thefrequency of entering LCO actionstatements, thus, reducing radiationdoses to workers. The current TS LCO3.1.5 and 3.1.6 time limits are based oncanisters with maximum heat load andthe probability for entering LCO actionstatements will significantly increase forcanisters that are lower than the designbasis heat load. If action statements areentered as a result of TS requirementswithout a safety significance, workerswill be exposed to low radiation fieldsfor longer periods of time. This wouldnot be consistent with As Low AsReasonably Achievable (ALARA)practices. Workers should be able toconduct loading operations withoutfacing unnecessary time/schedulepressure with sufficient operationalflexibility. Unless the exemption isgranted or the Certificate is amended,the TS LCO 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 actionstatements will likely be unnecessarilyentered, resulting in additionalradiation doses to workers. Thesurveillance requirements in TS LCO3.1.2 and 3.1.3 are being changed to beconsistent with the revised TS LCO3.1.5. Because the 10 CFR part 72rulemaking to amend the Certificate willnot be completed prior to the date thatYNPS plans to begin loading fuel intothe NAC–MPC cask systems, the NRC isproposing to grant this exemption basedon the staff’s technical review ofinformation submitted by YAEC andNAC.

Environmental Impacts of theProposed Action: It has already beendetermined by the Commission thatspent fuel can be stored safely andwithout significant environmentalimpact at an onsite ISFSI in the NAC–MPC cask system (65 FR 12444, datedMarch 9, 2000). Extending the TS timeswill not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents. No changeshave been requested to the types orquantities of any radiological effluentsthat may be released offsite, and thereis no significant increase inoccupational or public radiationexposure. Occupational radiationexposure will be decreased by theavoidance of unnecessarily entering theaction statements in LCO 3.1.5 and3.1.6. There are no significantradiological environmental impactsassociated with the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action:Since there is no significantenvironmental impact associated withthe proposed action, alternatives withequal or greater environmental impactare not evaluated. The alternative to theproposed action would be to denyapproval of the exemption and use theTS times in the current Certificate.Denial of the exemption couldpotentially lead into unnecessarilyentering the TS LCO action statements3.1.5 and 3.1.6 resulting in increasedradiation doses to workers.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: OnJune 22, 2001, Mr. Jim Muckerhide,Nuclear Engineer, Nuclear Safety, ofMassachusetts Emergency ManagementAgency was contacted about theEnvironmental Assessment for theproposed action and had no comments.


The environmental impacts of theproposed action have been reviewed inaccordance with the requirements setforth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon theforegoing EA, the Commission finds thatthe proposed action of granting anexemption from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), and 72.214 so thatYAEC may use revised TS time at YNPSISFSI will not significantly impact thequality of the human environment.Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined not to prepare anenvironmental impact statement for theproposed exemption.

The NRC maintains an AgencywideDocuments Access and ManagementSystem (ADAMS), which provides textand image files of NRC’s publicdocuments. These documents may beaccessed through the NRC’s PublicElectronic Reading Room on the Internetat 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 e-mail to [email protected].

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd dayof August 2001.



For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.E. William Brach,Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office ofNuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.[FR Doc. 01–21856 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANDBUDGET

Budget Analysis Branch;Sequestration Update Report

AGENCY: Office of Management andBudget—Budget Analysis Branch.ACTION: Notice of transmittal of theSequestration Update Report to thePresident and Congress for Fiscal Year2002.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 254(b) ofthe Balanced Budget and EmergencyControl Act of 1985, as amended, theOffice of Management and Budgethereby reports that it has submitted itsSequestration Update Report for FiscalYear 2002 to the President, the Speakerof the House of Representatives, and thePresident of the Senate.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Sarah Lee, Budget Analysis Branch—202/395–3674.

Dated: August 23, 2001.Cynthia Christian,Assistant Director for Administration.[FR Doc. 01–21737 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

Upon Written Request; Copies AvailableFrom: Securities and ExchangeCommission, Office of Filings andInformation Services, Washington, DC20549

Extension:Regulation 12B, OMB Control No.

3235–0062, SEC File No. 270–70Form 15, OMB Control No. 3235–

0167, SEC File No. 270–170Form F–4, OMB Control No. 3235–

0325, SEC File No. 270–288

Notice is hereby given that, pursuantto the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securitiesand Exchange Commission(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to theOffice of Management and Budgetrequests for extension of the previouslyapproved collections of informationdiscussed below.

Regulation 12B includes rulesgoverning Securities Exchange Act of1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) registrationstatements and reports. The purpose ofthe regulation is to set forth guidelinesfor the uniform preparation of ExchangeAct documents. All information isprovided to the public for review. Theinformation required is filed onoccasion and is mandatory. Regulation12B is assigned one burden hour foradministrative convenience because theregulation simply prescribes thedisclosure that must appear in otherfilings under the federal securities laws.Finally, persons who respond to thecollection of information prescribed toin Regulation 12B are not required torespond unless the collection ofinformation displays a currently validcontrol number.

Form 15 is a certification oftermination of a class of security underSection 12(g) or notice of suspension ofduty to file reports pursuant to Sections13 and 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934. The information collectedis to inform the public when a registrantdoes not file periodic reports. Allinformation is provided to the public forreview. Approximately 2,000 issuers fileForm 15 annually and it takesapproximately a total of 1.5 hours perresponse for a total of 3,000 annualburden hours. Finally, persons whorespond to the collection of informationcontained in Form 15 are not requiredto respond unless the form displays acurrently valid control number.

Form F–4 is used by foreign issuers toregister securities in businesscombinations, reorganizations andexchange offers pursuant to federalsecurities laws. If the informationdisclosed on Form F–4 were notrequired, the objectives of the SecuritiesAct would not be met. The informationrequired is filed on occasion and ismandatory. All information is providedto the public for review. Form F–4 isfiled by foreign issuers. Form F–4 takesapproximately 1,311 hours per responseto prepare and is filed by 450respondents. It is estimated that 50% ofthe 589,950 total burden hours (294,975hours) would be prepared by thecompany. Finally, persons who respondto the collection of informationcontained in Form F–4 are not requiredto respond unless the form displays acurrently valid control number.

Written comments regarding theabove information should be directed tothe following persons: (i) Desk Officerfor the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, Office ofManagement and Budget, Room 10102,New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503; and (ii) MichaelE. Bartell, Associate Executive Director,Office of Information Technology,Securities and Exchange Commission,450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC20549. Comments must be submitted toOMB within 30 days of this notice.

Dated: August 21, 2001.Jonathan G. Katz,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21788 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Investment Company Act Release No.25134; 812–11880]

Commonfund Institutional Funds, etal.; Notice of Application

August 23, 2001.AGENCY: Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’).ACTION: Notice of an application undersection 6(c) of the Investment CompanyAct of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’) for anexemption from section 15(a) of the Actand rule 18f–2 under the Act, as well asfrom certain disclosure requirements.

SUMMARY: Applicants request an order topermit them to enter into and materiallyamend subadvisory agreements withoutshareholder approval and to grant relieffrom certain disclosure requirements.APPLICANTS: Commonfund InstitutionalFunds (the ‘‘Company’’) andCommonfund Asset ManagementCompany, Inc. (‘‘ COMANCO’’).FILING DATES: The application was filedon December 13, 1999 and amended onJuly 19, 2001.HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: Anorder granting the application will beissued unless the Commission orders ahearing. Interested persons may requesta hearing by writing to theCommission’s Secretary and servingapplicants with a copy of the request,personally or by mail. Hearing requestsshould be received by the Commissionby 5:30 p.m. on September 17, 2001,and should be accompanied by proof ofservice on applicants in the form of anaffidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate ofservice. Hearing requests should statethe nature of the writer’s interest, thereason for the request, and the issuescontested. Persons who wish to benotified of a hearing may requestnotification by writing to theCommission’s Secretary.ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission 450Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC20549–0609. Applicants, c/o Timothy



1 Applicants also request relief with respect tofuture Funds, and any other registered open-endmanagement investment companies or seriesthereof (a) that are advised by COMANCO or anyentity controlling, controlled by, or under commoncontrol with COMANCO, and (b) use the multi-manager structure described in the application(‘‘Future Funds,’’ and together with the Funds the‘‘Funds’’). Any fund that relies on the requestedorder will do so only in accordance with the termsand conditions contained in the application. TheCompany is the only existing investment companythat currently intends to rely on the order. In thename of any Fund contains the name of a Sub-Adviser, the Fund’s name will also contain thename Commonfund, COMANCO or the name of theentity controlling, controlled by, or under commoncontrol with COMANCO that serves as the primaryadviser to such Fund.

W. Levin, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP, 1701 Market Street,Philadelphia, PA 19103.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Emerson S. Davis, Sr., Senior Counsel,at (202) 942–0714, or Janet M.Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at (202) 942–0564 (Division of InvestmentManagement, Office of InvestmentCompany Regulation).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefollowing is a summary of theapplication. The complete applicationmay be obtained for a fee from theCommission’s Public Reference Branch,450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC20549–0102 (telephone (202) 942–8090).

Applicants’ Representations1. The Company, a Delaware business

trust, is registered under the Act as anopen-end management investmentcompany. The Company currently offerseight series (together the ‘‘Funds,’’ andeach a ‘‘Fund’’). Each Fund has its owninvestment objectives, policies andrestrictions. COMANCO, registeredunder the Investment Advisers Act of1940 (‘‘Advisers Act’’), serves as theinvestment adviser to each Fundpursuant to an investment advisoryagreement with the Company(‘‘Advisory Agreement’’) that wasapproved by the board of directors ofthe Company (the ‘‘Board’’), including amajority of the directors who are not‘‘interested persons,’’ as defined insection 2(a)(19) of the Act(‘‘Independent Directors’’), and the soleshareholder of each Fund.1

2. Under the terms of the AdvisoryAgreement. COMANCO serves asinvestment adviser to each Fund andprovides investment sub-adviserselection, monitoring and assetallocation services to the Funds andmay hire one or more sub-advisers(‘‘Sub-Adviser’’) to exercise day-to-dayinvestment discretion over all or aportion of the assets of a Fund pursuantto separate investment sub-advisoryagreements. In its capacity as

investment adviser, COMANCO isrequired (a) to perform due diligence onprospective Sub-Advisers; (b) tocommunicate performance targets andevaluations to Sub-Advisers; (c) tosupervise compliance with each Fund’sinvestment objectives and policies; and(d) to recommend to the Board whethersub-advisory agreements should berenewed, modified or terminated. EachSub-Adviser is or will be eitherregistered or exempt from registrationunder the Advisers Act. Sub-Advisersare recommended to the Board byCOMANCO and selected and approvedby the Board, including a majority of theIndependent Directors. Each Sub-adviser’s free is paid by COMANCO outof the management fee received byCOMANCO from the respective Fund.

3. COMANCO will recommend and, ifthe Board, including a majority of theIndependent Directors, approves therecommendations monitor for the Fundone or more Sub-Advisers that follow arange of investment styles. The Boardwill rely upon COMANCO to monitorthe Sub-Advisers’ performance and theircompliance with a Fund’s investmentobjectives and policies, and torecommend the hiring and ortermination of Sub-Advisers. In using amanager of managers approach,COMANCO believes that the likelihoodof outperformance is increased throughthe use of multiple Sub-Advisers inappropriate cases becauseunderperformance by a single Sub-Adviser would not necessarily result inoverall underperformance. The Fundscurrently use 24 Sub-Advisers.

4. Applicants request relief to permitCOMANCO, subject to the Board’sapproval, to enter into and materiallyamend sub-advisory agreements withoutshareholder approval. The requestedrelief will not extend to a Sub-Adviserthat is an affiliated person, as defined insection 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Fund orCOMANCO, other than by reason ofserving as a Sub-Adviser to one or moreof the Funds (an ‘‘Affiliated Manager’’).

5. Applicants also request anexemption from the various disclosureprovisions described below that mayrequire the Funds to disclose the feespaid by COMANCO to the Sub Advisers.An exemption is requested to permit aFund to disclose (as both a dollaramount and as a percentage of a Fund’snet assets): (a) aggregate fees paid toCOMANCO and any AffiliatedManagers; and (b) aggregate fees paid toSub-Advisers other than AffiliatedManagers (‘‘Aggregate Fees’’). If a Fundemploys an Affiliated Manager, theFund will provide separate disclosure ofany fees paid to the Affiliated Manager.

Applicant’s Legal Analysis

1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides,in relevant part, that it is unlawful forany person to act as an investmentadviser to a registered investmentcompany except pursuant to a writtencontract that has been approved by thevote of the majority of the company’soutstanding voting securities. Rule 18f–2 under the Act provides that eachseries or class of stock in a seriescompany affected by a matter mustapprove such matter if the Act requiresshareholder approval.

2. Form N–1A is the registrationstatement used by open-end investmentcompanies. Item 15(a)(3) of Form N–1Arequires disclosure of the method andamount of the investment adviser’scompensation.

3. Rule 20a–1 under the Act requiresproxies solicited with respect to aninvestment company to comply withSchedule 14A under the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘ExchangeAct’’). Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(8), and22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, takentogether, require a proxy statement for ashareholder meeting at which theadvisory contract will be voted upon toinclude the ‘‘rate of compensation of theinvestment adviser,’’ the ‘‘aggregateamount of the investment adviser’sfees,’’ a description of ‘‘terms of thecontract to be acted upon,’’ and, if achange in the advisory fee is proposed,the existing and proposed fees and thedifference between the two fees.

4. From N–SAR is the semi-annualreport filed with the Commission byregistered investment companies. Item48 of Form N–SAR requires investmentcompanies to disclose the rate schedulefor fees paid to their investmentadvisers, including the Sub-Advisers.

5. Regulation S–X sets forth therequirements for financial statementsrequired to be included as part ofinvestment company registrationstatements and shareholder reports filedwith the Commission. Sections 6–07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S–Xrequire that investment companiesinclude in their financial statementsinformation about investment advisoryfees.

6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides thatthe Commission may exempt anyperson, security, or transaction or anyclass or classes of persons, securities, ortransactions form any provision of theAct, or from any rule thereunder, if suchexemption is necessary or appropriatein the public interest and consistentwith the protection of investors and thepurposes fairly intended by the policyand provisions of the Act. Applicantsbelieve that the requested relief meets



this standard for the reasons discussedbelow.

7. Applicants assert that by investingin a Fund, shareholders, in effect, willhire COMANCO to manage the Fund’sassets by selecting and monitoring Sub-Advisers rather than by hiring its ownemployees to manage assets directly.Applicants state that investors willpurchase Fund shares to gain access toCOMANCO’s expertise in overseeingSub-Advisers. Applicants further assertthat the requested relief will reduceFund expenses and permit the Funds tooperate more efficiently. Applicantsnote that the Advisory Agreement willremain subject to the shareholderapproval requirements of section 15(a)of the Act and rule 18f–2 under the Act.

8. Applicants assert that many Sub-Advisers charge their customers foradvisory services according to a‘‘posted’’ rate schedule. Applicants statethat while Sub-Advisers are willing tonegotiate fees lower than those postedin the schedule, particularly with largeinstitutional clients, they are reluctantto do so where the fees are disclosed toother prospective and existingcustomers. Applicants submit that therelief will encourage Sub-Advisers tonegotiate lower advisory fees withCOMANCO, the benefits of which arelikely to be passed on to shareholders.

Applicants’ ConditionsApplicants agree that any order

granting the requested relief will besubject to the following conditions:

1. Before a Fund may rely on therequested order, the operation of theFund in the manner described in theapplication will be approved by amajority of the Fund’s outstandingvoting securities, as defined in the Act,or, in the case of a Fund whose publicshareholders purchase shares on thebasis of a prospectus containing thedisclosure contemplated by condition 2below, by the sole shareholder prior tooffering shares of the Fund to thepublic.

2. Each Fund will disclose in itsprospectus the existence, substance andeffect of any order granted pursuant tothis application. In addition, each Fundwill hold itself out to the public asemploying the ‘‘manager of managers’’approach described in this application.The prospectus will prominentlydisclose that COMANCO has ultimateresponsibility (subject to oversight bythe Board) for the investmentperformance of a Fund due to itsresponsibility to oversee Sub-Advisersand recommend their hiring,termination, and replacement.

3. Within 90 days of the hiring of anynew Sub-Adviser, COMANCO will

furnish shareholders of the affectedFund with all of the information aboutthe new Sub-Adviser that would becontained in a proxy statement, exceptas modified by the order to permit thedisclosure of Aggregate Fees. Thisinformation will include the disclosureof Aggregate Fees and any change insuch disclosure caused by the additionof a new Sub-Adviser. COMANCO willmeet this condition by providingshareholders with an informationstatement meeting the requirements ofRegulation 14C and Schedule 14C andItem 22 of Schedule 14A under theExchange Act, except as modified by theorder to permit the disclosure ofAggregate Fees.

4. COMANCO will not enter into asub-advisory agreement with anyAffiliated Manager without suchagreement, including the compensationto be paid thereunder, being approvedby the shareholders of the Fund.

5. At all times, a majority of the Boardwill be Independent Directors and thenomination of new or additionalIndependent Directors will be placedwithin the discretion of the then-existing Independent Directors.

6. When a change of Sub-Adviser isproposed for a Fund with an AffiliatedManager, the Board, including amajority of the Independent Directors,will make a separate funding, reflectedin the Board minutes, that the change isin the best interests of the Fund and itsshareholders and does not involve aconflict of interest from whichCOMANCO or the Affiliated Managerderives an inappropriate advantage.

7. COMANCO will provide generalmanagement services to each Fund, and,subject to review and approval by theBoard, will: (a) Set the Fund’s overallinvestment strategies; (b) evaluate,select and recommend Sub-Advisers tomanage all or a part of the Fund’s assets;(c) when appropriate, allocate andreallocate the Fund’s assets amongmultiple Sub-Advisers; (d) monitor andevaluate the Sub-Adviser’s performance;and (e) implement proceduresreasonably designed to ensure that theSub-Advisers comply with the Fund’sinvestment objective, policies, andrestrictions of the Fund.

8. No director or officer of theCompany, or director or officer ofCOMANCO will own directly orindirectly (other than through a pooledinvestment vehicle over which suchperson does not have control) anyinterest in a Sub-Adviser except for (a)ownership of interests in COMANCO oran entity that controls, is controlled byor is under common control withCOMANCO; or (b) ownership of lessthan 1% of the outstanding securities of

any class of equity or debt of a publicly-traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an entity that controls, iscontrolled by, or is under commoncontrol with a Sub-Adviser.

Each Fund will disclose in itsregistration statement the AggregateFees.

10. Independent legal counsel, asdefined in rule 0–1(a)(6) under the Act,will be engaged to represent theIndependent Directors. The selection ofsuch counsel will be within thediscretion of the then-existingIndependent Directors.

11. COMANCO will provide theBoard, no less frequently than quarterly,with information about COMANCO’sprofitability on a per-Fund basis. Theinformation will reflect the impact onprofitability of the hiring or terminationof any Sub-Adviser during theapplicable quarter.

12. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hiredor terminated, COMANCO will providethe Board information showing theexpected impact on COMANCO’sprofitability.

For the Commission, by the Division ofInvestment Management, under delegatedauthority.Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21738 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Rel. No. IC–25135; 812–12416]

Master Investment Portfolio, et al.;Notice of Application

August 23, 2001.AGENCY: Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’).ACTION: Notice of application for anorder under section 12(d)(1)(J) of theInvestment Company Act of 1940(‘‘Act’’) exempting applicants fromsections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act,sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Actexempting applicants from section 17(a)of the Act, and section 17(d) of the Actand rule 17d–1 under the Act permittingcertain joint transactions.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicantsrequest an order to permit certainregistered open-end managementinvestment companies to investuninvested cash and cash collateral inone or more affiliated money marketfunds.APPLICANTS: Master Investment Portfolio(‘‘MIP Portfolios’’), Barclays GlobalInvestors Funds, Inc. (‘‘BGI Funds’’),



1 All investment companies that currently intendto rely on the requested relief have been named asapplicants, and any existing or future registeredmanagement investment company that relies on therequested relief in the future will do so only inaccordance with the terms and conditions of theapplication.

iShares Trust, iShares, Inc. and BarclaysGlobal Fund Advisors (‘‘BGFA’’).FILING DATES: The application was filedon January 22, 2001. Applicants haveagreed to file an amendment during thenotice period, the substance of which isreflected in this notice.HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: Anorder granting the applications will beissued unless the Commission orders ahearing. Interested persons may requesta hearing by writing to theCommission’s Secretary and servingapplicants with a copy of the request,personally or by mail. Hearing requestsshould be received by the Commissionby 5:30 p.m. on September 17, 2001,and should be accompanied by proof ofservice on applicants, in the form of anaffidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate ofservice. Hearing requests should statethe nature of the writer’s interest, thereason for the request, and the issuescontested. Persons may requestnotification of a hearing by writing tothe Commission’s Secretary.ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 450Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC20549–0609. Applicants, c/o Marco E.Adelfio, Esq., Jonathan F. Cayne, Esq.,Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 2000Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20006.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JohnL. Sullivan, Senior Counsel, at (202)942–0681, or Mary Kay Frech, BranchChief, at (202) 942–0564 (Division ofInvestment Management, Office ofInvestment Company Regulation).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefollowing is a summary of theapplication. The complete applicationmay be obtained for a fee at theCommission’s Public Reference Branch,450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC20549–0102 (tel. 202–942–8090).

Applicants’ Representatives1. Each of MIP Portfolios and iShares

Trust is organized as a Delawarebusiness trust and is registered underthe Act as an open-end managementinvestment company. MIP Portfolioscurrently has 13 series, and iSharesTrust has 46 series. Each of BGI Fundsand iShares, Inc. is organized as aMaryland corporation and is registeredunder the Act as an open-endmanagement investment company. BGIFunds currently has 10 series, andiShares, Inc. has 21 series.1

2. BFFA is registered as an investmentadviser under the Investment AdvisersAct of 1940. BGFA serves as theinvestment adviser to MIP Portfolios,iShares Trust and iShares, Inc.Currently, each series of BGI Funds is a‘‘feeder fund’’ that seeks to achieve itsinvestment objective by investing all ofits net investable assets, in reliance onsection 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act, in itscorresponding MIP Portfolio, which is a‘‘master fund.’’ Applicants also requestrelief for all other registeredmanagement investment companies andany series thereof now or hereafterexisting that are advised by BGFA orany other person controlling, controlledby or under common control with BGFA(collectively, with MIP Portfolios, BGIFunds, iShares Trust and iShares, Inc.and each of their series now andhereafter existing, the ‘‘Funds’’).

3. Each Fund has, or may be expectedto have, cash that has not been investedin portfolio securities (‘‘UninvestedCash’’). Uninvested Cash may resultfrom a variety of sources, includingdividends or interest received fromportfolio securities, unsettled securitiestransactions, reserves held forinvestment strategy purposes, scheduledmaturity of investments, liquidation ofinvestment securities to meetanticipated redemptions or dividendpayments, and new monies receivedfrom investors. Certain of the Funds alsomay participate in a securities lendingprogram under which a Fund may lendits portfolio securities to registeredbroker-dealers or other institutionalinvestors (‘‘Securities LendingProgram’’). The loans are continuouslysecured by collateral equal at all timesto at least the market value of thesecurities loaned. Collateral for theseloans may include cash (‘‘CashCollateral,’’ and together withUninvested Cash, ‘‘Cash Balances’’).Currently, BGFA may invest CashBalances directly in money marketinstruments or other short-term debtobligations.

4. Applicants request an order topermit (a) each of the Funds to investtheir Cash Balances in one or more ofthe Funds that are money market fundsand comply with rule 2a–7 under theAct (‘‘Money Market Funds’’) (a Fundthat purchases shares of a MoneyMarket Fund is referred to as an‘‘Investing Portfolio’’); (b) the MoneyMarket Funds to sell their shares to, andredeem their shares from, the InvestingPortfolios; and (c) BGFA to effect suchpurchases and sales. Applicants submitthat investing Cash Balances in shares ofthe Money Market Funds is in the bestinterest of the Investing Portfolios andtheir shareholders because such

investment may reduce the risk ofcounterparty default on repurchaseagreements and the market riskassociated with direct purchases ofshort-term obligations, while providinghigh current money market rates ofreturn, ready liquidity, and increaseddiversity of holdings.

Applicants’ Legal Analysis1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act

provides, in pertinent part, that noregistered investment company mayacquire securities of another investmentcompany if such securities representmore than 3% of the acquiredcompany’s outstanding voting stock,more than 5% of the acquiringcompany’s total assets, or if suchsecurities, together with the securities ofother acquired investment companies,represent more than 10% of theacquiring company’s total assets.Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act, inpertinent part, provides that noregistered open-end investmentcompany may sell its securities toanother investment company if the salewill cause the acquiring company toown more than 3% of the acquiredcompany’s voting stock, or if the salewill cause more than 10% of theacquired company’s voting stock to beowned investment companies.

2. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Actprovides that the Commission mayexempt any person, security ortransaction from any provision ofsection 12(d)(1) if, and to the extentthat, such exemption is consistent withthe public interest and the protection ofinvestors. Applicants request reliefunder section 12(d)(1)(J) from thelimitations of sections 12(d)(1)(A) and(B) to permit each Investing Portfolio toinvest Cash Balances in the MoneyMarket Funds, so long as the InvestingPortfolio’s aggregate investment ofUninvested Cash in shares of the MoneyMarket Funds does not exceed 25% ofthe Investing Portfolio’s total assets atany time.

3. Applicants state that the proposedarrangements would not result in theabuses that sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B)were intended to prevent. Applicantsstate that each Money Market Fund willmaintain a highly liquid portfolio andwill not be susceptible to undue control.Applicants represent that the proposedarrangement will not result in aninappropriate layering of fees becauseshares of the Money Market Fundspurchased by the Investing Portfolioswill not be subject to a sales load,redemption fee, distribution fee under aplan adopted in accordance with rule12b–1 under the Act, or service fee (asdefined in rule 2830(b)(9) of the



Conduct Rules of the NationalAssociation of Securities Dealers, Inc.(‘‘NASD’’)), or if such shares are subjectto any distribution or service fee, BGFAwill waive its advisory fee for eachInvesting Portfolio in an amount thatoffsets the amount of such distributionand/or service fee incurred by theInvesting Portfolio. Applicants representthat no Money Market Fund will acquiresecurities of any other investmentcompany in excess of the limitationscontained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of theAct, except to the extent the MoneyMarket Fund is a feeder Fund investingin a master Fund that is in the samegroup of investment companies as thefeeder Fund in reliance on section12(d)(1)(E) of the Act (‘‘UnderlyingFeeder Fund’’). Applicants alsorepresent that if a Money Market Fundoffers more than one class of shares, andInvesting Portfolio will invest its CashBalances only in the class with thelowest expense ratio (taking intoaccount the expected impact of theInvesting Portfolio’s investment) at thetime of investment.

4. Section 17(a) of the Act makes itunlawful for any affiliated person of aregistered investment company, or anaffiliated person of such person, actingas principal, to sell or purchase anysecurity to or from the company.Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an‘‘affiliated person’’ of another person toinclude, among others: (a) Any persondirectly or indirectly owning,controlling, or holding with power tovote 5% or more of the outstandingvoting securities of the other person; (b)any person 5% or more of whosesecurities are directly or indirectlyowned, controlled, or held with powerto vote by the other person; and (c) anyperson directly or indirectly controlling,controlled by, or under common controlwith the other person. Applicants statethat, because the Investing Portfoliosand the Money Market Funds share acommon investment adviser and acommon board of directors/trustees,each Investing Portfolio may be deemedto be under common control with eachof the Money Market Funds.Furthermore, an Investing Portfolio mayown more than 5% of the outstandingvoting securities of a Money MarketFund, thus making the InvestingPortfolio an affiliated person of theMoney Market Fund. As a result of theseaffiliations, section 17(a) would prohibitthe sale of the shares of the MoneyMarket Funds to the InvestingPortfolios, and the redemption of theshares by the Money Market Funds.

5. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizesthe Commission to exempt a transactionfrom section 17(a) if the terms of the

proposed transaction, including theconsideration to be paid or received, arereasonable and fair and do not involveoverreaching on the part of any personconcerned, and the proposedtransaction is consistent with thegeneral purposes of the Act. Section 6(c)of the Act permits the Commission toexempt any persons or transactions fromany provision of the Act, if theexemption is necessary or appropriatein the public interest and consistentwith the protection of investors and thepurposes fairly intended by the policyand provisions of the Act.

6. Applicants submits that theirrequest for relief to permit the purchaseand redemption of shares of the MoneyMarket Funds by the InvestingPortfolios satisfies the standards insections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act.Applicants note that shares of theMoney Market Funds will be purchasedand redeemed at their net asset value,the same consideration paid andreceived for these shares by any othershareholders. Applicants state that theInvesting Portfolios will retain theirability to invest their Cash Balancesdirectly in money market instruments asauthorized by their respectiveinvestment objectives and policies ifthey believe they can obtain a higherrate of return, or for any other reason.Applicants also state that each MoneyMarket Fund has the right todiscontinue selling shares to any of theInvesting Portfolios if the Money MarketFund’s board of directors/trustees(‘‘Board’’) determines that such salewould adversely affect its portfoliomanagement and operations.

7. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule17d–1 under the Act prohibit anaffiliated person of a registeredinvestment company, acting asprincipal, from participating in oreffecting any transaction in connectionwith any joint enterprise or other jointarrangement or profit sharing plan inwhich the investment companyparticipates, without and order of theCommission. Applicants state that eachInvesting Portfolio, by purchasing andredeeming shares of the Money MarketFunds, BGFA, by managing the assets ofthe Investing Portfolios investing in theMoney Market Funds, and the MoneyMarket Funds, by selling shares to, andredeeming them from, the InvestingPortfolios, could be deemed to beparticipants in a joint enterprise orarrangement within the meaning ofsection 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 under the Act.

8. Rule 17d–1 permits theCommission to approve a proposed jointtransaction covered by the terms ofsection 17(d) of the Act. In determining

whether to approve a transaction, theCommission is to consider whether theproposed transaction is consistent withthe provisions, policies, and purposes ofthe Act, and the extent to which theparticipation is on a basis different fromor less advantageous than that of otherparticipants. Applicants submit that theInvesting Portfolios will be treated likeany other investor in the Money MarketFunds. The Investing Portfolios willpurchase and sell shares on the sameterms and on the same basis as sharesare purchased and sold by all othershareholders of the Money MarketFunds.

Applicants’ ConditionsApplicants agree that the order

granting the requested relief will besubject to the following conditions:

1. The shares of the Money MarketFunds sold to and redeemed from theInvesting Portfolios will not be subjectto a sales load, redemption fee,distribution fee under a 12b–1 plan, orservice fee (as defined in rule 2830(b)(9)of the Conduct Rules of the NASD), orif such shares are subject to any suchdistribution fee or service fee, BGFAwill waive its advisory fee for eachInvesting Portfolio in an amount thatoffsets the amount of such distributionand/or service fees incurred by theInvesting Portfolio.

2. If BGFA or a person controlling,controlled by or under common controlwith BGFA receives a fee from anyMoney Market Fund for acting as itsinvestment adviser with respect toassets invested by an Investing Portfolio,then before the next meeting of theBoard of an Investing Portfolio is heldfor the purpose of voting on theInvesting Portfolio’s advisory contractpursuant to section 15 of the Act, BGFAwill provide the Board with specificinformation regarding the approximatecost to BGFA for, or portion of theadvisory fee under the existing advisorycontract attributable to, managing theUninvested Cash of the InvestingPortfolio that can be expected to beinvested in the Money Market Funds.Before approving any advisory contractfor an Investing Portfolio pursuant tosection 15, the Board, including amajority of the directors/trustees whoare not ‘‘interested persons’’ within themeaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act(‘‘Independent Directors/Trustees’’),shall consider to what extent, if any, theadvisory fees charged to the InvestingPortfolio by BGFA should be reduced toaccount for reduced services providedto the Investing Portfolio by BGFA as aresult of Uninvested Cash beinginvested in the Money Market Funds.The minute books of the Investing



1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43228(August 30, 2000), 65 FR 54330 (September 7, 2000)(SR–Amex–2000–38). Trades between ROTs andtrades between specialists and ROTs were excludedfrom the marketing fee.

4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44598(July 26, 2001), 66 FR 41071 (August 6, 2001) (SR–Amex–2001–38).

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

Portfolio will fully record the Board’sconsideration in approving the advisorycontract, including the considerationsrelating to fees referred to above.

3. Each of the Investing Portfolios willinvest Uninvested Cash in, and holdshares of, the Money Market Funds onlyto the extent that the InvestingPortfolio’s aggregate investment ofUninvested Cash in the Money MarketFunds does not exceed 25% of theInvesting Portfolio’s total assets. Forpurposes of this limitation, eachInvesting Portfolio or series thereof willbe treated as a separate investmentcompany.

4. Investment by an InvestingPortfolio of Cash Balances in shares ofthe Money Market Funds will be inaccordance with each InvestingPortfolio’s respective investmentrestrictions and will be consistent witheach Investing Portfolio’s policies as setforth in its prospectus and statement ofadditional information.

5. Each Investing Portfolio, eachMoney Market Fund, and any futureFund that may rely on the order shallbe advised by BGFA, or a personcontrolling, controlled by, or undercommon control with BGFA.

6. No Money Market Fund in whichan Investing Portfolio invests shallacquire securities of any otherinvestment company in excess of thepercentage limits contained in section12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to theextent a Money Market Fund is anUnderlying Feeder Fund.

7. Before an Investing Portfolio mayparticipate in the Securities LendingProgram, a majority of the Board(including a majority of the IndependentDirectors/Trustees) of the InvestingPortfolio will approve of the InvestingPortfolio’s participation in theSecurities Lending Program. Suchdirectors/trustees also will evaluate thesecurities lending arrangement and itsresults no less frequently than annuallyand determine that any investment ofCash Collateral in the Money MarketFunds is in the best interests of theshareholders of the Investing Portfolio.

For the Commission, by the Division ofInvestment Management, under delegatedauthority.

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21789 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]



[Release No. 34–44738; File No. SR–Amex–2001–60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Filing and Immediate Effectivenessof Proposed Rule Change by theAmerican Stock Exchange LLCSuspending the Collection of aMarketing Fee From Specialists andRegistered Options Traders

August 22, 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 August 7,2001, the American Stock Exchange LLC(‘‘Amex’’) filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’)the proposed rule change as describedin Items I, II, and III, below, which Itemsthe Amex has prepared. 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 Amex proposes to suspendcollection of the marketing fee that itcurrently imposes on equity optionstransactions of specialists and registeredoptions traders (‘‘ROTs’’). The text ofthe proposed rule change is available atthe principal offices of the Amex and atthe Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

In its filing with the Commission, theAmex included statements concerningthe purpose of and basis for theproposed rule change and discussed anycomments it had received. The text ofthese statements may be examined atthe places specified in Item IV below.The Amex 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 Amex proposes to suspendcollection of the marketing fee that itcurrently imposes on equity optionstransactions of specialists and ROTs.

In July 2000, the Amex imposed amarketing fee of $0.40 per contract onthe transactions of specialists and ROTsin equity options.3 The Amex collectsthe fee and allocates the funds to theAmex’s specialists, who may then usethe funds to pay broker-dealers fororders that they direct to the Amex. Thespecialists, in their discretion,determine the specific terms governingthe orders that qualify for payment andthe amount of any payments. The Amexalso instituted a rebate programwhereby funds collected and unspentare returned to the specialists andROTs.4

The Amex now proposes to suspendcollection of the marketing fee for anindeterminate period of time. The Amexwould also reserve the right to reinstatethe program if it determines to do so.The Amex notes that the funds collectedbefore the suspension of the programwould continue to be allocated to thespecialists and disbursed pursuant tothe specialists’ instructions. In addition,the rebate program mentioned abovewould remain in effect until all unspentmoney is returned to the specialists andROTs.

2. Statutory Basis

The Amex believes that the proposedrule change is consistent with Section6(b) of the Act 5 and furthers theobjectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 6

in that it is designed to provide for theequitable allocation of reasonable dues,fees, and other charges among itsmembers and issuers and other personsusing its facilitates.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Burden on Competition

The Amex does not believe that theproposed rule change will impose anyinappropriate burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Comments on theProposed Rule Change Received FromMembers, Participants or Others

The Amex neither solicited norreceived any written comments withrespect to the proposal.



7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).8 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).9 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. 44408

(June 11, 2001), 66 FR 32853.4 In approving this proposed rule change, the

Commission notes that it has considered theproposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition,and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

5 15 U.S.C. 78f.6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1); (b)(6).

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).8 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. 43922

(February 2, 2001), 66 FR 9735.

III. Date of Effectiveness of theProposed Rule Change and Timing forCommission Action

The Amex has designated theforegoing proposed rule change as a feechange pursuant to Section19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,8 and therefore theproposal has become effective uponfiling with the Commission. At any timewithin 60 days after the filing of theproposed rule change, the Commissionmay summarily abrogate the rule changeif it appears to the Commission thatsuch action is necessary or appropriatein the public interest, for the protectionof investors, or otherwise in furtheranceof the purposes of the Act.

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, D.C. 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 Amex. Allsubmissions should refer to File No.SR–Amex–2001–60 and should besubmitted by September 19, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.9




[Release No. 34–44741; File No. SR–CBOE–2001–14]

Self Regulatory Organizations;Chicago Board Options Exchange,Inc.; Order Granting Approval toProposed Rule Change AmendingRules Regarding Jurisdiction OverFormer Members and AssociatedPersons for Failure To Honor anExchange Arbitration Award

August 23, 2001.On March 27, 2001, the Chicago

Board Options Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’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 change tomake amendments to its disciplinaryand arbitration rules to extend theCBOE’s disciplinary jurisdiction tocover former members and associatedpersons subject to CBOE arbitrationawards. In particular, the proposed rulechange provides that the failure tohonor a CBOE arbitration award by aformer CBOE member or associatedperson would subject former member orassociated person to the disciplinaryjurisdiction of the Exchange regardlessof the date of termination ofmembership.

The proposed rule change waspublished for comment in the FederalRegister on June 18, 2001.3 TheCommission received no comments onthe proposal.

The Commission finds that theproposed rule change is consistent withthe requirements of the Act and therules and regulations thereunderapplicable to a national securitiesexchange 4 and, in particular, therequirements of Section 6 of the Act 5

and the rules and regulationsthereunder. The Commission findsspecifically that the proposed rulechange is consistent with Sections6(b)(1) and Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,6respectively, in that the proposed rulechange satisfies the requirement that: (1)An exchange is so organized and has thecapacity to be able to carry out thepurposes of Section 6 of the Act and to

enforce compliance by its members andpersons associated with its memberswith the provisions of Section 6 of theAct, the rules and regulationsthereunder, and the rules of theexchange; and (2) the rules of anexchange provide that its members andpersons associated with its membersshall be appropriately disciplined forviolation of the Act, the rules andregulations thereunder, or the rules ofthe exchange.

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant toSection 19(b)(2) of the Act,7 that theproposed rule change (File No. SR–CBOE–2001–04) be, and it hereby is,approved.


[FR Doc. 01–21793 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Release No. 34–44739; File No. SR–ISE–00–22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;International Securities Exchange LLC;Order Approving Proposed RuleChange and Notice of Filing and OrderGranting Accelerated Approval ofAmendments Nos. 1 and 2 to theProposed Rule Change Relating toMarket Maker Financial Requirements

August 22, 2001.

1. Introduction

On November 28, 2000, theInternational Securities Exchange LLC(‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘ISE’’) filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4thereunder,2 a proposed rule change toamend and further define thecalculations necessary to determine theminimum financial requirements for theExchange’s market makers, and specifycertain reporting requirements when amarket maker fails to maintain theminimum financial requirements. Theproposed rule change was published forcomment in the Federal Register onFebruary 9, 2001.3 No comments werereceived on the proposed rule change.On March 13, 2001, ISE filed



4 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarifiedthat it would be reviewing the adequacy of anybusiness plans submitted under the proposed rulechange, as well as clarified why it is unnecessaryfor ISE to appoint interim competitive marketmakers (‘‘CMMs’’). See letter from Michael Simon,Senior Vice President and General Counsel, ISE, toKathy England, Assistant Director, Division ofMarket Regulation (‘‘Division’’), Commission, datedMarch 12, 2001 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).

5 In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange deletedsupplemental materials .02 and .03 to ISE Rule 809,which required, in part, that a member (1) notify theExchange when it equity falls below the minimumrequirement, and (2) submit a business plan forraising its equity to comply with ISE Rule 809, aswell as allowed the Exchange to appoint an interimPrimary Market Maker (‘‘PMM’’). In lieu of thesupplemental materials, the Exchange submitted adraft Regulatory Information Circular specifying theforegoing requirements in greater detail. ISE hasrepresented that it will submit any changes to theRegulatory Information Circular to the Commissionpursuant to Rule 19b–4, 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Seeletter from Michael Simon, Senior Vice Presidentand General Counsel, ISE, to Nancy Sanow,Assistant Director, Division, Commission, datedAugust 7, 2001 (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’). TheExchange also clarified that if the Exchangeappoints an interim PMM, ISE will appoint theinterim PMM in accordance with ISE Rule 802. Aninterim PMM will have the same responsibilitiesand obligations as a regular PMM. Telephoneconversation between Jennifer M. Lamie, AssistantGeneral Counsel, ISE, and Terri L. Evans, SpecialCounsel, Division, Commission, on August 15,2001.

6 Pursuant to Exchange Rule 317(a), a membercannot be approved to trade in more than two binsas a PMM.

7 See CBOE Rule 8.86, which states that ‘‘[e]achDPM shall maintain (i) net liquidating equity in itsDPM account of not less than $100,000, and inconformity with such guidelines as the MTSCommittee may establish from time to time.* * *’’

8 ISE has represented that it also will separatelymonitor a market maker’s net liquidating equity andnotify a market maker if its net liquidating equityfalls below the minimum level required by ISE Rule809. Telephone conversation between Jennifer M.Lamie, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, and Terri L.Evans, Special Counsel, Division, Commission, onAugust 15, 2001.

9 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.10 Telephone conversation between Jennifer M.

Lamie, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, and Terri L.Evans, Special Counsel, Division, Commission, onAugust 15, 2001.

11 See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5.

12 In approving this rule, the Commission hasconsidered its impact on efficiency, competition,and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).14 See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5, and

telephone conversation between Jennifer M. Lamieand Terri L. Evans, supra note 8.

15 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.16 Telephone conversation between Jennifer M.

Lamie, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, and Terri L.Evans, Special Counsel, Division Commission, onAugust 15, 2001.

Amendment No. 1 4 and on August 8,2001, ISE filed Amendment No. 2 to itsproposal.5 This notice and orderapproves the proposed rule change, asamended, and solicits comments frominterested persons on Amendments Nos.1 and 2.

II. DescriptionExchange Rule 809 sets forth the

minimum financial requirements formarket makers. Currently, ExchangeRule 809 provides that every PMMmaintain a cash or liquid asset positionequal to the greater of $5 million or anamount sufficient to assume a positionof twenty options contracts of each classin which the PMM is appointed.Exchange Rule 809 similarly providesthat every CMM maintain a cash orliquid asset position equal to the greaterof $1 million or an amount sufficient toassume a position of ten optionscontracts in each class of options towhich the CMM is appointed.

The Exchange proposes to eliminatethe option position component incalculating the minimum equity. Withrespect to CMMs, the proposed rulechange would require CMMs tomaintain net liquidating equity of notless than $1 million. With respect toPMMs, the proposed amendment wouldrequire PMMs to maintain netliquidating equity of not less than $3.25million plus $25,000 excess equity foreach issue over 10. According to theExchange, when the Exchange phases-in

trading in 600 options withapproximately 60 options trading ineach of its 10 groups or ‘‘bins,’’ thisrequirement would equal $4.5 millionfor PMMs trading in one bin, and $6.0million for a PMM trading in two bins. 6

Under the proposed rule change, theExchange would also replace the phrase‘‘cash or liquid asset position’’ with ‘‘netliquidating equity,’’ and define the laterterm to conform to the Chicago BoardOptions Exchange’s (‘‘CBOE’’) rule. 7

The proposed definition of netliquidating equity, which is the sum ofpositive cash balances and longsecurities positions less negative cashbalances and short securities positions,is the same as the CBOE definition ofthe term in CBOE Rule 12.3(f)(1)(F).

The Exchange further proposes toadopt notification requirements. Amarket maker that falls below the equityrequirement must immediately notifythe Exchange of the deficiency andsubmit a plan for raising its equity to theappropriate level if the deficiencycannot be rectified immediately.According to the Exchange, this willallow the Exchange to monitor carefullyany firm that might be experiencingfinancial difficulties and to take actionsto minimize any potential risk to theExchange or investors.8 ISE will reviewthe adequacy of all business planssubmitted by a deficient market maker,9as well as review a market maker’scontinued compliance with theprovisions of the plan.10 Finally, in thecase of a PMM with a deficient netliquidating equity, the Exchange maydetermine to appoint an interim PMM toassure fair and orderly markets.11

III. Discussion

For the reasons discussed below, theCommission finds that the proposedrule change is consistent with the Actand the rules and regulations

thereunder.12 Specifically, theCommission finds that the proposedrule change is consistent with therequirements of section 6(b)(5) of theAct 13 that the rules of an exchange bedesigned to promote just and equitableprinciples of trade, to removeimpediments to and perfect themechanism of a free and open market,and to protect investors and the publicinterest.

ISE proposes to amend its rule torevise the minimum financialrequirements for market makers. Underthe proposal, the minimum netliquidating equity for PMMs will be$3.25 million plus $25,000 excessequity for each underlying securityupon which appointed options are openfor trading in excess of the initial tenunderlying securities. The minimum netliquidating equity for CMMs will be $1million.

The Commission believes that theproposed net liquidating equityrequirements are designed to assure thatISE market makers are capable ofmaking liquid and competitive markets.Although the proposal may reduce theminimum financial requirements forPMMs and CMMs, the Commissionbelieves, based on the representations ofISE, that there are sufficient safeguards(in addition to the proposed minimumfinancial requirements) to assure thatISE’s PMMs and CMMs are adequatelycapitalized. In this regard, the ISE hasrepresented that it will separatelymonitor market makers to determinewhether a market maker has fallenbelow the minimum net liquidatingequity required by ISE Rule 809 andwill notify the market maker if themarket maker has failed to notify theExchange of its deficiency.14 If thedeficiency cannot be rectifiedimmediately, the market maker mustsubmit within five business days, abusiness plan for raising its equity to theappropriate level. ISE will review allbusiness plans submitted by a deficientmarket maker,15 as well as review amarket maker’s continued compliancewith the provisions of the plan.16 If theExchange determines that summarysuspension is necessary under ISE Rule1500, given the facts and circumstances,it will appoint an interim PMM to



17 See supra note 5.18 See Amex Rule 950(h).19 See CBOE Rule 8.86 and CBOE DPM Equity

Guidelines 00–111.20 See PCX Rule 6.82 Commentary .03.21 See PCX Rule 6.82(c)(11).22 See Phlx Rule 703.23 See Phlx Rule 1079(c)(2) and Phlx Rule

1069(d), respectively.

24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78s(b)(2).25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).26 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 The Commission has modified the text of the

summaries prepared by NSCC.

assure that fair and orderly markets arecontinued in the PMM’s assignedoptions.17

The Commission also believes that theproposed financial requirements arecomparable to the financialrequirements at other optionsexchanges. For example, generally, onthe American Stock Exchange(‘‘Amex’’), the financial requirement foroptions specialists is equal to aminimum of $600,000, plus $25,000 foreach option issue in excess of the initialten issues in which such specialist isregistered,18 while on CBOE, adesignated primary market maker(‘‘DPM’’) must maintain, in part, netliquidating equity in its DPM account ofnot less than $100,000, as well asconform to guidelines established by theMTS Committee, which require$350,000 plus $25,000 in excess equityfor each class or product allocated inexcess of the initial eight products.19 Onthe Pacific Exchange (‘‘PCX’’), leadmarket makers that perform the functionof an Order Book Official (‘‘OBO’’) mustmaintain, in part, a cash or liquid assetposition of at least $500,000 plus$25,000 for each issue over five issuesfor which they perform the function ofan OBO,20 while LMMs that do notperform the function of an OBO mustmaintain a cash or liquid asset positionof at least $350,000 plus $25,000 foreach issue over eight issues that hasbeen allocated to the LMM.21 Finally, onthe Philadelphia Stock Exchange(‘‘Phlx’’) members that are exempt fromRule 15c3–1 must generally maintainnet liquid assets of $25,000.22 Phlx alsohas specific provisions applicable toFLEX and foreign currency optionsROTs. For example, a specialist in FLEXindex options must maintain aminimum of $1 million in net capitaland an assigned ROT in foreigncurrency options must maintain aminimum $1 million in net liquidassets.23 Accordingly, the Commissionbelieves that the proposal will help ISEmarket makers compete effectively withspecialists at other exchanges. Increasedcompetition, in turn, should benefitinvestors by producing a more efficientmarketplace.

The Commission finds good cause foraccelerating approval of AmendmentsNos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rulechange prior to the thirtieth day after

the date of publication in the FederalRegister. The Commission finds thatAmendments Nos. 1 and 2 clarify ISE’sproposal by providing additionalinformation and representationsregarding the operation of the proposedrule and guidance to be provided tomembers. Accordingly, the Commissionbelieves that granting acceleratedapproval of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2is appropriate and consistent withsections 6(b)(5) and 19(b)(2) of theAct.24 in that it should promote just andequitable principles of trade and, ingeneral, protect investors and the publicinterest.


Interested persons are invited tosubmit written data, views andarguments concerning Amendment Nos.I and 2, including whether theAmendments are consistent with theAct. Persons making writtensubmissions should file six copiesthereof with the Secretary, Securitiesand Exchange Commission, 450 FifthStreet, NW., Washington, D.C. 20549–0609. Copies of the submission, allsubsequent amendments, all writtenstatements with respect to the proposedrule change 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 above-referenced self-regulatory organization.All submissions should refer to File No.SR–ISE–00–22 and should be submittedby September 19, 2001.

V. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant tosection 19(b)(2) of the Act,25 that theproposed rule change (SR–NYSE–00–22), as amended, is approved.





[Release No. 34–44736; File No. SR–NSCC–2001–07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;National Securities ClearingCorporation; Notice of Filing ofProposed Rule Change Relating toBuy-In Rules and Procedures


Securities Exchange Act of 1934(‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that onApril 27, 2001, the National SecuritiesClearing Corporation (‘‘NSCC’’) filedwith the Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’) and onApril 30, 2001, amended the proposedrule change as described in Items I, II,and III below, which items have beenprepared primarily by NSCC. TheCommission is publishing this notice tosolicit comments on the proposed rulechange from interested parties.


The proposed rule change (i) furtherautomates the buy-in process of CNSpositions, (ii) allows for a Notice ofIntention to Buy-In (‘‘Buy-In Notice’’) tobe filed on successive days providedthat the quantity of securitiesrepresenting the sum of the Buy-InNotices does not exceed the member’stotal long position, and (iii) revisesRetransmittal Notices to include theidentity of the member with the longposition (‘‘originator’’).


In its filing with the Commission,NSCC 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. NSCC has preparedsummaries, set forth in sections (A), (B),and (C) below, of the most significantaspects of these statements.2

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

NSCC is modifying its buy-in rulesand procedures to further automate and



3 Proposed changes to NSCC Rule 11, Sections7(b) and (c); NSCC Procedure VII, Section J; andNSCC Procedure X, Section A. Also, proposedchanges to NSCC Procedure VII, Section E3 toconform its language to the language proposed inNSCC Procedure VII, Section J.

4 Proposed changes to NSCC Procedure VII,Section J.

5 Proposed changes to NSCC Rule 11, Section7(b).

6 Proposed changes to NSCC Procedure X, SectionA 1.

7 Proposed changes to NSCC Rule 11, Sections7(b) and (c).

8 As originally filed, the proposed Buy-In changeswere to be implemented by NSCC on June 8, 2001.

9 15 U.S.C. 78q–1.

10 In 1998 the Securities Operations Division ofthe Securities Industry Association formed acommittee that studied, worked with, andsupported NSCC in its enhancement of the its buy-in rules and procedures.

11 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 Cynthia Hoekstra, Counsel,

Phlx, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, datedAugust 8, 2001 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). InAmendment No. 1 the Phlx represented that theproposed Rule 51 complies with Delawarecorporate law, Pennsylvania contract law, and theExchange’s Certificate of Incorporation, by-laws,and rules. In addition, the Phlx modified the timingof the enforcement procedures for failure to pay thecapital funding fee and included a provision forequitable reversion.

improve the processing of buy-ins ofCNS positions.3 The proposedprocedures provide that a Buy-In Noticemay be filed by an originator onsuccessive days provided thesucceeding Buy-In Notice does notspecify a quantity of securities coveredby the prior Buy-In Notice and thequantity of securities representing thesum of all Buy-In Notices does notexceed the member’s total longposition.4

The Retransmittal Notice would berevised to include the identity of theoriginator on the Retransmittal Notice sothat the member owing securities cancontact the originator to arrangedelivery.5 Regardless of any agreementsthat may have been entered intobetween a member owing securities andan originator, unless the originatornotifies NSCC in a timely manner thatits Buy-In Order should not be executed,members who receive RetransmittalNotices and do not satisfy them assumeliability for the loss, if any, whichoccurs as a result of an originator’s Buy-In Order.6

The proposed rule change also wouldrequire members to electronicallytransmit Buy-In Notices and Buy-InOrders through an automated formatdetermined by NSCC therebyeliminating the practice of hand andfacsimile deliveries. Similarly, NSCCproposes to transmit through anautomated format Retransmittal Noticesto members.7

NSCC has determined that subject toSEC approval it will targetimplementation of the proposed Buy-Inchanges for the third quarter of 2001.Members will be advised of the specificdate prior to implementation.8

NSCC believes that the proposed rulechange is consistent with therequirements of Section 17A of the Act 9

and the rules and regulationsthereunder applicable to NSCC becauseit will facilitate the prompt and accurateclearance and settlement of buy-in

transactions by automating andimproving the processing of buy-ins.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Burden on Competition

NSCC does not believe that theproposed rule change will have animpact on or impose a burden oncompetition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Comments on theProposed Rule Change Received FromMembers, Participants or Others

No written comments relating to theproposed rule change have beensolicited or received.10 NSCC will notifythe Commission of any writtencomments received by NSCC.


Within thirty-five days of the date ofpublication of this notice in the FederalRegister or within such longer period (i)as the Commission may designate up toninety 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 CommentsInterested persons are invited to

submit 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, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20459–0609. 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 ReferenceSection, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of suchfiling also will be available forinspection and copying at the principaloffice of NSCC. All submissions shouldrefer to File No. SR–NSCC–2001–07 andshould be submitted by September 19,2001.

For the Commission by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.11

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21790 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Release No. 34–44733; File No. SR–Phlx–99–52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Filing of Proposed Rule Change andAmendment No. 1 Thereto by thePhiladelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.Adopting Rule 51, Enforcement ofCapital Funding Fee


Securities Exchange Act of 1934(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2

notice is hereby given that on December6, 1999, the Philadelphia StockExchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)the proposed rule change as describedin Items I, II, and III, below, which Itemshave been prepared by the Exchange.The Phlx filed an amendment to theproposal on August 9, 2001. 3 TheCommission is publishing this notice tosolicit comments on the proposed rulechange from interested persons.

1. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Terms of Substance ofthe Proposed Rule Change

A. The Rule Language

The Phlx proposes to adopt new Rule51, enforcement of Capital Funding Fee,which relates to the ability of theExchange to take certain specified



4 The term ‘‘owner’’ is defined as any person whoor which is a holder of equitable title to amembership in the Exchange. See ExchangeCertificate of Incorporation, Article Twentieth.

5 On January 5, 2000, the Commission approvedas a three-month pilot program, a capital fundingfee applicable to owners of memberships. SeeSecurities Exchange Act Release No. 42318 (January5, 2000), 65 FR 2216 (January 13, 2000) (SR–Phlx–99–49). On April 24, 2000, the Commissionapproved the extension of the three-month pilotprogram until July 6, 2000. See Securities ExchangeAct Release No. 42714 (April 24, 2000), 65 FR25782 (May 3, 2000) (SR–Phlx–00–29). Permanentapproval of the capital funding fee was received onJune 29, 2000. See Securities Exchange Act ReleaseNo. 42993 (June 29, 2000), 65 FR 42415 (July 10,2000) (SR–Phlx–99–51).

measures if an owner of a membership 4

fails to pay (of have paid on its behalf)any capital funding fee imposed by theExchange when due. 5 New language initalics.

Rule 51. Enforcement of CapitalFunding Fee.

Notice and Late Charges(a) The Exchange shall issue invoices

to each owner (for purposes of this Rule,an ‘‘Obligor’’) providing notice of theobligation to pay the capital funding feewithin twenty days from the invoicedate. If an Obligor fails to pay theExchange the capital funding fee by thedue date, the Exchange shall provide awritten Late Notice of such failure (the‘‘Late Notice’’) and, subject tosubsection (b), impose a late charge ata monthly rate of 1 percent (simpleinterest) for each thirty-day period orfraction thereof, calculated on a dailybasis, commencing with the twenty-firstday.

Waiver of Late Charges(b) The Finance Committee or its

Designee may waive the amount of thelate charge, or a portion thereof, if goodcause is shown.

For purposes of this Rule, anydetermination of ‘‘good cause’’ shall bebased upon the following factors:consideration of the lateness of thepayment, the frequency of the latepayments by a particular Obligor, thereason for the late payment, the amountoutstanding, the existence andreasonableness of a payment planproposed by the Obligor, and thefinancial hardship that the remedywould cause the Obligor.

Suspension of Obligor and Rights ofLessee

(c) If an Obligor fails to pay anyportion of the capital funding fee,including the late charge described insubsection (a) above, within 30 daysafter the date of the Late Notice, theBoard of Governors (or, if authorized bythe Board, a committee of the Board, the

Chairman of the Board, or a Designee ofthe Board) (collectively, ‘‘the Board orits Designee’’), shall suspend the right totrade or otherwise conduct business atthe exchange, and suspend the Obligor’sright to lease the relevant membership,subject to the ability of the currentlessee to continue leasing to the extentprovided in this paragraph andparagraph (d), below.

The Exchange shall provide the lesseewith notice of the provisions containedin subparagraphs (c)(i) and (c)(ii) andparagraph (d) below, at the same timeit provides the Obligor with the LateNotice.

Within 25 days after the date of theLate Notice, the Obligor may request inwriting that the Board or its Designeepostpone suspending the Obligor’srights, and the Board or its Designeepostpone these remedies, with orwithout qualification, if it decides thatgood cause has been shown by theOligor. The Obligor’s rights shall not bedeemed suspended pendingconsideration by the Exchange of therequest.

The Exchange shall provide theObligor with notice that the Board or itsDesignee shall take any of the above-referenced action at the same time as itprovides the Obligor with the LateNotice.

Lessee Elects to Pay Capital Funding Fee(i) For a period of up to three months

from the date that the Obligor issuspended from the right to lease, thelessee may pay the capital funding feeplus any applicable late charges owedthe Exchange by the Obligor in respectto that membership, and set off suchamounts from the amounts due theObligor in accordance with Rule 930(k).

The lessee’s authority to pay thecapital funding fee pursuant to this Ruleis without prejudice to any right of theObligor or lessee to terminate the leaseagreement for other reasons pursuant toits terms or Rule 930(e). Absent suchtermination, the existing leaseagreement shall remain in effect for themonths for which the capital fundingfee charges are paid by the lesseepursuant to this subsection and shallthen terminate unless the delinquencyhas been cured.

Lessee Does Not Elect to Pay CapitalFunding Fee

(ii) If the lessee does not elect to paythe capital funding fee, plus anyapplicable late charges, the leaseagreement shall terminate 30 days fromthe date of the Late Notice (absentearlier termination by the Obligor orlessee), notwithstanding the provisionsin Rule 930(b) and (e) unless the

delinquency has been fully cured. Thelessee shall remit the amount of thecapital funding fee plus late charges tothe Exchange, up to the amount of hisor her outstanding lease payment(s) dueduring this 30 day period, and set offsuch amount from the lease payment(s).

Temporary Trading Privileges(d) The lessee may apply in writing to

the Exchange no later than 10 days priorto the termination of the leaseagreement pursuant to subparagraphs(c)(i) or (ii) above to continue tradingunder temporary trading privileges for aperiod of up to three months from theObligor’s suspension. The Exchangeshall approve or disapprove a properlysubmitted application within 10 days ofreceiving the written application unlesssuch approval violates Exchange rulesor By-Laws or its Certificate ofIncorporation.

(i) If a lease agreement terminateswhile an application for temporarytrading privileges is pending, the lesseemay trade as though approval has beengranted, but for no more than ten daysafter the Exchange received theapplication, pending the approval ordisapproval by the Exchange of theapplication.

(ii) The economic terms of thetemporary trading privileges shall be atthe current prevailing rate for leaseagreements on the Exchange (asdetermined by the Board or itsDesignee). A lessee trading undertemporary trading privileges continuesthe rights of a member, including theright to vote (if applicable) and the dutyto continue paying to the Exchange anyfees or dues otherwise applicable. Whiletrading privileges are extended to thelessee, the Obligor shall be unable tolease the relevant membership.

(iii) The lessee, while trading undertemporary privileges, shall be subject tothe obligations and entitled to the rightsof a member, but shall not be entitledto any rights of an owner of amembership with respect to thatmembership.

Reversion of Equitable Title(e) If any portion of the capital

funding fee in respect of a membership,including the late charge, is not paid (orpayment of the late charge has not beenwaived or the obligation to pay has notbeen suspended as provided herein),within 30 days after the date of the LateNotice, the Obligor shall be notified bycertified mail that the Board of itsDesignee shall authorize the reversion ofequitable title for such membership tothe Exchange, followed by sale of theequitable title for such membership bythe Exchange, or any other action it



6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42773(May 11, 2000), 65 FR 31622 (May 18, 2000) (SR–Phlx–00–30).

7 See also 8 Del. C. § 121(a) (providing that inaddition to powers expressly granted by law or theCertificate of Incorporation, the corporation and itsdirectors may exercise ‘‘any powers incidentalthereto, so far as such powers and privileges arenecessary or convenient to the conduct, promotionor attainment of the business or purposes set forthin its certificate of incorporation’’); Certificate ofIncorporation Article Third (stating, in part, that theExchange may operate as and perform all functionsof a national securities exchange and engage in any

lawful act or activity for which corporations maybe organized under the DGCL).

8 See, e.g., By-Law Art. XIV § 14–5 (providing thatmembership may be ‘‘disposed of’’ by AdmissionsCommittee in certain circumstances fornonpayment of dues or fines); By-Law Art. XIV,§ 14–2 (authorizing Board to fix and impose chargesupon members and member organizations); Rule 50(authorizing suspension of members or memberorganizations for nonpayment of charges); By-LawArt. XV, § 15–1(a) (providing that a membershipmay be leased in accordance with such rules as theBoard may adopt); Rule 930 (setting forth requiredterms of a lease agreement and providing, amongother things, that the Exchange may dispose of amembership subject to a lease agreement); Rule960.1 (providing that all members, memberorganizations, and any persons associated with anymember are subject to expulsion, suspension,termination as to activities at the Exchange or anyother fitting sanction for violation of the Rules ofthe Exchange).

9 See By-Law Art. XII, § 12–9. As a condition ofthe right to lease their seats, lessors agree ‘‘to abideby the [Exchange’s] By-Laws as they have or shallbe from time to time amended, and by all rules andregulations adopted pursuant to the By-Laws.’’Lessees, as members, likewise make the samecommitment.

10 See Securities Exchange Act Release No.443865 (June 4, 2001), 66 FR 30971 (June 8, 2001)(approving SR–Phlx–2001–45).

deems appropriate if the capital fundingfee, including any applicable latecharges, are not received by theExchange within 90 days after the dateof the original invoice or such longerperiod for which a lease agreement is ineffect as a result of the election by alessee to continue paying the capitalfunding fee as described in (c)(i) above.

(i) The Obligor may request in writingat least 10 days before the 90 daydeadline identified above insubparagraph (e) that the Board or itsDesignee suspend these remedies orimpose an alternate remedy proposedby the Obligor, and the Board or itsDesignee may do so if it decides thatgood cause is shown by the Obligor.

(ii) If the Obligor has timely submitteda request for suspension of the sale ofthe Obligor’s equitable title or forimposition of an alternate remedy, theExchange shall not take steps to sell theObligor’s equitable title until the Boardor its Designee decides the request inaccordance with the guidelines fordemonstrating good cause and provideswritten notice to the Obligor of itsdecision.

(f) Any excess monies realized by theExchange from the sale of thedelinquent membership over allamounts owed to the Exchange and toothers in accordance with the provisionsprovided in Exchange By-Law ArticleXV, Section 15–3 and, in the case of amembership that was subject to a lease,to the lessee (if the payments made bythe lessee on behalf of the Obligor asdescribed in paragraph (i) exceeded themonthly lease payment amounts), shallbe paid to the Obligor.

Miscellaneous

(g) For purposes of this Rule, anynotices, applications, or requests to theExchange or Board or its Designee bythe Obligor or lessee must be received inwriting by the Secretary of the Exchangeduring regular business hours.

(h) The provisions and penaltiesauthorized by this Rule shall be inaddition to any other penalties, fines orother charges that may be assumedpursuant to Rule 50, the Exchange’s By-Laws or otherwise.

B. Discussion of Authority

1. Authority Under Delaware Law

The Exchange states that as a non-stock corporation organized under theDelaware General Corporation Law(‘‘DGCL’’), it has the authority to adoptproposed rule 51. The exchange statesthat Article Twentieth of its Certificateof Incorporation expressly empowersthe Board of the Exchange to determineand assess penalties for nonpayment of

fees, including cancellation of amembership and forfeiture of all rightsas an owner, lessor, lessee or member.Article Twentieth provides:

Twentieth: In addition to all otherpowers granted to the Board ofGovernors by law, this Certificate ofIncorporation or otherwise, the Board ofGovernors shall have the power (i) toassess such fees, dues and other chargesupon members, member organizations,owners (as defined below), lessors andlessees of memberships and holders ofpermits (or any of them) as the Board ofGovernors may from time to time adoptby resolution or set forth in the Rules ofthe Board of Governors, and (ii) toassess penalties for failure to pay anyfees, dues or other charges owed to theCorporation, including, withoutlimitation, cancellation of a membershipor permit (which membership or permitmay be reissued) and forfeiture of allrights as a member, memberorganization, owner (as defined below),lessor, lessee or holder of a permit. TheBoard of Governors may authorize anycommittee thereof or the Chairman ofthe Board of Governors to exercise anypowers of the Board of Governors withrespect to the assessment of fees, dues,other charges and penalties. The fees,dues, other charges and penaltiesauthorized in accordance with thisArticle shall be in addition to any fees,dues, other charges or penaltiesimposed pursuant to any provision ofthe By-Laws of the Corporation. Forpurposes of this Certificate ofIncorporation and (unless otherwiseexpressly stated therein) the rules of theCorporation and any schedule of fees,dues, other charges or penalties whichthe Corporation may establish, the term‘‘owner’’ (whether or not capitalized)shall mean any person or entity who orwhich is a holder of equitable title to amembership in the Exchange.6

In addition, the Exchange representsthat Section 141(j) of the DGCLempowers the Board to direct thebusiness and affairs of the Exchange,and the Exchange’s by-laws give theBoard broad power to adopt rules of theExchange. 8 Del. C. § 141(j);7 By-LawArt. IV, § 4–4.

The Exchange states that numerousprovisions of the Exchange’s by-lawsand rules already address matterssimilar to those addressed by proposedRule 51.8 Moreover, the Exchange statesthat its by-laws require lessors andlessees (as members) to pledge to abideby the rules as they may be amendedfrom time to time.9

Accordingly, under the DGCL and theExchange’s Certificate of Incorporation,by-laws and rules, the Board ofGovernors of the Exchange has theauthority to adopt Rule 51.

2. Permissibility Under PennsylvaniaContract Law

The Exchange contends that proposedRule 51, relating to the suspension of alessor’s right to lease, termination oflease agreements, issuance of temporarytrading privileges, and collection of feesfrom members and set off as describedin Rule 930(k),10 is also permissible asa matter of Pennsylvania contract lawfor two primary reasons. First, theExchange states that it may adopt by-laws, rules, or regulations that affectlessors and members pursuant to theexpress terms of its contractualrelationships with the lessors andmembers and thus any interference withor alteration of extant lease agreementsby proposed Rule 51 would becontractually permissible. Second, theExchange states that it is a third partybeneficiary of the lease agreements, andthis status provides an additionalcontractual basis for the collection andset off provisions of proposed Rule 51.(The Exchange states that future leaseagreements would of course be deemed



11 See footnote 9, supra, for various rules that arelawful in accordance with the conditions ofmembership and of the right to lease.

12 We note that the Exchange has also previouslyexplained to the Commission when proposingArticle Nineteenth and Rule 930(k) that that Articleand Rule are likewise consistent with Pennsylvaniacontract law for this same reason. See SecuritiesExchange Act Releases Nos. 43987 (February 20,2001), 66 FR 12582 (February 27, 2001) (SR–Phlx–99–50) and 43865 (June 4, 2001), 66 FR 30971 (June8, 2001) (SR–Phlx–2001–45).

13 Indeed, the Exchange may well be aconstructive party to the lease agreement. WhilePennsylvania courts have not had the opportunityto address the issue of constructive parties, thereexists persuasive case law elsewhere that when thecontracting parties, and a third party have asufficiently intertwined business relationship, thethird party is deemed to be a constructive party tothe contract. Here, for the various reasons outlinedin the text, the Exchange, lessors, and lessees,possess such an extraordinarily intertwinedbusiness relationship that the Exchange could beconsidered a constructive party to lease agreements.This would provide yet another alternative basis forthe legal adequacy of the Exchange’s provision forcollection and set off in proposed Rule 51.

to incorporate the terms of Rule 930(k)within them, obviating any contract lawquestion.)

a. Lease Terms Incorporate RelevantTerms of Exchange Articles ofIncorporation, By-Laws, and Rules

The Exchange represents that, underthe terms and conditions pursuant towhich the Exchange awards theprivileges of membership and approvesthe right of an owner to lease a seat, itreserves the right to adopt authorizedby-laws, rules, or regulations that affectthose lessors and lessees, and,accordingly, any potential impact onlease agreements of Rule 51 would becontractually permissible.11 TheExchange states that both lessors andlessees (as members) agree respectivelyas a condition of approval of the rightto lease seats and as a condition ofapproval for membership that theExchange may effectuate changes totheir lease agreements. The Exchangerepresents that, as a condition of theright to lease their seats, lessors agree‘‘to abide by the [Exchange’s] By-Lawsas they have or shall be from time totime amended, and by all rules andregulations adopted pursuant to the By-Laws.’’ See By-Law Art. XII, § 12–9(b).Lessees (as members) likewise make thesame commitment. See id. at 12–9(a). Itargues that, by agreeing to abide byfuture by-laws, rules, and regulations,lessors and lessees necessarily grantpermission to the Exchange to adoptrules pursuant to which their leaseagreements may be affected.12

Accordingly, it argues that Rule 51,which would provide in express formthe authorization for the alteration of orinterference with lease agreements,would simply authorize that which iscountenanced by the terms of theExchange’s existing relationships withlessors and lessees, and is therebypermissible as a matter of Pennsylvaniacontract law.

b. The Exchange Is a Third PartyBeneficiary of All Lease Agreements

Moreover, the Exchange states that itis already, as a matter of Pennsylvanialaw, a third party beneficiary of leaseagreements and would as such beentitled to provide for collection of

Exchange fees from a lessee upon thedefault of a lessor, and to permit set-offby the lessee. The Exchange states thatPennsylvania law provides that as athird party beneficiary the Exchange isentitled to enforce, in its own name, asa real party in interest, the rights thataccrue to it under the lease agreement.Generally, a non-party to a contract is athird party beneficiary either (i) whenthe parties to contract express anintention in the contract itself to benefitthe third party, or (ii) if the surroundingcircumstances are sufficientlycompelling that recognition of thebeneficiary’s right is appropriate toeffectuate the intention of the parties,and the performance satisfies anobligation of the parties to pay moneyto the beneficiary or the circumstancesindicate that the parties intend to givethe beneficiary the benefit of thepromised performance.

Here, the Exchange argues that it is athird party beneficiary of leaseagreements in accordance with theintention expressed in the leaseagreements themselves. It states thatRule 930(c) already provides that thelease agreement ‘‘shall require a lesseeto pay the Corporation [the Exchange]* * * all applicable dues, fees, charges,and other debts arising from the use ofmembership.’’ The Exchange representsthat, as the purpose of the leaseagreement is to permit the lessee the‘‘use of membership,’’ proposed Rule930(k) simply specifies thecircumstances in which the Exchange,rather than requiring payment by thelessee of one such fee, is imposing thelesser obligation of allowing thepayment by a lessee. The Exchange alsostates that likewise, many of the othermandatory terms of the leaseagreements, imposed by Exchange rule,also manifest the parties’ clear intent tomake the Exchange a beneficiary. SeeRule 930(a) (the Exchange must approvethe transfer of membership); 930(d) (thelessee may not encumber legal title tothe membership during the leaseagreement); 930(e) (legal title to themembership must be transferred to thelessor in accordance with theExchange’s by-laws upon the expirationof the lease agreement or other suchevent); and 930(j) (the Exchange maydispose of a membership subject to alease agreement in accordance with itsby-laws and rules).

Moreover, the Exchange representsthat, in addition to the intent manifestedin the lease agreements, which is itselfsufficient to render the Exchange a thirdparty beneficiary, the circumstancessurrounding the lease agreementsindependently compel the sameconclusion. As noted, the Exchange

states that the lease agreements arepursuant to Exchange rules, replete withreferences to the Exchange, see Rule930, and reference to a third party in thecontract itself is a strong indication thatthe party is a third party beneficiary.The Exchange also notes that itexercises numerous rights related to thelease agreements. The Exchange statesthat it approves lessors, as well aslessees. See Rule 931 (approval oflessors); and By-Law Art. XV, § 15–1(approval of lessees). The Exchangerepresents that it also requires lessorsand lessees to abide by the Exchange’sby-laws. See By-Law Art. XII, §§ 12–9(a), (b); and Rule 930(j). Indeed, theExchange states that the purpose of thelease agreement is to permit trading onthe Exchange. See By-Law Art. XII,§ 12–1 (a member conducts business onthe Exchange). The Exchange alsorepresents that it reserves the right toapprove all transfers of membershippursuant to a lease agreement. Rule 930(a), (d) and (e). Finally, as noted, theExchange represents that Rule 930already requires that lessees beresponsible for payment to the Exchangeof all applicable dues, fees, charges andother debts, and proposed Rule 51identifies under what circumstances thelessee may, at his or her option, remitone such fee to the Exchange.13

The Exchange argues that it is,accordingly, a third party beneficiary tothe lease agreements with the right toallow the provision of payment of feesand set off in proposed Rule 51.

Therefore, the Exchange states that, asa condition of membership and of theright to lease seats, the Exchange’sadoption of Rule 51 is a permissiblealternation or interference with extantlease agreements, and, as a third partybeneficiary, the Exchange’s provisionfor collection and set off in proposedRule 51 are contractually permissibleunder Pennsylvania law.

In sum, the Exchange contends thatadoption by the Exchange of proposedRule 51 would be consistent withapplicable corporate governance andcontract law.



14 See Phlx Rule 50, Late Charge.

15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).


In its filing with the Commission, thePhlx 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. The Phlx has preparedsummaries, set forth in sections A, B,and C below, of the most significantaspects of such statements.


The Exchange states that the purposeof the proposed rule change is to adoptnew Rule 51, which specifies whatenforcement action may be taken againstan owner for failure to pay any capitalfunding fee imposed by the Exchange.The Exchange represents that a new ruleis required because existing Exchangerules do not comprehensively addresssituations in which owners, as opposedto members or member organizations,are required to pay the Exchange anyfees. In addition, the Exchange statesthat capital funding fee invoices are sentout separately from other Exchangeinvoices and are subject to a differentpayment schedule. Therefore, theExchange represents that the remediesof late payments that are addressed incurrent Exchange Rule 50 are notappropriate.14

In addition, the Exchange notes thatproposed Rule 51 delineates theremedies that shall be taken by theBoard if the capital funding fee is notpaid. The Exchange notes that the ruleallows for a variety of remedies rangingfrom the imposition of a late fee toreversion and sale by the Exchange ofthe equitable title to a membership. TheExchange notes that the remedies are setforth in such a way as to apply the lessonerous remedies (i.e., like fees) firstand the more serious remedies (i.e.,suspension of right to trade or lease andreversion of membership) only after theExchange has not received paymentwithin 90 days after the date of theoriginal time period (or such longerperiod as necessary if a lease is in effectas a result of the election by a lessee tocontinue paying the capital funding fee).The Exchange represents that, by

allowing this graduated scale ofremedies, the owners are put on noticeas to what remedies will be imposed ifpayment is not received in a timelymanner, with the more serious remediesbeing applied after a longer period oftime. In addition, the Exchangerepresents that proposed Rule 51delineates the Board’s responsibilitiesand authority for handling instanceswhen an owner fails to pay the capitalfunding fee when due. The Exchangestates that the Rule is designed toprotect innocent lessees from beingunexpectedly dispossessed from theirmemberships and trading rights in theevent of a nonpayment by their lessors.The Exchange represents, that, byelecting to pay the capital funding feeon behalf of an owner, the lessee maycontinue trading under his/her existingmembership for up to three months. TheExchange states that, at the end of thisperiod, or in the event that the lesseeelects not to pay the fee on behalf of thelessor, the lessee may apply fortemporary trading privileges.

The Exchange states that the amountand capital contribution structure of thisfee are vastly different from otherExchange fees, as is the purpose. In fact,the Exchange represents that the Boarddetermined that the enforcementmechanisms outlined in proposed Rule51 were necessary to effectuate theExchange’s capital funding fee, a centralaspect of the Exchange’s capital plan,for the continued viability andcompetitiveness of the Exchange.

The Exchange believes that theproposed rule change is consistent withSection 6 of the Act,15 in general, andwith Section 6(b)(5),16 in particularbecause it promotes just and equitableprinciples of trade and protectsinvestors and the public interest byproviding an enforcement mechanismwhich should, in turn, ensure promptpayment of capital funding fees to theExchange by an owner.


The Exchange believes that theproposed rule change will not imposeany inappropriate burden oncompetition.


No written comments were eithersolicited or received.


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 Phlx consents, theCommission will:

A. By order approve such proposedrule change, or

B. Institute proceedings to determinewhether the proposed rule changeshould be disapproved.


Interested persons are invited tosubmit written data, views, andarguments concerning the foregoing,including whether the proposed rulechange, as amended, is consistent withthe 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 proposedrule change 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 Phlx. Allsubmissions should refer to File No.SR–Phlx–99–52 and should besubmitted by September 19, 2001.


Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21740 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M



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 Sanow, Assistant Director, Divisionof Market Regulation (‘‘Division’’), Commission,dated August 6, 2001. The substance of AmendmentNo. 1 is incorporated in the description of theproposed rule change in Section II below. Forpurposes of calculating the 60-day period withinwhich the Commission may summarily abrogate theproposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) ofthe Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C), the Commissionconsiders that period to commence on August 7,2001, the date the Phlx filed Amendment No. 1.

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).


[Release No. 34–44740; File No. SR–Phlx–2001–61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Filing and Immediate Effectivenessof Proposed Rule Change by thePhiladelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.Relating to Solicited Orders andAnticipatory Hedging Activity


Securities Exchange Act of 1934(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2notice is hereby given that on July 10,2001, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange,Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed withthe Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’) theproposed rule change as described inItems I, II, and III below, which Itemshave been prepared by the Phlx. OnAugust 7, 2001, the Phlx submitted tothe Commission Amendment No. 1 tothe proposed rule change.3 Theproposed rule change, as amended, hasbeen filed by the Phlx as a ‘‘non-controversial’’ rule change under Rule19b–4(f)(6) under the Act.4 TheCommission is publishing this notice tosolicit comments on the proposed rulechange from interested persons.


The Phlx proposes to amend PhlxRule 1064, ‘‘Crossing, Facilitation andSolicited Orders’’ by: (1) AmendingPhlx Rule 1064(c) to permit a memberor member organization representing anorder (‘‘originating order’’) to solicitanother member, member organization,or non-member broker-dealer outsidethe trading crowd to participate in atransaction with the originating orderprovided that certain specifiedprocedures are followed; and (2)adopting new Phlx Rule 1064(d) toprohibit a member or person associatedwith a member from using non-publicinformation regarding crossing,facilitation, and solicited orders for the

member’s benefit by trading in theunderlying stock or in relatedinstruments prior to exposing the orderto the trading crowd. The Phlx is alsoproposing corresponding changes toOptions Floor Procedure Advice(‘‘OFPA’’) B–11(c) and (d) and aconforming amendment to OFPA C–7.

The text of the proposed rule changeis available at the Phlx and at theCommission.


In its filing with the Commission, thePhlx 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. The Exchange hasprepared summaries, set forth insections A, B, and C below, of the mostsignificant aspects of such statements.


1. Purpose

The purpose of the proposed rulechange is to set forth specificprocedures and guidelines to befollowed respecting solicited orders,and to prohibit the use of non-publicinformation received during thecrossing, facilitation, and solicitationprocesses.

a. Solicited Orders. Currently, PhlxRule 1064(c) provides that, if a memberappears in the trading crowd inresponse to a solicitation, other tradingcrowd participants must be given areasonable opportunity to respond tothe order which prompted thesolicitation before the solicited membermay respond to the order. The proposedrule change would add paragraph (c)(ii)to the current rule and to OFPA B–11to permit a member or memberorganization representing an originatingorder to solicit another member,member organization, or non-memberbroker-dealer outside the trading crowd(‘‘solicited party’’) to participate in thetransaction on a proprietary basis,provided, however, that the tradingcrowd is given an opportunity toparticipate in the transaction bymatching or improving the terms of thetransaction.

Proposed Phlx Rule 1064(c)(ii) andOFPA B–11(c)(ii) further set forth theprocedures to be followed when anExchange member solicits another

member, member organization, or non-member broker-dealer outside thetrading crowd. The rule would requirethe member representing the originatingorder, upon entering the trading crowdto execute the transaction, to: (a)Announce to the trading crowd thesame terms of the originating order thatwere disclosed to the solicited party; (b)bid at the price he/she is prepared tobuy from the solicited party or offer atthe price he/she is prepared to sell tothe solicited party; and (c) give thetrading crowd a reasonable opportunityto accept the bid or offer. If a memberin the trading crowd decides to matchor improve the terms of the transaction,the proposed rule would grant suchmember in the trading crowd priorityover the solicited party.

In order to ensure full disclosure ofsuch orders, proposed Phlx Rule1064(c)(iii) and OFPA B–11(c)(iii)would require that the word ‘‘Solicited’’be written clearly and legibly on theorder ticket of the solicited order.

The purpose of proposed Phlx Rule1064(c)(ii) and OFPA B–11(c)(ii) is toallow an Exchange member representingan options order to solicit a third partyoutside the trading crowd. The member,however, would still have the obligationto represent the originating order to thetrading crowd prior to execution.

The purpose of the proposedprovision requiring an Exchangemember representing a solicited order toannounce the terms of the order to thetrading crowd prior to executing thatorder is to ensure that the members ofthe trading crowd have a reasonableopportunity to participate in thetransaction by improving or matchingthe proposed price.

In addition, this provision wouldbenefit the customer whose order isrepresented by the soliciting member byallowing for the possible improvementof the ultimate price at which such anorder is executed.

The Exchange believes that grantingmembers in the trading crowd priorityover the solicited party should ensurethat crowd members that wish toparticipate in such a transaction aregiven a reasonable opportunity to do so.The Exchange believes that fulldisclosure to the trading crowd of theterms of orders that comprise solicitedtransactions allows the trading crowd togive full consideration to, and theopportunity for improvement of, suchterms.

b. Prohibition Against AnticipatoryHedging. Proposed Phlx Rule 1064(d)and OFPA B–11(d) would expresslyprohibit any member or personassociated with a member who hasknowledge of the material terms and



5 See Phlx Rule 707, stating that a member,member organization, or person associated with oremployed by a member or member organizationshall not engage in conduct inconsistent with justand equitable principles of trade. Other Phlx rulesexpressly reference just and equitable principles oftrade. See, e.g., Phlx Rules 1015(b), 1042.02 and1051(a). The Phlx states that the lack of expressreference in other Phlx rules should not beconstrued as waiving the ability to make a violationof Phlx Rule 707 co-exist with any other violation,depending on the facts and circumstances of thecase. The Exchange believes that a violation of theexisting crossing, facilitation and solicitationprovisions of its rules could be a violation of justand equitable principles of trade and could besubject to disciplinary action as such. In addition,the Phlx states a violation of Phlx Rule 1064, OFPAB–11, or OFPA C–7, for instance, can be in and ofitself a stand-alone violation.

6 The Phlx states that depending on the facts andcircumstances surrounding individual cases,anticipatory hedging activity may be a violation ofother Phlx rules or rules under the Act.

7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 24309(April 7, 1987), 52 FR 11894 (April 13, 1987).

8 15 U.S.C. 78f9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).12 See 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii).13 Id.14 For purposes only of accelerating the operative

date of this proposal, the Commission hasconsidered the proposed rule’s impact onefficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15U.S.C. 78c(f).

conditions of a solicited order, an orderbeing facilitated, or orders beingcrossed, the execution of which areimminent, from entering, based on suchknowledge, an order to buy or sell anoption for the same underlying security;an order to buy or sell the securityunderlying such class; or an order tobuy or sell any related instrument. Theprohibition would remain in effect untilthe terms of such solicited, facilitated,or crossed order are disclosed to thetrading crowd, or until the trade can nolonger reasonably be consideredimminent in view of the passage of timesince the order was received.

In order to allow crowd participantsto know what constitutes a ‘‘relatedinstrument’’ in reference to an indexoption, the proposed rule and OFPAclarify that an order to buy or sell arelated instrument means, in referenceto an index option, an order to buy orsell securities comprising 10% or moreof the component securities in the indexor an order to buy or sell a futurescontract on an economically equivalentindex.

The Phlx also proposes newCommentary .01 to Rule 1064 and OFPAB–11, stating that a violation of this rulemay be considered conduct inconsistentwith just and equitable principles oftrade.5 The purpose of the proposed ruleis to expressly prohibit anticipatoryhedging that is based on insideinformation. The Exchange believes thata codified prohibition, and the proposedCommentary stating that a violation ofthe rule may be considered conductinconsistent with just and equitableprinciples of trade, should function as adeterrent against possible manipulativepractices based on inside information.6

c. Conforming Amendment to OFPAC–7. Currently, OFPA C–7,‘‘Responsibility to Represent Orders tothe Trading Crowd,’’ requires that, once

an option order has been received onthe floor, it must be represented to thetrading crowd before it may berepresented away from the crowd.7

Phlx is proposing an amendment toOFPA C–7 to provide that, except asotherwise provided in OFPA B–11(c)and Phlx Rule 1064(c), once an optionorder has been received on the floor, itmust be represented to the tradingcrowd before it may be representedaway from the crowd. This wouldprovide Floor Brokers with the ability tosolicit third parties outside the tradingcrowd before representing the order inthe trading crowd.

The purpose of this amendment is tomaintain consistency in the Phlx’s rulesand OFPAs concerning ordersrepresented away from the tradingcrowd.

2. Statutory BasisThe Phlx believes that the proposed

rule change, as amended, is consistentwith Section 6 of the Act,8 in general,and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,9specifically, in that it is designed toperfect the mechanisms of a free andopen market and the national marketsystem, protect investors and the publicinterest, and promote just and equitableprinciples of trade by ensuring thatcrowd participants are given areasonable opportunity to participate in,and potentially improve the bids and/oroffers of, solicited orders, and byspecifically prohibiting anticipatoryhedging activity based on insideinformation.


Phlx does not believe that theproposed rule change, as amended, willimpose any inappropriate burden oncompetition.


No written comments were solicitedor received.


Because the foregoing proposed rulechange does not significantly affect theprotection of investors or the publicinterest and does not impose anysignificant burden on competition andbecause the Phlx provided theCommission with written notice of its

intent to file the proposed rule changeat least five business days prior to thefiling date, the proposed rule change hasbecome effective pursuant to Section19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 11 thereunder.

A proposed rule change filed underRule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does notbecome operative prior to 30 days afterthe date of filing.12 However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission todesignate a shorter time if such actionis consistent with the protection ofinvestors and the public interest.13 ThePhlx has requested that the Commissionaccelerate the operative date of theproposal so that the Exchange mayremain competitive with otherexchanges that currently have similarrules in effect. The Commission,consistent with the protection ofinvestors and the public interest, hasdetermined to make the proposed rulechange operative as of the date August23, 2001.14

At any time within 60 days of August7, 2001, the Commission maysummarily abrogate such rule change ifit appears to the Commission that suchaction is necessary or appropriate in thepublic interest, for the protection ofinvestors, or otherwise in furtherance ofthe purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of CommentsInterested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, andarguments concerning the foregoing,including whether the proposed rulechange, as amended, is consistent withthe Act. Persons making writtensubmissions should file six copiesthereof with the Secretary, Securitiesand Exchange Commission, 450 FifthStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549–0609. Copies of the submission, allsubsequent amendments, all writtenstatements with respect to the proposedrule change, as amended, that are filedwith the Commission, and all writtencommunications relating to theproposed rule change, as amended,between the Commission and anyperson, other than those that may bewithheld from the public in accordancewith the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, willbe available for inspection and copyingin the Commission’s Public ReferenceRoom. Copies of such filing will also beavailable for inspection and copying at



15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

the principal office of the Phlx. Allsubmissions should refer to File No.SR–Phlx–2001–61 and should besubmitted by September 19, 2001.




DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3538]

Department of State PerformanceReview Board Members (At-LargeBoard)

In accordance with Section 4314(c)(4)of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978(Pub. L. 95–454), the ExecutiveResources Board of the Department ofState has appointed the followingindividuals to the Department of StatePerformance Review Board (At-LargeBoard) register:

Samuel M. Witten, Assistant LegalAdvisor for Law Enforcement andIntelligence, Office of the LegalAdvisor, Department of State

Patrick R. Hayes, Executive Director,Bureau of Western HemisphereAffairs, Department of State

LeRoy Lowery, III, Senior Inspector,Office of the Inspector General,Department of State

Frank E. Moss, Executive Director,Bureau of Consular Affairs,Department of State

Brenda Saunders Sprague, Director,Office of Language Services, Bureau ofAdministration, Department of State

Christopher Flaggs, Director, DomesticFinancial Service, Bureau of Financeand Management Policy, Departmentof State


Alex De La Garza,Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of HumanResources, Department of State.[FR Doc. 01–21798 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]


OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATESTRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC):Request for Identification of PrivateSector Experts In ElectronicCommerce Who May Wish ToParticipate in the Work of the FreeTrade Area of the Americas (FTAA)Joint Government-Private SectorCommittee of Experts on ElectronicCommerce (Joint E-CommerceCommittee)

AGENCY: Office of the United StatesTrade Representative.ACTION: Request for identification ofprivate sector experts on electroniccommerce.

SUMMARY: The TPSC seeks to identifyU.S. private sector experts on issuesrelated to electronic commerce who maybe interested in participating in thework of the FTAA Joint E-CommerceCommittee. Interested members of thepublic are invited to submit writtennotice of their interest and theirqualifications.

DATES: Written expressions of interest inparticipating in the work of the JointCommittee should be submitted no laterthan noon on September 13, 2001.ADDRESSES: Expressions of interest(original plus 20 copies) should besubmitted to Gloria Blue, ExecutiveSecretary, Trade Policy Staff Committee,Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,1724 F St., Fifth Floor, NW,Washington, D.C., 20508. Attn: FTAAJoint E-Commerce Committee-PrivateSector Participation.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forprocedural questions concerning publiccomments, contact Gloria Blue,Executive Secretary, Trade Policy StaffCommittee, Office of the United StatesTrade Representative, (202) 395–3475.All other questions concerning the JointE-Commerce Committee may bedirected to Walter Bastian, ActingDeputy Assistant Secretary for theWestern Hemisphere, U.S. Departmentof Commerce (202) 482–4325,[email protected].


1. Background

At the Second Summit of theAmericas in April 1998, in Santiago,Chile, the 34 democratically-electedWestern Hemisphere leaders initiatednegotiations to create the FTAA no laterthan the year 2005. They establishednine negotiating groups, a consultativegroup, and two non-negotiatingcommittees, one of which is the Joint E-Commerce Committee, which began its

work in August 1998. The tradeministers mandated that bothgovernment and private sector expertsmeet as the Joint E-CommerceCommittee to make recommendationson how to increase and broaden thebenefits of electronic commerce; theJoint E-Commerce Committee is not anegotiating group.

During 1998–1999, the Government ofBarbados chaired the Joint E-CommerceCommittee. During 2000–2001, aUruguayan private sector representativechaired. The Government of Canada iscurrently chairing the Committeethrough October 2002 with a Peruvianprivate sector representative serving asVice Chair. Acting Deputy AssistantSecretary of Commerce for the WesternHemisphere, Walter Bastian, is leadingthe U.S. Government-private sectordelegation to the Joint E-CommerceCommittee.

Status of Work in the JointCommittee: At each of the past twoFTAA Ministerial meetings, in Toronto,Canada in November 1999 and BuenosAires, Argentina in April 2001, tradeministers received, and released to thepublic, reports prepared by the Joint E-Commerce Committee reflecting theculmination of its discussions over thepreceding 18 months on a broad rangeof electronic commerce issues. The JointE-Commerce Committee’srecommendations on increasing andbroadening the benefits of electroniccommerce were drafted with the fullparticipation of government and privatesector experts from every region in theHemisphere. FTAA trade ministerscommitted to share the report and itsrecommendations with other relevantauthorities within their governments.They also instructed the Joint E-Commerce Committee to continue itswork as a non-negotiating group andproduce further recommendations overthe next 18-month period. The ‘‘SecondReport with Recommendations toMinisters April 9, 2001,’’ is available inEnglish and Spanish on the USTRwebsite (www.ustr.gov), the officialFTAA website (http://www.ftaa-alca.org) and the U.S. GovernmentElectronic Commerce website (http://www.ecommerce.gov).

The Joint E-Commerce Committee metmost recently on July 23–24, 2001 inPanama City, Panama. At this meeting,the Joint E-Commerce Committee’sgovernment and private sectorrepresentatives identified issues to bediscussed during the next phase of itswork. Over the next year, the Joint E-Commerce Committee will focus on thedigital divide (including issues relatedto access and infrastructure, small andmedium sized enterprises, education



and training); consumer protection; ande-government. The Joint E-CommerceCommittee will make furtherrecommendations to trade ministers fortheir consideration at the next FTAAMinisterial meeting in October 2002.

2. Private Sector ParticipationDuring 1998–1999, 13 U.S. private

sector representatives, reflecting abalance of interests and electroniccommerce issue expertise, participatedin the work of the Joint E-CommerceCommittee. Nineteen (19) U.S. privatesector representatives participatedduring 2000–2001. All had responded tonotices in the Federal Register (63 FR42090, August 6, 1998, 64 FR 26811,May 17, 1999, 65 FR 40, February 29,2000 and 65 FR 150, August 3, 2000) orto requests to official trade advisorsinviting expressions of interest andqualifications to participate in the workof the Joint E-Commerce Committee.

As the Joint E-Commerce Committeefocuses on its work for 2001–2002, theTPSC is seeking to solicit interest innew U.S. private sector participation onthe Joint E-Commerce Committee. Inorder to assist the TPSC in identifyingU.S. private sector experts on issuesrelated to the Joint E-CommerceCommittee’s upcoming work, membersof the public are invited to submitwritten notice of their interest anddescribe their qualifications.Qualifications of interest include:demonstrated expertise in one or moreaspects of electronic commerce, such asthe digital divide, consumer protection,e-government; knowledge of theWestern Hemisphere, includingestablished contacts with foreign privatesector interests in the region; an abilityand willingness to broadly solicit viewsfrom and disseminate information toprivate sector interests; and familiaritywith U.S. and foreign trade andinvestment policies and obligations anddevelopments in electronic commercefora.

Written Expression of InterestPersons wishing to make written

expressions of interest should providethe original plus twenty (20) typedcopies, to Gloria Blue, ExecutiveSecretary, Trade Policy Staff Committee,Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,1724 F St., NW, Washington, D.C.,20508, (202) 395–3475, no later thannoon, September 6, 2001. If possible,expressions of interest should besubmitted before this date.

Business confidential informationwill be subject to the requirements of 15CFR 2003.6. Any business confidentialmaterial must be clearly marked as suchon the cover letter or page and each

succeeding page, and must beaccompanied by a nonconfidentialsummary thereof. If the submissioncontains business confidentialinformation, twenty copies of a publicversion that does not containconfidential information must besubmitted. A justification as to why theinformation contained in thesubmission should be treatedconfidentially must be included in thesubmission. In addition, anysubmissions containing businessconfidential information must be clearlymarked ‘‘Confidential’’ at the top andbottom of the cover page (or letter) andeach succeeding page of the submission.The version that does not containconfidential information should also beclearly marked, at the top and bottom ofeach page, ‘‘public version’’ or ‘‘non-confidential.’’

Nonconfidential submissions will beavailable for public inspection in theUSTR Reading Room in the Annex ofthe Office of the USTR, 1724 F Street,N.W., Room Three, Washington, DC. Anappointment to review the file may bemade by calling Brenda Webb (202)395–6186. The Reading Room is open tothe public from 10:00 a.m. to 12 noon,and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Mondaythrough Friday.

To be assured of consideration forparticipation in this round ofdiscussions, expressions of interestshould be submitted no later than 12noon on September 13, 2001.

Carmen Suro-Bredie,Chair, Trade Policy Staff Committee.[FR Doc. 01–21735 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3190–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATESTRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS–ll]

WTO Dispute Settlement ProceedingRegarding the U.S. Department ofCommerce Preliminary CountervailingDuty Determination and PreliminaryCritical Circumstances DeterminationConcerning Certain Softwood LumberFrom Canada, and Section777a(e)(2)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Actof 1930

AGENCY: Office of the United StatesTrade Representative.ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of the UnitedStates Trade Representative (USTR) isproviding notice that on August 21,2001, the United States received fromCanada a request for consultationsunder the Marrakesh Agreement

Establishing the World TradeOrganization (WTO Agreement)regarding the U.S. Department ofCommerce (DOC) preliminarycountervailing duty determination andpreliminary critical circumstancesdetermination concerning certainsoftwood lumber from Canada, as wellas section 777a(e)(2)(A) and (B) of theTariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677f–1(e)(2)(A) and (B)). Canada alleges that:

• DOC’s preliminary countervailingduty determination is inconsistent withArticles 1, 2, 10, 14, 17.1, 17.5, 19.4, and32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies andCountervailing Measures (SCMAgreement) and Article VI:3 of theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade1994 (GATT 1994);

• DOC’s preliminary criticalcircumstances determination isinconsistent with Articles 17.1, 17.3,17.4, 19.4, and 20.6 of the SCMAgreement; and

• Section 777A(e)(2)(A) and (B) of theTariff Act of 1930, 19 CFR §§ 351.214(k)and 351.213(b) and (k), and theoperation of these provisions in theDOC countervailing duty investigationof certain softwood lumber productsfrom Canada are inconsistent with U.S.obligations under Article XVI:4 of theWTO Agreement, Article VI:3 of theGATT 1994, and Articles 10, 19.3, 19.4,21.1, 21.2, 32.1, and 32.5 of the SCMAgreement.

USTR invites written comments fromthe public concerning the issues raisedin this dispute.DATES: Although USTR will accept anycomments received during the course ofthe dispute settlement proceedings,comments should be submitted on orbefore September 20, 2001 to be assuredof timely consideration by USTR.ADDRESSES: Submit comments to SandyMcKinzy, Monitoring and EnforcementUnit, Office of the General Counsel,Room 122, Office of the United StatesTrade Representative, 600 17th Street,N.W., Washington, D.C., 20508, Attn:Softwood Lumber dispute. Telephone:(202) 395–3582.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Willis S. Martyn, Associate GeneralCounsel, Office of the United StatesTrade Representative, 600 17th Street,N.W., Washington, D.C., (202) 395–3582.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section127(b) of the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C.3537(b)(1)) requires that notice andopportunity for comment be providedafter the United States submits orreceives a request for the establishmentof a WTO dispute settlement panel.Consistent with this obligation, but in



an effort to provide additionalopportunity for comment, USTR isproviding notice that consultations havebeen requested pursuant to the WTODispute Settlement Understanding. Ifsuch consultations should fail to resolvethe matter and a dispute settlementpanel is established pursuant to theDSU, such panel, which would hold itsmeetings in Geneva, Switzerland, wouldbe expected to issue a report on itsfindings and recommendations withinsix to nine months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by CanadaThe notice of the DOC preliminary

countervailing duty determination andpreliminary critical circumstancesdetermination concerning certainsoftwood lumber from Canada waspublished in the Federal Register onAugust 17, 2001. The notice explainsthe basis for DOC’s preliminarydeterminations that Canada providescountervailable subsidies to theCanadian lumber industry and thatcritical circumstances exist. The noticefurther states that DOC will instruct theU.S. Customs Service to suspendliquidation of all entries of certainsoftwood lumber from Canada that areentered, or withdrawn from warehouse,for consumption on or after May 19,2001. In addition, importers will berequired to post a cash deposit or bondequal to the 19.31 percent ad valoremsubsidy rate calculated by DOC for allimports that are entered, or withdrawnfrom warehouse, for consumption on orafter August 17, 2001. In its panelrequest, Canada describes its claimsagainst DOC’s determinations in thefollowing manner:

Regarding the preliminary countervailingduty determination, Canada considers thisdetermination to be inconsistent with U.S.obligations under Articles 1, 2, 10, 14, 17.1,17.5, 19.4, and 32.1 of the SCM Agreementand Article VI(3) of GATT 1994. Suchinconsistencies include the determination’streatment of stumpage as a ‘‘financialcontribution’’, its finding that stumpage is‘‘specific’’, its presumption that an allegedbenefit from stumpage passes through anarm’s-length transaction to a downstreamrecipient, its measurement of the ‘‘adequacyof remuneration’’ by reference to conditionsin another country rather than prevailingmarket conditions in Canada, and itsinflation of the subsidy found by calculatinga ‘‘weighted average country-wide rate’’based upon only a portion of Canadianexports of softwood lumber to the UnitedStates.

With respect to the preliminary criticalcircumstances determination, Canadaconsiders this determination to beinconsistent with Articles 17.1, 17.3, 17.4,19.4, and 20.6 of the SCM Agreement becauseit is based upon an alleged export subsidythat was found to be de minimis, purports to

apply a rate that is in excess of the ratedetermined for subsidies found to have beenbestowed inconsistently with GATT 1994and the SCM Agreement, was made withoutthe requisite finding of injury caused bymassive imports of softwood lumberbenefiting from this alleged export subsidy,and was based on a distorted finding of‘‘massive imports’’. Furthermore, there is nobasis in the SCM Agreement for theapplication of provisional measures pursuantto such a determination.

Section 777a(e)(2)(A) and (B) of theTariff Act of 1930 provides that, incertain situations, DOC may limit itsinvestigation to less than all knownexporters or producers of the subjectmerchandise or calculate a single,country-wide subsidy rate to be appliedto all exporters and producers. Theregulations at 19 CFR 351.214(k) and§ 351.213(b) and (k) concernadministrative reviews of countervailingduty orders. In its panel request, Canadadescribes its claims against section777a(e)(2)(A) and (B) and theregulations in the following manner:

The U.S. measures at issue with regard toexpedited and administrative reviews aresection 777A(e)(2)(A) and (B) of the TariffAct of 1930, U.S. Department of Commerceregulations at 19 CFR 351.214(k) and§ 351.213(b) and (k), and the operation ofthese measures in the ongoing U.S.countervailing duty proceeding againstcertain softwood lumber products fromCanada. Canada considers these measures tobe inconsistent with U.S. obligations underArticle VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles10, 19.3, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and 32.1 of the SCMAgreement. Canada also considers that theUnited States has failed to ensure that itslaws and regulations are in conformity withits WTO obligations as required by Article32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4of the WTO Agreement.

Public Comment: Requirements forSubmissions

Interested persons are invited tosubmit written comments concerningthe issues raised in the dispute.Comments must be in English andprovided in fifteen copies. A personrequesting that information contained ina comment submitted by that person betreated as confidential businessinformation must certify that suchinformation is business confidential andwould not customarily be released tothe public by the commenter.Confidential business information mustbe clearly marked ‘‘BUSINESSCONFIDENTIAL’’ in a contrasting colorink at the top of each page of each copy.

Information or advice contained in acomment submitted, other than businessconfidential information, may bedetermined by USTR to be confidentialin accordance with section 135(g)(2) ofthe Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes thatinformation or advice may qualify assuch, the submitter—

(1) Must so designate the informationor advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ in acontrasting color ink at the top of eachpage of each copy; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of theinformation or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of theURAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR willmaintain a file on this disputesettlement proceeding, accessible to thepublic, in the USTR Reading Room,which is located at 1724 F Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20508. The public filewill include non-confidential commentsreceived by USTR from the public withrespect to the dispute; if a disputesettlement panel is convened, the U.S.submissions to that panel, thesubmissions, or non-confidentialsummaries of submissions, to the panelreceived from other participants in thedispute, as well as the report of thepanel; and, if applicable, the report ofthe Appellate Body. An appointment toreview the public file (Docket WTO/DS-__, Softwood Lumber Dispute) may bemade by calling Brenda Webb, (202)395–6186. The USTR Reading Room isopen to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday.

Julia Christine Bliss,Acting Assistant United States TradeRepresentative for Monitoring andEnforcement.[FR Doc. 01–21832 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3190–01–M



Notice of Availability of a Tier 1 DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for FAA Site Approval and LandAcquisition by the State of Illinois fora Proposed South Suburban Airport,and Notice of Public Comment Periodand Schedule of Public Hearing

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of availability, notice ofpublic comment period, notice of publichearing.

SUMMARY: The Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) is issuing thisnotice to advise the public that a Tier 1Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)—FAA Site Approval and LandAcquisition by the State of Illinois for a



1 On August 9, 2001, UP concurrently filed apetition for exemption in STB Finance Docket No.34082 (Sub-No. 1), Union Pacific RailroadCompany—Trackage Rights Exemption—TheBurlington Northern and Santa Fe RailwayCompany, wherein UP requests that the Boardpermit the proposed temporary overhead trackagerights arrangement described in the presentproceeding to expire on September 23, 2001. Thatpetition will be addressed by the Board in aseparate decision.

Proposed South Suburban Airport, hasbeen prepared and is available forpublic review and comment. Writtenrequests for the Tier 1 DEIS and writtencomments on the Tier 1 DEIS can besubmitted to the individual listed in thesection FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT. A public hearing will be heldon October 4, 2001. The publiccomment period will commence onAugust 31, 2001 and will close onOctober 23, 2001.

PUBLIC COMMENT AND AWORKSHOP/MEETING: The start of thepublic comment period on the Tier 1DEIS will be August 31, 2001 and willend on October 23, 2001 (whichincludes the Council on EnvironmentalQuality’s required 45 day publiccomment period). A Public Hearing willbe held on October 4, 2001. Publiccomments will begin at 4:00 p.m. Thepublic hearing will last till 8:00 p.m.The location for the public hearing isthe Holiday Inn, 500 Holiday PlazaDrive, Matteson, Illinois.

Copies of the Tier 1 DEIS may beviewed during regular business hours atthe following locations:

1. Chicago Airports District Office,Room 312, Federal AviationAdministration, 2300 East DevonAvenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.

2. Governors State University Library,Governors State University, UniversityPark, Illinois 60466.

3. Joliet Public Library, 150 NorthOttawa Street, Joliet, Illinois 60432.

4. Northwestern University Library,1935 Sheridan Road, Evanston, Illinois60202.

5. Harold Washington Public Library,400 South State Street, Chicago, Illinois60605.

6. Kankakee Public Library, 304 SouthIndiana, Kankakee, Illinois 60901.

7. Matteson Public Library, 801 SouthSchool Avenue, Matteson, Illinois60443.

8. Crete Public Library, 1177 NorthMain Street, Crete, Illinois 60417.

9. Indiana University NorthwestLibrary, 3400 Broadway, Gary, Indiana46408.

10. Purdue University, CalumetCampus Library, 2200 169th Street,Hammond, Indiana 46323.

11. Village of Manteno, Village Hall,269 North Main Street, Manteno, Illinois60950.

12. Village of Monee, Village Hall,5130 West Court Street, Monee, Illinois60449.

13. Village of Beecher, Village Hall,724 Penfield, Beecher, Illinois 60401.

14. Village of Peotone, Village Hall,208 East Main Street, Peotone, Illinois60468.

15. College of DuPage, LearningResources Center (Library), 425 SecondStreet, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.

16. Chicago Southland DevelopmentInc., Third Airport InformationClearinghouse, 1655 Union Avenue,Chicago Heights, Illinois 60411.

17. Illinois Department ofTransportation, 310 South MichiganAvenue, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

18. Illinois Department ofTransportation, Illinois Division ofAeronautics, One Langhorne BondDrive/Capital Airport, Springfield,Illinois 62707.

19. Illinois Department ofTransportation, South Suburban AirportProgram Office, 4749 Lincoln MallDrive, Suite 501, Matteson Illinois60443.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:Denis R. Rewerts, Capacity Officer,Federal Aviation Administration,Chicago Airports District Office, Room312, 2300 East Devon Avenue, DesPlaines, Illinois 60018. Mr. Rewerts canbe contacted at (847) 294–7195 (voice),(847) 294–7046 (facsimile) or by e-mailat 9–AGL–SSA–EIS–[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At therequest of the State of Illinois,Department of Transportation, the FAAis preparing a tiered EnvironmentalImpact Statement for site approval of apotential future air carrier airport in thesouth suburban area of Chicago. FAASite approval and acquisition of land bythe State of Illinois would preserve theoption of developing a potential, futureair carrier airport to serve the greaterChicago region if determined necessaryand appropriate to meet future aviationcapacity needs in the region. Allreasonable alternatives will beconsidered including the no-actionoption. No use of Federal funds orAirport Layout Plan approval norapproval of any airport facilities iscontemplated under this action. Asubsequent tier, or tiers, may beprepared and considered at a later dateto assess the potential impacts resultingfrom development of aviation facilities,as these issues become ripe for decision.

Comments from interested parties onthe Tier 1 DEIS are encouraged and maybe presented verbally at a public hearingor may be submitted in writing to theFAA at the address listed in sectionentitled FOR INFORMATION CONTACT. Thecomment period will close on October23, 2001.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on August22, 2001.Philip M. Smithmeyer,Manager, Chicago Airports District Office,FAA, Great Lakes Region.[FR Doc. 01–21827 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M


Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34082]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—Trackage Rights Exemption—TheBurlington Northern and Santa FeRailway Company

The Burlington Northern and Santa FeRailway Company (BNSF) has agreed togrant temporary overhead trackagerights to Union Pacific RailroadCompany (UP) over approximately129.2 miles of BNSF trackage extendingfrom BNSF milepost 218.1, nearTemple, TX, to BNSF milepost 6.1, nearFort Worth, TX.1

The transaction was scheduled to beconsummated on August 20, 2001. Thetemporary trackage rights will facilitatemaintenance work on UP’s lines.

As a condition to this exemption, anyemployees affected by the trackagerights will be protected by theconditions imposed in Norfolk andWestern Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified inMendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease andOperate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

This notice is filed under 49 CFR1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false ormisleading information, the exemptionis void ab initio. Petitions to revoke theexemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)may be filed at any time. The filing ofa petition to revoke will notautomatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of allpleadings, referring to STB FinanceDocket No. 34082 must be filed with theSurface Transportation Board, Office ofthe Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 KStreet, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy of eachpleading must be served on Robert T.Opal, Esq., Union Pacific RailroadCompany, 1416 Dodge Street, Room830, Omaha, NE 68179.



1 The Board will grant a stay if an informeddecision on environmental issues (whether raisedby a party or by the Board’s Section ofEnvironmental Analysis (SEA) in its independentinvestigation) cannot be made before theexemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Anyrequest for a stay should be filed as soon as possibleso that the Board may take appropriate action beforethe exemption’s effective date.

2 Each offer of financial assistance must beaccompanied by the filing fee, which currently isset for $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

Board decisions and notices areavailable on our website atwww.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: August 22, 2001.By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21684 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P


Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket Nos. AB–590X and AB–193(Sub-No. 2X)]

Maryland Mass TransitAdministration—AbandonmentExemption in Baltimore City, BaltimoreCounty, and Anne Arundel County, MDand Canton Railroad Company—Discontinuance of Trackage RightsExemption

Maryland Mass TransitAdministration (MTA) and CantonRailroad Company (Canton) have filed anotice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments andDiscontinuances of Trackage Rights forMTA to abandon and Canton todiscontinue trackage rights over MTA’sline of railroad known as the SouthLine-Central Light Rail Line (Line) fromthe Line’s point of connection with CSXTransportation, Inc. (CSXT) at PatapscoAvenue in Baltimore City, MD (CSXTmilepost 0.0, Clifford Junction, MD), tothe end of the Line at Dorsey (DorseyRoad), in Glen Burnie, MD, withinBaltimore City, Baltimore County, andAnne Arundel County, MD. The linetraverses United States Postal ServiceZip Codes 21225, 21227, 21090, and21061.

MTA and Canton have certified that:(1) No local traffic has moved over theline for at least 2 years; (2) there is nooverhead traffic that is to be reroutedover other lines; (3) no formal complaintfiled by a user of rail service on the line(or by a state or local government entityacting on behalf of such user) regardingcessation of service over the line eitheris pending with the SurfaceTransportation Board (Board) or withany U.S. District Court or has beendecided in favor of complainant withinthe 2-year period; and (4) therequirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8(historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmentalagencies) have been met.

As a condition to these exemptions,any employee adversely affected by theabandonment or discontinuance shall beprotected under Oregon Short Line R.Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C.91 (1979). To address whether thiscondition adequately protects affectedemployees, a petition for partialrevocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)must be filed. Provided no formalexpression of intent to file an offer offinancial assistance (OFA) has beenreceived, these exemptions will beeffective on September 28, 2001, unlessstayed pending reconsideration.Petitions to stay that do not involveenvironmental issues,1 formalexpressions of intent to file an OFAunder 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2) 2 and trailuse/rail banking requests under 49 CFR1152.29 must be filed by September 10,2001. Petitions to reopen or requests forpublic use conditions under 49 CFR1152.28 must be filed by September 18,2001, with: Surface TransportationBoard, Office of the Secretary, CaseControl Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W.,Washington, DC 20423.

MTA states that the line is suitable forthe public purpose of light rail masstransportation, and it will continue touse the right-of-way for provision ofsuch service after the abandonment anddiscontinuance take effect. MTA alsostates that the Line is not suitable forany other concurrent use, public orprivate and it is not willing to transfertitle to the right-of-way or use theproperty for other than light railpurposes.

A copy of any petition filed with theBoard should be sent to applicants’representative: Jamie P. Rennert, Esq.,Foley & Lardner, 888 Sixteenth Street,N.W., Washington, DC 20006.

If the verified notice contains false ormisleading information, the exemptionis void ab initio.

MTA and Canton have filed anenvironmental report which addressesthe abandonment’s effects, if any, on theenvironment and historic resources.SEA will issue an environmentalassessment (EA) by August 31, 2001.Interested persons may obtain a copy ofthe EA by writing to SEA (Room 500,Surface Transportation Board,

Washington, DC 20423) or by callingSEA, at (202) 565–1545. Comments onenvironmental and historic preservationmatters must be filed within 15 daysafter the EA becomes available to thepublic.

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR1152.29(e)(2), MTA shall file a notice ofconsummation with the Board to signifythat it has exercised the authoritygranted and fully abandoned its line. Ifconsummation has not been effected byMTA’s filing of a notice ofconsummation by August 29, 2002, andthere are no legal or regulatory barriersto consummation, the authority toabandon will automatically expire.

Board decisions and notices areavailable on our website at‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: August 22, 2001.By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 01–21794 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Surety Companies Acceptable onFederal Bonds: Termination—StarInsurance Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service,Fiscal Service, Department of theTreasury.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 2 tothe Treasury Department Circular 570;2001 Revision, published July 2, 2001 at66 FR 35024.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–7102.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice ishereby given that the Certificate ofAuthority issued by the Treasury to theabove named Company, under theUnited States Code, Title 31, Sections9304–9308, to qualify as an acceptablesurety on Federal bonds is herebyterminated effective today.

The Company was last listed as anacceptable surety on Federal bonds at 66FR 35055, July 2, 2001.

With respect to any bonds, includingcontinuous bonds, currently in forcewith the above listed Company, bond-approving officers should secure newbonds with acceptable sureties in thoseinstances where a significant amount ofliability remains outstanding. Inaddition, in no event, should bonds thatare continuous in nature be renewed.



The Circular may be viewed anddownloaded through the Internet athttp://www.fms.treas.gov.c570/index.html. A hard copy may bepurchased from the GovernmentPrinting Office (GPO) SubscriptionService, Washington, DC, Telephone(202) 512–1800. When ordering theCircular from GPO, use the followingstock number: 769–004–04067–1.

Questions concerning this Notice maybe directed to the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury, Financial ManagementService, Financial Accounting andService Division, Surety Bond Branch,3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04,Hyattsville, MD 20782.


Judith R. Tillman,Assistant Commissioner, FinancialOperations, Financial Management Service.[FR Doc. 01–21797 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]



National Research Advisory Council;Notice of Meeting

The Department of Veterans Affairs(VA) gives notice under Public Law 92–463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act)that the Veterans Affairs NationalResearch Advisory Council will meet atthe Residence Inn by Marriott, PentagonCity in the Eisenhower Ballroom, 550Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202,on September 5, 2001, from 8 a.m. to 1a.m. The agenda for this session of themeeting will include the minutes fromthe previous meeting and overview ofthe VA Career Development Program,research infrastructure needs, and theRehabilitation Research andDevelopment Service. Established bythe Secretary of the VA, the purpose ofthe Council is to provide external adviceand review for VA’s research mission.Those planning to attend the openmeeting should contact Ms. Lisa Gilbert,Office of Research and Development at(202) 273–8243.


Nora E. Egan,Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc. 01–21803 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]



President’s Task Force To ImproveHealth Care Delivery for Our Nation’sVeterans; Notice of Meeting

The Department of Veterans Affairs(VA) gives notice under Public Law 92–463 that a meeting of the President’sTask Force to Improve Health CareDelivery for Our Nation’s Veterans willtake place on Wednesday, September12, 2001. The meeting will be held inthe Polaris Room at the Ronald ReaganInternational Trade Center, 1300Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC. The meeting willconvene at 8:30 a.m., adjourn at 5:30p.m. and is open to the general public.

The purpose of the President’s TaskForce to Improve Health Care Deliveryfor Our Nation’s Veterans is to:

(a) Identify ways to improve benefitsand services for Department of VeteransAffairs (VA) beneficiaries and forDepartment of Defense (DoD) militaryretirees who are also eligible for benefitsfrom VA, through better coordination ofthe activities of the two departments;

(b) Review barriers and challengesthat impede VA and DoD coordination,including budgeting processes, timelybilling, cost accounting, informationtechnology, and reimbursement.Identify opportunities to improve suchbusiness practices to ensure high qualityand cost effective health care; and

(c) Identify opportunities forimproved resource utilization throughpartnership between VA and DoD tomaximize the use of resources andinfrastructure, including: buildings,information technology and data sharingsystems, procurement of supplies,equipment and services, and delivery ofcare.

The meeting will commence with theformal administration of the oath to theappointed Task Force membersfollowed by further introductions anddiscussion of administrative andsubstantive issues. Such issues willinclude dates and locations of futuremeetings, potential topics and similarmatters pertaining to the officialorganization and charge of the TaskForce.

The VA and DoD will separately briefthe Task Force on existing VA–DoDjoint-venture initiatives and otherpractices currently being undertakenwithin VA and DoD concerning the TaskForce’s designated mission underExecutive Order 13214.

Representatives of the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) will provide asynopsis of their findings from GAO’sstudies of VA–DoD joint ventures andopportunities for sharing initiatives.

Task Force members will conductbrief question and answer sessions withVA, DoD and GAO officials followingtheir respective presentations.

Interested parties can provide writtencomments to Mr. Richard Larson, StaffAssistant, Department of VeteransAffairs, Office of the Secretary, 810Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC20420.

Dated: August 24, 2001.By Direction of the Secretary.

Nora E. Egan,Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc. 01–21805 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–M


Special Medical Advisory Group;Notice of Meeting

As required by the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, VA hereby gives noticethat the Special Medical AdvisoryGroup has scheduled a meeting onSeptember 12, 2001. The meeting willconvene at 9 a.m. and end at 2 p.m. Themeeting will be held in Room 830 at VACentral Office, 810 Vermont Avenue,N.W., Washington, D.C. The purpose ofthe meeting is to advise the Secretaryand Under Secretary for Health relativeto the care and treatment of disabledveterans, and other matters pertinent tothe Department’s Veterans HealthAdministration (VHA).

The agenda for the meeting willinclude an update on VHACommunication Plans; Capital AssetRealignment for Enhanced Services(CARES) update; Graduation MedicalEducation update; and an overview onthe Mental Health Program.

All sessions will be open to thepublic. Those wishing to attend shouldcontact Celestine Brockington, Office ofthe Under Secretary for Health,Department of Veterans Affairs at (202)273–5878.

Dated: August 23, 2001.By direction of the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs.Nora E. Egan,Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc. 01–21804 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–M


Wednesday,

August 29, 2001

Part II

Department of theInteriorFish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20Migratory Bird Hunting; Early Seasonsand Bag and Possession Limits forCertain Migratory Game Birds in theContiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii,Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; FinalRule





50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AH79

Migratory Bird Hunting; Early Seasonsand Bag and Possession Limits forCertain Migratory Game Birds in theContiguous United States, Alaska,Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the VirginIslands

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule prescribes thehunting seasons, hours, areas, and dailybag and possession limits of mourning,white-winged, and white-tipped doves;band-tailed pigeons; rails; moorhensand gallinules; woodcock; commonsnipe; sandhill cranes; sea ducks; early(September) waterfowl seasons;migratory game birds in Alaska, Hawaii,Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; andsome extended falconry seasons. Takingof migratory birds is prohibited unlessspecifically provided for by annualregulations. This rule permits taking ofdesignated species during the 2001–02season.DATES: This rule is effective onSeptember 1, 2001.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jonathan Andrew, Chief, or Ron W.Kokel, Division of Migratory BirdManagement, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, (703) 358–1714.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 2001On April 30, 2001, we published in

the Federal Register (66 FR 21298) aproposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. Theproposal provided a background andoverview of the migratory bird huntingregulations process, and dealt with theestablishment of seasons, limits, andother regulations for migratory gamebirds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107,20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. OnJune 14, 2001, we published in theFederal Register (66 FR 32297) a seconddocument providing supplementalproposals for early- and late-seasonmigratory bird hunting regulationsframeworks and the proposed regulatoryalternatives for the 2001–02 duckhunting season. The June 14supplement also provided detailedinformation on the 2001–02 regulatoryschedule and announced the ServiceMigratory Bird Regulations Committee(SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.

On June 20–21, we held openmeetings with the Flyway Council

Consultants at which the participantsreviewed information on the currentstatus of migratory shore and uplandgame birds and developedrecommendations for the 2001–02regulations for these species plusregulations for migratory game birds inAlaska, Puerto Rico, and the VirginIslands, special September waterfowlseasons in designated States, special seaduck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway,and extended falconry seasons. Inaddition, we reviewed and discussedpreliminary information on the status ofwaterfowl as it relates to thedevelopment and selection of theregulatory packages for the 2001–02regular waterfowl seasons. On July 24,we published in the Federal Register(66 FR 38494) a third documentspecifically dealing with the proposedframeworks for early-season regulationsand the final regulatory alternatives forthe 2001–02 duck hunting season.

On August 1–2, 2001, we held apublic meeting in Washington, DC, asannounced in the April 30, and June 14Federal Registers, to review the statusof waterfowl. Proposed huntingregulations were discussed for lateseasons. On August 21, 2001, wepublished a fourth document in theFederal Register (66 FR 44010) whichcontained final frameworks for earlymigratory bird hunting seasons fromwhich wildlife conservation agencyofficials from the States, Puerto Rico,and the Virgin Islands selected early-season hunting dates, hours, areas, andlimits. We published proposedframeworks for the 2001–02 late-seasonmigratory bird hunting regulations onAugust 28, 2001, in the FederalRegister.

The final rule described here is thesixth in the series of proposed,supplemental, and final rulemakingdocuments for migratory game birdhunting regulations and dealsspecifically with amending subpart K of50 CFR 20. It sets hunting seasons,hours, areas, and limits for mourning,white-winged, and white-tipped doves;band-tailed pigeons; rails; moorhensand gallinules; woodcock; commonsnipe; sandhill cranes; sea ducks; early(September) waterfowl seasons;mourning doves in Hawaii; migratorygame birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, andthe Virgin Islands; youth waterfowlhunting day; and some extendedfalconry seasons.

NEPA ConsiderationNEPA considerations are covered by

the programmatic document, ‘‘FinalSupplemental Environmental ImpactStatement: Issuance of AnnualRegulations Permitting the Sport

Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88–14),’’ filed with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency on June 9, 1988. Wepublished a Notice of Availability in theFederal Register on June 16, 1988 (53FR 22582). We published our Record ofDecision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR31341). Copies are available from theaddress indicated under the captionADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act ConsiderationWe have considered provisions of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, asamended, (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543;hereinafter the Act) to ensure thathunting is not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of any speciesdesignated as endangered or threatenedor modify or destroy its critical habitatand that the action is consistent withconservation programs for those species.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866This rule was reviewed by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB). Themigratory bird hunting regulations areeconomically significant and areannually reviewed by OMB under E.O.12866.

Regulatory Flexibility ActThese regulations have a significant

economic impact on substantialnumbers of small entities under theRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.). We analyzed the economicimpacts of the annual huntingregulations on small business entities indetail and issued a Small EntityFlexibility Analysis (Analysis) in 1998.The Analysis documented thesignificant beneficial economic effect ona substantial number of small entities.The primary source of informationabout hunter expenditures for migratorygame bird hunting is the NationalHunting and Fishing Survey, which isconducted at 5-year intervals. TheAnalysis was based on the 1996National Hunting and Fishing Surveyand the U.S. Department of Commerce’sCounty Business Patterns, from which itwas estimated that migratory birdhunters would spend between $429million and $1.084 billion at smallbusinesses in 1998. Copies of theAnalysis are available upon requestfrom the address indicated under thecaption ADDRESSES.

Small Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act

This rule is a major rule under 5U.S.C. 804(2), the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.For the reasons outlined above, this rulehas an annual effect on the economy of$100 million or more. However, because



this rule establishes hunting seasons, wedo not plan to defer the effective dateunder the exemption contained in 5U.S.C. 808(1).

Paperwork Reduction Act

We examined these regulations underthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.We utilize the various recordkeepingand reporting requirements imposedunder regulations established in 50 CFRpart 20, Subpart K, in the formulation ofmigratory game bird huntingregulations. Specifically, OMB hasapproved the information collectionrequirements of the Migratory BirdHarvest Information Program andassigned control number 1018–0015(expires 9/30/2001). This information isused to provide a sampling frame forvoluntary national surveys to improveour harvest estimates for all migratorygame birds in order to better managethese populations. OMB has alsoapproved the information collectionrequirements of the Sandhill CraneHarvest Questionnaire and assignedcontrol number 1018–0023 (expires 7/31/2003). The information from thissurvey is used to estimate themagnitude and the geographical andtemporal distribution of harvest, and theportion it constitutes of the totalpopulation. 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

We have determined and certify, incompliance with the requirements of theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemakingwill not ‘‘significantly or uniquely’’affect small governments, and will notproduce a Federal mandate of $100million or more in any given year onlocal or State government or privateentities. Therefore, this rule is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order12988

The Department, in promulgating thisrule, has determined that this rule willnot unduly burden the judicial systemand meets the requirements of sections3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

In accordance with Executive Order12630, this rule, authorized by theMigratory Bird Treaty Act, does nothave significant takings implicationsand does not affect any constitutionally

protected property rights. This rule willnot result in the physical occupancy ofproperty, the physical invasion ofproperty, or the regulatory taking of anyproperty. In fact, this rule will allowhunters to exercise otherwiseunavailable privileges, and, therefore,reduces restrictions on the use of privateand public property.

Federalism Effects

Due to the migratory nature of certainspecies of birds, the FederalGovernment has been givenresponsibility over these species by theMigratory Bird Treaty Act. We annuallyprescribe frameworks from which theStates make selections and employguidelines to establish specialregulations on Federal Indianreservations and ceded lands. Thisprocess preserves the ability of theStates and Tribes to determine whichseasons meet their individual needs.Any State or Tribe may be morerestrictive than the Federal frameworksat any time. The frameworks aredeveloped in a cooperative process withthe States and the Flyway Councils.This allows States to participate in thedevelopment of frameworks from whichthey will make selections, therebyhaving an influence on their ownregulations. These rules do not have asubstantial direct effect on fiscalcapacity, change the roles orresponsibilities of Federal or Stategovernments, or intrude on State policyor administration. Therefore, inaccordance with Executive Order 13132,these regulations do not have significantfederalism effects and do not havesufficient federalism implications towarrant the preparation of a FederalismAssessment.

Government-to-GovernmentRelationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President’smemorandum of April 29, 1994,‘‘Government-to-Government Relationswith Native American TribalGovernments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O.13175, and 512 DM 2, we haveevaluated possible effects on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and havedetermined that there are no effects.

Energy Effects—E.O. 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issuedE.O. 13211 on regulations thatsignificantly affect energy supply,distribution, and use. E.O. 13211requires agencies to prepare Statementsof Energy Effects when undertakingcertain actions. While this rule is asignificant regulatory action under E.O.12866, it is not expected to adversely

affect energy supplies, distribution, oruse. Therefore, this action is not asignificant energy action and noStatement of Energy Effects is required.

Regulations Promulgation

The rulemaking process for migratorygame bird hunting must, by its nature,operate under severe time constraints.However, we intend that the public begiven the greatest possible opportunityto comment on the regulations. Thus,when the preliminary proposedrulemaking was published, weestablished what we believed were thelongest periods possible for publiccomment. In doing this, we recognizedthat when the comment period closed,time would be of the essence. That is,if there were a delay in the effective dateof these regulations after this finalrulemaking, the States would haveinsufficient time to implement theirselected season dates and limits andstart their seasons in a timely manner.

We therefore find that ‘‘good cause’’exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C.553(d)(3) of the AdministrativeProcedure Act, and these regulationswill, therefore, take effect immediatelyupon publication. Accordingly, witheach conservation agency having had anopportunity to participate in selectingthe hunting seasons desired for its Stateor Territory on those species ofmigratory birds for which open seasonsare now prescribed, and considerationhaving been given to all other relevantmatters presented, certain sections oftitle 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20,subpart K, are hereby amended as setforth below.


Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements,Transportation, Wildlife.


Joseph E. Doddridge,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish andWildlife and Parks.

PART 20—[AMENDED]

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, title 50, chapter I, subchapterB, Part 20, subpart K of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended asfollows:

1. The authority citation for Part 20continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16U.S.C. 742 a-j, Pub. L. 106–108.




[FR Doc. 01–21836 Filed 8–28–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–C


i

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 168


CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION

Federal Register/Code of Federal RegulationsGeneral Information, indexes and other finding

aids202–523–5227

Laws 523–5227

Presidential DocumentsExecutive orders and proclamations 523–5227The United States Government Manual 523–5227

Other ServicesElectronic and on-line services (voice) 523–4534Privacy Act Compilation 523–3187Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523–6641TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523–5229

ELECTRONIC RESEARCH

World Wide Web

Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and otherpublications:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/naraFederal Register information and research tools, including PublicInspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access:

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg

E-mail

PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an E-mailservice for notification of recently enacted Public Laws. Tosubscribe, send E-mail to

[email protected] the text message:

subscribe PUBLAWS-L your name

Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe toPENS. We cannot respond to specific inquiries.

Reference questions. Send questions and comments about theFederal Register system to:

[email protected] Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents orregulations.

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, AUGUST

39615–40106......................... 140107–40572......................... 240573–40838......................... 340839–41128......................... 641129–41438......................... 741439–41754......................... 841755–42104......................... 942105–42412.........................1042413–42597.........................1342587–42728.........................1442729–42928.........................1542929–43064.........................1643065–43460.........................1743461–43760.........................2043761–44024.........................2144025–44290.........................2244291–44520.........................2344521–44944.........................2444945–45150.........................2745151–45562.........................2845563–45748.........................29

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING AUGUST

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Registerpublishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), whichlists parts and sections affected by documents published sincethe revision date of each title.

1 CFR

11.....................................44523

3 CFR

Proclamations:7458.................................45563Executive Orders:12002 (See EO

13222) ..........................4402512214 (See EO

13222) ..........................4402512722 (See Notice of

July 31, 2001) ..............4010512724 (See Notice of

July 31, 2001) ..............4010512735 (See EO

13222) ..........................4402512755 (See EO

13222) ..........................4402512851 (See Eo

13222) ..........................4402513026 (See EO

13222) ..........................4402513221...............................4057113222...............................44025Administrative Orders:Presidential

Determinations:No. 2001-22 of July

26, 2001 .......................40107No. 2001-23 of August

9, 2001 .........................44521Notices:Notice of July 31,

2001 .............................40105

5 CFR

1605.................................442761606.................................442761650.................................43461

7 CFR

20.....................................44291300...................................45151301 .........40573, 40923, 41439,

43065319...................................45151457...................................42729916...................................39615917...................................39615924...................................42413959...................................39621989...................................396231744.................................417551755.....................43310, 43314Proposed Rules:56.....................................4245658.....................................4245870.....................................42456246...................................40152319...................................45637911...................................40923

916...................................39690944.......................40845, 40923948.......................40153, 40155966...................................40158982...................................44086993...................................435341205.................................424641219.................................451881230.................................42469

8 CFR

212...................................42587214...................................42587245...................................42587248...................................42587274a.................................42587Proposed Rules:103...................................41456

9 CFR

54.....................................4396479.....................................4396494.....................................4259595.....................................42595130...................................39628317...................................40843381...................................40843Proposed Rules:317...................................41160327.......................41160, 42472

10 CFR

72.....................................43761Proposed Rules:50.....................................4062672.....................................43810430 ..........43123, 45188, 45189

12 CFR

202...................................41439205...................................41439208...................................42929213...................................41439220...................................44525226.......................41439, 43463230...................................41439709...................................40574712...................................40575721...................................40845749...................................405781411.................................44027Proposed Rules:611...................................43536614...................................43536701...................................40641702...................................40642741...................................40642925.......................41462, 43961930 ..........41462, 41474, 43961931.......................41462, 43961932 ..........41462, 41474, 43961933.......................41462, 43961

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:00 Aug 28, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\29AUCU.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 29AUCU

ii Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Reader Aids

14 CFR

23.....................................4058039 ...........39632, 40109, 40582,

40850, 40860, 40863, 40864,40867, 40869, 40870, 40872,40874, 40876, 40878, 40880,40893, 41129, 41440, 41443,42105, 42586, 42937, 42939,43066, 43068, 43070, 43072,43074, 43076, 43463, 43465,43467, 43471, 43475, 43763,43766, 43768, 43770, 44027,44030, 44032, 44034, 44035,44039, 44041, 44043, 44044,44046, 44047, 44291, 44293,44295, 44297, 44945, 44947,44950, 44954, 44957, 44958,45565, 45568, 45570, 45572,45573, 45575, 45577, 45579,

45581, 45584, 4559471 ...........42107, 42108, 43078,

43079, 43080, 44049, 44050,45162, 45596, 45597, 45598,45599, 45600, 45601, 45603,

4560473.....................................4560491.....................................4108895.....................................3963397 ...........41772, 41774, 44299,

44301121 .........41088, 41955, 41959,

44050, 44270125...................................44270135 ..........41088, 44050, 44270145...................................41088187...................................43680Proposed Rules:39 ...........40161, 40162, 40645,

40646, 40926, 41808, 42970,43124, 43126, 43128, 43130,43811, 43814, 43815, 44089,44093, 44311, 44313, 44316,44319, 44320, 44321, 44323,44326, 44553, 44556, 44558,44550, 44561, 44562, 44988,44990, 45190, 45192, 45194,45196, 45648, 45651, 45653,

45655, 4565771 ...........42618, 42619, 43121,

44327, 44993, 44994, 45198,45199, 45200, 45659, 45660

121...................................42807139...................................42807217...................................45201241...................................45201291...................................45201298...................................45201

15 CFR

734...................................42108740...................................42108Proposed Rules:801...................................45219922...................................43135

16 CFR

305...................................401101700.................................40111Proposed Rules:314...................................411621500.................................39692

17 CFR

1...........................41131, 422563.......................................43080

5.......................................4225615.....................................4225636.....................................4225637.....................................4225638.....................................4225639.....................................4560440.........................42256, 4228941 ...........42256, 43083, 44490,

44960100...................................42256140.......................43080, 44960166...................................42256170.......................42256, 43080180...................................42256200.......................40885, 43720202...................................43721232...................................42941240 ..........43721, 44490, 45138248...................................45138249.......................43721, 45138Proposed Rules:1.......................................452213.......................................452214.......................................45221140...................................45221155...................................45221

18 CFR

Proposed Rules:2.......................................4092935.....................................4092937.....................................40929

19 CFR

Proposed Rules:12.....................................42163113...................................42163122...................................40649123...................................40649151...................................42163162...................................42163177...................................45235

20 CFR

404...................................45162656...................................40584Proposed Rules:404...................................43136422...................................43136

21 CFR

510...................................43773520...................................43773524...................................42730558...................................45167606...................................40886640...................................408861308.................................429431310.................................42944Proposed Rules:500...................................42167874...................................42809

22 CFR

Ch. XIII.............................4273162.....................................43087

24 CFR

300...................................44258320...................................44258330...................................44258350...................................44258887...................................42731Proposed Rules:903...................................42926

25 CFR

151...................................42415Proposed Rules:151...................................42474502...................................41810

26 CFR

1...........................40590, 4113331.....................................3963840.....................................41775301.......................41133, 41778602...................................43478Proposed Rules:1 ..............40659, 41169, 445655c .....................................411705f......................................4117018.....................................41170301.......................41169, 41170

27 CFR

1.......................................427314.......................................427315.......................................427317.......................................4273112.....................................4273117.....................................4273518.....................................4273519.........................42731, 4273520.........................42731, 4273522.........................42731, 4273524.........................42731, 4273525.....................................4273529.....................................4273540.........................42731, 4347844.........................43478, 4561346.........................43478, 4561355.....................................4273170 ............42731, 42735, 4347871.....................................42731170...................................42735178.......................40596, 42586179.......................40596, 42586200...................................42731275.......................42731, 45613290.......................42731, 43478

28 CFR

16.........................41445, 43308

29 CFR

697...................................449674022.................................427374044.................................42737

30 CFR

42.....................................4516747.....................................4516756.....................................4516757.....................................4516777.....................................45167904...................................42739914...................................42743938...................................42750946...................................43480Proposed Rules:250...................................45236913...................................42813917...................................42815

31 CFR

357...................................44526

32 CFR

153...................................45169199.......................40601, 45171

311...................................41779323...................................41780326...................................41783Proposed Rules:199...................................39699320...................................41811326...................................43138505.......................41814, 43818701...................................43141806b.................................43820

33 CFR

100 .........41137, 41138, 41140,41141, 41142, 44050

117 .........40116, 40117, 40118,41144, 42110, 42601, 42602,

44969, 44971164...................................42753165 .........40120, 41784, 41786,

41787, 42602, 42604, 42753,42755, 42946, 42948, 43088,43774, 43776, 44302, 44971,

45619Proposed Rules:117...................................42972157...................................42170165...................................41170334 ..........42475, 42477, 42478

34 CFR

674...................................44006682...................................44006685...................................44006

36 CFR

211...................................43778Proposed Rules:242...................................450821228.................................40166

37 CFR

10.....................................44526202...................................40322Proposed Rules:201...................................45241

38 CFR

Ch. I .................................440523...........................44527, 4562021.....................................42586Proposed Rules:3...........................41483, 4409519.....................................4094220.....................................40942

39 CFR

20.....................................42112266...................................40890Proposed Rules:111 .........40663, 41485, 42817,

42820, 45245

40 CFR

9...........................40121, 4212251.....................................4060952 ...........40137, 40609, 40616,

40891, 40895, 40898, 40901,41789, 41793, 42123, 42126,42128, 42133, 42136, 42415,42418, 42425, 42427, 42605,42756, 42949, 42956, 43484,43485, 43488, 43492, 43497,43502, 43779, 43783, 43788,43795, 43796, 43797, 44053,44057, 44303, 44528, 44532,


iiiFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Reader Aids

44538, 44544, 44547, 44973,44974, 45632

60 ...........42425, 42427, 42608,44978

61.........................42425, 4242762 ...........41146, 42425, 42427,

4350963 ...........40121, 40903, 41086,

4421870.........................40901, 4243972.....................................4276181 ............40908, 44060, 4430496.....................................4060997.....................................40609180 .........39640, 39648, 39651,

39659, 39666, 39675, 40140,40141, 41446, 42761, 42765,

42772, 42776, 42957258.......................42441, 44061261.......................41796, 43054271 .........40911, 42140, 42962,

43798, 44071, 44307300 .........40912, 42610, 43806,

44073, 45634Proposed Rules:9.......................................4181752 ...........40168, 40664, 40802,

40947, 40947, 40953, 41174,41486, 41822, 41823, 42172,42185, 42186, 42187, 42479,42487, 42488, 42620, 42831,42974, 43549, 43550, 43552,43822, 43823, 44096, 44097,44568, 44571, 44574, 44578,44580, 44581, 44582, 44995,

44997, 4566160.........................42488, 4499761.....................................4248862 ...........41176, 42488, 43552,

4458263 ...........40166, 40324, 41664,

43141, 4314270 ...........40953, 42490, 42496,

4525381 ...........40953, 42187, 44097,

4432986.....................................40953122...................................41817123...................................41817124...................................41817130...................................41817140...................................44585141...................................42974142...................................42974152...................................45661153...................................40170156...................................45661174...................................43552180 ..........39705, 39709, 40170247...................................45256260...................................42193261.......................42193, 43823262...................................42193263...................................42193

264.......................42193, 43142265.......................42193, 43142266...................................43142270...................................43142271 .........42193, 42194, 42975,

43143, 43831, 44107, 44329281...................................40954300 .........40957, 41177, 41179,

42620, 43831372...................................44107721.......................42976, 42978

42 CFR

57.....................................4498158.....................................44981400...................................43090405...................................39828410...................................39828412.......................39828, 41316413.......................39828, 41316414...................................45173430...................................43090431...................................43090434...................................43090435...................................43090438...................................43090440...................................43090447...................................43090482...................................39828485...................................39828486...................................39828Proposed Rules:400...................................43614405...................................40372410...................................40372411...................................40372413...................................44672414...................................40372415...................................40372416...................................44585419...................................44672430...................................43614431...................................43614434...................................43614435...................................43614438...................................43614440...................................43614447...................................43614482...................................44585485...................................44585489...................................44672

43 CFR

3160.................................41149

44 CFR

62.....................................4091664.....................................4309165.........................43095, 4498467.....................................42146Proposed Rules:67.........................41182, 41186204...................................39715

45 CFR

672...................................42450673...................................42450

46 CFR

1.......................................449854...........................41955, 429645...........................41955, 4296416.........................41955, 42964502...................................43511Proposed Rules:221...................................40664

47 CFR

0.......................................4255251.....................................4351654.....................................4114963.....................................4180168.........................42779, 4278073 ...........39682, 39683, 42612,

44586, 44587, 4458876.....................................45177Proposed Rules:51.....................................4249963.....................................4182364.....................................4066673 ...........39726, 39727, 40174,

40958, 40959, 40960, 41489,41490, 42621, 42622, 42623,

44588

48 CFR

1822.................................418041845.................................418051852.................................41805Proposed Rules:2...........................42922, 445187.......................................445188.......................................4451816.....................................4451817.........................42922, 4451827.....................................4210231.....................................4083833.....................................4292249.....................................4292252 ............42102, 42922, 44288232...................................44588252...................................44588

49 CFR

40.........................41944, 41955107.......................45177, 45376110...................................45376130...................................45376171 ..........44252, 45177, 45376172 ..........44252, 45177, 45376173.......................45177, 45376174...................................45376175.......................45177, 45376176.......................45177, 45376177.......................45177, 45376178.......................45177, 45376179.......................45177, 45376

180.......................45177, 45376192...................................43523195...................................43523199...................................41955219.......................41955, 41969232...................................39683382.......................41955, 43097541...................................40622571.......................42613, 43113578...................................41149653.......................41955, 41996654.......................41955, 41996655.......................41955, 41996Proposed Rules:71.....................................40666171...................................40174172...................................41490173...................................40174174...................................40174175...................................40174176...................................40174177...................................40174178...................................40174209...................................42352234...................................42352236...................................42352544...................................41190571 ..........40174, 42982, 42985624...................................44552

50 CFR

17.....................................4380820.........................44010, 45730216...................................43442223...................................44549224...................................44549229...................................42780300...................................42154635 ..........40151, 42801, 42805648 .........41151, 41454, 42156,

43122, 45187660 .........40918, 41152, 42453,

44552, 44986, 45634679 .........41455, 41806, 42455,

42969, 43524, 44073, 45635Proposed Rules:14.....................................4355417 ...........40960, 42318, 43145,

4566220.........................42712, 4551621.....................................4527484.....................................43555100...................................45082216...................................44109223 ..........40176, 42499, 43150224...................................42499226...................................42499600...................................42832622...................................40187660...................................40188679.......................41718, 42833697...................................42832


iv Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 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 AUGUST 29,2001

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYSuperfund program:

National oil and hazardoussubstances contingencyplan—National priorities list

update; published 8-29-01

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTCoast GuardPorts and waterways safety:

Gulf of Alaska, NarrowCape, Kodiak Island, AK;safety zoneCorrection; published 8-

29-01

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Aerospatiale; published 7-25-01

Dornier; published 7-25-01

VETERANS AFFAIRSDEPARTMENTAdjudication; pensions,

compensation, dependency,etc.:Application for benefits; duty

to assist; published 8-29-01

COMMENTS DUE NEXTWEEK

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAgricultural MarketingServiceLimes grown in Florida and

imported; comments due by9-5-01; published 8-6-01

Potatoes (Irish) grown in—Colorado; comments due by

9-4-01; published 8-2-01

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTFood and Nutrition ServiceChild nutrition programs:

Women, infants, andchildren; specialsupplemental nutritionprograms—

Vendor managementsystems; mandatoryselection criteria,limitation of vendors,training requirements,high-risk vendorsidentification criteria,etc.; comments due by9-4-01; published 8-2-01

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTNational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationEndangered and threatened

species:Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy

population of harborporpoise; comments dueby 9-4-01; published 8-2-01

Fishery conservation andmanagement:Alaska; fisheries of

Exclusive EconomicZone—Crab and groundfish;

reporting andrecordkeepingrequirements; commentsdue by 9-7-01;published 8-8-01

Marine mammals:Protected species special

exception permits;comments due by 9-4-01;published 7-3-01

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTPatent and Trademark OfficePatent cases:

Utility and plant applications;elimination of continuedprosecution applicationpractice; comments dueby 9-7-01; published 7-9-01

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir pollutants, hazardous;

national emission standards:Pharmaceuticals production;

comments due by 9-4-01;published 8-2-01

Air programs:Stratospheric ozone

protection—Hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs); productionand consumptioncontrol; allowancesystem; comments dueby 9-4-01; published 7-20-01

Air programs; approval andpromulgation; State plansfor designated facilities andpollutants:New York; comments due

by 9-6-01; published 8-7-01

Air quality implementationplans:Interstate ozone transport

reduction—

Nitrogen Oxides StateImplementation PlanCall; electric generatingunits; seasonal heatinput growth rates;response to remands incourt cases; commentsdue by 9-4-01;published 8-3-01

Air quality implementationplans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:California; comments due by

9-4-01; published 8-2-01Colorado and Montana;


Indiana; comments due by9-4-01; published 8-3-01

Maryland; comments due by9-5-01; published 8-6-01

Michigan; comments due by9-5-01; published 8-6-01

Missouri; comments due by9-5-01; published 8-6-01

Oregon; comments due by9-4-01; published 8-3-01

Pennsylvania; commentsdue by 9-5-01; published8-6-01

Air quality planning purposes;designation of areas:California; comments due by

9-4-01; published 8-6-01Hazardous waste:

Identification and listing—Spent catalysts from dual-

purpose petroleumhydroprocessingreactions; commentsdue by 9-4-01;published 7-5-01

Superfund program:National oil and hazardous

substances contingencyplan—National priorities list

update; comments dueby 9-5-01; published 8-6-01

National priorities listupdate; comments dueby 9-5-01; published 8-6-01



FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONCommon carrier services:

Satellite communications—Satellite and terrestrial

operations; 36.0-43.5GHz band; spectrum

allocation anddesignation; commentsdue by 9-4-01;published 7-5-01

Radio stations; table ofassignments:Texas; comments due by 9-

4-01; published 7-24-01Texas and Arizona;


FEDERAL HOUSINGFINANCE BOARDFederal home loan bank

system:Capital requirements;

comments due by 9-7-01;published 8-8-01Correction; comments due

by 9-7-01; published 8-21-01

Uninsured credit limits;comments due by 9-7-01;published 8-8-01Correction; comments due

by 9-7-01; published 8-21-01

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTHealth Care FinancingAdministrationMedicare and Medicaid:

Anesthesia services; hospitalparticipation conditions;comments due by 9-4-01;published 7-5-01

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTProtection of human subjects:

Pregnant women andhuman fetuses asresearch subjects andpertaining to human invitro fertilization;comments due by 9-4-01;published 7-6-01

HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENTCommunity facilities:

Urban empowerment zonesand renewal communities;Round III designation;comments due by 9-7-01;published 7-9-01

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTFish and Wildlife ServiceEndangered and threatened

species:Critical habitat

designations—Oahu elepaio; comments

due by 9-5-01;published 8-6-01

Migratory bird hunting:Seasons, limits, and

shooting hours;establishment, etc.;comments due by 9-7-01;published 8-28-01


vFederal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / Reader Aids

JUSTICE DEPARTMENTNational Instant Criminal

Background Check System:Law-abiding firearms

purchasers’ legitimateprivacy interests andDOJ’s obligation toenforce laws preventingprohibited firearmspurchases; balance;comments due by 9-4-01;published 7-6-01

LABOR DEPARTMENTOccupational Safety andHealth AdministrationOccupational injuries and

illnesses; recording andreporting requirementsEffective date delay;

comment request;comments due by 9-4-01;published 7-3-01

POSTAL SERVICEDomestic Mail Manual:

5% error limit for sequencedmailings; revision;comments due by 9-7-01;published 8-8-01

SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSIONSecurities:

Broker and dealerdefinitions; bank, savingsassociation, and savingsbank exemptions;comments due by 9-4-01;published 7-24-01

National securitiesexchanges; registration(Form 1-N); commentsdue by 9-4-01; published8-20-01

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTCoast GuardPorts and waterways safety:

Puget Sound and Strait ofJuan De Fuca, WA; NavalSubmarine Base Bangorand submarines; securityzones; comments due by9-7-01; published 7-9-01

Vessel documentation andmeasurement:Lease-financing for vessels

engaged in coastwisetrade; comments due by9-4-01; published 6-29-01

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Airbus; comments due by 9-4-01; published 8-3-01

Boeing; comments due by9-6-01; published 7-23-01

Bombardier; comments dueby 9-5-01; published 8-6-01

Fokker; comments due by9-4-01; published 8-3-01

Israel Aircraft Industries,Ltd.; comments due by 9-5-01; published 8-6-01

McDonnell Douglas;comments due by 9-6-01;published 7-23-01

Rockwell Collins, Inc.;comments due by 9-7-01;published 7-31-01

Class E airspace; commentsdue by 9-6-01; published 7-23-01

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTNational Highway TrafficSafety AdministrationMotor vehicle safety

standards:Defective or non-compliant

tires; sale or lease;reporting requirement;comments due by 9-6-01;published 7-23-01

Tire pressure monitoringsystems; controls anddisplays; comments dueby 9-6-01; published 7-26-01

VETERANS AFFAIRSDEPARTMENTBoard of Veterans Appeals:

Appeals regulations andrules of practice—Evidence gathering and

curing proceduraldefects withoutremanding; commentsdue by 9-5-01;published 8-6-01

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS

This is a continuing list ofpublic bills from the currentsession of Congress whichhave become Federal laws. Itmay be used in conjunctionwith ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public LawsUpdate Service) on 202–523–6641. This list is alsoavailable online at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg.

The text of laws is notpublished in the FederalRegister but may be orderedin ‘‘slip law’’ (individualpamphlet) form from theSuperintendent of Documents,U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402(phone, 202–512–1808). Thetext will also be madeavailable on the Internet fromGPO Access at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html. Some laws maynot yet be available.

H.R. 93/P.L. 107–27Federal Firefighters RetirementAge Fairness Act (Aug. 20,2001; 115 Stat. 207)H.R. 271/P.L. 107–28To direct the Secretary of theInterior to convey a formerBureau of Land Managementadministrative site to the cityof Carson City, Nevada, foruse as a senior center. (Aug.20, 2001; 115 Stat. 208)H.R. 364/P.L. 107–29To designate the facility of theUnited States Postal Servicelocated at 5927 Southwest70th Street in Miami, Florida,as the ‘‘Marjory WilliamsScrivens Post Office’’. (Aug.20, 2001; 115 Stat. 209)H.R. 427/P.L. 107–30To provide further protectionsfor the watershed of the LittleSandy River as part of theBull Run WatershedManagement Unit, Oregon,and for other purposes. (Aug.20, 2001; 115 Stat. 210)H.R. 558/P.L. 107–31To designate the Federalbuilding and United Statescourthouse located at 504West Hamilton Street inAllentown, Pennsylvania, asthe ‘‘Edward N. Cahn FederalBuilding and United StatesCourthouse’’. (Aug. 20, 2001;115 Stat. 213)H.R. 821/P.L. 107–32To designate the facility of theUnited States Postal Servicelocated at 1030 South ChurchStreet in Asheboro, NorthCarolina, as the ‘‘W. JoeTrogdon Post Office Building’’.(Aug. 20, 2001; 115 Stat. 214)H.R. 988/P.L. 107–33To designate the UnitedStates courthouse located at

40 Centre Street in New York,New York, as the ‘‘ThurgoodMarshall United StatesCourthouse’’. (Aug. 20, 2001;115 Stat. 215)

H.R. 1183/P.L. 107–34

To designate the facility of theUnited States Postal Servicelocated at 113 South MainStreet in Sylvania, Georgia, asthe ‘‘G. Elliot Hagan PostOffice Building’’. (Aug. 20,2001; 115 Stat. 216)

H.R. 1753/P.L. 107–35

To designate the facility of theUnited States Postal Servicelocated at 419 RutherfordAvenue, N.E., in Roanoke,Virginia, as the ‘‘M. CaldwellButler Post Office Building’’.(Aug. 20, 2001; 115 Stat. 217)

H.R. 2043/P.L. 107–36

To designate the facility of theUnited States Postal Servicelocated at 2719 SouthWebster Street in Kokomo,Indiana, as the ‘‘ElwoodHaynes ‘Bud’ Hillis Post OfficeBuilding’’. (Aug. 20, 2001; 115Stat. 218)

Last List August 21, 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.


8–29–01 Vol. 66 No. 168 Wednesday Aug. 29, 2001 Pages ...

Documents

Transcript of 8–29–01 Vol. 66 No. 168 Wednesday Aug. 29, 2001 Pages ...